Political junkie alert! Robert KC Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College, has provided an almost incredibly detailed presentation on the political historical context of the Lamont-Lieberman race at History News Network. The article begins, “On Tuesday, Democratic voters in Connecticut will cast their ballots to consider denying renomination to Joe Lieberman. The three-term incumbent trailed in the final pre-primary poll by 13 points; two-thirds of those who supported his opponent, Ned Lamont, said they did so because of their opposition to Lieberman and his policies, rather than their positive feelings toward Lamont. Those are hardly encouraging figures for Lieberman, who has said he’ll run as an independent if he comes second in the primary.
“It is very rare for incumbent senators to lose in their party’s primary: since 1960, only 19 have so fallen. Five of these were special cases: Sheila Frahm (R-Kansas), Donald Stewart (D-Alabama), David Gambrell (D-Georgia), Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio, in 1974), and Ross Bass (D-Tennessee) were either interim appointments or had won special elections, and then failed to secure the nomination for a full term in the Senate. Advanced age (J. William Fulbright, D-Arkansas; B. Everett Jordan, D-North Carolina) or scandal (Edward Long, D-Missouri; A. Willis Robertson, D-Virginia) explained the defeats of four others.
“A pattern of political weakness explained the primary defeats of three other senators. In 2002, New Hampshire Republicans ousted Robert Smith in large part because they believed, probably correctly, that he couldn’t win in November; he had barely won re-election in 1996, in a race that TV networks prematurely called for his opponent, former congressman Dick Swett. Two other spurned incumbents, Democrats Mike Gravel of Alaska and Richard (Dick) Stone of Florida, had initially captured very tight primaries and never established firm party bases. Stone lost to the man who he had defeated in 1974, former congressman Bill Gunter; Gravel fell to Clark Gruening, the grandson of the senator he had ousted in 1968. Both Gunter and Gruening then lost the fall election to Republicans.” Click here for the full article.
Joe Lieberman has the guts to support Israel, that’s why he supports Bush. Does anyone remember when Saddam was giving money away to families that sent a child to kill Israelis? Why do you think Bush went to war? Why do you think he is sending weapons and ammunition? For Israel.
<
p>
Other than his support of Israel, Joe Lieberman has nothing in common with the Republican president. This is the only thing that Bush has done right. Democrats and Republicans should join together to support Israel as they did during the 2nd World War. By not supporting the war, people are not supporting Israel.
<
p>
Do you think replacing Joe will get better support for Israel? I think not.
<
p>
Joe Lieberman has risked his career to support Israel. I think we should support him.