Posted on 08/10/2006 9:06:49 AM PDT by colrpfournier
OxyMORONs.
I cant wait to see the Dems split their vote between Lamont and Lieberman, and we pick up a Republican in the CT seat. You know the Rats will be doing everything in their power to push Lieberman out of the race. They will cry to him that he is splitting the vote. This is the best news in a while. The Rats are self destructing by pandering to the wacko, anti-American liberals.
Lamont’s victory will make it difficult for any Democrat to take anything approaching a reasonable position on foreign policy questions.
------
Actually, on ANY issue or question. The far-left has to plans, certainly not for America, no agenda they can safely talk about, no vision, no interest in defending America and fighting its enemies, nothing other than a pure quest for POWER. Empty socialism, ala Marx.
"They are riding the public frustration with the progress of the war in Iraq . . ."
I respectfully disagree. They are riding the frustration of being out of power, which they see as their birthright.
Today's revelation of the plot to blow-up airborne flights between Britain and the US couldn't have come at a worse time for the Dims.
leftwing Jihad. LoL! perfect. The loons are taking over what's left of the RAT party. Everything is going acording to Rove's evil plan, BWWHAHAHAHA!
Actually they see that is a victory. Any terrorist activity is Bush's fault for 'creating' terrorists. Remember, there was no such thing as a terrorist until Bush came to power. The Rats want nothing more than a large scale terrorist attack to happen on Bush's watch so they can tear him down.
Agreed...
Just listening to the whining on other boards is enough to prove it for me...
Every single Bush-is-Evil nutjob is calling it a Rove/Pnac plot because Lamont won ....
"Ned Lamont’s thrashing of incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman in yesterday’s Connecticut primary signals the beginning of a leftwing jihad within the confines of the Democratic Party that could doom the aspirations of any but the most leftwing Democrats in the years ahead. "
Lamont won by 4% which means that 48% of Democrats agreed with Liberman.
The writer is a moron.
Lamont's vicotry is more than a Democrat loss.
Once again, some daddy warbucks with nothing to recommend him for office, aside from overweening conceit and large bankroll, has gotten nominated and possibly, but not likely elected.
Just like the Keans in New Jersey, the Frank Lautenbergs, the Mike Bloombergs, the Jon Corzines, the Kennedys, the Gores, the Kerrys, the McCains, the Rockefellers, etc. etc. it seems like you need a huge bankroll to get elected to office these days, or that if you HAVE a large bankroll, you can buy your way into office. I think this is just one outcome of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. Cut off contributions from outside sources and only the wealthy can afford to run.
Lieberman is the liberal conservatives sort of like. He supports the war on terror, is basically a decent guy personally, but on all other issue is a real liberal.
Too bad the Repubs don't have a viable candidate in COnnecticut, they might win. As it is, my suspicion is Lieberman will get relected as an independent. Only 20% of the Democrats voted and 44% of registered voters are independents - probably liberal.
A newspaper editor on FOX News last night said that the peolpe who came out to vote for Lamont (wasn't Lamont Cranston the "Shadow") were for the most part, VERY affluent and part of what he termed "transnationalists" - I assume one-worlders.
Oh, leftwing Jihad? McKinney is further to the left then Lamont and she got thrashed. How does the writer explain that?
Sean likes him though.
You made excellent points, Zulu!
Michael Moore and Michael Schiavo and Hillary Clinton support Ned Lamont even though:
A vote for Ned Lamont
is a vote for the rights of abusive men*
to kill vulnerable women and children
at home and abroad.
*(like terrorists and unfaithful husbands)
Ten years from now, fifty, a hundred, there will still be a "Democratic" party on the ballot in many places. Whether it would be a national party, or only a loose coalition of regional parties operating under the same name, is still open to conjecture. Another major political party, the Whigs, who developed their roots while the US was still a colony of Great Britain, and were patterned on the English Whigs, managed to sink itself into irrelevance and eventual obliteration.
There used to be a party that was of almost national stature here in the US, the Progressives, founded largely by Teddy Roosevelt, as a sort of reaction to the "Old Guard" Republicans, but like the present-day Democrats, went too far in their pursuit of more and more radical social engineering programs, bordering on Stalinism. Eventually the remnants of the party chose to become the modern-day "liberal" Dem'crats, and this may explain their almost fanatical hatred of all Republicans.
They have hijacked the Democratic party, and turned it into the Dem'crat party. Much like what happened in Germany in 1933. Present day Dem'crats are not Nazis, of course, they are much too sophisticated for that. Their hatred of Jews is expressed by allowing the Jews of Israel be wiped out by the third-party Iranians and Syrians.
The Iranians and Syrians are notoriously poor stewards of this mission.
Every action has an opposite effect. Lamont winning is not necessaryily good for the moonbats.
Yeah.
Lieberman is one of his "pet" Democrats. So is Lanny Davis.
Lamont’s victory was a triumph for the left and a defeat for the United States because it may mean that future elections will be run between candidates of a pro-US party and nominees of an anti-US party.
Which is exactly what I have been saying and a very good reason I want a Leiberman win triumphing over those anti-American elements. I don't see how any rational American, conservative or not, can be happy one of only two national parties is content to have America wiped off the map or subserviant to the tyrants and terrorists of the middle east.
Here's more proof that Lieberman is decent.....
Michael Schiavo campaigned against Lieberman because Lieberman wasn't a knee-jerk supporter of killing Terri Schindler Schiavo.
If nothing else, Lieberman stands up against terrorists and "husbands" who kill women and children.
Had they thought out what they supported beforehand, they would have realized they gave up a Senate seat of a very skilled politician with national name recognition for a guy who will never be more than a back bencher.
Were I living in CT and had a weak R candidate, I'd vote for Joe only in what one can bring to the state vs the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.