The contest in Connecticut tomorrow is about two views of the world. Mr. Lamontâ€™s view is that there are very few antagonists whom we cannot mollify or conciliate. Letâ€™s call this process by its correct name: appeasement. The Greenwich entrepreneur might call it â€œincentivization.â€ Mr. Liebermanâ€™s view is that there are actually enemies who, intoxicated by millennial delusions, are not open to rational and reciprocal arbitration. Why should they be? After all, they inhabit a universe of inevitability, rather like Nazis and communists, but with a religious overgloss. Such armed doctrines, in Mr. Liebermanâ€™s view, need to be confronted and overwhelmed.
Almost every Democrat feels obliged to offer fraternal solidarity to Israel, and Mr. Lamont is no exception. But here, too, he blithely assumes that the Palestinians could be easily conciliated. All that it would have needed was President Bushâ€™s attention. Mr. Lamont has repeated the accusation, disproved by the â€œroad mapâ€ and Ariel Sharonâ€™s withdrawal from Gaza, that Mr. Bush paid little or even no attention to the festering conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. And has Mr. Lamont noticed that the Palestinians are now ruled, and by their own choice, by Hamas? Is Hamas, too, just a few good arguments away from peace?
The Lamont ascendancy, if that is what it is, means nothing other than that the left is trying, and in places succeeding, to take back the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr. Lamont. As I say, we have been here before. Ned Lamont is Karl Roveâ€™s dream come true. If he, and others of his stripe, carry the day, the Democratic party will lose the future, and deservedly (source).