Well, well, just what we suspected...playing the terror card about Lamont.

[madfloridian]

From MSNBC's First Read:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14028806/


"GOP still trying to make hay from Lamont win
As we suggested earlier this morning, the news of today's thwarted terror plot gave Republicans a possible opening to continue their coordinated attack portraying Ned Lamont's primary victory in Connecticut as a sign Democrats that are weak on national security. And they took it. Per a White House pool report, a senior Administration official -- you can try guessing who -- walked into the press cabin on Air Force One to discuss the Lieberman-Lamont race. With a caveat of not extrapolating too much from the results of a primary election, the official noted how much closer the contest got during the final days of the campaign. "And I think that's in part because at the end of the day, people look at the consequences of failure and the consequences of victory, the consequences of withdrawal and the consequences of finishing the fight."

The official continued, "So if you have Lamont Democrats who say, 'Bring'em home, turn away, and it will be all over,' the American people say, 'You're kidding yourself. We're in war and the only way you walk away from a war is as a victor, defeating the enemy.'" (Of course, that begs these questions: How, exactly, do you win the war on terror? And just who, exactly, is the enemy?)

Meanwhile, in today's White House press gaggle, spokesman Tony Snow was asked directly whether the Administration knew of this terrorist plot beforehand (he said yes), and whether they knew the news about it would break today -- just after they had whacked Democrats on Lamont's victory. Snow's answer raised our eyebrows. "Let me put it this way, I don’t want to encourage that line of thought. I don’t think it's fully accurate, but I also don’t want -- I know it's frustrating, but we really don’t want to get too much into who knew what, where, when."

[C_U_L8R]

1. How pathetic

Republicans really are repuke. Yuck

[MrModerate]

2. "Consequences of failure," eh? That's a debate . . .

I think every Dem in the country would welcome.

[MissWaverly]

3. it's not a war, its an illegal occupation

the war has been over for years, the occupation will never end unless we pull out, it's not
our country and they don't want us there, never did. And Iraq had nothing at all to do with
9-11 and this war is increasing the risk to our security. Oh, but mug for the cameras
will you boys, you are all so great at photo ops, where were you during Katrina. Not
only is the GOP clueless on National Security; they can't even handle Hurricanes.

[bigwillq]

4. We knew they would do this.

We are better than them though and this will not deter Ned nor the CT voters.

The Repukes are lame ducks. They have nothing better to offer than the same old bullshit. They have nothing left except to put the fear of god into people but this time it ain't going to work.

GO NED GO! :bounce:

[Gloria]

5. Apparently, they're using it against 10 other Dem candidates...

so, do our Dem leaders smack these sucker upside the head or they meekly let it corrode an election victory in November?

[MissWaverly]

6. weak on security, what they want is a blank check

the dems have given little opposition since 2000, and it's only gotten worse, the no bid contracts have gone through the roof, DeLay had to leave and will be tried, the leading
Republican power in the House and the minute 1 person has a different opinion. Bam, it hits,
I never remember a Republican president using the White House to interfere in a Democratic
primary, the prez has always remained aloof. This is so dangerous to our democracy, we
can't have a campaign manager running the country.

[abluelady]

7. Why Didn't The Plot Come to Light Last Week

Wouldn't it have helped Bush if Lieberman had won? It seems to me that Bush's numbers always come up after a terra alert?

[madfloridian]

8. They need to get Lieberman a win in CT.

.

[AtomicKitten]

9. The "lefties - weak and wrong" meme

doesn't float with any consistency. Notice how the WH has said zip about Cynthia McKinney's defeat but only focuses on Ned Lamont's victory?

I've posted a couple places a piece from AMERICAblog about this and nobody gives a crap (everyone can continue to ignore it here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x228179 ), but the gist of the post was that the GOP's new attack campaign fails to factor in McKinney's defeat. If she's about as left as you can get and was defeated, what does that say? It speaks more to the ousting of incumbents rather than a "loony-left" surge as they are trying to paint it.

So, terror, terror, terror, Will Robinson. Lies, smears, and fear. Their usual M.O.

[dolstein]

10. Perhaps if Lamont supporters hated jihadists as much as they hated Joe

the terror card couldn't be played. But you'd be hard pressed to find any outrage in the blogosphere agaist islamic extremists. All the outrage is directed against Bush and Lieberman.

[Vidar]

11. No surprize here.