Here's the story:

Link




To be debated:

Is this an omen for the Congressional elections and the Presidential election of 2006 and 2008? Specifically:

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?

3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?

Depending on your answers to these questions:

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?

Is this an omen for the Congressional elections and the Presidential election of 2006 and 2008? Specifically:

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?

I don't know about it being THE issue but I think it will be a big issue. It hurt Mr. Bush in the last election but it didn't put him under and he was the one blamed for it.

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?

I think the Democratic Party is trying to use the anti-war stance to their benefit but I don't know as they have anything against war if they see a benefit to it. Cynical probably but hey thats politics. I think that if the positions were reversed the Republicans would be using it as a stick to knock the Dems so . . .

3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?

Hard to tell. I don't think it is becoming more liberal but I think there is a growing anti-war stance. However I don't think that this issue in Vermont could be used as a sign of bigger movements. It has always been one of the more liberal areas.

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?

I think it is the same backlash we always have against the party in power. Nothing new, one party promises to "do the right thing" once those villains in power are driven out. Then they gain power and surprise surprise, they are just as bad.

I am very curious to see how Mr. Lieberman fares as an independent in the general elections. I have never been a fan of party politics and it would make me very happy if he wins anyway. One concern would be would he lose his seniority for Senate committees? That's one main reason to keep reelecting incumbents and if he lost that edge it might not be pretty come November. If, however, the other Democrats in the Senate would welcome him back even though his state Democratic Party didn't, it may still help him.

In any case if I was a voter in Vermont this fall I would probably vote for him regardless of his party affiliation.

Is this an omen for the Congressional elections and the Presidential election of 2006 and 2008? Specifically:
1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?
2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?
3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?
Depending on your answers to these questions:
4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?
Sen. Lieberman is set on independent bid


Personally i hope he continues to run as an Indie and doesn't let him get talked out of Democrats who will regret their choice on Lamont.
while Lieberman is not the most exciting candidate for a break to running as an Independent, I am curious to see if he would win and if it might make other moderates consider running as Indies if they are shoved out by the fringe element of their party.

I think Iraq will definetly be an issue, but no longer if we should have gone, but why are we still there and when do we leave.
Democrats aren't antiwar, just anti Bush. To use the CT example Lamont supports Israel and their right to self defense.
The Democrats should try to avoid making this a revenge issue against Bush--he aint running.
As for the Leftward drift, no more than usual these days. However to anyone not a Dem they really dont sound like they have any original ideas on much of anything.

The mood of the country is more conservative. Thats the danger for the Left. If they leave that to the GOP and have nothing to offer themselves they will continue to lose elections. Just like the GOP their moderates are under attack and the loudest Dem voices are the Move On types and they are getting real tired sounding.

They sound just like the GOP during the Clinton years. Bush bush bush.....

1. If things remain the same in Iraq as current, a slow steady drain on resources but no spectacular battles or casualties then I don't see it being an overwhelming issue come election time, though it will be an issue with both parties discussing plans for withdrawal, differing only in scope and timing. The ovoverwhelmingssue I predict will be the ececconomiclowdown brought about by the rise in oil prices.

2. The Democratic Party loves its image of the 60s and welcomes into itself the rather loud anti-war movement that exists in this country, but as a party they will not become anti-war. They can't afford to do so without leaning more towards an isisolationisttance that goes against the general ideal of global welfare it seems to embrace. As for becoming more liberal, the forces of the left in the party are doing a fairly good job of organizing anti President Bush feelings into a general base from which to attack those members of the party they object too, namely moderates like Lieberman. If this is seen as a warning to other moderates in the party there may be a slight shift leftward in local politics, but still staying generally a central course in national politics.

3. The nation is becoming not so much anti-war as they are becoming anti-war-in-Iraq. The general mood seems to be that there has been no benefits to the U.S. in remaining there, as even a war for oil is a failure when oil prices rise. No oil, no WMDs, and no enemy for traditional battles. Iraq remains a situation where the military tactics of the past do the allies little good, and the good news coming out of the region remains dwarfed by the bad. This has been having the recent effect of moving the U.S. in both directions of the fringe. The left is gaining momentum from anti-war support, and the right from an increasing bunker mentality and near crusaderlike intent towards the arab world.

4. If the Democrats are pulled further leftward I see the Republican party benefiting the most from such a change. There are too many centrists among the undecided voters out there who can go either way but prefer voting for a more moderate candidate. This could also mean a new life for the conservative movement which always swells when the left gets worked up and shows signs of gaining momentum. In this newest victory of the left I see only the fringe gaining, but not enough to sway the two big parties greatly.

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?

It will, of course, be a factor, but not THE factor. The fact here is that Lieberman ran a terrible campaign. He expected to skate to victory and seriously underestimated Lamont's continual pounding on one issue--Iraq. He never effectively countered that and it took him until this past weekend to explain how he thinks the war was the right idea, but wrongly implemented.

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?

Other Democratic big wigs are avoiding revisiting their decision to approve the war. Senator Clinton is doing the Texas two step by publicly taking Don Rumsfeld to task for his planning and execution of the war, while avoiding saying that she made the wrong decision.

The Democrats realize that if they are pinned into an anti-war corner, then they will lose big. They need to show the country that they too can be strong on national defense issues. At the same time, they play up Bush's mis-steps at every opportunity.

3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?

I don't think so. Connecticut is, but not the nation as a whole. The fact that Connecticut primary voters would cast out Lieberman, one of the most liberal Senators on social issues, over one issue is surprising, but not unheard of. The number of voters yesterday was about 270,000. In 2004, over 1.5 million voters cast ballots in the general election. Lieberman is much more likely to get Republican voters (the actual Republican candidate is polling at 13% currently, versus 40% for Lamont and 40% for Lieberman due to a gambling scandal.) Lamont's small but vocal base turned out, but the general election is a horse of a different color.

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?

The Democrats have momentum due to anti-war sentiments. Depending on future events (particularly international conflicts), national security will certainly play a pivotal role in upcoming elections, giving Republicans a decided advantage. It is a stalemate at this point.

It’s a nice sound bite that I’m sure we’ll continually hear but I wouldn’t bet any of your hard earned money on giving an advantage to the GOP regarding National Security. Despite the “small government’ party creating a huge, bloated, ineffective Department of Homeland Security apparently we’re no safer flying the skies today than pre 9/11.


No one to blame here but the GOP. And consider that a large number of guns and knives still make it past screeners and the person actually responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks is still at large. I’d actually consider this a weakness of the GOP that can easily be exploited.

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?

No doubt it’s an issue and from interviews in Connecticut last night those who voted for Lamont cited that as one of the main reasons. The other reason was the kiss that Liberman and Bush shared. Lamont effectively tied Liberman and Bush together and that speaks volumes. If you can tie an incumbent to Bush, even if the incumbent has been considered the political opposite of the president than you stand a great chance of winning.

With the exception of a few die hard GOP states, I see Bush as political death for all those who supported him.

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?

Any candidate running against an incumbent might be able to just point fingers and win, it’s apparent some voters just want a change. But if a candidate had actual solutions and pointed fingers it could be an easy race.

Actually, no one to blame here but the Bush Administration. If you want the blame to go any further than that, then it would have to extend to both parties, since the Homeland Security Act passed with significant bipartisan support (90 yes votes in the Senate, including Boxer, Feinstein, Bayh, Reid, Kerry, Schumer, Durbin, and Clinton, among others).

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?

A key issue, but not the overwhelming issue. "It's the economy, stupid" is still the uppermost concern for most people. If they feel good about the economy, the Republicans benefit. It they don't, then the Democrats will prosper. The pain in the wallet that comes from filling up a vehicle is one all of us can feel. It doesn't work well for Republican candidates to simply repeat the White House mantra that all is well and let's just stay the course. People want their leaders to stand up and defend the war or advocate a way out of it. Ned Lamont made his opposition to the war the central issue of his successful campaign against Lieberman. That won't play as well across the other 49 states, but it does show that in some places, being for the war carries a heavy cost.

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?

That's probably the strategy the Republicans will push. America isn't anti-war as much as its against this war. While an immediate pull-out does not hold mass appeal, most people seem to be desirable of some key indicators that Iraq is ready to carry the bulk of the burden and our troops can begin to return home.

As to whether the party is moving leftward, the Lamont victory is also a victory for the left-wing bloggers and activists. Those are the types that tend to be most tuned into non-Presidential election years (and politics junkies like us). I'm not of the belief that Lieberman's loss means a sea change in the leftward drift of the Democratic Party. It wasn't enough to win Howard Dean the nomination or John Kerry the presidency in 2004. Until the MoveOn.org and Daily Kos crew can actually nominate and elect a prototypical liberal to the White House, I doubt they have become the major powerbase of the Dems. They ARE a lot stronger than old constitutencies like labor groups.

3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?

Polls indicate the nation has soured on the war in Iraq, but I don't think that means if the national security of the country are clearly at stake, Americans are going to shove their hands in their pockets and sit it out. Being liberal does not mean you are a pacifist. Nor does it mean the country is moving towards the Left politically. America is still a predominantly conservative country, but the way the Republicans have run it over the last few years has turned off a lot of people, including many who identify with conservative principles.

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?

If things continue as they are, I would believe it is the Democrats that will benefit most in November. Whether that means a GOP meltdown on the scale of what happened to the Dems in 1994, I can't say. More likely we'll see a considerable narrowing of the current GOP majority in both houses of Congress than an complete turnover of power to the Democrats.

I'd like to see the philosophy of statesmanship, bipartisan cooperation between the major parties be the guiding principles put into play following the fall elections. We'd all benefit from our elected officials spending less time on partisan posturing and more on actually doing things that strengthen and make America a better, finer place.

I won’t deny both parties share some responsibility. However, when a single party controls both the executive and legislative branches while chairing key committees that oversee national defense, AND claims the other party is weak on national defense, they shoulder the majority of blame.

It’s called leadership.

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?

I think the Iraq war and immigration are huge. The economy is quickly becoming another big hitter with gas prices and housing prices making a big difference. When the economy is bad, incumbents are in trouble.

IMHO, those that favored the war, those pro-immigrant, and those responsible for the current economy (incumbents) are most likely to do very badly.

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?

No. Just because democrats are against this BAD war doesn't mean they wouldn't support a "just" war.

3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?

Definately not more liberal...whatever that means. I do think more people are tired of cowboy-antics and with people's wages stagnating and the economy hurting many people, protectionist and labor-related interests are starting to get stronger. Is that liberalism?

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?

I think it depends on particular races. We saw in California that a pro-immigrant democrat lost. And we saw a pro-war democrat lose in CT.

I think it has to favor non-incumbents for a change.

To be debated:

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?
To an extent, yes, but it's been going on for so long, it's a bit like the elephant in the room. Since these are congressional elections, they are more focused on what is good for the state rather than what is good for the country. I have to say I was surprised at Lieberman's loss, but I still expect him to win his seat back come November. He has name recognition and Lamont had a nicely timed campaign. Three more months will put Lamont on the back burner, a bit like Howard Dean in his 2004 President campaign. All build up, everything pointed to him, and then it all turned.

