From the WSJ Opinion Archives

by JAMES TARANTO
Monday, August 14, 2006 3:55 P.M. EDT

Faction Over Party
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, wants Sen. Joe Lieberman to give up his independent re-election bid. Reuters reports Dean is casting it as a matter of party loyalty:

"I know how hard this is for Joe, and he is a good person, but the truth is I lost one of these races and I got behind my party's nominee and I think that is what you have to do if you want to help this country," Dean, former governor of Vermont, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"The way to help this country is to limit Republican power."

Our favorite Democratic weathervane, blogger Josh Marshall, also is piling on Lieberman. Although Marshall claims he "didn't have a horse" in the primary, he says, "I think all Democrats, all progressives, liberals, whatever, should support the Democratic candidate. And that's Ned Lamont."

But Marshall goes further, denouncing Lieberman as "the worst sort of Republican," demanding that he "just leave," and, quoting himself in an email to a colleague, as lashing out at Lieberman in terms unfit for a family newspaper's Web site (and evidently for Marshall's blog, too, as he replaces two of the four letters in the word in question with hyphens).

Does party loyalty--that is, concern for the institutional interests of the Democratic Party--really require Lieberman to drop out, or good Democrats to support Lamont? We shall argue that it does not.

We begin by noting that at least six current Democratic members of Congress, apart from Lieberman himself, are still backing him over Lamont (see list below). We haven't heard any demands that they be driven from the party for disloyalty.

It is doubtless true that loyalty to a political party almost always requires support for the party's nominee. But not always. Here are a couple of exceptions:

  • In 1980, Tom Metzger, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, won the Democratic primary for a California House seat. Prominent Democrats including Sen. Alan Cranston and Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy endorsed the GOP incumbent, Clair Burgener.

  • In 2002, Sen. Bob Torricelli of New Jersey sought a second term and was duly renominated in a primary. But when he fell behind in the polls owing to ethical problems (in New Jersey? How shocking!), party elders muscled him out and replaced him with Frank Lautenberg, who won in November.

To be sure, Lamont is neither unacceptable like Metzger nor unelectable like Torricelli. A Democrat can support Lamont in good conscience and with the best interests of his party at heart. But must he?

No. A Democrat can support Lieberman while remaining loyal to his party. Lieberman has promised that if re-elected he will caucus with the Democrats, and the Republicans have not fielded a serious candidate in the race. Thus a Democrat will hold the seat no matter who wins.

In fact, the Lieberman-Lamont general-election rematch is an unusual opportunity for the Democrats. Some observers, including this columnist, have argued that Lamont's victory is dangerous to the Democrats, in that it tempts them to move too far to the left on national security to win future elections, especially the presidency in 2008. Not everyone agrees, but the Connecticut election allows the Dems to put the proposition to a test without risking the loss of a seat.

So why do Democrats like Dean and Marshall fail to appreciate this? Probably because they have conflicting interests. They are loyal to the party, but they also are loyal to a faction within the party, namely the antiwar Angry Left.

Lamont's victory renders those loyalties compatible, but it does not make them indistinguishable. The attempt to drive Lieberman out of the race, indeed out of the Democratic Party, serves the interests of the Angry Left by strengthening its hand within the party. But the party as a whole benefits from subjecting Lamont to the rigors of a general election. At a time when Americans should be putting country over party, Howard Dean is putting faction over party.

Honor Roll
Here's the latest list of Democrats who are endorsing Joe Lieberman's independent re-election bid:

Senators:
   • Tom Carper (Del.)
   • Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
   • Ben Nelson (Neb.)
   • Mark Pryor (Ark.)
   • Ken Salazar (Colo.)

Representative:
   • Brad Sherman (Calif.)

Note: Names with links are new additions to the list.

Two Papers in One!

  • "The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates."--editorial, New York Times, Aug. 9

  • "Only a handful of those Lieberman supporters interviewed said they would switch to Mr. Lamont, signaling the difficulties he may have attracting Connecticut's moderate voters in a general election."--news story, New York Times, Aug. 12

This Just In--I
"Blogs Offer Arena for Political Attacks"--headline, FoxNews.com, Aug. 11

This Just In--II
"Conservatives Can't Stand Hillary"--headline, Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Aug. 13

'Debating With Himself'
The Bucks County (Pa.) Courier Times reports a GOP House member is coming in for criticism from a prominent Democrat:

In a conference call Friday morning, U.S. Sen. John Kerry[*] called Bucks County Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick's recent stand against President Bush's "stay-the-course" policy in Iraq a "short-term political ploy."

