Bringing Down Lieberman Could Hurt Progressives' Own Cause
So says E.J. Kessler of The Forward:
I don't agree with John Droney's ill-begotten sentiments that Jews should vote for Lieberman just for the sake of supporting home cooking. But from a purely strategic standpoint, it's difficult to deny that a prolonged, vitriolic assault on Lieberman would disaffect some Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democrat.
Of course, a Lieberman defeat in August would have negative repercussions for Democrats reaching far beyond Jewish voters. Some Republicans (like at GOPblogger.org) have already begun to use the vehement assault on Lieberman as evidence that the Democratic Party has been taken over by the most extreme partisan elements within their ranks, and gleefully predict that this will lead to Democratic defeats nationwide.
Think of the damage such charges could do in other Senate races. Conrad Burns has already been hitting Jon Tester for being a liberal in centrist clothing. If Lieberman loses in August, Burns could then add "And so what if he is a moderate? You can see what Democrats do with their moderates." The argument is obviously flimsy (Montana Democrats and Connecticut Democrats are not exactly cut from the same cloth), but history has shown that Republicans have a remarkable ability to get voters to believe flimsy arguments.
And charging the Democrats of not tolerating dissent takes away from what should be one of the Democrats' best arguments against the GOP - just look at what almost happened to Arlen Specter in '04, and what may happen to Linc Chafee this year. The Democrats have always had the high ground on being the "bigger tent" party from 2002 on, and moderate and independent voters have been breaking for the Democrats in nearly every poll since the '04 election.
The persistent attacks on Sen. Lieberman could easily turn off those key swing voters, and cut the gains that Dems otherwise stand to make in November.
Some Democrats are nervous that if Senator Joseph Lieberman loses his primary to an antiwar challenger, thousands of hawkish Jewish Democrats who see the Connecticut lawmaker as their standard-bearer will either abandon the party or sit out the November election.
That, say several political observers, could make the difference in some hard-fought Senate races — including contests in Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania — that Democrats must win in order to have any hope of taking back the Senate this year.
I don't agree with John Droney's ill-begotten sentiments that Jews should vote for Lieberman just for the sake of supporting home cooking. But from a purely strategic standpoint, it's difficult to deny that a prolonged, vitriolic assault on Lieberman would disaffect some Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democrat.
Of course, a Lieberman defeat in August would have negative repercussions for Democrats reaching far beyond Jewish voters. Some Republicans (like at GOPblogger.org) have already begun to use the vehement assault on Lieberman as evidence that the Democratic Party has been taken over by the most extreme partisan elements within their ranks, and gleefully predict that this will lead to Democratic defeats nationwide.
Think of the damage such charges could do in other Senate races. Conrad Burns has already been hitting Jon Tester for being a liberal in centrist clothing. If Lieberman loses in August, Burns could then add "And so what if he is a moderate? You can see what Democrats do with their moderates." The argument is obviously flimsy (Montana Democrats and Connecticut Democrats are not exactly cut from the same cloth), but history has shown that Republicans have a remarkable ability to get voters to believe flimsy arguments.
And charging the Democrats of not tolerating dissent takes away from what should be one of the Democrats' best arguments against the GOP - just look at what almost happened to Arlen Specter in '04, and what may happen to Linc Chafee this year. The Democrats have always had the high ground on being the "bigger tent" party from 2002 on, and moderate and independent voters have been breaking for the Democrats in nearly every poll since the '04 election.
The persistent attacks on Sen. Lieberman could easily turn off those key swing voters, and cut the gains that Dems otherwise stand to make in November.
posted by Matt Smith at 10:45 AM
13 Comments:
Great article on Lieberman today at CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/13/opinion/lynch/main1798658.shtml
I think this article really nails it as to why CT voters are so ready to replace Lieberman.
Yes, we are a bigger tent than the GOP.
That's well and good.
That fact does nothing, though, to answer the question, "Should Dems vote for Lieberman in this primary?"
He's been on the wrong side on the Social Security phase-out and on failed, misguided federal intervention into the Schiavo case.
Worse-- much worse-- he's suggested that criticizing the president in wartime is something like treason. That's an unforgivable assertion, by any politician at any time, and especially when the current president is so demonstrably inept and indifferent to facts.
Yes, you're right, the GOP will doubtless crank up the Noise Machine to spread the lie that defeat for Lieberman = moonbat purge.
So please stop giving them cover.
Oh, this is gonna be fun.
it's difficult to deny that a prolonged, vitriolic assault on Lieberman would disaffect some Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democrat.
1) American Jews are, as a demographic, better educated than most. I bet they can distinguish criticism of Lieberman on the issues from anti-Semitism. (And in the wake of the whole 'anti-neocon = anti-Semitic' kerfluffle, it's gonna sound even stupider than ever.) I'd say this is a very weak victim-card-by-proxy bit.
2) Define 'vitriolic.' Shall we define it in terms of Lieberman's own conduct? That would be a good standard, don't'cha think.
So what have critics of note said of Lieberman that's been more vitriolic than his behavior in the Lamont debate? Or more extreme than essentially accusing Bush critics of treason? Produce cites.
Some Republicans (like at GOPblogger.org) have already begun to use the vehement assault on Lieberman as evidence that the Democratic Party has been taken over by the most extreme partisan elements within their ranks...
