Posted on 08/10/2006 9:06:49 AM PDT by colrpfournier
Reasonable Democrats including the few that remain here in Washington have to be afraid right now. Very afraid.
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.
The Lamont victory over a former vice presidential candidate of the party means one thing and one thing only. The wealthy but crazed inhabitants of the left wing fever swamps are taking over a party that has been trying to reidentify with the voters that allowed it to dominate American politics for most of the last century. The purge that began with the McGovernite seizure of the party in the early seventies has been reinvigorated.
Ned Lamont is a nobody with money who became the tool of the MoveOn.org crowd and has managed to demonstrate to the world that there is no room in the Democratic Party for candidates or office holders who disagree with the far left belief that our country is the source of all evil in the world.
Joe Lieberman may follow through on his threat to run as an independent, but if he does the Lamont victory means very few of his former Democratic friends will rush to his aid. They know now that bucking the crazies in their ranks can mean the end of their careers and few will risk that.
The boys and girls who lionized Che, Mao and Fidel in the 60s and 70s have grown up and are now championing suicide bombers and telling us that the rulers of nations like Iran and North Korea are really just misunderstood. Their own country appalls them and they are convinced that if it weren’t for the United States, the world would be a far safer and more pleasant place.
They are riding the public frustration with the progress of the war in Iraq today as they exploited frustration over Vietnam in an earlier era. The questions of whether we should have drawn the line in Vietnam in the 70s or whether Iraq is the right place for us to be taking on the Islamo-fascists today are legitimate, but in their view we should never draw lines, never fight and never antagonize our enemies by opposing their often outrageous ambitions.
Many conservatives as well as liberals have questions about the way in which the Bush Administration has conducted the war in Iraq, but share the view that the enemy we are fighting is, in fact, our enemy. It is this that the Lamonts of the world reject. In their view if there is an enemy, it is us.
My daughter is currently serving in Iraq and as part of her responsibilities reads much of the propaganda disseminated there by our enemies. She noted in a recent letter that several pieces urging the killing of more Americans quote Senator John Kerry to the effect that as more Americans die, US domestic pressure to get out will increase. While Kerry didn’t mean to make the case for killing his fellow countrymen, those of us who lived through Vietnam can remember when American leftists literally cheered the rising casualty count in that war and wonder how long it might be before the sound of cheering will be heard emanating from the offices of groups like MoveOn.org or, indeed, from the offices of Ned Lamont.
Lamont’s victory will make it difficult for any Democrat to take anything approaching a reasonable position on foreign policy questions. Even before the votes were cast, for example, Representative John Dingell a usually hard headed if partisan senior Democrat in the House offered up the opinion that he wasn’t prepared to say that Hezbollah should be considered an enemy. There are legitimate questions as to how to deal with these thugs, but no one should have trouble recognizing the simple fact that they are, in fact, thugs.
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.
I wonder what the lib pundits and MSM would say if Lieberman won and anti-war Democrats lost.
Very interesting.
One extreme-left socialist organization, comprised of DemocRATs is the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Members of this group include such leftists as: Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, founder, Bernie Sanders, Jan Schakowsky, John Conyers, Maurice Hinchey, George Miller, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Bob Filner, Diane DeGette, Alcee Hastings, John Lewis, Patsy Mink, Jesse Jackson Jr. III, John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler, Jamor Owens, Charles Rangel, Dennis Kucinch, Sherrod Brown, Peter DeFazio, Robert C. Scott, James McDermitt, and Barney Frank, to name a few.
The most socialistic (“Communistic”) of our politicians are a band of rabid anti-American socialists: Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Fienstein, Frank Lautenburg, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid and others, all Democrats. The Communist Party of the USA and the Chinese Communist Party “endorsed” John Kerry in the last election.
No, I don't think Joe is a moderate, he's a straight down the line liberal, tax and spend guy. But he's not anti-American and he certainly undertands the consequenses if we surrender in the WOT. He also understands that Iraq is part of the WOT. So given the choice of that or the limp wristed surrender monkey Lamont I guess I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Joe.
I agree with you.
Israel's fight for survival and the uncovering of more terrorist plots might cause voters to realize that Dems like Lamont are throwing away our children's future.
That it was a moral victory to even make him put up money to fight them off.
Terri Schiavo's Brother Thanks Lieberman as Michael Campaigns for Lamont
In a 2003 interview with AP, Lieberman said he supported a decision in favor of life in cases where a patient is incapacitated and has not made known their desires about lifesaving medical treatment."I believe that certainly in cases where there is not a living will ... I feel very strongly that we ought to honor life and we ought not to create a system where people are being deprived of nutrition or hydration in a way that ends their lives,” Lieberman said.
... Schindler said he sought Lieberman's help when legislation was pending in the Senate to support Terri.
Saying Lieberman and other lawmakers were "trying to do the right thing," Schindler told the Hartford paper, "That's all the government said -- give her a federal review, like the people on death row. The government's role is to protect innocent life."
At least Joe thinks a woman should really have her day in court before her husband gets to starve her to death.
That opening line says it all!
Democrats will not fight for freedom, protect the country or even acknowledge the War on Terror. (which reared it's ugly head again this morning). I truly thought people in CT were smarter than this - most work in New York City, many lost on 9/11. Lamont's back ground needs further exploration, who actually backed the 'new comer' and what they expected to get or do they really want to cut and run. There is more here than meets the eye or the reporting. The exponential fall out from these voters is clear; they will appease any who want to hurt America or any other country. Is this a thinly veiled anti-Jewish sentiment or are other factors at work here - all CT schools, colleges, professors, ministers must be looked into....Connecticut, Liberalism is thy name - you have caved in to the enemy. G-d help the children in those schools....................
Ah...yes...I see your point.
Lieberman doesn't have the required deep pocket$ to go the distance with Lamont.
I see him getting out mid-September.
Maybe the Joisey Ghouls exerted some influence on their cousins in Connecticut.
Or...Maybe some ACLU bigwigs live in Connecticut.
If he runs, Liberman will have the support of a lot of people who don't want their children to be raised as Muslims or slaves of Muslims.
Huh?
Does he need to campaign so extensively in that he is better known than Lamont anyway? For many voters, it's all about name ID.
If a non-RINO Repub can't get in, I'd rather have Lieberman.
I'd rather have Lieberman than a RINO.
Like I said, he's a decent guy.
I didn't know that about Schiavo.
Michael Schiavo is pretty near one of the lowest creatures around in my book.
It may not be too late, given CT's election law, for the loser/gambler GOP candidate to step aside and let the party fill the vacancy with a real credible GOP candidate. then, Fi Lieberman and the other kook get 33% of the vote each the GOP candidate only needs 34% to take the election and the senate seat. Is there "runoffs" in CT?
Not too many people know that Michael Schiavo hates the fact that Lieberman thought Terri deserved something better than starvation.
The Democratic Party will be dead until something like a "Christian Democratic Party" rises from its ashes.
Of note, of course, is that the Constitution guarantees citizens of each state a REPUBLICAN form of government. A pure democracy is an extreme danger, as any thoughtful person would quickly see.
That's one reason why democrats are so enamored of polls.
He won't have the DNC election machine that gets out the vote on election day, which means he has to start from scratch and that costs a lot of bucks.
And you know that the Move On and DNC folks are going to be throwing a lot of crap his way that he has to counter.
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.