Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
The narrow primary defeat of veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing.
They used to be "San Francisco Democrats," a phrase coined by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick to describe the party's 1984 convention.
But they have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe.
Mr. Lieberman's one "sin," in the eyes of the Taliban Democrats, was that he supported the effort to defeat the insurgent-terrorists in Iraq. As a Jew, Mr. Lieberman is particularly sensitive to those who have targeted the Jewish people for extinction. But even if he weren't Jewish, he would still "get it," because he understands what's at stake in the region and has correctly concluded that the consequences of American failure in Iraq would be catastrophic.
His detractors, who brought him down in the primary with a one-issue, inexperienced and unqualified candidate, Ned Lamont, hate President Bush so much that their judgment has been distorted. Former Bill Clinton aide Lanny Davis, in a recent column for the Wall Street Journal titled "Liberal McCarthyism," printed a sample of the incendiary rhetoric directed toward Mr. Lieberman.
There is thinly-veiled anti-Semitism ("As everybody knows, Jews only care about the welfare of other Jews...." Posted on Daily Kos); irrationality ("Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot." Daily Kos); and personal attack ("Lieberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover." Posted on the Huffington Post blog).
It didn't matter that Mr. Lieberman, whose wife's name, by the way, is Hadassah, ran as the vice presidential candidate with Al Gore in 2000, or that he has voted against most of President Bush's domestic agenda. The Taliban wing of the Democratic Party cannot countenance any "heretics" who do not toe their line.
Though Mr. Lieberman says he will run as an independent, the damage has been done. It will be difficult for any Democrat to seek consensus with any Republican without being targeted as an infidel worthy of electoral death. Our already-poisoned political dialogue has not only been made more toxic, but contagious. Taliban Democrats have effectively issued a political "fatwa" that warns all Democrats not to deviate from their narrow line, or else face the end of their careers through a political jihad. Perhaps the few remaining rational Democrats should put on their burkas now and submit to the will of the party mullahs.
What is wrong with Democrats? Can't they see that when the face of their party belongs to ultra-leftists like George McGovern, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, they lose? For those who still believe not only in a strong two-party system, but also in compromise and conciliation in order to promote the general welfare and seek the common good, the Lieberman defeat strikes an especially harmful blow.
At the height of social conservative power in the Republican Party, pro-choicers and pro-gay rights officials like Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger were featured speakers at GOP conventions. Republican officials described their party as a "big tent" with room for everybody.
Mr. Lieberman's loss reduces the size of the Democrats' tent to that of a pup tent. The message it sends is that only those who conform to the left-wing fundamentalist worldview will be allowed in. Is that a message Democrats want to take into future campaigns? Do they wish to pervert John F. Kennedy's vision and instead say that the United States will pay no price, bear no burden and go nowhere in the defense of liberty?
If that is the message the Taliban Democrats want to send to the nation, they have all but guaranteed a Republican presidential victory in 2008 and GOP losses, if any, might not be as bad as predicted this November. Karl Rove could not have devised a more brilliant plan. But Joe Lieberman deserves better.
The Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
"But they have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe."
I'm sorry but this is how democracy works. The people wanted a change from the way their state was being run and voted against someone they felt didn't represent their best interest or the nations for that matter. 60% of Americans are against the war so these are "fringe left wing nut jobs" these are the majority of Americans and 86% of democrats are against the war. Welcome to America. I'm glad this GOP spin is running in the papers. Just wait November is coming and the voice of American will be heard.
I wonder if the Reverend Sun Myung Moon wrote this article.
What a load of crap. Personally I'm proud my party will run off a traitor to the ranks.
__________________
26-year-old Saermengsi last season rated average 25.1 minutes, with 7.5 hours, 2.7 times and 2.7 backboard secondary attack, he Yifusen general as the replacement came in March Yifusen injuries ever period of time, three matches in a row, his secondary attack will reach 10. By Sun team, he could strengthen outer lane line, but also as the replacement fullback scored his general customary activities in the stadium two wings. On the season Saermengsi-ball hit rate reached 30%. He was in flames and Jones made a three-year teammate, Jones said that the organizers he pitches, but he can also shooting. His shooting is deceptive.
So, since the Michigan Republicans "Ate own of their own", does that make them Taliban Republicans?
I wouldn't expect a conservative to be that consistent.
__________________
26-year-old Saermengsi last season rated average 25.1 minutes, with 7.5 hours, 2.7 times and 2.7 backboard secondary attack, he Yifusen general as the replacement came in March Yifusen injuries ever period of time, three matches in a row, his secondary attack will reach 10. By Sun team, he could strengthen outer lane line, but also as the replacement fullback scored his general customary activities in the stadium two wings. On the season Saermengsi-ball hit rate reached 30%. He was in flames and Jones made a three-year teammate, Jones said that the organizers he pitches, but he can also shooting. His shooting is deceptive.
Again, how does voting 90% with dems make him a traitor?
Because he wasn't lockstep.
I think its ridiculous that because Lieberman actually stood his ground and voted his beliefs and views (misguided as they may or may not be) that he became enemy number one because he didn't do as the party said.
I would love to get into politics, but I could never be elected because many of my centrist or even left-leaning views would piss off the far right, and I refuse to cowtow to that end of the spectrum. So, I'd be run off of the ballot by some talk-the-platform Republican, just as Lieberman got ran off by some "Talk-the-platform-which-is-99%-Iraq-is-bad" Democrat.
Dems are saying it is good for politics...I think it is actually BAD for politics...it sends a message that you better do as the party says, and not as your conscience says. And I give that message ::
__________________
I'm the anti-TNT. I don't do drama.
I think its ridiculous that because Lieberman actually stood his ground and voted his beliefs and views (misguided as they may or may not be) that he became enemy number one because he didn't do as the party said.
I would love to get into politics, but I could never be elected because many of my centrist or even left-leaning views would piss off the far right, and I refuse to cowtow to that end of the spectrum. So, I'd be run off of the ballot by some talk-the-platform Republican, just as Lieberman got ran off by some "Talk-the-platform-which-is-99%-Iraq-is-bad" Democrat.
Dems are saying it is good for politics...I think it is actually BAD for politics...it sends a message that you better do as the party says, and not as your conscience says. And I give that message ::
I'm confused here, why is everyone talking like Lieberman was removed from office by the Democratic Party and Lamont was chosen as his replacement?
Wasn't there an election held where the people voiced their opinions? Isn't that democracy? Aren't we allowed in this country to challenge the current leaders if we decide they don't represent us anymore or should we just keep it like the 2002 U.S. Rep where 98% of the incumbents win and a seat only opens when they die or choose (or forced to) retire? Are the people who are against Lamont winning more in favor of that (particularly the conservatives speaking out)?
In Conn, out of 702,000 registered Democrat voters, 38% went out to cast their votes (for those who say 8%, well you were told B.S info) and the incumbent lost.
Frankly it is subtly condecending to demonish the voice of the people and the acts of democracy to turn politics into some sort of spectator event where there are teams you either root for or against and some unseen administrator chooses the players on the field.
I think its ridiculous that because Lieberman actually stood his ground and voted his beliefs and views (misguided as they may or may not be) that he became enemy number one because he didn't do as the party said.
I would love to get into politics, but I could never be elected because many of my centrist or even left-leaning views would piss off the far right, and I refuse to cowtow to that end of the spectrum. So, I'd be run off of the ballot by some talk-the-platform Republican, just as Lieberman got ran off by some "Talk-the-platform-which-is-99%-Iraq-is-bad" Democrat.
Dems are saying it is good for politics...I think it is actually BAD for politics...it sends a message that you better do as the party says, and not as your conscience says. And I give that message ::
Another conservative perspective on how stupid we Dems are. Brilliant!
You want Joe, take him. If you honestly believe this change is based only on his stance on Iraq you are mistaken, as if Iraq isn't enough though.
I'm confused here, why is everyone talking like Lieberman was removed from office by the Democratic Party and Lamont was chosen as his replacement?
Wasn't there an election held where the people voiced their opinions? Isn't that democracy? Aren't we allowed in this country to challenge the current leaders if we decide they don't represent us anymore or should we just keep it like the 2002 U.S. Rep where 98% of the incumbents win and a seat only opens when they die or choose (or forced to) retire? Are the people who are against Lamont winning more in favor of that (particularly the conservatives speaking out)?
In Conn, out of 702,000 registered Democrat voters, 38% went out to cast their votes (for those who say 8%, well you were told B.S info) and the incumbent lost.
Frankly it is subtly condecending to demonish the voice of the people and the acts of democracy to turn politics into some sort of spectator event where there are teams you either root for or against and some unseen administrator chooses the players on the field.
:
Cosmic Defender Champion!
Linear Mode
