OK, I know three wars are happening in the Middle East, but back in the US, a Dem has lost a primary because he backs the Iraq War, so what the f?

1. Joe's Defeat Should Send Message -- by Ellis Henican

His mo-Joe wasn't working. His Joe-mentum got stalled by an unpopular president and an unlovable war.

Pick whichever wordplay you're partial to: Joseph Lieberman, 18-year member of the United States Senate, Democratic vice presidential nominee, staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, prominent hug-buddy to President Bush, a decent and honorable man, was defeated in his own political party by a guy no one had even heard of a year ago.

Are you watching, Hillary Clinton, you war-wobbly Democrat?

Are you listening, Peter King, you war-supporting Republican in a heavily Democratic state?

Political messages don't get much clearer than the one that came out of Connecticut last night: This war and this president are a heavy burden in this year of growing public disenchantment. Careful getting too cozy with either one.

Now, one blue-state election does not a national trend confirm. But last night should put some fear in the hearts of Republican-lite Democrats.

It's what grumpy Texas populist Jim Hightower was always warning about well ahead of his time: "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

Even before the results were in, Lowell Weicker was already looking back on the day, not so long ago, when Ned Lamont was just another rich man in Greenwich.

"What started it all," Weicker said, sitting up in his sprawling 200-year-old water-view Colonial in Essex, "was a Rotary Club in Hartford where I said if somebody isn't gonna challenge Joe Lieberman on the issue of Iraq, I am. At that point, I was thinking, 'Hopefully, somebody will step up.' Fortunately for me, Ned Lamont did. I thank God every night for Ned Lamont. At 75 years old, I really don't want be back in that ring."

Weicker, like Lieberman, had served three terms in the Senate. Like Lieberman, he was not a real party kind of pol. In the bitter election in 1988, Lieberman beat him by less than 1 percent. Yet another Weicker-Lieberman parallel alert: Weicker went on to serve a term as Connecticut governor - running as an independent.

So what propelled Lamont's vote now?

"It's simple," Lowell Weicker said. "It's a referendum on the war. For those of us who lived through the election of 2004 and we saw everything Bush did being approved at the polls, this night is even more a referendum on what the people have done."

So will Joe Lieberman really run again in November?

"He wants a job," Weicker shrugged. "I don't think he'll be talked out of running."

But don't assume Weicker's feeling much senator-to-senator sympathy.

"The big difference, when I ran as an independent for governor, is I did not mess around with the Republican Party process," he said. "I made a decision. I ran as an independent - unlike Lieberman, who wants to take two bites at the apple."

He did it his way that time.

"I know what my feelings were after the '88 defeat by Lieberman," Weicker said. "It was clear to me there are just too many issues I disagreed with the Republican Party on, as the party was being taken over by the religious right. That being the case, the time had come for us to have a parting. Do it as amiably as possible, but make a clear-cut break."

Any regrets about leaving a party he no longer felt a part of?

"I'm still an independent," he shrugged. "The only change in my mindset today is I think the Democrats are just as responsible for the results in Iraq as the Republicans. The Republicans by action, the Democrats by inaction."

Now there's a message for yellow-line Democrats and Republicans, stretching all the way from Texas to Connecticut.

Don't forget those dead armadillos.

(Ellis Henican, a staff columnist for Newsday, joined FOX News Channel (FNC) as a political contributor in July of 1999. His opinion column appears in Newsday’s front section every Wednesday, Friday and Sunday.)


2. It's All About Who You Sleep With ... a Cautionary Note from Michael Moore

Friends,

Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.

Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.

I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.

To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war. I'm sure someone has advised you that a woman can't be elected unless she proves she can kick ass just as crazy as any man. I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?

To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.

If you don't believe us, give Joe a call.

Yours, Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

P.S. Republicans -- sorry to leave you out of this letter. It's just that our side has a little housecleaning to do. We'll take care of you this November.


3. Revenge of the Irate Moderates (The New York Times | Editorial)

The defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman at the hands of a little-known Connecticut businessman is bound to send a message to politicians of both parties that voters are angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq. The primary upset was not, however, a rebellion against the bipartisanship and centrism that Mr. Lieberman said he represented in the Senate. Instead, Connecticut Democrats were reacting to the way those concepts have been perverted by the Bush White House.

