The Party Purge Continues
Everyone is aware of the Democrat's pushing of Joe Lieberman out of their party. He just was not "liberal" enough for their liking right now. They disregard his 95% voting record for the liberal ideals, and hung him out to dry over his support for the war. It is the ultimate example of cutting off one's nose to spite their face, and they have taken a beating from the blogs over the move. But today's Washington Times Insider shows that Joe Lieberman is not the only one in this purge. No, this is going even deeper, and delving into their loyal base. (Registration required to read the whole thing. Registration is free.)
The trend of incumbent Democratic lawmakers facing primary challenges from the left is not sparing black lawmakers, despite their generally being among the party's more liberal representatives and blacks being the party's most loyal constituency.
Rep. Albert R. Wynn, Maryland Democrat, is facing a strong primary challenge from Prince George's County lawyer Donna Edwards, who says he is too conservative to represent his predominantly black constituency. The most unlikely Congressional Black Caucus member, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, Illinois Democrat, faced similar charges from his opponent Philip Jackson in the primary.
"Our opponent in the primary attempted to use that strategy against Mr. Rush in relation to his vote for the energy bill last year," said a staffer for Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush is a former Black Panther and recognized as one of the most liberal members of Congress yet he and Mr. Wynn were both attacked by their opponents for supporting the energy bill, a choice both men said they made after they successfully worked out a deal in committee to increase federal low-income home energy assistance program (LIHEAP) by $3 billion.
"My general view is that the Democratic Party used to be the big tent party where everyone is allowed to express their views; now it is being taken over by these bloggers and purists who can only see one way of thinking," Mr. Wynn said. "We can think for ourselves and not for somebody else's idea of what a liberal is supposed to be."
Mr. Wynn's comments are not directed to the whole blogosphere. The center-right has swallowed its pride and is supporting some notable RINOs up for reelection this year. Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine, Richard Lugar, nad Trent Lott are among them. They do not always put party first, and therefore qualify as a RINO. However, the GOP has shown that they can withstand moderates provided they stay on the party side of certain issues, such as the war and national security. John McCain (who is unfortunately our senator) is one of the most notorious RINOs in the Senate, but he is right on the money 7 out of 10 times when it comes to his votes. He is a staunch supporter of the war, and for upholding the tactics we use to catch our enemies.
Lincoln Chafee is the only one have turned our backs on this year. He is not a party man, and more often than not, he ends up on the opposite side of many issues. He has stood against the war, has stood against tax cuts, and even boasted that he had voted for John Kerry rather than President Bush. Sorry Lincoln, but three strikes and you are out, baby.
But what the Democrats are doing is reprehensible. They want only those that stand in lock-step with their ideology. Zell Miller saw this in 2004, and knew the writing was on the wall. I am left to wonder whether he warned other "moderate" Democrats that their time would come, too. "Watch this kid; today it's me, tomorrow it's you." The KosKiddies/Deaniac/Michael Moore-on crew has hijacked the Democrat party. Eli Pariser famously quipped in an e-mail after John Kerry's loss in 2004, "Now it's our party. We bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back." And take it back they have, but in the worst sort of way.
Instead of collecting themselves after the resounding defeat of John Kerry, instead of lookig to where they messed up in the campaign, they dug in, and slammed even harder to the Left. No one thought the rhetoric could get any worse, but it did. Here we are in 2006, just two years removed from the election, and the Democrat's primary mantra is "Bring the troops home." There have been calls for the president's impeachment; indeed, several Democrat candidates int he House are campaigning on that agenda. There are calls for another vote over our involvement in Iraq. And we still have "Howling Mad" Howard Dean ripping up the administration's personnel. Just two days ago, he slammed Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld again on CNN. The "nutroots" are out there, ladies and gentlemen, and they are completely unhinged.
And now they are taking it out on their longstanding allies. They have targeted a few black congressmen for what they see as a violation of party politics. Bear in mind that the Democrats are doing this to people who do not stand in perfect line with them. We, on the other hand, can afford to be lenient with a few of our moderates, and actually embrace the moderates much better than the Democrats do. We recognize that our ideas do not always work, and the moderates help us get the necessary steps towards our overall goals. Politics is a bloodsport, but it is also something where ALL sides must be taken into account. The Democrats are showing that their side of the debates is all they will tolerate in their party. Anyone who does not fit into that mold is being tossed under the bus.
