|
|
|
Sunday Musings
RINOS, DINOS, NEOCONS and Leprechauns. You just can’t survive today’s political scene without an appropriate tag. Each party is in search of the perfect description, the ideal candidate and the winning platform, yet if Jesus Christ himself signaled his second coming, I’m sure the extremists in both parties would find him objectionable. What is conservative enough? Where is the dividing line that separates Conservatives and RINOs? Is the extreme right of the Republican Party hell bent on imitating the failed practices of the George Soros wing of the Democrats? Joe Lieberman is the perfect demonstration of what happens when the extreme wing of either party demands perfection. On the other hand, a Democratic majority in the House and Senate is what happens when the Conservatives take their ball and stay home. Democracy is not black or white. It is a fluid system that demands weighing principles against pragmatism, convictions against realities. Extremism on the other hand is a denial of reality. The “my way or the highway” attitude often leads extremists to being stranded on the shoulder of the road. It doesn’t matter what form extremism takes, Conservative extremism, Liberal extremism and Islamic extremism share the same short sighted vision which will cause them to fail. |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on November 12, 2006 at 07:03 PM in , , , , , , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Kerryism of the Week Award
Under the heading "Democrats Reorganize for Victory" presents a hilarious satire by one William S. Smith, a Californian like none other. In his *report* he describes an imaginary 2006 victory rally led by Senator Joseph Lieberman, flanked by none other than Ted Kennedy, ex-Senator Zell Miller, and heroic, lantern-jawed John Forbes Kerry. Lieberman's opening salvo goes like this:
The prize for political satire goes to this *quotation* from Senator Kerry:
Mr. Smith offers us a lavish selecion of pearls, including a magnificent rant by Zell Miller, echoing his speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention. His peroration goes like this:
The reader can also savor a tearful avowal of error by Senator Edward Kennedy. [No spoiler here] Wait...we're not quite done yet. Under the rubric "Author Articles" at the top of the right-hand sidebar, TCS links to a number of earlier columns by Mr. Smith, and offers the reader the option of update alerts to announce Smith's future efforts. Enough comic relief to keep the most pessimistic conservative in a sunny mood throughout this long, dreary election season. |
|
Contributed by John Werntz on September 2, 2006 at 03:49 AM in , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Lieberman Could Save House for Republicans
:-) Proud of yourself, Kos? |
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 28, 2006 at 01:19 PM in , , | | | |
|
|
|
"Non-Combatant" Lieberman
More at , |
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 26, 2006 at 02:24 PM in , , , | | | |
|
|
|
"Kerry Couldn't Find Mainstream
|
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 20, 2006 at 08:50 PM in , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Bush won’t endorse Republican in Connecticut Senate race
Aug 15, 2006 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush gave a boost to Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's re-election bid as an independent by taking the rare step of refusing to endorse the Republican candidate running for Lieberman's U.S. Senate seat. "We are not making any endorsement in Connecticut. The Republican party of Connecticut has suggested that we not make an endorsement in that race and so we're not," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. [. Hat tip: .] |
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 17, 2006 at 02:35 PM in , , , | | | |
|
Re: Is it Time for Alan Schlesinger to do the right thing? (Comments)
No time for allegorical whimsy today. I just read a comment posted to the above titled by Bill Faith. This comment was written by a self-professed Conservative Republican by the name of Aakash Raut. In his comment Mr. Raut makes the observations that “Ned Lamont is no more liberal than Sen. Lieberman.” and “I see you have anti-Murtha links… Congressman Murtha is actually more conservative than Senator Lieberman.” Mr. Raut concludes his comment with, “The ‘right thing’ in this case, for Mr. Schlesinger to do, would be to take advantage of the Democrat divide (addressed in my recent entry) and WIN THIS SEAT for our party!” Well, I took the bait and followed one of his many links back to his BLOG. It was there that I discovered Mr. Raut is a conservative activist and student at a University in Illinois. As I read Mr. Raut’s BLOG I was absolutely floored to discover that I and other conservatives and Republicans have been duped – “due to a misunderstanding of the intricacies of political science and [even-recent] history – into thinking that these people (Zell Miller, Tony Blair and Joe Lieberman) are not liberal, or even that they are ‘conservatives’.” That Mr. Raut is a conservative activist shows that he started out on the “right” foot in his academic pursuits, so I am left to assume that it is his “left” foot that fell out of his mouth. Aakash, you