Thursday, August 10, 2006

Fall of Lieberman and the Rise of Lamont

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."
--- Joe Lieberman, Dec. 2005


I did a post about this statement back in December when it came out. I have since read, that it prompted Ned Lamont to get into the primary race.

My, how the times have changed since then. Check out what Robert L. Borosage says about this at Tom Paine.com:

"Ned Lamont’s stunning upset of incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary race on Tuesday sends shock waves through the dead sea of American politics. Lamont did the impossible—this virtual unknown beat in his own party’s primary an 18-year incumbent with universal name recognition, a $12 million campaign war chest and the support of Washington insiders, the punditry and the corporate lobbies.

His victory represents a growing voter revolt against the failed policies and politics of the Bush administration and its congressional enablers, particularly the debacle in Iraq. Until a few weeks ago, Lieberman prided himself on being the president’s leading Democratic ally in touting the war. After his defeat, Democrats will show more backbone in challenging the current disastrous course and more Republicans will look for ways to distance themselves from the president.

Lamont’s victory was propelled by a rising tide of progressive energy—activists who are tired of losing elections to the right and disgusted with cautious politicians who duck and cover rather than stand and fight. Until a few weeks ago, Lieberman exemplified those Democrats who establish their “independence” by pushing off the causes of their own party and embracing the right’s agenda. His voters didn’t abandon him; he abandoned them long ago. After his defeat, incumbents in both parties may begin to listen more closely to their voters and less avidly to their donors."

Well lets hope so. I don't want to make too much over this upset, still at the same time it has been sending shock waves through the corporate interests, and the 'pat' punditry of the mainstream media.

I liked what Wonkette pointed out about Joe's concession:

"Meanwhile, Lieberman, whom the WaPo described as “exuberant in defeat” and “almost liberated” and (by implication) “gone totally around the bend into a dark place of madness and self-delusion,” started in with the sporting metaphors.

“As I see it, in this campaign, we’ve just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead — but in the second half, our team, Team Connecticut, is going to surge forward to victory in November,” Mr. Lieberman told cheering supporters.…“For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot, I will not let this result stand,”
Mr. Lieberman said of the Lamont victory.

You hear that, Connecticut? Joe Lieberman will be your Senator whether you like it or not! It’s for your own good. [ joe lieberman ]

Meanwhile here is what Lowell Weicker a former Senator from Conn., had to say about this:

"I suspect the public is going to see right through" Lieberman's party switch, Weicker said.
It's not the purpose of the U.S. Senate to provide Lieberman with steady employment, he said.
"He wants a job."

In the aftermath this week Lieberman launched this little sally at Lamont,"

“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.”

Whoa, Lamont wins a primary in Conneticut and suddenly British Muslims will be celebrating a withdrawal from Iraq.

After hearing of this, here is how Ned Lamont responded:

"Mr. Lamont hesitated when he was asked if Mr. Lieberman’s criticisms were beyond the bounds of acceptable political combat.
“To try to score political points on every international issue ——” Mr. Lamont said, before stopping himself. Then he added, “Why do I have to say anything?” NYT 8/11/06.

Well, judging from the papers and postings on the web, and even international interest, this story is going to be around for a while.
I notice many on the Left are pointing out that 60% of Americans are against the war, or in favor of withdrawal. My cautionary reading of this is, that some of these are not against the Iraq war per se, but against the way the Bush adminstration has prosequeted the war. They are wanting that old fashion , quick overwhelming victory, like Pattons push to the Rhine, but instead Bush, Rumsfeld et. al, have given then never enough troops, no discernable win, and just steady casualties month to month. As Thomas Friedman points out,'' we are now baby sitting a civil war", and if you are one of the 100 Iraqi civilians who die each day, it really doesn't matter how you categorize the Sunni- Shia revenge violence.

Be that as it may, as I pointed out before, the Sunnis and the Shiites having been cohabitating in the region of Mesopotamia for some 900 years now, and it is highly unlikely that 137,000 infidel Americans within 3 more years are going to clear up, what has been simmering around for the same 900.

Thus a conventional military victory is less and less likely, so then the question is, what is the exit plan for finally letting the Iraqi people sort out what they want to see happen, and American forces moving out.

At any rate at some point, even those who were still hoping for victory in Iraq will get supremely disillusioned. And at this point, what was once regarded as a Left wing view, will become the mainstream view in the USA.

1 comment:

Repack Rider said...

Funny how I was called every despicable name in the book three years ago because I was right about the invasion of Iraq being a bad idea. Now I'm mainstream.

How did that happen?