You really have to check out the latest from Michael Moore at his website where he says that all Democrats who support Bush are doomed! Doomed I tell you!
Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended — and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.
Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake — and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.
I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me — while I'm glad they've seen the light — their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.
You hear that you knuckle dragging wanna-be liberals….no entry to the promised land for joo! No 72 virgins for joo! You are hearby banished!
Check this part out:
To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.
Puhlease. Liberals come out in droves for these primaries fat man. But come general election time Independent Lieberman will beat your horse, your one-issue horse.
And the great thing is that now your party is going to have spend time and money fighting in a election that they shouldn't have to. No Republican is going to win that race, that liberal bastion we call Connecticut.
Oh, btw Mr. Moore your analysis of the election:
Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman
Is a bit off since Lieberman lost by 52-48%….the same margin that Kerry lost, and at no time did you call that election a "resounding defeat"…..no bias here huh?
Last point, if the Democrats move even further to the left because of this election then good times are ahead for us Republicans. No way any far left party takes the wheel, that will not happen.
I completely forgot about Mr. Moore's PS:
P.S. Republicans — sorry to leave you out of this letter. It's just that our side has a little housecleaning to do. We'll take care of you this November.
We will be shaking and shivering until then King Moonbat…..Sigh.
Some people will never come back down to reality.
Riehl World View breaks down the lovey feeling those Dem's have for Lamont:
For some reason I found myself thinking about weddings. Have you ever been to one where, to put it nicely, the blushing bride was about 325 lbs. of not all that? Still, everyone and HER brother hugs her and tells her how beautiful she is. Thing is, they don't have to go on the honeymoon, or sleep with her that night.
Ouch….but so true.
UPDATE II 1615hrs PST
Tony Snow made a great speech at his press conference that pretty much spells out the consequences of cutting and running, as Murtha, Moore, Kos, and the rest of the dummies want:
As for the primary election in Connecticut last night, I know there's a lot of concern and interest about that. Democratic voters in Connecticut have made their choice, and they have chosen Ned Lamont over Senator Lieberman. Just a couple of observations. Key leaders in the national Democratic Party have made it clear — let me back up. This is a defining moment in some ways for the Democratic Party. I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the President; I would flip it. I think instead it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they're going to come after you. And it is probably worth trying to trace through some of the implications of that position, because it is clearly going to be one of the central issues as we get ready for the election campaign this year, that is, the mid-term elections.
First, let's think about Iraq. One of the positions is that we need to leave Iraq — we need to do it on a timetable, and we need to do it soon. It's worth walking through the consequences of that position. First, simply to walk away on a timetable without examining the conditions on the ground and without making sure that you have the ability for the Iraqis to stand up and also assert sovereignty over their territory and have a freestanding democracy would create a power vacuum and encourage terrorists not only in Iraq, but throughout the region and throughout the world that one of the problems that often besets democracies, which is impatience in hard times, in fact serves as a motivation for terror groups. Osama bin Laden some years ago said that one of the keys is that if you simply stay at terror long enough, the West is too weak, he said the Americans were too weak, and would stand down.
The second consequence would be, it would create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East with the second largest oil reserves in the world. Now if you think about what happened in Afghanistan, Afghanistan, a nation with far fewer resources, when it was able to serve as a terrorist training and staging ground, was able to do considerable violence to the United States and pose a threat to the rest of the world.
Number three, another consequence would be that it would inflict incredible damage on America's credibility. We have made it clear, and this President has made it clear, that we're in it to make sure that the people of Iraq do in fact have the opportunity to live free and in a democracy, and to walk away from that vow would send not only a sign of weakness, but also of American unreliability, and it would enable forces of oppression and totalitarianism to rise again within Iraq and elsewhere.
A white flag, in short, means a white flag in the war on terror.
Prime Minister Maliki, when he spoke before Congress, made it clear that Iraq remains a central pivot in the war on terror, because it is where many terrorist groups are going to test the will of the American people and also of the international community. This President does not intend and will not walk away from the promises he has made.
The other thing you might want to take — now expand the view a little bit, because I think one of the arguments that is now being knocked around is whether in fact we're seriously engaged in a war on terror. Let's take a look at the global situation: you have Iran remaining not only stubborn in the face of the international community saying that Iran needs to suspend nuclear activities, but also encouraging the destruction of Israel and continuing to serve as a financier and organizer of terrorist organizations around the world.
We know that North Korea also poses certain threats. We know that terrorist organizations around the world have already expressed their desire to disrupt democracy and also to disrupt civilization in many places, including Indonesia; India; Pakistan; Amman, Jordan. We remember the bombings also in Madrid and London. It's a serious battle.
Hezbollah remains also an independent actor which is operating with the support of Iran and Syria, firing not only Katyushas, but Zilzal rockets into Israel, with the desire not only of fomenting larger hostilities, but also hoping to destabilize the prospects for democracy in the region. The reason I say this is that the stakes are high, it's an important debate to have, and it is clear that at least some of the leadership in the Democratic Party believes that the proper way to address this is to point a finger at the United States and to counsel walking away. The view of the President is that this is a challenge, but it is also an opportunity, and let me outline that part.
Democracies operate on different principles than totalitarian states. In a democracy, you have to respond to the will of the people. In a democracy within the United States, whether it be Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont competing for votes in Connecticut, or on the local level, dealing with the needs for people to have safe streets, good schools and services they can depend upon, those are the things. You respond to the stated desires of the people. In totalitarian states, the despot alone has the opportunity to declare what he or she wants to do, and frankly, quite often they are much more warlike.
The President believes, and history will bare him out, that free and democratic states are far more peaceful, and create the basis and opportunity, especially in an unstable part of the world, for economic, social, political ties that in the long run are going to be a lot closer than they are today.
So those are some of the issues that are raised. As for — the President has no comment on the winner or loser of the race, that is for the Democratic Party and Democratic voters in the state of Connecticut. But it also clear, because of the attention being paid to it, that there is a significant political argument underway, and it's one that I think it is important for the American people to have. I say, "I think," that the administration thinks it's important for the American people to have.
And another great answer to a question:
Q On Lieberman, are you telling us you now want to make the November election a referendum on the Democrats' position on the Iraq war?
MR. SNOW: No, I'm saying that there are some Democrats who have said that the key issue is leaving, and that there are some elements within the Democratic Party who are pushing hard to say, look, if you don't agree with us, you no longer belong in the party. You know, you take a look at the blogs today, they're pretty hot.
And the real question for the American people to ask themselves is, do you take the war on terror seriously, with all the developments going on around the world? And, if so, how do you fight it to win? There seem to be two approaches. And in the Connecticut race one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away.
Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to September 11th. And it's important to realize that terrorists are not simply inspired by American engagement in the world, but they have their own agenda and it is an agenda that if we turn around and look the other way, they're not going to ignore — they will continue to build strength and they will continue to build adherence. And it is a vitally important debate to have.
And it's really up to Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party to figure out how they want to stand in the war on terror: do they want to have the sort of timetable approach, leave by a date-certain; do they not want to have something constructive to say about gathering threats from Iran and elsewhere. Or do they want to acknowledge that fact that in a dangerous world it takes commitment, it take persistence.
Throughout American history, generation after generation has been faced with difficulties. And each generation has risen to the challenge, and we're confident that this generation will do the same.
You hear that you knuckle dragging wanna-be liberalsâ€¦.no entry to the promised land for joo! No 72 virgins for joo! You are hearby banished!