Wasn't Fullbright defeated by an ex-governor or something? I'm pretty sure it wasn't by a complete no name candidate out of nowhere.
giddy, I was replying to this quote: "The Dems of CT? Really? What was the final margin of victory... 3 or 4 points? Such a resounding defeat..." Thus my use of the word, "really," in response to your use of it. And, as others here have so rightly pointed out, for a 3 term incumbent senator to lose his own primary, is as rare as you coming out as a closet, pro-choice liberal. Got it?? Keep D&D Civil.
Dale Bumpers beat J. William Fulbright in the Democratic primary that year. He had served as Arkansas governor from 1970 until that 1974 campaign. Bumpers held the Senate seat until the 1998 campaign, when he chose not to run. P.S. I am dismayed that Joe Lieberman lost. He seemed to be the most reasonable and level-headed of the 2004 candidates for P/VP.
So Karl Rove puts in a courtesy call to Joe Lieberman. And tonight RNC Chair Ken Mehlman is refusing to endorse the GOP nominee in the race, politician-c*m-casino denizen, Alan Schlesinger. Does this mean Joe is now the de facto Republican in the race? -- Josh Marshall
Unbelievable. Lieberman is determined to lose if he runs as an independent. Does anyone believe Rove/the RNC would do that without consulting Lieberman first? I certainly don't. Keep D&D Civil.
Lieberman only lost by about 10,000 votes within the Democratic Party. IMO he still has an excellent chance if he keeps the bulk of his long-time support and makes an appeal to the moderate mainstream in Connecticut. If Republicans truly are reaching out to him (and I find that difficult to believe considering his liberal voting record), then he can win. After reading this board for a long time, I know that trying to out-left each other is fashionable. However, the Democratic Party will only strengthen the Republican Party by turning on their own. (I have to chuckle at the predicament this puts Hillary in. Even Bill endorsed Lieberman over Lamont so its fun to see her lift her skirt and do a little NY tap dance.) However, the way I read the tea leaves, the party that nominates candidates who gravitate toward the center will be the winner in 2006 and, more importantly, in 2008. The Far Left and the Far Right can win in short sprints but the American people tend to favor steady-paced distance runners.
I disagree. I think if Bush or other national level Republicans start reaching out to him, then he is done for sure. If thought the Dems turned on him in the primaries just wait until the whitehouse starts giving him their support. His ratings will plummet. The reason he lost is that he is seen as being closely associated with Bush on Iraq. Having high level GOP folks support him, will destroy his chances.
I think you have it backwards in your attempt to out- moderate folks on this bbs.. Lieberman lost the primary. Mr. self proclaimed moderate Lieberman is taking the radical step of turning on the Democratic candidate. It is Lieberman who is turning on the Party.
Turning on? He got beat by four measly points based on the war issue which is at a low point in popularity as well. To repeat: 48 out of every 100 CT Democrats wished for Lieberman to remain the Democratic candidate for Senate in spite of this one large issue for which he has been made a poster boy.
The primary is just preliminary election. The is the equivalent of the GOP nominating somebody besides Bush for their candidate in 2004 after he had been President for 4 years. It is almost unheard of.
It is a slight stretch. I will grant you, but the number of senators doesn't have anything to do with it. Being an incumbant who wasn't even granted the chance to hold the seat is a major deal. Bush was only President for one term before 2004. Joe was a senator for 3 of them.
I'm no Lieberman fan, but the irony for me is that a titular Democrat has become the scapegoat for failed Republican policies. The big challenge is for the Dems to oust actual Republicans. Make it so.
thumbs, the problem wasn't that Lieberman was a centrist Democrat, or that, except for some groups in the internet that it is fashionable to call "leftwing" (which I think is using quite a broad brush) organized to help defeat him, but that Lieberman himself had the hubris to ignore the people of his own state in arguably the most important issue of the day, or any other day... whether to support a president who chose to invade and occupy a sovereign state that wasn't a clear and present danger to the United States. Bush mislead the public (to be charitable to the man) over and over again, made war on another country when we had unfinished business in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan tracking down those responsible for 9/11 and their supporters, and then, to top it off, ignored those with the most experience in the military who told him, and Rumsfeld, that the plan was terribly flawed, ignored Powell, created an artificial timetable based on deceit and false intelligence that our own intelligence community had warned was flawed, and put our nation up to it's neck in his voluntary war, causing the needless death and maiming of untold thousands. Damn right it makes the people who saw it coming, while he was pretending to search for a "diplomatic" solution, rather upset. For the people of Lieberman's state, the members of his own party, to watch Lieberman's unflinching support of Bush regardless of the circumstances, and to chastise Democrats who chose to criticize Bush, it was too much to take. To top it off, before Lieberman had even known if he was going to lose in his own primary, he basically said to the people of his own party, who had supported him all those years, that it was tough if they didn't nominate him again, because he was going to cover his bases by running as an independent. Do you seriously think Lieberman will capture the same Democrats in November that voted for him in the primary, after all that? And, even worse, that they would vote for him after Lieberman has "reached out," to Karl Rove and the RNC? You've got to be kidding! I don't see it happening. And all those establishment Democrats like Bill Clinton are going to be burning up the phone lines telling Lieberman to drop out of the race, and be an honest Democrat by endorsing the man that beat him. Keep D&D Civil.
