Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Ach, Du Lieber Mann
If he continues to alienate his colleagues, Lieberman could be stripped of his seniority within the Democratic caucus should he defeat Democrat Ned Lamont in the general election this November, according to some senior Democratic aides.But both of these things are true. Maybe that makes it more offensive, but do Democrats really want to have this become a litmus test? I would think Dems want the 06 elections to be fought on a local basis, because that should disfavor incumbents, and the Dems have been unable to come up with a coherent national plan for several election cycles. They need all the time they can get to do that.
In recent days, Lieberman has rankled Democrats in the upper chamber by suggesting that those who support bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by a certain date would bolster terrorists’ planning attacks against the U.S. and its allies. He also sparked resentment by saying last week on NBC’s Today show that the Democratic Party was out of the political mainstream.
As DU notes in discussing this, if Lieberman wins in CT the Dems need him in their caucus:
8. the problem is that should Leiberman win...I don't think Lieberman is a Republican, and I don't think he's ever going to become one. Several of the DU posters advocate dirty tactics to get him out of the CT race altogether.
...and in such a way that exacerbates the antagonisms of Democrats, stripping him of seniority just might compel Holy Joe to become a Republican, in name as well as in fact...and in the event the Democrats take the senate (50 D's + 1 Ind. vs. 49 Repukes), and Leiberman switches, it's 49+1 vs. 50...with Unka Dick casting the tie-breaking vote. Should Lamont lose (and at this point i wouldn't take any bets on him winning), it's seven senate seats the Democrats have to win this year to regain control.
And what of the other Dems who share his views somewhat? The Hill again:
Carper, who like Lieberman often works across the aisle with Republicans, is one of a handful of Democratic centrists who have continued to support Lieberman since his primary defeat. The others include Sen. Ken Salazar (Colo.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).The article stresses how offended the Dems are by Lieberman's campaign topics, but yet they are Lieberman's responses to Lamont's proposals, and thus fair game in the CT election:
The view that Lieberman should lose his seniority is likely to become more ingrained among Democrats if Lieberman continues to align himself with Republicans, as he has in the last few days. Lieberman took a call from senior White House political strategist Karl Rove on the day of his primary election. And since losing, he has adopted rhetoric echoing Republican talking points.Again, that is true. If I were a Democratic politician, I'd shut up and let the Lieberman/Lamont race remain in CT. This is a question of different views on strategy, not "Republican talking-points", and it can't possibly be good for the Democrats to enforce party unanamity on this topic. Nor do I think it will work well for them to shove Lieberman out of the Democratic Caucus. If the election ends up with a 49-50-Lieberman split either way, Lieberman might assume a lot of power.
“If we pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Lieberman said about U.S. troops in Iraq and the recently foiled terrorism scheme. “It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.”
Links to this post: