Conn. Race Could Be Democratic Watershed - Loss by Lieberman May Embolden Critics of War

Washington Post ^ | 8/6/6 | Dan Balz

[SmithL]

FARMINGTON, Conn., Aug. 5 -- The passion and energy fueling the antiwar challenge to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in Connecticut's Senate primary signal a power shift inside the Democratic Party that could reshape the politics of national security and dramatically alter the battle for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, according to strategists in both political parties.

A victory by businessman Ned Lamont on Tuesday would confirm the growing strength of the grass-roots and Internet activists who first emerged in Howard Dean's presidential campaign. Driven by intense anger at President Bush and fierce opposition to the Iraq war, they are on the brink of claiming their most significant political triumph, one that will reverberate far beyond the borders here if Lieberman loses.

An upset by Lamont would affect the political calculations of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who like Lieberman supported giving Bush authority to wage the Iraq war, and could excite interest in a comeback by former vice president Al Gore, who warned in 2002 that the war could be a grave strategic error. For at least the next year, any Democrat hoping to play on the 2008 stage would need to reckon with the implications of Lieberman's repudiation.

Even backers of the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee are now expecting this scenario. Two public polls in the past three days show Lamont with a lead of at least 10 percentage points.

Although there are reasons beyond Lieberman's strong support for the war and what critics say is his accommodating stance toward Bush that have put him in trouble, the results will be read largely through the prism of what they say about Iraq and Bush's popularity.

Should Lieberman lose, the full ramifications are far from certain. One may be to signal immediate problems for Bush and the Republicans in November,...

[Darkwolf377]

I don't think Lieberman is so bad, so why do I want him to lose?

Maybe something to do with the Democrats being themselves, with no excuses and nowhere to hide.

[Moral Hazard]

"Driven by intense anger at President Bush and fierce opposition to the Iraq war, they are on the brink of claiming their most significant political triumph, one that will reverberate far beyond the borders here if Lieberman loses."

Wouldn't a "political triumph" require actually winning a general election?

[sam_whiskey]

I think you're right. Lieberman's loss is a good thing for our side, especially looking ahead to '08, because it demonstrates just how completely the far left has taken over the Democratic party. They're out in the open now...

[NorCalRepub]

Stop it already.....now you are talking over their heads..../sarc...

[My2Cents]

I would think Lieberman's loss would bode ill for Hillary, who has been trying to reinvent herself as a moderate, Iraq war supporter -- it's clear most Dems are leftist kooks.

[denydenydeny]

All that's missing from the title of this story is the phrase "we hope" at the end.

[sam_whiskey]

True, but if they think she can win, and she bluffs her way out of it, they'd probably line up behind her anyway.

[the Real fifi]

If on a longshot, Lieberman wins, will the press pontificate that the war is not an issue? LOL

[msnimje]

I think it will be great if the Democrats want to send a slate of "cut and runners" up to the plate.

[nopardons]

LIEberman is VERY bad.

Lamont is worse.

But in a way, a Lamont win is VERY good for the GOP and the death knell for the damned Dems.

[GeronL]

Do the Dems really think going to the left is a winner??

[Tzimisce]

In this race I think I'm rooting for Lieberman. Better him that the Limo Lib Lamont.

[elcid1970]

You're right about "we hope". Dan Balz is a pathological extreme liberal. When he appears on the Sunday morning food fights, he demonstrates a seething inner rage, especially if there is a conservative in the studio. Watch his eyes: they burn with anger behind those granny glasses, like he wants to lunge at anyone who would dare to disagree with him.

Throwing Lieberman under the bus is the least of Dan Balz' desires. He would like to see every Republican sent to a Cuban reeducation camp. Typical Washington Postie.

[nopardons]

Except for his stance on the WOT, which is now changing a bit, he is no different from Lamont and might even be worse.

[nathanbedford]

Is the glass half full or half empty?

It now seems likely that Lieberman is going down to defeat in the primary and it is the unanimous opinion of the pundits on The McCloughlin Group that he will lose the general election should he run as an independent. To the Republicans on the group, it signifies a self-destructive tendency in the Democrat party to return to the disastrous days of the McGovern antiwar platform.

There is however another less optimistic view to take of this development and that is, although this is a closed primary in which only registered Democrats can vote, Lieberman's troubles demonstrate the deep intensity of feelings against the war and against Bush which are so prevalent in that party. This intensity will undoubtedly carry over into the general election across the country. That is a substantial risk. An even greater risk might be a similar intensity of anti-Bush, antiwar feeling among independents. It would be interesting to see data on this. Finally, there is no evidence that the mirror image of this great intensity of feeling which motivates the Democrat party is shared within Republican ranks.

The Democrats are intense, we don't know if the independents are similarly energized, and my guess is that the Republicans might sit this one out. This could be a recipe for as a tsunami. If this combination of factors is more likely than a reaction against the McGovern-like stance of the Democrat party, we could easily lose the House and maybe even the Senate.

Many months ago I posted my belief that the Republicans had very little time to repair the damage that they were visiting upon themselves as they sleepwalked toward this election. First, they should have pushed hard for oil drilling in Alaska and in offshore waters while making the case that it is the Democrats who, with their opposition to Anwar drilling, offshore drilling, refineries, and nuclear power, have driven gas prices to over three dollars a gallon. They should have gone on offense even if these measures were defeated, the party would have gained and the Democrats might be blamed. Second, the Republicans should have gotten hold of the budgeting and appropriations process and began to cut. Bush should have vetoed. As it is now, the party of fiscal conservatism as revealed itself to be phony and the Democrats have succeeded in blaming Bush and the Republicans for three dollar oil.

Immigration reform has been bungled from beginning to end. First, Bush has failed to enforce the laws that exist and permitted this crisis to grow like a fungus. Second, the Senate has tried to deceive the American people with a reform measure that is really a transparent amnesty and Republican fingerprints are all over it. The single bright spot in this whole mess is a staunch resistance of the House Republicans. If we lose the house, amnesty will be inevitable and our entire way of life will be engulfed.

It is too late now to do very much, the Republicans have shut down the Congress and gone home to campaign on a record which is pathetic. Small wonder their natural constituents are likely to stay home on election day.

[Fresh Wind]

Maybe the moonbats secretly blame Lieberman for Gore's loss in 2000.

[Beckwith]

Right after putting his wish to paper, Dan Balz threw a penny in the Washington Post fountain.

[Timeout]

I just wish the GOP political machine would come up with a theme addressing the dangers posed by the Dems' "peace at all costs" attitude.

Just this week Hillary felt compelled to attack Rumsfeld. It's only the latest in a years-long effort to undermine our war effort.

I wish Rummy had lashed Hillary with a retort question:

---

And what has your party done?!

Other than a few quiet months after 9/11, your party has carped, lied, leaked and cried "Are we there yet?!". To say you've been unhelpful is an understatement. Many in your party (and the media) have worked non-stop to erode the country's support for the war effort. Talk is cheap and your party has been buying anti-war talk by the barrelful.

Honestly, I'm probably a little jealous of those who never have to actually solve a problem---they just sit back and throw stones AFTER events have occurred. I've tried to think of one thing your party has done in the last 3 years to help ensure a victory in this war. Sadly, I've yet to come up with one. Perhaps, you would be so kind as to provide me with some examples?

---

[lionheart 247365]

As soon as the Hildabeast senses her pro-Iraq position is in trouble within her party , she will merely say she was against the war before she was for the war .