If I were an officeholder of the Democratic party, I might be tempted to say something like this:
"I congratulate Ned Lamont on his primary victory over Joe Lieberman, and I hope he becomes the next senator from the Great State of Connecticut.
As a committed member of the Democratic Party, I would vote for him.
But neither can I stand against Senator Lieberman, who's now running for re-election as an independent. My friendship, admiration, and respect for his conscientious service to our country, despite our disagreement about the Iraq war, forbid me to work for his defeat. And so, I will place my trust in the people of the state of Connecticut to make the right decision.
May the best man win."
Of course, only after the smoke had cleared (and not before), opportunists like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid didn't miss a beat, gleefully jumping on Joe Lieberman's grave as if boogie-ing to a Gary Glitter tune. Do You Wanna Touch Me There? Vultures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton predictably maneuvered themselves to Ned's side just in time for his victory speech.
Reminds me a bit of an infamous story where Don King started out on the heavily-favored Joe Frazier's side of the ring but had made his way to George Foreman's corner by the time Big George had totally demolished Smokin' Joe by the fifth round.
By comparison to the Don Kings and the current crop of Democratic leadership, give me a weasel over an opportunist anytime. Help wanted.
4 comments:
The Democrats have become a "power uber alles" party. Ultimately, this will cause them to self-destruct, but in the short run, the sort of politician that now dominates their ranks will respond more powerfully to the incentives that seem to bear on his personal future -- i.e., his immediate prospects of re-election, advancement, and so forth -- than to the long-term spectre of Whig-like marginalization.
Pure Public Choice economics at work.
"The Democrats have become a "power uber alles" party."
Mrr?
Surely you have something tangible to say after such a broad and unsupported assertion.
(This guy's fun. I like him. Once Buzz and I started agreeing on stuff, I was afraid there'd be no one to fill my rabid mouthpiece fix.)
“I have followed his career eversince he defeated Lowell Weicker.”
Well then, perhaps you should understand Lieberman’s defeat better if that’s the case. Lieberman defeated Weicker by running on the platform that, after 18 years in the Senate, Weicker was out of touch with Connecticut Democrats. And now Lieberman has been defeated, after 18 years in the Senate, because he was out of touch of the wishes of his constituent.
Oh, the irony. It is delicious and nutritious.
I find it completely normal for the Democratic leadership to hew to Lamont. After all, he is now the Democratic nominee. One of the reasons Lieberman lost was because he was seen as undermining party unity; the Democratic leadership supporting Lieberman now would be suicide in the electoral calculus - he can’t be the Democratic nominee anymore, and so, if he wins as an independent, that makes seven Republicans the Democrats need to unseat in the Senate instead of six in order to gain a majority and enable Congress to start performing the whole “checks and balances” portion of its job description.
"Bull. Lieberman was cannibalized by the unhinged wing of his party for one reason and one reason only. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this."
Everyone who knows this must be unspeakably dense or ill-informed.
If Lieberman was the result of some "radical fringe antiwar McGovernite wussy-monkey leftist purge," then why did Dianne Feinstein - who supported the Iraq War resolution, is a die-hard supporter of Israel and the Grand Global Struggle in War Agaist the Islomafascist Terror to End All Terrors, and was a co-sponser of the reviled PATRIOT Act among other idiotic pieces of legislation - skate past her primary opponent with 87% of the vote?
Remember all those massive rallies in Berkeley, San Francisco, and Los Angeles demonizing Feinstein for her stance on the war? If you did, you'd be the only one - because they never happened.
Remember how Ben Nelson lost to his anti-war challenger, another honest Democrat punished for his pro-war stance? Oh, wait, he didn't even have a primary opponent.
See how Washington's Maria Cantwell is in the fight of her life against primary opponent Tranh, who is running on an anti-war platform? Oh, right, Tranh has no money, no support, and is nowhere even remotely close to Cantwell in the polls.
Of the eight pro-war Democratic senators running for re-election this year, five are or were (in Lieberman's case) in solidly blue-states where anti-war opinion burns brightly (including New York and California, where wealthy antiwar liberals abound). Of those five, one - Lieberman - faced or will face serious primary opposition.
I might be young and may or may not know everything, but I'd say it's pretty safe to conclude that the facts are against you.
Post a Comment