Cowardly DC Democrats leave Ned Lamont TWISTING in the WIND... meaning giving Lieberman's REPUBLICAN AGENDA a FREE RIDE....
<< According to a story in yesterday's Hartford Courant, the Bush donor base has been opening its wallets for Lieberman... which is one of the reasons why Lieberman has raked in $5.1 million in campaign cash since Aug. 9.
The ROVE/CHENEY SEAL OF APPROVAL has HAD THE DESIRED EFFECT. A month ago, an ARG poll put Lamont JUST TWO POINTS behind Lieberman. As of last week, ARG had Lieberman UP_BY_12. >>
<< And what are the Democratic power players doing for Lamont? Claiming scheduling conflicts to justify why they CAN'T campaign for the Democratic nominee. Barack Obama has been on a book tour around the country, but has carefully skipped Connecticut. And Hillary Clinton has also skipped Connecticut, instead sending a $5,000 donation and holding a quiet fundraiser for Lamont on the Upper East Side tonight.
NOT EXACTLY THE CALVARY RIDING TO THE RESCUE. >>
<< What's particularly confounding -- and distressing -- about the lack of strong party support for Lamont is that it comes at a time when we are being bombarded with calls from Democratic strategists, pundits, and self-appointed consciences of the party for the Democrats to stand for something.
Well, Ned Lamont stands for something. And his opponent, Joe Lieberman, stands for something very different. If the Democratic Party can't look at this race and decide that it needs to unequivocally rally around Lamont, then maybe it really is too confused to govern. >>
YOU GOT THAT, DC Democrats? That is the publisher of perhaps the most popular "liberal" web site in America, a web site that allows all Democrat senators to voice their opinions ("blog") in a friendly atmosphere, stating that you, the Democratic 'leadership' may be "TOO CONFUSED TO GOVERN"!
In their time of need millions of voters across America look to their experienced Democratic Senators to lead the fight to save American democracy... ONLY TO BE LET DOWN by those who have the position, experience, and platform to be heard!
===============================
Thanks to Arianna for this post... she's been a bit narcissistic lately, but now it's back to the meat-and-potatoes of campaign 2006: THE TENDENCY of the DC DEMOCRATS to BETRAY Democratic America!
Speaking of "Narcissistic," so JOE KLEIN, the author of "Anonymous" who DENIED, point-blank to reporters, that he was indeed the writer of that political satire fiction (loosely based on the Clinton campaign of 2000), is out there on the COVER of TIME magazine... suggesting that BARAK OBAMA should run for... PRESIDENT in 2008 ???
Excuse us at C-dems.blgspt.com, but we do NOT think that A SINGLE Democrat in the US Senate is qualified to run for president.... THEY ALL RUN AND HIDE when Karl Rove starts banging his pots and drums and SMEARING AMERICANS.
WHERE were the SENATE DEMOCRATS when the Karl Rove-George Bush political machine SMEARED Senator and Vietnam War double-amputee Max Cleland as "SOFT ON TERRORISM"??? WHY do the lame (not to say "cowardly") Senate Democrats ALWAYS FOLLOW the LOSING TEMPLATE of TOM DASCHLE, JOHN KERRY, and even Al Gore, who, though he 'won' the voting in 2000, LOST the vote-counting... BY ALLOWING Republicans to position themselves as "morally superior."
Well, HERE WE GO AGAIN.. COWARDLY Democrat leaders, which is to say THE SENATE DEMOCRATS, LETTING Ned Lamont TWIST IN THE WIND, as JOE LIEBERMAN runs a virtual REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN.
Or, once again, the DC 'Democrats' LET LOCAL CANDIDATES do the LIONS SHARE OF WORK *CONFRONTING* the Republican MONOPOLY of power in America.
This current crop of Senate Democrats could still turn out to be the BANE of AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, because in these last 2 weeks of election 2006 KARL ROVE is JUST GETTING STARTED at unleashing his ONE-HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR campaign war chest of ATTACK ADS and SLEAZY LIES, and like 2000, 2002, and 2004, the DC Democrats are UNPREPARED or UNWILLING to FRONTALLY CONFRONT the Bush record of lies and smears and appalling governance.
------------------------------------------------
The Lamont Litmus Test: Why Are So Many Democrats Failing It?
Arianna Huffington
10.22.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-lamont-litmus-test-w_b_32249.html
So the good news in the Connecticut Senate race is that the party is finally stepping up to the plate. Unfortunately, the news is good for Joe Lieberman, because the party that's rising to the occasion is the GOP.
The question is: why aren't the Democrats doing the same thing for Ned Lamont?
