Feingold '08

Brian Doherty | August 24, 2006

Kathryn Jean Lopez over at National Review overreads the results of Lamont v. Lieberman to declare that in a Democratic party completely overrun with, as an anonymous Republican she quotes puts it, "Kossacks, Cindy Sheehan disciples, and Big Labor special interests who are increasingly devoted to a cause-oriented political jihad against what they view as a Democrat Establishment" that 2008's presidential nomination is Russ Feingold's to lose.

For a more moderate read on what Lamont's primary victory portends, one less certain that it marks the final victory of the mad antiwarmonger, see my interviews with two Democrat pundits John Nichols and Mark Schmitt here.

Comments

|8.24.06 @ 11:32PM|#

She really used the word jihad, huh? Nice.

|8.25.06 @ 12:39AM|#

Or maybe the voters are just outraged that they were lied into a losing war. Sort of like the majority are feeling right about now.

Listen to what the Republicans are saying: a MAJORITY of Americans are officially in the same camp as Osama, because they believe the Iraq War is a fiasco. We are ALL the Enemy now. One wonders if this will shake their faith in democracy-sponsoring, since a majority of America is anti-American. One wonders if they will find it a tragic necessity to dispense with democracy entirely, destroy it in order to save it, so to speak.

Personally, I think smearing the Vermonters who support Lamont (which is nearly half at this point) as traitors and dunces will not necessarily cause them to change their position. The Right has been using this tactic for five years and it's lost its magic. People just aren't responding the way they once did. Perhaps Americans are regaining their equilibrium. I would like to believe that.

|8.25.06 @ 12:57AM|#

In many ways, we would be so much better off if we had had Feingold administrations instead of Bush administrations.

Feingold voted against the Iraq war and the Patriot act. And the GOP congress would have acted like Republicans are supposed to and shut down his obnoxious and very anti-liberty domestic economic agenda.

Of course Feingold wouldn't support cuts in the capital gains tax (I cite this tax cuz evidence is very strong that cuts in this ridiculous tax don't contribute to the deficit (thus higher taxes later) at all), or SS reform either. But I would still prefer Feingold and the GOP congress if we could go back in time and change history. Well, I'll work on it. Back to the lab...

Changing history via going back in time is incompatible with freewill. Discuss...

(Philosophy is fun...Hey, anyone seen Julian Sanchez? Seems like I don't see him blogging stuff as much of late.)

|8.25.06 @ 1:37AM|#

"Kossacks"?

wingnutx|8.25.06 @ 2:16AM|#

kossack = kos fan

Stephen Macklin|8.25.06 @ 7:30AM|#

But think of the delicious irony of McCain vs Fiengold! Would anyone be allowed to say anything about either one of them?

thoreau|8.25.06 @ 8:45AM|#

But think of the delicious irony of McCain vs Fiengold! Would anyone be allowed to say anything about either one of them?

Would there by anything worth saying about either of them?

|8.25.06 @ 9:12AM|#

A Wisconsin liberal with a hard-on for political free speech as the 2008 D nominee? A bit of wishful thinking on the part of my R brethren.

It's Hillary. She's got the money, the chits, and the sheer iron will.

|8.25.06 @ 9:20AM|#

James,

Lamont is getting hammered in the general election polls. Smearing Republicans as war mongers and facists doesn't exactly win too many converts either. Republicans are going to vote Lieberman to keep Lamont from winning and Lieberman as an incumbant is going to get a decent percentage of Democrats. Most Republicans plus at least half of the Dems will get you a win, which is why Lieberman is running as an independent; he knows he will win.

The Dems kill me on terrorism. It can't get any funnier. The position seems to be "we hate the war in Iraq, even though most of us voted for it", "we hate the Patriot Act, even though nearly all of us voted for it", "but we are going to get touch on terrorism". Really?

