Saturday, 26 August 2006
 

"Non-Combatant" Lieberman
Won't Back Democratic Candidates
Contributed by Bill Faith

Declaring himself a "non-combatant," U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, in remarks at a New Haven press event Friday, raised anew the question of whether his "independent" candidacy will help Republicans hold onto three Congressional seats in Connecticut -- and control of the U.S. House of Representatives. ... “I’m a non-combatant,” Lieberman declared. “I am not going to be involved in other campaigns. I think it’s better if I just focus on my own race.” ...  “It’s a little awkward for me now” to endorse the Democratic candidates in the general election, he said, “since they all endorsed my opponent,” Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont. [Read the whole thing.]

More at Captain's Quarters, Outside the Beltway

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 26, 2006 at 02:24 PM in Bill Faith, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 17 August 2006
 

Bush won’t endorse Republican in Connecticut Senate race
Contributed by Bill Faith

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.

[Read on. Hat tip: Allahpundit.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 17, 2006 at 02:35 PM in Bill Faith, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Re: Is it Time for Alan Schlesinger to do the right thing? (Comments)
Contributed by The Gray Dog

No time for allegorical whimsy today.  I just read a comment posted to the above titled submission 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  "It's the Party Stupid" 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 Current Affairs, Joe Lieberman, Mad Jack Murtha, Ned Lamont, Politics, The Gray Dog | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 11 August 2006
 

Can’t those damned jihadis read the polls?
Contributed by Bill Faith

Connecticut? This is London Calling.
Al Qaeda reminds us to hang on to our patriots.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

We are reading only about 24 arrests today. If we were already in the heralded antiwar world of Ned Lamont and the war-against-the-war crowd, it could be much different. We could just as easily be reading about ten jumbo jets exploded out of the sky. Or 3,000 murdered innocents — mostly American and British citizens.

Reality has once again inconveniently burst the antiwar, anti-security, anti-American balloon, just as the November victory ballrooms were being booked.

Just as central casting was whipping the articles of impeachment into shape. The high crimes and misdemeanors of George W. Bush include: hunting down terrorists, detaining them, interrogating them, penetrating their communications, and following their money.

These damn jihadists just won’t cooperate. Can’t they read the polls?

[Read the whole thing.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 11, 2006 at 06:42 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

CQ: Lamont Support Dropping
Contributed by Bill Faith

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 this link), but the trends have reversed themselves in the last days of the primaries -- and Connecticut voters have changed their minds about Lamont.

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 11, 2006 at 09:18 AM in Bill Faith, Dem Dumbness, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, Peacenik Stupidity, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain
Contributed by Bill Faith

Democrats as Myopic Doves, Again
Charles Krauthammer

With the defeat of Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut, antiwar forces are poised for a takeover of the Democratic Party. Tuesday's exhilarating victory, and the elan and electoral legitimacy gained, may carry the newly energized Democratic left to considerable success in November.

But for the Democratic Party it will be an expensive and short-lived indulgence. The Iraq war will end, as will the Bush presidency. But the larger conflict that defines our times -- war on Islamic radicalism, more politely known as the war on terrorism -- will continue, as the just-foiled London airliner plot unmistakably reminds us. And the reflexive antiwar sentiments underlying Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut will prove disastrous for the Democrats in the long run -- the long run beginning as early as November '08.

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 11, 2006 at 02:39 AM in Bill Faith, Dem Dumbness, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, Peacenik Stupidity, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 10 August 2006
 

Is it time for Alan Schlesinger to do the right thing?
Contributed by Bill Faith

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 here.

***

While you're in the neighborhood, see also: The Grey Lady Vs. the Stately Lady

***

On a related note:

Lieberman And Today’s Foiled Terrorist Attacks
By Greg Tinti

Interesting how The New York Times decided to frame Lieberman’s comments today as him “seizing” on today’s news to “attack” Ned Lamont:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman seized on the terror arrests in Britain today to attack his Democratic rival, Ned Lamont, saying that Mr. Lamont’s goals for ending the war in Iraq would constitute a “victory” for extremists, including those accused of plotting to blow up airliners traveling between Britain and the United States.

“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event at lunchtime in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

How outrageous! Lieberman actually had the cojones to talk about his opponent’s position vis-a-vis the war on terrorism in light of today’s foiled terrorist attack.

Well, I never.

For what it’s worth, here’s how Mr. Lamont responded:

[...]

[Read on here.]

***

Dan Riehl: Lieberman Flubs First General Election Campaign Stop

Ace: Jane Hamsher: The Gift That Keeps On Giving To the Lieberman Campaign

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 10, 2006 at 04:59 PM in Bill Faith, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

More "Screw Lieberman?"
Contributed by Bill Faith

I guess this one's 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: “When the character of a man is not clear, look at his friends”

***

Will Lieberman's Independent Run Strengthen CT Republicans?
Ed Morrissey

[...]

"I wrote yesterday that the primary result gave Democrats their worst possible scenario. If this analysis proves correct, the netroots may have won a Senate primary but cost themselves the House."

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 10, 2006 at 03:56 AM in Bill Faith, Dem Dumbness, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, Peacenik Stupidity, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack