Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

CT Senate: Lieberman May Run as Independent

Sen. Joe Lieberman is hedging his bets ahead of Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary, announcing today that, though he expects the win the primary, his campaign will gather enough signatures to have his name placed on the ballot as an independent.

"While I believe that I will win the Aug. 8 primary, I know there are no guarantees in elections," Lieberman announced from the steps of Connecticut's statehouse. "No one really knows how many Democrats will come out to vote on what may be a hot day in August."

Lieberman has been heavily criticized within the Democratic Party for his support of the Iraq war, and disaffected Nutmeg State Democrats have flocked to his primary opponent, Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich.

Lieberman's primary struggle is remarkable considering the fact that he won reelection by a landslide in 1994 and again in 2000, the same year he appeared on the Democratic presidential ticket as Al Gore's running mate.

There is a real chance that Lieberman could lose the Democratic primary and still win the general election as an independent. Voters who indicate no party affiliation are reportedly Connecticut's largest voting bloc.

By Editors  |  July 3, 2006; 3:20 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: New Politics Features
Next: Parsing The Polls: Condoleezza Rice


These comments are great! The best laughs are always about serious issues. It's great that Joe has friends. He's done some good for this country,but forgive us for getting excited that SOMEBODY is finally beginning to call a spade a spade.We've been lied to.

Posted by: Dave-CT | July 23, 2006 3:26 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting that some accuse the Democrats of "eating their own children". This is silly. If any party is going to have a problem it's the GOP. Their front-runner for '08 is Giulliani. He believes in gun control, is permissive on abortion and is twice divorced after a scandalous marital break up in City Hall. I'm going to laugh all the way to the voting booth when the religio-freak neo-cons try to get their arms around that resume!! Fact is that Lieberman has betrayed his constituents and is desperate to hold a seat that -- surprise, surprise -- really belongs to the people of Connecticut. Fact is Connecticut will be represented by a Democrat in November and the do-nothing GOP Congress will be thrown out. Take that, Karl Rove!!

Posted by: LJK - CT | July 17, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Holy smoke! How did Rove do this? What a genius. He actually got the Democrats to "eat their own children". It's the anti-war McGovern days all over again. Despite the talk, I am feeling that once again the D's will crash and burn.

Posted by: Joe | July 10, 2006 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Calaban's remarks about Lieberman. I wish there were more Senators on both sides of the aisle who were willing and able to break out of their respective party's prevailing ideology and work together on issues of import to the nation. I may not agree with every stand Lieberman has taken, but then again, I don't agree 100% with anyone. All in all he has been an effective Senator for the people in Connecticut and the type of statesman that we can all take pride in. I hope he prevails in the primary. Absent that I hope he does run as an Independent. Either way I suspect we will see him in Washington for at least six more year.

Posted by: Jack | July 6, 2006 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I worked in the Senate for 3 1/2 years. I lobbied there afterward (for a non-profit social justice organization) including Lieberman's office specifically. Joe Lieberman is hardly a statesman. He is a petty, self-promoting little man.

I've posted multiple links above to polls showing that a three-way race does NOT split the Democratic vote or elect a Republican. All you have to do is click, people.

Jim: I'm curious what kind of response you got from PFAW. Believe me, many of the staff there were livid when Gore picked Lieberman.

Drindl: Wow, Coulter is supporting Lieberman over the Republican?? That surprises me, and seems odd. I hope she runs around CT stumping for him--it would just further increase Lamont's chance of winning the general election in November.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 5, 2006 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Wow, another person defending Lieberman and he's a ......wait for it....REPUBLICAN!! Wow, is anyone else here starting to notice a trend? Maybe Joe should run as a republican, since he already is one.

Statesman?? LOL. Lieberman and the word 'statesman' should never be used in the same sentence.

Posted by: Ohio guy | July 5, 2006 8:04 PM | Report abuse

You Democrats who condemn Lieberman for considering running as an independent don't know the man. He is one of three, possibly four statesmen left in the Senate. Last time around he got 15 percent of the Republican vote including mine.

We need good, honest thoughtful representatives on Capitol Hill and he's one of them.

Posted by: Calaban | July 5, 2006 5:57 PM | Report abuse

How mant times is some idiot going to come on here and spout the same line that Lamont and Lieberman are going to "split the Dem vote and let the republican win"???At least ten different people above must have spouted the same foolishness. Did any of you morons who asked this question actually read the previous posts before you made these statements??? Seriously people, i'm not mad that you think that (b/c it's wrong), i'm mad that you don't bother to read the previous posts.

But since you all seem incapable of reading, a recent three-way poll was conducted between Lamont, Lieberman and the republican, AND THE REPUBLICAN RECEIVED A WHOPPING 8% OF THE VOTE.



