Lieberman/ Lamont: Dems move closer to McGovern's losing formula
Aug 9th 2006 | 9:14 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lieberman/ Lamont: Dems move closer to McGovern's losing formula
Published "August 09, 2006
Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
""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 undoubtedly 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."
Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
""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 undoubtedly 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."
Aug 9th 2006 | 11:04 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lieberman/ Lamont: Dems move closer to McGovern's losing formula
PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> Published "August 09, 2006
> Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
>
What a load of hogwash. It's the war. Lieberman
neglected his own consituents, and followed
policies that 86% of them didn't agree with.
The only reason the voting was so close was
because a whole bunch of conservative 'independents'
probably from the GOP switched over to vote for him.
Game over.
--
MikeOscarPapa
Remember Dr. David Kelly - a British Hero
http://www.rense.com/general43/kelly.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076869.stm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_..._of_kelly.html
> Published "August 09, 2006
> Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
>
What a load of hogwash. It's the war. Lieberman
neglected his own consituents, and followed
policies that 86% of them didn't agree with.
The only reason the voting was so close was
because a whole bunch of conservative 'independents'
probably from the GOP switched over to vote for him.
Game over.
--
MikeOscarPapa
Remember Dr. David Kelly - a British Hero
http://www.rense.com/general43/kelly.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076869.stm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_..._of_kelly.html
Aug 10th 2006 | 9:51 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lieberman/ Lamont: Dems move closer to McGovern's losing formula
"FiveTwoAlphaOne" <MikeOscarPapa.org> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> > Published "August 09, 2006
> > Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
> >
> What a load of hogwash. It's the war. Lieberman
> neglected his own consituents, and followed
> policies that 86% of them didn't agree with.
> The only reason the voting was so close was
> because a whole bunch of conservative 'independents'
> probably from the GOP switched over to vote for him.
> Game over.
> --
> MikeOscarPapa
> Remember Dr. David Kelly - a British Hero
> http://www.rense.com/general43/kelly.htm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076869.stm
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_..._of_kelly.html
# Americans are beginning to realise that Iraq is Vietnam all over again.
If there had been a quick victory and peace, then OK; but with turmoil,
insurrection, and sectarian violence - and US troop deaths - that's another
matter.
The basic thing is: no nation likes to be invaded and occupied by another,
whatever good intentions there may be. Iraq is no different to Vietnam in
that regard.
Israel has invaded Lebanon, and this will bring recruits to Hezbollah
(Muslim, Christian, etc), in a fierce battle to drive the hated enemy out of
their homeland.
The Israeli envoy to the UN reminisces about the days when cedar was
imported from Tyre... How self-deluded can you be? Can Israelis see no
other viewpoint than their own?
Ned Lamont won because Americans are getting tired of an unwinnable war.
Will that lose Democrats an election? Maybe. But maybe not.
news:[email protected]...
> PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> > Published "August 09, 2006
> > Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
> >
> What a load of hogwash. It's the war. Lieberman
> neglected his own consituents, and followed
> policies that 86% of them didn't agree with.
> The only reason the voting was so close was
> because a whole bunch of conservative 'independents'
> probably from the GOP switched over to vote for him.
> Game over.
> --
> MikeOscarPapa
> Remember Dr. David Kelly - a British Hero
> http://www.rense.com/general43/kelly.htm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076869.stm
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_..._of_kelly.html
# Americans are beginning to realise that Iraq is Vietnam all over again.
If there had been a quick victory and peace, then OK; but with turmoil,
insurrection, and sectarian violence - and US troop deaths - that's another
matter.
The basic thing is: no nation likes to be invaded and occupied by another,
whatever good intentions there may be. Iraq is no different to Vietnam in
that regard.
Israel has invaded Lebanon, and this will bring recruits to Hezbollah
(Muslim, Christian, etc), in a fierce battle to drive the hated enemy out of
their homeland.
The Israeli envoy to the UN reminisces about the days when cedar was
imported from Tyre... How self-deluded can you be? Can Israelis see no
other viewpoint than their own?
Ned Lamont won because Americans are getting tired of an unwinnable war.
