Cannibalizing
Joe
Lieberman
BY JOHN
P. AVLON
New York
Sun
Lyndon
Johnson
used to
tell a
joke:
"What is
the
difference
between
liberals
and
cannibals?
Cannibals
don't
eat
their
friends
and
family
members."
The
polarization
of
political
elites
is
increasing
the
drumbeat
of
intra-party
cannibalism.
With the
rigged
system
of
redistricting
creating
a 98%
congressional
re-election
rates,
and
activist
bloggers
calling
for the
electoral
execution
of any
official
they
deem to
be
insufficiently
ideological,
party
primaries
are fast
becoming
prime
electoral
fights.
With
control
of
Congress
possibly
hanging
in the
balance,
and both
parties
struggling
to find
their
souls in
advance
of 2008,
the
impact
of this
catching
cannibalism
could be
considerable.
It's
also
selfish
and
stupid.
When a
Democratic
senator
consistently
gets 60%
of the
popular
vote in
a state
with a
moderate
Republican
heritage
and
Republican
governors
for the
past 12
years,
he
should
be
considered
a
powerful
asset.
But if
you're
one of
the
increasingly
angry
left-wing
Democrats,
you
demonize
him and
then
proceed
with a
primary.
That's
the
position
that a
Connecticut
senator
and
former
vice
presidential
candidate,
Joe
Lieberman,
finds
himself
in this
year.
Despite
his more
than 80%
rating
from
Americans
for
Democratic
Action
and a
low 20%
rating
from the
American
Conservative
Union,
he is
being
derided
as a
DINO - a
Democrat
In Name
Only -
by
left-wing
advocates
and some
party
influencers,
such as
Howard
Dean's
brother.
Amid
President
Bush's
increasing
unpopularity
in the
state in
which he
was born
(Mr.
Bush was
born in
New
Haven,
Mr.
Lieberman's
hometown),
Mr.
Lieberman's
support
for the
war on
terrorism
has made
him
persona
non
grata
among
left-wing
Democrats.
They
have
found
their
champion
in a
political
neophyte
and
local
businessman,
Ned
Lamont.
One self
identified
Lamont
delegate
on the
Daily
Kos blog
expressed
the
liberal
rational
for Mr.
Lieberman's
replacement:
"For
years he
has
disparaged
fellow
Democrats
and,
time and
again,
provided
a
bi-partisan
shield
for
Republicans'
harsh
right-wing
policies."
In their
partisan
fervor,
such
Democrats
are
reviving
the
"love it
or leave
it"
rationale
they
criticized
conservatives
for
using in
the
past,
but now
they are
applying
it to
their
party
instead
of
patriotism.
Faced
with
this
challenge,
Mr.
Lieberman's
recent
statement
that he
would
not rule
out an
independent
candidacy
if he
loses
the
August
primary
set off
waves of
speculation.
While it
was an
offhand
comment,
it
underscores
the fact
that Mr.
Lieberman
could
easily
win as
an
independent.
The two
parties'
primaries
are
increasingly
dominated
by their
more
extremist
voices,
a
situation
unhealthy
to the
interests
of a
genuinely
representative
democracy.
Slightly
northeast,
in Rhode
Island,
a
Republican
senator,
Lincoln
Chafee,
finds
himself
in a
similar
position.
Identified
as one
of the
most
vulnerable
senatorial
incumbents
in a
state
that has
been
deeply
Democratic
for
years,
Mr.
Chafee -
son of
the
popular
former
senator
- was,
nonetheless,
able to
win
election
in 2000
by
commanding
57% of
the
popular
vote. To
put Mr.
Chafee's
senatorial
record
in
context,
he has a
53%
rating
from the
American
Conservative
Union
and a
45%
rating
from the
Americans
for
Democratic
Action.
That is
a
balanced
record
that
reflects
both his
conscience
and his
constituents.
If Mr.
Chafee
were to
lose his
party's
primary
to the
mayor of
Cranston,
R.I.,
Stephen
P.
Laffey -
who is
being
backed
by the
Club for
Growth -
"it
could
cost the
Republicans
the seat
in the
Senate
for a
generation,"
according
to the
executive
director
of
Republican
Main
Street
Partnership,
Sarah
Chamberlain.
With
$1.5
million
on hand
this
year to
support
centrist
Republican
candidates
- an
estimated
two-fold
increase
over the
last
cycle -
the Main
Street
Partnership
has
always
faced an
uphill
battle
in terms
of fund
raising
and the
outward
passion
of its
more
activist
opponents.
But it
has a
winning
record
going
head-to-head,
such as
in 2004,
when it
supported
the
incumbent
Pennsylvania
senator,
Arlen
Specter,
for
re-election.
Although
outspent
more
than
2-to-1
by the
Club for
Growth,
which
backed
Rep. Pat
Toomey -
now its
executive
director
- Mr.
Specter
won the
primary
and then
the
general
election
with
70%. He
subsequently
shepherded
Mr.
Bush's
Supreme
Court
nominees
to
confirmation.
These
party
divides
are also
at work
in a
lesser-noticed
Michigan
congressional
primary
in
August,
which
pits an
incumbent
Republican
congressman,
Joe
Schwarz,
against
Tim
Walberg,
who is
being
supported
by the
Club for
Growth
and
Michigan
Right to
Life.
Here
too, the
intra-party
debate
is
viciously
partisan,
with
attack
Web
sites
dedicated
to the
claim
that
"Joe
Schwarz
is a
liberal."
Columnist
Hans
Zeiger
opines,
"Joe
Schwarz
does
not
belong
in the
Republican
Party.
He is a
Democrat
at heart
and a
socialist
at
mind."
Sometimes
cooler
heads
prevail.
In
March,
the
fiscally
conservative
Hispanic
Democratic
congressman,
Henry
Cuellar,
faced a
primary
challenge
from a
former
congressman,
Ciro
Rodriguez,
who
accused
the
incumbent
of being
too
close to
the
president.
Without
a
Republican
challenger,
the
primary
was the
election.
This
time,
the Club
for
Growth
took the
unprecedented
step of
backing
Mr.
Cuellar,
bolstering
its
credentials
as a
principled
rather
than
simply
partisan
organization.
Mr.
Cuellar
won.
The hunt
for
heretics
does not
help a
party in
a time
that is
ripe for
realignment.
And yet
the
temptation
seems to
be too
much for
true
believers
to
resist.
Their
disproportionate
influence
in
low-turnout
primaries
is yet
another
indication
of the
gap that
exists
between
professional
partisans
and the
general
public.
If Mr.
Lieberman
were to
fall
victim
to such
liberal
Democratic
cannibalism,
a
successful
independent
candidacy
could
help
bring
some
needed
clarity.
If
centrist
candidates
like Mr.
Lieberman
are
rejected
by their
party's
most
activist
elements
and
still
run, the
independent
label
may
increasingly
become a
place of
refuge
for the
sensible
center,
an
opportunity
to forge
a
new
national
consensus.
