Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Lieberman loses a primary, every pundit on the planet goes totally insane.

The normally calm and always pretentious William F. Buckley:

"The wires are heavy with the question of Iraq. The defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut was a call to outright defiance by Democrats running for re-election. They have been warned now, by the unforgiving, that they must reject the war in Iraq and labor with the single end in mind of returning American troops and dissolving U.S. commitments."

Again, I can only think of one thing to say: wow. I mean, wow. I already posted a shredding of this on my blog, here. I'm still stunned--I can't get over the fact that people can't get over the CT primary. You can picture the sort of conversation Buckley has in mind:

Joe Lieberman: I'm running for re-election as a senator.
dailykos: I'm warning you: reject the war in Iraq and labor with the single end in mind of returning American troops and dissolving U.S. commitments.
Joe Lieberman: No.
dailykos: I'll never forgive you.

Someone explain this to me.


At 10:22 AM, Blogger E.A.P said...

I can't explain it to you at all. I've found several feminist who have been unhappy with his voting record on their issues for months, if not years, so I think there's more running here than just the war. Ah, but those soundbytes don't get played and discussed.

"He sucks at his job, in my opinion, so I'm working to exercise my vote and get someone who DOES represent me in office."

NAH. It's not sexy enough to sell.

At 11:01 AM, Blogger J. Morgan Caler said...

Well, let me ask you this: why does everyone THINK it is about the war? Lamont seems to think that is what this is about, doesn't he? Other Democrats who aren't supporting the Lieberman campaign seem to think that is what this is about, don't they?

As EAP said, there have been lots of people dissatisfied with lots of stuff about the Liebs in CT for a while. The question is this: is his voting record regarding the war and "excessive fawning over the President" the straw the broke the camel's back or is it THE issue on which Democrats in 2006 decide for whom they will cast a vote?

At 1:55 PM, Blogger RedHurt said...

Excessive fawning over = ran against in 2004.

I think the right wants to play this angle up because they're convinced that 1.) the people in America want us to stay in Iraq and finish the job, whatever that means, and 2.) they can conflate weakness to wanting the troops home to being a democrat.

Ann Coulter loves this stuff. It's more "evidence" for her position that it's better to go to war alone than attempt it with the support of the wavering yellow-bellied dems.


Post a Comment

<< Home