> How Lieberman Can Be Defeated and How Lamont Can Win
Two ways:
1. Dead girl.
2. Live boy.
I did n't get it. Would you explain?
It's just an old political saying. It's saying the only way Politician X can be defeated is if he gets caught with a dead girl or a live boy.
Honestly, your preoccupation with Lieberman baffles me. I know he's been supportive of the war, but if you remove that one issue, it's damn hard to make him out to be a Bush clone. The truth is that there are many Democrats more conservative than Lieberman on domestic issues. He may be "pro-war" but that's not the same as being "pro-Bush."
Anyway, nevermind. Here's what I want to know. I believe, as you do, that the Dems have a reasonable chance of taking the senate this year. Either way, it's going to be close, and whichever party comes out on top, it will only be by a seat or two.
What if Lieberman, weakened from having to fend off an attack from his left flank, loses his safe seat in CT? Then what if the Dems miss taking control by that single seat?
On the one hand, you could argue that it would merely replace a fake Republican with a real one, but on the other hand, it would continue to mean that the Republicans would control the Senate's agenda, assign committee memberships, control all the chairmanships, etc. Do you guys *really* want to risk this?
You have a good point there. That is certainly an issue. On the other hand, as I pointed out in the post, I believe that the democratic party has a major identity crisis. I also think that this crisis should be resolved by moving to the left. I know you think that would weaken the democratic party, but I think exactly the opposite.
Where I am getting is that, in my opinion, resolving the identity crisis of the democratic party is more important than taking back control of the senate at this time. If we take back control of the senate without having a redefined ideology and clear positions, we will loose it again in the next round. Lieberman has to go not so much because he is far-right. As you point out, he is not. He has to go because he undermined the leadership of the party and he took a very strong position on the Iraq war. In my opinion that was completely unacceptable. The democratic party needs a new ideological climate and he certainly does not fit in.
Commenting by HaloScan
