Mike Allen's recent piece published on Time Magazine's website: "Why the Republicans Are Loving the Lieberman Loss," deeply disturbed me when I read it this morning. It disturbed me not because its thesis, that Lamont's victory spells doom for the Democratic party, holds any water, but rather, it disturbed me because the author of the piece, though demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of politics outside the "beltway bubble," is still published by Time, despite the poor quality of his analysis and thinly veiled Republican bias of his writing.
More:
The article begins with bemoaning Lieberman's loss as a disaster for Democratic prospects all over the country and repeats the neocon talking point that Lamont's victory somehow signals that democrats are "weak" and "isolationist" on national security issues. It continues with an account of handwringing on the part of the Democrats themselves, saying:
Doleful Democrats bemoaned the irony: At a time when Republicans should be back on their heels because of chaos abroad and President Bush's unpopularity, the Democrats' rejection of a sensible, moralistic centrist has handed the GOP a weapon that could have vast ramifications for both the midterm elections of '06 and the big dance of '08.
Which "Doleful Democrats" are these? Who are Mr. Allen's sources for this sentiment? Perhaps Mr. Allen just made this up? Alternatively, perhaps he only bothered himself with talking to a spokesperson from the DLC, a group within the democratic party which is so fearful of losing their leadership role that they'll attack other democrats with the same gusto as the most strident republicans. Their only loyalty is to their own power. In either of these cases, this comment lacks any credibility, and I challenge Mr. Allen to either come forward with his sources for this comment, or else withdraw his article.
The remainder of the article merely provides a conduit for republican talking points. Mr. Allen extensively quotes Mike Mehlman, Tony Snow, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, the NRSC, the NRCC, Dan Gerstein (a senior Lieberman advisor), Mary Matalin, and then back to Mehlman, in that order. The talking points on the ramifications of the Lamont victory that these people have been peddling are not news, so I won't bother to repeat them here. The overall theme however is that by voting for Lamont over Lieberman, the voters of Connecticut have sent a message to the world that the Democratic party has become a party of the "extreme left."
Of course this is utter nonsense. The strength of the Democratic party is its diversity. Running for election this year, there are many conservative Democrats like Harold Ford Jr., centrist Democrats like Bob Casey and Jim Webb, and yes, even liberal Democrats like Ned Lamont. The entire point of having a federal system of government is to respect the sovereignty of each individual state, and to give the people of each state the opportunity choose their representatives and senators independent of the interference of other states or of interests in Washington, D.C. Federalism was contrived out of an understanding that voters in different states may have differing needs and that a politician who is good for the state of Georgia for example, may be disastrous for a state like Rhode Island. Ned Lamont does not represent the Democratic party, Ned Lamont represents the Democratic voters of the state of Connecticut, no more, no less, and that's as it should be. To suggest differently would be an expression of dirision for our system of democracy.
In case you may be thinking that Mr. Allen was only doing his job as a journalist by impartially reporting on what Republicans are saying, he closes with the following remark:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued a statement this morning pointing to strong turnout in the primaries and declaring that Democratic voters "are energized." The challenge for Dean, and his party, is to channel that energy in a direction that makes victory more likely, not less.
Of course, in this one statement he is giving his endorsement to all the above commentary by Mehlman, Rove, Cheney, Matalin, et al. Mr. Allen has melded Republican talking points with those of the Lieberman campaign and presented them as if they were "conventional wisdom." The problem is that this "wisdom" bears no relation to reality. Mr. Allen's article was presented by Time Magazine as as a piece of political analysis. Sadly, it is nothing more than an editorial, a half-informed rant by an overpaid stoodge who doesn't understand Democracy. Time should be ashamed to peddle such garbage.