Am I a bad person for not wildly cheering about the Lamont victory? Maybe I’m just a fuddy-duddy, but I tend to think that Democrats should pick off Republicans before Democrats. I have worries that this is going to lead to a Republican victory in CT, the loss of moderate Democrats, and a bashlash against bloggers.
Just to clarify — Will getting rid of Lieberman help/hurt/have no impact on the larger goal of getting a Democrat in the White House and figuring out how the hell to get out of this war? Opinions?
Apt. 11d 
Lieberman isn’t a “moderate Democrat”, he’s a full-on cultural conservative. The Iraq War is the least of his failures as a policy-maker and representative of his party and voting base. But his position on the war is pretty much in line with everything he’s done in his career: totally arrogant, uninterested in his political base and constituency, more aimed at getting him on Hannity & Colmes.
This is why there are primaries: so that people in a particular party can pick someone that *represents them* in the general election. Lieberman came to the Senate as a hired gun for conservatives who wanted to be rid of Lowell Weicker’s presence within the Republican Party, so I think it’s entirely legit (and three terms too late) that he be thrown overboard by the people and party he’s supposed to represent.
LikeLike
I would agree with you “picking off Republicans not Democrats” if Lamont was running _against_ a democrat. But, primaries are for exactly what Lamont did: challenging from within. I didn’t get involved in the primary battle (might have if I lived in CT, because this might have been a strong enough case to have an opinion in the primary). But, this morning, I sent a contribution to Lamont. If Lieberman had won, there would have been no contribution to him (from me), but I would have voted for him (well, if I lived in CT, since it would be kind of voter fraud for me to vote in CT). I would have expected Lamont to disappear (if he couldn’t enthusiastically support the democratic candidate in CT).
I can’t say I’m cheering wildly (’cause, yes, my wild cheers will be reserved for when a Dem beats a Rep, like say, in the Darcy Burner v Reichert race in my neck of the woods). But, there’s some refined clapping going on here.
bj
LikeLike
Oh yeah, I think it is legit to dump Lieberman. I’m no fan of his. I am just wondering if it’s smart politics. Will getting rid of Lieberman help/hurt/have no impact on the larger goal of getting a Democrat in the White House and figuring out how the hell to get out of this war.
And maybe it’s smart politics. Maybe this will tighten the Democratic ship and insure that everyone is on the same page. It might have energized the base, like bj. I’m not sure.
BJ, you’re right that in this particular election it’s a Dem v. Dem fight, but this race isn’t the big show. A lot of political energy went into this fight that could have been spent helping to build up Dems who are going into tough fights in Nov. There’s also talk that if Lieberman runs as an Independent, he and Lamont are going to split the Dem vote and a Rep will win this race in Nov.
LikeLike
I’m with Herr Doktor Professor Burker on this one: They *did* pick off a Republican; he just flew under the enemy flag.
Moreover, Lieberman did a lot more harm as a Democrat than many Republicans in that seat would have, and certainly more than Lowell Weicker.
LikeLike
Setting aside the particular issues, it’s heartening to know that democracy still functions. Well, at least in Connecticut.
When was the last time an incumbent lost because people disagreed with his positions? We should all be cheering.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m with all the people who point out the primary issue. Not only that, but we need party reform. We need to show the “mainstream” party that the voters want someone a little more left of center-right to represent the Democratic party. So if this Lamont-Lieberman fight is going to encourage other candidates across the country to show their left sides just a little bit more, then I’m all for it.
Frolic also makes a very good point.
LikeLike
As something of a libertarian Democrat, I have to agree with the others. Lieberman has been a poor defender of freedom and a constant proponent of Congressional restrictions on free speech in the name of “decency”. I’m not sad to see him picked off.
That said, hard-left Kossian intolerance of the moderates is still a looming problem for the Democratic party as much as the Christian right is for Republicans.
LikeLike
I’m also pleased about Lamont’s win.
Lieberman portrays himself as bi-partisan, but bi-partisanship is a sucker’s game in the Karl Rove era. I think Lieberman has been a useful idiot for the Republicans. I don’t think he understands how politics has changed. His campaign was just awful, too, to the point where it made one question his character and judgment as a legislator. He showed a complete tin ear for the sentiments of rank and file CT Democrats, and his organization on the ground was awful. The party and Connecticut can do better.
The Republican candidate in this race is really weak, isn’t he? Plagued by a gambling scandal (if I recall correctly), doing pitifully in fundraising, etc. You’re right, Lieberman could make mischief if he makes a serious run as an independent candidate, but if he bows out, and his old friends are already pressuring him to bow out, I think Lamont will be in good shape in November.
LikeLike
I think one of the reasons this challenge could actually be mounted was Lamont using his personal wealth. Though it’s politics at it’s worst, we have to pragmatic that pockets will dry up when too much is spent on the primaries (that’s why I don’t contribute in primaries). But, Lamont seems to have spent his own money on this campaign, and energized his base in the primary.
This logic means primary challenges can only be mounted by the independentally wealthy, but I think that’s a price I’m willing to live with.
bj
LikeLike
“A lot of political energy went into this fight that could have been spent helping to build up Dems who are going into tough fights in Nov.”
