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.
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.