The "Peace" Democrats are Back - It's a Dream Come True for Karl Rove

Wall Street Journal ^ | August 7, 2006 | MARTIN PERETZ

[West Coast Conservative]

We have been here before. Left-wing Democrats are once again fielding single-issue "peace candidates," and the one in Connecticut, like several in the 1970s, is a middle-aged patrician, seeking office de haut en bas, and almost entirely because he can. It's really quite remarkable how someone like Ned Lamont, from the stock of Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and that most high-born American Stalinist, Corliss Lamont, still sends a chill of "having arrived" up the spines of his suburban supporters simply by asking them to support him. Superficially, one may think of those who thought they were already middle class just by being enthusiasts of Franklin Roosevelt, who descended from the Hudson River Dutch aristocracy. But when FDR ran for, and was elected, president in 1932, he had already been a state senator, assistant secretary of the Navy and governor of New York. He had demonstrated abilities.

At least in this sense, Mr. Lamont comes to this campaign for the U.S. Senate from absolutely nowhere--and it shows in his pulpy statements on public issues. Here is a paradigmatic one: "We need to provide parents and communities the support they need to assure that children start their school day ready to learn." Of course, he also thinks that U.S. troops should be replaced by the U.N. in Iraq. Does he know anything at all about the history of the idea that he so foolishly rescues from the dust? So what we have in this candidacy is someone, with no public record to speak of but with perhaps a quarter of a billion dollars to his name, who wants to be a senator. Mr. Lamont has almost no experience in public life. He was a cable television entrepreneur, a run-of-the-mill contemporary commercant with unusually easy access to capital.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Lamont is another NE liberal elitist who thinks he knows what is best for Americans.

Maybe England would want the Northeast back. If we gave NE to the British, Kalifornia back to Mexico and Michigan to Canada, we would be ok.

[Peach]

The Democrats clearly want to change America's long-standing policy not to negotiate with terrorists.

The Neville Chamberlain's of this country are really making me feel like we're watching the 1930's redux.

[RexBeach]

This article is by Martin Peretz? What a riot.

Mr. Lamont sounds like a meathead.

How awful for the nation if Sen. Joe is ousted by Mr. Lamont.

He's one of those whack jobs who thinks that America just fell out of the sky. That the nation was not created by people who risked their lives to do so, and, most importantly, that America is NOT worth dying for.

I will say a prayer for old Joe tonight...and the nation.

[Puppage]

The Neville Chamberlain's of this country are really making me feel like we're watching the 1930's redux

Sadly, I am in complete agreement with you.

What's the matter with people???? It's almost as if they have blinders on or just plain refuse to see the worldwide threat that we're all facing.

[sauropod]

To say nothing of the broad running against Jane Harman.

[1Old Pro]

"How awful for the nation the Democrat Party if Sen. Joe is ousted by Mr. Lamont."

The Dems asked for this by letting Howard Dean lead the party - It will now be the kook Party made up of mostly Left Wing radicals.

[Frank_2001]

Giving the NE back to England might be a good idea, culturally they're more European than American. Seriously, what IS it with rich far lefties like Lamont...it seems the richer you get the more liberal you become?!

[mojito]

"Now Mr. Lamont's views are also not camouflaged. They are just simpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran's nuclear-weapons venture: "We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don't need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I'd like to bring in allies when we can. I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate." Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamont continues that "Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table." And what is so plainly wrong with that? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?

Finally, the contest in Connecticut tomorrow is about two views of the world. Mr. Lamont's view is that there are very few antagonists whom we cannot mollify or conciliate. Let's call this process by its correct name: appeasement. The Greenwich entrepreneur might call it "incentivization." Mr. Lieberman's view is that there are actually enemies who, intoxicated by millennial delusions, are not open to rational and reciprocal arbitration. Why should they be? After all, they inhabit a universe of inevitability, rather like Nazis and communists, but with a religious overgloss. Such armed doctrines, in Mr. Lieberman's view, need to be confronted and overwhelmed."

