By Cal Thomas
August 11, 2006


The narrow primary defeat of veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing.
They used to be "San Francisco Democrats," a phrase coined by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick to describe the party's 1984 convention. But they have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe.
Mr. Lieberman's one "sin," in the eyes of the Taliban Democrats, was that he supported the effort to defeat the insurgent-terrorists in Iraq. As a Jew, Mr. Lieberman is particularly sensitive to those who have targeted the Jewish people for extinction. But even if he weren't Jewish, he would still "get it," because he understands what's at stake in the region and has correctly concluded that the consequences of American failure in Iraq would be catastrophic.
His detractors, who brought him down in the primary with a one-issue, inexperienced and unqualified candidate, Ned Lamont, hate President Bush so much that their judgment has been distorted. Former Bill Clinton aide Lanny Davis, in a recent column for the Wall Street Journal titled "Liberal McCarthyism," printed a sample of the incendiary rhetoric directed toward Mr. Lieberman. There is thinly-veiled anti-Semitism ("As everybody knows, Jews only care about the welfare of other Jews...." Posted on Daily Kos); irrationality ("Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot." Daily Kos); and personal attack ("Lieberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover." Posted on the Huffington Post blog).
It didn't matter that Mr. Lieberman, whose wife's name, by the way, is Hadassah, ran as the vice presidential candidate with Al Gore in 2000, or that he has voted against most of President Bush's domestic agenda. The Taliban wing of the Democratic Party cannot countenance any "heretics" who do not toe their line.
Though Mr. Lieberman says he will run as an independent, the damage has been done. It will be difficult for any Democrat to seek consensus with any Republican without being targeted as an infidel worthy of electoral death. Our already-poisoned political dialogue has not only been made more toxic, but contagious. Taliban Democrats have effectively issued a political "fatwa" that warns all Democrats not to deviate from their narrow line, or else face the end of their careers through a political jihad. Perhaps the few remaining rational Democrats should put on their burkas now and submit to the will of the party mullahs.
What is wrong with Democrats? Can't they see that when the face of their party belongs to ultra-leftists like George McGovern, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, they lose? For those who still believe not only in a strong two-party system, but also in compromise and conciliation in order to promote the general welfare and seek the common good, the Lieberman defeat strikes an especially harmful blow.
At the height of social conservative power in the Republican Party, pro-choicers and pro-gay rights officials like Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger were featured speakers at GOP conventions. Republican officials described their party as a "big tent" with room for everybody.
Mr. Lieberman's loss reduces the size of the Democrats' tent to that of a pup tent. The message it sends is that only those who conform to the left-wing fundamentalist worldview will be allowed in. Is that a message Democrats want to take into future campaigns? Do they wish to pervert John F. Kennedy's vision and instead say that the United States will pay no price, bear no burden and go nowhere in the defense of liberty?
If that is the message the Taliban Democrats want to send to the nation, they have all but guaranteed a Republican presidential victory in 2008 and GOP losses, if any, might not be as bad as predicted this November. Karl Rove could not have devised a more brilliant plan. But Joe Lieberman deserves better.

Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.

http://tinyurl.com/ohm6u

And the Dems are about to shoot themselves in the foot again.

A Democrat who does not agree with the values of a majority of Democrats was voted down in the primary. People lose primaries all the time. It's not huge news.

Cal's makes several false suggestions. First, it suggests that there is some powerful group of Democrats which support Taliban. This is not true.

Second, it suggested that Lieberman was voted down because of his stance on the Iraq War. This may or may not be true of the majority of democratic voters, but not every Democrat likely voted him down for that reason. For example, I am not a big fan of Lieberman because of his support of censorship.

Third, it takes the words of individual people and assumes them to be common across a large number of Democrats.

Fourth, it suggests that Democrat voters in Connecticut should vote opposite of who they think would be a good candidate in order to accomodate a wide variety of beliefs in the Democratic party.

Cal would have been better off simply arguing that people are wrong for wanting to pull out of Iraq. There is definitely a case for staying in Iraq, but it makes little sense to say, "People should vote against their beliefs to make sure there's a Democrat which supports the war in office."

No, Cal does not suggest that there is a powerful group of democrats who support the Taliban. What he is saying is that there are democrats in the party who act like the Taliban in that if you don't do what they say or have a different opinion on the war, then you are going to be out. It's a metaphor.

Either way, I don't think the comparison is accurate. With any political party, if you don't support what the majority of that party believes, then you'll be voted out. Certainly John Kerry wouldn't win the Republican primary against someone who held strong Republican ideals.

Does the Democrat party have room for anyone who supports the war in Iraq? It sure doesn't look like it to me. The Republican party has room for people who do not support the war in Iraq. Why not the Democrat party have room for those who support the war in Iraq?

About 85% of democrats do not support the war.

Did you hear the threat Michael Moore made to the dem candidates in their primaries? He told them they better not back Bush's war in Iraq or they will lose in the primary. Are you a Michael Whore, er, I mean Michael Moore fan?

I did hear about the Michael Moore letter. I think he is right. Then I heard it reinforced on the Steven Colbert show.

Lieberman was more republican than democrat in most democrats eyes. That is why he lost... the Iraq war was just the straw that broke the camels back.

Lieberman voted 90% of the time with democrats so I think you're mistaken in what you just said. The only issue was Iraq. So again, there is no room in the dem party for the war. Sounds like the Taliban to me. You either do what they say or off with your political head.