Posted on 08/09/2006 6:24:35 PM PDT by Pharmboy
Democrats said U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record)'s defeat in a party vote underscored anger over the Iraq war but the Bush administration countered that it exposed the party's weakness on national security.
The White House weighed in on Wednesday with unusual vigor on a Democratic primary after Lieberman, a three-term senator and vice presidential nominee in 2000, was brought down by voter anger for his support of the war and what his challenger called excessive coziness with President George W. Bush.
Winner Ned Lamont had cast Tuesday's race with Lieberman for the Democratic Senate nomination as a referendum on the 3-year-old Iraq war. Lieberman filed petitions on Wednesday to run as an independent in the November election.
Echoing a frequent Republican theme, Vice President Dick Cheney said Democrats were purging Lieberman from the party over his outspoken advocacy for the war and displaying their "pre-9/11 mindset" and inability to protect Americans.
He said Lieberman's defeat showed "the direction the party appears to be heading when they in fact purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who just six years ago was their nominee for vice president," over his support for the war on terrorism.
"What is particularly disturbing about it is from the standpoint of our adversaries ... They clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task," Cheney said in a conference call with reporters while on vacation in Wyoming.
Months of discontent over the war have pushed Bush's approval ratings down and threatened his Republican Party's control of Congress in November. A CNN poll released on Wednesday showed 60 percent of Americans oppose the war in Iraq, and a majority would support a partial withdrawal of troops by year's end.
WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE
The White House said the vote did not reflect American views on Bush's policies, but rather how the Democratic Party dealt with the Iraq war and other issues of national security.
"I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the president. I would flip it. I think instead it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party, they're going to come after you," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
Democrats said the result showed voters had grown tired of Bush and the war, and said the high turnout in Connecticut showed the party's rank and file was energized and eager to head to the polls in November.
"Voters are angry about the course we are on, and all Republicans are offering is stay the course," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee.
Larry Sabato, a political analyst at the University of Virginia, said the Lamont-Lieberman clash would keep the Democratic debate over the war prominent through the fall and highlight the image of a party fractured by divisions.
"That's not really the image that Democrats want to send right now," he said.
Lieberman will have to wait a few weeks to resume his tussle with Lamont and with Republican Alan Schlesinger, a former state legislator. The signatures on the petitions he turned in must be validated by town clerks in Connecticut, which could take two weeks.
But Lieberman said he was anxious to renew the debate, calling Lamont an example of the polarizing forces that voters were tired of in Washington. His victory was fueled in part by grass-roots and Internet activists adamantly opposed to the Iraq war.
"I don't want these folks to take over my party or American politics," Lieberman said on CNN on Wednesday.
Give em time, I am sure they'll think of a way.
He should have voted for drilling in ANWAR.
Yep. It relects the anger of left wing whackjobs in an already left wing state. Nothing more, nothing less.
Lieberman coming up on Larry King any minute.
I may not agree with Joe on every issue, but I do have confidence in him. He might not be perfect, but he's at least as perfect as I am...and I think he's trustworthy.
In my book, Joe's a hell of a man!
What always got me about Joe was that while he made a BFD about him observing the Jewish Sabbath a la a religious Jew, he supported partial birth abortion. Sorry, but he is full of it.
I said I might be an idiot...that is indeed hard to forgive.
This is the kind of piece Reuters should have written if Lieberman lost by 20 or more points. It makes no sense given how close the election was.
IMO, all the delusional Liberal schmucks are digging their graves deeper every day. As long as they keep flapping their mouths, the tapes are rolling. Makes for good campaign ads like "Here Come The Appeasors/Cowards/Traitors."
Check his voting record. Lieberman is a lot more liberal than his image.
The Democrats rejected a respected Senator and their former Vice Presidential candidate, because of one issue and one issue only - he stood for a strong national defense and victory in the WOT.
This election speaks volumes about the Democratic party. No wonder they can't win anything these days.
Here's the biblical curse - Isaiah 3:12
"As for My people, children are their oppressors,
And women rule over them.
O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err,
And destroy the way of your paths.”
Seriously, what a bunch of idiots.
In a low turnout democrat race they say there is anger about the war?
People vote Republican for a reason.. and people voted for this idiot for a reason. Now if there was an anti war stance from a Republican candiate and he won.. that would be saying something.
Media Morons.. get a clue.
Reuters gets worse all the time!
I'm amazed that the Democrats are risking their political careers on backing off on the war on terror, after we have come this far.
That Republican would be Hagel, but in fairness I don't think the voters of Nebraska quite knew propehtically what they were getting with al Jazeerza's favorite Senator. If he was freshly running today with the same rhetoric without incumbency I don't believe he'd stand a chance. Now that's he's an incumbent it's tough to dig him out of his entrenchment. Though I encourage the people of Nebraska to front a challenge to him in '08.
When alGore picked him, Joe became a changed Jewish man, leaving ALL his religious beliefs behind him! He even shouldered up to the hwd left that he had scolded before!!
Yes, a hell of a man, but still a stout liberal democRAT!!!
I must of missed Hagel's stance but I think you are right.. it's a little different when it's coming from an incumbent. However, it is a little scary to think that type of thinking is flitering through our party too.
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.