The moral of the story is that either Lieberman or Lamont will be the eventual winner in November no matter what happens, the state is to blue to elect a republican in a Democratic year.

Posted by: Ohio guy | July 5, 2006 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman running as an "independent Democrat" in November would mean two Democrats and a Republican on the same ballot. This raises a real possibility of a split Democratic vote and the Republican winning election in a state where the majority of voters prefers him least of all. Is anyone there (or nationally) discussing the solution to this "vote-splitting" phenomenon, namely Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)?

Posted by: Mark | July 5, 2006 5:04 PM | Report abuse

I don't see the liberals destroying the party. Joe Lieberman is by far the most right wing member of the Dem party. If the Dems plan on enacting their own legislation, then they can not have Leiberman, a Democrat, preventing them from doing so. The Senate is going to be very close in numbers I believe. Most of the seats that Dems are protecting are looking better than they were (Washington, Florida), the only seats that still polls really close in New Jersey, and Minnesota and I think Klobuchar is going to pull away. However, there are still several races in which the Dems could take over, (Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, and Rhode Island) and a couple of races that are becoming or could become more competetive (Tennessee, Virginia, and Arizona). Thats only 8 seats and the Dems are not going to take all of them unless they get a huge wave. This may not be what the DSCC is looking at, but thats what we, the voters, are looking at. Ned Lamont is clearly the better choice for the Dems, but Leiberman is a popular senator because he gets voters from both parties. The Republicans will stand no chance without Leiberman in the race as Lamont will win, but with Leiberman in the race, he will take more votes away from the Republican candidate than he will Lamont. This is a safe seat for either the Dems or Leiberman.

Posted by: Rob Millette | July 5, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Why will Lieberman split the Democratic vote. Lieberman is, for all intent and purpose, a right wing Republican who voted for the war, loves Sean Hammity, wears his holier-than-thou credentials on his sleeve and panders to any cause that will give him a vote. Perhaps his running as an independent will split the Republican vote.

Posted by: Jack | July 5, 2006 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"The only difference between liberals and cannibals is that cannibals only eat their enemies!" -LBJ
Truer words never spoken! You radical liberals are destroying our Democratic Party!

Posted by: Alex | July 5, 2006 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"He isn't elected to be a lap dog to his constituents either -- just to represent them. But he simply doesn't. Standing up for your principles is different than working for your party's defeat, which is what he does. "

My point being, that if he is re-elected, then it's no ones business if he ran away from the Democrats, or sought to run as an independent. So long as voters elect him, he fulfills his duty.

Again, it's called Democracy.

Posted by: Squirt | July 5, 2006 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman's main problem, as pointed out by Matthew Yglesias in an American Prospect article a year ago, is a sense among Democrats that at a time when they "are seeking to achieve unity, and liberals are seeking to construct a new infrastructure comparable to the one the conservative movement has built over the past 30 years, Lieberman is uninterested in acting as a team player. Postings on the Dump Joe e-mail list cite his willingness to disparage fellow Democrats on FOX News, often alongside his 'good friend' Sean Hannity, as evidence of his unacceptability." And on what has emerged as the principal hot-button issue among many Democrats and not a few Republicans, web commentator Sheila Samples pointed out earlier this year that "Democrats in that very blue, anti-war state (Connecticut) are unhappy with their three-term senator, Joe Lieberman, for his stubborn, rabid support of George Bush and his bloody, illegal war. They pleaded with Joe to recognize that the war on Iraq was planned long before 9-11, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in that pitiful, unarmed country, and that thousands of U.S. citizens and tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children are being blown to pieces, maimed, and poisoned with depleted uranium -- all because of a lie." Samples continued, "But Joe refused to move. He responded by penning an op-ed in the Nov. 29, 2005 Wall Street Journal entitled "Our Troops Must Stay." In that piece, Lieberman 'catapaulted the propaganda' that Iraq was experiencing a great deal of progress, underscored by 'continuing security and growing prosperity.'" Add to what Yglesias and Samples point out a growing frustration and dismay among many Democrats that Democratic senators and representatives should be doing much more than they have been doing to at least protest the excesses of the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress, and it's little wonder that the water Lieberman's in is approaching the boiling point -- if it is not already boiling. Those articles and others on the subject are posted at

Posted by: Green-Dog Democrat | July 5, 2006 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Joe goes down in a primary and a very effective Lamont campaign will emerge.The issues Joe face are numerous, let's start with a lobbyist wife. These are just a part of what will become public knowledge. The incumbents stand on Plan B does not jibe with his constituents feelings and no help with healthcare or drug reimportation, let's talk about that wife again. Joe has lost touch with CT and doesn't have enough time to get it back.

