48% of Blue State Democrats Support Bush “Love Child”
That headline, certainly inspired by Instapundit’s linking what he called the “Best. Lamont. Spin. Ever:” “the pro-Bush candidate just got 48% in a Democrat primary.“
Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, tried to spin Ned’s Lamont victory in the Nutmeg State’s Democratic primary for U.S. Senate as a defeat for the president, saying “this shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means.”
Emmanuel, ever eager to bash Bush, seems to have forgotten that he was commenting on the Democratic primary in Connecticut, a state which has strict registration rules and lacks open primaries like other states. So, if, as Rahm spins it, Lieberman is a blind follower of this Republican president, he did pretty darn well, considering Republicans couldn’t vote in the Connecticut contest he so narrowly lost.
12 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I thought eating one of your own was forbidden. Imagine, dumping a seasoned US Senator for a town selectman proves beyond a shadow of a doubt this is an anti-Bush sentiment which is so pervasive it blinds people from thinking logically. Can you imagine Ned Lamont making decisions regarding our security? Heaven forbid. Ask any lib, including Emmanuel, what Lamont’s qualifications are. You will be greeted with SILENCE.
Comment by Benj — August 11, 2006 @ 7:44 am - August 11, 2006
Meanwhile, in Ohio, yet another case of liberal voter fraud
Hey, it worked for Christine Gregoire.
Comment by V the K — August 11, 2006 @ 10:39 am - August 11, 2006
LOL! You must forget, Benj, how qualified Bush was to engage in foreign policy. The dolt hadn’t even traveled the world and even admitted the gap in his education in this respect. I know, I know. He did what he said he would do — get advisors to educate him. But I guess Lamont can’t do that.
I know it’s hard to keep an eye on your own history when you’re spinning like a top, but you might wanna slow down and think before you condemn someone for your own candidate’s problems.
Comment by Ovid's Lovechild — August 11, 2006 @ 10:39 am - August 11, 2006
And once again, GCB is back!
Comment by Bush's Lovechild — August 11, 2006 @ 11:23 am - August 11, 2006
Ned Lamont hates people who love freedom…. Duh!
Comment by Well? — August 11, 2006 @ 12:01 pm - August 11, 2006
Ovid, that little spin out on your own dance floor would have brought envy to the eyes of any entranced Whirling Dervish. Wow.
How did we forget so quickly that Slick Willy’s claim to “foreign affairs” experience had to do with either a) climbing a tree whilst at Oxford to protest the war or b) date rape of a big haired secretary all the way from Iowa?
I’m betting Lamont won’t get the opportunity to make any decisions about “security” or US “entanglements abroad” –the new phrase adopted by the Iso-latte-ists on the radical Democrat Left. Lamont won’t get that chance because his 15 minutes were up on Primary Day.
You’ll next see him when MoveOnOrg drops him like a loser at the curb on General Election Day.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 11, 2006 @ 12:04 pm - August 11, 2006
#3 Bush had been elected twice as TX governor and like him or not, he was involved with Bush Senior when he was president. He certainly came to the WH with far more government experience than Lamont’s claim to fame which is being a town selectman. Exactly what are his qualifications? A few years back he even lost a bid for the state Senate. Come on, Joe Lieberman has a 90% Democratic voting record. He is NOT a Republican by any stretch of your mind. He is a decent man who can reach out across the aisle. Sure, go ahead and bash Bush for that is what this all about isn’t it? You could care less about Lamont’s qualifications. I agree with you…they don’t exist. Imagine, a man who was the VP nominee a a few short years ago by acclamation, a man who has done a great deal for the state of CT is being eaten alive by his own party rabid dogs. It is pathetic.
Comment by Benj — August 11, 2006 @ 12:08 pm - August 11, 2006
Do people think it is okay to lose a primary and then to run independently? Would it be okay for a Republican to dismiss the primary voters and then run as an independent?
Wait. That would be Lieberman…so I guess the answer is yes.
Comment by jimmy — August 11, 2006 @ 12:19 pm - August 11, 2006
Then why’d you post? What an empty comment, jimmy.
But at least you’ve perceived correctly that many conservatives, unlike nutroots Democrats, have no problem with voting majorities and democracy.
Comment by Calarato — August 11, 2006 @ 12:22 pm - August 11, 2006
And also, given that Ned Lamont and his campaign of bloggers are now running around screaming that yesterday’s terror plot was a fake, that it was all meant to boost Lieberman in the elections, etc., I think we know what the extent of their knowledge of foreign policy is.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 11, 2006 @ 12:27 pm - August 11, 2006
#10 I am the center of my universe. 😉 Of *course* it was all about *them*. What else could it be?
Comment by Synova — August 11, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - August 11, 2006
and lets see planes blow up, failure on Bush’s part to protect the country, plot stopped, Bush setup to increase his standing. Hard to win isn’t it!
Comment by Majordad — August 11, 2006 @ 6:27 pm - August 11, 2006