Lieberman thrown under the bus

Senator Lieberman (D) narrowly lost a primary to newcomer Lamont tonight. What does this mean and why am I posting about it?

Senator Lieberman had been a Democrat senator for, I believe, 18 years. Only six years ago, he was the vice presidential nominee of Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential Election. Two years ago, he was a presidential candidate in the Democrat presidential primary. Lieberman is not a ‘little’ senator. He was well up in the ranks. What is stunning to the political scientists is that his party threw him under a bus. A few years ago, a presidential candidate…now, completely purged from the party.

In the US’s Democrat Party, there has recently been a change with a strong surge of anti-war bloggers. The Democrat Party is literally beginning to become controlled by them. Lieberman is a Democrat on practically every issue except he supported the Iraq War. This has caused these Net bloggers to purge him from the party. They raised the money and focused heavily on this primary. (Hillary Clinton is also supportive of the Iraq War. She is next in target to be purged. Yes… I know it is shocking, but keep a close eye on this. Hillary Clinton has no chance with the primary of Democrats now.)

Political scientists believe that the “Net roots” of the Democrat bloggers to swing the party to a very strident anti-war position will only McGovernize the Party. What does ‘McGovernizing’ mean? The political left, especially of the 1960s, put up McGovern for the 1972 Presidential Election. McGovern ran very hard as anti-war against Richard Nixon (the war was the Vietnam War). Nixon won the election in, at the time, the second biggest landslide victory in American history. Even with how unpopular Vietnam was, the anti-war candidate lost. McGovernizing means moving the party to a political area where they will not be elected by the mainstream.

With Lieberman’s defeat in the primary, this will encourage the anti-war bloggers. The question is will they then go on and purge every Democrat who supported the Iraq War? (This would include Hillary Clinton) If they do, then the party could become McGovernized.

But Lieberman may get the last laugh out of this. He will run as an independent in the November general election. Because of how close the primary was, if Lieberman retains those votes, he will also get the independent votes and Republican votes in Connecticut (Republicans are not putting up a candidate in Connecticut). Every political analyst shows an independent Lieberman winning. What will probably happen is that there will be intense behind-the-door pressure to talk Lieberman out of not running like what happened with Cuomo or Toricelli.

The reason why I’m posting this is that this is a classic example of why you must carefully “choose” your own battles. The Democrats are literally cannibalizing their own here. Tomorrow, Lieberman will change party affiliation to independent and win (if he doesn’t get talked out of running). As of tomorrow, there will now be only 43 Democrat Senators. This means the Democrat Party would lose a senator just because of this primary fight. They now need an extra win to re-take the Senate.

Was Lamont winning the primary a good thing for the party? An honest political analysis says “No.” They’ve lost a senate seat.