Frank Rich on the Lamont Hype

Frank Rich in the NY Times has a good analysis of the Lamont primary victory in CT, although I think he downplays what it means for the Democratic Party. Rich writes:

The hyperbole that has greeted the Lamont victory in some quarters is far more revealing than the victory itself. In 2006, the tired Rove strategy of equating any Democratic politician's opposition to the Iraq war with cut-and-run defeatism in the war on terror looks desperate. The Republicans are protesting too much, methinks. A former Greenwich selectman like Mr. Lamont isn't easily slimed as a reincarnation of Abbie Hoffman or an ally of Osama bin Laden. What Republicans really see in Mr. Lieberman's loss is not a defeat in the war on terror but the specter of their own defeat. Mr. Lamont is but a passing embodiment of a fixed truth: most Americans think the war in Iraq was a mistake and want some plan for a measured withdrawal. That truth would prevail even had Mr. Lamont lost.

A similar panic can be found among the wave of pundits, some of them self-proclaimed liberals, who apoplectically fret that Mr. Lamont's victory signals the hijacking of the Democratic Party by the far left (here represented by virulent bloggers) and a prospective replay of its electoral apocalypse of 1972. Whatever their political affiliation, almost all of these commentators suffer from the same syndrome: they supported the Iraq war and, with few exceptions (mainly at The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard), are now embarrassed that they did. Desperate to assert their moral superiority after misjudging a major issue of our time, they loftily declare that anyone who shares Mr. Lamont's pronounced opposition to the Iraq war is not really serious about the war against the jihadists who attacked us on 9/11.

That's just another version of the Cheney-Lieberman argument, and it's hogwash. Most of the 60 percent of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq also want to win the war against Al Qaeda and its metastasizing allies: that's one major reason they don't want America bogged down in Iraq.

More like this

This post demonstrates perfectly why I like Radley Balko's writing so much. He pulls no punches while puncturing the nonsense put out by the partisans in both parties. First he tells us why Lieberman was a lousy senator: Look, Lieberman is a likeable guy (in the same way, as the lefty bloggers have…
In my stream of consciousness post about Joe Lieberman, I noted that Lieberman's loss reveals just how inept the Democratic consultant and advisor class is. Over at My Left Wing, thereisnospoon picks up on this theme: This was never our race to win. It was Joe Lieberman's to lose. More…
I'm not the biggest Hillary Clinton fan on the planet, but this time she almost got it right. In a statement yesterday, Clinton said that while she hopes that Joe Lieberman wins his senate primary in August (OK, that part she didn't get right), she will ultimately support whoever does win the…
That's the take in this recent profile at New York magazine. The far left blogosphere first stung Lieberman when his 2004 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination fell flat but then really turned him towards the GOP following his 2006 Senate primary race. In Lieberman's view, powerful…