Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).
Monday, April 10, 2006
Zell, Linc, and Joe
Evan Derkacz at Alternet highlights something about Lieberman's abdication of his Democratic party membership which many have overlooked:
Zell Miller is viewed as the ultimate turncoat in recent political history, and rightly so. His crazed "spitball" speech to the RNC, and subsequent challenge of Chris Matthews to a duel, justify it. Yet for all he said and did, he never left the Democratic party. Joe Lieberman, a former vice-presidential candidate, refuses to even give his party the nominal partisan loyalty shown by Zell Miller.
Do a Google Blog Search for Lieberman, and you'll see many right-wing bloggers backing him up. This is still a Democratic primary, and the fact that the radical right cares so deeply about Joe, without a single viable GOP candidate in the race, is telling in and of itself. But what confounds me is their inability to understand and empathize with the frustration of rank-and-file party members across the ideological spectrum at such a statement of disloyalty.
Put the shoe on the other foot, in the state next door. Lincoln Chafee is up for re-election in Rhode Island, and facing a primary challenge based mainly on his lack of party loyalty (hey, the guy didn't vote for Bush in 2004, they have a point). There has long been talk of Chafee, whose family goes way back in the GOP, running as an independent.
But unlike the right wing's rabid support of Lieberman, I haven't heard a single Democrat in support of Chafee. Strategically, most Democrats would probably prefer a win by his challenger (Steve Laffey), since it would make a Democratic pickup that much easier in November. But in general, most Democrats could care less. At this point, it's an internal party matter. As the Connecticut primary should be.
Why do so many Republicans care so deeply about keeping Joe Lieberman in the Senate? It's a question worth asking.
Joe Lieberman refuses to do something even turncoat Zell Miller did explicitly: commit to the Democratic Party. Having consistently letting Democrats down, siding with Republicans, and putting a bipartisan face on onerous legislation, he faces an increasingly dangerous-looking primary from Ned Lamont.
Zell Miller is viewed as the ultimate turncoat in recent political history, and rightly so. His crazed "spitball" speech to the RNC, and subsequent challenge of Chris Matthews to a duel, justify it. Yet for all he said and did, he never left the Democratic party. Joe Lieberman, a former vice-presidential candidate, refuses to even give his party the nominal partisan loyalty shown by Zell Miller.
Do a Google Blog Search for Lieberman, and you'll see many right-wing bloggers backing him up. This is still a Democratic primary, and the fact that the radical right cares so deeply about Joe, without a single viable GOP candidate in the race, is telling in and of itself. But what confounds me is their inability to understand and empathize with the frustration of rank-and-file party members across the ideological spectrum at such a statement of disloyalty.
Put the shoe on the other foot, in the state next door. Lincoln Chafee is up for re-election in Rhode Island, and facing a primary challenge based mainly on his lack of party loyalty (hey, the guy didn't vote for Bush in 2004, they have a point). There has long been talk of Chafee, whose family goes way back in the GOP, running as an independent.
But unlike the right wing's rabid support of Lieberman, I haven't heard a single Democrat in support of Chafee. Strategically, most Democrats would probably prefer a win by his challenger (Steve Laffey), since it would make a Democratic pickup that much easier in November. But in general, most Democrats could care less. At this point, it's an internal party matter. As the Connecticut primary should be.
Why do so many Republicans care so deeply about keeping Joe Lieberman in the Senate? It's a question worth asking.