The Democratic Party On The Road To Nowhere

Nothing spells out the gradual decline of the Democratic party like the Joe Lieberman story.  It's almost a fairy tale if you look at it on it's face.  A man who was once a vice presidential candidate is now barely squeaking by in a Senate primary.  This is the new face of the Democrats….either tow the line and go along with the shrill cries of impeachment, Bushitler, and Haliburton or be tossed to the wolves.

Yesterday Al Gore, his Presidential running mate threw him out:

HUNT: “Sir, We only have about 30 seconds left, let me switch subjects for one final question. You opposed the Iraq war in 2002, your running mate in 2000, Joe Lieberman, had a different view, he supported the war. He’s running against an anti-war candidate now. Who are you for?”

GORE: “I am not involved. I typically do not get involved in Democratic primaries. Joe is my close friend, Joe & Hadassah are close to Tipper and me and it would be very difficult for me to ever oppose him. But I don’t get involved in primaries typically. He’s a great guy and he’s right on a lot of other issues.”

Not to mention the fact that the group Howard Dean (the voice of the Democratic Party) started…Democracy For America (DFA)….is now endorsing Lamont who is Lieberman's challenger in the primary:

Have you seen the news in Connecticut? Hot off a DFA-List endorsement, Ned Lamont is surging.

While the Lamont campaign hired away a DNC internet guru to help him run his campaign. 

The DNC is obviously heading full tilt over a cliff it either doesn't see or doesn't believe is there.  Lieberman saw it last November:

"I told people at my fundraisers last year there could well be a challenge from the left of the party. In 2003 and 2004, when I was visiting the primary states [running for the presidential nomination], I saw the growing intensity of the feeling about the war. So, if I was not surprised, you might ask why I didn't alter my position.

"I think we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam, and I think we are safer as a result," he continued. "Second, while I have been very critical of the Bush foreign policy before the war and the Rumsfeld-Bush policies in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown, I also made a judgment I would not invoke partisan politics on this war."

This pissed off the lefties something fierce and in stepped Lamont:

That article infuriated Lamont and launched his candidacy. "It was decisive," Lamont told me in an interview. "Lieberman suggested that the critics were undermining the credibility of the president. I thought he was wrong."

"My opponent says it broke Democratic unity," Lieberman said. "Well, dammit, I wasn't thinking about Democratic unity. It was a moment to put the national interest above partisan interest."

And that my friends is the sign of a good leader.  When he believes in something he doesn't bend to gain the support of the masses, to do better at the polls. 

Does this remind you of someone? George Bush.  Two men who obviously belong to two different parties, and do not agree on much but both men will not flip flop to appease the masses.  They run on what they believe, doesn't matter if they win or lose. 

This I respect .

"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman said, "but that is a challenge for the party — whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."

The funny thing is that with Lieberman I would be afraid.  He is of the old guard Democrat mold, when the Democrats actually had a coherent message and were strong on National Defense in the mold of Harry Truman, JFK, and Lyndon Johnson.  He consistently votes very liberal which sickens me but he has some common sense when it comes to National Security.  He would be a tough customer to beat in any Presidential bid.  

But it won't happen and as he gets tossed into the wind so goes the Democratic party.

UPDATE

Lieberman has announced he WILL run as a Democrat in the primary and that he is proud that he tries to work with both sides of the aisle, as a politician should:

The three-term Connecticut senator faces criticism from some state Democrats and primary challenger Ned Lamont, who contend that Lieberman is too close to President Bush and the GOP on the Iraq war and other issues.

Lieberman answered on Monday, defending his work with Republicans and arguing that Lamont, if elected, would add to the capital's political polarization.

"Washington has become much too partisan and that partisanship gets in the way of doing the job that you send us to do," Lieberman said.

Lieberman dismissed a question about whether he is taking a risk by boasting about his bipartisanship, especially with the Aug. 8 primary looming and Lamont gaining in the polls though still down by double digits.

"I'm telling the truth," he told reporters. "Whether it's risky or not, I don't know."

In the end this whole thing is good for the Republican Party…it really shows how the Bush hatred has become a ideology, the  KOSkiddies will eat their own if you don't snarl enough at Bush.  

Other's Blogging:

• Decision '08
• Riehl World View
• Hyscience
• RyanVox
• Hot Air
• Ex-Donkey Blog
• Instapundit
• Say Anything
• Right Wing Sparkle
• Blue Crab Boulevard

The funny thing is that with Lieberman I would be afraid. He is of the old guard Democrat mold, when the Democrats actually had a coherant message and were strong on National Defense in the mold of Harry Truman, JFK, and Lyndon Johnson. He consistently votes very liberal which sickens me but he has some common sense when it comes to National Security. He would be a tough customer to beat in any Presidential bid.

Curt

See author page