I just heard a guy calling in to C-Span to complain about Senator Joseph Lieberman's ego. If he loses the primary (and he's currently behind as I write this by 52% to 48%), he intends to stay in the race as an independent. This fellow who called in considers this the height of arrogance, since it fails to see what his party is doing, where it's heading. Somehow it is arrogance to consider getting almost half of your party's vote in your state to be a good reason to think the general election voters (who will tend to be much less liberal than the party loyalists who vote in primaries) will continue to support him.
Now I'm really curious to know whether this caller was among those who have complained about conservatives who have treated the 2004 election as a devastating loss for John Kerry. That's been a common complaint from those who supported Kerry, who actually did quite well in the election as compared with losers of presidential races. It's something of a commonplace nowadays to hear people complaining that President Bush is treating a relatively slim victory as a mandate. I don't see a huge difference between those numbers and the numbers they're currently floating for Ned Lamont in this Democratic primary for Senator Lieberman's Senate seat, not enough to justify treating Lieberman as arrogant for thinking he could win the statewide election or for thinking that he could represent a liberal state with such a "devastating" loss in a primary.
But this isn't really about Joe Lieberman. It's about the president whose foreign policy Senator Lieberman supported (to some extent) out of principle. Since any stick is good enough to beat Bush with, any stick is good enough to beat those being tarred as Bushies with, even if it's a stick that the same sort of person would complain about Republicans using against Democrats.