Still, Lieberman isn’t taking any chances. This week, he announced he’s gathering signatures to petition to run as an independent (who caucuses with Democrats) should he lose the Aug. 8 primary. With polls showing Lamont within striking distance in the primary, but well behind the incumbent in a three-way general election run, some Democrats are concluding an independent bid may be Lieberman’s best shot. NEWSWEEK’s Jonathan Darman and Brian Braiker caught up with Lieberman and Lamont, respectively, just before the senator announced his possible independent candidacy. Excerpts:
Sen. Joe Lieberman
NEWSWEEK: Are you hearing concern from your constituents about your position on the war in Iraq?
Joe Lieberman: This will come as a surprise to you but the only people who have asked me about that are the local media. Mostly people are talking about the economy.
What do you say, though, when you meet voters who say, “I like you personally, but I really dislike your support of the Iraq war?”
I say every campaign is about the future and I want to be judged on the totality of my record. Iraq is important but it’s only one issue. When people get up in Connecticut they worry about many issues like the cost of energy and the cost of their health care, whether their kids are going to be able to go to a good school, environmental protection, homeland security. I say, “Your choice, Mr. or Mrs. Voter, is which of the two of us in this race can do better for you in the next six years; I’m offering you a strong record of fighting for Connecticut. My opponent, well, he doesn’t have much of a record. I’m running to get some more things done over the next six years, he’s mostly running against me.”
What about voters whose No. 1 issue is Iraq?
Look, I have always tried to level with people in Connecticut, I’ve tried to do that on the war. Obviously, my position’s not politically motivated because it doesn’t help me at all to take the position. I honestly think it’s right for our security. Then we talk about it and I listen. There’s no question among Democratic voters, support for the war is low although I do think many of them are concerned about the consequences of a hasty retreat.
Is part of the problem a perception that you’re too close to President Bush on Iraq?
I supported removing Saddam Hussein before George Bush was president. [Arizona Sen. John] McCain and [former Nebraska Sen.] Bob Kerrey and I put in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 after Saddam threw the U.N. inspectors out and that called for the overthrow of Saddam. Therefore when President Bush chose to do something about Saddam after 9/11 I supported it though I was critical of his unilateralist foreign policy before the war, which I think made it harder for us to get allied support after Saddam was overthrown. I was outspoken about the consequences of a failure of adequate planning and preparation by the Pentagon. I have supported the goals, the mission. I have been critical, when I thought it was justified, of the methods, the tactics that are being used. But I have said I will refuse to play politics with national security.
From a purely political standpoint, is it a smart move for the Democrats to sell themselves as the party that supports quicker withdrawal from Iraq?
That’s up to the individuals in the party. I think it’s wrong, as a matter of military policy and national security. On this, there needs to be debate, discussion—diversity of opinion is healthy. I’m not going to play politics with the war, I don’t want to impute political motives to anybody else. They’ve got to measure their own political consequences.
You’re not used to having tough primary challenges. Is this primary battle mainly about the war?
Totally. My opponent might try to say otherwise but there’s no question about it: He is running a one-issue campaign. And it takes any life it has from that one issue. I’m trying to say there’s a lot more issues than the war in Iraq, as important as it is, that are essential to Connecticut’s future, and look at my record on all of those and then make a judgment about my record. I’d even state it a little more starkly: If it was not for my position on the war in Iraq, I don’t believe there would be a primary against me. It’s not a surprise to me because I went through this in the presidential primaries. It’s something I feel very strongly about and it’s one where I think I’ve got to take a principled position and hope that people in the primary and in the state respect me for it and are wiling to judge me on my whole record even if they disagreed with me on Iraq.
Liberal bloggers have been attacking you pretty hard. What do you think of all that anger?
I don’t like it and I don’t think it’s healthy for our system. Speaking beyond [the attacks] toward me, we’ve seen two presidents, President Clinton and now President Bush, who’ve been the targets of just the worst vituperation and I’d call it hatred from people in our country. It’s not healthy for the country. Our politics is much too partisan. We see it in Washington. Part of why the politics is partisan is it’s a less mainstream group that dominates primaries in both parties and that’s not healthy. As far as the vituperation on the blogs—periodically my staff will show me some of it and I don’t recognize myself. It’s not me. The personal attacks are just outrageous.
Do you think you could take care of your primary problems tomorrow if you got up and gave a speech that was a straight-on attack, indicting Republicans?
I suppose some people might like that. My nature is not to be an attacker. I’m a person of very strong opinions, but I’ve never believed that one helps make one’s case by attacking the target of one’s position. I think you lay out the case and you hope that people will be reasonable in listening. The other thing I would say is that the big distortion in this campaign which my opponent is trying is through the one issue, the war, which I happen to share the goals of the president (though as I say I have criticized some of the tactics). They’re attempting to go from that to somehow changing my party affiliation. I’ve opposed just about every initiative of this president: Taxes, environmental protection, Social Security privatization. I consider myself a Truman-Kennedy-Clinton Democrat which is: social justice, upward mobility, fairness at home and a strong idealistic foreign policy. That’s what I’m fighting for so I feel alright about it.
Challenger Ned Lamont
NEWSWEEK: You’re basically a political neophyte, unknown outside of Greenwich—what would you have to bring to Washington?
Ned Lamont: I started up a business from scratch, I’m a small-business guy, pulling cable for telecomm systems in college campuses for 20 years. I’ve been teaching school up in Bridgeport. I don’t think Washington should be a sinecure for career politicians. We should have the small-business guys represented in the hallways of Congress.
Well, you’re a small-business guy who’s worth somewhere between $90 million and $300 million. Lieberman is trying to identify you as an out-of-touch plutocrat. How do you respond to that?
I respond by going all over the state, introducing myself, letting them know who I am, what I’m about. Hopefully some negative 30-second ad will not carry the day and people will take a fresh look at what we’re about.
Is the seniority that Lieberman brings to the Senate not a good thing?
Seniority is great if you’re on the right side of the issues. But if you’re on the wrong side of the war, the wrong side of the energy bill, you find common ground with the president when it comes to privatization of Social Security or vouchers for education, then seniority doesn’t help. Secondly, I might add we’re 49th out of 50 states when it comes to return of every dollar sent to Washington, D.C. We get 68 cents back; we’ve lost half of our defense related jobs in the past 18 years.
Unlike Lieberman, you have been vocal about your opposition to the war in Iraq.
Look. There’s a real difference of opinion about the war. As I go around the state, it’s much bigger than the military invasion of Iraq. It’s “rather than spending $250 million a day in Iraq, how come we’re not investing in universal health care for every American?” That’s the No. 1 question I get on the stump. How come we’re not investing in grade schools so kids can compete in the 21st century? How are we going to keep good-paying jobs in the state? So the war ties right back to investing in our country again. That’s the most important issue that I’m emphasizing.
Are you advocating pulling out of Iraq?
I’m advocating taking our very front line troops out of the Sunni triangle, out of harm’s way. Reinforcing the fact that we’ve got to take an American face off of this occupation. Only the Iraqis can solve this. They can solve it politically. We’re not going to be able to impose this at the barrel of a gun. And yes, we start bringing our troops home.
Would pulling out of Iraq now vindicate the insurgents?
No, I think just the opposite. Our very front line military presence is what’s invigorating the insurgency. When we take the military face off of this perceived occupation, then I think it’s a better opportunity for the different Shia and Sunni factions to have the incentive to reach political compromises that they need.
This is a primary election for a Senate race—turnout is not expected to be high. What are you doing to get the vote out?
A) By being right on the issues, by being frank and clear about where we stand. B) This is a real grassroots operation. We’ve got thousands of volunteers that signed up on our Web site. We’re doing friends, family and neighbors, word of mouth. We’re going to make sure that the people who believe in the same issues we do turn out on Aug. 8.
In an election where every seat counts for the Democrats, do you worry at all about splitting the party in Connecticut?
No. I’ve said that come what may on Aug. 9, we rally behind the winner of the Democratic primary and we go forward united as a party. We’ll be stronger and invigorated for it.