This is not exactly the smartest call they could have made. Eating your young when you need party strength and unity is no way to run a political party. But the Democrats seem to know better. Fine, let them be. And after November 7th, they will see that they made a serious miscalculation with their candidates, and their base. All we need to do is look at Connecticut to see the mistake. Democrats and Republicans alike are backing Lieberman. They are moderates, at heart, and reject Lamont's hard-left image. The "nutroots" can crow about their victory, but they miss two important points.
First, the Lamont/Lieberman political war was a primary battle. They raved about the outcome at the polls, but forgot to note that most people do not vote in primaries unless they are truly concerned for the well-being of a particular candidate. With the rumors running rampant over Lieberman filing as an independent if he lost, most people resigned themselves to the fact that they would be able to vote for Lieberman regardless of the outcome of the primary. Remember, people in Connecticut are moderates, for the most part, and an Independent Lieberman appeals to them.
Second, no one pays attention to election politics until after Labor Day. After this coming weekend, it will be trench warfare for the candidates. From September 5th through November 6th, this will be a foot-race to see who can get the win, hopefully, before election day. Mike DeWine is in a dead heat right now, and trailing his Democrat opponent. The difference is that DeWine has always finished incredibly strong. And he is not trailing by much. It is hardly an insurmountable lead for his challenger.
But, to me, what is most appalling about this story is that the black vote has always been predominantly Democrat, and here are the Democrats basically blowing them off. Such an attitude is normal for people like Dr. Condoleeza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, former Secretary of Education Rod Paige, Thomas Sowell, and so on. They know that because they have not bought into the lies and deceit of the Democrat Party, and assumed the role of sla, er, victim, that they will be demonized, slandered, and insulted. But what did these congressmen do to deserve this sort of treatment?They are, by the DNC's flawed definition, "conservative sympathizers." They are being labled this by their primary opponents because they have joined with the Republicans on a couple of occasions.
And the problem with the Democrat Party is best summed up by Oliver Kellman, a former aide to Donna Brazille:
"The Democratic Party is no longer the voice of the people. But a group of folks are standing up and saying they are going to speak for the people, and that is why you are seeing Al Wynn and Bobby Rush being targeted."
It is the same sort of snobbishness we saw from people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards two years ago. They think they know better. No, scratch that; they believe that they, and they alone, have all the answers, and people are going to let them do it, or else. (Of course, they have yet to come with what "or else" means, but that is a detail they omit as easily as their campaign platform; a subject that many of them dislike discussing because they know they do not have one.)
This behavior will be the Democrat's downfall this year. The GOP has its problems, and we are not denying that. But in comparison, we are steady and true right now watching the opposing party capsize. We may lose a seat or two, but we will maintain our hold on the majorities. The other benefit we have over the Democrats is that despite we, the base, are targeting Lincoln Chafee. The party is not. It is still giving him money for his campaign, and support. Lieberman had his legs cut out from under him. Representatives Wynn and Rush have yet to see this. But if the Democrats are determined to purge the ranks this year, they will very soon. And I hope they drop the veneer of servitude to the party, and rally the blacks in their district to see how they are being treated by Democrats. Do not whine about it, but point it out when it comes out.
The people have supported these men for some time now. (Wynn was first elected in 1992; Rush in '93) Wynn has been in seven elections, and each time he has beaten his opponent by 75% or more of the vote. so it is not as though he is not well-liked and respected. Rush in 2000 faced off against Barak Obama--the new "darling" of the Senate--and soundly beat him for the House seat.
Based on that above, and the information in the story, if I were a dEmocrat I would have to ask why these men are being targeted? And that goes double if I were a Democrat who openly, actively, and proudly camapigned and voted for either man. What has changed to make the Democrats turn on these men? Their voting records have not changed. And another thing, Cynthia McKinney lost her primary race to Hank Johnson, who is said to be a Lieberman moderate. If that is true, will the Democrats support him against his Republican challenger, or will they stay silent, and possibly allow a House seat to slip fromt heir fingers?
In other words, how far are the Democrats willing to go on this strategy? If they take it too far, it could have even more disastrous results come November than is being predicted by many.
