by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 9, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

etting spanked at the polls, three-term U.S. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), a onetime Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000, learned a bitter lesson that cozying up to an unpopular incumbent can boomerang. President George W. Bush squandered immense popularity following Sept. 11, taking his approval ratings to nearly 90%. Since the Iraq war March 20, 2003, Bush watched his approval plummet to under 40%, among the lowest in modern history since the unhappy days of Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Jimmy Carter. Lieberman found out the hard way that siding with Bush wasn't the best blueprint for the Democratic Party, swallowing the old wisdom that centrism of the Democratic Leadership Council helped beat Bush's father and elect Bill Clinton in 1992. If it weren't for third-party candidate Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot, it's doubtful Clinton would have won.

      Political neophyte cable TV millionaire Ned Lamont scored an impressive win, sending a loud message to the Democratic Party to change its position on Iraq before 2008 presidential elections. When the votes were tallied, Lamont eked out a 2% margin, after opinion polls spotted him a 13% lead one week before Election Day. Lieberman finished strong because Connecticut's liberal voters realized the insanity of sending a novice to Washington. Lieberman will now be forced to run as an independent to save his job. With Republicans running a weak, scandal-plagued candidate, there's little doubt Lieberman will retain his base and win the lion's share of GOP, independent and crossover voters, returning him to D.C. by a comfortable margin. While Lamont basked in his improbable victory, he faces an uphill battle getting Connecticut's moderate voters to go along.

      Embracing Bush lock, stock and barrel pushed Lieberman out of the Democratic Party, a nasty price for defending the president's costly mistakes. Instead of supporting the war on terror, Lieberman rubber-stamped Bush Iraq war, where there's no evidence it advances the war on terror or helps U.S. national security. Lieberman, an orthodox Jew, sometimes mixes his support for Israel with the Iraq war. There's also no evidence Iraq played a role in global terror, other than paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers. “The old politics of polarization won today,” said Lieberman at his concession speech. “For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that stand,” failing to heed voters' message that the Iraq war barks up the wrong tree. Lieberman's relationship to the White House cost him his party affiliation, now forcing him to run as an independent to hold his job.

      While other Democrats closed ranks, Lieberman won plaudits from the GOP for denouncing Clinton in the senate for his affair with Monica Lewinsky in 1998. On virtually every issue other than Iraq, Lieberman has been consistently liberal supporting abortion, trade unions, immigration reform, national healthcare, etc. “As I see it, in this campaign, we've just finished the first half. And the Lamont team is ahead, but in the second half our team—the Connecticut team—is going surge forward to victory,” promised Lieberman, though he'll no longer belong to the Democratic Party. Had Lieberman provided less photo-ops with Bush and qualified his support for the Iraq war, he wouldn't have sabotaged his campaign. For Connecticut's proud son who once enjoyed immense popularity while running for president, Lieberman took for granted Democrats' support.

      Running as an independent presents its own problems bucking the two-party establishment, where party loyalists will give Lamont his due. Post-election analysis indicated that the Connecticut primary was more than a referendum on Iraq. “I believe this is the most significant election of all for Democrats that are running,” said liberal California congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), hoping that Connecticut's vote constitutes a repudiation of the Bush presidency. While Iraq played a part, Connecticut Democrats resented Lieberman's inappropriately close ties to the White House. “If it sounds like George W. Bush and acts like George W. Bush, it's certainly not a Connecticut Democrat,” said Lamont, playing to voters' discontent with Lieberman's triangulation, the process of strategically playing chameleon to siphon off opponents' votes.

      Party activists and left-wing extremists haven't liked Lieberman's fence-sitting, making him indistinguishable from the White House on foreign policy. Democrats would be foolhardy believing that Lieberman's loss is only a referendum on Iraq. Since denouncing Clinton in 1998, Lieberman allowed his religiosity to infect his public views, including his support of Bush's futile Iraq policy. Democrats didn't desert Lieberman because he supports the Iraq war. They jumped ship because his support for Israel blinded him from seeing the failure of the Bush policy, bogging the nation down in the costliest rebuilding project in the nation's history. If Lieberman shows the same unqualified support for Bush, his independent candidacy will falter. Whether Democrats, independents or crossover Republicans, Connecticut's voters reject Bush's domestic program and reckless foreign policy.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.