Posted on 08/08/2006 9:04:33 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Sen. Joe Lieberman's primary defeat Tuesday night came at the hands of Democratic voters angry over the war in Iraq and demanding that lawmakers stand up to President Bush rather than stand with him.
It wasn't a polite message they sent their three-term senator, a former vice presidential running mate who fell to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont. It was an eviction notice, served by an electorate that has grown remarkably sour about the course their country is on.
That makes the result both an opportunity and a challenge for Democrats nationally as they head into a fall campaign with control of the House and Senate at stake.
To triumph in November, Democrats will need the same intensity, including the support of bloggers and groups such as MoveOn.org, that powered Lamont to victory in Connecticut.
"I think there is huge dissatisfaction with the way the president is handling the war," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the party's Senate campaign committee. "People are divided over whether we should have a strong, aggressive foreign policy, but there's very little division even among those for a strong foreign policy that the president has really botched this in terms of having a plan, in terms of a direction, in terms of an endgame."
The challenge for Democrats is that Republicans already are pointing to the anti-war activists who flocked to Lamont, and their penchant for edgy political tactics, as evidence that Democrats can't be trusted with the nation's security.
"We'll soon find out just how significant this election is, but it's a problem for Democrats long-term," the Senate's second-ranking Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said after Lamont had won.
"The McGovern wing of the Democrat party seems to have forgotten that we've been on offense for the last five years and that's why we haven't been attacked here at home."
There's nothing new or surprising about the GOP rhetoric. Less than 100 days before the elections, it's become obvious to Republicans that they can hardly afford allow the midterm elections to turn on a simple referendum on Bush and his policies.
Stoking concerns, or even fears, about Democratic leadership served Republicans well in 2002 and 2004, the first two campaigns conducted in the shadow of the terror attacks of 9/11.
Their hope is it will again this fall, particularly among swing voters who will settle key House races in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and even Connecticut.
However they handle their balancing act on the war, Schumer, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other party leaders who sought unsuccessfully to save Lieberman intend to swing behind Lamont as early as Wednesday. Lieberman expects it, and party unity demands it.
That doesn't mean the three-term incumbent intends to go quietly. In the same breath he conceded the primary, he vowed to run as an independent. He would join Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger on the fall ballot in a race that could again have repercussions beyond Connecticut.
"Republicans are anxious to say the left wing is taking over, the antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party, the three-term senator said recently, not exactly rebutting the claim as he repeated it.
It will be days before the polls can measure a three-way race with accuracy. A Quinnipiac survey in mid-July suggested Lieberman would head into the campaign in a strong position, finding 51 percent support for him, 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for the Republican.
With his primary victory, Lamont almost certainly will gain support, at least intially, in a three-way matchup. In defeat, Lieberman will lose it, and the next poll could produce far different results than the last.
In the final days of his primary campaign, Lieberman was fond of saying that in embracing Lamont's candidacy, the voters were trying to send him a message and that they would in the end return to his side. He offered them a reason to do it, stressing his many differences with the president without changing his fundamental support for the war.
It was more than that, though. In private polls, fewer than 10 percent of Democrats surveyed said they thought the country was headed in the right direction, an extraordinary level of dissatisfaction.
Lieberman, taunted as Bush's best Democratic friend in Congress, bore the brunt of it.
Soon, Democrats hope, it will be Bush's turn, or at least the Republicans who control the House and Senate.
Aah, but lessons must not only be taught, but they must be received. Ricky isn't receptive.
That's right, and that means they do not believe their party's propaganda in the MSM.
What that also means is that about 50% of Democrats in one of our most liberal states understand the strategy and gravitas of the long term war to defeat Islamofascism.
The CUT & RUN Dems a la Murtha/Dean may yet be sent to the back of the bus, and if so, then the Dems will stand to be electable commodities in the eyes of the electorate nationally. Not good. I am rooting that the Murtha / Dean CUT & RUN Dems gain pre-eminance in the Dim party, thereby cementing them to electoral oblivion
War looms on the horizon , and the electorate knows it. Who would want an appeasement oriented Congress along with an appeasement POTUS in 2008?
It would take a profound idiot to ignore the parallels our present international situation has to the pre WWII years in Europe. The War against Islamofascism and national security will dictate the voting patterns of the electorate
Hillary does not have the ability or image to be Commander in Chief. Actually very few Democrats do , while men like Giuliani, Toricelli and Allen appear to , perhaps Giuliani makes the strongest impression. A Giuliani/Rice ticket would shake the very foundations of the Dim party.Or maybe even a Rice/Giuliani ticket. I believe that Condi has the ability to be Commander in Chief, and I also believe that Dubyah has been grooming her for a run at the presidential nomination. Last Monday's press conference by Dubyah and Condi made that fairly apparent.
The Dems have no viable set of candidates or even a strategy to offer the electorate, and long may they squabble over what appeasement of Islamofascism and dedication to defeat Islamofascism mean to their ideologically challenged party. One can hope that they continue to just NOT get it. Certainly the media spin of this article assures a prolonged division among Dems, who fail to adequately conclude just what a 48% vote for Leiberman means. Dems are as stuck as rusty, greasy old frying pans calling the kettle black, and since that doesn't work, lets hope they keep it up.
If the Republicans don't have a strong candidate to take on Lieberman and Lamont, then I see Lieberman getting more Republican votes, which might just be the edge he needs to beat Lamont...
Sure I would like a strong Conservative to win Joes seat, but if that isn't going to happen then I would rather see then man that puts country instead of party first, keep his Senate seat...
Hey. Excellent logic and good points.
Toricelli?
