The analysts are weighing in on the long-term and short-term implications of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman’s loss in Tuesday’s Democratic primary to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont and there’s a new theme emerging:
The GOP considers the primary a Godsend, because it can now go on the offensive and in effect make the 2006 mid-term elections a referendum not on President George Bush or the GOP’s performance in office, but on whether it’s safe to have Democrats in power.
Note Time magazine:
From Washington State to Missouri to Pennsylvania, Democratic candidates found themselves on the defensive Wednesday as the Republican Party worked ferociously at every level to try to use the primary defeat of Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut to portray the opposition as the party of weakness and isolation on national security and liberal leanings on domestic policy. Doleful Democrats bemoaned the irony: At a time when Republicans should be back on their heels because of chaos abroad and President Bush’s unpopularity, the Democrats’ rejection of a sensible, moralistic centrist has handed the GOP a weapon that could have vast ramifications for both the midterm elections of ’06 and the big dance of ’08.
At breakfast time, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman was in Cleveland, decrying “an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a blame- America-first attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous.” In early afternoon, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow told reporters in Crawford, Tex.: “It’s a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they’re going to come after you.” And an hour or so later, Vice President Cheney told wire-service reporters in a conference call: “It’s an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy.”
Karl Rove, White House senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, telephoned Lieberman but an aide said the call was personal in nature and did not include any offer of assistance with his independent bid against Tuesday night’s victor, Ned Lamont of Greenwich.
But is that true?
ABC News’ blog reports that George Stephanopoulos says Rove offered to help Lieberman in his race because Rove’s boss wants to do what he can for him:
According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President’s political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: “The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do.”
But in a year where even some Republican candidates are running away from the President on the campaign trail, does this offer have any value to Lieberman? Still smarting from all that coverage of “the kiss” at last year’s State of the Union, the Lieberman camp isn’t looking for an explicit endorsement. That could create more problems than it solves.
The White House might help Lieberman by putting the kibosh on any move to replace the weak Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, with a stronger candidate.
And it might be able to convince Schlesinger to drop out of the race and endorse Lieberman in the final week or two, when it’s too late for another candidate to fill the GOP slot. A quiet White House effort to steer some money in Lieberman’s direction is another possibility.
The Financial Times has this:
The Republicans will exploit Joe Lieberman’s defeat by painting the Democrats as anti-military and weak on national security, say Washington observers. Though polls show US opinion has turned against the Iraq war, Ned Lamont’s victory will heighten Democrats’ vulnerability to charges of unreliability in the war on terror.
Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s electoral “boy wonder”, has sought to highlight the divisions in the Democratic party over Iraq by accusing it of being the party of “cut and run”. After Mr Lieberman’s defeat, there is expected to be a groundswell of pressure on Democratic leaders to call for an early withdrawal of the 132,000 US troops in Iraq.
“Mr Rove is rubbing his hands with glee,” said Norman Ornstein at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington. “This makes it easier for Republicans to portray the Democrats as the party of pacifist elitists who are beholden to leftwing internet bloggers who are not just opposed to the Iraq war but who are also openly anti-military.”
Some Republicans are already drawing parallels with the 1972 election in which George McGovern, the Democrat candidate who opposed the unpopular war in Vietnam, was soundly defeated by Richard Nixon, the incumbent president who bore much of the responsibility for the war’s direction. Then, as now, the Republicans painted their opponents as anti-military in general rather than opposed to one war in particular.
“With the Lamont nomination, the Democrats have returned to their roots,” David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, wrote in his widely read conservative blog yesterday. “No more ‘God Bless America’ on the steps of the Capitol for them. They are again the party of the nuclear freeze and unconditional withdrawal and of George McGovern.”
It will be, in effect, a war over imagery. Which party and image will prevail?
Writes Josh Marshall:
Many Americans are not comfortable with the idea of just pulling out of Iraq. But the war is really unpopular. I think most Americans realize that the president thinks his Iraq policy is a rousing success and most Democrats don’t. They get that. They see it. They understand it. If Republicans think the Martyrdom of Joe is going to be their killer issue, let them have at it. They’re trying to knock the Dems off their stride but they’re showing their desperation. The whole thing is, in both the most serious and frivolous senses of the word, a joke.
