Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Now Is the Time For All Good Men (and Women)...”

« Is It Just I? | Main | The Grey Lady Vs. the Stately Lady »

August 10, 2006

Now Is the Time For All Good Men (and Women)...

Hatched by Dafydd

...to come to the aid of their Lieberman.

I have a campaign suggestion to make to Alan Schlesinger, the forgotten-man Republican in the Connecticut senatorial race, which is actually between incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT, 80%) and nutroots challenger Ned Lamont. But first, a word about the stakes.

I am not one of those Republicans -- thankfully not many -- who think that it's a good thing that Joe Lieberman was defeated in the primary; I'm too worried that Lamont might actually win. Let's consider what that might mean:

The next time an appropriations bill comes up to fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, suppose that the "Loss at any Cost" Democrats, feeling their oats, decide to filibuster. Would we be able to break that filibuster?

I'm honest-to-goodness not sure we could. But it would certainly be a heck of a lot harder with the exchange of Lieberman -- a certain vote for cloture -- for Lamont, an equally certain vote to kill all funding, no matter what the consequences. For heaven's sake, that was Lamont's only issue.

There may actually be 41 Democrats in the Senate willing to go the Rep. John Murtha (D-PA, 75%)/Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI, 100%) route of yanking out our troops in a desperate attempt to force an American defeat in the Iraq War... just so they would be able to say to the American people, "See? We told you it was unwinnable! We told you it would be a catastrophe! And by golly, we are men of our word!"

It's irrelevant that such a defeat would be devastating in the war against jihadi terrorism, because these Democrats look no further than their deranged hatred of George W. Bush: they would gleefully cut all our throats, so long as that hurt Bush.

Nor is it even relevant that the American people would likely (not certainly) see through the tactic and punish the Democrats terribly in 2008; we're not talking about what would happen but rather what the demented wing of the Democratic Party thinks would happen... and they honestly, for real, fantasize that the majority of America wants us to cut and run, however irrational and contrary to all polling that may be. The will to believe is a powerful, irresistable force.

They think that if they took a "principled" stand and forced -- by any means necessary -- an abrupt and total American pullout from Iraq, allowing Iraq to be carved up between Iran and Syria, Shia and Sunni... that the grateful American people would flood the polls to give Democrats unassailable majorities in both houses, along with the presidency for Feingold. Or maybe even Darth Murtha himself.

Contrariwise, I believe Republicans would pick up seats in 2008, and a Republican would win the presidency. So shouldn't I support anything that might lead to this chain of events?

The answer is, absolutely not: I will not sacrifice my country upon a cross of politics. The next two years are critical in the war; abandoning the field in Iraq now would be devastating for the United States, and indeed all of Western civilization, even if it only lasted until 2009.

Too, it would be incredibly hard to re-insert troops then than it was to invade in the first place in 2003. It's always harder to restart a program that proved harder than we thought it would be; there is a sense of "oh no, not again" that works against reinvolvement, no matter how urgent. Look how hard it has been for Israel to reinvade Lebanon with anything approaching the force they used the first time in 1983; today, the plan is for a total, counting what they're inserting and what is already there, of four to five divisions. But the invasion 23 years ago involved nine divisions.

No matter how obvious it may become that we prematurely withdrew, it will be many time harder to reinsert the troops than it was to do it in the first place, just two years after 9/11 and without foreknowledge of how strong the terrorists had actually grown under a dozen years of neglect.

Finally, assuming the attacks against us had not yet reached our shores again -- it takes a while for even al-Qaeda to plan something huge -- there is no real guarantee that the American people will realize how despicable the nutroots' actions were. I think they would, and I hope this would translate into major electoral movement in 2008... but I cannot be certain. And anything short of 99% certainty is too risky.

No, the best thing for America is that we do not "toss the dice" on such a critical, even existential issue. For God's sake, what happens if we roll snake-eyes? How many dead Americans do we want to see?

So it's absolutely critical that Joe Lieberman wins this contest, not Ned Lamont. And that brings up a very strange situation.

