You gotta love those guys at The New York Times. How do they characterize the defeat of Joe Lieberman? Revenge of the Netroots? Soros Money Hits Paydirt? Oh no.
It’s the revenge of the moderates, they write in an editorial.
The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction.
Sorry, old chum, it won’t wash. The Lieberman defeat was a fallout from the deliberate decision of the Gore camp not to concede the 2000 election, and to stay in campaign mode.
Not surprisingly, Democrat partisans took the hint and descended into Bush hatred. Their intensity would right the wrong of November 2000. The trouble is that the Re-Defeat of Bush never happened. Bush and his evil Svangali, Karl Rove, kept winning.
And worst of all, the deepening war with radical Islam is proving the progressives wrong on the central belief in their belief system. Just meet the just demands of the oppressed, they insist, and you can say good-bye to the cycle of violence.
It doesn’t look like it, comrade. The Islamists are just angry. Period.
The defeat of Joe Lieberman has nothing to do with moderates. It has to do with angry liberals. You’d have to live and work at The New York Times to miss that.
No comments:
Post a Comment