Even as Virginia Democrats prepare for Webb's big battle against George Allen here in God's country this fall, Ned Lamont is taking the Progressive fight to Democratic Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman in Bush's home state (please remember baby George was born in the more privileged section of New Haven). Most recent reports over the weekend delivered a trifecta of damning news for Lieberman.
The first is that Lieberman will run in the August 8th primary, not withdrawing as many had hoped, And keep his options open to run as an Independent in November if defeated by Lamont in the primary.
As the Hartford Courant reports:
"If the unexpected happened, do I want to keep open the option of taking my case as an independent Democrat to all the voters of Connecticut so that they can have the last word in November?" Lieberman said. That's an unanswered question, he said.
On top of this, Lieberman faces continued abandonment from previously loyal Democrats as yesterday former Connecticut Governor and U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker endorsed Lieberman challenger Ned Lamont.
In remarks at a weekend Lamont event, Weicker spoke of Lamont's importance for the future.
I know government today is all about electibility at any cost. But the cost of Iraq is too high for the cost of political comfort. Ned Lamont portends a new future for all of us. A new future on Iraq, on health care, on education.
His opponent can only equate the mistakes and the horrors of Iraq to a cartoon...Not good enough.
If this weren't damning enough...even Al Gore refused to endorse his former 2000 vice presidential running mate.
In a Final Update, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire piles on with another big blow:
Political Wire has learned that former Connecticut Democratic party chairman George Jepsen is endorsing Lieberman's primary challenger, Ned Lamont, in a press conference this afternoon.
For those still interested in more Connecticut primary news, where it's beginning to look like Lieberman faces an uphill climb, check out what ttagaris has to say over at DailyKos.
At some point it looks like George Allen and Joe Lieberman are going to have to get together if they want to keep their Senate seats. The one good thing about this is they can probably both count on their good friend George Bush to pitch in. After all, George has found his staunchest allies in a Virginia Republican who likes to pretend that he's a cowboy and a Connecticut Yankee who likes to pretend he's a Democrat.
Joe Lieberman's coziness with Bush substantially hurts efforts to defeat Republican Rob Simmons and has dealt a major blow to Diane Farrell's campaign to unseat Chris Shays, who has also endorsed Joe Lieberman. Any time Diane brings up the debacle in Iraq, all Chris Shays says is essentially, "Well, why did you endorse Joe Lieberman, then? He agrees with me on the war." Farrell looks like a total hypocrite.
Joe Lieberman is ACTIVELY hurting the Democratic party. Just this weekend, he called Democratic the Democratic primary a "crusade or jihad" against him.
He has absolutely no respect for Democratic voters.
When Joe started throwing fits by refusing to rule out a race as an Independent he sealed his fate with me at least. I will started sending Ned Lamont money and encouraging everyone else that I know to do the same. Joe no longer represents the interests of CT, his use of the terms "crusade or jihad" remind me very much of the nasty primary that we had down here.
A race like this is good for democracy, big D and little d. No matter what the results, the netroots has proven again that it can sustain legitimate candidates that advance our agenda, rather than represent that our their big-money donor masters.
That's exactly what the Republicans do -- nominate people like Schwartznegger, Giuliani, Weld, etc. in Democratic-leaning states and Cro-Magnons like George Allen in more conservative states. If Connecticut is able to elect a more progressive Democrat, then that will serve as a lesson to other Dems that they should respect the values of their party's progressive base. If we don't show our muscle, the bullies will continue to kick sand in our face time and time again.
It will be interesting to watch.
Notice that we're not going after plenty of other very conservative Democrats in the Senate. This is not primarily about a sum total of Lieberman's votes. It is about his propensity to seek the limelight by promoting "Sister Soulja" moments where he publicly disagrees with his own party. He's an opportunist at the expense of his party.
Ultimately, though, this comes down to the wishes of Democratic primary voters in CT. Frankly, as a registered Democrat in Connecticut right now (and someone who grew up there), I have a simple belief: Anyone who honestly and truly believes that Bill Clinton was more worthy of Senate censure than George W. Bush simply does not deserve the Democratic nomination for Senate from the great state of Connecticut.
We've talked a lot about his own hints that he would withdraw, but no Democrat that I know hopes he will do so. We very much hope that he will STAY in the primary, and the vast majority of us, including Ned Lamont, have pledged to support him should he win the Democratic primary.
Unfortunately, he has basically said that he'll stay in and respect the primary if he wins, but he'll take his marbles and go home and whine and sulk if he loses. He'll cry, "This game isn't fair!!!" if he loses, stick out his tongue at primary voters, and then go run as a sore loser independent.
Joe has shown nothing but contempt for Democratic primary voters. His top supporters call us "terrorists". He called this primary a "crusade or jihad". It is Joe Lieberman who doesn't respect the "big tent", because a big tent includes people who disagree with him. I'm happy to keep him in the tent if he wins. But if he loses, it's him who wants to go walk away and pout.
But in this case it certainly would be true if he lost the primary and then ran anyway. In fact, he's really acting like a pre-emptive sore loser in calling the primary a crusade or jihad and likening supporters of Ned Lamont to terrorists. He's demonizing the whole party base.
He'll actively have to seek the "Sore Loser" route now if he hopes to run as an independent if Lamont wins. He'll have to collect petition signatures to get on the ballot as an independent simultaneously as he's running for the Democratic primary. Kinda like he did when he was running for Senate at the same time he's running for VP, huh? He's always taking care of his own interest, always got a backup plan up his sleeve.
The fact is, I'm sure everytime Lieberman goes on Fox News it is to curry moderate favor. Therefore when we take the House in the fall and Pelosi comes out swinging, Joe can be there to look at the Right and say "you know, Speaker Pelosi has a point here."
I respect Lamont's decision as an active citizen to challenge Senator Lieberman and hold him accountable. But whoever wins, let's not gnash teeth over a primary battle. Every moment you spend worried about Lieberman is a moment Allen spends spitting his tobacco on working people. Let's stay united.
I would like to point out that Lieberman has always been a strong supporter of the corporate pro-offshore outsourcing and worker replacement lobby. He has supported the non-immigrant visa programs (H-1b, L-1, etc.) used to replace American knowledge workers, opposed efforts to reform these programs, and repeatedly stood against efforts to slow or stop middle class American job losses.
Like many critics of "free trade", I am not "anti-business" but find the entire ideology of surrendering economic and trade policy to the desires of organised corporate lobbies antithetical to American democracy and national sovereignty. (This is neither "conservative" nor "liberal"; it is an assertion of the general welfare of Americans as opposed to the narrow interests of privileged elites.)
For an elected official from the supposed party of "working people" and "labor" to have long advocated policies and helped pass laws and agreements clearly injurious to the economic interests of working Americans does indeed beg the question of how "democratic" Lieberman truly is.
I do not expect that all elected officials and candidates of the Democratic Party will be in agreement on all issues. However, on the core economic interests which, I believe, should bind real democrats together, I find Lieberman inadequate at best and completely anti-thetical in many cases.
If the Democratic Party does not stand up, at a minimum, for the economic interests of working Americans, I fail to understand how it can claim to be the party of "working Americans" -- the unifying factor for most Americans.
In my view, this is a defining issue that was eating away at the Democratic Party before Lieberman joined the amen chorus for unprovoked agressive war against Iraq and a statist attack on American's civil liberties under the "PATRIOT Act".