Lieberman for AG fears are the fruits of political cannibalism

POSTED BY Chris Broussard, 31 August 2007

Since Gonzales resigned on Monday, the Web has been rife with speculation about his successor, much of it swirling around the possibility of a Joe Lieberman nomination. He’s qualified; before he was elected to the Senate, he was Connecticut’s Attorney General. His close relationship with President Bush had been widely publicized, his relationship with the Democratic Party is strained and he would ace the nomination hearings. Most interestingly, his vacated Senate seat replacement would be filled by Republican governor, Gov. M. Jodi Rell. Assuming Bush appointed a Republican, it would flip control of the Senate back to the GOP. What a coup!

Liberals and Democrats, breathe a sigh of relief. Lieberman’s office has indicated that the Senator is not interested in the job. Dodged that bullet.

But there are still lessons to learn. The idea of Lieberman accepting the nomination is only plausible because of his current tension with the Democratic Party, stemming from the misguided attempt to replace him with more liberal Ned Lamont. Lamont and his netroots supporters took advantage of the relatively extreme politics of primary voters to defeat Lieberman, only to be trounced in the general election.

Lyndon Johnson famously commented that the difference between cannibals and liberals is that cannibals eat their enemies. There is an on-going wider effort to “liberalize” moderate Democratic Congressmen and it’s a foolish strategic mistake. It seems many online pundits prefer a homogeneously liberal party in the minority to a more moderate, diverse majority party that can have some actual impact. As frustrated as some might be with the tepid progress of the current Congressional leadership, would a Republican Congress be better?

Energy put into ousting Blue Dog and New Democrats in the primaries is counterproductive, especially in the South. It’s hard enough to keep a Democrat a Democrat in the South, much less to hold them to political standards that don’t match with the constituents. Moderate Democrats are precisely that as a reflection of their constituency. Nominating a more liberal candidate will not achieve the goal of electing more liberals; to the contrary, you just end up turning over seats to the Republicans.

The fast-action mob mentality enabled by the Internet is not necessarily a good thing. We, the people, are a fickle bunch, prone to irrational exuberance and fair-weather politics. The netroots got all riled up about Lamont; Lieberman still won out and now is in a good position (with some motivation) to make a real mess in the Senate. The liberals' tendency to eat their own, combined with instant polling and netroots activism doesn't really leave much room for taking into account the broader, strategic calculations needed to be successful. Democrats and liberals need to step back and make sure that they don’t win battles just to lose the war.