Lieberman foe would ally with Feingold

Capital Times ^ | Aug. 6, 2006 | John Nichols

[SJackson]

Wisconsin's Russ Feingold was the first member of the Senate Democratic Caucus to refuse to back U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., in the primary fight that has become a struggle over the direction - and perhaps even the soul - of the Democratic Party.

Feingold and Lieberman are about as far apart on the issues as two members of the same party can get, but it still came as something of a surprise when Feingold told NBC's Tim Russert in a June "Meet the Press" interview that he would not be supporting his colleague from Connecticut in that state's Democratic primary.

At a point when it was still broadly accepted that Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic nominee for vice president, would be easily nominated and re-elected, Feingold refused to join most other Democratic senators in promising to back the apologist for George Bush's foreign policy blunders over anti-war primary candidate Ned Lamont.

Like Al Gore - Lieberman's presidential running mate in 2000, who would later join Feingold in declining to back the senator's re-election campaign - the Wisconsinite was not going to the mat in defense of a Democrat who provides consistent cover for the worse excesses of a Republican administration.

Feingold did not come out and endorse the challenger. But he did say: "I think Ned Lamont's position on the issues is much closer to mine on critical issues."

As it turns out, Feingold was right on two counts.

He was wise to take Lamont's candidacy seriously. As Tuesday's primary approaches, a new polls says the anti-war challenger leads Lieberman by a 13-point margin among Connecticut Democrats.

Feingold was also wise in his assessment of Lamont's political views - not just on the war but on a range of issues where the Democrats need to do a better job of defining themselves.

When I met with Lamont in Stamford, Conn., to talk politics on a recent evening, the conversation often circled around to Feingold.

Lamont made it clear that he does not just admire the progressive Democratic senator from Wisconsin; he wants to fight side by side with Feingold to challenge the Bush administration in ways that the White House-friendly Lieberman would never consider.

Of course, Feingold and Lamont share an opposition to the war that Lieberman backs.

But there is a lot more to it than that. Lamont, the nephew of civil libertarian Corliss Lamont, shares the Wisconsin senator's passion for defending constitutional rights and protections.

While Lieberman was in the forefront of efforts to thwart Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush for authorizing illegal warrantless wiretapping of the phone conversations of Americans, Lamont says he would side with the Wisconsinite on the censure issue.

Lamont also said he would like to work with Feingold to challenge the abuses of the Patriot Act.

On the economic front, Lamont shares Feingold's skepticism about free-trade deals that undermine protections for workers, consumers and the environment in the United States and abroad - another position that puts both men at odds with Lieberman and the Bush administration.

If Lamont wins on Tuesday, as seems increasingly likely, it will be a defeat for the Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party. At the same time, it will be a win for the Feingold wing - and for the great majority of grass-roots Democrats, who, like Feingold, want their party to stand in stark contrast to the dangerously misguided policies of the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies.

[surrey]

I agree with you. I really don't think that Connecticut is that left-wing.

[cmsgop]

Thanks, I guess we will see soon enough won't we.....

[kellynla]

well I thought you might be interested...
I've gotten where I CANNOT STAND Alan Colmes so I quit watching the program.

[seasoned traditionalist]

"If Lamont wins on Tuesday, as seems increasingly likely, it will be a defeat for the Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party.

That's a very, very small wing.

Ya beat me to it. Great minds and all that rot lol.

I was going to posit that, just "who" (beside Joe himself) makes up the Lieberman wing of the Democratice Party.???

If it were a few years ago, I might suggest that there might be TWO--Lieberman and Zell Miller. However, perhaps I am overlooking ONE other DemonRat who openly supports W's War efforts?,

As an aside, this "editor" (John Nichols) is so obiviously a far-left, socialist, partisan, hack (and I have so informed him of same in an email) that he could have easily been writing for Pravda as an apoligist fool/tool in attempting to justify the actions/conduct of Putin or even Stalin--yes, this is not a pun or misnomer.

"Useful Idiots" such as Feingold, are the bane of democracies and the last (grasp) best hope for totalitarian, socialist, regimes such as Russia, Cuba, N. Korea and of course, Iran.

Can anyone now doubt who now controls the leadership of the Dims and how transparent their hatred for Bush has become that they would turn on someone who votes with them (and against W/Pubs) 90% of the time?

Is poor ol Joe considered a "DINO?"

Wish we had ONLY "ONE" RINO in our party--as opposed to at least, TEN, if not more.

Boy would be be "Golden."

[HawaiianGecko]

I'm tending to believe Lieberman will win tomorrow. I think Lamont is just exactly like Howard Dean two years ago. Dean had a huge lead going into election day in Iowa and then gets pounded into third place when real voters come out. I believe 70% of Iowa voted against him.

All that said, I wish Lamont would win by the skin of his teeth. It would put the Democrat party into an absolute snit. They'd all think moving left was the ticket for victory, but in the general election in '08 the GOP would eat their lunch.

 

[Enchante]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corliss_Lamont


Article mentions Lamont's late beloved socialist uncle, the late Corliss Lamont, who is the type of weenie who opposed even the first Gulf War because stopping Saddam from taking over the Gulf's oil supplies and becoming a regional superpower was irrelevant compared to being a far-left weenie who lives in a bubble world of utopian fantasies.

Ned Lamont may be just a small chip off this ol' block.....

[Democratshavenobrains]

Why would a Lamont win make any difference in the Red States? Democrats have already elected numerous officials just as moonbatty as Lamont, if not moreso.

[EagleUSA]

But I see no tendency on the part of pubbies to look for a fight. Nor the stomach to fight if they found one.
------
We have not seen a fighting Repub since Reagan. Washington for them has turned into a coutry club, where the order of the day is personal empowerment, getting re-elected and earning as much as they can in contribution from lobbyists. On occasion we see one stand up and fight for something, but it always fades away. Men like Curt Weldon, Pence, Allen, etc. -- where is the beef?? We have watched the birth of the RINO, an ugly beast that is a byproduct of the short-term selfish rewards of liberalism.

Washington has lost sight of the founding principles of this country, and the committment that those great men had to their country -- the breed is gone.

[Nuc1]

"Washington has lost sight of the founding principles of this country, and the committment that those great men had to their country -- the breed is gone."

There are many that your statement fits. And of course there are some very good folks in DC. There are also many patriots in our country but most of us are not in Washington and all of us have jobs. So we don't get a lot of attention. I think we will show up in November and shock the Dims. Your other points about RINOS and the country club are quite appropriate. Sigh, so much to do so few votes. Oh well, Carry On!! Let's give em hell. BTW the French at the UN just surrendered to the Lebanese...another Freeper said it ain't WWIII until the French surrender. I can't think of a weaker country to surrender too so we must be WWIII. ;)

[I_Like_Spam]

Got to agree that Lieberman will win.

The real Democrat rank-and-file doesn't have nearly as many peace-weinies and bush-obsessors as the activists and moneymen of the party do. Just like the real Iranian rank-and-file citizens aren't nearly as obsessed with global jihad and jew-hate as the ayatoilet leadership is..

And the national attention will bring out a bigger turnout than expected.

It would certainly be a plus for the GOP if Lamont were to win, but I don't think it is going to happen.

[HawaiianGecko]

72 percent reporting, Lamont leads by 6,300 votes, 51.6 to 48.4 percent (08/08/2006)

Well, it looks like I'm going to be proven wrong, but get my wish that Lamont wins by the skin of his teeth.