Reid saw what Lieberman missed

By J. Patrick Coolican

Thursday, Aug. 10, 2006 | 7:33 a.m.

The rules of the political game have changed for Democrats - as evidenced by Tuesday's primary in Connecticut. And Sen. Harry Reid could see it coming 18 months ago.

In Connecticut on Tuesday, party elder Sen. Joseph Lieberman was upset by upstart anti-war millionaire Ned Lamont, with the help of a legion of new activists.

Lieberman was rejected by Connecticut Democrats because he was seen as too cozy with President Bush and the Republican power structure. He seemed oblivious to the partisanship that has gripped Washington since at least 2000, when he was the party's vice presidential nominee.

As Tuesday's vote and public opinion polls show, Democratic voters are weary of seeing their representatives shrink from battles on Capitol Hill in the face of the Republican partisanship and hegemony. Many of those voters now demand confrontation, not compromise.

Reid, a favorite of the party's Internet activists who led the charge for Lamont, figured out the new rules in early 2005 when he became minority leader, say Democratic insiders. (Reid quickly announced Wednesday that he is backing Lamont even as Lieberman follows through as promised with an independent candidacy.)

Simon Rosenberg, who runs the centrist New Democrat Network but advocates a policy of confrontation with Republicans, said Reid decided that compromise and deal-making could no longer work in the partisan atmosphere of Washington: "Harry Reid understands that if we're playing on their playing field, we have to play by their rules."

Writing on the op-ed page of The New York Times on Wednesday, Noam Scheiber of The New Republic described Reid as "one of the most successful politicians of the new era" because he has recognized how politics has changed.

Outside the Senate chamber, Reid has denounced Bush daily and rallied the Democratic base. In an interview Wednesday, for instance, Reid was quick to call Lieberman's defeat a referendum on Bush.

Inside the chamber, he's outmaneuvered his counterpart, Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., so routinely that conservative commentator Robert Novak called him the most effective minority leader since Lyndon Johnson.

Last week, for instance, Reid managed to stop what he called a "flawed" increase in the minimum wage, thereby denying Republicans a political victory, even though Democrats have been calling for the increase for years. Last year Reid stunned Frist and landed a bevy of free press with a parliamentary stunt, bringing the body into closed session to demand Republicans investigate how the administration sold its case for war in Iraq.

This stood in stark contrast to Senate Democrats in 2002, who put up little resistance to the march to war even though they were the majority party. (As it happens, Reid was majority whip and voted for the war resolution.)

So Wednesday, Reid's Internet minions were celebrating their victory in Connecticut, where their influence finally led to a victory. But Lamont's victory offers risks to Reid and his followers.

Some Democrats have worried that Lamont's victory would send a message to the country that the party has no room for supporters of the war. Lamont has called for a timetable for withdrawal of American forces.

National security remains an important issue to voters, and Lieberman, a relentless supporter of the war in Iraq, gave hawkish Democrats a voice and showed them they had a place in the party. Jonathan Chait of The New Republic made this argument this summer.

The electoral logic is like this: There are more conservatives than liberals, so Democrats must appeal to more independents, including pro-war independents.

Tom Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and a writer for The American Prospect magazine, called that argument "Republican spin." He said Democrats opposed to Lieberman could live with his war vote, but they grew to loathe the senator for scolding Democrats: "Nobody is saying you have to be ideologically pure. There are other Democrats who voted with Bush on the war. But they also went into it with open eyes and recognized when it went wrong. But Joe Lieberman has been the chief apologist of the war."

Specifically, Lieberman wrote a now infamous op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal - the redoubt of conservative Republicans - telling Democrats not to question Bush's credibility. The piece appeared precisely at the time polls showed Bush's approval rating dropping because he was losing the public's faith.

Moreover, Schaller said, Democrats can do without the Lieberman hawks because the polls show that most Americans are aligning with the Democrats on the war. A majority favor a timetable for withdrawal.

Reid fits the profile of a Democrat the Internet activists can live with, even though he voted for the Iraq war resolution and he's an abortion opponent. Liberal activists continue to support him because of his confrontational style. (That confrontational style has, in turn, hurt him at home by alienating him from moderates, according to some recent polls.)

The real problem with Lamont's victory is that Lieberman has become the white whale of many Democratic activists. If Lieberman runs as an independent in November, the race will suck up money, volunteers and resources better used in competitive House and Senate races across the country at a time when voters seem poised to give Democrats control of one or both chambers.

"The very fact that Democratic activist types are obsessed with Lieberman," rather than Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, John Ensign of Nevada and other Republican incumbents, "is exactly the type of navel gazing they can't afford," said David Lublin, an American University political scientist.

"If I were a Republican, I'd be salivating because Democrats on both sides are likely to invest a lot of resources on that race that won't go elsewhere," Lublin said.

In Connecticut alone, three Republican incumbent House members face strong challenges in a state that has gone thoroughly blue. Lamont could draw resources away from those races.

In Nevada, $50 checks that might have gone to Democrats Tessa Hafen and Jill Derby, who are challenging for House seats, may now go to Lamont.

Reid said in the Sun interview that he would make no attempt to get Lieberman to withdraw, although no one doubts Lieberman will have to withstand great pressure from many old allies who will want him out.

Schaller agreed that a do-over of Lamont-Lieberman will be expensive for the party. He also pointed out the power of incumbency, which Democrats must overcome around the country.

Of the Connecticut primary, he said: "It shows how powerful incumbency is. Lieberman did almost nothing right, and he still nearly won."