Lieberman not ruling out running as independent

[sabra]

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--lieberman0410apr10,0,3381656.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut

Lieberman not ruling out running as independent

HARTFORD, Conn. -- U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, facing a challenge from within the Democratic Party for renomination, said Monday he has not ruled out the possibility he would seek a fourth term as an independent.

"I have not foreclosed the option," Lieberman said at a news conference at the Capitol. "If I wanted to run as an independent, I would. I'm running as a Democrat. I've been a Democrat all my life."

Ned Lamont, a Democratic activist and anti-war candidate from Greenwich, is challenging Lieberman for the party's nomination this year. He has been garnering support from some Connecticut Democrats dissatisfied with Lieberman's pro-war stance and his perceived closeness with President Bush's administration.

The party will endorse a candidate at a convention on May 20.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Oh wonderful. Joementum wants to pull a Nader.

How fucking lovely? :eyes:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Nutmeggers, what do you think will happen May 20?

Does Lamont have the numbers to kick out Holy Joe?

[wordpix]

28. Lamont isn't well known enough yet but if he gets the numbers to be in a

primary election, he will kick some ass and maybe move Joenertia to the left. Pundits are saying Ned is a "serious candidate," and I agree. He has no political background but he gives a great comeback when interviewers ask him about this lack of political credentials. He says he doesn't necessarily agree that a professional politician makes the best representative and he sees nothing wrong with Connecticut's having a "citizen legislator."

Love it!

[wordpix]

30. my town committee took a straw poll: 11 for Joe, 8 for Lamont

Not a bad showing for Lamont, who isn't very well known yet.

[coalition_unwilling]

32. He was recently on KPFK (in Los Angeles) with Marcy Winograd,

who's in an analagous position vis-a-vis Jane Harman in California's 36th Congressional District. They both were compelling speakers for progressive Dems taking the party back. After I heard Marcy on the radio, I decided to start volunteering for her campaign 3-4 hours/week and may up that. I have completely given up on Harman and, from my precinct walking in Venice and Mar Vista the past two to three weeks, I am happy to report that Harman is almost universally hated and despised in this part of the 36th. If the feelings against Lieberman are anywhere near as intense, Lieberman is in real trouble!

[UpInArms]

3. He's "independent" so long as the umbilical cord still reaches to the

BFEE.

[saigon68]

4. He can Run as a Turd

[BlackHeart]

5. Why would he even be

talking about this right now?

[MadMaddie]

12. Because he is in deep trouble...for him to even mention this...

Good...I hope he knows his position is in trouble!!

[brentspeak]

15. He's not in trouble; he's very popular in Conn.

Even if he switches to Independent, he'll still win reelection. The reason he might switch to Independent has more to do with his unpopularity within the Democratic Party national rank-and-file.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. If he wasn't in trouble he wouldn't have said this.

Clearly the primary challenge is ahving an effect, and typically Lieberman, rather than considering the fact that he is supposed to represent his consituents, threatens to take his ball and leave.

[monarch]

23. Absolutely right

When I first saw the Courant story I was crediting Lamont for being fast on its feet by planting the story but I don't see anything about "Lieberman running as an independent" on Lamont's website so the story is even better--the theory that he has already lost the left wing, the other demographic ("loyal Dems," those "crazy left wing flakes" who represent the other demographic woter in primaries) the information has gone from the internet (credit also Colin MCEnroe) to the corporate media so this latest meme can possibly cause Joe to pull out BEFORE the primary. Keep watching. I'll be watching this meme take hold. This is really gonna be fun.

[worldgonekrazy]

42. Consider the source

This is Newsday, well known for their right wing slant.

I'm guessing that perhaps they are merely trying to make it appear as though Lieberman is in trouble, in hopes of picking up the seat for Republicans. I'm no Joe fan by any means, but I am very skeptical of this story.

[still_one]

6. First of all liberman should become a republican

and run as one

but if he wants to become a spollier, I do NOT believe it matters. There is very little difference between the republican position and liberman

however, the real choice for the people would be Ned Lamont

I liberman is considering this, he has lost support big time

[dolstein]

22. Seeing how Lieberman disagrees with Republicans on >90% of the issues

I don't think your argument makes sense. Indeed, if what you are saying is that nobody should hold office as a Democrat unless they disagree with Bush 100% of the time, that (a) means that nearly every Democrat in Congress (including Ted Kennedy) would need to switch parties and (b) gives Bush the ability to define who a Democrat is.

[TankLV]

34. Especially when he said we shouldn't criticize bush* or his policies.

Yeah and his embracing repukes. And his scolding OTHER DEMS who dared to criticize bush*!

You mean that "democratic support"?!

He might have at one time in the distant past, but this no longer is a valid argument.

But go ahead, shovel the bullshit.

We ain't buyin the bullshit any more.

[still_one]

46. really

he has no problem with prayer in schools, or for that matter he walks a thin line between seperation of church and state

he has no problem with the IRAQ war

he has no problem with sending women who have been raped, sent to a hospital, if that hospital does NOT believe in birth control, and will NOT allow that woman to be treated with the morning after pill, to be sent to another hospital. Hospitals are either open to treat the PUBLIC aren't they

he has no problem with the judges bush has thrown at the court

I can go on, but if you are going to name a few social issues to defend that prick, it doesn't cut it with me.

He was one of the biggest proponents on this IRAQ WAR LIE, and will NOT admit it was wrong.

If you think he represents what the democratic party is, then you and I have different views

The person he replaced, wicker stood for more democratic principles today than liberman ever did

Incidently, the war in IRAQ IS A PRETTY IMPORTANT ISSUE TO DISAGREE WITH BUSH ON. I am doing everything in my power to see Ned Lamont gets nominated.

Democrats should stand for some basic principles, and especially after what has been reveled about Iraq, anyone who still supports this outrage should go to the other side

[madmark]

50. he voted for the Iraq war and advocates ongoing occupation and

increased spending on it. its my understanding he voted for the anti-bankruptcy bill. where is he not sucking up to bush, this other 90% you were referring too? its not a rhetorical question, i really want to know.

[mdmc]

7. If we had gotten rid of the 2 party system a long time ago, this

would be a blessing. I think that the more people on the ballot, the better. I am a Joementum fan, but I would love to see Lamont win the primary. I would love to see Lamont win the general.

[NV Whino]

8. Go for it Joe!

Don't let us stop you.
:rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

9. There you have it, Holy Joe apologists, the man has spoken!

Lieberman: "I've been a Democrat all my life." So was Zell Miller before he stopped pretending and endorsed Bush.

[Teaser]

10. Are there any Holy Joe apologists left?

Dude has got to have burned every bridge.

I can tolerate Ben Nelson more than Lieberman. Lieberman may have better liberal positions than Nelson on a variety of issues, but Nelson does not work to undermine the party the way Joementum does.

[TankLV]

36. See post 22 above and 27 below.

Prime example.

There are too many others, unfortunately.

[dolstein]

27. Lieberman has been a Democrat all his life

Unlike many "fair weather" Democrats around here, who'd vote third party at the drop of the hat, and spend all their time bashing the DLC.

I don't know why Lieberman won't rule out an independent party bid. While I have no doubt he'd win in the general election if he runs as an independent, talk of an independent run (which, up to this point, has come only from left wingnuts and Republican fantasists) would only cut into his support among primary voters. And seeing how Lieberman is a Democrat, I'm sure he'd prefer to run as the nominee of the Democratic Party. So if this story gets any real traction, then I'd expect Lieberman to issue a clarification.

Of course, if Lieberman were to run as an independent, I'm sure he'd caucus with the Democrats, seeing how he disagrees with Republicans on >90% of the issues. I'm sure he'd also endorse all the Democrats running for Congress. In a sense, it would be like having two Democrats on the general election ballot. So would having Lieberman on the general election ballot hurt the Democrats? Doubtful. None of the left-wingers around here buy into arguments that having Lieberman as the nominee helps Democrats down the ballot. It's hard for them to argue at this point that a Lieberman bid as an independent would somehow hurt Democrats. But there are a variety of reasons why I don't think this will happen, not least of all the fact that Lieberman remains the prohibitive favorite to win the primary.

[IndianaGreen]

35. and so was Zell Miller, a man you defended until he bolted to GOP

You also ignored our warnings about Iraq, and you have been cool to holding Bush accountable through censure or impeachment. That's some track record, dolstein!

