Clinton, Boxer campaign for Lieberman
In a clear demonstration of the point that irrational political positions do not necessarily indicate global insanity, former President Bill Clinton and extremist California Senator Barbara Boxer are campaigning in Connecticut for Senator Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman will almost certainly be re-elected as an independent should he lose his battle for re-nomination from cut-and-run artist Ned Lamont next month. Despite waxing Lamont's tail in their only debate ("I know George Bush. I've worked against George Bush. I've even run against George Bush. But Ned, I'm not George Bush. So why don't you stop running against him and have the courage and honesty to run against me and the facts of my record?"), Lieberman is opposed by large numbers of Connecticut Democrats- who lean moonbat- because he isn't in favor of abandoning Iraq to a bloodbath which would make Clinton's failure in Kosovo look like a triumph by comparison.
The only apparent explanation for the acceptability to so many Democrats of the prospect of genocide in Iraq is its potential to embarrass Mr. Bush. Certainly no rational geopolitical case can be made that our interests would be served by abandoning those who have stood by us in Iraq, and- after Vietnam- it is doubtful whether America's strategic resolve would ever be taken seriously again.
But whatever the rationale for the cut-'n'-run crowd in the Democratic party , the involvement of Clinton and Boxer on Lieberman's behalf is clear evidence that at least some Democrats have retained a scrap of rationality. Lieberman, after all. has been one of their party's most articulate and effective spokesmen over the years on nearly every other issue. Lamont, on the other hand- as Lieberman pointed out in the debate- doesn't even seem to be entirely sure who he's running against.
HT: Drudge
Lieberman will almost certainly be re-elected as an independent should he lose his battle for re-nomination from cut-and-run artist Ned Lamont next month. Despite waxing Lamont's tail in their only debate ("I know George Bush. I've worked against George Bush. I've even run against George Bush. But Ned, I'm not George Bush. So why don't you stop running against him and have the courage and honesty to run against me and the facts of my record?"), Lieberman is opposed by large numbers of Connecticut Democrats- who lean moonbat- because he isn't in favor of abandoning Iraq to a bloodbath which would make Clinton's failure in Kosovo look like a triumph by comparison.
The only apparent explanation for the acceptability to so many Democrats of the prospect of genocide in Iraq is its potential to embarrass Mr. Bush. Certainly no rational geopolitical case can be made that our interests would be served by abandoning those who have stood by us in Iraq, and- after Vietnam- it is doubtful whether America's strategic resolve would ever be taken seriously again.
But whatever the rationale for the cut-'n'-run crowd in the Democratic party , the involvement of Clinton and Boxer on Lieberman's behalf is clear evidence that at least some Democrats have retained a scrap of rationality. Lieberman, after all. has been one of their party's most articulate and effective spokesmen over the years on nearly every other issue. Lamont, on the other hand- as Lieberman pointed out in the debate- doesn't even seem to be entirely sure who he's running against.
HT: Drudge
Comments