The Republicans, by all but endorsing Lieberman, have made this race important.

If you're an Ind., then, by all rights you can play this however you want. For Joe, against. Whatever. But Democrats need to remember who's the one running against the Democrat in CT.

The more important issue is one of defining just who Dems are, and what we stand for. Strengthening the "movement" is something Dems hardly if do, certainly not in recent memory. There's finally a defining issue on which WE DEMS stand on the side the The People.

What strikes me as funny/ironic/pathetic is that for the last two or three years, we've all been arguing about moderate versus left Dems, and whether following the polls is a good idea, or pandering, etc, etc. Well, here's the most obvious issue, one where whether you follow the polls or follow "the left," the answer is the same -- we need a timetable to withdraw from Iraq. The overwhelming majority of people in this country wants to withdraw from Iraq. Every poll shows that.

So, finally Dems are on the side of the people on the most important issue facing our nation, and we're seriously arguing if we should back the one guy in our party that absolutely, positively doesn't want to leave Iraq?

Seriously???

I need an aspirin...

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

We have an open Senate seat in Minnesota and the quality of the debate has been miserable, actually non-existent. Both candidates appear to be trying to hide their party affiliation. The Democrat won't even tell you she is a Democrat on her website.

Seems to me whatever party you're in and whether you are left, right or moderate, this country has serious issues to graple with and we have a political system that is utterly failing to come to grips with major choices.

At least the CT race has had some substance to it and for that alone Americans should thank the netroots.

And where is that Democratic message we were going to hear about someday....? Maybe we could start with Senate candidates who aren't afraid to tell you they belong to the Democratic Party.

I completely agree with your take on this:

Some people are saying that...

Dems should cut their losses on social insurance programs like Social Security to build up political chits with GOPers and extra revenue for universal health care. But I don't think it works that way. And I think the 1990s are the prime example. Give up on Social Security and that undermines progressive reform on every front. It's not a matter of coalition politics. It's that every win galvanizes and strengthens progressive reform as a whole.

 You have to think of republicans as narcissists.  If you do that, you can figure out what NOT to do.  Every time they win something it adds energy and arrogance to the next thing they want.  They are NOT interested in compromise or even cooperation.  It was not always like that, but it is now.

We have to get and keep momentum for the things that matter, and giving in on important issues with the idea that they will feel they "owe" us civility on other issues is a complete dead-end. 

I just saw An Incovenient Truth yesterday, and when Al Gore was explaining how Katrina picked up strength from the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico it reminded me of Karl Rove/  How he picks up more strength every time he wins another battle of negativity.  Every time he gets away with yet another lie, he just gets more powerful and more antagonistic.  He sees Democrats as enemies rather than sparring partners, and so giving him anything at all is a mistake.

I also think the Lamont race is very important, because it is finally a turning point for Democrats.  I know that others think it is short-sighted, and that the GOP will ultimately benefit, but isn't it about time Democrats stopped running scared and did something because it is the right thing to do?

If the reason to support Lieberman is so he can't get back at Dems if he wins, and if Democrats support him because of that, then we deserve to lose (again).  Lamont is the high road, and I am pretty much sick of the low road.  If Lamont pulls this off it will be a huge rallying cry for all Democrats who couldn't think of a good enough response when Rove accused them of loving terrorists, or hating the troops, or being weak on security.

It is time to stand up and look them in the eye and ask them why George Bush let the one person we know for a fact, sponsored 911, get away.  Why did he say he wasn't even concerned about him?  And then we need to tell them that nothing in the world has helped the terrorists more than this sick, wasteful folly in Iraq; that we need to spend those billions here on infrastructure and health care, and a real defense here at home. 

When Ken Mehlman changes his talking point from "Stay the course" to "Adapt to win," we have to just laugh, and say, "Nice try Ken, but you stayed the course too long.  It's time to turn the lights out and come home."  Let Halliburton stay there and rebuild Iraq's infrastructure if they want to, and we can hire good companies (through legitimate bidding) to do that for us here. 