Many in the press are talking about how Lieberman's candidacy creates a "split vote" situation; they're partially right -- but not the way they think. There is the definite chance of a split vote... but it's not Lieberman's candidacy that is causing that; he is the front runner, and by definition cannot be causing a split vote.

I hate to say this, but the man whose candidacy causes a split vote is -- Alan Schlesinger, the Republican. He is splitting the "sane" vote.

Mr. Schlesinger, this race is too important to allow party loyalty -- or personal ego -- to interfere with reason. Mr. Schlesinger, it's time for you to go.

I don't call on Schlesinger to step down because of the ridiculous gambling "scandal;" I really don't care that he used an alias ("Alan Gold") to gamble to avoid being chucked out of the casinos for card counting. As far as I'm concerned, card counting is perfectly legal, perfectly honorable, and the whole affair is a private dispute that has nothing to do with Schlesinger's ability to make a perfectly acceptable senator... even better than Joe Lieberman:

[Schlesinger] supports a campaign program of immigration, tax, social security, Medicare, and spending reform. He is a self-described "moderate-conservative"; among other issue stances, he opposes affirmative action and amnesty for illegal immigrants, and, while he says he is otherwise pro-choice, supports mandatory parental notification before a minor can have an abortion. He says he can reach out to independents, as he did to win in Derby, a city where Republicans are outnumbered 4:1. He is generally considered a longshot to win the Senate seat, however, even in a three-way race with Lieberman on the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate. The two polls on a three-way race places Schlesinger's support at 8% and 15%. (Quinnipiac and Rasmussen, respectively.) However, he polls around 20% one-on-one against Ned Lamont, suggesting some Connecticut Republican voters would support Lieberman in a re-election bid.

Realistically, Schlesinger has zero chance of winning: zero, none at all. There is not the slightest chance that he could win, unless both Lamont and Lieberman are found to be members of Hezbollah just a week before the election. And it should be utterly clear that every vote cast for Schlesinger is a vote that would never be cast for Ned Lamont.

Suppose Schlesinger were to call a press conference, withdraw from the race, and throw the weight of whatever Republican support he has behind Joe Lieberman. What would this do?

First of all, nearly all Republicans who voted would vote for Joe; the only exceptions would be a few dimwits who would write in Schlesinger or some other Republican. Some might not show up, and the downticket races might suffer a bit. But I think it would be seen as such a noble and patriotic gesture that there might actually be an increase in Republican turnout... especially if Schlesinger spent the remaining months actively campaigning for Lieberman.

Second, without any alternative to Nutter Ned, nearly all independents would turn out to vote for "independent Joe."

Third, nearly half of all Democrats who voted in the primary voted for Lieberman. Surely a good chunk of those would do so again -- not all of them, but some of them.

Fourth. and this is the really interesting part, assuming Lieberman is reelected... he would be heavily beholden to the Republican Party; I'm certain this would accelerate and intensify his movement towards the center and away from some of the very liberal positions he has held (he has an 80% rating from the Americans for Democratic Action), at least some of which are probably for party reasons, not personal conviction.

Perhaps we'll get back the old Joe Lieberman, who opposed racial preferences and income redistribution.

Honestly, I don't expect Schlesinger to do it; as a rule, I assume all politicians are rat-bastards who would sell their own mothers into a seraglio, if they thought it would buy them a few votes. But more often than mere chance would dictate, I'm pleasantly surprised when one of 'em actually turns out to care more for his country than his personal ambition... and maybe Alan Schlesinger will turn out to be one of those surprises.

For the love of God and country, Mr. Schlesinger, find it in your heart to cast aside your own candidacy to fight for victory in the war instead. I know you have vowed not to step down; but that was in response to efforts to derail you over that ridiculous non-scandal.

This is something very different. You may believe that you have a chance of winning; but to quote Oliver Cromwell, in his letter almost exactly 356 years ago to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland -- "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." And think of the consequences if you are, and if your candidacy should throw the election to Lamont.

"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party"... and their country. Think, and think again, sir, and choose honor over interest.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, August 10, 2006, at the time of 11:08 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1082

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Now Is the Time For All Good Men (and Women)...:

» Links and Minifeatures 08 10 Thursday from Searchlight Crusade
To frame it in terms of a very old joke: What's green and smells like pork? ********** I just dealt with five pieces of trackback spam from a site that wants to sell spamblockers. Methinks there is something more... [Read More]

Tracked on September 19, 2007 5:38 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: nk

There will also be unbelievable pressure on Sen. Lieberman to drop out from a run as an independent. Whatever the last minute is for printing the ballots, Mr. Schlessinger should wait until then to make sure Sen. Lieberman remains in the race.

The above hissed in response by: nk at August 10, 2006 11:54 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I also fear what will happen if these silly Democrats win. For instance, we have a close call and there are morons on the left out there acting as if Bush made the whole thing up just to detract from their victory. Victory my ass.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at August 10, 2006 2:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: Linh_My

I disagree with you tactically but not strategically on this one.

Schlesinger has the opportunity to run an absolutely hard hitting down and dirty campaign against Lamont while ignoring Sen. Lieberman completely. that will require Lamount to spend all his time and effort defending himself from Schlesinger.

Sen, Lieberman can stay above the fray discussing issues. The day before the election Schlesinger can say that the election is unwinable and ask all his supporters to vote for Sen, Lieberman in order to keep that dangerous Lamount out.

This also allows Schlesinger to paint Lamount as the face of the Democratic Party. As this race is attracting national attention, this could be quite a problem from the Donks.

The above hissed in response by: Linh_My at August 10, 2006 2:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

Nutshelled and linked at Old War Dogs >> Is it time for Alan Schlesinger to do the right thing?

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith at August 10, 2006 3:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Linh_My

Why not have Lieberman go all out against Lamont and at the last minute throw all his support behind Schlesinger?

But I like your idea.

The above hissed in response by: Big D at August 10, 2006 3:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: Linh_My

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Linh_My
Why not have Lieberman go all out against Lamont and at the last minute throw all his support behind Schlesinger?

But I like your idea.

The above hissed in response by: Big D at August 10, 2006 03:57 PM

Because I think that Liberman can win. I don't think that Schlesinger can win.

The above hissed in response by: Linh_My at August 10, 2006 4:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: brotio

I'm a partisan Republican and I'm philosophically conservative/libertarian. I will vote party over person virtually every time. However, we are in a very dangerous war, and my party loyalty is trumped by national security. I would vote for a pro-war Democrat over an anti-war Republican and worry about politics after we win the war. I could reluctantly vote for a pro-war independant over a pro-war Republican if I thought that was the best chance of keeping people in power who are committed to winning the war.
Linh_My's suggestion is intriguing and logical.

The above hissed in response by: brotio at August 10, 2006 10:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: yetanotherjohn

The big downside to your proposal is it could actually help Lamont. Bush is not popular in CT. Part of Lieberman's problem in CT is that he is seen as more of a republican (aka he doesn't hate Bush with every fiber of his being) than a democrat (80% liberal voting record, 90% in line with democratic leadership doesn't qualify as a democrat these days, you have to foam at the mouth when you mention Bush).

For Schlessinger to drop out, Lamont and those bloggers he doesn't know anything about would start painting Lieberman as the republican in the race. In Texas, painting someone as the republican in the race is a good step towards election in any statewide race. In CT, its not such a hot selling point.

If you assume Lieberman keeps 40% of the democratic vote (a number consistant with his primary showing and the exit polling), then he starts with 13.6% of the vote and Lamont has 20.4% of the vote (representing the other 60% of the democratic vote). In the three was polling, Schlessinger averages about half the republican percentage (latest poll has him at a bit over a quarter). So if you add half the republicans to Lieberman's total, the race stands at 24.6% to Lieberman, 20.4% to Lamont. If you assume Lieberman does no worse among the independants than he did in the party primary (48% to Lamont's 52%), then the race would be 45.7% for Lieberman, 43.3% for Lamont and 11% for schelssinger. That is a tight race. GOTV efforts could easily sway it. But likewise, Lieberman being painted as the republican in the race would likely cost him among the democrats and independants.

If you look at the latest Rssmussen poll, it has Lieberman at 47%, Lamont at 41% and Schlessinger at 6% (meaning a further 6% have been living in a cage or haven't decided how to vote yet). This is consistant with the above theory, but shows more republicans recognizing the strategic implications of your post and either fewer democrats sticking with Lieberman or not as high a percentage of independants).

The above hissed in response by: yetanotherjohn at August 11, 2006 7:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: Linh_My

yetanotherjohn at August 11, 2006 07:33 AM

This is why I suggest that Schlessinger stay in, ignore Lieberman and attack Lamont like a mad dog. Let the voters get disgusted with both Schlessinger and Lamont and vote for Lieberman.

The above hissed in response by: Linh_My at August 11, 2006 8:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: Texas Jack

Sorry, Dafydd, but Linh_My has called it better. Sen. Lieberman already has the high ground in that race, so standing as an "issues only" candidate would fit him perfectly. A no-holds-barred mudfight between the other two would only help him. A last day dropout won't even be required, so "Republican Collusion" (I can see that as a headline in the Grey Whore) won't cause problems.
One of the other blogs even tossed out the idea of a McCain/Lieberman ticket for 2008. No, I couldn't support it either, but almost more because of McCain than Lieberman.

The above hissed in response by: Texas Jack at August 11, 2006 9:36 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Yetanotherjohn:

If you assume Lieberman keeps 40% of the democratic vote (a number consistant with his primary showing and the exit polling), then he starts with 13.6% of the vote and Lamont has 20.4% of the vote (representing the other 60% of the democratic vote). In the three way polling, Schlessinger averages about half the republican percentage (latest poll has him at a bit over a quarter). So if you add half the republicans to Lieberman's total, the race stands at 24.6% to Lieberman, 20.4% to Lamont. If you assume Lieberman does no worse among the independants than he did in the party primary (48% to Lamont's 52%), then the race would be 45.7% for Lieberman, 43.3% for Lamont and 11% for schelssinger. That is a tight race. GOTV efforts could easily sway it. But likewise, Lieberman being painted as the republican in the race would likely cost him among the democrats and independants.

It's a good point, but I think ultimately it fails, for several reasons:

First, Joe Lieberman is a known quantity; he is tremendously better known than Ned Lamont, even in Connecticut.

It is very difficult to "define" someone who is so much better known than you; all Joe has to do (and admittedly, he has run a wretched campaign so far) is to get out a commercial that says "My opponent says I'm a closet Republican. But you all know me; you've known me for eighteen years! But let me remind you of a few of my votes..."

Then he rattles off four or five of the votes by which the ADA rates Democrats, asking after each one, "is that how a Republican would vote?"

And at the end, he says, "My opponent is so far left, he thinks Michael Moore is a right-winger. If we can't trust him to tell the difference between me and Ronald Reagan -- or to tell the truth about it -- how can we trust him to represent our state in the United States Senate?"

Second, look at your own numbers: you gave Lieberman 50% of the Republican vote; presumably, the other 50%, or another 9%, would flow to him if Schlesinger dropped out. Let's say just 8%, to take into account the diehard Republicans who won't vote Democratic no matter what.

For that switch to Lieberman to be matched by a corresponding switch in his Democratic support, 59% of the Democrats supporting Lieberman would have to switch.

Even adding in the entire independent vote, 23% of total Democratic and independent voters that you estimate will support Lieberman would have to switch to Lamont, merely because Schlesinger dropped out, saying "a Republican cannot be elected in Connecticut this year, but at least Joe Lieberman is a liberal Democrat who can be trusted with the nation's security."

It's a bit hard for me to swallow that a quarter of Joe Lieberman's supporters would abandon him just because the Republican withdrew and Ned Lamont claimed that Lieberman (whom everybody in Connecticut knows) is really a Republican.

Anybody susceptible to that argument is already voting for Lamont, wouldn't you say?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at August 11, 2006 10:09 AM