I’m not going to lie; I was more than a little concerned about the midterm elections of 2006. Bush’s poll numbers were at an all-time low; public support for the War in Iraq had plummeted amid calls for withdrawal in the House and Senate; Republicans were struggling to survive in key races across the nation. One could not turn on the news without hearing political pundits predict a democratic takeover paralleling the Gingrich revolution in 1994.

But August 8th brought about a glimmer of hope for the Republicans in 2006. The road to the midterm elections seemed slightly less steep, becoming more of a molehill than a mountain. And my worried mind slept a little more soundly that night, knowing that the Democrats had sacrificed Joe Lieberman at the altar of radicalism.

So on behalf of conservatives everywhere, I just wanted to thank you, Ned Lamont, for making it that much easier for moderates to vote republican, or, at the very least, to vote against radicalism.

The Democrats honored the seventieth anniversary of Stalin’s show trials with their own little “party purge at the primary.” Drawing from Stalin’s political playbook, the Democrats expected Lieberman to be a “good” party member and disappear from the political arena. Unfortunately for the limousine liberals in Lamont’s camp, Lieberman is not well suited for the role of Grigory Zinoviev.

Dean’s demagogues dreamt that Lieberman would use his concession speech to affirm his loyalty to “the Party.” They were praying to God that Lieberman would go on air and admit that he was nothing more than a Bush puppet sent to infiltrate the Democratic Party and corrupt it from the inside. But Lieberman is sticking around, and with good reason, too.

Democrats, lacking such a concession speech, have been forced to justify Lieberman’s expulsion themselves. Of course, the easiest way to explain the outcome of the primary would be the truth. But then again, admitting that militant moveon’s have seized control of your political party is not the most effective way of garnering decisive support from the moderate voting bloc.

Thus, liberal pundits and party loyalists embraced an approach reminiscent of Kobe Bryant’s defense strategy: relentlessly attacking the victim.

Lamont painted Lieberman as a Bush hack and war monger. The informed voters of Connecticut were aware of this because Lieberman would not apologize for his vote to authorize the War in Iraq and because of … umm. Drawing a blank? It is hard not to when trying to accuse a politician of being conservative, despite his 90 percent party loyal, liberal senate voting record. Joe Lieberman may be many things, but he is most definitely not a Republican. Calling Joe Lieberman a Republican is as far-fetched as calling Ted Kennedy a patriot or Al Sharpton a reverend.

Critics had to dig deep to find other examples of Lieberman’s “conservative” traits. All they managed to come up with, however, was Lieberman’s condemnation of extramarital affairs during the Clinton impeachment process, an issue that Democrats did not seem to mind when they added him to Al Gore’s presidential ticket in 2000.

Hard pressed to find any sort of reasonable justification, liberals resulted to baseless political fodder. Alan Colmes, for example, made the audacious claim that Lieberman’s position on the Iraq War was not representative of the American people’s beliefs. He has yet to explain why the democrats have not amended their platform regarding issues like gay marriage, flag burning and parental consent; you know, to correspond with the general public’s views.

The War in Iraq is fast becoming the defining issue of the Democratic platform. And with Lieberman’s defeat in the Connecticut primary, it is evident that the party has now embraced a litmus test for any politician wishing to enter a race with a (D) next to their name. And others in the party have already reacted to the Lieberman fallout. It is no coincidence, for example, that Hillary Clinton called for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation amid the firestorm surrounding the Connecticut primary.

The Connecticut coup d’état has exposed the undecided and moderate voters of this country to the new face of the Democratic Party. The sad fact is that liberals have turned the party of Kennedy and Roosevelt into the party of Pelosi and Soros, a fact that Democrats will deny until after the polls are closed in November.

The pro-war Democrats of today find themselves in a very similar situation to the pro-life Democrats of the 80’s. They are at a crossroads where they are faced with two options: conform or be ousted from the party with no consideration for the rest of their voting record. Most Democrats have followed the path taken by former pro-lifers like Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson and even Ted Kennedy. But Joe Lieberman has integrity, and like pro-life Democrat Robert Casey, was punished for it.

The Democrats ostracized the moderates of this country. Their candidates have chosen to focus on primaries, rather than on general elections. The moderates of this country may now believe that the United States does not belong in Iraq, but they also do not agree with immediate withdrawal; they may disagree with warrantless wiretaps, but are in favor of Patriot Act provisions. Democrats have forced radicalism upon the moderate vote; it will not work. Lamont’s nomination will only serve as a reminder to the moderate voters of what the Democratic Party really represents: radicalism.

This is why among Connecticut’s general population, Lieberman is ahead in polls 51-43.

Billy McMorris is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at wjm27@cornell.edu. John Manetta Once Told Me appears Tuesdays.