Sore Loserman - Joe just doesn't get it

Now I know what they meant by the nickname “Sore Loserman.”

The non-concession concession speech for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) after he lost his Democratic Party primary to Ned Lamont shows a man still in denial.

Denial about why he lost and why the voters of his own party decided to dump him for an amateur politician who had never run a statewide campaign before and whose highest public office ever obtained was town selectman of Greenwich.

No, to Joe, what happened last Tuesday was not an important event but a mere bump in the road, just the first half of a long game or mere Southern primary to which there will be a runoff in the fall.

In fact he’ll even spin it as a victory. “I was 13 points behind five days before the election and I only lost by four points. If I only had another week I would have won the thing. Now I’ll have three months to put down this little upstart trying to take away my entitled Senate seat.”

If Democratic Party primary voters in Connecticut thought that Lieberman had become too arrogant and too aloof, he didn’t do anything to dissuade them from that judgment Tuesday night. If such voters were at least looking for a little humility or little “message received” from Lieberman, they didn’t get it.

Instead, Joe will have to wait until November before he finally stares the reality of the political landscape right in the face.

Lieberman may very well be standing by his principles when supporting the war in Iraq (a quality far seldom seen in politics) but when 60% percent of the U.S. public is against the war, voters are hardly going to reward candidates who stand by the wrong principles. And when he says that he’s been a critic of the way the Bush II Administration has handled the war -- the same Joe Lieberman who attacked anti-war persons for undermining the president -- he’s telling a blatant lie. And voters don’t reward liars either.

Nor does Lieberman get the fact that while centrism and bi-partisanship are nice concepts, they are also abstract concepts and not much of foundation of a campaign.

Politics is ultimately about making choices and making decisions. Where you come down on an issue and what you vote for or against is what matters. And for the past six years Lieberman has made choices that has angered Democratic primary voters whether its been supporting the war, supporting Social Security privatization, supporting federal intervention in the Schiavo case and supporting the Alito nomination. To claim, as Lieberman does, that he’s on a higher plane of existence because he is “bi-partisan” and “moderate” is laughable when the record is boiled down to basic votes, speeches and actions in support of one thing or another. Ultimately you take a stand and for many voters, the stands Lieberman has taken has made them decide to support someone else. To say he should not be judged upon his record because he makes nice with everyone is also silly.

It’s amazing that a man that’s been in politics for over 30 years did not see this coming. After all, did he not run for the Connecticut State Senate in 1970 against an incumbent campaigning as a reformer while at the same time an upstart named Joe Duffy took down incumbent Senator Thomas Dodd because of his support of the Vietnam War? Did he not see the parallels from 1970 to 2006 when another unpopular war helped to take him down? Thirty-Six years ago the state’s Democratic machine could not help Dodd in the face of rising anti-war sentiment and 36 later the same establishment that Lieberman is now a part of couldn’t save him either despite outspending Lamont (who, 36 years ago, would have probably been Lieberman’s GOP opponent as the scion of a rich investment banking family just like the Bushes) $12 to $4 million. Joe seems blind to history.

He’s also deaf to the entreaties of the same establishment not to run an independent campaign for his seat as Dodd did. He’s not listening to them anymore now that they have to back Lamont. Instead he’s listening to the New York Sun, New York Post and the Weekly Standard all neoconservative publications who are urging him to run if only to preserve his pro-war vote in the Senate (along with the possibility that the neocons could still worm their way back into the Democratic Party if they are ever spewed out by the GOP because of the war.) But Dodd finished third back in 1970 as an independent candidate and even though Joe has a good shot of winning because the GOP candidate is a cipher, there’s a good chance Lieberman’s message won’t resonate among independents and Republicans either. This is still a state that went overwhelmingly for Kerry, warts and all; this still a blue state where the local GOP is not exactly the kind of Republicans you would find in red states and this is still an unpopular war with an unpopular president leading it. What pray tell is Lieberman’s campaign going to be about that’s going attract voters through all these trends? Is he going to tell Republicans and independent what a good Democrat he’s been? Is he going to tell Democrats how bi-partisan and centrist he is? Is he going to tell an anti-war public to stay the course? Plus, given all the other obstacles non-major parties face (which Lieberman will now become familiar with), Lieberman’s denial could very well be shattered into itsy-bitsy pieces come November.

Lieberman was one of three incumbents who lost party primaries last Tuesday. What this goes to show is that for those who on the outside looking in at social-democratic establishment, the primary is an effective way to influence that establishment, shake-it up or even replace it in this case. My book, Beating the Powers that Be, had a section on the Club for Growth, which helped an insurgent candidate Mark Walberg upset Rep. John Schwartz (R-Mich.). in a party primary. MoveOn.org and other bloggers provided the same kind of aid to Lamont. In many cases, the primary is the only real democracy voters will get. Had there been no primary, Lieberman would have cruised to an easy re-election victory against his sacrificial lamb opponent. Without a primary, Schwartz would have been easily re-elected in his heavily Republican district. Beating an incumbent is not easy, but primary elections, with their limited turnouts and selective voter screenings and lesser costs, is a good way to make an incumbent sweat if not outright lose. And it’s a good way to steer the major parties in a direction away from establishment control. Lamont’s win, the first win over a blatantly pro-war candidate, has already sent the shockwaves through the system. Hopefully more people will take advantage of them if only teach the Lieberman’s of the world valuable lessons whether they want to or not.