Wahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Netroots, that silly little name used to describe a bunch of ultra-liberal activists who are in a thither that their chosen god-head Ned Lamont is not doing well in his election fight against a well established, and well liked Joe Lieberman.

In the Lieberman-Lamont fight, there has been a fair amount of hand wringing over why Lamont isn't blowing Joe out of the water. Why, if Joe lost to Lamont, isn't he losing in the general? Why did Lamont let Joe get away? Well there are a number of reasons, but among the most prominent is the total abandonment of Lamont by the party establishment. And let's be very clear - this is not Lamont that they are abandoning, it's the party primary voters that they are abandoning.

OK, lets see if we can understand this conundrum: use anti-war sentiment and a hell-of-a-lot of money that doesn't belong to you but that comes from some very special BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) points of view and get a nomination for a lightweight with almost no experience on the national stage. Hustle your fanny off and get him the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate and then assume that because you won, you have the entire Democratic vote in a very blue state. I think that falls under the rubric of hubris.

They know that Democratic Senators are moral lepers, weaklings, and that is the only reason we aren't further ahead when the Republicans screw everything up. The Democratic Senate leaders will sell us out at every opportunity, be it torture, Iraq, Alito, Lieberman, the Bankruptcy Bill, or stopping war with Iran. They aren't poll-driven, they aren't fear-driven, and they aren't driven by strategic differences. They are simply driven to beat us down, their voters, by any means necessary.

Well, Republicans have been saying that for years. But is it true, or is it sour grapes from a bunch of adolescents who think that they own the electorate with the only agenda that makes sense to them? I suggest it is the latter. The Democratic party is just like the Republican party from the standpoint that they are frequently driven by an affinity for power more than they are driven by a careful analysis of what needs to be done for the overall good of the country. The netroots folk see this as a betrayal of their high flalutin' ideals much as the Goldwaterites did in the mid-sixties. I know, I was one of those Goldwaterites. The difference is, we set about building a solid conservative base that culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The netroots folk have yet to do that though they may in the long run.

It's sad. Lamont can win this, and we're all doing our best to make that happen. But the important story here is not that the country supports the war, it doesn't. Lieberman is running on an antiwar platform, promising to bring the troops home in a transparently dishonest pander to the left. The important story here is that the DC Senate Democrats and DC lobbyists are not on our side. They have their own side, a side that is out of touch, immoral, and dishonest.

"... in a transparently dishonest pander to the left." What do you think the rest of the electorate thinks of the netroots folk?

Patently, MYDD and the KOSsacks have an agenda, one that is pretty much at odds with the majority of the country and less so with the Democratic party, but that too. I wish them well, mostly for the amusement they provide to the rest of us. These folk have yet to champion a winner, Lamont's victory in Connetticut notwithstanding, and with this kind of attitude, they aren't likely to.

Hey fellas, if you want to win, you have to convince both the electorate and the party you choose that your ideas are superior. That's the way it works. Learn that and you can win. Whine like you are doing now, and while it may feel good, it makes you look like a bunch of self-centered adolescents.

A tip 'O The GM Derby to Instapundit.

Posted by GM Roper at October 30, 2006 07:30 AM | TrackBack