Party Time

Watching a pompous and moralizing 18-year veteran of the Senate go down in flames at the hands of his own constituents was great fun. Knowing what a miserable day it is for both major party establishments is even better.

Surely the RNC would much rather be spending today spinning a Lieberman victory as a stunning blue state endorsement of Bush's policy in Iraq. Instead, they're stuck contorting Lieberman's defeat into a hijacking of the Democratic party by cut-and-run extremists. (This was the highest turnout for a primary since 1970, and antiwar sentiment is mainstream around here by any measure.)

Locally, Republicans (let's call them "deferential to the established order") are figuring out how to get rid of their choice to take on what now looks like a split Democrat electorate. And they can't be happy with the realization that they haven't bothered to challenge seriously Connecticut's entrenched incumbent senators for years - at least one of whom obviously turns out to have been unentrenchable.

As for the Democrats, Chris Dodd and other party leaders in Connecticut just had a press conference where they endorsed Lamont with about as much enthusiasm as hostages reading a statement at gunpoint. Lanny Davis spent the last few days in Connecticut aggressively attacking Lamont, and Bill Clinton stumped for Lieberman a couple of weeks ago.

Poor all these guys. What a great day.

Comments

[SR]

Lanny Davis has a piss-yourself-laughing funny opinion piece in the online WSJ today: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008763

The best part is when Davis complains that he gets nasty e-mails from Lamont supporters: "in ALL CAPS (which often suggests the hyper-frenetic state of these extremist haters)"

[Eric Ross]

I'm no fan of either dominant party, but if the Dems have any sense, they'll immidiately strip Loserman of any committee assignments and punish his defection harshly. Imagine what Rove would do to a R primary loser who declared he would try to defeat his own party in the general election!

[Russell]

Since the weak point of Republican nonentity on the present ticket , Alan Schlesinger , AKA Alan Gold , is his pseudonymous Wampum Card from the Foxwood Casino , surely the man to turn to is Bill Bennett, a certified Vegas Whale.

Bill's mighty blackjack losings should translate into Pequot wampum enough to guarantee a six year vacation on the Potomac reservation.

May the Manitou be with him

[Daze]

Can the Republicans nominate Lieberman? That makes the most sense.

[Dr. SF]

"Watching a pompous and moralizing"

You're projecting again, Mike, and it isn't flattering..

[R C Dean]

I'm no fan of either dominant party, but if the Dems have any sense, they'll immidiately strip Loserman of any committee assignments and punish his defection harshly.

Right now, I would say Lieberman has a better than even chance of winning the general election.

The Dems have never been too proud to caucus with "independents" before. Why would they want to start banning them from the Dem caucus now? If they boot Lieberman for not being a Dem, will they do the same for other independents? What if doing so costs them a majority in the Senate (as it well could)? How smart would that be?

In politics, whether you win or not has more to do with who your friends are than how many enemies you have made.

[joshua corning]

jesus christ and how many weeks did it take reason hit and run to tell me how this is a good thing for libertarians.

[E. Steven]

--Can the Republicans nominate Lieberman? That makes the most sense.

Yeah, if they love him so much why don't they marry him?! Oh, wait, they're not into that.

[Joseph E. Johnston]

I hasten to add that the mention of Cynthia McKinney's loss is conspicuously absent. That was the electoral highlight for me.

[nicanor]

'Right now, I would say Lieberman has a better than even chance of winning the general election.'

....Comment by: R C Dean at August 9, 2006 03:01 PM

I knew libertarians smoked a lot of pot. I did not know how much though.

[nicanor]

'Right now, I would say Lieberman has a better than even chance of winning the general election.'

....Comment by: R C Dean at August 9, 2006 03:01 PM

I knew libertarians smoked a lot of pot. I did not know how much though.

[Marcvs]

What the fuck else do you call someone who favors an active federal government? A compansinate conservative?

A politician.

[Madog]

Tradesports seems to be favoring Lieberman to win the general election, and there are polls indicating that as well.

With a weak republican candidate, many independent and Republican voters are likely to go for Lieberman rather than seeing an even more left-leaning candidate win.

(Technically it will be a 4-way race, since there's a Green candidate too.)

[nicanor]

pardon the double post.

[Gene Berkman]

The Chair of the Republican National Committee says that Lamont's victory shows the Democrats are the "Defeatocrat Party."

How can pulling out of Iraq lead to defeat? Didn't George W. Bush declare victory already three years ago? If the Mission is accomplished, how can leaving be "cutting and running?"

[Ayn_Randian]

Please, nicanor, you must be new here. You don't have to apologize for double posts here; they are as common as Warren drinking. When you hit sextuplet posts, that's when you mention something (but blame it on the squirrels).

[joe]

It's true, getting swamped by Nedrenaline (ugh) is bad for both the Democratic and Republican establishments.

But there's an important difference - the event is bad for the Republican party from top to bottom.

It's only bad for the very tippy-top of the Democratic Washington establishment. For the rest of the party, it is very, very good.

[Larry A]

And they (Republicans) can't be happy with the realization that they haven't bothered to challenge seriously Connecticut's entrenched incumbent senators for years - at least one of whom obviously turns out to have been unentrenchable.

"Unentrenchable" doesn't equate with "Replaceable with a Republican." Why should people with no chance of electing their own candidate get excited about "challanging seriously" the opposition when winning means electing someone who's even further from their position than the incumbent?

[joshua corning]

It's only bad for the very tippy-top of the Democratic Washington establishment. For the rest of the party, it is very, very good.

If joe means sinking the party further into obscurity by running head long to the statist left, then yes this is very good for the party.

Is it possible that the Deadwood dems lasted a negative span of time?

[joe]

Ned Lamont, the statist left?

The guy who voted with the Republicans 80% of the time when he served on the county board?

See, folks, he must be on the far left: he's against the war.

[Robert]

Of course the Democrats could strip Lieberman of all Congressional party posts, but that may not make any difference to voters when the other choice would be a freshman. If the Democrats had someone in the White House now, they could offer Lieberman an executive branch position such as an ambassadorship. But they don't, and Lieberman wants a job now. So he runs. And wins. He'll make up the 4% difference from the primary to the gen'l election fairly easily. Had he been slaughtered in the primary, then he might have his doubts about running in the general.

[Ayn_Randian]

Uh, joe, I don't know anything about Lamont or whatever, but do you actually know anything about local politics? Affiliating yourself on the local level with a party is meaningless; you'll still be the micromanaging prick that says you have to have ten permits before you can put a pool in your backyard.

Or do you think the "R" next to say, Bloomberg's name actually means something?

[Renechaput]

"Or do you think the "R" next to say, Bloomberg's name actually means something?"

Well.... it does mean that he spends a great deal of time raising money, stumping, etc. for other republicans.

It also means that he helped squash (ahem, relocate) protestors away from the 2004 Republican Convention in NY (where he also played a role in re-electing Dubya).

And do you really think the R next to Giuliani's name means nothing?

[Ayn_Randian]

Renechaput, I was just lampooning the idea joe has that because some guy voted 80% with Rs on some podunk county board means nothing philosophically.

[Robert]

Ayn Randian is right, and I was even going to write something similar myself but was distracted by my other point.

At the local level, party affiliation by office holders is arbitrary w.r.t. philosophy. What this means is that people with political aspirations who start on the local level tend to decide according to non-ideologic criteria -- basically, wherever the best opportunities seem to lie. That means that ultimately, the leadership of large political parties gets its ideology from elsewhere -- basically the interplay of various factors, including the predominant ideologies of those who rise in the ranks, who chose their parties for reasons other than ideology.

This means, for instance, that the Democratic Party has the ideology it now does largely from the politicians within who got elected in cities where Democrats predominate. It's not the reverse, which many people suppose: that the Democrats picked an ideology and then city voters picked them on that basis. No, the party came first, then the ideology.

[joe]

Randian, you did get the reference to Joe Lieberman's ads and mailings in the local media accusing Lamont of being a crypto-conservative and flogging his ties to Republicans while on the country board, right?

Obviously, you did. Because you have so much knowledge of local politics, no way something like that would fly over your head.

Voting with the Republicans while on the country board doesn't prove anything affirmative about Lamont's political philosophy, but it is a pretty strong refutation of the claim that he represent an extermist, radical "statist left."

[joshua corning]

Joe you friggen liberal

but it is a pretty strong refutation of the claim that he represent an extermist, radical "statist left."

no where did I say extermist or radical, and who you callin scruffy lookin?

note: I am now calling everyone whom I respond to a "friggen liberal"