Lieberman has fallen out of favor with the party's liberal roots, largely out of his opposition to the war in Iraq and his perceived close ties with the Bush Administration and other right wing shadow groups. The loyal readers over at DailyKos have made defeating Lieberman a constant mission, and recent polls suggest Lamont is gaining traction.
I find this particulary ironic because kos, also known under the legal name Markos Moulistas Zuniga, makes a passionate plea for the Democratic Party to not make litmus test politics a part of the party nomination contest. He describes how Rhode Island representative Jim Langevin was pushed out of pursuing a Senate race against Lincoln Chafee because abortion rights activists took issue with his pro-life votes.
This issue is very troubling on two fronts. First of all, it makes our party weaker when each interest group gets veto power over potential candidates. We must look for the greater good and not expect every potential office holder to toe the party line on every issue group. Second, instead of having a surefire pickup in Langevin (polls showed him leading Chafee by 10 points or more) and being able to move resources onto other states, Democrats now must pin their hopes on Sheldon Whitehouse. Whitehouse is a strong candidate, but not the slam drunk Langevin would have been.
I use this example to make my point at the stupidity of a primary challenge to Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is not a perfect Democrat, and I have often disagreed with his views on the war in Iraq, the role of big business in America, and some social issues. But the only litmus test I put on members of the Democratic Party is this: If they wake up every morning committed to helping those who have trouble helping themselves, if they commit themselves to protecting the Constitution, and if they arrive at their opinions after careful and deliberative thought. By that standard, Joe Lieberman is a fantastic Democrat.
The possibility of Lieberman being pushed out of the Democratic Party by would be a terrible blow to expanding the party's base. What purpose do we serve in letting Reagan Democrats in the front door when we're kicking Lieberman Democrats out of the back door? I think we take the success of the Democratic Party in the northeast for granted if we think that we can rid ourselves of good leaders like Joe Lieberman, who is enormously popular among Republicans and Independents in Connecticut. It is especially dangerous to push Lieberman out in 2006, when Democrats could pick up three congressional seats in Connecticut that are currently held by moderate Republicans. You tell me which candidate you'd rather have by your side on the stump in that case; litmus-test liberal Ned Lamont, a creature of the DailyKos movement, or independent and bipartisan Joe Lieberman, a well liked figure throughout Connecticut?
I'll conclude this article with two observations. First of all I'm proud to be a part of Raising Kaine's readers and occasional contributors, and I am especially proud of the work we all did on behalf of Jim Webb. I'm especially proud because in seeking out and working for Jim Webb we nominated a candidate that wasn't a fire breathing partisan or a litmus test candidate; instead we worked for a candidate who is indepenent, free thinking, and pragmatic. I know Jim Webb will be successful because those three characteristics are exactly where 40% of the American voters are. As Harry Truman once said, "There's not a Democratic way to change a lightbulb". When we put results ahead of rhetoric, we all win.
Secondly, I'd like to remind you all of your namesake, "Raising Kaine". When this blog started, it was by those of you who thought so much of then Lt. Governor Kaine, that you would commit yourselves to a blog dedicated to his election. Although the blog has certainly moved on to bigger things, it is important to remember your roots. In case you don't remember, then Lt. Gov. Kaine endorsed Senator Lieberman for President.
This issue with "litmus tests" is a real problem. The emphasis should be on how a politician arrives at his positions--not necessarily what the position is. If we focused more on the means rather then the end itself, we'd have a healthier Democracy and a more productive national dialogue.