Lowly Joe and His Friends in High Places

Yesterday I posted about how Russ Feingold made the obvious statement that he would support the Democrat who wins the primary in Connecticut. Chuck Schumer doesn't think it's so obvious:

Schumer, a consummate Washington insider, is now using his position as head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to try to crush his own party’s activists in Connecticut. According to Time Magazine, Schumer has pressed Senate candidate Ned Lamont (D) to abandon his run against Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) - the Democratic incumbent who has repeatedly and destructively undermined the Democratic Party for years. Schumer has also said he would consider backing Lieberman’s bid for re-election even if Lieberman leaves the Democratic Party.

None of this is surprising. Schumer’s been a Washington politician for decades - and grassroots energy frightens people like him. But what is surprising is how Schumer has become so desperate, he is now flinging out wild stories to justify his actions. Time reports that “Schumer has told colleagues he thinks that if Lieberman lost the primary, it would send a bad signal to moderate voters and might hurt the party’s chances of winning Senate seats in places like Montana and Missouri in November.”

That's completely insane and I think Schumer knows it's insane. No moderate voter in Missouri or Montana could give two shits about the Lamont-Lieberman primary; in fact, how many do you think even know there is a Lamont-Lieberman primary? Furthermore, a moderate voter incensed by a progressive victory in Connecticut would then retaliate by not voting for a moderate in their own state? Forgive me, but I just don't get the vast moderate agenda.

But Chuck really has nothing else to use to defend his fealty to incumbency over the party rank-and-file. Just because Ned Lamont is not part of the Kool Klub, he's apparently not allowed to be part of the Democratic process. According to this critique, democracy exists only for the few. How is that democratic?

When you shrink the net of activists and supporters, when you shut the door on the people most profoundly interested in helping you, the necessary consequence is Republican victory. Resurgences in politics always bubble up from the grassroots. The Republicans proved that 40 years ago. Now we finally have a situation where Democrats are using the grassroots to start their own resurgence, and some Party leaders are openly fearful of it, and what to silence it. Given their prowess in getting elected in the past decade, you'd think they'd welcome the help. But winning elections is apparently not as important as holding on to control of your little fiefdoms.

The Time article, by the way, is devastating for Lieberman.

Then, in the small town of East Lyme, Joe Barry, a retired Vietnam veteran and local Democrat, literally got in Lieberman's face.

"Senator, that was the plan, to get rid of Saddam," Barry said, sitting with about 12 people in a senior center that Lieberman had stopped at. "We got rid of Saddam, now let's get out of there. What are we looking for, Vietnam, where 50,000 people died?" Lieberman calmly responded, "We have a plan," but Barry shot back, "Who has a plan?" "The United States Military, the United States Government," Lieberman said, naming General George Casey, who leads American forces in Iraq.

Lieberman was standing right in front of Barry, and as the discussion continued another minute, the burly veteran stood up face-to-face with the Senator to emphasize his point. "I'm not going to let it go," Barry said, adding, "I would love to see your plan." Lieberman didn't give any ground either. "I'm not for an open-ended [commitment] but I don't want to leave like that," he said, snapping his fingers. Barry can't even remember the name of Lieberman's opponent, but still he says that Lieberman's strong support for the war has left him unsure if he can vote for him. "I would probably vote for Donald Duck right now," Barry said.

Here he denies something that's on tape and in pictures:

Connecticut party officials were particularly incensed when President Bush kissed Lieberman on the cheek following his 2005 State of the Union address. In meetings with state Dems, Lieberman tried to assuage their concerns, but also kept reminding party officials he had a 70% approval rating. Even so, the attacks on the kiss became so vocal that an exasperated Lieberman told one group of Democrats "I didn't kiss him back," a response that didn't exactly hearten them. (The incident has become so radioactive that Lieberman now denies Bush actually kissed him, telling TIME last week "I don't think he kissed me, he leaned over and gave me a hug and said 'thank you for being a patriotic American.'")

"I didn't give him tongue!" Lieberman protests.

There are still some shots in the Time piece at the liberal blogosphere (with whom they compete for readers, at least that's their perception, so the animosity is blindingly obvious), and the article is openly critical of Lamont, unfairly so in my opinion. So you can't have everything. Time is as much a part of the institutional establishment that creates a Lieberman as anyone, so how can you be shocked when they editorially side with him? In the state, among the citizens, where it counts, people see ads like this and understand the essential truth therein: that Joe Lieberman hurts the Democratic brand by parroting Republican talking points and relentlessly criticizing Democrats. Some of those same Democrats want to do everything in their power to keep him in the fold. They're desperate, thinking about what might happen if he wins. What they should do is prepare for what happens when he loses.