even-the-liberal 180
Aug. 13th, 2006 01:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sisyphusshruggedMr. Chait thinks Senator Lieberman should get out of the race
He's arriving a little late at the party, though
The careerists are running to the front of another parade as fast as their feet will carry them, and the last thing they want is a failure hung around their necks. Last week's narrative, while self-evidently true and undeniable at the time, is no longer operative.
It's hawser time. Lieberman's toast.
The night of his defeat, Lieberman tried to cast the result of the primary as illegitimate because "the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let this result stand." But what does it mean that the politics of partisan polarization won? It means that Lieberman lost. It's a perfectly circular definition.
Moreover, it's increasingly clear that Lieberman's loss is his own fault. He was far too slow to recognize the seriousness of Lamont's challenge. He ended the campaign with $2 million unspent. And his decision to now run as an independent was a disaster, confirming the central accusation against him, which was that he cared more about his own standing than his party. If he had just declared in advance that he would abide by the result of the primary, he probably would have won, and he'd have Lamont campaigning for him today.
Lieberman's decision to run as an independent after contesting the primary is not illegal in Connecticut (unlike other states, which have "sore loser" laws prohibiting such a gambit), but it is poor form. The primary is an essential element of the two-party system, and the process is subverted when losing candidates feel free to circumvent it. (Which is the problem with Ralph Nader-esque, suicidal third-party runs.) If the primary voters veer off too far toward the extreme, there's a built-in sanction: They will lose the general election and moderate their ways next time.
He's arriving a little late at the party, though
But if Lieberman's allies are irritating and often wrongheaded, alas, his enemies are worse. Lieberman recently declared, "I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party." Markos Moulitsas, the lefty blogger from Daily Kos who has appeared in a Lamont commercial and has made Lieberman's defeat a personal crusade, posted this quote on his website in the obvious belief that it's self-evidently absurd. But shouldn't we all have greater loyalties than the one to our party — say, to our country? Partisanship isn't nothing, but must it be everything?
Moulitsas and many of his allies insist that they just want Democrats to win. But in fact, they believe that any deviation from the party line — except for a few circumscribed instances, such as Democrats running for office in red states — is an unforgivable crime. They have consigned large chunks of the center-left to enemy status. It is an odd way to go about building a majority.
Their technique of victory-via-purge is on display in Connecticut. Although Lamont decided on his own to run, the left bloggers made his campaign their central cause. One result is that Lieberman has announced his intention to run an independent candidacy should he lose the primary. Moulitsas and other Lamont supporters are filled with outrage that Lieberman has opened up the possibility of splitting the liberal vote and letting a Republican win.
Well, OK, some anger is appropriate here. But doesn't this suggest that the whole Lamont crusade has sort of backfired? Although I'm no Karl Rove, it seems to me that turning a rock-solid Democratic seat into a potential Republican pickup represents something less than a political masterstroke.
The whole anti-Lieberman blog campaign has a self-fulfilling quality: They charge that Lieberman isn't a Democrat, they drive him from the party, and they declare themselves to be correct. The more ex-Democrats they create, the more sure of their own virtue they become.
The careerists are running to the front of another parade as fast as their feet will carry them, and the last thing they want is a failure hung around their necks. Last week's narrative, while self-evidently true and undeniable at the time, is no longer operative.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-13 05:53 pm (UTC)The issue is, he no longer reflects the opinions of his constituents.
Right or wrong enters into it it less then THE CORE TENANT of democracy.
You represent your electors.
Joe denies this by manipulating reality through spin.
I know very few people who buy the argument:
"Take this medicine even though it tastes like shit, because I know what's good for you!"
no subject
Date: 2006-08-13 06:07 pm (UTC)What they don't terribly like is posturing authoritarian bullies who back down and whine when someone stands up to them.
Personally, what annoys me particularly is the hangers on who held the bully's coat for him and then turned around and kicked him once he went down.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-13 07:33 pm (UTC)As I have said elsewhere, Lieberman is getting EXACTLY what he deserves and has deserved ever since his race with Weicker.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-13 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-13 08:56 pm (UTC)I perceive Lieberman as being a scumbag from the get go and deserving whatever the P.T.B. dish out to him.
You thing he is being treated unfairly by all the people dumping him.
I think that the end result of these actions for whatever reason they are happening are perfectly acceptable.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-13 09:52 pm (UTC)It seems as if I think he's being treated unfairly?
I think he's been nursed and petted thoroughly unfairly by people who valued him as a weapon to attack Democrats with and they just shivved him.
It couldn't happen to a nicer guy, or one who more richly deserved it.
I simply think his erstwhile friends are scumbags too.
Leiberman's Colleagues
Date: 2006-08-17 01:28 am (UTC)