No leftist purge of Lieberman
DID TUESDAY really mark the rise of the rabid moonbats in our national politics?
That's the way conservative commentators and bloggers and Republican message-mongers would like to spin Connecticut's Democratic primary results, which saw businessman Ned Lamont beat three-term US Senator Joseph Lieberman.
Indeed, so eager are they to establish the story line that irate left-wing ideologues have captured the Democratic Party that one could hear and read it before the votes were even tallied.
And since Lieberman's loss, they've certainly hit that message hard.
Vice President Dick Cheney has even added his voice to the effort, offering the shameless suggestion that the ``purge" of Lieberman might just encourage ``Al Qaeda types."
But let's look at the actual facts.
For starters, Lamont is neither a radical leftist nor a single-cause campaigner. Why, he's not even in favor of the domestic issue that often separates lefty true believers from pragmatic progressives: single-payer healthcare. Instead, he's an employer-mandate man. If it's true he is largely a political neophyte, he's also a successful entrepreneur and a personality type comfortable for Connecticut: the gregarious prepster.
Certainly Lamont made opposition to the Iraq war and a call for pulling US front-line troops out within the year his signature issues. And certainly without upset over the war, his campaign wouldn't have achieved critical mass. But does it really follow that hyperpartisan single-issue zealots rose up in unforgiving fury from the vasty deep of the blogosphere to purge the Democratic Party of a courageous free thinker?
Hardly. What actually happened is that everyday progressive Democrats became alienated by Lieberman's strong support for the war and by a general political posture they judged too accommodating toward an administration whose excesses they believe call for sharper opposition.
But though his political peril was obvious, the senator refused to address those concerns until it was too late.
Yes, 62 percent of self-identified liberals chose Lamont, according to a CBS News/New York Times exit poll. But Lamont was also the choice of 39 percent of moderates and 35 percent of conservatives. Further, though Lamont got the support of 60 percent of war opponents, 39 percent of that group stuck with Lieberman.
That simply doesn't add up to a leftist purge.
Nor is opposition to the war a minority opinion anymore. According to a new CNN poll, 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war. In that large sample of US adults, 61 percent said at least some US forces should be withdrawn from Iraq by year's end.
Now to the case of the incompetent incumbent. Here's the seminal fact: Those who decided their vote in the campaign's closing days chose Lieberman over Lamont by 54 percent to 44 percent.
That's significant because it was only on Sunday that Lieberman finally gave a conciliatory speech addressing voter discontent with his Iraq stand -- and then began airing a television ad on the subject.
Some advisers had been urging that course correction for weeks, acknowledges Lanny Davis, Lieberman's longtime friend. When I followed the candidates last week, it was clear that Lieberman was running an inept campaign as he tried to sidestep an issue much on voters' minds. But asked whether he would confront that discontent directly, Lieberman seemed unenthusiastic; an adviser later told me the campaign had decided not to.
Only after a public poll released on Thursday showed him down by 13 points did Lieberman conclude he had to tackle the issue head on, Davis said. Why did it take so long?
``Every human being has a streak, you can call it principle or stubbornness, call it what you like," says Davis. Stubborn sounds apt, though clueless would also do. (Lamont, of course, has made some errors, too. Having Al Sharpton behind him on primary night, to name one.)
The pro-Lieberman break of the late-deciding vote -- a surge that brought Lieberman back to within 4 points of Lamont -- is strong evidence that if the senator had spoken to those concerns earlier, he could have salvaged his seat.
Davis heatedly rejects any notion that Lieberman will now drop out, insisting he remains popular enough to win as an independent.
Perhaps. Still, whether or not Tuesday's defeat spells the ultimate decline of Lieberman, let's be clear about one thing: No matter how much conservatives repeat their mantra, Ned Lamont's victory didn't signal the rise of moonbats -- much less their conquest of Connecticut.
Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com. 