Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Democratic Party and the Stalin Playbook
Topic Started: Aug 13 2006, 05:42 AM (214 Views)
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Kathleen Parker

Interesting analysis by Kathleen Parker about how in the end George Bush will take the '08 election from the Democrats.

Forget the war in Iraq, the war on terror, or any other war against which Connecticut citizens are said to have voted by defeating Joe Lieberman and nominating Ned Lamont for the U.S. Senate.

The operative war for American citizens is something closer to home -- a war of independence from the bickering partisans who have made political life in America a childish and tedious exercise.

Democrats aren't wrong when they say that the Lamont victory was a defining moment. It defined the Democratic Party as a vigorous, motivated, organized force that is ... completely out of touch with mainstream America.

Don't get me wrong. Lamont is a perfectly respectable candidate -- well-spoken, attractive, gracious and rich. What's not to like? And millions of Americans of every political stripe are disgusted with the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War.

But what happened in Connecticut allowed the rest of the country a close glimpse of what the Democratic Party has become -- a ruthless machine of the far left, fueled by left-wing blogs and personified by the stubbornly adolescent Michael Moore.

Their triumph in bringing down Lieberman may prove to be their undoing in November, as well as in the 2008 presidential election. Here's why: Americans may not like the war, or the deficit, or the Bush administration's immigration stance, or pick-your-grievance. We enjoy a surfeit of issues to divide us. But Americans also share a reflexive resistance to Stalinist tactics.

What else can one call the message now being telegraphed to Democratic leaders? You either stand with us against the war in Iraq, or we take you down.

The morning after Lamont's victory, for instance, Moore posted a note on his Web site to Democratic candidates that is a threat without the veil. He specifically targeted Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards, all likely presidential candidates in '08.

Noting that nearly every Democrat planning to run for president had voted for or supported the war, Moore said, ``we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.''

Even though both Kerry and Edwards have changed their minds and are now anti-war, that's too late for Moore, who wrote: ``Their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.''

To Clinton, he spoke directly: ``I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope.''

As for the rest, ``To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.''

Moore's manifesto, through which he may have lost a few grammarians, is straight out of Stalin's playbook under 'P' for purge. Like Stalin, the operatives who ousted Lieberman are determined to remove dissidents from The Party.

Clinton, among others, snapped to. Looking grim before television cameras, she vowed her allegiance to the party, promising to support Lamont in the general election against Lieberman, who is running as an independent. And though Clinton has resisted calls for a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, she recently hammered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in an apparent attempt to distance herself from the administration.

Kerry and Edwards similarly have reiterated their party allegiance. Genuflection noted.

Flash to Connecticut immediately after the count, and Lamont's victory photo tells the rest of the story. There they were, those two perennial groupies to irrelevancy, the twin reverends Sharpton and Jackson. Heaven forbid a Democrat should give an acceptance speech without their pandered presence.

Lieberman -- admired by centrists and conservatives -- promises to stay his own course as a nonpartisan independent. His decision may be viewed as a blasphemous, punishable offense by the MoveOn/Moore wing of his party, but he's hitting a note that rings true for the times.

The extremes of both parties -- whether the Michael Moore left or Pat Robertson right -- have had their day, and most sensible Americans have had enough of both. The independent candidate, who puts state and country above party, may be the right candidate in this climate, while the Democratic Party -- now fully revealed as a radical, anti-war, far-left party -- may have written its own suicide note.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
we'll see who gets undone in November.


By the way, Tom - how are your favorite Senate candidates doing? The only ones I've seen you post about, anyway, Kathleen Harris and Jeanine Pirro?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
"The extremes of both parties -- whether the Michael Moore left or Pat Robertson right -- have had their day, and most sensible Americans have had enough of both. The independent candidate, who puts state and country above party, may be the right candidate in this climate, while the Democratic Party -- now fully revealed as a radical, anti-war, far-left party -- may have written its own suicide note."

Ding ding ding ding!

Bingo.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Interesting that while this article is clearly intended as a partisan attack against the Democrats, the thrust of this article about what the electorate is seeking is the same as the one the Quirt posted here:

An Interesting Indictment of Both Sides, of the Political Spectrum

I think what this author fails to see but that Klein does see in Quirt's article is that if the electorate is tired of extermism, they are tired of it on both sides.

Let us hope so.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
TomK
Aug 13 2006, 08:42 AM


The extremes of both parties -- whether the Michael Moore left or Pat Robertson right -- have had their day, and most sensible Americans have had enough of both. The independent candidate, who puts state and country above party, may be the right candidate in this climate, while the Democratic Party -- now fully revealed as a radical, anti-war, far-left party -- may have written its own suicide note.

who will guide like the leaders of yore
who freely conveyed ideals and hopes before
it was deemed chic to be anti-war
and freedom was not of value anymore
and truth was a thing to ignore?
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
[size=5]Democrats aren't wrong when they say that the Lamont victory was a defining moment. It defined the Democratic Party as a vigorous, motivated, organized force that is ... completely out of touch with mainstream America.[/size]
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kentcouncil
Fulla-Carp
jon-nyc
Aug 13 2006, 08:46 AM
By the way, Tom - how are your favorite Senate candidates doing? The only ones I've seen you post about, anyway, Kathleen Harris and Jeanine Pirro?

He posted pictures that he took of them in the "Find a pic and post it" thread.
It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't.

- P.G. Wodehouse
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I think the writer of this article needs to read up a little more on Stalin.

Such comparisons are disrespectful to Lamont, disrespectful to Lieberman, and quite frankly disrespectful to Stalin. Smokin' Joe worked extremely hard to be a top-tyrant, and to make comparisons with this bunch of amateurs is to disrespect one of the top mass-murderers of the 20th Century.

(with a hat-tip to Jon Stewart)
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
[size=6]The extremes of both parties -- whether the Michael Moore left or Pat Robertson right -- have had their day, and most sensible Americans have had enough of both. The independent candidate, who puts state and country above party, may be the right candidate in this climate, while the Democratic Party -- now fully revealed as a radical, anti-war, far-left party -- may have written its own suicide note.[/size]
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Stalinist? That would be having one political party. What the writers of these articles do not want is an anti-war candidate, but who the Democrats in Connecticut nominate is not their choice. Can't we all get along, by all being conservatives and "centrists"? Maybe not.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
No Daniel, not as long as there is a single, still breathing radical leftist left on the face of the planet....... ;)

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Larry
Aug 13 2006, 02:41 PM
No Daniel, not as long as there is a single, still breathing radical leftist left on the face of the planet....... ;)

He's worth 90 million dollars- I doubt he's the radical leftist he's being portrayed to be by half. :2face:


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply