Political Wisdom: Joe Lieberman, an 'Annoyance' to Democrats
WSJ.COM
In Political Perceptions
Here's a summary of the smartest new political analysis on the Web:
by Gerald F. Seib and Sara Murray
Was it just eight years ago that Democrats nominated Sen. Joe Lieberman to be vice president? Seems like longer, given that Lieberman has, in the words of the Los Angeles Times' Richard Simon, "turned into a major annoyance for Democrats in this year's race for the White House." Simon explains: "Not only has Lieberman gone out on the campaign trail for his Senate buddy John McCain, but he also has formed a group to help the presumptive Republican nominee attract independent and Democratic voters."
Lieberman also rushed to McCain's defense after McCain said this week that setting a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq isn't too important. Of course, Democrats note that Lieberman, now technically an independent, still helps his old party because he aligns with them in the Senate on organizational issues and often votes with them. He also "has been a leader on environmental causes close to Democratic hearts, including the recent effort to pass a bill to deal with global warming. The League of Conservation Voters gave Lieberman a score of 93% in 2007 for his votes on positions important to the organization. Among those who scored lower: Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid at 87%."
As for all those predictions that this year's unconventional campaign will produce a markedly different Electoral College map on election night—well, National Journal's John Mercurio has his doubts. "Here's a wild and crazy thought: On Election Night, after months of predictions that a John McCain vs. Barack Obama race could produce a dramatically reconfigured electoral map, will we once again watch a classic red-blue divide take shape, essentially the same map we've seen in the past two presidential elections? If this week's debate over the economy and taxes offers any clues, the answer is yes."
Mercurio argues that, in laying down their economic positions, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain sounded like a pretty conventional Democrat and Republican." The two do hope "to expand their parties' limited bases in an era when polls consistently show high levels of disaffection with both sides," Mercurio writes. "But listen closely to the debate this week over the campaign's No. 1 issue, and you'll hear how comfortably Obama and McCain conform to their parties' tried-and-true orthodoxies, the ones that repeatedly set the stage for a sharply divided — and static — electoral map."
The New York Times' David Brooks takes a look at Obama's education policies to help figure out if he "really could herald a new political era" or if education is just another one of his "list of orthodox liberal programs that no centrist or moderate conservative would have any reason to support." There are two camps in education. The "status quo" side argues that social factors affect education and so it wants to pour money into "health care programs, anti-poverty initiatives and after-school and pre-K programs. When it comes to improving schools, the essential message is that we need to spend more on what we're already doing: smaller class sizes, better instruction, better teacher training."
The "reform" side emphasizes "rigorous accountability and changing the fundamental structure of school systems." This means tough decisions about who should be allowed to teach. Obama has made plenty of speeches in which he sounds like he'd side with reformers, but his policies don't address the critical issues like "What do you do with teachers and administrators who are failing? How rigorously do you enforce accountability? Obama doesn't engage the thorny, substantive matters that separate the two camps…his education remarks give the impression of a candidate who wants to be for big change without actually incurring the political costs inherent in that enterprise."
Meanwhile, The Washington Post's E. J. Dionnelooks at some recent poll results that seem to confirm the electorate is shifting Democratic. "Gallup found that where McCain was winning 85 percent of self-identified Republicans, Obama was winning only 78 percent of Democrats. Yet Obama led McCain 48 percent to 42 percent in the survey," Broder writes. "Gallup noted that even when independents were excluded, Obama still had a five-point lead because Democrats now outnumber Republicans 37 to 28 percent. When independents were asked their partisan leanings, the Democratic advantage reached 13 points." So what does all of this mean? "The paradox is that sharp shifts in partisan identification often presage periods of bipartisanship. If Obama were to win because of the country's Democratic tilt, moderate Republicans in Congress could move toward him to protect themselves against a Democratic tide."
bloglines.com |
