MA Sen. John "I was almost President before I wasn't" Kerry headed to Iowa to shore up early support for his expected 2008 Presidential bid.

Unfortunately for Kerry he was only able to round up enough senior citizens for a rousing game of Mahjong.

And the reason most of them look a little pissed off is that they didn't get the buffet lunch they were promised.

Posted by: Gary at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Honestly, if you were going to steal someone's identity, wouldn't you pick someone with a personality?

Posted by: Gary at 11:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Rep. John "Cut and Run" Murtha will be out stumping for 41 Congressional Democrats this fall!

Unfortunately, he's probably going to focus on districts where he'll be preaching to the choir. But if there are any swing districts on the list this is awesome news.

But some Democrats, particularly centrist lawmakers who support [Democratic Minority Whip Steny] Hoyer, question whether Murtha can be helpful in many races that their party needs to win if they are to capture control of the House.

“I’m sure Mr. Murtha is going to be traveling extensively, but I bet you he won’t be going to Blue Dog districts,” one lawmaker said, referring to members of the caucus of centrist Democrats from the South. “I can’t imagine that he will be very welcome in many Blue Dog districts.”

The lawmaker said that while Murtha has a centrist record on many issues, voters would be most aware of his strong position against the war, which could alienate swing voters in states Bush won. The lawmaker noted that Democrats need to capture districts in those so-called red states.

A centrist Democratic candidate who requested anonymity to protect his relationships with Murtha allies said he turned down an offer for Murtha to come to his district.

Many CT Democrats (the foaming-at-the-mouth, Bush-hating variety) will be thrilled, no doubt. But the rest of us (especially Independents) will say "Hey, isn't that the goofball who proposed a full troop withdrawal and then voted against his own proposal?"

The article in The Hill also speculates that he has another reason for being so high-profile:

Murtha may be calculating that he needs to do more to help candidates if he is to counter HoyerÂ’s prolific fundraising for Democrats over years. Hoyer has given $770,000 to Democratic candidates this election cycle, more than any other lawmaker, his aides say. He has also raised $2 million for candidates this cycle, they add.

If Democrats win the House in November, freshmen could determine who becomes majority leader. One Democratic candidate who said Murtha offered to come into his district said the senior Pennsylvanian is doing “spadework for his run to majority leader.”

“Why else would he be wanting to come into districts like mine?” the candidate said, noting that President Bush carried it by more than 10 points in 2000 and 2004.

Posted by: Gary at 09:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

"And we Democrats must remain united, and...ahem...Ifyay Ehay OsesLay, e'sHay Onyay IsHay Ownyay...et itGay?"

Posted by: Gary at 03:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

I had already known that Sen. Chris Dodd has endorsed Lieberman but the State's two Congressional Dems - Rep. John Larson (CT-1) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3) are also backing the incumbent Senator.

The nutroots will say "yeah, sure but wait until after Lamont wins the nomination, then they'll go with the party!".

Wishful thinking on their part.

The Dem leadership - Reid, Pelosi and their ilk - might. They have a lot to lose by pissing off the Left. But Dodd, DeLauro and Larson understand that - one way or another - Joe will be serving his fourth term starting next year. He may not be in their party anymore but they know who they're going to be working closely with for the next six years.

And Dodd, DeLauro and Larson don't have to worry about a backlash from the anti-war Left. Their seats will be safe - especially after Lieberman shows he can win without them.

Hat Tip: CT-CIA

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

In all the hullaballo with Joe Lieberman and the Democrats, there are some interesting historical parallels that many have overlooked. Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute (the polling organization in CT) looks back at the last time the anti-war faction of the Democrat party ate one of their own:

Connecticut Democrats have been down this road before. In 1970, anti-Vietnam War candidate Joseph Duffy knocked off incumbent Thomas Dodd, who had been a supporter of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson's policy. Dodd's son Chris Dodd is now Connecticut's other U.S. senator.

But the anti-war wing, although powerful within Democratic primaries, did not represent the political mainstream in 1970. Duffy lost the November election to Republican Lowell Weicker, who is backing Lamont against Lieberman, who defeated him in 1988.

Flash forward thirty-six years. Joe Lieberman is being driven off the Dem ticket by the Left for supporting the opposing party's President. The result will likely be a net loss of one Senate seat for the Dems. Lieberman, as an independent, has the capacity to be a "maverick" and a thorn in the Dems' side for the foreseeable future.

Thomas Dodd's son, Chris Dodd, is now CT's senior Senator. Lowell Weicker, who defeated Dodd now supports Lamont. And in both 1970 and 2006, the big loser as a result of the Left's actions is...the Democrat Party.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: Gary at 10:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Ned Lamont has actually pulled ahead of Lieberman for the Aug. 8 primary race (which is within the margin of error). While I am a bit surprised, it does seem like timing is everything. Lamont has been filling the TV and radio airwaves with ads and - among Democrats - they seem to be having the desired effect.

There are less than three weeks remaining until the primary and , unless Lamont is peaking too early, he very likely may end up with the nomination. This would push Lieberman into an Independent candidacy. While the nutroots are all a-twitter with the news, such a scenario doesn't help the Democrats in the Senate as Lieberman would certainly attract enough independents and Republicans to carry him to victory in November anyway. The only difference is that he wouldn't have a (D) after his name.

"The poll shows [Lieberman] leading a three way race with the support of 51 percent of likely voters, compared to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger."

Capt. Ed weighes in:

A Lieberman primary victory would be the best outcome for the Democrats; it would keep the state's party from fracturing in the general election. It doesn't look good for that result at the moment. Lamont may well top Lieberman in the first round, but an eventual Lieberman victory looks all but assured. That means that the national party leaders will have to be very careful in how they support Lamont, if they decide to do so at all. If they antagonize Lieberman enough, he may give Democrats a few more headaches in the next session of Congress.

John Hawkins makes this observation:

So, if Joe loses as a Democrat, but wins as an independent with lots of Republican and Independent support, what does that mean?

Well hopefully, it'll mean that the "Harry Truman Democrats" will realize that if they're serious about defending America, they're in the wrong party. Could it mean that some Jews, who vote Democrat 2 to 1, might get the message that they're in the wrong party? Sure. Could we see Joe Lieberman become a true centrist in the Senate in order to better represent his much more Republican and independent base? Sure.

And all the while, Kos and Company would be crowing about the huge "victory" they've won. It sounds like a real Pyrrhic victory to me.

Lieberman still has one big weapon left in his arsenal. According to his campaign, Bill Clinton will be coming to Connecticut to campaign for him and, these days, the former President is probably the most popular and influential Democrat alive. But time is running out.

Be careful what you wish for, guys...

Posted by: Gary at 11:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 4 kb.

And they're hoping to ride that misconception into a sweeping control change of Congress this November. Today's Democrats look at the 1994 GOP takeover as their benchmark and are betting that voters have had enough of Republican control. If that's all they've got, they better think again. Former Congressman George R. Nethercutt, Jr. explains:

[V]oter unrest does not by itself portend wholesale electoral change. Even disgruntled Americans are reluctant to "fire" incumbents if they think they're just trading in one pol for another, regardless of party. That's the lesson of 1994.

Led by Newt Gingrich, the GOP candidates that year responded to the disillusionment of voters with the refreshing and specific ideas of the Contract with America. They proved that voters are drawn to issues and genuine political leadership, even in the absence of complete ideological agreement. In my own case, the voters in my district seemed electrified by the positive promise of specific policy proposals related to issues they cared about--fiscal responsibility, ensuring the safety of our homes and streets and schools, securing family values, family-oriented tax policies, strong national defense and commonsense legal reforms. And this was not just a Republican phenomenon. The Contract spoke to a wide cross-section of all voters.

For their part, Nancy Pelosi's Democrats seem confident that they'll sweep into the majority this fall on a single concept: "We're not them." Even their highly anticipated "Take Back America" agenda was little more than a public relations ploy to repackage the same vague and boring platitudes their pollsters have been feeding them since George McGovern: "Putting People First," "Real Security," "Healthcare for All" or "An Economy That Works." Whatever happened to "Where's the Beef?"

As if conducted by a tone-deaf maestro, the Democrats unveiled this agenda against a public chorus of Bernie Sanders, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean--and Gary Hart. "Take Back America"? Two-thirds of Americans, if they paid any attention at all, probably turned to each other and asked, mystified, when did we ever govern America with them? And Ms. Pelosi is certainly no Newt Gingrich.

