The Lieberman Threat

I've already stated my opinion that Joe Lieberman will have to directly attack the Democratic Party's narrative on National Security if he is to have a chance of winning re-election. But there is an even more pernicious threat to Democrats from Lieberman's candidacy.

New polling says that Lieberman is getting nearly 75% support from Republicans in Connecticut. This means that, in order for Lieberman to win, he will need a large number of Republicans to come to the polls in November and vote for him. Of course, if and when they do that, they will also vote for a lot of other Republicans on the ballot, thus hurting the chances of Lieberman's fellow Democrats in winning back at least three Congressional seats.

In other words, Lieberman on election day will have to run a Republican Get Out The Vote effort.

Lieberman's candidacy is a disaster for Democrats in both messaging and logistics. If Democratic party leaders think they can just whistle past this problem and hope that it doesn't hurt them then they are being either incredibly naive or purposely self-destructive.

Stripping Joe Lieberman

I've been a harsh critic of Senator Lieberman and consider his independent run a betrayal of the Democratic Party he claims to love. But I've been hesitant to join in the calls of some for him to be stripped of his committee assignments. That just seemed like turning the screw unnecessarily. While I believe firmly that Lieberman will screw the Dems in order to win this Fall. I don't believe in screwing him over before the fact (i.e., I don't believe in pre-emptive screwing.)

However, there is a new idea floating out that may have some merit: strip Joe of his seniority. He would continue to hold seats on various committees, but he would no longer be the ranking Democrat on several of the more important ones. This would be especially important if the Democrats gain the majority and Lieberman wins re-election. The last thing we need is an apologist for the Bush administration taking the lead role in the committee that handles oversight on Homeland Security!

Now I'm not sure whether this should be done before or after the election. Doing it before might again be a case of pre-emptive screwing. But doing it after (and promising to do so beforehand) would be logical. After all, if Lieberman wins re-election on the "Lieberman for Connecticut" party then he will no longer be the senior Democrat on the committee. So stripping him of his seniority would simply be an acknowledgement of a defacto reality.

It would certainly be a good stick to hold over his head if he should continue his "Vote for me because you can't trust the Democrats" narrative.

Lieberman putting Dems on a leash

Lieberman has apparently stated that he will support Reid for Majority Leader (i.e., caucus with the Dems). Some have taken this to mean that he is still a firmly committed Democrat.

I have a more cynical interpretation.

I think this is simply a way for Lieberman to tie his fellow Democrats up in knots.

You see, in order for Lieberman to win, he has to get Republicans to vote for him. He can't do that if he is seen as being to close to the Democratic party. Especially if he continues to run with the "Democratic Party is being taken over by leftists" narrative.

So, in order for him to win this Fall, Lieberman will have to campaign against the party as a whole. His platform will be, "vote for me, because the rest of my party can't be trusted."

Lieberman will sabotage the Democratic narative. The only way the party can prevent this is to knock back at Lieberman. But, if they do that, they risk changing Lieberman's mind about endorsing Reid.

So, by saying he will endorse Reid now, Lieberman effectively holds down the entire party from helping out Lamont. The minute the party shows any signs of serious support for Lamont (not just endorsments and token contributions) then all Lieberman has to do is start making noise about his "displeasure" with the leadership.

Lieberman is playing the Democratic leadership for suckers if they believe that he is firmly committed to making Reid Majority Leader.

Republican Ned becomes Red Ned

During the primary, Lieberman frequently accused Ned Lamont of being a closet Republican. Lieberman had to blunt the criticism he was receiving for being to close to Bush. How to do this? Suggest that it was Lamont, not Lieberman, who was the real Republican in the race! A popular talking point was the claim that Lamont, while a city councilman, had sided with Republican coleagues 80% of the time.

Lieberman lost. And now he is running as an independent. In order to win in the general election, Lieberman has to get a significant share of the Republican vote. He can't do that by accusing Lamont of being a closet Republican. So what to do?

Accuse Lamont of being a closet Communist!

Gerstein had associated Lamont with three figures on the left: Sanders, the self-described socialist congressman from Vermont who caucuses with the House Democrats; the Rev. Al Sharpton, the New York civil rights advocate and former Democratic presidential candidate; and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos, one of the liberals' most popular political weblogs.

The Lieberman aide's e-mail came the same day the Waterbury Republican-American editorialized about "Ned's true colors," describing the candidate's great-grandfather, Thomas W. Lamont, as not only chairman of J.P. Morgan but "the sugar daddy for the American Communist Party," and his uncle, Corliss Lamont, as "an unapologetic Stalinist and atheist."

The newspaper also suggested that Lamont has "surrounded himself with people who may be characterized fairly as dedicated socialists and borderline communists," and noted that "race hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton" had stumped for his victory.

Hey! Whatever works!

Macaca Muy Caca? (Updated, Update Again, And Again)

I wasn't sure what to make of the reports of Virginia Senator George Allen putting his foot in it today when he referred to a Jim Webb operative of Indian descent as "Macaca". Some immediately leaped on this as evidence of Allen's racism. But I wasn't sure since it was quite possible that Allen had just been misinformed as to what the man's name was (his real name is S.R. Sidarth).

The "Welcome to America" comment was a bit odd, but not to out of keeping with the idea pushed by a lot of politicians that they represent the "Real America". Yes, I know that in some circles the term "Real America" is a racial code-word. But these kind of things are obscure enough that there are a lot of people who might innocently use terms like that with no malicious intent.

I was doing some googling on the term "Macaca" to determines its origins. But the only substantial link I could find was to the monkey species otherwise known as the macaque. I again found it hard to believe that Allen was making that obscure a reference in an insulting manner.

Well, Atrios was thinking along the same lines, but he may have hit pay-dirt. Apparantly "Macaca" is a term with some history of use as a racial slur. And, according to Atrios, it is quite common in some "nastier corners" of the internet. I'll take his word on that.

Sounds like Allen might have some explaining to do.

UPDATE

Frameshop does more searching and finds that yes, "Macaca" or "Macaque" is a not-infrequent racial slur in some of the "nastier corners" of the world.

UPDATE 2

Hmmm. Frameshop's research found that "Macaca/Macaque" as a racial slur has Belgium origins where it usually refers to a 'dirty arab' of North African descent. Well, a commentor on the Frameshop post posted that Allen's mother came from Tunisia. The "Race 4 2008" website gives some background:

Allen’s mother immigrated from French Tunisia and was “Italian, French and a little Spanish” and according to Allen, was imprisoned by the Nazi Regime in World War II Germany. Allen’s father was of Dutch-Irish and Scottish descent.

Just another data point.

Update 3

In all the above I forgot to hilight the one thing that makes this most suspicious: the lame excuse the Allen campaign gave for the Senator's comment.

Allen campaign manager Dick Wadhams said the Webb campaign's complaints about the comments are unfounded and he said Allen had "nothing to apologize for" to the young man.

Wadhams said Allen campaign staffers had begun calling Sidarth "mohawk" because of a haircut Wadhams said the Webb staffer has. "Macaca was just a variation of that," Wadhams said.

Of course, Sidarth has no mohawk, as shown in this picture (courtesy Atrios):

Going to the well one to many times

Dan Froomkin:

By insinuating that the sizeable majority of American voters who oppose the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy, Vice President Cheney on Wednesday may have crossed the line that separates legitimate political discourse from hysteria.

There is a fine line to follow when making this kind of attack and Cheney clumsily stumbled all over it.

1. This kind of attack only works if the overwhelming majority of the audience believes the attack is against someone other than themselves.

2. This kind of attack only works if the overwhelming majority of the audience believes that the overwhelming majority of the audience agrees with the attack.

Even as the Iraq War became more unpopular (rising to the 40+% dissapproval level), the mainstream media essentially ignored this growing discontent (scattered reports don't count when compared to the juggernaut of "rah-rah-rah" reporting that supported this war for its first year). This naturally lead to many of those 40 percenters thinking their opinion was an isolated one. So, even if they believed that this kind of attack was against them and were insulted by it, they didn't externalize that outrage because they were afraid that the majority of their neighbors agreed with it.

However, now that the Iraq War dissapproval has reached 60+% levels, a larger and larger number of dissenters have come to realize that they are not alone in their misgivings. More and more stories are spreading of people "waking up" to the mess the Bush administration has gotten us into.

Thus, when Cheney makes this kind of attack, the kind of attack that would have worked 2 years ago, a majority of his audience realizes (1) he is attacking them and (2) a lot more people agree with them than agree with Cheney.

The result? An electorate that is increasingly turned off and outraged by these kind of attacks. And the more these kind of attacks piss of the electorate, the more that electorate will listen to the arguments of fellow "haters" of the Bush administration's policies.

The Bushie's fear-mongering and divisiveness may have finally reached its point of diminishing return. If they don't wake up to this change and don't adjust for it then they will suffer a political backlash the likes of which isn't seen more than once in a generation.

Unfortunately for them (fortunate for us), they don't have any other weapon to use in this fight. So, even if they understand how things have changed, there isn't anything they can do about it.

It's Time to Face Facts about Joe Lieberman

There are two facts that Democratic leaders are going to have to come to terms with.

1. Joe Lieberman will do whatever is necessary to retain his hold on his Senate seat.

2. The only way Lieberman can win in November is to attack the Democratic Party as a whole.

The first point is proven by Lieberman's independent run. His assertion that his candidacy is based on a fight against partisanship is laughable on its face, since he has consistently adopted Republican partisan attack points as a way to advance his cause (namely, himself). He is the very definition of a partisan politician. It's just that his partisanship is all about himself.

The second point is only slightly less obvious. Lieberman cannot win by simply appealing to independents (who, by the way, dislike Bush and his war about as much as Democrats do). He has to win over Republicans. But he can't do that if he is seen as making nice with Democrats. In order to win Republicans he MUST attack Democrats.

And just attacking Lamont won't work. Every time Lieberman tried that in the primary Lamont's positives went up. In fact, Lieberman's attacks on Lamont were the vital oxygen that gave Lamont's campaign the chance it needed. If Lieberman had simply ignored Lamont he probably would have won by default.

Lieberman, in order to win, has to push the narrative that the Democratic Party, as a whole, has been taken over by raving lunatic lefties who want to surrender in the war on terror and turn our security over to al Qaeda. He has no other choice. It is the only avenue of potential success he has. He is already doing it.

Which means that all the Democrat's attempts to play nice with Lieberman behind the scenes will be for naught. Lieberman will stab them in the back the first opportunity he gets. He will do as much as he can to disrupt the Democratic narrative on Bush, Iraq, and the War on Terror because that narrative will weaken his chances of getting re-elected. And he will do it behind enemy lines (within the Democratic Caucus).

I can appreciate that a lot of Democratic leaders don't want to go on the offensive against Lieberman. He is there friend and colleague. What's more, they don't want to risk alienating Lieberman if he should happen to win in November and they need him to caucus with the Democrats in order to get the majority.

But let's be realistic here okay? Lieberman will stab the Democrats in the back the first chance he gets (I'd argue he has already done so with his comments about the London bombing plot). This is virtually guaranteed. Furthermore, no amount of nicey-nice from the Dems behind the scenes will win Lieberman over to their caucus if we end up with a 49R-50D-1Lieberman result this Fall. The Republicans will be able to offer Lieberman so much more than the Democrats could ever realisticly give him. And Lieberman, being Lieberman, will take it.

Lieberman is a lost cause. The best the Democrats can hope for is that he doesn't bring down the party with him. He will do just that if Democratic leaders don't wake up to this reality.