Sore Loserman

A few thoughts on the race of the summer.

If Joe Lieberman loses, he will do so because he has conducted his campaign in the same haughty tone that characterized his infamous assertion in 2005 that

it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

He will also lose because his self-serving decision to gather signatures to enable a run as an independent operates as handy shorthand for his distate for the icky process of standing together with other Democrats. He will lose because his constituents are no longer willing to swallow his condescension and inaction on the most pressing issue of our time: the war.

Current polling suggests that primary voters in Connecticut who are likely to vote for Lamont are doing so for a variety of reasons, with the war being only the primary example of the multiplicity of ways in which Lieberman fails to represent the views of his constituents. Lots of Democrats, including DemFromCT at Kos, seem to be interested in playing this forward as a way of emphasizing that this election is not only a referendum on the war, and on Lieberman's rabid-puppy-like devotion the Bush party line on Iraq. I am not really certain why this is the case. Democrats seem totally, constitutionally incapable of realizing that the public - 55% of whom want to leave Iraq entirely within a year - is calling out for leadership in this direction. I don't know if it's just because they're afraid of being torn to shreds in the echo chamber (which mightn't happen if everyone would decide to grow a pair together) or if they're all just angling for Donny Rumsfeld's job, but whatever is keeping incumbent congressional Dems from articulating a coherent agenda for ending the war is also going to keep them from winning. 55% is a fucking lot of people, and I would assume that the number of people in Connecticut who want out ASAP is even higher.

People who are calling Connecticut's little exercise in democracy a "purge" and bemoaning a leftward shift to Democratic politics are mistakenly conflating the widespread horror at the conduct and progress of W's Middle Eastern adventure with "leftism." There is no inherent political orientation to the process of taking steps to reverse an incompetent series of decisions, or that of removing from power the people who have enabled the people making the incompetent decisions.

Also, it is hilarious that the National Review can run a cover of Arlen Specter calling him "The Worst Republican Senator" and effectively campaign on the behalf of Pat Toomey as they did in 2003, and it's regarded as simply hardball politics, but a bunch of bloggers call Joementum some names and make a float and it's a "purge." Those crazyyyyy leftists, always with the purging!

If Lieberman loses, I will toast to his downfall and pray that he has the dignity to respect the decision of his constituents. And the staff of Rockstar Games will probably join me.