[dolstein]

43. Zell Miller endorsed Bush for reelection

That's something Lieberman has never done. Unlike you, Lieberman has actively supported his party's nominee's for President. Who was the last Democratic candidate you actively supported -- McGovern?

And the fact remains - Lieberman has a liberal voting record on the vast majority of issues. Miller had a voting record that would put him much closer to the Republicans than to the Democrats. Not so with Lieberman. The problem with left wingnuts calling Lieberman a Republican is that there just aren't any Republicans (with the possible exception of Lincoln Chafee) who vote like Lieberman does.

Frankly, as someone who calls themselves "IndianaGreen" rather than "IndianaDemocrat", you're hardly in any position to impose party loyalty tests on anyone.

[IndianaGreen]

45. Zell Miller never kissed Bush

that's something that Lieberman did.

As to my screen name it dates back to January 2001 and I ain't changing it to please someone that supported the war, torture, Zell Miller, and Joe Lieberman and that hated Michael Moore's Farenheit 911.

[dolstein]

47. Actually, it was Bush who kissed Lieberman, but what does your homophobia

have to do with this?

And like it or not, your third party leanings are very much an issue. Personally, I don't think Democrats have any business telling anyone else who can and can't be a Democrat. It kind of goes with the whole concept of a "big tent" party. But I'm damned sure not going to let someone who refuses to even call themselves a Democrat start imposing a litmust test on others.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Considering that you are the one opposed to full rights for LGBTs

unlike me, who supports marriage equality, you should not be the one using the "homophobe" label on anyone.

[dolstein]

52. I don't have any problem with gay marriage

I just wouldn't insist on it as a litmus test for Democratic candidates.

[Solon]

55. So civil rights for everyone isn't a priority for you? n/t

[dolstein]

56. Sure it's a priority, but it's not my top priority.

I don't think it makes any sense to insist that Democrats in states that are hostile to the idea of gay marriage run on a gay marriage platform. All that does is guarantee the Republican candidate a victory. I'd much rather have a Democrat who opposes gay marriage but supports other gay rights measures (e.g., the prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing based on sexual orientation) holding a seat than a Republican who opposes all gay rights.

And sorry, but I'm not going to jeopardize the future of social security, a living wage, universal health care, etc., in order to advocate for gay marriage. I don't consider it the single most important issue.

[TankLV]

58. Some of us are not important enough.

Some of us are more equal than others, I guess.

Sorry, equal rights is not negotiable.

[dolstein]

60. Well, you seem to be saying the rights of gay people are more

important than the rights of poor people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that Democrats should only nominate candidate who are in favor of gay marriage, even if this would guarantee a solid Republican majority in Congress that would repeal the minimum wage, privatize social security and scrap Medicare.

[Solon]

61. Let's rewind that to about 40 years ago and here is your...

argument:

Well, you seem to be saying the rights of blacks are more important than the rights of poor people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that Democrats should only nominate candidate who are in favor of integration, even if this would guarantee a solid Republican majority in Congress that would repeal the minimum wage, privatize social security and scrap Medicare.

[dolstein]

62. I guess you need a few history lessons

JFK and LBJ never attempted to "purge" Dixiecrats from the Democratic Party for not supporting civil rights legislation.

Nobody was kicked out of the Democratic Party for signing the Southern Manifesto.

The Democratic Party continued to depend on conservative Southern Democrats for their legislative majorities up through the 1990s.

My argument then would be the same argument that I'm making now -- that it's not reasonable to insist that Democrats seeking public office adopt positions that make it impossible for them to get elected. It makes no more sense to insist that all Democrats seeking public office today in Missippi endorse gay marriage than it would have made to insist that all Democrats seeking public office in Mississippi during the 60's endorse civil rights legislation. And the fact is that the Democratic Party didn't impose such a civil rights litmus test. It they did, we would probably have lost control of Congress much earlier.

[TankLV]

57. Homophobia? From IndianaGreen?

Did you pull that out of your ass all by yourself, or did you get some help with that stinker?

[BillZBubb]

11. Shows how deep Joe's loyalty to the Democratic party goes.

He's in it for Joe. If the Democrats don't support him, he'll go to whoever will.

