Great Slate editorial on Lieberman

http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/

The Slate author recognizes that the Democratic party will only reap a McGovern-style ass-whipping in 2008 if they let bloggers in their PJs, neophytes limo liberals like Ned Lamont, Howard Dean and moveon.org hijack the party.

 

I guess this means that John Kerry won't be playing up his war record if he runs in 2008 since the Dems are back to being the Anti War party.

 

Why? Those type of elements (their reverse images) have already hijacked the GOP.
It was good to see a guy like Lamont stand up FOR something. The Dems lost the last three elections because they were too scared to stand up for anything.

 

*sigh*

Already overused trope alert, anyone?

 

so they are now standing up for going light on Al Queda and their like around the world-- nice .

 

Yeah, the Conn. voters really rallied to support Leiberman.

Actually, the Dem leadership's current strategy of trying to appear as conservative as possible has been the formula for receiving ass-kickings.

Who knows, if the Dems ever grew a sack and stood for a clear alternative, maybe the working-class voters they abandoned three decades ago would make a rare visit to the polls.  Hard to get excited when it's same shit, different pile.

And going light on Al Quaida? I don't think anyone endorses that. Except perhaps for our Iraq-obsessed President, with his famous remark about not caring where Bin Laden is.

 

hondo --

I'll eagerly await a list of GOP reps who are against the war.

 

Which proves what point?

 

A huge majority of Democrats are against the war. Chances are, when you adamantly ignore your constituents stance on an issue, they might not remain your constittuents.

If a Democrat losing a primary because he is for the war is a condmenation of the party and a sign that it has given itself over to the lunatic fringe, I wonder where all the anti-war Republicans are. Isn't their lack of existence and even bigger story about what's wrong with the Republican party?

That was the point.

 

Show me where ANYONE has gone "hard" on Al Queda since, oh, 2003.

 

Zeke, this brings up a question that apparently no one have answered: if the Dems in Congress were against this offensive in Iraq, why vote yes to head in there in the first place? I made this assertion to a weekly alternative mag in 2004 when Kerry, Howie, and Co. were here for the Iowa Caucus: you can go against the war, but you can't change your vote. It's on record and you have to defend that vote.

This shit is now making me rethink everything I have learned in poli sci class while getting my major. I don't know what the fuck to make of the Dems now. Throwing Joe under the bus is one thing, but it's amazing that in 2004, hardly anyone who voted in favor of going over there were tossed off the side of the Ark.

To me, I think this was a hypocritical ploy. If the rest of the Dems were that pissed off with Lieberman, then why not troup Hillary and the rest who did vote yes to the guillotine and get it over with?

 

Well, it's a pretty easy out, politically.

You say you voted to authorize the funds as a show of support to the president. Since then, you've become disillussioned by the way this admin has gone about prosecuting the war. That position is hard to refute, and has the added bonus of reflecting that of the average American.

But I really agree that a reckoning for the likes of Hilary and others on this issue is at hand, or the Dems will once again be easy pickings on the national stage.