But it does seem that the Democratic Party is turning definitively leftwards - the poison is too deep, it appears, for the Democrats to exorcise their leftwing demon...it'll have to work itself out in electoral politics in the form of an election year meltdown for the Democrats.

That doesn't seem to be the prevailing trend...

The New York Times? Bwahahahaha!!!!! I'm surprised that far left wing kook rag didn't predict that demoncrats would pick up each and every Republican seat.

New York Times, that's just too funny!!!!

The poison of the leftists? Purge the right wing from the Republican party and then we'll talk about ridding liberals from the Democrats. Personally, I think we need a multi (4 or more) party system to be truly fair. Or no parties. I like the Founding Fathers like that and all.

Winnow,

Once again, a New York Times report...the NY Times is great for lining bird cages, but not much else.

This will be difficult for you but, quite honestly, trust me to give you a more accurate read of politics than the NY Times. I'm really pretty good at it...

Nova,

I'm not talking about purging liberalism - Joe Lieberman is a liberal; I'm talking about getting rid of the MoveOn/DailyKos/Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party.

No. You didn't even skim the article, did you? It was an article detailing a report from The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisian political publication.

You have quite a filter. Perhaps that explains why you didn't hear about Lamont until last night.

Oh yeah, Charlie Cook is as "non partisan" as Howard Dean. What is the matter with these left wing fanatics like minnow?

Purge the Democratic party of demons? If you purge every demon from politics, there won't be a republican left standing.

If you won't support a politician you agree with because of something as foolish as political affiliation, don't expect Democrats to reach out with moderate or even conservative candidates. Not since Republicans have demonstrated that one can carry the presidency by simply firing up the base.

Ted Kennedy is a liberal. Lieberman is a centrist.

Odds are Lieberman will be defeated in the primary and run as an independent. Given his strong support among Republicans he might win.

I am sick of any shill for the Iraq war being counted as a friend of conservatives. Let's get this straight. Lieberman is no true conservative. He is just an AIPAC stalwart who has his own selfish reasons for middle east intervention. It is not antisemitic to point out so as one can infer from the fact that he likes Bush so much despite the fact Lieberman's scorecard in terms of his voting record is liberal. If he wants to be a true conservative, I want to see him advocate smaller government.

Let us not tarnish the conservative movement(though I am more libertarian) with sanctimonious idiots like Lieberman. Lamont made his money the old fashioned capitalist way and is more of a true capitalist than Lieberman. Just vote for the republican candidate and let the chips fall where they may.

Yeah, it's the democrats that have shifted . . . you just keep believeing that 30-percenter.

Winnow,

Actually, I've known about Lamont since he started out...and Cook is ok, but the report is still a NY Times report, which will take whatever good sense Cook puts out and then present it in the most anti-GOP manner possible.

Really, don't trust the NY Times...they simply do not tell the truth about what is going on out there.

Well, then here is the raw data from Cook:

2006 Competitive House Race Chart (May 19, 2006)

Democrats currently have 10 seats listed as Lean or Toss Up. Republicans currently have 36 seats listed as Lean or Toss Up.

Analysis from previous periods here:

err, here.

Typical of the right; they push their party to the extreme right and say the democrats moved.

You see the ignorance constantly, such as when they invoke JFK as a 'good democrat'.

Ignore the facts of his strong belief in the use of the government to do good in society, especially to increase opportunities for the poor; in his determination to reduce the reliance on the far right dictators as allies in foreign policy, instead supporting many true 'independant' leaders, even those 'suspected' of some communist contacts, and even when it caused great strain with our European allies as we withdrew the automatic support for their colonialism; even as he pursued peace with the Soviet Union in a speech aired around the USSR and highly praised by Kruschev; even as he blocked the invasion of Cuba directly by US forces in the Bay of Pigs and delayed it (which prevented it) in the Cuban Missile Crisis, making secret deals with the USSR to resolve the crisis; his refusal to send US combat troops to Viet Nam and plans to withdraw the uS by 1965; and, such acts as his 'war' with the steel industry leading him to quote his father that 'all businessmen are sons of bitches'.

Of course, he had other positions the right agrees with, from his success in diplomatic victories against the Soviet Union, to his support for a strong defense, but the right is blind to his policies overall, and it's only the right's own delusions about democrats today that make them think the democrats are against a 'strong defense'. Despite the false 'missile gap' issue in the 1960 campaign, Kennedy wasn't really to the right of republican Eisenhower, who coined the term 'Military Industrial Complex' as he warned the nation, just before Kennedy began.

No, the right is ignorant and deluded. They need to purge their own party of the Noonan element.

'I'm not talking about purging conservatism - Eisenhower was a conservative; I'm talking about getting rid of the gopbloggers/right-wing talk radio/Ann Coulter/Mark Noonan wing of the Republican Party.'

"Once again, a New York Times report...the NY Times is great for lining bird cages, but not much else.

This will be difficult for you but, quite honestly, trust me to give you a more accurate read of politics than the NY Times. I'm really pretty good at it..."

Oh, brother. The NY Times is often making mistakes in favor of the right, not the left - see their Iraq reporting and Judith Miller's exhcanges with her neocon buddies, for example - yet for Noonan to claim to be better than it... I guess I can just repeat myself:

"The right is ignorant and deluded." It's jsut embarrassing for them.

Why is Lieberman a "centrist", and why is this an example of Democratic "poison"?

Lieberman has supported virtually every Bush initiative, most notably and visibly the very unpopular ones- invading Iraq, staying in Iraq, and privatizing Social Security.

Whether or not you personally agree with those initiatives, it's pretty clear that majority of Americans, and the vast majority of Connecticuters, disagree with them. It's pretty clear that that's why Lieberman is facing political extinction, rather than some mythical leftward shift of the Democratic Party.

Senator Lieberman is one of a very few people
that I call a democrat as in Truman's day
the rest are just left wing radicals that belong to the Character assassin organization
Until that party gets back to Joe'S type of
democrats they will not be able to lead this country and keep it in the leadership position