Posted on 07/27/2006 9:09:32 AM PDT by Reagan Man
Can the Democrats and their liberal wing do us any more favors? In the 2000 presidential race they ran an incumbent vice-president from a southern state and were beaten by the narrowest of margins. In what some viewed as a conservative national tilt in 2002, they lost their Senate majority giving control of two branches of government over to the GOP.
In response they gave us uber-liberal Nancy Pelosi as the House Minority Leader. Failing to adjust their game-plan, they next sent John Kerry to the plate -- ignoring his lifetime American Conservative Union batting average of 5% as opposed to Al Gore's 14.6% -- which led to an even bigger defeat in the 2004 Fall Classic.
After the '04 election, they discovered via exit polls that 'values' issues had carried the day for President Bush. The result? Howard Dean took the reins and he and his netroots pals pulled that donkey hard left. And now the Daily Kos bunch is making a major play for legitimacy within the party despite the fact that the horses they've backed are 0 for 20.
Although there are predictions of doom and gloom for the GOP this November, it is the Democrats who face a fork in the road. And right now that road wends its way through the sometimes bucolic paths of Connecticut. At stake is the incumbency of its junior senator, Joe Lieberman.
Connecticut may be a Democratic state, but like its big blue brothers, New York, Massachusetts and California, it has a Republican governor. The reason for this seems to reflect the desire of some Democrats to be nurtured by the nanny state yet governed by a daddy. This also demonstrates that some of them still have at least an iota of the sense with which they were born.
Once a country-club Republican bastion, the Nutmeg State is now populated largely by what I call diaper Democrats; those born into the party. These mostly blue-collar voters have been extremely supportive of Lieberman, helping him to win re-election twice by two-to-one margins over his opponents. But this time around, the Kos crowd hopes to make him pay for his support for the War on Terror and specifically our involvement in Iraq.
This might seem like a good strategy but it might be a harder sell to the relatively large and politically active Jewish population in Connecticut, already edgy about anti-Semitism charges against many on the left who seem to side with the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas over our ally Israel. American Jews have been a reliable source of votes for them and one that should not be taken lightly, but if the Democrats want to keep on giving, who are we to argue?
Joe Lieberman has not run many TV ads yet, possibly hoping Ned Lamont's own loopy spots will jar some diaper Democrats into reality. But the few that have aired feature the stars and stripes as a background, hoping to stir the patriotic sentiments of a people deluged 24/7 by the liberal media onslaught of propaganda against the war.
But what else have they got? Were it not for the war and the all-encompassing hatred for George W. Bush, Democrat playbooks would be empty. As Leader Pelosi explained , "Why should we put a plan out? Our plan is to stop him. He must be stopped." And since they can no longer stop Bush, Joe Lieberman will do nicely, thank you.
In any event, the primary on August 8th will be a good day for conservatives. If Lieberman fends off the challenge of the far-lefties, good for him, good for the Democratic Party and good for America. If Lamont wins, good for him, good for Republicans and disastrous for the Democrats. Because if the party allows itself to be consumed by its radicals in a country that's gotten redder in each general election, it will cease to be electorally viable in the near future.
Odds are that Joe Lieberman will return to Washington, either as a loyal Democrat, or as a less dependent Independent. The only negative for Joe is that old friend Bill Clinton is campaigning for him. The miserable record of Kos and company is nearly matched by that of Bill and Hill, whose support for anyone not named Clinton is usually a political death knell.
So we've reached the point where the far left is supporting a former Republican millionaire who owns Halliburton stock, while the party's superstar is stumping for a man who's accused of cozying up to a GOP president. Where can one find irony like this? Only in the Democratic Party, where the hits just keep on coming.
the poster boy of which is Howard Dean.
How so Bob? LOL
The left is eating itself.
The whole thing is entertaining if nothing else. Snort!
Great column.. kudos..I'll even forgive you the Yankees waxing the Rangers three straght..<P.
BTW..what about Jodi as a long shot VP candidate in 2008?
I particularly liked the phrase "diaper Democrats". A perfect characterization.
I'll wait to see the next analysis by Michael Barone.
bttt
Democrat politicians are like diapers. They need changed frequently and often for the same reasons.
I wish the Diaper Democrats in my state who keep voting idiots into office would grow up.
The diapers are in need of some serious washing! No, better yet, since they are all "Pampers" let's just throw them out!
Quote: "The conventional wisdom about the 2006 elections among both Republicans and Democrats now is that the Democrats will take control of the House and could also win the Senate. One House Republican committee chairman, who publicly exudes optimism, privately predicts -- and has predicted for six months -- a loss of 30 House seats.
