No shelter for hawks under the shrinking Democratic tent
Joe Lieberman was defeated last night in the Democratic primary in Connecticut, thus proving (as if it needed any proving) that the Democratic Party has veered to the left.
The Democrats seem to have abandoned the “big tent” concept–the idea that a party shouldn’t position itself so far to either side that it becomes marginal and exclusive.
Who is Ned Lamont? A deep-pocketed novice–very deep-pocketed indeed. We’ll see what happens in the statewide election. I haven’t yet been able to locate what the polls say at this point on Lieberman’s chances of winning as an Independent–only this:
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.
If Lieberman does go on to win as an Independent, the Democratic Party will have shot itself in the foot. And if Lamont wins? Will the Party go the way it did post-Vietnam, perceived as soft on security issues? Or will antiwar sentiment trump that perception?
And now for some good news: Cynthia McKinney is toast. You know you’re in trouble when even a supporter says, “She makes us look bad.”
Leibermann has very deep pockets himself, Neo.
Political speculation aside – quite simply the neoconservative agenda is an abject failure by any standards. That is the story behind Lieberman’s failure.
Whether the Democratic party can understand this to make a difference the next election is doubtful – it wouldn’t suprise me in the least if the next President is a Republican – they still can’t quite comprehend that their constituents are against the war.
Thats what will lose them the next election – getting into the GOP trap of making the election about ‘being weak of security’.
Only an idiot thinks Bush and Co. have made America safer – to put it mildy..
Stevie, if the constituents are “against the war” why would a Republican be voted in? Unless you are a Diebold conspiracy nut.
The “neoconservatives” are not some kind of shadow government, they are only one of a number of policy sources in the US. You’re not very well educated are you, muddled thinking. Abject failure? I think not. Iraq was given an opportunity and appears to be ready to fall into its natural constituent parts, no loss, since the Kurds who will eventually have a Kurdish state that stretches from the former Syria to the former Iran, are staunch friends of the US.
I feel safer, the Demorats would have given the enemy the front door keys. There is a lot still to be done, granted in securing the US. Do you feel safer in Toronto under the guidance of PMSH?
Only an idiot thinks Bush and Co. have made America safer – to put it mildy..
As opposed to the wise policies of the previous Canadian regime which has fostered peace and goodwill:
TORONTO – A Canadian counter-terrorism investigation that led to the arrests of 17 people accused of plotting bombings in Ontario is linked to probes in a half-dozen countries, the National Post has learned.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=de3f8e90-982a-47af-8e5e-a1366fd5d6cc&k=46849
Ooops!
McKinney and Liebermann: win one, lose one.
The Democrats have only shown themselves to be weasels (I’m trying to be nice here), throwing their #2 man (and perhaps the last Democrat with a conscience) to the wolves. George Soros and his socialist friends at MoveOn.Org have won a battle, but the war is still on.
Liebermann’s 12 or so years of experience against Lamont’s no years only shows the shallowness of the Democrtaic Party. They only vote against, never for. But then, they’ve never had a plan, only an agenda.
Yeah, we really need a Jimmy Carter at this juncture in history.
So the islamoleftists say, at least.
Lamont is a rich, empty suit with the depth of a mud puddle. Plus his family background is a little twitchy.
Austin Bay is suggesting a McCain/Libermann ticket. Which I don’t think will work but is fun to think about.
Liebermann has already filed papers to run as an Independent which will neatly split the Dems and draw many moderates. It may even elect a Republican.
Polls are still showing that most Americans are still concerned with national security issues and the Dems are rapidly making themselves irrelevant in this regard even with Hill’s doing her fence straddle, which rises to the status of a new Olympic event.
Looks like fun. I wonder if some kind of centrist party will rise from the ashes of the Dems and the moderate wing of the Republicans?
Lamont hardly won in a landslide. Liberman could split the CT Dems and take enough Independents to actually result in a Republican win–like what happened when Clinton was elected in 1992. Perot siphoned off 19% of the vote from Bush I that election.
If a Republican ends up winning in CT in November, this may end up being a Pyhrric victory for the Democrats.
That’s not a tent; it’s barely a handkerchief.
You lost me there boys.
What exactly is your point?
What exactly do you think Canada’s ‘stance’ is on the WOT?
Stevie, when you can be honest in this forum you might get some cred back, until then you are Stevie from Toronto who has been previously banned.
wasp wrote: “The Kurds who will eventually have a Kurdish state that stretches from the former Syria to the former Iran, are staunch friends of the US.”
Dream on. The Kurds in Turkey are constantly oppressed by the Turkish government (both now and in the past), which wouldn’t even let people speak in Kurdish in Kurdish areas. And Turkey is a close ally of the USA, which has turned a blind eye to Turkish violence against the Kurds.
The Turkish Kurds don’t have any reason to like the USA.
Yo, rabbit: I believe wasp was referring to the Kurds in IRAQ. Some basic reading comprehension helps here.
There is another dimension which I did not bring up, if any one is still reading this thread.
The Kurds in Turkey are mainly part of a virulent Marxist group and are not loved by anyone including many of their brothers.
I was also referring to to the Iranian Kurds who look across the border into Iraq and see the vibrant economy and yearn to be part of it. It is common in Kurdish Iraq to hear them assert that they aspire to be a US state.
Failure? What I love about the antiwar people is their lack of memory. Kind of like of Zinni saying that Iraq was our number 1 threat back in 2000 and then a few years later acting as if Saddam was just a big teddy bear.
The thing about the left is that Saddam could wipe half his population off the face of the earth, the Taleban could shoot women all day and Libya could make a nuke and that would be no big deal, but hey, if the dreaded neocons can’t turn the ME into Switzerland in five years then they are abject failures.
Bush will be gone in a couple of years, but the Democrats need to learn that in the long term they are looking like cheerleaders for terrorists.
There are Dems that still favor sticking in Iraq that haven’t been under fierce attack. The reason is that the Democratic Party is a big tent (unlike the GOP – see, eg, Chafee’s losing prospects for insufficient ideological purity)
Which Dems are those, jpe? Hillary? She manages it just barely by levening her hawkishness with the prerequisite Bush hatred. (I don’t think she hates anyone. The woman is a professional but in this she’s got to stradle the fence… so she does.)
But what other Democrat has managed to be in favor of sticking with it in Iraq and saying that this will work? I believe they exist, but they do it by carefully staying under the radar or happily not being up for re-election. (Which Hillary can’t do if she’s setting up to run for prez.)
The list of Dems who support us publically in Iraq is so small that on another blog the “list” given included Code Pink approved cut-and-run Murtha.
“…if the dreaded neocons can’t turn the ME into Switzerland in five years then they are abject failures.”
It’s amazing… but true. The party of nuance wants war to be tidy and clear-cut and reconstruction and recovery to be even tidier or else it’s all an abject failure.
Yahmir, I think your stance exists soley on the fact that the RCMP have not yet arrested you, but in light of the little I have read in your comments, I have no doubt you will be arrested some day. How about that foiled terrorist plot to blow up some planes?? Don’t gnash your teeth too hard over that, dentistry can be painful. We mirror the mire of nations, I;ll say it again, and what you endorse and hope for should be kicked to the sidelines by the Host simply for the reason that what you stand for is the antithesis of all that we believe and it is time to simply say NO, that mentality has no standing or inherent right to be heard. You are but a Jew hating, muslim facist that can speak English, in my opinion, and the killing of your brethern is not going to stop simply because Joe Lieberman may or may not be elected to the Senate of the United States.
“Only an idiot thinks Bush and Co. have made America safer – to put it mildy..”
There is an important aspect of truth to this that also misses a more important truth.
The fact is that with globalization, “Army of Davids” technology like cell phones and cell phone based IEDs, if there are people who want to murder others, they are more empowered to do so. If they are suicide murderers, it is almost impossible to stop them without a severe police state.
Cell phones mean Americans are less safe no matter what; richer, but less safe.
Only a BIGGER idiot thinks Gore 2000 or Kerry 2004 would have made America safer than Bush — since Islamo fascist suicide bombers are enabled by weakness.
Except … had Gore decided to lead America into war, the media would not be rooting so much for the terrorists, and the Reps would be more cautious about nation-building and pork spending; yet the Reps would more likely unite with a Dem president at war. I’m glad we had Bush, but can imagine Gore, too, rising to the 9/11 challenge (which would have happened with him, too). I doubt he would have been as militarily strategically good, but his media would have been better.
Kerry, no way.
Today, and every day, I imagine Iran getting nukes, and Tel Aviv going mushroom. Will it take such a cloud before clarity returns to the anti-war (=pro-terrorist) folk, and they see the danger?