Where are the Scoop Jackson Democrats??

[Bonnie]

Big Foot, Scoop Jackson Dems and other myths

By Ann Coulter
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter081006.php3?printer_friendly

I suppose we'll have to wait yet another election cycle for all those "Scoop Jackson Democrats" to come roaring back in and give us a Democratic Party that does not consistently root against America.


On the bright side, it is now official: Democrats are not merely confused patriots, so blinded by their hatred for President Bush that they cannot see their way to supporting any aspect of the war on terrorism. Would that they were mere opportunistic traitors!


As some of us have been trying to tell you, Democrats don't oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorists even if he had a "D" after his name. They would hate Bernie Sanders if he were fighting a war on terrorism. In the past three decades, there have been more legitimate sightings of Big Foot than of "Scoop Jackson Democrats."

That's why Hillary Clinton has anti-war protestors howling at her public events. That's why she has drawn an anti-war primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini, who appears to believe that Israel is a terrorist state. If those rumors I've been hearing about a Hezbollah/Hamas/DNC merger are true, we might be in for a slightly longer fight.


In Tuesday's primary, Connecticut Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, because he supports the war on terrorism. This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. Oh yes, this was also the same Joe Lieberman who was the Democrats' own vice presidential candidate six years ago.

Despite all this, Connecticut Democrats preferred stalwart anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, great-nephew of Corliss Lamont, WASP plutocrat fund-raiser for Stalin. Lamont's main political asset is that he is a walking, breathing argument in favor of a massive inheritance tax. His plan for fighting the terrorists is to enact a single-payer government health plan and universal pre-K education programs. His goal is to unite the "cut" and "run" wings of his party into one glorious coalition.

The Democrats can hold it in for a few years, but eventually the McGovernite face of the Democratic Party reappears.


Lamont declared victory surrounded by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Kim Gandy of the fanatically pro-abortion group known euphemistically as the "National Organization for Women."


Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat. Waters also considers Joe "soft" on the issue of the CIA inventing crack cocaine and AIDS to kill all the black people in America.


Gandy's support for Lamont must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lieberman to swallow, inasmuch as he has long belonged to the world's smallest organization solely to satisfy bloodthirsty feminists like Gandy — Orthodox Jews for Partial-Birth Abortion. (OJFPBA has just slightly more members than GBRFC, "Gay Black Republicans for Choice.")


To give you a snapshot of today's Democratic Party, in 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters if they believed America was generally a fair and decent country and whether they believed the world would be a better place if more countries were like America.


Republicans agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.


By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.


Democrats constantly complain that the nation has never been so divided, but consider that half of them think the statement that America is a good country is a divisive remark.


So remember: When you vote Democratic, you're saying NO to mindless patriotism. This country isn't so great!


The free world, which is rapidly boiling down to us and Israel, is under savage attack. Treason is rampant in the country. True, Democrats hate Bush, but they would hate anybody who fights the war on terrorism. It is a hostile world, and there is now a real question about the will of the American people to survive.

 

[red states rule]

They are long gone. Only Joe Lieberman fits the Scoop Jackson mold. Now, the modern Democratic party has been taken over by the MoveOn.org kooks.

Thank God, this bunch was not around during WWII

 

[Mr.Conley]

This is exactly what everyone has known for years. Every single person in this entire country who has ever voted for a democrat even once not only hates President Bush, but hates America and everything it stands for. All of these people undoubtably want us to lose the War of Terror, be destroyed as a nation, and instead bow down to Islamic terrorist as our new leaders.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Where are the Scoop Jackson Democrats?

Aren't they now in the Republican party?

 

[Bonnie]

This is exactly what everyone has known for years. Every single person in this entire country who has ever voted for a democrat even once not only hates President Bush, but hates America and everything it stands for. All of these people undoubtably want us to lose the War of Terror, be destroyed as a nation, and instead bow down to Islamic terrorist as our new leaders.

