Criticizing Democratic Party politics from a right-wing
perspective can be a hard sell, mainly because it involves throwing
stones in a glass house. Whereas the Republicans are worried about
their prospects in the 2006 election as a result of a lack of
fidelity to their base, the Democrats are finding out what their
base feels — and it’s not pretty.
The three-term senator from Stamford faces accusations of being
“too conservative” as he is reportedly losing ground to a relative
unknown while seeking the Democratic nomination. He is frequently
cited for criticizing Clinton’s affairs, supporting the war in
Iraq, castigating Hollywood for exposing children to sex and
violence, and calling for school vouchers. All this has earned him
the reputation of being “further to the right than most Republicans
in the Northeast.” So, clearly, the Democrats would be a
little upset, wouldn’t they?
Actually, no, that’s a trick question. Lieberman’s criticism of
Clinton resulted in a push for censure, not for impeachment. His
religiosity doesn’t preclude his cozy pro-choice stance, most of
his rhetoric favors big government, and during his candidacy in
2000 for the Vice Presidency, one could hardly say his was even a
remotely conservative platform. On the issues, Lieberman is an
establishment Democrat. So why are people treating Joe Lieberman
like the next Zell Miller?
Maybe because it’s not what Lieberman believes, but how
he makes those beliefs known. Los Angeles Times columnist
Ron Brownstein summed up the problem on Meet the Press last
Sunday (video here):
He seems to have gone out of his way through this
process to provoke the Democratic base…. You know, the entire
idea of a primary had really wound down in Connecticut until he
went out last fall and … criticized Democrats for criticizing
President Bush.
Here are a few of Brownstein’s examples. The same night MoveOn.org
held a 24-hour online primary to decide whether to enter the
Democratic race, Lieberman received an award from the conservative
Committee on the Present Danger. Prior to that, he was the first
speaker on the Republicans’ time against the Kerry-Feingold
amendment to pull out troops from Iraq.
That’s it? That’s a Democrat sell-out? When Republicans complain
that someone sells out, they usually switch parties or raise taxes.
Lieberman’s greatest sin, apparently, is supporting the war effort
and being statesmanlike in his approach. The fact that Lieberman
isn’t angry is apparently reason enough for Dems to get even more
angry.
RUSS FEINGOLD RECENTLY told the press that whoever wins the primary
will get his support. This is the Senator’s way of saying “I
support his opponent” without actually saying it. That’s a big if,
especially when taking into consideration Lieberman’s opponent,
Greenwich executive Ned Lamont. Lamont mirrors Feingold’s approach,
particularly against the war. One of Lamont’s ads
starts, “I’m running for the U.S. Senate. I’m running because
George W. Bush is wrong.” Well, if this is the new Democratic
junior senator from Connecticut, Feingold would have good reason to
celebrate.
Seeking to exploit the association between Lieberman and Bush
(the other commercial in the previous link references the senator
as Bush’s lapdog) may not be the worst tactic: An in-state June 8th
Quinnipiac University poll finds 73% disapproving of the War in
Iraq. But that may be too many eggs in one basket. Lamont is
ecstatic about emphasizing he’s no one-issue candidate by making
something of remarkably small differences.
When asked what issues define the differences in the campaigns,
a spokeswoman from the Lamont campaign offered that Lamont would
never have stood among the Gang of Fourteen famously touted as
clearing the way for an Alito nomination. Lamont will make
universal health care a greater priority. Oh, and Lamont would
never have voted for the last energy bill, condemned roundly by
environmentalists. And you could forget about Lieberman’s stance on
Terri Schiavo. The spokeswoman concluded confidently, “The people
want a change.”
Really? Connecticut Democrats would give up Lieberman’s
political savvy and committee seniority over these seemingly minor
quibbles? Isn’t that just, well, dumb?
FOR ALL THE CARPING on the part of conservatives complaining that
Republicans are spend-crazy lunatics, one would think they could
appreciate why the anti-war grassroots left looks at Lieberman with
the kind of scorn reserved typically for an interfering
mother-in-law. But the issue isn’t ideology; as mentioned,
Lieberman fits the bill. It’s his tone.
The primary is in Connecticut, a state set to re-elect its
incumbent Republican Governor, Jodi Rell, who came into office
after her predecessor, John Rowland, was indicted on charges of
corruption and sent to jail. Rell has apparently cleansed herself
of the association by pushing low taxes (including the phasing out
of an estate tax she herself signed into law) and government
reform, and though considered a liberal Republican, is fiscally
conservative and pro-gun. Rep. Chris Shays, a prominent Connecticut
RINO in the House, is only somewhat similar to Lieberman, and faces
a challenge in the upcoming general election because of his support
of Iraq. And for what it’s worth, the AFL-CIO in Connecticut voted
to endorse Lieberman in the primary. It does not seem obvious by
looking at Connecticut’s political roster that the drift is toward
the left. The drift is toward “stodgy northeasternism.” Hardly a
mandate.
And here is the rub: the same poll that finds the Iraq War so
abhorrent still finds that among all voters Republican and
Democrat, Lieberman is the best candidate to go up against anyone
the Republicans have to offer in the general election, even if he
runs on an independent ticket. Apparently the Iraq War isn’t the
problem everyone is saying it is. What’s worse, if Lieberman
does run on the independent ticket, as the Prowler noted
Monday, Democratic strategists worry that he will be
all the more likely to align himself with Republicans. In their
minds, such a move would mean a kiss of death for their plans to
reverse the 1994 Republican take-over. But Lieberman campaign
officials have clearly stated they’re not much interested in
pursuing the independent ticket (even if they haven’t officially
ruled it out). As one noted, “He’s a Democrat, through and
through.”
Even so, the prospect of an Independent Lieberman serves as a
helpful reminder of his worth to his party. Lieberman’s candidacy
is a fact, and on August 8th, primary voters will have to decide
what’s worth losing. Besides, if Lieberman runs and wins on an
independent ticket, he only has to say the word and come back to
the Democratic Party, where he belongs.