are so wrong in so many ways, I don’t know where to begin, but I will try to categorize them for you. Pragmatism: While I do not live in Connecticut and must admit that I have no personal knowledge of Alan Schlesinger, I will accept from your right wing zealousness that he is by your definition a true conservative Republican. On the other hand, I have read the polls. In a poll of “likely voters” just released today, Joe Lieberman leads Ned Lamont 53% - 41%. If you studied math between political rallies and blogging, you should come to the conclusion that there may be better battles to fight ahead. Murtha: This is an issue you are not equipped to understand or address. The anti-Murtha movement has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative, or for taking an anti-war position. This movement is about the disgraceful, slanderous libel that this “Gentleman from Pennsylvania” has vomited from his bloated face upon military personnel both past and present. Perhaps after you grab an M-16 and stand post for a while, you might begin to grasp the intricacies of this situation. The bile in my stomach is rising, so enough said on this topic. Party Line: Aakash, first I would direct you to one of my posts on why a conservative might choose to support Lieberman. You can find it at I would then contend that no one has been duped into thinking that Joe isn’t liberal or is in fact conservative. Any conservative support for Lieberman will not result from a misunderstanding of the intricacies of political science and history. It will more likely be founded in a very real understanding of American and World history that transcend beyond the dew meager years of your existence and will have nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. Choosing candidates strictly on their party affiliation or their adherence to some narrowly defined concept of conservatism is no less folly than that practiced by the liberals. There are some defining issues that should and do rise above partisanship. Defending and protecting America is one of them. I’ll take 99 more Liebermans in the Senate right now to ensure a strong and united front against a foreign threat that needs to be eliminated. I’ll worry about their liberal and conservative views after we have taken care of the first order of business. Finally, I read with concern your statement “the true conservative and ‘republican’ position is against the war.” That you are anti-war, is your prerogative and that there are other individuals that consider themselves conservative who agree with you is fine as well. However, it is your use of the phrase “true conservative” that is frightening. The use of words such as “true” or “pure” within this context sounds eerily like other historical party stalwarts. Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler come to mind. I am sorry to take such an opposing view against someone else that claims to be a conservative. I would caution you to learn to discern the difference between a conservative philosophy and a party dogma. Being a Kool-Aid drinker is still the same, no matter what the flavor. |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on August 17, 2006 at 12:27 PM in , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Lieberman May be Stripped of Seniority
Hat tip: James Joyner, who comments . |
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 16, 2006 at 01:44 PM in , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Bush Refuses to Back GOP Candidate over Lieberman
Hat tip: ***
*** : Nedrenaline. " |
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 14, 2006 at 11:24 AM in , , , | | | |
|
|
|
It’s the Party, Stupid!
I’m wondering if anyone was awakened last night from the ‘shockwaves’ that emanated from somewhere on the East Coast. Seismologists were uncertain of the epicenter, with various sources citing Connecticut, Washington D.C. or the New York Times as the source of these momentous tremors. Instead of shockwaves, I discerned a rather warm gust of wind blowing from the East as pundits of all ilk proclaimed yesterday’s ‘stunning’ Connecticut primary election results in the most bellicose string of adjectives I’ve heard since August of 1970. No, it wasn’t another election. It was my basic training TI attempting to convey to my squadron, just how low we were on the ecological scale. But, I digress. Poor Joe Lieberman. The very same people that were his friends, supporters and colleagues two days ago, have now formed a ritualistic ring of support around the new poster child for MoveOn.org. (Ned, Ted, Vlad SomethingOrOther). Whether this election was a ‘defining moment’, ‘a grassroots victory’ or a ‘message to other Democrats’ depends on which shriek is attaining the highest decibel level for the moment. Democrats and Republicans are spinning this event for all it’s worth. And, why not? After all, this was an election that was decided by just over .03% of the American public. Yes, three out of every ten thousand Americans have redefined and redirected the very essence of American politics. Joe Lieberman deserves our momentary sympathy. Who among us has not felt the sting of betrayal of those we once thought were our friends? Yet, don’t waste too many tears for old Joe, as it is well within his ability to retain his Senate