Targeting Murtha

Joe Lieberman has infuriated liberal bloggers again, as this Kos post makes clear:

"This would make me upset if it surprised me any. But I expected it.

" Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats.

"Here's the bottom line for Joe -- if he leaves the Democratic Party, he'll give the GOP a short-lived 50-50 majority. But in 2008, the Senate map is ALL Democratic pickups. And Lieberman can then enjoy life in a big GOP minority.

"So I fully expect him to jump to the dark side. It's what his voters want, it's what his financiers want, it's what his strategists want. You get elected with Republican voters, money and advice, you sort of end up indebted to the other side.

"Or, he thinks he's being funny and clever by taunting the Democratic caucus."

If Lieberman did make the leap, which I very much doubt, he'd be breaking his word to his constituents.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry tries to explode what he calls post-election myths:

"-- Republican losses were in keeping with typical setbacks for a party holding the White House in the sixth year of a presidency. Conservatives reassure themselves that the 'six-year itch' has cost the party in power roughly 30 seats on average since World War II, so this year's losses aren't remarkable. But as liberal blogger Kevin Drum points out, most of the big 'itches' came prior to the past 20 years when gerrymandering got more sophisticated. Reagan lost only five seats in his sixth year, and Clinton only five (although he had already suffered a wipeout in 1994). For Democrats to win 29 seats despite all the advantages of incumbency enjoyed by the GOP is a big deal.

"-- The conservative base, discouraged by the GOP's doctrinal impurity, didn't show up at the polls. This is the bedtime story conservatives are telling themselves to show that whatever ails the party will be cured simply by becoming more conservative. In 2004, however, conservatives were 34 percent of the electorate and liberals 21 percent. In 2006, the numbers were almost indistinguishable -- conservatives were 32 percent of the electorate and liberals 20 percent. The GOP didn't lose the election with its base, but with independents, who broke against them 57 percent to 39 percent.

"-- Republicans lost because they weren't fiscally conservative enough. Another conservative illusion. A thought experiment: Which cuts in government would have, in and of themselves, increased the party's popularity? Expanding the widely unpopular gap in coverage in the Medicare prescription-drug bill -- the so-called doughnut hole -- to produce entitlement savings? Cutting student loans? Even 'earmarked' spending for special projects back home tends -- sadly -- to be popular with local constituencies...

"-- The GOP was too socially conservative for voters. This chestnut is trotted out every time Republicans lose an election. This time it is even less plausible than usual. Seven out of eight constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed this year, often outperforming Republican candidates. That Democrats went out of their way not to antagonize social-conservative voters this year was one of the keys to their success."