It’s been about a week since [tag]DSCC[/tag] Chairman [tag]Chuck Schumer[/tag] hinted that he’s likely support Sen. [tag]Joe Lieberman[/tag] in Connecticut, even if Lieberman loses a Democratic primary. The sort-of announcement prompted widespread criticism from Dem activists and the netroots, though Schumer didn’t back off (indeed, he didn’t follow up on the comments at all).
So, where’s the party now? According to a report in today’s Roll Call, still confused.
Should Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) opt to run as an [tag]Independent[/tag] for re-election if he is defeated in Connecticut’s August Democratic [tag]primary[/tag] by political upstart [tag]Ned Lamont[/tag], Senate Democratic leaders could find themselves in uncharted political waters in deciding which candidate to back against Republican Alan Schlesinger and whether sanctions would be imposed on Lieberman for leaving the party even temporarily.
“Temporarily.” In other words, it’s not entirely unrealistic to think Lieberman could run in the Dem primary, lose, leave the party and run as an independent, win, and then re-join the Dems as if nothing ever happened. How would the party react to this? No one knows.
It’s a bit of a mess. Lieberman’s team says it’s focused on wining the Aug. 8 primary. The DSCC says Lieberman will probably win the primary. Lieberman’s allies in the Dem leadership all agree that he’ll probably win the primary. But none of them have a clue as to what to do if he loses. In fact, the Roll Call article reports that the party leadership isn’t even planning a strategy — it’s more of a we’ll-jump-off-that-bridge-when-we-get-to-it approach.
But behind the scenes, Dems seem to realize that the party will find it more than a little difficult to turn its back on Ned Lamont if he wins the Dem primary.
A senior Democratic aide told Roll Call:
“If the DSCC and the establishment support a Lieberman Independent bid, it would send a message to state parties that they don’t matter anymore. That would be devastating. Lieberman needs to run in the primary, follow the rules, and work hard for a win. Any other option should be off the table.”
I agree, it should be, but it’s sitting on the table anyway. For one thing, party leaders are afraid of the consequences, and as [tag]Harold Meyerson[/tag] explained today, Lieberman “seems to have forgotten the very purpose of elections.”
Now, maybe I’ve had this backward all my life, but I thought that elections were held to enable voters to choose between candidates espousing different points of view on the most important issues. Lieberman seems to believe that elections exist to enable voters not to choose — indeed, to “accept diversity of opinion.” And that if voters have the temerity to go ahead and choose anyway, they have crossed the line between party and sect in their zeal “to have everybody toe the line.” […]
In talking with Broder, Lieberman also expressed a kind of wry nostalgia for the pre-primary days when political bosses could assemble slates of candidates essentially by themselves. But the last stand of the bosses came in 1968, when machine-appointed delegates to the Democratic National Convention nominated Hubert Humphrey for president even though the voters in those states that had held primaries had favored the anti-Vietnam War candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. Thereafter, delegates in every state were selected in primaries and caucuses, as party leaders concluded that voters would demand — and even deserved — a say on issues as fundamental as Vietnam. To Joe Lieberman’s apparent dismay, [tag]Iraq[/tag] is just such an issue, and the voters of his state are just irresponsible enough to judge him on it.
Stay tuned.