Independent pollster Research 2000 conducted a recent poll of Connecticut voters:
For whom did you vote for in the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?
Lieberman Lamont Schlesinger All 49 42 9 Dem 34 62 4 Rep 67 10 23 Ind 53 41 6 If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?
Lieberman Lamont Schlesinger All 40 48 10 Dem 25 72 3 Rep 69 7 24 Ind 38 49 9
The main takeaway from this survey is obvious. If the 2006 election were held today, Ned Lamont would be the U.S. Senator from Connecticut and Joe Lieberman would be getting ready for afternoons of chasing the neighborhood kids off his lawn. But beyond that, the survey also reveals the continuing disintegration of the frames that have defined (and misconstrued) the reality of our current political debates.
What’s interesting about this slow changing of opinions is that the biggest shifts come from independent and Democratic voters, but there’s almost no difference at all from Republicans. I think Democrats in Connecticut have clearly been disappointed at how Lieberman hasn’t just abandoned Democrats, but is still actively fighting against them. But for independents, there are likely other reasons for the shift. Independent voters tend to see themselves as moderates. They see themselves as being appalled by both extremes and parties and look for candidates with the courage to stand somewhere in the middle. But while there’s certainly extremism at both ends of our political spectrum, the extremism that drove the Iraq War has become the overriding divide in recent elections, and especially in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race. Being somewhere inbetween the two parties was no longer the most anti-extremist position.
As this divide has taken shape, Joe Lieberman occupied a fairly unique space, and his example is a good way to understand the shifting views of independents and moderates. He’s gone from being the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee to losing a Democratic Senate primary in the span of less than 6 years. But his overall view of the world hasn’t really changed that much. He’s always been a staunch authoritarian. But back before 9/11, his main targets weren’t Iran and Syria, they were video games and the music industry. As a college student during this time, it helped cultivate for me the image of left-wing extremism through political correctness.
The Bush Administration’s war in Iraq then completely shuffled the deck on what we consider to be left and right. The right-wing in this country pre-9/11 was defined more by their free market economic outlook, but following the attacks, it began to redefine itself through the war on terror. Joe Lieberman went from being an authoritarian left-wing nanny who threatened the bottom line of big business to seeing his authoritarian outlook fall perfectly in line with a party eager to drop bombs on the enemies of Israel. But while his political philosophies were always rooted in authoritarian extremism, his diversion from the Democratic Party was painted as “moderation” for being willing to stand up to the supposed “far-left”.
And thus the “moderate” Lieberman was seen by voters as being the centrist candidate – a bi-partisan independent who could relate to both Democrats and Republicans – and defeated Ned Lamont. But being a centrist does not make you a moderate. A moderate is just the opposite of an extremist. And a growing number of independents in Connecticut now realize, as Joe continues to cheer on this deeply unpopular war, and begging for another, that he’s no moderate at all. He’s the same crazy extremist he’s always been, and now his extremism is promoting an agenda much more dangerous than restrictions on video games. And in the new political climate we find ourselves in – defined greatly by how we view what’s happening in Iraq – the “left” is where all the moderates are, while the “right” is where all the extremists have ended up.
Locally, the Burner-Reichert 2006 Congressional race took on a lot of the same frames as the Senate race in Connecticut. Reichert was portrayed by many as a moderate and as having an independent streak. He appealed to independent voters in the district and won re-election. Burner, like Lamont, was a young and inexperienced candidate tied closely to the netroots community through their high-tech backgrounds, and was continually portrayed as an extremist, simply by adhering fairly closely to the Democratic Party platform. Yet Dave Reichert has now just returned from Iraq and is still enthusiastically supporting a war that has become deeply unpopular. He has never voted against the president, nor has he spoken out against any of the extremist tactics (secret prisons, warrantless spying, pre-emptive warfare) he’s employed for fighting terrorism. Darcy Burner has never taken any position even close to as extremist as what Dave Reichert now currently supports. Yet I’m sure we’ll continue to hear from the Republicans about how Burner is the more “extremist” candidate. As independent Connecticut voters have started to figure out that the labels of who was a moderate and who was an extremist in 2006 were reversed, it’s not hard to imagine that the independent voters in the 8th District of Washington are doing the same.
I believe many incumbents may have problems in the next election . Lieberman is not alone with the public’s disenchantment with Congress.
People wanted change , so Bush is allowing the troop numbers to fall , but are not those numbers what they were when the last Congressional election was held . So even the left is ticked with their own , the right has had feelings of being abandoned for a long time . Goldie thinks its because liberalism is catching on , which makes sense if you are full of your own opinions . People are fed up,
Yet nothing but rhetoric comes out of DC. They can’t even take testimony from a General they all appointed and voted for without a circus and political activists taking the talking points and making the news .
Americans are all in this together .
Reichert may not be the environmental bogeyman I think many would like him to be (for their convenience), but his support for this ever-more-unpopular-and-un”win”nable war has never wavered. He’ll pay the price.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler......t_War.html
Good Article! Check it out if you have a few minutes:
Crackpot Realists and Permanent War
by Ann Berg…
“While economic pundits point fingers at loose lending for the malodor in the housing market that is now filling the noses of financiers, they miss the primary cause: permanent war. Permanent war has caused the nation’s institutions – political, social, and economic – to be organized into an impervious structure without which war could not be tolerated or financed.”
Jeez, I know the Seahawks are playing, but saddle up, people. These Republicans won’t beat themselves…
Lee,
I think you know you and I disagree a lot on this issue.
In my opinion Iraq is the straw that broke or (hopefully) is breaking the back of a radical party. From Reagan until now, the Republican part has become ossified in a straight jacket of irrational points of view that have no logical consistency. The bizarre way this war was fought and the residual support for it are examples of this rigidity and irrationality, Lemmings and brontsauri come to mind.
Even without Iraq, Radical Republicanism .. like Franco’s fascism or Breshnev’s communism, was going to die because reality always wins. Eventually the economic or scientific fallacies would bring the thing down.. the danger being something worse. Look at the failure of Czarism or the Fernch revolution and give thanks that the failure of our very first George, that is the IIIrd, was resolved with people as rational as Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Marshll and Jefferson.
The reason I do not agree with you is that on most issues other than Iraq, Lieberman is not a Radical Republican and, if he were to switch parties L. would be pretty baldy received.
Before exulting that the war has cost Lieberman his followers, I think dems need to ask what the party itself will stand for when it is in full power. The Dems also also have irrationalists. AFIK I could see during the campaign Lamont was a one issue guy, Is there more more there? .
Cyndy Sheehan, in my book, is no more a rational person than Ollie North.
Fortunately Obama, Clinton are very rational people .. that is where we all better go.
@4
The reason I do not agree with you is that on most issues other than Iraq, Lieberman is not a Radical Republican and, if he were to switch parties L. would be pretty baldy received.
He’s already essentially switched parties, and he’s beloved by most Republicans today.
AFIK I could see during the campaign Lamont was a one issue guy, Is there more more there?
Lamont was actually great on high tech issues because of his background (net neutrality, for example). That’s something we certainly need more of in government as our dealings with a high tech world continue to evolve.
Cyndy Sheehan, in my book, is no more a rational person than Ollie North.
That’s true, and that’s why she’s running against Pelosi. But while Sheehan is running against a popular Democrat in a primary, North fits right in to his current party.
4 sj
I couldn’t disagree more on your take on the 2006 CT Senate race. Lieberman won the race (with barely 50% of the vote) because about 67% of the state’s Republicans voted for him instead of for the Republican candidate. It was not because Lamont was a “one-issue guy.”
But really, you think that “dems need to ask what the party itself will stand for when it is in full power?” Really?
Sure, let’s start with an end to the Republicans’ endless war. But how about health insurance for all Americans? Rooting Bush politicization out of the governmental departments people depend on to provide services? Repairing our broken miltary and our relationships with our worldwide allies in the fight against terrorism? Reducing our dependence on oil and shifting our subsidies to renewable and alternative sources of energy? Building an economy that lifts all boats and not just the yachts? Protecting voting rights for all Americans?
Democrats have ALWAYS known what they stand for. The meme that they do not is scurrilous GOP propaganda, amplified by the conservative media.
Just do it: http://www.dnc.org/agenda.html
But you all saw the story on inherent capabilities. We will win because times have changed, so have we, and Republicans can’t change.
Re: Lamont, Wikipedia sez:
I’m sorry–was that your foot? I’m taking kind of a wide stance…
@3
Actually, I submit that they’re doing just that.
Daddy Love: I thought Chucky “I have your personal papers Michael Steele” Schumer was leading the charge against Samuel Alito?
Golly Lee: I think Lieberman votes Moonbat! more that you want to credit him with!
http://www.vote-smart.org/voti.....d=S0141103
@7 Daddy ..
Reasonable comments but I think you are naive about how f’d uo the dems can get too.
A lot of what you list as dem objectives are objectives that both parties should seek ,, as Clinton showed in the best Republican regime ever.
The bad news for the dems is that the major shift today is vs, Bush not vs conservatism. The latter tool kit remains useful on the right. The success of the Terminator in Cal is a good example of how much the public wants realism and does not care about party labels.
As for Lamont, the number of CT voters influenced by his stand on net neutrality is too small to matter. Remove the war issue and I challenge you to find a chink in Lieberman’s armor.
Finally, the real danger now is that the dem leaders may be forced to Sheehanesque answers. Richardson and Edwards have already made tis mistake. A fucked up end to Iraq, aside form ebing moraly and geopolitically wrong, could be tremendous ammo for a neopublican of the Mccain, Hagel, etc breed,
I know this is an SJ thing, but I believe that the first candydate who announces that she or he has noticed the lack of clothes on Bush and his immediate aides will hit it big with the public,
The problem facing Pubies is that they would lose primary voted just as a demo who endorses any realistic plan for Iraq is in trouble. That, however, is why a Dem should call the naked guys nudists.