Marcie
Everyone is aware of the Democrat's pushing of Joe Lieberman out of their party. He just was not "liberal" enough for their liking right now. They disregard his 95% voting record for the liberal ideals, and hung him out to dry over his support for the war. It is the ultimate example of cutting off one's nose to spite their face, and they have taken a beating from the blogs over the move. But today's Washington Times Insider shows that Joe Lieberman is not the only one in this purge. No, this is going even deeper, and delving into their loyal base. (Registration required to read the whole thing. Registration is free.)
The trend of incumbent Democratic lawmakers facing primary challenges from the left is not sparing black lawmakers, despite their generally being among the party's more liberal representatives and blacks being the party's most loyal constituency.
Rep. Albert R. Wynn, Maryland Democrat, is facing a strong primary challenge from Prince George's County lawyer Donna Edwards, who says he is too conservative to represent his predominantly black constituency. The most unlikely Congressional Black Caucus member, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, Illinois Democrat, faced similar charges from his opponent Philip Jackson in the primary.
"Our opponent in the primary attempted to use that strategy against Mr. Rush in relation to his vote for the energy bill last year," said a staffer for Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush is a former Black Panther and recognized as one of the most liberal members of Congress yet he and Mr. Wynn were both attacked by their opponents for supporting the energy bill, a choice both men said they made after they successfully worked out a deal in committee to increase federal low-income home energy assistance program (LIHEAP) by $3 billion.
"My general view is that the Democratic Party used to be the big tent party where everyone is allowed to express their views; now it is being taken over by these bloggers and purists who can only see one way of thinking," Mr. Wynn said. "We can think for ourselves and not for somebody else's idea of what a liberal is supposed to be."
Mr. Wynn's comments are not directed to the whole blogosphere. The center-right has swallowed its pride and is supporting some notable RINOs up for reelection this year. Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine, Richard Lugar, nad Trent Lott are among them. They do not always put party first, and therefore qualify as a RINO. However, the GOP has shown that they can withstand moderates provided they stay on the party side of certain issues, such as the war and national security. John McCain (who is unfortunately our senator) is one of the most notorious RINOs in the Senate, but he is right on the money 7 out of 10 times when it comes to his votes. He is a staunch supporter of the war, and for upholding the tactics we use to catch our enemies.
Lincoln Chafee is the only one have turned our backs on this year. He is not a party man, and more often than not, he ends up on the opposite side of many issues. He has stood against the war, has stood against tax cuts, and even boasted that he had voted for John Kerry rather than President Bush. Sorry Lincoln, but three strikes and you are out, baby.
But what the Democrats are doing is reprehensible. They want only those that stand in lock-step with their ideology. Zell Miller saw this in 2004, and knew the writing was on the wall. I am left to wonder whether he warned other "moderate" Democrats that their time would come, too. "Watch this kid; today it's me, tomorrow it's you." The KosKiddies/Deaniac/Michael Moore-on crew has hijacked the Democrat party. Eli Pariser famously quipped in an e-mail after John Kerry's loss in 2004, "Now it's our party. We bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back." And take it back they have, but in the worst sort of way.
Instead of collecting themselves after the resounding defeat of John Kerry, instead of lookig to where they messed up in the campaign, they dug in, and slammed even harder to the Left. No one thought the rhetoric could get any worse, but it did. Here we are in 2006, just two years removed from the election, and the Democrat's primary mantra is "Bring the troops home." There have been calls for the president's impeachment; indeed, several Democrat candidates int he House are campaigning on that agenda. There are calls for another vote over our involvement in Iraq. And we still have "Howling Mad" Howard Dean ripping up the administration's personnel. Just two days ago, he slammed Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld again on CNN. The "nutroots" are out there, ladies and gentlemen, and they are completely unhinged.
And now they are taking it out on their longstanding allies. They have targeted a few black congressmen for what they see as a violation of party politics. Bear in mind that the Democrats are doing this to people who do not stand in perfect line with them. We, on the other hand, can afford to be lenient with a few of our moderates, and actually embrace the moderates much better than the Democrats do. We recognize that our ideas do not always work, and the moderates help us get the necessary steps towards our overall goals. Politics is a bloodsport, but it is also something where ALL sides must be taken into account. The Democrats are showing that their side of the debates is all they will tolerate in their party. Anyone who does not fit into that mold is being tossed under the bus.
This is not exactly the smartest call they could have made. Eating your young when you need party strength and unity is no way to run a political party. But the Democrats seem to know better. Fine, let them be. And after November 7th, they will see that they made a serious miscalculation with their candidates, and their base. All we need to do is look at Connecticut to see the mistake. Democrats and Republicans alike are backing Lieberman. They are moderates, at heart, and reject Lamont's hard-left image. The "nutroots" can crow about their victory, but they miss two important points.
First, the Lamont/Lieberman political war was a primary battle. They raved about the outcome at the polls, but forgot to note that most people do not vote in primaries unless they are truly concerned for the well-being of a particular candidate. With the rumors running rampant over Lieberman filing as an independent if he lost, most people resigned themselves to the fact that they would be able to vote for Lieberman regardless of the outcome of the primary. Remember, people in Connecticut are moderates, for the most part, and an Independent Lieberman appeals to them.
Second, no one pays attention to election politics until after Labor Day. After this coming weekend, it will be trench warfare for the candidates. From September 5th through November 6th, this will be a foot-race to see who can get the win, hopefully, before election day. Mike DeWine is in a dead heat right now, and trailing his Democrat opponent. The difference is that DeWine has always finished incredibly strong. And he is not trailing by much. It is hardly an insurmountable lead for his challenger.
But, to me, what is most appalling about this story is that the black vote has always been predominantly Democrat, and here are the Democrats basically blowing them off. Such an attitude is normal for people like Dr. Condoleeza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, former Secretary of Education Rod Paige, Thomas Sowell, and so on. They know that because they have not bought into the lies and deceit of the Democrat Party, and assumed the role of sla, er, victim, that they will be demonized, slandered, and insulted. But what did these congressmen do to deserve this sort of treatment?They are, by the DNC's flawed definition, "conservative sympathizers." They are being labled this by their primary opponents because they have joined with the Republicans on a couple of occasions.
And the problem with the Democrat Party is best summed up by Oliver Kellman, a former aide to Donna Brazille:
"The Democratic Party is no longer the voice of the people. But a group of folks are standing up and saying they are going to speak for the people, and that is why you are seeing Al Wynn and Bobby Rush being targeted."
It is the same sort of snobbishness we saw from people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards two years ago. They think they know better. No, scratch that; they believe that they, and they alone, have all the answers, and people are going to let them do it, or else. (Of course, they have yet to come with what "or else" means, but that is a detail they omit as easily as their campaign platform; a subject that many of them dislike discussing because they know they do not have one.)
This behavior will be the Democrat's downfall this year. The GOP has its problems, and we are not denying that. But in comparison, we are steady and true right now watching the opposing party capsize. We may lose a seat or two, but we will maintain our hold on the majorities. The other benefit we have over the Democrats is that despite we, the base, are targeting Lincoln Chafee. The party is not. It is still giving him money for his campaign, and support. Lieberman had his legs cut out from under him. Representatives Wynn and Rush have yet to see this. But if the Democrats are determined to purge the ranks this year, they will very soon. And I hope they drop the veneer of servitude to the party, and rally the blacks in their district to see how they are being treated by Democrats. Do not whine about it, but point it out when it comes out.
The people have supported these men for some time now. (Wynn was first elected in 1992; Rush in '93) Wynn has been in seven elections, and each time he has beaten his opponent by 75% or more of the vote. so it is not as though he is not well-liked and respected. Rush in 2000 faced off against Barak Obama--the new "darling" of the Senate--and soundly beat him for the House seat.
Based on that above, and the information in the story, if I were a dEmocrat I would have to ask why these men are being targeted? And that goes double if I were a Democrat who openly, actively, and proudly camapigned and voted for either man. What has changed to make the Democrats turn on these men? Their voting records have not changed. And another thing, Cynthia McKinney lost her primary race to Hank Johnson, who is said to be a Lieberman moderate. If that is true, will the Democrats support him against his Republican challenger, or will they stay silent, and possibly allow a House seat to slip fromt heir fingers?
In other words, how far are the Democrats willing to go on this strategy? If they take it too far, it could have even more disastrous results come November than is being predicted by many.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home