It’s rare that Bob Hayes and I agree, but both of us are pleased by the results in the Connecticut primary.
Even if the result is that Lieberman keeps his seat but becomes a de facto Republican, I’d consider that an improvement over the status quo. Right now, Lieberman is enormously useful to Bush and the Republicans, because he provides cover for their positions; “even a Democrat like Joe Liberman agrees…” and so forth. As an independent, he won’t be as effective at providing cover for Bush and the Republicans.
Nor do I think Democrats have lost a swing vote in a hypothetical future fight over control of the Senate; if such a fight had come up while he was a Democrat, Lieberman probably would have switched parties rather than give control of the Senate to the Democratic party. His decision to run as an independent has demonstrated beyond question Lieberman’s complete lack of loyalty to the Democratic party.
As for if Lieberman is a “centrist,” please spare me from hard-line Republicans who feel they can tell Democrats who is and isn’t a centrist Democrat. This comment-writer at the Moderate Voice got it right:
Joe Lieberman has supported George Bush on domestic spying, suspension of due process, creation of an extra-judicial prison system, the conduct of the war in Iraq, the threat of war against Iran, downplayed the use of torture at Abu Ghraib, praised Alberto Gonzales in his nomination proceedings and suggested that those who disagree publicly with the administration are endangering the country. On the most important issues of the day he is securely in George Bush’s camp. How is he a centrist?
(I’d also add that Lieberman’s “rape victims can just walk to the next hospital” take on emergency contraception didn’t exactly endear him to me.)
And also at The Moderate Voice, Joe’s comment that “Lieberman represents and defines all centrists just as accurately as Britney Spears represents and defines all singers throughout show business history” is pretty on-target.
[Crossposted at Creative Destruction, where the skies are not cloudy all day.]
Pingback: feminist blogs
I am very pleased that Ned Lamont won, and hope that he will trounce Lieberman in the general election, too (assuming Lieberman doesn’t have the grace to end this “independent Democrat” absurdity). But it strikes me as grossly unfair to suggest that Lieberman would have abandoned the Democratic caucus in a fight, despite his cozying up to Bush on other issues. If there were anything to gain by caucusing with the Republicans, he probably would have already done it. The fact that he is calling himself a “independent Democrat” as opposed to just “independent” suggests that should he win the general election (please, no!), he would still caucus with the Democrats for the all-important leadership and procedural votes.
Pingback: The rich white straight revolution! at PunkAssBlog.com
I hope the DLC’ers who were so pissed at Ralph Nader’s trechery and alliances with Republicans take an equally strong stand against Lieberman last ditch effort to string out his political career. Something tells me not, though.
This isnt even the first time he’s intentionally worked directly against the goal of a Democratic majority–he did the same when running int he presidential primary by not following John Edwards lead and resigning his seat to run.
I agree with Mrs. Coulter — Lieberman has no loyalty to the Democratic party’s substantive positions (at least on things like sex and war — he’s pretty good on the environment), but in a strictly partisan sense he would vote for (and AFAIK has voted for) the Democrats to control the Senate. He likes being the maverick lone voice for conservatism within the Democratic party.
Interesting that Lieberman was the one Democrat that Bush feared in the last election and that a lot of independents really like. He seems adult compared to Bush.
I expect that he will continue to vote the party line when he is re-elected.