October 20, 2006
Things are looking grim for the "Freshmaker". Remember the remix of this ad?
It's even funnier to watch now. Heh.
All the Lefty bloggers were trying to convince themselves that Republican Alan Schlesinger wiped the floor with Lieberman in Monday's debate. Apparently, it mattered very little to Lieberman's supporters. In fact, he hurt Lamont more:
While 35 percent of Connecticut voters watched Monday's candidate debate, another 35 percent said they heard or read about the debate. Of those who watched the debate or read or heard about it, only 3 percent say they changed their mind about whom they would vote for as a result of the debate.So, what are you guys going to try next? Reverse psychology? "Don't vote for Ned. He's too good for CT"?
Ned Lamont needed to score a knockout in the debates to catch Sen. Joseph Lieberman, but he apparently didn't lay a glove on him," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D.
"Lamont's negatives are up and he has fallen farther behind in the matchup against Lieberman because of his drop among independent voters and men.
"Observers had speculated that Alan Schlesinger would benefit from the debate exposure and take Republican votes away from Lieberman," Dr. Schwartz added. "Instead, he took Republican votes away from Lamont."
October 18, 2006
Now, honestly, I don't know if he has information to bolster this confidence or if he's just bluffing.
But neither does the Left. And their reaction to this should be amusing as they're so obsessed with him.
Martin Lewis at the HuffPo warns Dems to take this seriously, quoting "The Untouchables".
Thanks to LittleMissChatterbox for the heads-up.
October 12, 2006
Democrats here are convinced that Mr. Lieberman stands a good chance of returning to the Senate as an independent, and many have reassured him that he will not be stripped of his seniority if he wins, according to people in several Senate offices, who were granted anonymity to speak of the sensitive situation amid an intense political climate.Lamont's campaign isn't winning over the majority of Connecticut voters. Why would it? He's a single-issue candidate with no experience and no grasp of the issues. I got a mailer from his campaign just yesterday and it was nothing but Joe-bashing. That may have worked among the anti-war Democrats but it ain't gonna fly with the rest of the State.
Meanwhile, Mr. Lamont, the Democratic nominee, failed to pick up significant momentum early on and has not maintained the level of national excitement that his long-shot candidacy first drew when he roared to victory in the August primary. He pumped another $2 million into his campaign on Tuesday, bringing his total personal contribution to $6 million since the primary, and $10 million over all. And a new poll released on Wednesday showed Mr. Lamont behind by eight points.
Polls have showed Lieberman anywhere from 2 to 20 points ahead of Lamont but they all have had one thing in common since the primary: Lamont hasn't led in a single one and it's looking very much like he peaked in early August. The nominee's fellow Democrats are privately saying that he's done but won't dare do so publicly lest they incur the wrath of the moonbat base.
Despite the rush from many Democrats to endorse Mr. Lamont after his triumph Â— only a handful chose personal loyalty to Mr. Lieberman over the Democratic nominee picked by voters Â— some now quietly admit they would be satisfied to see their longtime colleague returned to Washington. But none of the Democrats would speak for attribution because of pressure to publicly appear supportive of their partyÂ’s nominee, and they were granted anonymity so they could speak freely about their feelings toward Mr. Lieberman.But you can bet they'll be falling all over themselves on November 8th to get back in Joe's good graces.
October 11, 2006
Without even the pretense of a real plan for our future, the Democrats have hung their hopes on a depressed conservative base. It is the only way they can win. Swing voters mean little in the polarized political world in which we find ourselves. And the effects of that polarization are magnified in traditionally low-turnout mid-term elections where only the active and energized take part.Go read the whole thing.
The task for our opponents, then, is to win the war of emotional energy. So much of what we are seeing and hearing now from the talking heads in the media and the Democratic party is designed to accomplish two things. First, they hope the never-ending dirge of bad news and scandal will squeeze whatever small number of votes it can from a diminishing pool of fence-sitters. Second, and many times more importantly, they seek to demoralize and deflate the conservative faithful. For they know that every vote not cast by a disgruntled and despairing Republican Eyore is one less vote they have to overcome in their quest for control.
