[T]he notion of term limits has never made sense to me. It precludes the possibility of a legislator building expertise over time. It denies the value of experience. And it ignores the fact that our political system already includes built-in term limits decided by the voting public every two, or four, or six years -- they are called elections.

Where the concept of political careerism truly becomes an issue, it seems to me, is around the question of purpose. It is important, of course, to understand a person's purpose for choosing to enter political life. In almost every case I know of, as a person begins his political career, those intentions are honorable and sincere. But they don't always stay that way. Once people enter this life, they become vulnerable to a host of pressures and forces that can skew their purpose, sometimes without their awareness. It is these forces -- partisanship, special interest groups, the need for money, the demands of campaigning, the power of the media -- that can twist a politician's priorities and make keeping one's seat become more important than what one does while sitting in it. That is when the voters should, and usually do, vote the wayward politician out of office, because that's the way the system cleanses and corrects itself.

[Emphasis added - Ed]

Apparently, Lieberman's understanding of the purpose of elections expressed here doesn't extend to primaries, which, judging by his recent remarks and actions, he appears to think ought to be rubber-stamps for incumbents. Also, looking at the excerpt above, he seems to believe that only corruption of a politician's initial purpose is a sufficient reason to remove them from office, totally ignoring the possibility that the politician's purpose may have been revealed to be at odds with that of the electorate, or that the politician's actions have met with the disapproval of his or her constituents -- both of which are obviously valid reasons not to re-elect.

It should be said that Leiberman's act of extreme disloyalty to the Democrats of Connecticut (indeed to all Democrats everywhere) is only egregious because of the predicament we find ourselves in. Loyalty, in general, is a fine principle to uphold, but there are times when it can get in the way of doing the right thing, and in those situations jettisoning the bonds of loyalty can be the ethical and moral thing to do. That is in no way the case in our current situation.

With the Republicans in control of all branches of the Federal government, and with the right-wing controlling or dominating the media, the damages that have been done (and continue to be done) to our country can only be stopped and then undone through the concerted and coordinated efforts of the Democratic Party. It is the only available mechanism by which the Republican oligarchy can be overthrown, and, because of that, disloyalty to the party at this moment in time is an especially egregious sin.

Update (7/10): In a post on Ombuddy Ken Balbari takes me to task for "miscomprehend[ing] a perfectly reasonable quote from a book of Senator Lieberman's, and further, fail[ing] to provide any evidence in terms of 'recent remaks or actions' to support his charge." I responded:

There was no miscomprehension [on] my part of the meaning of Lieberman's writing, which your readers can easily ascertain by clicking through the link. Lieberman says that he opposes term limits because elections every so many years serve that function, meaning that the voters have the opportunity to turn out an incumbent at regular intervals.

Lieberman does indeed list "partisanship, special interest groups, the need for money, the demands of campaigning, the power of the media" as among the pressures and forces which can skew a poltician's resolve and provide reason for their being dismissed by the electorate, but that list is hardly meant to be exhaustive, and voters can have any number of other reasons of their own for removing an incumbent who has displeased them -- prime among them that the politician's stances, votes and actions, are no longer in accord with the collective desires of the population. That is, essentially, what is happening in Connecticut right now, the electoral process is working precisely as Lieberman writes that it should work but, ironically (considering his opinion expressed in his book) he himself has expressed disdain and outrage that the process has been directed at him.

By a simple analogy, primary elections serve political parties with the same function as general elections serve the general electorate, a chance to weigh in on who they wish to represent them. That, once again, is what's happening in Connecticut, with Lamont presenting Democratic voters with an alternative, and Lieberman fighting the *process* continually -- as opposed to fighting against *Lamont*. His latest tactic is to take out an insurance policy whereby he may be represented on the ballot as an independent even if he loses the Democratic primary.

This is the gross act of disloyalty I referred to. Lierberman has always been a Democrat, and always held himself out as a representative of the Democratic party, was indeed the Democratic candidate for the second highest office in the land just a few years ago. For him to give the Democratic voters of Connecticut the back of his hand by saying, essentially, "I don't care what you want, I will do as I please" is totally disloyal to the party he's supposedly been part of for decades.

In fact, what Lieberman has become is exactly what he's written, someone for whom "keeping one's seat become more important than what one does while sitting in it." The Democratic primary is an opportunity for the voters of his party to determine if what he's done in office has met with their approval, but Leiberman refuses to follow their decision, and, in an effort to hang on to his seat, is willing to sell out his party and run as an independent.

All of this seems to me to be logically straightforward and supported by both the facts of the current situations and the words from Lieberman's book that I quoted. That you expected some sort of additional complex explication of well-known current events seems strange to me.