ABC’s This Week on the Lieberman-Lamont race

Here’s a snippet from the Roundtable segment of ABC’s This Week on the Lieberman-Lamont Democratic primary race for the Senate:

Cokie: I think Connecticut is a more liberal state, you start there, it’s very blue and you’ve got the guy there with a lot of money who’s able to come in and take advantage of it. But I think that’s a disaster for the Democratic Party and it’s going to be very interesting to see what happens as a result of it.

George: A disaster for the Democratic Party?

Cokie: Yes I do becuase I think first of all it’s pushing the party to the left (which is what’s likely to happen). It’s pushing the party to the position in which it traditionally loses [George: in Presidential elections] in Presidential elections but also it will send a signal to everybody in the Senate “Watch out! The only smart thing to do here is play to your base.” And then what that means is that your legislation becomes a mess, which it already is but even more of a mess, and you get total chaos that way.

I don’t think that Cokie is an oracle but I believe that her opinion should be taken seriously. She has impeccable journalistic and political contacts and credentials. Corinne Claiborne Boggs Roberts is one of the few Americans (less than 50?) both of whose parents have served in the House of Representatives. Her father, Hale Boggs, was the House Majority Leader. When her dad died in a plane crash her mom succeeded him in his seat in the House and served for many years. She and her husband, Steve Roberts, have been journalists for more than 40 years.

Her ancestor, William C. C. Claiborne, was Jefferson’s personal secretary and the first governor of the state of Louisiana.

She practically grew up in the gallery. She has political contacts that are, I believe, unmatched in the Congress and the kind of political savvy that can only be obtained from growing up in a political family.

I honestly don’t care who the citizens of Connecticut elect to serve them as their senator. In all likelihood whoever is elected, whether Lieberman or Lamont, will still caucus with the Democrats. IMO trading a senator with 18 years of seniority for a freshman strikes me as imprudent but, again, that’s their call and again IMO those of Lamont’s supporters who believe that he will vote slavishly for straight party line positions are likely to be very disappointed. Election to the Senate is in some ways very liberating. He will, no doubt, do what most senators do: spend the lion’s share of his time fundraising for his re-election and will vote as he sees fit.

But I think it would be most unfortunate if Cokie’s predictions came true.

UPDATE: I had planned to put this in the original post but somehow it slipped my mind. I think that Cokie Roberts provides a pretty good window on what the consensus view among the Congressional leadership is whether they’ll say it openly or not. That doesn’t mean it’s right but it’s always interesting.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice provides a good recap of where things stand and what’s at stake in the race. I think I disagree with this suggestion of Joe’s:

If Lieberman Had Better Political Skills, This Might Not Have Happened: Pundits will attribute a Lieberman political loss to the “netroots,” to Democratic activists wanting to purge their party of people who support the war, to the far left trying to dismember the influence of the moderate DLC. But another factor may be that Joe Lieberman has proven to be a lousy politician. He made some classic errors. He didn’t cultivate his base support back home. (I have a relative who met Lieberman and to this day insists he is a “sourpuss” even though she voted for him in the past).

I’ve been saying since November, 2004 that there would be an attempt by Dean supporters to purge their party’s right wing—basically the DLC—from the party. Lieberman, probably the most hawkish of Senate Democrats, made a prime target.

6 comments… add one
  • I doubt it will be a catastrophe. Lieberman is an extreme example — even I want him gone — and I don’t entirely buy the line of reasoning that the entire party will now roll over for DailyKos. There are still polls, after all, and the pols will read the polls.

    I suspect a lot of people are looking at this CT race to shine a light on Hillary’s campaign. Senator Clinton’s not a fool, she must know that a swing too far to the Left is doom for her ambitions. As of right now, today, there’s no stand-out primary opponent for her.

    The schedule is Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. If a single insurgent runs the board it becomes a two person race, and that insurgent is subject to heightened scrutiny and Ms. Clinton’s attacks. If the caucuses and primary are split decisions, none of those two or three insurgents will be seen as having a clear shot at Clinton. They’ll have to chew at each other while Clinton rides above and outspends them.

    It’s hard for me to come up with a candidate who might take Iowa, Nevada and NH away from Hillary and acheive escape velocity. More likely it fractures with a bunch of pygmies claiming victories and moral victories and come-from-behind status.

    I’m not a Hillary fan. But I’m also not seeing the anti-Hillary. And I doubt Ned Lamont will panic Hill or Bill.

  • Senator Clinton’s not a fool, she must know that a swing too far to the Left is doom for her ambitions.

    That is, after all, why Bill Clinton is campaigning for Lieberman.

    I strongly suspect that Russ Feingold can win the Iowa Democratic caucus. I’ve never attended but I’ve got close relatives who have and based on their reports it’s obvious to me that a handful of organized, dedicated activists can dominate them.

    Ms. Clinton’s negatives, even within her own party, are pretty darned high.

    And, of course, in the general election I really don’t believe she stands a chance. The Republican candidate will be running against Bush as much as she would and will probably use the same strategy: “We stand behind our vote for invading Iraq but the Bush Administration screwed it up”.

    I know we differ on this, Michael, but my view on Iraq always has been that it was politically impossible for the Bush (or any other) Administration at that point in time to succeed in Iraq (success being defined as a stable, democratic government in Iraq friendly to the U. S.) at least in the available timeframe. Iraq is just too hostile and complicated for that approach to work. The failures alienate too many and empower the wrong people.

  • Dave:

    Well, one thing’s clear: on Iraq you were closer to right than I was.

    I said from the start it was 51/49 because I didn’t have much confidence in the Bush admin. But they managed to do worse than my low expectations. I thought at least they would match actions to rhetoric and take the thing seriously. They didn’t. I thought that at least they had a sense of power dynamics. They didn’t. I have learned a valuable lesson: if you have any doubt about the competence of leaders, don’t give them a green light to start a war.

    That acknowledgment does nothing for the wives and children and parents of 2500 Americans killed and many more wounded. And it doesn’t stop this boulder from rolling down the hill and starting an avalanche. I doubt you get much joy from being right, either.

    It’s a bitter thing to watch this play out.

  • I doubt you get much joy from being right, either.

    Believe me, no. Not to be cold-hearted about it but for me the worst thing—as bad as the 2,500+ Americans who’ve been killed to date—is that IMO we’ve wasted 5 years. As far as I can see we’re basically where we were from a security standpoint as we were on September 10, 2001.

    The main differences being that we’ve left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths over various human rights issues, we know that creating contagious democracy in the Middle East will take longer than we’re willing to wait, and Iran’s nuclear weapons development program is 5 years farther down the line.

  • We’re right where we were plus we’ve lost all confidence in our leaders and the world has lost confidence in our leadership.

    I sometimes wonder if the die-hard true believers are, to use that hoary old movie cliche, unable to “handle the truth.”

Leave a Comment