Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats  
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1646 times:

I don't usually enjoy Fred Barnes (mostly because of his arrogance practically every time he is on Fox) but his observations about the defeat of Lieberman were spot on...I especially agreed with his thoughts on the implications for the 2008 Presidential election.

Thoughts?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...cles/000/000/012/563wmply.asp?pg=1

Key Points:
DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE. In the early 1970s, they rejected their hawkish tradition on national security with the nomination of George McGovern for president. The resulting weakness on national security issues has haunted them ever since. Democrats didn't recover until the 1990s when the Cold War was over and national security was no longer the paramount national issue.

Now, after 9/11 and with Islamic jihadists still threatening America, Democrats are purging the hawkish remnants in their party. That's the meaning of the primary defeat in Connecticut yesterday of Senator Joe Lieberman to Ned Lamont, an antiwar Democrat. Lamont is the epitome of a peace Democrat: force averse, naively trusting in diplomacy, and firmly opposed to a strong national security policy.

Nonetheless, Republicans were quick to jump on the Lamont victory as evidence that Democrats had jettisoned the FDR-Truman-JFK tradition of a strong national security policy. Lieberman has pointedly described himself as an heir to that tradition. The last thing Democrats need in 2006 is a highly visible Democrat zinging the party for tilting to the left on national security.

In any case, the lesson from the 1970s and 1980s may well apply in the 2000s with America facing a serious terrorist threat. And that lesson is unequivocal: Softness on national security is a ticket to defeat.

The question for 2008 is whether or not the party that dumped Lieberman--its most celebrated hawk on defense and defender of Israel--is likely to nominate a presidential candidate who favors an aggressive national security policy. The answer is no. And would a peace Democrat be likely to defeat, say, a Republican hawk like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani? No, again.

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
The question for 2008 is whether or not the party that dumped Lieberman--its most celebrated hawk on defense and defender of Israel--is likely to nominate a presidential candidate who favors an aggressive national security policy. The answer is no. And would a peace Democrat be likely to defeat, say, a Republican hawk like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani? No, again.

The answer was made obvious by the DNC actions before Iowa in the 2004 race. The pretty much demanded that Evan bayh not run, and the loyal Bayh went along with it. He is not a dove and they know it. Nothing has changed.

It will be interesting in 2008 because he has been quoted in the Indiana papers as saying he will not go along with any such demand this time.

I have said this many times, why in the world would you reject a Democrat that has a proven record of getting republicans to vote for him in a state as conservative and republican as it could possibly be, Indiana.

It is almost like the DNC WANTS to lose.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21468 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1638 times:

Please tell me what the (chicken)hawks have actually done for America's safety.

At least for me as an outsider it looks a lot as if they've plunged the US into a major military malaise, with a drastically increased threat level as a consequence and a next-to-nonexistent strategy or foreign policy to actually get anywhere.

Sure, the american voters may see it differently, but it seems the reality distortion bubble is in the process of weakening...


User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1634 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 2):
Please tell me what the (chicken)hawks have actually done for America's safety.

At least for me as an outsider it looks a lot as if they've plunged the US into a major military malaise, with a drastically increased threat level as a consequence and a next-to-nonexistent strategy or foreign policy to actually get anywhere.

Sure, the american voters may see it differently, but it seems the reality distortion bubble is in the process of weakening...

Klaus, please save this for another thread...I don't want this to be about American foreign policy, but rather domestic political implications...


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21468 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 3):
Klaus, please save this for another thread...I don't want this to be about American foreign policy, but rather domestic political implications...

Quite right - but the essence of being perceived as a "hawk" should have been that one was actually competent in security matters. I may be mistaken, but my impression is that that aspect is gaining traction in the US domestic debate - empty bluster isn't enough any more. People have had plenty of that to little positive effect...


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1623 times:

Considering you feel the need to stop all immigration to the US of people with the 'wrong' skin colour, I don't think your comments on the article will really be taken into account.

User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1621 times:

Sounds like you're buying the right-wing media's line - that the defeat of Lieberman is the result of Democrats punishing members of their party who don't toe to liberal line. McGovern, peace-nik talk is merely a variation on that theme.