The Lamont race is not about all of the above, but it is a starting point, and a symbolic sea-change.  I think, however, the conversation should be about Ned Lamont, and NOT on Joe.  The worst thing you can do to a narcissist is to ignore him. 

Jan Knaus

Well stated, as usual. John Edwards came to Connecticut on THursday and wowed the masses. as reported in the new haven register.

Former vice-presidential candidate John Edwards rallied several hundred people Thursday in a rousing populist speech for U.S. Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont, telling the crowd Americans are eager for change and real leaders.

"This campaign, including the primary election, is about change. It is what America is hungry for," said Edwards, the former U.S. senator from North Carolina. "America no longer wants the same old politics that they have now seen for decades.

They are looking for not politicians, but leaders. They are looking for somebody who will tell them the truth about what is happening in America today and somebody who has a different vision for where America needs to go. The man who is telling the truth and the man who will provide that vision in the next United States Senate from Connecticut is Ned Lamont," Edwards said to cheers from the crowd gathered on the lawn of Yale University’s medical campus on Cedar Street.

Let the GOP continue with their idiotic "a vote for Lamont is a vote for Osama" nonsense while Lamont cleans up with the things Connecticut voters care about.

With a huge American flag as a backdrop, Lamont said "one of the first calls that Joe Lieberman got (after the primary) was from Karl Rove (Bush’s senior adviser). The first call I got was from John Edwards," Lamont said as example of Lieberman’s popularity with Republicans, which a poll Thursday said gives him an edge in the November election.

Lamont then launched into his platform speech on the need to raise the federal minimum wage, to provide universal health care and affordable housing and to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. As he has for the past six months, he said President Bush’s foreign policies have failed and have left us less secure.

"One of the reasons we are making bad choices is because right now we have the best government money can buy in Washington, D.C.," he told the receptive crowd of his disdain for the 63 lobbyists in the nation’s capitol for every congressman.

"No more Republican rubber stamp Congress. We want someone who is going to hold this president accountable. No more one-party rule down there in Washington," said Lamont in an appeal to also elect Diane Farrell in the 4th congressional district; Joe Courtney in the 2nd District and Chris Murphy in the 5th District.

Edwards apologized for his initial support for the Iraq war and says we now need to move out 40,000 troops and come up with a plan to bring the rest home in the next 12 to 18 months, a position similar to Lamont’s.

"I was wrong and I take responsibility for that," Edwards said, but he called the members of the armed forces serving there "patriotic and courageous."

His theme was America’s moral responsibility, first to its own people, and then to the rest of humanity and he said that entails telling the truth. "I don’t know anybody in their right mind who can think what is happening in Iraq right now is working," he said. "We need to make it clear that we are going to leave Iraq and the best way to make that clear is to actually start leaving." He blasted the Bush administration for just "reacting," rather than helping to solve the world’s problems. "There is absolutely no indication that we have any long term vision for the kind of world we want to live in."

Who would you rather listen to? Someone that plans on doing the right thing for the American people? Or someone that insists that "he's the man" because he says so?

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

I find the Lieberman Question to be absurdly simple. This is a quasi democracy. We use a primary election system to select our party candidates for most offices. Before that primary election we all support the candidate we like best, hoping he/she will win the primary. But, after the primary we all need to unite behind the winner of our party race.

I am not a fan of Lieberman, but if he had won the primary I would be a supporter of his reelection. This is the same way I felt before the 2004 election. I was a supporter of Howard Dean, but once Kerry was the obvious winner, I was a supporter of John Kerry. That's how we Democrats need to operate if we want to win elections.

So, I am very disappointed when any Democrat supports Lieberman at this time, and I doubt that they are helpful to the process of winning back the Congress and Presidency. In fact, I feel very strongly that the Democratic leadership in the Senate should remove Lieberman from all positions of any importance, including all of his committee seats. At this point he is not a Democrat.  Not because he lost the primary, but because he opposes the Democrat who won.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Yeah, the law in OHIO is called "The Sore Loser Law." Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Jan Knaus

I think the argument that centrist Dems are scared of Lamont is absurd. I consider myself a centrist Dem and want Lieberman to go away. But the more prominent centrist Dems, the Clintons, have both come out in support of Lamont. This is no longer a battle between centrists and "netroots" and it's pointless to bring it up over and over again.

My criticism of donating to Lamont is that he is independently wealthy and can finance his own campaign if he wanted to. I think its unfortunate that money is diverted from less well off candidates to a well off candidate. That's my beef. (Plus, I think Lamont has done poorly since the primary.)

Criticisms of incumbents getting a ton of money despite being "safe" shouldn't ignore the fact that these same incumbents also give heavily to other races/candidates.

Completely agree with you, Aj.

Let's note, too, that the argument Josh is making, the one that you and I don't see as describing what's really happening, is the version of the facts that Lieberman and Rove are trying to sell.

Apparently it's working. :(

I'll say that there are two questions inside the question, "How important is the L/L race":

1) How important is it who wins? To that I say that 6 more years of Joe is better than other options I could imagine (a Santorum clone, for instance), provided his snit doesn't lead to further vengefulness after the election.

2) How important is it to fully and convincingly defeat Lieberman's message about the Democratic Party. That issue is national in scope, especially when he takes his bs to the national talk shows, and he will every chance he gets.

My greatest fear is what Lieberman's campaign will do to the party, not that he'll beat Lamont. That's HUGE.

Matt Stoler's essay on this topic is cogent:

Every bill that comes before the House and Senate faces a clear set of right-wing pressure points. The first and most powerful one is the Republican K-Street Project, which can whip all Republicans very quickly and effectively in the House, and nearly as quickly in the Senate. This is the machine that forces Republicans to obey the wishes of a right-wing leadership class, through the carrot of cushy corporate jobs and the stick of vicious primary challenges from the Club for Growth.

On the Democratic side, the pressure is just as intense, but more subtle. When a bill is introduced, a network of consultants, most of whom have corporate clients, begin to chatter about how taking a liberal position could weaken the Democratic Party. This is supplemented with a strong PR strategy by right-wing temporary coalition groups who put out networks of surrogates and ads to create a powerfully framed environment. Then business lobbyists come and visit Congressional offices, and make threats, attempt legislative bribes, or put out false but extremely persuasive pieces of information. There is often little real counterpressure, because liberal single issue groups have decided not to hold politicians accountable and do not cooperate with each other on issues not directly related to their vertical.

I just sent back a self-addressed stamped envelope to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that solicited me for money. I've given to them before. This time, I checked "Other" for the amount and wrote in the amount "$0.00", writing that until they get right on the question of supporting winners of Democratic primaries (DSCC vice-chair Pryor supports Lieberman) they should look for no donations from me.

I will continue to criticize any Democrat who backs this turncoat. John Kerry is right. He's channelling Dick Cheney talking points.

I can forgive any Dem who backed Lieberman in the primary as long as he's backing Lamont now. Otherwise, forget about it. The Lieberman backers were claiming, during the primary that Lamont was jeopardizing a safe Democratic seat. They can't make that claim anymore. Lieberman did not have to do this.

Josh, you complained on TPM last week that Lamont didn't understand that he had only one week to get Lieberman out of the race and that he chose to go on vacation instead.

What possible course of action do you think you see that Lamont could have adopted to get Lieberman out of the race? He has too much support and too little shame to let go.

Lieberman just has to be beaten. That's all. Lamont has to put together a campaign organization to get that job done. It's not going to happen by Beltway types shaming Joe. If Lamont can get this done, he wins. If not, he loses.

Beltway types such as yourself who support Lamont can do their part by not spreading such defeatist nonsense. One poll does not an election make.