Peretz destroys Lamont, and by extension three-fourths (nine-tenths?) of the Democratic Party. I would enjoy this spectacle far more if so much wasn't riding on the outcome, and if I had any confidence that sanity would prevail.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Liberals want to feel good about themselves after screwing so many people. So they decide that their self loathing has hurt the country and running America is their way of giving back.

[subterfuge]

It's rather laborious to read this guy, fwiw.

[Common Tator]

I was surfing the cable channels and stopped on MSNBC as they asked Chrisy Matthews to predict the out come of the Lieberman - Lamont race. He waffled. But they showed a poll indicating the race was much tighter than before. According to the poll the 15 point Lamont lead is gone. It has now fallen to 6 percent and trending Joe's way.

Chrissy who appeared to be bunching his panties, said he had learned from experience to watch trends in polls and perhaps... just perhaps ... Joe might pull it out.

The poll still had Lamont 6 points ahead. But one thing is true... the polls do get a lot more accurate at voting time.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

A liberal of my acquaintance who, believe me, is weathier than at least 95% of the readers on this web site, was bemoaning the loss of "meaningful jobs" and the division of America into a "two class" society.

I finally asked her when she began to channel Woody Guthrie.

[Peach]

I heard this morning on FNC that the race had pulled to within the margin of error. I really hope that Lieberman wins the primary tomorrow; his vote on national security matters is appreciated even though the rest of his positions are typically the opposite of mine.

[Jack Black]

The weird thing is while Republicans are all pretending to be happy about the Dem swing left Conservatives should be more alarmed. It's true that the 1968 to 1972 swing left resulted in McGovern, who lost. But it's also true that it made the Dems, who were the governing party much more socialst and liberal then previously. And we are still suffering under the horrible programs, laws, regulations and taxes that the uber-liberal post 1968 hard-left Dems put in place.

Real leftists understand that they are using the Dems to do their bidding, and that there are other groups in contention for control of the party. It is a horrible thing when the American Stalinists gain control (again) of the Donkey machine.

[marlon]

I live in Greenwich and am so disgusted by this race I can't see straight. I'm no fan of Lieberman, I do think he's basically a good person one however I have little in common with politically. I can't vote tomorrow as it's demo/socialist only that can vote but I do wish him well. Not because I believe him to be a moderate, he's not he's as a reliable left/liberal vote as they come. I support him only because no man/woman should be so vilified over the issue of supporting their country, troops and the cause of democracy and the defeat of islamofascism.

I truly fear that if he's defeated the moonbat left will begin to pick up momentun and credibility and it won't be long before we retreat from the defense of our nation. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggested the march against us will only end when our constitution is replaced with Sharia law as the guiding document of our country. I just hope sanity wins out here.

[Aquinasfan]

seeking office de haut en bas...

a run-of-the-mill contemporary commercant

Remember the Mary Tyler Moore Show episode when Ted Baxter discovered the thesaurus? At least Ted used English words.

[Peach]

There was a post today (it might have been its own thread, I don't remember) that Cokie Roberts said yesterday on the George Stephanapolous show that if Lamont wins, it will be a disaster for Democrats and for the country.

She gets just how far left the moonbats have moved the Democrats.

[Old Student]

"Maybe England would want the Northeast back. If we gave NE to the British, Kalifornia back to Mexico and Michigan to Canada, we would be ok."

Hey, wait a minute! I've got relatives in Michigan and California, and at least two or three of them are alright! Give me time to warn them first, ok? Then go for it!

[NaughtiusMaximus]

When it comes to the "sheeple", the Free Stuff argument is hard to beat. (By the way, there was a great article last night titled "Free Stuff", you can find it with the search engine if you're interested.) I hate using the condescending term "sheeple" but I've just seen so many potential voters jumping on one (generally untenable) Demo promise after another that I sometimes can't resist it.