The Washington Post editorial page has endorsed Joe Lieberman’s independent candidacy, saying that his brand of compromise is what today’s politics needs. It’s a similar call we hear from GOP mouthpieces.

Because Mr. Bush has governed too often in a partisan way, many Democratic voters concluded that anyone who reached across the aisle in an effort to cooperate must be a sap. In such an environment, party orthodoxy comes to matter more than accomplishment; any assumption of good faith on the other side becomes a sign of weakness.

… Compromise is not the equivalent of weakness, and Mr. Lieberman is no sap. He is a person of strong views who believes in listening to those who disagree with him and, if possible, finding common ground. The alternative is gridlock. Mr. Lieberman’s brand of centrism and bipartisanship is a needed salve for a divided country, which could use more such lawmakers, not fewer.

Too often? How about “always”? Finding common ground? With this administration and this Congress?

In fact, any Democrat willing to find middle ground with the Bushies usually winds up in no man’s land. This Congress doesn’t even allow Democrats on conference committees, and they have for 12 years exercised the most partisan and often underhanded tactics to achieve a radical agenda.

But the entire reasoning is a canard, and I suspect The Post editors know it, though they may be in denial. Lamont’s victory wasn’t because Lieberman attempted to compromise with Republicans but because he held some fundamental views that are anathema to mainstream Democrats and perhaps Americans in general, such as his support for the Iraq War and warrantless wiretapping and the GOP’s cynical ploy in the Terri Schiavo case.

He lost not because he was willing to compromise but that he was unwilling to fight for the principles of the party that nominated him as vice president.

There is no indication that given, for example, a comprehensive plan to provide universal healthcare in this country that Ned Lamont would be unwilling to compromise on the details. He may also be willing to compromise on the timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, but agreeing to stay the disastrous course isn’t compromise, it’s capitulation.

If anything, Lamont’s victory is a call to Republicans to recognize that Bush won a narrow victory and that they need to begin compromising.

And by his attempt to run as an independent, Lieberman is proving that he is without principle and stands only for his own interests. And now it appear, he will get Republican support for his campaign.

Rep. Chris Shays, the Connecticut Republican whose seat is a target for the Democrats this year, told [David Broder] the morning after the primary that he is supporting Lieberman and thinks he can win a three-way race against Lamont and the weak Republican challenger, Alan Schlesinger. Other prominent Republicans are also poised to back Lieberman and raise money for him.

Last night’ cable show talking heads seemed to think Lieberman’s toughest challenge now will be raising money, as Democrats quietly tell their contributors to support Lamont.

But Lieberman has $2 million leftover and may have reliable sources.

Pro-Israel money will help give Joe Lieberman the ability to run a serious race if he sticks with his vow to make an independent bid to keep his Senate seat, according to political insiders and some pro-Israel donors themselves.

This support, they said, will counterbalance the evaporation of political backing Lieberman will now likely experience from his Democratic Party colleagues with the victory Tuesday of his primary opponent in Connecticut, Ned Lamont.

“I think the pro-Israel political action committees, and even more so, pro-Israel individuals will give their money to Lieberman,” said Steven Rabinowitz, a Democratic campaign consultant specializing in the Jewish community who is backing Lieberman’s independent bid. “They’ll raise a lot of money, which will enable him to run an independent campaign. If he gets out, it won’t be because he can’t raise the money.”

Jack Bendheim, a pro-Israel activist who supported Lieberman financially in the primary agreed, saying, “I think he’ll have the resources he needs.”

No question that Lieberman is a staunch Israel supporter, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Jewish donors will forsake the Democratic nominee.

During the primary campaign, Lamont attacked Lieberman relentlessly for his unstinting support of the war in Iraq. But Lamont also voiced his support for Israel, and for its controversial military campaign in Lebanon against Hezbollah in particular.

Still, some noted with concern Lamont’s decision to give his late-night victory speech Tuesday flanked by the Rev. Al Sharpton, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Jesse Jackson, who are viewed in some sectors of the community as unfriendly to Israel.

“I think that was a poignant picture that tingled down everyone’s spine,” said David Baram, president of the Jewish Federation Association of Connecticut. “Seeing that array of supporters, for some of us who know how these individuals see Israel, it’s of grave concern to us.”

Baram, a former mayor of Bloomfield, Conn., and chairman of the town’s Democratic Party committee, also voiced concern about Lamont’s call in his victory speech for greater “respect” for the views of U.S. allies in shaping American foreign policy “as opposed to exercising American leadership.” Given the international community’s “belligerence” towards Israel, this was worrying, he said.

Rabinowitz termed Lamont’s victory pose with Sharpton, Jackson and Waters “unfortunate” but said, “They’re hardly the defining backers in his race.”