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?
Is anti-war a left and right issue now? I thought most people were anti-war. Are a lot of people drooling for more war? The Democratic Party is beholden to the voters, just like every other elected official. There is this strange tactic being hammered home by the conservative talk radio group, arguing that Lieberman's loss symbolizes the Democratic Party's shift towards cut-and-run loony leftist objectives. This is so odd considering Lieberman only lost by 4% points. They are criticizing Senators Clinton, Biden, Schumer and others for taking over the party and abandoning Lieberman (huh?). Basically, they are trying to skirt around saying what they really mean: 52% of Connecticut Democrats are, in their opinions, loony leftists who want to bow down to the terrorists (to be debated in another topic: are talk radio hosts terrorists?).

I realize this doesn't really answer the question.

3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?
It's becoming more anti-war in that there appears to be no resolution. It probably wouldn't be as damning if there wasn't also trouble with Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and North Korea. Pile it all on and it's a bit too much for most Americans to deal with. We're too busy worrying about the price of gas, apparently oblivious that what is going on as a result of war-time policies has caused the skyrocketing prices. Most Americans just don't want to think about how much money we've spent and who's going to pay for it. They just want to eat, drive, and go about their lives. I'm beginning to burn out myself. The sheer immensity of the problems we face are daunting and, in my opinion, caused by extremely poor choices in Middle Eastern affairs by our government over the past couple of decades.

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?
Nobody. The problem Americans face is having to look honestly at their own constituent. There's a reason incumbents have a high return rate--everyone thinks their congressman is wonderful, and every other states' is the problem. Nothing will change, I can almost guarantee that. Maybe it's a result of living in Utah where our Senator Hatch is up for his fourth term and will win in a landslide.

Rarely is anything else discussed by the media, so it will have to be. If Iraq, Iraq, Iraq is all we see, then of course it will be a major issue to consider for the upcoming election. I don't think that this Primary has any substantial impact in terms of the way people are thinking about the war, and it definitely doesn't show any trend whatsoever.


Yes and yes. Democrats are becoming the anti-war lefty party and the Republicans are the "stay the course you commie" righty party. This country is the definition of polarized and that IS something that this primary tells us. The Democratic Party through a moderate Democrat to the sharks because there is no room for dissent in their party. Meanwhile, the Republicans outed a moderate of their own in favor of a "real Republican". I really, really like to think that this level of partisanship, disrespect and hatred for the other side will sicken Americans enough to vote these losers out of office and replace them with sensible people who actually, um, accomplish something, but I'm not so optimistic.


It's becoming more anti-war, but that doesn't mean it's becoming more liberal. Most Americans still are socially conservative [hooray Jesus!] but due to A: the war resulting in less glowing successes and more deaths [this is the main reason] and B: the media highlighting failures while fast-talking through successes
[this doesn't help]. But again, there aren't too many more liberals in the USA than there were before the war.


The Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Constitution Party, the American Nazi Party and every other third party in this country that has to be looking like a choir of angels compared to these people running the country now.

CP

Errr...are you really sure the American Nazi Party looks better than the Dems and GOP, ConservPat? A bit of rhetorical flourish, perhaps?

I usually don't agree with Pat Buchanan on---oh, almost anything---but I get a kick out of how he goes after the neo-cons whom dominate the contemporary conservative movement.

But this week has also provided a glimpse into the character and convictions of our neo-conservatives, who claim direct descent from Ronald Reagan. In a lead editorial, The Weekly Standard called on Bush to fire Rumsfeld and make Joe Lieberman secretary of defense. And the Pentagon is only to be a stepping stone.

Rhapsodizes editor William Kristol, "Is it too fanciful to speculate about a 2008 ticket of McCain-Lieberman, or Guiliani-Lieberman ... ?"

In short, The Weekly Standard wishes to see, on a Republican ticket and a heartbeat away from the presidency, a proud liberal Democrat who supports partial-birth abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, gay rights, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, gun control, higher taxes on the top 2 percent, distribution of condoms in public schools and driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

What does Joe oppose? School prayer, the American Legion's flag amendment, Sam Alito, drilling in the ANWAR and any phase-out of death taxes.

Last year, Joe's rating by Americans for Democratic Action was 80. The ACLU gave him an 83, the NAACP an 85, the AFL-CIO a 92, LULAC a perfect 100. In 2004, Joe got a 100 rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League and a zero from National Right to Life. His American Conservative Union rating was zero. His Christian Coalition rating was zero. The National Rifle Association, which grades by letters, gave Joe a big, fat "F."

Buchanan

Whaddya think, ConservPat? Does a Rudy and Joe ticket in 2008 make your heart skip a beat?

Definitely a rhetorical flourish.


Nighttimer, anyone who gets a 0 rating from the Christian Coalition makes my heart skip a beat, but my heart might not be able to take TWO of them on the same ticket...If nothing else, Lamont's victory in the primary and Lieberman's subsequent run as an independent will get people thinking out of the R and D gang mentality that's been running rampant for way too long now.

CP

As nighttimer (via Pat Buchanan) points out: Joe Lieberman is a liberal in every sense of the word. He is also a staunch pro-Iraq war liberal (one of the few).

Lamont exploited this by mobilizing the same Net radicals that fueled the candidacy of Howard Dean. We saw how Dean's campaign fizzled even among Democrats in early 2004. Lamont's spiel will not sell to moderate independents, which are the largest voting bloc in Connecticut.

I find it funny that Lieberman (now Independent Democrat Lieberman) is (and has been) criticizing the polarized politics of the country where support of Bush on one issue (out of a great many that Lieberman opposes the President's policies) makes him persona non grata among some Democrats. Now that he has lost the Democratic primary, the "rally around the 'D' " mindset hardens and bigtime Democrats feel obligated to support Lamont over their (former?) political ally Lieberman. How quickly some forget that this man was selected the Vice Presidential nominee in 2000.

Maybe Joe should be the one to start the third party that so many seem to be looking for...

