NYT Editorial Tells Us Why Lieberman Lost

This morning a New York Times Op/Ed contributor, New Republic Senior Editor Noam Scheiber, lays it all out for us. And although it takes him awhile to get to his point, Scheiber finally reveals the reason that Connecticut’s three-term Democrat Senator lost the primary race yesterday to Ned Lamont. Joe Lieberman lost because of bloggers. Scheiber admits that Lieberman had a problem because he was pro-Iraq war. And Scheiber concedes that increasingly, Lieberman had gained a reputation for being “a less than reliable partisan”. Like with his kissing and fawning performance with Bush, and his speech denouncing Clinton during the Lewinsky flap, and his “flirtation” with school vouchers. “There was a time when the support of key Democratic interest groups would have more than made up for such heresies”, Scheiber says. “That he could not depend on that traditional lifeline this time should be alarming even for those who hoped for his defeat.” Now we get to it. “Over the last six years this old model has broken down,” Scheiber says. “As anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave knows, traditional Democratic interest groups have steadily lost ground to a more partisan, progressive movement skilled at using the Internet to communicate and raise money. The most visible faces of the new movement are the thousands of political bloggers — and their millions of readers — who delighted in panning Mr. Lieberman these last several months.” The rising influence of the counter-Bushies raises two problems, Scheiber says. “First, their judgment may be flawed.” And second, “The demise of the old interest group model makes it tough for Democrats who don’t share the counter-Bushies’ liberalism to enter politics.” Interest groups have traditionally elected Senators like Harry Reid, Scheiber opines. “Without a socially moderate constituency like organized labor having pull within the party, it’s unlikely that he (Reid) would have ever been elected to the Senate.” Scheiber likes to use the words “interest groups” rather than the more negatively charged word LOBBIES. “Interest group liberalism is a lousy way to run a party”, Scheiber says in conclusion, “but it may be better than the alternatives.” Interest group liberalism? Did Scheiber actually say that? With all the Republican lobbyists in jail and going to jail, Scheiber has the balls to suggest that liberal lobbies are a Democrat problem? And on top of that, Scheiber says it’s the flawed judgment of bloggers that kept the liberal lobbies from re-electing Lieberman? Oh wow! Now there’s a twist. Dear Mr. Scheiber: It’s the flawed judgment of Joseph Lieberman that defeated Joseph Lieberman. And to prove that fact, Lieberman has decided to run as an Independent in November. He would rather take whatever constituency he may still have and throw those votes away than act like a man with class and integrity. A man devoted to truth, honesty and high ethical standards would support the party that backed and financed his career in the Senate for 18 years. But a turncoat putz would do exactly what Joseph Lieberman is doing. The Democrat Party should kick him off of every committee he is on and strip him of every position he holds. Because as of yesterday, Joseph Lieberman has no place in the Democrat Party. Let him become the Secretary of Defense under the Bush administration.