Lieberman Gets It

Lieberman's said something to stir up the blogosphere (though for the Left, his mere continued existance exacerbates them):

“I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us,” Mr. Lieberman said at the Waterbury event. He called that threat “more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long cold war.”

The left is already screaming that he's done a disservice to Holocaust victims by comparing what they perceive as a limited threat to the fascism of the National Socialist party. Here's Kos on the topic (God I hate this man more every day):

More evil than the guys who gassed 6 million Jews?

More dangerous than the guys who had thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us and could've snuffed out all life on the planet at the press of a button?

Lieberman has lost it. Completely and utterly. He is insane.

Uhh Markos? You're the one whose lost it buddy. Ever heard of this little thing called MAD? Mutual Assured Destruction - yeah, maybe if your history classes didn't use Howard Zinn as the gold standard, you would have read about it. MAD ensured that although the USSR was dangerous, yes, they were never a truly existential threat to the United States. Why? Because we were an existential threat to them as well, in that we would wipe them off the face of the earth and that was that. Marx didn't prescribe a heaven for Communist martyrs who died spreading proletarian bliss. Mohammed, on the other hand, prescribed exactly that for those who give their lives for the expansion of Islam. Don't believe me? Try this on for size: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter?" (Koran 9:38) A call to martyrdom, a promise of a better world beyond this one: such assurances (and remember, the Koran is infallible: to pious Muslims this is a promise) mean that MAD is useless to those seeking martyrdom. This sort of fanatical willingness to cast one's life away with reckless abandon was unknown to the Soviet Union's Politburo, and makes Islamo-fascism a much graver and more unpredictable danger that Communism.


What of fascism? I will not in any way attempt to be an apologist for Hitler - he was truly evil, and sought the destruction of worldy Jewry. But how much different, to Muslim literalists, are the commands of Mohammed? There exist among the Muslim scriptures a collection of what are known as haditha (sing. hadith), sayings attributed to Mohammed and treated as law. One of these also captures the eschatological worldview inherent in Islam, and sets as a precondition for Judgement day the destruction of Jewry:

The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!"

Can we honestly say that this is any less serious a threat than Hitler? Critics may reply that of course Hitler killed six million Jews and turned mass murder into a science. The world view of Islamo-fascists demands nothing less - there is a reason that among those seeking to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, Hitler was viewed with reverence. This, I think, puts Islamo-fascists on the same plane of evil as Hitler, because although the means differ, their end is the same. To push Islamo-fascism beyond the evil of Hitler requires a bit of thought, but is really a matter of personal opinion; I won't offer my own, merely the following observation. Hitler's goals were not clearly and demonstrably internationalist - he might not have sought to dominate the whole world.

The foe we face today is explicitly internationalist, calling for jihad until all non-believers submit, often in the face of a choice between submission and death (or conversion and death: in the Balkans, so frequent were such Ottoman threats that when locals were asked whether or not they accepted Islam, they refused by nodding their head up and down as if submitting - some say that tradition continues today so that a shake of the head signals agreement). For Islamo-fascists, their struggles end only when the entire world has either converted or submitted to Islamic rule; there is no American exceptionalism here, which, some may argue, renders it a more existential threat to our way of life than Nazism.

Was Lieberman right to say these things, and highlight the global underestimation of the threat before us? Given the harsh response of the Left, I think so - they cleary don't understand. We face a foe as equally bent on the destruction of Judaism as Hitler was, imbued with the same internationalism of Marxist ideology, but lacking the rational desire for self-preservation that permitted us to bring down Communism without the world suffering a nuclear exchange. In short, our present foe combines some of the worst traits of the two of our greatest 20th century enemies.

Lieberman was, and is, right - and for his clear perception he deserves reelection.

MI-07 = Bad News for Chafee?

