Newly resurgent radical liberals are reasserting control over the Democrat party and are demanding zero tolerance for Democrats (especially high profile ones) who veer away from their pacifist, anti-war party line.
In order to gain compliance with the new policy, they needed to make an example of someone. And no Democrat has been more high profile and more supportive of the ongoing war effort (and displayed more common sense about the true nature of our enemy) than Joe Lieberman. It was almost comical to watch how soon after Ned Lamont’s victory that “mainstream” Democrats, even those that had previously endorsed Lieberman, jumped on the Lamont bandwagon. They saw the handwriting on the wall writ large by the party’s new radicals. “Conform or else!” Taking Lieberman’s scalp had the desired effect.
And then, less than forty-eight hours later, news breaks that the long dreaded successor attack to 9/11 had been discovered and prevented. That while liberals were demanding fealty to a flaccid foreign policy, Al Qaeda was busy making arrangements to kill several thousand American and British citizens in the skies over the Atlantic.
Moreover, it now appears that some credit for the bust is due to the very type of warrant-less, electronic intelligence that many liberals (and some Republicans) have been having conniption fits over since the NY Times apprised the public and the terrorists of its use by our intelligence services.
Just how many of these fair-weather friends that turned on old Joe would have done so had the plot been discovered a few days earlier? How many of them would have cast their lot with the intellectual heirs of George McGovern if they had known the terms of the debate and the public’s focus would shift so suddenly?
For the past forty years or so, Democrats have been perceived by the American people as being weak on the issue of national security – or at least less reliable than Republicans.
To get an idea of how far they have fallen, note that the Democrat that liberals tend to lionize most for his massive growth of the welfare state, FDR, is the same President that demanded unconditional surrender by the Germans and Japanese in WWII. Today, most Democrats don’t understand the meaning of unconditional surrender, unless it involves things like defending traditional American values.
At the risk of insulting the feminine population, politically speaking, the American public always has and always will respond to testosterone – and the Democrats are in short supply right now.
Article comments
1 - Dean
Through July, the Labor Department’s index for energy prices rose at an adjusted annual rate of 25.3 percent.
Who is better qualified to keep the turmoil going in the Middle East to make the rate go higher?
When I figure it out, I’ll vote for the other guy.
2 - Dave Nalle
If they're for zero tolerance they're leftists, not liberals.
Dave
3 - Mark Schannon
Your thesis breaks down from the beginning as you dutifully carry the Bush propoganda posters. According to the New York Times, it wasn't the liberals who beat Lieberman, it was the middle class furious with Bush and his pathetic handling of the war.
Also, latest poll has Bush popularity at 33%.
Stop creating strawmen of liberals and attacking them. Hell, the Democrats ought to give you ammunition enough without having to resort to playing the McGovern, Dems soft on national security card. Nobody buys it anymore.
In Jameson Veritas
4 - Baronius
Nice article. BTW, the last time I checked, gasoline prices had increased about 10% annually in the Bush years, roughly half the increase of the Carter years.
5 - MCH
"For the past forty years or so, Democrats have been perceived by the American people as being weak on the issue of national security " or at least less reliable than Republicans."
Here's a few Republicans a little "weak on national security" their own selves:
**Dick Cheney...dodged draft using 4 student deferments and a family deferment;
**Paul Wolfowitz...dodged draft using student deferments;
**Karl Rove...dodged draft using student deferments;
**Newt Gingrich...dodged draft using student deferments and family deferment;
**John Ashcroft...dodged draft using student deferments;
**Rush Limbaugh...dodged draft using student deferment and a medical deferment, for an ingrown hair on his ass
6 - Dave Nalle
Nice article. BTW, the last time I checked, gasoline prices had increased about 10% annually in the Bush years, roughly half the increase of the Carter years.
Not to mention that if you adjust for inflation the gas price today is comparable to what it was prior to the first oil war in the 1970s.
Dave
7 - Dean
"if you adjust for inflation the gas price today is comparable to what it was prior to the first oil war in the 1970s."
That's what the Saudis say when we complain about it.
8 - Clavos
That's what the Saudis say when we complain about it.
Doesn't make it any less true, dean
9 - IgnatiusReilly
"It was almost comical to watch how soon after Ned Lamont’s victory that “mainstream” Democrats, even those that had previously endorsed Lieberman, jumped on the Lamont bandwagon."
Let me get this straight. Politicians got behind the winner of a primary and this is surprising to you? You must have just started as a consultant. What's more telling is that neither the White House or RNC Chair will support the Republican primary winner in CT. Feel free to write that up.
"And then, less than forty-eight hours later, news breaks that the long dreaded successor attack to 9/11 had been discovered and prevented."
Not by Republicans so you don't get credit for it.
"At the risk of insulting the feminine population"
Your writing actually insults the intelligent population.
10 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
You have misused the McGovern quote. He's not saying that terrorism or communism is/was a danger to America that requires "testosterone" tactics to defeat. He's saying how unfortunate it is Republicans used communism for 50 years to create unnecessary fear and chaos in the American public (McCarthyism etc.) and hoping they will not use terrorism for the next 50 years.
11 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Secondly I find it ironic you refer to the blogosphere as some liberal machine disconnected with reality when you are in fact posting on a blog.
And have you been reading the news lately? A pentagon study by the 100 leading counterinsurgency officials in the country that places U.S. failure to quel the violence in Iraq on it's "shoot first ask questions later" or "testosterone driven" foreign policy. They pinpoint the failure of the military to set up relations with local officials, failure to minimalize civilian casualties, use of excessive force, an rushed invasion that made little effort to minimilize civillian casualties in the very quick victory over the relatively miniscule and useless forces of Saddam Hussein. These among other things are the reasons the pentagon believes that Bush's crusade in Iraq has lost the hearts and minds of many of the Iraqi people. Testosterone tactics are a great quick fix for the American people but in the long run it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the foreign public - sometimes it is hard to swallow.
12 - MCH
"Off they go to do political battle in November, armed with a foreign policy that’s been double dipped in estrogen. Somebody pinch me."
Any particular reason you're bombasting from South Carolina, rather than Baghdad?
13 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
And another thing.. why is it all you people talk about politics as if it were a sports event? You spend your time discussing which political party appears more masculine.
Watch CNN lately, or any of the other network news programs for that matter? They spend their time discussing the political maneuvering of the parties on capitol hill - not the issues. And what about those "discussion" news shows - a bunch of guys shouting at each other placing bets on whose party is going to win the next election, like a horse race. And just look at the author's language:
"It was almost comical to watch how soon after Ned Lamont's victory that "mainstream" Democrats, even those that had previously endorsed Lieberman, jumped on the Lamont bandwagon."
All this talk of being "comical to watch" and jumping on bandwagons is making me sick.
For the past forty years or so, Democrats have been perceived by the American people as being weak on the issue of national security - or at least less reliable than Republicans."
Personally I dont care how you percieve the American people to have percieved the Democratic Party 40 years ago. Your perception of someone elses perception 40 years ago is useless, in my perception.
"In the meantime, it seems that no matter how many mistakes, missteps and other problems the Republicans encounter in the run-up to the coming mid-term elections, the Democrats do their best to avoid taking advantage."
It doesnt matter if the democrats are bad policians who are inept at taking advantage of Republican "missteps." It only matters what their position is on the array of issues facing the American public and the solutions they offer to a wide range of problems. In fact, being bad politicians just makes our jobs as voters easier - we can see their core values easier and dont have to spend as much time sorting through their political maneuvering that conceals their true agendas.
Off they go to do political battle in November, armed with a foreign policy that’s been double dipped in estrogen. Somebody pinch me.
What are you, a reality TV commentator? "Political battle"??? "Pinch me"??????
What is wrong with you people?
14 - Mark Saleski
#13: not just comment of the day...comment of the decade.
15 - Lumpy
Politics IS a sports event to most of us. You can even bet on it. It's kind of a blood sport, like boxing.
In ancient Rome the sports teams were all sponsored by political parties which were also essentially criminal gangs. Things haven't changed that much.
16 - MCH
"Politics IS a sports event to most of us. You can even bet on it. It's kind of a blood sport, like boxing."
Kind of like war is a sport to anyone who promotes it from the sidelines, with no intention of ever actually serving.
17 - Dean
Something to consider:
"Conservatives are assumed to support market outcomes, while progressives want to rely on the government..."
"The reality is that conservatives have been quite actively using the power of the government to shape market outcomes..."
"However, conservatives have been clever enough to not own up to their role in this process, pretending all along that everything is just the natural working of the market..."
"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcome... and liberals who prefer governmentintervention..."
"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention. The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government..."
-- "Independent Thinker" by Thom Hartmann
18 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Well actually some conservatives do follow a market based approach and cut spending. The only one to ever do so as President was Ronald Reagan, who cut spending something like 5 or 10% his second term...let people spend their own money not the government is the general idea (a market based principle) - of course his tax cuts and spending cuts generally hurt the poor and helped the rich, and he ran up incredible defecits.
19 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
And of course most "conservative" Presidents including Reagan in his first term just cut taxes and increase spending to make it look like they are favoring a market based approach, when in fact they're just handing out govmt debt to spoon feed the economy.
20 - Zet
#13 very insightful. I think your statement will be missed by many. Actually your comment speaks to the way we fuction in general as a society. Some say its post modernism (we are all tired of the over use of that lable) Others say that our tendacy to make commentary is formed by our media obsession.
We are no longer engaged in our lives we are actors in our lives writing the script as we go. In other words if I take my cup of coffee in the morning, I am more so acting like someone acts who drinks coffee in the morning, probably meandering then grabbing a newspaper (like they do in the commercials) or grabbing it and running like the hot shots do in the movies. We no longer do what we do because we just do it. It has to fit into a media image or else it is lame.
Our broader ideas are delt with in the same way. CNN is almost unbearable. The smarmy commentators are "acting" hip and in-the-loop. On FOX ... well they may not be acting... Anyway...
The detached commentary signifies just how detached we are to our own lives. Everyone thinks they are on MacGloclan News Hour or doing a play by play.
21 - Zet
I will venture to say that the accessive commentary on the political play by play is contributing to the dumbing down of America. Thought provoking sentiments are often lost in the point matching that goes on between the commentators so the intelligent politicians end up resorting to making sound bites in order to get any part of their message accross. The big ideas are lost and we end up with who is a flip flopper and who is swaggering and who just walks.
22 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Thank you Zet, I only wish I had posted under a more read article.