Yep

E.J.:

The most over-the-top version of this argument came from William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. "What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq war," Kristol wrote. "It's that he's unashamedly pro-American."

This charge of extremism enrages Democrats, including many Lieberman supporters. It's absurd, they say, to attribute Lamont's rise primarily to bloggers who were his prime supporters three months ago, when he registered less than 20 percent in the polls. Something has happened since then that goes well beyond the blogosphere.

In this light, the effort to play the anti-American card can be seen as a sign of the frustration felt by the architects of a war that no longer enjoys popular support and the desperation of those who realize how pervasive the anti-Bush mood has become.

[...]

There is, in any event, a major flaw in the claim that Lieberman's troubles reflect an end to the role of moderates in the Democratic Party: Lieberman is the one prominent moderate to receive serious opposition in this year's primaries. As Robert L. Borosage of the liberal Campaign for America's Future noted, antiwar Democrats limited their challenge to one of the most pro-Bush Democrats in one of the most Democratic states in the country. Moderate Democrats in Republican-leaning states were left largely undisturbed.

[...]

There will be a way to test the competing interpretations of the Lieberman-Lamont contest. Were Lieberman to be defeated, Republicans would mourn his loss as a blow to moderates and urge him to run this fall as an independent. But if petrified Republican candidates around the country accelerate their efforts to add to the distance they've already built between themselves and Bush, you'll know that they know what Connecticut's voters were really saying.

And if Lieberman miraculously survives, it will be because he finally realized that the last thing an incumbent wants to be this year is George Bush's best friend and enabler.

Regardless of tonight's outcome the terms of the debate have been changed. While the RNC wants to re-run the last campaign GOP candidates are frightened of their prospects:

Especially worrisome for members of Congress is that the proportion of Americans who approve of their own representative's performance has fallen sharply. Traditionally, voters may express disapproval of Congress as a whole but still vote for their own member, even from the majority party. But 55 percent now approve of their lawmaker, a seven-percentage-point drop over three months and the lowest such finding since 1994, the last time control of the House switched parties.

"That's dramatic," said Republican consultant Ed Rollins, who was White House political director under President Ronald Reagan.

[...]

The poll mirrored results of surveys at this point 12 years ago, just three months before Republicans swept out Democratic majorities from both houses of Congress. Fifty-three percent now call themselves anti-incumbent, while 29 percent describe themselves as inclined to reelect lawmakers -- almost precisely the same percentages as in June 1994.

That's not to say it will be smooth sailing through to November; The GOP has a huge advantage - Diebold aside - in the White House. Expect a steady ratcheting up of scare stories and a new war isn't beyond conceiving (Hello, Iran!).

But tonight will bring some clarity about where we are going. David Sirota has an excellent post sketching four post-Connecticut scenarios.


.