Posted by: Ct Yankee | July 5, 2006 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I opposed Lieberman as long ago as 2000, and remember writing to PFAW condemning them for not criticizing him on positions he took that they would have -- rightly -- excoriated any Republican for. It is truly a tragedy that Republicans have been allowed to redefine the political dialogue in such a way that Lieberman can even be considered a 'centrist.'

Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | July 5, 2006 11:04 AM | Report abuse

For anyone who isn't 'rabid liberal'? Thank god, there's no room for morons and illiterates, either.

Ever notice how people who can't think for themselves, also can't speak or write?

Posted by: Drindl | July 5, 2006 10:52 AM | Report abuse

It's clear that there is no room under the Democrat umbrella for anyone who isn't rabid liberal.

Posted by: jen archuleta | July 5, 2006 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I meant, 'Chris' as in 'Cilizza' not 'Christ' -- although it would be nice if Jesus would look into the blasphemies and abominations being perpetrated in his name in this country today.

Posted by: Drindl | July 5, 2006 10:43 AM | Report abuse

He isn't elected to be a lap dog to his constituents either -- just to represent them. But he simply doesn't. Standing up for your principles is different than working for your party's defeat, which is what he does.

I know this is off-topic, but I just read how the 'christians' of Indian Hill, Delaware ran a Jewish family out of town because they had contacted the ACLU because their kids were getting harrassed in school.

Republicans at an anti-ACLU website organized it.

Christ, how about someone at the Wapo looking into this? The republican party is morphing into the NeoNazi party very rapidly.

Posted by: Drindl | July 5, 2006 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I think I said this the last time this was brought up. Oh well...

Right now it's predicted that Lieberman will win the election in November, regardless of what he runs as. This would mean that a majority of voters would rather elect Lieberman than Lamont or the GOPer. If this is the case, and comes to fruition, then it makes sense for him to run as an independent. This would make it so that more of CT's voters get what they want. If Lamont can represent the people of CT better, then we should respect that the people of CT are smart enough to elect him.
Better yet, if you're not from CT maybe you could just not worry yourself about what Happens in their senate election. Joe isn't elected to be a lap dog to the Democratic party, but rather to his constituents. So simply being in the DNC doesn't give you any voice in this situation.

Posted by: Squirt | July 5, 2006 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I love all these republicans who come here clucking their tongues at Democrats, following the Rove 'oh you liberals are so angry' line and telling us how we should vote. Or the astroturf 'Dems' defending Lieberman. And the out-of-staters.

You know what, people? It ain't your business. Lieberman simply no longer represents the Democratic party in Connecticut. His views have changed over the years and he has gone waaaaay to the right. He simply isn't what he once was.

With his petition he has demonstrated that he's abandoning the party, although that's been obvious for a long time by his constant criticism of other Dems.

He isn't entitled to a lifetime appointment to the Senate, contrary to what he apparently believes, and too bad if he's angry about that.

Oh, by the way, Sandwich, Ann Coulter DOES support Lieberman. As does Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Which in itself tells you all you need to know about Lieberman.

Posted by: Drindl | July 5, 2006 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Isn't Ann Coulter from CT? Maybe she should get into this race.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 5, 2006 5:38 AM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

CIA closes unit for capturing bin Laden


The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) closed the unit charged with catching Osama bin Laden and his senior deputies, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.

Established in 1996 and known as "Alec Station," the unit was dismantled at the end of 2005 and its employees reassigned in the CIA Counter-terrorist Center; however, its dissolution was publicly announced only recently.

The decision was a milestone for the agency and indicates a significant change in perspective regarding bin Laden's place in Al Qaida in particular and in the international terrorist infrastructure in general.

Whereas the belief until now was that Al Qaida was a purely hierarchical organization and that killing off its leader would put an end to its activity, the new reality required the agency to change its assumptions.

Currently, the CIA's main concern is small, scattered terrorist groups which, although influenced by Al Qaida, operate entirely independently and don't receive their instructions directly from bin Laden.

Senior CIA members emphasized that catching bin Laden is still a priority, and that closing the unit does not signify the total neglect of that goal.

"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

Posted by: che | July 5, 2006 3:54 AM | Report abuse

DNC Member: >>>If that 2004 candidate continues he will be the last chairman of the Democratic Party.

If you really are a DNC member... Idiots like you are the reason the DNC was so inneffective before Dean's brilliant 50-state strategy. Thanks loser. Dont let the door hit you on the way out.

As for the Big Lie in CT...

Key question should OBVIOUSLY be, does he represent the viewpoints of the people of Connecticut? The answer to that is clearly NO, regardless of which party he runs in.

