Lamont — Lieberman redux redux
Stumbling about, I think I just found what is just about the most hilarious and hyper-ventilating editorial about Ned Lamont’s defeat of Joseph Lieberman. From the right-ward publication “Human Events” comes some fair reminiscent of Pravda. A selection of pargaraphs.
The Lamont victory over a former vice presidential candidate of the party means one thing and one thing only. The wealthy but crazed inhabitants of the left-wing fever swamps are taking over a party that has been trying to re-identify with the voters who allowed it to dominate American politics for most of the last century. The purge that began with the McGovernite seizure of the party in the early seventies has been reinvigorated.
Ned Lamont is a nobody with money who became the tool of the MoveOn.org crowd and has managed to demonstrate to the world that there is no room in the Democratic Party for candidates or office holders who disagree with the far left belief that our country is the source of all evil in the world.
The boys and girls who lionized Che, Mao and Fidel in the 60s and 70s have grown up and are now championing suicide bombers and telling us that the rulers of nations like Iran and North Korea are really just misunderstood. Their own country appalls them and they are convinced that if it weren’t for the United States, the world would be a far safer and more pleasant place.
They are riding the public frustration with the progress of the war in Iraq today as they exploited frustration over Vietnam in an earlier era. The questions of whether we should have drawn the line in Vietnam in the 70s or whether Iraq is the right place for us to be taking on the Islamo-fascists today are legitimate, but in their view, we should never draw lines, never fight and never antagonize our enemies by opposing their often outrageous ambitions.
Many conservatives as well as liberals have questions about the way in which the Bush Administration has conducted the war in Iraq, but share the view that the enemy we are fighting is, in fact, our enemy. It is this that the Lamonts of the world reject. In their view, if there is an enemy, it is us.
Lamont’s victory was a triumph for the left and a defeat for the United States because it may mean that future elections will be run between candidates of a proU.S. party and nominees of an anti-U.S. party.
How can anyone argure with all of that? Probably just have to go ahead and match the shouting vitrol, I suppose.