In bullet-list format because I'm too busy to be articulate today, here's my instinctual sense of Lamont and Lieberman this morning:
- A thousand congrats to Ned Lamont. No one ever guessed a political newcomer could pull off the upset of an 18-year senator, but he did. What a win!
- Congrats to the New York Times. Of course there are dozens of progressive, alternative media outlets and blogs who've kept this thing going, but I do want to commend that incredibly strong endorsement from the Times that shocked many Beltway insiders and (I think) changed a lot of minds last week. Also admirable are the pains the Times has taken to continually refer to Lamont as a "centrist" or "moderate," which is accurate. Lamont is nothing close to the hardcore leftist many corporate media outlets, Republicans, and Lieberman himself have made him out to be. A reasoned voice like the Times making sure to label him appropriately is going to become increasingly important as we inch toward November. Kudos to them for not falling into reactionary hype.
- Make no mistake about it, Lieberman's decision to run as an Independent in the general election is outright shameful. This is a desperate power seize on his part that shows how far removed he is from his constituents, public opinion, and political ideals of any kind. This move is about power, pure and simple. There's nothing political about it.
- Lieberman has no respect for the democratic process in this country. Calling the primary only the "first half" of the political process is outright false. The primary system is the forum through which candidates are selected, and subverting that process amounts to complete disrespect for the political system that Joe so fervently claims to represent.
- Last night Lieberman said: "I am disappointed not just because I lost, but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand." Hmmm... so he won't "let stand" the views of the constituents he's standing up for by running as an Independent? And what exactly does he mean by "old politics"? Yesterday was more like new politics, Joe, and you're out of touch. Not only do you have no idea what just hit you, but D.C. doesn't, either. There are huge tide changes coming, and this is simply the first sign of it.
- More fun with Lieberman quotes: "I'm carrying it on because Lamont really represents polarization and partisanship, which is the last thing we need more of in Washington." This man simply does not understand that his painstaking attempts to embrace Bush and his policies were incredibly insulting to the Democratic faithful who see how destructive Bush has been to this country and to the world. He doesn't understand that by supposedly renouncing "partisanship," he was selling out the ideals he was supposed to be defending for Democrats in this country. He failed at that task, and Connecticut voters sent him packing last night. So go ahead and pack up, dammit!
- Finally, today's headlines are proclaiming that 'Democrats rally around Lamont," but I have to point out that that's not quite true. While many big Dems are going ahead and supporting Lamont in the general elections, almost every published statement has been couched in pro-Lieberman language that at this point in the game is simply unacceptable. Calling him a "good Democrat," etc. is not only inaccurate now that he's leaving the party, but it's a shot at the heart of the voters whose will is being subverted by Lieberman's insistence on running in the general. As part of his ugly power play that refuses to accept the mandate voters issued yesterday, he's playing dirty. So let's stop being nice. This is no time for salivating over a man whose time is over.
|