1. It will be. The voters will be faced with a choice between the party of Ned Lamont, Cindy Sheehan, and John Murtha who advocate cut, run, surrender, and then sit back while the Jihadists step up their offensives against us in response... or the party who advocates knuckling down and winning this conflict.

2. The democrat party HAS been anti-war. Ever since John Kerry flip-flopped in 2004 after ousting Dean and since they celebrated their convention with Jimmy Carter sitting next to propagandist Michael Moore in their presidential box.

3. The mood will be short-lived. Lieberman is staying in the race and will likely win. Lamont will be a short-term phenomena who will drag other democrats to the ultra left (from the far left where they currently reside). People are upset about the war. They are weary about the war. But that does NOT mean they advocate defeat and surrender and immediate cut-and-run as leading democrats advocate. In fact, even democrats who advocate that don't have the BACKBONE to vote for just that when they were presented with that choice, twice in recent memory.

The party who is best positioned is the republicans. Their record is far from stellar. But, the democrats, instead of adopting the policies of Lieberman who is a respected liberal on social issues and conservative on national defense, arguably a WINNING combination, they lurch to the Sheehan/Pelosi/Sharpton/Jackson far left Castro-ite side instead.

The democrats had their chance to take over and they have blown it. Time will prove me right.

I think you're reading just a bit too far into this LordHelmet. This was a primary in which 200,000 people voted...and the vote went 52%-48%. 120,000 or so Democrats from CT endorsing a screaming liberal doesn't mean the Democratic Party as a whole is "Castro-ite". While I do agree with you that the Dems have moved way to the left [just as the Republicans have done to the right] I think that most of your post highlights the lack of respect between both poles on the political spectrum...Ultimately people are going to get sick of right v. left and come to their senses, but by that time I'll probably be way too dead or senile to be happy about it.

CP

It's unbelievable how much fuss is made about the fact that Connecticut Democrats decided, for the first time in 18 years, to change their representation. Listen to some of you, it's almost a sign of things of apocalyptic proportions. In reality, it's not only about the war. It's about the man. Joe Lieberman made a lot of people angry back in 2000 when he consistently refused to give up his senate seat when he was picked to be Al Gore's running mate. Since Connecticut had a soon-to-be-a-convicted-felon Republican governor John Rowland, Lieberman's seat would likely go to a Republican party should Gore have won. Lieberman put his own job security above national interests, and that raised a lot of eyebrows around here. Joe Lieberman didn't make a lot of female friends earlier this year when he supported a decision of some Connecticut hospitals to refuse a morning-after pill, even to rape and incest victims. And of course, his decision to disrespect these primaries' result is not going to win him many friends among Democrats.
Many Democratic senators supported this war. Maybe it's Lieberman's rhetoric, when he uses republican catchphrases like "retreat and defeat" or "cut and run"; maybe it's his chumminess with TV attack dogs like Hannity; maybe it's something else, but none of pro-war senators have nearly as much problems with their core constituents as Lieberman. Like I said, it's not only about the war... it's about the man. Nothing puts people off more than the sense of entitlement.
I'm not sorry Lieberman lost. I hope he loses in November again.


What's in Lamont's record says that he is a "screaming liberal"? Nothing. He is pro-Israel, pro-strong military, and pro-business. In fact, when he was a selectman in Greenwich, he voted with Republicans 80 percent of a time - a fact that Lieberman's campaign pouded down every single day here to prove that Lieberman is more "liberal" than Lamont. Now all that "look how liberal I am" advertising will bite Joe in his rear end when he'll try to turn 180 degrees and woo Republicans saying that he is not "really" that liberal at all.

When I said screaming liberal, I meant just that. Lamont is a liberal and he screams [listening to most of his public speeches/rallies will tell you that]. Whether or not Lamont is just running to the left or is a liberal is inconsequential, but make no mistake, he is definitely running as a liberal.

CP

I heard Ned Lamont on Hardball last night and thought he was well modulated. Even so, I can't see the relevance to your accusation of "screaming liberal." Is it that such a characterization is a substitute for anything substantive?

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?

It will be the biggest single issue, but not neccessarily one larger then the cumulative effect of the others.
I think I can say with fair certainty that it will hurt the Republicans, as the moving of the left and center towards a pro-phased withdrawal, mistake admission demanding stance, can only serve to alienate the Reps from non-core voters. Of course, though it might hurt, there is no guarantee that it will crush.

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?

Increasing numbers of Democratic congressmen are calling for a phased withdrawal, and are saying that they made a mistake when they voted to give Bush authorization to go into Iraq (or that they were right all along, if they didn't support authorization).

Anti-war might be the wrong way to phrase the democratic stance however, as a desire to end the war is bipartisan. What is contended is how and how soon.

Is the party moving left in otherways?

Essentially, I have a sneaking suspicion that most elected democrats are more socially liberal then they will admit. I remember some time ago reading in Bill Clinton's "My Life" about how a bill banning gay sex was going through the Arkansan legislature when he was governor, and he attempted to block it's passage via getting state senators to trying to keep the bill away from a vote. Eventually it got to a vote and winded up on his desk. In order to remain politically viable, he signed it. Similarly arguments still occur debating whether or not Faubus was racist, or simply ambitious, but anyways...

I think as the years progress, the Democratic party will find itself able to become more open, as public opinion swerves in its favor. If current trends continue for a another decade or two (and don't platue), gay marriage will have eventually have majority support.

Economically speaking, I don't think democrats are any more liberal today then they've ever been; enviromentally, I think some of them are perhaps feeling more of a sense urgency.

3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?

Anti war? Yes.

Liberal? Socially yes (though only very gradually), economically I suspect so but have no empirical means of knowing (but if an economic liberal is someone against tax cuts on the wealthy, then most Americans already are economic liberals), enviromentally...we'll who thinks enough about the enviroment to have a stance on it anyway? I bet Al Gores been having some big head aches for a long time.

