Originally Posted By vbdad55 Decided to start a separate thread for this post..I was really hoping that the Dems in Conn. would come to their senses this evening..as the polls tightened. Instead what I see ( and hear from the rhetoric from Lamont) - is the polarization of the last 10 years in this country is going to continue and our choices in 2 years will be no closer to center - and maybe further apart than even last time. Discouraging. ""The problems for the Democratic Party and deciding their platform for 2008 officially began tonight. As Joe Lieberman himself said succinctly, the politics of partisan polarization won the Democratic primary tonight.. he is being seen as a loyal Democrat being seen as to centrist for his party. All but the real far left here I am sure see the issue with this, whether it is 100% true or not. In a state that has as many independents as it has either Deomcrats or Republicans ( as stated by CNN ) - I believe the Democrats possibly gave away a seat tonight when facing an election where they look to gain. Possible scenarios: 1.Lamont wins the general election too, becomes a 'poster child' for the partisan polarization Lieberman mentions and long term costs the party overall votes from the independents and moderates who do not see " anyone but Bush/GOP" as an actual answer 2. Lieberman wins the general election by garnering the Dem vote he did tonight, plus a majority of the independent vote and a few cross over GOP voters..very realistic. Then although he is still loyal to his party .. this makes he party platform even more divided... 3. Worst case scenario for the Dem's, in a 3 party race they lose the seat to a GOP candidate who garners like 39% of the vote. And before anyone scoffs at this, I have seen first hand what a 3 party vote can produce in a mayors race in Chicago just 20 years ago. A place where elections are decided years before people go to the polls. So as I sit here reviewing this, coupled with the hoopla here is Chicago for Baraaak Obama and Hillary Clinton as the dream ticket as they were here ' not campaigning' the last few days....I guess the issues I currently have with the GOP on items such as jobs/economy and the hope for a moderate candidate from a party in 2008...already show signs to me I will get to choose again between extremes, not centrist viewpoints in 2 years.... How very disappointing.... The Democratic opening is now...yet they can't see the forest for the trees...""
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Or.... Maybe people really ARE getting fed up with the war, both Democrat and Republican, and being against the war is becoming a more centrist position. Though some GOP strategists will try it, I'm not so sure being against this war is a position that can be portrayed as 'extreme' anymore as the situation/outcome continues to be murky over there in Iraq. And when you look at the opinion polls, they aren't moving in a pro-war direction. I think if they try to portray anyone who is disatisfied with the war and its handling as anti-American or something, it's a strategy that might backfire big time in November.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 If it was that simple I could say I agree...having been thru the Vietnam War anti war era...I don't feel this movement is as anti-war as it is anti- Bush under the covers, the war is just a convenient vehicle. Joe Lieberman is not a hawk ( old term) and has been openly critical of how this war has been handled... but because he is not pro - pull everyone out now, some members of his own party have portrayed him as a Bush lackey...this is not a GOP doing ( yes I know they will look to take advantage of it) -this is in house problems for the Dems. being anti war is not an extreme position, I agree, but portraying someone who also has said the war has been mishandled as a war monger is extreme. I just think this is going to be a bigger loss than a win tonight for the Dem party as a whole. The far left of the party is dancing in the aisle..but that is not enough to take control back as they want...and I think Lieberman will become an albatross for them in general elections and independent andmoderate viewpoints. just my opinion as that is where I sit politically...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan but portraying someone who also has said the war has been mishandled as a war monger is extreme.<< I agree.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I fully expect to see Lieberman succeed in the long term. He only lost the Democratic primary by 3-4% and the single largest group of voters in Connecticut are Independent.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Joe Liberman's loss also suggests that there is now a Democratic Party implosed "litmus test" that ALL Democratic Candidates must pass. It appears that the Extreme Left of the Democratic Party is calling the shots.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Here is what is just blatantly ignored in the press: Where were all the naysayers when Congress voted to support the President? There only a handful of vocal opponents in both chambers. Why does that get so little attention now?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer ^ I think it is pretty much if you want George Soros (aka MoveOn.org) money, you need to past the litmus test.....
Originally Posted By planodisney I dont quite understand the leadership of the DNC. Are they realy this stupid? This is the way I see things going down. Looks like the Democratic party has learned nothing by the last few elections, and is falling further to the left, or at least control of the party is falling further to the left. Democratic leaders have riled up the faithful by lies and slander for sooo long, that they have radicalised the base. So much so, that it has become hard for their candidates to win national elections, because they are too leftist. You get heavily left leaning candidates who win democratic primaries, but can't win national elections with a moderate populace. Lieberman will win his senate seat if he stays in the race, and the leadership of the party, who has radicalised the base, will have cost the Democrats a seat. Meanwhile, the republican's in the house and senate have been moving towards the middle and distancing themselves from this administration. I actually dont care for this turn of events, because I like a more conservative republican party, but this appears to be what is happenning. This election cant get here fast enough for the DNC, who must capitalise on the publics displeasure in the way that the war is being handled, gas prices and the myth that the economy is not strong. If the democrats cant take back the house and senate this election, with the war, gas prices and other uncertanties, because of their extremism, then I dont know what they will have to do. If they do win this election, it will be such a temporary victory, because this will push the party even further left. They will assume that their leftist views have won out, but in truth, it will have been simply the publics readiness for change.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan So only 'extremists' are against the war? Wow. That's 60% of the country. I think this election outcome has given the GOP the jitters.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I don't believe it has at all-- I believe they are looking at this outcome as just onemore sing how fractured the Dem party is.... not only extremists are against the war- but as far as a cut and run strategy - yes.
Originally Posted By planodisney Of course it isnt extremist to be against this war, but it is the extremist approach, as well as the cut and run side of the democratic party who is gaining control of the party. And i can guarantee you that attitude and approach wont cut the mustard in national elections.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I believe they are looking at this outcome as just onemore sing how fractured the Dem party is....<< If that's how they view it, they could be misreading public sentiment. No doubt the Dems are conflicted, but more and more, the public isn't. They want people who can end this war. I don't think the majority of people in the US are going to be happy that Iraq is on its way to becoming even less westernized. I've said it before, but with all the talk of 'cut and run', you just watch what happens should the GOP lose big in November. The troops start coming home real fast, and the entire thing is over, win, lose or draw, and 'victory' declared well before the 2008 election.
Originally Posted By DlandDug A couple of independant analysts had warned that a Lieberman defeat would bode ill for the Democrats. The scenario they paint is of a Democratic party that rushes headlong onto the anti-war bandwagon, followed by a GOP position that calls for strength in times of adversity. Basically, the belief is that Karl Rove is licking his chops at the prospect of taking on "left-leaning, soft-on-defense, anti-American, blah-blah-blah" Democratic candidates. If, in the next few days, some of the "centrist" Democrats start talking openly against the war, I think that scenario may well play out. (P.S. What, no one cares that Cynthia McKinney was defeated last night, too???)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Basically, the belief is that Karl Rove is licking his chops at the prospect of taking on "left-leaning, soft-on-defense, anti-American, blah-blah-blah" Democratic candidates.<< Could be. That's his style and usual M.O. But I'm just not convinced it'll work again, as people are getting fed up. Karl's been off his game time and again since winning the last election, misfiring on issue after issue. But we'll see... the democrats are well known for their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <No doubt the Dems are conflicted, but more and more, the public isn't. They want people who can end this war. I don't think the majority of people in the US are going to be happy that Iraq is on its way to becoming even less westernized. I've said it before, but with all the talk of 'cut and run', you just watch what happens should the GOP lose big in November. The troops start coming home real fast, and the entire thing is over, win, lose or draw, and 'victory' declared well before the 2008 election.< Having lived thru this before, when the parties were reversed in an election under the cloud of an unpopular war -- it just doesn't go as smoothly as send over the troop carriers and bring everyone home...far too many world politics and ramifications to that...this is NOT a simplistic solution. what do you tell your allies ( mainly britain) what do you tell the rest of the Arab world ( Saudi - Kuwait etc)- we'll help you if it's an easy war- but if the going gets tought, we'll cut and run ? the empowerment that transfers to the terrorist groups sending a superpower ( perception wise) running with it's tail bwteen it's legs) - I love people who make this sound like a game of Stratego....where you just put the pieces back in the box and putit onthe shelf totally unrealistic...regarldess of what they promise you to vote for them. Nixon got elected to end the war ...how long did that take after ol' big ears himself was in so far over his head he had no clue what to do. Lot's of promises are made before elections...few are easy calls..and few happen as easily as they are being sold.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>what do you tell your allies ( mainly britain)<< The war is even more unpopular among the public there. >>what do you tell the rest of the Arab world ( Saudi - Kuwait etc)- we'll help you if it's an easy war- but if the going gets tought, we'll cut and run ?<< The Iraqi people didn't ask for our help exactly. Do they still want us to stay? >>I love people who make this sound like a game of Stratego....where you just put the pieces back in the box and putit onthe shelf<< That's how the people running the war viewed it. We'd be welcomed as liberators, roses, etc., etc. >>this is NOT a simplistic solution.<< I agree. As I said, we'll declare victory, perhaps say that now it's up to the Iraqi people to control their fate, but should the GOP get hammered in November, the drawn down begins. Just my prediction.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <>>what do you tell the rest of the Arab world ( Saudi - Kuwait etc)- we'll help you if it's an easy war- but if the going gets tought, we'll cut and run ?<< The Iraqi people didn't ask for our help exactly. Do they still want us to stay? < didn;t answer the question --
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Of course it isnt extremist to be against this war, but it is the extremist approach, as well as the cut and run side of the democratic party who is gaining control of the party.<< :-\ Lord, have mercy. This is just SICK!
