NE-Sen: RedState - This Isn't Like Lieberman At All!
by Dave Sund, Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 07:27:31 PM EDT
And so it begins. The opening shots in the right-wing blogosphere's "Lieberman moment." I've spent a lot of time on the similarities between this race and Lieberman/Lamont (as well as some of the differences.) But you have to wonder if the right-wingers see it this way.
Well, maybe not. Venture with me into enemy territory, after the flip...
The first comment in the thread at RedState (emphasis added):
This is not "snark" by CrabCakes
or whatever one calls it these days. But how is this any different from what the Democrats (of whom I am one) tried to do to Lieberman last go round?
Both are pretty much down the line party members except in regard to Iraq. Both represent states which are pretty solid for their party. When Lamont challenged Lieberman, the idea was derided on this site as silly. How is this different?
More importantly, how is this bid going to be any more successful than was Lamont's, especially when most Nebraskans support a timetable for withdrawal (although not as high of a percentage as does the nation at large), the only place where Hagel and any Republican challenger will differ?
Well, for starters, Jon by Erick
Well, for starters, Jon Bruning is a popular statewide candidate who has twice been elected statewide -- the second time uncontested.
Next, Lieberman was quite popular in his state across parties. Hagel is not.
Then, there is the fact that Hagel has talked favorably of impeaching the President of the United States who happens to be the leader of his own party.
Lastly, there is Hagel's craven disregard for the troops in the field just so he can get on TV.
At what point, if not this one, do we find a new candidate?
Point by point: by CrabCakes
1) and 2) have to do with electability. I'm sure that Bruning will run a competive campaign in nominated, but do you really think he would be more of a lock than Lamont would have been if Lieberman hadn't gone indie? The GOP candidate came in a distant third in Connecticut.
3) and 4) have to do with party loyalty, especially the vocal manner in which Hagel displays his disagreement. That was precisely what irked Democrats so badly about Lieberman. He wasn't happy being the pro-Iraq war Democrat; he had to go on TV every weekend to talk about how wrong-headed his party was, not to mention that every pro-Iraq measure got the "bipartisan support" label when it was really the GOP plus Lieberman.
I'm not one to tell Republicans when to run a primary opponent or not. I'd actually love to see Bruning get the nod so that the Democrats could compete in another state. I just don't see any real difference between Bruning's and Lamont's bids, except for the fact that a Bruning primary win could potentially mean a Democratic general election win.
The Democrat here pretty much shoots down the argument that there's any difference. Because, well, on its face, there really isn't. Still, the arguments being refuted were at least grounded (aside from the "anti-troops" B.S.) in reality. That didn't last long.
Differences by Neil Stevens
1. We don't put Sen. Hagel in blackface
- We don't attack Sen. Hagel personally
- We aren't flipping out because he hugged a political opponent
- We aren't doing any of the other nasty things the online left does routinely, either
Yeah, like calling Chuck Hagel a traitor? I'm sure that wouldn't be considered a personal attack. #3 is largely symbolic of Lieberman's figurative embrace of Bush's Iraq policy - precisely the opposite of the right's problem with Hagel. #4 is just a strawman argument.
The only difference is this: this a strategically awful move for the Republicans, one that could potentially take a safely Republican seat and put it in play for the Democrats. Woefully ignorant of the Democratic candidates in this state - and the state Democratic Party's desire to get this seat back at any cost - they assume that this will be an easy "get," that Bruning will smoke Hagel and walk away with a general election win. Hagel wouldn't be the de facto candidate for the Democrats because the law that allowed Lieberman to run as an independent in Connecticut doesn't exist in Nebraska - in fact, it's explicitly forbidden.
Hagel Support? by imdunn
Hagel has a 0% probability of winning an election in Nebraska. In this state, he's almost as popular as Al Jazeera, an organization he will forever be associated with. His presence on a ballot would guarantee victory for his Democratic opponent, in this red state. The worst thing that could happen to Bruning would be for Hagel to lose/drop out of the primary, and end up supporting Bruning. We have long grown tired of Hagel's tirades, and the negative PR he has carefully manufactured for this state.
By all means, let them tear each other apart. We'll be there to pick up the pieces.
Crossposted at Daily Kos