Redstate

The irony is: this past weekend, Democrats were told in a strategy session that to win close races in November, they must get 2 out of 3 moderates to vote for them.

Also, of all of the potential Democratic presidential nominees, the only one with an "unacceptable" percentage of 54% or higher (54% of Democrats polled found him unacceptable) was Howard Dean.

So, while I'd prefer to see Democrats in office that negotiated rather than engaged in Mexican stand-offs with the majority party, I agree with Erick and Cokie that bowing to the Lamont wing of the party will chafe those Democrats that the party needs to win over in the swing states.

How, exactly, should Jewish voters who have supported the war in Iraq perceive this move by Democrats who, like Mel Gibson and Cindy Sheehan, believe that Jews are responsible for all of the wars in the world? Jewish people are not stupid. They will likely remain in the Democratic Party because they identify with the Democratic Party of the past, but they will begin voting for Republicans in certain races.

Conservative Jewish voters, many of whom idolize Senator Lieberman for his uncompromising Jewish identity, are already considered a key swing group. Next to alienating black voters and/or Hispanic voters, this is probably the dumbest thing that the Krazy Kos Kids™ could've done this year.

Romney/Coburn 2008 = Unbeatable

I am more concerned with having honest good men in the Senate then I am with moving the entire Democratic Party to the left. There will always be democrats or an opposition party to the Republicans, but the days of honest opposition and hard working good men like Lieberman are numbered.

Furthermore, with a Senate majority potentially at risk, I'd rather have a swing vote on national security issues go to Lieberman over someone like Lamont, who is really quite clueless.

Win or lose today, Lieberman will win in November, either is a Democrat or an independent.

Sure, we can tactically speaking how for the party and possibly conservatism a Lamont win would be.

However, for the health of this nation, Lieberman had better win. We would be talking about a whole sect of this country being cut out of political discussions. At that point we would only have democrats screaming for Bush's head and retreat, e.g. the hating democrats. Not Good.

...never let the other side get any momentum, ever. In sports, momentum brings new energy to tired legs, and in politics it brings new money to tired activist organizations. Look at winning coaches. They never coast. Never.

Lamont wins the primary. Lieberman wins reelection as an independent. The Dems go down in flames.

I like it.

PS to Cokie: The Dems, by and large, are already there.

I tired to ping this post.

Great Article.

http://thespisjournal.blogspot.com/2006/08/ghost-light-thespis-glow.htm

Thank you.

Thespis

...so do the Republicans -- just as nature abhors a vacuum, so does politics (and politicians). Which is why, while I like to see the Dems self destruct (of which a Lamont victory is emblematic), I'm still conflicted by it -- I know what happens next.

The crazier the Dems get, the more freedom the Republicans have to act in non-conservative (heck, in full-on Great Society-style capital 'L' Liberal) ways. Just look at the "accomplishments" of the last few years and listen to the current "republican" line: "What are ya gonna do? Vote for THEM? Say hello to Speaker Pelosi! John Conyers, future House Judiciary Chairman, wants to impeach the president over Iraq -- you gonna put HIM in power?? Ha ha ha ha!"

Talk about a consequence-free environment for Republican politicians. They can do ANYTHING and still retain their seat: 'cause their opponents are barking mad. 'We suck -- but those guys are nuts' is not an inspiring re-election slogan.

Take my own congressman: a VERY safe republican in an extremely conservative district -- yet he voted against all nineteen of the Flake amendments. Why? Because he can, and the Flake amendments would have limited the extent of any Congressman's power -- and besides, why should he care if his constituency is P.O.ed. It's not like we're gonna vote for his Pelosi-supporting Chomsky-quoting BDS-afflicted opponent. Sigh.

So, regrettably, I find myself wishing for a sane Democratic party -- liberal, but rejecting suicidal Chamberlainism with regards to our existential fight with militant Islam. At least then, threats to vote against the wobbly RINOs or powermad "conservative" republicans in favor of the Dems wouldn't be laughable -- and ignored.

A Lamont victory is not a step towards a sane Democratic party -- so I hope Lieberman, true-blue liberal that he is, pulls this one out.

but the past does not dictate the future.

BDS helped produce W's victory in 2004 because so many people thought the war against Islamofascism was being won & all we had to do was finish it off.

Now that it's turning out to be more difficult than we (meaning "voters") expected, there's no shortage of people who are changing their minds about it - the potential for significant Dem gains is there.

While I hope never to live under Dem majorities in the House or Senate again, if it happens, I want the Dems elected to be as close to sanity as they can get.

That's not Lamont or his supporters - they're fully developed, "drink the BDS Kool-Aid" netroot nuts.

There's NOTHING to be gained by them having any electoral success and no assurances that, once elected, they'll quickly demonstrate they're not ready for governing.

Especially when their allies in the MSM will do everything in their power - which is still considerable (how do you think W's poll rankings got so low) - to protect them.