Connecticut Surrenders
Or, rather, Democrats in Connecticut surrender. I suspect the state will reclaim some backbone when the general election brings Mr. Lieberman back to the Senate this November.
HARTFORD, Conn., Aug. 8 -- In a stark repudiation, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary here Tuesday night, falling to antiwar candidate Ned Lamont in a campaign that became a referendum on the incumbent's support for the Iraq war.
Lieberman publicly conceded the primary shortly after 11 p.m., after a congratulatory call to Lamont. But he appeared almost exuberant in defeat, telling supporters at a hotel in Hartford that he planned to run as an independent in November and predicting that he would be returned to the Senate for a fourth term.
Lieberman, accused by many in his own party of being too accommodating to President Bush, also made it clear that he would try to make the general election a campaign about a tone and style of politics that he said has stalemated Washington and that he charged was at the heart of Lamont's campaign.
"I am, of course, disappointed by the results, but I am not discouraged," Lieberman said. "I'm disappointed not just because I lost but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand."
And he shouldn't. This primary battle in a very blue state produced a no-lose race -- for Republicans. If Mr. Lamont won, as he did, then it would be a sharp slap in the face to Democratic candidates, forcing a move left to become more stridently anti Bush and anti-war, or risk facing a primary challenge where the candidate furthest left would emerge. Such a candidate would naturally have a reduced chance of success in a general election. If Mr. Lieberman won then it would signal a marginalization of the extreme anti-Bush, anti-war elements who would have been stymied once again in a playground that should, if they have any chance at all, be theirs.
So Mr. Lieberman will head into the general election as an independent candidate, and win. Independents and Republicans in Connecticut, Republicans who tend to be more socially liberal than those in other areas of the country, will likely vote in large numbers for the incumbent, and Mr. Lamont is unlikely to improve much upon the 52% of ardent Democratic primary voters he achieved last night. Those primary voters rejected a man who was their VP candidate in 2000, who votes solidly Democratic 90% of the time, and whose only sin was, apparently, disagreeing on the war in Iraq.
And stunts like this one, and this one, if the continue to occur during the general campaign, will further weaken Mr. Lamont's status. Here's my prediction in a 3-way race this fall: Lamont 31%, Lieberman 48%, Republican (who is he, anyway?) 21%.
8/9/06 0915: I'd like to know what flavor Kool-Aid the editors at the NY Times are drinking, thank you very much.
Mr. Lieberman’s supporters have tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. It’s hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it’s hard to imagine Mr. Lamont, who worked happily with the Republicans in Greenwich politics, leading that kind of revolution.
The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction.
As the NY Times well knows, primary voters tend to be the most animated, involved and ideologic of political beings. To describe a staunchly anti-Bush, anti-war (ABAWTM) half of such ideologic voters as "irate moderates" requires either dishonest chutzpah or blinkers. (hat tip: Ace, who has much more to say)
Comments