A bit over the top to attempt to prove a point Mr C. Lets try and have a rational discussion. Maybe you can tell me how it is that Democrats want to destroy terrorism effectively? And please explain how the comments made by each of those liberals mentioned in the article will help in that endeavor? Do you flat out deny the Democratic party has become radicalized?

 

[William Joyce]

Aren't they now in the Republican party?

Yes, they're the neo-cons.

Ask Ann where the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS are. That's more important than where the conservative Democrats are.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Criticism is one of the forms of Patriotism.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yes, they're the neo-cons.

Ask Ann where the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS are. That's more important than where the conservative Democrats are.

Good question. Who do you think they are today, if any?

 

[Mr.Conley]

A bit over the top to attempt to prove a point Mr C. Lets try and have a rational discussion. Maybe you can tell me how it is that Democrats want to destroy terrorism effectively? And please explain how the comments made by each of those liberals mentioned in the article will help in that endeavor? Do you flat out deny the Democratic party has become radicalized?

So let me get this straight then. Democrats hate Bush because he's fighting the war on terrorism?

 

[Annie]

So let me get this straight then. Democrats hate Bush because he's fighting the war on terrorism?

The leadership of the Democratic party has undermined the war, simply because Bush is president. I do not believe that the same would have occured if the President was a Democrat, the bulk of the Republicans would be supportive.

 

[Annie]

So let me get this straight then. Democrats hate Bush because he's fighting the war on terrorism?

Sort of related, enough so. It's the same kind of thinking. Yes, there are links:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015085.php

What Else Are They Keeping Silent About?

The Swedish Foreign Ministry was delegated to investigate who knew what about corruption in the U.N.'s oil-for-food program in Iraq. The report has now been made public by a Swedish radio station. It says that Ole Kolby, Norway's U.N. ambassador at the time and head of the sanctions committee, knew about the program's corruption but "remained quiet for fear of angering Iraq and big companies involved in the program."

What was most interesting to me was Norway's stated justification for condoning corruption at the U.N.:

Henrik Thune of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs told Aftenposten that Kolby was caught between competing interests, including fear of fueling the push for war in the Bush administration if he revealed corruption in the Oil for Food program.

I'm not sure whether that makes any sense. Saddam paid kickbacks for years; is Kolbe saying that he only found out about it in the winter of 2003? But let's taike the Norwegians at their word. It seems that the Bush bogeyman can be trotted out to justify just about any sort of malfeasance.

This is reminiscent of the recent admission by Kevin Drum, a rather prominent liberal, especially on the web, that he refrains from writing about the threat posed by Iran because doing so would help the Bush administration. One wonders how much of the "reality" reported in the news is influenced by the determination of both politicians and journalists not to mention the facts that tend to support the reasonableness of, and necessity for, the Bush administration's policies.
Posted by John at 05:52 AM

 

[Mr.Conley]

I'm sorry I don't completely get it. Some Norwegian in charge of the oil-for-food program was corrupt, so therefore liberals want us to lose the War on Terror?

 

[Annie]

I'm sorry I don't completely get it. Some Norwegian in charge of the oil-for-food program was corrupt, so therefore liberals want us to lose the War on Terror?

The highlighted:

What Else Are They Keeping Silent About?

The Swedish Foreign Ministry was delegated to investigate who knew what about corruption in the U.N.'s oil-for-food program in Iraq. The report has now been made public by a Swedish radio station. It says that Ole Kolby, Norway's U.N. ambassador at the time and head of the sanctions committee, knew about the program's corruption but "remained quiet for fear of angering Iraq and big companies involved in the program."

What was most interesting to me was Norway's stated justification for condoning corruption at the U.N.:

Henrik Thune of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs told Aftenposten that Kolby was caught between competing interests, including fear of fueling the push for war in the Bush administration if he revealed corruption in the Oil for Food program.

I'm not sure whether that makes any sense. Saddam paid kickbacks for years; is Kolbe saying that he only found out about it in the winter of 2003? But let's taike the Norwegians at their word. It seems that the Bush bogeyman can be trotted out to justify just about any sort of malfeasance.

