Lamont Primary Victory Poses Many Problems

It's crystal clear that Ned Lamont is creating alot of problems for the traditional left, especially amongst Jewish voters. That's only one of the problems that a Lamont primary victory would pose.

"It does present a dilemma," said Steve Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "If you consider yourself first and foremost part of the pro-Israel community, you will stick with Joe Lieberman," said Grossman, who also is a past president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "If you're so overwhelmingly convinced that ending the war as soon as possible is of paramount importance, I could understand why you would find Joe Lieberman a candidate you could no longer support."

Would a Lamont primary victory tell traditionally loyal Jewish liberals that their issues just aren't that important? Lamont has shown a definite disinterest in Israeli matters, barely mentioning Israel on his section about the Middle East.

Lamont's campaign says he is focused on Israel. "Israel's security is a topic that is very important to Ned," said Liz Dupont-Diehl, the campaign's communications director. "He has a lot of respect for Israel." She said Lamont had met with a number of Jewish leaders, but Jewish officials say they haven't sensed any outreach. "I don't think he's spoken out effectively to things the mainstream Jewish voters feel," said Richard Greenfield, publisher of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger.

It's apparent that Lamont doesn't care about Jewish voters because he hasn't reached out to them or shown any understanding of the issues nearest and dearest to them. That isn't sending a hospitable message to Jewish voters whose biggest concern is the protection of Israel. You can bet that Mssrs. Rove and Mehlman are plotting how they'll exploit that issue.

Another problem that a Lamont victory creates is a war between the anti-war extreme left and the more centrist DLC, who view each other as mortal enemies. This split has already doomed the Democratic presidential nominee, whoever that is. The nominee will have to be credible on national security issues, something that Democrats are seen as unserious on. The nominee will also have to cater a certain amount to the kook fringe base. We already see what that looks like because Hillary's been trying to triangulate that mix for a year. She's looked pathetic doing it.

Six years ago, Joe Lieberman camp up 538 votes short of being the Vice President of the United States. Now a bunch of purist ideologues are pronouncing him unfit to be their senator. Don't think that won't send a message to independents. That message is "Moderate and conservative Democrats need not apply." There used to be such a thing as a 'Scoop Jackson Democrat'. That group slowly became Reagan Democrats. As the nutty left grew in importance, that group, represented by Zell Miller, are slowly becoming Republicans.

Another problem that a Lamont victory brings to Democrats is that of a Democratic Party whose 2 newest potential senators are northeastern ultraliberals. Bernie Sanders is an admitted Socialist and Ned Lamont is beloved by the wacky left fringe of the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org. That duo couldn't find the mainstream of American politics if their lives depended on it. Rest assured that Mr. Rove is waiting to tell America just how out of touch Mssrs. Lamont and Sanders are.

It's worth noting that a Lamont victory is already sowing seeds of contempt in the Jewish community:

"The people who are doing this have no concern for Israel or issues of concern to the Jewish community," said Dr. Ben Chouake, president of Norpac, a nonpartisan, New Jersey-based political action committee. "This is an example of an extreme left that really is looking to put a scalp on their wall to show that they have power."

Dr. Chouake certainly sounds like he doesn't much like the Kossack-MoveOn.org-Lamont bunch. I'm certain that he isn't alone. It's obvious that they feel powerless because a fired up bunch of extremists have hijacked a party that once cared about being Israel's ally.

That party is gone for all intents and purposes.

---

Posted Sunday, July 30, 2006 1:51 AM

June 2006 Posts

Comment 1 by Joe Cunningham at 09-Aug-06 04:33 PM

That Lamont's victory is somehow seen by my fellow Republican's as a harbinger of future Democratic infighting on the issue of Irag is troubling. Rather, Lamont's success is the veritable tip of the iceberg whereby the GOP's ten year tenure will come to a resounding close. As a middle class Republican, I can point to no substanitive pocket book issues my party has championed and brought to fruition -- no reduction in my payroll tax, no reduction in the size and complexity of the IRS, no assistance with medical insurance, no movement on term limits, etc. Further, it is only with disgust that I hear fellow party members tout the minimum wage as a liveable and sustainable wage. It is because of these issues and others that I will refuse to vote for any local, state, and national candidate with the appellation of "Republican" near their name.

Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Aug-06 11:26 PM

Joe, Thanks for not seeing the big picture. Thanks for electing Democrats who will make matters far worse. Thanks for not giving a damn about confirming strict constructionist judges like Sam Alito & Chief Justice Roberts. Thanks for not caring that your staying home elects more terrorist appeasers like Ned Lamont. You aren't a team player. Your 'protest vote' will cause the rest of us who work hard to maintain a Republican majority that has cut taxes & confirmed sane judges to be saddled with a Speaker Pelosi & Majority Leader Reid, who'll surely try raising taxes.

What would you say if I told you that Pelosi met with pro terrorist groups who lobbied her to kill key provisions of the Patriot Act? Would that matter to you? Do you care about that? If you do, then you won't stay home this November.

I hope you vote Republican THIS November.