Friday, August 11, 2006

Thanks to Ned

This afternoon I (and many of you) received a mass e-mail from Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan.

"It will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again," Joe Lieberman said specifically of Ned's, and your, desire to start bringing our troops home.

He even went as far as calling you "anti-security" before the election.

Sound familiar? Of course it does. The politicizing of terror and fear-mongering peddled by Senator Lieberman and his favorite president for the past five years is part of the problem in Washington, D.C., and it's why the people of Connecticut voted for change on Tuesday.


This is how Ned Lamont wins in November. Liberal Democrats aren't the only ones sick and tired of the politics of fear. Americans worry about terrorism and security but that's not all we care about. We're also concerned about health care, education, outsourcing, and social security among other things. There is more to life than fear and now there is a candidate who recognizes that there is more to governance than fear.

The minute Lieberman realized that he'd lost the primary his tone changed, but he's not the only one. A few days ago CT Democrats held a press conference to introduce the slate of candidates. Lamont instantly went from the role of dreaded gate crasher to future of the party. If we're going to discuss Joe Lieberman's sudden change of direction it's only fair to make note of the Democratic Brass's own abrupt shift. For those who are interested, Spazeboy has an abridged video of the conference up on his site. I find the Democrat's new strategy as refreshing as I find Lieberman's to be repugnant.

My point is that without Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman probably wouldn't have shown his true colors and Connecticut's Democratic candidates would still be confined by his support for the war. Now Democrats can run the campaign most of us rank and file types want to see, and Lieberman is free to express his own views and loyalties. Most important, voters will finally get a real debate about the war and other issues facing our state and country. Everyone wins and it's all thanks to Ned.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

We should ask Joe's "friend" former Senator Max Cleland what he thinks about Joe's new argument. After all, thats exactly what Karl Rove said about Cleland in his defeat. I thought that was politics' lowest moment, but this takes the prize. Has he no shame? Didn't he just stand next to Sen. Cleland last Sunday and bemoan those very tactics??

BRubenstein said...

As i see it..Cheerleading Joe is responsibile for 2600 american deaths and the wasting of over 500 billion dollars of our treasury...all for a fraudulent and failed poilcy..If we didnt invade Iraq, the Hezbollah group wouldnt have kidnapped the Isreali solders and Isreal never would have invaded Lebanon, making the mideast alot more dangerous..THANKS JOE !!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

blather

We should all thank Ned, especially Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Peace in our time.

Anonymous said...

The same Tom Swan who remarked that Waterbury was where "evil and slime meet"????

It's going to be a great campaign.

The True Gentleman said...

Interesting post, cgg. I will disagree with you on an important point, however. Over the past 48 hours, British, Pakistani, and Italians authorities have arrested over 40 individuals who were moving past the planning stages in a plot to kill Americans -- I do not consider this fear-mongering, but reality!

I will agree with you however that too many politicians from both parties are using terrorism as a political tool -- but keep in mind that other politicians from both parties seem to live in a fantasy world that just discussing terrorism and the threat of terrorism is somehow fear-mongering.

CTKnows said...

Nice to see the D's have learned their lesson from Vietnam. 32,000 dead Americans under JFK's and LBJ's terms. Billions wasted... Ned's and the lefties should push to extinguish the eternal flame.. if for nothing else because it honors a war supporter and contributes to global warming.

Anonymous said...

TG--You have fallen for the Rove plot, can't you see this is a all a ruse to deny Lamont victory????

The True Gentleman said...

You're right! I forgot my own mantra -- believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see...I only heard about the plots to kill Americans so I shouldn't have believed them...damn fear-mongering media!!!

cgg said...

TTG, obviously terror is a threat. But it's far from the only problem we face. And simply disagreeing with Joe Lieberman does not make that person a terrorist sympathsizer.

The True Gentleman said...

cgg - when have I ever said that?

Anonymous said...

TG-You haven't--that's the funny part!!! Liberals get mad for pointing out the obvious effect of their cut & run policy. Such a move would embolden Islamofascists. This is a fight against a ruthless enemy..a fight the Libs want to avoid.

Bobby McGee said...

"Interesting post, cgg. I will disagree with you on an important point, however. Over the past 48 hours, British, Pakistani, and Italians authorities have arrested over 40 individuals who were moving past the planning stages in a plot to kill Americans -- I do not consider this fear-mongering, but reality!"

