Multiple Perspectives and Getting It Backwards
My post yesterday brought this reaction:
“Colmar thinks that Lieberman lost because people hate Bush, and because he aligned himself with Bush on several crucial issue (the war, illegal spying, social security, Samuel Alito), to which one can only say, “exactly.” Bush has been a divider, not a uniter, and any Dem who aligns him or herself with the biggest Bush wedge issue (namely, that dumbass war) is going to lose this fall (except Hillary, she'll cruise).”
http://integraloptions.zaadz.com/blog/2006/8/speedlinking_8_10_06
Which is getting my point exactly backwards.
My point was that in a primary, where only the diehard base tends to vote, the Bush haters made the Democrat Party even more sadly irrelevant than before. By abandoning a man of character, honor and experience in favor of an inexperienced “Bush hater”.
And ironically, since so many “progressive Democrats” are still playing the class warfare card, Lamont is a multi-millionaire “trust fund baby”.
From Wikipedia:
“Lamont is the great-grandson of former J.P. Morgan & Co. Chairman Thomas W. Lamont, and has a self-reported net worth valued between $90 million and $300 million”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Lamont
But I thought that it was those Banker Robber Barons who run the world in favor of Israel, which was the only reason we are in Iraq? So why does Lamont want us out? I just can’t keep the conspiracy theories straight…..
Especially since Lamont’s great-uncle Corlis, according to Wiki:
“was sympathetic to the Soviet Union (for example, writing a pamphlet entitled The Myth of Soviet Aggression in 1953).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corliss_Lamont
Hmmm… the “myth” of Soviet aggression, I’d think the Poles and the Czechs might have a thing or two to say about that. I wonder, will Lamont write “The Myth of Islamic Fascism”? We’ll just have to wait and see….
Again from Wikipedia:
“his wife, the former Anne Huntress, a venture capitalist”.
From the conservative Cato Institute:
"More than 60 percent of Ned’s campaign expenditures came from Ned. Without Ned, Ned loses. In fact, no political observer thought any candidate dependent on a $2000 contribution limit had any kind of chance of ousting Lieberman. Ned was a very poor candidate. Inarticulate with zero charisma. But by spending his own money..."
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/09/lamonts-victory-exposes-the-true-nature-of-campaign-finance-reform/
Multi-generational “old money” rich. Trust funds from JP Morgan, and venture capitalists. So the Lamonts are the wealthy “them” that live outside the rules that apply to “us” that Democrat Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards campaigned against in 04 ? Yes, in fact Lamont paid for 60% of his campaign out of his private fortune, using that loophole to evade the Federal Election Finance laws. Edwards was right, the rich CAN use their money to evade the law….
Anyway a blogger far more insightful than I posted this about the primary election:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Um, the Bush Candidate Got 48% in a Dem Primary
There is very little Democrats should be happy about regarding this debacle. The party’s 2000 Vice Presidential nominee has bolted. The white rats are running the laboratory. And the pro-Bush candidate just got 48% in a Democrat primary.
Yeah, that last one’s gotta sting. You see, I take Markos Moulitsas and other liberal enthusiasts at their word that their support for Ned Lamont was “not all about the war.” But it was all about President Bush. There seemed, frankly, to be more discussion about “the kiss” than about troop levels in Iraq.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid believes the Democrat primary result was a “referendum on President Bush”:
“The results yesterday were really a referendum on President Bush,” Reid said. “I think this is only the beginning of what we will see developing.”
That referendum could be reflected by Nevada voters in the Nov. 7 congressional election, Reid said.
“If I were a Republican and a member of Congress, I would be very concerned,” Reid said.
DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel went even further, saying “This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means. This is not about the war, it’s blind loyalty to Bush.”
I know Harry Reid and Rahm Emanuel are just spinning their way out of a bad situation, but if they truly believe their little narrative—that Tuesday in Connecticut was all about Bush—then they should be very, very frightened about November. 48% of Connecticut Democrats voted for the Bush candidate.
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/index.php?p=510
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The really funny thing about that is that so many conservative Republicans are upset with Bush right now, for not sticking to traditional conservative principles, that Bush probably couldn’t get 48% of the Republican vote. But “pro-Bush” Lieberman did in a Democrat election. Go figure….