Are you worried about November? Do you feel a growing sense of defeat within you every time another segment is aired on the network news about the escalating violence in Iraq? Perhaps your energy and excitement level take yet another hit every time your newspaper publishes an article exposing more bad news in the Foley scandal. Make no mistake; that is exactly what those stories are designed to do.
To quote John Belushi, "Over? Did you say, over? Nothing is over until we say it is!"
October 10, 2006
Don't show me generic ballot questions. Show me individual races. 95% are already decided. The districts are so gerrymandered that the deck is stacked against a control change that would look anything remotely like the one from 1994.
Go ahead, call me naive. But think closely about these polls. They call a bunch of registered voters and ask if they would support the Republican or Democrat. No names or specific candidates, mind you. Just the parties. A third of the electorate doesn't even belong to one.
The question is basically a snapshot referendum on party preference - which one the respondent dislikes the least.
Comparing this data to the handful of competitive races is apples and oranges. If you're breathlessly watching generic ballot polls, keep watching and tell me what you see next week and the week after and so on. The only significance is that if the MSM keeps beating this drum, Republicans may get frustrated and depressed and figure "why bother?".
But then, that's exactly what they're hoping for. Some on the GOP side (or Conservative side) are already throwing in the towel. That's a mistake. Because a low turnout on one side will certainly push these close races in favor of the other.
Rusty says it best:
If you don't vote, the record will show that you had a chance to stop this onslaught of leftwing insanity, and you submitted.By "leftwing insanity", he's referring to the laundry list of horrible consequences that would result from a Democrat-controlled House. Go read the list and cringe.
Bill Bennett has a similar message to Conservatives, also a worthy read.
If you're at all skeptical that this Foley story was designed to suppress turnout, read The American Prowler this morning:
According to one political consultant with ties to the DNC and other party organizations, "I'm hearing the Foley story wasn't supposed to drop until about ten days out of the election. It was supposed the coup de grace, not the first shot."Ten days, eh? It would have made a lot more sense. Remember the impact of the Bush DUI story FIVE DAYS before the 2000 election? Same principle here.
So why the rush? According to another DNC operative: bad polling numbers across the country. "Bush's national security speeches were getting traction beyond the base, gas prices were dropping, economic outlook surveys were positive. We were seeing bad Democratic numbers in Missouri, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Florida Pennsylvania, even parts of New York," says the operative. "A month before, we were looking at launching an offensive against Republicans who according to polling barely held a five-seat majority if the election were to be held at the end of August. That was doable for Democrats from September 1 to November 7. But by mid-September, Republicans were back to having held seats for a 15-seat majority. In the Senate, it looked like a wash. We held seats in Florida, Nebraska, picked up seats in Pennsylvania, but that that was about it. They were holding in Missouri and possibly within reach of Maryland and Washington. We were looking at a disaster in the making."
The story originally broke ten days ago. If they had followed through on the original plan - ten days before the election - then imagine that today was the election. Look at the polls, the opinion, the MSM spin. It would have worked like a charm. Because dispirited Republicans would have figured "why bother?".
Now is not the time to be dispirited. Now is the time to be fired up.
Can the Democrats and their media buddies keep the intensity of this story going for 28 more days? Doubtful. But if we let it, it could be remembered as the moment when the tide turned against the GOP.
There's lots of time remaining on the clock. And plenty of time to turn the tide back.
Now stop being such a bunch of whiny, bitching pussies and let's prevent the "left wing insanity."
As usual, Bull Dog Pundit does a fair job of reading the fine print and poking the NYT and WaPo polls full of holes. His point dovetails with this post in that the MSM is using the polls to drive "news".
