The Intolerant Left Myth: Lieberman, Chafee and Ben Nelson

[rpannier]

If I understand the line of reasoning correctly: There is a Jihad against independent moderate candidates being waged by extreme figures and groups within their party -- a purging if you will. The 'pundits' point to Lieberman (D-CT) and Chafee (R-RI) to make their point. Both are viewed as moderates who are under attack by fringe groups.

Last night Joe Lieberman was 'purged' by the 'bloggers' 'the Daily Kos' 'MoveON.Org' and the like for crimes akin to 'political heresy'. The next victim is possibly Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Chafee is viewed as a moderate Senator who breaks with the Party on some votes.

On the surface, this analogy would seem fairly accurate -- if you only view it on the surface. The fact is the situations do not even come close to mirroring each other.

Lincoln Chafee is a Republican Senator in a Democratic state. His voting record, on most issues, is moderate. Often he votes with his Party on legislation, but at times he breaks with his Party. There has been very little dissatisfaction among many people in RI over the job he has done. Chafee is seldom out in the public eye on major issues, preferring to hold one-on-one private encounters with Senators, rather than stepping in front of the cameras to highlight his positions -- especially when they conflict with his Party.

The 'grass roots' organization against Chafee is being lead by people who think that Chafee doesn't vote conservative enough, that he betrays the Party with his voting record. They want a Senator that mirrors the voting records of Sens Brownback and Santorum as their choice.
In polls, the voters in RI have made it clear that if Chafee is not the Senate candidate of the Republican Party, they will vote for his Democratic opponent, thus giving the seat to the Democrats.

This scenario did not exist in CT. The Democratic voters, and others, were dissatisfied that Lieberman seemed to be moving away from what people in CT wanted. His 'independence' came at the expense of what his constituents wanted. Lieberman has at times openly criticized his Democratic colleagues in the Senate for their open criticisms of President Bush. Lieberman has, on at least one occasion been the opening spokesman for the Republicans on a bill before the Senate.

In addition, whether Lieberman or Lamont won was made irrelevant by the fact that CT voters would have voted for either candidate in large numbers, as long as it was a heads up two-man race. In other words, without Lieberman on the November ballot Lamont is a shoo-in to get elected to the Senate. Lieberman is NOT necessary to the Party holding on to that Senate seat. Chafee is for the Republicans.

A better comparison is Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Chafee of Rhode Island. Nelson is a moderate/conservative Democratic Senator in a Republican state. Nelson votes the will of the majority of Nebraskans and is rather popular with most of the people in that state, whether they're a Republican or Democrat.

If the left was really on a Jihad, he would have been their target, not Joe Lieberman, as Nelson has the most conservative voting record of all Democrats in the Senate.

Why has there been no attempt by Daily Kos, MoveON.Org, Majority.Com, the bloggers, etc to purge the Party of Nelson?

Most likely it is that the 'loonies on the left' as O'Reilly, Gibson, Hannity, etc often refer to them, realize and accept that Senators like Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieux are popular Senators who hold their seats because they are responsive to the voters of the states they represent. That even though the 'Democratic-left" doesn't approve of their voting records on some issues, they are pragmatic enough to realize that a guy like Lamont would never get the nomination in Nebraska, and if he did, he'd never get elected.

The Republicans on the other hand, would sooner give up the seat to the opposition, than have an 'apostate' holding that seat.

Now, who's the intolerant one again?