The Connecticut Campaign Trail

First in a series of bloggings about the electoral races which directly affect me this year.

Well, you all know by now that Lamont beat Lieberman for the Democratic party nomination for Lieberman's senate seat. Even if you don't follow politics, there was no way you could avoid the story. And Lieberman has made it quite clear that he will now run as an independent. The 52%-48% voter margin should give Joe plenty of incentive that he can still win it.

I have no objection to Lieberman running as an independent, per se. He complains that the Democratic party has been hijacked by extremists and that his devotion to the state of Connecticut demands that he run. On the surface, these sound like admirable ideals to an independent voter like myself, but Joe's either fooling himself, or trying to fool us.

The Philadelphia Inquirer does a bang up job analyzing the situation.

Issues aside, Lieberman also lost because he had too few friends at the street level. Tip O'Neill, the late House speaker, famously said that "all politics is local," and this race proved it. Local political leaders went years without hearing from him; earlier this summer, top Democrats in the town of Southbury complained - into an open mike at the state convention - that they had phoned Lieberman in January, and were still waiting for him to return the call.

Doesn't sound like dedication to the state of Connecticut to me. More likely, Joe thinks that after 18 years in the Senate, the seat is his until the day he dies. In my opinion, he's a pompous, self-serving ass. He's so full of himself, he can't imagine the people of Connecticut surviving without him. I've never liked Lieberman and never voted for him. While I don't condemn him for his choice to go into Iraq (unlike alot of Democrats), his other political views have grated me. He's out of touch with a great many of the people in this state, including me, as exemplified by his socially conservative stance.

For years, Democrats here have groused about, among other things, Lieberman's alliances with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Lynne Cheney on conservative values; his frequent guest shots on Sean Hannity's Fox show; his pro-GOP vote to keep Terri Schiavo alive; his belief that hospitals should not be required to provide emergency contraception to rape victims; his opposition, as a '70s state senator, to the legality of living wills; his skeptical views on affirmative action; his failure, during his 2000 vice presidential debate, to get tough with Dick Cheney.

The White House had this to say (from the Hartford Courant):

White House spokesman Tony Snow, meanwhile, called the primary "a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they're going to come after you."

But that simply isn't true. Just ask Cynthia McKinney (D), Georgia's first black congresswoman. She's berated W for her entire political career, but she lost the party nomination for her seat. She blames the media, of course.

No, this looks like what I, and fellow blogger, Mike, have been calling for since we started: Voting out the incumbents, no matter what their party affiliation, if they're not representing you. Other incumbents have fallen: Cunningham, Delay, Ney. Many more may follow. I hope so.

So now I have to figure out where Lamont stands on all the other issues. Iraq was the one that got him the nod. Is he more than that?

Schlesinger, the Republican candidate, doesn't have much hope as his gambling problems have led to mild mannered governor Rell (R) to ask him to step aside.

And I can't figure out if the Libertarian Party is even trying to field a candidate this year. Their website sucks and doesn't appear to have been updated since Harry Browne died in March. Not very reassuring.

You know, I was going to call this segment, "A Connecticut Citizen's Conundrum", but it seemed too wordy and too long. But, given my choices for the Senate, I'd say that it was accurate nonetheless.

\_/
DED