Say Anything Blog

As Rob posted, Ned Lamont is claiming that he is a contributor to the Dem control of the House and Senate by bringing Iraq to the forefront.

I think that Lamont beating Lieberman in the primary has larger implications too.  First, Pelosi and Reid have failed to defund or deauthorize the war.  If they were elected to do that, their own party is failing to make it happen.

My contention is that this sets their party up for a major internal power struggle in districts held by moderate Democrats--i.e. those that are voting against the binding withdrawl deadline and against the inevitable defunding bill and deauthorization bill.

The Dems that won previously Republican held seats were forced to run as moderates.  If they want to get reelected, they must remain moderates.  And if the Kos Kids want to defund or deauthorize the war, they have to eat their own and defeat their own moderates in primaries.  It isn’t just about beating the Republicans in the general election, it is about beating Democrat moderates in the primaries.

Normally Congressional primaries have incumbents running pretty much unopposed.  Moderate Democrat incumbents have two major challenges--Kos Kiddies and Moonbat anti-war folks to the left that they have to spend money in primaries to defeat and Republicans in the general election that they have to fight off by remaining as centrist as possible to win Independants.

Every Ned Lamont that challenges an incumbent dillutes the funding of current Congressmen, depletes the pockets of Democrat donors, and provides sound bites and forces the Democrat candidates to refine their positions on the war that thus far are incoherent at best.