Lieberman-Lamont: The Pundits Pontificate

by DemFromCT

UPDATE: excellent post from Mark Schmitt on checklist liberalism and politics.

It's been an interesting weekend, as pundits of all stripes begin to digest the idea that Lieberman can actually lose next week. The reports range from the interesting to the inane, in which category Jonathan Alter in Newsweek leads the pack. The thinking, according to Alter, is that even though it's not the blogs, it's the blogs.

The bloggers who have noisily intervened deny they're interested in ideological purity. They point to their support in Senate races for pro-life candidates. But on Iraq, the liberal blogs brook no dissent. Not that it matters in Connecticut. If Lamont wins, only the laziest analysts can attribute it to the Netroots. Daily Kos is not exactly Topic A in the diners and union halls of the Nutmeg State.

That's true. So what's the beef? Ah, it's that bloggers are the rebirth of the McGovernites that gave us Richard Nixon (honestly, I'm not making this up -it's in the article). But the other issue for Alter is that Dems are somehow purging Lieberman, despitr admitting that it's local issues that'll drive the primary results, not the blogs.

But if the blogs aren't a force on the ground, they are becoming a powerful factor in directing the passions (and pocketbooks) of far-flung Democratic activists. They're helping fuel a collective version of what shrinks call "projection," where the anger of Democrats at Bush is projected on a handy target, in this case Lieberman. But in doing so, they have neglected what FDR called "the putting of first things first." Job one for Democrats is identifying which Republican House incumbents are vulnerable in their own states and directing all available energy against them. Savaging fellow Democrats (except those who cannot win) should come after taking control, not before.

Hmm. Are there Dem-Repub elections in August we're ignoring? To read Alter, it sounds like a purge, no? Yet David Greenberg (a Rutgers media/journalism prof writing in the Globe) points out that the fault is more in Lieberman than the voters... and grasps the point about purges that eludes Alter:

Lieberman is at risk today not because of Internet-based leftists (except insofar as they publicized Lamont's challenge) but because of rank-and-file liberals like those who turned out for the state party's convention in May-where they awarded Lamont enough delegates to force the primary in the first place. These mainstream Democrats have simply grown uncertain whether to return to office someone whose politics no longer seem to reflect their own.

No grass-roots insurgency is implementing a ``purge" in the Democratic Party; purges aren't imposed from the bottom up. Lieberman's possible exit from the Democratic Party is closer to a mutual parting of the ways, a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences. Connecticut Democrats may decide-through a democratic vote-that they don't want him, and he may decide that his true support in the state lies with independents and Republicans.

This challenge is far more mainstream than the pundits allow themselves. The war is the central issue in Novemebr, so let's look at some polling on the war from Gallup, and take on Alter's weird analysis:

The majority of Americans continue to believe that the Bush administration's decision to involve the U.S. in Iraq over three years ago was a mistake. At the same time, there is no clear-cut direction from the people about what to do now. Only one out of five Americans would like to see an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The vast majority favor an eventual withdrawal of troops, but disagree as to the timetable, with some favoring removal within 12 months' time, and others only when it is possible to turn the country over to the Iraqis. There continue to be strong partisan differences in views on the Iraq war.

What part of majority of Americans do the pundits have trouble understanding? As for Democrats,

Despite calls for immediate withdrawal by some Democratic leaders in recent months, only 30% of Democrats favor that option.

Given that 44% of Democrats favor a one-year timetable for withdrawal of troops, it can be said that three-quarters of Democrats do favor withdrawal of troops within the next year. The majority of Republicans, on the other hand, favor the option that closely mirrors the administration's position -- withdrawal only when the country is ready to be turned over to the Iraqis.

