Left wing Jihad within the Democratic Party - Reasonable Dems have to be very afraid right now!

Ned Lamont's Victory Is Democrats' Loss
by David Keene
Posted Aug 21, 2006

Reasonable Democrats, including the few who remain here in Washington, have to be afraid right now—very afraid.

Ned Lamont’s thrashing of incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary signals the beginning of a left-wing jihad within the confines of the Democratic Party that could doom the aspirations of any but the most left-wing Democrats in the years ahead.

Wealthy but Crazed

The Lamont victory over a former vice presidential candidate of the party means one thing and one thing only. The wealthy but crazed inhabitants of the left-wing fever swamps are taking over a party that has been trying to re-identify with the voters who allowed it to dominate American politics for most of the last century. The purge that began with the McGovernite seizure of the party in the early seventies has been reinvigorated.

Ned Lamont is a nobody with money who became the tool of the MoveOn.org crowd and has managed to demonstrate to the world that there is no room in the Democratic Party for candidates or office holders who disagree with the far left belief that our country is the source of all evil in the world.

Joe Lieberman may follow through on his threat to run as an independent, but if he does, the Lamont victory means very few of his former Democratic friends will rush to his aid. They know now that bucking the crazies in their ranks can mean the end of their careers and few will risk that.

The boys and girls who lionized Che, Mao and Fidel in the 60s and 70s have grown up and are now championing suicide bombers and telling us that the rulers of nations like Iran and North Korea are really just misunderstood. Their own country appalls them and they are convinced that if it weren’t for the United States, the world would be a far safer and more pleasant place.

Exploiting Frustration

They are riding the public frustration with the progress of the war in Iraq today as they exploited frustration over Vietnam in an earlier era. The questions of whether we should have drawn the line in Vietnam in the 70s or whether Iraq is the right place for us to be taking on the Islamo-fascists today are legitimate, but in their view, we should never draw lines, never fight and never antagonize our enemies by opposing their often outrageous ambitions.

Many conservatives as well as liberals have questions about the way in which the Bush Administration has conducted the war in Iraq, but share the view that the enemy we are fighting is, in fact, our enemy. It is this that the Lamonts of the world reject. In their view, if there is an enemy, it is us.

Defeat for the U.S.

My daughter is currently serving in Iraq and, as part of her responsibilities, reads much of the propaganda disseminated there by our enemies. She noted in a recent letter that several pieces urging the killing of more Americans quote Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) to the effect that as more Americans die, U.S. domestic pressure to get out will increase. While Kerry didn’t mean to make the case for killing his fellow countrymen, those of us who lived through Vietnam can remember when American leftists actually cheered the rising casualty count in that war and wonder how long it might be before the sound of cheering will be heard emanating from the offices of groups such as MoveOn.org or, indeed, from the offices of Ned Lamont.

Lamont’s victory will make it difficult for any Democrat to take anything approaching a reasonable position on foreign policy questions. Even before the votes were cast, for example, Rep. John Dingell (Mich.), a usually hard headed, partisan senior Democrat in the House, offered up the opinion that he wasn’t prepared to say that Hezbollah should be considered an enemy. There are legitimate questions as to how to deal with these thugs, but no one should have trouble recognizing the simple fact that they are, in fact, thugs.

Lamont’s victory was a triumph for the left and a defeat for the United States because it may mean that future elections will be run between candidates of a pro-U.S. party and nominees of an anti-U.S. party.