« Hagel Calls for Engagement | Main | Why Tice? »

July 29, 2006



It looks very much like we are about to replay some old and unattractive history. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to relive them. The moron in the White House and his minions in the Pentagon don't know nuthin' 'bout history.

another interesting take is from Haaretz.

In case you didn't see it

the hug

I really doubt if this will be a replay of 1968 or the early 1970's, largely because the sentiment questioning Bush's conduct of the Iraq was -- and I suspect eventually his diplomacy vis a vis Lebanon and Israel -- is so much stronger than was the anti-war sentiment in 68-74 period. Anti Vietnam convictions never really achieved a majority -- a 50% across most segments of the electorate until Watergate was well developed, and the anti-Nixon and anti war positions merged and supported each other. For Democrats that has for all intents and purposes already happened -- distrust and dislike of Bush is very strong -- and Democrats opposition to the War is at least 60% -- In CT I've seen polls indicating it could be near 70%. I think it is the convergence of Bush distrust with opposition to policy that mutually reinforces.

Over at FDL there is a report in comments regarding a fund raising call from the DNC -- the poster had made clear she was upset with the way the DC Democrats were supporting Lieberman even encouraging the Indy idea. The DNC caller told the poster that Clinton's reason for going to CT had to do with delivering the message clearly -- If Lamont wins the primary, the party gets behind Lamont. No third party games will be played. Hope the poster's report is true.

What I can't figure is why Lieberman did not maintain a state organization over the years. The guy is not dumb, and he lives in an environment where "maintaining one's base" is near religion. Hopefully this will be a good lesson for any of our other Senators who forget who they really represent.

yo, melanie:

Santyanna didn't say a fucking word about "History"

those who fail to remember "THE PAST" are doomed to repeat it

history is a subjective review of past event, designed to support a particular point of view

remembering HISTORY is a waste of time. History is rewritten all the time

it seems like a small thing, but it's more important than it looks

Sara's point confirmed by NY Times.


There's a Nagourney article that explains some of that.

They cited a variety of reasons: a misreading of the depth of antiwar sentiment among Connecticut Democrats, an exodus of experienced political advisers after Mr. Lieberman’s failed presidential bid in 2004, a relatively green Senate campaign staff and the pride that often settles around a politician after many years on the public stage.

The Republicans keep making it sound like Vietnam redux. Despite the similarities, it's a different time, a different war, to topple a guy who's been in prison for nearly 3 years.

The race is a referendum on the war, on torture, on women's rights, on presidential power grabs, on illegal wiretapping, on Supreme Court ideology, and on a Senator who's on the wrong side of all these issues.

Lieberman sucked in the 2004 Prez primaries and his statements throughout convinced voters nationwide he was out-of-touch. Ultimately, it's all about Joe's failings, not any specific issue.

But I agree with you: losing the war in Iraq will bring on the GOP lie that liberals and the media caused the loss. Fortunately Howard Dean's taking the lead again in heading that off.

lamont as an anti war candidate makes sense
and to me thats surely enough

but i detect a bigger hope here
looking at kos comments
i see hope that ned
is part of a new and vigorous
anti rightest anti corporationist
anti dlc triangularization movement

a reformationist insurgent
working loyally from
inside the party

to me
he's at best still way out of focus
if thats the mission ahead

If the report on Kos -- that the Times has endorsed Lamont -- is true, I have to say I'm gobsmacked. This is precisely the area (foreign policy, with Israel at least tangentially involved) where the Times has routinely failed to live up to its liberal editorial reputation. (I wonder what kind of editorial board fights were involved) Anyway, this helps Lamont considerably, since 1) it really undercuts the "just a batch of radical bloggers" line and 2) it offsets the certain endorsements of Joe from Zuckerman and Murdoch (3-0 would have marginally damaged Lamont; this renders it meaningless).

The New Republic/Lieberman wing of the party keeps telling us we're stuck in the 60s, but from my vantage point, it's they who can't let it go. This is why they see budget-balancing/NRA-endorsed Howard Dean speaking against the war and decide he's a Birkenstock-wearing Pied Piper; to them, every anti-war candidate is George McGovern with flowers in his hair. As Sara said above, they neglect to note that the American populace is fairly solidly against this war -- a situation that didn't exist in the late 60s/early 70s. Also, there's little connection of this movement to other, even more unpopular issues (say, busing) or any general rejection of mainstream society. The radical image of the McGovern movement came from many conflicts in a society seemingly falling apart, not just the war.

And here's something else our wise pundits might keep in mind: 1972 isn't the parallel. By the time of the election that year, American participation in Vietnam was minimal; Kissinger had even announced peace was at hand. The election where the war was the central issue was 1968 -- and the guy who won was the guy who said he had a secret plan to end it. Whatever internal conflicts Dems may have over the war, it's their great luck that the unpopular conflict is this time presided over by Republicans.

Marshall says the Times endorses Lamont. If true, this is the end for Joe-nertia. It shows how the war trumps everything, and makes the rest of a pro-war Dem's message hollow.

NYT endorses Ned Lamont . . .

More at TPMCafe's Election Central.

And here's how The Times first dropped the bombshell, in a straight news piece on the Lamont-Lieberman race:

[The New York Times, in an editorial published on Sunday, endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with President Bush on national security.]

Yep, we've got that covered as well.

Struggling Lieberman faces political abyss
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Sat Jul 29, 9:44 AM ET

comment edited by DemFromCT. The link is in the original post (under Forbes). please do not post whole articles as it is a violation of fair use laws and a copyright violation.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad