The Lieberman Double Standard

by folkbum

I don't live in Connecticut; heck, I'm still a bit iffy about spelling Connecticut. But I watched last week's primary there with some interest--and, more intersting to me, I watched the Right Cheddarsphere's reactions to it as well. The title of this post probably gives away the punch line, but I'm hoping you'll stay with me.

The general tenor of the Right Cheddarsphere's response has been boilerplate "this is the end of the Democrats" rhetoric. Never mind that our demise has been predicted almost daily for the last decade or so--this time the "loony left" (or "wackadoo wing," my favorite) has sealed the deal. Here are some examples:

• Peter DiGaudio calls Lamont "the appeasement candidate," complete with the claim that the winners were really "Islamic terrorists"; Peter also tells us that "the kooky moonbats that have taken over the Democratic Party."
  
• The Game uses "wackadoo wing," noting helpfully that "Lieberman is the first casualty of the war against the war on terror." He also copies and pastes Ann Coulter--complete with the (c) 2006 tag--who looks at the Lamont win and longs for the days when Democrats were mere traitors.
  
• Fred, on the day before the election, observed that "[t]his race is everything that is wrong with the Democratic party right now." At Badger Blog Alliance, Fred congratulated MoveOn and George Soros, calling Lamont's 48% in the primary "the looniest of the left."
  
• Badger Blogger Patrick weighs in, calling the results a "victory in more ways than one" for Republicans.
  
• Jenna is also convinced that a Lamont win "couldn't possibly help the Republicans more" in their chances of keeping the White House after 2008.

The exception I've found is Billiam, who comments in Keith's brief post below that "Republicans have more to worry about than this garbage. The people of Ct. have spoken. So be it." Not exactly ringing praise for Lamont, but at least it's a recognition that the small-d democratic process happened, and should be honored. (And he also chickens out on spelling Connecticut--my kind of man.)

Aside from the presumptuousness of telling Democrats how to run their party, these conservatives are engaging in a much more egregious offense: Bald hypocrisy. Scott Stearns of Brewtown Politico, in a very similarly named post to this one, notes one inconsistency:

It was amusing this week to see so many Republicans praising Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) before and after his primary loss. In the meantime, Republican moderates like Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) are berated as RINOs (Republican in Name Only) when they don't tow the party line. Chafee himself is facing a primary challenger in Cranston mayor Steve Laffey.

I can count on less than one hand how many posts I've seen from conservative Wisconsin bloggers about the Chaffee-Laffey primary. This may be because the media are not driving the Rhode Island story in quite the same way that they did CT's--it was a challenge to dig up even one national story about the primary. It could also be because there's not the netroots swell behind Laffey (that I've seen) that there was behind Lamont, i.e., there's no one blogging it here because no one's really blogging it there or nationally.

But I, like Scott, think there's more to it than that. Seth mentioned this week how happy the right seems to be that Rep. Curt Gielow (R-Mequon), a "RINO" for the sin of thinking everyone deserves health care coverage, for example.

But for some of the worst examples of this Right Chedarspherean hypocrisy, you need to go back to 2004. And I'm not just talking about the US Senate race in Pensylvania, either, where long-time incumbent Republican Arlen Specter beat conservative darling Pat Toomey by less than two percent in that primary. A stroll through the archives of some of the bloggers who were around then turned up Boots And Sabers' Owen, for example, "rooting for Toomey" and throwing around the RINO label (a label that DiGaudio still applies to Specter).

But the more telling race of 2004 was the race in the 20th State Senate District, where the conservative netroots went after the biggest RINO of them all, Mary Panzer.

As much as the Right Cheddarsphere couldn't believe that Democrats would go after Lieberman on one issue--the war--Mary Panzer was, as Owen said in November 2004, "defeat[ed . . .] because of her failure to pass TABOR." (Owen's August archives are like one long Grothman commercial.) Panzer's name continues to be evoked by the Right Cheddarsphere as kind of a rallying cry against RINOs across the state--even in the context of the Attorney General's race.

And the media coverage of the 2004 race, as well, is completely different: Unlike after CT last week, there were no articles in the newspaper or talk show hosts ranting against the netroots and the fringes taking over party primaries. Grothman's candidacy, and the work the conservative bloggers did for him, was supported by the media.

So even as they stand by and mock Connecticut Democrats for appeasing everyone from Howard Dean to al-Qaeda, they're more than happy to exercise the primary process to oust incumbents they don't care for. That's the kind of double standard that, for some reason, conservatives are allowed to hold. It's time we start calling them on it.

Looks Like the Tide Is Turning

By Keith Schmitz

Statement from Sen. Herb Kohl's office on the Senate race in Connecticut:

Patrick Morris, of Senator Herb Kohl's (D-WI) press office, had much more to say, which was a refreshing change compared to some other statements. "Senator Kohl has known and worked with Senator Lieberman for a long time, and respects his principled stands and commitment to public service," said Morris. "However, the voters of Connecticut have clearly chosen Ned Lamont to represent the Democratic Party this election year, and Senator Kohl honors their choice and will support their nominee this fall."

Questions About A Hypothetical Situation

By grumbleberries

This is going to sound crazy and I can't imagine this senario ever happening but play along for a moment.

Suppose two candidates of the same party declare candidacy for the same office and a primary election is held. Further suppose that there is a clear winner in this primary. The winner obviously will represent the party in the general election. Please consider the following questions:

1. Should the loser of the primary run for the office anyway?
2. What would one call a person who ignored the will of the people and ran as an independent?
3. Should the loser in the primary, if he runs as an independent, expect to be trusted by anyone in his former party?
4. Should the loser in the primary, if he runs as an independent , expect to have the plum committee appointments if he wins in the general election.
5. Should the loser of the primary have the support of the party members in the general election?
6. If members of the party support the loser of the primary in the general election, are they the ones who are hurting the party?
7. Had the loser won the primary, would all the losers supporters expect to have the support of the entire party in the general election?
8. If the loser of the primary had no intention of abiding with the will of the primary voters, why did he bother with the primary election anyway?
9. If the loser of the primary runs as an independent in the general election, is this evidence of the party being in shambles or the ego of one person getting in the way?
10. If the loser of the primary runs for the general election is he telling everyone to stick it?

I really don't think there is any doubt about how a Republican would answer the above questions. I thought I knew how Democrats would too. Sadly, I now truly wonder. I suppose time will tell.

Although I supported Lamont in yesterday's CT primary, I did not wish that Senator Leiberman would be banished from the Democratic Party. After listening to his Declaration of Independence last night, I have changed my mind.

CT Primary Day

By grumbleberries

Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont face off today in a primary that many feel has nationwide implications. The national blogosphere has been obsessing on this race for weeks with the past week being almost unbearable. There have been many articles but here are two recent ones that I found interesting. David Sirota provides four senarios concerning the possible outcomes and some comic relief. At NY Daily News, Lieberman pleads that he is not George Bush.

Although the MSM wants us to believe that this primary is a referendum on the war, I believe it to be much more than that.
The Democratic party is currently in a struggle for the direction it will take. According to John Dean in his book, Conservatives Without Conscience many Democrats have chosen to remain silent regarding the extremes of the Neocons because they feel the electorate is not interested in process. Additionally, Dems think such action would make them seem whiney. These Democrats want to move the party to the center of the political spectrum, a center that has moved decidedly to the right. Many in the lefty blogosphere have the opinion that this outlook makes the Democrats seem wimpy. I share this opinion.

The grass roots, emboldened by a blogosphere, is leading the charge to create an opposition party that seeks to aggressively wrestle with the current Republican one party rule. Russ Feingold was one of the first Democrats to "get it". Sooner or later the leadership will be forced to get in front of the Democratic party revolutionary parade or they will need to move over.

This is democracy as it is supposed to be! Messy, loud, and undisciplined, democracy comes from the bottom up pressuring our leaders to do the will of the people. Democracy is not stubbornly sticking to a course of action long after the public has withdrawn its support. Democracy is not blind allegiance to leadership even when all evidence suggests that serious, sometimes illegal, errors have occurred.

Perhaps this is the difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Republicans seem to follow slogan spouting leaders without question and call it a strength. Recent history suggests that Republicans get it wrong much of the time. Democrats, on the other hand, question, argue, research, and have great difficulty following each other. Despite the mess the Democrats will eventually get it right. After all is said and done, how many times has Senator Feingold been wrong?

The Lieberman-Lamont primary is a major battle in this healthy struggle within the Democratic Party. Democrats do not fear the perceived lack of control that Republicans allow to run their lives. In fact, many welcome it because the only thing for certain is change. Regardless of what happens in Connecticut, major changes are coming.