Leiberman defeated...maybe

[Moneyguy1]

Ronin:

I remember Nixon, running for prez, saying he had a secret plan for ending the Vietnam conflict. Nothing new in"secret" plans by one side or another. Any such announcement would be of no value.

Unfortunately, we have the same problem in foreign relations today as new parents with a baby. The child soils the diaper, but cannot change itself so the parents have to do it. Now where are those safety pins?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RoninLB
Liberman's defeat defined the Dems as the anti-war party. The Dems surely have a secret plan to defeat terror that will be explained before this next election?

"The latest terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications."

The US government itself has no plan to defeat terror, it pays for terrorists worldwide. What do you think the Nicarauguan Contras were? Or the gangs in Somalia that tried to take over the reins of power there recently?

Or do you think only those the US government labels as terrorists are terrorists?

[RoninLB]

Cold war terrorism was sponsored by the CIA, England, and Italy.

That was necessary or USSR would have more stable satellites.

Old warlords morphed into new warlords. The west is reaping what they sowed. If the west can't buy off the new warlords and they want war instead then the west has to kill them. Plenty have been bought off in Afg.

Iraq is a suicide bomber magnet. Does anyone really believe that instead of being sent to Iraq they won't be sent to the west.. that they will be told they're all retired?


The '08 P election has been defined by Liberman' loss. Either you're for the anti war party or you're not? The far left is power. Just like the boomers putting up Gene McCarthy and George McGovern today you have the new boomers. Good luck.

In '06 who knows how this will all play out unless the races are defined by the anti war party. Newt should be the Rep philosophy bearer.

The success of the ACLU & supporters with the NYT is affecting more than social policy. In Turkey the military can take over the gov't under certain circumstances as per their Constitution. The military has done so in the past and then returned gov't to the voters. I think it has some merit. Syria is scared $$h itless to screw with them.

"The latest terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications." would not be possible under US law. At what point does the population become united in the belief that we are at war?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RoninLB
Cold war terrorism was sponsored by the CIA, England, and Italy.

And France, Germany (West), and others.

That was necessary or USSR would have more stable satellites.

The Soviet Union needed containment, but all the rest was bogus. I know, I was involved in it.

Old warlords morphed into new warlords. The west is reaping what they sowed. If the west can't buy off the new warlords and they want war instead then the west has to kill them. Plenty have been bought off in Afg.

Yeah, the largest opium producers in Afghanistan, another US government drug peddling involvement. Bad stuff now, worse stuff later.

Iraq is a suicide bomber magnet. Does anyone really believe that instead of being sent to Iraq they won't be sent to the west.. that they will be told they're all retired?

Where do you get this "sent" notion? Most are from right there in Iraq. Worst case estimates are that no more than 10% of the so-called terrorist bombings in Iraq are by those outside the country, unless you count the ones by Britain and the US government.

The '08 P election has been defined by Liberman' loss. Either you're for the anti war party or you're not? The far left is power. Just like the boomers putting up Gene McCarthy and George McGovern today you have the new boomers. Good luck.

In '06 who knows how this will all play out unless the races are defined by the anti war party. Newt should be the Rep philosophy bearer.

The success of the ACLU & supporters with the NYT is affecting more than social policy. In Turkey the military can take over the gov't under certain circumstances as per their Constitution. The military has done so in the past and then returned gov't to the voters. I think it has some merit. Syria is scared $$h itless to screw with them.

"The latest terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications." would not be possible under US law. At what point does the population become united in the belief that we are at war?

Wehre did you come up with this crap? Almost none of what you state about the law is correct, even under federal law prior to 9-11-2001. This notion that the Bill of Rights protects terrorists and therefore needs amending out of the Constitution, which is what you imply, is horrific garbage.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RoninLB
Cold war terrorism was sponsored by the CIA, England, and Italy.

And France, Germany (West), and others.

That was necessary or USSR would have more stable satellites.

The Soviet Union needed containment, but all the rest was bogus. I know, I was involved in it.

Old warlords morphed into new warlords. The west is reaping what they sowed. If the west can't buy off the new warlords and they want war instead then the west has to kill them. Plenty have been bought off in Afg.

Yeah, the largest opium producers in Afghanistan, another US government drug peddling involvement. Bad stuff now, worse stuff later.

Iraq is a suicide bomber magnet. Does anyone really believe that instead of being sent to Iraq they won't be sent to the west.. that they will be told they're all retired?

Where do you get this "sent" notion? Most are from right there in Iraq. Worst case estimates are that no more than 10% of the so-called terrorist bombings in Iraq are by those outside the country, unless you count the ones by Britain and the US government.

The '08 P election has been defined by Liberman' loss. Either you're for the anti war party or you're not? The far left is power. Just like the boomers putting up Gene McCarthy and George McGovern today you have the new boomers. Good luck.

In '06 who knows how this will all play out unless the races are defined by the anti war party. Newt should be the Rep philosophy bearer.

The success of the ACLU & supporters with the NYT is affecting more than social policy. In Turkey the military can take over the gov't under certain circumstances as per their Constitution. The military has done so in the past and then returned gov't to the voters. I think it has some merit. Syria is scared $$h itless to screw with them.

"The latest terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications." would not be possible under US law. At what point does the population become united in the belief that we are at war?

Wehre did you come up with this crap? Almost none of what you state about the law is correct, even under federal law prior to 9-11-2001. This notion that the Bill of Rights protects terrorists and therefore needs amending out of the Constitution, which is what you imply, is horrific garbage.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RoninLB
Cold war terrorism was sponsored by the CIA, England, and Italy.

And France, Germany (West), and others.

That was necessary or USSR would have more stable satellites.

The Soviet Union needed containment, but all the rest was bogus. I know, I was involved in it.

Old warlords morphed into new warlords. The west is reaping what they sowed. If the west can't buy off the new warlords and they want war instead then the west has to kill them. Plenty have been bought off in Afg.

Yeah, the largest opium producers in Afghanistan, another US government drug peddling involvement. Bad stuff now, worse stuff later.

Iraq is a suicide bomber magnet. Does anyone really believe that instead of being sent to Iraq they won't be sent to the west.. that they will be told they're all retired?

Where do you get this "sent" notion? Most are from right there in Iraq. Worst case estimates are that no more than 10% of the so-called terrorist bombings in Iraq are by those outside the country, unless you count the ones by Britain and the US government.

The '08 P election has been defined by Liberman' loss. Either you're for the anti war party or you're not? The far left is power. Just like the boomers putting up Gene McCarthy and George McGovern today you have the new boomers. Good luck.

In '06 who knows how this will all play out unless the races are defined by the anti war party. Newt should be the Rep philosophy bearer.

The success of the ACLU & supporters with the NYT is affecting more than social policy. In Turkey the military can take over the gov't under certain circumstances as per their Constitution. The military has done so in the past and then returned gov't to the voters. I think it has some merit. Syria is scared $$h itless to screw with them.

"The latest terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications." would not be possible under US law. At what point does the population become united in the belief that we are at war?

Where did you come up with this crap? Almost none of what you state about the law is correct, even under federal law prior to 9-11-2001. This notion that the Bill of Rights protects terrorists and therefore needs amending out of the Constitution, which is what you imply, is horrific garbage.

[hytem]

Originally posted by techweenie
I have a different take on Lieberman. When he says people are 'on the terrorists' side' for wanting to set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, that puts him at the extreme end of the Republican party on the political spectrum. I expect he will run as an independent and make a decent showing. But I think he will hurt the Republican candidate more than he will hurt Lamont.

You are aware that Rove contacted Lieberman and may assist in his campaign? If so, watch for Lamont to get slimed.

The Republicans are very good at misrepresenting the views of their opponents, and getting away with it in the media. For example, there are some very responsible military people and Republican politicians who think it's time for our troops to get out of Iraq, and we are just hurting ourselves staying there. It's become another Vietnam, i.e., a civil struggle between the Shiites, Sunnis and, ultimately, the Kurds. It may be about oil, since most of it is in the south controlled by the Shiites. And now the Shiites are allied with Iran? This is why Bush Sr. didn't take out Saddam when he could have. But 9/11 may have changed their thinking....
Lieberman won't get anywhere in Connecticut allying with the likes of Rove.

[Moneyguy1]

If Rove has contected Lieberman, the question that should be asked is "Why?" Is it for motives that are designes to benefit the nation or simply to create more chaos in the Democrat party?

I know I am a dreamer and it will never happen, but I would like to see at least ONE Washingtonian with self respect and moral integrity.

[RoninLB]

Liberman is Dem centralist. You can't win the presidency without a central theme and the support of the party base. The New Anti-War Party has isolated Dem moderates.

The strange thing is that even if the Reps don't follow Gingrich core philosophy the Anti-War Party is making it easy for the Reps by default.

garbage mouths need not reply.. thx

[fintstone]

Joe Lieberman has been a stanch Democrat and a tough opponent for many years and, although I disagree with him on most issues...I respect his honesty and sincerity. He has been smeared in much the same way that Zell Miller was by the far left fruitcakes of the Democratic party....for standing on principal. I guess there is no room remaining for that on the left....and it sure makes things a lot easier for those on the right. Lieberman was a tough opponent.

It is interesting to start seeing some of the same predictions regarding the next elections posted here. They are very similar to the ones posted here the last two elections...and proved to be completely wrong. I daresay that if the Conneticut primary had been a few days later...things might have been different....
I had a couple more observations regarding this topic...but the author of the following article says it much better:

Big Foot, Scoop Jackson Democrats and other myths
By Ann Coulter
Thursday, August 10, 2006

I suppose we'll have to wait yet another election cycle for all those "Scoop Jackson Democrats" to come roaring back in and give us a Democratic Party that does not consistently root against America.

On the bright side, it is now official: Democrats are not merely confused patriots, so blinded by their hatred for President Bush that they cannot see their way to supporting any aspect of the war on terrorism. Would that they were mere opportunistic traitors!

As some of us have been trying to tell you, Democrats don't oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorists even if he had a "D" after his name. They would hate Bernie Sanders if he were fighting a war on terrorism. In the past three decades, there have been more legitimate sightings of Big Foot than of "Scoop Jackson Democrats."

That's why Hillary Clinton has anti-war protestors howling at her public events. That's why she has drawn an anti-war primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini, who appears to believe that Israel is a terrorist state. If those rumors I've been hearing about a Hezbollah/Hamas/DNC merger are true, we might be in for a slightly longer fight.

In Tuesday's primary, Connecticut Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, because he supports the war on terrorism. This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. Oh yes, this was also the same Joe Lieberman who was the Democrats' own vice presidential candidate six years ago.

Despite all this, Connecticut Democrats preferred stalwart anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, great-nephew of Corliss Lamont, WASP plutocrat fund-raiser for Stalin. Lamont's main political asset is that he is a walking, breathing argument in favor of a massive inheritance tax. His plan for fighting the terrorists is to enact a single-payer government health plan and universal pre-K education programs. His goal is to unite the "cut" and "run" wings of his party into one glorious coalition.

The Democrats can hold it in for a few years, but eventually the McGovernite face of the Democratic Party reappears.

Lamont declared victory surrounded by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Kim Gandy of the fanatically pro-abortion group known euphemistically as the "National Organization for Women."

Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat. Waters also considers Joe "soft" on the issue of the CIA inventing crack cocaine and AIDS to kill all the black people in America.

Gandy's support for Lamont must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lieberman to swallow, inasmuch as he has long belonged to the world's smallest organization solely to satisfy bloodthirsty feminists like Gandy -- Orthodox Jews for Partial-Birth Abortion. (OJFPBA has just slightly more members than GBRFC, "Gay Black Republicans for Choice.")

To give you a snapshot of today's Democratic Party, in 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters if they believed America was generally a fair and decent country and whether they believed the world would be a better place if more countries were like America.

Republicans agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

Democrats constantly complain that the nation has never been so divided, but consider that half of them think the statement that America is a good country is a divisive remark.

So remember: When you vote Democratic, you're saying NO to mindless patriotism. This country isn't so great!

The free world, which is rapidly boiling down to us and Israel, is under savage attack. Treason is rampant in the country. True, Democrats hate Bush, but they would hate anybody who fights the war on terrorism. It is a hostile world, and there is now a real question about the will of the American people to survive.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
I suppose we'll have to wait yet another election cycle for all those "Scoop Jackson Democrats" to come roaring back in and give us a Democratic Party that does not consistently root against America.

Coulter consistently obfuscates the fact that the US government is not and never has been America. So rooting against the US government is virtually never rooting against America, and in particular, rooting against the US government's current worldwide hegemony is strongly rooting for America and Americans.

So, in summary, Coulter is, as usual these days, just plain wrong.