Having had a few days to digest the blockbuster news that Lieberman will run his campaign weasel style, a couple thoughts have crystalized.
1. Lieberman has generated such enthusiastic opposition because he long ago ceased to stand for something. We've seen this again and aain, from 2000, when he refused to commit fully to his vice-presidential bid, to his two-faced attempts to claim he voted against Bush's judges while voting the wrong way on the cloture voters, to his refusal to fall in line on social security when Democrats were uniformly united in opposition to Bush's efforts to gut our most cherished government program.
Lieberman fancies himself a "maverick", yet by flopping around on so many issues, people have lost sight of the values that drive Lieberman. It's not as if his maverick behavior is based on some deeply held values. Well, other than giving his party leadership heartburn every opportunity that might arise and getting his mug on Fox News. He likes to act like "maverick" for his own sake, not for a larger cause or purpose. In other words, he's a weasel.
So suddenly, Lieberman is faced with a big, race-defining decision -- does he run as a Democrat or as an independent? And rather than show true courage and conviction by choosing between those two options, he further reinforces his image as a weasel by trying to have it both ways.
Deciding to both run in the primary and the general, Lieberman has betrayed weakness, fear, and contempt for the Democrats of his state. He's told them, in essence, "I'll give you one more chance to vote the right way, and if you don't, then fuck you." Real attractive. Real statesman-like.
The local press has been brutal. And if Joe thinks he'll have an easier time of it in November, he's sadly mistaken. The stench of being a loser will make him unattractive to all but his most loyal Republican supporters.
2. It's not just about the war. Lieberman and his allies keep talking about this race as though the Iraq War is the only issue on the table, and they keep talking about the party needing to be tolerant of his war cheerleading and not have a litmust test on the issue.
Howgwash. Litmus test? What litmus test? The Democratic Party establishment is firmly behind Lieberman. From elected officials, to most issue groups and labor unions. This is a big tent party, and it's perfectly happy accomodating Lieberman in its ranks.
Lieberman's problem isn't with the party. It's with the voters. And they're not happy. And since he's representing them, he has to keep them happy. And if they're not happy, they kick his ass out. Otherwise, he gets another six years.
3. Loyalty. Hillary Clinton, no doubt properly prodded by new hire Peter Daou, has made it clear that despite making common cause with Lieberman on the war, this is about an entirely different issue. It is about respecting the party and its voters.
I've known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party's nominee. But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary. I believe in the Democratic party; and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters. The challenges before us in 2006 call for a strong, united party, in which we all support and work for the candidates who are selected in the Democratic process.
It may be stating the obvious, but this isn't our actual Democratic maverick (Feingold) saying this, it's one of the top representatives of the DC establishment. At a time when Lieberman is seeking to shore up support for his independent bid, this was a high-profile statement that Lieberman couldn't count on such support. That statement is significant.
4. November is a base election. Democrats in Connecticut are starting to realize that they will have a better chance to make gains at the federal and state levels in November with Ned Lamont's people-powered army behind their backs, than with an incumbent Senator that would rather walk parade routes with Republican congresswomen than their Democratic opponents:
5. Sore loser law. Incumbents have too many advantages, and it's their safe seats that allow them to become so corrupt once in office. Allowing incumbents to bypass the will of their primary voters if they lose a primary should be forbidden. Make incumbents choose the path to reelection -- via their party's primary or as an independent. Doing both shouldn't be allowed.
--------
Support the real Democrat in the race:
Update: Wasn't Lieberman supposed to have integrity? So why does he say shit like this?
"My loyalty to the Democratic Party goes back a lot further than his," Lieberman said Wednesday during a meeting with the editorial board of The News-Times. "Ned Lamont is less about his party than himself and his point of view."
Projection, much? Ned has promised to support the winner of the Democratic Party, not Lieberman. And it's Ned who is being disloyal? Incredible.
Also, Jane Hamsher has more.
Comments are closed on this story.