While I still think it’s a tactical mistake for Democrats to promise troop withdrawals from Iraq, I’m all for Ned Lamont’s victory. Joseph Lieberman is one of my least favorite politicians ever, and Iraq’s the least of my irritations with him. One of the first people I voted for as a voter, in fact, was Lowell Weicker, just before entering graduate school. Lieberman won with conservative support from the outset. More importantly, he’s always been condescending and smug in his political positions, particularly on culture war issues such as restrictions or monitoring of the mass media. But his 11th-hour pretense that he was actually striving to listen to a diversity of views on Iraq was especially ridiculous.
As an independent, what I tend to respond to most is respect for process, evidence of a thoughtful engagement with the issues, a non-dogmatic political persona, a serious commitment to open-mindedness. I’ll vote for either Republicans or Democrats who satisfy me on those characteristics even when I disagree with some of their specific views. Lieberman is about as bad as they come on all those points. It’s not so much his actual position on Iraq but how he has held it and defended it that’s the issue, and hopefully that’s what led to his primary defeat–the dogmatism, the close-mindedness, the fawning and uncritical support for the Administration.
I will always maintain that it wasn’t Lieberman’s position on the war that stoked up the opposition. It was his constant nagging and lecturing of his fellow Democrats that drove the base crazy, especially in an election cycle when they are desperately hoping to make major political gains. It wasn’t the position, however unpopular. It was the sanctimonioius tone.
Absolutely. The tone was the key, not the substance. I think a Democrat who took the same position but sounded completely different in taking it would have done just fine.
My greatest concern about Lamont’s win is how narrow it was. He won by around 4%, which is miniscule and possibly due all to Lieberman’s decision to step forward as an independent candidate. And it suggest he still has very strong support from the state’s democrats.
It makes me wonder whether or not I should switch my vote to PA or stay in CT for the upcoming senatorial elections… 😐 For the first time in quite a while, CT is going to have a real battle for the seat.
Against an incumbent Senator seeking re-nomination who has not had a major scandal? 4% isn’t a miniscule margin in that instance: it’s something that happens once in a blue moon. What’s important to know is how many of the 48% who voted Lieberman would still vote for him as an independent, especially if he keeps whining the way he was this morning on the talk shows, particularly whining in a way that effectively attacks the entire Democratic Party, not just Lamont.
My grandfather was irate when Lieberman became Gore’s running mate, because he remembered his history as a strong hawk on Vietnam. I suppose this is what happens to some unrepentant hawks when they stay in politics — they jump on the neocon/authoritarian bandwagon.