Its not fear-mongering for Joseph "McCarthy" Lieberman to try to convey the reality of the threat against us, but it is fear-mongering for him to try and portray Lamont as helping these enemies and trying to tie these terrorists to our continuing occupation of Iraq.

bluecoat said...

the Democrats have no "cut and run" policy; that came from Bill Frist who once used it as a medical procedure. The regular bloggers here do more than third grade cootie calling stuff there anon.

cgg said...

TTG, you didn't. I'm speaking in general terms and should have been more clear.

Anonymous said...

I would suggest those "doth protesteth too much" libs on the terror issue read what Ol Osama himself said about our departure from Somalia... that it convinced him the United States was now the "weak horse" and could be driven off by some terrorism.

Why would leaving Baghdad now be different than leaving Moghadishu then? Wouldn;t Al-Queda spin the same themes that Americans won't stick with their allies?

A rational repsonse would be appreciated but it is not expected

Anonymous said...

"If we didnt invade Iraq, the Hezbollah group wouldnt have kidnapped the Isreali solders and Isreal never would have invaded Lebanon"

This is a leap of logic beyond Evel Kneivel's jump over the Caesar Place fountain.

Hezbollah has been in Lebanon longer than Bush has been dry. BRubenstein must know this, so why the scam now?

ctkeith said...

True Gentleman,

You do realize it was a tip from other muslims that allowed the British athorities to foil these plans don't you?

Lastly I'm wondering if those who love to use the term Islamofacist would find it just as acceptable Timothy McVeigh a Christofacist?

disgruntled_republican said...

ctkeith-

It is nice to see you posting comments and not abusive drivel and hatred towards anyone who doesn;t share your view...

I hope you keep it that way.

Anonymous said...

CTK...thankfully most Muslims are not advocates of mass murder.

Unfortunately, the ones who are have done a lot of damage already

ctkeith said...

DG,

I'm glad you're disgruntled but as long as you're not embarassed to be in W's party I'm afraid you're not going to be happy with my posts.

Joseph Goebbels would be a Proud Republican today.The Big Lie is in full effect today against Lamont and to just be Disgruntled and not fighting the Republican party with every bit of the strength you can muster is not enough.

disgruntled_republican said...

Again, we are all entitled to our opinion keith. In civilized society people respect each other and allow others to express their opinion and last time I checked America was founded on opinion.

Anonymous said...

This is a better argument than the first comment from the Lamont campaign, which was to compare Lieberman to Karl Rove. That kind of stuff has begun to lose a little meaning to me, while this argument makes a lot more sense. I am voting for Lamont, but comparing Joe to Rove seems like the easy way out.

cgg said...

Anon 2:56 I'm wondering how far to the right Joe plans to head. He can't be all things to all people and sooner or later he'll have to make a choice about which groups of voters to court. It will be interesting to see how things develop.

BRubenstein said...

CGG...he probably has already polled to find that out..

Anonymous said...

Thank Ned for what??? he is buying his way to the Senate.

GO Joe GO!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Now that the CT Democrats have voted backed Ned I will sleep well tonight knowing after the Nov elections we will bring our troups home to a hero's welcome, and not ever need to worry about flying again..... Al

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

ctkeith said... "... I'm wondering if those who love to use the term Islamofacist would find it just as acceptable Timothy McVeigh a Christofacist?"

I probably know around 200 Muslims; a few that I know well have pointed that out.

You're correct.

I'm aware it seems terribly "PC" however once someone's been here 20 years, is a citizen paying taxes etc they really shouldn't be getting beat up everyday.

GMR said...

I don't think McVeigh was all that religious. He was militantly anti-government, and he was upset that the FBI/ATF attacked the Branch Davidians, but I haven't seen anything that he followed that faith.

However, there are a few Christian terrorists floating around, and I guess we could call them Christofascists. However, there are only a handful of them, and since about the middle ages, they haven't controlled any governments. There are significantly more Islamofascists than Christofascists. I'd say it's less than 1% of Muslims, but when you've got a base of 1 billion people, 0.5% is still 5 million people.

Chris MC said...

[...] since about the middle ages, [Christofascists] haven't controlled any governments.

You mean, until the George W. Bush Administration (United States, 2001 - Rapture/End of Time).