PDA

View Full Version : Joe Lieberman election a big "middle finger" to the Dems



Opty
11-13-2006, 10:23 AM
Maybe I missed it, but I never noticed a thread here about this very important election. Lieberman was basically cannabalized by his own party, making him lose the primary election due to especially egregious campaign tactics on the part of the Democratic party.

Then, he ran as an independent, a move which made the dems cry "foul" and say that the "people had already spoken" and that he should basically go home because he wasn't going to win and was only distracting from the "real" election.

Now, he's won as an independent.


I think that's pretty funny.

Bravo for Lieberman.

dclary
11-13-2006, 11:21 AM
It also speaks volumes for the primary election process, a system designed to eliminate competition at the polls, and allow a party to concentrate its spending. Primaries are unconstitutional, but good luck getting anyone to take it to court.

MattW
11-13-2006, 03:58 PM
A high profile Indie win will do a lot for the system. It won't change how the parties operate, but can open up voters to the idea that you don't need to order off the standard menu.

The only down side is that Joe has to caucus with one party or the other to retain his seniority for commitee positions: another impediment to 3rd party encroachment in congress. Are the rules of order so codified for 2 parties? Could they put a stranglehold on a tertiary party of 20-50 seats?

robeiae
11-13-2006, 09:08 PM
It also speaks volumes for the primary election process, a system designed to eliminate competition at the polls, and allow a party to concentrate its spending. Primaries are unconstitutional, but good luck getting anyone to take it to court.I don't think primaries are unconstitutional, per se. However, allowing political parties to use state election systems for closed primaries certainly is. Any primary for a federal office should be open to all registered voters, regardless of political party affliation, and the cost should be fully carried by the party holding the primary.

dclary
11-13-2006, 09:14 PM
I don't think primaries are unconstitutional, per se. However, allowing political parties to use state election systems for closed primaries certainly is. Any primary for a federal office should be open to all registered voters, regardless of political party affliation, and the cost should be fully carried by the party holding the primary.

I think that's what I meant, Robeiae. Well said.

Sheryl Nantus
11-13-2006, 09:50 PM
I do find it interesting that as soon as the Democrats needed his seat to complete their win, they welcomed him back into the fold.

It'll be interesting to see how he acts in the upcoming months - will he snuggle back into the party's bosom and all's forgiven, or will he stand alone when the time comes for his constituents.

Gotta respect the man...

nicegrrl
11-13-2006, 10:13 PM
This man was popularly elected as vice president 6 years ago. It's odd how his mere position on the Iraq war alienated him from the party so much. I mean, Kerry voted for the damn war too.

TheGaffer
11-14-2006, 12:20 AM
Just a few thoughts on this:

--Remember, the party leadership didn't endorse Lamont in the primary, and was hardly working for him in the primary. I'm not sure what kind of "egregious" campaign tactics you're talking about in the primary from his own party, spork, but maybe you could provide some evidence of it? Lamont was the one with the big support of the netroots types but not the party, and if anything, the Lieberman supporters behaved in the more despicable manner.

--Joe Lieberman seemed peeved that he'd have to entertain the idea of a primary challenge, as if the position he held was now a birthright, and the voters should be grateful to him for even asking them to vote for him again.

--The voters, in the primary, chose Lamont over Lieberman. But people seem to ignore this in favor of some kind of theory that the Democratic party "purged" Lieberman when the Democratic voters -- when given a choice -- were of the mind that they'd rather have Ned Lamont. (This is in the primary I'm talking about)

--The reason for this? There's 2 issues, to me. One is something I know very little about, and it supposedly has to do with the fact that there were a lot of people in positions of power in Connecticut who were pissed off at the guy. So there's that, and it's neither here nor there. But the real issue, to me, was not jjust his views on Iraq, but the way he adopted similar rhetoric sa Bush or Dick Cheney, consistently criticizing those in his own party for holding the views they did as dangerous to the situation, as insufficiently patriotic, as hurtful to the troops or the administration and as an "attempt to divide the country," so to speak. He never had this kind of similar criticism for the Republicans. To me, that's the largest issue of why he was targeted in a primary and why other hawks like Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell were not - because he spent much of his time running against his own party. Clinton & Cantwell had primary challengers, one of whom got about 10% of the vote, and the other I think even less. These challenges almost never succeed -- why did Ned Lamont's succeed in the primary? It wasnt just because Lieberman was hawkish on the war. That wouldn't have done it.

--It has something to do with this, methinks: to me it's one thing to vote for the war. Or to even disagree with people who are supposedly those you are caucusing with and agreeing with most of the time, which he does in most other areas. It's another thing to assert that they're somehow helping the terrorists win. The whole point of an opposition party is to oppose -- and Holy Joe's antics gives cover to Republicans who assert that Democrats are hurting the war on terror simply by disagreeing with the president. That's where the anger came from at Joe Lieberman and where it remains; the sanctimonous thinking that he's right, everyone else is wrong, and if you disagree you're a traitor.

--In the end, he won because a lot of Republicans voted for him and some Democrats. The GOP put up a zero of a candidate, and Lieberman woke up after losing the primary and positioned himself as something more than just a one-issue guy like Lamont, who never rose to the challenge after the successful primary run.

billythrilly7th
11-14-2006, 12:32 AM
"Ned Lamont."
:roll:

Just a horrible name to begin with.

TheGaffer
11-14-2006, 01:08 AM
The name sounds like one of the guys who didn't even merit a shot of him and his partner's car careening out of the starting gate in "Cannonball Run."

blacbird
11-14-2006, 01:51 AM
It also speaks volumes for the primary election process, a system designed to eliminate competition at the polls, and allow a party to concentrate its spending. Primaries are unconstitutional, but good luck getting anyone to take it to court.

I'd question the "unconstitutional" part of your statement, but I agree with the rest of it, especially as it concerns "closed" primaries, which are restricted only to voters registered with a particular party. Republicans closed their primary in my state several years ago, resulting in a situation where there is a primary ballot available only to registered Republicans, and another open to everybody else. It is profoundly unpopular, but nobody can seem to get the Republicans to change it back to the fully open primary system it used to be. Any time you restrict public participation in the process of selecting political candidates, you increase the likelihood of special-interest candidates who don't feel much obligation to the interests of the public.

caw

dclary
11-14-2006, 01:57 AM
I mean unconstitutional only in the strictest of senses: it is not in the constitution, and any rights or responsibilities not found in the constitution must fall to the states or people. Like Robeiae said, it seems wrong that a political party can force closed primaries at the state level for a federal office. I don't know if there's been any case law, or if the process just evolved into what we have today without legal challenge.