Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Make it three
I figured I'd throw in my two cents on the elections last night. I was pleased with all of the results. Cynthia McKinney is a disgrace, and it's good to see her get the boot. I'm sure Johnson will vote no differently from her, but it's almsost un(in?)fathomable that he'd be as kooky. Au revoir, kook. And I'm also very happy to see Walberg beat the pro-choice Schwarz.
As for Lieberman, as I wrote here last month, I cannot blame left-wing Democrats for ousting someone who they feel does not represent their interests on one of the major issues of the day. Just as I as a conservative applaud the defeat of an incumbent moderate in my own party, and also hope to see another left-wing Republican go down to defeat in Rhode Island, I would expect a left-wing Democrat to applaud Joe's defeat (though, as I mentioned in my previous post, Lieberman is himself a left-winger, just one who supported and continues to support the Iraq war). But, like mouldfan, I don't think we can extrapolate a general pattern off of this one election.
So what happens now? Jeff might be right about Lieberman deciding not to run as an independent. Even if he does, he's not a sure bet to win the general election. Not everyone who voted for Lieberman last night is guaranteed to follow him, and he might rub some people the wrong way if he does decide to run. But odds are that we would win if he did run. The same coalition of moderates and conservatives that helped him win in 1988 against Weicker would probably work together once again (though maybe not so openly this time). And if Lieberman wins - presumably against organized Democratic party resistance to his candidacy - will he then caucus with the Democrats or Republicans? He may very well decide to caucus with the GOP, meaning that the great initial victory of the nutroots actually winds up being essentially a Republican pickup in a deep blue state. Now that would be irony, Alanis.
As for Lieberman, as I wrote here last month, I cannot blame left-wing Democrats for ousting someone who they feel does not represent their interests on one of the major issues of the day. Just as I as a conservative applaud the defeat of an incumbent moderate in my own party, and also hope to see another left-wing Republican go down to defeat in Rhode Island, I would expect a left-wing Democrat to applaud Joe's defeat (though, as I mentioned in my previous post, Lieberman is himself a left-winger, just one who supported and continues to support the Iraq war). But, like mouldfan, I don't think we can extrapolate a general pattern off of this one election.
So what happens now? Jeff might be right about Lieberman deciding not to run as an independent. Even if he does, he's not a sure bet to win the general election. Not everyone who voted for Lieberman last night is guaranteed to follow him, and he might rub some people the wrong way if he does decide to run. But odds are that we would win if he did run. The same coalition of moderates and conservatives that helped him win in 1988 against Weicker would probably work together once again (though maybe not so openly this time). And if Lieberman wins - presumably against organized Democratic party resistance to his candidacy - will he then caucus with the Democrats or Republicans? He may very well decide to caucus with the GOP, meaning that the great initial victory of the nutroots actually winds up being essentially a Republican pickup in a deep blue state. Now that would be irony, Alanis.
# posted by Paul Zummo : 10:37 AM
