Posted on 08/09/2006 1:05:42 PM PDT by Pokey78
DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE. In the early 1970s, they rejected their hawkish tradition on national security with the nomination of George McGovern for president. The resulting weakness on national security issues has haunted them ever since. Democrats didn't recover until the 1990s when the Cold War was over and national security was no longer the paramount national issue.
Now, after 9/11 and with Islamic jihadists still threatening America, Democrats are purging the hawkish remnants in their party. That's the meaning of the primary defeat in Connecticut yesterday of Senator Joe Lieberman to Ned Lamont, an antiwar Democrat. Lamont is the epitome of a peace Democrat: force averse, naively trusting in diplomacy, and firmly opposed to a strong national security policy.
The sacking of Lieberman is all the more striking because of his position in the Democratic party. He is not only the most prominent advocate of peace through strength, but also the foremost Democratic champion of Israel. It was because of his national security stance that he was chosen as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000.
Six years later, he's been pushed aside by a party sprinting to the left. Meanwhile, the man who picked Lieberman in 2000, Al Gore, has also flipped on national security. Gore himself was chosen as Bill Clinton's vice presidential running mate for the same reason Lieberman was, his credentials on national security: Gore had been one of 10 Senate Democrats who supported the first Gulf War.
For Democrats today, no good can come from the rebuff of Lieberman, who is running now as an independent to keep his Senate seat. His race will draw enormous media attention as Lieberman attacks Democrats for fostering "the old politics of partisan polarization." That charge, along with the national security issue, will be exploited by Republicans as they try to stave off a Democratic landslide in the midterm election on November 7. What happened to Lieberman can only help Republicans.
In his concession speech, Lieberman indicated he wants to turn his campaign into a national crusade. Addressing "people outside of Connecticut," he said: "If you are disappointed with the ugly tone of our politics, if you are fed up with the nasty partisanship in Washington, then I ask for your help, too . . . Come to Connecticut to help and don't hesitate to send a campaign contribution." As an independent, Lieberman is cut off from party funds.
It's probably the case, however, that Lieberman won't have a major impact on House and Senate races this fall--except in Connecticut. Three House Republicans from Connecticut--Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons--face tough reelection races. With both a Democrat and an independent Democrat on the ballot for the Senate, it's bound to complicate straight party voting. Shays has already endorsed Lieberman.
Nonetheless, Republicans were quick to jump on the Lamont victory as evidence that Democrats had jettisoned the FDR-Truman-JFK tradition of a strong national security policy. Lieberman has pointedly described himself as an heir to that tradition. The last thing Democrats need in 2006 is a highly visible Democrat zinging the party for tilting to the left on national security.
The bigger problem for Democrats is the 2008 presidential race. House and Senate contests don't necessarily turn on national security, but presidential elections do. The president, unlike members of Congress, is responsible above all for protecting the country.
Despite this, some of the prospective Democratic presidential candidates instantly hopped on the Lamont bandwagon. Former Senator John Edwards, the Democratic veep nominee in 2004, was the first to call and congratulate Lamont. Edwards voted for the war in Iraq, but later repudiated his vote.
Senator Hillary Clinton also rushed to endorse Lamont, as did Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana. Clinton's political action committee quickly cut a check to the Lamont campaign. This left Clinton's position on the war in Iraq in what has become a confused state. She voted for the war, but has become a sharp critic, without recanting her vote.
In any case, the lesson from the 1970s and 1980s may well apply in the 2000s with America facing a serious terrorist threat. And that lesson is unequivocal: Softness on national security is a ticket to defeat.
Jimmy Carter dodged the issue in 1976, winning because of Watergate. But he lost in 1980 because he had proved to be weak on national security as president. In 1984, Democratic presidential aspirants debated who was first to endorse a nuclear freeze, an issue of interest chiefly to the peace-at-all-cost left. In 1988, Michael Dukakis lacked credibility on national security. In 2004, President Bush was reelected on the strength of his strong response to terrorism.
The question for 2008 is whether or not the party that dumped Lieberman--its most celebrated hawk on defense and defender of Israel--is likely to nominate a presidential candidate who favors an aggressive national security policy. The answer is no. And would a peace Democrat be likely to defeat, say, a Republican hawk like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani? No, again.
So the Hate America Leftists are all jazzed because they managed to beat a Democrat Senator in a Democrat Voter only primary by less then 6,000 votes? That they just fired a guy who votes with them 90% of the time?
Um Democrats do you realize that yesterday's results indicate that 48% of you OWN base rejects your way left Wacko Leadership's Surrender Now agenda?
Zell was the master at it in the '04 election.
Bad news for the DUmmies is good news for us.
Jew haters rise to the top of the sewer.
Peace will be achieved by the strong and those willing to use their power to enforce good international behavior. In this world you better have the means to win in conflict because to lose means you may serve the Islamic leadership.
That charge, along with the national security issue, will be exploited by Republicans as they try to stave off a Democratic landslide in the midterm election on November 7.Is that really the way things look right now? A possible "Democratic landslide in the midterm election"?
The next 3 months will be particularly dirty and I hope Lieberman has a spine to survive the onslaught. If he has - the left will have to say goodbye to a senate seat in CT.
But, boy, it will be one hell of a dirt attack thrown at Joe!
Means that the surrender party is waving the white flag all the while burning the Israeli flag.
Democrats now must endorse Ned Lamont and align themselves with the Moonbats or face being ostracized, criticized and demonized.
If it looked like Tom Harkin had an incredulous, "What the Hell is this guy doing?" look on his face when he watched Dean implode after the Iowa Caucus, the entire Democratic Party will soon be looking upon this as their inescapable, "Who shit in our Easter Basket" moment.
That is only according to Fred (my head is so far up the beltway, that I have not seen daylight in years) Barnes!
LLS
We were told we could break all of those fuddy duddy Victorian rules and have a better life. Yet, if you end up in your sixties alone and having wrecked your life with divorce and addiction and no church to turn to, what do you have really? In denial you celebrate a rake like Bill Clinton, in a vain attempt to keep believing that character and morals don't matter. Otherwise you would have to admit that you screwed up your life yourelf, repent, and reform.
Michael Moore's new fatwah letter to the democratic party is "peace at any price." So they believe if we just stop fighting there will be no more terrorism. Peace shall reign. Who says the "democrats" don't want to cut and run?
Things seem to be heading toward the following outcome: The Democratic Party becoming the leftist fringe party, with RINOs and moderate Dems joining forces in a new "third" party, which will instantly become the opposition party. I don't foresee this in 2008, but if the Dems get beat in 2006 and 2008 because of their kookiness, look for it 2010 and 2012.
When are Jews going to start voting Republican in numbers?
If Joe wins, the Dems will still have him as a senator. He will caucus with them.
thats the way i see it. hopefully more jews will see the democrat party for what it has become.
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.