A real Democrat would say: "I am the best candidate...but, if I don't win the party's nomination, I'll fully support our candidate. There in NO chance I would run as anything other than a Democrat!"

[ecoalex]

14. Dumpjoe's party is AIPAC

[goclark]

20. Doesn't surprise me

When I think back to the Gore events, he may have been a turn coat even then.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wicket]

16. Good luck with that Joe

:eyes:

[Demeter]

17. Lieberman Should Run for Cover

His responsibility for this mess is larger than most Democrats'....

[Terran1212]

53. X D EXACTLY!

[Chi-Town Exile]

19. Holy Joe, Just get it over with. Switch to the Republican Party already!

Just run as the Republican Party's candidate. Get the Hell out of the Democratic Party. We don't want you.

[DS1]

21. Joemented

[raysr]

24. Run Joe Run,......Away!

[newspeak]

25. why don't we just cut the bull

they can just call the new party, the Neo-Con Party and all of the DINOs and Neo Nazis, I mean repuke neo-cons can create their own party. Then they can leave the Progressive Democrats and "old party" Republicans alone!!!!! Instead of the plastic orchestrated debates, let the people see real debate--not this "safe" talking circle jerk where nothing meaningful is ever said. Let the people hear real truth, where no subject of debate is verboten. Where the gloves are off and come out swinging.

[SoCalDem]

49. We desperately need "new" parties

Fundamentalist Christian Party
Moderate Republican
Moderate Democratic
Progressive
Corporate Kiss-Ass Party

[lovuian]

26. Has this man turned into such a traitor to the Democratic Party

He must be loosing badly!!!

[IndianaGreen]

37. He loves Bush more, in a Brokeback sort of way

He should come out of the closet!

[wordpix]

29. wow, this is certainly a mixed message: he's considering running as indie

but he's running as a Dem: :shrug:

"I have not foreclosed the option," Lieberman said at a news conference at the Capitol. "If I wanted to run as an independent, I would. I'm running as a Democrat. I've been a Democrat all my life."
:shrug:

[dolstein]

33. I agree, it is a mixed message

If this story gets any traction, and given the left-wings rabid hatred of Lieberman, I suspect it may, then Lieberman will not doubt have to clarify his remarks. It's going to be hard for Lieberman to ask for the support of his party's primary voters if he's unwilling to rule out an independent candidacy. This isn't of course, a unique situation. Jacob Javitz, who was a liberal Republican senator from New York, ran for reelection as an independent when he was defeated by Alphonse D'Amato in the primary. But Lieberman's much more of a party loyalist than DU's (many of whom would fail the party loyalty test themselves) give him credit for. So I think at the end of the day he'll rule out an independent candidacy. For his sake, I hope he does this sooner rather than later.

[coalition_unwilling]

31. Hey Joe, why not go the full 9 yards and run as a Repuke?

(which is what he has become over the past 6+ years). And while you're at it, Joe, why don't you take all your DLC minions with you as well? That way, the Democratic Party can get back to defending the working class, instead of the corporat-ocracy.

[dolstein]

38. Because (a) he's a lifelong Democrat and (b) he's too liberal

Lieberman's a liberal on most issues. And the Iraq was is one of the few things on which Lieberman and Bush agree. The simple truth is that Lieberman is much too liberal to be a Republican. Lieberman becoming a Republican is no more likely to happen than McCain becoming a Democrat.

[IndianaGreen]

39. There is nothing liberal about supporting torture and wars of aggression

In an Orwellian way, Lieberman is the pig Squealer in Animal Farm that convinces the other animals to follow the Leader without question and that rationalizes everything the Leader says or does.

[coalition_unwilling]

40. If Lieberman's a liberal, I'm a Marxist. Oh, wait, I am a Marxist.

Seriously, though, I am not as fully educated on Lieberman's voting record as I could (and should) be. However, I really think the Iraq War is a defining moment for distinguishing Bush Democrats from real Democrats. I think a party purified of its DLC elements actually would serve the working class better over the long term.

Lieberman has some serious blood on his hands for Iraq, but he also strongly supports the Likkud faction in Israeli politics, not a position most liberals would adhere to, I suspect.

[dolstein]

44. "I think a party purified of its DLC elements actually would serve the . .

How exactly would a party from which all moderate members have been expelled serve the working class better? How exactly would a party that could only compete in around 20 states serve the working class better? And in case you haven't noticed, a lot of working class voters aren't anywhere near as liberal on social issues as DU'ers are. If you are going to respect the working class, shouldn't that extend to social issues?

Well, it least you admitted that you were a Marxist.

[coalition_unwilling]

48. You raise several interesting points. I guess the best way

to respond to all of them is to take you back to the debacle of the 1964 election, when Goldwater was trounced by LBJ. Following upon that electoral Waterloo, the Repukes decided to spend a long time building up their party's core ideologies and making strategic alliances with Christian conservatives. (I can't remember all the book-length sources for that assertion, so I can provide them tomorrow if you would like. I'll need to do a little research.)

So, how would a party that could only compete in 20 states currently help the working class? Maybe by consciously adopting a class-based strategy, rhetoric and analysis. Here's one concrete example I can think of right off hand: every Democratic congressional campaign, once the purification I spoke of had finished, should make as one of its core points "Tax the Rich". It's real simple, it's three words and it invites the middle class to ally with the working class against the upper-middle- and the upper-class.

Franky, I don't give a shit about "social issues," except to be amused and pained at how the working class allows itself to vote against its own interests because its members are afraid their child might be taught by a gay or lesbian. Less than 1% of the population controls (at last count) some 40% of the country's assets. And any time an upper-class bozo started railing about gays, immigrants or whatever, I'd counter with that statistic. What kind of values does a country have when almost half the country's assets are controlled by 1% of its population?

[ClarkBayh 2008]

41. Typical Democrat Loonies who want to lose

Why can't these nuts run in red states?
Republicans deserve to win since the Democratic party has not strategic vision or responsibility.

[onehandle]

54. Not ruling it out ends his career as a Democrat.

After this statement, it's time for the party to stop taking his calls. You can be as Conservative as you like, stand as close to Bush as you like, be as hawkish as you like and still "claim" to be a Democrat. Once you're open to not standing with your party, you are finished.

Get out, Joe.

[salin]

59. Two thoughts:

1) The article title sounds stronger than the quotes - as in "If I wanted to run as an independent, I would. I'm running as a Democrat. I've been a Democrat all my life." So not quite closing the door - the other statements are pretty strong per being a democrat.

That said - he does leave the door open.

2) His even leaving the door a tad bit open is not good for moderates - in the sense that for a number of years the mantra has been to the lefter side of the party: work through the primary system, and then work for the candidate - even if the candidate is a centrist, because if elected the candidate will vote with the party. Such a very public figure (vice presidential dem candidate in 2000) to even indicate that were he not successful in the primaries that he would work around the party and do the thing that moderates accuse the left of doing (divide the vote so that a republican becomes more likely to win) just validates the concern (valid or not) that believing in the primary system and then if the favored candidate doesn't win - still throw support behind because it will be "less worse..." It leaves the sense that only the left-of-center folks are asked to be loyal.

I witnessed local elections that followed this trend. Instead of running third party - there were several "green democrats" that ran in the primaries (and won the primaries) - one open seat, and one contested seat (where the 'green dem beat the sitting dem'). In the run up to the next election the unseated dem (in the prmiary) and the retiring dem (whose district went for the green dem rather than the traditional dem in the primary) campaigned openly for the republicans in the general election. Wrote letters to the editor and "starred" at campaign fundraisers for the republicans. The County Council in that electtion flipped and became republican controlled - in great part because of the former democrat county council members.

It becomes harder to expect loyalty from one flank of the party, when the other flank is willing to do exactly what they accuse the first flank of doing - in terms of defecting and then intentionally splitting the party.

I hope that the writer of the story is overstretching Sen. Lieberman's position (which my first point suggests might be the case) - as this only serves to spread distrust and split the party in the sense of one of the Key centrists suggesting that he would split the party vote - if the party doesn't vote for him.

I have watched this dynamic on a local level - hard to watch on the national level.

If his words are not misrepresented, it gets harder and harder to accept the centrist call to "let the (primary) system work".

[IndianaGreen]

63. 1972 taught me that loyalty was a one way street to party establishment

They all turned their backs on the Presidential nominee George McGovern and some even joined the Democrats for Nixon.

Those that ask for loyalty from the Left are the most disloyal to the American people's interests.