The Tale of a Sore Loser
August 12, 2006 on 1:44 pm | In Main, State |
The following is a sneak peak at an editorial I wrote for The Lakeville Journal. It will appear in the Aug. 17 print edition. The photo is courtesy of Joe’s Senate Web site.
When a politician loses a battle, listening to his concession speech can be a most revealing moment. Such is the case with Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary last week to upstart challenger Ned Lamont.
“I am, of course, disappointed by the results,” Lieberman told his supporters at the Hartford Hilton. “I’m disappointed not just because I lost, but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand.”
Lieberman is correct in his assessment of the hyper-partisan atmosphere in contemporary politics. But what’s more partisan and polarizing than rejecting the decision of the voters of the party you claim loyalty to? What’s more divisive than attacking the victor who now has the backing of most of the Democratic power brokers statewide and nationally?
In his decision to proceed with an independent candidacy, Lieberman has been unmasked as a sore loser and a sanctimonious pretender to the mantle of savior of the nation and his party. And last week, he attempted to use a terrorist plot foiled by British intelligence to his own political advantage, telling people in a Waterbury pizzeria that if our troops are withdrawn from Iraq, as Lamont has suggested, “it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England.”
This is a sad outcome to what has otherwise been a solid career.
The conventional wisdom among many observers, including the national pundits who obsessed on this race, is that the war in Iraq and Lieberman’s unflinching support of it were the only causes of his demise. While the war played a large role, Lieberman could probably have survived the Democratic primary if he had done a better job of taking care of business at home.
The simple truth is that since becoming Al Gore’s vice presidential running mate in 2000, Lieberman has grown out of touch and has become unresponsive to his constituents.
Stephen Senzer, chair of the Cornwall Democratic Town Committee and president of the Democratic Coalition of Northwest Connecticut, suspects as much. An erstwhile Lieberman supporter, Senzer said his committee has written letters of inquiry to both Lieberman and Connecticut’s other senator, Christopher Dodd. Dodd’s office almost always responds but Lieberman apparently couldn’t be bothered. Senzer’s experience with Lieberman is consistent with ours at this newspaper. Calls to Dodd’s office for comment or information are consistently returned, sometimes by the senator himself. Communications with Lieberman’s office typically go unanswered.
As a story in the Hartford Courant last week suggested, Connecticut’s three Republican House members, all of whom are facing tough reelection battles, are hoping Lieberman’s presence on the ballot in November will boost Republican turnout and help ensure their own respective victories. The Democrats are said to be very close to regaining control of the House of Representatives in 2006. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Lieberman’s independent candidacy aided the reelection of Reps. Nancy Johnson, Chris Shays and Rob Simmons, thus assuring the Democrats don’t take back the house? If reelected as an independent in that scenario, Lieberman’s standing among Democrats would be at an all-time low. Could he be an effective senator? The answer is obvious.
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
I really can’t believe that republicans are going to turn out in droves to vote for Lieberman. If he does stay in the race as an independent, I think that Lamont will soundly beat him in that race just like he did in the Democratic primary. It gives me hope that enough of us voted for Lamont to get him on the ticket. I suspect that the congressional races will be won or lost on the strength of the respective candidates in those races (which is as it should be).
I do appreciate the issue being addressed though, thanks,
~c
Comment by charlie derr — August 12, 2006 #
Terry:
politics makes strange bedfellows…
I truly believe that Joe Lieberman has been a stronger Senator for Connecticut than Chris Dodd. He has more influence, and much more visibility. That said, if the Democrats choose to throw him out, and he runs as an Independent, and he realy believes that hogwash about a bi-partisan agenda, and he wins, he should resign the Democratic party and become an Independent. Myself, I have never been a one-issue voter, thats where I think Democrats made a mistake in dumping Joe. I still insist they got the wrong guy…it should have been Dodd!!! Oh well, back to my campaign…
Vote Miles for Senate in 2006, a true man from the sticks!
Comment by Marshall Miles — August 12, 2006 #
Terry:
I’m not sure Lieberman qualifies as a “sore loser.” After all, he “rejected” the Democratic Party only after the Democrats rejected him, as is their right. And it’s Lieberman’s right to run as a petitioning candidate. He’s doing nothing wrong or illegal. Thank heavens there’s another way to get on the ballot without pandering to the extremists who seem to dominate the nominating process. A recent Newsweek article points out how members of the Senate’s moderate “Gang of 14″ — Democrats and Republicans — put their re-election prospects in jeopardy because of their willingness to put partisan rancor aside for the good of the country. Apparently, voting with your party only 90 percent of the time makes you a traitor in the eyes of some people, both on the left and the right. I have no problem with divided government (after the past six years, I’ve even decided it’s preferable), but do we want to split our country even further?
Comment by Steve Barlow — August 13, 2006 #
Joe is not a sore loser; he is fortunate that the Republicans don’t have a viable candidate. So, given the choice of Ned v. Joe v. Schlessinger, Joe will win. People tend to vote for the established name; look at Ted Kennedy. With his “moral” record he doesn’t have to campaign to win in a landslide.
The power of the leftists wasn’t quite as big as I thought. Lamont did win, but not by the huge amount predicted. That is the main reason, I think, that Joe is running as an Indy. Lamont needs more than a single issue campaign and I don’t see one developing.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — August 14, 2006 #
Steve,
Certainly it’s Joe’s right to run on his own. I’ve also heard rumblings of McCain/Lieberman in 2008 as a 3rd party ticket. If so, the more power to them. I wonder what the Gang of 14 would have to say about that.
As for the implications nationally, I think too much is being made of one primary in the middle of the summer. As I stated in the piece, I’m almost certain Joe could have survivied this primary if he had simply been a better, more responsive senator over the last six years — war or no war.
Comment by Terry — August 15, 2006 #