Centerblue.org

Speculation is percolating that Dick Cheney used his knowledge of the British plot investigation to bash Democrats, knowing the information would soon be made public (although he and Bush did not know when the British would announce it.) Cheney took the highly unusual step, after the Lieberman defeat, of calling together a news conference of reporters while on vacation in order to excoriate Democrats as being weak on national security:

“[Lieberman's defeat showed ]the direction the party appears to be heading when they in fact purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who just six years ago was their nominee for vice president [over his support for the war on terrorism.] What is particularly disturbing about it is from the standpoint of our adversaries … They clearly 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. [He wondered if] the dominant view of the Democratic Party [is] the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home.”

There are just so many things wrong with this. First, who does Cheney think he is, calling a news conference after a primary being held by the other party in order to comment on it? Second, it’s good to know how disgusted Cheney feels about the hundreds of thousands of people who turned out to vote for Lamont; it’s not the “party” that’s knows Iraq is a failure–it’s the American people who are coming to their senses. Doesn’t he read the polls? Third, it sure is an odd coincidence that Cheney would come out swinging at Dems over national security, knowing fully well of the unfolding plot in Britain, when you really haven’t heard much from him otherwise during this election season.

Maybe it’s not a coincidence, in which case Cheney played really dirty.

Joe Lieberman is being a selfish and self-entitled prick in the wake of his loss to Lamont Tuesday by insisting on running as an independent candidate. Not only is he demonstrating pompous self-importance, but his proclamations are serving as perfect sound bytes for Republicans desperate to paint Democrats as outside the mainstream. “For me, it is a cause, and it is a cause not to let this Democratic Party that I joined with the inspiration of President Kennedy in 1960 to be taken over by people who are so far from the mainstream of American life,” he said. Wow, words like that are the GOP’s dream come true–what better tactic for tarring Democrats as an extreme anti-war Left than for one of their own to be repeating this nonsense?

If Lieberman’s tantrum isn’t enough proof he’s helping Republicans, then Karl Rove’s call to Lieberman after the primary offering his support straight from the White House should remove all doubt.

“For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand,” he declared in his concession speech. How pompous. What his state, the country and the Democratic party really need is for him to stop sabotaging Democratic efforts to regain control of Congress in November. If Lieberman really cared about the Democratic Party instead of just keeping his patrician privileges he would shut his mouth, slink off into a corner, and reflect on why he has failed so miserably. The answer lies in him and not in the people who sought his political demise.

He thought it couldn’t happen. The Senate, a veritable “who’s who” of patrician demi-royalty, has a way of fomenting hubris in its members. They delude themselves into thinking they are invincible, infallible–entitled.

Lieberman obviously felt this way, blinding himself to the danger coming in his rearview mirror until it was entirely too late. He had little by way campaign organization to speak of–why should he have one, after all? He had been a senator for decades, had been a vice presidential candidate that won the popular vote, and even a presidential candidate himself. Who would dare challenge him?

He didn’t see Lamont coming until he had practically run Lieberman over with his campaign bus, a bus fueled with the pent up outrage of liberal bloggers and other Democrats who detest the policies of an administration gone terribly wrong. Lieberman chose to facilitate, accommodate, and apologize for the Bush machine and thus ensured his own defeat. His comeuppance was not the downfall of bipartisanship, it was the renunciation of a refusal to provide principled resistance when the nation needed and demanded it.

Having seen the truth too late, Lieberman now stubbornly refuses to admit defeat. In strident words before national television he sounded like a petulant child who had just been expelled from the playground:

“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, Team Connecticut, is going to surge forward to victory in November.

“I am, of course, disappointed by the results, but I am not discouraged. “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.”

It’s time for Lieberman to accept defeat and step out of the race, as this refusal to admit defeat looks ungracious and willful. If he really cares about his party and about the possibility of its gaining a majority in November then he should avoid a potentially divisive election that might actually hand a Democratic seat to a Republican candidate due to splitting of the Democratic vote.

He would also do well to reflect on what happened to him. He was sent to the Senate to represent his Iraq-weary consituents instead of to powder his patrician wig. He forgot that, and his voters have now called him to account.

Good-bye, Joe.

With 74% of precincts counted Lamont leads Lieberman 51.7% to 48.3% in today’s Connecticut primary. Turnout was described as heavy. Barring a miracle in the last 26% of precincts it appears Lieberman is going down in defeat.

It will be very interesting to see what effect this defeat has on Democrats, on Republicans, and on the election. Being seen as pro-war has clearly become toxic among Democrats and perhaps moderates as well.

Joe Lieberman is claiming his campaign website was hacked. The site has been down since 7 AM. Lieberman claims the site was hacked by Lamont supporters to prevent voters from getting information about the senator on the day of his primary against Lamont. However he doesn’t have any proof of who or what is responsible. His campaign has submitted the matter to the Connecticut attorney general.

A Lieberman loss to challenger Ned Lamont in this week’s Connecticut primary could be a watershed moment for Democrats that might embolden the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party. It’s about time.

Even presumed 2008 frontrunner Hillary Clinton is getting the message, as her continued “triangulation” to come up with the best message translated into a testy exchange with Donald Rumsfeld as he testified before Congress this week, along with her subsequent demand for his resignation.

It’s time for Democrats to insist about the truth for Iraq. The truth is that Iraq may devolve into civil war, and according to some measures may already be there. The truth is that we didn’t do our homework about Iraqi history and culture before invading and we are now paying the price. The truth is that it is time to bring the troops home, not because we want to cut and run but because we need to cut our losses short.

We went into Iraq with arrogant notions of imposing Jeffersonian democracy. The people of Iraq are not like the American pilgrims and colonists of two centuries ago, who may have had their differences but were united in their desire for freedom from British oppression and agreed on principles of non-sectarian democracy. The Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis of Iraq seem more interested in killing each other and preserving ethnic enclaves than they are in working together to implement foreign ideas about democracy. Islam itself is arguably incompatible with democracy as we understand it, for there is no separation of “church and state.” Islam is considered a way of life that cannot help but guide and inform government officials and decisionmaking. Our fundamental lack of understanding of another culture has led to the downfall of our enterprise in Iraq.

Republicans seem unwilling to tell the bitter truth about Iraq. If it takes a Lieberman loss to unite the Democrats, then so be it. It’s one thing to be bipartisan, it is quite another to facilitate the descent of our nation into a dunderheaded police state that invades first and asks questions later.

Senator Lieberman must be sweating as a new Quinnipiac University poll shows his primary opponent Ned Lamont holding a 54% to 41% advantage over him. Not even a visit by former President Bill Clinton is helping (who is graciously helping Lieberman despite being kicked by him while Clinton was down during the Lewinsky scandal.)

This primary is remarkable in that it is showing the power of bloggers’ “netroots” movement in stirring up anti-war anger against Lieberman, as the liberal blogosphere detests him for being Bush’s stooge. It remains to be seen just how far that power goes.

Today’s New York Times editorial page endorsed Ned Lamont in his primary challenge against Connecticut’s struggling Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, and condemned the senator in stunningly harsh tones.

Mr. Lieberman is not just a senator who works well with members of the other party. And there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, he has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration’s most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.

Citing national security, Mr. Bush continually tries to undermine restraints on the executive branch: the system of checks and balances, international accords on the treatment of prisoners, the nation’s longtime principles of justice. His administration has depicted any questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. And Mr. Lieberman has helped that effort. He once denounced Democrats who were “more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq” than on supporting the war’s progress.

At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman’s ability to command Republicans’ attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president’s defender.

…

If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.

Wow. I have to agree. Bi-partisanship is a good thing…but if Lieberman had his way he would allow Bush to trample the Constitution unimpeded. At a time when America is finally waking up to the severity and causes of its problems, we just no longer need someone like Joe Lieberman.