Dead With Ned (Why Lamont's victory spells Democratic disaster.)

Slate ^ | 8/9/2006 | Jacob Weisberg

[BlackRazor]

Dead With Ned
Why Lamont's victory spells Democratic disaster.
By Jacob Weisberg

Posted Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2006, at 3:33 PM ET

Political analysts tend to overinterpret the results of isolated elections. But you can hardly read too much into Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary. This is a signal event that will have a huge and lasting negative impact on the Democratic Party. The result suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War.

(snip)

Whether Democrats can avoid playing their Vietnam video to the end depends on their ability to project military and diplomatic toughness in place of the elitism and anti-war purity represented in 2004 by Howard Dean and now by Ned Lamont. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for 2008, is trying to walk this difficult line, continuing to express support for the war in principle while becoming increasingly strident in her criticism of its execution. As the congressional elections approach, many Republican candidates are fleeing Bush's embrace because of his Iraq-induced unpopularity. But Lamont's victory points to a way in which Bush's disastrous war could turn into an even bigger liability for the Democrats.

[Coldwater Creek]

Wolf, we have a bunch of those conservatives here in Tenn.

Somehow a not too conservative and an out and out liberal are running for Dr. Frist seat. Some would rather sit home and see the liberal win rather than "compromise" their values.

We have way to much at stake with the WOT to take a chance.

We can hold the Rep.'s feet to the fire and make him do what we want.

[Darkwolf377]

We can hold the Rep.'s feet to the fire and make him do what we want.

Exactly. It seems like these disgruntled "conservatives" love to get on their soap boxes about how they're sticking by their "morals" or "stnadards," and yet they do that on internet news boards, and will get off their lazy behinds to cast their protest vote, but will do NOTHING ELSE.

Put in people and ride them--THAT is how you get your way politically. Voting out anyone but the purest conservative will only help the libs get in and keep power--but these so-called conservatives will be able to sit there and say "Well I never compromised" while the country heads down the crapper.

Is that an answer they will want to give their grandchildren when they ask "Why didn't you prevent this mess?"

[GianniV]

-- We might not LIKE the war, but we don't all necessarily think that the war is useless either. NO ONE LIKES WAR --

You're absolutely right. It's the same as polling (to straight men), "Do you like getting a rectal exam?"

100% would say NO, but they understand it's necessary and don't support getting rid of it.

[GianniV]

-- "Bush's disastrous war" --

Notice how no liberal columnists and other assorted dregs revisit the vote in the Senate to support the war? I believe it was in the Fall of '02 and it was a landslide.

Once the war turns out well, watch how John Kerry and all his loser comrades will claim they supported the war all along. Just like how he said after Reagan died that he supported his actions against the Soviets in the 80s. Liar!

[GianniV]

-- And then the GOP wins. And then the GOP enacts many of the same types of legislation that the Dems would have enacted --

Bingo! We get forced into supporting the GOP and then get stuck with Lindsey Graham and John McCain telling us how "moderate" we need to be.

I hope a real conservative runs against Graham in his next primary. Tool.

[Anita1]

Re: "(Psst, guys, she's just got to preeetend to support the war until she's elected, then that cloak can come off.)"

You got that right!

[SunkenCiv]

"you can hardly read too much into Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary. This is a signal event that will have a huge and lasting negative impact on the Democratic Party. The result suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War."

Isn't that a shame? And never winning the presidency with a majority of the popular vote. The best part of seeing these anti-radical op-eds is that they will do nothing but further inflame the radicals themselves. Related trivia:

Bloomberg Backs Lieberman in Sign that 2008 Is Now In Play
NY Sun | 8/10/06 | Leon Neyfakh
Posted on 08/10/2006 8:24:12 PM EDT by gopwinsin04
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1681524/posts

[nopardons]

bttt

[Berosus]

The last time I saw a question of parentage like this, it turned out that the person being discussed was inbred.

[fifthestate]

I'm beginning to think Joe is going to win in a landslide!