Win for the wackadoo wing

[DKW 86 7,423]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/442047p-372286c.html

Win for the wackadoo wing

Leftward, march! The sucking sound you heard from Connecticut last night was the air going out of the war on terror. At least among many Democrats.

The party's voters have spoken - and they are wrong to try to fire Joe Lieberman after three distinguished terms in the Senate. Now we know what a nutmeg really is. It has something to do with a nutty decision.

Don't buy the baloney that Lieberman lost his primary race because he had lost touch with his home base on a range of issues. Rich upstart Ned Lamont was all about Lieberman's support for the Iraq war and coziness with President Bush. That's what this election was about, period.

So now that the wackadoo wing of the party has a bloody scalp, what are they going to do with it? Wave it at Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon and Afghanistan and Indonesia and Great Britain and Spain and Israel and New York and declare peace? That will work for sure. They better also wear armor and duck.

Lieberman is the first casualty of the war against the war on terror. If last night's results are a window on the party's tilt, then a huge slice of the Democratic party is ready to sit out the war to protect America. God help us if the Republicans also get the wobblies. Let's hope the Connecticut Condition isn't contagious. And let's hope last night's decision is overturned.

Lieberman's decision to stay in the race as an independent is the right one. Given the close margin, all the state's voters deserve a chance to have their say. Perhaps they will fix what the Democrats broke.

That many Americans are disgusted with events in Iraq is understandable. Nothing has gone as planned or promised, a point Lieberman made with some regularity. But wars never go easily, and thus are always unpopular at some point.

Even "good" wars have their bad moments, causing otherwise sensible people to look for the exits.

That is happening across our nation with Iraq, which, given the lousy intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, never was a "good" war. Yet Iraq, in all its hellishness, is important, even vital to regional stability and American security. Unplug America's commitment there, which is what the Lamont crowd is about, and how exactly does that help us? Will the terrorists suddenly stop attacking us and our allies?

And does the price of peace also require us to abandon Israel and the moderate Arab governments who are our allies in fighting the terrorists? Indeed, there was a surreal quality to the television news last night: Stations cutting away from the Israeli-Hezbollah war to update the election results, and vice versa. Too bad no one thought to link them as two parts of one story, which is what they are.

Congressional Democratic leaders recently demanded that Bush begin withdrawing our troops this year, regardless of events in Iraq. They called it a "redeployment." When I said that redeployment was another word for retreat, a top party operative disagreed. He said, earnestly, that Dems favored keeping about 35,000 troops "in the region" as something like a police force. "We could go back into Iraq if we had to," he said.

This is fantasy. And that's what Lamont's victory is based on. That somehow we can pull out of Iraq, tell the terrorists they win - and we and our allies will not suffer any consequences. And if those Islamists misbehave, well, we'll just scoot back over there with our police force and arrest those naughty fellows.

I believe that Islamic terrorists will stop at nothing in their mad quest to rule the globe. As a result, World War III has started, whether we like it or not. It will continue, whether we fight back or not. But if we think we can win by not fighting, then we're not just wrong. We're nuts. As in nutmeg.

Originally published on August 9, 2006

[TexasTiger 12,865]

The vast majority of Americans think it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Joe strongly disagrees. He is out of the mainstream. You wackadoos on this board are out of the mainstream. CT Dems vote for a guy that most Americans agree with. Amazing how this gets spun.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

We lost the republic years ago and we now live in a democracy. Does this mean we should vote democrat? And if so why?

...if the Democrats really have assembled the goods on how Dubya has broken some 26 laws and regulations (I haven't read the 350-page document yet), he can scream "leftwing" all he wants but it won't stop impeachment proceedings from beginning IF the Democrats win the House in November.

All the more reason to get out the vote for the Democrats in November!

[DKW 86 7,423]

So Tex, if, as I and many more believe that Leiberman wins the general election will you concede that the American people do not agree with the Dems?