This election is like the 1983 Chicago mayoral. There too, entrenched powers showed they had no shame and no willingness to give up their power in the name of party loyalty. It took a ground war, retail politics, to elect Harold Washington in the face of such opposition, and it will take the same to elect Ned Lamont.

Josh, I am afraid that for people like myself the Iraq war is the only issue in 2006.

It's not just you. Check the polls -- Iraq is the number one priority in almost every poll (Fox is the outlier, and it's close).

But in some ways, it's because it's not a single issue (and Lamont has said this). It's terrorism, it's foreign policy, it's energy, it's security. It's even health care and social security and education, because all the money for everything we want to do at home is going over to Iraq.

Just about the only issue Iraq is not about is 9/11.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

I definitely agree that his condescending attitude and hostility towards opinions other than his own are what makes Lieberman a) really annoying and b) the Democrat who is probably the most corrosive to any semblance to honest and open political discussion these days. The fact that he seems to derive joy from undermining the Democratic party as a whole, to say nothing of progressives, in his rhetoric makes him much worse than Clinton in his effect on national politics.

But thats besides the point that I'm trying to make. I think that the idea to invade Iraq was so fundamentally horrible that everyone inside the government and the nation's chattering classes who helped bring it about should never be taken seriously ever again.

However, I voted for Kerry in the 2004 primary over Kucinich - because I'd rather go with someone who can win rather than someone who is ideologically pure. As Deng Xiaoping said "I don't care if a cat is black or white, I only care that it can catch mice"

If I thought it were possible to replace Clinton with someone who was better, I'd go volunteer for their campaign in a heartbeat. But Hillary has US $22 Million cash on hand for her campaign, which is roughly 22 times what everyone else in the race has combined.

We have limited resources and need to pick our battles based on our ability to win. And I think that people in the progressive netroots realize this.

Look, there is no way to disconnect a Lieberman victory from 2006/2008. 

If Lieberman is able to win, or even show strength in spite of a dismal Democratic track record (Schiavo, Birth Control, Vouchers, Clinton, Iraq) and an on/offon/off/on position for privatization, it will signal a party in disarray to all fence sitters come November. 

And it should be noted that his support for Iraq was of the worst possible kind - not only supporting the war long after it became clear that it was a mistake in conception, but even more his offensive support the president speech.  Many democrats had trouble rationalizing their position on the war, but I think only Ben Nelson would have agreed with Joe that you have to get behind Bush no matter what, and I don't recall even Nelson saying so in public.  That is the antithesis of a democratic government, at least that's the way Democrats see it. 

It is just not possible to treat this race any other way.   And the middle will be paying close attention to the Senate in it's response to the perceived truth that Lieberman is a Demi-Republican.  If the Democrats can't show strength and unity in the face of treason it will not be given the keys to the car.  I mean, what would be the point? 

Anyway, you can be certain that this is how it will be treated by the MSM talking heads.  Historically, there are many instances where events take on symbolic import beyond its immediate meaning (The assasination of Archiduke Ferdinand). Why else would Bushco come out of the closet with such a desperate effort to support Joe.  These people are masters of symbolism And they never work on stage. 

This race simply can't be parsed and, therefore, it is the November tipping point for Democrats.  If we don't treat it that way we will be very sorry come election day.

I can't for the life of me understand what Schumer and Reid are thinking.

When Ken Mehlman changes his talking point from "Stay the course" to "Adapt to win,"

 he is flip-flopping.  Flip-flop, flip-flop flip-flop.

Josh,

I think Matt Bai has it about right. (NYTimes Sunday Magazine)

...you first have to master the business of getting elected before you can worry about how to govern. (Most powerful Democrats in Washington now believe this too.) But even with legions of outraged conservatives at his back, Reagan would not have taken over his party in 1980 - let alone the White House - had he not articulated an affirmative and bold argument against his party's status quo, vowing to devolve the federal government and roll back détente with the Soviets. Passion and fury started the revolution, but it took a leader with larger vision to finish the job.

It seems to me that the CT race is getting too much attention because it suits the Republicans.  It is after all the dogs days of summer and the media have nothing else to write about except the disaster in the Middle East and Tony Blair's fit of pique with George W. over his poor handling of the Israel-Lebanon fighting. 

The Democrats have yet to figure out that what they need is a leader who (as Bai put it) "will articulate an affirmative and bold argument against the party's status quo."  That leader is not Lamont.  So who is it? And when will (s)he get front and center? I certainly hope that some one rises before George decides to drop bombs on Iran.

It is what Lieberman is willfully doing to the Democratic Party that is exactly why the Senate leadership needs to step up now and chop his legs out from under him. His actions speak much louder than his words - he is not a Democrat. He doesn't belong in any position of influence in the Democratic Party or the Congress. This has no real effect except to emphasize to Connecticut voters that the Democratic candidate is not Lieberman, and it tells other Democrats that this is not an allowed activity for a Democrat. Every Democrat who mentions the name Lieberman from now until the election has to do so in this context.

You would think I despise Lieberman, but I don't. I didn't really care who won that primary, and even tilted slightly towards Lieberman, but the primary is over and Lieberman didn't win it. Lamont is the candidate now.

Hoppy in Sacramento

One of the things that you do best, Josh, is get Republicans to 'fess up to positions that might not help them in elections: the bamboozlers, the Shays handful, etc.

What does that prove? That DeLay's House and Frist's Senate were/are ruled, more or less, with an iron fist, and that elected Republicans are prepared to bullshit on their positions in public, but not prepared to abandon them and risk the wrath of their caucus leaders. Keeping in the leaderships' good books is more important, in many cases, than being honest with their constituents.

What has that brought the GOP? One hopes, a fiery exit from power. But only after a decade of near total control of Congress.

The moral? When it comes to gaining power, unity of message and tough discipline works.

One of the things that's key to me is that almost everyone outside of Connecticut who backed Lamont has spent a lot of time backing candidates (Dean, Winograd, Hackett, Cegelis, etc) who wind up losing in the primaries -- but nonetheless play by the rules and accept the verdict, no matter how strong the principles that brought them to the fight in the first place.

Most of us had always assumed that the same could be said of those who won - for example, nobody expected John Kerry to run as a spoiler if Dean won in 2004, etc.

That many in the chain of command are willing to excuse a Lieberman indie run fundamentally changes the rules for what's allowed - or sets a flatly unacceptable dual standard for how these elections should run. And it Lieberman is reseated with the Democrats after this, it will mean pandemonium - utter chaos for the party across the board.

Here's a question: would the Republicans ever put up with this? Think of Toomey-Specter... could this have happened there? I personally don't think it would have been tolerated, even after the sitting president came in to campaign for Arlen in 2004. What does this say about our party, and our commitment to our voters?

Among progressives agreeing to disagree is essential, but the Democratic Party has (and needs) rules: one of them is that its Connecticut candidates are selected by primary voters.

Nationally speaking, I don't think beating Lieberman should have as high a priority as beating any sitting Republican.

I do think that if Lieberman manages to win and the Democratic Party allows him to keep his seniority a significant number of Democrats will be looking for a new party...

In the narrow sense, you were looking for an essential matter of principles that would justify this race being so critical -- and this is the most basic one I could think of. Apologies if you were asking rhetorically about "clear and unmistakable issues of principles."

In the more general sense, I see this (as do many others, I think) as the 2000 FL recount battle refought. We can't go back to that event, but hindsight shows us what it costs when we fail to make the case for what's fair -- as aggressively as possible -- once the votes are cast.

That said, this "battle to the knives", as you say, is nothing compared to what we'll face after the election if Lieberman winds up with a shit-eating grin in the 110th Congress Democratic caucus photo. You posted one take on it on TPM earlier - if there's no rules, there's no party. Frankly, I'd prefer a war of words now to an open revolt later.

Well, if I can offer the perspective of a Canadian, it strikes me that any coherent political party must establish a framework beyond which outliers and renegades must not pass. A party must be able to effectively police its framework, its acceptable norms.

Lieberman exceeded any reasonable framework when he was a sitting Democrat. His positions consistently undermined the party and aided the Republicans, and worse, he made a habit of attacking fellow Democrats. This was bad enough... Lieberman's conduct was nothing more and nothing less than a fundamental threat to the Democratic Party.

Now, there are various ways to police bad behaviour, none of which were either employed with Lieberman, or had any meaningful effect. One of the ways to police bad behaviour, perhaps the last resort, was a primary challenge. This was duly undertaken. Having lost the primary, he became a true renegade. Lieberman's position is that as a Democrat, he will not accept any restrictions on his behaviour.

Apply this to the party, you have no party. A party which cannot establish a coherent position or enforce coherence upon its members is not a political party, its a cocktail party. It is a loose social gathering without meaningful effect and without capacity to have meaningful effect.

So here's the thing. If you guys can't beat Lieberman, then you're not worth a pot to piss in. The Democrats cannot establish and police any coherent norms. Which means that you don't amount to a party worth voting for or counting for anything.

If you can't beat Lieberman, you sure as hell have no chance against the Republicans. Lieberman is the test for minimum coherent standards. Are you a political party, or a nest of screw ups.

eereeves

I think you are dead wrong on this Josh, this whole campaign has fired me up, got me off the couch and being active. And it goes to the heart of our system; if Joe can be a sore loser and win, this country and its politics are in dire trouble.

I guess some Democrats may find this sort or rant appealing to their masochism. But I don't. I don't think it even makes much political or historical sense. Historically, American parties don't function the way parliamentary parties do in the UK and even in Canada. We have a different system. That's worth learning. As for this bloviating about what it means if Lieberman wins, again, a lot of talk. Lieberman has a lot of advantages you choose to ignore -- like the fact that for all intents and purposes the GOP didn't field a candidate. That means he can pick up all the GOP votes, in addition to conservative Democrats and his own loyalists. That doesn't mean he can't be beat. I'm pretty sure he can. But this is the sort of trash talk that definitely requires leaving your brain at the door.

Its not a matter of masochism. I acknowledge that the American political structure has fundamental differences from Canadian or British political structures, differences which I understand and appreciate. And I'll also note that I'm quite familiar with the American system. I would dare say that I'm more familiar with the constitutional structure and current dynamics of the American system than Josh is of the Canadian political system or scene. In this respect, I find Josh's remarks somewhat intemperate.

However, the fact that the American Congressional system is markedly different from Parliamentary systems hardly represents an infinite 'get out of jail for free' card. It merely suggests that the rules in certain respects have more latitude... not that no rules apply.

The simple fact that political parties exist at all in the United States, rather than simply a collection of free agents, gives the lie to Josh's response. Political parties exist for a reason, or for a series of reasons, ranging from loose ideological and social coherence, to tradition, to common interests, to pooling of resources.

In order for a political party to function, to even exist as an entity, it has to establish a set of formal and informal rules and customs which govern the behaviour of members within a broad range of consensuses. That consensus can be debated and contested within the party (as an example, consider the success of the Southern Democrats in supporting segregation and opposing civil rights legislation, despite the lac of support for their position anywhere else, the key is that they had successfully made tolerance of their key policies an element of the overall consensus). What a political party cannot accept and cannot survive is a repudiation of that consensus.

This is the situation of Lieberman. His conduct is a progressive act of repudiation of the norms of the Democratic party, up to and including rejecting its operational rules.

The questions that Lieberman poses go to the heart of the Democratic Parties viability. Are primaries meaningful with respect to challenges to incumbents, or not? If it is meaningful, then Lieberman's conduct is beyond the pale. If it is not meaningful, except as a ceremonial coronation, then why waste the time? Is Lieberman a Democrat, or not? If he remains so, then it appears that the accepted channels of primaries and nominations becomes essentially meaningless, and any disgruntled faction is entitled to ignore or abandon the process at will, and contest a proceeding. If he is not a Democrat, then it is critical that the party bring him down.

In any social system, apostates are invariably more despised and more dangerous than mere outsiders or rivals. Simply put, they disrupt and undermine the consensus and the rules by which the community exists. Communities establish tolerable ranges of dissent and discussion, but show very little tolerance beyond those ranges. A community which cannot establish enough consensus to deal with apostates likely can't deal coherently with anything else.

Even today, Benedict Arnold is far more hated and reviled in America than any number of Generals who started with and finished with the British.

Over the last several years, the Democratic Party has struggled to establish any sort of coherent position. It has floundered with consensuses so broad as to be meaningless. Consider Bush's damning indictment of Kerry "He was for it, before he was against it." To voters, the Democrats stood for nothing at all, not even as an alternative to the Republicans. In view of this, it speaks to how traditional voting patterns in America are that the Democrats won as much as they did.

So, the question is, will the Democratic Party survive as a meaningful agency, if Lieberman is successful? Keep in mind that the Democratic party is 'meaning impaired' now.

In terms of the current election cycle, assuming honest elections without corruption or voter suppression (and that is not a proper assumption to make), it seems unlikely that the Democrats will succeed in taking either the House or the Senate. Chances are slightly better for the house.

However, in terms of this broader struggle, it is worth asking what effect if any Lieberman will have. Certainly the Lieberman contest cannot be viewed as an isolated phenomenon. It's not an 'off year' 'fluke' Senatorial election, but an integral part of the larger election set or cycle going on.

In this respect, Lieberman poses two threats to the Democratic Party. One concrete, the other political.

The concrete threat is that Lieberman's candidacy may undermine three House races in Connecticut. This is a technical issue, and there's not much to debate here. Given that 15 to 18 seats are critical, Lieberman's impact may well have a significant role in the Democrats chances to take the house.

The larger political threat that Lieberman poses has been immediately grasped by the Republicans and Karl Rove. Call it the 'Zell Miller' effect. It is simply far more effective to have the enemy attacked from within, or by an apostate. Zell Miller conducted himself as a petty lunatic. Joe Lieberman, simply for his superficial aura of reasonableness, is far more dangerous. Lieberman is now a willing tool for whipping the Democrats, and he'll be used as such.

In this respect, any Democrat ambivalence or equivocation with respect to Lieberman is going to simply amount to an endorsement of Republican whipping. "Yeah, its all true, they're right, Joe's got a point, we got it coming."

Lieberman's Senate campaign simply will not occur in a vacuum. Even if the Democrats stick their heads in the sand and pretend that it is, that is not how the media, the Republicans or ultimately the voters will see it and play it. Lieberman will be used by the Republicans, he is willing to be used by the Republicans, and to the extent that any Democrat is prepared to tolerate Lieberman, they have no defense and no response to this line of Republican attack.

Assuming some Democrats are tolerant of Lieberman and some aren't, this continues to arm the Republican attack and makes the Democrats more publicly incoherent.

Now, this is a lot of baby talk saying very obvious things. But the bottom line is that a political party cannot allow outliers and renegades beyond its norms, or it becomes incoherent and ineffective. A cocktail party, rather than a political party. A very pleasant gathering certainly, but meaningless in a larger sense. Because a political party does not exist in isolation, but in a political system peopled by rival political parties, that lack of coherence is fatal.

Again, if the Democrats can't handle Lieberman, then there's no way they can handle the Republicans. Not least of which will be because Lieberman and his political narrative is now a Republican tool.

Now, I haven't addressed the narrow consequences of a Lieberman win. But I see no reason to believe it would in any way be a positive result for the Democrats.