October 04, 2006
RealClearPolitics.com has an excellent commentary this morning as to why an editorial from that very paper making just that suggestion is pointless and counter-productive. The author, Peter Mulhern who is also a contributor to the blog "The American Thinker" where the piece is also posted, puts it this way:
It would be pointless because Republicans can't mitigate whatever political damage there is going to be from the Foley scandal by jettisoning Hastert and company. The damage is done and it has nothing to do with the Speaker. Political junkies may think that the Foley scandal hurts because it undermines public trust in the House leadership, but that's not the source of the pain. The number of voters who know or care about the House leadership is infinitesimally small.Denny Hastert has been a relatively quiet Speaker of the House. That's been a good thing, in my opinion. When you have a controversial speaker, you create a target for the opposition. Hastert has been a steady steward, but many Conservatives don't particularly care for him. He hasn't reigned in spending sufficiently. He hasn't paid enough attention to many of the issues that drive them. It's precisely because Hastert hasn't been a lighting rod for Conservatives that many of them think nothing of using this situation with Mark Foley as an excuse to throw him over the side.
Democrats didn't keep Mark Foley's sins on ice and serve them up shortly before an election to make Dennis Hastert look negligent. They did it to drive a wedge between the GOP and its evangelical supporters by publicizing the fact that the Republican leadership in Congress gave the benefit of a substantial doubt to a known homosexual.
The tactical calculation behind the Foley scandal is the same as the calculation that drove both John Kerry and John Edwards to babble on about Mary Cheney's sexual orientation in nationally televised debates. Democrats believe that they can suppress the evangelical vote by suggesting that the GOP is too gay friendly and they aren't about to let mere scruples stand in their way. Kerry's lesbian gambit failed because the targeted voters were not the troglodyte simpletons of the Democrats' imagination. They largely recognized and resented the condescension motivating the attack, and affirmed their respect for tender love within a family.
Maybe the Democrats are right about evangelicals this time and maybe they aren't. Either way, replacing the Speaker now would be beside the point. It would also be devastating to the Republican Party.
In politics you never win by losing. Dumping Hastert and the rest of the leadership team would be a loss. His departure would empower Democrats and dispirit Republicans. It would underscore the Republican's principal political liability, which is that many of their own supporters see them as spineless weenies.It's time to fight. Fight to win. As I said yesterday, losing achieves nothing. Losing is for losers. We have a deadly enemy to fight, judges to confirm and tax policies to protect to keep our economy moving forward. Republicans in general - and Conservatives in particular - should think long and hard about what we really have to lose.
Caving in to groundless and hysterical criticism is the quintessence of spinelessness. Republicans have made a habit of it.
They were too timid to change the rule that required Tom Delay to resign his leadership post when the rube who passes for a prosecutor in Travis County, Texas trumped up an indictment against him. The Bush administration couldn't stand and fight when it came under fire for including sixteen words in a State of the Union Address, every one of which was true. It never even tried to defend itself when Democrats and the media were spewing nonsense about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina for the purpose of blaming President Bush for everything that may have gone wrong in New Orleans. One could, as Zell Miller once said, "go on and on and on."
Republicans can't afford to crumble yet again just five weeks before an election. They can't win a fight without fighting and it's better to start late than never.
October 03, 2006
"So, how's it going on the campaign trail, Liebs, old pal? Looking forward to keeping that seniority are we? Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say no more?"
The nutroots, of course, sees this as a betrayal. And I don't blame them.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group that supports Lamont, said Lieberman may be spreading false information to make himself a more attractive candidate.Seems to me that Reid and co. not only see the writing on the wall in terms of Lamont's viability but they're also making preparations should the Senate make-up end up in a tie - 49-49-2.
Â“This is a Lieberman campaign tactic,Â” he said. Â“Democratic leaders are supporting Ned Lamont.Â”
Bill Grad, who sits on the Democratic Town Council of Greenwich, Conn., LamontÂ’s home town, said Lieberman has very actively distanced himself from the Democratic Party, and that it was wrong of leaders to promise anything.
Â“Why should Reid tell the guy in advance that heÂ’ll have his seniority. If it comes to that, thatÂ’s fine. But itÂ’s disappointing, itÂ’s greatly disappointing that he would be given assurances.Â”
It'll be interesting to read the Lefty blogs in the coming days.