[TexasTiger 12,865]

So Tex, if, as I and many more believe that Leiberman wins the general election will you concede that the American people do not agree with the Dems?

There's no logic there. If I lived in CT, I would have probably held my nose and voted for Joe. Never cared much for him-- he's a whiner, but don't know much about the other guy that tells me he's up for it. I'm just saying for the CT Dems to vote a particular way, doesn't make them whacky. Most folks who voted for Lamont felt very strongly about what they considered to be a deeply moral issue, just as single issue anti-abortion voters do. That's why you have elections. As an incumbent, Joe had plenty of time in front of the voters and he spent far more money. He failed to make his case. He ran a lousy campaign. In fact, he just fired his whole campaign staff. Lamont is not "whackadoo"-- geeky, maybe, but look at Joe.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Not your father’s Democratic Party

Six years ago Joe Lieberman was the darling of the Democratic Party.

In a salute to the Connecticut senator’s character, moral fiber and steadfast moderation, Al Gore chose him to be the party’s vice presidential candidate. That made sense, as Lieberman enjoyed many positive traits Gore lacked. Lieberman’s 2000 nomination proved that the Democratic party still understood that most Americans value moderation over far-left liberalism.

On Tuesday, the Democratic Party discarded that tired old notion by ousting the pro-war, strong-on-national-security Connecticut centrist in favor of an extreme liberal anti-war Democratic challenger: millionaire Connecticut businessman Ned Lamont.

Lamont’s candidacy was fueled by the most extreme elements of the Democratic party. Moveon.org, Daily Kos and other elements of the Web savvy liberal “netroots” made defeating Joe Lieberman their number one priority. To them, Lieberman was an unacceptable cancer within a Democratic party they fancy themselves as owning. Tolerance of a Democrat who was committed to finishing the job in Iraq was a non-starter. Nor was it acceptable for Lieberman to be so unabashedly pro-American in his rhetoric about national security.

This same crowd doggedly jeers Hillary Clinton for her support of the War on Terror while it cheers Jack Murtha, who once told an audience that the United States was “more dangerous to world peace than North Korea and Iran.” It is the same crowd that pledges fealty to Markos Moulitsas, founder of the liberal blog Daily Kos, who once remarked he feels “nothing over the death of mercenaries” in Iraq. “They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.”

The “screw them” Bush-lied-people-died caucus was victorious Tuesday night.

In their victory they drove a stake through the heart of the old-school Truman-Kennedy Democratic brand of foreign policy and served notice to the entire country that this party belongs exclusively to them. Dissenters, especially those who are strong on national security and in favor of finishing the job in Iraq, need not apply.

With a result like this, you cannot blame Republicans for making some noise. Yesterday, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman told an audience in Cleveland that this was a “sobering moment” for the Democratic Party. For Mehlman, it’s a signal of the complete transformation of the 21st century Democratic party. Tuesday’s results, said Mehlman, reflect “an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism and a ‘blame America first’ attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous.”

The centrist Democratic Leadership Council’s Marshall Whitman also decried the trend within his party. On his blog Whitman wrote that on the issue of national security it was “regressing back to the glory days of the early seventies. In their reflexive opposition to everything Bush, Democrats too often appear weak on fighting the war against Jihadist terror.” Whitman concludes that, “The only jihad many in the left-wing in the party are interested in is the one against the party’s former vice presidential standard bearer.”

For his part, Joe Lieberman, who has vowed to run in November as an independent, is completely cognizant of the ramifications of his defeat. In an interview with ABC the morning after the primary Lieberman commented on the callous viciousness of his opponents. “I will tell you that the bloggers who came after me -- some of them were so full of hatred ... that it is just not good for our politics,” said Lieberman. “And, frankly, on some of those blogs was the kind of bigotry that just has no place in American public life. So I worry that this victory by Ned Lamont ... will send a message across our state and our country that the Democratic Party has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America.”

