A Tale of Two Senators

Tom Curry writes an article for MSNBC about Nebraska's Ben Nelson, the most conservative senator in the Democratic Party, someone who voted with the Sessions/Kyl/Cornyn faction all the way on the immigration debate, who voted to extend the Bush tax cuts, who's supported the President 76 percent of the time in Senate roll call votes.

Obviously, those of us in the netroots understand that you can't be the progressive champion in Nebraska that you can be in, say, Connecticut. But there's another BIG reason why Nelson, who's very popular in his state, is free from the wrath of the blogosphere. He may be conservative, but he understands why he's a Democrat.

::
Curry, who's clearly begging for Nelson to offer a full critique of the Democratic Party throughout the article, eventually cuts to the chase:


Given Nelson's voting record, two questions arise: Why is he a Democrat? And what reason would a Republican have to vote against Nelson?
Nelson answers the first question this way: "Democrats may not always be right, but they always try to be on the right side, whether it was Medicare, Social Security, civil rights, voting rights." He added, "I've never been pushed by the Democrats to leave the Democratic Party. While I have had overtures from Republicans (to switch parties) I've concluded that I'm very comfortable where I am."

That really struck me. It's probably better framing of how to present ourselves in conservative, rural states than I've heard. After all, this guy's won two governorships and a Senate race in Nebraska, he ought to know how to define himself and his party. And it's a positive, hopeful, "we're the party on your side" kind of statement. I know many would like to see "they always ARE on the right side," but that connotes a certain arrogance, and I see why Nelson soft-pedals this while still playing to common sense, equality, and fairness. All politicians have to some degree an instinct for self-preservation. Nelson doesn't take that out on his party.

On the other hand, Joe Lieberman could offer a full-throated progressive agenda much easier than could Ben Nelson. He could refrain from condemning Democrats or saying they speak out against the President "at our nation's peril." He could stop adopting Republican talking points that undermine his party's credibility. He certainly has a better case to make for being a good Democrat than Nelson does. But his tactics are completely objectionable.

In a nutshell, that's why Lieberman deserves a challenge and Nelson does not. It's not just regional realities, although that's part of it. It's more about wanting to be a Democrat more than wanting to be a "centrist" media darling.

UPDATE: Lieberman's getting honored by a neocon front group tonight. That'll secure his victory in the Democratic primary!