[Speed Gibson,
Thursday August 10, 2006 at 11:36pm]
Not that it matters
When I first read this morning's Editorial about the Connecticut Senate Primary in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, I had a strange reaction. "Not that it matters," I asked myself, "but was what I just read unintelligent or unintelligible?"
Right from the start, this is fantasy. This was an election by and for Democrats. Wrathful moderates? Moderates? If this was a referendum on anything, it was whether moderates would survive, let alone vote in this party. Could even a long-time incumbent and Vice Presidential candidate be allowed to differ on just one issue? Or have Howard Dean and Michael Moore undone the years of work by the Democratic Leadership Council, formed to pull the Democratic Party back from the far left, unelectable world of George McGovern and his ilk?
How could it not be a left-wing phenomenon? The whole party is left-wing, just as the Republicans are right-wing. Let's assume they meant the far left, as in Michael Moore, Howard Dean, and yes, Ned Lamont. The margin of victory was about 3 percent points as I recall. Ned Lamont certainly got the vast majority of the far left, now a sizable force in the Democratic party. Do the math and you realize that most of the moderates, i.e., the not-so-far left in fact voted for Lieberman.
The smart money is already on Lieberman, in fact. But what's this "his approach" swipe all about? And the earlier swipe at "his brand of bipartisanship"? On most issues, Lieberman is no moderate. He's a liberal, but one who also happens to be strong on national security, which the Barzini's in his party equate to supporting President Bush.
"When, when did I ever refuse an accommodation? All of you know me here. When did I ever refuse, except one time?"
"Times have changed. It's not like the old days when we could do anything we want. You must let us draw the water from the well. Certainly, you can present a bill for such services. After all, we are not Communists..."
Was it a win for the left and "the old politics of partisan polarization," as Sen. Joe Lieberman alliteratively asserted Tuesday night, or was Ned Lamont's primary victory a win for wrathful moderates who are tired of Lieberman's brand of bipartisanship?
Right from the start, this is fantasy. This was an election by and for Democrats. Wrathful moderates? Moderates? If this was a referendum on anything, it was whether moderates would survive, let alone vote in this party. Could even a long-time incumbent and Vice Presidential candidate be allowed to differ on just one issue? Or have Howard Dean and Michael Moore undone the years of work by the Democratic Leadership Council, formed to pull the Democratic Party back from the far left, unelectable world of George McGovern and his ilk?
Indeed, [a new Washington Post-ABC poll] suggests that opposition to the war in Iraq was a big factor -- and anything but a left-wing phenomenon.
How could it not be a left-wing phenomenon? The whole party is left-wing, just as the Republicans are right-wing. Let's assume they meant the far left, as in Michael Moore, Howard Dean, and yes, Ned Lamont. The margin of victory was about 3 percent points as I recall. Ned Lamont certainly got the vast majority of the far left, now a sizable force in the Democratic party. Do the math and you realize that most of the moderates, i.e., the not-so-far left in fact voted for Lieberman.
Lieberman could win in November running independently, if enough Republicans and unaffiliated voters still favor his approach.
The smart money is already on Lieberman, in fact. But what's this "his approach" swipe all about? And the earlier swipe at "his brand of bipartisanship"? On most issues, Lieberman is no moderate. He's a liberal, but one who also happens to be strong on national security, which the Barzini's in his party equate to supporting President Bush.
"When, when did I ever refuse an accommodation? All of you know me here. When did I ever refuse, except one time?"
"Times have changed. It's not like the old days when we could do anything we want. You must let us draw the water from the well. Certainly, you can present a bill for such services. After all, we are not Communists..."