In today’s New York Sun, writer Seth Gitell presents a balanced and realistic view of this upcoming vote in Connecticut. Gitell makes the case that the passionate followers of Mr. Lamont may not have the turn out to defeat Senator Lieberman. Remember President Howard Dean? The internet savvy, liberal bloggers and activists were bound to bring us Howard Dean who was anointed by the New York Times, The Washington Post, the even luminaries like Jimmy Carter. Speaking of the “loon of the left” Jimmy Carter, Ned Lamont cites Carter and his National Security Advisor to supplant his adopted view of the way in Iraq.
“On the substance of his issues, Mr. Lamont continued his attempt to broaden his campaign appeal beyond his opposition to the Iraq War to such issues as universal health care (he supports it), the proliferation of lobbyists in Washington with "63 lobbyists for every congressman" (he opposes that), and campaign finance reform (again, supports it). To reinforce his position on the central issue of the campaign, Iraq, he pointed to the position of President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brezinski, who advocates withdrawing military forces from Iraq so as to alleviate sectarian violence there.
"As Brezinski said the other day, just the very foreign military occupation in Iraq is delegitimizing the belief in government," said Mr. Lamont, coupling this assertion with red meat for his supporters: "It's very important to take the American face off this occupation and start bringing our troops home now." He went on to say that "leaving our troops there in the middle of this bloody civil war is making the situation worse every day." He was not asked about and did not volunteer on his own Mr. Brezinski's recent defense of the authors of the "Israel Lobby" thesis, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in the journal Foreign Policy.”
Gitell concludes with this rather powerful statement regarding this notable primary race: “It might be the case that primary day will be the time Connecticut voters overlook the solid work a senator has done on their behalf to punish him for being too close to a president they don't like. But it doesn't mean it makes any sense.”
There is no outcome of this closely watched race that will fail to benefit President Bush and the current common sense, conservative view of the War in Iraq. In the most like scenario that has Lieberman winning, a demonstration of support by moderates for President Bush’s view will sharply strengthen the conservative position. Should Lieberman lose, it will dramatically illustrate and illuminate an intricate debate raging within the democrat party. It will show that the liberal party is extreme, and willing to purge any elected official from their party who fails to endorse the “cut and run” strategy so regularly endorsed by Jack Murtha, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and all other liberal voices of note within the party at this moment.
And what will this civil war on the left mean for Chris Matthews and the leading liberal talking heads of the mainstream media? Well, if the “cut and run” crowd continues to lose elections, these clattering voices of the chatting class will no doubt continue to embrace a view that blames America, and George Bush, for every failure in world-wide problems with the Axis of Evil. These shrill voices of the left will continue to panic while raising their level of Bush-bashing criticism to bolster the leftist core supporters of code-pink, the netroots collection of liberal bloggers, and moveon.org.
A win for Lamont will convince the liberal paparazzi media to continue measuring the draperies for Speaker Pelosi’s office. In the meantime, President Bush, Karl Rove, Vice-President Cheney, and qualified candidates all over the nation will continue their march toward victory on November 7, 2006.
Check out the coverage at WIZBANG
Also, Read AJ Strata on the paranoid left
The Beltway Traffic Jam