Ned Lamont, a relative political novice, said he ran against Mr. Lieberman because he was offended by the senator's sunny descriptions of what was happening in Iraq and his denunciation of Democrats who criticized the administration's handling of the war. Many other people in Connecticut may have felt that sense of frustration, but no one else had the money and moxie to do what Mr. Lamont did. Mr. Lieberman was stunned to find himself on the defensive, and it was only in the last few weeks that the 18-year veteran mounted a desperate campaign to reclaim his party's support.

Senator Lieberman says he will run as an independent in November, taking on Mr. Lamont and the Republican, Alan Schlesinger. Mr. Schlesinger is a very weak candidate, but Mr. Lieberman should consider the risk of splitting his party if the Republicans are able to convince Mr. Schlesinger to drop out of the race in favor of a stronger nominee.

Mr. Lieberman's supporters have tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. It's hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it's hard to imagine Mr. Lamont, who worked happily with the Republicans in Greenwich politics, leading that kind of revolution.

The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president's choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration's contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.

Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person's right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.

When Mr. Lieberman told The Washington Post, "I haven't changed. Events around me have changed," he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting the nation's basic traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back.


4. Lieberman Lost the Old-Fashioned Way
He was out of touch with voters. And he's not alone. His defeat foreshadows an upheaval to come in November
By JOSHUA MICAH MARSHALL

So who brought Joe Lieberman down? Was it the liberal blogs? Was Lieberman the first political casualty of the Iraq War?

Both. But neither.

Yes, Iraq was the issue that crushed Lieberman in the Democratic party. And the blogs were the vehicle that helped that latent but pervasive disgruntlement among Connecticut Democrats become aware of itself. But Joe Lieberman succumbed to a political ailment (common to long-serving senators) that would have been as recognizable to Daniel Webster and Henry Clay as it was to so many 21st century bloggers: He got his head lost in the clouds of national politics and lost touch with his constituents.

The Lieberman camp says Joe stuck to his guns on Iraq notwithstanding the political perils or the unpopularity of the position in his party. But that doesn't quite cut it. True, he had to know he wasn't winning any points with the broad mass of Democrats around the country. And his embitterment against his party for his ignominious defeat in the 2004 presidential primaries probably made him more willing to court that displeasure. But I don't think Lieberman really understood the peril he was courting back home. Because if he had, he would have been more prepared for it. And he wasn't.

Most politicians keep close tabs on what's happening back home and work assiduously to keep lines of communications open with the political players in their states or districts. They may get into trouble for any number of reasons. But if they're good at what they do, they don't get caught off guard. And no one was more caught unawares by what happened in the last two months than Joe Lieberman.

Many pundits claim that Lieberman's defeat is a replay of the way Democrats tore themselves apart over Vietnam. It's an appealing thought for Republicans. And it has got nice drama. But those pundits are either being disingenuous or are caught in a time warp. Democrats are actually fairly united on the Iraq War in their opposition to it — which is actually where most Americans are right now. And though many Senators are not as full-throated in their opposition as the base of the party, you don't see any successful challenges being made against other Senators who aren't ready to bring the troops home.

With Lieberman, there's something different. It's not just that he wouldn't wash his hands of the Iraq War. Lots of Democrats won't. It's more than that. He's seemed almost militantly indifferent to the disaster Iraq has become. And his passion about the war seemed reserved exclusively for those who questioned it rather than those who had so clearly botched the enterprise. His continual embrace of President Bush — both literal and figurative — was an insult to Democrats, the great majority of whom believe Bush has governed as one of the most destructive Presidents in modern American history. It's almost as though Lieberman has gone out of his way to provoke and offend Democrats on every point possible, often, seemingly, purely for the reason of provoking. Is it any wonder the guy got whacked in a party primary?

If this were just a matter of Joe Lieberman's hubris and obliviousness, the story of his demise might have a human significance but not a larger political one. But the Lieberman train wreck is also part of the unfolding story of the 2006 election cycle and the dangerous gulf widening between Washington and the country at large.

Lieberman got in trouble because he let himself live in the bubble of D.C. conventional wisdom and A-list punditry. He flattered them; and they loved him back. And as part of that club he was part of the delusion and denial that has sustained our enterprise in Iraq for the last three years. In the weeks leading up to Tuesday's primary, A-list D.C. pundits were writing columns portraying Lieberman's possible defeat as some sort of cataclysmic event that might foreshadow a dark new phase in American politics — as though voters choosing new representation were on a par with abolishing the Constitution or condoning political violence. But those breathless plaints only showed how disconnected they are from what's happening in the country at large. They mirrored his disconnection from the politics of the moment.

The polls tell us the President's approval rating seldom gets out of the 30s. Congress is unpopular. Incumbents are unpopular. Voters prefer Democrats over Republicans by a margin of about 15%. When a once-popular three-term Senator gets bounced in a primary battle with a political unknown, it's a very big deal. Those numbers all add up to a political upheaval this November. The folks in D.C. see the numbers. But they haven't gotten their heads around what they mean. Joe was out of touch. And Washington, D.C., is too.

They didn't see the Joe train wreck coming and they're not ready for what's coming next either.

(Joshua Micah Marshall is head of TPM Media and the founder of Talkingpointsmemo.com)


5. Sore Loserman -- Lessons from Connecticut -- by Thomas F. Schaller

A day before the Connecticut Senate primary, Paola Roy was still struggling with how she would cast her vote. Then she happened to stumble into Joe Lieberman at one of the senator’s final campaign stops, in the small town of Southington.

Roy immigrated to the United States from Sicily in 1971, and not until the early 1990s did she go through the process of gaining her citizenship. She lives in Plantsville, a small hamlet next to Southington, both of which are home to significant Italian-American and French-American populations. With an Italian first name and French surname courtesy of her late husband, this longtime state employee and mother of two was a useful barometer for Lieberman’s support in this largely working-class area 20 miles southwest of Hartford. If he hoped to thwart Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont’s surging primary challenge, Lieberman needed to close the sale with voters like Roy.

After chatting with folks at a dozen tables inside Anthony Jack’s restaurant, Lieberman was angling toward his campaign bus when Roy cornered him. She had voted for him during his last two re-elections, but was having serious reservations this time around and let him know it. Her big issue? Nope, not Iraq: It was the fate of working folks like herself.

“The rich have the tax shelters and the poor have the programs, but there’s nothing for the rest of us in between,” she told Lieberman, who listened intently with fellow Democratic senator Chris Dodd at his side. He assured her he understood how important the middle class was to the backbone of the country, and spoke of his opposition to President Bush’s tax cuts. “I came out of the middle class, so I know what you’re talking about and, being a senator, I haven’t gone much beyond the middle class,” he said, as a gesture of solidarity that perhaps, compared to Lamont’s wealth, made some sense, but still left Roy rather unimpressed. “I won’t let you down on those questions and I know I can do more than the other guy.”

Lieberman scooted toward the bus to head to a Little League baseball event in Bristol, as sign-waving supporters dutifully chanted the incumbent’s closing campaign theme: “Vote for who you know, JOE!” From top to bottom, the Lieberman campaign remained vigilantly on message in the final days, as everyone from campaign spokespeople to Lieberman’s 38-year-old son Matt expressed the belief that enough late-deciding voters would pause, ask themselves if they were really prepared to no longer be represented by Lieberman, and give the senator the benefit of their doubts. “A lot of [Lamont’s] support is about sending a message to me,” Lieberman told me, noting that he’d “gotten the message.”

As the Lieberman bus departed, I tracked down Roy. “I feel that it shouldn’t take a close election to show any candidate that they need to listen to what the people who put them in office want,” she said. “It should take knowing what’s right and doing what’s right, not just a close election and now all of a sudden it’s ‘OK, I’ve learned.’ That part worries me.” She headed home, still mulling her decision.

* * *

The voices and votes of people like Paola Roy are the ones that may haunt Lieberman for years to come now that his political career has gone from critical condition to death-bed watch following his four-point primary defeat to Lamont. But if such constituent complaints are sure to ring in his head in future meditations on how this whole mess happened, as of last night, when he delivered his grudging concession speech, it was clear that Lieberman still wasn’t listening. “The old politics of polarization won,” he said, in announcing that today he would file the paperwork with the required signatures to continue his bid to keep the seat by running as an independent. “For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I will not let that result stand.”

