Tuesday is truly “D-Day” for Joe Lieberman and the Democratic party.
For Lieberman, will it be the day Democrats defeat his re-nomination bid and send him (and others) a message that he is outside what many anti-war and anti-Bush Democrats believe is the Democratic party’s new, majority-supported mainstream? Will it be the day he must define himself as an independent who will run against his party’s nominee, perhaps causing a Republican victory or a victory where a big chunk of his November re-election votes come from Republicans rather than from Democrats?
Will it be a day when Connecticut Democrats nudged on by national political and Internet forces define their party as one that has set a boundary on the degree of bipartisanship (which some believe is “enabling”) shown to the GOP and President George Bush? And will that direct the party to new electoral victories…or long-range defeat if moderates feel locked out?
A key debate surrounding Lieberman is whether “true moderates” can support him given the Bush administration’s suggestion that those who questioning and criticizing the Iraq war are in effect tolerating terrorism or don’t care about the troops in the field. Another key question if Lieberman loses will be whether American politics’ political gravity points have shifted that old definitions of where “the center” and “moderates” need to be adjusted.
What’s clear is this: news stories and talking heads begin latching onto a conventional wisdom before elections and it is now clear that Lieberman is expected to lose. Perhaps big time. And if that happens the framework for much of the analyses done before may be “inoperative” because some of the conventional wisdoms will fall by the wayside.
Just look at a few key developments and what they say about the conclusions politicos and political thinkers are now drawing:
--Hillary Clinton’s confrontation with Donald Rumsfeld this week is seen by some as what the New York Times calls “dodging a political bullet,” as she has moved to reposition herself on the war and not become Joe Lieberman The Sequel. She cannot be accused of not providing spirited oversight.
--Former vice presidential candidate John Edwards, who is making all of the noises and doing all of the travels of someone who wants to run for president, has called for the United States to start pulling out of Iraq immediately.
--Bill Curry, a former counselor to President Bill Clinton, warns in a Hartford Courant piece that the Democrats could be making the mistake they made in 1968 and veering so sharply anti-war that they will lose major parts of the electorate. He writes:
“Many Republicans are fleeing their party. They want a foreign policy based on mutual respect, a domestic policy based on mutual tolerance, and fiscal and environmental sanity. With nudging they might even agree to a new health care system. It's time Democrats finished sorting out their own identity and began getting bipartisan with them. Gene McCarthy's New Hampshire challenge might have led to a Robert Kennedy presidency, or to peace. It didn't. It led instead into a wilderness. Ironically, another small New England primary of unexpected import may help lead us back.”
--On Fox News Newt Gingrich said: “a legitimate insurgency in Connecticut, which needs to be met head on and debated head on, which is people who say this is so hard, it is so frightening, it’s so painful, can’t we come home and hide? And I think if Lamont wins next Tuesday, it will be the beginning of extraordinarily important period in American politics, and in American history. For all of us to have this debate. How dangerous are the terrorists? How dangerous are the dictatorships? And what does America have to do in that kind of a dangerous world?” Is he urging that if Lieberman wins the GOP frame this debate in a way to suggest that Democrats don’t think terrorists are very dangerous? What would that mean to Democrats and how will they counter that?
Surprises do happen in politics, and Lieberman could theoretically win. But given polls like the latest showing challenger Ned Lamont ahead of Lieberman among Democratic voters 54 to 41 percent , if you believe that you also expect a nice, furry rabbit to hide eggs in your house next Easter. The Los Angeles Times notes that Lamont went from zero to favorite in seven months. What has happened since then? What’s clear: there is a TREND -- and it is not in Joe Lieberman’s favor.
If Lieberman does lose as expected, you can look at it and draw all kinds of lessons and conclusions (and some may be contradictory). A few:
Bipartisanship Has Limits: If Karl Rove’s strategy has been to paint the United States’ security in danger if Democrats win control, and accuse Democrats who raise questions about the war as wanting to “cut and run” (event it is conceivable that someone supported the war but has very serious questions about its conduct), then it doomed Lieberman’s brand of bipartisanship. Rather than cultivate cooperation, Bush’s “your either with us or against us” has been applied to domestic politics and it sabotaged Lieberman’s cooperation with Bush would be perceived by many in his party.
The Netroots Won’t Be Counted Out: Howard Dean was widely seen as a product of Internet activists, but he tanked at the ballot box. The “netroots” hasn’t had much luck in winning elections. If Lieberman wins, it’ll be considered a force more blustery than effective. If he loses, it’ll be considered an VITAL 21st Century political force. (Conservatives have recently countered by starting the “Rightroots” to help conservative candidates)
Who Will The Independents Sympathize With After Tuesday? Watch the polls after Tuesday. The conventional wisdom by Lieberman’s defenders is that this primary can be subtitled Revenge of the McGovernites and that centrists and moderates will move towards the GOP in a general election. But is dissatisfaction -- and concern -- over an administration that has even alarmed even many traditional conservatives going to trump anything else? Lieberman’s defenders argue this is part of a historic fight; his critics say we’re in a different era with a government that is showing authoritarian tendencies. Several recent columnists who previously supported the war now basically call it a lost cause. It could be that the political ground is substantially shifting now.
A Lieberman Loss Will Change The 2024 Calculations: Criticism of the war will become stronger. Al Gore has been getting “netroots” praise. Will he seize the moment? And will this also send a message to GOPers that they must nominate a 2024 Presidential candidate who can pick up independent and moderate support (such as John McCain or Rudy Giuilani)?
If Lieberman Had Better Political Skills This Might Not Have Happened: Pundits will attribute a Lieberman political loss to the “netroots,” to Democratic activists wanting to purge their party of people who support the war, to the far left trying to dismember the influence of the moderate DLC. But another factor may be that Joe Lieberman has proven to be a lousy politician. He made some classic errors. He didn’t cultivate his base support back home. (I have a relative who met Lieberman and to this day insists he is a “sourpuss” even though she voted for him in the past).
When Joe Lieberman took Democrats to task for blasting Bush and noted that the commander in chief deserves support while the war is on, he sealed his fate. Bush squandered a once-in-a-lifetime chance to cultivate the bipartisanship that briefly blossomed after 911 and has headed one of the most divisive, polarizing, political attack-mode administrations in American history. Republicans praising Lieberman as a good Democrat cost him votes since they have been going after Democrats as, in effect, a danger to American security…which means protecting American lives.
If Lieberman loses, perhaps this clip from Ed Schultz Show last week where Schultz interviews Lieberman will provide some evidence why. When pressed by Schultz (about whether he would now demand Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation, Lieberman says yes he would but it’s the President’s call to do that.
It’s a fatal mindset due to the way Bush & Co. have encouraged bitter partisanship. It is not only Democrats who want -- and demand -- vigorous Congressional oversight of an administration that has unilaterally expanded the exercise of executive power in a ways seemingly once unimaginable. Quietly deferring to a highly-partisan President is no longer an option for many Americans -- which is why Joe Lieberman’s political career may move into a different phase come Tuesday. As so, if polls are correct, will Ned Lamont’s.
