| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| What the US Needs is a Liberal Hawk |
| 2006-11-08 |
| America desperately needs a new generation of defense Democrats, liberals with clear heads and sharp swords. America needs them now. Sam Nunn is retired. Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson is dead. Gary Hart, now billing himself as a defense guru, helped kill Scoop politically in 1972 and 1976. Richard Perle, still a registered Democrat, is anathematized by liberals as a prince of darkness, instead of the defense whiz he is. But no major Democrats have publicly condemned Murray's outrage. Silence doesn't cut it, folks. Perhaps a stonewall prevents "political damage" to her, but it continues to seed deep doubts about Democrats on national security. Sure, in a well wrought counter-terror strategy, daycare centers can complement destroyers, but that wasn't Murray's message. A U.S. senator's (Patty Murray) office so out of touch that it doesn't know Al Qaeda's and Jemaah Islamiya's game is inexcusable. The general lack of critique from the national media also suggests a national media culture still not aware of 9-11's historic challenge. Hey Liberalhawk, they're calling on you to run for President! |
| Posted by:OldSpook |
| #21 "*A* Liberal Hawk? The need 20 or 30 of them who can vote against the LLL bloc. They also need the think tanks, the publications, in short- a DEBATE on what the liberal national-security philosophy should be. Joe Lieberman can't do it himself. He's in the wilderness. |
| Posted by: Chinter Flarong 2006-11-08 22:50 |
| #20 If anyone can truly be called a winner of the 06 elections it Lieberman. He won hands down, and doesnt owe anything to anybody for his position. And he controls hwo the vots go - if he decides he likes the Repubs on a given item, he can vote with them 50-50 and they get the VP for the tiebreaker and win it. If he stays with the Dems, they win 51-49. And every single vote, Joe gets to name his price. Nothing either party can do to threaten him becuase his base is strong and he showed he can even defeat a well heeled challenger backed byt he major party in CT. Congrats Joe. You are THE winner of 06. And folks, please note: Joe is Pro-VICTORY and he kicked "cut and run"'s ass. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-08 22:48 |
| #19 Did someone say Sparkle Farkle? Meet your new NAMBLA overlords, pawns! |
| Posted by: San Fran Nan 2006-11-08 22:03 |
| #18 and Sparkle Farkle? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-08 21:46 |
| #17 Is that a Fred 'n Fanny Farkle reference? Lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-08 21:45 |
| #16 as I am wont to do..... :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-08 21:44 |
| #15 Oops, Frank snuck in there, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-08 21:43 |
| #14 I agree with you both - and it's why I sometimes do respond. The one thing that makes me crazy isn't when someone disagrees with my conclusion, it's when they hang onto a worldview that is so obviously obsolete that it causes pain to see someone trot it out. But it's not fair for me to criticize him now - he never posts after about 5:30-6:00 PM Eastern, which tells you he only posts from his work PC. Sorry, lh - mebbe I'll bushwhack you tomorrow, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-08 21:42 |
| #13 (non-PC. If you don't like it, call someone) that's like celebrating the dim among the total retards.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-08 21:41 |
| #12 Well gents, in the party of Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, and fatty Murray - LH would be a welcomed relief. I don't always agree w/him, but damn, at least he takes the time to read up on what's going on. Heckuva lot better than the current crop of gomers the dems got going. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-11-08 21:38 |
| #11 .com, I feel your pain. I don't usually argue with him, just sit back and roll my eyes. While I don't want the 'burg to be a complete echo chamber (it is good to hear the other side of the argument, especially to rip it to shreds), LH comes across as condescending to me, even if I may agree with some of his arguments. Anyways, I'm more hopeful with Lieberman, rather than our own LH. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-11-08 21:31 |
| #10 Since I find myself arguing with lh whenever I am motivated to actually respond, I'm with Frank: a promotion is not in order, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-08 21:20 |
| #9 Lieberman may very well be the key here. Hannity had him on this afternoon and he was VERY friendly to Hannity. Sean asked him about those Donks who threw him under the bus against Lamont (Hillary, Schumer, etc.) and he said basically that it was hard not to take it personally, that he'd caucus with the Dems, BUT (look out) he intends to do a LOT of things to be independent of the Party. He even specifically said his relationship with a lot of those people has CHANGED A LOT, so I'll be watching to see if'n he's telling the truth. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-11-08 21:16 |
| #8 Sounds kinda like that Lieberman guy ..... oops sorry the Donks tried to canabalize him. |
| Posted by: tzsenator 2006-11-08 20:50 |
| #7 Oh Frank, you party pooper. :P |
| Posted by: Thoth 2006-11-08 20:17 |
| #6 Count me out on LH's promotion |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-08 19:26 |
| #5 Does a Liberal Hawk have the killer instinct or just a killer plumage? |
| Posted by: ed 2006-11-08 18:55 |
| #4 We want 'Hawk! We want 'Hawk! We want 'Hawk! We want 'Hawk! |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-11-08 18:35 |
| #3 I think Rantburg's own liberalhawk would certainly do nicely. Congratulations on your sudden fame, liberalhawk dear. May you soon get your party back from the outer wastes where currently it's wandering. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-08 18:33 |
| #2 Me too. I vote for LH!! |
| Posted by: anymouse 2006-11-08 18:04 |
| #1 I'd give LH my vote. |
| Posted by: Thoth 2006-11-08 17:36 |