On a private web board I belong to, one of the members said about the Lieberman / Lamont primary results tonight:
“i’m undecided on whether this is a great example of being a sore loser.
surely three viable choices is better than two? question, not a statement.”
It’s an interesting question. But ultimately, I think the answer is yes, this IS a good example of someone being a sore loser.
If an incumbent officeholder is defeated in his/her primary by a challenger, it sends a strong message that the members of that party do not want said person to hold that office anymore. The question then becomes, does that mean the incumbent should not have any opportunity to represent the entire electorate, based on the decision of the members of one party?
Of course not.
But that’s not what’s happening in Connecticut. Lieberman is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the privileges of being an incumbent Democrat, with the attendant seniority and benefits that confers on him, but he also wants the freedom to blow off the will of the members of the Democratic party when it suits him.
That pisses me off.
The way I see it, if you’re a Democrat, then you should accept the judgment of Democratic voters. If you’re not a Democrat, then say so, and accept the consequences (no financial support from the party, no endorsements from high-profile Democrats, no access to other Democrats’ fund-raising lists, etc). But to reject the will of Democratic voters while simultaneously expecting to be treated like any other Democrat is arrogant, gutless, and just plain wrong.