Closing In On August 8

by DemFromCT

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 - Kondrake, 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 salientand 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.

Comments

[emptywheel]

DemFrom

What's the date of the Insider's poll? I'm assuming those insiders hadn't yet had a chance to absorb the Rasmussen numbers?

[DemFromCT]

This was published friday (so taken prior to that), the Rasmussen numbers were released Saturday (full story and data not yet released).

[emptywheel]

Though of course, their timidity goes right to the core of the issue, doesn't it? 31% hedgers?

[DemFromCT]

As david ignatius said on the Chris Matthews show with david gregory.:

"this primary puts Dems on the losing side of the national security issue for 2008."

Get out of DC, david. The country is seeing the R approach to nat security collapse. Do you feel safer yet? Putz.

[Mimikatz]

Matthews properly chided the neocons--all you people want is war. I really don't think a majority of the public shares that view. And even for the right wing, for many isolation is the default position on foreign affairs. In the end, only rabid neocons and Bushbots will be supporting Bush's view.

And as they figure out they were lied to about global warming too, there may be hell to pay. It was 102 degrees in Oakland yesterday and in the more easterly parts of the East Bay it reached 113, Phoenix-like temperatures. I think the median termprature here in July is more like 70-75, because of the fog.

[DemFromCT]

David brooks tries to defend the status quo as usual, and fails as usual. he divides conservatives into Edmond Burke isolationists championed by George Will and neocons championed by Bill Kristol. he puts himself in the Lieberman camp of two (himself and joe) because the neocons recognize the danger but the Burkes recognize the need for caution.

he's an ass as always, demonstrating that defending joe is defending himself, whicle acknowledging no one on his side really agrees with him.

[Mimikatz]

Via Kos, Irving Stolberg, Lieberman's longtime friend and colleague in the CT Legislature, writing in the hartford Courant on why he is supporting Lamont.

The end is in sight.

[DemFromCT]

A comment on TPM cafe to this M Schmitt post cites John McKinney as another R name to look for post Aug 8. He joins Jack Orchulli in the 'replace Schlesinger' -er- derby.

[Sara]

Seems to me that the proper response to the DC Pundit Corps worry that a Lamont victory would lead to a decade of Dem losses on grounds of National Security -- would be to ask them to comment on the straw polls now about six months old, being conducted on progressive blogs, as to who should run in o8 for the WH.

As expected, Feingold probably leads, but for six or seven monthly polls, a retired four star General leads or comes in a near second. Ask them to explain the attraction of Wes Clark to the Netroots crowd?

I think it comes down to a demand across many voting blocks for authenticity and competence. And Lieberman is one of the first high profile pol's to get caught in his own bubble. Looking at an interview with a former elected official from a black inner city area in Bridgeport, and whether true or not his point was that Lieberman had not attended a single event in the Black community in 18 years. He was pointing to Lieberman's claim he had marched in 1964 in Alabama -- but he had not connected with the community he represented in over 18 years. It seems to me that being competent as a Senator or House Member includes maintance of connections with those you represent -- and Pundits ought to do Punditary on the quality of those connections.

[Jay Ackroyd]

Spencer Ackerman at TNR reported that one reason Lieberman has not been committing quite so many embarassing gaffes is that Dodd sat down with him. While Dodd is not gonna move off his position of making no endorsement in the general until the primary is run, these poll results may provide a lever to affect Lieberman's commitment to the general. If local constituents were to get in touch with his offices, refer to the Ackerman piece, and suggest that maybe there should be a sit-down during the first week of August to dissuade Joe from the independent run, it may have some effect on Dodd's view of the general.