Now the party of "same old, same old" thinks that their mere absence has made the voter's hearts grow fonder. If they stick with their current strategy, they're probably in for a big disappointment come November 7.

Posted by: Gary at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

It'll no doubt spark some outrage among critics because of the use of the image of flag-draped coffins. Yes, it's in bad taste. But it's more notable that it's just stupid politics and may even create a backlash. All they're doing is reinforcing voters' image of Democrats as the party of "doom and gloom" on top of "cut and run". Let them run it, I say.

But beyond that small part of the ad, it's a perfect summary for what's wrong with their approach: Republicans are bad, why not vote for us? Rather than present a positive agenda to vote for, they continue to pound on the idea that you should put them in power to make a change for change's sake only. For a system that works as a pretty solid incumbency protection racket, that's utterly moronic.

Captian Ed's analysis is spot on:

"The commercial then takes us on a series of happy pictures interspersed with pictures of Rahm Emmanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer -- but says nothing about them. The DCCC just wants you to think that their mere presence makes women and children very, very happy. In fact, the DCCC advertisement has nothing at all about Democratic policy goals or voting records. The only voice the viewer hears is that of Bill Clinton, who actually gets the most face time of any other Democrat in the commercial -- because apparently nothing that Pelosi, Emmanuel, or Hoyer has to say will motivate people to vote Democratic.

As an advertisement, it's pathetic. It says nothing except We Hate Bush Even More Than We Did Two Years Ago. It also communicates that they haven't had an original thought since Bill Clinton's last election in 1996."

Wild Thing has an awesome graphic to go along with this story that's too good not to share:

h/t: Vilmar

Posted by: Gary at 09:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

At a conference in Aspen, the former President offered some "strategery" for his party.

On GOP Strategy:
“Let’s forget about global warming and talk about flag burning and gay marriage,” Clinton said. “I don’t know how long you can milk that old cow.”

He has a point on flag burning. Most voters see that as a purely political move. But as far as gay marriage, please...please...please talk about that. The vast majority of Americans don't have a problem with homosexuality in general - it's none of their business as far as they're concerned - but when it comes to gay marriage, Dems laugh this one off at their own peril. In particular, two of their own largest constituencies - union members and African-Americans - feel strongly against it.

Basically, bad advice.

On the other hand, Clinton was clear that his party's "cut and run" strategy is unwise, perhaps laying the groundwork for his wife's Presidential run:
“Once you break the eggs, you have the responsibility to make an omelet,” he said. “It’d be an error to say we’ll leave by X date.”

Well, I wouldn't put it that way, exactly. But he's right. To declare that troops would "leave by X date" would be utterly foolish. American voters - even those who think we should be out sooner than later - understand that.

Basically, good advice.

However, I have a funny feeling that Democrats this fall and beyond are more likely to accept the bad advice and ignore the good.

Why? Because that fits into their world-view and heaven forbid they should deviate from it. The nutroots wouldn't hear of it.

Posted by: Gary at 10:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

An aide for Hillary went off on a spokeswoman for Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid because she felt her boss was blindsided by a hastily arranged news conference on a demand for an increase in the minimum wage before a Congressional pay raise be approved.

According to a tip to Matt Drudge: "The Clinton aide, Laurie Rubiner, was overheard saying to Reid spokeswoman Rebecca Kirszner, “You suck” and “How could you do this?”.

Posted by: Gary at 12:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Didn't it seem a little odd that the Dixie Chicks' latest album would hit number one in its debut week when their overall sales have hit the skids? I mean, they are (or were) a country music group and country music fans have pretty much left them behind since they not only insulted the President on foreign soil in a time of war but have completely dissed their old fan base at every opportunity. Something didn't add up in my mind.

Lorie Byrd writes this morning what I had suspected about this as well as some advice for Democrat politicians:

"The new Chicks CD sold well the first couple of weeks, topping the charts. It is hard to imagine with the cover of Time Magazine, a 60 Minutes feature and an avalanche of favorable media, that the CD would not be a top seller. I recently heard Democratic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. say he went out and bought a copy the first week.

I suspect that many who never would have paid a dime to listen to the Dixie Chicks when they were a kitschy country band, went out and purchased a copy as a political statement.

Although sales the first week put the CD at the top of the charts, compared to the previous Dixie Chicks CD, sales were down considerably. Concert ticket sales in some venues have been so slow that some shows may even be cancelled.

The example of the Dixie ChicksÂ’ rejection by many country music fans is one that carries a lesson those marketing any product would do well to heed. It easily translates from musicians and fans to politicians and voters, too. When politicians treat voters as ignorant and backward for not accepting their position on an issue, the voters are likely to go elsewhere."

UPDATE: 11:15am
Then again, if Natalie Maines can't understand the NYC subway system, how can we expect this dim bulb to understand her fans?

h/t: HotAir.com

Posted by: Gary at 09:25 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Guess she can't read a subway map...nor can she ask directions. I rather doubt many New Yorkers would know her by sight, so she doesn't have to worry about being mobbed!

Posted by: Pam at June 23, 2006 08:56 PM (OdalM)

2 Odd? Not at all. Most people are only fooled once. After buying the Dixie Twits CD, they realized how awful the dixie twits sound musically...hence the slump in concert ticket sales. ----------------------------------- Didn't it seem a little odd that the Dixie Chicks' latest album would hit number one in its debut week when their overall sales have hit the skids?

Posted by: Skye at June 25, 2006 10:07 AM (bZ0mc)

3 Steve Johnson of Chicago Tribune said it's proof that far more people than you would think still can't handle the idea of a strong-minded woman. I say people can handle strong-minded women. It is the dumb ones who keep on talking people cannot handle.

Posted by: Tess at June 26, 2006 02:49 AM (ZSAtj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

No big surprise - the tally was 13-86.

Because the only word besides "fail" that's more appropriate to be read in the same sentence as the name John Kerry is "gigolo".

Posted by: Gary at 03:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Who is Diana Irey? She's running against Rep. John "Mad" Murtha for his Western PA Congressional seat - the 12th District. Here's her website.

Looks like Irey is not holding back:

"John Murtha – Wrong on National Defense. John Murtha actually voted to cut spending on our national security by $76 billion. Then, he voted in favor of instituting the draft! And, perhaps most stunning of all, John Murtha spoke out against the brave men and women who are defending our freedom by calling for an immediate withdrawl of our troops from Iraq."

Anyone who saw Murtha's appearance on "Meet The Shills Press" yesterday can see the man has lost his mind.

Diana Ivey for Congress!!! Because Benedict Arnold served his country too.

Posted by: Gary at 04:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It's nice to see that there's a website run by a doctor who can diagnose people based on watching them on TV. I always figured doctors were too busy to keep up a blog. I guess I was wrong.

Posted by: Cyril @ LameWebsite.com at July 11, 2006 04:49 AM (AbnQr)

2 I'm not a doctor (but I play one on TV). Oh, and I deleted you lame-ass website link. Don't use my site for stupid self-promotion under the guise of leaving an even stupider comment.

Posted by: Gary at July 11, 2006 07:51 AM (PLHs9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

At least that's the plan. And if that doesn't work, there's always plan B: go independent. Allahpundit lays out a fun scenario:

"The primaryÂ’s August 8th. The deadline for submitting the requisite 7,500 signatures for an independent run is 4 p.m. on August 9th. If heÂ’s going to play chicken with Lamont in the primary, he needs to raise the stakes and promise that he wonÂ’t start collecting signatures until the primaryÂ’s over. WouldnÂ’t it be awesome on August 9th to watch the army of Joementum canvassers see if they can beat the clock? You know the nutroots retards would send out teams of anti-canvassers to harass them, too. Imagine someone opening their door in Danbury to find two kids with a clipboard in Lieberman t-shirts and two idiots behind them in black bloc gear trying to shout them down with blood-for-oil slogans. Please, god, make it happen.

The next six to seven weeks should be fun.

Posted by: Gary at 03:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

The good old days for them, that is. I was just a little tike at the time but I was old enough to recall that 1974 was a horrible time for the nation. America had not yet reached rock-bottom (that was still to come in the form of the disasterous Carter Administration), but things were generally sucky.

For Democrats in Washington, however, these were the salad days of the party. You had Vietnam, Watergate, and a coming gathering of Congressional strength in the wake of these events. Michael Barone writes this morning about how Dems see 2006 through the prism of 1974. For them, Iraq is Vietnam, Fitzmas is Watergate and they are predicting a major shift in power come November.