So let's be clear here. Lieberman reflects the Republican and not the Democratic position on the war, and Democrats in CT may hold him accountable for not representing them in Washington. And this act of democracy (small d) has Alter's panties in a twist because this might usher in a new era of  McGovernism? What is wrong with him? Ahhhh, I know. He's been listening to DC Democratic "leaders":

Lieberman's challenger in Connecticut's Democratic primary, the fiercely antiwar Ned Lamont, says he's just trying to bring down one U.S. senator. "It's one thing to say we should have invaded Iraq," Lamont says. "But [Lieberman] goes out of his way to chastise those who think it's time to start bringing troops home." But Lamont, a Greenwich blueblood with a hefty bank account, also knows he's charging at the Democratic establishment, which discouraged him from running and is staking out a more nuanced line on Iraq. "August 9th is going to be a whole new day," he says of next week's primary, picking at a salad inside Fairfield's Jewish Home for the Elderly. "Democrats win when we're bold and clear. We're going to take away ... the ambiguity."

That's just what many in the national Democratic Party are afraid of. "The sense of division in itself presents a perception of weakness," says a top Democratic strategist in Washington about a possible Lamont victory. "People may say, 'You're right; we should withdraw from Iraq,' but the larger issue is they think we're squishy on national security." Indeed, the Lieberman-Lamont primary has shaped up as a head-on collision between the Democrats' staunchly antiwar base and party leaders worried about the security and political implications of an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, not only in the fall but also in 2008. Says pollster John Zogby: "The Connecticut race is for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party."

Al Hunt is another inside-the-beltway pundit who feeds this evolving pundit CW:

Although Democrats will likely hold the Senate seat whether he wins or not, party figures worry about the political fallout.

"A Lieberman loss is very bad for Democrats; it says we are one dimension on Iraq," says Peter Hart, a top Democratic polltaker. "Politically, Iraq should be a debate about the Bush administration. A Lieberman defeat detracts from that."

Are they handing out stoopid pills in DC? It's indecisiveness and a refusal to deal with reality that presents a perception of weakness, and nowhere is that more clear than on the issue of Iraq, the number one issue in the November 2006 election. 

First of all, Dems who voted to go to war have a problem, given the outcome. Dems who voted not to go were right. But any Dem who says "I trusted what the available evidence was at the time" would get a pass from November voters, as long as they don't get fooled again. Only Joe insults the voters by telling them to drop their distrust of Bush because he's President ("fool me again, W!"). As far as Americans dropping distrust of the incompetent Bush, it hasn't happened, it shouldn't happen, and it ain't gonna happen.

Second of all, Iraq is a mess and a quagmire. Dem "leadership thinking "in public is to say, well, we prefer not to talk about it. If so, why are they talking about it to every pundit and reporter in DC? But by not taking a position on Iraq, by not taking an opposition party stance, Americans begin to believe that DC Dems stand for either nothing or the wrong thing. That's a remarkably short-sighted position to take. The American public knows Iraq is a mess, it's reflected in the polls, and DC Dem leadership equivocation is also reflected in the poor marks Dem congresscritters get in public polls, because Americans recognize that that's NOT leadership.

None of the above translates into demanding an immediate pull-out, nor into reliving the 60's (something the Republicans are going to try and do, as they pull out the Nixon playbook and begin to blame Democrats for the Iraq debacle). Regardless of what Jonathan Alter thinks, that's not something I look forward to.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

BTW, Lieberman isn't the only politician to be hurt by the war. By 2008, his support for this war is going to doom McCain as well (my opinion).

[kaleidescope]

All I can say, DemfromCT, is what you say in this post.

But the more interesting and pertinent question is what we do intra-party after November. Some, though not all, D.C. insiders want to take marginal support from us and then ignore us while catering to their traditional corporate sponsors.

We, on the other hand, want more of a say and the D.C. (and, say, Sacramento) establishment consider us a threat to their gravy train.

This contradiction will grow when Democrats actually take control of Congress. The issue then will be the extent to which D.C. Dems can take disguised bribes from industry, to bypass us, their natural constituents, and perpetuate their incumbency over our heads. They fear us; we don't respect them.

Is this a shootout or something we can work out amongst us? Hard to tell, but we better be thinking about it.

[freepatriot]

If Lamont wins, any democrat who voted to invade Iraq can forget ever being President

that's what the incumbency protection racket is all about

HRH and the rest of the people who voted in support of bush's folly are afraid of the grass roots in Ct because the grass roots in Iowa and New Hampshire are likely to act in the same manner

if we eject holy joe loserman from the Senate, how could any Pro war democrat even show his face ???

we're the people who vote in those primaries, and we're the people who vollenteer for the candidates

what's gonna happen when every Pro War Democrat tries to import loseman's mercenaries to Iowa ???

[Dismayed]

You know. I'm not sure every democrat that voted "for the war" is doomed. Two things - First, the snow job was pretty good. I bought it at the time. Joe's big problem is he continually and willingly drinks the koolaid. He seems gleefully willing to roll with the delusion the Cheney administration continues to project. I think many Repubs are beginning to realize that to be a bad idea. Second, I don't think voting for the resolution was a vote for war in the minds of many. The simple fact is reps were voting to give the Prez the power to negotiate forcefully. To have voted the other way would have undermined our executive branches ability to negotiate effectively. Our reps made the mistake of trusting. The whole thing was brilliantly constructed to get the desired outcome, it was one hell of a catch 22. I don't blame a man for voting yes at the time. But, say it ain't so Joe, and all the rest like him have got to go.

[Dismayed]

As for Dems other than Joe. It has always amazed me how inept they seem with narrative. One simple sentence, "I didn't vote for the war, I voted not the cut the President's feet from under him - unfortunately, even with this intent it was a mistaken vote" would so nicely put an end to this "you voted for the war" mantra that Republicans keep shoving down well-meaning Dems throats. Our boys have got to learn to communicate.

[DemFromCT]

Dismayed, agree with both posts. McCain is going to be in trouble because he wants more troops (along with 7% of America).

I don't think this is about Hillary because I never think everything must be about Hillary. This is about Joe. But "I voted not the cut the President's feet from under him - unfortunately, even with this intent Bush screwed up" works fine.

[KdmFromPhila]

A Lamont victory would be good for the Dems because it might finally compel those who have been silent on Iraq to speak out about the war and to take a tougher line towards the administration. Perhaps the pundit class senses that too and doesn't want to address its role in ustifying the case for war and in covering the debacle that has been unfolding since April 03.

[DHinMI]

What's the meaning of the Ed Case challenge to Daniel Akaka? Surely there's some profound significance to that race that shows Democrats hate America, right?

These guys need to get a clue and a life.

[Mimikatz]

I'm with Kaleidopscope and Dismayed. The current generation of Dem leaders are so risk averse they have lost the ability to develop and take a position on anything. This makes them terminally wishy-washy. I have more hope for the more recent crop of candidates. They will see that Lieberman's way is suicide, not Lamont's way.

And I agree about McCain. And without him, the GOP has no one with any cred on foreign relations and national security. They are in as much if not more trouble for 2008 than the Dems. We always have Gore as a fallback. He looks better and better.

[Dismayed]

Mc Cain is an interesting case. Agree that calling for more troops and supporting the Prez is a mistake with moderateds and those tending Dem, but many of those are sophisticated enough to understand that he has no choice in that if he wants the nomination, and may give him a hall pass on those issues for now. Even more interesting is how "porcupine kiss" his relationship with the RNC and Conservative base is at the moment. Clearly, he's been having to run around kissing rings, but at the same time we see bullshit news stories about his temper pushed by the neo-wogs. They would just love to have a better candidate, and it seems like, for now, they are going to walk a line between hugging and swift-boating him. Ironically, I think both sides have the exact same fear about John, "Yeah, but what will he really be like if we elect him?". Interesting case indeed.

[Mimikatz]

Good analysis by Mark Schmitt on Lieberman and the end of "checklist liberalism." I think he's right that progressives want a vision that extends toward the common good and away from narrow self-interest.

[Fletcher]

A victory for Lamont, a WASP upstart millionaire with no political credentials, experience or record, is a feather in Kos' hat, but almost certainly detrimental to the Democrats in November, and ground zero of the netroots effort to destroy Hillary Clinton's campaign for the Presidency.

[DemFromCT]

"but almost certainly detrimental to the Democrats in November"

Why? If you repeat the charge, explain the charge. In fact, the current Dem letter to Bush on iraq argues just the opposite, and shows how the Dems can move beyond Lieberman.