Yeah, Schaller in TAP quotes one of Lieberman's constituents saying almost the same thing.
Which means I guess that more than any issue, the question here is, has being an incumbent finally turned into an actually souring attribute? If so, is there time for incumbents to turn it around?
I'm not sold that voters overall are upset enough to create a big swing this fall. There's a big difference between a Democratic primary and a general election, obviously.
I for one think this is just yet more evidence that our primary system is a really imperfect way to choose candidates for office. Although better ideas are hard to come by.
There's a big difference between a Democratic primary and a general election, obviously.
But isn't the difference that incumbency is more powerful in a primary than an election? An incumbent losing a primary seems much weirder to me than one losing an election to a member of the other party.
1: As Marshall says, most of them don't have to, they've never done the kind of things Lieberman has despite not being full-throat against the war. I think his analysis of 'mentum's heedless, gratuitous insults to Democratic sensibilities, and the way he's been cheered on by D.C's press, are great.
I tuned in CNN late for the results last night, and saw Anderson Cooper conducting the broadcast in an armored vest, talking about the shame of a vanishing, moderate center. I realized that Rob Corddry and Stephen Colbert need only do the mildest of exaggerations, sometimes none at all, of these ought-to-be-but-aren't-caricatures. What would Santayana think of that?
I don't want to sound like the "you're reading too much into it" guy, but I would caution against seeing Lieberman's defeat as being a sign of any larger trend. Lieberman was way out of step with the majority of the voters in his party on the key issue of the Iraq war, and it bit him in the ass, but I don't see his defeat as evidence of anything other than his own failure to respond to the concerns of his own constituents.
What would Santayana think of that?
Heck, it would bother even Daniel Boorstin, in his one good book. (Well, maybe he had two.)
Remember, Anderson Cooper's been hanging out in George Bush's "new Middle East." It's a real "opportunity" for some people.
Lieberman was way out of step with the majority of the voters in his party on the key issue of the Iraq war, and it bit him in the ass, but I don't see his defeat as evidence of anything other than his own failure to respond to the concerns of his own constituents.
I agree. I sort of read the opposite message into Lamont's win; Iraq is good for some votes but not a landslide.
Also, Connecticut's primaries are closed; I'm not sure independent voters would be swayed by Lamont's very anti-war platform and 'Joe is a closet Republican rhetoric in a general election.
Lamont seems to recognize this and will be getting out the rest of his platform more noisily soon.
I tuned in CNN late for the results last night, and saw Anderson Cooper conducting the broadcast in an armored vest
It's easy to sit at home and sneer. Would you have the balls to go out and report from the front lines in Connecticut? They have bloggers there.
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Yeah, Boorstin's analysis really caught fire, and measures the distance between the effects of pubic intellectuality, by essentially literary types, then and now. Although I go back and forth about his judgment of one of his prime examples, Lindbergh. I think Boorstin says valuable things about the feel of the phenomenon, and his animous is easy to identify with. But there was surprising depth to Lindbergh, and capacity for growth. This was neither here nor there to Boorstin's purposes in the late fifties, but reading it as I did in the seventies, after Lindbergh's break with the aviation industry over the SST and public environmental testaments, it felt wrong.
Scott Berg's great biography, and the wonderful, scary portrait in Phillip Roth's The Plot Against America, have given this amazing figure back to us.
I liked Roth's PAA, though I know lots of people didn't. I'm not sure I understand why.
Lindbergh was not a very nice guy, though, idp. "Capacity for growth" is less impressive when we're talking about learning not to accept medals from Hitler.
4- but my point is that I'm not sold many voters are mad enough about Iraq to overcome the advantage of incumbency, other than the sorts of voters who vote in Democratic primaries.
All that and more. I don't admire him as a person, but Roth is good about the dangers of his undoubted abilities, both technically and as a public figure. He was also a very good writer.
My point is that he was, in some respects, a poor choice for "the image" because he really did have larger-than-life qualities, which tends to undercut Boorstin's point about the manufactured quality of the phenomenon.
Not a nice guy is an understatement: the recent substantiated story about his postwar German second family, and his daughter Reeve's portrait of the essential narcissism of her parents, and of course Berg, make that plain.
