Lamont-Qaida!

Man, and I thought Cheney was wacko before. Now, he's trying to link Lieberman's primary loss to terrorist threats and national security.

The VP said, "The thing that’s partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

You're reaching, dick.

But according to the New Republic, ironically, Dick might've had a point, even if he didn't realize it. Their estimate, backed up as it is by two different polls, is that the only ace Republicans are still holding is national security, i.e. terrorism, and if the Dems can't find a way around the overeducated "liberal elite" that runs the party and its primaries, then they'll flounder in 2008 just like they did in 2004.

Lamont's strongest support came from areas with high housing values, voters with college or graduate degrees, and parents with children in private schools. Lieberman's votes, in contrast, came from the cities, renters, blue-collar and service-sector workers, and those receiving Social Security benefits.

There is nothing wrong with upscale liberals or downscale renters; a vote is a vote. The problem for the Democrats is... In presidential campaigns, these voters have nominated a succession of losers, including George McGovern, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. The power of this wing of the party is easy to see in battles against Republican Supreme Court nominees, when Democratic opposition concentrates on such issues as abortion and sexual privacy to the virtual exclusion of questions of business versus labor, tort law, and the power of the state to regulate corporate activity.

For the Democrats, the influence of the upscale left has increased the party's vulnerability to charges that it is weak on threats to the nation's security and that its candidates are far from mainstream on social issues. Although the public has lost faith in President Bush and the GOP on a wide range of issues, the GOP continues to hold one trump card: terrorism. A May 10 New York Times/CBS News poll showed voters preferring Republicans to Democrats on terrorism by a margin of 40-35 percent. A more telling finding was in an Associated Press/Ipsos survey released July 14. It found that voters may not be thrilled with the way Republicans in Congress are dealing with terrorism (54 percent unfavorable, 43 favorable), but they are downright hostile to the Democrats' approach (62 percent negative, 33 positive).

Of course, the fact that the GOP is going to start hollering about security threats when elections near is nothing new. That's been going on since 9/11. What IS new is Lieberman's dismissal and how that may affect the path of the Democrats on a national scale. If the Democratic leadership takes a cue from Lieberman's loss and begins polarizing the capitol even more than it already is, then voters will ostensibly have to make a choice between the perceived party of national security, the GOP, and the party of personal liberty and (perhaps) economic improvement, the Dems.

Maybe Cheney's not as dumb as he looks.