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?

From this election specifically?

We'll a three way Senate race can hardly help the Democrats in Conneticut.

From what it symbolizes (pro phased withdrawal sentiments)?

That will hurt the Republicans. By how much, I can't really say.

A few salient points to get started here.

First, there were a couple of primaries the other day, and 3 - count 'em - 3 incumbents got booted in those primaries. Chuck Todd at the National Journal has that story.


This jives up with pretty much all of the recent polls that have been taken about what people think about the direction the country is heading in. People want change, in general it is Democratic candidates providing that change.

Second, there is this poll from FoxNews of all places:


Those trendlines are well outside the margin of error and this further backs up this idea of change. Also note that isn't a generic congressional ballot, that directly asks about your district.

Third, fully 60% of the American people are against the war in Iraq.

Now on to a few other things:

Lamont is hardly a "fringe" candidate nor was he influenced by the "fringe" element of the party. Lieberman was out of touch with the voters in his state and with the Democratic party in general. The fact that we have people like Karl Rove calling up to offer help with his campaign speaks volumes.

On pretty much every issue Lieberman is out of touch with his constituents and with his party, and on top of that he is a sore loser - he refuses to accept the outcome of the primary insisting that he knows best, Democracy be damned.


Hmmm, what polls have you been looking at lately? People disapprove of Iraq, they disapprove of Bush, they disapprove of the job congress is doing, they disapprove of the one issue Bush decided to veto, I could keep going. It is exactly the opposite.


That's highly doubtful. We already have some evidence to prove it too. If you look at the top election handicappers they have the Republican incumbents fighting very hard for all of their seats in this election cycle. As the Democrats have decided to be more and more forceful in their opposition to the GOP their support has grown amongst the base and they've started turning more people out to elections and raising unprecedented amounts of money.


Wrong - aside from Hillary the rest of the party is pretty unified here.


That was also almost 50% of eligible voters which is absolutely unheard of for a primary election, and usually even a general election. What that says is that voters in CT at least (and we are seeing evidence this is national) are charged up to turn out and kick people out.


Its about a lot more than being anti-Iraq.


Are you serious? Lieberman is about as far from Liberal as one can get. For now you can call him a democrat but he is most certainly not liberal. You'd have to be coming from extremely far right to even begin to think that.


Lieberman has consistently provided bipartisan cover for Bush and his policies, it isn't even so much the war as the fact that he never misses a chance to talk trash about his party. I think that in 2004 he appeared something like 24 times on FoxNews pundit programs and he scaled that down in 2005 and 2006.

And what about a primary is not clear here? Voters select the person they want to run for their party, and that person runs. That is the way it has been in the past and that is the way it should be in the future. That is why we have primary elections. Some states have even passed "sore loser" laws which prohibit the losers of a primary to run in the general election.

[quote name='Victoria Silverwolf' date='Aug 8 2006, 11:36 PM' post='193737']
Here's the story:

Link

[quote]Three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman fell to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont in Connecticut’s Democratic primary Tuesday, a race seen as a harbinger of sentiment over a conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 2,500 U.S. troops.[/quote]


To be debated:

Is this an omen for the Congressional elections and the Presidential election of 2006 and 2008? Specifically:

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?
Overwhelming? No, but it will be a significant issue in '06. 2008 is too far out, too much can happen between now and then.

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party?
"Becoming"? No, actually, I think a more accurate definition would be "anti-Bush's war party." The more vocal elements of the DP are certainly firmly entranced with that paradigm, but its unclear how widespread is the sentiment. After all, Cynthia McKinney has a voting record firmly in the UBER-ANTI-war camp, and she got the boot in the primary as well.

Is it moving leftward in other ways?
Not really moving, except for the rising tide of anti-Semitism within the DP. Otherwise, their rhetoric remains firmly Left, dedicated to uncivil rights (affirmative action), environmental religion, abortion on demand at taxpayer's expense, wage and price controls, universal (ly bad) healthcare, greater government intervention in everything except the bedroom, etc.

3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?
Nope on both counts.

Depending on your answers to these questions:

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?
If the DP takes Connecticut as the indicative trend, then the GOP will benefit, greatly, unless the DP somehow manages to craft a message that convinces the electorate that they have a foreign policy/security plan that has more than a snowball's chance of succeeding. At this juncture, the only plan they've offered is guaranteed to fail. So, regardless of the validity of their criticisms of the current Administration's policies, until they can do more than kvetch, the DP is doomed, and thier downfall will be swift and catastrophic if they follow Lamont off the cliff.

However, as this is a mid-term election, the DP, after following Lamont into the abyss, may be able to pick itself up off the talus and bricbrack on the canyon floor and re-orient itself. Maybe...

I watched this primary with great interest. I always respected Lieberman though obviously i disagree on a great number of issues because he seems to be following his own views and not party mantra. I think that he should most certainly run as an independent because he will probably win. If he carries the Dem vote he got in the primary, the moderate and even some of the Republican vote could possibly go his way and win him the election as the Republican challenger is not going to put up much of a fight.



How can someone who votes with the Democratic Party 90% of the time be called out of touch with that same party? Lieberman shows that he is not a lock-step partisan by voting differently from his party 10% of the time and he is somehow no longer liberal? And since when does losing the primary mean that he should pack up and go home? As i iterated above, he didn't lose by very much in the primary and he can surely gain a large moderate and moderate Republican vote. I don't think liberals are mad that Lieberman is running because he will take votes away from Lamont but because he still has a legitimate chance at retaining his seat.



