Joseph Lieberman

John Kerry’s endorsement of Barack Obama – and not John Edwards -- continues a tradition of unsuccessful presidential candidates declining to endorse their Vice Presidential running mate for the presidency: in 2004, Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean, not Joseph Lieberman.

Either U.S. Senator Robert Menendez is reconsidering his endorsement in the close race for a United States Senate seat in Connecticut, or he's guilty of pandering for votes in North Jersey's Jewish community.

One day after incumbent Joseph Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont, Menendez issued a written statement saying that "Joe Lieberman is a good friend and an excellent Senator who has served his country with dignity. He ran a hard-fought campaign, but the voters of Connecticut have spoken and I support their decision. I fully support Ned Lamont's candidacy."

But at a forum for New Jersey's U.S. Senate candidates sponsored by the Metro West Jewish Federaton last night, the New York Times reports that Menendez said that he supports Lieberman's Independent re-election bid. "I wish him well and hope he returns," Menendez told the group before warning people that his opponent, Republican Thomas Kean, Jr., would try to say that he supports Lamont.

Speaking after Menendez, Kean was asked about the Connecticut race and was quick to endorse Lieberman. From the New York Times: "I think he is the right individual and I look forward to serving with him. My opponent, by the way, supports Ned Lamont."

by David P. Rebovich

The power of incumbency. Interest group support. Endorsements from party organizations and popular elected officials. More campaign funds. Three-term U.S. Senator, former Democratic vice presidential nominee and 2004 presidential hopeful Joseph Lieberman had all of these advantages going into the August 8th Connecticut primary. And, until a few months ago it seemed that the statesmanlike, pro-war, and sometimes centrist Senator would be re-nominated by his fellow Democrats in the Nutmeg state. Of course that did not happen. Multimillionaire political newcomer Ned Lamont, who ran on an anti-war platform, beat Lieberman 52 to 48 percent. The primary campaign was marked by harsh accusations, high turnout, and unprecedented involvement by out-of-state activists, mostly via blogs and e-mails.

The proud incumbent, hurt and embarrassed by his loss, immediately announced his plan to run as an independent this fall. If he is able to retain support from some Democrats, attract lots of moderate, unaffiliated voters, and swing some Republicans to his side in November, Lieberman may be reelected. But he no longer has the support of ranking Democrats like Senators Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and the New Jersey duo of Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez, all of whom want Lieberman to honor the results of the primary. Key Democrats have also suggested that if Lieberman runs as an independent he may jeopardize the prospects of some Democratic House candidates in Connecticut.

But the big question that's being asked by political analysts is what, if anything, Lamont's victory means for this fall's general election. As soon as the results were in, the spin machines of both parties kicked into high gear. As usual, it is dangerous to try to read too much from the results of this one race. But there are some aspects of this primary that Republicans and Democrats should not ignore.

Republicans were quick to label Lamont's victory as evidence that Democrats have moved far to the left and cannot be trusted on fighting terrorism at home and abroad. RNC chair Ken Mehlman shot out an e-mail that claimed that Democrats will not only "cut and run" from the war in Iraq but from the "war on terror" generally and "surrender...tools needed to keep America safe." Mehlman criticized Representative John Murtha, who wants to be the next Majority Leader, for saying, "We've become the enemy" and for, like so many Democrats, choosing "weakness over strength" and blaming America first for the world's problems.

GOP commentators have also been saying that Lamont's nomination shows that other Democratic candidates will be inclined to move to the left this fall to try to be competitive this fall. On these terms, voting for Democrats will represent support for ultra-liberal bloggers and the likes of Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson, political opportunists who exaggerate problems and whose views are out of sync with majority opinion. Lamont would not have ever been competitive, much less have won, without the involvement of these out-of-state agitators who will now try to force their views on other Democratic candidates.

This argument serves two important purposes for Republicans this campaign season. First, it does draw attention to the recent ascent of liberals, especially anti-war liberals, among the ranks of Democrats. Polls may show that a strong majority of Americans now believe the war in Iraq is a mistake. But only 20 percent call themselves liberals. Now this doesn't mean that most Americans are pro-life, anti-stem cell research, for weak environmental regulations, and against strict gun control. But it does mean that many voters are not likely to be pleased if they think that the alternative to Bush-friendly Republicans, or to someone like Lieberman, are tax and spend Democrats who will hurt the economy and the fabric of society at home and placate bad guys abroad.

This latter point leads to the second purpose of this argument. Republicans don't want to argue with Democrats on the campaign trail or in the media over specific issues like the war in Iraq, energy prices, immigration, affordable health care, the availability of good paying jobs or abortion, stem cell research and the environment. For months polls have shown that most voters believe that Democrats will do a better job than the GOP on all of these issues. As such, Republicans would rather continue focusing on topics like character and values and contrast what the parties presumably stand for in broad terms.

So it's no real surprise that they interpret Lamont's victory as a triumph of anti-war elites from academia, bohemian communities, and Howard Dean's ill-fated 2004 presidential campaign. Voting for Democrats would mean returning to expensive, intrusive and failed social policies, a decline in support for family values, and backsliding on the war on terror. Given the arrests of terrorists in Great Britain last week who were plotting to blow up passenger jets, America needs to aggressively fight terrorism.