I believe that Condi has the ability to be Commander in Chief, and I also believe that Dubyah has been grooming her for a run at the presidential nomination. Last Monday's press conference by Dubyah and Condi made that fairly apparent.
Good God!
Bush can't even groom his own immigration policy. As for Rice and Guiliani, why don't you and the rest of the Bushbots simply surrender to RHINOISM?
"War looms on the horizon , and the electorate knows it. Who would want an appeasement oriented Congress along with an appeasement POTUS in 2008?
It would take a profound idiot to ignore the parallels our present international situation has to the pre WWII years in Europe."
You should check out the MSM a little more often. War isn't looming, it's been here for a few years now. That, the electorate is well aware of. (unlike you) Also, it's the alleged 'parallels' with pre WWII years in Europe argument that got us into Iraq in the first place. In 2006, the parallel that's emerging more closely resembles Vietnam. The GOP is still in control and probably will remain so in Nov. But with MORE not less troops going into a country that was already supposed to be pacified (according to the neo-cons and hawks of 2003) the present course of events suggest Lieberman's loss marks a turning point with the fence-sitters who actually decide where an (honest) election goes. At present course and speed Iraq could be the ice-berg of the GOP Titanic in 2008.
"The Dems have no viable set of candidates or even a strategy to offer the electorate,"
You forgot Kerry. Got 48% in 2004, remember. actually served in combat (unlike el presidente, who seems to have been awol). If Iraq is still in flames and US troops are still going into Iraq rather than exiting (like they are right now) then a Jeb Bush vs. Kerry matchup (or Rice vs. Kerry, possibly) would probably go to Kerry by about the same margin as was the case for Bush in 2004. That's assuming, of course, the game isn't rigged like the 2000 election was and the 2004 might have been (thank you Ohio electronic voting machines). Rigging another election with electronic voting machines and GOP members keeping the keys might end up being the only chance the GOP has. again.
Oh and please excuse the hypen in iceberg. not sure where that came from.
"I hear the Republican candidate is pro-gambling."
I'm not against gambling in moderation.
"Is the Republican candidate pro-life?
Unsure about that but he is faciing some ethics charges and does not have the chance of that proverbial snowball."
I wonder if he's really guilty, though. It seems as if liberal Dems are always accusing Republicans, and then they end up being vindicated. Dirty politics?
Certainly I am aware of that. But it has not been a total war. I suppose I should say total war instead of war. We have what many might call a recreational war, which the democrats think is an optional war. We both disagree with that.
I believe that we are only in the outer shell of what is to come, for an Iran with nuclear weapons will redefine the war by necessity. Its only a matter of time before N. Korea, China or Russia provide nuclear arms to Iran, if that has not already happened.
You assume that I am not aware, when in fact my focus is on the nature of the parallels we currently are experiencing to the beginning rise of fascism in Europe. We now have fascism of an Islamic nature and our nation is largely unaware of the parallels. OUr anti-fascist movement is in its nascent stages.
There can be no negotiation with Islamofascists. But we must go through the motions I suppose. Total war is looming on the horizen. We are fortunate to have interdicted this rise, for we waited until too late prior to WWII. Now the task is to prepare for total war, for it is undoubtly at hand.And we must act as our forefathers did.
The Democrats are dinosaurs, and the sooner we begin their riducule and destruction as a party, instead of RINOizing, the better prepared we will be for the very difficult time we are about to face for 20 or 30 years.
Of this I am very much aware. And having lost friends and neighbors in the present conflict, I am also very aware of our present war, contrary to your statement concerning what my awareness is, an interesting leap in rather prejudicial self serving logic from one who knows me not. Insecure are we?
Denigrating one who is anallie is one of the frequent obstacles that we have here on FR. It comes from an assumption of false superiority in terms of knowledge and expewrience. If we are to prevail in the years to come, such comments are hardly contributive or positive in the work we must do together.
They can win? That's it? That's all? So what?
What do you win when the people who win don't support the same causes and issues that you do?
Are you looking for an "R" win or do you really want to advance conservatism?
And the only way that Hillary wins is if the GOP puts up some damn RINO that conservatives will not vote for.
Condi/Lieberman is a 100% WINNING ticket, imo. It guarantees Republicans at least 4 more years, and probably 8.
Lieberman would not make policy as VP. So his liberalism counts for nothing. When he vacates a senate seat, it leaves room for a conservative, I hope.
Condi needs to get conservative religion, if she lacks it. But intelligence she has, and that counts for a whole bunch. Again, maybe more than before, I suggest Condi/Lieberman.
Does Hillary support the same causes and issues that YOU do? Would Hillary appoint Judges who would interpret laws rather than legislating law from the bench?
I'd rather have a GOP who is solidly conservative; but, If I can't have that, I'll take a Moderate over a left-wing, liberal, Socialist Democrat.
Amazing.
Simply amazing.
I'd suggest a name change to 'some dems'.
You're delusional. Dr. Rice is very conservative. Abortion is the only subject that she doesn't toe the conservative line. As far as being a "globalist" - she is the Secretary of State and must do what her boss, George Bush tells her to do. Like it or not, America can't bury its head in the sand and pretend the rest of the "globe" doesn't exist. That road leads to disaster.
Please provide me with links that prove that she is 'very conservative'.
I should have been more precise in my original comment. She has training and experience in global affairs. Yes, I know that we cannot be isolationists and I am not advocating that, but to people who are hammers, all problems become nails. I've not seen anything to make me believe that she is anything but a globalist hammer.
What do you know that no one else seems to know that you can make that claim?
Go to rice2008.com and read some of her speeches.
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.