Posted on 08/14/2006 2:11:34 PM PDT by Liz
WASHINGTON -- Mary Matalin, longtime Republican political operative and Vice President Dick Cheney's adviser, seemed near tears on the Fox News Channel Tuesday night as adverse voting returns for Sen. Joseph Lieberman came in from Connecticut. With Matalin a reliable indicator of her party's line, she began an outpouring of GOP grief over Lieberman's Democratic primary defeat. That was a remarkable reaction to a liberal senator who has given George W. Bush scant help on any issue other than Iraq, from which he now also has retreated.
In Lieberman's and my school days, this would be called shedding crocodile tears (defined by Webster's as "a hypocritical show of sorrow"). Cheney himself deplored Connecticut's results, and presidential adviser Karl Rove placed a publicized telephone call to the senator. Republicans cast anti-war primary winner Ned Lamont as a cross between Joe McCarthy and George McGovern. Contradicting his 18-year Senate voting record, Lieberman is identified as a Democratic centrist (supposedly one of the last of that breed).
With Republican morale sliding three months before midterm elections, Connecticut provided welcome news for GOP strategists. Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman on the day after the primary was in Cleveland facing a Republican meltdown in Ohio and warned of a McGovernite takeover of the Democratic Party by elitists. Mehlman described Rep. Sherrod Brown, a left-wing congressman who leads Republican Sen. Mike DeWine for re-election, as a Midwestern Lamont.
But how different from Lieberman would Lamont vote in the Senate? Not much. President Bush, always seeking Texas-style centrists, famously hugged and kissed Lieberman on the House floor after delivering the 2005 State of the Union Address. Aside from Iraq, it has been unrequited love with Lieberman consistently denying Bush needed votes.
Lieberman was in Connecticut campaigning Aug. 3 when the Senate again failed to break a filibuster against estate tax relief, but he would have voted no had he been there. In key votes of the last Congress selected by the Almanac of American Politics, Lieberman followed the straight liberal line in opposing oil drilling in ANWR, Bush tax cuts, overtime pay reform, the energy bill, and bans on partial birth abortion and same-sex marriage. Similarly, he voted in support of Roe v. Wade, and for banning assault weapons and bunker buster bombs.
His only two pro-Bush votes were to fund the Iraq war and support missile defense (duplicating Sen. Hillary Clinton's course on both). Lieberman's most recent ratings by the American Conservative Union were 7 percent in 2003, zero in 2004 and 8 percent in 2005. "Well deserved!" ACU Chairman David Keene told me. "I don't see why any conservative should be overly concerned about Joe Lieberman's plight."
Lieberman has opposed Bush as the environmentalists' Senate leader on global warming. He rebuffed attempts to compromise Social Security reform. He had a perfect record, seven for seven, backing filibusters that blocked Bush judicial nominees. He voted for cloture on three judicial nominations only after a compromise by the bipartisan Gang of 14 (which included Lieberman). He voted against confirming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
This record of party regularity has won Lieberman's independent candidacy little backing from party stalwarts. Only four (out of 44) Democratic senators announced post-primary support for him. I could not find backing for Lieberman's independent candidacy from any of my longtime Democratic sources, who never have been associated with the MoveOn.org, neo-McGovernite wing of the party.
Primarily because of Iraq, the clock has run out on Lieberman in his party since he was its 2000 nominee for vice president. In his disastrous 2004 campaign for the presidential nomination, he lost badly in eight consecutive state contests (doing no better than 11 percent in Delaware).
For Lieberman to have any chance in November, Connecticut Republican voters will have to reject the party's lackluster nominee (former State Rep. Alan Schlesinger). The only conceivable motivation would be Lieberman's position on Iraq, but even that faded last week. In a desperate Sunday night effort to separate himself from the president, he said "many of the Bush administration's decisions regarding the conduct of the war" were not "right."
That did not fit the post-primary profile of courage that subsequently was sketched for him by the Republican high command.
It is an outrage that Lieberman gave GWB the back of his hand on significant issues.
LIEberman's typical stance is to speak one way in public, then vote the exact opposite.
It has already been established that Lieberman is basically just a flaming @sshole (this article runs through a litany of reasons why), so this reaction on Mary Matalin's part simply reinforces my suspicions about her.
I don't know if its the same show,but I saw Matalin
on Hannity and Colmes last week.
On the one hand,she seemed upset about Lieberman losing
the primary election,but when Sean asked her (several times)
if she would vote for Lieberman in the general election,
she wouldn't give a straight answer.
I think Novak may be right on this one.
I fail to understand L-man's Freeper Fan Club. L-man acts in the interests of L-man. He puts a moderate veneer over an increasingly leftist Dem party. Repubs are fools if they dump the Repub Senate candidate and give their endorsements and $$ to his campaign.
L-man is running as an "independent" Dem, but promises to causus with the Dems. The D after his name will be all that matters if the Repubs have a particularly bad night one Tuesday in November and Harry Reid finds himself majority leader.
Let the winner of the Dem primary be the Dem candidate, and quit enabling Holy Joe. The more Lamont gets exposed to the general public (as opposed to the hardcore Dems and bloggers), the better for the real Republican in the race.
That's exactly why the national Democratic Party won't be spending a dime on this race. They really don't give a damn if Lamont or Lieberman wins, since the seat is going to remain in Democrat hands regardless.
Lieberman has one big advantage on the ballot the words "United States Senator" next to his name.
Maybe she personally likes the guy?
I'm not so sure about the Republican candidate
in this race.
While I don't generally lend a whole lot of
creedence to polls, the last one that I saw had
Lieberman at 46%, Lamont at 41%,and Schlessinger (sp.?)
at 6%.
Very good article. No matter what, we are going to get an ultra liberal senator out of this state.
Perception is reality. This was Robert Novak's opinion. He's been known to exaggerate.
I've not liked the old fart since the Valerie Plame debacle that he started and caused much unnecessary grief and resources.
Maybe when Kenny Mehlman gets back to his office from the half-price sale at Bed Bath and Beyond, he will make a statement about the RNC's activities on behalf of Lieberman.
LIEberman, like Senator Moynahan.....talk the talk but never walk the walk. Always vote with the party, no matter the harm to America and it's interests.
That must be it.
The Founders must be turning over in their graves.
Ol' Joe should run for President in '08 as a center-left independent, thus Peroting the Dems.
After his primarty loss Hillary was asked to distinguish her position on the Iraq war from Lieberman’s. Hillary said, "I have been a consistent critic from the beginning."
Then Sen Clinton urged Mr. Lieberman to “search his conscience and decide what is best for Connecticut and for the Democratic Party’’ before pushing ahead with an independent candidacy.“I am going to work for the Democratic nominee,’’ she said.
Translation of Hillary's comments: "What the.....? The loser filed to run as an Independent? Is he nutsy-cuckoo? We gotta get that creep out of the Senate race now. Everytime his whining face is on TV, he hurts my presidential chances. Harry better strip him of his committees.......or else. Quick, call Bill, tell him to get those FBI files on Lieberman out of the lockbox pronto."
Lieberman talks right and votes left. I'm glad his double game is up. He was no friend to the White House, just a typical northeast liberal who supported Israel. Nothing unusual about the guy at all. I'm glad he won't be in the Senate any longer (I hope, anyway).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.