Lieberman defeat, good or bad for the Democratic Party?
srdun...@gmail.com
that spending Democrat's dollars on a race which would have no affect
on the our hold of the Senate was a waste. Why use resources when we
need everything we have for November?
Plus, what kind of message does Lieberman's defeat send to the rest of
the country? Democrats are often criticized for their lack of
'backbone' when it comes to the War on Terror, and this seemed to only
add fuel to the fire. As Jacob Weisberg put it in his Slate piece (
http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/), what happened in Connecticut is an
anti-war revolt reminiscent of the single-issue voting which happened
in the Vietnam era and lead to such huge Democratic blunders and
McGovern.
But the more you think about it, and this piece by Michael Tomasky
(http://www.slate.com/id/2147566/ ) helps you think about it, the
Lieberman case is in fact fairly isolated. As Tomasky points out,
none of the other pro war Democratic Senators are facing a challenge
anywhere near what Lieberman had to face. In every state but
Connecticut its business as usual, incumbents are reelected in the
primaries.
In fact, Tomasky notes, Lieberman was kind of being a jerk to the
Democratic party. What Lieberman seemed to confuse was that there's a
difference between being pro war and pro executive power. You can
believe we should have invaded Iraq AND believe Bush has completely
@&#ked it up.
What Democrats need to do in the next election is let Americans know
that we are a party that can be strong and thoughtful as opposed to the
Republican policy of being rash and stupid. Americans need to know
that Bush's way is the wrong way, and his foreign policy is endangering
both American lives and world stability.
Thinking of Lieberman as less of a Democrat and more as a Bush yes-man
helps put this race in its proper context: Democrats standing up to the
complacency which allows the Bush administration to wreak havoc
unchecked.