Howard County Maryland Blog

Local Politics and Current Events

The sad thing is…

Posted by David Keelan on Thursday, August 10, 2006

I used to like O’Malley (that is kinda strong – I used to respect him) and thought he might actually be one of those people you want in public office.  I changed my mind on that a while ago.

Recent events have conspired to remind me of yet more reasons I hope Martin O’Malley retires from public office come November.  He is part of an element that is destroying the once great Democratic party.

I believe in a strong two party system.  O’Malley and the Maryland General Assembly do not and they are just a small part of the larger problems the DNC is facing.

“I remember after the conclusion of the 2006 General Assembly, as a citizen of this State, I was very, very worried about the Democratically controlled Senate and House of Delegates and still am. But I’m even more worried about the actions and inactions of Martin O’Malley and what he would do as Governor.”

Joe Lieberman.  What a sad situation.  I see a great deal of hypocrisy in a party that loves John McCain because he bucks the GOP on occasion, but tosses out Joe Lieberman for bucking the DNC.  The party of Ned Lamont is going to get trashed in the General Election.  Lieberman is going to keep most of the votes he got in the primary (48%) and pick up a large portion of the independent and GOP vote.  I can’t wait for the DNC elite to roll into CT and campaign against Mighty Joe.  They are going to be shooting themselves in the foot or tread very carefully.  If they had any hope of picking up the Senate I think they lost it because Joe will win and he may decide to caucus with the GOP.  Moderate Democrats from around the country will be incredulous and wonder like me “What happened to this party?” and in close races will pull the lever for the GOP.  I think this may put Santorum back in his Senate seat and spells trouble for Casey just for sheer backlash.

I am not the only one who feels this way.  The Democratic Leadership Council does too. 

Strategists at the Democratic Leadership Council — or DLC, a group which crafted a strong national-security plank for their party in 1992 that helped elect Bill Clinton president — expressed concern yesterday that the rise of the anti-war left threatened to divide and undermine the party just as it was entering the critical midterm- and presidential-campaign cycles. 
“Had it not been for the involvement of the Democratic left, the party would be fairly united going into the midterm elections. The Lamont campaign can be potentially devastating to the party,” DLC analyst Marshall Wittmann told the Los Angeles Times.

Today’s startling news about a major terrorist plot to blow up US planes between the UK and the US.  BBC report here.  Are we blowing up planes as part of the war against terrorism?  Are we deliberately attacking civilians as part of our policy to execute the war on terror?

I don’t like war anymore than the most progressive liberal in the Democratic party.  But what else needs to happen to believe we are in a struggle of global proportions with many lives hanging in the balance.

We are accused of lacking morals and standards because we think it is necessary to finish what was started.  To leave Iraq now would create a huge vacuum and then we would be forced to retreat from other parts of the world facing the onslaught of Islamofacsim until we retreat completely from the world.  That is what these radicals want.  They don’t want a balance of power they want to eliminate anyone who disagrees with them.  If we retreat then moderate (a relative term in this case) governments in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Dubai, UAE, the Phillipines, etc. will all be in danger of collapsing under this threat because we will have disengaged.  Do I want out of Iraq?  Damn right I do.  I don’t happen to subscribe to the Fiengold, Murtha, Pelosi, Dean approach…

The Democratic Party is threatened by the radical left and is in danger of becoming completely irrelevant on the national stage.  Funny thing is I was convinced 2006 was their year to take back the House or the Senate.  Not anymore.

Sadly Martin O’Malley represents that wing of the Democratic Party.  He is a conservative Roman Catholic with a house full of children, and he is a Pittsburgh Steeler fan to boot.  He could have led the Democratic Party back to the center.  Martin O’Malley could have made the Democratic Party great again but he threw his lot in with the liberal / progressives because he has larger plans and he knows he can’t realize those dreams without their support.  So rather than lead he decided to follow.

Where are the moderates in the Democratic party?  Why have they been silenced.  They don’t want the likes of Joe Lieberman.  When even Hilary Clinton (my favorite) sounds bi-partisan (I don’t trust it) she gets whacked by the liberal wing and she has to back down.  Here was a person creeping to the middle of the political spectrum to improve her chances for a Presidential run in 2008.  The liberal wing yanked her choke collar and told her to behave because after all she is beholden to them.  Do you know what – give me a trustworthy moderate in the Democratic party – they don’t have to even support the war like Joe and Hilary.

Then we have incredulous statements such as these…

“Back on September 11, terrorists attacked our metropolitan cores, two of America’s great cities. They did that because they knew that was where they could do the most damage and weaken us the most,” O’Malley said. “Years later, we are given a budget proposal by our commander in chief, the president of the United States. And with a budget ax, he is attacking America’s cities. He is attacking our metropolitan core.”  Martin O’Malley, 2/8/05

“I remember after the attacks of September 11, as mayor of the city, I was very, very worried about al-Qaeda and still am. But I’m even more worried about the actions and inactions of the Bush administration.” (Doug Donovan, “O’Malley Takes The Heat For Remarks About Bush,” Baltimore Sun, 7/1/04)

What in the good Lord’s name is he talking about…  I don’t believe for a minute that he believed those statements.  To Martin O’Malley they were soundbites that were sure to gain press attention.  Pure and simple and I am waiting for him to start comparing Bob Erlich to Osama.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “The sad thing is…”

  1. Mary Smith said

    If you’re going to talk about Iraq, then talk about the proposal to divide the country as it might have naturally evolved had we stayed out. At the time we got involved, it looked to be the only course, but some knew it was a mistake to try and keep Iraq whole, and they were not heard. Why, I don’t know.

  2. hocomd said

    Mary,
    I am talking about the demise of the once great Democratic party. I don’t want to go down the trail of Iraq.

    What can I say that hasn’t already been said about Iraq? What do I know?

    “It has become fashionable in recent months to say that the U.S. invaded Iraq ‘for lots of reasons.’ It has been said, variously, that we were seeking to establish an island of democracy in an unstable region; (more nobly) that humanitarian principle obliged us to free an oppressed people; (more crassly) that we had no choice but to protect the flow of oil; (more colorfully) that the president was driven to avenge old man Bush; (more tendentiously) that we were manipulated into advancing Israel’s interests. Pick your ax and grind it. The notion that we invaded Iraq for ‘lots of reasons’ — like so much else in the discussion of Iraq — misses the point. There was only one ‘reason’ that permitted the president to take the country to war: the presence of weapons of mass destruction. …
    “Another statement that has been swapped-out by the fashionable in recent months, most famously by Sen. Jay Rockefeller [West Virginia Democrat] of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is this: ‘If I knew then what I know now, I would have opposed the war.’ With great respect, Senator, we know now exactly what you knew then. And to my knowledge not a single datum of U.S. intelligence has been changed over the past three years.”
    –Neal B. Freeman, writing on “National Review Goes to War,” in the June issue of the American Spectator

  3. Doug said

    OH GREAT!!!

    So now O’Malley endorses a plan to get more city kids through school by allowing them to learn only 60% of what they should learn.

    YEAH!!! That will really raise the literacy level in the city…

    He should change his signs to

    O’Malley /Brown
    Leadership that has Failed–But vote for me anyhow because I am cute!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: