GregsOpinion.com

A Centrist, Lieberman Fights for Votes in an Extremist Era

When it comes to politics, 2004 will not be the year of the establishment. Sure, George Bush is still heavily favored to win re-election with now less than a year to go. He may yet win by a large margin, in fact. But on the Democratic side, 2004 is not a good year to be a member of the establishment.

Joe Lieberman's own list of attributes would normally be a tough sell in a Presidential primary: centrist, able to work with members of both parties, the Times gives a synopsis of his difficulty:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has built his career doing what he did that morning: wading across ideological divides, hunting for common ground and doing it with a mix of civility and conviction that at its best has won over Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.

Yet Mr. Lieberman is running for the presidency at a time when many Democrats appear to have lost the appetite for conciliation. They are angry, and not least about the Republican administration's war, which Mr. Lieberman, a Democrat, went out of his way to support.

What becomes of a candidate who has built his record on bipartisanship at a moment when many in his own party want nothing to do with the other side? And what becomes of a mild-mannered centrist in a crowded field when the surest route to the limelight is to blurt out something extreme?

As Mr. Lieberman sees it, anger does not win general elections. "Voters want somebody who's strong, that they can trust to make things better," he says. And they want someone who can beat President Bush, which he says he is well positioned to do in part because of his record on national security and values.

But others wonder: Have his assets become liabilities?

"The Democrats are in no mood to make peace with the Republicans," said William E. Curry Jr., an aide to President Bill Clinton and a longtime friend of Mr. Lieberman. "And the public is in no mood to make peace with Washington.

"It's a hard time for his strengths," Mr. Curry said. "His strengths may not look like strengths in that environment. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't be every bit as valuable in governing."

Voters may have a preference for electing people to get things accomplished (so long as they agree with the need to accomplish said deeds), but Democratic voters are increasingly showing a preference for a bloody nose on our opponent over winning an election.

One need not look much further than the outcome of the 2002 elections for why. Then, the operative theme was to get Iraq off the table, to get national security off the table. There wasn't much room for disagreement anyways, so just nod politely and say "Me too" and move on to "our issues." Funny thing ... voters decided in large numbers that national security was one of their issues, so while Dems were busy cleaning the table of it, voters were busy cleaning the talbe of a few that didn't seem to get the importance of the issue in their eyes.

The lesson could well have been that Dems needed to stop foresaking issues as "not theirs" and spent some time proving that, in fact, they were. Some have, as Brookings, the Progressive Policy Institute, and others have made significant efforts to articulate foriegn policy issues more aggressively. But the fabled ivory tower of think tanks has yet to reach the Liberal Street in Marin County and elsewhere. The coin of the realm at present is to oppose, to blunt any movement on the part of the party in power. Offering an alternative is secondary.

So it is that the strengths Joe Lieberman has to offer, are not just the overall weakness they would be in any election ... but they are now magnified. The candidate who had a plan to reconstruct Iraq before George Bush ever gave it a moment's notice is stuck in neutral, hoping for a lucky break on the February 3 primaries in Oklahoma, Arizona, and/or New Mexico.

One other place to look for a reason in the evolution of the party movement: McCain-Feingold. As the Washington Post reported, over 40 liberal groups will seek to spend in the vicinity of $300 million dollars to defeat Bush. That's more than any Presidential candidate on the Dem side will raise. And by law, that effort cannot work in concert with the official campaign. The party, it would seem, has moved outside of Washington. While one might argue that the groups represented in this movement have long been part of Democratic campaigns in the past, you'd be correct. However, the dollars were spent more under the auspices of the Democratic National Committee, or at least worked in concert with same. Those days appear to be gone.

If Republicans are gloating over this, let me remind them of one simple fact: Assuming a Bush reelection, who will be the nominee in 2012 2008? Not the Vice President. And there's not as presumptive a nominee for then as there was for 2000, either. Instead, 2012 2008 will most likely be a wide open contest on the GOP side with us Dems most likely having Hillary (say what you will of her politics, but money will not be a problem) clear the deck for ours. Republicans may want to take copious notes ... that which happens to Dems this time around may well likely happen to them in four short years.

Lieberman Versus Hollywood
The Washington Post, however, opts to look at Joe's jousting with Hollywood. I'm obviously mixed on this one, since I was an early adapter to the Fox network and took to Married with Children like a fish to water. But I also find great solace in the fact that Joe is the one candidate on our side that Barbra Streisand chose NOT to contribute to. Now, THAT'S an endorsement!