DEMOCRATS: DO YOU REALLY EVER WANT MY VOTE?
Posted by John Mark Reynolds under Democratic Party at 7:58 pm.I am a Lincoln Republican by heritage. Really. When Virginia left the Union, my ancestors left Virginia . . . and both sides of the family fought for Liberty, the Union, and voted for Mr. Lincoln. They went on doing it, so it always irritates me when folk act like Evangelicals are new to the Republican Party.
Mr. Lincoln could not have won without Evangelical votes. He worked hard to get them (though not an Evangelical himself . . . at least when elected the first time). We are not the ones new to the party . . . or at least all of us are not new!
Having said this, there is much to admire about the Democrat Party of the recent past. I would have voted for FDR during World War II on the grounds that he was a strong wartime leader. Harry S. Truman was one the best presidents of the twentieth century and started the policy that led to the Cold War victory that Reagan and Bush brought to a conclusion.
Joe Lieberman was one of those Democrats who made me think. He has the foreign policy that any person who could be elected President will have. What is the difference between Hilary Clinton on the War and Lieberman?
Lieberman recognizes that we are in the battle of our lives . . . and that allies like Israel face foes that want to utterly destroy them and us.
He is also no social libertine . . . though too willing to kow-tow to the culture of death crowd, he plainly does not like them. One feels he is one of the few to actually mean the “legal, but wrong” mantra on abortion. He is no secularist.
If Lieberman ran against a pro-choice secularist Republican (fill in any Mayor of New York) for President, I would have a hard choice to make. Joe could get Red state votes. When he ran with Gore, he did get them . . . after all Kerry and company lost the popular vote that Gore/Lieberman won.
We live in a world where one nation, Iran, openly calls for death to Jews. Lieberman is a good Democrat . . . I don’t agree with many of his positions, but he loves this nation and wants the best for it.
If Democrats vote Lieberman out, then I will know that they never seriously want to get a Red state vote . . . and those concerned with national security, open to criticisms about the conduct of the War, will have one less reason to ever take the Democrats seriously.
It is at least worth asking why the left took Joe down, while giving Hilary a primary pass given that both had the almost indentical positions and that Hilary is now the bigger player and likely nominee . . . I am not sure the answer would be attractive, but should make some Democrat loyalists think.
August 7th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
[…] RedBlueChristian » Blog Archive » Democrats: Do you really ever want my vote? […]
August 7th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
“If Democrats vote Lieberman out, then I will know that they never seriously want to get a Red state vote…”
Frankly, I think that this would be concluding entirely too much from this race. Connecticut is a reliably Blue state whose Democrats are among the most liberal in the country. They can’t be said to represent all Dems everywhere, I don’t think, any more than Connecticut can be seen as a bellwether for sentiment regarding the war in Iraq.
Mark Daniels
August 7th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
By the way, I think that your point about Lincoln not being an evangelical when elected in 1860, but perhaps by the time he reached his second term is right-on. In fact, I believe that was the journey he made.
This is why it’s inconceivable to me that the Lincoln of 1865 would have again used the phrase he used to describe America in a message to Congress issued on December 1, 1862. There, he described the United States as the world “last best hope.”
While committed Christians can describe the United States as a great and unique country, the world’s “last best” and only hope is Jesus Christ. The Lincoln of 1865 had been humbled into seeing that, I believe.
Mark
August 7th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Your comments reflect a somewhat superficial understanding of the two candidates. On domestic issues, Lamont is much more of a centrist than Lieberman. If you “don’t agree with many of his (Lieberman’s) positions,” then you are more likely to agree with Lamont than Lieberman. Why would Lamont’s election be more upsetting to you, a conservative?
You write, “If Democrats vote Lieberman out, then I will know that they never seriously want to get a Red state vote.” Huh? Democrats should keep a old-school liberal (who happens to disagree with most liberals over the Iraq War) to make Republicans happy? This is a Democratic primary for a blue-state Senate seat… not a national presidential election.
I just don’t understand why Repubs are so busy lamenting the fate of Joe Lieberman. Isn’t this democracy in action? Isn’t this what our soldiers die defending….the right to freely choose our leaders?
Regardless of who wins this run-off election, it’s been an exciting race, healthy for democracy. Ultimately, the voters will speak. And that’s exactly how our forefathers designed our great system of government.
August 7th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
One of the problems with being a contributor of a group blog you have access to moderated comments prior to their public publication. So I’m here writing comment #2 when in fact it is comment #5 … unless someone hits enter before I do.
I like what John Mark says. DW seems to be reading something into his comments that I just don’t see.
Bottom-line, I think he is saying the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot in the eyes of Red-staters … and he explains why. I happen to agree and I think Rick Moore in his previous post would agree.
But then I agree with DW on the elections comments she made, she’s right you know … but I still think she missed something in John Mark’s post.
August 8th, 2006 at 6:32 am
[…] In many ways, the race is a perfect glimpse into the battle for the Democratic Party - its “centrists” embodied in Lieberman, the Clintons, and Harry Reid versus its activists embodied in Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Ned Lamont among others. If Lamont wins, candidates in the left wing of hte party will move up in ‘08 race (i.e. Al Gore). If Lieberman, the “New Democrat” or establishment candidates move up (i.e. Mark Warner). The wild cards are candidates like Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, and Joe Biden. John Mark Reynolds has an interesting take on today’s election. He questions whether Democrats are serious about reaching those Christians who think Democrats are simply moving away from them instead of reaching out to them (as they claim to be doing). […]
August 8th, 2006 at 9:29 am
I am puzzled by Democrats who think they only need Democrat votes. No Democrat has won a majority of the vote and the electoral college since I was a child. Their last overall winner was a man, Jimmy Carter, who was a Southron and ran as a \”born again.\” He was the last Democrat to make a serious bid for my kind of voter. He got them and then betrayed them. Clinton ran from his play book, but there was less trust (and Perot). . . and he never got half the vote.
In the same period, Reagan accomplished the job twice, Bush I once, and Bush II once. Nixon did it before that twice. . . and that brings us back to the formation of the modern versions of both parties.
Of course, Democrats have the perfect right to become the party of New England, California, and the Pacific Northwest. Of course, Lieberman is no conservative. . . but (to quote someone I read on the web) he gets the Biggest Issue of our time right. Andrew Johnson sided with Lincoln and Liberty in 1861. . . and Lieberman is serious about the War on Terror. Now instead of having two parties who will debate means to ends we all agree on. . .and there is plenty to be critical about in any war. . . we will get one serious party and a party with a clownish foreign policy.
Lamont simply has no serious plan for the WOT. That disqualifies him from the Senate. . . the Senate is not the school board of some Yale-dominated exburb.
August 8th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Dr. Reynolds writes, “Of course, Lieberman is no conservative. . . but (to quote someone I read on the web) he gets the Biggest Issue of our time right.”
But that’s precisely the pointof this run-off. Democrats believe he does NOT get the Biggest Issue of our time, and Senator Lieberman is running as a Democrat.
If Lieberman relies primarily on Republican votes, let him run as a Republican. Democrats have every right to reject a candidate with whom they disagree. That is the democratic process in action.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Deborah is right (of course) that Democrats get to define their own party. I am (thank God) no Democrat. . . but I don’t like the fact that I am glad today (utterly glad) I am not one.
If Dems think a Lamont foreign policy is the way to go, great. Do they really think the nation will agree with them? In 2008, it will not be a Democrat primary in the North-East.
They will not be running against a Bush.
They will be running against a moderate Hawk who will say, “We made mistakes, but let’s stay the course.” Let’s assume that the Dem vote is a hard-core 40% as is the Republican vote. . .
The fight is for the last twenty percent. Given a choice between a moderate Hawk who will announce a new strategy to “win the war” and the party of McGovern . . . who do you think will get the electoral votes to win?
We need a good debate about the War, but if one of our Parties becomes the Party of Let’s Just Lose. . . we will not get such a debate. I will be stuck voting for someone like McCain I don’t like and you will be stuck with another heart break.
Lieberman came within 4 points of winning one of the most liberal elections that could be held at a state wide level in the US (all Dems, all the time).
Again I ask: Why Lieberman? Why not waspish Clinton?