According to a story in yesterday's Hartford Courant, the Bush donor base has been opening its wallets for Lieberman. Conservative stalwarts like Joe Allbaugh. Remember him? He's the guy who helped manage Bush's 2000 campaign, then took over FEMA, where he hired Michael Brown. Or Don Nickles, who, until he left the Senate in 2005, was one of its most conservative members. The list goes on and on, which is one of the reasons why Lieberman has raked in $5.1 million in campaign cash since Aug. 9. The Courant details a phone call Karl Rove made to Lieberman, whom Rove calls a "personal friend," on Aug. 8. According to GOP consultant Scott Reed, that was "a signal to a lot of the Republican faithful to get engaged." Dick Cheney's non-endorsement endorsement was another green light.
The Rove/Cheney Seal of Approval has had the desired effect. A month ago, an ARG poll put Lamont just two points behind Lieberman. As of last week, ARG had Lieberman up by 12.
And what are the Democratic power players doing for Lamont? Claiming scheduling conflicts to justify why they can't campaign for the Democratic nominee. Barack Obama has been on a book tour around the country, but has carefully skipped Connecticut. And Hillary Clinton has also skipped Connecticut, instead sending a $5,000 donation and holding a quiet fundraiser for Lamont on the Upper East Side tonight.
Not exactly the cavalry riding to the rescue.
What's particularly confounding -- and distressing -- about the lack of strong party support for Lamont is that it comes at a time when we are being bombarded with calls from Democratic strategists, pundits, and self-appointed consciences of the party for the Democrats to stand for something.
Well, Ned Lamont stands for something. And his opponent, Joe Lieberman, stands for something very different. If the Democratic Party can't look at this race and decide that it needs to unequivocally rally around Lamont, then maybe it really is too confused to govern.
You certainly don't need to convince the Republicans what's at stake in Connecticut. Just look at how they responded. A phone call from Rove to Lieberman and a few kind words from the VP were all the party faithful needed to rally around a guy who's not even in their party. Why? Because they stand for something. And they support people who stand for many of the same things. Like Joe Lieberman.
You may hate what Republicans stand for, but you've got to respect the way they've put principle over party. Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to care enough to fight for either one.
The field for the Democratic presidential nomination is already crowded. But, unlike 2006, the 2008 race won't be a referendum on George Bush. The candidate who stands for something, and has the guts to show it, will rise above the rest.
But why wait until '08? How about standing for something now, when it counts, and stepping up to the plate for Ned Lamont? Those who don't should pay a price down the line. The Lamont litmus test is one we should definitely get behind.
The ROVE/CHENEY SEAL OF APPROVAL has HAD THE DESIRED EFFECT. A month ago, an ARG poll put Lamont JUST TWO POINTS behind Lieberman. As of last week, ARG had Lieberman UP_BY_12. >>
<< And what are the Democratic power players doing for Lamont? Claiming scheduling conflicts to justify why they CAN'T campaign for the Democratic nominee. Barack Obama has been on a book tour around the country, but has carefully skipped Connecticut. And Hillary Clinton has also skipped Connecticut, instead sending a $5,000 donation and holding a quiet fundraiser for Lamont on the Upper East Side tonight.
NOT EXACTLY THE CALVARY RIDING TO THE RESCUE. >>
<< What's particularly confounding -- and distressing -- about the lack of strong party support for Lamont is that it comes at a time when we are being bombarded with calls from Democratic strategists, pundits, and self-appointed consciences of the party for the Democrats to stand for something.
Well, Ned Lamont stands for something. And his opponent, Joe Lieberman, stands for something very different. If the Democratic Party can't look at this race and decide that it needs to unequivocally rally around Lamont, then maybe it really is too confused to govern. >>
YOU GOT THAT, DC Democrats? That is the publisher of perhaps the most popular "liberal" web site in America, a web site that allows all Democrat senators to voice their opinions ("blog") in a friendly atmosphere, stating that you, the Democratic 'leadership' may be "TOO CONFUSED TO GOVERN"!
In their time of need millions of voters across America look to their experienced Democratic Senators to lead the fight to save American democracy... ONLY TO BE LET DOWN by those who have the position, experience, and platform to be heard!
===============================
Thanks to Arianna for this post... she's been a bit narcissistic lately, but now it's back to the meat-and-potatoes of campaign 2006: THE TENDENCY of the DC DEMOCRATS to BETRAY Democratic America!
Speaking of "Narcissistic," so JOE KLEIN, the author of "Anonymous" who DENIED, point-blank to reporters, that he was indeed the writer of that political satire fiction (loosely based on the Clinton campaign of 2000), is out there on the COVER of TIME magazine... suggesting that BARAK OBAMA should run for... PRESIDENT in 2008 ???
