being his lovechild? What kind of rude, uncalled for, pedantic drivel is this? This is all about defining the boundaries of this "new" Democratic party: if you're willing to bend and compromise...you're time in the Democratic party is limited. Beware...those willing to cross the aisle for the sake of the country need not apply.

That's what it's all about.

It's sad...I truly want a strong, national (but rational!) Democratic party. It' good for the country. This is sooo sad. The current Democratic party is like the possessed swine running towards the cliff -- they don't seem to have the intelligence to see that they're about to fall off the cliff into oblivion.

Attempts by Democrats to make Lamont's primary victory about Bush and not the war is their way of countering Republican criticisms that his victory actually proves that Democrats are soft on terror. It's also more than that.

No, this is your spin about the election. Democrats are not afraid of being perceiveed as "soft on terror." Current polls easily assuage that possibility.

Without a doubt, Democrats are sick of Lieberman's cowtowing to Bush. The war is certainly a huge part of it, but it's not everything.

Winnow - please give atleast one example of Lieberman "cowtowing" to Bush not related to the War on Terror. I don't remember any, he is just too far left on most other areas.

Are you kidding, kjstrouble?

Lieberman goes on Hannity, knocking fellow democrats while never criticizing republicans. He parrots republican talking points on Meet the Press, et al. That may be comforting to you, but not to a card carrying democrat.

And sorry to say, most of the heated issues of today are centered around the vauge "war on terror" label.

Matt,
I agree with you that this referendum on Bush is a distraction, but I think it works at another level, as well as the one you describe above. It's a distraction from Cynthia McKinney losing. If these primaries were really a referendum on the war, then why did Cynthia McKinney lose? They don't want us to ask that question because it suggests that there are more important things than the war in Iraq, and if they want the next elections to be a referendum on the war, that's not a debate they want to have. It allows them to keep the media in a partnership where everyone's focused on Lamont with little if any mention of McKinney.

Basically, the entire Dem position is to be totally and inflexibly anti-Bush, no matter what the topic. So voting for what a man thinks is a stronger national defense can be, and evidently IS, a vote which is against the aims of the Democratic Party, if it happens to be in agreement with a position taken by the President.
Yeah, guys, keep running on that. Keep pointing out that what is good for the country is bad for your party. I, for one, never get tired of hearing it.

So the Democratic Party will discard a man of principle, who thinks for himself, and who has an independent opinion. It doesn't matter how dedicated he has been to his party. It doesn't matter how stronly his entire voting record in the Senate has adhered to the Democratic Party line. It doesn't matter that he was, just six years ago, chosen to REPRESENT the Democratic Party as their vice-presidential candidate. It doesn't matter that he ran on an image of being a decent man, a man of principle, and was promoted as such by the Party. It doesn't matter that all he did was have a different opinion about what would make this country stronger and safer.

No, what mattered was that he was not a lockstep robotic liberal whore who would parrot anything he was told to say, no matter whether or not it was how he thought. Joe failed the ultimate test: He chose not to become one of the Dem Borg.

And in ditching him the Dems put themselves in an interesting position. Though it is clear to everyone that it was his position on Iraq that got him axed, the party realizes that being soft on national defense is not a position they can publicly admit to, so they try to tap dance around it and claim it is just BUSH they are against. And the more they claim this, the harder they try to get this spin established as the Truth of The Day, the deeper is the hole they are digging for themselves---because in two years, Bush will be out of the picture, and they will be stuck with having dumped a very valuable asset to their party for a reason which no longer exists, and which we all knew all along would be gone by 2008.

Then they will have to fall back on the war again, fooling no one as we all knew all along this was what it was about ever since---well, ever since the Dems said it was, when they first decided to throw him overboard. And the party will just sink deeper and deeper into its silliness and chaos.

And weeniehead proves my point by commenting that he finds the War On Terror to be a "vague" concept. So it is coming down to what we predicted all the time----a choice between those who can grasp the threat and make the decisions necessary to deal with it, and those who find it all "vague" and not very scary, not nearly as important as carrying a torch or a pitchfork in the anti-Bush mob.

Matt,
I agree with you that this referendum on Bush is a distraction, but I think it works at another level, as well as the one you describe above. It's a distraction from Cynthia McKinney losing. If these primaries were really a referendum on the war, then why did Cynthia McKinney lose? They don't want us to ask that question because it suggests that there are more important things than the war in Iraq, and if they want the next elections to be a referendum on the war, that's not a debate they want to have. It allows them to keep the media in a partnership where everyone's focused on Lamont with little if any mention of McKinney.

And it also sets up a Lieberman victory in the general election as not being a referendum by the country on whether Americans really want the war on terrorism. The democrats are as afraid of that referendum as HAMAS was of theirs.

Let me clear that up. If they would win, Democrats would spin that as a referendum against the war. But if they lose and Lieberman wins, they don't want to admit that the country actually supports the global war on terror.

And weeniehead proves my point by commenting that he finds the War On Terror to be a "vague" concept. So it is coming down to what we predicted all the time----a choice between those who can grasp the threat and make the decisions necessary to deal with it, and those who find it all "vague" and not very scary, not nearly as important as carrying a torch or a pitchfork in the anti-Bush mob.

It most certainly is vague. It's an incredibly broad concept, covering immense tracts of public policy. Military, police, intelligence, diplomacy, trade. Not to mention the real reason I used the term - Matt's insistence that the vote was solely about Iraq, and then kj's eroneous conflation of Iraq with terrorism. You're the one who's not quite grasping things here....

So, 48% of the DEMOCRATS in a very liberal state, Connecticut, voted FOR GEORGE BUSH and the GWOT.

Hmmmmm, sure doesn't seem like the country wants to cut and run.

kj, don't waste your time on weeniehead; DAV will get jealous.