Also, why would the Republicans even LIKE him? I mean, he is passionless, boring, corrupted by business interests, supports the illegal war in Iraq, helped confirm conservative SCOTUS judges....... Oh... Nevermind. Whata jerk.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | July 4, 2006 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Joe has a Plan B for himself in this election (just as he did in 2000), but he doesn't support Plan B for women.

Posted by: Chuckles | July 4, 2006 8:32 PM | Report abuse

It's kind of strange for a Democratic Senator to say he will run as an independent if he loses his party's primary. Lieberman should respect the voters of his party or not run in the primary. To run as an independent thus splitting the Democratic vote would give the Republicans a good chance to win the race and
retain their majority in the Senate. Personally, Lieberman probably lost his race with this announcement.

Posted by: StevenG | July 4, 2006 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 4, 2006 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 4, 2006 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 4, 2006 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Will: Those numerical ratings have a very limited meaning. Read all the offenses Lieberman has committed that are ennumerated above.

BB: Arguing that supporting Lamont is like the 2000 Nader voters is ridiculous. It's been made clear repeatedly--perhaps you want to ignore these facts--that Lieberman would still win reelection as an Independent, AND that he's not going to suddenly caucus with Republicans and vote for their leader if he loses the primary. The three-way poll for this race shows Lieberman winning 56%, Lamont 18%, and the Republican 8%. There is ABSOLUTELY no chance of throwing this race to the Republican. Supporting Lamont doesn't do a damn thing to reduce the size of the Democratic Senate caucus or hand the Senate to Republicans. Traitor Joe was more willing to do that himself when, in 2000, he refused to pull out of the Senate race, allowing a Republican governor to appoint his replacement had Gore become president.

Lamont isn't interested in running as an Indepdendent--he's a real Democrat. More than you can say for Traitor Joe. Honest? Willing to spout unpopular opinions? Gosh, I can think of some authoritarian dictators who'd fit that description too.

Please check your facts and come back with some better arguments.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 4, 2006 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Ohio guy--

You are right, I have not seen that poll. I stand corrected. I'm glad to know that nobody is playing spoiler here.

Now that I check it, the poll shows Leiberman winning handily though, 56% to Lamont's 18%, which raises some question as to who the poeple really think represents them better.

Anyway, I say let them all run, and all the people can pick who they want representing them. I'll be happy, as long as they vote for Reid as leader.

Personally, I like Lamont's politics better, but Leiberman isn't so bad. At least he's honest, and willing to stand up for what he beleives in, even when it isn't the most politically expedient thing.

Anyway, I seen no reason that everyone shouldn't get to pick between the two of them in a general election. The people are supposed to decide, and this way they are going to get to. If Lamont really thinks he represents the people of Connecticut better, he can also run in general election even if he loses the primary.

Posted by: BB | July 4, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, BB, but no matter what happens the republican in this race will not win. Perhaps you did not see the poll that had Lieberman as an independent, Lamont as the Democrat, and the republican in a three-way race.

In this three-way hypothetical matchup, the republican receiveda whopping 8% of the vote. No matter what happens, the seat stays blue. So with thast fact in mind, why on Earth would the Democratic voters of Connecticut keep Lieberman when they can have a real Democrat who agrees with them on every issue?

And secondly, comparing Lamont to Nader is a bit of a stretch, if not downright silly. I'm sure even if Lieberman does run as an independent, Lamont will receive at least 30-40% of the general election vote, not 2% like Nader. Besides, did Democrats as a whole ever consider voting for Nader over Gore? No, they didn't. Your whole argument is a bit stupid to be completely honest.

Posted by: Ohio guy | July 4, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the vitriol is overpowering here.

Come on--all you Democrats should know that there is only one vote that really matters, and that is the vote for majority leader. Majoritly leader controls the agenda, and the committe chairmanships. If you want Bush's agenda stopped, if you want congressional oversight, you need Congress to change hands. You shouldn't care if it is Leiberman or Lamont. You should be supporting whomever you think can best win the general election.

What all of you wingers (left) are doing here is pulling a Nader. The establishment candidate isn't liberal enough for you, so you plan to fracture the vote, and to make sure nobody can win except the Republicans. Leiberman clearly has better support in the general election than Lamont, just as Gore did compared to Nader.

Could Leiberman solve this problem by dropping out? Sure. If I were him, would I, when I knew that the general population, as opposed to the wingers, supported me? Probably not. Why should I feel beholden to a few thousand when a few million support me?

Leiberman isn't going to drop out. So Lamont and his supporters need to decide which is more important to them? Flexing their own personal muscle, or returning power to the Democrats?

Either way, I'm sure Karl Rove is laughing himself to sleep, as the Democrats once again devour themselves.