Lieberman's been guilty of pushing this meme long before he even had a primary opponent. The most important reason to get him out of the Democratic Party - way more important than his Iraq stance - is to deprive him of a platform for smearing it from within. Constructive criticism is one thing; supposed Democrats who use their frequent appearances on the Sunday talking-heads shows to negatively brand their own party make it doubly hard for Dems to sell a positive brand image. The GOPsters can say, "this isn't just my partisan POV - why, even Senator Lieberman agrees that this is what the Dems are like."
"And so what if he is a moderate? You can see what Democrats do with their moderates."
We've got lots of moderates we aren't trying to defeat. We love Sen. Ben Nelson, who's probably to the right of Lieberman domestically. But Nelson doesn't spend his time tearing down his own party.
This is what we do with 'moderates' whose guns are strictly aimed left: we return fire. We're not Gandhi; we're fighting Dems. We like Dems who want to take on the GOP. We don't like Dems who kiss up to the GOP and attack their fellow Dems. This shouldn't be a surprise. And any propaganda points the GOP has here, it's Lieberman who gave the GOP those points.
So the best thing for the Connecticut Dems to do is replace Lieberman with a real Dem on August 8, and then they can go into the fall unhindered by the party's leading underminer.
Lieberman got another endorsement from Ann Coulter today:
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/07/12/joe_lieberman_gets_another_hug_from_ann_coulter.php
What kind of "Democrat" would Ann Coulter endorse?
Rufus-
You seemed to completely ignore two critical sentences from the post:
"The argument is obviously flimsy (Montana Democrats and Connecticut Democrats are not exactly cut from the same cloth), but history has shown that Republicans have a remarkable ability to get voters to believe flimsy arguments."
He never said the argument is good - quite the opposite. And Republicans have certainly shown that they are capable of getting voters to believe bad arguments. It's the only reason they keep winning.
Anonymous 2 -
Read up on the facts of Lieberman's history before you talk, because you clearly have no idea about his long support for Social Security (and against privatization) and his staunch support for abortion rights. I disagree with his stance in the Schiavo case, but I don't excommunicate everyone who I have a few disagreements with. Read up - the article below this one is a good start.
Anonymous 3 -
Ann Coulter never endorsed Joe Lieberman, and that you'd provide a link to the article which confirms your lie that is quite amusing.
Lieberman has been a solid, progressive Democrat for 40 years - just ask John Lewis, NARAL, Human Rights Campaign, and virtually any other Dem group that has been with the party for more than 5 years.
You all say that a big beef you have with Lieberman is that he tears down other Democrats. Act like you believe in that, then you'll have some credibility.
Lieberman's history is irrelevant. He may have been a progressive sometime in the past. Somewhere around the time Lieberman sold out on the Gore recount, something went terribly wrong with Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman has become an unbelievable Bush shill. All you have to do is look at the fact that Lieberman is a regular on Fox News, shilling for insane Bush policies.
What more do you really need to know? This speaks for itself. No insane bloggers or left-wing jihadists needed.
Joe Lieberman - Fox News Democrat
Uh, if anything hurts Democrats in other states it is Joe Lieberman leaving the Party.
Your "left-wing jihad" is what real Americans call "democracy in action"
Anonymous: agree with the democracy point.. Here is another example of how "principled" our favorite Senator is:
Lieberman Flip-Flops on Iraq
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/frontPage.do
Lieberman is so weird. First he accuses poor Ned Lamont of waffling on Iraq (which he actually hasn't), then he goes and does it himself.
"Immediate withdrawal" is not something Lamont has advocated. Lamont has said that we should "start bringing our troops home now", but that is not the same as pulling everyone out at once, as you well know. Your distortions of this won't work.
The Lieberman "Stay and Pray" strategy is clearly insane, and even Lieberman knows it. Lieberman, finally bowing to reality, changed his "principled" position today on the Imus program. What's Lieberman's new position? Ned Lamont's.
Those are some "principles"...
Lieberman, finally bowing to reality, changed his "principled" position today on the Imus program. What's Lieberman's new position? Ned Lamont's.
That's a lie. What Lieberman actually said was:
"The question now is what do we do to get out. I think the sooner we get out of there, the better for us and the Iraqis. But if we get out too soon, it will be a disaster for us and the Iraqis."
That's what he's always believed, always said, and you won't be able to offer anything that contradicts that.
But I can see why you would be confused. It's pretty hard for someone to take a position on Iraq that doesn't agree with at least one of Ned Lamont's.
Here is the "flip" that came before the "flop". These words came out of Joe's mouth last month. This is the Lieberman/Bush "Stay and Pray" plan:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=257662
Quite a far cry from what Joe "Principles" Lieberman said on Imus today.
In particular, note that the Levin amendment is very reasonable and moderate in its approach - start bringing some troops home this year. Joe voted against the Levin amendment (against the Democrats) on this just last month, now he says he's for the same approach.
I just had to go to this site, since my screen background is that huge photo of "The Kiss"..showing two failed hacks bussing each other...two little men, obnoxiously puffed up and preening, who find something (who can know what?) in each other's eyes. Lieberman and Bush. What a team!
And Lieberman's desire to scold Bill Clinton at a time when, as Democratic President, he was wholly under fire from the right-wing zealots, about to be impeached for a minor sexual indiscretion....who can remember that now?
And why, oh why, did Al Gore determine that he would make an adequate vice-president? Boggles my mind.
Can't wait to see him lose to Lamont. Hope he doesn't run as an independent and try to sway the voters toward the Republican candidate. Wouldn't put it past him.
Post a Comment
<< Home