Bob Novak,7-27-2006."
Rush was just talking about this. I have read Barone's take and he is, as of yet, not seeing it this way. I will trust Barone. Still, it is not a bad thing for the Republicans to be scared stiff.
I mentioned this remark from Bob Novak because his prediction of the GOP`s takover of the House in the 1994 election, was almost perfect. Believe Novak said the GOP would get a 55 seat pickup. IIRC, the outcome was a 54 seat pickup. Michael Barrone is usually pretty good with his crystal ball. We shall see. While Democrats aren't helping themselves out, Republicans shouldn't become overly confident about the outcome of the November election.
Right, but Novak is basing this prediction on people who he has "talked to." Well, that is nice.
The way I look at elections is simple. I could give a rats arse about what the MSM says, what conventional wisdom says, or what Bob Novak says. Issues decide elections. When your party is on the wrong side of an issue or has no agenda for dealing with issues, you are probably going to lose. Moreoever, a campaign occurs before every election where you get to sell your agenda and sell the voters that you are on the proper side of the issues. It seems to me that the MSM and the rest want to skip the campaign, hell skip the election and just name the winner.
Bottom line, can the dems supposed "in the bag" victory stand the scrutiny of a campaign, i.e. reality? Can it stand the actual election? Perhaps, but not automatically and not by default. The Republicans do get to campaign and better run a good one.
Bob is a pro. Bob isn't writing smarmy opinion pieces for zero dollars on some web site (er, like me!). So I take what he says pretty seriously. Some people point out "why the Dems are idiots" , and they may be right, but it doesn't mean they know jack about what is happening in the 435 House Seats on the block and the 33 odd Senate seats.
Michael Barone is probably the best at handicapping. I believe he sees a significant trend towards the donk's.
No matter how idiotic the Donkeys are they have some advantages: the are running against the GOP. Some things going against the GOP are:
* Perception of long running incumbency (94 in House, two terms of Bush in WH). American's middle likes to flip the rascals out.
* The Economy. Always a top issue. Battaling statistics say either 1- it's doing great or 2 - the middle class is being killed off by globalization. Rule One of American Politics: We vote our wallets.
* The War. Regardless of how freepers feel about it the media is slowly making their "Iraq = Vietnam" quagmire meme a 'fact' in many peoples (small, tv-driven) minds. * Wedge Issues: Guns are less effective with Dems largely having thrown in the towel on it. Abortion seems to have cooled down as an issue. The Donks are doing a good job on Stem Cell Research convincing dottering old people than can live forever if Bush would just allow unlimited funding and use of baby parts in medicine.
* Bush fatigue. "Bush is an idiot" "Bush is not respected" "Bush is hated in Europe" ... again, the relentless onslaught is having an effect.
Remember, we don't have overwhelming majorities. The House is the safest place. There are a lot of gerrymandered districts on both sides. Many states are just a few percentage points leaning R. Many states have one R and one D Senator, clearly showing they are not strongly out of reach either way.
In summary I would not write Bob Novak off as a fool because of this, or other, clever articles pointing out Dem stupidity. Watch some network news and contemplate the message that most Americans are getting.
Here is what the Political Oddsmaker has to say. He really does have a pretty good record.
2006 U.S. SENATE AND GUBERNATORIAL RACES: Santorum only incumbent Senator now picked to lose; GOP still favored to retain House and Senate but odds declining
2006 U.S. HOUSE RACES to be posted in mid-November
ABOUT THE POLITICAL ODDSMAKER: Since 1995, The Political Oddsmaker by Ron Faucheux has made over 2,700 picks in U.S. Senate, gubernatorial, U.S. House, major mayoral and initiative elections, with an overall record of correctly predicting winners over 98.2 percent of the time. The Political Oddsmaker had a 99.4% accuracy rate for calls made in the 2004 general elections. This was the highest accuracy rate The Political Oddsmaker ever achieved (previous high: 98.2%)! The Political Oddsmaker called 512 races correctly in 2004 and 3 incorrectly out of 515 total calls in the general election with 15 races rated even.That's why it's America's most popular elections handicapping service! To contact Dr. Faucheux for interviews or speeches, call 202-626-7515 or e-mail rfaucheux@aol.com. See www.faucheux.com.
You may not take into consideration every aspect of an upcoming election, no matter what the source. I do. As with all pundits, Novak is wrong at times and he can be hyper-annoying too. However, to not consider Novak's inside the beltway expertise as serious political journalism, is to be foolish in the extreme.
So do I. See #18.
Btw, for the most part, I agree with your post at #16.
This sentence says it all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.