Closing In On August 8

It's a hot summer, but CT politics remain as hot as the weather. By now, folks have likely seen the Rasmussen poll reported by Political Wire.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows Ned Lamont (D) beating Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) in the Democratic primary, 51% to 41%.

Here's the stunning finding: In the general election, Lieberman and
Lamont are tied with 40% with Alan Schlesinger (R) trailing behind with
13%.

The writing is so clear that even the cautious and tame establishment types of the pundit world are beginning to do a death watch on their good buddy, a fine man in their eyes whose Iraq support is inexplicable for its stubbornness. There are many examples to choose from.

Take Joe Klein (please take Joe Klein, preferably far away). Center-right TIME magazine has become a flaming liberal newsweekly by virtue of the Republicans dragging the country even farther right. With the standard disclaimer about how what a great guy DC Joe is (to them):

The real problem with Lieberman's position on Iraq isn't overweening civility, however. It is that he has abandoned his native moderation for utopian neoconservatism. His support for the invasion wasn't reluctant, nuanced or judicious; he saw a better world coming. Before the war, he told me that he hoped Saddam's fall would touch off a wave of democratic reform in the region. Given that the entire Middle East seems ready to collapse into chaos this summer, it might seem an appropriate time to revise or extend those remarks--to regret his naivete or defend his long-term vision or slam Bush for carelessly betraying that vision ... or something. But the Senator isn't doing that. Indeed, it sometimes seems his position is more reflexive than thoughtful. He still insists that progress is being made in Iraq. "What progress?" I asked. "There's an elected national-unity government," he said. "I don't want to overstate it, but we're beginning to reach out to the Sunni insurgency."

Joe Lieberman is, without question, one of the finest men I've known in public life. I could never imagine myself voting against him. But he was profoundly wrong about the most important issue of the past five years--and now, at the very least, he has to acknowledge that there's an elephant sitting in the pickup truck.

Klein's not the only one. Conservative columnists all over the country have found new life as conservative Democrats (that's what they must be - Kondracke, NRO and the rest just looove Joe this  month). But the best is when Bush runs a highly partisan administration for 6 years, then they decry "the partisanship" that's taking place. They're shocked  - shocked - to find gambling going on in this casino.

Hoover Institution fellow Morris Fiorina told me it scares him to watch the extremes dominate each party as they chase moderates out of office. In this case, Connecticut Dems may be "willing to sacrifice" a shot at taking control of the U.S. Senate from the GOP  --  Lieberman would be the surer bet to win in November  --  "for the sake of their ideological purity."

While many Democrats say they want to see an end to partisan rancor, Fiorina added, Lamont's supporters "are the kind of people who thrive on partisan rancor." Where moderates see bipartisan bonhomie, they see a traitor.

As Fiorina sees it, when busy moderates sit out primaries, they "abandon the field to all those people who have extreme views."

That assumes Lamont and his supporters have extreme views, no? Yet Klein says the rest of his views are "standard cardboard purchased from the Democratic Campaign Depot store". Doesn't sound very extreme to me. This 'extreme' idea is both a talking point and a crutch for those who don't get it.

Actually when moderates don't write newspaper columns or run for office, they abandon the field to op-ed writers and politicians with extreme views. One side has played that game incessantly.The reaction from voters is just that - a reaction. Fiorina, who wrote the Myth of Polarized America, has covered this in 2004:

We have to pay attention to what elites are doing to make issues salient and to divide the population, not simply in what voters are doing.

GWEN IFILL: What do you mean when you say elites?

MORRIS P. FIORINA: By elites I mean the candidates, the activists, the parties basically, the corporate parties out there, and right now the Republicans in particular have found it politically advantageous to fight on values issues. This is one of the ways in which they undermine the old New Deal economic coalition for the Democrats.

Another interesting take is from the subscription only National Journal. In their Insiders's Poll, they ask "what's the smartest reaction from Democratic leaders if Llieberman loses to Lamont in the primary?"

61% of the Dem insiders advise backing Lamont, only 8 Lieberman. The rest hedge (14% neutral, 9% endorse Lamont but don't help, 2% the same for Joe%, 8% other). What's interesting are some of the quotes from the"back Joe" crowd.

Actively back Lieberman

"We can't afford to be branded as the pacifist party. And that's what the netrooters want."

That's on the D side. This is the R side:

Actively back Lieberman

"Democrats will suffer significant damage to their national image if they throw Lieberman over the cliff. Reinforces their weakness on national security, and he will win anyway."

"Lieberman wins even in a three-way race, and the real race will be the courting he gets from both sides of the aisle to caucus with them after the election. Democrats would be smart to make him happy pre-election, so he continues to caucus with them."

"As we move to the 2008 presidential cycle, the last thing Democrats need is the demise of a respected leader who dares to think for himself on issues of national defense."

That, in a nutshell, is the issue to the Non-Lamont backers in DC. While I emphasize that this is minority opinion, the antipathy to the netroots from Fiorina's 'elites' is striking, as is even more the antipathy to those challenging the war.

There's just about nothing Lieberman can do to fix his Iraq calibration at this point. Klein and the other "moderate" enablers in the press, too quick to tar thoughtful dissenters to Bush and the war as leftist, radicals, hapless, strident and other pejoratives without using the proper term  - "majority opinion" - need to do their own recalibration. Connecticut voters really do not care how well Leiberman represents Klein and the other DC pundits. They care about how he represents Connecticut. And right now, Lieberman's not the candidate that does.

cross-posted to The Next Hurrah