Lefty Bloggers Can't Stand the Heat

Read it at the Standard.

Lieberman, the Republican

The AP has a story about Chris Dodd's attempt to get traction in the Democratic presidential race. Their basic message is that he doesn't bring anything to the table that sets him apart from the other candidates. Tucked away is this goody:

If some of Dodd's material is dated, aides say his views, particularly on the unpopular war, are attuned with liberal Democrats young and old in early nominating states. Dodd has enlisted anti-war darling Ned Lamont, whom bloggers helped defeat Sen. Joe Lieberman in last year's Democratic primary in Connecticut.

Lamont lost the general election to the newly independent Lieberman, but remains popular among activists and drew as many people as Dodd during his early trips to New Hampshire. The bloggers haven't yet adopted Dodd as their man, however.

I ask again: does Joe Lieberman intend to run for re-election in 2012 in this Democratic party? If so, he'll be in trouble -- since the Democrats will probably run a real candidate against him -- someone who'll win the Democratic vote and fight for Republicans and Independents.

Lieberman's Endorsement: More Trouble than It's Worth?

From CQ:

But this alliance has been met not with chagrin, but with something approximating glee, by liberal activists who have vilified Lieberman for his pro-war stance — and whose support boosted upstart challenger Ned Lamont, whose victory in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic Senate primary forced the incumbent to achieve re-election as a third-party candidate.

Anti-war groups contend that Lieberman’s close identification with President George W. Bush’s Iraq policies is not an asset in Maine, a Democratic-leaning state where both Bush and the war are mostly unpopular. And they contend that his endorsement could be more a burden than a boon for Collins, who has been portrayed by these groups as inconsistent about the war.

While Collins has publicly stated she opposes Bush’s decision to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq this year, she has stuck with the administration so far on the most pivotal Senate votes, including her opposition to Democratic-crafted measures that would create a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

MoveOn.org, a major liberal group, has responded to Lieberman’s intervention in Maine by aligning closely with Allen.

In retrospect, this was a no-brainer. If the Left couldn't claim Lieberman's scalp, they'll probably try to kill anyone close to him -- metaphorically speaking, of course. Kinda reminds me of...

Nah, that's over the top. Great scene though.

Lieberman will be a Republican

I've argued from time to time that Joe Lieberman will not be able to run successfully as a Democrat when his current term is up in 2012. He has made too many enemies among the anti-war Left, and given the likelihood that we will be fighting the war on terror for many years more, the issue won't be in the past the next time he seeks the nomination.

The Hartford Courant provides another reason it will be difficult for him to re-establish ties with the base - he raised too much of his money from the GOP:

Prior to the Aug. 8 Democratic primary, Lieberman received nearly $8 million from all major individual donors, according to data from the Washington-based center. Democrats gave him three times as much as Republicans.

In the general election, in which Lieberman ran as an "independent Democrat," his take from Republicans soared 80 percent. He collected more money from Republicans than from Democrats. And of major donors - giving $200 and more - Republicans exceeded Democrats.

Officially, the White House stayed out of Lieberman's 2006 race, and Lieberman, who today caucuses with Senate Democrats, did not actively seek its support. But the signs from the White House were unmistakable.

"A lot of people would call and ask, `What's our position?"' Charles R. Black Jr. said last week. The former Bush adviser, who remains close to the president, said, "And I'd say, `There's no official position, but if I were you, I'd help Joe Lieberman.'"

This piece has attracted some attention on the Left, and it isn't making them all warm and fuzzy over him:

However, it is clear that for Lieberman, Republicans were always his main base of support. Had he not always been so willing to criticize the left, he would never have been so loved in a Republican town like the political industry in Washington, D.C., and by establishment media that was slowly being dominated by the Republican Noise Machine. At the very least, now that he was forced to win an election via overt Republican support, his ability to speak on behalf of Democrats has been annihilated. Everyone knows in the last election that Joe Lieberman was basically the Republican nominee. This is just the latest evidence supporting that claim.

Lieberman will never be able to rebuild these bridges, and he can probably count on a primary challenge in 2012 if he decides to run again. All the more reason he will ultimately be better off as a Republican.

Update: Lieberman recently conducted this interview, and is getting attention for not ruling out a party switch. The relevant portion starts around 1:30 in.



MS. O'DONNELL: Senator, you have broken with your former party, the Democratic Party specifically, on the Iraq war. There have been questions. Can you rule out that you may switch to the Republican Party?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I wouldn't rule it out, but it's certainly not my intention, it's not my desire --

MS. O'DONNELL: What would cause you to switch to the Republican Party?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well, I'm not going to set any conditions. But, you know, my real hope here is to stay and fight for the kind of Democratic Party I joined when John F. Kennedy was president, which was progressive on domestic policy and very strong and muscular on foreign and defense policy. I --

MS. O'DONNELL: But, Senator, arguably, there's not one Democratic presidential candidate that is espousing that particular position, right?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: So far, right. I mean, obviously, it'll be more than Iraq. It'll be how do they feel about Iran and the rest of the threats that we face.

But, look, the central challenge to our security in our time is from radical Islam, the people who attacked us on 9/11. And to be as direct as I can be, Norah, in this question of who I will support for president, I'm going to wait until both parties have their nominees, and I'm going to support the candidate that I think is best for our country, regardless of party. And obviously the positions that they take on the war on terrorism will be very important to me.

Time: Lieberman May Change Parties - Update and Bumped

But don't get too excited; sounds like Hagel might as well.

Seriously - these are the most unwelcome comments I've seen from Chuck Hagel in memory. And that's saying a lot:

Asked if the war would have gone better if Kerry had been elected in 2004, Hagel says: "Well, I don't think you can go back and undo those kinds of things."

Asked if he is going to run for president, Hagel answers: "I'll let you know."

He says Sen. John McCain is still a friend, but calls his recents stand on Iraq resolutions in Congress "duplicitous."

He notes that having people with a military background is important, and the only one with that in the Bush administration was Colin Powell, "the one person they listened to least."

If Chuck Hagel actually thinks that John Kerry might have done a better job on Iraq - the clear implication of his comment - then he's not a Republican in any more than name. Worse than that - he's too stupid for Senate service.

Which is also saying a lot.

On a more substantive note, this does raise an interesting question should Hagel actually decided to run for President: whom would he hurt more - the Republican or the Democrat?

I'll preface this by saying that we can't really make a guess until we know the nominees.

If the GOP nominates someone who is basically conservative - Mitt Romney version 3.0, or (more or less) John McCain, then an anti-war Chuck Hagel might take more votes from an anti-war Democrat than from the Republican candidate. Indeed, while I've argued that President Bush will be forced to draw down forces in Iraq by the end of the year, a 3-way Presidential race with Hagel as the third candidate might even allow a Republican to be more pro-Iraq.

That's a long way down the road, though.

Update: The Politico (via HotAir) provides more detail. Lieberman says that the issue of Iraq funding could cause him to switch parties:

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.

"I hope we don't get to that point," Lieberman said. "That's about all I will say on it today. That would hurt."

I suggested this would be the case a little while ago. And I've been saying for months that Lieberman will ultimately have to switch parties.

Also note this recent statement by Lieberman, which attracted little attention.

Update II: HotAir properly notes that it is not at all certain that the Senate would change hands if Lieberman switched parties to give the Republicans a majority. I had forgotten that sad fact.

Interestingly, blogger Tim Chapman - then of the Heritage Foundation - warned in December that Senate Republicans were making a grave mistake in the negotiations on the organizing resolution, specifically for this reason.

What is Tim Chapman doing now? He works in the Senate minority - and apparently will continue to. At least he has a good boss.