Posted on 12/28/2005 9:20:44 PM PST by smoothsailing
bump!
I don't know much about the author. He sounds like a democrat mourning the death of sanity in his own party. Am I right?
If that second to last veep of FDR's, Wallace, had ever taken office, this could easily be a communist country today.
He's right about Lieberman; I wouldn't vote for him, but he's an honest, well-meaning opponent, instead of the harridans, kooks and Clintons that have overrun the Left like a malignant tumor.
OK, He's a conservative mourning the loss of sanity in the democratic party. Am I right now?
If he ever was a Democrat, it was probably back around the time Ronald Reagan was one.
To quote Euripides: "Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad."
That way at least,assuming that the Republican nominee was also strong on national defense,regardless of who won, America's security would be safe.
LOL
I don't really think that this guy is "mourning" any of the dims' self-imposed problems. Rather, I believe that he revels in them. He celebrates the idiocity of the opposition "leadership".
I don't know either, but this former Democrat does miss the sanity. I couldn't remain there. The Democrat party has been completely taken over by socialist idiot cry-babies. I am appalled, really. Democrat presidents of late seem to be interested only in thier popularity, their legacy, or their own lust for power. Just take Truman and FDR for example. Whether you agreed with them or not, do you think FDR would have made certain technologies available to communist China to help them "compete" on the world stage for some contributions to his campaign fund? Do you think Truman would have given up a canal which was in our control (and vital to our security) to communists? Which of them would have said that Castro is a nice guy, and that the U.S. is just a bully? Would FDR have allowed American citizens to be held hostage in Iran for A YEAR? Which of them would have allowed this nation to be attacked over and over again without hitting back hard? Most Democrats were patriots, and most of those have either left the Democrat party or passed on to a better world. There are some die hards who hang on in confusion because they are too stubborn to admit the party has gone terribly wrong. Then there are those of us who saw we had to now fight against that once good and decent party. I do mourn the death of sanity in the Democrat party. At least when it came to national defense, when the nation was under attack as it is now, the 2 parties could work together for the good of the country. Those days are gone.
bttt
Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is a mainstay of the Republican party and conservatives. He is hardly a Democrat but I can certainly understand the need to mourn because I know exactly what he is talking about as we most do. The core leadership of the current Democratic party are leading the party like a group of crazed villagers rather than a political party that once dominated American politics. The Democratic party as it is today is positioned for more losses in 2006 and when they do lose yet again they will write homilies about how they just aren't getting their message out and then craft ways to convince (deceive) the public into voting for them.
Tyrrell is also right about the lack of civility in political discourse. It has become more and more difficult to have a reasoned conversation with any Democrat let alone one who is a "true believer". It is especially difficult when so many Democrats have become so traitorous in their rhetoric. So few are the Liebermans and the Hitchens, who though without a doubt are liberals, are not confused as to where the true enemies of Democracy and freedom lie. It is hard to fathom how a party that claims to hold as a central value the standing up for liberty and the little people (maybe they really mean leprechauns?) can so quickly alley themselves in defense of dictators and tyrants. This contradiction alone is what will doom them and rightfully doomed they should be.
I think the Loony Left in the Democrat Party is there for a purpose, a purpose in addition to their leftist ambitions. I think Howard Dean and the Democrat leadership in Congress are just foils for Hillary. They are the left wing fringe who allow her to triangulate with what she calls, and mischaracterises, as the ring wing fringe, the Christians. It is all part of her political plan to dupe the "moderates" into thinking she is in the middle of the political spectrum.
Check the link under the story's heading, passionfruit.
Robert Emmett Tyrell is the editor of and constant contributor to "The American Spectator" magazine.
A staunchly conservative publication that takes great pleasure in exposing and lampooning Democrats, Liberals and Lower Tier MoonBats.
He is also the director of The Media Research Center. Which also enjoys skewering the Media and their celebs, stories and topics du jour.
Jack.
"I don't know much about the author. He sounds like a democrat mourning the death of sanity in his own party. Am I right?"
Naw, Emmet is to the right of Buckley, his protoge in a sense until American Spectator got creamed by lawsuits.
[The Democrats do have an alternative]
Yes they do, it is for their cold rusted tickers to stop since their cerebral matter has calcified and no longer salvagable.
I disagree. Lieberman is an opportunist. The so called "conscience of the Senate" doesn't take a firm stand on anything. He was against Hollywood, until he was Gore's running mate, he turned on a dime. He is for the Iraq war but the abuse he took made him vote against the Patriot Act and appear on tv in full Democrat mode. I wouldn't trust him at all.
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.