I smell hypocrisy. When George Bush was elected in 2004, we had numerous topics discussing if Bush and the Repubs will reach across the aisle to reach bipartisan agreements on issues. Now we have one Senator who is actually able to work with the other side and he is criticized for it. If you criticize Republicans for their partisan politics in the future, should I or anyone even bother commenting? Because it seems right here that you would rather a senatorial robot who votes with his party 1 more time out of 10 instead of a Senator who votes from his individual beliefs.



Lieberman isn't going to run for the Democratic Party.

Is this an omen for the Congressional elections and the Presidential election of 2006 and 2008? Specifically:

Yes, america does not want the reality it currently has overseas and at home.

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?

Yes, people may not like the idea of leaving U.S troops in a Vietnam.

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?

No, its responding to the views of people that will vote for them, just as republicans take the voice of religious nuts and run with them, plus the dems might actually respond to environmental issues.

3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?

No, the nation is probably tired of Iraq and the lack of true protection past reaction to terrorism among a multitude of other issues.

Depending on your answers to these questions:

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?

Democrats.

It was mostly a joke brought on by LordHelmet's concern that the Democratic Primary in Connecticut meant that the Democratic Party as a whole was on it's way to Stalinism. While I do believe that Lamont is a liberal [and he is very loud most of the time, but would obviously have to tone that down on TV], I certainly don't believe that his victory reveals any real trend in terms of the country moving left. That's all I meant by that comment.

CP

He won't carry the Dem vote because what you'll see in the coming weeks is everyone in the party that he counted on leaving him in the cold for going it alone like this. You'll also see things like Reid stripping him of his commitee assignments. He won't be able to bring in the corporate donors if he has no power, and they won't bet on a loser.

You also won't see Republicans voting for him as long as there is a Republican candidate in the race. If he is liberal as you seem to claim, why would they? I mean you can't have it both ways - either he is liberal and a party loyalist or he was a DINO and therefore might be appealing to Republicans. Which is it leder?

Even Lieberman's own hometown paper (which previously endorsed him) wants him out - link

And then there is this. He is spinning it as he asked them to resign - in reality they all walked out the second he decided to go independent. He would be starting from square one and I don't know who the heck he thinks will work for him, the consultants he was counting on will want to work for democrats, fearing they'll be blacklisted if they work for him.

And of course now Lamont already has millions in the bank and he'll get lots more from his energized supporters and from people like H. Clinton that have more money sitting in the bank than God right now. She has already donated $5K to him.

It is over for Lieberman, period. The only question is how much he'll embarrass himself before he realizes that.


Cite? Something to back that up?


Last time I checked that is *exactly* what a primary meant. If you lose your primary then the voters have spoken and you don't continue to run.

And as far as "not by much" that margin of victory is fairly significant as far as elections go. especially considering he was a Senator of 18 years and he got beat by someone that came out of nowhere and built name recognition and supporters from nothing. Early polls had Lamont trailing by 40 points, the conventional wisdom was that he didn't have a chance.


First, there is a huge difference between working with the other side and working for them. Secondly, if the other side never reaches across the aisle it isn't bipartisanship it is capitulation.


I think you are missing the point - he lost his primary amongst Democratic voters so he decided that the will of the people wasn't good enough and he is going to run as an Independent Democrat, which is completely bogus. If you'd put aside your desire to see Bush's favorite Senator in office for another 6 years you'd see what an insult to Democracy this was.


Almost every poll on the subject predicts the Republicans are going to lose big in November. I've certainly been pointing to the signs for at least as long as there have been polls on the subject. I guess we'll see in about 75 days won't we - at the only poll that counts for anything

Glad you waded in here CP- I am hoping you "young guns" of the libertarian party really GO activist for us bro! You and leder make me very excited for our party- if you indeed go activist and start really selling your party- now is the time, so I will answer the questions from a libertarian's outlook:

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?

Yes, and not simply because we are there, but because of the incompetance of it's prosecution! Libertarians can be hawkish or dovish, just like a (dovish) Conservative Pat Buchanan, or a (Hawkish) "screaming" liberal - it is a mistake to even consider that one philosophy (conservative vs liberal) is inherently dovish or hawkish- the liberals were born of war, and liberals were in charge of WW2 don't forget! -

So, if it is an overwhelming issue- it is NOT because we are THERE- it is because we are STILL there and no end in sight and it just keeps getting worse and worse (the whole ME now) - GW, quite nicely, has completely (profane military expression of your choice here) the entire ME situation into a raging ball of fire.

His is probably the most almost cartoon villian incompetant president in US history. Anything he touches goes from good to bad, or bad to worse.

But who we going to turn too for leadership? Gore? I don't think so!

So, it is prime time for a charismatic Libertarian to make his/her mark- someone that isn't seen as a freakin' kook!

But that won't happen- because I am backing Doug Stanhope for Prez- rock on Dougie!

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?

No, if anything, it has moved to the right- in a good way, mostly on economic issues- which is great, it is where the liberals need to go- a more realistic economic thing than "tax and spend"- they are becoming pro-smaller goverment, if anything, seeming to move into more and more of the libertarian platform!

3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?

No, they are anti- incompetance- that is the real issue- if GW had slam dunk got in, got out, had a mission in mind, Dems would be done, period

Depending on your answers to these questions:

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?


Well, ideally, this is an ideal time for the third party to REALLY make it's move- but I don't have high hopes unfortunately- but, on the good side, I think dems can make a serious move on the "party of common sense" type platform if it adopts more libertarian talking points- more economically right wing, small goverment stuff like that

Don't get me wrong, the country is tired of the Republicans, and I strongly believe that they will lose one house of Congress. Having said that, I believe that that is mainly due to the war, as I said before, this is still a pretty socially conservative nation who loves their tax cuts. So while the Democrats are poised for victory, I don't believe the country is any more liberal, just more anti-war.

Activism is definitely the plan for me, but so far the best activists for the Libertarian Party are the Republican and Democratic House and Senate members.

On Edit:

This is semantics CJ..."Independent Democrat"? There's no such thing, Independents by definition are can't be affiliated with any group, so this is just Lieb's cute way of trying to attract the Democrats who did vote for him [a sizeable 48%] to vote for him as an independent. There is nothing wrong with him running as an Indy and I think you know that the will of the people of CT, not just 200,000 Democrats is most likely going prevail and you'll see Lieberman [I-CT] the next time you tune in on C-SPAN.

CP

Look CJ, if Lieberman lost in a landslide then we would have no disagreement. But we are talking about a close primary here where a few more months could sway that small portion of the Democratic vote and most certainly capture the moderate and independent votes. All i am saying is that Lieberman has a very legitimate shot to still win the election and if we were him, we would probably do the same thing.



Lieberman is a liberal and not a party loyalist. That is why I and others respect him. The Republican candidate for the CT seat is (i believe) wrapped up in some kind of scandal which will make quick work of his campaign and make Lieberman all that more appealing than the more liberal Lamont. Is that logic so bad?



Then let him make a fool of himself Cube Jockey. Thats his right. If he thinks he can still win the election then what difference does it make? Again, I think that the problem many on the left have with Lieberman is not that he will take away votes from Lamont but that he still have that legitimate shot at retaining the seat.



I believe someone posted this earlier in the thread but here:
Truth on Lieberman's voting record





No. Losing the election means you pack up and leave. Losing the primary means that you will not run for a major party but means nothing in a general election. Ill easily concede that the margin of victory is significant in the context of unseating an incumbent Senator, but i think it is just as easily for you to concede that it is certainly not an insurmountable margin.



There is a huge difference and Lieberman is not an offender. I have no real love for Lieberman but he is one of the most respectable Senators of either party. He votes with his personal convictions and one must admire that. He has alos shown that he can work with Both Democrats and Republicans. Whether or not the bipartisanship is shown in return is not a negative towards Lieberman but towards the Republicans.



The will of the people of Conneticut or the will of the Democrats in Conneticut? Is there not a difference? I really could care less if Lieberman retains his seat although I'd rather him than Lamont. I am just countering your argument that it should be inconceivable that he would run as an Independent. He has a legitimate shot at staying in office and he would be foolish not to go for it.

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?
I don’t think so. A big issue, to be sure, but I suspect that domestic issues will play larger roles in local districts come November.

This could change, perhaps, given the Republicans continued ‘war on terror’ messaging and the fact that people are beginning to ‘connect the dots’ and seeing who exactly is out to destroy Western civilization as of late. A few more incidents like the London plot, where we captured would-be jihadis right here in the USA this week, will add fuel to this fire, and I think deservedly so.

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?
It continues to be the anti-war party I suppose. The party isn’t moving left as a whole, it’s that the left is gaining influence. Look at Jane Harman in California – once a pragmatic tough-on-defense Democrat. The hard left threatened her in a primary this year and now she’s writing a journal on Daily Kos, co-sponsoring legislation with John Conyers to oppose the NSA program (that she was briefed on and supported). It’s so obvious, and I can only guess it’s the Soros money that inspires such fear.

3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?

Anti-iraq war yes. Which is inevitable, unless as I noted above, we start to connect more dots.

As for liberal, when I was a liberal we believed in spreading Democracy. Maybe "liberal" is like "marriage" - it means different things depending on the decade or who you ask.

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?

That’s a great question. In a logical universe, what’s going on in the world would bring the Democrats back into their cold-war tough-on-defense mode. If the economy softens, wages continue to stagnate, a little inflation creeps in, the border remains open, and Muslims continue to wage war against the West, I would think that a Clinton-type triangulating Democrat would do especially well. Or even someone like Joe Lieberman.

The larger trend to me is that Democrats are moving from their working-class base and gaining the votes of elites. That word is polarizing, and I welcome suggestions for a better one – metro-dwelling, suburban and urban, secular, upper-income, liberal, the kind of people that drive imports, listen to NPR and go to Starbucks.

Couple of points to note from Michael Barone. www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/home.htm




If Democrats can win a one-issue race over the war, doesn’t that suggest that the wider war could indeed be a big enough issue to swing Republicans over to Lieberman? He only needs to win a handful of them, most independents and some Democrats to prevail in November. Here is the registration breakdown:

So if Lieberman carried 2/3 of Independents (29%), ¼ of Democrats (5.6%) and 1/3 of Republicans (7.7%) that would give him 42.3% of the vote in a 3-way race. Say that Lamont carries a full ¾ of registered Dems (25.6% of total CT voters), where does he get the rest? 1/3 of Independents and a handful of Republicans give him a grand total of {25.6% + 15% = 40%}of the total electorate. Not to mention, if this thing is close, Lieberman would get much more Republican support in my opinion. He will have the Republican pundit class endorsing him wholeheartedly by then.


Wow. Forget Teddy Roosevelt, John Anderson, Jim Jeffords and Bernie Sanders and just think about this – the Republican that Lieberman defeated 18 years ago ran and won a race for governor of Connecticut as … an Independent. Was that an insult to Democracy, or did the voters just pick him over the other guy?

If you think this is about the war then you have some serious misconceptions about the issues people seem to be reacting to. The war plays a big part, but it is not even close to the main reason why people are going to turn out to kick Republicans out of office this November.

There are tons of issues at stake here - concerns about our debt, jobs, health care, gas prices and a significant factor is the combination of the absolute corruption of the GOP that is emerging + the fact that Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents in history.

Here's the statement about this from Schummer and Reid:


And from Rahm Emanuel:


See a common theme there? Republicans are already running scared about this, Bush is a radioactive anvil and he'll threaten their careers in November. Some republicans have even taken the "Republican" tag off their campaign sites. You see the word "Republican" anywhere on Jim Talent's site? Others have done stuff like this.