September 28, 2006
The results of the poll have Lieberman at 49% to Lamont's 39%. Republican candidate Alan "Gold" Schlesinger is still stuck at 5%. If you distribute the "undecideds" proportionately, the numbers indicate that Lieberman would win with 52% if the election were held today. If you gave all the "undecideds" to Ned Lamont, Lieberman still wins 49% to 46%. I seriously doubt any Schlesinger voters would switch to Lamont.
The A/P story tries its best to spin the poll results by pointing out that the race has "tightened" since the Aug. 17th poll, which was Lieberman leading 53% to Lamont's 41%. Yeah. It "tightened" so much Lieberman's lead went from 12 points to 10! Wow, is that a dynamic swing or what?
The real story when you compare those numbers is that Lamont's total support dropped from 41% to 39%. Lamont's momentum coming out of the Aug. 8th primary seems to have evaporated.
Now let's look at the internal data. While it's true that the bulk of Lieberman's support comes from Republicans and Independents, it's clear that Democrats are not united behind Ned Lamont. Democrat respondents favored the Greenwich millionaire 57% to 37%. More than one third of likely Democrat voters still prefer Joe Lieberman.
Remember last week when the Lamont campaign released an ad calling Lieberman a "turncoat"? I said at the time that I guessed that the reason they were focusing so much on Lieberman's Independent candidacy was because their internals were probably showing that Lamont, the Democrat's annointed candidate, was not closing the deal with enough of the party faithful.
Looks like that is indeed the case. Five weeks ago in the August 17th Quinnipiac poll, Democrats favored Lamont over Lieberman 60% to 33%. That's a seven point swing back in Lieberman's favor - among Democrats!
Another significant factor in the data proves another point:
"Lamont wins among those who say Iraq is the most important issue to their vote, but that is only 35 percent of the electorate. Lieberman wins on all the other issues voters say matter most to them, including terrorism and the economy."That's right. Lamont's base of support - the Left-wing anti-war kooks - represents a significant minority even in a state as "Blue" as Connecticut.
When asked if Ned Lamont "has the right kind of experience to be a United States Senator or not", 47% of respondents said "No".
When asked if each candidate was spending more time "explaining what he would do if elected Senator or attacking" their opponent, guess what?
Lieberman: Explaining what he would do - 53% or attacking Ned Lamont - 33%
Lamont: Explaining what he would do - 25% or attacking Joe Lieberman - 62%
Joe Lieberman need not feel completely secure just yet. Six weeks is a long time in politics. But it's clear that as long as he continues to connect with CT voters - regardless of party - as a positive force for his state in the U.S. Senate, then the great CT moonbat "insurgency" of 2006 will be swatted away by a popular majority. And the Dems will have thrown away a perfectly safe Senate seat.
Jim Geraghty sees the final spread on Nov. 7th in single digits and I'm inclined to agree with him, though he presents a comprehensive analysis of the data which shows Lamont doesn't have a snowball's chance of beating Liebs.
September 25, 2006
The public has to look at the fragments it can find of Lamont's private life to figure out what sort of public figure he would be. The man who seemed a fresh force in the spring is starting to look like a contrivance as the fall begins. Here are some examples:Ned Lamont has no substantive experience in public service on a scale that would qualify him to be Joe Lieberman's replacement in the U.S. Sentate. We can only look to his experience in the private sector to get a feel for what he brings to the table. As far as I can see, all he brings is a plateful of virulent Left-wing supporters with a side order of hypocrisy.
Lamont, like all Democratic candidates, has been in hot pursuit of union endorsements. Lieberman snagged most of them in the primary campaign. Most, but by no means all, have stuck with Lieberman.
In his cable business, however, Lamont has not been so eager for union attention. At one conclave, Lamont gave the cold shoulder to Bill Henderson, president of Communications Workers of CT Local 1298, when Henderson had the temerity to suggest to the cable executive that he ought to let the union into Lamont Digital.
When Henderson, a Lieberman supporter, complained in public about Lamont's anti-union attitude in his own business, registered lobbyist and Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan called it a "red herring" because Lamont's employees are well compensated. But Henderson points out that unions aren't only about wages. They also secure better working conditions and the dignity of their members. Lamont and, suddenly, Swan aren't interested in the union credo.
Candidate Lamont is keen to call for more corporate responsibility from the likes of Wal-Mart and Enron. He made the obligatory appearance at a protest of Wal-Mart this summer.
Lamont, however, won't say much about corporate shenanigans closer to home. His wife, Ann Lamont, is a formidable venture capitalist. And while piling up their millions, there have been a few casualties. The Lamonts won't disclose details, but public documents reveal that Ann Lamont was successfully sued for securities fraud in 1999 for her role in a disastrous public offering of stock by a Florida medical management company that went bust in a big way. Ann Lamont and other defendants entered into a multimillion-dollar settlement with fleeced shareholders.
Some of the records are sealed, and the Lamont campaign won't reveal how much of the settlement Ann Lamont had to pay in 2001 to get out of the mess. Substitute the name of, say, Lynne Cheney for Ann Lamont and imagine the outrage on the left for such a doomed scheme.
As the campaign spotlight shines a little brighter on the Greenwich millionaire who wants to be CT's next Senator, voters - especially unaffiliated, moderate voters - should take the opportunity to have a closer look.
September 14, 2006
Lamont's campaign got a boost Wednesday from former President Carter, who offered a blistering critique of Lieberman's support for the Iraq war. "He was one of the originators of public statements that misled the American people into believing that the Iraqi war was justified," the former Democratic president said on CNN's "Larry King Live."Don't expect these words of criticism to count for much coming from the worst President in the history of the United States. If anything, it'll reinforce the support Lieberman already enjoys. Oh boy, I hope Lamont can get more of these "boosts" over the next two months.
"He's joined in with the Republican spokespersons by saying that Democrats who disagree are really supporting terrorism," Carter said. "So for all these reasons, I've lost my confidence in Joe Lieberman and don't wish to see him re-elected."
Lamont, a multimillionaire businessman who spent about $4 million of his own money in the primary, is tapping his personal fortune once again. He has written checks totaling $1.5 million for his general election bid, his campaign confirmed Wednesday. Lamont gave his campaign $1 million on Sept. 11. He wrote a $500,000 check on Aug. 22.
He may not be able to afford them.
September 13, 2006
It's still early but not a single poll since the primary in August has had Lamont leading (though he has been close). Lamont has less than eight weeks to convince non-Moonbats in CT to move in his direction. The closer we get to November 7th, the harder that task will be. It's not a name-recognition problem considering the amount of national press this race has received.
And with races tightening up in PA, OH, and MD, the DSCC has to decide how much resources they are willing to keep pouring into this match-up.
It may not be long before Ned Lamont and his nutroots supporters find themselves on their own.
First the sizzle, then the fizzle.
I ran across this article in The Weekly Standard while I was away on vacation. The web hype for Ned Lamont's candidacy doesn't seem to be able to translate into a lead against an independent Lieberman. In light of this point, I quote Louis Wittig who compares the internet buzz that built up "Snakes On A Plan" to that of the Liberal blogosphere. In both cases, expectations end up falling short (ahem, Dr. Dean?). Wittig makes an excellent point:
The problem is that most people, both insiders and outsiders, misunderstand the internet's advantages and limitations.The nutroots keeps waiting for this Liberal "revolution" to take Washington by storm because they're under the delusion that they represent the majority point of view in America.
It's perfectly understandable when political junkies and box office watchers conclude that web buzz augurs big things, but it's also perfectly backwards. We look at the humming activity of the blogosphere and assume the cadre of online enthusiasts behind it constitutes the tip of an off-line iceberg. It is assumed that for every posting on MyDD, or SoaP rap on YouTube, there must be dozens of people out there itching for impeachment of python gags.
Reality is just the opposite. People go to the blogosphere because they can't find a sizable number of people in their everyday, off-line lives that are as enthusiastic as they are. The blogosphere gathers together atypical fans and brings them together in what quickly becomes a broadband echo chamber. The louder and more intense the online community gets, the farther it's likely drifting from what is happening offline.
