Joe Lieberman: The Thing That Wouldn't Leave

The junior senator from Connecticut may yet get another chance to save his state, his country, and his party from the horrific prospect having his own political career come to an end. Rasmussen gives Lieberman a plurality lead over Ned Lamont: 46 percent to Lamont's 41 percent. Wiping up the rear, Republican Alan Schlesinger registers a pathetic six percent, having been abandoned by his own party and left for dead by the media. A few weeks of numbers like these and Lieberman's wavering fellow Democrats will be able to jump back in for the big win.

Feel the Joementum. It couldn't be a more fitting apotheosis for Joe Lieberman: He'll be the first politician ever to score an official win on the Republocrat ticket.

"The Thing That Wouldn't Leave" sketch from Saturday Night Live.

Thomas Berger's surreal comedy of manners The Houseguest was inspired by "The Thing That Wouldn't Leave."

Here's the only Lamont I'll ever vote for.

Comments

[Ashish George]

I wouldn't count on that lead lasting too long. The more time he spends in the race, the more he'll be seen as a distraction within his own party.

[Pig Mannix]

I wouldn't count on that lead lasting too long. The more time he spends in the race, the more he'll be seen as a distraction within his own party.

I'd agree - it's likely that as the election approaches, Democrats will rally around the party candidate. And 3rd party candidates typically do better in pre-election polls than they do in the actual elections. Of course, this is politics. Who knows what will actually happen? I wouldn't want to put money on it, either way.

[Morat20]

No kidding. A five point lead? For the incumbent? An incumbent in a liberal state who just lost his own primary?

Were Lieberman firing on all cylinders, he'd already be looking for a graceful way out.

[Hmmm]

Joe Lieberman is the most Republicratic member of the Senate. That's why hard-core Democrats who want a party that actually has leftist policies rather than a GOP Lite organisation went after him.

[Marcvs]

I've always heard that if the incumbent isn't polling over 50% that that's bad news for him getting reelected. That might only count if it's a two party election, but I can't believe it is good for a three-term senator to only be polling at 46%.

That said, there's always the flipside where people said they were going to vote for Lamont, but then change their mind when they get into the voting booth because deep down they bought into the "Lieberman is the security candidate, Lamont is the al-Queda candidate" rhetoric.

Personally, I just want the damn thing over with already.

[Simony]

Yeah, my Connecticut relatives are most eloquent in recollecting Vinegar Joe's hysterical senate.gov response to Michael Newdow.

Being a mild-mannered scolding supernaturalist is among the disqualifications. To blame his statements concerning Iraq seems like a canard. I truly appreciate Tim Cavanaugh's "Gleeful Obituary" of August 9.

(They mostly refer to him as "Judge Whitey" ala Futurama [practised folksy affect on a snake-in-the grass]: pretty sure I started that.)

[Damian P.]

If I were Lieberman, I'd be begging the hapless Schlesinger to stay in the race, to avoid being seen as the de facto GOP candidate. Mind you, most Hit and Run readers probably see him that way anyway, but at least the presence of an official Republican candidate gives him a bit of cover. As for vote-splitting, if you're still supporting Schlesinger at this point, I don't think anything would make you vote for a Democrat, "independent" or otherwise.

If Schlesinger's website is any indication, I don't think he ever expected to win this thing even before Lamont showed up:

http://www.schlesinger2006.com/

[Akira MacKenzie]

Yeah, my Connecticut relatives are most eloquent in recollecting Vinegar Joe's hysterical senate.gov response to Michael Newdow.

Just for the tally books, what did Joe say about Newdow?

[kevrob]

The SNL character Joe most resembles is Doug Whiner, played by Joe Piscopo. I wonder if Lieberman suffers from diverticulitis?

Kevin

[Simony]

Akira,

http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=208001&&

Maybe "hysterical" was unfair to the spirit of the thing. Hypomanic? He certainly does not understand what "deism" means (for the prepositional "under God", howler).

Might he have been the first Senator to call for amending the Constitution?
[Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., called for a constitutional amendment to leave the pledge intact. "There may have been a more senseless, ridiculous decision issued by a court at some time, but I don't remember it," said the White House hopeful. -Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com Thursday, June 27, 2002]

[Robert]

"3rd party candidates typically do better in pre-election polls than they do in the actual elections."

That doesn't go for clear front runners. Perot was almost in that status briefly in 1992, but he peaked with a technical lead at a time there wasn't really a clear front runner at all. Lieberman's ahead by 5 over #2, and nobody else is even close, so it's effectively a 2-man race. If anything, I expect his lead to grow a little by the next poll, because a few might've been deterred from naming a "3rd" candidate as their preference, but won't now that he's 1st.

[Eric the .5b]

No kidding. A five point lead? For the incumbent? An incumbent in a liberal state who just lost his own primary?

Were Lieberman firing on all cylinders, he'd already be looking for a graceful way out.

Alternately, we can look at this situation as "Wait a minute, the candidate cast out by the Democratic party faithful in a liberal state is still polling within the error bars of the sanctified Democrat?"

[Eric the .5b]

Joe Lieberman is the most Republicratic member of the Senate. That's why hard-core Democrats who want a party that actually has leftist policies rather than a GOP Lite organisation went after him.

Lovely. So the random drop-in idiots who show up periodically to demand that libertarians join the Democrats - which of these two charming sides are they on?