seat in the general election this November. I for one hope he does. Not because I admire his courageous stand for America’s defense in the face of strong Democratic opposition (which I do admire him for), but because I hope his candidacy will be the beginnings of a new American political movement. The End of the Two Party System. Before the dust of the big quake had settled, and Lieberman had announced his formation of the “Connecticut for Lieberman” party, ‘Democratic leaders’ were urging Joe to back off. While in a typical non-statement statement, Hilary Clinton resisted the all out call for Joe to not run, instead appealing to him to “search his conscience and decide what is best for Connecticut and for the Democratic Party.” Who could resist such a plaintiff cry? I could almost hear Joe screaming, “Beat me! Whip me! Make me write bad checks!” It also gives me a new appreciation and understanding of how Bill was so effective in biting his lower lip and producing the hint of a tear in his eye. I have always voted Republican. There was no other choice. But I am no longer deluded in the belief that they serve my cause. Instead, I am certain that they just dance to the tune of a different breed of lobbyist. Perhaps I should just cut out the middlemen and support the right corporations and foundations. Unfortunately, too many of them are impossible to research or understand. They hide behind a shroud of secrecy that is often impossible to pierce. Let no one doubt that the two party system is an equal opportunity system of corruption. Joe may win the general election, but he will be shut out by the Dems and cautiously tolerated by the Republicans. He will not have the benefit of a defined Party apparatus to help guide PAC money to his war chest, and he will have to sit in the senate dining room with “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffords as his only lunch companion. If this is the road Senator Lieberman has chosen, then I for one will support him. I don’t agree with most of his policy, and in normal circumstances could never support a former running mate of ‘Algore.’ Yet, I am hopeful that this 21st Century version of “Mr. Smith” may turn out to be the real deal. If you should win in November, Joe, and prove to be a leader unencumbered by party affiliations and lobbyists dollars, I pledge to no longer wear my “Sore Loserman” T-shirt from the 2000 Presidential campaign. Instead I will sell it on E-Bay to help fund your next re-election. |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on August 12, 2006 at 01:31 PM in , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Can’t those damned jihadis read the polls?
|
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 11, 2006 at 06:42 PM in , , , , | | | |
|
CQ: Lamont Support Dropping
If the netroots plan on riding Ned Lamont all the way to the Senate floor, the independent campaign of Joe Lieberman has an unpleasant surprise waiting for them. According to a new Rasmussen poll, Lieberman has a lead over Lamont in a three-way race. Lieberman also has better favorability ratings than Lamont by a significant margin. Their previous survey, taken shortly before the election, showed the two men tied in a three-way race. Rasmussen will have the specific numbers out shortly (at ), but the trends have reversed themselves in the last days of the primaries -- and Connecticut voters have changed their minds about Lamont. [.] |
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 11, 2006 at 09:18 AM in , , , , , | | | |
|
Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain
|
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 11, 2006 at 02:39 AM in , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Is it time for Alan Schlesinger to do the right thing?
In a lengthy post so excellent I wish I could just steal it and post it here, Dafydd ab Hugh lays out in clear terms why it's vitally important to prevent peacenik Ned Lamont from being elected to the Senate, points out that Alan Schlesinger has no realistic chance of winning a three-way race against Lamont and Joe Lieberman, and concludes that the best way for Schlesinger to demonstrate his love for this great country is to withdraw from the election. I'm convinced. Click . *** While you're in the neighborhood, see also: *** On a related note:
*** Dan Riehl: Ace: |
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 10, 2006 at 04:59 PM in , , , | | | |
|
More "Screw Lieberman?"
I guess getting a little long to just keep updating and bumping too, and it's far from the last you'll be hearing of the matter. Greg Tinti: ***
|
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 10, 2006 at 03:56 AM in , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Screw Lieberman? (Updated and bumped)
James Joyner:
, the pack has no official viewpoint on this. I personally, however, will use my posting privileges to campaign against Ned Lamont. He's just taken his rightful prominent position on Bill's Shitlist, not terribly far below Jean Fraud Kerry, Mad Jack Murtha, Fat Mikey and "Screw 'em" Zúniga. *** Hot Air: Hot Air: Hot Air: MM: OTB: *** Update and bump. Previous timestamp 09:11 OTB: Ace: , *** Flopping Aces: Dan Riehl: |
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 9, 2006 at 12:36 PM in , , , , | | | |