On Tuesday, the Democratic Party discarded that tired old notion by ousting the pro-war, strong-on-national-security Connecticut centrist in favor of an extreme liberal anti-war Democratic challenger: millionaire Connecticut businessman Ned Lamont.
Lamont's candidacy was fueled by the most extreme elements of the Democratic party. Moveon.org, Daily Kos and other elements of the Web savvy liberal "netroots" made defeating Joe Lieberman their number one priority. To them, Lieberman was an unacceptable cancer within a Democratic party they fancy themselves as owning. Tolerance of a Democrat who was committed to finishing the job in Iraq was a non-starter. Nor was it acceptable for Lieberman to be so unabashedly pro-American in his rhetoric about national security."
Cal Thomas "The narrow primary defeat of veteran senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing.
They used to be "San Francisco Democrats," a phrase coined by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick to describe the party's 1984 convention. But they have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe."
John McIntyre writing on Foxnews.com, comes off pretty close to racist, once you get into his article, titled, "Democrats Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula," saying, "Nationally, the images from last night are a disaster for the Democratic Party. Perched behind Lamont during his victory speech were the Revs. 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."
Dick Cheney, darth Vader clone and VP; "The al-Qaida types clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task... Lieberman's defeat, he says, "would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that's becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't-- we can't be."
What's all this mean? The Lieberman dump is a major political seismic event. The whole process of dumping Lieberman was started by an activist who gave out hundreds of buttons with a photo of Bush kissing Lieberman. This is all about rejecting Bush, via Lieberman's relationship with Bush.
The Lieberman loss that the right wing is trying desperately to spin as a step towards leftwing extremism is certainly all about the war, and mainstream media couldn't help but mention that now, 60% of Americans oppose the war.
Will the right wing spin stick? Will they be able to paint the Democratic party as extreme left wing, anti war, anti-American, anti-Israel McGovernites?
The mainstream media will help. They spent more time on Joe Lieberman than on Ned Lamont.
The centrist Democrats may help. But the other possibility is that centrist, DLC Democrats will see the writing on the wall and start joining the Democratic team-- rejecting the incompetence driven failure that is Bush's Iraq "project."
The Bush right wing is doing all it can to draw the US into a major war, with Iran an Syria. If Democrats are smart, they'll do all they can to pin the blame for this war on the right wingers who are pushing for it and enabling it, with utter failure to broker a safe peace for Lebanon and Israel.
1 | 2