Posted by: BB | July 4, 2006 11:27 AM | Report abuse

First, let me say that I would probably vote for Ned Lamont if I was voting in the Connecticut Primary. Second, let me say that I am sorry that Sen. Lieberman has decided to wage an independent campaign if he loses the primary. I tend to agree with Donna Brazille who said he'd look a lot stronger if he agreed to abide by the Democratic verdict in the state, and used it as a rallying cry for his troops to get to the polls.

Having said all that, I find all the vitriol about Sen. Lieberman a little bit discomforting. If you look at his voting record, including rankings from the National Journal and Congressional Quarterly, he is much more liberal than moderate or conservative. He is a mixed bag personally... dull as dishwater and maybe a little too willing to compromise with Bush and the Republicans on some issues, but I think it is far too simplistic to label him as a Republican dressed as a Democrat.

Posted by: Will | July 4, 2006 8:52 AM | Report abuse


Any chance we get a breakdown of the impact on the general election if Lieberman loses the primary. Does a Lamont/Lierberman split mean the Republicans have a shot at the CT Senate seat?

Posted by: HR Lawyer | July 4, 2006 5:34 AM | Report abuse

Funny, Ohio Observer, all those moderates who agree with Traitor Joe didn't amount to 10% in your primary when he ran for president in 2004. Maybe the people you know aren't too representative of Ohio as a whole. Did Gore and Kerry lose OH because they were too liberal? (What a laugh!) Did Lee Fisher lose to Bob Taft in 1998 because he was too liberal?

Come back when you're armed with some facts. The reason why Richard Celeste's, John Glenn's and Howard Metzenbaum's state has been electing Republicans has little if anything to do with the idea that its Democrats are too liberal.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 4, 2006 3:41 AM | Report abuse

Will you reporters ever come to understand, it's not just the war. Once Joe Lieberman became good friends with FoxNews Sean Hannity, I knew I could never vote for him again.

Since he got elected with the help of the National Review's William Buckley, Joe has always "kissed" up to Republicans. That, more than his delusional Iraq Occupation stance, is why he is being primaried.

If you need an on-the-ground person in CT to start sending you links, I will. You might just try our local Democratic blogs.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | July 4, 2006 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Can one of the Lieberman lovers (republicans) on this thread plase tell me what all of these "moderate" positions are that Joe supposedly holds? And please remember before you do that a Democrat who agrees with a majority of republicans on the issue of keeping our troops in a country indefintiely b/c of a war premised on lies is not a "moderate". He is not only out of step with his own party, but the VAST majority of the entire country as well. So what are all these moderate positiions????

If we had had more Ned Lamonts in the Senate and less Joe Liebermans in 2002, we would not even BE in Iraq today - THAT is standing up for what you believe in.

Posted by: Ohio guy | July 4, 2006 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Chris spewed:

"I hope you guys would get off senator Liberman's back and leave him alone.All you guys want is getting someone who agrees with your point of view. Unfortunately the view you represent is in the minority."

Excuse me, but just who the hell are you to tell Democrats who to pick in their own primary? We represent the minority view??? Last time I checked Chris, a clear majority of the country wants us to start drawing down troops in Iraq, does not favor privatizing social security, did not approve of the way Congress intervened in the Terri Schiavo case, does not think the Iraq War was worth it in the first place, did not favor the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and does not approve of Lieberman taking money from the big drug companies and then voting against a plan to force them to charge fair prices for drugs they developed using the taxpayers' own money. Lieberman is on the wrong side of all of these issues, Lamont is on the right side of all of them. Please, Chris, enlighten me and everyone else as to how Lieberman's views are the views of the majority of the country, let alone the people of Connecticut??

Sorry to burst your little insulated Neocon world Chris but you are the one with the minority views.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 4, 2006 12:42 AM | Report abuse

After reading this blog, I see why the my party keeps losing elections. If I look at Ohio, I see a lot of moderate Dem who agree with Liberman on many issues. Maybe its time for the moderate Rep and Dem to get together and get rid our country's extreme right and lefts.

Posted by: Ohio Observer | July 3, 2006 11:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't think they coined the term Whinny Ass Titty Baby for Joe-mentum, but it certainly applies. The sooner he leave the party (and the Senate) the better. At the very least he just signed over the primary to Ned Lamont. Go Ned! Go away Joe.

Posted by: Greg in LA | July 3, 2006 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Hey DNC Member, I never supported Howard Dean (sorry to burst your conspiracy theory bubble), and if you think the antipathy for Lieberman started in 2004 you're amazingly tone-deaf. Having people like you running the party is exactly why we keep losing elections.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 3, 2006 10:58 PM | Report abuse

We want someone who represents our point of view...gosh, isn't that what democracy was supposed to be all about in the first place?? Do you mean to say we should support candidates who DISAGREE with our views?? Why don't we just forego elections entirely and go Communist?