[Akira MacKenzie]

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., called for a constitutional amendment to leave the pledge intact. "There may have been a more senseless, ridiculous decision issued by a court at some time, but I don't remember it," said the White House hopeful. -Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com Thursday, June 27, 2002

Sigh...It makes me wonder what ever happened to the stereotypical Democrat who'd was often accused of being in bed with the ACLU for their opinions on free speech and church/state issues.

Now we have Leibermann and HRC playing God-politics, while they sound like right wing assholes (e.g. Bill Bennett and Robert Bork) regarding flag burning and media, and I don't hear one peep from other Democrats who have been traditionally linked to civil liberties issues.

Where have all the "liberal Democrats" gone? I don't like their economic policies but at least we used to count on them (for the most part) on free speech issues and keeping religion out of politics. Have the Republicans really pushed the country so far to the Right that even the Dems need to play up to the JEEZ-us fucks to get votes?

[Ruthless]

Why would anyone want Lieberman to leave? All this tomfoolery is just democracy.
If you were a victim, I mean citizen, of Iraq, you would be understanding democracy by now.
Democracy means reality... like that stain on the front of Monica's dress.
Democracy is like the Blob: a stain that keeps on giving and spreading.

[D.A. Ridgely]

What, Mr. Cavanaugh? No support for the Lamont who, like so many successful politicians, has the power to cloud men's mind?

[peachy]

I agree, Akira my man; HRC and Lieberman combine the worst traits of both parties - the overweening paternal domestic statism of the Dems and the drum-pounding security-at-all-costs statism of the Reps. It used to be that you could count on the Dems for support on the socially liberal side of things, and Reps on the economically conservative side... but at the moment, for a libertarian, the key players on both sides are totally unreliable. (At least the Brits have the Lib-Dems, who are pinkish economically but have the balls to stand up for civil liberties and responsible foreign policy. Where's our Ming the Merciless, dammit?)

[Ayn_Randian]

Ok, peachy and Akira, just when was this mythical time we could count on letists to be good on social freedoms? I believe that stretching back to the Progressives runs a good history of eugenics, prohibitionism (alcohol and otherwise) and, oh yeah, that famous Progressive FDR and his wonderful "put the yellows in them thar camps".

Stop buying into the lies. Republicans have never been good at economic freedoms, they just talk the game...same goes for the left.

Both parties suck....film at 11.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Ok, peachy and Akira, just when was this mythical time we could count on letists to be good on social freedoms?

Well, those hippies weren't exactly Republicans, weren'they?

[Hmmm]

"Lovely. So the random drop-in idiots who show up periodically to demand that libertarians join the Democrats - which of these two charming sides are they on?"

Only in your imagination. I stated that he was Republicratic inasmuch as he encourages the tendency for there to be little appreciable difference between Republicans and Democrats--especially in the Democrats' failure to have a foreign policy that even constitutes an opposition agenda.

Why do you assume that I am somehow suggesting that the leftist argument is somehow libertarian-friendly? You assume the criticism of the convergence of the two parties is a declaration of support for any opposition that may arise. Rather, it is the identification of opposition as such when it finally dares to appear; it may be refreshing to see it, but it would be ignorant to say that it's any more correct at the end of the day.

[belle waring]

Lovely. So the random drop-in idiots who show up periodically to demand that libertarians join the Democrats - which of these two charming sides are they on?

hey, now, demand is a bit strong. I more just shuffle around saying things like, "hey, how's that supporting the republican party thing working out for you, libertarians?" and say what you like about the motives of the Lamont-leaning nutmeg staters, it is pretty much logically impossible for any candidate to be more statist, along every concievable axis, that Joe Lieberman. he moderates his willingness to spend big on social programs with a willingness to regulate video games! offsets his affirmative action support with enthusiasm for regime change and military-style democracy promotion!

[kevrob]

I don't get the blow-ins' points. Some libertarians support the Libertarian Party. Others organized the Republican Liberty Caucus. Another bunch started the Democratic Freedom Caucus. Some libertarians pick and choose among the various candidates on an ad hoc basis. Still others don't hold with voting at all. (Is the League of Non-Voters still around?)

Remember all the folks who advocated here back in 2004 that the best outcome would be a GOP Congress and a Dem prez, or vice versa, because we distrusted either party having full power?

BTW, Cranston wasn't The Shadow. That Lamont was one of the Master's many disguises. Oh, sure, there was a "real" Cranston, but he mostly stayed out of New York, and was as much of an agent of The Master as Shrevnitz or Vincent.

Kevin

[Jim Walsh]

You big sillies - you have to realize that Joe is a really fantastic Senator, a fine American who was knocked out of commission by the neo-Stalinist wing of his own already neo-Stalinist party.

Kathleen Parker at the Post says so, so it must be true...

[Fred Sanford]

Lamont? Senator from Connecticut? Oh, this is the big one! You hear that, Elizabeth? I'm comin' to join ya, honey!

[bubba]

I don't understand why Joe would leave the race. He's the incumbent. He's got the middle ground in a liberal state that does occasionally elect Republicans to state-wide office.

This is a liberal state, not a Lefty state. Joe is a liberal, but not a lefty. He didn't lose the primary by much. There's no credible competition from the Right. Why wouldn't he stay in the race?

Why wouldn't he want to stick it to the Dem machine that abandoned him?