All of this is coming at a time when an anti-incumbent mood appears to be gripping the nation. A recent Washington Post-ABC news poll found that American’s approval of their elected representatives has not been this low since 1994 -- the year Republicans ended the Democrat’s 40-year control of the House of Representatives. If history repeats, we may see Congress controlled by a party hijacked by far-left liberals with zero commitment to national security or to waging the long war on terrorism.

Centrist Democrats committed to national security can still root for Lieberman in the general election. For them, the prospect of the far-left liberal “netroots” seizing power must be as scary as it is for many of us.

Link

[DKW 86 7,423]

So Tex, if, as I and many more believe that Leiberman wins the general election will you concede that the American people do not agree with the Dems?

There's no logic there. If I lived in CT, I would have probably held my nose and voted for Joe. Never cared much for him-- he's a whiner, but don't know much about the other guy that tells me he's up for it. I'm just saying for the CT Dems to vote a particular way, doesn't make them whacky. Most folks who voted for Lamont felt very strongly about what they considered to be a deeply moral issue, just as single issue anti-abortion voters do. That's why you have elections. As an incumbent, Joe had plenty of time in front of the voters and he spent far more money. He failed to make his case. He ran a lousy campaign. In fact, he just fired his whole campaign staff. Lamont is not "whackadoo"-- geeky, maybe, but look at Joe.

Tex, I regretfully disagree. All this says is that whackadoos blog, donate, and vote. They are still whackadoos. The implosion for the Democrats will be when Leiberman becomes the Jeffords of the Democratic Party because they threw him out for nothing more than being a Jew that cares for his own people, just to see the general population put him back in office as a Independent that will have to side with the Republicans. I saw the Lamont victory speech and there was ole Hezabaloo Dingell right there on the podium with Jesse Jackson and the usual cast of black helicopter misfits. Tex, the Democratic Party is imploding upon itself and that is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of the republic. Because the center folks (Guiliani-McCain) in the Republican Party are less scary than the Left wing whackadoos to the general population.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

So Tex, if, as I and many more believe that Leiberman wins the general election will you concede that the American people do not agree with the Dems?

There's no logic there. If I lived in CT, I would have probably held my nose and voted for Joe. Never cared much for him-- he's a whiner, but don't know much about the other guy that tells me he's up for it. I'm just saying for the CT Dems to vote a particular way, doesn't make them whacky. Most folks who voted for Lamont felt very strongly about what they considered to be a deeply moral issue, just as single issue anti-abortion voters do. That's why you have elections. As an incumbent, Joe had plenty of time in front of the voters and he spent far more money. He failed to make his case. He ran a lousy campaign. In fact, he just fired his whole campaign staff. Lamont is not "whackadoo"-- geeky, maybe, but look at Joe.

Tex, I regretfully disagree. All this says is that whackadoos blog, donate, and vote. They are still whackadoos. The implosion for the Democrats will be when Leiberman becomes the Jeffords of the Democratic Party because they threw him out for nothing more than being a Jew that cares for his own people, just to see the general population put him back in office as a Independent that will have to side with the Republicans. I saw the Lamont victory speech and there was ole Hezabaloo Dingell right there on the podium with Jesse Jackson and the usual cast of black helicopter misfits. Tex, the Democratic Party is imploding upon itself and that is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of the republic. Because the folks center folks (Guiliani-McCain) in the Republican Party are less scary than the Left wing whackadoos to the general population.

So by your analogy, Jeffords signaled the implosion of the Republican party. Lieberman has said he will caucus with the Dems. He has claimed he lost because he was unfairly portrayed as being to close to a Republican President. Trying to spin that thinking this war was a bad idea makes you weak on fighting terrorism is a farce the American people won't buy. If that is true, then it applies to the founders of American Conservatism like William F. Buckley.

Jeffords was rejected by his party structure in the Senate. Joe was not. BTW, as a U.S. Senator, Joe's "people" are his constituents.

Do you think there are any Right Wing Wackadoos on this board?