There will be a battle on the news and talk programs over the next couple of days to spin the Lamont victory. Democrats already seem to fear saying what this is all about.
“This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the leader of the Democratic House Congressional campaign. “This is not about the war. It’s blind loyalty to Bush.”
The article from which the Emanuel quote comes is quite good. Kudos for New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney for limiting quotes in the article and not letting it degenerate into dueling talking points.
But to Emanuel’s statement, Lamont’s victory isn’t about one thing and solely a protest among voters who “hate” Bush. It was also about the war and a lot of what Bush stands for and what the Democrats don’t. They slowly are outlining alternative visions, but now stronger stands against Bush will be criticized not only by the GOP but by pundits in the media who will no doubt suggest that Democrats waited until they saw which way the wind was blowing in Connecticut before forcefully taking on Bush and his misguided foreign policy.
That’s unfair to many Democrats who have spoken out recently. But the reality is in the world of public opinion you still have to deal with the perception of mainstream media and anticipate how positions will be analyzed.
The greatest tragedy would be if Democrats start interpreting Lamont’s victory as a signal that they need to simple call for an immediate pullout in Iraq. That will be perceived as a McGovern moment that will harm the party in the long run. Rather, I hope the response goes something like this.
What Lamont’s victory tells us is that the country is ready for a more strategic and effective foreign policy that considers the long-range welfare of our country and the world. The U.S. can no longer base its decisions on Western movie mentality. We must export our ideas and values in a way that turns enemies into friends. George Bush and the Republicans’ approach has created more terrorists and made the world less safe. Democrats want to ensure that our children live in a safer world. We need to engage those who have opposed our policies and challenge our friends to work for peace and prosperity worldwide.
Lamont’s victory tells us that Americans want change. They want a government with a strong military defense that works in tandem with a strong diplomatic effort to win the war of ideas. We must create a strong defense that protects Americans from terrorist threats while we address the roots causes of terrorism. To do that we must be tough with our enemies and tough with our friends.
No one wants to repeat the mistakes of the Iraq War, and the Republicans don’t seem to have a Plan B. Clearly, Connecticut voters said “staying the course” is not an option. They want change, not only in our foreign policy but in our financial priorities. We have problems at home that need out attention and cannot afford to waste our dollars fighting a civil war we created.
Let’s rebuild our military strength for the job of defending America. And let’s get on with making peace and security for our children a priority again.
UPDATE: Just after publishing this post I read this AP story. Sure enough the Dems position the victory as a repudiation of Bush instead of what they stand for.
“Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the president more than anything else,” Reid and Schumer said. “The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction.”
Meanwhile, the GOP’s Ken Mehlman used the opportunity to say what Democrats stand for.
“Joe Lieberman believed in a strong national defense, and for that, he was purged from his party. It is a sobering moment,” Ken Mehlman said.
The Republican National Committee chairman said Lieberman’s loss also is a “sign of what the Democratic Party has become in the 21st century. It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism and a blame America first attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous.”