in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. :)
| Daily Beast | Update: FBI Looks for Leaks at Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court |
0 |
| NJ Online | Fail: Groups claim to have found ‘smoking gun’ to force Christie to move U.S. Senate election to November |
0 |
| The Hill | Sigh: McCaskill becomes first lawmaker to endorse Ready for Hillary PAC |
0 |
| CNN | 0 | |
| Rep. Blackburn | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Move Along:
""The whole issue of this - of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. The whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations."
Pres. Obama on GOP demands for Benghazi answers, 5/13/2013
Lieberman/Lamont race could galvanize anti-war wing of the Democratic party
Via the WaPo:
FARMINGTON, Conn., Aug. 5 — The passion and energy fueling the antiwar challenge to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in Connecticut’s Senate primary signal a power shift inside the Democratic Party that could reshape the politics of national security and dramatically alter the battle for the party’s 2008 presidential nomination, according to strategists in both political parties.
A victory by businessman Ned Lamont on Tuesday would confirm the growing strength of the grass-roots and Internet activists who first emerged in Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. Driven by intense anger at President Bush and fierce opposition to the Iraq war, they are on the brink of claiming their most significant political triumph, one that will reverberate far beyond the borders here if Lieberman loses.
I wrote the following on Thursday:
Lieberman is being demonized by the cut and run crowd in Connecticut for refusing to budge from his position on the Iraq war. In my opinion, a Lamont win in the primary there would galvanize the anti-war crowd across the country as never before.
I wrote this on July 25th:
What’s going on here is, I think, a war on what the future of the Democratic party will be: will it be the party of rabid anti-war types like Ned Lamont? Or will it be the party that is able to find middle ground on the issue of the Iraq war – with those who don’t think we should be in Iraq and those who supported the Iraq war and still do being able to agree that in spite of their differences we need to finish what we started there? With defeatist Democrats like House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi hailing last December the “diverse” stances the Democratic party has taken on the Iraq war, as well as a repeated failure to find a unified message on Iraq, I don’t hold out any hope that the rabid anti-war faction will unite with Democrats who insist we must stay in Iraq to complete the mission.
The Lamont/Lieberman primary next month may very well be the bellwether of this year’s elections.
Does this qualify as a “Toldjah So” moment? 
Seriously, make sure to read all of the WaPo article, as reporter Dan Balz expands on the point by noting the potential reverberations of a Lamont win for other Democrats (like Sen. Hillary Clinton) who supported the war in Iraq.
More: Lefty bloggers confirm.
Related: Bill Kristol takes a closer look at anti-war, anti-Lieberman, anti-Israel Democrats.
Prior:
- Being racist and homophobic – for a good cause
- Ned Lamont’s Stroker Ace moment
- Jame Hamsher’s 15 minutes of shame
- The war on Lieberman
- As if the moonbat conspiracy theorists couldn’t get anymore “out there”
- Hartford Courant paper excited about Lamont forcing primary
- It’s Democratic nominating convention day today in Connecticut
- Kos in Lamont campaign video ad debut
- Disgruntled Dems are considering challenge to Lieberman
- Joe Lieberman: Shunned in his own party
- More words of wisdom from Joe Lieberman
- Joe Lieberman: the black sheep of the Democratic party
- A Congressional Dem who makes sense
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Well I have to hand it to you ST it sure does qualify as a “Toldjah So” moment. You seem to have great intuition and that is a great asset to have when it comes to being a great blogger.
The media continues to portray this contest as a one issue referendum on the war. While certainly the dominant issue, I think this view masks a widespread dissatisfaction with congress, not just the administration, and is reflected in a “zero tolerance” attitude toward incumbents. People are looking for an excuse to “vote the bums” out. Watching the debate, I was struck by several differences between the candidates – most notably on the topic of “earmarks”. I went into the debate with an open mind, expecting to retain my mild preference for Lieberman. Lieberman’s brazen support for the earmark process, and craven appeal to Connecticut voters based on his ability to bring home the earmark “pork”, completely changed my thinking. Lamont took a principled stand on earmarks, which resonated with me and I suspect resonates with Connecticut voters, even if he is more left of center than I would like. I posted a short video and transcript about this telling exchange in my blog post: “To earmark or not to earmark, that is the question”
MW makes a good point. Had these earmarks not gone into the respective bills, maybe these companies would have had to bid on the jobs, and show they were the best company for the job.
I didn’t watch the debate. What I see in Lieberman is a guy that typically goes with the principled view, even though it may not be the most popular view. This is what I like about Lieberman.
For example, although he was friends with Bill Clinton, when the Monica Lewinsky thing broke, he was outspoken and admitted this type of behavior wasn’t appropriate. Which is wasn’t.
Is anyone else flashing back to the McGovern days of 1968 and 1972???
I’ve a feeling that the Lieberman/Lamont fracas is going to be used by the Dems to beat anything/anyone who is not blatantly Anti-War into line.
Which is not going to help their party in the foreseeable future.
Jack.
As a Conservative, I should be cheering for Lamont, as the farlefties would be easier to defeat in November that more moderate Democrats. But I hope Lieberman wins the runoff, as I don’t want the Lamonts of the country to have any power at all. That blackface on Lieberman stunt by Lamon’t friend Jane-whom he says he doesn’t know?-must have outraged as many Democrats as it did me.
They won’t forget that when they vote this week.
- The Dems are just setting themselves up for an even worse senario. When Lieberman hammers Lamont, running as an Independent, should he lose this primary, I hope they have a lot of padding on the walls at Lamont headquarters. The moonbat meltdown won’t be pretty.
- Bang
The Lamont/Lieberman race is the third step in the struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party. The first step was the organizing of the nutsroots under prominent bloggers like Kos. The second step was to get the screaming maniac Dean appointed as Democratic Party chairman. The third step is to destroy an established Democratic centrist leader, which they are currently doing to Sen. Lieberman. If Lamont wins the primary, the moonbats are going to emerge in full screaming force. Sen. Clinton will begin backtracking on her support for the war, and move farther to the left. Gore will start giving even more speeches, and keep insisting that he has no plans to run for president. (unless of course, the party insists) Democratic rhetoric will get ever more strident.
What happens after the Democrats lose in 2006 and 2008 could get very ugly.