I would love to see a Perot-Tsongas-esque, hard asses stand that promises the truth to Americans and ravages the Pubbies for not telling their guy that his goose bumps are showing. The cost/advanatage in the primaries should be OK, but the benefit in the real contest and after election would be cool.
There is some evidence that the Demo leaders are going this way. Gen Clark is a very straight shooter and his joining HRC is a good sign, he owuld make a **** candidate for veep as well. I wish he had joined the Barack team.
Barack’s foreign policy speaches rival Biden’s in honesty. His remark about Pakistan was very importnat and courageous n a demo primary.
You know what boy and galchicks? We have tow awfully good candydates. How can we last till Jan 20 09?
@15
An Obama-Clark ticket would be awesome. We’re likely not to be so lucky.
Lee ..
That was my hope too. I suppose it is still possible. Other pairings that I would like include
Obama Rubin
Obama Hagel
Clinton Clark
Clinton Obama
Clinton Richardson
Obama Bloomberg
I am not impressed with Edwards but he does have good campaign skills.
of course the problem with Veeping is that there arealways a lot of folks ot there we all do not know. I noteice oine of the newbie D congressmen is a former Admiral ocmanded the Afghanistan affair!
At some point we may also see candidates from academe and industry. I know he won’t do it but Gates would be intriguing.
#13 — For an individual who is so senstive to being labeled, you sure fling that’moonbat’ label around quite a lot.
Why don’t you fling it up your ass!
@18
Because there’s no room for it with his big head being there, along with any number of other foreign objects.
If he couldn’t type “libtards” and “moonbats” and “libruls” he wouldn’t have ANYTHING to post.
@17
I read Gates and I thought you were talking about the Defense Secretary. That means I need more sleep.
I still haven’t warmed up enough to Hillary yet to have her on any of my “dream tickets”. And Bloomberg? A Clinton-Bloomberg ticket could conceivably drive me to support a third-party candidate.
Chadt: of all the people calling the kettle ot pot any color it surely shouldn’t be you. You are batting .9985 with worthless commentary on Wipes.
Oh… did I use librul Moonbat! or libtard above?
Silly-Choir: Comment on Lieberman’s voting record moe-ron! The comment is too difficult for your small paramecium sized mind to fathom!
SeattleJew: So you are contradicting YLB/Clueless who claims very few ‘Wipers support Hilary? Have you seen the latest episode of the “If The Hsu Fits” Money Scandal Chronicles? Check out the WaPost.
@20 Lee … if yu get chance please look at my recent post on the Petraeus issue …here or at SJ. I am curious about your comments. There are peaceniks who impress me, but I have yet to hear a realistic plan for total withdrawal. The Saigon Helicopter Scenario is the least of my concerns.
I too do not want HRC but I am beginning to fear that the Reprican SOBs, the same folks who gave us Clarence Thomas, the Bush I guys who gave Bush II FLA! … these evil people are laying the biggest trap for an incoming Prexy since Abe stumbled of that train in 1860.
Obiwan and Athena (the code names they get from the SJ secret service) are both smart folks. I favor him because I believe in his morality and commitment to American opportunity. BUT, cleaning up the shit that the Bush I-II regime leaves behind may require Herculean political and admin skill.
Bloomberg, after all is more of a dem than HRC is, just a different label. Having him or Gen Clark to share the admin work of cleaning out the chickenhawk house would help her (or Obiwan) focus on other issues. Also, a Veep like this has his own creds .. something we may need if the scandals run as deep as I suspect they do. Finally, we are going to need serious changes in taxes. Bloomberg has creds that rival those of Gates. I can imagine … “If I can accept this increase in my taxes surely every other wealthy American can.” What reponse would the Repricans have?
BTW .. you might enjoy my post on the leading female candidates of both parties. To quote our fearless leader:
Who woulda thunk two broads from NY would run for Prez?
# 22 — I’d prefer to comment on the fact that Republican votes put Lieberman in office, that Lieberman spent 9/11/07 with war/hate-monger, Ann Coulter, and that Lieberman is pushing for a nuclear strike on Iran.
You can comment on his voting record, Anus-pucker.
@22
Evidently, the point of this post was too difficult for you to understand, since as I pointed out, Lieberman may have been a fiscal liberal for a long time, but his authoritarianism is his overriding political philosophy. And that’s why he fits in with the Republicans now.
@21 Pusspuddle the Pretend Christian:
Worthless commentary? Addressing a worthless parasite like you may be worthless by definition, but somnebody’s gotta do it. There is no more pretentious, hypocritical, and vacuous asshole here, with the possible exception of MTR, and you’re the only one who doesn’t recognize that. Do you seriously think anybody here believes you’re contributing to discourse just because some people respond to your shit? You’re a vandal pretending to be relevant to the discussion.
That’s the joke here, along with you.