August 10, 2006 Democrats Back Lamont in Race in Show of Unity By ADAM NAGOURNEY With promises of both money and personal campaign appearances, Democratic leaders rallied yesterday behind the campaign of Ned Lamont, the antiwar challenger who defeated Senator Joseph I. Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, leaving Mr. Lieberman increasingly isolated as he pledged to forge ahead as an independent candidate. At the same time, Republicans began a concerted effort to use Mr. Lieberman’s defeat to portray Democrats as weak on national defense, reprising a theme that they made central to the last two national campaigns. The attacks came in searing remarks from, among others, Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee and Vice President Dick Cheney, who went so far as to suggest that the ouster of Mr. Lieberman might encourage “al Qaeda types.” “It’s an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy,’’ Mr. Cheney said in a telephone interview with news service reporters. Howard Dean, the Democratic national chairman, called on Mr. Lieberman to quit the race, and in an interview said he would be disappointed in any Democratic Party leader who continued to support Mr. Lieberman, declaring that they “have an obligation” to support their nominee. But most Democrats said they would not pressure Mr. Lieberman to step aside for now, saying he was too angered by his loss to accept such counseling and noting that as of now, the Republicans do not have a strong candidate who could take advantage of a fractured Democratic field. Mr. Lieberman has said he will vote with the Democratic caucus if he is elected as an independent, a consoling thought for Democrats contemplating a Lieberman victory in November. “If he wants to talk to me about it, fine,” said Christopher Dodd, Connecticut’s other senator and a Democrat who was one of Mr. Lieberman’s close advisers and friends, who endorsed Mr. Lamont on Wednesday. “It’s not up to me to call. I regret he made that decision but it’s pretty firm: I don’t think there’s any way to talk him out of it.” With the Iraq war now dominating the international stage, and Republicans again trying to turn it to their advantage by casting it as central to efforts to protect Americans from terrorism, Mr. Dean and other Democrats pushed back, declaring that voters would not buy the Republican argument in yet another national election. The attacks came as Republicans are openly alarmed that their party seems to be heading for big losses this November. Republican polling has also said that national security is the most effective issue Republicans have to motivate the most loyal voters in their party. “It’s right-wing propaganda,” Mr. Dean said. “They are beginning to look ridiculous: A majority of Americans now believe that going to Iraq was the wrong thing to do. I think this shows how far out of touch the Republicans are. What you are seeing is the beginning of the end of the Republicans, because a lot of this was a referendum on George Bush’s policies. George Bush is going to take a big hit and a lot of people are going down with him, including Ken Mehlman.” Mr. Lieberman dismissed the significance of the supportive words from the vice president, as well as criticism of his party based on his loss. “That’s not my fault,” he said. “They are not criticizing me for running an independent campaign, they are criticizing Democratic voters for the way they voted.” There was little question that Democrats were united in their decision to back Mr. Lamont, no matter their apprehensions about his skills as a campaigner, his credentials or some of his ideological positions. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who had backed Mr. Lieberman in the primary, said she had donated $5,000 to Mr. Lamont’s campaign and suggested that she was prepared to campaign with him. Bill Clinton, whose campaign appearance with Mr. Lieberman was described by the senator as an emotional turning point for his campaign, issued a statement affirming his support for the Democratic nominee. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader, and Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the head of the Democratic committee for Senate candidates, described Mr. Lieberman’s loss as encouraging news for Democrats going into the fall elections. “The perception was that he was too close to George Bush, and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the president more than anything else,” Mr. Schumer and Mr. Reid said in a joint statement. “The results bode well for Democratic victories in November.” Mr. Dean, whose brother James was a prominent supporter of Mr. Lamont, said Mr. Lieberman was being “disrespectful of Democrats and disrespectful of the Democratic Party” by saying he would stay in the race as an independent. “It was decided in Joe’s favor three times and this time he didn’t get the nod,” Mr. Dean said. Other Democrats, particularly those in the Senate, were notably less aggressive. That reflected the fact that Mr. Lieberman is viewed as having a strong chance of winning the election in November despite his primary defeat. Democrats are looking to avoid doing anything now that might sour their relationships with Senator Lieberman if he is re-elected. Several said they thought it was insensitive — and pointless — to call on him to quit now, saying that he might be more receptive to that argument later if polls show he is heading for what would be a second defeat That strategy could change if Republican officials succeed in persuading the party’s Senate candidate, Alan Schlesinger, who entered the race at a time when Republicans thought they had no chance to unseat Mr. Lieberman, to step aside and persuade some better-known and better-financed Republican to run. Throughout the day, Republicans issued statements calling on Democratic challengers in some of the most contested elections to renounce Mr. Lamont. “This is a defining moment in some ways for the Democratic Party,” said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, in his opening remarks at the White House news briefing yesterday. “I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the president; I would flip it. I think instead it’s a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they’re going to come after you.” In fact, the vast majority of Democratic Party leaders supported Mr. Lieberman in the primary, and did not endorse Mr. Lamont until after the results were in. Mr. Cheney offered warm praise for Mr. Lieberman, who was his opponent for vice president in 2000, though he said he did not want his remarks to be construed as an endorsement of Mr. Lieberman. He cast Mr. Lieberman’s loss in ominous terms, suggesting that it would hearten American terrorist enemies. Terrorists, he said, are “betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. “And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/w...&en=9938ff6fae1785f5&ei=5094&partner=homepage Good lord... the Gop reaction says it all. Keep D&D Civil.
This was a huge victory for the Democratic party and the netroots. Even if Lieberman runs as an independent and wins, he will no longer be able to provide bipartisan cover for the Republicans. That benefits the party as a whole. A sitting senator was defeated in a primary. Very unusual. And while the people on the ground deserve the lion’s share of the credit for this win, I don’t think Lieberman would have lost if Daily Kos, firedoglake et al hadn’t lit the spark and fanned the flames early on. Also, I haven’t seen any comment in media on Lieberman’s major strategic blunder- declaring that he would run as an independent if he lost the primary. This race was much closer than I expected. If Lieberman had not exposed his disloyalty to the Democratic party before the primary, he would have won the nomination.
