"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Sunday, August 13, 2006

DEAN ON MEET THE PRESS: Lieberman sounds like Cheney

Gregory - guest-hosting for Russert ran a video clip of Lieberman:
SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN: I am committed to this campaign, to a different kind of politics, to bringing the Democratic Party back from Ned Lamont, Maxine Waters, to the mainstream.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: “Back from the extreme.” Has the Democratic Party that, that you represent been taken over by the extreme?

MR. DEAN: You know, I think that was an unfortunate statement that Joe made. That’s exactly the same line that Ken Mehlman and, and Dick Cheney are using.
Lamont makes a similar charge:
Lamont said Lieberman's swipe at his candidacy "sounded an awful lot" like Cheney.
Well, what difference does that make? I mean, if Cheney said 2+2=4 and then Joe said it, he would be telling the truth; they both would be, and they would sound alike. If Ned "Corliss" Lamont said 2+2=3, then he'd be wrong. Joe tells the truth about the GWOT; Lamont and his extreme Left-wing dove supporters are just plain wrong.

Telling the truth is more important than towing the party-line. And being right on the GWOT is more important than anything else. And telling the truth is mainstream.

ADDENDUM: Lamont is an appessser descended from a major-league, world-class appeaser: the late CORLISS LAMONT, a "secular-humanist" dove who defended the USSR his whole life, and as recently as 1993 was still aggressively defending the Castro regime. From the above link:
In June 1993, under the auspices of the Center for Cuban Studies, Corliss and Beth Lamont traveled to Cuba. Fidel Castro, who was well aware of Lamont's campaign of many years to lift the U.S. embargo of his country, gave him a lengthy audience, during which the two discussed the legal possibilities of Castro suing the U.S. government over the well-documented CIA assassination attempts on his life.
More on secular humanism in general HERE.

THREE QUESTIONS FOR NED:

(1) Do you agree with the late Corliss Lamont, your grandfather, that the USA and not Castro's Marxist tyranny, is the root cause of Cuban poverty?

(2) Would you agree that assassinating the leadership of al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups and leaders of organizations which sponsor terrorism can be good policy, or do you think that even in war-time it's a crime and should be banned?

(3) Do you agree with the majority of your supporters that Bush has committed impeacheable offenses by authorizing the NSA surveillace program, and/or by attempting to try enemy combatants in special tribunals? And, BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW NOW, would you vote to convict Bush if the House retured articles of impeachment?

More on Lamont - the cable guy - here, from Roger.
More here and here.

5 comments:

Free Thinker said...

you called them "left-wing dove supporters"...yet there position on this issue is shared by 60% of americans. Do you really characterize 60% of the american population as "left-wing doves"? Laughable.

Also, bringing Lamont's grandfather's politics and ascribing them to Lamont himself is disingenuous and really rather pointless for the purposes of serious inquiry.

You are obviously trying deperately to paint a picture here...but what's amazing to me is that nowhere...nowhere do you actually take on Lamont's ideas. You declare him wrong with zero analysis, and attack his gradfather's view. Rediculous. Grow a pair and take on the actual ideas of the person you are trying to trash.

Kool Kurt said...

Prescott Bush was a banker for a Nazi financier.

Does that make W. a Nazi?

Prescott Bush served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947.

Does W. support abortion?

Lamont has made his position clear. The war in Iraq has cost 10,000 of lives and billions of dollars and has done nothing to stop the spread of islamofacisim or make the US safer from terrorists. If you don't like Lamont's position defend the status quo. Don't attack his grandfather.

reliapundit said...

1 - i attack corliss, and ned lamont's base. i feel that ned should be put on the spot regarding his grampa's positions: either he will sidestep the questions like a phony pol' or he will distance himself from corliss and antagonize his base, or he will admit that he agrees with his gramps.

2 - lamont's base is very "anti-war" = doves.

3 - 60% of the dem party doesn't even support lamont, so claiming that 60% of the general elctorate might is absurd.

60% are unhappy with iraw on most bad days - because they get an incomplete picture of it from a biased MSM which also habitually runs propaganda manufactured by the enemy. this has been proven over and over and over again.

4 - lieberman will be reelected and the doves - like lamont and sheehan and moulitzas - will detroy the dem party forever. good riddance.

i say this as a registered dem of 4 decades. one who wishes it was once again a party of HAWKS like fdr and truman and jfk and jackson and moynihan and zell miller and LIEBERMAN.

sadly it is the party of teddy joe kennedy dhimmi carter bj clinton and mcgovern.

and the home of anti-semitism.

reliapundit said...

more on lamont's supporters' anti-Semitism here:

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/08/lieberman-loses-lamontmooresheehanmoul.html

Brian said...

Reliapundit - This is isn't even good punditry.

"feel that ned should be put on the spot regarding his grampa's positions"

No offense but Lamont's dead grandfather is relevant how exactly? Under this logic, President Bush should answer for Prescott Bush pro Nazi leanings.

3. "60% of the dem party doesn't even support lamont, so claiming that 60% of the general elctorate might is absurd." THat's not what he said he said that 60% of the American public share Lamont's position on the war (namely it was a mistake and is DISTRACTING on the global war on terror. Notice how Iran is emboldened so much so that they had Hizbullah attack Israel!)

"because they get an incomplete picture of it from a biased MSM which also habitually runs propaganda manufactured by the enemy. this has been proven over and over and over again."

It's not been proven even once dude. What are you talking about? I suggest you actually talk to someone who has served in Iraq about how the administration has made it impossible for them to succeed in Iraq.

"sadly it is the party of teddy joe kennedy dhimmi carter bj clinton and mcgovern.

and the home of anti-semitism."

Ah yes trot out the old anti-semitism canard. Are some of Lamont's supporters out there? Sure just like the some of the supporters on the far right are pretty far out there. The funny thing is that Lamont is largely a Republican on most issues. His stance on Iraq is that it's a terrible distraction and resource drain on the war on terror, not that "war is bad." On everything thing else his position is pretty centrist. Don't blow this up into the "end of the Democratic party" it's a single race in Connecticut. There are other Democrats who supported the war in Iraq who don't have challengers from the 'far left'. This race more about Lieberman's unqualiefied support for the president. Had the President properly executed his war in Iraq, this wouldn't even be a problem. But like everything else this current president has done, it's poorly executed. Lieberman won't even critize him for poor execution and that's his problem in Connecticut.