It's Official
Cross-posted at our new site.
Tonight was to be the night of nights in Connecticut if Lieberman won his primary. The odds were against him, and a whole host of polls cited by the Left all day sound nearly prophetic. At least that's how the Left is playing this. They said it all along. They got out the vote, and they removed a man that they detested because of one teeny-tiny little stance he took. He voted in favor of the war, and never backed off of that vote. Never once did he attack the president the way he has been now for five solid years.
Did he question how the war was going? Of course. Who hasn't. Heck even I question it at times. To me, though, it doesn't look like he is fighting this war in a decisive way. My personal opinion, TY, and I'm entitled to a bit of criticism regarding the war. I've supported the effort this long because I believe what we did was right. It was just. And once troops are committed to battle, I won't stand down in defense of them, and that goes double for their mission. Get the job done as quickly and professionally as you can, and then gett your butts back home.
War, unfortunately, doesn't work that way. It's messy, and rarely goes down according to any plans, supposedly fool-proof or otherwise. Lieberman carried the torch for the troops. He believed in this mission. And a whole host of other Democrats did, as well. We've had three debates on this issue, and three votes. Each time, it comes out the same. Few have the fortitude to vote their rhetoric. Lieberman did because he knew what it meant to defend a nation. And whether the Left likes it or not, Iraq was a problem in the Middle-East. Do I think it was the number one problem? Not hardly. But his recent alliance with al Qaeda (going back a couple years) made him a dangerous threat. Did we really want to see what a solid alliance could have produced?
Thank you, no. One 11th September is enough for me in my lifetime. I don't want to see what a "state-sponsored" strike might have ended up being.
But it will be Joe Liebermen that will probably be prophetic this year. This past weekend, Lieberman eluded to the fact that if he lost, it sent a message to the nation that the Democrats do not want a hawk in their party, and therefore they could not be trusted to handle issues of national security. THAT will sound the beginning of the end for the Democrats in November. They have literally handed the GOP a blessing on a silver platter. It, the war, will be at the forefront of the election cycle this year. Again, the Democrats will be hung on their own inadequacies regarding national security.
Their answer tot he electorate will be "We didn't want to go to war, and we regret that vote." Hindsight's nice, after the fact. After hostilities have commenced. After we have seen the bumps in the road. Yes, everyone wants to change their minds now. Unfortunately, even after the consistant hammering on the American public, the people still stand beside the troops. Are cracks starting to form? Of course there are, even in the most solid portions of the base. Our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and relatives of all stripes are the ones with their butts on the line. We want them home. But WE also understand that the mission isn't done. The job's not finished. And this time around, we can't just walk away.
The Islamofascists are far worse than the Communists. At least there was a method to the madness of Communism when the slaughter began. To our enemies, anyone who isn't of their beliefs is an infidel. Death or conversion are the only two ways to survive the purge if our enemies win. Lieberman understood this, and he stood beside it. He was a liberal, and there's no denying that. His voting record shows it. But this election, while the Democrats will blow it off as a victory for themselves, will become their cross to bear in the next three months. The vitriol emanating from their base, on the Internet, is quite apparent. Lieberman was a "traitor," "a turn-coat," "a Benedict Arnold," and "a seditious piece of slime." Even Chris Matthews got into the fray:
Update (Ian): 9:33. Chris Matthews called Lamont very “calm”, “casual”, and not “that bad”. On the other hand, Lieberman is a “schmaltzy ethnic guy”. Geez, Chris, could you make it any clear?
Don't believe me? Watch the video. Like all other good bloggers, Ian and Allah Pundit provide either links to the evidence, or just the evidence itself. But this is where the Democrats are headed. This is the path they've chosen. And mark my words: This November the GOP will either make minimal gains, or this election will be a push. Power won't exchange hands, and the Democrats are probably going to be worse off. This is going to be mean and nasty; literally political trench warfare.
Publius II
Cross-posted at our new site.
Tonight was to be the night of nights in Connecticut if Lieberman won his primary. The odds were against him, and a whole host of polls cited by the Left all day sound nearly prophetic. At least that's how the Left is playing this. They said it all along. They got out the vote, and they removed a man that they detested because of one teeny-tiny little stance he took. He voted in favor of the war, and never backed off of that vote. Never once did he attack the president the way he has been now for five solid years.
Did he question how the war was going? Of course. Who hasn't. Heck even I question it at times. To me, though, it doesn't look like he is fighting this war in a decisive way. My personal opinion, TY, and I'm entitled to a bit of criticism regarding the war. I've supported the effort this long because I believe what we did was right. It was just. And once troops are committed to battle, I won't stand down in defense of them, and that goes double for their mission. Get the job done as quickly and professionally as you can, and then gett your butts back home.
War, unfortunately, doesn't work that way. It's messy, and rarely goes down according to any plans, supposedly fool-proof or otherwise. Lieberman carried the torch for the troops. He believed in this mission. And a whole host of other Democrats did, as well. We've had three debates on this issue, and three votes. Each time, it comes out the same. Few have the fortitude to vote their rhetoric. Lieberman did because he knew what it meant to defend a nation. And whether the Left likes it or not, Iraq was a problem in the Middle-East. Do I think it was the number one problem? Not hardly. But his recent alliance with al Qaeda (going back a couple years) made him a dangerous threat. Did we really want to see what a solid alliance could have produced?
Thank you, no. One 11th September is enough for me in my lifetime. I don't want to see what a "state-sponsored" strike might have ended up being.
But it will be Joe Liebermen that will probably be prophetic this year. This past weekend, Lieberman eluded to the fact that if he lost, it sent a message to the nation that the Democrats do not want a hawk in their party, and therefore they could not be trusted to handle issues of national security. THAT will sound the beginning of the end for the Democrats in November. They have literally handed the GOP a blessing on a silver platter. It, the war, will be at the forefront of the election cycle this year. Again, the Democrats will be hung on their own inadequacies regarding national security.
Their answer tot he electorate will be "We didn't want to go to war, and we regret that vote." Hindsight's nice, after the fact. After hostilities have commenced. After we have seen the bumps in the road. Yes, everyone wants to change their minds now. Unfortunately, even after the consistant hammering on the American public, the people still stand beside the troops. Are cracks starting to form? Of course there are, even in the most solid portions of the base. Our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and relatives of all stripes are the ones with their butts on the line. We want them home. But WE also understand that the mission isn't done. The job's not finished. And this time around, we can't just walk away.
The Islamofascists are far worse than the Communists. At least there was a method to the madness of Communism when the slaughter began. To our enemies, anyone who isn't of their beliefs is an infidel. Death or conversion are the only two ways to survive the purge if our enemies win. Lieberman understood this, and he stood beside it. He was a liberal, and there's no denying that. His voting record shows it. But this election, while the Democrats will blow it off as a victory for themselves, will become their cross to bear in the next three months. The vitriol emanating from their base, on the Internet, is quite apparent. Lieberman was a "traitor," "a turn-coat," "a Benedict Arnold," and "a seditious piece of slime." Even Chris Matthews got into the fray:
Update (Ian): 9:33. Chris Matthews called Lamont very “calm”, “casual”, and not “that bad”. On the other hand, Lieberman is a “schmaltzy ethnic guy”. Geez, Chris, could you make it any clear?
Don't believe me? Watch the video. Like all other good bloggers, Ian and Allah Pundit provide either links to the evidence, or just the evidence itself. But this is where the Democrats are headed. This is the path they've chosen. And mark my words: This November the GOP will either make minimal gains, or this election will be a push. Power won't exchange hands, and the Democrats are probably going to be worse off. This is going to be mean and nasty; literally political trench warfare.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home