Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Lieberman’s Loss: What It Means

Sen. Joe Lieberman's August 8 defeat in Connecticut's Democratic primary by a little-known anti-war candidate marks a major setback to...

Print Friendly

Sen. Joe Lieberman‘s August 8 defeat in Connecticut’s Democratic primary by a little-known anti-war candidate marks a major setback to neoconservative hopes of maintaining “bipartisan” support for the Bush administration’s aggressive foreign policies, particularly in the Middle East.

Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000, received strong support from prominent neoconservatives-especially those who had led the push to invade Iraq-in the closing days of his primary battle, when it became clear that challenger Ned Lamont was on the verge of victory.

“What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq War,” complained Weekly Standard editor and Project for the New American Century cofounder William Kristol. “It’s that he’s unashamedly pro-American.”

Lieberman, who was backed in the primary by both Bill and Sen. Hillary Clinton, among other prominent establishment Democrats, did not do as poorly as polls predicted, losing to Lamont by a 48-52% margin.

That relatively narrow margin of defeat clearly encouraged him to announce that he plans to run as an Independent against Lamont and the Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, in November’s general election.

Connecticut is strongly Democratic, and Lieberman’s hopes rest on wooing a sufficient number of conservative Democrats and Independents to his side to overcome the backing of the state and national party organizations for Lamont, a multimillionaire heir and businessman who has never before run for statewide office. Whether Lieberman can succeed-particularly in light of the strong anti-incumbent mood in the country-is a matter of much speculation.

Most analysts attributed Lamont’s remarkable victory-it marked only the third time in 25 years that a challenger defeated an incumbent senator in a primary election-to a combination of grassroots Democrats’ revulsion toward President George W. Bush and the Iraq War and Lieberman’s failure to pay attention to his constituents’ concerns.

“There was a personal sense among Connecticut Democrats that his national agenda is what matters to him and not Connecticut,” a former state party chairman told the Washington Post earlier this week.

Nonetheless, Lamont’s victory was hailed by critics of both Lieberman and Bush’s foreign policy as a potential watershed for both the Democratic Party and the anti-war movement.

“[Lamont’s] victory represents a growing voter revolt against the failed policies and politics of the Bush administration and its congressional enablers, particularly the debacle in Iraq,” according to Robert Borosage, codirector of the Campaign for America’s Future, which works to advance a left-leaning agenda.

“After [Lieberman’s] defeat, Democrats will show more backbone in challenging the current disastrous course, and more Republicans will look for ways to distance themselves from the president,” he wrote on TomPaine.com on August 9.

In particular, Lieberman’s defeat is likely to pull several leading Democrats-including Senators Clinton and Joseph Biden, both presidential aspirants who have long resisted setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq-closer to the growing number of their congressional colleagues who favor a relatively quick pullout beginning no later than the end of 2006. According to a CNN poll released on Wednesday, 61% of U.S. voters also support that position.

As noted by former Connecticut Republican Sen. Lowell Weicker, who supported Lamont against Lieberman, the primary was a “referendum on the Iraq War-not just for Connecticut but for the whole country.”

That is precisely the concern of neoconservatives like Kristol and other backers of the Iraq War who see in Lieberman’s defeat not only the possible collapse of dwindling public support for the war, but also the loss of the leading champion for their foreign policy ideas in the Democratic Party. Such ideas have been channeled mainly through the Democratic Leadership Council, of which Lieberman is a longtime member and former chairman.

To them, Lieberman is the lineal descendant of Washington State Sen. Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson, in whose office some of today’s most influential neoconservatives got their start, including former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle, Bush’s top Middle East adviser Elliott Abrams, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, as well as Kristol.

Reliably liberal on civil and women’s rights and on the environment and closely tied to conservative labor unions, Jackson, like Lieberman today, was the standard-bearer of what became the neoconservative wing of the Democratic Party-staunchly pro-Israel, a steadfast supporter of ever-higher defense budgets, and a strong believer in what was euphemistically called “peace through strength.”

“Until yesterday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman was the most prominent representative of the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party,” wrote Clifford May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy (FDD), a hardline pro-Israel group for which Lieberman has served as a “distinguished adviser.” May continued: “Today, that wing is down to its last few feathers.”

On Middle East issues, Lieberman has long favored close alignment with Israel, although, unlike hardline neoconservatives, he has leaned more toward the Labor Party than to the right-wing Likud. In April, he became the first prominent Democrat to voice support for an eventual U.S. military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Lieberman’s association with FDD is typical of a number of “bipartisan” organizations he helped create or sponsor that have been dominated by neoconservatives. In 2002, for example, he became honorary co-chair of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq , an advocacy group created just a few months before the U.S. invasion by Kristol, Perle, former CIA director James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, among other prominent neoconservatives. In 1998, he cosponsored with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) the Iraq Liberation Act, which made the ouster of Saddam Hussein official U.S. policy.

Since 2004, Lieberman has served as co-chair of the Committee on the Present Danger, another influential, mainly neoconservative group created, in Lieberman’s words, to “form a bipartisan citizens’ army, which is ready to fight a war of ideas against our Islamist terrorist enemies, and to send a clear signal that their strategy to deceive, demoralize, and divide America will not succeed.” Other board members include Woolsey, Perle, Cohen, and Gaffney.

As the Iraq War became increasingly unpopular over the past year, Lieberman, to the frustration and fury of many of his party colleagues, served as the administration’s chief Democratic defender.

In a column published in the Wall Street Journal last fall that was subsequently cited repeatedly by top administration officials, including Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, Lieberman criticized fellow Democrats who favored withdrawal, arguing that “we undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.”

Indeed, so favorably was Lieberman regarded in the White House that as Bush departed after giving his 2005 State of the Union Address, he embraced Lieberman, planting a friendly kiss on his cheek. For Lieberman, taunted by critics in recent years as “Bush’s favorite Democrat,” it may have been the political kiss of death.

Jim Lobe is a Right Web contributing writer and the Washington, DC bureau chief for the Inter Press Service, which published a version of this article.



Jim Lobe, "Lieberman's Loss: What It Means," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, August 12, 2006).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

John Hannah, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, is now a leading advocate for regime change in both Iran and Syria based at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. diplomat who served in the Obama administration, is a fellow at the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sheldon Adelson is a wealthy casino magnate known for his large, influential political contributions, his efforts to impact U.S. foreign policy discourse particularly among Republicans, and his ownership and ideological direction of media outlets.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.