Only six years after Connecticut's hawkish, pro-Israel Senator Joe Lieberman was chosen to run for Vice President, the Democrats have virtually driven him out of the party. Since Lieberman has voted with his Democratic colleagues over 90% of the time during the last term of his eighteen years in the Senate, his downfall could only be a result of his refusal to backtrack on his vote to send troops into Iraq.

While other Democrats who voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq have backpedaled to appease the far Left core of their party, Lieberman stood by his decision, supporting the war even when the fighting got tough. Lieberman also refrained from parroting the vitriolic Bush-bashing rhetoric that's become common among Democratic politicians. As a result, novice Ned Lamont took Lieberman's place as Connecticut's Democratic nominee for Senate by running on an anti-war, anti-Bush platform. Like former Senator Zell Miller (D-GA), Lieberman has watched his party slide so far to the Left that he is considered "right-wing." Joe Lieberman has paid the price of standing firm in a party that stands for nothing.

This is a significant and sad step in the Democrats' transformation from serious political party to mouthpiece for the anti-war, anti-capitalist, "Blame America First" crowd. No longer merely the lunatic fringe, the far Left -- best represented by Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, various Hollywood half-wits and MoveOn.org, funded by billionaires like George Soros and Peter Lewis -- now openly control one of the two major political parties in America. This race has shown that there is no longer any place for moderation or alternative points of view in the party ranks. Though not all Democrat voters are Left-wing radicals, not even in deep-blue Connecticut, any potential nominee for office must gain the approval of that group. Not even a long-time favorite like Joe Lieberman can represent the Democrats if he expresses a conflicting point of view on a major issue like Iraq.

By undermining public support for the liberation of Iraq and the war on terror at every opportunity, the Democrats have been trying to relive the Vietnam era -- the only victory the far Left has ever achieved. George McGovern, running on a platform of opposition to the Vietnam war in 1972, was crushed in a 49-state landslide by incumbent President Richard Nixon. Even so, the Democrat-controlled Senate withheld support for our troops and our allies just a few years later, granting an unearned victory to the Communist forces. The far-Left Democrats, if they manage to take control of Congress this year, aim to repeat history by ceding the Middle East to the Islamofascists and terrorists and, ultimately, to Iran.

The likely result of Lieberman's loss in the primary is that other Democratic politicians will shift to the Left. No politician in a losing party wants to gamble with the support of core voters, as Lieberman did. Yet as they move Left, the Democrats will lose more mainstream support. As they shrink, they will move further to the Left to retain core voters. Eventually, the expanding Republican party will split, returning us to a viable two-party system. In the meantime, voters who favor a strong stance on national defense, tax cuts to fuel the economy, protection for the unborn, freedom of (not from) religion and less Federal interference will have nowhere else to turn.

The Left's strident, self-congratulatory celebrations over a primary race, after six years of whining over losing actual elections, suggest a new Democratic party motto: In Clade Amari, In Victoria Arrogantes (Latin for "bitter in defeat, arrogant in victory"). The fact is that Lieberman, running as an Independent, has a solid chance to win the November election. The majority of Americans simply don't favor the policies espoused by the far Left. As Liberals continue to exert control over the Democratic party, that party will continue to lose.

Because of Ned Lamont's primary victory, the Republicans will probably retain control of Congress in November. And if they have the backbone to nominate a serious Conservative for President in 2008 -- someone like Virginia Senator George Allen, for instance -- they now have an excellent chance of winning, thanks to the malignant anti-war wing's takeover of the Democratic party. No one who's serious about fighting Islamofascism, the most important issue of our time, will entrust the defense of our nation to those who demand the US military run away from the central front of the war. 

But can we take another four (or eight) years of Liberals lying and crying about "stolen elections," "tax cuts for the rich," "war for oil" and "mean Conservatives?"

I, for one, am looking forward to it.