The 2004 Democratic presidential candidate said Fitzpatrick's opposition to the president offered "no plan, no direction; it only offers criticism." . . .

"Who's kidding who?" Kerry asked. "Mike Fitzpatrick needs to understand that he's debating with himself."

Normally we'd be inclined to dismiss this as partisan posturing, but in terms of the criticisms Kerry is offering, there is no denying his expertise.

Meanwhile, Agence France-Presse reports on America's latest existential threat:

US President George W. Bush quoted French existential writer Albert Camus to European leaders a year and a half ago, and now he's read one of his most famous works: "The Stranger."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Friday that Bush, here on his Texas ranch enjoying a 10-day vacation from Washington, had made quick work of the Algerian-born writer's 1946 novel--in English.

Kerry would have read it in the original French!

* "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Aren't We Supposed to Call Them 'Mental Health Facilities'?
"Sheehan Treated at Waco Hospital"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 12

What Does a Proof Prove?
Fidel Castro, who either died at 79 or turned 80 yesterday, is no longer still dead. Or so the communists would like you to believe. Over the weekend the Cuban regime released several photos of the dictator, including one depicting him holding the front page of a special section of the communist "newspaper" Granma (that's Spanish for "Pravda").

It's reminiscent of photos kidnappers release to prove their hostages are still alive, by showing the hostages holding up a copy of today's paper, except that in this case it's a whole country that's been held hostage for more than 47 years. Also, as blogger Sean Gleeson notes, Granma is published by Castro's regime; the special section could have been prepared long in advance; and the paper Castro is holding looks to be a page proof, given the color, the margins, the crease and the staple in the upper left corner.

It's as if the New York Times had released a photo of Pinch Sulzberger holding a proof of the front page of the Times book review section and claimed this proves he was still alive on Sunday.

Still, despite the amateurishness of this effort, we cannot rule out the possibility that Castro actually is still alive.

BBC, Phone Home
Last Monday the BBC published a puff piece on Cuba's dictator titled "Fidel: The World Icon." Here's how it starts:

Cuba's President Fidel Castro--the world's longest-serving leader--turns 80 on 13 August. This week, we will be assessing his political life and his impact on the Caribbean island.

The world's longest-serving leader? Castro seized power in January 1959, which certainly puts him at the top of the list. But we can think of one head of state who's been in office since 1952, and it's one the BBC should have heard of: Queen Elizabeth II.

No, Not the Kossacks
Here's a headline we never thought we'd see: "Cossacks Express Support for Israel at Meeting." It's a news release from the Federation of Jewish Communities of the CIS (that would be the Commonwealth of Independent States, an alliance of 11 former Soviet "republics"). The story, from Kiev:

Chief Rabbi of Ukraine Azriel Chaikin and the Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Naomi Ben-Ami met with the leader of the Ukrainian Cossacks Anatoliy Schevchenko and the General Judge of Cossacks Igor Kozlovsky. At this meeting, the Cossack leaders assured the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine and the Israeli Ambassador of their support of Israel as it combats terrorism. As a dean of a local higher-education institution, Mr. Schevchenko said his teaching staff was doing everything possible to explain to their students the importance of supporting Israel as well as the need to fight against anti-Semitism and national and religious intolerance.

The Cossacks also announced that they were going to visit Israel on a solidarity mission at the invitation of Chief Rabbi of Ukraine Azriel Chaikin.

As the Jewish Virtual Library notes, the Cossacks have not always been good for the Jews:

As Jews prospered, anti-Semitism flourished. The country's lower classes, including the Ukrainian Cossacks, saw Jews as working for the nation's wealthy landowners and accused Jews of robbing the wealth of poor people to better enrich them. By the end of 16th century, Poland sought more control over the Ukrainians Cossacks, who rose up against their Polish landowners and the Jews. Life for the Jews then took a turn for the worst.

The Cossacks, meanwhile, wanted to free the Ukraine from Polish domination--and sought to rule the Ukraine. In 1648, the Cossacks, led by Bohdan Chmielicki, began a series of campaigns by instigating the uprising of the Cossacks against the Jews. Chmielicki told people that the Poles had sold them as slaves "into the hands of the accursed Jews." Angered by this notion, the Cossacks massacred tens of thousands of Jews during 1648-1649, in a war that would later be considered among the worst of that time period.

