I do not understand this. But there it all is, shifting past some more major points of the Lamont — Liberman — schlessinger (hee hee) story, I arrive back at this curious “send a message” theme.:

Lieberman also said Thursday that he believes Connecticut residents don’t want to lose him as their senator, but wanted to “send me a message” by voting against him in the primary. He said that voters felt comfortable doing this because they knew he would run as an independent if he lost the primary.

When asked what message he received from voters on Tuesday, Lieberman said he did not clearly articulate his position on Iraq and did not communicate the “special burden and responsibility” he feels having supported the war.

Bill Parcells, I think coaching the New York Jets at the time, was once asked after a game where his team defeated either the New England Patriots or the Miami Dolphins — one of his divisional rivals — if he was “trying to send a message”. Bill Parcells answered, in typical abrasive fashion, “No. We wanted to win the game. If I wanted to send a message, I would have sent out a Hallmark card.”

The message that Joseph Lieberman received, apparently, was that he needed to become more obnoxious, as he prepares his speech for the 2008 Republican Convention. As it were, I do not know what “communicat[ing] the special burden and responsibility” even means.

Party apparatuses are funny things. A party is obligated to support whatever candidate wins the primary, which in a generally two-party system doesn’t bump into any amount of controversy. The exceptions to the rule are — 1986: LaRouchites win the Illinois primary for Lietunent Governor and — another statewide seat I don’t recall. And Louisana and National Republicans had to throw the ki-bosh on David Duke in the early 1990s. Both senible reasons to deviate from this rule. The lower case version of this is, say, Illinois Republican Party in 2004 not including their Senate candidate — Alan Keyes — in their campaign literature, a tacit snub that the candidate on top is poison, but not toxic enough and indeed with a strong enough base to not disavow. I guess we can expect the same treatment with Katherine Harris in Florida this year.

In the case of Connecticut in 2006, we have this bizarre spectacle of the Alan Schlesinger’s lack of support, even nominal, and Tony Snow makes the odd statement that the President fully supports Democracy in the state of Connecticut. Lieberman is held on for dear life as a “sensible Democrat” to pivot against in what is a hostile climate for the Republican Party. Is his name even going to appear on statewide Republican campaign fliers?

(By the way: my chronic mispelling of Schlesinger has my page right near the top for “Alan Schlessinger” on google. Woo-Hoo!)

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 15th, 2006 at 3:28 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.