Excuse us at C-dems.blgspt.com, but we do NOT think that A SINGLE Democrat in the US Senate is qualified to run for president.... THEY ALL RUN AND HIDE when Karl Rove starts banging his pots and drums and SMEARING AMERICANS.
WHERE were the SENATE DEMOCRATS when the Karl Rove-George Bush political machine SMEARED Senator and Vietnam War double-amputee Max Cleland as "SOFT ON TERRORISM"??? WHY do the lame (not to say "cowardly") Senate Democrats ALWAYS FOLLOW the LOSING TEMPLATE of TOM DASCHLE, JOHN KERRY, and even Al Gore, who, though he 'won' the voting in 2000, LOST the vote-counting... BY ALLOWING Republicans to position themselves as "morally superior."
Well, HERE WE GO AGAIN.. COWARDLY Democrat leaders, which is to say THE SENATE DEMOCRATS, LETTING Ned Lamont TWIST IN THE WIND, as JOE LIEBERMAN runs a virtual REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN.
Or, once again, the DC 'Democrats' LET LOCAL CANDIDATES do the LIONS SHARE OF WORK *CONFRONTING* the Republican MONOPOLY of power in America.
This current crop of Senate Democrats could still turn out to be the BANE of AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, because in these last 2 weeks of election 2006 KARL ROVE is JUST GETTING STARTED at unleashing his ONE-HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR campaign war chest of ATTACK ADS and SLEAZY LIES, and like 2000, 2002, and 2004, the DC Democrats are UNPREPARED or UNWILLING to FRONTALLY CONFRONT the Bush record of lies and smears and appalling governance.
------------------------------------------------
The Lamont Litmus Test: Why Are So Many Democrats Failing It?
Arianna Huffington
10.22.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-lamont-litmus-test-w_b_32249.html
So the good news in the Connecticut Senate race is that the party is finally stepping up to the plate. Unfortunately, the news is good for Joe Lieberman, because the party that's rising to the occasion is the GOP.
The question is: why aren't the Democrats doing the same thing for Ned Lamont?
According to a story in yesterday's Hartford Courant, the Bush donor base has been opening its wallets for Lieberman. Conservative stalwarts like Joe Allbaugh. Remember him? He's the guy who helped manage Bush's 2000 campaign, then took over FEMA, where he hired Michael Brown. Or Don Nickles, who, until he left the Senate in 2005, was one of its most conservative members. The list goes on and on, which is one of the reasons why Lieberman has raked in $5.1 million in campaign cash since Aug. 9. The Courant details a phone call Karl Rove made to Lieberman, whom Rove calls a "personal friend," on Aug. 8. According to GOP consultant Scott Reed, that was "a signal to a lot of the Republican faithful to get engaged." Dick Cheney's non-endorsement endorsement was another green light.
The Rove/Cheney Seal of Approval has had the desired effect. A month ago, an ARG poll put Lamont just two points behind Lieberman. As of last week, ARG had Lieberman up by 12.
And what are the Democratic power players doing for Lamont? Claiming scheduling conflicts to justify why they can't campaign for the Democratic nominee. Barack Obama has been on a book tour around the country, but has carefully skipped Connecticut. And Hillary Clinton has also skipped Connecticut, instead sending a $5,000 donation and holding a quiet fundraiser for Lamont on the Upper East Side tonight.
Not exactly the cavalry riding to the rescue.
What's particularly confounding -- and distressing -- about the lack of strong party support for Lamont is that it comes at a time when we are being bombarded with calls from Democratic strategists, pundits, and self-appointed consciences of the party for the Democrats to stand for something.
Well, Ned Lamont stands for something. And his opponent, Joe Lieberman, stands for something very different. If the Democratic Party can't look at this race and decide that it needs to unequivocally rally around Lamont, then maybe it really is too confused to govern.
You certainly don't need to convince the Republicans what's at stake in Connecticut. Just look at how they responded. A phone call from Rove to Lieberman and a few kind words from the VP were all the party faithful needed to rally around a guy who's not even in their party. Why? Because they stand for something. And they support people who stand for many of the same things. Like Joe Lieberman.
You may hate what Republicans stand for, but you've got to respect the way they've put principle over party. Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to care enough to fight for either one.
The field for the Democratic presidential nomination is already crowded. But, unlike 2006, the 2008 race won't be a referendum on George Bush. The candidate who stands for something, and has the guts to show it, will rise above the rest.
But why wait until '08? How about standing for something now, when it counts, and stepping up to the plate for Ned Lamont? Those who don't should pay a price down the line. The Lamont litmus test is one we should definitely get behind.
posted by verifi at 3:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home