August 09, 2006
The Left-roots that have begun to assert greater control over the party's direction now think they have Republicans right where they want them. They're flexing their muscles this morning as they pursue a path that the GOP should be thanking its lucky stars over. John McIntyre at RealClearPolitics explains:
Anti-war Democrats and much of the mainstream media continue to confuse anti-war with anti-lose. The incessant commentary that 2/3rd of the country is against the war completely misreads the American public, as much of the negativity towards the war isn't because we are fighting, but rather a growing feeling that we are not fighting to win or not fighting smart.A couple of months ago, I guesstimated that this fall the Republicans - while maintaining control of Congress - would probably lose a handful of Congressional seats and incur a net loss of as many as three Senate seats. After the events of last evening, I'm starting to revise those estimations.
Democrats went down this road in the late 1960's with Vietnam and they are still carrying the baggage from that leftward turn. Lamont's win is a big step back to that losing formula. During the height of the "progressive" revolt against the war in Vietnam, Americans voted 57% for Nixon and Wallace in 1968, followed by a whopping 60% for Nixon in 1972 against the avowededly anti-war McGovern.
These Democratic wipeouts in '68 and '72 occurred while tens of thousands of Americans were dying in Southeast Asia. Today, as much as our media and the left want to make Iraq a Vietnam-like quagmire, casualties are running at a tenth of what they were in Vietnam. The other big difference from Vietnam is 9/11. America was attacked 5 years ago, something many on the left seem to forget, but the voters have not. The comments that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 are irrelevant as Americans understand, rightly or wrongly, that we are in Iraq because of what happened on September 11. Only conspiracy-minded leftists believe otherwise. Just ask yourself if the U.S. would have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened.
The "Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home" chant may win congressional districts in San Francisco and Seattle as well as Democratic primaries in solidly blue states, but it is not a serious policy. Just what does "Bring Them Home" really mean? Bring them home and Ahmadinejad suddenly gives up his pursuit of nukes, Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah domesticate and forego terror? Leftists, pacifists and Pat Buchanan isolationists may be that naÃƒÂ¯ve, but the majority of Americans are not.
The civilized world is at a very dangerous moment. There is no question that the Bush administration has made a bucket load of mistakes in fighting this war, but they (and thus America) are fighting. Bring them home is the equivalent of "we quit, we give up." Americans aren't quitters and the majority of Connecticut's citizens aren't quitters, as Lieberman's likely win in November will prove.
If the focus of this election hinges on national security, than the House is likely to maintain its status quo and the GOP could be on their way to a bullet-proof majority in the Senate.
The new party allows him to secure a position higher on the ballot than he would have if he petitioned as an individual. If enough signatures are approved, as expected, it set up a three-way race with Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, who won the Democratic primary with about 52 percent of the vote to Lieberman's 48 percent, and Republican Alan Schlesinger.Here we go.
He will be fifth on the ballot under the new party, rather than eighth or ninth.
The confetti hasn't even been swept up at Lamont's campaign headquarters yet and the GOP has already turned up the heat. This theme is not aimed at Republicans. No Republican believes for a minute that Democrats can be trusted with national security. No, this campaign will be aimed at Democrat-leaning independents and the "Lieberman Democrats" who are dismayed at the direction their party has taken.
The folks at the RNC haven't been sitting idly by wondering what would happen last night. They knew. They could feel it coming. And they're prepared. This election isn't going to be a referendum on President Bush. He's not on the ballot. He never will be again.
It will be a referendum on the state of the Democrat party. Leftist Democrats won't flinch. They'll wear it as a badge of honor. Playing right into the strategy.
August 08, 2006
I wouldn't give a squirt of piss to be a Democrat Presidential aspirant now. They have some hard choices to make. The line has been drawn. Well, Sen. Clinton? What say you? How about you Sen. Biden? Gov. Richardson? Umm, How about you Sen. Kerry? Oh never mind.
The DNC was hoping for a close Lieberman victory. They got a close Lamont victory. And Senator Lieberman will now go the independent route. What choice does he have? Retire after having been pushed aside? He wasn't welcome as a Senator. Do think he'd be any more welcome in that party as a private citizen, even if he were to back Lamont? Fat chance.
The Left finally has their pound of flesh. And they'll feast on it for the next three months. They'll get confident, even cocky. And in the end, they'll overplay their hands (as they always do) and drag their party over the cliff.
And when all is said and done, Lieberman will still be a U.S. Senator from CT and the Democrats will have blown an opportunity to keep a safe seat in the (D) column.
