(This is a substantial rewrite of a
diary entry based on some great comments from
kenlac,
droogie6655321,
clyde,
Delaware Dem,
NoMoJoe,
relentless which boil down to
Failure to Communicate.)
Introducing the
Cui Bono theory of politics. "Cui Bono" means who benefits and is a method of criminal investigation using motive to look for crime suspects.
Two months ago, in a draft for a diary entry, I wrote the following:
The Joe Lieberman Weakly asks
Does
Ned Lamont's victory mean McGovernism has returned? I dunno ? Does
Joe Lieberman's Defeat Mean the
Return of the
Dixicrats
Or Did
They
Never
Leave
?
It was to be a post about the racism of the Republican Party as evidenced in comments about the Lieberman/Lamont Primary talking about African Americans as servants. Now the morning after what Chris Bowers rightfully calls an
historic
victory, I find the Enigma of Lieberman to be worth discussing. There are a lot of questions about an incumbent Democratic Senator who got most of his money, staff, and votes from Republicans.
More after the break
There
are a number of open questions:
Last night, leaving the Boulder County Democratic Party Election Night Party, I repeated to a friend (AKA shameless plug The Tennesse Guy), the Connecticut Master Bait and Switch Theory (AKA Conn Masterbaiter) which comes
via
Brad
Delong, and is summarized
"Rumsfeld out, Lieberman in, Rell appoints GOP Senator and Senate Switches: Game Rove". Also
noted
by the
15-year-old
The Conn Masterbaiter Theory has the virtue of explaining three enigmae:
- WTF Do Liebermens' Really Want
- WTF did the Dems
soft support Lamont
- WTF's Karl up to ?
Then Bush fracked up the admittedly conspiracy theory by firing Rumsfeld. So now a better explanation. This is based on the theory of the rational agent, that is that there is some reason for people doing things besides being evil or wimps. (Venal still applicable.)
What Do Liebermens' Really Want
Well to be Senator, duh. He is also an oxymoron, i.e. a rational agent and a neocon. <snark> and If there is one thing we know about Neocon's, they were
against
the war on Iraq from the beginning
.</snark>
Actually we know that Neocons don't like to get their hands dirty except in slinging mud.
(Try The Google for chickenhawk neocons if you want to read 147,000 links.)
So as Steve says why would he take a bad temp job when he can stay and Senator and hold the balance of power. Somewhere, and I've lost it on the Internets is someone I respect saying that Lieberman will continue to suck up to Bush, enjoy the date rape of bipartisanship, screw us on critical votes, and bad mouth us on talk shows.
Why did the Dems soft support Lamont
Reid, Both Clintons, Pelosi have access to the best polls (and pols) money can buy and they could count. They knew the Senate was a long shot. They knew Lamont was a long shot. (Oh if only he had real ballsy Dem support he woulda won. Or not). If they support Lamont officially and give him some money, and if Lamont had won, they would have won and if (as happened in Reality) then they would be back to Joe being Joe (see above).
What's Karl up to ?
- Lamont Wins Primary
- Rove has access to best pols etc. Looking at the situation through Rove colored glasses, he sees that best outcome is Lieberman wins cause Republican Candidate What's His Name hasn't a chance.
- All it takes is some money, some fluffing, making a few phone calls, loaning some Republican staff operatives and voila, you have an even more compliant Joe. You can rely on Joe being Joe (see above).
The Moral
You don't have to assume people are evil or wimps to understand their actions.
AKA The
cui bono theory of politics.