We'll see what minority views they are on November 8th. All those Lieberman offenses people have listed above have been minority ones--the vast majority of other Democrats have found their way to doing the right thing. No one else has been willing to hand the Senate and presidency to Republicans, or called their own base "jihadists". Lieberman is simply reaping what he sowed for a long time.

Decent?? Does a decent man criticize anyone who exercises their right to free speech by saying that criticizing the war undermines national security? Does a decent man fire his own staffer for calling him by his first name? Maybe we have different definitions, but that's not remotely decent to me; it's arrogant and authoritarian.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 3, 2006 10:51 PM | Report abuse

It is hard not to think that this is part of the "cleansing" effort by the troops of a certain failed 2004 candidate have engaged. Throughout the country they have been "cleansing" state and local party workers. They have taken over the DNC building, they are after Lieberman today, Hillary, Dodd, Bayh and dozens and dozens of others that did not support a certain 2004 candidate. They are even after the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire because they dared to vote for someone other than their guy. A mob mentality gone seriously wrong. If that 2004 candidate continues he will be the last chairman of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: DNC Member | July 3, 2006 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris buddy I don't know which point of view you are talking about. The vast majority of people in Connecticut agree that the war in Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror, and a very bad idea. The vast majority also believe that a woman in a hospital who is gang raped should not have to get in a cab in order to go to a hospital that will provide the necessary emergency cotraception that she requires. Leiberman said that "it would only require short cab ride". They also know that Joe is really a Republican, which the majority don't want, as past elections prove. Now that a real Democrat steps up, Joe the traitor finally has to admit that the Democratic party is not where his heart lies. Most people do agree.

Posted by: Nicholas | July 3, 2006 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Alan, your comments beg the most important question: if Connecticut Democrats decide on August 8 that they want Lamont as their nominee, why won't "decent guy" Joe Lieberman accept defeat with grace and with respect for the party nomination process? His sense of entitlement -- which is really where he "transcends party politics" -- is palpable.

Posted by: mark | July 3, 2006 10:45 PM | Report abuse

I know what we should call the weasel: Traitor Joe!

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 3, 2006 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman is probably one of the most decent politicians out there. He transcends party politics and stands up for what he believes in. I was actually fairly disappointed in him when he ran for Vice President and ended up reversing a lot of his more noble positions on reforming affirmative action, but all the same, I have tremendous admiration for him. I hope that the democrats don't abandom him in their party primary -- it is good for the country to have moderate democrats and not only far left politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kenedy, John Kerry, and Howard Dean leading the democratic talking points. I wonder why the left insists on demonizing Lieberman -- had he won their party nomination for president in 2004, he almost certainly would have gotten elected instead of President Bush. Instead, the left got their ultra-liberal candidate in John Kerry and were given 4 more years of Bush-Cheney. Electing Ned Lamont in the primary would be mistake of equal magnitude for the democratic party.

Posted by: Alan | July 3, 2006 10:33 PM | Report abuse

I hope you guys would get off senator Liberman's back and leave him alone.All you guys want is getting someone who agrees with your point of view. Unfortunately the view you represent is in the minority.

Posted by: Chris | July 3, 2006 10:13 PM | Report abuse

This is a grassroots revolution to reclaim the soul of the Democratic Party. For years Democrats and independents have lamented the absence of strong national Democrats who would stand up and fight back against Republican extremists. Lieberman has been the antithesis of everything we wanted to see. He has sided with Bush on privatizing Social Security, sided with Bush on intervening in the Terry Schiavo affair, supported Bush to the hilt on the disastrous war in Iraq, undercut the Democratic effort to fillibuster Alito's nomination by voting for cloture, betrayed the Democrats on Katrina by being the only Senate Democrat to join the Republicans' Katrina committee that whitewashed Bush's incompetent handling of the federal response, and refused to even consider censuring Bush, even though he led the movement to censure Bill Clinton after he was acquited in the Senate.

There is real fury against Lieberman in the state of Connecticut and it's been building for years. One would think that Lieberman would understand that his standing with Democrats was weak when he polled barely 10% of the vote in several early presidential primaries in 2004. And his decision to run for reelection to the Senate at the same time he was running for vice president with Al Gore certainly showed a lot of people that he was only out for himself.

With his announcement that he will leave the Democratic Party today, we have confirmation once again that Joe Lieberman's loyalties are strictly to Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: John | July 3, 2006 10:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure Joementum would have the guts to come out for the Yankees--he'd be too afraid of upsetting Mets supporters. I bet CT has its share of Red Sox fans too. What's a spineless opportunist to do??

