Yet Another
Preemptive post mortem, this one from EJ Dionne in the Washington Post. Dionne explains all we ever need to know about the primary in Connecticut. (Close sarcasm tag)
This charge of extremism enrages Democrats, including many Lieberman supporters. It's absurd, they say, to attribute Lamont's rise primarily to bloggers who were his prime supporters three months ago, when he registered less than 20 percent in the polls. Something has happened since then that goes well beyond the blogosphere.
In this light, the effort to play the anti-American card can be seen as a sign of the frustration felt by the architects of a war that no longer enjoys popular support and the desperation of those who realize how pervasive the anti-Bush mood has become.
The battle of interpretations has raged within the Lieberman campaign itself. For months, Lieberman tried to push the war aside, insisting that the election should not be decided by a "single issue." He focused on classic incumbent arguments about his role in bringing jobs to Connecticut, and on criticisms of Lamont.
But on Sunday night — pressed by campaign advisers to speak directly to Democratic anger at the president — Lieberman finally threw in his lot with the anti-Bush camp. He offered a "closing argument" that ticked off eight issues on which he had battled the administration. He defended dissenters opposed to the war whom he had once seemed to criticize and insisted that he "clearly disagreed with and criticized the president" on many aspects of Bush's Iraq policy.
Lieberman has never been, since I've been following his battle, a rubber stamp guy for Bush. I know that's how Lamont and the netroots have painted him, but he's actually been a strong defense person and an opponent to a cut and run policy that would cripple this country. But Dionne jumps happily on that bandwagon. Here's the absurdity Dionne comes up with:
There is, in any event, a major flaw in the claim that Lieberman's troubles reflect an end to the role of moderates in the Democratic Party: Lieberman is the one prominent moderate to receive serious opposition in this year's primaries. As Robert L. Borosage of the liberal Campaign for America's Future noted, antiwar Democrats limited their challenge to one of the most pro-Bush Democrats in one of the most Democratic states in the country. Moderate Democrats in Republican-leaning states were left largely undisturbed.
Moreover, opposition to the war in Iraq and to Bush has spread well beyond the left. In the latest Quinnipiac poll, Lieberman leads Lamont among Democrats who called themselves moderate or conservative by only 53 percent to 43 percent. If Lieberman loses, it will be primarily because of defections in the disaffected center.
Only ten points? Is that all? Lamont supporters were freaking dancing in the streets when the prior poll showed Lamont ahead by ten or so points. Just so I can get this clear, Dionne thinks this is insignificant? 10 points doesn't matter?
Dionne is wrong here. Moderates are not happy with the tilt left and this poll, which is likely skewed left in sample, if other polls are an example, shows the problem is even worse than even I thought. A Lamont win will be a disaster for the Democrats. Too bad Dionne has blinders on in this.
By Bird Dog, Tuesday, 8 August , 2006 @ 11:32 am
I think you’re right about that, and I hope you’re right, but I don’t KNOW that you’re right.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 8 August , 2006 @ 11:48 am
Nobody knows at this point. This is a tough one to analyze.