Nach Lamont, Uns?

There's an idea floating around that a victory by Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senatorial primary will symbolize the victory of the wooly left among the Democrats, and as a result of their unpopularity, aid the Republicans. Here's David Limbaugh, quoting Cokie Roberts, of all people:

Newsbusters blog noted that on ABC's "This Week," former co-host Cokie Roberts stunned George Stephanopoulos with her observation that if Ned Lamont defeats Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut, it will be "a disaster for the Democratic Party."

Roberts said, "pushing the party to the left is pushing the party to the position from which it traditionally loses." If other Democratic senators read a Lieberman defeat as a prescription to "play to your base," you will "get just a total chaos."

What Cokie seems to recognize is something E.J. Dionne has yet to grasp: No matter how tough things get for conservatives, Democrats are inescapably hostage to their militant base and otherwise ill-equipped to lead the world against the global Islamofascist jihad -- facts not lost on most voters.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

What worries me is that in a two-party system, the opposition party wins sometime. George McGovern lost big time, but Jimmy Carter won, and his Iran débacle is the origin of many of our woes today.

The capture of the Democrats by the RDSC (Running Dogs of Shiite Clericalism) and the LIMOs (Lackeys of Islamic Medieval Obscurantism) would not be good for the country in the long run. An opposition of Copperheads: bad.

For aficionados of socialist arcana, "Nach Lamont, Uns" means "After, Lamont, Us" and refers to the Stalinist slogan in the run-up to the Nazi takeover in Germany--"After Hitler, Us." The idea was that Hitler would make such a mess of things that he would cleart the way for a Communist takeover. He did, in East Germany, but it took 12 years and a war of total destruction. Its a "the worse, the better" idea, and it's often wrong.