Mark Silk, executive director of the Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., said the effect on Connecticut Jewish voters would be minimal. “I can imagine some Jewish voters twitched a bit to see the Lamont campaign with Jesse and Sharpton. But Connecticut voters are pretty sophisticated. They understand an endorsement doesn’t matter that much,” said Silk.

Even Baram admitted a significant portion of the Jewish community — particularly younger voters — appeared to have opted for Lamont, in no small part on the strength of his stand against the Bush administration on the war in Iraq.

The next poll on the three-way race and the Clintons’ next move thereafter may be key.

Lamont was impressive last night on “Hardball.” He comes across as articulate, principled and dedicated to change, much like many Republicans who came into office in 1994. And I suspect, he’ll compromise with them as well as they compromise with him. Which is how it should be.

With a five percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors and an 11% increase in premiums, what is the future of healthcare for the aged in this country?

Another frustrated Bush administration Secretary of State?

As Ms. Rice has struggled with the Middle East crisis over the last four weeks, she has found herself trying to be not only a peacemaker abroad but also a mediator among contending parties at home.

Washington’s resistance to an immediate cease-fire and its staunch support of Israel have made it more difficult for Ms. Rice to work with other nations, including some American allies, as they search for a formula that will end the violence and produce a durable cease-fire.

Ever get frustrated when you can’t get a human when calling a company for customer service?

Here’s how!

“All Things Considered” just had E.J. Dionne and David Brooks, their regular commentators, discussing the Connecticut primary. Dionne says Lieberman’s Sunday speech about his position on the Iraq War, given a month earlier, might have won him the election. I agree.

He also said the GOP charge that the election proves there’s no room for moderates in the Democratic Party is absurd, unless you also agree that the defeat of the GOP incumbent Congressman Joe Schwarz in Michigan means there’s no room for moderates in the Republican Party.

Finally, he points out that calling someone a “moderate” who supports the radical notion of a pre-emptive war in Iraq is also ironic, and I would say, at best.

(The conversation will be available on NPR’s web site around 7:30 p.m.)

Last month I wrote about a Democratic, white, congressional candidate who was being criticized because he was competing in an historically black Brooklyn district. (The 11th district primary in New York is Sept. 12.) I raised the point about whether blacks office holders in Virginia’s General Assembly might agree to some redistricting that would make their seats less safe (but by no means make them underdogs) in exchange for making other seats that are now reliably Republican more competitive for Democrats.

In the current issue of Democratic Strategist, that topic is covered, with similar questions being asked.

Regardless of their race or the racial composition of their districts, far too many Democrats in the U.S. House are representing too-safe districts, a reality which prevents the party from maximizing its House seat share. The “unholy alliance” forged between Republicans and minority Democrats led to the election of more CBC and CHC members to Congress, but also more Republicans. As well, many white Democrats enjoy unusual electoral security. A new alliance between white and minority Democrats must be forged, with the goal of redrawing the 2012 maps to enable Democrats to recapture-or, if already recaptured, retain-a House majority.

…[I]n Georgia, for example, where the congressional delegation in 1990 had eight white Democrats, one black Democrat, and one Newt Gingrich, after redistricting, there were three black Democrats and eight Newt Gingrich clones. Since the white Dems had to pay close attention to their black constituents prior to redistricting, while the Gingrichites did not afterwards, are African-Americans better represented under this arrangement? Maybe, maybe not — it depends how important you think it is to have a person of the same race representing you in Washington, as opposed to someone who needs to pay attention to you.

…Rep. John Lewis, who holds that one Atlanta seat that has been African-American since Andrew Young won it in 1972, has been a leader in making the point that if Congress is led by a majority that is hostile to African-Americans, it really doesn’t matter if they have a handful more members of the minority caucus.

This is a discussion that needs to happen in Virginia. I don’t know that there are black districts that can be safely gerrymandered to protect both the incumbent and add a competitive district for another Democrat. But it’s worth a look. With the inordinate power the House Black Caucus seems to hold over the leadership, it will be a challenge to even bring up the question.

After a trip to the woodshed, I’ve learned that black members of the Virginia General Assembly have opposed “packed” minority districts as a dilution of minority voting rights. From a brief supporting a challenge to the state’s 2001 redistricting plan, the implication drawn (see comments) is that they (today, all are Democrats) would welcome redistricting that would dilute the number of black voters in their districts. If that implication is correct, it bodes well for the next redistricting, assuming Democrats have greater input into the process than they had in the last one and that redrawn districts would increase the chances of more Democrats being elected.

The lede says it all.

Moderate reformers across the Arab world say American support for Israel’s battle with Hezbollah has put them on the defensive, tarring them by association and boosting Islamist parties.

This is a must read with all the reasons Bush’s foreign policy is dead wrong.