Had Lieberman won, it would only have prolonged the inevitable. The inevitable is now here. And the speed at which we are witnessing the disintegration of a once great party has just slammed into fourth gear. How this plays out will be both sad and entertaining.
So, Joe. From one ex-donkey to another, allow me to say "welcome aboard".
A valid point, indeed.
Lamont supporters, of course, are screaming that it's a Rovian-esque deception on Lieberman's part. But, honestly, is there anyone who can deny that the Nedheads aren't capable of this themselves?
Whatever. Just another goofy part of this whole election.
All look to the CT Democrat Primary race. Lieberman remains defiant:
Screw you, moonbats! Democrat or Independent, I'm holding this seat!
Graphic shamelessly filched from Wuzzadem!
One Sunday morning on C-Span I debated Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel on the Lieberman versus Lamont race. Afterwards I received a series of emails--many of them in ALL CAPS (which often suggests the hyper-frenetic state of these extremist haters)--that were of the same stripe as the blog posts, and filled with the same level of personal hate.It never ceases to amaze me how so many of these people aren't able to understand how insane they sound to the rest of the country. Their "passion" has become a mania - one that desperately cries out for some psychological consultation.
But the issue is not just emotional outbursts by these usually anonymous bloggers. A friend of mine just returned from Connecticut, where he had spoken on several occasions on behalf of Joe Lieberman. He happens to be a liberal antiwar Democrat, just as I am. He is also a lawyer. He told me that within a day of a Lamont event--where he asked the candidate some critical questions--some of his clients were blitzed with emails attacking him and threatening boycotts of their products if they did not drop him as their attorney. He has actually decided not to return to Connecticut for the primary today; he is fearful for his physical safety.
I do not blame Joe Lieberman's political difficulties on the liberal blogosphere. Most Connecticut Democrats voting for Mr. Lamont are genuinely outraged at President Bush for his Iraq War policies. They are entitled to express that outrage by voting for him and against Sen. Lieberman on that basis alone, although Sen. Lieberman's record as a progressive Democrat and his opposition to President Bush not only on most domestic issues but also on the conduct of the war cannot be disputed--despite egregiously distortive ads paid for by Mr. Lamont with $4 million of his own money.
Moreover, the support he gets from these haters should not be attributed to Mr. Lamont--nor should he be blamed for their extremism, bigotry and intolerance. But he ought to denounce them. He hasn't as yet.
Lamont has been silent about his blogosphere buddies leading up to primary day. And he will probably not be hurt today in the vote count because of it. But when we head into the general election, with Lieberman as an independent, he's going to have to answer for their conduct. He can't dodge it for three solid months. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
I wanted to mention that I'm offended by Davis' puerile use of a tired, old - and unfounded - stereotype of Conservatives as intolerant and hateful to make his point. Each side has it's embarrassing wingnuts, but intolerance has become fashionably mainstream for Liberals these days.
August 07, 2006
The problem with primary polls is that it's so difficult to pin down likely voters or predict turnout. How many people in CT even know tomorrow is a primary day? Hard to guess.
But considering the trend, my guess is that a little more than half of the registered Democrats in CT who turn out will be pulling the lever for Lamont. So where does this leave the other (slightly less than half) who still support Joe Lieberman?
Very likely, they will still have a chance to vote for him in November because - barring some unforeseen circumstances - it's looking like Lieberman will appear on the ballot under the party "Connecticut For Lieberman". Joe will go independent. Some Democrats complain that if he can't run as a Democrat that he shouldn't run. Well, others would argue that if they don't live in CT, many of Lamont's supporters around the country shouldn't be spending so much time and money on a race that doesn't directly affect their representation.
All's fair in love and politics.
At this point, I will only make one prediction. If Lamont prevails, it could well be the catalyst for a significant number of registered Democrats to finally decide that they've had enough.
Accoring to CNN's exit polling, in 2004 the party affiliation in CT was:
Two years from now, expect that number for "Independent" to be higher, chiefly at the expense of the "Democrat" number. CT is a pretty "Blue" State and a vast majority would probably poll as being "against" our presence in Iraq. But only a portion of those voters feel so strongly on that issue - and are so consumed with Bush-hatred - that they would turn out an otherwise Liberal-voting incumbent Senator who has demonstrated the level of integrity that Joe Lieberman has over the last 18 years.
If after tomorrow, Senator Lieberman is kicked out of his party than I expect there will be a number of party members who will join the ranks of the ex-donkeys.