If Lieberman nominally returns to the Democrat fold, he will do so from a position of strength, in which the party will have no ability to set any borders for him... or by extension, anyone else. Translation: Cocktail party time. Incoherence, impotence and ineffectuality.

The only way to accommodate Lieberman will be to tolerate a free range dissent without restrictions and to attempt to bribe civil behaviour out of him. Joe's status as a Democrat will be purchased from one moment to the next, this purchase will not be enforceable. It would be a mess.

Alternately, Lieberman sits as an independent or as a Republican. Again, neither outcome is particularly good for the Democrats. In the event of a close Senate where Lieberman's status as a wild card makes him valuable, the likely result is that the Republicans will consistently outbid the Democrats for his loyalty.

This makes no assessments as to Lieberman's character. This is simply the Realpolitik of the situation.

I can't make it any simpler or more obvious. So, how's that for bloviation?

Historically, American parties don't function the way parliamentary parties do in the UK and even in Canada. We have a different system. That's worth learning.

Here's what some random political journalist said in the aftermath of the 2004 election:

Surveying the scene today, one thing that occurs to me is that President Bush is remaking the government into something that is looking more and more like a parliamentary democracy. I don't mean in every specific, of course; the key feature of the Bush presidency is an extremely powerful executive that to a great degree coopts and controls his own congressional majorities...

It's fine to bemoan this. And there's much to bemoan. But Democrats also need to learn how to live with it, at least for the next four years. And that means realizing that for at least the next two years, the President can get passed almost anything he wants to. His congressional majorities are now sufficiently padded that he can even afford a few Republican defections. He simply doesn't need Democrats for anything.

And that means approaching most legislative battles not with an eye toward preventing passage or significantly altering legislation, but placing alternatives on the table that the party will be able use as contrasts to frame the next two elections. In other words, their only remaining viable alternative is to be an actual party of opposition.

'Historically' no longer counts for much, even if you and many others would wish it otherwise. The Democrats are facing, in essence, a parliamentary party in November, with the reverse of George Galloway -- in fact, worse than Galloway in terms of party standing, since he didn't benefit from being supported through a primary.

Like you said in 2004, the Democrats need to learn how to live with things as they are, not some fantasy world in which supporting Lieberman as a sitting Democratic Senator is an acceptable strategy for the forthcoming election.

Historically, American parties don't function the way parliamentary parties do in the UK and even in Canada. We have a different system. That's worth learning.

Perhaps Lieberman's greatest miscalculation, that he could get away with his own brand of triangulation, was based on his own misunderstanding of the political terrain.

For anyone that hasn't noticed, the Republicans have rewritten the rule book. We can argue if this is the new reality or just a temporary state of affairs; certainly an endless supply of pork has been part of the mechanism for keeping Republicans in line. But for now, it is the reality that must be dealt with.

...lot of liberal blogosphere to go from being against Lieberman, to being against anyone who supports Lieberman, to being against anyone who isn't sufficiently against Lieberman, to be against anyone who even raises a question about the emerging orthodoxy about this race.

I'm glad you used the word "orthodoxy" Josh, you could also easily include litany and an apparent religious ferver.

If you view the blogoshpere as a cult, instead of a political movement, their behavior/actions become both understandable and predictable.

From Factnet.org, a cult information site there are several points which highlight cult-like behavior--I'll paste in the pertinent ones to the blockquote above:
http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm

TACTIC 3. Disconfirming information and nonsupporting opinions are prohibited in group communication. Rules exist about permissible topics to discuss with outsiders. Communication is highly controlled. An "in-group" language is usually constructed.

And from Jay Lifton's eight point model:

3. DEMAND FOR PURITY. An explicit goal of the group is to bring about some kind of change, whether it be on a global, social, or
personal level. "Perfection is possible if one stays with the group and is committed."

5. SACRED SCIENCE. The group's perspective is absolutely true and completely adequate to explain EVERYTHING. The doctrine is not subject to amendments or question. ABSOLUTE conformity to the doctrine is required.

=============================<