(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)
If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.
–Senator Joe Lieberman
There’s long been this perception that Senator Joe Lieberman was a moderate on the issues. On domestic policy, it’s probably a fair assertion to say that on domestic policy, he lands somewhere in the middle. He is nominally pro-choice and pro-environment, but he is also pro-free trade, anti-affirmative action, and a holier-than-thou moralizer when it comes to pop culture. However, with quotations above such as those above, it’s clear that his neoconservatism on foreign policy, something even noted wanker Joe Klein noted, has become the dominant theme in his campaign. The stubborn belligerence that is inherent in pushing the failed policies in Iraq has spilled over entirely into his campaign, as evidenced by this bizarre attack by Dan Gerstein, someone who has been called an idiot by people on the Lieberman campaign itself:
How could he expect to convince “moderate Democrats, Republicans, and most importantly, unaffiliated voters” that he “would be anything other than a rigid partisan rubber stamp in the Senate,” [Dan Gerstein], Lieberman spokesman asked, “when the only proof of his independence he can show is that he is slightly to the right of socialist Bernie Sanders on fiscal policy?”
“Why should anyone outside the Sharpton/Kos wing of the Democratic Party believe Ned Lamont will represent their views in Washington?” he added.
Lieberman believes that he can win the general election in Connecticut because of his belief that he can bring Republicans, independents, and Democrats into the fold. The ‘unity’ theme is being pushed in his new campaign ad, and according to preliminary polling by Rasmussen, it seems to hold some water. But it’s our job to let voters know that not only is Joe Lieberman finally revealing himself to be a closeted right-wing extremist, but that Ned Lamont is the true moderate in this race – not Lieberman.
In an editorial in yesterday’s USA Today, DeWayne Wickham calls out Lieberman on the ridiculous notion that he is a mainstream Democrat:
But Lieberman is not the party’s savior. He’s its nightmare.
Lieberman is an anti-Democrat Democrat — a fifth columnist who has chosen to flout the will of Connecticut’s primary voters by filing papers to compete as an independent in the general election.
“For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand,” he said of his loss to Ned Lamont, a newcomer who waged a largely anti-war campaign against the three-term senator.
Lieberman has called Lamont an extremist. And to prove it, he told O’Brien caustically that Lamont’s “No. 1 supporter” is Maxine Waters. She’s a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from California whose passionate representation of her constituents Lieberman apparently thinks is more of a threat to the Democratic Party than his act of political defiance.
The term ‘anti-Democrat Democrat’ is a great one – it fully embodies Lieberman’s seeming loathing of the party he claims to be proud to be a part of. His Wall Street Journal editorial chastising Democrats who were (and are) critical of Bush’s failure with regards to Iraq is the best-known piece of anti-Democratic work that’s been done. Similarly, there’s the time when he lambasted Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal – something he has failed to do when it comes to Bush, even though the latter’s mistakes have been on a much more serious and tragic scale than Clinton’s sexual indiscretions. There is nothing mainstream in either party when a politician serially, almost habitually, turn their words against their own political party first – and reserves kind words for the other side. Furthermore, criticizing a great representative like Maxine Waters – someone who represents her constituents – is an ironic statement in and of itself. Lieberman may have lost because of the Iraq issue, but it was a part of a larger narrative – he was out of touch with his political base – Connecticut Democrats – and when someone doesn’t represent you the way you like, you fire them. And that’s exactly how Wickham ends his argument against Lieberman.
But now that voters have given him the boot, Lieberman is in no mood for making concessions. He’s still pursuing his political insurgency even though many national Democratic leaders have endorsed Lamont.
“But the battle goes on,” Lieberman told O’Brien, “and now it’s among Democrats, Republicans and independents. And I’m carrying it on because Lamont really represents polarization and partisanship.”
What Lieberman didn’t say is that Lamont’s candidacy also represents the wishes of Connecticut’s Democratic Party voters — who Lieberman apparently thinks have drifted “far from the mainstream of American life.”
