Archive for Sunday, August 13, 2006

Democrats, Michael Moore seeking payback on war

August 13, 2006


Forget the war in Iraq, the war on terror, or any other war against which Connecticut citizens are said to have voted by defeating Joe Lieberman and nominating Ned Lamont for the U.S. Senate.

The operative war for American citizens is something closer to home - a war of independence from the bickering partisans who have made political life in America a childish and tedious exercise.

Democrats aren't wrong when they say that the Lamont victory was a defining moment. It defined the Democratic Party as a vigorous, motivated, organized force that is ... completely out of touch with mainstream America.

Don't get me wrong. Lamont is a perfectly respectable candidate - well-spoken, attractive, gracious and rich. What's not to like? And millions of Americans of every political stripe are disgusted with the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War.

But what happened in Connecticut allowed the rest of the country a close glimpse of what the Democratic Party has become - a ruthless machine of the far left, fueled by left-wing blogs and personified by the stubbornly adolescent Michael Moore.

Their triumph in bringing down Lieberman may prove to be their undoing in November, as well as in the 2008 presidential election. Here's why: Americans may not like the war, or the deficit, or the Bush administration's immigration stance, or pick-your-grievance. We enjoy a surfeit of issues to divide us. But Americans also share a reflexive resistance to Stalinist tactics.

What else can one call the message now being telegraphed to Democratic leaders? You either stand with us against the war in Iraq, or we take you down.

The morning after Lamont's victory, for instance, Moore posted a note on his Web site to Democratic candidates that is a threat without the veil. He specifically targeted Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards, all likely presidential candidates in '08.

Noting that nearly every Democrat planning to run for president had voted for or supported the war, Moore said, "we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night."

Even though both Kerry and Edwards have changed their minds and are now anti-war, that's too late for Moore, who wrote: "Their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land."

To Clinton, he spoke directly: "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."

As for the rest, "To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power."

Moore's manifesto, through which he may have lost a few grammarians, is straight out of Stalin's playbook under 'P' for purge. Like Stalin, the operatives who ousted Lieberman are determined to remove dissidents from The Party.

Clinton, among others, snapped to. Looking grim before television cameras, she vowed her allegiance to the party, promising to support Lamont in the general election against Lieberman, who is running as an independent. And though Clinton has resisted calls for a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, she recently hammered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in an apparent attempt to distance herself from the administration.

Kerry and Edwards similarly have reiterated their party allegiance. Genuflection noted.

Flash to Connecticut immediately after the count, and Lamont's victory photo tells the rest of the story. There they were, those two perennial groupies to irrelevancy, the twin reverends Sharpton and Jackson. Heaven forbid a Democrat should give an acceptance speech without their pandered presence.

Lieberman - admired by centrists and conservatives - promises to stay his own course as a nonpartisan independent. His decision may be viewed as a blasphemous, punishable offense by the MoveOn/Moore wing of his party, but he's hitting a note that rings true for the times.

The extremes of both parties - whether the Michael Moore left or Pat Robertson right - have had their day, and most sensible Americans have had enough of both. The independent candidate, who puts state and country above party, may be the right candidate in this climate, while the Democratic Party - now fully revealed as a radical, anti-war, far-left party - may have written its own suicide note.

Working title: "When Hari Met Kari."

Kathleen Parker is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 11 years, 5 months ago

"The extremes of both parties - whether the Michael Moore left or Pat Robertson right - have had their day, and most sensible Americans have had enough of both."

To try to equate these two in this way demonstrates why no one should want anything to do with your DLC, Republican-light "centrist" position that is nothing more than sucking up to the corporate-sponsored, inside-the-beltway groupthink that has brought us the quagmire in Iraq.

I hope you and your other lemming friends find that cliff soon, Kathleen.

xenophonschild 11 years, 5 months ago

Yeah, like we're going to believe anything printed in the Washington Post.

They seize on any nuance they think might benefit their beloved Republican party and administration. The Democrats and their dust-up in Connecticut allows the elephants to at least try and shift focus from their incompetence and mishandling of every nuance - Iraq, Katrina, stem cell research, intelligence gathering, even protecting veteran's identities - and give them some hope - albeit unfounded - that they have a chance to prevail in November.

markpb 11 years, 5 months ago

Your point that the far left has taken over the party is wrong. The way my friends and I see it, Moore is a force that has taken out (purged) a long time rouge member of the democratic party. I disagree that Moore has taken over the party, but he does have some influence. The democratic party has for a long time now not had any leadership, period. Moore has filled that void and rightfully will do so till someone steps forward to take over the helm of the dem party.

Fatty_McButterpants 11 years, 5 months ago

rightthinker: What in the holy hell are you talking about?!

acg 11 years, 5 months ago

Anyone notice that this conversation was a bunch of p. gnat #1 and p. gnat #2 giving each other the ol' Lewinsky? You guys make such a cute couple.

BigAl 11 years, 5 months ago

Do you guys even have a clue how hard the republicans went after Clinton. 8 years of it. Spent millions and millions of dollars and wasted vast amounts of valueable time. Finally "got him" for lying about having sex in the white house. Republicans wasted 8 years.......and now they are crying and whining about how poor Bush is being picked on.

BigAl 11 years, 5 months ago

How's that lock-step thing working out for you guys? Do you have to disengage the mind first?
Wait, blame the press first.... if that doesn't work, holler out 9-11. Or how 'bout just calling people "haters"???

BigAl 11 years, 5 months ago

Terrible, terrible waste of time and taxpayer money.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 5 months ago

markpb said:

"The democratic party has for a long time now not had any leadership, period. "

What about "Bill the Great"? Was he or was he not a Democratic leader? He was a "Centerists", and co-opted many moderate Republican themes.

If you are saying that MMoore, is more of a leader than BIll CLinton, you need to eat some more "mental wheaties"!

And Yes the "Far Left" has taken over the Democrat party, why else would they throw out Joe?

My beef with Clinton was the fact he allowed himself getting caught being given a blowjob. JFK got caught too, but managed to keep it under wraps.

The $70,000,000 was also for a dress cleaning that was never done as well. The leader of the free world should have promoted Linda Tripp, and made it go away, instead took the cheap way out. THAT was the lesson of Bill Clinton.

You still have to fight the whackos.... no not those (Republicans)....

The Fundamentalist Islamic Yahoos that want to kill us all. And yes they do no matter how much you want to try to understand them, or see it from their perspective, the Dems need to learn, these folks want to kill them too.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 5 months ago

Swbsow ya missed the point, I was stating that even with my disagreements with the man, he is parsecs better in wisdom than the Micheal Moores, Howeird Deans, and Cindy SHeehans of the screechy far left.

I do believe if Bill CLinton were in Office dutring Sept. 11, 2001, we would have gone down the same road as GWB went, right into Iraq (without all the screeching from the far looney left, but with screeching from the far looney right). It was the only course for history, because that is where all the intel takes us, ALL. Evee the Democrats supported it lock step with Pres. Clinton at the time and believing that Iraq, was an "immenent threat" because of their "Stockplies of WMD". DO you think GWB really invented that little Point of VIew?

I do believe however it AL Baby were the POTUS at that pivital time in the US History, he would have gone for appeasement.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 5 months ago

BIll CLinton COUNL NOT go into Afganistan, remember how he gutted the military. I think he would have gone down the same road GWB did. Remember that Saddam threatened Pres. Clinto too.

As for the "debunking you speak of,..most of it has too been, "debunked". You will not believe that nor will youaccept that. But please do not post all those long winded and reposts of what has happened to been posted already.

NO, the UN does not like the US, under either a Democrat or a Republican, and that is what you guys need to learn! We sure got a lot of help in Somilia, and Bosnia from the good ole UN didn't we.

The UN is BS. I will be glad when Koffee is gone. His anti US and Anit Israel bias is not befitting a sopposed "man of peace". NO thje UN will not go anywhere and make a difference. Kind of like how the are doiong in Darfur and how the preformed in Lebannon. NO the UN is the weakest a$$ed argument there is so don't and STOP bringing that one. They are just not worth it.

As for the "authorization of Force" it would habve been politicized whti either party in power, the real question was it right. If it was right good leaders would have came to the same conclusion.

SO in a are agreeing with me.

BigAl 11 years, 5 months ago

Bill Clinton did not "gut" the military. Another rightwing talking point.

prioress 11 years, 5 months ago

"You mean like how we used to be able to keep military operations and espionage under wraps?" +++++++ Perhaps, but check out the Republican doctrines on "private armies" and private contracting of military functions, which still use taxpayer money but are, in many ways, unaccountable to Congress or the American people.

""[I]f Presidential family connections were theme parks, Bush world would be a sight to behold," writes Kevin Phillips, author of new book American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. "Mideast banks tied to the CIA would crowd alongside Florida Savings and Loans that once laundered money for the Nicaraguan contras. Dozens of oil wells would run eternally without finding oil, thanks to periodic cash deposits by old men wearing Reagan-Bush buttons and smoking 20-dollar cigars." "

ASBESTOS 11 years, 5 months ago

"The Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq has been largely debunked."

That is according to the way YOU read it. That does not mean you read it correctly or came to a proper conclusion. I have read it too. It is a pass piece of legislation. The Use of Force is not "debunked" it was voted on and passed by congress. How can a passed legislation be "debunked"?

Asa for "gutting the militarty", yes that administration most certianly did. There were NO SPARE PARTS for most of the Howitzers, I know that for a FACT. Just ask any of the lifers how it was under the CLinton Admin.

The Military was simply NOT a priority under the CLinton admin, everyone knows this, the facts back it up. It is NOT a "Talking point".

How the hell do you think he "balanced the budget", and had no "deficites" (sp? please don't make fun of me, I M on lunch break). Defense spendig was cut by a whole lot, and some entitlement programs.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.