Of course, Democratic leaders have a dramatically different view of the meaning of the Lamont-Lieberman primary. Voters simply perceived Lieberman as being to close too President Bush on the war in Iraq and unwilling to admit obvious problems with the war. And, Americans are strongly against how the President, his Administration, and the Republican-controlled Congress are conducting the war and their inability to make progress in other important policy areas. Thus, votes for Lamont were actually votes against President Bush and an indication that GOP House and Senate candidates in competitive races should be worried about their prospects this fall.

There is something to be said for both the Republican and Democratic analyses of the Lamont-Liberman primary. Most Democratic House and Senate candidates will want to be appropriately critical of the war effort. But they will hurt themselves with swing voters, the very people who decide the nature of competitive races, by seeming to be very liberal on some other issues like immigration, entitlement programs, and taxes. Republicans in competitive races will be well-advised to not deny what every America knows - the war in Iraq is not going well and changes in strategy may be necessary. Loyalty to the Bush Administration should not require political suicide.

It should require recognizing that in Connecticut at least, Democrats were able to expand the electorate by appealing to citizens' anger about the party in power, its policies, and a president who does not have many successes on his resume. In 2004, Republicans were able to target and mobilize many traditional, religious folks and get them to the polls to help Bush carry Ohio and improve the prospects of GOP House and Senate candidates elsewhere. In 2006 the wildcard on Election Day will be citizens who are disagree with the war in Iraq and are disappointed with the President. If Democrats get many of them to the polls, they are likely to win a majority in the House. That is, unless Republican candidates under the gun get a little religion and see the political virtue of showing voters that they too can offer the White House some constructive criticism.

David P. Rebovich, Ph.D., is Managing Director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics (www.rider.edu/institute). He writes a weekly column, "On Politics," for NEW JERSEY LAWYER and monthly reports on New Jersey for CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS Magazine. He also is a member of CQPoltiics.com's Board of Advisors that provides weekly commentary on national political developments.

New Jersey's two Democratic Senators, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, said in early July that they would support the winner of the Democratic U.S. Senate primary in Connecticut, where Ned Lamont defeated incumbent Joseph Lieberman in a close race. Both Senators reaffirmed their support of Lamont today.

"Joe Lieberman is a good friend and an excellent Senator who has served his country with dignity. He ran a hard-fought campaign, but the voters of Connecticut have spoken and I support their decision. I fully support Ned Lamont's candidacy," said Menendez. "Americans are fed up with George Bush's status quo policy in Iraq and last night they spoke loudly and clearly that they want leaders who will take the country in a new direction. The choice for New Jersey voters is simple. I will stand up to George Bush and his failed policy in Iraq, and Tom Kean Jr. will be just another rubber stamp for the status quo."

The Princeton University College Republicans are asking members to travel to Connecticut this weekend to help U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman win the Democratic primary.

Activists from state's more progressive Democratic wing are planning to export volunteer campaign workers to Connecticut over the next week to help Ned Lamont defeat Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic primary for United States Senator. "No, it's not about Iraq. It's about taking back the Democratic Party," said Juan Melli, an activist who helps edit the website BlueJersey.com.

The New York Times reported today that Tom Lindenfled, a onetime New Jersey operative who managed Frank Pallone's first campaign for Congress in 1998 (and later served as his Chief of Staff) has been dispatched to Connecticut to help Lieberman.

U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg will be in Connecticut today to campaign for U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman. Polls have Lieberman narrowly trailing Ned Lamont in next week's Democratic primary. Lautenberg and Senator Robert Menendez have both said they would support the Democratic nominee, even if Lieberman is on the ballot as an Independent.

Lautenberg, from Danbury: "I can't imagine the U.S. Senate without Joe Lieberman there. Lieberman tells the truth and sometimes his toes get stepped on for his honesty. But we all know where he stands. He is someone we can all turn to and depend on. We need him and you need him, my friends. ... Don't fail yourself. Don't fail your country. Vote for Joe Lieberman." (Danbury News-Times, 7/31/06)

Judgments obtained by two New Jersey casinos to pay for gambling debts against a Republican candidate has further complicated the messy race for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, where challenger Ned Lamont leads 2000 Vice Presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman in several independent Democratic primary polls. Lieberman says he'll run as an Independent if he loses the August primary.

Republicans, sensing a chance to win a three-way race, have a deeply-flawed candidate: Alan Schlesinger, a former Mayor and Representative whose gambling debts have led state GOP leaders, including Governor Jodi Rell, to call for him to withdraw.

So far, Schlesinger says he won't drop out, but if he does, one possible replacement candidate in a native New Jerseyan, Jack Orchulli, a millionaire businessman who won 32% of the vote against Senator Christopher Dodd in 2004. Orchulli grew up in Alpha and made his fortune as a business partner of fashion designer Michael Kors.

Lieberman has served in the Senate since 1988, when he defeated GOP incumbent Lowell Weicker. Weicker orginally won the seat under similar circumstances: the incumbent, Thomas Dodd (the father of the current Senator), ran as an Independent after losing the Democratic primary.