A Watershed Moment for Dems?

What the blogs are saying about the Connecticut senate race:

Ned Lamont is not 'Karl Rove's dream come true'

The Carpetbagger Report
8-7-06 Posted 4:00 pm

The theme of the day for Joe Lieberman's supporters is "a Lieberman defeat is exactly what Republicans want." I know, it doesn't make any sense to me, either.

But yet, that's TNR Editor Martin Peretz argued on the most conservative high-profile print real estate in the country, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

The Lamont ascendancy, if that is what it is, means nothing other than that the left is trying, and in places succeeding, to take back the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr. Lamont. As I say, we have been here before. Ned Lamont is Karl Rove's dream come true. If he, and others of his stripe, carry the day, the Democratic party will lose the future, and deservedly.

Similarly, ABC's Cokie Roberts insisted yesterday that a Lamont victory would be "a disaster for the Democratic Party" and would lead to "chaos."

I have no idea what these people are talking about. If a Lamont victory would be some kind of death knell for the Democratic Party, why would the right be so anxious to support Lieberman?

--------------------
Lieberman's Own Words on Iraq from the Beginning Show Why He Needs the Boot

BuzzFlash.com
Mon, 08/07/2006 - 3:21pm.

Joe Lieberman's continued support of Iraq and Bush has led to understandable anger from the Democrats he abandoned (and praise from the ultra-conservatives he has joined, like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter). On the verge of a vitally significant primary election Tuesday, it’s important to remember that Lieberman hasn't just been a passive follower, he has been among the most active proponents of Iraq since the beginning when he led Congress in deciding to give Bush a blank check.

--------------------
Holy Joe uses 9/11: Remind you of anyone?

By: John Amato @ 6:08 PM - PDT
Crooks and Liars

He said a victory for Lamont will send a message to the country: “In the Democratic Party, there’s no room for strong-on-security Dems.” He said that would be disastrous for the Democrats. “You can’t win in this country,” he said, “unless you assure people" that you aren’t going to compromise on national security. He said he has backed the war on terror because he never forgets about the “radical Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and want to do it again.”…read on

So what does attacking Iraq have to do with National security and 9/11? Hasn’t the Iraq war weakened this nation in the eyes of the world, created more terrorists that hate us and killed thousands of innocent people? What has it done to our troops? Did you happen to catch this report?

More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard’s 34 brigades are not combat ready due largely to vast equipment shortfalls that will take as much as $21 billion to correct, the top National Guard general said Tuesday….read on

How about this Joe?

The federal government received failing and mediocre grades yesterday from the former Sept. 11 commission, whose members said in a final report that the Bush administration and Congress have balked at enacting numerous reforms that could save American lives and prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Do you personally take responsibility for the failing grades? Isn’t that weak on National security? Maybe if you weren’t involved in backing Bush’s Iraq civil war, our country would be a whole lot safer? Also, Joe’s weak campaign efforts so far have put him in trouble of losing his once very secure Senate seat –- so why should I trust him on National Security? I’m just asking is all.