pudge's Journal: Joe Lieberman "Betrayal"

A lot of people think Joe is betraying his party.

They are wrong.

Some people have likened it to McCain refusing to run with Kerry, or run against Bush as an independent. This comparison exposes the flawed thinking. If McCain had done so, he would have been hurting his own party, by helping a Democrat win.

But as Joe runs, he will almost surely win (he'll get most independents, and I figure half the Democrats, and a big chunk of Republicans). And then what happens? He goes back to the Senate as a Democrat, is part of the Democratic caucus, votes with the Democrats, has committee assignments as a Democrat. He won't be in the Senate as an "independent" like Jeffords, he will be an actual Democrat, with a voting record comparably in line with the party to what Lamont's would be, and with a lot more clout to get things done for the state of Connecticut.

Now, you can argue he is going against the will of the Connecticut Democratic party. It's hard to argue against that. But from my longstanding perspective, parties exist not to choose who runs, but to choose who the membership of the party thinks should win, and to help that candidate win. If the Democrats in CT choose to back Lamont, more power to them, but that should not in any case mean that Lieberman shouldn't run.

I am pretty big into party politics, but I do not have any patience for the notion that parties should choose who is on the ballot, or that being on the ballot apart from your party's choice is a betrayal of the party. It may be going against the party's wishes, but unless the action you are taking serves to harm the broad interests of the party (such as, for example, Teddy Roosevelt getting Wilson, instead of Taft, elected by running as a third party candidate), I just don't buy that it is a betrayal in any meaningful sense of the word.

If by some incredible chance the Republican challenger wins the Senate race, then perhaps I will agree Lieberman betrayed his party. But none of us should hold our breaths for that ...

Now Playing: Extreme - Color Me Blind

Lieberman has to go because...

[Bill Dog]

...he represents a break in the unanimity of the party's single campaign issue that they're hanging all their hopes on.

betrayal

[(trb001)]

Pudge, you're making it sound as though he's only betraying his party if the Republican candidate ends up winning. Therefore, whether he's betraying his party or not is entirely dependant on the outcome of the November election. That seems wrong to me...betrayal isn't conditional nor should it be decided only in hindsight. Either he is *right now* betraying his party, or he's not.

I don't think any Democrat should be surprised at this...Lieberman has spoken out in opposition of part platforms before. He

Re:betrayal

[pudge]

Pudge, you're making it sound as though he's only betraying his party if the Republican candidate ends up winning. Therefore, whether he's betraying his party or not is entirely dependant on the outcome of the November election. That seems wrong to me...betrayal isn't conditional nor should it be decided only in hindsight. Either he is *right now* betraying his party, or he's not.

The problem is that it seems entirely unlikely that a Republican will get elected here. So yes, Lieberman is not doing something