Democrat Party Splitting In Half?

Dare to question the almighty lunatic left and you too might find yourself without a political party...
From Kirsten Powers Blog:

More Dems Make The Wrong Choice
Yet another Democrat has turned against Joe Lieberman, but this time it's a group that had Lieberman as a founding member: The New Democrat Network (full disclosure: I used to serve on the Board, though I resigned from the group today after seeing this post). It's a disappointing and opportunistic position to curry favor with the (very) far left at the expense of a thoughtful Democrat who admittedly has made some poor
word choices that I and many others have complained about. But he doesn't deserve to be thrown overboard, and certainly not by organizations he helped start.

From Simon Rosenberg's blog NDN Blog:

"It is time, my good friend. Senator Lieberman, it is time. Time to end this part of your remarkable career with dignity, grace and honor. You had a great run, made a great contribution, and done a lot of good. But it is time to move on."

This is insulting and patronizing. Lieberman is not a horse that needs to be put out to pasture.

While I did not support the Iraq war and have been very critical of it's execution, Lieberman's position on the war is perfectly reasonable -- that leaving Iraq right now would create a vacuum in which terrorism would flourish -- indeed it is the position Rosenberg holds. On the other hand, here is the attitude toward terrorism of the people who support Lamont:

"Within hours of the news that authorities had disrupted an alleged plot to blow up US-bound commercial airlines, liberal bloggers and commentators attacked the announcement, saying it was part of a plan to derail the political momentum of Democratic candidates such as Ned Lamont."

Yes, you read that correctly. Tony Blair shut down the UK airports to try and keep Ned Lamont from winning.

Or this. Daily Kos: CT-Sen: Lieberman is seriously unhinged:

"Lieberman has lost it. Completely and utterly. He is insane."

Why is he "insane"? He believes terrorism is a major threat on the level of Nazism or Communism. What a kook. Since the terrorists only dream of killing 6 million people, we shouldn't worry about them.
(Kirsten Powers is a democrat strategist and liberal blogger.)

'Maverick' and 'Conservative' Aren't Synonyms

'Maverick' and 'Conservative' Aren't Synonyms

by David Limbaugh

Posted: 01/25/2008

Many conservatives have said Sen. John McCain is not conservative enough to suit them. Some of McCain's defenders have not only disagreed but have impugned his critics, hypocritically blaming them for divisiveness.

But intramural bickering isn't the issue. What's important is that conservatives have an intellectually honest and open discussion about GOP presidential contenders.

It's disappointing to watch good conservatives demean themselves by trying to present McCain as something he's not. No matter how much they spin, they can't fool conservatives familiar with McCain's record. McCain's detractors are not the ones having to stretch and massage the facts in order to turn McCain -- overnight -- into a Reagan conservative.

McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also has built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back -- not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the mainstream liberal media.

Former senator Rick Santorum, whose conservative credentials are beyond question, said, "I don't agree with (McCain) on hardly any issues." Santorum told radio host Mark Levin, "I just have to tell you, as a leader, as someone who had to put these coalitions together, it was always hard and we very rarely on domestic policy had any help from the senator from Arizona." Santorum said McCain has been damaging to conservative causes and would be no friend to conservatives in the White House.

McCain's defenders -- in the McCainian spirit of chilling political speech -- forbid us from criticizing him because he is a war hero. That's irresponsible nonsense. Voters and analysts have an obligation to assess McCain's suitability for the presidency. To consider and verbalize the negatives is not to demean his service or sacrifice.

We can recognize and honor McCain's indescribably grueling POW experiences without taking the leap of arguing they automatically qualify him as an ideal commander in chief. His qualifications should be evaluated on the merits, not on sentimental appeals to his service.

Understandably, I suppose, pundits often glibly assert that one of McCain's many advantages is his character -- a character that was molded by the hardships he endured. McCain's captivity undeniably involved more character building than anything most of us will ever experience. But to say he is a rugged, battle-tested hero does not mean he is incapable of prevarication, opportunism, demagoguery or other mischief. Nor does it immunize him from scrutiny concerning the credible claim that he lacks the temperament to be president.

I respectfully reject that McCain's honorable and sacrificial character-building experiences or his self-description as a "straight talker" place his veracity above question. I remember him sidling up to the media by falsely claiming George Bush didn't level with the American people about how long the Iraq war could take. I remember him blaming dirty campaign tricks on Bush in South Carolina in 2000, when investigations revealed there was no evidence Bush was behind it. I remember him joining liberals in slandering the truth-telling Swift Boat veterans as "dishonest and dishonorable." I remember his disingenuous derision of the across-the-board Bush tax cuts as being only for the rich. I witnessed him changing his position on immigration to shore up support in South Carolina, then after that primary arrogantly denying to Sean Hannity that he'd flip-flopped. People can assess for themselves whether McCain is always straight, but hopefully they'll base their decision on the evidence and not his hero status.

I seriously doubt McCain will win the GOP nomination, precisely because of his infidelity to conservative principles. Consider:

He crusades against Guantanamo, favors constitutional rights for terrorists but opposes tough interrogation techniques, was the ringleader of the Gang of 14, which legitimized the filibustering of judicial nominees, and is the godfather of political speech-suppressing and Democrat-favoring campaign-finance reform legislation.

He has displayed contempt for conservative evangelicals, opposed Bush's pro-growth tax cuts for reasons other than he says (spending), has engaged in other class-warfare rhetoric like demonizing oil and drug companies, co-sponsored the abominable McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant-forgiveness/open-borders/Social Security zapping bill, and even voted for the Specter amendment, which could have conferred consulting rights on Mexico concerning the erection of a southern border fence.

He sold out on global warming, opportunistically opposed drilling in ANWR, favors re-importation of drugs from Canada, and promoted the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards patients bill of rights. Even his pro-life credentials are not as pristine as we're told: He opposes reversal of Roe vs. Wade and sided with anti-political speech zealots in filing an amicus brief against Wisconsin Right to Life.

Vote for McCain if you wish, but please don't insult conservatives by suggesting he's one of us.

---

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Bankrupt: The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party, Absolute Power and Persecution