Monday, August 28, 2006

Democrats Must Embrace, Not Fear, the "Lamont Wing" of the Party if They Want to Win in November

The Republican Party is extremely adept at framing issues, labeling Democrats, and boxing them into a corner. And they're attempting to do it once again by painting anti-war Senate hopeful, Ned Lamont of Connecticut, as a fringe candidate who represents the radical left wing of his party. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Lamont's made his strong opposition to the Iraq war the cornerstone of his campaign, effectively mobilizing the grassroots/'netroots movement to beat incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in the state's recent primary. Lamont's not alone. The latest polls show that two-thirds of Americans are now firmly against the war and believe it was/is a mistake. What's more, a NY Times/CBS News poll last week found that 51% saw no link between the Iraq war and the broader war on terror, an increase of 10% points since June.

If you listen to the Repugs, Lamont doesn't represent mainstream America, and they're trying to scare Republican and Independent voters into thinking that a vote for Lamont-like liberals will not only spoil the fun in Iraq, but it will be an invitation to terrorists to attack us here at home. But all of this rhetoric presents an enormous opportunity for Democrats, if they have the guts to follow through.

The fact is, Lamont does represent mainstream America, which is solidly against the war. As the polls prove, it's Bush and the GOP that's out of touch with a majority of Americans, not Lamont. With this position, he's not only very successfully drawn a distinction between himself and Lieberman, but with pro-war Republicans overall. If they're smart, Democrats will do precisely the same, and boldly. Democrats must not fall into the Rovian trap and fear being branded "cut and run" lefties. Polls indicate that the November midterms are going to be a referendum on the Iraq war, President Bush, and the GOP-led Congress. The Democrats' message to voters should be, "we're not Republicans. We're not for this wasteful, unjust war. We're like you. We want to end this war and bring the troops home." They should not be afraid to stand up and shout this message at every opportunity. It's what won Lamont his state's primary, and it's what can be the Dems' ticket to victory this Fall. The question is, will Democrats be smart of enough, and ballsy enough, to capitalize on the opportunity that Lamont has given them?


Anonymous said...

Democrats are too weak to win elections. They can't protect america.

Anonymous said...

Exactly what is the RADICAL LEFT? I'm getting tired of Democrats being bashed as "the Radical Left." Is the "radical left" not the side that's for health care for all, negotiation instead of pre-emptive war; preservation of pensions, a fair minimum wage, equality for everybody, preservation of our civil rights, preservation of social security, global warming remedy, the end of corporate America running the country; and other "normal" American concepts of how a Democracy should function. The RADICALS are the fear-mongering, no health care, no fair minimum wage, rampant government interference in our privacy, and lying, stealing and unconcern for all Americans. These people are known today as Republicans and neo-cons. They are the RADICAL RIGHT or FASCIST RIGHT. What is called the RADICAL LEFT is just the Demoratic Party as we knew it under Roosevelt, Johnson and Kennedy.

Anonymous said...

Today's Democratic party has absolutely nothing paralleling the great democratic parties of the past. Who are the Democratic leaders of today that can be even mentioned with greats like Roosevelt, Johnson, and arguably Kennedy? There’s nobody.

The 'radical leftwing' is roughly the same percentage of the Democratic party that the 'radical rightwing'. Just like national politics generally have a bell-curve, each 'side' of the political spectrum has its own internal bell-curve that differentiates the radicals from the moderates. If you don't like the term for liberals, stop using similar terms for conservatives.

"health care for all" - Tell me why healthy, non-smoking adults, who make decisions that are not self-destructive should have to continuously pay for the decisions that irresponsible people make? "Because it’s the nice thing to do" doesn't cut it. It's not 'nice' or 'right' that I have to work more of my life so other people can sit back, smoke, and play video games.

"negotiation instead of pre-emptive war" - Is 13 years of fruitless negotiation that resulted in the biggest organized criminal activity in the history of the United Nations not long enough for you? How long do 'negotiations' continue when one side is circumventing the entire civilized world and using the United Nations (that we pay 22% of the operating expenses) to oppress its people and pay terrorists to kill innocent Israelis?

"a fair minimum wage" - Why do you believe the government needs to force a business to pay more to a worker than the value of the worker's skill set? Would it be 'fair' to pay non-smokers more than smokers, who are less productive due to 10 minute butt-breaks every hour? What is a 'fair' minimum wage anyway? $8? $10? $20 an hour? Why stop at $20?

"preservation of social security" - Bush tried to give your social security to you. The Democrats shot it down. Privatized social security would have allowed each worker to have his/her own personal account that (s)he OWNED. No more government abuse of unspent money because it would have been YOURS. The democrats killed this so they can continue to scare retired people into thinking the republicans are going to steal your social security. Way to go, guys.

"global warming remedy" - What's the remedy? Getting off oil? How about Kennedy killing wind farms? How about environmentalists killing wind farms in Virginia because the fan vibrations where killing bats? Ice caps are currently growing. No hurricanes this year and we are in the MIDDLE of the hurricane season. There's been a 1 degree difference in average temperature THIS CENTURY. What EXACTLY are you trying to remedy?

"the end of corporate America running the country" - the only way to do this is to throw ALL Democrats and ALL Republicans out of office. I'm willing to do this, are you?

Anonymous said...

Larry, I'll take one of your biased arguments to respond to. You don't want to force business to pay a certain wage to its employees. However, you have no objection apparently for a business to hire an illegal (illegal means criminal) immigrant and pay him less than a legal resident could live on; and, inaddition force the American citizens (indlucing you, I presume)to pay their health and schooling care for years and years, while they pay no taxes. Not only that some of the illegals, smoke and use drugs which they also sell illegally. But you say just be sure not to allow an American who smokes help with health care. Your thinking is biased against American citizens.

Anonymous said...

anonymous, you are lying that I have no objection to the hiring of illegals. Actually, the democratic strategy to artificially increase the minimum wage causes businesses to hire illegals. The government should absolutely fine and punish companies that hire illegals. I don't care that illegals are paid less than they can live on. I do care that illegals continue to break our laws by not going home. Illegals need to work towards becoming legal, or go home. I don't support blanket amnesty and I don't support blanket deportation either. Since your entire argument is based on a false premise and lie, I don't feel that I need to respond to the rest of the lies in your post.

My thinking is not biased against American citizens, since I am an American citizen who believes in freedom and limited government.

Feel free to respond to my actual comments instead of changing my comments into a lie and then attacking your lies.

Anonymous said...

And if they are too chicken shit to follow Ned Lamont, maybe they will Chris Shays like LieberBush

Anonymous said...

"Radical left" is a marketing term, that suspiciously comes from the 1960's. It is used by the Republicans and "Larry" types to put fear into the conservative voters. It worked on the abortion issue and it worked for the fundie religious no brainer folks.

When the Repugs and pseudo party folks use this terminology in today's vernacular, it only appears to show their short-sightedness and lack of deep intellectual functioning in dissecting the true problems of this country. In other words, it's a buzz word used to incite folks who vote with a knee-jerk mentality.

Anonymous said...

So we learn today that the evidence is so weak that Karr will not even be formally accused of the murder. Of course it is ridiculous to suggest that this was all a conspiracy to distract us from all the Bush mess. But what is revealing is the way the media and blogosphere initially gobbled up this nut's confession without any critical questioning. It's the same mindset that plays up only the information that supports a political or strategic campaign while ignoring or suppressing any contradictory findings. Simple explanation: lot's of us are pretty stupid, and ready to hear what we want to hear-- be that the moronic idea that Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks or the facist smear campaign the Bushies have launched on all critics of the war.

Anonymous said...

We're a nation of armchair quarterbacks who call shots with a complete lack of common sense. We let the media throw the bait and launch a feeding frenzy on irrelevant crap! The coverage of Karr on CNN and MSNBC was sickening! The lack of coverage on the political mess we're in is absolutely criminal! How do we get through to journalists and programmers about what's more important! Any ideas?

