Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Natural Progression II
Well, obviously, Lamont didn't end up winning. Given the final numbers, it seems to me that a more serious backing of Lamont by the Democratic Party could have put him into the win. The fact that Joe Lieberman was a founding member of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), and that the DLC is the most powerful group in the Democratic Party, may very well have something to do with the seemingly-inexplicable choice to virtually ignore the person who won the primary in favor of someone who continuously undermines the progressive faction of the Democratic Party in the national debate.
It's true that not many people expected the Democrats to win control in the Senate in last November's election, but just imagine if it was Lamont in there now instead of Lieberman, who has all but defected from the Democratic Party at this point.
Two lingering questions I have about the Lamont-Lieberman affair:
1) It's very clear that a large fraction (the majority?) of Lieberman's votes came from registered Republicans. Everywhere else in the country, politicians perceived as supporting GW were being thrown out of office. Why did the Republican voters of Connecticut want to stick with Joe instead of their own party's nominee?
2) Where's the blowback from the Democratic Party's failure to support Lamont -- a patently undemocratic move, regardless of how "practical" a choice it might have been?
It's true that not many people expected the Democrats to win control in the Senate in last November's election, but just imagine if it was Lamont in there now instead of Lieberman, who has all but defected from the Democratic Party at this point.
Two lingering questions I have about the Lamont-Lieberman affair:
1) It's very clear that a large fraction (the majority?) of Lieberman's votes came from registered Republicans. Everywhere else in the country, politicians perceived as supporting GW were being thrown out of office. Why did the Republican voters of Connecticut want to stick with Joe instead of their own party's nominee?
2) Where's the blowback from the Democratic Party's failure to support Lamont -- a patently undemocratic move, regardless of how "practical" a choice it might have been?