Whether it was scripted that way or not, the switch in Lieberman’s language -- from first-person plural when referring to state and country to the first-person singular possessive of “my party” -- is a window into the mindset of a senator who has repeatedly demonstrated his sense of political entitlement. By the next morning, the same man who was complaining about partisan polarization was taking cheap shots at Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters on CNN. Apparently, when Lieberman frets about party polarization he means the polarization within his own party that he has helped create. It’s Joe’s party and he can cry if he wants to.

Lamont exhibited far more graciousness -- the luxury of any winner. To add a nail in Lieberman’s electoral coffin, Lamont spoke of Lieberman in the past tense, thanking the senator for his service to the state in his victory speech in Meriden.

For the rest of the country and the 2006 midterm elections, there are two major implications of Lamont’s victory. First, supporters of the war in all but the most conservative districts and states had better take caution. The war provided the impetus for Lamont’s challenge. But there is a second and far more mundane lesson: Taking one’s constituents for granted is a dangerous business -- incumbency’s money and power are actually not a substitute for having a proper campaign assembled for re-election if and when a challenger comes after you.

Before the Lamont challenge materialized, Lieberman could have raised a few million dollars to scare away potential challengers, run a perfunctory radio and television campaign, and taken a quick tour across the state and still coasted to re-nomination and re-election. By the time it became clear that, instead of phoning in his re-election effort from Washington, Lieberman would need to hustle back home and start phone banking Democratic voters, it was too late. Building a field plan and executing takes time -- the one commodity that all the money, pork-barrel projects, and national name recognition simply cannot buy.

Indeed, by the late stages of the campaign the Lieberman team chose to abandon some of its desperate, late-stage, paid get-out-the-vote plan in favor of having more money for persuasion ads on TV and radio. Lieberman was simply too far behind and had too little time to close the distance. The long-winded senator had been caught short-handed.

The big question now is whether Lieberman will stick to his pledge -- a threat, really -- to run as an independent. Given how quickly his support cratered in the primary, Lieberman ought to think twice before doubling down for a three-way contest that includes Republican Alan Schlesinger. His odds may be better at the blackjack tables at the state’s Mohegan Sun casino. Yet, for now at least, Lieberman appears determined to ignore Tuesday’s result and plunge forward, regardless of what lessons or messages (if any) he has taken from this defeat.

* * *

Bill Clinton once mused that a certain number of Americans will always find “strong and wrong” more appealing than right but weak. Lieberman is not alone among Democrats who either overestimated Saddam Hussein’s threat before the war or underestimated the challenges of establishing peace in Iraq. But he began to isolate himself for not showing the courage to hold either himself or President Bush accountable for errors of omission in selling the war and commission in managing it. Lieberman proved himself to be wrong and weak -- a self-imperiling combination if ever there was one.

Lamont’s victory also ratifies the old saw that, in politics, you can’t beat somebody with nobody. Lieberman is a big-time National Somebody, a senator and former vice presidential nominee who can raise money in a snap and get his mug on national television even faster. Yet Lamont’s general comportment and televised debate performance assured many voters that he was more than a mere release valve for Democrats’ frustrations. By showing state Democrats that he was no Nobody, Lamont prevented Lieberman from dismissing him and his supporters with all those “Who is Ned Lamont?” sneers and complaints about polarizing partisan “extremists.”

Buoyed by the support and hopes of 146,065 Democrats inside Connecticut and millions more from the rest of the country, Lamont proved that even in an era when incumbents enjoy unusual electoral security, there are limits to how much complacency politicians can expect from their constituents.

Paola Roy had reached her limit. She told me that everything “became crystal clear” after her run-in with Lieberman. “He talked to me about all the programs he planned to implement and I thought, this isn’t him going for his second term. What other occupation will you have X number of years to get it right? I voted accordingly: I voted for Lamont.”

(Thomas F. Schaller is associate professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and author of Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South.)