You asked for examples, and weeniehead made sh*t up. That's what he does best--go check out his lame blog, and you'll see. War

What about Hillary? If it's all about the war then she's gone too, right?

Boy, wouldn't THAT be interesting!

And Winnow, again I ask, what specifically has Lieberman "cowtowed" to the GOP on, other than the War on Terror? Just saying he goes on shows is not giving specifics. Instances of exactly what he says would be what I am looking for. Are you going to continue to dodge the questions?

Are you going to continue to dodge the questions?

He's gone back to his blog; he's got a date with DAV. War

yeah, weenie, all you have to do is sneer at kjs' accurate association of Iraq with terrorism as "erroneous" and somehow that makes it erroneous. Yeah, right.

Government-run torture and rape rooms. Over 300,000 buried in mass graves. Openly making and then using chemical and biological weapons. Attempted genocide. Financial backing of worldwide terrorism. Determination to develop nuclear weapons. Establishment of terrorist training camps. But any association with terrorism is "erroneous".

Evidently when the heroes of the Left---Hillary, Bill, John, Al, Chuckie, etc.---all made those many many many many speeches demanding regime change in Iraq, it wasn't because they thought Sadaam was associated with terrorism in any way. Maybe it was the mustache.

Not once do you mount a coherent, respectable, political argument. It's all about being as silly as you can be. And you can be damned silly.

Tell me, as one who should know---do Lefties start out with dignity and then decide to check it at the door when they join the movement, or are you born without any pride and therefore marked for radical Liberalism? Because Curly, Moe, and Larry have more dignity and self-respect that you guys evidence here. It's one thing to simply be wrong, but to prance around shrieking "Look how silly I can be!" is just embarassing to watch.

Tonight on MSNBC I heard that Democrats have gained control of the issue of terrorism, that most now look to the democrats as leaders on terroism. How is that possible? Based on thier current position of sitting on thier hands and blaming ourselves for being attacked, what blind moron would accept that guidence?

"They don't want to admit that the country actually supports the global war on terror."

THIS IS CONNECTICUT! Lieberman winning wouldn't be because voters support the war. It would mean voters don't support an immediate withdrawl.

Keep dreaming.

I will be donating money to the Lieberman campaign. 1st time I have done donated to a Democrat since I left that loser party in 1980.

I am as die-hard a Republican as I can be. You have all seen that in my writing here. I can be pretty damn harsh on Dems. That is because I know their playbook from being one of them - They haven't changed in 26 years.

Country before party. We are under attack, and the Kos kiddies haven't a clue. Joe will win with 57% of the vote, if not more

Lamonts victory was not about Leiberman's "blind loyalty" to Bush. It was about liberal wacko blind hatred of Bush.

Tom,

End the angst; turn off MSNBC.

winnowhead,

if the war on terror is so "vague" as you put it, then why does the liberal left insist on treating the Islamic terrorists as common criminals. The liberals believe and have public stated and implimented policies that treat terrorism as a problem for LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THIS IS CONNECTICUT! Lieberman winning wouldn't be because voters support the war. It would mean voters don't support an immediate withdrawl.

You're actually striking at the false dichotomy that is the Republican position. They like to set it up as "either you support Bush, or you support terrorism"--you know, buying Bush's "with us or against us" claptrap hook, line, and sinker. In actuality, the decision these days is more along the lines of "either you support Bush, or you support actually making progress instead of chasing your tail."

The fallacy, of course, is the idea that only Bush has the proper way to fight this nebulous "war on terror," so if you want to fight it, then your one and only option is to cosign with whatever Bush does. No wonder Republicans get all bent out of shape when you point out how lockstep they are.

Similarly, the other big logical fallacy that's a central point for the Republican view is that if you disagree with implementation, then you must therefore disagree with the stated goal as well. You see this one all the time: If you thought invading Iraq would end up a boondoggle (as it has), then you are immediately accused of being "soft on terror."

See how that works? Disagree with an implementation (invading Iraq), and you are accused of trying to work against the overall goal (fighting terror). Because they've set their table with this "my way or the highway" idiocy, hardcore Republicans are wedded to these fallacies, and they demand that you accept them as well without a second thought. This is what passes for thought in that 30-something percent backwash that still supports Bush.

"The fallacy, of course, is the idea that only Bush has the proper way to fight this nebulous "war on terror," so if you want to fight it, then your one and only option is to cosign with whatever Bush does."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You know, I don't necessarily agree with whatever he does vis-a-vis the war, but I sure don't hear anything better (or anything, for that matter) coming from the other side.

I don't think that our "one and only option" is just his way, but so far, I can't think of anything better. Sometimes, I actually think he hasn't gone far enough.

Just what is the Democrat's plan for prosecuting this war? I mean, other than "Bush is wrong, we'll do it better, etc., etc."?

All I hear is how we should get out of Iraq, we need to negotiate, let the "peace process" work.

I guess that begs the question:

How do you negotiate with someone who feels it's his religious duty to kill you and he will be rewarded if he dies doing so?

He'll kill you no matter what you do, so, all my Democrat friends, how do you stop it?

Do you honestly believe you can talk your way out of being beheaded?

If you really, really do believe that, then you must be incredibly naive, or so blinded by Bush hatred that you can't think rationally.

I love it when the jackasses start tap-dancing.

ozemc,
Lamont actually had a solution. He said we needed to work with allies besides Tony Blair. I feel a presence I have not felt since...John Kerry. Somehow I doubt they'll want to work with Lamont any more than they wanted to work with Kerry. Well, let me rephrase that, I'm sure our enemies would love someone who agreed with them that America is the problem and it's all Bush's fault. I'm not sure what good it would do us, though.