On conservative talk radio shows monitored by TMV yesterday, many hosts were saying Lieberman would win and praised him. At least one suggested he should run as a Republican. Fox News analyst Dick Morris flatly predicted Lieberman would have no trouble at all winning re-election running as an independent (although Morris does not have a sterling record as a political prognosticator, even though it’s enlightening and entertaining listening to him). Lieberman, on several fronts, was an issue being used against the Democrats.
It’s clear that the White House and GOP think they’re on to something here. White House Press spokesman Tony Snow spoke warmly about Lieberman yesterday and blasted the Democrats. The full transcript and video is here. A small part of it:
Key leaders in the National Democratic Party have made it clear — no, let me back up — this is a defining moment, in some ways, for the Democratic Party. I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the president. I would flip it. I think instead, it’s a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party, they’re going to come after you. And it is probably worth trying to trace through some of the implications of that position, because it is clearly going to be one of the central issues as we get ready for the election campaign this year, that is, the midterm elections….
Snow also suggested that the Democrats are soft on Osama bin Laden:
There seem to be two approaches, and in the Connecticut race, one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away. Now, when the United States walked away in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that American’s were weak and wouldn’t stay the course, and that led to September 11th. And it is important to realize that terrorists are not simply inspired by American engagement in the world, but they have their own agenda. And it is an agenda that if we turn around and look the other way, they’re not going to ignore, they will continue to build strength, and they will continue to build it here.
And it is a vitally important debate to have, and it’s really up to Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party to figure out how they want to stand in the war on terror. Do they want to have the sort of timetable approach, leave by a date certain? Do they not want to have something constructive to say about gathering threats from Iran and elsewhere? Or do they want to acknowledge the fact that in a dangerous world it takes commitment, it takes persistence? Throughout American history, generation after generation has been faced with difficulties, and each generation has risen to the challenge. And we’re confident that this generation will do the same.
There were other GOP attacks…including a suggestion by Vice President Dick Cheney that if Lieberman is booted out by Connecticut voters in November it might encourage terrorists, the New York Times reports:
The attacks came in searing remarks from, among others, Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee and Vice President Dick Cheney, who went so far as to suggest that the ouster of Mr. Lieberman might encourage “al Qaeda types.�
“It’s an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy,’’ Mr. Cheney said in a telephone interview with news service reporters
And Lieberman got high-profile support from an editorial in the Washington Post that argued he is the best choice for the job and should therefore stay in the race:
CONNECTICUT Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman’s decision to move forward with an independent candidacy after his loss in the Democratic primary is a controversial choice but in this circumstance the correct one. The leaders of Mr. Lieberman’s party lined up yesterday to endorse Ned Lamont, the political newcomer who rode a wave of antiwar fervor to upset the incumbent senator. That’s not surprising: After all, Democratic voters selected Mr. Lamont to represent them. And as weak a competitor as the Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, may be, those leaders have to worry that Mr. Lamont and Mr. Lieberman would split the vote and make way for Mr. Schlesinger or a replacement. (The state’s popular Republican governor, M. Jodi Rell, has called on Mr. Schlesinger to step aside.)
But the critical question facing voters in November, as opposed to party leaders now, is who would make the better senator — which is why we welcome Mr. Lieberman’s decision to remain in the race. He would be, by far, the better choice for the people of Connecticut.
The bottom line: at the very least, the continued drama and political controversy swirling aroud Joe Lieberman is likely to serve one hard-nosed political purpose. There’s a good chance it will gobble up Democratic resources, energy and manpower that might otherwise be devoted totally to taking back the Congress. So even if the above reports aren’t true, GOPers are probably smiling — although if they note the trend in polling on the Iraq war that broad smiles might disappear from their faces.
OF ADDITIONAL INTEREST
Bloggers who opposed Lieberman are savoring his defeat, how they first “discovered” Lamont and what’s happening now. Read skippy.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.