Reply #14: I love Booman's diary about the WSJ article. [View All]

[madfloridian]

All these articles are coming out now, trying to divide us. Boo hits the nail on the head with this one. It ties into why they are putting Dean's efforts down, when he is really doing quite well.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/8/1/143942/2204

Party Bosses are Full of It

The WSJ argues this:

"A Lamont loss would take the edge off threats by MoveOn and online activists to punish candidates who defy the party's so-called "netroots." But a successful challenge to Mr. Lieberman could embolden an energetic and left-leaning wing of the Democratic party, which for the first time this year is weighing into congressional primary races."

"Party leaders fear that a leftward movement, concentrated heavily on Iraq, "would imperil moderate and conservative Democrats whose appeal in Western and Southern states is critical to winning back Congress. It could also alienate swing voters, who polls suggest are shifting back to the Democrats this year. Says moderate Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu, who supports Mr. Lieberman, 'I don't think it's a winning strategy or a smart strategy.'"

(Mary, tend to pushing the oil drilling, and going on C-Span to show us how clean it is)

And Booman puts it in a nutshell:

"If the Democratic leadership is uniting around a call to pull the troops out of Iraq this year, then they are uniting around Ned Lamont's position and moving away from Joe Lieberman's position. And if that is their strategy, Ned Lamont winning or losing will have no effect on Southern or Western districts.

"All we are seeing is an incumbent protection racket. Joe is calling in his chits. The party doesn't need him or his lousy ideas, but they don't need us getting the idea that we can pick our own leaders. That could be bad for incumbent politicians."