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.
The more Democrats run away from the Iraq war the greater the chance theywill lose in November. Republican lite will only turn off their base and lower tutnout, which is an advantage for the Republicans. Conversely, the more they unify around the antiwar position, the greater their likelihood of recapturing at least one house of Congress.
Conversely, the more they unify around the antiwar position, the greater their likelihood of recapturing at least one house of Congress.
I would go further and say the more they unify around anything at all, the greater their chances. Democrats just don’t seem to stand for anything at all other than getting themselves re-elected, and constantly villifying your own voter base is just about the stupidest thing a political party can do in a democracy.
They don’t seem to realize that the “netroots” basically consists of democrats who care enough to get involved in some small way. These are the people you have to encourage to volunteer and get more active, not alienate and attack them until they hate you as much as the other party.
It’s perverse. Sometimes it seems like the only voters Democratic politicians care about wooing are the ones Republicans already have locked up.
It is and should always be what we the ppl want, after all this is what the Constitution says about us, NO? Right? It should always be about us instead of them. They once elected got the whole thing wrong int he first place. They are sent to represent us, we the ppl, not the other way around..I know they tend to forget this one simple thing…;o)
Oh I suppose, I should say this too, if the democratic party wants my vote they need to start saying the right things to get it. The dlc’ers are always out for the $$$ not the actual vote. I have not liked lieberman for a very long time and could not for the life of me understand why gore picked him in the first place as a running mate unless the dlc’ers made him do it. this I can see!
We’re seeing in Connecticut exactly how democracy is supposed to work. The complaints of the Party elite and their friends in the media just shows that neither the Republicans or Democrats really want a democracy — they’d be perfectly happy to return to the smoke-filled rooms of yesteryear and submit their hand-picked candidates, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the people be damned.
I wish that all primaries were contested primaries, even the ones in which the incumbent is doing a decent job, if only to keep them semi-honest…
Bingo!
Don’t forget the number one reason it has taken so long for any movement on this issue from elected Dems, they all represent the big money interests.
It’s a membership trip- you get in power and are treated like an equal by very powerful people. When you take a position opposite those interests you not only lose potential campaign contributions, you lose face with your new peer group.
Now, so far the war in Iraq has been good for business (and it has in certain sectors, and also in terms of strengthening executive control with an anti-regulation administration). So to oppoe the war has been to oppose the peer group leaders of the power elite.
When Lamont wins, the Earth will tremble a little for these power mongers.