Lamont v. Lieberman

The big issue today is the Connecticut primary between Ted Lamont and Joe Lieberman.

For those of you not in the know, Joe Lierberman is a Democratic senator for Connecticut whose seat is up for election this November. He's being challenged for the Democratic party nomination by Ted Lamont (the real election comes later, but with liberal-leaning Connecticut, the winner of the Democratic primary is a shoe-in for the Senate seat). The election's happening today and the latest polls show Lamont in the lead.

So why is this a big deal?

Well, consider the fact that an incumbent (i.e. currently serving) senator is strongly favored to win an election (even in cases where the state generally favors the opposite political party, and this is even more extreme when it comes to the primaries - if Lieberman loses this primary, he will only be the fourth senator since *1980* to do so.

Why is he Lieberman trailing now when the odds say he should win? Because he's been the Republican's favorite Democrat. He's been the most prominent supporter of the Iraq war in the Democratic party, and has sided with (or rolled over for) the Republican-controlled administration on a number of key issues. In short, the accusation is that he's the go-to guy that the Republican's turn to, when they want to propose a controversion piece of legislation and appear bi-partisan.Take a look at Lamont's challenge to Lieberman here.

Personally, I'm hoping Lamont will win. I don't really have an issue with anyone crossing party lines - it's just that in this particular case, Lieberman crosses lines on issues that I strongly care about, like the war in Iraq and the warrantless NSA wiretapping. If he does, Lieberman's threatening to run as an independent, which could split the vote for the Democratic party and hand the vote to the Republican candidate (then he'd really be living up to his reputation).

This whole thing brings up two interesting questions?

1) Why is the incumbency reelection rate so high in this country? Shouldn't the incumbent be expected to defend his seat against challengers from both sides every year?

2) Is it wrong to cross party lines? If you're elected as a representative of a certain party, shouldn't you act in the interests of that party?

These are complex questions. I'll try to present my take on both.

Certainly the reelection rate for incumbents is too high in this country. It leads to congressman who are unaccountable to their constituents, increasingly out of touch, and in some cases, batshit insane (see Ted Stevens). The only legitimate reason that I can see to continue to vote for an incumbent even when opposed to their platform is that the people who are in Congress the longest tend to have the most power, and tend to bring home the most pork (again, see Ted Stevens. You can find him in the dictionary under "government corruption").

As for crossing party lines, that's a tough one. Certainly some of the party lines are drawn arbitrarily. How many people do you know who agree with everything that the Republican party stands for or eveything the Democratic party stands for? On the other hand, if you're elected representing one set of ideals, and uphold an entirely different set when in office, you're a hyppocrite. I would say that as long as you clearly state where your affiliations lie when you run, and run with the party that represents them best, then you're doing the right thing.

I think in this case, though, Lieberman is getting what's coming to him.