So you think these 75,000 Palestinians don’t have a long-term view of the problem?

Israel’s military struck Lebanon’s largest Palestinian refugee camp Wednesday, killing at least two people and wounding five. Lebanese and Palestinian officials said an Israeli gunship shelled the Ein el-Hilweh camp, but Israel’s military said the attack was an airstrike that targeted a house used by Hezbollah guerrillas.

The camp is home to about 75,000 Palestinian refugees and their descendants who were displaced by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. (emphasis added)

Last week’s Mason-Dixon poll, which found weak support for higher transportation taxes, is a solid message from taxpayers and drivers, according to Del. Clay Athey, R-Front Royal.

“The people of Virginia believe that we have enough money to have a fine transportation system,” said Athey, one of the leaders of the House’s transportation efforts. “The message we’re getting [from voters] is ‘fix it with some innovative ideas.'”

GOP lawmakers held a retreat recently to talk strategy, and the end result is some decidedly new options when it comes to the state’s road problems.

Republicans are going to be “coming out with some innovative and creative ways to address the problem that doesn’t involve raising taxes,” said Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock.

It remains to be seen whether their ideas will be “innovative and creative.” But who wants to wager whether the Democrats have held a retreat to discuss transportation options in light of the effective road blocking by House Republicans and the recent Mason-Dixon poll.

I don’t make much of the anti-tax results of the poll. I think the anti-tax bias is more from the Democrats’ inability to outline the benefits of higher taxes. You can’t just say, “More money equals a faster commute.” People are more willing to volunteer, follow your lead or spend money — doesn’t matter what — when they have some specifics. You need to outline the specific projects and expected benefits.

But that would mean Democrats would need to sit around and strategize a bit. Or hold a retreat.

Don’t hold your breath.

There will be a battle on the news and talk programs over the next couple of days to spin the Lamont victory. Democrats already seem to fear saying what this is all about.

“This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the leader of the Democratic House Congressional campaign. “This is not about the war. It’s blind loyalty to Bush.”

The article from which the Emanuel quote comes is quite good. Kudos for New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney for limiting quotes in the article and not letting it degenerate into dueling talking points.

But to Emanuel’s statement, Lamont’s victory isn’t about one thing and solely a protest among voters who “hate” Bush. It was also about the war and a lot of what Bush stands for and what the Democrats don’t. They slowly are outlining alternative visions, but now stronger stands against Bush will be criticized not only by the GOP but by pundits in the media who will no doubt suggest that Democrats waited until they saw which way the wind was blowing in Connecticut before forcefully taking on Bush and his misguided foreign policy.

That’s unfair to many Democrats who have spoken out recently. But the reality is in the world of public opinion you still have to deal with the perception of mainstream media and anticipate how positions will be analyzed.

The greatest tragedy would be if Democrats start interpreting Lamont’s victory as a signal that they need to simple call for an immediate pullout in Iraq. That will be perceived as a McGovern moment that will harm the party in the long run. Rather, I hope the response goes something like this.

What Lamont’s victory tells us is that the country is ready for a more strategic and effective foreign policy that considers the long-range welfare of our country and the world. The U.S. can no longer base its decisions on Western movie mentality. We must export our ideas and values in a way that turns enemies into friends. George Bush and the Republicans’ approach has created more terrorists and made the world less safe. Democrats want to ensure that our children live in a safer world. We need to engage those who have opposed our policies and challenge our friends to work for peace and prosperity worldwide.

Lamont’s victory tells us that Americans want change. They want a government with a strong military defense that works in tandem with a strong diplomatic effort to win the war of ideas. We must create a strong defense that protects Americans from terrorist threats while we address the roots causes of terrorism. To do that we must be tough with our enemies and tough with our friends.

No one wants to repeat the mistakes of the Iraq War, and the Republicans don’t seem to have a Plan B. Clearly, Connecticut voters said “staying the course” is not an option. They want change, not only in our foreign policy but in our financial priorities. We have problems at home that need out attention and cannot afford to waste our dollars fighting a civil war we created.

Let’s rebuild our military strength for the job of defending America. And let’s get on with making peace and security for our children a priority again.

UPDATE: Just after publishing this post I read this AP story. Sure enough the Dems position the victory as a repudiation of Bush instead of what they stand for.

“Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the president more than anything else,” Reid and Schumer said. “The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction.”

Meanwhile, the GOP’s Ken Mehlman used the opportunity to say what Democrats stand for.

“Joe Lieberman believed in a strong national defense, and for that, he was purged from his party. It is a sobering moment,” Ken Mehlman said.

The Republican National Committee chairman said Lieberman’s loss also is a “sign of what the Democratic Party has become in the 21st century. It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism and a blame America first attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous.”