But whenever reality hits back at them, they seem unable to accept the idea that they really are nothing more than a fringe. And they resolve to just try harder for the next election.
September 08, 2006
I am an ex-Democrat and have been for at least eight years. As such, I (along with about two thirds of registered - and living - voters in CT) did not cast a ballot last month in the Democrat primary. Nor should I have been able to. I strongly disagree with the "open primary" concept.
But the results of that primary election (the rejection of Joe Lieberman by some 10,000 votes) do not reflect the "will of the voters" as Ned Lamont's supporters like to claim. They reflect the vote of registered Democrats (living and dead). Lieberman now runs as an independent. Last time I checked the U.S. Constitution I wasn't able to find any references to political parties.
Joe Lieberman has a right to run as an independent. And he will win or lose based on the will of ALL or CT's registered voters on November 7th. Ned Lamont's supporters should welcome this opportunity if they are so confident in their candidate.
Personally, I believe that Joe will prevail in sixty days. Polls indicate that his approval rating in excess of 60% will translate to a fourth term in the Senate. That being said, you can't take anything for granted in politics. The opposition is determined and relentless. They will do or say anything to win. Their efforts are fueled by organizations like MoveOn.org and the resources that pour into the State on Lamont's behalf come by and large from outside the State.
I could easily just hang back and watch with amusement as the Democrat party engages in intra-party bickering and tears itself to shreds. No matter what, Republicans will NOT pick up this seat. When your opponents fight amongst themselves, it's always best not to interfere.
But I live in CT and this race does mean something to me. I already have to live with the fact that I have one major asshat representing me in the U.S. Senate.
I disagree with Joe Lieberman on most of the votes he casts and almost all of the positions he supports. But I have always voted for Joe regardless of my party affiliation. And I support him this time around for two important reasons: his unyielding integrity and his ardent support for this country's efforts to fight the Islamofascist threat that we now face.
The stakes are just too high.
So I'm signing on as an unofficial - and vocal - supporter of Joe Lieberman for the U.S. Senate. I have absolutely no connection to Connecticut for Lieberman, Friends of Joe Lieberman or any other campaign organization associated with the Senator. But I will be doing whatever I can over the next sixty days to promote his candidacy.
On to victory, baby!
September 07, 2006
Of course, as in the past, Democrats want to silence them. Why should they support the First Amendment rights of people who risked their lives to defend those very rights for them, anyway? Vets For Freedom's stated mission is "to support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain."
In other words, other than Joe Lieberman that would leave out just about every nationally-elected Democrat. No wonder the moonbats are pissed off.
The website for Vets For Truth is here. Thanks to our veterans all over the world who keep America free.
September 06, 2006
The electorate is pretty surly these days, true. But the part they've been leaving out is that there is absolutely no polling data to suggest that voters are ready to turn over control of Congress to the Dems. Granted, the GOP seems to be going out of its way to anger its base and turn off everyone else. But the Democrats offer no reasons for voters to move in their direction.
Here's the bottom line: Voters are disaffected. What else is new? And in different times that would be enough reason to expect a change of control in Congress. But these are dangerous times - serious times. And with the safety of our nation so much at risk, swing voters may look at the Republicans and hold their nose. But when they look at the Democrats they hold their stomachs.
Dems hold an advantage in polls focusing on the generic Congressional ballot. Can anyone remember a time when this was not the case heading into an election? And how many times in the past ten years have those poll advantages led to Democrats taking over either chamber of Congress? Republicans can still do a lot to screw themselves up. And as I've said all year, the GOP will lose seats in the House and the Senate. It would be historically unprecendented if they didn't.
But as long as Democrats keep taking the bait and talking about national security, the uncertainty and uneasiness of handing the reigns over to the party that thinks we should release all the detainees at Gitmo so they can try and kill Americans again, eliminate surveillance programs that monitor the activities of terrorists, repeal the Patriot Act and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq will make the possibility of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi replacing "minority" with "majority" in their titles highly unlikely.
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.
122 queries taking 0.0919 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.