From the Wall Street Journal (subscription only) via Raw Story:
The Connecticut showdown comes at a time when the Democratic Party is struggling to reposition itself after successive presidential-election losses. For all its momentum, MoveOn hasn’t scored a major victory, despite its rapid mobilization of people and money around the world. Its members backed 2004 Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean, who lost in early primaries. It rallied behind the Ohio Senate candidacy of Democrat Paul Hackett, an antiwar Iraq veteran, who in February angrily quit the primary under pressure from party leaders anxious to clear the way for Rep. Sherrod Brown. And this summer MoveOn made voter-turnout calls for Democrat Francine Busby, who lost a high-profile House special election to replace convicted Republican Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham in San Diego.
A Lamont loss would take the edge off threats by MoveOn and online activists to punish candidates who defy the party’s so-called “netroots.” But a successful challenge to Mr. Lieberman could embolden an energetic and left-leaning wing of the Democratic party, which for the first time this year is weighing into congressional primary races.
Here is what it all comes down to:
Party leaders fear that a leftward movement, concentrated heavily on Iraq, “would imperil moderate and conservative Democrats whose appeal in Western and Southern states is critical to winning back Congress. It could also alienate swing voters, who polls suggest are shifting back to the Democrats this year. Says moderate Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu, who supports Mr. Lieberman, ‘I don’t think it’s a winning strategy or a smart strategy.'”
We can see why this is a bogus argument below:
The leadership of the Democratic Party this week issued a unified position calling for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq before the end of 2006.
The import of this decision is a Democratic Party willingness to draw the line in the November elections against the White House position of “staying the course.” That means Iraq will be the battleground for the American elections in 2006, although events in Lebanon will alter the equation in unknown ways.
The Democrats’ new unified position is a result of angry public opinion, anti-Iraq electoral campaigns, the mobilizations of the peace movement, and inside advocacy by the “Out of Iraq” Caucus and the Democratic-oriented think tank, Center for American Progress [CAP].
The new platform reflects the recent compromise between those Democrats demanding a withdrawal deadline, and those supporting a deadline for beginning to withdraw.
Of the several pillars required to sustain a war, this means the Democrats are pulling down the pillar of bipartisan unity, taking the political cover away from Republicans and Democratic hawks like Joseph Lieberman. The other pillars – public opinion, troop morale and availability, Congressional funding, international allies, and moral reputation – already are strained to the breaking point.
The peace movement, and autonomous anti-electoral movements more generally, will not be satisfied with anything less than “immediate withdrawal” and will be extremely suspicious at any channeling of public discontent into political channels. Their concerns are valid, while also limiting their ability to take credit and capitalize on the breakthrough.
Common ground may lie in the fact that the debate over Iraq, now partisan, will intensify as November approaches. At this point, neither the Republican Party nor the mainstream media have taken a position that withdrawal must begin this year. The stakes are very high, which may draw groups like Move.On and others into the battle for public opinion in key battleground states.
If the Democratic leadership is uniting around a call to pull the troops out of Iraq this year, then they are uniting around Ned Lamont’s position and moving away from Joe Lieberman’s position. And if that is their strategy, Ned Lamont winning or losing will have no effect on Southern or Western districts.
All we are seeing is an incumbent protection racket. Joe is calling in his chits. The party doesn’t need him or his lousy ideas, but they don’t need us getting the idea that we can pick our own leaders. That could be bad for incumbent politicians.