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 3, 2006 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid and the DSCC have just alienated millions of donors and volunteers by backing Lieberman in the primary. Lamont is a real Democrat; Lieberman is not. Moreover, how can the Democratic Senate caucus support Lieberman if he LOSES the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont and runs for reelection as an Independent? Lamont is likely to be the official candidate of the Democratic Party; for them to back Lieberman in that case is to snub the election process and the will of the voters.

Lieberman doesn't begin to scare Voter #1 into supporting him over Lamont in the primary with this move; he just demonstrates more conclusively that he is not committed to being a Democrat or supporting the party's nominee.

Lieberman has also made clear that he would continue to caucus with Democrats in the Senate if reelected as an Independent; that point is moot.

As much as I hated Gore's choice of Lieberman from the moment he announced it (July 7, 2000), I think it was a good strategic move. He excited the Jewish donors and vounteers in key places like Florida. However, I bet if he had it to do over again, Gore would pick someone else. He's realized that life is short and he has to be himself--look how at ease he appears in An Inconvenient Truth.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 3, 2006 9:40 PM | Report abuse

I have always thought that Gore's pick of Lieberman on the ticket in 2000 was one of his top 5 mistakes (walking away from Clinton was his #1 mistake). Like the many DC Republican war criminals who have shown an absolute aversion to the Constitution, truth, decency, justice and the rule of law, Lieberman needs to be run out of town and thrown into some deep, dark cell in Guatanimo Bay -- no lawyer, no court hearing, no due process. However, unlike what the Republicans currently practice, when he and his fellow Republican inmates are so depressed and traumatized that they want to kill themselves, the jailors should NOT force feed them or otherwise intervene -- just hand them some blunt instruments and let them take care of themselves.

Posted by: Klingon | July 3, 2006 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Lieberman apparently wants to be a moderate Democratic leader.

Unfortunately, for the Democrats, here's what Franklin D. Roosevelt had to say on the subject, Sept. 5, 1938, during an address at Denton, Maryland: "...The Democratic Party will live and continue to receive the support of the majority of Americans just so long as it remains a liberal party...." (Bartlett's...14th Ed.,972a)

In my opinion, the major fault of the Democratic Party is that it fields so-called moderate candidates like Senator Lieberman.

According to Thomas Frank, author of the recent bestseller 'What's the Matter with Kansas, Frank observed that moderates have recognized conservatives are targeting progressives and pulled themselves out of the line of fire.

In essence, moderate Democratic candidates have disengaged from the political battlefield and have sought the easier path of collaboration with organized business in allowing redeployment of American industrial capital abroad and ratcheting down wages, benefits and pensions for the workforce in America.

The end result for the Democratic Party is that they risk being perceived as moderates who are giving away all the progressive gains won by the Democratic Party over the last 70-years.

Liberals and progressive Democrats have been abandoned by moderate Democrats - it's no small wonder rank and file Democrats are confused about whose side their candidates are on.

Posted by: STAN SMILAN | July 3, 2006 9:24 PM | Report abuse

If Leiberman ruus as an independent he'll win. You can bet that all these people who now berate him (despite his 90% approval from the ADA) for not being a "real" Democrat will be begging that he vote with the Democrats in organizing the Senate. He'll be able to write his own ticket as to what committees he wants to be

Posted by: Nick | July 3, 2006 8:42 PM | Report abuse

BB wrote: "If you are a true-blue Democrat (who is most likely to be voting in the primary) do you want two Democratic candidates splintering the vote in the general election? No? Well then you better vote for Leiberman in the primary. It's a suprisingly smart move for a campaign that has been struggling."

He's not a Democrat if he's running as an indy -- Lamont will be the Democratic candidate. LIEburrWOEman cannot use the word "Democrat" on the ballot and he'd only enrage true Dems if he campaigned using the silly term "petitioning Democrat." Perhaps he could just run as a "Rat."

Posted by: tab khan | July 3, 2006 8:13 PM | Report abuse

The reason for Leiberman to do this is obvious: If you are a true-blue Democrat (who is most likely to be voting in the primary) do you want two Democratic candidates splintering the vote in the general election? No? Well then you better vote for Leiberman in the primary. It's a suprisingly smart move for a campaign that has been struggling.

Posted by: BB | July 3, 2006 7:58 PM | Report abuse

To the writer above who called Lieberman a centrist - he may well be one, but I don't think he's courageous. Lieberman has stated that he doesn't think people should criticize a "wartime President", and in my opinion, that remark is cause for him to enter retirement.

Posted by: Jeff | July 3, 2006 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman's antagonism towards Iraq results from his longstanding strong support of Israel, and so his position about the war is consistent and unsurprising. What is regrettable is that he has chosen to act like a lapdog in so many other areas, such as Supreme Court appointments.

He always seemed to me to be a "nice" guy (i.e. not real bright), but he doesn't seem to have the solid core than would allow him to remain graceful under pressure. He's just thrashing around and it's an ugly sight.

Remember his 2004 claim to be in a "three-way tie for third place" in NH? (He was fifth.) Well, "petitioning Democrat" is like that. The English language can only be twisted so much.

Posted by: Chuckles | July 3, 2006 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Encourage you birds to cover the strong group of common sense conservative Independents, and Independent Greens, who made the ballot in Virginia..
Gail Parker U.S. Senate - retired U.S. Air Force Officer,

Marv Pixton 1st District U.S. Congress - Retired Marine Col.
Albert Burckard 4th District, Lt.Col. U.S. Army retired
Joe Oddo businessman, realtor, writer
Reverend Martin Jeffrey 6th district
Dr. Brad Blanton 7th district
Jim Hurysz 8th district
Bill Wood 10th District
Ferdinado Greco 11th district

Posted by: joe oddo | July 3, 2006 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman exercised his judgement when he choose to support Bush's erratic and misguided war in Iraq. This November election would be a great time to make him accountable for his pro-Bush votes and for not representing the true voice of the Democratic Party. I have nothing but wishes for Lieberman to lose this election.

Posted by: Gil Lasaca | July 3, 2006 7:43 PM | Report abuse

It WAS really disgusting of Holy Joe to stay on the Senate ballot in 2000. If Gore's victory had been recognized, Lieberman would have singlehandedly handed the Senate to the Repubs as CT's Repub governor would have appointed his successor. His kneejerk support for the Israeli West Bank/Gaza lebenstrom settler scum throughout his career is beyond disgusting.

Posted by: mike goldberg | July 3, 2006 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Let's nickname him Joltin' Joe! He's probably a Yankees fan, anyway.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | July 3, 2006 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Liberman, Centrist? Not when you look closely.

How do you spell Lieberman as an Independent? W-E-A-S-E-L !

Posted by: Nor'Easter | July 3, 2006 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Not much suprises me, but this one does. This democratic party made him a national figure in 2000 and ever since he's been sucking at the right's teat. Now he appears fully prepared to usher in a republican to his senate seat. Watch him get a cabinet appointment from Bush out of this.

Posted by: Proud Progressive | July 3, 2006 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Nutmeg State? I thought CT was the Constitution State. It's on their license plates.

Anyway, Lieberman is likely to lose the Democratic primary, and that's good because as a fake Democrat, he doesn't deserve to be able to run as one. Calling Lamont supporters partisan jihadists?? What kind of arrogant vitriol does self-important Joe think he's entitled to spew at us? Why does he think he's entitled to the nomination and election without challengers or a campaign? Why should we overlook his moral incorrectness on the most important moral issue of the day? He's pro-voucher, pro-death penalty, pro-Social Security privatization, pro-corporate, anti-gay, was willing to give Republicans the Senate when he refused to get out of this race in 2000, and helped hand the presidency to Bush that December by undercutting Gore with his remark about counting overseas military ballots sent after the deadline! And who was working their butts off for that ticket--moderates? Centrists? No way Jose, it was liberals in the Democratic base. And Joementum repays us by not only supporting the Iraq war but saying anyone who criticizes it compromises national security. This is no Democrat. This is no one who should hold a position of power in America. I hope Lamont's support continues building after he wins the primary, and I hope Lieberman has to fight like hell to hold onto his pathetic political life. With Democrats like him, who needs Republicans?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 3, 2006 6:31 PM | Report abuse

lieberman is desperate indeed. problem for him is, voters don't respond well to desperation. he's shown himself now for what he truly is - an aging senator willing to do anything to win another six years in the comfortable seats of power. don't get me wrong, i used to have a lot of respect for lieberman, especially regarding his early (and courageous) years of activism for civil rights in the south. now he has proven to be against the cause of civil liberties, against the cause of free speech, against the separation of church and state, and over and over and over again he has provided political cover for george bush to completely disembowel our most deeply-held values.

half the battle is pushing him out of the democratic party, which lamont has now apparently achieved. the last step is pushing him out of office. it's not easy, but we're getting close.

Posted by: nachy | July 3, 2006 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I enthusiastically support a bold Centrist like Lieberman. I actually hope he runs as an independent and wins. This may encourage other moderate donors and candidates to come out in defense of moderation, compromise and bi-partisanship.
The real difference in our politics is not Dems vs Reps but rather Pragmatists vs Ideologues. I suspect that most voters would prefer problem solvers rather than posers if given the choice.

Posted by: Paul in Austin | July 3, 2006 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman's internal polls must be predicting utter disaster in the primary for him to take this radical step. "Petitioning Democrat," my keister.

Posted by: mark | July 3, 2006 5:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company