Unfortunately for them, it's not quite turning out that way. The CA-50 special election was not a harbinger of a Dem takeover in the works, Iraq is a mission that is succeeding more every day (especially now that the Z-man has been terminated) and Fitzmas just flopped worse than they could ever imagine. All in all, a pretty lousy week for the Donks.

Barone observes:

"Historians may regard it as a curious thing that the left and the press have been so determined to fit current events into templates based on events that occurred 30 to 40 years ago. The people who effectively framed the issues raised by Vietnam and Watergate did something like the opposite; they insisted that Vietnam was not a reprise of World War II or Korea and that Watergate was something different from the operations J. Edgar Hoover conducted for Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Journalists in the 1940s, '50s and early '60s tended to believe they had a duty to buttress Americans' faith in their leaders and their government. Journalists since Vietnam and Watergate have tended to believe that they have a duty to undermine such faith, especially when the wrong party is in office."

Naahh.

Posted by: Gary at 11:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

What's the best way to embarrass Senate Democrats on the war and get them in hot water with their base? Have them vote on a "cut and run" proposal. We've been down this road before and a lot of Dems will call it a cheap stunt, but frankly they're asking for it.

Sen. John F. Kerry (who, BTW, served in Vietnam - just in case you hadn't heard) has been kicking around a proposal to call for complete withdrawal from Iraq by the end of the year, a proposal similiar to the one Rep. John Murtha has made in the house. Kerry, who is obviously playing to the moonbats, would have the U.S. leave the new Iraqi government in the lurch just as they're getting on their feet and telegraph to our enemies, our allies and the rest of the world that our word is meaningless and we're quick to abandon our friends when the pressure from a vocal minority becomes too much to handle. Did I mention that Kerry served in Vietnam? Right before he betrayed his band of brothers on national television by pushing lies about our troops. And Senate Democrats are happy to let Kerry make his anti-war noise. That is, as long as they don't have to put their money where their mouth is.

"Oh shit! They're calling for our votes!"

So once again, the GOP called their bluff. Sen. Mitch McConnell introduced the measure for a vote and it crashed and burned 93 to 6. Democrats did what they do best. The retreated. Six Senate Dems (a who's-who of Lefty stalwarts that included Russ Feingold, Teddy Kennedy and Tom Harkin) stood firm, only to be left behind in the stampede by their 38 other colleagues.

Mark Coffey has the money quote this morning about this sham:

"A lack of guts, pure and simple; if you believe it, vote it, don’t weasel out by accusing the Republicans of calling you ‘unpatriotic’.."

UPDATE: 11:30am
The House just passed it's own resolution affirming the U.S. should not pull out.

Heh.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

The "strategery" of the Kos-sack crowd is becoming clearer with regard to this year's challenge to CT Sen. Joe Lieberman. Normally, when you have a race for political office, you're goal is to win. For the Left, who are fighting to assert their control and influence in the upper echelons of the party apparatus, their goal is twofold: drive Sen. Lieberman from the party (as an example to those that they deem "off the reservation") and force the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to commit its support to Ned Lamont should he win the party's nomination in the August 8th primary.

With Lamont's increased poll numbers, Lieberman has a decision to make as to whether or not he should officially bolt the party and put his name on the ballot as an "independent". Lieberman would have to submit a petition signed by registered voters on August 9th (the day after the primary) to qualify as an independent candidate for November. Clearly, he couldn't wait until then, so he'd have to make that decision over the next seven weeks (preferably sooner rather than later). The Left is already pressuring Lieberman to make his move and if he chooses the independent route, he will likely alienate a number of Democrats who feel he is "bolting" his party.

The truth, however, is that he is being forced in this direction. Were Lieberman to run as an independent, the Democrats would certainly lose a Senate seat. Lieberman is so popular among CT voters overall that he is projected to win easily against Lamont and Alan Schlesinger, the Republican. And as an independent, he would no longer have any reason to associate with his former party. Surely, he could wield more power and influence by allying himself with the GOP.

So where is the logic in this course of action?

Ah, there is the rub. This puts the DSCC in an awkward position. Sen. Chuckie Schumer, the Committee's Chairman, has already publicly backed Lieberman in the race. But they back him as a Democrat. What if he becomes an independent?

"In order to financially support an indie Lieberman, does the DSCC need to have the CT Dem Party officially endorse Lieberman's indie run? Can the state party do that if Ned Lamont wins the Dem primary? Of course, the DSCC could simply sit out, something they regularly do in senate races where they don't believe party outcome is in jeopardy."