But the facts show differently. Firstly, Connecticut's Democrats aren't exactly screaming pinkos. Look at the demographics. They're wealthy, educated and moderate. The Democratic party can run any campaign they want in the state of Connecticut, but bottom line is it's the citizens who vote.

Furthermore, exit polls indicate that anti-war sentiment between those who voted for Lieberman or Lamont were pretty similar. The difference had to do with their feelings about the current administration. Judging from the polls, this was a referendum on our president. Those who are most disgusted with GWB voted against Lieberman, as he has been closely associated with the president.

It's the Republicans who are in trouble, and they know it. How do I know they know? Because they are painting any Democrat who is successful as a LI-BRUL (God forbid!). That's all they've got and I don't think it's going to work for them during the next election cycle.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1602 times:

"What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats ?"

Shouldn't the question be What Lieberman's Defeat Mean For Lieberman?
It's really no big deal other than the fact that a sitting Senator lost his party's nomination over several major issues.
Joe Lieberman was out of touch with his state and got too cozy with the wrong people and he got booted out for that reason.
If he had any class he would bow out and go home.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1584 times:

"The last thing Democrats need in 2006 is a highly visible Democrat zinging the party for tilting to the left on national security."

Lieberman has resigned himself to being a yankee Zell Miller. Perhaps he'll show up at a convention or two to challenge someone to a duel.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1559 times:

Humm.

I look at it this way.

The Democrats couldn't, and still can't beat the Republicans. They got tired of losing, over and over again. Bush twice. The 2002 Midterms. The 2004 years. Etc, Etc, Etc. So they finally got smart and decided to run against themselves to remind them of what it feels like to actually win.
Problem is now that they STILL can't win a real election, and Joe will clean up come November.

BTW, boy, do the voters of CT look plenty stupid by voting this one issue ultra rich white male liberal in, and just 24 hours later, after Blair, with a little help from Bush, stops thousands of American and other Nationalities deaths.


Once again. The liberal left on the wrong side at the wrong time.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineSFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1553 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 9):
Once again. The liberal left on the wrong side at the wrong time.

Very true. Michael Moore should make a documentary about this!  Wink


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1549 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 8):
Perhaps he'll show up at a convention or two to challenge someone to a duel.

...or his new buddy (Dubya) will invite him down to Crawford for a barbeque.  Silly



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1537 times:

Actually, my feeling is "What Lieberman's defeat means for the incumbents". This should be a red light for both parties. Just curious no one had mentioned the Republican Congressman from Michigan losing his party primary, so it is cutting both ways.

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 12):
Actually, my feeling is "What Lieberman's defeat means for the incumbents". This should be a red light for both parties. Just curious no one had mentioned the Republican Congressman from Michigan losing his party primary, so it is cutting both ways.

You are correct.
The Republicans and there allies in the media are making a big stink about Joe Lieberman getting tossed out and trying to make the Democrats look bad as a result.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1521 times:

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 6):
But the facts show differently. Firstly, Connecticut's Democrats aren't exactly screaming pinkos. Look at the demographics. They're wealthy, educated and moderate. The Democratic party can run any campaign they want in the state of Connecticut, but bottom line is it's the citizens who vote.

 rotfl  Goes to figure someone from Massachusetts would characterize CT democrats as moderate. You really don't see how left the new england area is regarded by the rest of the country, do you?

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 6):
It's the Republicans who are in trouble, and they know it. How do I know they know? Because they are painting any Democrat who is successful as a LI-BRUL (God forbid!). That's all they've got and I don't think it's going to work for them during the next election cycle.

Yes, they are. Every republican in VA who has sent me campaign literature as of late conveniently fails to list their party affiliation.

But while disaffection with Bush will probably result in a handoff of the House to the democrats in 2006, to say that painting democrats as liberal won't work in 2008 is wishful thinking - at this point. The democratic party at the national level is held captive by the extreme left, just as the republicans are captured by the extreme right.

