Lamont or Lieberman?

[Bigdaddydvo]

This was a sad day in a once great party. Whatever was left of the Truman/JFK Democratic tradition of being strong on national defense/security issues has been vanquished by the Dean/Soros/Daily Koz wing of the Party. The Democratic Party is no longer a national party that tolerates dissent or honest intellectual debate; last night's election makes it clear that it is no longer a "big tent" Party.

Whether invading Iraq was a mistake or not remains unclear (I was there in 2003 and dodged my fair share of IEDs). What is perfectly clear is that executing Lamont's plan of immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the political and security situation on the ground, is disasterous. If Lamont has his way, we will leave a failed state, extremely vulnerable to Iranian influence, that will forment terrorists the same way Afghanistan did during the 1990's. Having Troops in Iraq may suck, but the latter option sucks much, much worse.

[thekiller]

a typical response by a woman.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
If Lamont has his way, we will leave a failed state, extremely vulnerable to Iranian influence, that will forment terrorists the same way Afghanistan did during the 1990's. Having Troops in Iraq may suck, but the latter option sucks much, much worse.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an extremely difficult question, but a lot of people feel that that the US invasion and occupation were one of the driving forces behind turning Iraq into the failed state it is today; at the very best they haven;t managed to prevent it sliding into large scale sectarian murder. Having troops there could help but they need competent leadership and that's clearly lacking. Iraq needs an awful lot of help but it's not surprising that people think help from the people that put it in the state it is today is the kind it could do without.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
a typical response by a woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd delete this, but it provides the sort of example of exactly what not to post here. B1.

[Gregatron]

What about Mckinney? Let's look at a larger picture here. Democrats weeded out two figures in their own party which are devisive, and arguably negative. I think there is some disengenousness here, but mainly people are so used to seeing a circular Democratic firing squad we don't know what it looks like when Democrats come together and finally get something right!

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The Democratic Party is no longer a national party that tolerates dissent or honest intellectual debate; last night's election makes it clear that it is no longer a "big tent" Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one in the party tried to silence Lieberman, nor inhibit his ability to engage in an honest, intellectual debate. In fact, most of the Democratic Party insiders endorsed Lieberman (Connecticut's Senior Senator Dodd, former President Clinton, Minority Leader Reid, Senators Clinton, Obama, Bayh, Feinstein, Wyden...and all of the big Democratic political action groups like NARAL and big labor like the AFL-CIO all endorsed Lieberman). If the Democratic voters of CT decide that they no longer want Lieberman to represent their party, why is that indicative of a party that 'no longer tolerates debate'? If the Republican voters in the '08 Presidential primaries decide they don't want someone like Rudy Giuliani representing their party in the general election because his views don't align with the majority of the party, is that indicative of a party that 'no longer tolerates intellectual debate'? One of the reasons for the Republican Party's success over the past 25 years is the ideological cohesiveness they've managed to achieve -- and the consistent message they've been able to craft due to that stability.

The claim that the "the national party no longer tolerates dissent or honest intellectual debate" seems especially specious because most of the party leadership at the national level backed Lieberman.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

I have mixed emotions.
As a conservative, I'm glad to see the Dems show their true colors and move further left by chasing a 90% voting liberal from their party because he voted 'wrong' on just one issue.

But then I'm sad to see one of the few Dem politicians with class get stabbed in the back.

The result is good for conservatives. Dems that voted for the war because the polls told them to do so will now have to flip/flop their positions and parrot what the hard-core lefties say. Hillary is in huge trouble because she has tried to take the line she is a moderate that is strong on defense. Now she will have to honest about her true views.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

We Are Seeing the Dems Becoming More Polarized.........and I think this is a good thing.
Also the 527 bloggers have flexed their muscles and are demanding the Dem leaders get tougher with their rhetoric. So people like Hillary will have a tougher time trying to pretend to be a moderate. This is a good thing.

In a way, I'm jealous because I'd also would like to see the Repubs get more polarized and squeeze out the Rockafeller wing of the Repub party. The moderates have been screwing up the USA for too long.

I want voters to elect liberals like Jimmy Carter or conservatives like Ronald Reagan!
Liberals like Carter are good because they ****-up the country so bad that people turn to conservatism. Conservatives like Reagan is good because they leads the country to prosperity and greatness. Screw the nitwit moderates like Bush41, Bush43, McCain, Lindsey Grahm, and pretty much 60% of the people in the US Senate....

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Lieberman is actually one of the more liberal memebers of the Senate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind explaining this?

[UATrewqaz]

The ultra-intense, white hot, deep down hatred for President Bush that many Demoncrats feel is completely blinding them to anything and everything else...

that's all they see and the only thing they can think about. I believe this election had little to do with Leiberman and more to do with anti-bush zealots. People didn't vote "against" Leiberman or "for" Lamont, they simply saw it as another way to voice their vote "against" Bush.

I think the Iraq was is another instance of this. Bush is for it and created it, therefor it is 100% bad and must be challenged completely (people have hated bush even before Iraq of course, the seeds of it go back to Florida recounts naturally).