This is reminiscent of the recent admission by Kevin Drum, a rather prominent liberal, especially on the web, that he refrains from writing about the threat posed by Iran because doing so would help the Bush administration. One wonders how much of the "reality" reported in the news is influenced by the determination of both politicians and journalists not to mention the facts that tend to support the reasonableness of, and necessity for, the Bush administration's policies.
Posted by John at 05:52 AM;

 

[Mr.Conley]

So since some guy who isn't even an American citizen was againt the Iraq War, all liberals want the United States to lose the WOT?

And Kevin Drum, an apparently important person I've never head of, doesn't want to justify another invasion when our troop numbers are already streched. Because of this, every liberal in America wants to lose the WOT?

 

[red states rule]

Libs need to understand what we are up against

 

[Annie]

So since some guy who isn't even an American citizen was againt the Iraq War, all liberals want the United States to lose the WOT?

And Kevin Drum, an apparently important person I've never head of, doesn't want to justify another invasion when our troop numbers are already streched. Because of this, every liberal in America wants to lose the WOT?

Kevin Drum has written quite a bit. Google him. In any case, all of this is beside the point, you are attending Harvard, one must assume you can infer from the grander to the specific and back again. Just in case, not trying to condescend, but you leave no other choice, the reason these were related is that there is a tendency by the left, as illustrated, to ignore those things that do not further their agenda. In this case, since Bush has been making a case for nearly 5 years, the left chooses to ignore issues that might make that worthwhile, while capitalizing on the things that go wrong.

 

[Annie]

Libs need to understand what we are up against

They understand. They are hoping that they can get the power structure changed, then they will 'fix.' Problem is, their backers are not what the leadership is assuming. The far left is in control of the DNC, the more 'practical' leadership seems to turn a blind eye to that. I guess they are hoping that if they can gain control, they will be able to moderate. That is not going to happen.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Kevin Drum has written quite a bit. Google him. In any case, all of this is beside the point, you are attending Harvard, one must assume you can infer from the grander to the specific and back again. Just in case, not trying to condescend, but you leave no other choice, the reason these were related is that there is a tendency by the left, as illustrated, to ignore those things that do not further their agenda. In this case, since Bush has been making a case for nearly 5 years, the left chooses to ignore issues that might make that worthwhile, while capitalizing on the things that go wrong.

There is no mainstream politican, pundit, or person on either side who wants/B] the United States to lose the War on Terrorism. Sure there are disagreements over how that war should be conducted, chief among them the invasion of Iraq and the handling of the aftermath, but there isn't a single person in either party working against us who is in any way representative of the American public, democrats, republicans, conservatives, or liberals.

 

[Annie]

There is no mainstream politican, pundit, or person on either side who wants/B] the United States to lose the War on Terrorism. Sure there are disagreements over how that war should be conducted, chief among them the invasion of Iraq and the handling of the aftermath, but there isn't a single person in either party working against us who is in any way representative of the American public, democrats, republicans, conservatives, or liberals.

Sorry, the proof of what they print, the headlines they choose, and the things they ignore, beg to differ with your post.

I've already given examples, you do the same-show me where Democratic leadership has pushed to succeed.

 

[red states rule]

There is no mainstream politican, pundit, or person on either side who wants/B] the United States to lose the War on Terrorism. Sure there are disagreements over how that war should be conducted, chief among them the invasion of Iraq and the handling of the aftermath, but there isn't a single person in either party working against us who is in any way representative of the American public, democrats, republicans, conservatives, or liberals.

We have had a US Senator call the troops Nazi's.

We have had a US Senator say our troops terrorize civilians at night

We have had a US Congresmen say our troops killed civilians in cold blood

We have had liberal Professors call for more 9-11 style attacks

I have seen photos of peace niks at anti war rallies call for the troops to shoot their commanding officers

I would say alot of libs want us to lose the war on terror