Lieberman--What Happened?
Senator Joseph Lieberman's political career peaked in the summer of 2000, when he accepted the Democratic nomination for Vice President of the United States. If only 600 or more voters in Florida would have backed Gore instead of Nader, Lieberman would have become the first Jewish Vice President, and would probably hold that office today. He would then be a leading contender for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President.
Instead, the Gore-Lieberman ticket was counted out in Florida, and the Connecticut senator lost the 2004 Democratic Presidential nomination to John Kerry. Now he has also lost the Democratic nomination for his own Senate seat, too, although he plans to run as an independent in the November election.
How and why did such a promising political career crash and burn?
No one realized it at the time, but the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks took Lieberman down along with the Twin Towers. The subsequent War on Terror, especially the invasion of Iraq, had the untintended effect of isolating Joe Lieberman from the mainstream of his party. Lieberman not only voted to authorize the war in Iraq (as did many other Democratic senators), but staunchly defended it since its inception. The Party has gone the other direction.
Iraq opened an opportunity for Howard Dean to mobilize the anti-war faction of the Democratic Party on his behalf early in the contest for the 2004 nomination. At the same, the war boosted the candidacy of Senator Kerry, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, whose military record contrasted sharply with that of President Bush, who served part-time in the Texas Air National Guard. Lieberman was "whip-sawed" between those Democrats who wanted a certified war hero and those who wanted an anti-war candidate. Joe Lieberman, alas, was not a veteran and lacked the looks and charisma of either Kerry or Senator John Edwards. On the campaign stump, he often came off as stiff and a bit self-righteous.
Had Iraq turned out better, perhaps most American troops would be home by now, and support for the War would not be a major issue. Instead, we are caught in painful quagmire: "staying the course" means more cost and casualties, withdrawing means a victory for terrorists. Were President Bush up for re-election now, instead of in 2004, he would probably lose, whether the opponent were Kerry, Edwards, or even Lieberman. For Joe, his relatively friendly relationship with Bush has effectively ruined his standing with fellow Democrats without producing any offsetting gains among Republicans or independents.
The Connecticut primary was a "Perfect Storm" for anti-war Democrats who wanted to dump Lieberman. First, they got a multi-millionaire liberal (not very common) named Ned Lamont to challenge the Senator. Most incumbent senators can easily raise enough money to swamp a challenger in a primary, but Lamont was able to neutralize the incumbency advantage with his personal wealth. Secondly, Connecticut has a "closed primary": only those who have previously registered as Democrats could vote in the Lamont-Lieberman race. Leftists were all registered as Democrats already, but independents and moderate Republicans (who might have preferred Lieberman) were excluded.
Now Joe Lieberman wants to run in the general election as an independent, although if elected he would join the Democratic caucus. If history is any guide, winning will be very difficult (1). More likely, he will draw enough votes from the Democratic line to give the Republican nominee Alan Schlesinger a narrow plurality and the Senate seat. I doubt that there are enough Lieberman-backers in the State to elect him without those who regularly vote straight Democratic.
Good luck, Joe, its been nice knowing you. "Zeit gezunt!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) James Buckley was elected senator from New York in 1970 as the nominee of the Conservative Party. Bernard Sanders regularly wins his House seat representing the entire State of Vermont as an independent. I cannot think of anyone else who has won a seat in Congress in recent years without a major party nomination.
Instead, the Gore-Lieberman ticket was counted out in Florida, and the Connecticut senator lost the 2004 Democratic Presidential nomination to John Kerry. Now he has also lost the Democratic nomination for his own Senate seat, too, although he plans to run as an independent in the November election.
How and why did such a promising political career crash and burn?
No one realized it at the time, but the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks took Lieberman down along with the Twin Towers. The subsequent War on Terror, especially the invasion of Iraq, had the untintended effect of isolating Joe Lieberman from the mainstream of his party. Lieberman not only voted to authorize the war in Iraq (as did many other Democratic senators), but staunchly defended it since its inception. The Party has gone the other direction.
Iraq opened an opportunity for Howard Dean to mobilize the anti-war faction of the Democratic Party on his behalf early in the contest for the 2004 nomination. At the same, the war boosted the candidacy of Senator Kerry, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, whose military record contrasted sharply with that of President Bush, who served part-time in the Texas Air National Guard. Lieberman was "whip-sawed" between those Democrats who wanted a certified war hero and those who wanted an anti-war candidate. Joe Lieberman, alas, was not a veteran and lacked the looks and charisma of either Kerry or Senator John Edwards. On the campaign stump, he often came off as stiff and a bit self-righteous.
Had Iraq turned out better, perhaps most American troops would be home by now, and support for the War would not be a major issue. Instead, we are caught in painful quagmire: "staying the course" means more cost and casualties, withdrawing means a victory for terrorists. Were President Bush up for re-election now, instead of in 2004, he would probably lose, whether the opponent were Kerry, Edwards, or even Lieberman. For Joe, his relatively friendly relationship with Bush has effectively ruined his standing with fellow Democrats without producing any offsetting gains among Republicans or independents.
The Connecticut primary was a "Perfect Storm" for anti-war Democrats who wanted to dump Lieberman. First, they got a multi-millionaire liberal (not very common) named Ned Lamont to challenge the Senator. Most incumbent senators can easily raise enough money to swamp a challenger in a primary, but Lamont was able to neutralize the incumbency advantage with his personal wealth. Secondly, Connecticut has a "closed primary": only those who have previously registered as Democrats could vote in the Lamont-Lieberman race. Leftists were all registered as Democrats already, but independents and moderate Republicans (who might have preferred Lieberman) were excluded.
Now Joe Lieberman wants to run in the general election as an independent, although if elected he would join the Democratic caucus. If history is any guide, winning will be very difficult (1). More likely, he will draw enough votes from the Democratic line to give the Republican nominee Alan Schlesinger a narrow plurality and the Senate seat. I doubt that there are enough Lieberman-backers in the State to elect him without those who regularly vote straight Democratic.
Good luck, Joe, its been nice knowing you. "Zeit gezunt!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) James Buckley was elected senator from New York in 1970 as the nominee of the Conservative Party. Bernard Sanders regularly wins his House seat representing the entire State of Vermont as an independent. I cannot think of anyone else who has won a seat in Congress in recent years without a major party nomination.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 10:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home