Opposing the war and calling for our troops to come home on a set timetable, as Lamont does, is not extremist – it’s a mainstream position. Lieberman, though, has been a D.C. insider for far too long. In the nation’s capital, it hasn’t quite gotten through to the talking heads or most politicians that people want a change in direction.
In an editorial published today in the Connecticut Post, Robert Borosage expounds on the point that Lieberman’s notion of centrism rang hollow to the voters of the Nutmeg State:
His victory represents a growing voter revolt against the failed policies and politics of the Bush administration and its congressional enablers, particularly the debacle in Iraq. Until a few weeks ago, Lieberman prided himself on being the president’s leading Democratic ally in touting the war.
After his defeat, Democrats will show more backbone in challenging the current disastrous course and more Republicans will look for ways to distance themselves from the president.
[…]
His voters didn’t abandon him; he abandoned them long ago. After his defeat, incumbents in both parties may begin to listen more closely to their voters and less avidly to their donors.
Incumbents all across the country – Republicans in particular, but undoubtedly some Democrats as well – should be on notice after the results of August 8. Conventional wisdom after the evening’s results, including Lamont’s victory, was that there was a strong mood against those who are currently holding office. People have seen our great country sliding at an accelerating pace, they see neverending violence in Iraq, they see the number of dead American soldiers continue to rise steadily, and they’re sick of it. Lieberman is trying to have it both ways in his new ad, stating dishonestly that he wants to bring the troops home when Iraq is stable. Anyone with half a wit about them knows that our occupation of the country will leave Iraq in bad shape for a long time, no matter how long we decide to stay there.
The best point that Borosage makes, though, is countering the MSM spin that Lamont is on the fringe of the far left, or that he is possibly a communist. Instead, he declares that Lamont is part of the ‘new moral center’ in politics:
[Lieberman’s] brand of “getting things done” is exactly what Americans are turning against.
[…]
Lieberman doesn’t get it. The problem isn’t that things aren’t getting done — the problem is that the things he was helped to produce are weakening this country abroad and undermining workers and middle-class families at home.
Lieberman’s sore loser campaign will be well financed by the corporate lobbies he has served. Since he has no new ideas to offer, he’ll run a nasty negative campaign of personal vilification against Lamont, trying to smear him before voters have a chance hear what Lamont has to say.
And that race will be a test for every Democratic leader. Will they come to support Lamont and the new energy, the new ideas, the new moral center that he represents? Or will they offer nominal support but stay away, refusing to challenge Lieberman’s low-road campaign? Their reactions will be a true measure of who is ready to fight for a new direction for this country and who is not.
I don’t think Lamont is necessarily a part of a ‘new’ center – the burgeoning unpopularity of the Iraqi war has only grown steadily since Bush’s return to the White House in 2004. It’s more like the reawakening of the common-sense center – the one where people are able to call bullshit as they see it without fear of being branded a terrorist or un-American. Only 13 Democrats voted for the Kerry/Feingold resolution, which Lamont supports, but 37 voted for the Reed/Levin proposal, which was essentially an acknowledgement that an exit strategy needed to be devised. Lieberman voted against both, even using Republican time to undermine Democrats once again.
With his votes, his campaign’s actions, and his own words, Joe Lieberman has shown himself to be ‘divorced from reality’, as a Time reporter noted last year. His latest actions can no longer be condoned by Democratic leadership. It is imperative that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid does more than issue a lukewarm statement in support of Lamont. He needs to publicly reprimand Lieberman, he needs to publicly announce his support for Lamont, and most importantly, he needs to strip Lieberman of every single committee seat that he has. We had to tolerate Lieberman’s subversion when he was a part of our party. Now that he is running as an independent, he deserves to have the consequences he so richly deserves heaped upon him. The junior senator from Connecticut is the one who is the extremist in this race.
Lieberman always has been, and he should be treated as such.