Update on what's wrong with the Dems.

So the Dems voted for Ned Lamont, a man about whom they know nothing, but at least he has never agreed with GWB... yet. In so doing, they have ditched one of the three or four most powerful Democrats in Washington, and that Democrat is now running an independent campaign for the Senate. People that I respect, such as David Brooks, have said that this shows the power of the anti-war left, and that the Dems could win on that passion. I suppose it's possible, but the fact of the matter is taht there are more self-defined Conservatives than Liberals in this country. What that means is that unless the Dems can get a hugely disproportionate turnout, they cannot win by running left.

I'm glad there is an anti-war lobby. It's good to have policy debates. The problem for the Dems is that in order to win, they will have to convert moderate anti-war voters to their list. So long as the winners are flanked by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (as Ned Lamont was in this hilarious picture on his own site... note Jackson and Sharpton peeking out from behind him. Eerie view of things to come.), the Dems will not convert moderates. Most moderates think Sharpton is a cartton character based upon the corrupt victimology espoused by lefties and Euros.

What does all this mean? Well, it means that the Dems could ride to a victory in '06 if they get good turnout while GWB is still in office. It also means that the party will tilt seriously leftward, and if it fails to right itself, the Dems have no shot at winning against a decent Republican in '08.

It's a shame really. Great that you've got an anti-war lobby. Heart-breaking that it has become stupid and populist, and merely a proxy vote against GWB. Run to the left and doom your party.

Need evidence (usually you folks on the left don't require it, but here ya go...)? This week, VP Cheney came out of self-imposed recluse in WY, and bemoaned the loss of Liberman as support for Al-Qaeda. Say what you will about Cheney, he is not stupid. Note that the link is to a leftists screed that has taken this bait hook, line, and brown bobbing material that floats. Man extremeists are suckers. The lefties need to learn to bait the righties this well.

What Cheney knows that "think progress" and other lefty crazies don't is that Americans, by and large, like moderation. We like a guy that says "I see your argument and respect it, but I disagree for the following reasons..." What the lefties forget is that the first time GWB was elected, that is what he did, but behind the scenes whispered sweet nothings to the Ralph Reeds and Jerry Falwells of the world. Cheney has succesfully baited the far left to the vanguard of the Democratic party. What the country sees as the mouthpiece of the party is Ned Lamont, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and only the rediculous portion of John Murtha. The point is that GWB has tricked the Dems into running left (well much of it they did to themselves, but some portion has been encouraged by the Bushies). The Dems are now yelling what they should be whispering and whispering what they should be yelling.

All this means that the Dems only win in '06 if the Bush strategy is too late. It is no coincidence that top generals are putting together pullout plans if a civil war strts in Iraq. That is the Republican withdrawl strategy, and you'll be seeing more of it. It is the moderate alternative to the Dems. If it catches hold, the Dems can't win in '06, and they are likely to lose in '08.

The most interesting possibility: Liberman wins in the general election. Laughing? Don't. Read this from Dick Morris, a former consultant to Ned Lamont. What would an independent Liberman do in the Senate? well, probably continue to to be Joe: be a hawkish Democrat, and a guy most moderates can support. Look out Democrats. an independent Liberman could really stick it to you in interesting ways... imagine him exposing your secrets for programatic benefit. Imagine a Liberman free to support McCain for president... Interesting.

Pull it together lefties!

//