Sunday, August 13, 2006

Looking Good for Lieberman

The leftist wackos thought they had it in the bag. Well, Lamont did win the primary, but the one that counts is the general election. Lieberman is leading by a good margin in the Connecticut race for U.S. Senate. As an independent.

The primary, which the hateful anti-war left has declared a total victory for their pathetic cause, has proven that the left is controlled by a single issue: the War on Terror. Lieberman is anything but a conservative on most issues. Do we so quickly forget he was Algore's running mate in 2000? The man who used to be the next Vice President? Lieberman is unclean because of his support for the war, and his refusal to withdraw from his position. And he's a J-E-W.

The leftist wackos have co-opted what used to be a respectable party once upon a time. Not any more. I think if I lived in CT, I would vote for Lieberman over the republican candidate just to stick it to the party hacks behind Lamont.

4 comments:

Repack Rider said...

I don't know how anyone thinks Lieberman could win in November. Of course, Joe doesn't even realize yet that he lost last Tuesday, so maybe his backers are just as delusional.

He waded ashore on August 8 with the most firepower ever brought to bear on primary election, Clinton, Boxer and Obama on his side, a three term incumbent with two decades of name recognition, he outspent his opponent 3-1, and he lost to a guy no one had ever heard of a few weeks earlier.

There is losing, there is losing big, and now there is a new standard, reached only one time in American politics, losing like Lieberman did.

In November, when Clinton, Boxer and Obama line up behind Lamont instead of Lieberman, when all his endorsements disappear, with no campaign staff (they all quit on Wednesday), after Lamont gets on all the Sunday shows that Lieberman once did, and when his infantile behavior after the election gets replayed more times than the Dean Scream, Lamont will beat him like a rented mule.

Lieberman's problem is that Lamont represents the mainstream of American voters, who are overwhelming regretful (65%) of the invasion of Iraq, while Lieberman still thinks things are going well over there. Mr. Bush's approval ratings are less than half of Clinton's were AFTER Clinton was impeached, and Lieberman has aligned himself with the most unpopular president in our history. That can't help his chances.

Polymath said...

No one knows what will happen in November. I admit the margin Lieberman has is small, and his alignment with Bush is not an asset at this time. I don't quite understand the motivation of Boxer and Obama, but I believe Clinton was there to appear (and help Hilary appear) modereate.

Lamont represents the mainstream? He is backed by "progressives" like MoveOn.org. He Believes in socialized medicine. He was opposed to Alito's presence on the Supreme Court, and would have voted to continue the fillibuster (which was in violaton of the rules and traditions of the Senate). He is against vouchers for public education. He would continue the farce that is Social Security. Most "mainstream" folks I know do not agree with Ned Lamont.

I am unsure of the 65% number. The highest I have seen was an ABC poll, at 56%. I agree the war is not being handled well. But after years of violations of the no-fly zones, unenforced U.N. resolutions, and Saddam's cat-and-mouse game with inspectors, we could no longer risk the potentialand likely threat that Iraq under Saddam represented. He needed his dick knocked in the dirt. And that's the way the rest of the war should be conducted. Give the men on the ground the gear and let them do the job.

But I digress. When we get down to brass tacks, this is a single issue campaign. I hope Lieberman wins.

Thanks for the comments.

Repack Rider said...

after years of violations of the no-fly zones,

This was not a UN resolution, but a US operation in defiance of the UN.

unenforced U.N. resolutions,

When should we deal with Israel's multiple and repeated violations of UN sanctions? Why do they get a pass?

and Saddam's cat-and-mouse game with inspectors

There were weapons inspectors in Iraq in 2003, and it was not Saddam who forced them to leave, but George W. Bush. I do not understand why we would go to war, kill thousands of innocent people, and spend enough money (borrowed from the Red Chinese) to build a school and a hospital in every county in the United States, when a few weapons inspectors cost a pittance and don't kill anyone. As long as they were there, and Saddam said they could stay, it would be impossible for Saddam to have produced or deployed any WMD, which would have accomplished the same goal at virtually no cost.

we could no longer risk the potential and likely threat that Iraq under Saddam represented.

There was no threat. When George W. Bush and Colin Powell were caught lying about Saddam, I knew the fix was in, because if they had a real case they would have told the truth. I did everything I could to prevent the invasion because of the easily exposed lies we were being told and that so many fools believed.

I said then and I'll say now that invading Iraq was the worst strategic decision, and the most morally shameful act in American history.

I am a US Army veteran (click my link and see), and I think that anyone who believes it is a good idea to fight in Iraq should go there immediately and do some of it, or forever hold his or her peace.

If you have never sacrificed a minute of your life in service of the country, if you have never worn a military uniform, if you do not care to spend three or four grinding tours watching your back and missing your family, if you do not care to see shredded bodies in the street, it is not you that is in harm's way, and any suggestion that others should stay there to make you feel good is odious.

Polymath said...

A book for you to read:

The Threatening Storm, by Kenneth Pollack.


I am an U.S. Army vet also. Recently seperated from the 29th ID.