I guess I can’t agree with this. It’s not as though there’s a finite amount of political energy to be spent. You create energy by spending energy. The momentum (but not Joe-mentum) thing.
I’m very pleased by Lamont’s victory.
LikeLike
Good point. I hate that being wealthy seems to be a requirement for running for Senate. But Lamont’s route was the one used by Jon Corzine and John Edwards, both of whom were pretty good.
Lamont winning does satisfy the rantings of a lot of anti-Lieberman bloggers. But honestly, look at Lamont — does he seem like a wild-eyed radical? He is not a creation of the blogs — he simply tapped into something that was there, that Lieberman and the party elders have been really slow to recognize. Connecticut is a sign that the blogosphere is onto something.
LikeLike
(Sorry, crosspost. “Good point” referred to bj.)
I think some people experienced Lieberman-Lamont fatigue; blogs focused on it (and may keep focusing on it) maybe out of proportion to its importance in the whole landscape.
But that’s a quibble. Yeah, it’s energy that could spread.
LikeLike
Zero Boss: Markos Moulitsas cannot be called not a hard left anything. In fact, more than any other left-leaning blog, Kos is a get-the-Dems-in-at-all-costs kinda site. In fact, other lefty blogs criticize him for not looking at the individual, and only looking at the party, even if the person is Lieberman or Zell Miller. I happen to disagree with that kind of mindset (Kos’s, that is). But remember, this is a primary, not a general election, so now they’ll still be fighting for the Democrat.
LikeLike
OK, so maybe I’m being a worry wart. If Lamont lives up to his reputation and Lieberman goes away, then all will probably be fine. If this victory builds momentum and solidifies the base, even better.
(Keep in mind that that we denizens of the Internet and primary voters aren’t typical voters. We’re much more educated, more left, more partisan, more politically active etc… )
re: political energy. In ordinary times, political energy is finite. There are only so many people willing to work the phones and donate money. People’s attention can only focus on one big race at a time. However, as you point out, Mary Catherine, political energy might get a boost by this victory. People who don’t ordinarily give money, might donate (bj). It might bring in new volunteers. So, yeah, maybe.
LikeLike
I think there’s some primo real estate getting opened up for a third party. I, for one, (and granted I’m an expat) absolutely do not feel at home in either party anymore.
LikeLike
Look, I’m potentially cool with the idea that there’s a “middling faction” that needs satisfaction and isn’t getting it. I certainly feel I’m a libertarian-leaning moderate in many respects, and a swing-voting independent who goes with the candidate, not the party. But I was sick with fury listening to David Brooks spin this today on NPR as a defeat for “moderates” against “extremists”, that Lieberman is a standard-bearer for moderates.
HE IS NOT.
Not.
Really.
The guy is a hard-core cultural conservative. Not a securocrat, not a pragmatic hard-liner. The Iraq War is the last and in some ways least of the dumb stands he’s taken during his time in the Senate. If the Dems want to capture some kind of middle, Lieberman is not the guy–the only person he helps them capture are people who would also vote for Pat Robertson, or Rick Santorum. Constituencies who back literally nothing of any kind of Democratic, progressive, libertarian, or to be blunt, reasonable consensus kind of agenda.
Lamont on paper is basically a pretty moderate guy–and if you look at his political and social background even more so. This is what Rove-defined politics has done: to question the war, in ANY WAY, is suddenly to be cast as a wild-eyed Islamic fundamentalist out to tear down America. If the Democratic voters in CT are angry at anything, they’re angry at that kind of “If you’re not with me, you’re an anti-American scumbag” game, which Lieberman has played to a T. He pretended to take it back the day before the election, and then was right back at it this morning on the talk shows, along with every Republican spinmeister in the country.
That kind of anger bodes ill for most incumbents, because most of them have either played the same card or have ducked the whole thing. And it should. There’s never been a better time to throw the entire gang out, to be honest. I think I’d be quite happy if every single incumbent lost this fall, but I’ll settle for the ones who have been the most egregriously slimy and manipulative. Lieberman tops that list by any standard.
LikeLike
Is Lieberman a moderate? I don’t know. I suppose it depends on how you defend moderate. I believe he does attract a lot of voters who self identify as moderate Democrats. Maybe they shouldn’t be called Democrats and just move on over to the other side. Can we win elections without them? Can we throw all the bums out? Nothing would make me happier, but it’s just something that happens very rarely in American politics.
Amused that Brooks got you hot and bothered, Tim. I wish I had heard him. Maybe the Dems need spinsters out on the field saying exactly what you said, Tim. They need to bring in the moderates by pointing out that Lamont is no extremist.
LikeLike
The notion of Lamont as an extremist is laughable. I don’t see how Brooks can keep a straight face while spinning this one.
But David Brooks cannot really believe half of what he says. He says it anyway.
LikeLike
The other thing that Brooks said is that there are three parties in America, the Dems, the Reps, and, in the middle, the “McCain-Lieberman party.” Since I feel like I’m to the left of the Dems I find this disheartening.
I am also struck that the Dems put a lot of energy into getting rid of Lieberman (well, some Dems) while the White House (I hear) worked to keep Lincoln Chaffee. Is this why the Dems keep losing? Because they actually do care what someone’s politics are more than they care about party loyalty? And if so, is that bad?
LikeLike