DeclinetoState
08-10-2006, 12:11 PM
This is hardly from a conservative or moderate source.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2006, at 3:33 PM ET
Listen to the MP3 audio version of this story here (http://media.slate.com/podcast/Slate060810_Ned.mp3), or sign up for Slate's free daily podcast on iTunes (http://ax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/browserRedirect?url=itms%253A%252F%252Fax.phobos.a pple.com.edgesuite.net%252FWebObjects%252FMZStore. woa%252Fwa%252FviewPodcast%253Fid%253D75089978%252 6s%253D143441).
Political analysts tend to overinterpret the results of isolated elections. But you can hardly read too much into Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080800596.html?nav=hcmodule) in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary. This is a signal event that will have a huge and lasting negative impact on the Democratic Party. The result suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War.
The election was about one issue and one issue only: the war in Iraq. Joe Lieberman was an otherwise highly regarded (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/jun/23/my_lieberman_problem_and_ours), well-ensconced Democratic incumbent who would never have faced a meaningful primary challenge had he not vocally supported President Bush's invasion in 2003, continued to defend the war in principle, and opposed adopting a timetable for withdrawal. Ned Lamont, a preppy political novice from Greenwich, got the idea to run last year when something he read in the Wall Street Journal made him gag on his breakfast. It was a hopeful analysis of Iraq by Lieberman. As a candidate, Lamont was less a fleshed-out alternative to Lieberman than a stand-in for an anti-war, anti-Bush movement. His campaign was made plausible by Web-based "Net roots" activists who cared principally about the war in Iraq and badgered Lieberman mercilessly (http://www.slate.com/id/2147255/) about his support for it.
Lieberman's opponents are not entirely wrong about the war. The invasion of Iraq was, in ways that have since become hard to dispute, a terrible mistake. There were no weapons of mass destruction to be dismantled, we had no plan for occupying the country, and our troops remain there only to prevent the civil war we unleashed from turning into a bigger and more horrific civil war. Slate.com (http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/)
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2006, at 3:33 PM ET
Listen to the MP3 audio version of this story here (http://media.slate.com/podcast/Slate060810_Ned.mp3), or sign up for Slate's free daily podcast on iTunes (http://ax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/browserRedirect?url=itms%253A%252F%252Fax.phobos.a pple.com.edgesuite.net%252FWebObjects%252FMZStore. woa%252Fwa%252FviewPodcast%253Fid%253D75089978%252 6s%253D143441).
Political analysts tend to overinterpret the results of isolated elections. But you can hardly read too much into Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080800596.html?nav=hcmodule) in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary. This is a signal event that will have a huge and lasting negative impact on the Democratic Party. The result suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War.
The election was about one issue and one issue only: the war in Iraq. Joe Lieberman was an otherwise highly regarded (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/jun/23/my_lieberman_problem_and_ours), well-ensconced Democratic incumbent who would never have faced a meaningful primary challenge had he not vocally supported President Bush's invasion in 2003, continued to defend the war in principle, and opposed adopting a timetable for withdrawal. Ned Lamont, a preppy political novice from Greenwich, got the idea to run last year when something he read in the Wall Street Journal made him gag on his breakfast. It was a hopeful analysis of Iraq by Lieberman. As a candidate, Lamont was less a fleshed-out alternative to Lieberman than a stand-in for an anti-war, anti-Bush movement. His campaign was made plausible by Web-based "Net roots" activists who cared principally about the war in Iraq and badgered Lieberman mercilessly (http://www.slate.com/id/2147255/) about his support for it.
Lieberman's opponents are not entirely wrong about the war. The invasion of Iraq was, in ways that have since become hard to dispute, a terrible mistake. There were no weapons of mass destruction to be dismantled, we had no plan for occupying the country, and our troops remain there only to prevent the civil war we unleashed from turning into a bigger and more horrific civil war. Slate.com (http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/)