Once more on Connecticut
Unfortunately, it's been a slow news summer, and Left Blogistan is turning into a 24-hour Lieberman Watch as a result. Almost all of what can be said has been said by now, but there's one last argument I'd like to see, ah, purged from the discussion. This quote is a little stale, but it comes straight from the DLC, and has been repeated a lot by the punditry that is getting the vapors from the mean kids with blogs:
To the DLCs and David Brookseses and Jason Zengerles of the world, the CT Senate race is not just a choice between two candidates, but it is a referendum on the ideological purity of the Party (and yes, only two candidates are in this election; no matter who wins the primary, a Republican will not have the seat in 2007, Jon Chait's handwringing notwithstanding).
It isn't about ideological purity.
When Connecticut voters go to the polls in August, they won't be voting on whether the Democratic party "has room" for dissenters, war supporters, or even those who think rape victims should have to hospital-shop in order to find emergency contraception. That question is not going to be on the ballot, literally or figuratively. Connecticut voters will be voting on the very narrow question of whether they think they will be better represented in Washington by Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont. Even the "fever swamp" of crazed bomb-throwing liberalswithblogs understands that Democrats will not be in lockstep on every issue, particularly the big ones. To suggest otherwise is a pretty obvious and pretty weak strawman.
The question that Connecticut Dems will be answering in the ballot box is not about the Party. It's about Lieberman and Lamont. One or the other. If Lamont wins, it will be because Connecticut Democrats agreed with more of his positions than Joe Lieberman's. No matter how much you love or hate Joe Lieberman, the election is not being held in a vacuum. It is not a theoretical referendum on loyalty. It's a narrow question on the beliefs and the ability of the two men on the ballot. No amount of hand-wringing from David Brooks about ideological inquisitions will make a primary voter pull the lever for a candidate with whom that voter disagrees, when someone else is on the ballot that better represents the voter's values.
If Lieberman loses (and I don't actually think he will), it won't be because Democrats don't tolerate dissent. It will be because the voters of Connecticut had a choice, and they liked the alternative more. So please, DLC and the rest of you....stop making this election something it isn't. For the sake of your fainting couches, if nothing else.
A party with no room for Joe Lieberman -- or for that matter, such occasionally lonely dissenters on the left as Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders -- is a party with no prospects for a majority. It's the worst possible time for Democrats to make that choice.
To the DLCs and David Brookseses and Jason Zengerles of the world, the CT Senate race is not just a choice between two candidates, but it is a referendum on the ideological purity of the Party (and yes, only two candidates are in this election; no matter who wins the primary, a Republican will not have the seat in 2007, Jon Chait's handwringing notwithstanding).
It isn't about ideological purity.
When Connecticut voters go to the polls in August, they won't be voting on whether the Democratic party "has room" for dissenters, war supporters, or even those who think rape victims should have to hospital-shop in order to find emergency contraception. That question is not going to be on the ballot, literally or figuratively. Connecticut voters will be voting on the very narrow question of whether they think they will be better represented in Washington by Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont. Even the "fever swamp" of crazed bomb-throwing liberalswithblogs understands that Democrats will not be in lockstep on every issue, particularly the big ones. To suggest otherwise is a pretty obvious and pretty weak strawman.
The question that Connecticut Dems will be answering in the ballot box is not about the Party. It's about Lieberman and Lamont. One or the other. If Lamont wins, it will be because Connecticut Democrats agreed with more of his positions than Joe Lieberman's. No matter how much you love or hate Joe Lieberman, the election is not being held in a vacuum. It is not a theoretical referendum on loyalty. It's a narrow question on the beliefs and the ability of the two men on the ballot. No amount of hand-wringing from David Brooks about ideological inquisitions will make a primary voter pull the lever for a candidate with whom that voter disagrees, when someone else is on the ballot that better represents the voter's values.
If Lieberman loses (and I don't actually think he will), it won't be because Democrats don't tolerate dissent. It will be because the voters of Connecticut had a choice, and they liked the alternative more. So please, DLC and the rest of you....stop making this election something it isn't. For the sake of your fainting couches, if nothing else.
posted by Nim at
10:45 AM
4 Comments:
Very good point. If it was all about ideological purity, we'd be targeting people like Salazar and Ben Nelson. But they're in red or purple states, and so have to be on the conservative edge to more accurately represent their constituents (I still think they're useless bastards, but I understand the political reality).
But Joe is in a *blue* state, and I just don't see how acting exactly like a Republican represents a largely Democratic constituency. I think a lot of them are starting to realize, "Hey, we could just... elect a real Democrat instead!"
By
Eli, at 6:45 PM
I guess I could have said it in a lot fewer words...
voters aren't going to decide whether Joe Lieberman is liberal "enough," measured by the arbitary standard set by Kos. They're going to decide whether Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont will represent them in Congress better.
Of course, every one of the hand-wringers is framing the question the wrong way. And will, therefore, draw completely unjustified conclusions from the election itself, regardless of the outcome.
By
Nim, at 8:15 PM
My prediction: Lamont crushes Lieberman in the primary. Under extreme pressure, Holy Joe bails out of the Senate race and takes a multi-million dollar gig as a lobbyist for one of the big defense contractors, where he can make good use of those bi-partisan congressional connections of his.
By
peter, at 11:53 PM
"My prediction: Lamont crushes Lieberman in the primary. Under extreme pressure, Holy Joe bails out of the Senate race and takes a multi-million dollar gig as a lobbyist for one of the big defense contractors, where he can make good use of those bi-partisan congressional connections of his."
I don't see it happening. Lieberman's petulance and sense of entitlement to his Senate seat are too great to let him slink out of the race, if he loses the primary.
I think there are even odds on Lamont in the primary. And if he does win, that giant lead Lieberman has in the polls on a general election will dry up quickly. But he'll still be the favorite, and he'll hang on to the bitter end, no matter what. Kind of a less-crazed Katherine Harris.
By
Nim, at 9:23 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home