The Shadow Party Defeats Lieberman


THE SOROS PURGES have begun.

Upon reporting that Ned Lamont had edged out Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primaries, the New York Times did something rare: it printed accurate political analysis. The old gray lady observed:

Mr. Lamont’s victory marked the first time that liberal political blogs, after playing an increasingly noisy role in Democratic politics, have been associated with a major winning campaign, suggesting a moment of arrival for this new force in political combat. And the outcome will also undoubtedly prod other Democrats who supported the war — albeit with less gusto than Mr. Lieberman — to step farther away from the increasingly unpopular conflict.

This is the intended effect of the far-Left groups, including George Soros’s, which propelled the unknown Lamont ahead of a three-term incumbent U.S. senator, former vice presidential nominee, and presidential hopeful with statewide name recognition and a hefty war chest.

Leftist bloggers took a moment last night to celebrate Lamont’s upset – and congratulate themselves on their role in it. David Sirota of The Huffington Post exulted, “This is an incredible victory tonight. Ordinary people showed that no politician – even a snake like Lieberman with every single advantage – is above American democracy.”

Tom Hughes, executive director of Democracy for America – founded by Howard Dean and presently headed by his brother James – noted the realigning effect on the 2006 Democratic Party in an e-mail yesterday:

As you know, the landscape didn’t change overnight. Ned’s insurgent campaign was powered by support from thousands of DFA members across Connecticut and around the country. Together, DFA members put Washington on notice that the war in Iraq is the defining issue for Democrats and for our country.

In this effort, proved ubiquitous. MoveOn’s PAC overwhelmingly endorsed Lamont in May (85 percent-14 percent for Lieberman). Lamont greeted the endorsement by hoping it would “help generate donations, new volunteers, and continue momentum.”

That it did. As of June, Lamont’s campaign disclosed that leftist bloggers had brought him 2,000 volunteers and at least half-a-million dollars. DFA pumped at least $70,000 into Ned’s coffers and co-sponsored Lamont rallies with MoveOn across the Nutmeg State. boasts almost 3,000 of its “netroots” donors gave Lamont $106,338.35. Eli Pariser of accurately noted, “The fact that the [Lamont] campaign has attained the stature that it has is fully attributable to the blogs and other ways that information is being passed around outside the party apparatus.”

In June, Lamont collected more support while addressing the blogger-rich Take Back America conference in Washington, D.C., following Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Rep. Lynne Woolsey, and a political functionary. He received a 20-seconding standing ovation – at his introduction. After his speech, Tom Andrews of Win Without War said, “Get those checkbooks ready.”

At that time, Lieberman led Lamont by 15 points.

The activist base found much to love. Ned Lamont cast his first presidential vote for George McGovern in 1972 and has not looked rightward since. Lamont admitted he was motivated to run when Joe Lieberman opposed unilateral surrender. He told the Wall Street Journal, “When Congressman [John] Murtha stood up and said ‘stay the course’ is not a winning strategy in Iraq, it was Senator Lieberman who took the lead and took some of the Republican talking points…and wrote the piece in The Wall Street Journal, ‘Our Troops Must Stay.’”

He made his call for “redeployment” the centerpiece of the race.

The result? The biggest applause line Lamont delivered in his acceptance speech, flanked by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, was about our troops: “I say it’s high time we bring them home to a hero’s welcome.” The crowd exploded, “Bring them home! Bring them home!” One could almost hear Pete Seeger.

Democratic Party campaigners got the message. On Fox News last night, Susan Estrich gushed, “I think we need to embrace this guy and say, ‘This is the future of the Democratic Party.’” She also advised Hillary Clinton to support “troop withdrawal” before the Iowa caucuses. [1]

Hillary is leading the embrace. Leftist blogs have reported HILLPAC will “cut a check” to Lamont ASAP.