Well, it was a high turnout primary, so not just 'the sort of voters who vote in Democratic primaries' usually. Normally, it's hard core party activists, but this was much more a cross-section of Connecticut Democrats. You can certainly argue that you can't tell anything about the rest of the country from Connecticut Democrats, but if that's wrong and you can tell anything at all from them, standing next to Bush is a surprisingly unhealthy place to be this election cycle.
What was the turnout? High-for-a-primary or genuinely high? Obviously I don't know enough about this. If it was the former I think my point still stands; if more the latter I'll recant.
Some of those independent voters signing up as Democrats for this primary smell a little fishy to me--not as in voter fraud, but as in Republicans registering Democrat for a turn to game the system. It's just that I can't quite work out how the malicious Republican would vote in the end. A couple of weeks ago, the Republicans were all cheering Lamont on ("haha, the moonbat left-wing is conducting a purge"), and in the last few weeks they were all clasping Joe to their bosoms ("even though he's a liberal, he's a good man"). Nor can I really come up with a good polling question for determining spoiler votes.
But I heard that the number of independents, who self-identify as such from cycle-to-cycle, is very high in CT. Weickerism must be very strong there; I'm sure not all New England centrist Republicans have been willing to become Democrats if they don't have to.
I can't quite work out how the malicious Republican would vote in the end.
It isn't just maliciously gaming the system, though. My Limbaugh-listening Air Force pilot uncle, who can barely keep from spitting anytime a Democrat gets mentioned (he considered John Glenn a complete traitor), stated during 2004 that he would have considered voting for Lieberman for president.
Also, Ezra makes an interesting point on Lieberman's relationship with the Democratic Party now.
the cheering Lamont read as disingenuously, to me, as the cheering Dean did, back in the day. As in, they are actually scared. If Republicans were to do such a thing--shocking, I know--I doubt they would be casting votes in favor of Lamont.
And if there was any lingering doubt:
According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."
As in, they are actually scared
Is it acceptable to describe this as "please don't throw me in the briar patch," or is that expression tainted by Joel-Chandler-Harrisism?
While I agree with almost everything you guys are saying, I mean, just look at that quote. Bush's approval rating is hovering around 35%, Lamont campaigners were driving around the state with giant photos of Bush kissing Lieberman's cheek, and Rove thinks the White House can help?
I think that's okay -- the point being made isn't racist, and there's nothing in the story that could be used as a freestanding slur. However, triumphantly saying "Bawn 'n bred in a brier patch, Br'er Fox!" gets you a technical foul for inappropriate use of dialect.
Didn't you get this year's copy of the handbook?
26. In the general election, he possibly can. Indep's and R's might not approve of the Pres., but they still might like him better than the Dems.
Didn't you get this year's copy of the handbook?
I think my spam filter blocked it for containing nasty language.
Let me restate my point, hopefully more clearly: Lieberman is still expected to win handily as an ind. in the general election, no?
No, he isn't. Folks aren't sure how to handicap the race now.
No. Nothing's certain, but I expect him to drop out sometime around Labor Day. All the relevant Democrats have thrown their support behind Lamont, and as Ezra points out, that means that they really, really, really, don't want Lieberman to win, because if he does he'll be pissed, and dangerous. Whatever the Democratic establishment can do to get him out of the race will be done.
I don't think Lieberman's going to be running in November. Would you really want to give away a lifetime's worth of contacts, and become a pariah among the people you worked with for thirtysomething years?
Okay. Well, I guess I'm wrong. That was the last I had heard, based on pre-primary polling numbers. I don't know what would have changed, since even in those polls a loss in the primary was projected.
Lieberman is still expected to win handily as an ind. in the general election, no?
I don't know that we know that; see Tomasky.
what would have changed is clinton et. al campaigning for him rather than against him. And Lamont no longer seeming like a darkhorse candidate.
Lieberman's fantasy is to be the vote-to-get in a split Senate; he's hoping that everyone will kiss his ass and forget about his disloyalty. That's a pretty big prize for someone who's been hermetically sealed in the Beltway TV studio for the bizillion years.
