Implications of Lieberman's loss

Posted by David Lightman at 8:05 am CDT

Sen. Joe Lieberman's loss last night had implications well beyond Connecticut--and they're going to be become apparent today. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D, Ill.) will discuss the results later this morning, and Republicans are suggesting an independent Lieberman candidacy could help the three vulnerable Connecticut House incumbents.

There are other implications, too, as noted in today's story:

A Message, Loud And Clear

By DAVID LIGHTMAN
Washington Bureau Chief
Hartford Courant

August 9 2006

Connecticut voters sent a loud message to Democratic Party candidates Tuesday night, one that could resonate across the country this fall and into 2008: If you're not vocally, unequivocally against the Iraq war and President Bush, be prepared for trouble.

Three-term incumbent Joe Lieberman's primary defeat, many analysts said Tuesday night, could be the start of a return to the kind of one-issue, no-nuance politics that badly wounded the party during the Vietnam era.

Experts saw the extraordinary rejection of a veteran senator who won the popular vote as his party's vice presidential nominee six years ago - and made a spirited bid for the presidency two years ago - as a blow to the center-left coalition that helped Bill Clinton win two terms in the 1990s and nearly got Al Gore and Lieberman elected in 2000.

"This is a strong shift to the left in the Democratic Party. Moderates are now an endangered species," said John J. Pitney Jr., professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College in California.

Lieberman's defeat has the potential to instantly jolt Democratic politics in three key ways: The center becomes dangerous, the blogosphere gains new stature as a political kingmaker, and Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq is unquestionably the year's central issue.

"This race will drive perceptions of how powerful the blogosphere is," said Dante J. Scala, associate professor of politics at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire.

The political world has been waiting about 10 years to see whether the Internet could dramatically shape races. The era seemed to finally blast off in early 2003, when former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean roared out of virtual oblivion to become the Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, fueled largely by anti-war Internet users with few ties to any political establishment.

But Dean fizzled once people began casting votes. Since then, candidates have taken baby steps to mobilize bloggers - 2008 presidential hopefuls like New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have hired blog advisers - but most are spending their time and money the usual way, on television ads, vote-turnout experts and fundraising.

Lamont's showing could trigger a whole new kind of political math by forcing candidates to spend money and time cultivating the support of bloggers.

"It was the blogs that made this a big story," said Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar at Washington's American Enterprise Institute. "Whatever Lieberman's faults, he was not corrupt, not a loathsome figure."

But bloggers relentlessly hammered at Lieberman's cozy relationship with the White House, pouncing as the senator won warm praise from the president. As a result, Ornstein said, Lieberman was redefined in many eyes as a polarizing figure, and it hurt him.

The Lamont victory also becomes the template for this fall's political dialogue on Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq.

"Democrats think they're one issue away from taking back the House and Senate," said Emory University's Merle Black, co-author of "The Rise of Southern Republicans."

Rep. John B. Larson, D-1st District, said that the message sent Tuesday could ultimately be encouraging to Democrats. Lieberman, he noted, campaigned as a strong Bush foe on every issue but Iraq.

Both candidates "stressed the outrage over prices at the gas pump, the cost of prescription drugs, college education and other issues," Larson said.

But Tuesday's results could stoke the perception that Democrats have grown increasingly intolerant of anyone not vehemently opposed to the war - a perception that could hurt the party in more conservative parts of the country, notably the South and Rocky Mountain West.

"It's hard to see how narrowing our approach will help us," said Al From, founder and chief executive officer of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council.

In his concession speech, Lieberman pledged to wage a fall campaign as an "independent Democrat," one who would follow the principles he and others in the leadership council have pushed for a generation.

"The old politics of partisan polarization won today," he said. "For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand."

For years, Lieberman and others in the leadership council have tried to broaden the party's appeal by challenging liberal orthodoxy. The effort was highly successful in the 1990s, when stalwarts Bill Clinton and Al Gore ran on a centrist platform and once in office, took on issues not usually identified with Democrats: tough-on-crime legislation, free trade agreements and welfare reform.

Gore and Lieberman, the party's 2000 White House ticket, picked up the baton, and their loss began a slide, or at least a stall, for the party's moderate wing. And this year, the war issue has all but obliterated any opportunity within the party for serious debate on other matters.

"We live in a time when political passions are high, and civility in politics has diminished," From said. "That tends to drive people on the extremes who make the most noise."

David Lightman reports for the Hartford Courant, a Tribune Co. newspaper.