ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The schism in the democratic party - Another Rovian plot?

Despite my co-blogger's lamentations last night on the Lieberman loss in the CT democratic primary, I see this as nothing short of a "lose-lose" situation for the Democratic party.

The left side of the blogosphere (the "netroots" if you will) have finally been able to point to an electoral victory. Unfortunately for them, it had to be in a Democrat only field. So when it comes to their real power, its only reserved in driving their party further to the left. This will only ensure further electoral defeat in future general elections.

A smattering of liberal bloggers have been trumpeting the results as something of a new shift in politics. At the Daily Kos, kos writes:

We can make a difference, and we will. We have just seen what we can accomplish if we set our minds to it. Now while we'll work to seal the deal in Connecticut, we'll also take our energy, our passion, and yes, even our dollars and use them to teach the ruling Republican ideologues running our country into the ground that they face repercussions for their incompetence.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!! I'm sorry but a strategy used to win a primary does not translate into a general election win.

But don't tell that to Michael Moore, he's taken this as a sign that all the rules have been rewritten, the revolution has begun, and its time to start taking names, and putting people up against the wall.

Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.

I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.


To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.
Wow, thats a lot of Democrats that are going to lose their seats, by my count thats 81 members of Congress and 29 Senators. Whats the real motivation?

Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.

Great, I will offer my non-professional advice to the Republican leadership in Congress. Immediately (while its still fresh in their minds) announce another vote on the Murtha proposal calling for an immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq (the "cut and run strategy"). Let the Democrats put their names to which side of the issue they stand on now. Let Michael Moore and the other nutroots, oops sorry, "netroots", understand who should be the ones up against the wall in the upcoming Democratic party purge. Quickly, before the November election campaigns really get started.

Either the current crop of Congress will support the war, and lose their base, or they will not support the troops, and lose the moderates. Either way, they will lose, and control of Congress will remain with the Republicans.

As Dick Morris continually pointed out during the 2004 election, John Kerry continually had to straddle two extremes to try and win the election. He had to be pro-war to the moderate, while being anti-war to his base. Hence the "voted for the war before I voted against it" line. And we saw how well that worked.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Comments (6)
Monterey John said...

I agree it was a lose-lose for the Democratic Party. However, losing Lieberman was a loss for the American people, so I can not take much joy in in it.

Brian said...

Losing Lieberman as a loss for the democratic party only, not for the American people, since in my opinion, he is very very likely to win his independent bid.

Now you can make the case that a strong democratic party is good for the country as a whole, and I would echo that argument. However, I think the Democratic party has a long way to fall still before they wake up and realize they have lost their way.

St Wendeler said...

Given the fact that the Dems have never admitted a defeat in a federal election since 1980, I don't think they'll know they're at the bottom until a third party takes over their position in American politics.

Carter/Mondale - Lost b/c of the October Surprise;

Dukakis/Bentsen - Lost b/c of racist Willie Horton ad that never aired;

1994 - Lost b/c of Angry White Males didn't understand their nuanced message;

Algore/Loserman - Lost b/c Jeb Bush/Catherine Harris/SCOTUS stole the @#$ing election;

2002 - We were tricked and we weren't Liberal enough!

Kerry/Prel - Lost b/c Swift Boats and b/c Ken Blackwell disenfranchised African-Americans in Ohio.

Thus, they'll continue their slide to moron-ism.

Brian said...


I'm betting that if the supposed Senate/House pickup doesn't materialize in Nov' 2006, the Hillary! wing will immediately start to DLC the party and bring it back to the center.

Also remember that as things go better in Iraq, the anti-war faction will no longer curry as much favor.

Hillary! does not want to wage a battle against AlGore for the hearts and minds of the left... She'll lose.

Brian said...

Course there's always 2012 isnt there for her? ;-)

Stupid Country said...

I have nothing to say about any of the foregoing comments to this post, but I do want to acknowledge Michael Moore for articulating exactly what I've been saying since I started my blog. Michael's audience is many orders of magnitude bigger than mine, so I'm happy to see him saying these things out loud.

My only quibble with his comments -- and I mean my only quibble -- is that I'm inclined to cut John Edwards more slack. That doesn't mean I'd support an Edwards bid for President, but I think Edwards sincerely meant it. Kerry probably means it too, but I wish he'd had the balls to say it when it actually mattered. Doesn't make any difference; Kerry's aspirations are toast. Don't get me started on Hillary.