The best thing the democrats have going for them right now is that they aren't republicans. But they have precious little else to offer in the way of ideas for enacting real change. For example, so far in the VA senate race, Jim Webb - former republican running as a democrat - has gotten no traction running against George Allen, the incumbent republican, who is a very popular former governor of the commonwealth. Had former governor Mark Warner run against Allen, it would be a dead heat.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 9):
The Democrats couldn't, and still can't beat the Republicans. They got tired of losing, over and over again. Bush twice. The 2002 Midterms. The 2004 years. Etc, Etc, Etc. So they finally got smart and decided to run against themselves to remind them of what it feels like to actually win. Problem is now that they STILL can't win a real election, and Joe will clean up come November.

Disagree. I predict a democratic house - maybe even senate - come November. Problem is, the current democrat leadership in both the House and Senate - is just as inept as their republican colleagues.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1513 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
Had former governor Mark Warner run against Allen, it would be a dead heat.

 idea  I think you and I know what office Mark Warner is gearing up to run for. Could be the next southern Democrat to be elected to the nation's highest office since the mid 70's.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1510 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 15):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
Had former governor Mark Warner run against Allen, it would be a dead heat.

I think you and I know what office Mark Warner is gearing up to run for. Could be the next southern Democrat to be elected to the nation's highest office since the mid 70's.

Would be a real smart move for the democrats to make Warner their candidate. He was an excellent governor, able to work well with the republicans in Richmond. Unlike his successor.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1510 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
Would be a real smart move for the democrats to make Warner their candidate

I agreed 100%. He would be a very attractive candidate to get cross-over votes from the moderate republicans, and I suspect would do well in the south.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1502 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 15):
Could be the next southern Democrat to be elected to the nation's highest office since the mid 70's.

You forgot Bill Clinton.
He is from Arkansas.
Al Gore is from Tennessee and he was elected to but we all know what happend to that.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4627 posts, RR: 36
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1482 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 9):
and just 24 hours later, after Blair, with a little help from Bush, stops thousands of American and other Nationalities deaths.

Which was actually initiated by Pakistani authorities  Wink

And it is the police that should get credit, not the politicians.

If you actually think Bush's policies have made America safer then you're out to lunch. Maybe if the resources devoted to invading Iraq were instead used to hunt down the real enemies (Al Qaeda) then America might be safer.



Word
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 19):
If you actually think Bush's policies have made America safer then you're out to lunch. Maybe if the resources devoted to invading Iraq were instead used to hunt down the real enemies (Al Qaeda) then America might be safer.

 checkmark 



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1466 times:

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 19):
If you actually think Bush's policies have made America safer then you're out to lunch. Maybe if the resources devoted to invading Iraq were instead used to hunt down the real enemies (Al Qaeda) then America might be safer.

It's all debatable, but those who like to summerize complex performance in one word don't like to hear it.

Iraq will go down as GWB's greatest failure. Not necessarily the decision to go to Iraq, but the refusal to do everything it took toget that place under control. On the other hand, he does have a significant success in which he deserves an A+ (so far), which is the fact that since 9/11 there has been no successful attacks on America. The American intelligence community has been revamped and redirected towards the threat, and has so far gotten the job done.

But this is not a success that helps in elections, as success simply means that disasters don't happen. And things that don't happen go unnoticed. The events of this week only got attention because the enemy got pretty close, but all the other plots where the CIA, FBI, NSA, MI5 and 6 and all the other agencies did an even better job and foiled dozens of plots before they got close to getting off the ground, we never hear about it, apart from, maybe, a 2-inch story on page 36 next to the ad for adult diapers.

So while you have a pretty good argument about Iraq being a classic FUBAR, you can't say that he has failed to keep America safe from attack.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1454 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 21):
Iraq will go down as GWB's greatest failure.

Finally you admit it 3 years later and 2000+ dead US soldiers later.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 21):
On the other hand, he does have a significant success in which he deserves an A+ (so far), which is the fact that since 9/11 there has been no successful attacks on America. The American intelligence community has been revamped and redirected towards the threat, and has so far gotten the job done.