It really is Bush derrangment syndrome. The Dems could take the Congress and impeach Bush and we would wake up tommorow and we would still be in Iraq and the Patriot Act would still be law. They wouldn't change a damn thing, because they know that if they cut and run from Iraq and weaken the Patriot Act and there is another 9-11, their chances of ever holding national office again would be about zero. Instead of admitting the truth, which is they won't change a damn thing, they come out with meaningless slogans like "we are going to work with our allies", "we are going to use diplomacy", "we are going to go after terrorists" blah blah blah.

|8.25.06 @ 9:38AM|#

John,

I disagree about the Dems not pulling out of the war in Iraq. People in general have come to realize that the connection between Iraq and al Qeada was tenuous at best and they aren't so afraid of anymore. People hate a losing war, and Iraq isn't exactly great, even though Kurdistan (which at some point will become its own country) is stable.

Of course the Patriot Act will remain because if there's one thing both parties agree on, its that the existence of a nanny state is imperative, the dems just want a slightly different type of nanny, which coddles as well as spanks.

Frankly, an independent Lieberman would be a happy end, if only because he isn't tied to either party and can openly voice his own dissent wherever he sees fit instead of mollifying people by towing party lines.

I really do hope that the continuing polarization of the parties continues so third parties have a chance to find a voice and people actually vote for what they believe in more than compromising on the lesser evils. More choice for all would be nice and even though I doubt it would reduce graft, it would add extra fronts for politicians to fight, which would make them less inclined to do things which could damage them politically.

|8.25.06 @ 10:12AM|#

Lost in Translation,

The Dems don't want to get stuck as loosers in a war. They would certainly finese it. If a Dem wins in 2008, troop levels would go down a bit quicker than if a Republican wins. The Dem would claim that he is turning the country over to the Iraqis. Basically, either party will do the same thing; hang in there long enough get the Iraqi Army up, declare victory and go home. The United States is not going to stop the Sunis and Shia and Kurds from killing each other if that is what they want to do. All the U.S. can do and set up the government, give them support and let the Iraqis figure it out. I can gaurentee you if a Dem wins in 2008, the media coverage of Iraq will be like day and night. All of the sudden, the spin will be, Iraqis are taking over for the U.S. and things are great there and so fourth. The troop numbers would come down, but not too much and not too fast and eventually there would be so few troops there that it won't be a story in anymore.

Larry A|8.25.06 @ 10:48AM|#

Of course the Patriot Act will remain because if there's one thing both parties agree on, its that the existence of a nanny state is imperative, the dems just want a slightly different type of nanny, which coddles as well as spanks.

Mostly agree. Except both want a nanny that spanks and cuddles. The difference is what the nanny spanks and cuddles for.

|8.25.06 @ 10:58AM|#

Lamont is getting hammered in the general election polls.

Again Mr. Know-nothing veers his ugly head.

Lamont is down 2 points in the latest Rasmussen poll and the last ARG poll has them 44 - 42 - 3 (lieberman, lamont, alan s) with 11% undecided (and if you are undecided about an 18 year seantor at this point -- your probably not going to vote for him).

Every time you spout off, its misinformation. Do you even bother to look things up. You are on the internet already man -- use the fucking thing.

When the first sentence of your post is uninformed, biased, wishful thinking stated as fact, why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

|8.25.06 @ 11:16AM|#

I love it that I get under your skin so much Chicago Tom. You are such a clown. It really does bring a smile to my face when you put up some meanlingless rant in response to one of my posts. A little defensive about Lamont are we? It is funny that you couldn't come up with a poll that has Lamont ahead. That might be because there isn't one. You can find a poll that will show nearly any race competetive. When you are behind in every poll, that means you are getting pounded.

|8.25.06 @ 12:17PM|#

A little defensive about Lamont are we? It is funny that you couldn't come up with a poll that has Lamont ahead. That might be because there isn't one.

What bothers me is liars. You are a fucking liar. Everytime you post, it's filled with lies, embellishments, and exagerations. You have no integrity. Most people comment to either engage in dialog or make funny references/jokes -- you just like to fling shit and peddle lies while attacking others. You can't comment about anything without using untruths and lies to attack "liberals" and "lefties" -- even when they aren't really relevant. And you have the nerve to call me a clown??

Not that I should have to give you a lesson in polls, but let's get a couple of things straight. Being within the margin of error is called a "statistical dead heat". Furthermore, if you look at trend lines, Lamont has rapidly closed the gap with Lieberman and has a lot of momentum going into the final push. Undecideds (which there are quite a few), especially when the incumbent is so well known, tend to break against the incumbent.

