Solo Joe vs. the ‘Partisan Polarizer’
For a man who was recently rejected by his party faithful, and is watching old friends back an unknown instead of a three-term U.S. senator like him, Joseph Lieberman was sounding positively upbeat. Ebullient, even.
“I’m coming fresh from an event in New London, and the press wouldn’t leave me alone,” Lieberman excitedly tells a group of journalists from Jewish newspapers, invited to take part in a conference call Tuesday. (Okay, “excitedly” may be too strong a word, but he was definitely chipper.)
Lieberman has reason to be upbeat, at least according to the polls: A Quinnipiac University survey last week gave Lieberman, running as an independent, a 12-point lead over the Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont, while Republican Alan Schlesinger is in the single digits.
And if top Dems feel they have to back Lamont, Lieberman was fresh from announcing the news that former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp is in his corner.
With a brand-new staff in place, Lieberman wants us to know that all is going according to plan.
“I’m a proud Democrat and stand for progressive values, but I’m not afraid to work across party lines,” he begins. “I have stayed in this race as an independent candidate because so much is at stake in the years ahead, and I feel so strongly that I can do a better job for Connecticut and America than either of my opponents.”
As for the little problem of party affiliation, Lieberman imparts what has become his standard line before and since Lamont edged him out in this month’s Democratic primary in what was largely seen as referendum on Lieberman’s support for the war in Iraq.
“I’m fed up with all the partisanship. It undermines our strength, unity, and ability to solve problems,” he says. “Mr. Lamont is inexperienced. He’s just one more partisan polarizer in Washington, with limited ability to get things done for our state and the country.”
Lieberman repeats the “partisan polarizer” tag a few more times; later I ask the senator if this isn’t exactly what worries Democratic voters, that their party has stopped being a real opposition party, and “bipartisanship” is just another word for rolling over.
Lieberman disagrees. “It’s not [about] stifling debate and dissent, but fighting for a different principle,” he says. “To my fellow Democrats I say the way to be successful is to not reflexively take on the other side. The way to win is to hear the people in the field and come up with a constructive alternative program. Then we’ll win elections.”
Speaking of partisanship, I ask Lieberman what he thinks of the Republican Jewish Coalition ad that said Lamont’s victory was a defeat for Israel — an ad the National Jewish Democratic Council said was a below-the-belt swipe at the majority of Democrats who are unassailable on Israel.
“I saw the ad very briefly,” Lieberman answers. “I think what they were concerned about was my defeat because I have been a friend and supporter of Israel, and I am very pleased to receive support from people who are Democrats, Republicans, and independents.”
Did he think that the timing of the war in Lebanon, which was heating up as voters went to the polls, might have worked to Lamont’s advantage?
“It’s hard to say — I can’t say in any way,” says the senator. “Lamont moved ahead as the war began to accelerate into a more difficult phase. I don’t know if people in the primary were, in the moment, acting against foreign involvement. On the other hand, as the primary neared, we closed to three-and-a-half points. There’s no real evidence” that the war in Lebanon helped Lamont.
On the other hand, Lieberman points out, Lamont invited Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) to campaign with him even after the two voted “present” (as opposed to “yes”) on a House resolution condemning Hizbullah’s attacks on Israel and affirming Israel’s right to defend itself.
Finally, I ask him about the main point of the RJC ad, that an anti-Israel “radical Left…is now emerging as part of the mainstream in the Democratic Party.”
Lieberman, the “proud Democrat,” will have none of it. “The U.S.-Israel relationship and Israeli security draw very broad bipartisan support in Congress. I always say that presidents come and go, some are stronger on Israel, some are weaker for Israel.… The real guarantor [of Israel’s security] is a bipartisan majority in Congress. That continues to be so.”
Lieberman was asked if he was perturbed by polls showing that a majority of Jewish Democrats in the primary favored Lamont over the first Jew (Orthodox, yet) to be selected as a vice presidential nominee by a major party.
“I’m not going to change who I am,” he says. “I’ve got a record after 18 years as socially progressive on domestic policy and strong in foreign policy. That’s a message I carry to all the voters, regardless of party affiliation. I never asked, and don’t want, anyone to vote for me based on my religion, just as I hope no one votes against me because of my religion.”
Lieberman closes the conference call with the same kind of enthusiasm that he began it with, boasting about the new campaign staff (“We needed to shake up the team”) and his chances in November.
“I feel good about where we are and must say I truly look forward to the 74 days from now until election day with opportunity and purpose.”
Comment | | |
All rights reserved