Many Polish Jews fled the country, but most were brutally murdered. The massacre was devastating--both in numbers and effect. According to Jewish chronicles, the death toll reached approximately 100,000, and nearly 300 Jewish communities were destroyed. Cossack cruelty was so great that many Jews preferred to flee to captivity under Crimean Tartars, to be sold as slaves.

If the Cossacks can come around, perhaps in time so can the Arabs.

Surgeon Ahead
The Orlando Sentinel brings some heartening news from the world of horse racing:

Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro is doing well after the cast on his right hind limb was changed Tuesday under general anesthesia. "The leg looked good under the cast, especially considering the length of time that he has been in a cast," Dr. Dean Richardson, Chief of Surgery, said. "The radiographs also were encouraging. There is no sign of active infection. This is further supported by his markedly improving blood values over the last two weeks. He had an excellent pool recovery; he is a very intelligent horse and has definitely figured out the whole process."

Forgive us for being a bit skeptical that a horse, even a "very intelligent horse," has "figured out the whole process." Though we suppose orthopedic surgery isn't exactly rocket science.

Say What?
"Mo. Army Base Leader in Gays Discharged"--headline, Townhall.com, Aug. 14

We Hope He Wasn't Hurt
"Europe High-Speed Train Sees Passenger Jump"--headline, MSNBC.com, Aug. 14

A Bold Editorial Stand
"Our Opinion: Vote Now--or Later"--headline, editorial, Tucson (Ariz.) Citizen, Aug. 10

Help Wanted
"Hancock Co. Seeking Child Molester"--headline, Indianapolis Star, Aug. 14

Bottom Stories of the Day

  • "No Poison Found in Letter Sent to Haniya"--headline, Gulf News (Dubai, United Arab Emirates), Aug. 9

  • "Children's Mercury Levels Are Not Acute"--headline, Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 12

  • "No Salmonella in Wild Turkey Droppings"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 8

  • "Zetterberg Does Not Need Wrist Surgery"--headline, Detroit Free Press, Aug. 12

  • "Paris Hilton Bitten by Pet Kinkajou"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 12

The I's Have It
Today is the 61st anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II. Only one state still holds official celebrations of the anniversary, and the Associated Press notes that some wish it didn't:

On Monday, Rhode Island will once again observe the end of World War II, the only state still celebrating Victory Day, commonly referred to as Victory over Japan Day, or V-J Day.

Critics say it's discriminatory, and would like to eliminate the holiday or at least remove its reference to Japan.

They point out that Rhode Islanders do not celebrate the U.S. victory over Germany, which was defeated three months earlier.

"This is a stigma against the Japanese whom we do business with and are allies," said George Lima, a former state representative who worked on a failed attempt to eliminate the holiday in the 1980s.

It's a bit reminiscent of the current debate over what to call the enemy America is fighting now. Last week, after the British terror plot bust, President Bush used the term "Islamic fascists," which the Council on American-Islamic Relations finds irksome. What term does CAIR prefer? Here's its statement about the plot:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today issued the following statement at a news conference in Washington, D.C., in response to the arrests of 21 individuals for allegedly plotting to use liquid explosives on passenger flights traveling from the United Kingdom to the United States.

The war on individuals! Why didn't we think of that? And since Japan consists of individuals too, that solves the problem of what to call our victory in World War II: Henceforth, it is "V-I Day." What's more, if you're one of those prejudiced types who insist on thinking of the individuals we fought as having been "Japanese," you can always pretend that "I" stands for "Imperial Japan."

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Ethel Fenig, Matthew Beck, Rob Neal, Rob James, Jake Honigman, Jack Archer, Matt Cook, William Walker, Michael Segal, Robert Ewoldt, Joshua Scheiderer, Fausta Wertz, Dennis Powell, Michael Nunnelley, Paul Dyck, Mike Cherepov, Kevin Walker, Rene Lajous, Thomas Brueckner, David Hopson, Mary Ann Lomascolo, Matthew du Mee, James Carr, Paul Boyer, John Nernoff, Paul Sand, Bill Briggs, Julie Beck, Gregg Sanderson, Kirk Hays, Paul Gross, Chris Fehr, Samuel Walker, Andrew Robinson, Bill Pearce and Marshall Sana. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

Click to email this article EMAIL THIS Click to format this article for printing FORMAT FOR PRINTING
ARCHIVE