Maybe Lieberman lost because he’s a lousy Democratic senator

August 12, 2006

Guest Post by Morbo

There is probably not much left to be said about Sen. Joe Lieberman’s loss to Ned Lamont Tuesday night, but let me add a couple of thoughts to a blogosphere already groaning under a mountain of comment and analysis.

For starters, I have a message for Lanny Davis and all of the party insiders who bemoaned the outcome: The Democratic Party does not belong to the politicians in Washington who run under its banner. It does not belong to the consultants who advise those politicians. It does not belong to former officials in the last Democratic administration. It does not belong to the lobbyists who walk the halls of Congress, even if they represent progressive causes.

The Democratic Party belongs to the people who join it, support it, fund it and vote for its candidates. On Tuesday, a majority of those people in Connecticut decided that Lieberman is a rather poor substitute for a Democrat and opted for someone else. It is the height of arrogance for inside-the-Beltway types to suggest that this is somehow a betrayal of the party or that the voters did not know what they were doing. Indeed, it is just the opposite: It is a recognition of the party’s vitality and traditions.

I am also weary of hearing about how all of this was a plot by the bloggers. I seriously doubt that the good Democrats of Connecticut spent the entire election hanging on the words of the Daily Kos and then marched to the polls, lemming like, to follow Kos’ dictates. Lieberman’s race attracted national interest, but at the end of the day, the vast majority of people following it had no say in what happened. Sure, they could send Lamont a few bucks and agitate online, but only the Democrats in Connecticut could pull a lever for him. All of the liberal bloggers in the world could not have made Lamont catch fire if Lieberman had not made himself vulnerable by become a Republican Party appeaser.

Finally, while the war in Iraq is clearly important to Democratic voters, this election did not hinge on that issue. If it did, Hillary Clinton would be in trouble right now. The fact is, Lieberman had become a fawning and appalling Bush enabler on a range of issues. His idea of “non-partisanship” was to roll over and give the GOP whatever it wanted. On the issues that matter to many Democrats – health care, judicial appointments, presidential powers, church-state relations, end-of-life issues — Lieberman was simply on the wrong side and frequently vocal about it. Connecticut Democrats were offered a better alternative, and they took it.

There is a reason Lieberman is in the fix he’s in. But he can’t blame the bloggers for it. He can’t blame the Democratic Party establishment, which did it all it could to pull him through. He can’t blame the media.

He can only blame himself and what he has become: George W. Bush’s favorite Democrat.

Very well said, Morbo. God, I love democracy!

  • Ditto, Ed.

    A couple of ironies. If Lieberman had not declared he would become an independent before the election he might very well have won by a percentage point or two. And if he had taken his current methods into the race he would have lost by even more. He has revealed his true colors and they are deeper red than anyone thought. Morbo is right. He was a lousy Democrat.

  • We should give Lieberman the Monty Python dead parrot treatment …

    Customer: What kind of Democrat is he?

    Shopkeeper: He’s a Connecticut “blue.”

    Customer: He looks dead to me.

    Shopkeeper: He’s not dead.

    Customer: Yes, he is.

    Shopkeeper: No, he’s not.

    Customer: Yes, he is. He’s as dead as a doornail.

    Shopkeeper: No, he’s not. He’s just sleeping [with the enemy].

    Customer: He’s not sleeping.

    Shopkeeper: Oh, he’s just “pining for the fjords.”

    Customer: He’s dead! He’s no longer on the left side of the aisle–he’s an ex-Democrat!

    Shopkeeper: I suppose you’re right.

    Customer: Good day.

  • He played the old game of “the masses are asses, and therefore cannot decide for themselves.” He decided for them. he effectively told them that they didn’t know what they wanted, so he would give them what he knew they wanted. He’s like the old queen from Snow White—the mirror told him he wasn’t the fairest in the land any more—and now, he’s at the bottom of the cliff, with the buzzards circling in for the feast-to-be….

  • There is probably not much left to be said about Sen. Joe Lieberman’s loss to Ned Lamont […] — Morbo

    Could we, pretty please, start saying: “Ned Lamont’s win” instead of “Sen. Joe Lieberman’s loss”? Isn’t it time?

    It may sound like I’m carping over a minor semantic quibble, but it really does make a difference:
    1) the name mentioned first is the one that people (especially those with short attention span) are likely to remember better. In fact, one could even say “Ned Lamont’s win” without mentioning the other name at all — who wants to hear about losers?
    2) it stresses the positive — “win” — over the negative. The primary results may, indeed, be a “loss” to the Republicans but we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be suckered into that way of thinking.

    It’s the same difference that CB mentioned in his “When the media buys into the smear” post (“vitriolic” vs “vocal”). It’s the same difference as there is between “Connecticut for Lieberman” (Lieberman’s party) and “Lamont for Connecticut” (Lamont’s attitude). It’s a small thing in itself, but the implications are big.

  • Lieberman lost, IMO of course, because he’s badly out of step with the times. For better and for worse, this is a hyper-polarized era, and though Lieberman sees himself as a statesman who transcends partisan politics, a majority of Connecticut Democrats see him as a quisling who has sold out his constituents and his principles to a rabidly partisan, dangerously incompetent president. His enabling behavior might be repulsive in any period, but it’s intolerable in the age of Rovian polarization. And, given that it’s a liberal state, there’s no need to tolerate it.

  • libra,
    “Ned Lamont’s Victorious Conquest of Fortress Lieberman.”
    Sound better? — Steve, at #6

    Thank you, Steve, but it’s not nececssary to go to those lengths; having grown up in a society where personality cults went up and down like yo-yos (and then were diavowed altogether), I’m a tad leery of such overblown statements.

    OTOH, the newspaper headline (featured on Lamont’s website): “Lamont defeats Lieberman” is a better one than “Lieberman loses to Lamont” would have been, I think. From Lamont’s point of view, certainly, but not only. It’s closer to the intent of the message that’s being conveyed; it has the priorities “straight”.

    I love Language in general (and all the languages I had to study in particular) and I’m in awe of its ability to, both: inform and misdirect (even without outright lying). That’s why I think the old “sticks and stones…” saw is a crock. That’s why I’m, often, less inclined (than other Democrats) to dismiss Repubs as morons; they seem to be able to use the language to their advantage with a sacry skill.

    So, OK… I may have read too much Chomsky during my impressionable teens. But he was as “hot” (ie forbidden) as Solzhenitzyn and much more fascinating 🙂

  • I’d like to agree with you completely, Morbo, but I can’t. The reason is that many votes for Ned Lamont were, in fact, protest votes against Loserman. Not that I’m complaining about the outcome, mind you. My mother lives in Fremont, CA and she was thrilled that Nomentum lost. It’s clear that the voter’s anger at Spoiled Fuckwad was a critical factor in choosing Lamont as the primary winner and not just Lamont’s view on the Iraq debacle or his support for core Democratic party issues. Still, it must be said that Ned Lamont is certainly a viable replacement for Dickhead Loserman and were he not, the outcome wouldn’tve been the same.

    • Comments are closed.