Anonymous said...

What's really moronic and stupid is another anonymous Rovian boot licker talking down to anyone who doesn't accept their assumed position of authority. The fact is Bush and his cohorts weasled their way into the White House and things have been running amuck since day one. If you are racist, brain-washed, an elitist, a chicken-hawk or just have a deep need to follow the present authority figure then by all means be a good little doggie and put your collar on. The present neo-con admin will love you and supply you with BS talking points galore. The rest of us are smart enough to know the media and all of it's non-sense news stories are closely monitored and controlled by the government, that happens to be a very corrupt republican administration at this time. As far as 911 goes, I don't think anyone believes Bush ordered it. Your right that is a moronic idea you came up with. The fact is, when Bush was informed of the attack he just sat there like a dumb-ass. Like he was expecting it. He wasn't even surprised by the news. There are far too many good honest unanswered questions surrounding 911. Indepedent thinkers can go to: for starters. Repub boot lickers don't even think about it, that would not be obedient.

Anonymous said...

It was quite obvious from all the careful wording of the Admin after 9/11 that they had intelligence about the attack, this has been confirmed by mainstream medida, the 911 comish, as well as alternative press. We all remember the evasive language of Condi Rice and others that amounted to: If we knew it would be those 4 specific planes at that precise time attacking those precise targets, then we surely would have done something about it. In any case. No conspiracy is necessary to explain the cover your ass, perpetuate distorted intelligence, and push through your right wing fantasy not matter who suffers, of this admin. They are pretty open about it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous says,
"If we knew it would be those 4 specific planes at that precise time attacking those precise targets, then we surely would have done something about it."and "They are pretty open about it."
Are you a fool or are you just talking like one? If you are are a (PNAC)neo-con you do not think like the rest of us. For them 911 was the "New Pearl Harbor" in other words it would perfectly justify war. Cha-ching! Wake-up or quit trying to distort the issue. As far as, "They are pretty open about it." You have got to be kidding! They fought tooth and nail to prevent any kind of investigation into 911. What planet are you on? You sound like a good little bushie.

Anonymous said...

Too bad Bill Clinton and his administration rejected and prevented at least 4 documented opportunities to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden.

It's also too bad Bill Clinton never responded to the 7 Al Qaeda attacks on the United States during the Clinton administration.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Your going to lose in November. Americans don't trust Democrats. Get over it. The silent majority will speak, like it always does. The out-of-mainstream radical leftwing nuts have taken over the Democratic party. No moderate in their right mind would vote for Democrats.

From the great state of Arkansas, where our presidents get blowjobs from fat ugly interns

Anonymous said...

They are pretty open about the radical right agenda. On resisting the 9/11 commish, it seems in large part to be a matter of not wanting to expose the bumbling negligence of the admin. Anyway if you think that these comments are pro Bush then I'm sure you see Chomsky as a mainstream liberal apologist. Are you a alum of the Spartacus Youth League (also known as FBI stooge?). Perhaps a red-brigader who targets the left since it does not resist capitalism with revolution? We don't need to posit a conspiracy to understand the workings of the government in conjunction multi-national corporate interests. Again, it is not hidden.

Anonymous said...

embrace the lamont wing! 12 points behind is where you belong.

Anonymous said...

We agreee with James C. about the distortions the evil little repugs keep coughing up. Like Mark Twain said, "You cannot educate the ignorant." We have ample proof of what can happen to a great country when the ignorant lie and cheat their way into power. Message to the repug posters....Even the evil monkeys were relieved when the Wicked Witch Melted! Would those collars you put on to follow the idiot leaders be starting to choke you, yet? I can see your faces turning blue!

Anonymous said...

"Even the evil monkeys were relieved when the Wicked Witch Melted"

Oh, well if it happened in the Wizard of Oz, it must be applicable to today's world situation.

Maybe if everyone in America would put on ruby red slippers and click their heals, the terrorists would go away.

