BIG FOOT, SCOOP JACKSON DEMOCRATS AND OTHER MYTHS August 9, 2006 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 â 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. COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
Did you get permission to repost copyrighted material? There is a copyright law in this country, you know?
In Tuesday's primary, Connecticut Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, Rahm Emanuel: "This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the head of the Democratic House Congressional campaign. "This is not about the war. It's blind loyalty to Bush." because he supports the war on terrorism. because he supports the war in Iraq which as most americans and the rest of the world know has nothing to do with and is actually a distraction from the war on terror This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, and then voted to make them permanent against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, but in favor of keeping Terri Schiavo alive against her will against the confirmation of Judge Alito, which was meaningless but then he voted against the filibuster which could have worked. against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. but in favor of Bush's energy policy which was a bonanza for oil companies and did nothing for the rest of the country. Lieberman was the only democrat willing to work with Bush on his Social Security plan, Lieberman supported school vouchers, there was no free trade agreement Lieberman did not like. PS You remember the republican "Sore Loserman meme"? I have to admit that they were half right.
Unlike LoZZZER who used to post material without credit or by-line!, AAA and other right minded Americans post the copyrighted disclaimer. Posting an article on a blog or even on a message board with advertising is ok.
As a resident of Connecticut, I voted for LaMont over Lieberman in the Tuesday primary. I have to admit that I was undecided until several hours before casting my ballot. I thought Lieberman was probably the better candidate - however, my problem was the Iraq War. What sealed my decision was reading an article on the Metro North Train about how United States troops murdered a Iraqi civilian family after raping their 14 year old daughter. Furthermore, the officers defense team was arguing combat fatigue. What are we doing in Iraq in 2006? Why were we there in the first place? Thinking about the war I couldn't vote for Joe.
The anti-war left will always have some voters... The anti-war left runs the Democratic Party too. Their shrill tactics probably will work to alienate even more people from the Democratic ranks, especially since they no longer have a lock on the information pipeline.
Not necessarily. Most reposts are covered under "fair use" clause in the copyright law. However, reposting verbatim the whole article and without comment, would normally fail the "fair use" scrutiny, even with the copyright line intact.
Yes, like over half of all Americans: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/iraq.poll/index.html 55% said Iraq war was a mistake. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002914438 56% said Iraq war was a mistake.
The burden of proving "fair use," is on the user. Republishing copyrighted material without permission of the author can be prosecuted under criminal law, and is actionable as a statutory civil violation. The point is that if an author wants to sue a poster for republishing copyrighted work, the author need only prove that the work was published without permission, and then it's up to the poster to demonstrate that the use was "fair." Such a lawsuit ordinarily would not extend to the website operator. HOWEVER, where the operator knows that copyright violations are routine on a website, and the operator takes no action to remedy the violations, then the operator can be held liable for the violations. And, where an operator is actually deriving commercial revenue from the author's posts, via advertising, such as is the case here on ET, this would make for a very persuasive case against the website operator as well as against the poster. On the other hand, because most large publishers have robots that are out on the web, snooping for copyright violations, and as ET has apparently never been sued, it appears that those publishers don't give a rat.