I'm guessing that the Democratic insiders will manage to talk him out of it, but there's at least a chance he'll go for the prize.
However, I do think that if he goes all Ahab on us, his campaign will implode.
I like to think that even the Democratic Party and its donors will have the sense to run away from Lieberman with such speed that even Lieberman will feel significantly friendless. I like to think that even the bigwigs of the Democratic Party will sit down with Joe in his grief and explain to him how much money he can make as a lobbyist or pundit but for God's sake that he should get while the getting's good.
I like to think these things.
Gosh, why shouldn't his move to independent be a heroic courageous display of maverick-dom, much like Jim Jeffords'. Joe will certainly be able to raise lots of money from out of state.
why shouldn't his move to independent be a heroic courageous display of maverick-dom
Because we're talking about Joe Lieberman?
No one is more a courageous g-d-loving maverick than Lieberman!
40: Because Lieberman is not a heroic maverick, and if he played one on tv, everyone would laugh.
When I listen to him, I think not so much "courageous maverick" as "self-righteous martyr." But possibly that's just me.
No one is more a courageous g-d-loving maverick
Not even Steve Laffey?
45: It's not just you. And when I listen to him, I think, "How on earth can you spend 18 years as a U.S. senator and still be such a godawful public speaker?" Even outright morons like Jeff Sessions are more pleasant to listen to.
40: The key reason a Jim-Jeffords-move would not work for Lieberman is the timing. Jeffords became an independent shortly after being re-elected to the Senate. Lieberman becoming an independent on the heels of being rejected by the voters of his own party smacks of nothing more than opportunism. Had he declared as an independent before the primary, it would have been possible to view such a move as a principled stand. But the thing is, Lieberman still doesn't get that he is out of step with his party on this key issue, or even that the Iraq war is the key issue at this time.
Oh, it's heroic maverickdom all right. Do you want the party of Maxine Waters and Ned Lamont? Also, 3-way polling done about six weeks ago, he waltzes home. Winners have lots of friends.
Also, Jim Jeffords has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. Does Joe Lieberman? I think not.
the party of
Thanks for trolling, baa. Now quit it.
That's a direct Lieberman quote Standpipe!
that's not a very confident looking smile, baa.
Three weeks ago Lieberman was probnably winning the primary, too.
Do you want the party of Maxine Waters and Ned Lamont?
Now that you mention it, yes, I do want the party of Maxine Waters and Ned Lamont. Thank you for asking!
49: Why yes, Joe, I do. Thanks for leaving!
pwned! but shouldn't it be said over and over?
baa, are you serious? Jeffords turned away from his party, but the party turned away from Lieberman. Also, hard to be a Maverick when you consistently describe yourself as the real moderate, mainstream candidate, opposing all those radicals (mavericks).
Also, hard to be a Maverick when you consistently describe yourself as the real moderate, mainstream candidate, opposing all those radicals (mavericks).
Ah but that's the paradox of modern Connecticut politics. If you are going to achieve enlightenment you will have to open your mind, young Michael.
Courageous Maverickdom does not follow your rules!
50: If not, it could explain his loss in '04. History shows that a grasp of the martial arts is essential for aspirants to the presidency.
. Do you want the party of Maxine Waters and Ned Lamont?
It's hardly news that Lieberman, like Peretz and Kristol, has come to hate black people. That's still considered a bug, not a feature, by most of the party.
I'm hoping that he loses (or drops out), but gets the Secretary of Defense gig -- as a punishment.
Anyone tempted to use the words "courageous," "maverick" or "principled" to describe Lieberman should have this quote tattooed on his (or, of course, her) forehead: "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
I don't think we're guaranteed a Lamont win in November, but I think it's the most likely outcome. If Lieberman wins, his wins...his relationships are with Dems, and that's where he'll end up voting most of the time. I doubt he'll hurt us. And the fat-assed DLC/TNR coaliton has been, at a minimum, told that they don't necessarily have the field to themselves. Good times.
Some of those independent voters signing up as Democrats for this primary smell a little fishy to me--not as in voter fraud, but as in Republicans registering Democrat for a turn to game the system.
