Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (10834)	8/15/2006 12:59:30 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

"I will be sending a contribution to Lieberman. We can cancel each other out." Let's see, teacher vs. business owner; it is my guess it would take a few teachers to match your your contribution.

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (10834)	8/15/2006 11:19:52 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The Lamont Democrats Echoes of Vietnam circa 1975. Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT Ned Lamont's toppling of three-term Democratic Senate incumbent Joe Lieberman is a political thunder clap, arguably the most important victory for the American left since the Watergate rout of 1974. Senate incumbents are always hard to beat, never mind one who was on his party's national ticket only six years ago. Connecticut Democrats understood the choice, and their judgment can't be dismissed as a fluke of the Angry Left blogosphere. Conservatives who are dismissing this as another suicidal lurch to the left should also be more respectful of voter sentiment. We're old enough to recall conservative Jeff Bell's upset of Senator Clifford Case in a New Jersey GOP primary in 1978. The media and political establishments sniffed at that result, and Mr. Bell lost in November to Bill Bradley. But it turned out his primary triumph was also a harbinger of Ronald Reagan. Mr. Lamont's victory is a sign of a resurgent political left that in its opposition to the Iraq War has found an issue that resonates with many voters. On the other hand, Mr. Lamont has only won a primary, and Republicans and Mr. Lieberman now have a chance to frame the general election debate from here to November. The Lamont victory means that the Democrats are now the withdraw-from-Iraq party. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate united behind a somewhat more cautious pullout policy last week, calling for a phased withdrawal beginning this year. But with the support Mr. Lamont is now drawing from mainstream Democrats, the momentum within the party is all toward the come-home-now left. This means that if Democrats retake Congress, we will be back where we were in Vietnam circa 1975. Early that year the Congressional left blocked funds for our allies in the government of South Vietnam, weakening its defenses even as Hanoi massed for an attack. Within weeks, the North was on the march and the last American helicopters were leaving Saigon. The stakes are just as serious today in Iraq. The defeat in Vietnam could at least be contained elsewhere in Southeast Asia, although the Soviet Union was clearly emboldened to assert itself via proxies from Afghanistan to Central America. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would likewise signal a defeat echoing far beyond Baghdad. Iran would exploit the turmoil in Iraq to assert itself in the Middle East, and both terrorists and their state sponsors would feel they could hit us again, this time with confidence that any U.S. response would be limited, as it was before 9/11. The idea that quitting Iraq would be discrete penance for President Bush's invasion is a delusion against an enemy that cited our 1993 withdrawal from Somalia as a reason to believe it could attack New York with impunity. The Lamont Democrats argue that a timetable for withdrawal will prod Iraqis to defend themselves more quickly. But there's a reason that every Iraqi ethnic faction--Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish--save for the most radical wants the U.S. to stay until security improves. They know the Iraqi Army is standing up as rapidly as possible. They also know the main security threat today comes from Sunnis affiliated with Saddam's regime and ethnic Shiite militias. An American withdrawal would only make Iraqis less likely to take personal risks to assist the new government in defeating those threats. And it would only increase the sectarian violence, as everyone picks sides in preparation for the day when the last Blackhawk helicopters leave Baghdad. These are the stakes that Mr. Bush, Senator Lieberman and Republicans need to make clear to American voters. In the case of Mr. Lieberman, the pressure is already building for him to renege on his intention to run as an independent. Senate Democratic leaders embraced Mr. Lamont yesterday, and you can expect that both Hillary and Bill Clinton will also soon ask their old college friend to drop out. As she triangulates her way toward the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination, Senator Clinton has to find some way to appease the newly ascendant Lamont-George Soros-MoveOn.org wing of her party. Ms. Clinton conveniently chose last week to call for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, and Mr. Lieberman will be her next political offering. But Mr. Lieberman has every reason to believe he can win in November if he stays in the race. His margin of defeat Tuesday was less than four percentage points, suggesting that many Democrats still support him. The GOP candidate has no chance of winning, so most Republican voters will also swing to his side as the choice becomes clearer. Most of all, Mr. Lieberman knows the consequences for U.S. security if the Lamont Democrats prevail. A Senator Lieberman would prod the Bush Administration for a strategy to win in Iraq; a Senator Lamont would cut and run and hope for the best. As for the commander in chief, we hope he was also paying attention to Tuesday's outcome. The American public will support a President at war, but only as long as it believes there is a strategy to win. And no President can maintain a war for long without any support from the opposition party; sooner or later his own party will begin to crack as well. Mr. Bush can help his own cause by going on offense in Baghdad, adding more troops if necessary and doing whatever it takes to demonstrate that the fight continues to be worth the cost in lives and treasure. The Lamont Democrats may be dangerously wrong, but the American people will turn to them in frustration if Mr. Bush doesn't make the policy differences and the security stakes perfectly clear. opinionjournal.com