I am thrilled by the defeat of Joe Lieberman in CT.
Although Ned Lamont is himself a millionare, he spoke honestly and with conviction.
Ousting Lieberman does not mean that Democrats are weak on terror.
Right-wingers will claim that the Democratic party is being taken over by radicals… answer, mirror.
Wanting out of Iraq is not “anti-American” or “pro-terrorist.” Wanting a sane foreign policy is in the best interests of this country.
And Joe, you lost, go home!
I’m glad Lamont won, as long as it motivates a change among the Democrat leadership (and by that I mean personnel).
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0810thur1-10.html
Eeh, not convincing. Sure, everyone who voted for Iraq is guilty. But Joe was/is a Republican enabler. And in these days, that equates with a hard line neo-conservative foreign policy. While nobody would argue for weak national security, everything the Bush regime has done (aided by the likes of continual compromise seekers like Lieberman,) has made the country more vulnerable. Security isn’t just about giant fences and soldiers on the streets. Sure, many of the current Dems are phonies. However, this movement, this victory, is about getting rid of such individuals. Lieberman is not a Democrat, and its time for the likes of him to step down so that a real opposition to the disasterous Bush doctrine can be proposed.
Another, I think well written, piece on the topic.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/prob_w_pundits