Aug 13 2006
Some articles today (H/T RCP) are showing how the Lamont debacle is going to impact the Democrats given the news of the massive airline terror plot that was stopped in the UK and the fact more terrorists are still out there. The first article is a clear headed discussion on the polarization of the two parties. While there is a pull to the extremes, the Reps have been a majority party for over a decade now and they are not as extreme as the democrats because, as their base broadens, so did the voices which bring subtle changes to different issues. The Democrats are going through the opposite change while their base is distilling down to a rabid core so full of vitriol and hate they repell more voters than they attract. The article accidentally supports my view when it predicts the results of these forces driving the two parties:
If so, the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 is likely to be won by a candidate so far out on the fringe he (or she) can’t appeal to America’s mainstream.
Hello, President Romney.
Romney is clearly not a far right candidate, but I agree he or someone like him will lead the Reps in ’08. There is no indication the Democrats are becoming more centrists.
The second article is by Johnathan Chait and is another in a long series of pleading, whining, badgering articles from the left telling Joe Lieberman to get out of the race before he ruins everything. The ire from all those lefties who opposed Joe, insulted him (and his wife) is quite ironic. Did they think no one would ever oppose them once the won the primary or an election? Anyone remember Al Gore and the Texas redistricting and the last minute change out for Toricelli in NJ? People who believe dearly in something do not give up easily. Chait makes up so much stuff to prop up his argument against open democracy it is laughable – and a sign of panic. A confident party would go forward and show how strong their suport truly is. Apparently many on the left are a bit insecure.
The final article is also in the LA Times and discusses how Iraq will not save the Democrats. Why? Because the anti-Iraq stance is so anti-liberal. Strange arguement to me but it is another example of the left at odds with Lamont’s outraged kids. Actually, the first article summarizes this lasts articles points in a sentence, so I will snip from that first article to summarize the point:
(No one was talking about the loss of civil liberties or budget deficits or need for socialized medicine in those airport lines on Thursday.)
No we were not. But we were not talking much about Iraq either – I know, I was there. What we were talking about was standing tall in the face of it all. We were upbeat and connecting with each other. We were not fighting with each other. We were tearing down the partisan walls. And that is why the heavy partisanship is a bad idea right now. When being threatened Americans tend to stand together. And we definitely lose all patience with anyone trying to pull us apart with outrageous conspiracy theories.
The Lamont win was initially a headache for a party that needed unity but was left with a core element demanding purity. Now, with the realization that the War On Terror is not over – and the absolutely stupid claim that the foiled Airliner Plot shows Bush is not protecting us enough – the dynamics have turned Lamont from headache into nightmare. When the situation turns to wild theories that a foiled Airline Terror plot is evidence Bush failed to protect us, then the only conclusion any sane, serious person can come to is that the people who hold this view are not seeing things clearly. When threatened we prefer to stand together, not at each others throats.