Agreed, Karol. Republicans have gone soft on a lot of issues as I'm been griping about for the last three years on this blog. They have gotten too comfy with big government and the Washington culture. Every now and then the GOP needs a major league wake up call (like TR's insurgency in 1912, Wilkie's victory in 1940, Goldwater's in '64) and it needs one now. And while I don't think the GOP will lose either wing of Congress in November, I think they will lose the majority of governor's mansions. Hopefully that and the shrinking majorities in the Congress will serve to kick some sense into them. At the very least, the hapless leadership of Frist and Mrs. Dole in the Senate will be no more.

If Joementum goes belly up tomorrow, I don't think it will inspire Republicans to go out and vote. Joe has an awful domestic issues record and, sorry neocons, Americans generally care more about what's going on over here than over there.

And a lot of the Dems who appear to be in solid shape in November are not crazy DailyKos Dems (see Senate races in MO, MT and PA for example).

I'm so excited for it. Finally, some leadership and spark in the left telling the wishy-washy DLC and the GOP beyond it to "Watch out, here we come."

As for "nuts," the past 6 years in this country have proven that you don't need to be anything besides "nuts" ( or even "incompetent" or "dirty" for that matter) to lead, you just need to show plain and simple leadership. Raw leadership, no matter how dumb, misguided, stupid or even greedy it is, wins elections in this country. I think Lamont shows that Democrats are no longer blindsided by the feeling of "how the hell can this be happening." We are, instead, hopefully becoming ready to lead even if it means taking on the weaknesses in our own party.

Driving home to New Haven tonight to vote in the AM!

Karol:

Lieberman has a lifetime ACU rating of 17. That makes him fairly liberal. Having Lamont as the Senator won't make a difference on most issues and will not be a signal that the Democrats have shifted to the left.

In fact, most of the people voting for Lamont seem to be motivated by disagreement over the war in Iraq. I suspect the only reason why you and other neocons seem to care about Lieberman at all is because he supports the Bush administration's Middle Eastern policies. A victory for Lamont might put some spine into the Democrats and make them more aggressive in challenging Bush's foreign policies. That is something that the neocons and the Bush administration do not want.

"I suspect the only reason why you and other neocons seem to care about Lieberman at all is because he supports the Bush administration's Middle Eastern policies."

I think the word 'neocon' is stupid but otherwise you're exactly right. If I thought a Republican could win that seat, I'd be all for Lieberman being out.

I used the word neocon because neocons put Middle Eastern policy above everything else. I suspect that if there was a conservative Republican who was opposed to the war in Iraq running for office in Conncecticut, neither you nor the neocon pundits who seem all worried about Lieberman would be supporting the Republican.

I also suspect that if Lamont also supported the war, you would not be blogging about this race.

I don't know. If it was a Republican who would otherwise vote with Republicans on everything else, I'd probably prefer him/her to Lieberman. I remain for the Iraq war, despite the dumb labeling of 'neo-con' that it gets me, but it's just one issue. If, for example, the candidate was badass on fighting terrorism but just thought the Iraq war wasn't the way to go, I would disagree but could certainly see myself voting for such a person over any Democrat (except Zell Miller, would vote for that man any day of the week).

Karol:

My point is that the one issue of Iraq appears to trump most other issues. It is why people like us, neither of who likes the Democrats, care about who wins a Democratic primary.

The Irony of this situation is that it proves that good government needs robust opposition. In the 80's the UK had Thatcher, and now Blair, both governments had no credible opposition, and they began to tear themselves apart until people wanted anything but them.

I think that a Lamont win would be a disaster for the Democrats.

Americans have never voted to cut and run in any war we have been in. Lamont's win would highlight that the Democrat Party is a cut and run party.

Jake:

"Cut and run" is such a ridiculous term. If the war is a bad idea, as millions of Americans believe, then bringing our troops back home is the right thing to do. Opponents of the war believe that the alternative to not withdrawing from Iraq is leaving more American troops to die in a futile cause.

That sort of name calling is one of the reasons that I have come to despise the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress.