John Kerry performed magnificently in the 2004 presidential elections. The great flip-flopper, as we so affectionately remember him, brilliantly [tip-toed] between the mainstream beliefs of Americans and the hardline left who control his own party. If you recall, it was only after Howard Dean was gaining momentum in the primaries as an anti-war candidate that Kerry was forced to start his flip-flopping career over the war he initially supported.
Sure he lost, but what else could he do? His choices were to 1. stick to his convictions and lose the primary or 2. take a hard left approach and win the primary but lose the general in a landslide. And even with such memorable nuances such as the famous “I voted for it before I voted against it,” he still managed to come within 2% of winning the presidency.
Those good old days are over now. After years of trying to convince moderate, sensible, JFK Democrats that their party has been hijacked by the likes of Michael Moore, George Soros, Moveon.org, and nerdy anti-American bloggers, it has finally happened. As Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Primary, Republicans are left cheerfully saying, “I told you so.”
Al Gore’s 2000 running mate, Joe Lieberman, has proven himself to be a committed liberal despite the implies of photoshoped images on liberal blogs depicting Lieberman on his knees, positioned directly in front of George Bush’s…well, you get the idea. The fact, however, is Lieberman’s current record shows him voting on the Democratic side over 90% of the time. The idea that Lieberman is a Republican in disguise is delusional. He holds an ADA rating of 70, the same score given to the Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
So what could Lieberman possibly have done to go from the Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate to being booted out of his own party in just six years? In short, he dared to defend his vote for the Iraq War and refused to back down to the extreme forces in his own party (he might have been the last real man they had). Like the images of columns of North Korean soldiers marching in unison – not allowed to think, not allowed to question, only to obey orders – the anti-war radical left who has taken control of the Democratic Party has made an example out of Lieberman and sent a clear message to any Democrat who dares stray from the party line of surrender and defeat.
And make no mistake about it – the vote for Ned Lamont was a vote for our own defeat in the global war on terror. It’s been pointed out before – the Democrats’ national security plan can be summed up in two words: preemptive surrender. These liberals aren’t your average, everyday Americans, like myself, who believe the war isn’t going the way it should and we could (and should) be doing better. These are people who think – without an iota of evidence – that Bush lied us into war, cherry-picked the intelligence, and…if it was up to them, our troops would have been pulled out yesterday.
Perhaps the recently spoiled August 10th terrorist plot in London will help us gain some perspective on the liberal position. With the relentless pounding of the media and liberal demagogues, it’s easy to lose focus of the reasons we are in Iraq and the importance of staying the course. The fact is, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 subscribe to the same murderous ideology as the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq, the terrorists Israel is fighting in Lebanon and Gaza, and the terrorists involved in the recent London plot.
Had the liberals who voted for Ned Lamont been in control, we might have woken up to an entirely different scenario that morning. The NSA wiretapping program – one of many counter-terrorism tools that have become a target of the left – that played an instrumental role in thwarting this plot, would not have been in place. As a result, instead of waking up and learning that a terror plot in London had been thwarted, we might have awoken to ten commercial airliners, armed with liquid explosives, heading toward the east coast. But according to Michael Moore, “There is no terorrist threat. There is no great terrorist threat.”
For most of us these current events are sobering reminders that the Islamo-nazis are still very much determined to attack the west; but are we determined enough to continue fighting back? Pulling out of Iraq prematurely, as Ned Lamont advocates, will result in a country ill-equipped to defend themselves against the infiltration of terrorists from Iran condemning it to become another base for terrorist operations, and will only serve to embolden them to attack us again.
The Lamont victory has major implications for the Democratic Party. As far as Connecticut, a state with a plurality of independent voters, Joe Lieberman is fully expected to be reelected to the Senate as an Independent, further decreasing the number of Democratic seats. As far as the national party (for the meantime they’re still considered a national party), they’re in serious trouble.
I need not go to great lengths to describe the radical nature of the current Democratic Party. From the DNC fundraisers at George Soros’s South Hamptons Mansion or the numerous Senators who have called for the censure or impeachment of the President, perhaps the Lamont is the most telling of all.
Michael Moore, a vicious anti-American – as anyone who refers to this country as an “evil empire” can be thus accurately characterized – was one of the main driving forces behind the ousting of Senator Lieberman. In an open letter posted on his webpage he relishes in his victory:
“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…To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war…I’m here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush’s biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night’s voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?”
So the question remains to be answered: is the great tightrope walk still possible for the Democrats? I will argue, no. In 2004 it was still possible to walk the line between the left and mainstream America, but the consistent leftward march has transformed that line into a gap. The fact is most Americans DO acknowledge the terrorist threat we face and DO NOT believe America is the problem, but the solution. It appears that the once feared and thought-to-be unstoppable Hillary Clinton may be destined to suffer the same fate as Joe Lieberman in the next Democratic Primaries.
The party that often accuses others of stifling debate has made it very clear that they will not tolerate anyone who differs with them on the issue of the Iraq War. In April of 2004 Hillary Clinton unequivocally said she does not regret her vote for the war. Will she be held accountable?
-When Democrats and Republicans disagreed, Lieberman voted 90.5 percent of the time with his colleagues in roll call votes cast during his third term.
-Lieberman receives a ranking of 76.4 percent from ProgressivePunch, a nonpartisan searchable database of Congressional voting records from a liberal perspective. The score, however, was deflated because of votes missed while Lieberman was running for president in 2003. He scored 85.5 percent among the 414 votes evaluated in which he actually voted. Dodd scores 87.2 percent from the liberal group.
-ADA rating: Lieberman, 70; Harry Reid, 70
-Lamont owns over 30,000 in Wal-Mart stock while blasting Joe for receiving a campaign contribution from the retail giant, even though Joe didn’t accept the contribution. Lamont defended himself by saying he doesn’t make his investment decisions as it is a part of his fancy shmancy Goldman Sachs “Tax Advantaged Core Strategies managed account”
-“There is no terorrist threat. There is no great terrorist threat.” – Michael Moore
-Hillary: “I’ve been a persistent critic from the very beginning.”
4/21/04: “obviously I thought a lot about my vote…no I don’t regret my vote…clearly Saddam had been a threat…”
“The consensus was the same from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence beliefs that our allies and friends around the world shared.”
“But I think in the case of the Bush administration they really believed it.”
“But such decisions are very tough for anyone occupying the oval office” -Moore says: these nuances won’t cut it.
-“To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war. I’m sure someone has advised you that a woman can’t be elected unless she proves she can kick ass just as crazy as any man. I’m here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush’s biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night’s voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?”