درباره من : از سال 1383 در هنگ کنگ زندگی می کنم. کارشناسی مترجمی زبان انگلیسی از دانشگاه آزاد قم و کارشناسی ارشد از دانشگاه آموزش هنگ کنگ در رشته آموزش زبان انگلیسی به غیر انگلیسی زبانان. همسر نازنینم صهبا نیز از سال 2008 به من پیوسته و خداوند هم یک دختر نازنین به نام آریاناز بهمون داده. دوستدار ایرانی و ایران و هرچیزی که به میهن بزرگمون برمیگرده.
پروفایل من : Davood Jalili
|ساعت ٢:٥۸ ب.ظ روز ۱۳۸٥/٥/۱٩|
انتخابات نخستین حزب دموکرات
سه شنبه ای که گذشت در ايالات متحده حزب دموکرات به برگزاری چند انتخابات نخستين حزب پرداخت. يکی از اين انتخابات در ايالت کناتيکت برگزار شد که سناتور جو ليبرمن با ۱۶ سال پيشينه در سنا بدليل پشتيبانی از سياستهای جنگی جرج بوش و بوسه تاريخی وی بر صورت سناتور ليبرمن پس از پايان سخنرانی ساليانه خود در کنگره آمريکا و مخالفت اعضای حزب دموکرات با نامزدی دوباره وی برای انتخابات مياندوره ای امسال در سه شنبه نخست ماه نوامبر امسال (۷ نوامبر، ۱۶ آبان) در آن با اختلاف کمی از رقيب ضد جنگ خود آقای ند لامنت شکست خورد. آقای لامنت ميلياردر سرشناس و بدون پيشينه سياسی است. آقای ليبرمن پس از شکست در انتخابات نخستين حزب اعلام کرد بگونه مستقل در انتخابات ۷ نوامبر شرکت خواهد کرد. نوشتاری که در زير می خوانيد تحليلی از آثار شکست آقای ليبرمن در انتخابات مياندوره ای امسال است که احتمال شکست سنگين حزب دموکرات به خاطر سياست های ضد جنگ اين حزب با اشاره به انتخابات برگزار شده در زمان جنگ ويتنام است.
Democrats' Primary Elections
The following article brings into light some of the possible challenges faced by Democratic party after its rejection of pro-war members including Joe Liberman of Connecticuit on last Tuesday's Primary Elections
Democrats Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
Democrats lost the 2004 presidential election over leadership on national security. Tuesday night's win by anti-war Ned Lamont over pro-war Joe Lieberman, while joyous for the far-left netroots crowd, is a bad harbinger for future Democratic Party prospects nationally in 2008 and beyond.
The closeness of the election only makes the outcome more frustrating for Democratic strategists. Had Lieberman eked out a victory, the Connecticut Senate primary would have been a huge win for the Democratic Party as they would have been able to reap the dividends of all the energy (and voters) Lamont's candidacy had attracted, while at the same time sending a message to the country that the Democratic Party is large enough for pro-war Democrats.
Had Lieberman held on and won, he undoubtedly would be reaching out to left-wing Democrats and pushing further away from President Bush and the Republicans. Instead, Lieberman will now be ostracized from the party and will be reaching out to independents and Republicans while chastising the extremists in the Democratic Party.
Incredibly, for a sitting three-term senator who just lost to a political neophyte, in many ways Lieberman is the guy who comes out of the primary with momentum. A month ago it was not unreasonable to assume that Lamont would have received a significant boost from a win, but the polls seem to indicate Lamont peaked near the end of July. Bill Clinton's July 24th visit may have been more of a turning point than was commonly thought at the time. In my pre-election analysis I suggested that Lieberman's distance from 40 percent would be the best tell on how the three-way would shakeout. With his very solid 48.2 percent, Lieberman is in an extremely strong position to win in November.
Nationally, the images from last night are a disaster for the Democratic Party. Perched behind Lamont during his victory speech were the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, grinning ear to ear, serenaded by the chant of "Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home." For a party that has a profound public relations and substantive problem on national security, these are not exactly the images you want broadcast to the nation.
Anti-war Democrats and much of the mainstream media continue to confuse anti-war with anti-lose. The incessant commentary that 2/3rd of the country is against the war completely misreads the American public, as much of the negativity towards the war isn't because we are fighting, but rather a growing feeling that we are not fighting to win or not fighting smart.
Democrats went down this road in the late 1960s with
These Democratic wipeouts in 1968 and 1972 occurred while tens of thousands of Americans were dying in
The "Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home" chant may win congressional districts in San Francisco and Seattle as well as Democratic primaries in solidly blue states, but it is not a serious policy. Just what does "Bring Them Home" really mean? Bring them home and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suddenly gives up his pursuit of nukes, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah domesticate and forego terror? Leftists, pacifists and Pat Buchanan isolationists may be that naïve, but the majority of Americans are not.
The civilized world is at a very dangerous moment. There is no question that the Bush administration has made a bucket load of mistakes in fighting this war, but they (and thus
The Democrats have an insurgency of their own that is rapidly gaining strength, and Lieberman is the first high profile victim. But in the long run the real victim will be the Democratic Party if they continue to purge the few remaining FDR/Harry Truman/Scoop Jackson Democrats from their ranks.