Either way, the GOP benefits from a weakened, divided Democrat party. So the Left is willing to pull a "D" out of the Senate count just to make a point. They go after a guy who reliably votes with his party 90% of the time but supports the GWOT - not for political gain, but because he genuinely supports it on principle. Now, they'll essentially push him into an alliance with the opposition.

Hey, whatever floats their boat.

Posted by: Gary at 10:40 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 588 words, total size 4 kb.

Michael Barone writes this morning about the appalling comments from Reps. Pete Stark, "Baghdad" Jim McDermott and others about the news of al-Zarqawi's elimination and how it's directly related to why Democrats keep losing.

"Nevertheless the Stark-McDermott-Kucinich reaction, echoed and amplified, often scatologically, by dozens of commenters on the popular dailykos.com and myDD.com left-wing Websites, tells us something disturbing about the Democratic Party -- and provides a clue why Democrats were unable to eke out a win in last week's special congressional election in the 50th congressional district of California.

It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some considerable success, seeking there -- a democratic government, with guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women -- and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.

Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians is ignored."

But don't you dare question their patriotism.

Posted by: Gary at 11:10 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

1 But.But.But.....the left supports the troops, right????? They disgust me more everyday.

Posted by: Jenn at June 12, 2006 01:58 PM (QD9ey)

2 As the Republican candidate opposing McDermott in the November elections, I offer my contrasting view on the death of Al-Zarqawi. - Steve Beren BEREN ON DEATH OF ZARQAWI Beren for Congress www.berenforcongress.com Statement by Steve Beren, candidate for U.S. Congress (Washington-7th CD), June 8, 2006: The death of Al-Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, is good news. It is a severe setback for the terrorists, who seek to destroy the emerging Iraqi democracy. It is testimony to the capabilities of our military, and to the determination of our fighting troops. And it is a source of rejoicing for the Iraq people, who have suffered greatly at the hands of Al-Zarqawi. In October 2002, there was bipartisan agreement on spreading democracy and regime change. The congressional resolution authorizing military action stated: "it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Saddam is captured and on trial, and his regime is gone. And today, along with the death of Al-Zarqawi, comes the news that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has completed formation of his cabinet, filling the positions of interior minister, defense minister, and head of national security. Those who say "we can't win militarily in Iraq" are wrong. We and our allies, the Iraqi people, will win. Democracy will succeed in Iraq. We should remain firm in the war against terrorism, spreading democracy in the Middle East and striking terrorism at its roots.

Posted by: Steve Beren at June 12, 2006 05:57 PM (fcr5m)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Whenever I read about Al Gore's latest shenanigans, I'm reminded of that scene in the movie "Scrooged" where Bill Murray unveils his trailer for the network's Christmas special. It's designed to scare people into watching it, ending with the tagline: "Your life just might depend on it!"

Gore gave a speech in the UK this weekend where he referred to global warming as the impending "planetary emergency". Declaring to the audience that he was devoting himself to thwarting this threat, Gore assured them that the world was facing "a danger that could bring the end of civilization".

This is why I desperately want Al Gore to run for President in 2008. He really, truly believes that flogging the phantom scare of global warming trumps fighting terrorism as the country's number one priority. And he believes it with all the fervor of a televangelist. The vast majority of voters understand that the enemy we are fighting is the real, tangible danger that could bring the end of civilization - our civilization. When he's up on stage all alone he looks and sounds to the Left like a sage of our time. But standing next to a candidate who is serious about fighting the GWOT, he's a joke.

Will Al run? He certainly seems to be laying the groundwork. Rich Lowry at NRO Online's The Corner puts it this way:

"He is one of those people who wants to be president, but doesn't really want to run for it. So he wants the party to come to him. In keeping with this desire, the movie is a painless way to advance his political ambitions: if the buzz around it doesn't increase his standing in the polls, he can say, “Hey, what's the big deal, it was only a movie about an issue I care about, and never had a political purpose”; if, however, it does create some sustained political momentum, he can capitalize on it if he wants. Apparently he is telling the people closest to him what he is saying in public, that he isn't interested in running. People are all over the map, though, on whether he will ultimately run or not. The conventional wisdom seems to be correct: that he will only do it if he sees a clear path to victory."

Posted by: Gary at 10:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.