Hollywood Liberals, Starbucks Pacifists, & Angry Bloggers Retake Democratic Party
By Congressman Jack Kingston Posted in Congressional Contributors | Democrats — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The hijacking of the Democratic Party by the Hollywood liberals, Starbucks pacifists, and angry bloggers was confirmed last night when Connecticut Democrats actually tossed overboard their beloved senior Senator for a single-issue elitist liberal.
With this win, the outliers of the Democratic Party are signaling a clarion call of their own: join the cut-and-run caucus or you will be replaced by someone who will. As Hollywood heavyweight Michael Moore says on his website today:
“Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.”
It is sad that there is no room in the Democratic Party for a statesman and gentleman like Joe Lieberman. It is clear to me that the far left Democrats have no room for bipartisanship, they have no place for leaders that put principle ahead of polling, and they have no patience for any Democrat who supports the Global War on Terrorism.
Clearly, the Democratic Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, and Joe Lieberman no longer exists. Instead, a 21st Century model has emerged with liberals like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Ned Lamont running the show.
Read on . . .
In Greek mythology, those who listened to the calls of the sirens did so at their peril. So to will those who follow the clarion call of the cut-and-run caucus. Pulling our troops out of Iraq now would embolden our enemy and would leave the Iraqi people stranded on an island of defeat and turmoil.
The Iraqi and Coalition Forces are making progress. As General George W. Casey Jr. said this past Sunday: “This week Iraqis celebrated another significant advance toward their sovereign democracy. Today the 4th Iraqi Army Division assumed responsibility for operations from the American 101st Airborne Division. Half the Iraqi Army divisions are now in the lead for planning and controlling security operations in Iraq.”
According to General Casey over 275,000 Iraqi soldiers and police are now trained and are helping defend their nation. And out of 110 operating bases nationwide, 48 have already been transferred to the Iraqis.
The Democratic Party has become a fringe, extreme, left-wing party and it would not surprise me at all to see more moderate, commonsense voters - Democrats, Independents and Republicans - rally behind a good man like Joe Lieberman who will be running as an Independent in Connecticut.
While staying the course in Iraq will lead to democracy and freedom, the road ahead for the Democrats is not so clear.
« American Citizenship: A Privilege, Not a Right — Comments (25)
Hollywood Liberals, Starbucks Pacifists, & Angry Bloggers Retake Democratic Party 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
wish that were true, but no respected expert believes that will be the case. All of the toss-up districts are seats help by Republicans. At most, Republicans steal two seats currently held by Democrats. With Delay's district already down, we're only talking about 14 seats. I can name 14 vulnerable Republican seats just east of the Mississippi. We're in big trouble.
At least, when it comes to predicting the behavior of large, complicated systems, like seasonal weather patterns or the next pop culture fad.
Most of the respected experts were seeing losses for Republicans and mild to significant gains for the Democrats in 2002. In 2004, most polls, including the exit polls, had a Kerry victory, and many "respected" experts had the Dems taking back the senate and possible the house.
The fact that, in both cases, many of the respected experts turned out to be wrong should give one pause in paying attention to such analysis. The fact is, they really don't know, and lots of other factors are in play that could easily throw a wrench in everything the respected experts are looking at.
If by "We're in big trouble", you mean that most of the Republicans in politics are politicians first and conservatives second, if at all, then sure, you have a point. If by "We're in big trouble" you mean there's going to be a huge shift in the balance of power this year, I think you're wrong. Almost everything I've heard about the Republicans being vulnerable and losing big this November I heard in 2004 and 2002 and and 2000 and 1998 . . . pretty much since 1994 (when I went to bed without watching the election returns, because the respected experts on TV had already called most of the elections for the Democrats . . . what a surprise to wake up and find out the respected experts were wrong, wrong, wrong).
In fact, the only real criteria for being a respected expert (whether left or right) seems to be how consistently and how often they predict Democrat victory and Republican defeat.
"The white race is the cancer of human history." -- Susan Sontag.
kevinwillis.net
We Should be in big trouble. But we lucked out and might even make some gains in areas we never expected to. Ones that were off the radar like CT.
Stupid as the GOP is, the DNC is worse...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
Even though he was the victim of a personal vendetta by that Earl guy, Delay should have bowed out of the race before the primary. Like Conrad Burns, his pride is probably going to cost the GOP dearly in November. Lampson is a liberal, but so long as he's doesn't let his true colors show too much, then he'll be in a good position to retain the seat in 2008, and thus create yet another situation where a conservative district is represented by a Democrat.
Are you counting a Joementum win in November as even or -1?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
it would be even at best...but i think it will be a loss for the dems. what i would really love to see is lieberman go back to his pre-election 2000 form. then he can really stick it to kos and the far left.
"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
They blame themselves when you fly planes through their buildings and don't squirm as much when you are sawing off their heads.
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
So anotehr millionaire joins the ranks of the democrats/liberals. I thought we had them all. Limbaugh passed on a report that the reporters were cheering when Lamont made his victory speech, it must have been objective, non-partisan cheering.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
After last night's Conn. primary, the extreme lefties are declaring some type of revolution. They are tooting their own horns before they've left the garage. It is sad to see one of the gang of 14 on his way out.
Following the logic of the previous comments, 60% of the country must then be part of the extreme left.
As per the latest CNN poll, 60% of the country opposes the Iraq war:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html
No, I think Lieberman lost because he was not a leader, but a follower, willing to play along with the President and the Republican majority because it suited his political interests.
The good people of Connecticut were smart enough, and brave enough, to realize that the current direction the country is going is not a good one.
Change is in the air.
...Markos is holding the leash attached to the collar around Ned's neck.
Which of Lieberman's "political interests" were served by alienating the surrendernistas in his own party?
BTW, people who follow polls are very rarely leaders.
1st off, this is a CNN poll you are touting. They have a History of polling a Heavy majority of Democrats. And for asking leading questions and deliberately misinterpreting results. I Might believe 60% of Democrats don't support the war...
However, even if they did none of the above, you still hve to explain a few things.
Let's start with the fact that less than 3% of the people between the ages of 17 and 42 are eligible to join the Army (which, admittedly, has the loosest recruiting standards of all the services).
Now you propose to tell me that 60% of them are hostile to the Armed Forces and what we are doing right now. Now we have to add in all those that, while not hostile, are just not interested for various reasons. So how many people should be actually Joining?
Sorry, but the trend CNN suggests (and you have aparently bitten hook, line, and sinker) and the Actual trend of Military Enlistments don't agree.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
I don't believe that CNN poll asked for party affiliation.
As for the rest of your comment, I'm not even sure what you're talking about. The Liberals of America are in fact not hostile to the Armed Forces. Many of them serve in the military. We see our Armed Forces getting killed and depleted in a meaningless occupaiton of Iraq, and stuck in the middle of a Civil War. We see our national treasure squandered, leaving us unable to respond to real emergencies, real threats.
On a side note. You'll notice my login name is now "gfeathers". In my previous two posts to this story my login name was "greyfeathers". In the past I have posted as "grayeathers". Seems whenever I post, my username and password mysteriously stop working. I can only assume free, open and non-inflamatory debate from a liberal is not tolerated at this site as I have tried to contact the authors several times as to why I couldn't post anymore. I have never gotten a reply. I have never used name calling or insults in any of my posts. I simply posted my point of view and supplied the facts wherever I could. Having just been blocked a second time I can only come to one conclusion. You should ask redstate.com why they won't allow free and honest politcal debate on their site.
-Grayfeather, Greyfeathers, gfeathers
Next time back means your ISP gets a note. No one wants that. Be gone.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
My ISP gets a note? Are you a member of Fox News Security? I suppose after this post I will be blocked once again.
Fascism: "...suppression of the opposition through terror ("ISP gets a note") and censorship (free and open debate is not tolerated at redstate.com)".
I don't expect Thomas to care about free, open and honest debate, but the rest of the readers to this post should really ask why redstate.com is blocking my comments. What have I posted that is so inflamtory?
I used to have respect for conservatives. That is when they were truly conservate.
In the words of Charles Barkely, "I used to be a Republican, until they lost their minds".
I have been bounced off lib/left sites and that's when I was lucky, of sorts. Lucky because elsewhere my comment was reviewed and not posted at all. Maybe we should get together and cry in each others beer, there does seem to be a variant of fascism out there, at least going by what seems to be a kindergarten definition in your post.
Not sure if you were being ironic with your 60% comment, but misgivings about the war don't qualify as liberalism, just ask Kos or the gang over at The Nation or anybody who thinks taxes are to low, always.
Whatever you do, don't flee the country. We may get Hillary in 08 and then my friend you will get a dash of the real thing. Who knows, you may like it.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
You aging baby boomers need to spend more time with Ben-Gay and Preparation H, and less time dreaming of Nixon. You'll be less cranky that way.
If you're not a baby boomer, shame on you: This sort of obnoxious, single minded senility is unbecoming in any other age group.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
You mean 14% of the people of Connecticut...
The good people get to vote in the real election in three months.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Now bear with me, Suppose both parties begin to enforce just a little more orthodoxy on their representatives? (Ok, a little bit for the Republicans, and a lot of orthodoxy for the Democrats)
Would that be such a bad thing? Instead of confusion you would have clear choices for the American people. We gnash our teeth at what happened to Lieberman because we recognize him as an honest man. On the other hand would you want him in the Republican party? I wouldn't. I think he will do just fine as an independent and might find that he is no longer beholden to all the special interests of his former party, and thats fine too.
Altogether I would be very happy with parties who were clearly demarcated and a couple or more strong independents who could help with compromises and such.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I would be happier about this if I didn't see the GOP veering left as well. Congressman Kingston voted against all 19 of the anti-pork Flake amendments in the House.
