.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, July 07, 2006

Waking Ned Lamont, Part 3

Part One of Waking Ned Lamont
Part Two of Waking Ned Lamont

Cast of Characters:
Senator Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Incumbent Senator
Ned Lamont, Democratic challenger to Joe Lieberman
Sam Seder, Liberal Talk Radio host and often referred to "Sham Cedar" when I write.

Senator Lieberman must be doing something right. In his substitute hosting for the Al O'FrankenFailure program, Liberal Radio Talking Head Sam Seder...uh, Sham Cedar...today sounded downright fit to be tied, endlessly criticizing the soundbytes of Joe Lieberman in last night's debate, repeatedly calling Lieberman "angry." Gee, the Left has never tried to paint their opponents as "angry" in the past, have they? They're so original, those folks positioned at the Far Edge of The Left Horizon.

Now, I don't have a horse in this race. But what I find so fascinating about it is that we are witnessing, on a national stage, the Cannibalization of a Left of Center Democrat by the Outrageous and Extreme Far Left Wingers.

Some people see the Joe Lieberman situation - of not being "Liberal enough" - as analogous to Arizona Senator John McCain being not "Conservative enough" for many Republicans. There may be some degree of similarities between the two, but there are also many differences - and that's a post of a separate topic for another day.

Sham Cedar, on the O'Franken program, said today, "Joe Lieberman has undercut the democratic party." No, it's the Left Wing Extremists who've undercut the democratic party and Joe Lieberman.

Is Ned Lamont a real alternative to Joe Lieberman? What separates Lamont's political ideology from the ideology of Lieberman?

Two big differences - the only same two that matter for the Far Left - in beliefs, via Wikipedia:

    Lamont has tried to portray himself as a more liberal alternative to Lieberman, who has been criticized for being too conservative due to his support of the 2003 Iraq War and perceived closeness to the George W. Bush administration.

    Lamont also promises to speak out "against the destructive Bush administration policies[7]," reminding people of Lieberman's actions supportive of the Bush administration[8][9], which are also noted in the Hartford Courant[10].

The Left Wing Fringe wants a senator that will be more liberal than is Lieberman and one that will relentlessly bash Bush. Other than being anti-Bush, the Left isn't requiring a whole bunch of silly qualifications from Lamont, are they?

As Lieberman said during last night's debate: "What changed is some people convinced him that he has a chance to become a U.S. senator," Lieberman said.

In March,2006 Lamont was interviewed by Sam Seder...um, make that Sham Cedar

    Q: How do you see that Sen. Lieberman has fallen short for your state, and frankly, for the country?

    Ned Lamont: Well, the first thing that got me into this challenge was the war in Iraq. I think it was a terrible foreign policy blunder for this country. I think that George Bush had to rush to war and we didn't ask the tough questions getting in, and Sen. Lieberman cheered on the president every step of the way. We have a go-it-alone strategy, a sense that we don't need allies, we don't have to listen to the rest of the world. That's contrary to the American tradition and it's really not in our self-interest.


    We've been consistently wrong on the war in Iraq. [They said] we would be greeted as liberators, they thought it would be easy, we turned the corner, there's a light at the end of the tunnel...it's been consistently wrong.

Lamont is just plain wrong on his above statements. It's far from a go-it-alone strategy. We have allies with us on the ground in Iraq and allies who may not be with us physically, are providing intelligence and helping all the allied countries in the War on Terror.

The second response from Lamont, above, is just patently false. We haven't been wrong on the War in Iraq. We have been greeted as liberators by a majority of the Iraqi people. Just because Lamont doesn't want to admit or recognize it doesn't mean it's not true.

But Lamont has the edge with respect to financing his campaign, considering his vast and massive personal fortune (WA Post):

    The other factor is Lamont's wealth, amassed from a cable-television business that the candidate founded. "What if my opponent, who says he is worth somewhere between $90 and $300 million decides to write bigger and bigger checks in the last weeks of the campaign?" asked Lieberman, addressing his supporters.

The Chairman "Mao" Howard Dean Wing of the Democrats wants a candidate for Connecticut's Senate seat to be anti-Iraq War, anti-Bush and someone with their own personal fortune so as not to drain the "Real DNC" campaign warchest - you know, the one reserved for those Special Liberal Tzars like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Diane Whinestein. So they found their man, with his own personal fortune, by Waking Ned Lamont.

First-time run-and-wins, such as what Lamont seeks to accomplish, is more the exception than the norm. Lamont has a huge hurdle to overcome in beating the odds and winning the primary election. If he does that, he still has an uphill battle to the general election. Mark these words: The Left is going to make Lamont spend a lot of his own money on his campaign, not that he doesn't have it to spend. Remember that four months from now, how the Left bled you Ned, treating you as their human ATM.

Lieberman to Lamont in last night's debate:
"I know George Bush. I've worked against George Bush. I've even run against George Bush. But Ned, I'm not George Bush," Lieberman said. "So why don't you stop running against him and have the courage and honesty to run against me and the facts of my record."

Win or lose, the candidacy of Ned Lamont will accomplish the motive of what the Far Left ultimately wants to do, which is to mudsling and denigrate Joe Lieberman, something he does not deserve.


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker

Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.

Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.