NY Times endorses Lamont, great insight into why Lieberman is flailing

[motivez]

A Senate Race in Connecticut

Published: July 30, 2006

Earlier this year, Senator Joseph Lieberman’s seat seemed so secure that — legend has it — some people at the Republican nominating convention in Connecticut started making bleating noises when the party picked a presumed sacrificial lamb to run against the three-term senator, who has been a fixture in Connecticut politics for more than 35 years.

But Mr. Lieberman is now in a tough Democratic primary against a little-known challenger, Ned Lamont. The race has taken on a national character. Mr. Lieberman’s friends see it as an attempt by hysterical antiwar bloggers to oust a giant of the Senate for the crime of bipartisanship. Lamont backers — most of whom seem more passionate about being Lieberman opponents — say that as one of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war, Mr. Lieberman has betrayed his party by cozying up to President Bush.

This primary would never have happened absent Iraq. It’s true that Mr. Lieberman has fallen in love with his image as the nation’s moral compass. But if pomposity were a disqualification, the Senate would never be able to call a quorum. He has voted with his party in opposing the destructive Bush tax cuts, and despite some unappealing rhetoric in the Terri Schiavo case, he has strongly supported a woman’s right to choose. He has been one of the Senate’s most creative thinkers about the environment and energy conservation.

•

But this race is not about résumés. The United States is at a critical point in its history, and Mr. Lieberman has chosen a controversial role to play. The voters in Connecticut will have to judge whether it is the right one.

As Mr. Lieberman sees it, this is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party — his moderate fair-mindedness against a partisan radicalism that alienates most Americans. “What kind of Democratic Party are we going to have?” he asked in an interview with New York magazine. “You’ve got to agree 100 percent, or you’re not a good Democrat?”

That’s far from the issue. Mr. Lieberman is not just a senator who works well with members of the other party. And there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, he has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration’s most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.

Citing national security, Mr. Bush continually tries to undermine restraints on the executive branch: the system of checks and balances, international accords on the treatment of prisoners, the nation’s longtime principles of justice. His administration has depicted any questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. And Mr. Lieberman has helped that effort. He once denounced Democrats who were “more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq” than on supporting the war’s progress.

At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman’s ability to command Republicans’ attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president’s defender.

•

On the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Lieberman has left it to Republicans like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to investigate the administration’s actions. In 2004, Mr. Lieberman praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for expressing regret about Abu Ghraib, then added: “I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized.” To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous, and a good example of how avidly the senator has adopted the Bush spin and helped the administration avoid accounting for Abu Ghraib.

Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration’s policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales’s sneering reference to the “quaint” provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.

If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.

Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

Awesome article and I think I fully agree with everything that was said about it. It's not about one issue, it's about ALL the issues.

I think (along with many) that as a nation we are at a sort of crossroads where we're going to determine whether or not we continue to be a free society that's based on the founding principles, or whether we allow ourselves to be scared into submission and giving up our civil liberties for some false sense of security.

Liberman has shown himself to be far too willing to defer to the Administration in many of its endeavors, far more than simply being bipartisan. If he honestly agrees with them that much on all they've done, he's certainly no Democrat and doesn't deserve to win the primary and be CT's choice for Democratic candidate for Senate.

[Thorgrim]

I wonder if a Lamont win would cause Hillary not to run...

[motivez]

That's an interesting take. As much as I'd like to see a non-Republican President in '08.. I think if Hillary gets the nomination, there will be one.

I think Lamont winning will show that the days of the Washington insider as the "know it all" for campaigns, consulting, etc, will be numbered as it becomes easier and easier to become politically active through blogging

[kinggovernor]

so Lamont is just another anyone buth Bush

[motivez]

Not really. Lieberman has failed to stand up for the principles that CT Democrats hold on a great many issues.

It just so happens that a majority of those issues are the horrible policies of Bush that he's embraced with open arm (and mouth. I swear I saw some tongue at the SOTU!)..

[motivez]

http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/...r-weekend.html

Which person had a better weekend?

Ned Lamont:










Joe Lieberman:

I kinda feel bad for him, but only in a way that it's always sad to see someone's career going down in flames.

[Phantom]

But if pomposity were a disqualification, the Senate would never be able to call a quorum.

This was funny to me.

I like Lieberman though. He's honest with his views and doesn't "tow the party line" - something almost universally denounced. Whether he is democrat enough to be the nominee is something for the voters to decide.

He is one of the few people who can cross party lines in order to develop compromises and get things done. I think he's an asset to the party and they will sorely miss him when he's gone, but since I'm not a Dem and not from Conn, it's not my place to decide.

[DosEquis]

Lieberman is in a tough spot. I am sure there is a good portion of republicans who are worried as well. Losing him is like losing a republican seat, even though he is labeled "democrat". Its comparable to Ben Nelson (d) of nebraska. He has voted with the president 80%+ of the time.

[Stylerod]

He has voted with his party in opposing the destructive Bush tax cuts...

WTF? Agree or disagree with it, but I don't think anyone can call it "destructive".

Mr. Lieberman’s friends see it as an attempt by hysterical antiwar bloggers to oust a giant of the Senate for the crime of bipartisanship. Lamont backers — most of whom seem more passionate about being Lieberman opponents —

This is quite telling.

Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

Even though he seems smart and has no grasp of policy we, the New York Times, endorse him just because we hate Bush.

Nice

[motivez]

Er, he doesn't have his opponent's grasp of policy, who's been in the Senate for 18 years.. you can't expect him to have the same level of experience.

Also, I think the article clearly spells out why the first thing you quoted isn't accurate. It's not about one issue, and it's not simply about being anti-Lieberman, though of course him being "wrong" on so many issues will obviously play a large part in someone deciding to support his challenger