Will that lose Democrats an election? Maybe. But maybe not.
Aug 10th 2006 | 4:02 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lieberman/ Lamont: Dems move closer to McGovern's losing formula
Don H wrote:
> "FiveTwoAlphaOne" <MikeOscarPapa.org> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> >
> > > Published "August 09, 2006
> > > Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
> > >
> >
> > What a load of hogwash. It's the war. Lieberman
> > neglected his own consituents, and followed
> > policies that 86% of them didn't agree with.
> >
> > The only reason the voting was so close was
> > because a whole bunch of conservative 'independents'
> > probably from the GOP switched over to vote for him.
> > Game over.
> >
> > --
> > MikeOscarPapa
> > Remember Dr. David Kelly - a British Hero
> > http://www.rense.com/general43/kelly.htm
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076869.stm
> > http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_..._of_kelly.html
> # Americans are beginning to realise that Iraq is Vietnam all over again.
> If there had been a quick victory and peace, then OK; but with turmoil,
> insurrection, and sectarian violence - and US troop deaths - that's another
> matter.
The problem is that the public is discovering everything Bush has said
about our invasion of Iraq has been a lie. Cheney wanted the oil, Bush
wanted to prove he was more of a man than his father, the PNAC wackos
thought they could move reality in the direction they wanted, the
wealthy wanted big tax cuts, the middle class wanted to forget
Clinton's big blowjob, the religious wackos wanted the "rapture".
> The basic thing is: no nation likes to be invaded and occupied by another,
> whatever good intentions there may be. Iraq is no different to Vietnam in
> that regard.
> Israel has invaded Lebanon, and this will bring recruits to Hezbollah
> (Muslim, Christian, etc), in a fierce battle to drive the hated enemy out of
> their homeland.
> The Israeli envoy to the UN reminisces about the days when cedar was
> imported from Tyre... How self-deluded can you be? Can Israelis see no
> other viewpoint than their own?
> Ned Lamont won because Americans are getting tired of an unwinnable war.
> Will that lose Democrats an election? Maybe. But maybe not.
> "FiveTwoAlphaOne" <MikeOscarPapa.org> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> >
> > > Published "August 09, 2006
> > > Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
> > >
> >
> > What a load of hogwash. It's the war. Lieberman
> > neglected his own consituents, and followed
> > policies that 86% of them didn't agree with.
> >
> > The only reason the voting was so close was
> > because a whole bunch of conservative 'independents'
> > probably from the GOP switched over to vote for him.
> > Game over.
> >
> > --
> > MikeOscarPapa
> > Remember Dr. David Kelly - a British Hero
> > http://www.rense.com/general43/kelly.htm
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076869.stm
> > http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_..._of_kelly.html
> # Americans are beginning to realise that Iraq is Vietnam all over again.
> If there had been a quick victory and peace, then OK; but with turmoil,
> insurrection, and sectarian violence - and US troop deaths - that's another
> matter.
The problem is that the public is discovering everything Bush has said
about our invasion of Iraq has been a lie. Cheney wanted the oil, Bush
wanted to prove he was more of a man than his father, the PNAC wackos
thought they could move reality in the direction they wanted, the
wealthy wanted big tax cuts, the middle class wanted to forget
Clinton's big blowjob, the religious wackos wanted the "rapture".
> The basic thing is: no nation likes to be invaded and occupied by another,
> whatever good intentions there may be. Iraq is no different to Vietnam in
> that regard.
> Israel has invaded Lebanon, and this will bring recruits to Hezbollah
> (Muslim, Christian, etc), in a fierce battle to drive the hated enemy out of
> their homeland.
> The Israeli envoy to the UN reminisces about the days when cedar was
> imported from Tyre... How self-deluded can you be? Can Israelis see no
> other viewpoint than their own?
> Ned Lamont won because Americans are getting tired of an unwinnable war.
> Will that lose Democrats an election? Maybe. But maybe not.
Aug 10th 2006 | 5:58 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lieberman/ Lamont: Dems move closer to McGovern's losing formula
PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> Published "August 09, 2006
> Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
> 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."