Again, see a common theme?


He did lose in a landslide leder, by every measurable factor. What 3 term senator with a more than 2 to 1 fundraising advantage over a candidate that had zero name recognition and was polling 40 points behind loses? On top of that most of the current democrats in the Senate and the House were endorsing Lieberman going into the primary. Barbara Boxer even went out to campaign for him.


Actually the problem is two fold: 1) this is sour grapes and 2) it is going to cause activists to focus on polishing off Lieberman rather than working to boot Republicans out of office. Whether he wins or loses is really irrelevant.


Ok, thanks. I would point you to the quotes from above and I would also say that that 10% where he happens to differ as on some pretty important issues. For example he voted for cloture on the alito nomination, and then of course there is his infamous "short ride" comment about women who were raped and wnated an abortion - if the hospital didn't want to do it for moral reasons it would just be a "short ride" to another one.


Yawn... this is more of the same. When the Republicans aren't doign so hot, trot out the terror card and scare them back in line. It is so tired and predictable and the American people are seeing through it as well. Despite this recent news, Bush is still sitting at 33%.


Uh perhaps because it is an unconstitutional abuse of power by the executive? You know this arguement is funny to me because it seems that the conventional wisdom here is that we have to give our executive extraordinary power to combat terrorism and it is producing no results. Whereas the UK has foiled several plots now and they actually work within the context of their laws.

It's the heart of the issue Cube Jockey! If Lieberman has a legitimate shot at winning the election as you came oh so close to conceding, then how could you possibly blame him for trying to win it? Lieberman lost a primary and not a general election and has only lost approximately 52% of the Democratic vote which as Carlitoswhey pointed out, is hardly a majority of Conneticut voters.



He also was in line with the Dems on a ridiculous majority of issues. He is hardly a wolf in sheep's clothing as many Dems would have him out to be. Maybe the particular issues that he swayed from were important to your personally, but you can't paint that broad brush over him when the record just outright contradicts it.

That's why I said that the war was a MAJOR reason, not the reason...Corruption I believe is another major issue, but having said that, I doubt that national debt is a big issue to John Q. Citizen...I also don't see any reason why health care is more of an issue this year than it has been in the past 8 years [in which Republicans have been flawless in electoral victories] and while the price of gas is a major issue, I don't think most Americans believe that the Republicans are part of the problem in that regard. So again, without the war, corruption would be the biggest charge leveled at the Republican Party, which is nothing to suggest that the country is getting more liberal.

I completely agree with your assertion that close association with the President=death for any Republican politician now...but again, does that mean that we're becoming more liberal, or dislike the President. When it all comes down to it, this next election will be a referendum on Bush and the war and as a result, the Democrats will do very well, but I think the exit polls will show that foreign policy is the most important issue in the minds of most Americans.

CP

No now you are mixing up the points I was making. Lieberman did lose by a significant margin when you consider all the factors. I already listed those, I'm not going to list them again - they are in my previous post.

Now as to your speculation about the problem those on "the left" have with Lieberman, I was correcting you because I happen to have that on very good information. If you choose not to believe me that's your call I suppose.


I've already showed you why he lost, and it wasn't because of his war stance, nor because he was a moderate (as some people here have called him). It was primarily because he was Bush's favorite Democrat - constantly providing him with bipartisan cover and never missing an opportunity to sell his party out on FoxNews.

Now if you want to continue to deny that, I guess it'll be settled in November and then I'll be able to point back to this and show you I was right about this.


And...? I suppose that is your backhanded way of repeating the spin that Democrats are weak on defense, national security, etc?

I am going to have to echo Carlito here. How is more choice in ANY election an 'insult to Democracy'?
Man the political blinders must be on pretty tight.

To address the debate questions..

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?

I think the war on terrorism will be the overwhelming issue in the up coming elections and this recent foiled terror plot has opened alot of peoples eyes to remind them that Islamic extremists will do anything they can to kill.

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?

I don't really like this question because the term anti-war gives the left the excuse to say "Pro War" and why really actively wants war? But I do think the Democratic party is soft on defence through appeasement. The only way I ever got the bully to stop messing with me in elementary school was to finally sock him in the eye. Islamic extremists don't respond to 'talking', they think americans are soft and can't handle a tough conflict, and sadly they are right.

There is a process that has been observed and is there for a reason. Let's use another example - this is all hypothetical - let's say that in the 2000 presidential election McCain had decided that he didn't want to accept the GOPs nomination of Bush as presidential candidate. He felt he'd run a good campaign, he beat Bush or was close in many races and if it weren't for some of the dirty tricks Bush pulled he would have won.

So let's say McCain decides that he is going to run as an "independent republican" - as a Republican voter how exactly does that make you feel. Still the same story?

The significance of the margin is purely subjective. What is objective is the actual size of the margin and the truth that it is not insurmountable by any means.



CJ, again I point out that I do not care for Lieberman or his politics and won't lose any sleep over him losing the primary or the election. But i do take issue with your argument that he should just give up a perceivably winnable election. It just makes no sense.

It isn't giving up, he lost - the voters of the state have spoken. That is the way a primary works Leder and that is the way they have always worked for as long as both of us have been alive. Incumbents have lost primaries before and they have accepted the decision of the voters.

Lieberman lost by 4-5 points, this wasn't a repeat of the 2000 election where a few hundred votes decided things. There were no voting irregularities. This was a clean and decisive victory for Lamont.

He lost the Democratic vote CJ. The people of Conneticut have not have their voices fully heard. 4-5 points of Democrats can be made up with 4-5 points of moderates and independents and then you have a tie. The primary is not the general election and Lieberman has zero obligation to withdraw if he thinks he can win.