Ummm, they don't need to considering the terrorist have won. Everytime some has to take off there shoe before boarding a flight and/or compromise on the 4th Amendment to the Consitution, the terrorist wave won.
Go ahead and eat your free-dumn fries thinking Bush is some sort of sucsess.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1452 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):
Ummm, they don't need to considering the terrorist have won. Everytime some has to take off there shoe before boarding a flight and/or compromise on the 4th Amendment to the Consitution, the terrorist wave won.

If you find that a significant loss for us, or a win for them, I feel sorry for you.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 23):
If you find that a significant loss for us, or a win for them, I feel sorry for you.

Well would you like salt or pepper with your free-dumn fries?  dopey 



Bring back the Concorde
25 LTBEWR : What it means is very simple - that enough Democrats in CT want a representitive that will say no to the policies of GWB and most Republicans as to th
26 Post contains images Superfly : LTBEWR: Now this is a first. I agree with you. Perhaps I need to put down my drink and go to bed because this aint natural. Keep in mind, Ned Lamont w
27 Baroque : Exactly, you would suppose that the CHs policies have been so woeful that it would not be difficult to put forward a program that looked attractive a
28 Halls120 : The Fourth Amendment - indeed all of them - are alive and well, despite all the handwringing from people like you who can't seem to back up your comp
29 GuitrThree : Yea, you're probably right. Because everytime Bush and crew come up with a new anti-terror plan, the New York Times feels that it's in our best inter
30 777fan : Everyone is wigging out about Lieberman getting bounced but it's really as simple as this: he lost the D primary by a 54-48% tally. Presuming his sup
31 Mir : I can't say that he has, but attacks on America were few and far between prior to 9/11 anyway. While Bush may be the one in power while the changes (
32 777fan : Hmmm, I seem to remember the WTC being bombed in 1993. What happened as a result of that? Not much in terms of identifying, tracking and mitigating t
33 Halls120 : Didn't mean to exclude the republicans from my criticism. Their failure to control spending has been a disgrace, and their cowardice on immigration p
34 Post contains images ANCFlyer : It means, that the democrats can't stand a moderate in their ranks that might decide to vote against them on occasion . . . all they want is a es man
35 Mir : Clinton was certainly not very good at dealing with the problem, and thus there were holes that were exploited. But I think it's unfair to glorify Bu
36 Jaysit : Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Dianne Feinstein and others all either voted for the war, or were in favor of it. None of these Democrats will lost any
37 Post contains links ANCFlyer : Which should tell the tale right there . . . http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=94659 http://www.mc.uky.edu/ http://docjt.jus.state.ky.us/history.htm
38 FlyingTexan : nonGrammar school
39 ANCFlyer : Ha Ha Ha . . . . Touche, but the point is made . . . his post is BS . . .
40 Baroque : Ah, the land that was transformed by the turnpike (Ferm, J, pers comm).
41 Seb146 : Conservatives are quick to point out the Liberals are soft on national security while, at the same time, Conservatives are running around talking abou
42 Post contains images Halls120 : thank you for proving my point!!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A Longer-Term Winning Strategy For The Democrats posted Thu Nov 2 2006 16:05:15 by AerospaceFan
What Do You Do For The Environment? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 11:44:42 by Mrniji
What Do You Want For The Holidays posted Sat Nov 26 2005 20:22:05 by Airbus3801
What Are Your Plans For The Weekend? posted Sat Feb 21 2004 02:38:57 by Jkw777
Its Friday! What Are Your Plans For The Weekend? posted Fri Sep 12 2003 18:51:21 by Jcs17
If Lieberman Wins What Does It Mean For Democrats posted Fri Oct 20 2006 15:41:30 by UALPHLCS
What The Democrats Need To Win Back The Whitehouse posted Thu Dec 8 2005 18:41:32 by SATX
For The Survivors: What's Next? posted Sat Sep 3 2005 04:30:21 by TedTAce
What Are Some "approval" Ratings For The USA? posted Tue Dec 9 2003 03:13:38 by Charleslp
For The Older Members( What Do I Do) posted Wed Mar 21 2001 03:32:39 by Fly_yhm