Another primary I followed with whatever attention wasn't devoted to Lamont/Lieberman and McKinney's meltdown last night was up in Michigan's 7th District, where moderate Republican incumbent Joe Schwarz was offed by his conservative challenger, Tim Walberg, who had the support of Michigan Right to Life and the Club for Growth. There's a little on it from Hotline blog here. But my point in bringing up Schwarz's defeat was its parallels for another embattled moderate, namely Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. To me, the defeat of two relatively popular incumbents (Schwarz and Lieberman - I'm not counting McKinney on this list) verifies the oft-cited argument about unpopular incumbents - to a point. While I'm still not ready to concede an anti-incumbent spirit on the general level (still don't believe a large number of seats will flip), there is clearly a measure of intraparty anti-incumbent sentiment.

This of course is not a good omen for Lincoln Chafee, a moderate's moderate, a Senator who epitomizes the idea of a Rockefeller Republican. Not only is Chafee locked in a hard-fought political battle with insurgent mayor Steve Laffey, he's losing ground to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who's up 6% in the latest Rasmussen poll. This was at one point Chafee's to win, but now that he's finding himself occupied with trying to maintain the party's nomination, I think Whitehouse has the momentum.

Of course all of this presumes that Chafee slips past Laffey in a year that's seen pissed off partisans on both sides, and one Club for Growth candidate already triumph. Again, I don't like taking bold positions on elections (not enough experience to do that yet) but I have a bad feeling about Chafee's chances on this one; a Chafee defeat on September 12th will probably mean the Democrats only need to take four seats to tie up the Senate (or five to give themselves true control).

Connecticut: Further Thoughts

I should start by venting a wee bit. Many of the moonbats have taken extreme umbrage at a particular line (some may come to call it Lieberman's nine words) in last night's concession speech: "I cannot and will not let that result stand." They're citing it is as further proof of delusion, of a man out for himself and not for state or nation. Lieberman squeaked by Weicker in the '88 primary even more narrowly than Lamont won last night, which is to say that at one point the Democratic Party up there thought very highly of him. But since then, I would say, and especially in the last decade or so, he's been more a man of his state than a man of his party, independent from partisan pressures because of his widespread popularity at home. Let me restate that: because of his widespread popularity at home. Not because of his popularity among fellow Dems but because of his broad base of support. In 2000, Lieberman won with 63% of the vote, meaning his support extended far beyond his party. As of last October, party registration in Connecticut was roughly as follows: 453,000 registered Republicans (~22%), 700,000 Democrats (~34%), 929,000 unaffiliated (~45%). Given those registrations and his usual broad base of appeal, of course he cannot let the results stand: last night he was run out of his party by some loons who in other states might be on the political fringe. As a three-term incumbent, and one with widespread popularity and respect in the state, the whole state deserves another referendum on him, not just the peaceniks who claimed victory last night (and while calling them peaceniks, I should note that one of Lieberman's first political acts back in the 70s was the creation of an anti-war caucus).

Looking forward, what does all of this mean? Some have suggested, and I partially believe, that Lamont's victory on an avowedly cut and run strategy will force the Democrats to line up behind a cut and run resolution on Iraq (like the one Kerry floated about 6 weeks ago). However they'll only do that if they feel the Connecticut results are nationally consistent, that is to say that there is some sort of anti-war tide not just among Democrats but voters at large (although the poll numbers indicate public dissatisfaction with the war, I think most Americans haven't lost their minds just yet and recognize the disastrous consequences of leaving before Iraq can stand on its own). They may feel threatened by netroots activism and the spectre of primary challenges, which already many Kossacks are talking about - but I think the activists are off their rockers and the establishment will be overestimating their power if they worry about that. They might be able to push Lieberman out of the party in Connecticut, but that's in one of the bluest states in the nation - I'm not sure it could happen in many other places.

I also somehow suspect that Lamont's victory will be a boon for the GOP, at least in Connecticut. In November, GOP voters will come out and vote - either for Schlesinger or Lieberman, or at least (if the GOP does its job well) against Lamont, in the process hopefully voting for their Congressmen too (three of whom are Republicans). Nationwide, or at least in select markets, invoking the idea of the Democratic Party as a bunch of hippie peaceniks, led by Lamont and his merry band of netroots loons, might serve as a catalyst for turnout. We'll see.