Better yet, if we follow the yellow brick road to the United Nations, all the world's problems will be fixed. Forget the corruption, that never happened in Oz.

It is possible that if we can go to Osama Bin Laden's cave and burn his broom, that all of Al Qaeda will turn peaceful.

Can we drop a house on Kim Jong Mentally Il? How about dropping one on the Planet of Apes star running Iran?

Oh Democrats, please take hold of america and lead us. Maybe 45 minutes after the next Democratic president is elected (what?!? it can happen) we can all hold hands, make a joke, and have a group hug.

or, if the democrats lose the next election, we can all go on "Bring Troops Home Fast" fasts, where eating liquified food doesn't count as eating.

Anonymous said...

You Repugs are so literal-minded. You have no appreciation for allegory and you just don't see nuance, subtlety or complicated situations. You know, like attacking Iraq. It was: they bad; we strong; we win; no problem. And the sad part is you people think your fundamental lack of imagination is an asset. But what was it that Mark Twain said?

Another one I like is "Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig."

Anonymous said...


Where does the REALITY that Saddam ignored United Nations resolutions for 13 years, turned sanctions and oil-for-food into the biggest instance of organized criminal activity in the history of the United Nations, used chemical weapons to slaughter innocent Iraqis, paid palestinian families money when a family member killed innocent Israelis in a suicide bombing, and harbored Al Qaeda and other international terrorists fit into your "they bad, we strong, ..." bullshit?

Anonymous said...

Again, you miss the point: WE WIN

Get it: We strong SO WE WIN. We DID NOT win.

"Do I Hear a Waltz?"

Anonymous said...

Good thing you weren't around during World War II. You would have had us surrender at Pearl Harbor.

Anonymous said...

The ability to detect nuance and understand allegorical comparisons are measures of intelligence. So is a sense of humor. As we know, Repugs possess none of the above. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having these inane Repug posts.

And 10:15AM, check your facts. The men who led us through World War Two - Roosevelt and Truman - were - DEMOCRATS!!! Gee, and they did it successfully, too.

GOP arguments are so weak, kind of like Rummy's Nazi comparison earlier the week, you're the idiots who are going to need the group hug! Oh by the way, the protest against Bush in the reddest state, Utah, was larger by thousands than the Pro-Bush rallies. Ready for that hug, yet?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1:30 PM,

"The men who led us through World War Two - Roosevelt and Truman - were - DEMOCRATS!!!"

EXACTLY what I have been saying on this blog. The great days of the Democratic party ARE GONE. Today's democrats are not of the same mold as yesteryear's democrats. The only thing that has remained the same is the name.

If "today's democrats" were leading America during WWII, we would have surrendered after Pearl Harbor. Understand nuance.

Anonymous said...

1:21 Understand the facts - leave nuance to others. Roosevelt and Truman didn't start WWII. They did not create a hopeless situation with no victory in sight. We were atacked. They defended American and the world. We/they/America won. IF BUSH HAD DONE THE SAME THE DEMOCRATS WOULD NOT BE ASKING FOR ANOTHER SOLUTION. THEY WOULD BE CHEERING BUSH AND SUPPORTING HIM. HE HAS FAILED. THE DEMOCRATS RECOGNIZE HIS FAILURE. THEY WANT CHANGE AND A SOLUTIONl But, hey, stick with your own kind in the 30% of those who can't understand what's happening. We all understand the bell-curve.

Anonymous said...

If today's democrats were leading America during World War II, they would have given up before the job was done. Actually, if today's democrats were leading America during World War II, they would have ONLY invaded Japan, because nobody in Europe ever attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

The Ostroy Report said...

Anon 9:47 said: "If today's democrats were leading America during World War II, they would have given up before the job was done."

Congratulations! You've just proven that you are well-versed in the major Repuglican talking point. Now, how about you enlighten us with any sort of intellectual, substantive and history-based rationale for this claim? Show us that you are more than a kool-aid drinking, thought-deprived automaton. We'll be waiting...