Joe Lieberman has gained respect in his three-term U.S. Senate career as a centrist Democrat who is able to work with Republicans to get things done. Though I do not agree with him on every issue (his support of abortion rights, his opposition to the tax-cuts which are profoundly responsible for today’s strong economy), he consistently comes across as a man guided by principle rather than by public opinion polls. For example, Lieberman has supported school vouchers (as I do) and criticized affirmative action. As the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee alongside Al Gore in 2000 and candidate for President in 2004, Lieberman can in no way be characterized as a “closet republican.”
Which is why it is all the more shameful that prominent Democrats are abandoning him in his pursuit of a fourth Senate term. Lieberman seemed invincible in his Aug 8 Democratic Primary face-off with little-known liberal Democrat Ned Lamont until just a few months ago, when everything began to unravel. The key issue seems to be the left-wing of the Democratic Party seeking retribution for Lieberman’s support of the Iraq War. Multi-millionaire Lamont is an outspoken war critic. In addition to an otherwise well-financed campaign (Lamont has spent $1.5 million of his own money), Lamont has also received considerable support from antiwar bloggers.
Shailagh Murray writes in today’s WaPo of Lieberman’s eroding base. Irving Stolberg, former speaker of the Connecticut House, and close friend of Lieberman since the 1960s has now publicly supported Lamont. “It’s been a wrenching decision. I’ve supported him every step,” Stolberg said of Lieberman. “But the issues and the principles trump 40 years of friendship.”
To make matters worse, today’s New York Times features a scathing editorial against Lieberman, publicly endorsing Lamont less than 10 days from the Primary in a race too close to call.
Shailagh Murray notes that “Lieberman is accustomed to the rough and tumble of politics, and can be combative in his own defense, as he showed during a recent debate. But he [Lieberman] said he has been jarred by the intensity of Democratic anger toward Bush — and, by extension, toward him. Liberal bloggers have called Lieberman a ‘liar’ and a ‘weasel.'”
Lieberman noted that it is not just opposition to Bush, but a deep hatred that he perceives. If he’s correct, that will not bode well for the Democratic Party.
I predict that Lieberman will lose on August 8, and wish him my regrets in advance.