I'll try and post on some of the other races later.

Watching the Lamont Acceptance

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are in the background...this is the sort of support he's got. And he should be a Senator why?

Kos is already going on the November warpath.

Lamont is also yelling...hoping he shrieks
Calling for healthcare reform (Hillarycare?), whining about deficits (should we fix Social Security? NOOOO!), complaining about the 63 lobbyists per Congressman in DC - so he'll only meet with 62 if he wins in November (which would require Lieberman getting run over by a semi). Can't stand to watch this tripe anymore, Daily Show time.

Update
Hotline Blog has the full text of Lieberman's concession here.

Calling It

For Lamont. With 93.85% of precincts reporting, Lamont is leading 51.65%-48.35%. But with that slim of a margin, Joe will no doubt challenge as an independent.

Update:
Lieberman conceded at 11:oo PM, saying he will go forward, that

"[t]he old politics of polarization won today. For the sake of our state, my country and my party, I cannot and will not let those results stands today."
"I will continue to offer Connecticut a different path forward."
"People are fed up with the petty partisanship and angry bickering in Washington."

Connecticut Update

I'll be following the Connecticut primary from now until they call it...I should start by taking back my earlier comment about tonight being a squeaker. Having said that, the Hartford Courant reports that with about 44% of precincts reporting, Lamont is up 53%-47%. Of course Kos had reports from earlier tonight (only 4% reporting) that showed Lamont up 60%-40% - so things are looking slightly better. At this point, should he lose, I think Lieberman will mount an independent bid for the Senate.

Hotline Blog is reporting that turnout is higher in more affluent areas (always the case but usually addressed most in presidential races and no so much in such solidly blue states); tonight I'm not sure which way it goes. I'm inclined to believe that there are plenty of wealthy members of both parties in Connecticut, so it may be a wash

Courant should be updating results here.

Big Day in Politics (GA)

In Georgia, another nutjob, this time an incumbent, tries to save her bacon. Cynthia "My Job in Life is to Play the Race Card" McKinney, who failed to top 50% in her primary, is in the 2nd fight of her political life, as a more sane man attempts to get on the ballot as a Democrat this fall. While I think McKinney's a nutjob, and a disgrace to Congress, she's a far bigger disgrace to her party (which should be working actively for her ouster, though if that were to happen the whole of the CBC and McKinney would whip out their race cards and raise hell) - and for that reason, pure partisan hackery, I'd love to have her stay around. For every time Democrats talk about getting tough on national security, we can roll out the comments of loonies like her and say, "No, no you're not getting serious on national security" (though if party unity's the standard, I suppose that justifies Lamont and would require the GOP to deal with Gil Gutknecht and Walter Jones, to say nothing of Ron Paul; I guess it's back to the drawing board on that one).

Big Day in Politics (CT)

Save for those of you who live under a political rock/haven't looked at a major news source in about two weeks, today as most know is the Connecticut primary. When you have an incumbent, primaries are usually a mere formality; the incumbent sweeps aside the usual array of challenging flakes and extremist nutjobs and turnout is pathetically low. In the nutmeg state, however, incumbent Joe Lieberman is confronted by a well-funded, and especially well-supported nutjob in the form of multimillionaire Ned Lamont.

Lamont's insurgency (for in reality is little more than that) is interestingly fired by a combination of old and new media; he's been the darling of the ultra-left Daily Kos and his ragtag band of anti-American peaceniks, socialists, and anarchists (with a nice mixture of conspiracy theorists thrown in for kicks), and the New York Times, which endorsed Lamont. Same politics, different mediums. Of course the real impetus for this campaign has come from the netroots, activists like Kos et. al, and if their darling wins tonight, it will be their greatest triumph to date. As an aside, a netroots activist noted with cynicism this morning that

no matter what happens later today, Wednesday will be the worst day of press for the progressive netroots in years. If Lamont loses, we will be branded as ineffectual, irrelevant, extremist, and destructive. If Ned Lamont wins, we will be branded as powerful, relevant, extremist, and destructive.