I fancy that following the Kerry loss, many Democrats might have
dreamed up their own formulation of the apparently paradoxical but
plausible aphorism used in White Men Can't Jump"
||||
Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose,
you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie,
and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing
is all one organic mechanism, from which one extracts what one needs.
||||
Certainly, the Bush supporters have been doing just that in Iraq, and I
fancy that many Democrats would have seen a Lieberman "victory" as a
loss. Now you're saying that Lieberman's loss could foreshadow his
victory by decoupling him from those who might set him back.
And to think, it was only a movie -- very Zen though.
Fran
> Published "August 09, 2006
> Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
> 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."
I fancy that following the Kerry loss, many Democrats might have
dreamed up their own formulation of the apparently paradoxical but
plausible aphorism used in White Men Can't Jump"
||||
Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose,
you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie,
and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing
is all one organic mechanism, from which one extracts what one needs.
||||
Certainly, the Bush supporters have been doing just that in Iraq, and I
fancy that many Democrats would have seen a Lieberman "victory" as a
loss. Now you're saying that Lieberman's loss could foreshadow his
victory by decoupling him from those who might set him back.
And to think, it was only a movie -- very Zen though.
Fran
Aug 10th 2006 | 6:03 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lieberman/ Lamont: Dems move closer to McGovern's losing formula
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> Don H wrote:
>> "FiveTwoAlphaOne" <MikeOscarPapa.org> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >
>> > PJ O'Donovan wrote:
>> >
>> > > Published "August 09, 2006
>> > > Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
>> > >
>> >
>> > What a load of hogwash. It's the war. Lieberman
>> > neglected his own consituents, and followed
>> > policies that 86% of them didn't agree with.
>> >
>> > The only reason the voting was so close was
>> > because a whole bunch of conservative 'independents'
>> > probably from the GOP switched over to vote for him.
>> > Game over.
>> >
>> > --
>> > MikeOscarPapa
>> > Remember Dr. David Kelly - a British Hero
>> > http://www.rense.com/general43/kelly.htm
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076869.stm
>> > http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_..._of_kelly.html
>> # Americans are beginning to realise that Iraq is Vietnam all over again.
>> If there had been a quick victory and peace, then OK; but with turmoil,
>> insurrection, and sectarian violence - and US troop deaths - that's another
>> matter.
> The problem is that the public is discovering everything Bush has said
> about our invasion of Iraq has been a lie.
You'll have to excuse Bush. In his last medical exam, doctors find
a small inoperable growth in his brain that makes him a pathological liar.
It's _not his fault_. Right now he is concerned about gaining the Black
vote come November. Here's a picture of him seeking the Black
vote --
http://www.planetvisitor.name/bush.jpg
<rest clipped>
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> Don H wrote:
>> "FiveTwoAlphaOne" <MikeOscarPapa.org> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >
>> > PJ O'Donovan wrote:
>> >
>> > > Published "August 09, 2006
>> > > Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
>> > >
>> >
>> > What a load of hogwash. It's the war. Lieberman
>> > neglected his own consituents, and followed
>> > policies that 86% of them didn't agree with.
>> >
>> > The only reason the voting was so close was
>> > because a whole bunch of conservative 'independents'
>> > probably from the GOP switched over to vote for him.
>> > Game over.
>> >
>> > --
>> > MikeOscarPapa
>> > Remember Dr. David Kelly - a British Hero
>> > http://www.rense.com/general43/kelly.htm
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076869.stm
>> > http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_..._of_kelly.html
>> # Americans are beginning to realise that Iraq is Vietnam all over again.
>> If there had been a quick victory and peace, then OK; but with turmoil,
>> insurrection, and sectarian violence - and US troop deaths - that's another
>> matter.
> The problem is that the public is discovering everything Bush has said
> about our invasion of Iraq has been a lie.
You'll have to excuse Bush. In his last medical exam, doctors find
a small inoperable growth in his brain that makes him a pathological liar.
It's _not his fault_. Right now he is concerned about gaining the Black
vote come November. Here's a picture of him seeking the Black
vote --
http://www.planetvisitor.name/bush.jpg
<rest clipped>
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