Now none of this guarantees anything -- but I like Lamont's chances based on the reality of the situation. If this is what you call "getting pounded" or "getting hammered in the general election polls" then maybe you should spend some time reading a dictionary because words have meanings -- and you don't seem to know the meaning of most words.

|8.25.06 @ 12:28PM|#

John,

This is priceless. You assert something totally false and then say that the person who calls your BS a clown.

|8.25.06 @ 1:46PM|#

Say, John, have you worked up the courage yet to apologize for calling me "a longtime supporter and defender of Saddam Hussein?"

|8.25.06 @ 1:54PM|#

"It's Hillary."

I hope not. I think she would be the weakest candidate the Democrats could run. There are too many people who can't stand her, including me. Although I believe she would be defeated, just having her nominated is too close for comfort. I'm afraid that she and the mainstream news media would find a way to get her elected. Or perhaps there would be a strong 3rd party that would take votes away from the GOP as Perot did.

|8.25.06 @ 1:57PM|#

"Lamont is getting hammered in the general election polls."

John,

In the most recent poll which I saw yesterday, Lamont has come to within 2 points of Lieberman. Lieberman is continuing to hurt himself by continuing to support the failed war in Iraq.

|8.25.06 @ 2:01PM|#

"The Dems kill me on terrorism. It can't get any funnier. The position seems to be "we hate the war in Iraq"

John,

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. If anything, it is promoting more terrorism by stirring up hatred for us in the Middle East.

|8.25.06 @ 3:47PM|#

"I can gaurentee you if a Dem wins in 2008, the media coverage of Iraq will be like day and night. All of the sudden, the spin will be, Iraqis are taking over for the U.S. and things are great there and so fourth. The troop numbers would come down, but not too much and not too fast and eventually there would be so few troops there that it won't be a story in anymore.""

What do you mean all of a sudden if the Dems win? Is that not the spin the Bush admin has in play already? They are standing up so we can stand down.

Whoever wins will find a polite way of cutting and running, Dem and Repub alike. The Dems could take the low road and claim it's sooooooo screwed up by the previous administration that nothing else can be acheived. I doubt they would, but it is an option.

I have yet to hear anyone, on either side, actually talk about what we have to do to win. I guess that option went out the window. Passing the buck to a lesser army is not a winning strategy. To change the definition of victory from defeating the insurgency, to the ability to pass the buck to the Iraqis, reeks of inability to accomplish the mission. That proves to the world that America is not the kick ass force it was assumed to be and I don't think that's a good thing for us.

|8.25.06 @ 4:00PM|#

Isn't a Jihad a holy war? And aren't the Democrats accused of being too secular? How does the secular party get accused of holy war? Or is "jihad" a word that sends the John's of the world into an irrational pit where the Dem's aren't serious enough to protect 'Merka? John, answer this one question: What is the ratio of Islamic terror attacks on US soil during Clinton and Bush II? Is it 1:1 or something else? Looks like the Dems and GOPs are about the same, huh? It's like the business cycle, John. It happens regardless of who is in office. The best we can hope is that the Prez won't overextend our military response capability, as Bush has done.

|8.25.06 @ 4:20PM|#

Shut up John, you big fat jerky face! And give me my toys back, fart-head.

|8.25.06 @ 5:40PM|#

TrickyVic,

A pretty compelling argument could be made that the situation is unwinnable as it stands now, unless we significantly redefine victory. What I'm surprised at is that no one's brought up the possibility of giving power back to Saddam, withdrawing to Kuwait, and pretending nothing happened. The sad thing is that there are a lot of worse options.

|8.25.06 @ 6:50PM|#

When you are behind in every poll, that means you are getting pounded.

That's not necessarily true at all.

Discloser:

I dislike Lamont's positions less than I dislike Big Government Joe's voting record. I guess that the best that I can hope for is that the GOP candidate, whom I'm sure I would prefer to either of em, take enough votes away from Liebertard so that Lamont wins.

Robert|8.25.06 @ 11:47PM|#

"Or perhaps there would be a strong 3rd party that would take votes away from the GOP as Perot did."

Why do people keep saying that? Exit polls in 1992 showed that Perot's absence from the race would not have changed a single electoral vote.