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.
I'll give it some thought. I'd sure vote for Zell Miller.
The State DEPARTMENT works for Bush too. Are they following his orders or do they operate independently and contrary to Bush's policies?
With Zell and Joe both, you support two men who would defend America the place, but whom daily in the Senate voted against America, the idea.
Both are liberals who believe in government as the solution. Judging by their votes, neither believe in liberty or personal responsibility nor did/do they trust Americans to run their own lives.
PS -- There are no 'moderates' in the GOP, not as you mean it. What you call moderates are liberals who pick some minor issue to lay claim to being Republican. The left and the MSM then refer to them as moderates in order to paint conservatives as extremists.
Have you ever seen one of these so called moderates who are adamantly pro life and pro gun, or strongly anti government growth or higher taxes? I haven't.
Good point. No I haven't.
Come to think of it, I can't name any "Conservatives" off the top of my head who are "strongly anti big government and anti-higher taxes"
God knows the one we have in the White House, and those in the Senate and House for the last 6 years haven't seen a spending bill they didn't love.
The important point here is that the D-Rats may well threaten Liberman with committee assignements and even allowing him to caucus with them. If so, I might just be enough if he abstains in Organizational voting, or votes for himself as President Pro Temp of the Senate.
On that we agree completely.
No - they do not follow his orders and yes they operate independently and contrary to Bush's policies.
You have obviously never worked with a bureaucracy before. They cannot be controlled. Presidents and Secretary of States come and go - but the lifer employees go on and on. It is next to impossible to change a bureaucracy. You can't just go in and "clean house":
Number one - these are union employees, it is extremely difficult to fire one of them. It takes a tremendous amount of time and at arbitration, the employee almost always gets their job back (with back pay to boot).
Number 2 - someone is always needed to do the day to day work. You can't go in and fire thousands of people at once (even if you could). The bureaucrats know this all too well - that is how they can continue to ignore the President's policy.
I know this from personal experience working with a state government department. Directors came and went, governors came and went - but the bureaucrats are there forever - and they know that fact very well.
What makes it even tougher for Rice and Bush is that the State Department was packed full of Clintonistas during the 90s.
It sounds so easy - "just get rid of them". The phrase "Easier said than done" was never more apropos. It's an impossible task.
It sounds as though you were the official apologist for government bureaucracy.
If I had an employee (or 10,000) who was directed to do "A" and she deliberately did the opposite, she'd be looking for a job. They'd all be looking for a job. If the department is working against your will, why have them around at all.
I know. You're going to tell me that it doesn't work that way in a bureaucracy.
Maybe you missed the part about the union. You obviously have never been in management and tried to fire a union member. It is extremely difficult.
You cannot just fire them because they failed to carry out an order. If they verbally refuse to follow an order you can fire them for insubordination. These people are not stupid. They never outright refuse to carry out an order. They merely proscrastinate. Forever.
The manager needs to document every single step of the way - you first have to give the person an "informal counseling". If they continue to screw up you then have to give them "formal counseling". If it continues you have to give them a "reprimand". If it still continues you then move to a 1 day suspension. If it still continues you then go on to a 3 day suspension. If it still continues you can then terminate them.
Now keep in mind, that every step along the way means a union grievance. You have to hold investigatory interviews. You have to have absloutely everything documented. If you fail to dot one "i" or cross one "t" - then you have to go back to the first step and start all over. Even when you get to the termination stage - it then goes up in front of an arbitration board. If the employee has 15 or 20 years of seniority - you can bet your bottom dollar they will be reinstated with all back pay.
I am not the "official apologist for government bureaucracy". Far from it. I hate bureaucracies.
I am merely telling you how it works.
Don't shoot the messenger.
As I said before - it's easy to say "I'd fire them." It just is not that easy.
Facts are facts and that is a fact. Ask anyone who has to deal with a bureaucracy.
I've been 'management' in every job that I ever had. I refuse to work in a union environment.
Maybe that's why I can't understand 'the most powerful man in the free world' is ignored by bureaucrats whose union represents 5% of the workforce.
Reagan fired all of the air traffic controllers and the union couldn't do anything about it. Why is this different? Or is it that 'the man' is different?
There's a huge difference.
The air traffic controllers broke the law by going on strike. Reagan didn't really "fire" then - they actually "quit" by striking. If they hadn't gone on strike - Reagan couldn't have fired them. (By the way - I was hired as a replacement air traffic controller in 1982).
Now if Condi or Bush could convince the Foggy Bottom employees to go on strike - THEN they could fire them all.
Apples and Oranges.
I repent of having suggested Condi for president. Her role in engineering a ceasefire is unforgivable.
PATCO walked off the job.
The State Dep't is engaging in a different, but deliberate effort -- ignoring and obstructing -- to circumvent the policy of the President and the US Government. Both were/are contrary to the public good. They shouldn't be treated any differently, especially in a time of war.
I agree. Thanks for pinging me.
Now, using post #58 as a springboard for further discussion the poster contends that she is only following Bush's direction -- and I think that her proper role is to follow orders and carry out policy, not make it -- do you find it equally disturbing that Bush is for a cease fire?
My own belief is that we shouldn't be pushing for a cease fire, either privately or publicly. Israel must not be deterred in their defense of themselves. You can't negotiate with people who want you dead.
Have you been paying attention to anything that Rice, Bush or Tony Snow have been saying? They have said over and over again they will NOT support a ceasefire unless Hezzballah is disarmed. In other words - no ceasefire until Israel has wiped out Hezzballah. I don't see a problem with that policy at all.
You are still not seeing the difference. There is a specific law making it illegal for public employees to engage in a strike.
There is not a specific law making it illegal not to carry out your boss's policies.
There's a big difference there. Breaking a specific law means no arbitration - no union interference - no nuthin'. Firing someone who is not doing what you want them to do on the job is a whole different ballgame.
I wish it were otherwise - but we live in the real world, not the world I'd like it to be.
I heard the words. I see a cease fire. I hear the Hezbo's claiming that they won and know they will rearm.
Diplomacy for it's own sake that yields nothing. I think (of course without any proof except the outcome itself) that publicly the administration said one thing and behind closed doors pressured Israel. Time will tell.
Thanks for you reply.
I guess that I am too used to being the boss. People who disobey or disregard my instructions are fired. Yes, that is the world that I'd like to see because the conduct of our foreign policy is more important than unions and the opinions of unelected petty bureaucrats.
You are not wrong. The system is.
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.