Incumbents Lieberman, McKinney lose.
Ned Lamont has won the Democratic primary election to run as the party's Senate candidate on November's ballot. With 97% of the vote counted, Lamont held a lead by less than 3.5%. My mild disappointment is not that Lamont won, but the small margin. If Connecticut were in the throes of an anti-incumbent fever, Lamont would have won over Sen. Joseph Lieberman by a landslide. On the flip side, another incumbent lost tonight, Rep. Cynthia McKinney lost her bid.
I will go on record now and say, November's race between Lamont as Democrat, and Lieberman as Democratic Independent, will go one of two ways. Either, Lamont will succeed in painting Lieberman as a divider of Connecticut and the Democratic Party, and a man who doesn't like playing by the party's rules. Or, Lieberman will succeed with a lot of help from Independent and Republican voters who see more conservative prospects from Sen. Joe than their own Republican candidate (who has little chance in this predominantly Democratic state). You can hold me to this call.
Voters in Connecticut, largely a liberal lot, did not have a clear 100% Democrat choice. But then, it is getting harder and harder to define just what a 100% Democrat is these days. Ned Lamont's stand on some fiscal issues side with Republican and conservative leanings, Iraq excepted. On social issues, his campaign site reads from centrist to liberal on issues like women's right to choose and civil rights. Actually, both Lamont and Lieberman are moderates straddling the right-left divide on some issues. It is encouraging that Democratic voters are willing to entertain candidates who are not extremists from their party's fringe. However, it also appears this election was, in large part, a single issue referendum on the war in Iraq if the campaign rhetoric is the gage.
Still, I am encouraged. I continue
to support the voting out of irresponsible incumbents who choose personal and local gains over what is required for the health and future of the nation. I believe invading Iraq damaged our nation's reputation in the world, and seriously impeded our leadership role in world affairs. The anti-incumbent movements springing up around the country are not referendums on Iraq. While a Senator has an obligation to represent their state's constituents, what good does it do to serve local constituents if constituent greed and short sightedness bankrupts the whole nation?
A senator has an equal, if not greater obligation, to vote policy that insures the health and well-being of the nation. A state cannot succeed if the United States fails. The reckless fiscal policy of our federal government threatens the economic health of the nation and all its states and people as the baby boom generation moves into retirement. Therefore, it is desperately important that voters look to the nation's future and cast their ballots with that priority set at least as high as their preferences for state issues. No good will come of Senators bringing home the pork if, the nation's indebtedness becomes unsustainable.
I am encouraged that a national issue was at the heart of this Connecticut campaign, and not which candidate could bring home more pork. Lest we forget, 1 million dollars of pork for Connecticut comes with a price tag: 49 million dollars of pork for 49 other states. Would you pay 50 times a product's price to insure you get on of the 50 items available? McKinney's and Lieberman's losses yesterday were a first installment on what I hope will be a growing movement of anti-incumbent sentiment aimed at irresponsible politicians, and which will demand the nation's future be the criterion for voting in November's elections.
Comments
"Baby Boom" Anti-War Effect on the Iraq War
The sentiment against an extended war in Iraq has grown much more quickly than in the past. Part of the reason was that in the Gulf War we were able to get in and out quickly. The bombing of Serbia into submission was even quicker. We were promised more of the same by the Bush Administration in our WMD war in Iraq.
It was the Gulf War, though, that got us over the supposed "Vietnam Syndrome," misinterpreted by most conservatives as Americans not wanting to fight any war. Post-Vietnam society never really suffered from a "syndrome," which sounds like a serious mental malady.
Instead, U.S society had learned an important lesson; that the U.S. could not always impose its will on other countries. Americans of the "baby boom" lived, and many fought, through that senseless, bloody war.
Back in the 1960's and '70's the anti-war movement started on campuses and moved slowly into the social mainstream. Although not a movement today, Republicans should not forget that the boomers are still here, and do remember the real lessons of Vietnam. One is that there should be no open-ended commitments to war.
The people who started the Iraq war were the Young Republicans of the 1960's. They were the guys like Cheney with the short hair, rather than the long hair, who were avoiding the draft. There were no Young Democrats because the anti-war movement was a spontaneous movement, not a political one. The anti-war movement party didn't trust either political party.
Those Young (now old) Republicans who got us into Iraq, are the conservatives who totally misinterpreted Vietnam as a "sydrome" rather than a lesson to be learned about the limits of American power. Since they refused to learn that lesson, we are all paying the price in terms of dead soldiers, huge deficits, and no "light at the end of the tunnel."
Now the "boomers" are in their 50's and 60's, and once again see their country stuck in what seems an open-ended commitment to war, another one of the real lessons of Vietnam. That's why anti-war sentiment in the country has arisen so much more quickly over the Iraq war than it did in Vietnam.
The boomers are also now in the age range that produces the highest voter turnout. So beware pro-war politicians. Don't let the Vietnam Syndrome get you down, and out of elective office.
Posted by: MarshallDarts | August 9, 2006 10:20 AM
Some astute observations about the boomers viewing the present through the lenses of their past.
Posted by: David R. Remer | August 10, 2006 12:57 AM
MarshallDarts,
Yes, I believe you are correct about the anti-war sentiment. Vietnam is still in our memories.
Too bad we have short memories and have to keep re-learning some of these painful lessons.
Speaking of Baby boomers . . . they are gonna be plenty angry, after paying into SocialSecurity their entire life (currently, a whopping 15.3% of gross income), and there ain't enough to go around.
Actually, there will be plenty of money. The government and Federal Reserve will do what they always do . . . just print some more.
However, that won't solve the problem. Two thousand baby boomers are retiring each day. Social Security is already $12.8 trillion in debt. There are NO surpluses (not really . . . surpluses were siphoned off and replaced with worthless bonds).
Look out . . . a generational storm is brewing as the burden on younger generations increases, and so does the resentment.
Posted by: d.a.n | August 10, 2006 12:10 PM
David,
This ! Challengers List (search by ZIP CODE) is really nice !
Thanks !
Posted by: d.a.n | August 11, 2006 1:58 PM