Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
The meaning of Connecticut
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


"Joe, why are you doing this?"

That is a question Joe Lieberman will hear again and again from old friends, as he mounts his "independent" campaign for the Senate seat his own party voted on Tuesday to take away from him.

And there is no compelling answer Joe can give.

Joe insists he's a progressive Democrat in the mainstream of the party and has a voting record to prove it. But Ned Lamont is a progressive (i.e., liberal) Democrat, and the Connecticut party chose him as its Senate nominee, not Joe.

Joe could say Iraq is the dividing line and the critical issue facing America. But Tuesday's primary was a referendum on Iraq, and the Connecticut Democratic Party voted to declare itself antiwar. And Joe does not even intend to run as a war Democrat in November. For he knows it would drive away an even larger share of the Democratic and independent vote than he lost on Tuesday.

But if he will not run as a principled pro-war senator, what, then, is the argument for re-electing Joe? For the transparent conclusion is that his independent campaign is simply about Joe's unwillingness to accept the verdict of his party and give up his cherished Senate seat.

Thus we find Joe declaring, in his concession speech where he announced his independent candidacy, that the true great divide between him and Ned Lamont is on the burning issue of -- civility in politics.

"I am, of course, disappointed by the results," said Joe. "I'm disappointed not just because I lost, but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand."

Joe is running to save Connecticut and America from the savage politics of Ned Lamont?

Joe is a nice and decent man, with many friends across this town, but this is just not sustainable.

First, it is a slur on the Democratic Party of Joe's home state, which bought into Lamont's supposedly low-road tactics. Second, to strip votes from Lamont on the issue of his "politics of partisan polarization," Joe will have to rip into the Democratic nominee for running a dirty and divisive campaign, which is certain to enrage all the Democrats working to elect Lamont.

Third, Lamont is a "Pepperidge Farm" candidate, in the witty phrase of columnist Mike Barnacle. He did not call Joe a warmonger or a fascist, or run Willie Horton ads against him.

Fourth, if Lamont won only by McCarthyite tactics, how does Joe explain why every national and state Democrat -- including Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore -- is hastening to endorse Lamont? Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
reply to movwater
What I meant about saturation bombing was the relentless torrent and length of your posts.

General Lee could not engage in total war-- he was outnumbered over 3:1 in total men who suited up, and STILL road off into military legend from Appomattox after delaying the inevitable beyond what logic had deemed possible. He became the standard (after redefining parts of it) for military strategy at West Point, where he had been #1 in his class years earlier. Had he taken command of the Union forces, as offered him by Gen. Scott, the War would have ended much sooner ... such are the vagaries of history. The North was out-generalled for quite a long time, and then won mainly due to vastly superior forces and materiel-- pretty underwhelming display, really. Even Lincoln thought he would lose his re-election bid in '64 until Atlanta fell, amking the Battle Of Atlanta much more important than understood at the time.

Cannot argue with the insanity among some militant Islamics, BUT that does not justify foolish folly forays into Iraq where all good counsel was ignored for the Chicken Hawk pipe dreams of teaching the bad boys a lesson.
Our "War On Terror" in Iraq has NOTHING to do with preventing Iran from getting nukes.

Interesting you reference MacArthur who surely counseled JFK to avoid a land war in SE Asia at all costs... my instinct is that he would have joined Colin Powell and other military experts in eschewing getting into a sectarian civil war imbroglio in Iraq as well. We MUST not assume that because there are bad people in the world that we should necessarily go fight them on ground of their choosing-- not with MY tax money and possibly MY child. To see evil alone is not cause to go to war... agree, however, that when you do, by all means fight to win and go home!

The neoCONS got us into Iraq not just to win per se-- we started establishing permanent bases immediately, which is what the Pan-Israeli's wanted.

neoCONS vs. patriotism
tanabear is on track again (first post)... same with merrygoboy and Traditionalist... movwater must believe in saturation bombing debate! Whoa, Nellie!

Pat B. is spot on sagacious and cogent as usual, albeit sometimes beyond the ability of some to fathom or comprehend, and certainly not acceptable to those with tunnel vision who demur and evade those pesky inconvenient truths... facts are stubborn things.

NeoCONS are indeed an abomination with ulterior motives ultimately antithetical to AMERICA's best interests who have confiscated conservatism (and badly sullied the image with guilt by association) because it seemed like the right wave to ride for expediency. They took us into the ill-fated war in Iraq NOT BECAUSE of an honest desire to fight terrorism (which it is ACTUALLY SPAWNING!), but instead because of the publicly stated goal (beginning in 1996) to take out Saddam to destabilize Islam for Israel.

Part and parcel of that is the egregious, unmitigated gall to brand those who oppose the ill-fated, ill-planned, and ill-executed fiasco in Iraq as anti-American or appeasers or dupes of MSM or pro Islamo-fascism, itself a loaded term meant to divert. Shameful! A la Captain Dann, members of my family have fought in every war for America to date (on both sides in the War Of Northern Aggression). I darn sure would hate to see one wasted in this travesty, and DAMM sure do not need to hear presumptuous, supercilious sophistry and meretricious tripe about lack of patriotism.

"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land
more than anywhere else"-- Clarence Darrow

"Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which is not. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country... let men label you as they may"-- Mark Twain
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.