Don't be surprised to be reading new blogs a year or two from now identifying this primary election as their "moment of clarity" when they decided that they no longer felt comfortable belonging to a party that says "agree with us or get out".
AJ Strata weighes in:
The Democrats, it seems, are preparing to go down into the history books as the party that could not cope with changing times. It will end through a series of angry outbursts and dreams of impeaching President Bush as the answer to all of the worldÂ’s problems - including Islamo Fascism. The far leftÂ’s tunnel vision has warped their sense of reality to the point that even listening in on the plans of those who want to kill as many Americans in order to stop their efforts as possible is considered illegal. When you are that far gone all you do is build walls between yourself and reality.
Jed Babbin at The American Spectator:
The effect of a Lieberman purge should reverberate throughout America. A political party that cannot tolerate dissent, that cannot accept as legitimate any position that doesn't hew to the leftmost fringe, cannot last unless its opponents fail to take advantage of its fundamental weakness. If the kiss on the cheek Lieberman got from the president proves to be the coup fatal, it could be one that produces a veto-proof Republican Senate.
August 06, 2006
Head on over to RightThoughts and see the video of Mr. Lamont chatting it up with Jane "Rape Gurny Joe" Hamsher.
Is it me or could Greg Kinnear play Lamont in the movie?
BTW, the wife and I signed Joe Lieberman's petition this weekend. I asked the volunteer how it was going with the signatures. He said they were right on schedule. They even expected to finish up a day early.
Should be an interesting couple of days.
August 03, 2006
- The name of the Jon Cryer-looking dude sitting next to him on his couch in his first internet ad. That was Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Ned. You know, King of the Nutroots?
- His campaign has it's own blog: Ned Lamont Official Campaign Blog
- firedoglake (Jane Hamsher's site) is listed in the blogroll of said campaign blog
Michelle Malkin has all the details.
I gotta go make myself some popcorn. This is just too good.
Lamont's campaign manager Tom Swan condemned this, calling it very offensive and said he requested that it be removed. He also said that while blogger Jane Hamsher is a supporter, she is not on the campaign pay-roll.Oh, and I suppose that Ned Lamont hasn't even heard of Hamsher, right? Bullshit. According to this Hartford Courant piece, Lamont and Hamsher have been pretty chummy lately. The producer of such cinematic "gems" as "Natural Born Killers" even went to far as to help Lamont on one of his latest campaign commericals. No, both Lamont and his staff are quite familiar with Hamsher and have been only too happy to accept her cyber-support.
But, hey, she's "not on the campaign pay-roll", right? She's just a hired thug who doesn't get paid but has a huge stake in the candidate's success. Where is Ned Lamont? No statement? No public condemnation, repudiation or even a lousy "I don't approve of that sort of thing"? He's most likely hunkered down with his strategy people trying to figure out how to distance himself from Hamsher while at the same time deriving the benefit of her frothing-at-the-mouth support.
Hamsher offered a sorta-kinda apology that sounds more like an anti-Lieberman rant - trying to direct blame over to those mean old "rightwing Republicans". Yeah, it's their fault.
When you play with fire, Ned, you're going to get burned. Right now, the multi-zillionaire businessman-turned candidate is finding out the hard way who is using whom. Captain Ed echoes what I've been thinking during this whole "get Lieberman" campaign:
It really is difficult to understand what a mainstream Democratic politician has done to inspire such hatred and vitriol. In fact, it's becoming more and more obvious that Lieberman hasn't done anything to inspire it, but just that the haters on the Left have set their sights on Lieberman this cycle. They will do and say anything to destroy him, and this is about as low as it could get. Lieberman doesn't deserve this kind of treatment after his years of honorable public service. He's not my favorite by any means, but that doesn't mean he should have to suffer this kind of despicable treatment at the hands of his own party.And The Moose says that since Lamont is a creation of the nutroots, it is by his association with them that he should be judged.
This incident should be instructive to the national Democratic Party. Enough of the pandering and the capitulating to the nutroots. The embrace of the left blogosphere will come back to haunt the party.Am I "piling on"? You bet your ass I am. If something this disgusting had been posted by a high-profile blogging supporter of a Republican candidate, then this would be THE number one story for the next month. So as a proud card-carrying member of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" it's my duty to go after 'em with both barrels!
Count on it.
Eric Lindholm calls this another "Wellstone Moment". That is, "when the Left casts off all sense of propriety and decorum to revel in their own self-regard".
111 queries taking 0.0607 seconds, 237 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.