At length here.
The real question is will the Senate de-fund the 95 programs the House Appropriations Committee zeroed out?
Just sayin'.
Refer to Schwarz's defeat in the Primary. Even on a local and state level, incumbents are being yanked back from the left or just plain replaced (reference: Jubilirer in PA)
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
Club for Growth ranked Schwarz number 224, and Kingston 88, with lower numbers indicating more conservative.
Some people here sound like the Kossaks, ready to purge the party of everyone not pure enough for them. Never mind that they would end up with about ten seats in Congress.
So 51-48% makes a resounding defeat for the 48 guy. Of course, Kerry got 48, so that makes his defeat resounding. Thanks, Michael!
I must part ways with the good Congressman when he associates Starbucks with pacifism. Hey, I'm enjoying the two bags I bought yesterday. Caffeine is good for the soul!
"I'm a bigot-but for the Left!" - Woody Allen (in Annie Hall)
Just like Bush got a mandate from his election, Lamont now has a mandate: he must divide the Democratic Party and ensure that his party loses seats in both houses of congress this November.
the Moore/Kos wing of the party isn't more than a little fascist. Do they really believe themselves?
I suggest you look up the meaning of fascist and stop cheapening it applying it to every group who you disagre with.
I looked it up. He isn't cheapening it.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Thomas.
Siberian, I choose what words to use based entirely on their definitions. Michael Moore and Markos Moulitsas want one very narrow worldview to be the mission of the Democratic party and their statements increasingly suggest intolerance of diverse thought. Sometimes truth itself is also their enemy. If they won control of the nation, the state in their image would have supremacy over the people.
I'm stationed in Iraq right now, so I don't always have time to call elected officials. But I'll tell you right now, I am getting on the phone with Rick Santorum, Mike Dewine, Ken Blackwell, Rob Simmons, Clay Shaw, Nancy Johnson, Conrad Burns, and Lynn Swann.
Every one of these people should immediately and enthusiastically endorse Joe Lieberman for Senate.
I think that Bush should endorse Joe. Bush is hanging his entire legacy on two things right now: the War Against Terrorists and the economic boom caused by his tax policy. Lieberman has been a loyal supporter of both of these causes.
This is huge. Better than huge. I can see now why so many people on this site were hoping that this would happen.
Fascism:
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator (see Bush and signing statements, the House not checking the balance of power by the Executive, etc), stringent socioeconomic controls (tax cuts for the rich, high gas prices for the poor, tax breaks for the oil companies, no minimum wage increase), suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship (see anything the right has said about 9/11), and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism (why does John Kerry, Howard Dean and the liberal left hate America?)".
We're not quite there yet, but we're inching ever closer.
I guess Ned Lamont must really hate America to beat Joe Lieberman in a fair election.
Farewell. And remember, when Joe wins in November, you can feel good because you sent him a message he subsequently ignored.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
That was a masterfull job of trolling.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
That's the only possible explanation for this bizarre inverse interpretation of stringent socioeconomic controls:
tax cuts for the rich, high gas prices for the poor, tax breaks for the oil companies, no minimum wage increase
Huh? You may think tax cuts are bad, or that the government should regulate wages more stringently, but cutting taxes and leaving the minimum wage alone is the exact opposite of "stringent socioeconomic controls".
That's so obviously wrong I'm almost tempted to assume you knew it was wrong when you wrote it. I'm not arguing that liberalism or left-wing Democrats are fascists, but a common criticism of conservatives from the left is that conservatives are too lax with socioeconomic controls, believing "too much" in the power of the free market to set prices and wages, and having too much confidence in businesses and well-to-do people to know how to best spend their money.
As far as suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship . . . yeah, the left and the DNC and the press are all being such sweethearts to Joe Leiberman right now.
Sheesh.
"The white race is the cancer of human history." -- Susan Sontag.
kevinwillis.net
If the GOP is smart (a big if) all our candidates should tie Lamont and his supporters to their opponents. The GOP needs to reclaim the mantle of defense, security, and tough foreign policy. We need to paint the DEM's as the party of appeasement and weakness.
That mantle. All they need to do is let the Dems paint Themselves as appeasers and cowards. They're doing such a beautiful job of it as it is.
What the GOP needs to reclaim is the mantle of Sane Domestic Policy. Thet's where they have strayed and where thay have irritated their base. (see: immigration policy, end of term of temporary tax cuts, increased spending, welfare, medicare...)
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
i am going to still stay a democrat but i will be marginalized...fine. moore/kos/dean/ect are going to be so suprised when the party has no more then 35 seats in the senate and 150 or so in the house. by the way...i am taking bets that in the democrats lose seats in both houses they will yank the party further to the left.
my election 2006 predictions for the democrats (old):
+ 3 in the senate
+6 in the house
my new predictions:
even to -2 in senate
+2 to -3 in the house
ie...they are going to break even or lose seats this year in BOTH houses...
"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain