The Nutroots: learning the wrong lessons

The Nutroots — the affectionate little name that is going around for the self-styled “Net Roots” and moonbat element of the Democratic Party — are growing more and more powerful in that party. And it seems that their obsession with the Viet Nam war — it comes up pretty much every time they discuss Iraq — has led them to learn precisely the wrong lessons from that conflict.

People who actually look at the Viet Nam war have pretty much agreed on one oft-repeated thesis: the United States won every battle, yet still lost the war. In their eagerness to embrace the Viet Nam analogy, it seems that the Nutroots have adopted that philosophy.

Markos “Kos” Moulitsas is now one of the biggest power brokers of the Democratic party. His hordes of slavering followers have become a major faction in Democratic circles, and courting his favor has become a necessity for many Democrats. Yet hardly anyone notices that his endorsement has been the “kiss of death” for so many candidates. I haven’t kept track of it, but I seem to recall reading a little while ago that of the 17 or 19 candidates Kos had backed, every single one of them was defeated.

In 2006, the Nutroots declared a fatwa on Connecticut’s Senator (and 2000 vice presidential nominee) Joe Lieberman. Never mind that Lieberman had a nearly-perfect liberal voting record; he was on the “wrong” side of the Iraq war and therefore was an apostate and heretic. The Nutroots rallied behind Ned Lamont, who challenged — and defeated — Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Lieberman then went independent, ran as a third-party candidate. In the end, Lieberman not only beat Lamont by over 10%, but pulled more votes than Lamont and the official Republican nominee combined. He then returned to the Senate unencumbered by any political affiliation or obligations, threatening the Democrats’ control. He declined to formally rejoin the party, but agreed to caucus with them and allowed them to take the leadership of the Senate despite officially only holding 49 of 100 seats — matching the Republicans’ numbers.

Now we have the would-be Nevada debate between the Democratic presidential candidates. Originally it was to be co-sponsored by Fox News, the far and away biggest cable news channel. This would have given the candidates the broadest possible audience, increasing their exposure and — hopefully, to them — allowing them to sway voters across the nation. But the Nutroots (apparently led by “Kiss Of Death Kos” himself) declared a new fatwa, this one on Fox News.

(I was reminded of Kos’ earlier pledge to make the Democratic Leadership Council “radioactive” in two weeks’ time. It seems that the DLC had committed the heresy of doing that which is anathema to Kos — they had actually gotten a Democrat elected in Bill Clinton, and were working to do that again WITHOUT asking him first. Luckily for Kos, Hurricane Katrina arrived in the meantime and gave him an excuse to back down from his threat.)

Well, the Nutroots did it. They got enough of the leading candidates to toe the line and boycott the debate. Now they’re calling for a complete “freeze-out” of Fox News from the Democratic primary process. The Nutroots are demanding that the Democratic candidates boycott from appearing on the highest-rated cable news channel and shut themselves off from a forum that has been, for the most part, pretty “fair and balanced” to them when they’ve appeared on it in the past. (I don’t recall any major Democratic official getting ambushed or cheap-shotted or set up on Fox News, and if such had happened, I am absolutely certain the Nutroots would have shoved it into everyone’s faces over the past week or so.) And the Democratic candidates are cheerfully obeying Kos’ demands.

This is beyond stupid. This has to be the most insane political tactic I’ve ever seen. Its one redeeming feature has to be its sheer entertainment value, as Kos plays the Judas goat, leading the Democrats into electoral slaughterhouses while he parlays his string of losses and defeats into more power and more money.

In 2004, I cheerfully split my ballot. I voted for Republicans for president and the House, and Democrats for the Senate and governor. Last November, I did it again, voting for the same Democratic governor and a Republican representative. I like having two parties to choose from, two viable candidates with clear distinctions to differentiate themselves. I don’t like giving my vote by default to one side, because the other one is a raving loony. (That happened to me last November, when the moonbat beat the Republican I didn’t overly care for in the race for the US House.)

The only thing is, this isn’t a TV show. This isn’t entertainment. This the future of the two-party system, and our nation, is at stake here.

Group Launches Abortion E-Cards
Jay Tea Vs. Hillary: This Time It's Personal