LIEBERMAN LOSES, WILL RUN AS INDEPENDENT
Story says Lieberman “conceded nothing.” (Washington Times) And the far, far left is thrilled. From Michael Moore: Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. (Michael Moore) Liberals were also giddy on the Huffington Post. (Huffington Post) The NY Times called the loss “a vivid demonstration of how the Iraq war is buffeting American politics and of the deep hostility toward President Bush among Democrats. It also suggested there are stiff anti-status-quo winds blowing across the political landscape as the fall elections approach.” (NY Times) Jesse Jackson even got involved, blasting Lieberman for not being part of the far left. (Chicago Sun-Times) An exit poll. (CBS News) Unfortunately, the GOP doesn’t appear to be in any position to capitalize. As Time Magazine puts it, “few people think Alan Schlesinger — or Alan Gold, as he used to call himself when he was gambling at Connecticut's Indian casinos — is the right candidate.” (Time)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
No matter how many times they drain the swamp that is D.C., politicos like Lieberman still get Potomac Fever.
They don't run on principle they run because they can't give up the power and prestige.
Lieberman said he lost yesterday because of the excessive partisanship that has become part of politics. He's wrong. He lost because to an opponent in his own party who ran an issue-oriented, anti-war campaign.
Lieberman's backing of a foolish president with a foolish foreign policy was not bipartisanship. It was foolishishness itself.
The Republicans should take note of what happened to Fox News' favorite Democrat. They know that anti-war sentiment isn't limited to Democratic voters.
Tip O'Neill used to say,"All politics is local." Well, when a young soldier is buried in your state or district as a casualty of this foolish war, that makes Iraq a very local issue.
I believe that if the Democrats sweep the congress in '06, it will spell a Republican landslide in '08.
The far left base of the Democratic party is fired up right now. Since many Republican voters have become disenchanted with Bush over an issue or two, they see it as their chance to strike. However, if the Dems do take over, it is lose/lose for them in my opinion. If they pander to the far left base, it will rile up the Republican base for '08. If they let the far left down, they will become disenchanted as Republicans have become. If they continue their heckling from the sidelines without proposing real solutions, again, the far left base will become disenchanted.
The best thing for the Democrats, in my opinion, is to lose in '06 and let Bush continue to alienate the "all or nothing" section of his base with an issue or two.
Or course, the best thing for the Republicans to do would be to do something about gas prices. I don't mean price controls, I mean ram through legislation allowing drilling anywhere domestically there is oil, encourage more refinery capacity, and get rid of the 26 or so custom blends of gas and just have one year round, nation wide blend. I believe the main reason the American people are becoming war weary is because of the $3.00 a gallon at the pumps. If gas was back down to $1.39 or so, a lot less people would be angry about the war.
Post a Comment