He goes on to say he'd prefer the latter outcome; personally I'd like the former - but either way he is right, and the media will be right.

Why is it that Connecticut Democrats are even thinking about ditching their three-term incumbent, the man who at one point was poised to become Vice-President of the United States? The first, most obvious, and most oft-touted answer is simply the war. Since Day 1, Lieberman has been the President's most steadfast supporter across the aisle, and the voice of sanity in a party that seems to be rapidly losing its grip on reality. Lieberman, in contrast with the majority of his fellow Dems, understands the importance of finishing what we have started in Iraq. Agree or disagree with the war, I think we should all be able to say in unison that we must finish what we've started; his party disagreed, and so Lieberman's suffering for taking a stand. But there's more to it than simply that. One of the best analyses, I think, came from the Weekly Standard last month, when they noted that while the war was the most germane issue, most Lamont activists have problems with Lieberman far beyond that, starting

in 1998, when Lieberman scolded President Clinton on the floor of the Senate, and pass through 2000, when he declined to give up his Senate seat after joining the presidential ticket, before detouring in 2002, when he picked a public fight with Gore over campaign strategy, and then careening toward November 2004, when he appeared on Fox News after John Kerry's loss and "smiled," before arriving in 2005, when he held open the idea of compromise with Republicans on adding personal retirement accounts to Social Security, lent support to the Republican congressional intervention in the battle over Terri Schiavo, and voted for the "Cheney energy bill." Finally, the Nedheads end up with last winter, when Lieberman voted for cloture--allowing a final vote to proceed--on the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. Iraq is only one count in this indictment.

Let's go through some of those points again, as I think it says a lot not only about Lamonters but also about the state of the Democratic party. They begrudge the man for chastising a lying, unfaithful President who abused the station of his office and shamed the White House, for not joining in the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Kerry lost (given the two mens' stances on Iraq, it's understandable), for sanity on Social Security, and for cloture - for allowing judicial nominations to forward as dictated by the Constitution - on the nomination of Samuel Alito, a surpremely qualified nominee for the Supreme Court. Many allege that this day is all about whether or not the Democratic Party's proverbial tent is big enough for disparate opinions on the war; the Standard suggests today is more about whether or not that tent is big enough for any dissent.

Whatever the reason, Lieberman's future as a Democrat is on the line. Should he lose narrowly today, there is plenty of speculation that he'll get on the ballot as an independent; if the outcome is a Lamont landslide, however, I think Lieberman will go into the sunset. But problematically, no one can predict what's going to happen. An August primary seems like a ready-made recipe for low turnout, though the peculiar dynamics of this race means that no one really knows what's going on. Nearly 700,000 registered Democrats who can vote today, and I've seen turnout estimates ranging from 25%-40%. Although Quinnipiac has released two much-touted polls in the last two weeks, the first of which showed Lamont up 15%, the second only by 6%, I'm inclined to think things are much tighter than that. Want me to pick a winner? I won't. All I'm going to say is that this fight is a preview of November and of 2008, and of the acceptability of diversity on key issues in the Democratic Party - and oh yeah, it's going to be a squeaker.

Ney Announces Retirement

Embattled (and supposedly on the verge of indictment) Republican incumbent Bob Ney (OH-18) has announced he won't run for reelection. This is Abramoff claiming another victim, and a pretty clear sign that Ney will be indicted soon, perhaps before the end of the August recess. A K Street lawyer I spoke to a few weeks back said that after the recess, the pace of the indictments will increase substantially; we may be seeing that already. Not entirely sure that Ney's retirement will hurt the already-reeling Ohio GOP, but it probably won't help.