NYT analysis: A Referendum on Iraq Policy
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
The victory of Ned Lamont over Joseph I. Lieberman, a three-term senator and former vice presidential candidate, was a vivid demonstration of how the Iraq war is buffeting American politics and of the deep hostility toward President Bush among Democrats. It also suggested there are stiff anti-status-quo winds blowing across the political landscape as the fall elections approach.
Mr. Lamont’s victory marked the first time that liberal political blogs, after playing an increasingly noisy role in Democratic politics, have been associated with a major winning campaign, suggesting a moment of arrival for this new force in political combat. And the outcome will also undoubtedly prod other Democrats who supported the war — albeit with less gusto than Mr. Lieberman — to step farther away from the increasingly unpopular conflict.
But more than that, the results of this most closely watched primary of the year raised red flags for both parties, going into the highly competitive fall elections.
For Democrats, the result — closer than polls suggested and than many Democrats had expected — dramatized the fault lines in the party over the war. And with Mr. Lieberman pledging in a concession speech last night to run as an independent in the general election, with a fierce attack on Mr. Lamont and “partisan” Washington Democrats, national Democrats have been put in an excruciating position.
They will be forced in the days ahead to choose between publicly renouncing a Democratic fixture, one popular among moderate and Jewish voters across the country, and embracing a Democrat who won a clear primary victory and has come to represent the winds of change. Although virtually every major national Democrat is expected to endorse Mr. Lamont as the winner of the party’s primary — from former President Bill Clinton, who campaigned on behalf of Mr. Lieberman in the primary, to the party’s prospective 2008 presidential candidates — that is different from coming to campaign on his behalf, against Mr. Lieberman.
At the same time, Republicans are ready to pounce on what they hoped could be a political opening presented by Mr. Lamont’s rising star, during what has been a difficult political season for them. They said this could become a crystallizing moment: an opportunity to frame the primary results in a way that has historically worked for them and that they have exploited ruthlessly, by presenting Republicans as better able to protect Americans in a dangerous world.
(There's more here.)
The victory of Ned Lamont over Joseph I. Lieberman, a three-term senator and former vice presidential candidate, was a vivid demonstration of how the Iraq war is buffeting American politics and of the deep hostility toward President Bush among Democrats. It also suggested there are stiff anti-status-quo winds blowing across the political landscape as the fall elections approach.
Mr. Lamont’s victory marked the first time that liberal political blogs, after playing an increasingly noisy role in Democratic politics, have been associated with a major winning campaign, suggesting a moment of arrival for this new force in political combat. And the outcome will also undoubtedly prod other Democrats who supported the war — albeit with less gusto than Mr. Lieberman — to step farther away from the increasingly unpopular conflict.
But more than that, the results of this most closely watched primary of the year raised red flags for both parties, going into the highly competitive fall elections.
For Democrats, the result — closer than polls suggested and than many Democrats had expected — dramatized the fault lines in the party over the war. And with Mr. Lieberman pledging in a concession speech last night to run as an independent in the general election, with a fierce attack on Mr. Lamont and “partisan” Washington Democrats, national Democrats have been put in an excruciating position.
They will be forced in the days ahead to choose between publicly renouncing a Democratic fixture, one popular among moderate and Jewish voters across the country, and embracing a Democrat who won a clear primary victory and has come to represent the winds of change. Although virtually every major national Democrat is expected to endorse Mr. Lamont as the winner of the party’s primary — from former President Bill Clinton, who campaigned on behalf of Mr. Lieberman in the primary, to the party’s prospective 2008 presidential candidates — that is different from coming to campaign on his behalf, against Mr. Lieberman.
At the same time, Republicans are ready to pounce on what they hoped could be a political opening presented by Mr. Lamont’s rising star, during what has been a difficult political season for them. They said this could become a crystallizing moment: an opportunity to frame the primary results in a way that has historically worked for them and that they have exploited ruthlessly, by presenting Republicans as better able to protect Americans in a dangerous world.
(There's more here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
"Baby Boom" Anti-War Effect on the Iraq War
The sentiment against an extended war in Iraq has grown much more quickly than in the past. Part of the reason was that in the Gulf War we were able to get in and out quickly. The bombing of Serbia into submission was even quicker. We were promised more of the same by the Bush Administration in our WMD war in Iraq.
It was the Gulf War, though, that got us over the supposed "Vietnam Syndrome," misinterpreted by most conservatives as Americans not wanting to fight any war. Post-Vietnam society never really suffered from a "syndrome," which sounds like a serious mental malady.
Instead, U.S society had learned an important lesson; that the U.S. could not always impose its will on other countries. Americans of the "baby boom" lived, and many fought, through that senseless, bloody war.
Back in the 1960's and '70's the anti-war movement started on campuses and moved slowly into the social mainstream. Although not a movement today, Republicans should not forget that the boomers are still here, and do remember the real lessons of Vietnam. One is that there should be no open-ended commitments to war.
The people who started the Iraq war were the Young Republicans of the 1960's. They were the guys like Cheney with the short hair, rather than the long hair, who were avoiding the draft. There were no Young Democrats because the anti-war movement was a spontaneous movement, not a political one. The anti-war movement party didn't trust either political party.
Those Young (now old) Republicans who got us into Iraq, are the conservatives who totally misinterpreted Vietnam as a "sydrome" rather than a lesson to be learned about the limits of American power. Since they refused to learn that lesson, we are all paying the price in terms of dead soldiers, huge deficits, and no "light at the end of the tunnel."
Now the "boomers" are in their 50's and 60's, and once again see their country stuck in what seems an open-ended commitment to war, another one of the real lessons of Vietnam. That's why anti-war sentiment in the country has arisen so much more quickly over the Iraq war than it did in Vietnam.
The boomers are also now in the age range that produces the highest voter turnout. So beware pro-war politicians. Don't let the Vietnam Syndrome get you down, and out of elective office.
Post a Comment
<< Home