Posted on 08/09/2006 7:49:21 AM PDT by freespirited
Democrats lost the 2004 presidential election over leadership on national security. Last night's win by anti-war Ned Lamont over pro-war Joe Lieberman, while joyous for the far-left netroots crowd, is a bad harbinger for future Democratic Party prospects nationally in 2008 and beyond.
The closeness of the election only makes the outcome more frustrating for Democratic strategists. Had Lieberman eked out a victory, the Connecticut Senate primary would have been a huge win for the Democratic Party as they would have been able to reap the dividends of all the energy (and voters) Lamont's candidacy had attracted, while at the same time sending a message to the country that the Democratic Party is large enough for pro-war Democrats. Had Lieberman held on and won, he undoudtedly would be reaching out to left-wing Democrats and pushing further away from President Bush and the Republicans. Instead, Lieberman will now be ostracized from the party and will be reaching out to Independents and Republicans while chastising the extremists in the Democratic Party.
Incredibly, for a sitting three-term Senator who just lost to a political neophyte, in many ways Lieberman is the guy who comes out of the primary with momentum. A month ago it was not unreasonable to assume that Lamont would have received a significant boost from a win, but the polls seem to indicate Lamont peaked near the end of July. Bill Clinton's July 24th visit may have been more of a turning point than was commonly thought at the time. In my pre-election analysis I suggested that Lieberman's distance from 40% would be the best tell on how the three-way would shakeout. With his very solid 48.2%, Lieberman is in an extremely strong position to win in November.
Nationally, the images from last night are a disaster for the Democratic Party. Perched behind Lamont during his victory speech were the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, grinning ear to ear, serenaded by the chant of "Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home." For a party that has a profound public relations and substantive problem on national security, these are not exactly the images you want broadcast to the nation.
Anti-war Democrats and much of the mainstream media continue to confuse anti-war with anti-lose. The incessant commentary that 2/3rd of the country is against the war completely misreads the American public, as much of the negativity towards the war isn't because we are fighting, but rather a growing feeling that we are not fighting to win or not fighting smart.
Democrats went down this road in the late 1960's with Vietnam and they are still carrying the baggage from that leftward turn. Lamont's win is a big step back to that losing formula. During the height of the "progressive" revolt against the war in Vietnam, Americans voted 57% for Nixon and Wallace in 1968, followed by a whopping 60% for Nixon in 1972 against the avowededly anti-war McGovern.
These Democratic wipeouts in '68 and '72 occurred while tens of thousands of Americans were dying in Southeast Asia. Today, as much as our media and the left want to make Iraq a Vietnam-like quagmire, casualties are running at a tenth of what they were in Vietnam. The other big difference from Vietnam is 9/11. America was attacked 5 years ago, something many on the Left seem to forget, but the voters have not. The comments that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 are irrelevant as Americans understand, rightly or wrongly, that we are in Iraq because of what happened on September 11. Only conspiracy-minded leftists believe otherwise. Just ask yourself if the U.S. would have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened.
The "Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home" chant may win congressional districts in San Francisco and Seattle as well as Democratic primaries in solidly blue states, but it is not a serious policy. Just what does "Bring Them Home" really mean? Bring them home and Ahmadinejad suddenly gives up his pursuit of nukes, Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah domesticate and forego terror? Leftists, pacifists and Pat Buchanan isolationists may be that naïve, but the majority of Americans are not.
The civilized world is at a very dangerous moment. There is no question that the Bush administration has made a bucket load of mistakes in fighting this war, but they (and thus America) are fighting. Bring them home is the equivalent of "we quit, we give up." Americans aren't quitters and the majority of Connecticut's citizens aren't quitters, as Lieberman's likely win in November will prove.
The Democrats have an insurgency of their own that is rapidly gaining strength, and Lieberman is the first high profile victim. But in the long run the real victim will be the Democratic Party if they continue to purge the few remaining FDR/Truman/Scoop Jackson Democrats from their ranks.
The woman up there with them looked very familiar. Wasn't that Kim Gandy, the head feminazi from the National Organization for Women?
What a brilliant campaign staff this guy must have.
Well look how Cindy Shehan helped Cynthia McKinney.
Come to think of it, McKinney is now available to report to CT for Lamont.
>>Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula <<
Yeahg, well lets not make the mistake Republicans did in 1968 - choosing Nixon instead of Reagan.
This candid and truthful article says it all. At the end of election night 2006, not only will the Republicans hold the senate and the house, they will actually gain seats.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
Joe Lieberman needs to spend a long weekend with Zell Miller. This is his chance to *get it*.
And they are trying to make Bush = Nixon.
>>Yeahg, well lets not make the mistake Republicans did in 1968 - choosing Nixon instead of Reagan.<<
Thinking about that... I wonder where the country would be if that been no Watergate and no Jimmy Carter.
In 1972, Ronald Reagan was the popular, elected governor of California.
These are very dangerous times.
We would still own the Panama Canal instead of the Chinese.
The Ayatollah Komeini would die in obscurity in France.
Iran would have been the first Muslim Democracy instead of Iraq. The Russians would not have invaded Afghanistan leading to the formation of the Taliban. And the Dot Com bubble still would have burst.
I'll settle for him staying Independent, we don't need any more RINOs in the GOP.
No.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be another Reagan on the horizon.
NO WAY, NO HOW! The Republicans have been trying to get Schlesinger to step aside and replace him with a more viable candidate, but he's refusing. The guy is plagued with scandal and many republicans won't vote for him. His current polling shows only about 13% if the election were held today in a three way race.
Another example of the GOP shooting itself in the foot.
Truth is Reagan wasn't even Reagan in 1968. His loss to Ford in 1976 was a blessing in that it made him re-examine his own thinking. By his own admission, he didn't become the Reagan that we all know and love until after that loss. It was then that his conservative impulses really began to fully gel.
We would still own the Panama Canal instead of the Chinese. The Ayatollah Komeini would die in obscurity in France. Iran would have been the first Muslim Democracy instead of Iraq. The Russians would not have invaded Afghanistan leading to the formation of the Taliban. And the Dot Com bubble still would have burst.Hopefully we would not have shut down nuclear building and would not be so dependent on foreign oil.
Oh Boy.... I think the writer is right... there is a reason for the Right to SMILE :)
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.