Captains Quarters has an interesting observation in his review of the NYT and WaPo endorsements in the CT-Sen primary race:
[Lamont's] backers have almost an allergic reaction to civility, and that has fueled the Lamont campaign from its inception. The same party that blames George Bush for divisiveness is about to pillory one of its most effective and yet solidly Democratic members for disagreeing with the activist base on one issue. Under those circumstances, it would be hard to imagine that Lamont — no matter how much of a nice man he probably is — could work across the aisle to get decisions made and accomplish good works on behalf of all Americans.
In fact, it sends a message to all Democrats that to differ from the base on any issue puts them at serious risk of attack from their own ideological compatriots. In the last three sessions of Congress, Lieberman has come in close to dead center in his caucus. At least 15 Democratic Senators in each session had more conservative voting records than Lieberman, including Minority Leader Harry Reid in all three. Will the activist Left start unseating those incumbents as well for committing heresy to the Left — and if so, how can Democrats ever expect to gain a governing coalition of moderates when even Joe Lieberman cannot be abided in the caucus?
I think that CQ might be a little harsh with the “allergic reaction” comment, but he has a point. How much of the anti-Lieberman campaign is the result of folks on the far left chafing after almost 6 years of Bush Jr. neoconservatism?
There are many folks (myself among them) who find the far-left as unappealing as we do the far-right, and I’m not sure that attempting to boot members out of the party for not being liberal enough is exactly the best strategy for moving out of near-irrelevance in federal politics. If anything, it just causes folks like me to wish a little harder for a “moderate” or “realist” third party to be formed.
Despite those misgivings, I did vote for Lamont when I cast my absentee ballot this morning. I think the Lamont-Lieberman campaign is fascinating (and entertaining), and I wouldn’t mind seeing it continue for a few more months, even if I have to endure the self-congratulatory natterings of left-wing bloggers if/when Lamont wins the primary.
However, even though I voted for him, I still think Lamont is a nut - as in an individual who is an opportunist taking advantage of a unique political situation, who doesn’t seem prepared for a career in the Senate, and whom I haven’t heard discuss realistic or substantive goals and positions. (In the Lieberman-Lamont debate a month ago, Lamont radiated “nut” while Lieberman radiated half-”politician” half-”whiny used car salesman”, IMO.)