In Connecticut, while Independents could register on election day to vote, a Republican switching parties would not be allowed to vote in primaries for three months. If they did this, they started back in May.
Also, Lamont doesn't help the Republicans because their candidate sucks and won't get elected in a million years.
If the election were held today generally, Lieberman would probably win, but by November there will be plenty of time to make him look like a sore loser. Also, I expect the Democrats will find some position for him so that he can drop out and save some face. ("I am continuing to serve the people of CT and our great nation in other ways...")
Am thinking that maybe Marshall's take on this is wrong. I think Lieberman-running-today would win; that means he has his constituents' desires pegged. But "constituent" != "Democrats who vote in primaries."
59, 60 Dude, I totally see now that I don't see the spoon. Lieberman is a maverick of mavericks. Atop a mustang, wearing sheapskin gloves, a flannel coat, and flannel yarmulke.
Somehow, I don't think Lieberman is going to fit in with the rest of Maverick.
64: No need. Before Bush's term is up everyone will have that quote tattoed on their foreheads.
I'm sure you're right about the registration issues, Cala. It's a little difficult for me to understand a state where the largest voter block is independant. (True story: when I first registered in New York, I registered as Independant. I saw my primary options seriously restricted, lemme tell you.)
63--Even awesomer would be to give him that International PR job that Karen Hughes has. You know, the one where she explains to rooms full of angry Muslims why the US is the bestest?
maybe Lieberman can add some joementum to the green party movement in CT. It might take some of the stink off the green party's image as a collection of unwitting republican stooges.
70: It is weird. My mama always said not be to be Independent because you couldn't vote in primaries. I don't know why Connecticutians don't pick parties, though. Too many retired i-bankers?
No, I got to vote in a primary!
Unfortunately, it was the Independance Party primary, and they are all Birch Society lunatic rejects. I was really mad at myself for not having paid better attention.
I'm a registered Independent and have never voted in a primary.
And speaking of the Birch Society, for many years they sponsored a billboard outside of the town where I was born that said "Impeach Earl Warren."
You are all missing the key point, which is that whatever baa is smoking, he should share it.
Such joecularity. baa would never allude to such a thing.
nope, baa's a straight talking man, and nary a crooked thing doth enter. Why the silence on the Joeral issue, baa?
Enough with the cock Joekes, people.
Is America finally starting to realise what an awful mistake they made invading Iraq?
The pity of it is that I can forsee US forces leaving Iraq just like the Brits did in Palestine, leaving the opposing sides to fight it out.
God, what a mess!
OMFG -- didja guys see the front page of the NY Times this morning? Apparently Dick Cheney is warning that the election result "may encourage terrorists".
"may encourage terrorists"
God, how I hate those shameless motherfuckers. Destroying Lebanon and putting 130K troops in Iraq doesn't encourage terrorists, but a small state's incumbent senator in the minority party losing a primary might.
Even if it did, who the fuck cares? Do terrorists get a vote? Am I required to get Osama's seal of approval on my ballots now? What if Osama doesn't like that I go to school? Should I quit that? Fuck off, Cheney, your war isn't working and your mouth is full of shit.
Also, a w00t to British intelligence and hopes that they've completely foiled that plot.
How long before we're not allowed to wear clothes on airplanes?
91 -- I had the same thought -- a delicious prospect!
"may encourage terrorists"
Now, now. Cheney didn't say it would encourage "terrorists." He said it would encourage “al Qaeda types.” Not necessarily terrorists as such, just people he thinks are kind of like terrorists, like Ned Lamont, and MoveOn.org, and Democrats.
93 cracked me up. It's a wicked, wicked world we live in.
As Bruce Schneier said, these new rules should definitely make air travel safer, because no one will be flying.
nice to know that the Brits are as easily cowed as we are. I feel unsafe! Please, authorities, shackle me tighter!
This is helpful, and unhysterical.
The British political establishment is seeing this as an opportunity to roll back civil liberties to the early 18th century. "Sometimes we may have to modify some of our own freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy all of our freedoms in the modern world." - John Reid, Home Secretary.
A lot of civilians, on the other hand, are wondering if it's 95% spin.