Schumer, Lieberman vs. the voters

June 15, 2006 in Democrats

How to approach the topic of DC insider, Chuck Schumer and his Republican friend, Joe Lieberman? How can I express my antipathy towards the DSCC chair for vowing to support Lieberman’s run as an independent should he lose the primary to upstart Ned Lamont?

Easy. I’ll let someone else do it. Digby.

First, the background. In recent poll, Lamont placed four points behind Lieberman. That’s an astounding result for an out-of-nowhere candidate against a well-funded high-profile incumbent. In recent interviews, Lieberman said he’d run as an independent if he didn’t win his party’s nomination, threatening to split the vote and hand Connecticut to the GOP. (Although an argument could be made that his seat already belongs to the GOP.) DSCC chair Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recently said (in the same breath that he congratulated himself for Tester’s win) that he and the DSCC would back Lieberman as an independent.

Digby on Lieberman:

You don't have to look any further than Joe Lieberman to understand why the entire world thinks Democrats are a bunch of chickensh[*]t losers. We're tired of being associated with someone who can't even stand a fair fight in the Connecticut Democratic party without whining like sniveling school kid and threatening to take his ball and go home. Why should anyone trust such a gutless tool with the reins of government?

Digby quoting Josh Marshall on Lieberman:

I think the most generous read on Lieberman is that he's just out of step with the parliamentary turn of recent American politics….But I think that's too generous. The whining in Washington that it's somehow an affront that Lieberman's hold on his senate is being threatened is entirely misplaced, a good example of what's wrong with DC's permanent class.

Digby on Schumer’s decision to back Lieberman, no matter what:

You don't get to leave the party to avoid losing in a Democratic primary and then expect Democratic party financial support to run against the Democratic candidate. That's just nuts. And it's so disrespectful to the Democratic voters of Connecticut I can't honestly believe he has thought this through.If they do this, it will cause a full on backlash against the Democratic Party by the rank and file and the party elders like Schumer have no one to blame but themselves. Frankly, this arrogant dictatorial attitude would be a little bit easier to take if the party hadn't given away the f[*]cking store for the last quarter century and gotten exactly nothing in return. The last time I checked these people haven't won anything in a long, long time. Why we are supposed to keep putting our faith in their greater capacity to win is beyond me. Certainly, the unmitigated gall of these g[*]dd[*]mned losers lording over the voters like this is going to kill this party. A little humility is called for here.

Lamont is, of course, the prime beneficiary of netroots activism, if anybody is. He was basically created, touted, and elevated through the power of the blogosphere. Yes, he’s run a decent campaign. Yes, he’s an excellent candidate. But the bottom line is that he’s a populist running against a terrible lawmaker and is now within striking distance.

Schumer is an establishment DC insider, chair of a powerful re-election group.

Is it “narcissistic” to believe in light of this story that there’s a battle between the Democratic insiders and the netroots, grassroots base of the party? Between fat cats and the people?

Trust me, the fat cats wanted John Morrison to win the Democratic primary, which should be all the more reason why we should support Tester.