Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Bedfellows
With their usual unerring eye for the attention of the national media, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton managed to work their way into the background of the Associated Press's slideshow of the Lamont victory speech last night. "Corporate chieftains," multimillionaires, and Greenwich country clubs are not known to be favorites of either man, yet they stick to Ned Lamont like flies on a cowpie. The Democratic party, she is a big tent indeed.
4 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Aug 09, 11:48:00 AM:
In 1995, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) was quoted as saying:
"We're going to keep on building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."
That time has come, but it is not the Texas GOP doing the hunting. Instead, the far left wing of the democratic party is taking down the democrats of our fathers one by one. This hunt was especially disgusting, filled with jew-baiting and calling Lieberman the "Senator from Israel." When did Hezbollah come to power among the left-wingers? When will American Jews learn that their party has abandoned them?
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Wed Aug 09, 01:03:00 PM:
The whole Lamont / Lieberman divide calls to mind a bygone era -- that which preceded WWII -- where the camps were divided between Interventionists and non-Interventionists. FDR and his administration were oriented towards intervening in the European War on behalf of Britain. By signing the Lend Lease Act and embargoing Japan, and a host of other provocations (to the Germans and Japanese), FDR was trying to make it politically palatable to enter WWII. The non-Interventionists were a host of other antiwar types - from Charles Lindbergh to pacifists to German immigrants - who's first priority was to keep the US out of the War, regardless of th e progress of fascism in Europe.
Lamont in an odd way reminds me of Lindbergh -- wealthy, white, of the country clubs, his wife a prominent venture capitalist. I doubt he is a racist or anti-semite - as Lindbergh was characterized - but in a different era he almost certainly would have been. He only just resigned from his whitebread country club.
And of course the primary he just won in Connecticut was against a Jew who supported the War in the Middle East. We all know that Lamont was a single issue anti Iraq War candidate. And it was Lindbergh who argued that the Jews - who in his estimation controlled the media - were aggressively agitating to enter WWII.
This is not meant to smear Lamont. But it is the same argument. To intervene or not. And some of the same, age old divides exist, polished by 50-60 years of human development and civility.
And if it expands, as I suggest is likely, vioa an attack by IRan on Israel, this debate will grow in size and intensity.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Aug 09, 07:36:00 PM:
I heard on the radio today (I usually don't listen to AM at all, but my normal station was playing crap) a conservative show host and company practically partying at the news that Lieberman was beaten; not because they dislike him, (most conservatives think relatively well of Lieberman) but because they think it will prove to the country that the Democrats have lost their collective minds and will lynch anyone (no matter their stature or accomplishments within the party) who doesn't fit their idea of idealogical purity. Basically, that what moderates exist in the Dems are more likely to jump ship this year than ever before.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Aug 09, 07:38:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
