That thing Lieberman is doing? It's called extortion.

mojogeorgo

(321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jul-11-06 07:18 PM
Original message

That thing Lieberman is doing? It's called extortion.

Originally posted at Howard Empowered People

I don't know how I missed this before, but something finally clicked for me this morning as I was reading DFA-Marin's letter to Barbara Boxer, pleading with her not to campaign for Joe Lieberman.

Right after Joe Lieberman announced his intention to run as an independent even if he loses the Democratic primary, we started to hear reports of which prominent Democrats declared they would support whichever candidate won the primary. Maybe it's because I was so preoccupied with another blog at the time, but somehow, when I heard those statements from people like Hillary Clinton and others, I was initially satisfied with their responses. But when I read the letter asking Barbara Boxer not to campaign for Lieberman, I realized that leading Democrats were only being asked who they would support *after* the primary. In light of Lieberman's not-so-veiled threat to be a spoiler should he lose the primary, no prominent Democrat reward that kind of behavior with an endorsement. They certainly shouldn't be campaigning for him.

Read this exchange between Maura Keaney and the senator from Connecticut.

"My dad was a very loyal Democrat until he died. You mentioned how Irish American Democrats are great supporters because they're not fair-weather friends, and I totally agree. So why are you being a fair-weather Democrat, saying you'll only respect the results of the Democratic primary if you win?"

All of a sudden I found myself with a bunch of microphones in my face. Joe looked slightly stunned, and then started in on his usual talking points about how he wants even more Democrats to have a chance to vote for him in November and that not all Democrats know that they have to come out for a "hot day in August".

I said, "Don't you think Connecticut Democrats are smart enough to know on what day to vote?"

He said, "I hope so" and then started to wave me off.

I forget exactly what words I said after that (there is video and audio out there somewhere) but I said something like, "Look, if you win the Democratic primary, I'll be supporting you and I wish you would agree to support the winner, too" and he said, "Well, let's make sure I win in August, then!" and waved me away..."

Time and time again, Joe Lieberman has been asked why he will not support the nominee, and he has not given a satisfactory answer. Would people have accepted this from Howard Dean when he lost to Kerry in the primaries? Even Paul Hackett, who has taken some criticism for being a sore loser and not endorsing Sherrod Brown right away, has *always* said he would vote for the guy.

Lieberman has been whining about Lamont trying to impose a "litmus test" over his vote on Iraq. That, as many have already said, is a gross oversimplification of what this election is about. But you know what *should* be a Democratic litmus test? Agreeing to abide by the results of the primary.

Let's go back to that exchange between Lieberman and Maura. "Well, let's make sure I win in August, then!"

Lieberman has consistently dodged questions about how he can consider himself a loyal Democrat if he's already got a backup plan to run *against* the Democratic nominee, should that turn out not to be him. Instead, he says things like, "Well, let's make sure I win in August".

There's a word for what Joe Lieberman's doing. It's called extortion. And no Democrat should be rewarding that sort of behavior by endorsing or campaigning for Lieberman in the primary.