And then my critic goes on to say that “Hillary will cruise this fall”. Which may be true about this falls Senate race, but not about the 08 Presidential race. As was covered in the second half of my post, which was about how that same base that voted out Lieberman utterly Hates Hillary. She won’t “cruise” the national primaries when 45% percent of her own party hates her with such intensity. Calling her “criminal, a political whore, Satanic“ !!!
And unlike Lieberman this fall, she won’t be getting many votes from the Republican side in 08.…
In fact, as I wander the Net, I get the feeling there will be far fewer Democrats period. This is from “The Irish Trojan’s Blog”:
“the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: there’s no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonight’s result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. It’s really much more than just a single primary in a single state; it’s a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, there’s one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today:
I am no longer a Democrat.”
http://www.brendanloy.com/2006/08/time-for-a-divorce.html
Then he goes on to say that his mom, a lifelong Feminist Democrat, is also changing her registration to Independent.
And then in the comments section at that Ankle Biting Pundits post I quoted first, I found THIS interesting reframe on the Iraq question:
capt mike Says:
What’s so depressing about the Iraq war? It’s the most successful war we’ve ever fought. almost 4 years and less than 3,000 casualties. Every war this country has ever fought that lasted that long had days with 3000 casualties. The Iraqis are voting, along with lots of other middle eastern countries. And O by the way, zero domestic terror attacks, USS Coles, Kobar Towers, U.S. Embassies bombed in 5 years. I know you think the Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror so we’ll call that a coincidence.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yes, in four years of war, we have lost fewer Americans than we did in a few hours on 911. Somehow leading to calls to abandon Iraq to the terrorists so they can use it as a base to launch more 911 type attacks….
Each one killing more Americans than we have lost in 4 years of war.
Made all the more poignant today, as we learn about the foiled attempt to blow up airliners. Which had it succeeded, yes, would have caused more deaths in one day than we have lost in four years of war.
From blogger Roger L Simon:
As Trotsky so famously said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2006/07/sleepless_in_yo.php
Isolate ourselves here at home, and leave the entire Middle East to the terrorists, so they can turn it into multiple terrorist training and outfitting bases?
Now THAT is getting it backwards indeed….
NYC Tribute Video:
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8a6cce5a583e3df2b93bface27fa7222.590411
“Colmar thinks that Lieberman lost because people hate Bush, and because he aligned himself with Bush on several crucial issue (the war, illegal spying, social security, Samuel Alito), to which one can only say, “exactly.” Bush has been a divider, not a uniter, and any Dem who aligns him or herself with the biggest Bush wedge issue (namely, that dumbass war) is going to lose this fall (except Hillary, she'll cruise).”
http://integraloptions.zaadz.com/blog/2006/8/speedlinking_8_10_06
Which is getting my point exactly backwards.
My point was that in a primary, where only the diehard base tends to vote, the Bush haters made the Democrat Party even more sadly irrelevant than before. By abandoning a man of character, honor and experience in favor of an inexperienced “Bush hater”.
And ironically, since so many “progressive Democrats” are still playing the class warfare card, Lamont is a multi-millionaire “trust fund baby”.
From Wikipedia:
“Lamont is the great-grandson of former J.P. Morgan & Co. Chairman Thomas W. Lamont, and has a self-reported net worth valued between $90 million and $300 million”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Lamont
But I thought that it was those Banker Robber Barons who run the world in favor of Israel, which was the only reason we are in Iraq? So why does Lamont want us out? I just can’t keep the conspiracy theories straight…..
Especially since Lamont’s great-uncle Corlis, according to Wiki:
“was sympathetic to the Soviet Union (for example, writing a pamphlet entitled The Myth of Soviet Aggression in 1953).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corliss_Lamont
Hmmm… the “myth” of Soviet aggression, I’d think the Poles and the Czechs might have a thing or two to say about that. I wonder, will Lamont write “The Myth of Islamic Fascism”? We’ll just have to wait and see….
Again from Wikipedia:
“his wife, the former Anne Huntress, a venture capitalist”.
From the conservative Cato Institute:
"More than 60 percent of Ned’s campaign expenditures came from Ned. Without Ned, Ned loses. In fact, no political observer thought any candidate dependent on a $2000 contribution limit had any kind of chance of ousting Lieberman. Ned was a very poor candidate. Inarticulate with zero charisma. But by spending his own money..."
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/09/lamonts-victory-exposes-the-true-nature-of-campaign-finance-reform/
Multi-generational “old money” rich. Trust funds from JP Morgan, and venture capitalists. So the Lamonts are the wealthy “them” that live outside the rules that apply to “us” that Democrat Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards campaigned against in 04 ? Yes, in fact Lamont paid for 60% of his campaign out of his private fortune, using that loophole to evade the Federal Election Finance laws. Edwards was right, the rich CAN use their money to evade the law….
Anyway a blogger far more insightful than I posted this about the primary election:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Um, the Bush Candidate Got 48% in a Dem Primary
There is very little Democrats should be happy about regarding this debacle. The party’s 2000 Vice Presidential nominee has bolted. The white rats are running the laboratory. And the pro-Bush candidate just got 48% in a Democrat primary.
Yeah, that last one’s gotta sting. You see, I take Markos Moulitsas and other liberal enthusiasts at their word that their support for Ned Lamont was “not all about the war.” But it was all about President Bush. There seemed, frankly, to be more discussion about “the kiss” than about troop levels in Iraq.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid believes the Democrat primary result was a “referendum on President Bush”:
“The results yesterday were really a referendum on President Bush,” Reid said. “I think this is only the beginning of what we will see developing.”
That referendum could be reflected by Nevada voters in the Nov. 7 congressional election, Reid said.
“If I were a Republican and a member of Congress, I would be very concerned,” Reid said.
DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel went even further, saying “This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means. This is not about the war, it’s blind loyalty to Bush.”
I know Harry Reid and Rahm Emanuel are just spinning their way out of a bad situation, but if they truly believe their little narrative—that Tuesday in Connecticut was all about Bush—then they should be very, very frightened about November. 48% of Connecticut Democrats voted for the Bush candidate.
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/index.php?p=510
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The really funny thing about that is that so many conservative Republicans are upset with Bush right now, for not sticking to traditional conservative principles, that Bush probably couldn’t get 48% of the Republican vote. But “pro-Bush” Lieberman did in a Democrat election. Go figure….
And then my critic goes on to say that “Hillary will cruise this fall”. Which may be true about this falls Senate race, but not about the 08 Presidential race. As was covered in the second half of my post, which was about how that same base that voted out Lieberman utterly Hates Hillary. She won’t “cruise” the national primaries when 45% percent of her own party hates her with such intensity. Calling her “criminal, a political whore, Satanic“ !!!
And unlike Lieberman this fall, she won’t be getting many votes from the Republican side in 08.…
In fact, as I wander the Net, I get the feeling there will be far fewer Democrats period. This is from “The Irish Trojan’s Blog”:
“the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: there’s no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonight’s result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. It’s really much more than just a single primary in a single state; it’s a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, there’s one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today:
I am no longer a Democrat.”
http://www.brendanloy.com/2006/08/time-for-a-divorce.html
Then he goes on to say that his mom, a lifelong Feminist Democrat, is also changing her registration to Independent.
And then in the comments section at that Ankle Biting Pundits post I quoted first, I found THIS interesting reframe on the Iraq question:
capt mike Says:
What’s so depressing about the Iraq war? It’s the most successful war we’ve ever fought. almost 4 years and less than 3,000 casualties. Every war this country has ever fought that lasted that long had days with 3000 casualties. The Iraqis are voting, along with lots of other middle eastern countries. And O by the way, zero domestic terror attacks, USS Coles, Kobar Towers, U.S. Embassies bombed in 5 years. I know you think the Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror so we’ll call that a coincidence.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yes, in four years of war, we have lost fewer Americans than we did in a few hours on 911. Somehow leading to calls to abandon Iraq to the terrorists so they can use it as a base to launch more 911 type attacks….
Each one killing more Americans than we have lost in 4 years of war.
Made all the more poignant today, as we learn about the foiled attempt to blow up airliners. Which had it succeeded, yes, would have caused more deaths in one day than we have lost in four years of war.
From blogger Roger L Simon:
As Trotsky so famously said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2006/07/sleepless_in_yo.php
Isolate ourselves here at home, and leave the entire Middle East to the terrorists, so they can turn it into multiple terrorist training and outfitting bases?
Now THAT is getting it backwards indeed….
NYC Tribute Video:
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8a6cce5a583e3df2b93bface27fa7222.590411
posted by Colmar at 12:01 AM
<< Home