|Scoobie Davis Online|
Sun Myung Moon Blog
Search Engine Optimization and Free Submission
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
It's Not Joe Lieberman Who Lost...It's the Democrat [sic] party. . .Even after years of watching my party decline, I have refused to abandon it, even if it means remaining as an example of what being a Democrat used to mean, and the difference between Classical Liberal politics versus today's stink of leftist tripe.
The essence of the GOP/right-wing talking points:
1. The Lamont victory signals the re-McGovernization of the Democratic Party (the Democrat [sic] Party to them) and the party now represents isolationism, appeasement, and pacifism.
2.Lamont’s supporters represent "the wackadoo wing" of the Democratic Party.
3. The "losers" in Lieberman's loss are "the troops."
To counter this, Democrats should point out:
1. Lieberman not only supported the war but has been an apologist for unsound policy decisions. Lieberman not only supported Bush's bad policies but harshly criticized Democrats who criticized Bush's inept handling of the war. Other prominent Democrats who supported the war did not face primary challenges.
2. Lamont is focused on fighting the terrorists who endanger us, not in keeping troops bogged down in costly quagmires.
3. Lieberman has become cozy with right-wing smear merchants like Sean Hannity.
4. Keeping our troops in a quagmire is what is hurting them.
If Lieberman were loyal to the Democratic Party, then he would abandon his bid as an independent candidate. Although, not surprisingly, the members of today's National Review symposium on Lieberman's defeat reiterated most of the right-wing talking points, one thing I agree with panelists John McLaughlin and Gary Andres that could cost Democrats three House seats in Connecticut. Prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton and Christopher Dodd should urge Lieberman to drop out and put his support behind Lamont.
UPDATE: Wesley Clark is in good form in his endorsement of Ned Lamont: