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.
No... and the truth is we were more ready for Reagan because of the way Vietnam turned out, Watergate and Jimmy Carter. He couldn't have gotten the same mandate in '68.
>>Everything happens for a reason.<<
It does.
It's going to be so much fun to watch all the lefties get their hopes so high, only to have them dashed to bits in November. DU is so entertaining.
"Anyone know about the Republican contender for this seat? I'm wondering if Lamont picks up the Dem vote and Joe picks up some of the Independents or Dems, is there a possibility for a Republican pickup here?"
The fact that none of us (including me) seem to even know his name indicates that he's not going to win.
Maybe he should withdraw and throw his support to Lieberman.
With this strategery they could even loose D.C.!
The DLC is dying. I see the democrats getting even more looney. They are repeating the cycle of election losses from 1980, 1984, and 1988. This is however bad for the country when left wing, hate America types throw out a decent democrat. If had a shred of hope before, the democrats are no longer the party of Truman and JFK.
The rats lost a solid senate seat yesterday and that's just the beginning for them. Lieberman will win handily as an indy and he now owes no allegience to the party.
No more can the rats hide their moonbattery; they're standing right on the edge of the cliff. Jump f**kers! JUMP!
Very important point...
Zell Miller is a classic southern democrat, conservative socially, Christian, and aggressive in foreign affairs, but a dem because his daddy and grandaddy were, because the Dems were the South's party at the time of the Civil War. Most Southern Democrats made the switch to the GOP between the 60s and the 80s. A few are still straggling in. Zell never will, but he is with us nonetheless.
Zell and Joe have nothing to talk about except Iraq.
In 1972 Nixon was re-elected in one of the most massive landslide elections in U.S. political history, defeating George McGovern and garnering over 60% of the popular vote. He carried 49 of the 50 states, trailing only in Massachusetts.
Richard Nixon
A few key differences exist between the political environment of the 1970s and the 2000s. The Left now lacks their monolithic MSM and a solid Democrat majority in both houses required to subvert the will of the people:
The coup that overthrew President Nixon was largely orchestrated by Senator Edward Kennedy to reverse the left-repudiating 1972 election and serve Kennedy's presidential ambitions. This coup led to Communist victory in Vietnam, toppling dominoes in Southeast Asia, and encouragement to left revolutionary movements worldwide. It also allowed Kennedy and his liberal media allies to identify the tragic Vietnam War not with President John F. Kennedy, who committed the first 17,000 armed troops there, but with Republican President Nixon.
A Guide to the Political Left
But the fact is that he does have an allegiance to their party. Can't he win as an independent, then announce he's becoming a democrat again a few months later? I would expect that he will be pressured into doing exactly that.
The Democrat Party = America's Hezbullah.
Indeed.....there were very few solidly liberal states back then .
California, Florida and Pennsylvania were never "in play".
The "Left" has gotten almost 50% of votes cast in the past 2 POTUS elections.
I'm guessing that is the highest since after the Depression and this Left is far more culturally liberal then ever.
Ouch, he would have to be polling at at least 30% by now to even be viable for the election. Thanks for the update.
The rats can't pressure Joe to do anything. Joe's in the driver's seat now. He doesn't need rat money, he definitely doesn't need rat tactics, support or anything else from them, which he wouldn't get anyway. I'm betting he's going to get a lot of republican money and support.
Remember, he's just been thrown under the bus by the rat leadership who are now committed to campaigning for the one trick pony Lamont.
Joe's his own man now and he can tell the rat leadership to go piss up a rope. He may vote with them on many issues but from here on in, he's solid on the WOT. He can't be pressured to toe the rat line.
I can see the "enhanced" campaign commercial with Osama, Kim Il and the Iran guy superimposed behind Lamont chanting "Bring them home".
>> The coup that overthrew President Nixon <<
Can you call it a coup when the President resigns?
They called it a win on the left when LBJ decided not to run.
They hounded Nixon into resignation. So, in the mind of the moonbats, both were successful coups.
That was then, when they had a media we all still believed.
>>They called it a win on the left when LBJ decided not to run.
They hounded Nixon into resignation. So, in the mind of the moonbats, both were successful coups. <<
A win for dems, sure. A coup? I wouldn't use that term myself.
"Another example of the GOP shooting itself in the foot."
more like an example of an egotist who won't get over himself, see the writing on the wall and step away for someone who could win
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.