.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The Ice Floe Has Broken

Lieberman has been variously quoted on his rationale for continuing the race in Connecticut.
"I'm definitely going forward," Lieberman told The Associated Press after his 4 percentage-point loss. "I feel that I closed strong in the primary. I feel we began to get out message across strongly and we're going to keep on going.

"This race is going to be all about who can get more done and who can be a better representative of Connecticut."
Lieberman's formed a new party - his own. Courant.com:
"As I see it, in this campaign we just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead. But in the second half our team, Team Connecticut, is going to surge forward to victory in November," Lieberman said. Then he shouted, "Will you join me?"
He's getting a lot of pressure from national Democrats to bow out of the race, and I think he may eventually do that. But if he does, he'll be angrier than ever.

There is very, very strong anti-war sentiment in the country. Turnout was high, and Lieberman apparently lost big in some of the small towns. His loss was a genuine loss of the Democratic base, not a loss produced by a low turnout of the Democratic base and a high turnout of anti-war groupies.

This anti-war sentiment is by no means confined to CT. I was listening to Hannity the other night, and a Republican from Texas called up saying he wasn't going to vote in the mid-terms. The issue for him was Iraq, and he finally broke down crying about our soldiers getting killed and wounded over there. Sentiment in the entire US has hardened against all Muslim countries. The truth is, that guy from Texas would probably support carpet-bombing Iran, but will never support American troops being deployed to defend Muslim countries again. Much of the US is possessed by a growing belief that Islam is sick at its core and that no good can come from it, and that the only way to deal with them is by crushing victories in conventional wars. The feeling is that if they want to fight, we will fight and win, but no more half measures. Bush has completely lost his battle to keep this a non-religious war, while many Democrats are refusing to admit that the Islamicists have even launched a war on democracy and the west.

The second situation to emerge from this primary is that the Democratic party is now going to be hostage to that anti-war sentiment and their more radical base, because I think the leftwing and the America-haters of the media are truly fired up now, and will be seeking to exert pressure on many moderate Dems. But this is going to be a key issue, because there are many traditionally staunch Democratic voters who think we absolutely must oppose Islamic terrorism. See, for example, this DU thread.

What if Lieberman continues and wins? He's started his own party, and that is really going to create a lot of angst in Washington. He's carefully limited it to his state, but isn't he really starting a third party that stands for liberal domestic policy and conservative foreign policy? And given the numbers of independents and the growing bifurcation on these issues in the country, doesn't that really represent a possible nucleus for a national party?
I'm thinking of the Reagan Democrats, who voted for him because they felt he represented the best hope for a better life for people like themselves. Reagan had huge union and working-class support.

I don't know. I no longer think Lieberman has a chance at the '08 Dem presidential nomination, but I cannot see another Democrat winning the presidency while captive to the media and the leftwing. See this Common Dreams editorial:
Even if Senator Lieberman decides to run as an independent in November, he will no longer represent the Democratic Party on the Sunday TV national network news programs. He has been de-throned.

And it is because of his support for President Bush and the Iraq War. That is what matters.
In its decision to officially endorse Ned Lamont, the New York Times editorial board cited a list of outrages that included Lieberman’s disregard for the Geneva Conventions and his support for the administration’s holding of foreign citizens without due process.

But Lieberman is one of this country’s most influential and well-connected Democratic Senators. If it can happen to him, it could happen to others. As Lamont pulled ahead of Lieberman last week, pro-war Senator Hillary Clinton veered left and gave Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a harsh drubbing at Senate hearings, calling for his resignation.

In the language of Condoleezza Rice, these are the birth pangs of a new U.S. foreign policy. It will take some years, but the Cold War liberalism that has dominated the Democratic party since the end of 1950s is going to expire.
In other words, the anti-American ennui that dominates the NY Times editorial board and Berkeley is going to win the country? Dream on, but there isn't a chance. On the other hand, I think the Republicans are going to lose either the House or the Senate in '06. I don't see the leadership of either party as satisfying the electorate. They are elitists who are out of touch with their bases and economic reality. Something's going to give. Something's got to give.

"...the Cold War liberalism that has dominated the Democratic party since the end of 1950s is going to expire."

What are these people smoking? Two words: George McGovern Two more words: Jimmy Carter
It hardly seems like the time for it, does it?

The dissonance between the average person and the media yappers is huge and growing.
I don't know about the republicans losing the house or senate, if the dems keep this up and appear to move that far then it could end up costing some dem incumbents as well.

I guess that's why we have elections because you just don't know what people will do until you have them vote. Of course then you get to protest that the election was rigged unless they vote the way you want.

Here's another one for you, if Lieberman withdraws, or doesn't win, he's the perfect candidate to give legitimacy to a third party movement. He's already done the hard part, announce a willingness to go the third party route when you're still a legitimate candidate.
This is by no means all about "anti-war" beliefs. A lot of it is just unfocused rage. And I suspect beliefs, and even outright anti-Semitism, play a more than insignificant role.

Look at some of the stuff Lanny Davis found in the fever swamps of the left-wing Internet.
Tommy, for your sake I hope you were scheduled for a few days off.

I think the UK scare kind of puts the seal on Lieberman's independent bid. He has appealed for help outside the state. I think if he gets enough, he may well end up starting a third party.
David, thanks for the link.

No, it's not just anti-war sentiment, although there is strong anti-strategic war sentiment growing both ends of the political spectrum.

But let's not be so polite. The fulminating anti-Semitism, racism, elitism, bigotry and just sheer cowardice of a significant contingent on the extreme left is making itself known. Lieberman was targeted partly because he is a religious Jew. He is anathema to the toxic left, which seems to have merged with the toxic right. He is hated because he is "moderate", because he has the country's interests at heart, and because he is personally decent. He is hated because he refuses to engage in the extreme rhetoric of the left. He is hated because he can make common cause for the US. He is hated because he is quietly patriotic.

There is nothing that the remnants of Marxism so deeply entrenched in our universities hate more than a liberal, religious, patriotic Jew. They must purge him from their ranks.
They are elitists who are out of touch with their bases and economic reality. Something's going to give. Something's got to give.

Like it did in 1861?

I was over at Orson Scott Card's website the other day, and his next novel is about a Second American Civil War (Red vs Blue), triggered by Islamic terrorists.
It could very well happen. Yes, 1861 is very much on my mind.

I don't think we are going to have a civil war, but I do think politics has reached a stage in which the bs will no longer work and erected power structures will fall of their own weight. This seems to me to indicate that a third party will emerge.

We are having a political war over truth.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?