Some future political science student will cruise to his Ph.D.
on a thesis analyzing the Democratic Party purge being held
tomorrow in Connecticut. Those of us who believe that “big
government conservative” is an oxymoron and who want to fight the
war as if we mean to win it are entirely out of patience with Mr.
Bush and Congressional Republicans. They haven’t dealt with our
most deadly enemies decisively despite having the means and
opportunity to do so, and behave as though their purpose in life is
to spend money that isn’t theirs. But most of the time we hold our
noses and stick with the president because the Dems are vastly
worse.
Throughout the Clinton years, the Dems’ hid behind Clinton’s
“don’t worry, be happy” smile. The good times rolled on while the
danger of Islamic terrorism grew. Now, almost five years into a
war, their entire 2006 national defense strategy is contained in
Alfred E. Neuman’s “What, me worry?” That fact disturbs the Dems
not at all, because they have no constituency other than the most
rabid antiwar Bush haters. It disturbs us because we’re at war and
all the Dems have to offer is Jack Murtha — whose favorite target
is the Marines, not the enemy — and John Dingell, who sees no
moral difference between Hizballah and the Israelis.
Now the Michael Moore-Pinch Sulzberger-Cindy Sheehan Dems are
about to purge poor ol’ Joe Lieberman from their party in Tuesday’s
primary because he supports the war in Iraq. There’s no other issue
among the Dems, as Chris Matthews rehearsed yesterday. Dan
Rathercadaver — resurrected by Matthews to make his Sunday show
the greatest black comedy since Dr. Strangelove — agreed
solemnly. There’s no greater crime for a Dem than to voice any
opinion other than the one the Washington Post wrote in an
editorial on July 16, wringing its hands and blaming W for all the
world’s ills: “But in the press of cascading crises, it is crucial
that the administration not lose focus on the two wars it
started and has yet to win.” (Italics added,
superfluously.)
According to the Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday,
Ned Lamont leads Lieberman by 54-41 percent. If Lieberman loses, we
should be very grateful. If the anti-Bush media and the Democrats
who follow its orders succeed in purging Lieberman, if they succeed
in this danse macabre, the Dems will be headed off a cliff
and not back to the White House in 2008.
A Lieberman loss will do two things. First, it will prevent the
Dems from recovering from their leftward flat spin, and take them
into the ground. Hard. Further claims to moderation or credibility
on national defense will be laughable to anyone not sharing Bush
Derangement Syndrome. The Dems seeking their 2008 nomination, such
as Hillary, are already positioning themselves to blow their cover
with the help of their best media pals.
Last week the Associated Press joined Team Clinton by helping
her prepare for Lieberman’s fall. On Wednesday, there was an AP
story written around her letter to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld
commanding him to reverse course and testify at a hastily scheduled
Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq. The story, of course,
quoted no Republicans, but made up a “furor’ about Rumsfeld’s
declining to testify. Then, when the Big Dog changed his mind and
showed up to debate the ankle-biters, AP obliged with another story
— again featuring Mizz Hillary and her “showdown” with Rumsfeld —
that reported him in disorganized retreat from her furious
onslaught. (If he was in retreat, so was Patton at Bastogne.)
Hillary left the room deflated, and Jack Reed was chewing the
carpet at his own failure to make headway against the facts
Rumsfeld and Gens. Pace and Abizaid had at their fingertips. AP’s
payoff for the mini-plot was that they got the exclusive “scoop” on
Hillary’s call for Rumsfeld to resign. It was all a big yawn. AP
and Clinton share the credit for her head fake to the left. And —
by Lil’ Billy’s appearance at Lieberman’s side — Team Clinton gets
to have it both ways. They win if he wins, they win if he
loses.
Second, a Lieberman loss will give uncontested control of the
Democratic Party to its most left-leaning media bosses. Never
forget, dear friends, that there are two political parties in
America: the Republicans and the mainstream media. The Dems are so
bereft of ideas, so unable to think seriously on any topic, they
take their lead on everything from what the New York
Times, CBS, the Washington Post, ABC and NBC tell
them. The AP-Hillary exercise in news manufacturing is only the
overture to a symphony that will be playing from now until
November, and again in 2008. And the Dems will follow in lockstep.
After the New York Times editorial page endorsed Lamont,
what else could the Dems do but choose him? They’ll scurry to
follow orders, just as Vichy John Kerry flew home from Davos to
filibuster Alito when the NYT ordered the Dems to do
so.
There will be some who welcome Lieberman as a third-party
candidate for the Senate. They will say that he’s the best example
of a responsible Democrat and a few will even suggest he should run
as a Republican. But the Big Tent Republican Party (tent purchased
at surplus from Ringling Brothers) isn’t big enough to accommodate
someone whose decades-long liberalism is a matter of record. Anyone
who said, as he did in 2003, that Kweisi Mfume should be on the
Supreme Court is not someone who fits anywhere in the Republican
lineup. Because Lieberman is one of the few Dems left with any
shred of judgment and integrity only means he has no place in the
Democratic Party of Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. The end of his
political career as a Dem is a milestone for their party. Gone is
the party of Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn. The Dems are the party of
the New York Times.
The effect of a Lieberman purge should reverberate throughout
America. A political party that cannot tolerate dissent, that
cannot accept as legitimate any position that doesn’t hew to the
leftmost fringe, cannot last unless its opponents fail to take
advantage of its fundamental weakness. If the kiss on the cheek
Lieberman got from the president proves to be the coup
fatal, it could be one that produces a veto-proof Republican
Senate.
TAS contributing editor Jed Babbin is the author
of Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe Are
Worse Than You Think (Regnery, 2004) and, with Edward
Timperlake, Showdown: Why China Wants War With the United
States (Regnery, May 2006 — click here to obtain a free chapter).
