It sounds like Joe Lieberman's independent campaign for re-election to his Senate seat is heading into rocky political waters: top Democrats are beginning to become concerned about his message, according to The Hill:
A group of Senate Democrats is growing increasingly angry about Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (D-Conn.) campaign tactics since he lost the Democratic primary last week.
If he continues to alienate his colleagues, Lieberman could be stripped of his seniority within the Democratic caucus should he defeat Democrat Ned Lamont in the general election this November, according to some senior Democratic aides.
In recent days, Lieberman has rankled Democrats in the upper chamber by suggesting that those who support bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by a certain date would bolster terrorists’ planning attacks against the U.S. and its allies. He also sparked resentment by saying last week on NBC’s Today show that the Democratic Party was out of the political mainstream.
Democrats are worried that Lieberman may be giving Republicans a golden opportunity to undermine their message.
“I think there’s a lot of concern,” said a senior Democratic aide who has discussed the subject with colleagues. “I think the first step is if the Lieberman thing turns into a side show and hurts our message and ability to take back the Senate, and the White House and the [National Republican Senatorial Committee] manipulate him, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people in our caucus.”
Michael Lewan, Lieberman’s former chief of staff, has worked to quell Democratic discontent with Lieberman and to steer them away from campaigning against his former boss, said Democratic aides familiar with Lewan’s activities.
And aside from the message, there's another bigger reason why Democrats are beginning to raise their eyebrows over Lieberman's theme about the Democratic party, the war, terrorism and the Bush administration these days:
The issue of Lieberman’s seniority would arise most dramatically if Lieberman wins re-election and Democrats recapture control of the chamber. That would slot Lieberman to take over as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the panel primarily responsible for investigating the executive branch.
The whole point of the Democrat's argument to its voters and independent voters (and some disgruntled Republican voters) will be that with one party effectively controlling all branches of government there is no oversight. The GOP has used the specter of Democrats taking control and running wild doing investigations and perhaps opting for impeachment (something top Congressional leaders downplay or pooh-pooh) to raise funds.
Democrats think their chances of taking back the Senate are growing more and more likely. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week said he was more confident that Democrats would pick up at least five Senate seats.
Allowing Lieberman to retain his seniority could put the senator now running as an independent in charge of the Senate’s chief investigative committee. If Democrats took control of either chamber they would likely launch investigations of the White House’s handling of the war in Iraq and homeland security.
The Hill quotes a "Democratic senior aide" as saying it wouldn't sense to keep Lieberman in a position where he might take over the Governmental Affairs Committee.
One of Lieberman's biggest obstacles is the fact that the country's top GOP party officials and the White House press spokesman have made it clear the people with the national power levers in the GOP aren't going to the GOP candidate in Connecticut -- and are all but openly rooting for Lieberman's election. You can't turn on Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity without them praising him.
This means his candidacy, in the way it is being presented now, has shifted in perception in the media from being a centrist running against an anti-war Democrat to being a Democrat who is sharply criticizing his own party and being openly supported by Republican political and media bigwigs who generally demonize Democrats.
If the administration or GOP as a party had cultivated, nurtured (and even used to its own political advantage, as Bush adeptly did when he was Governor of Texas) TRUE bipartisanship, Lieberman would not have become such an unlikely symbol. But some of those Democrats who held out an olive branch had it broken over the heads. And Lieberman’s recent statements solidified his standing among many Democrats as someone who urges bipartisanship with those who are mega-partisan.
The net result is that it likely means even fewer Democrats will vote for Lieberman than before. And that is even more likely to happen if some top Democrats campaign against Lieberman or answer attacks he may make on the Democratic party itself.
Another big problem for Lieberman: if voters want to cast a protest vote against the Bush administration, who will they vote for?
You'll have one Republican (not supported by the Republican national elite), one independent Democrat (supported by the Republican national elite) and one Democrat who has sharply criticized the administration on the war and other issues.