Meanwhile, Daily Kos has laid out its next set of demands for the Democratic Party:

Here’s what we all need to do the next few days:

  1. Push Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all committee assignments.
  2. Let people know what a sore loser Lieberman is.
  3. Get all Democrats — including Bill Clinton — to publicly back Ned Lamont.
  4. Get the Democratic interest groups who backed Lieberman to switch allegiances in the general [election].

…Joe Lieberman is not an independent Democrat. He needs to be stripped of his committee assignments and have those handed to real Democrats.

Sirota chimed in, “Democratic leaders in Congress now have an obligation to remove Lieberman from his committee assignments, and cut off Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee resources, now that he has officially left the Democratic Party.”

Lieberman did not leave the party; the party left him – or rather, was acquired in a hostile takeover. Eli Pariser of MoveOn declared the Democratic Party George Soros’s property in a December 2004 e-mail. “Now it’s our Party,” he wrote. “[W]e bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”

Having gained possession of the nation’s oldest party, Soros and his ilk launched what David Horowitz and Richard Poe describe in their new book, The Shadow Party, as “Vietnam II”: the campaign to undermine American morale and beat a hasty retreat in Iraq, as the Democratic Left did during Vietnam. This would be followed by “Watergate II”: the impeachment of President Bush for “lying America into war.”

It was not, however, the Shadow Party’s original goal. George Soros wrote in his 2002 book The Bubble of American Supremacy, “Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action.” He concluded, “We need detective work, good intelligence, and cooperation from the public, not military action.” [2] John Kerry virtually echoed this sentiment, calling the War on Terror “primarily” an “intelligence-gathering, law enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” as Soros shadowed him on the campaign trail.

The Shadow Party quickly purged its first responsible Democrat, interring the political career of Dick Gephardt. Kerry expediently shifted his position on the war from surrender to eventual withdrawal, but Soros’s tens of millions – funneled through front groups like Americans Coming Together and America Votes – could not purchase him the presidency. The Democratic Party proved more amenable, naming MoveOn’s favorite candidate, Howard Dean, DNC chairman.

“Vietnam II” quickly went into overdrive. John Murtha unveiled his immediate withdrawal plan. Soon Kerry, too, repudiated his pro-war vote and favored a timetable for complete U.S. withdrawal.

Last fall, the far-Left Nation magazine declared a purge – an exercise at which the Left excels – against any Democrat unwilling to cut-and-run:

The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still.

Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink agreed, with Sheehan threatening to run against Dianne Feinstein.  She vowed, “I’m not going to support another pro-war Democrat,” and targeted Hillary Clinton, telling New Yorkers only to support her “if the senator will start speaking out against the war and calling for withdrawal of troops.”

Hillary is likely to hold on, in part because most Americans realize the Saul Alinsky disciple is much further Left than she is letting on. Joe Lieberman steadfastly stood for American victory, and as a result he became the first victim of the purges.

Some have interpreted his defeat differently. The New York Times quoted Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, who is running the Democrats’ House campaigns, “This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means.”

Joe Lieberman is anything but Bush’s “love child.” He votes with Senate Democrats (and thus against Bush) 90 percent of the time. He has an Americans for Democratic Action lifetime voting record of 76 percent, higher than his predecessor, Lowell Weicker. Lieberman filibustered reauthorization of the Patriot Act, voted against drilling in ANWR, tried to include gays and lesbians in “hate crimes” statistics, and opposed the federal marriage amendment. Despite heated floor rhetoric, he voted against a Partial Birth Abortion ban half-a-dozen times and opted not to impeach the “immoral” Bill Clinton. True, he once entertained doubts about Affirmative Action and school choice, but upon his selection as Al Gore’s vice president, he did what principled Democrats like Gore, Clinton, Jackson, Kucinish, and others did: began parroting the party line post haste. In this primary, he was endorsed by the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood, and the League of Conservation Voters. Reading the handwriting on the wall, Lieberman assured if he ran “as an Independent Democrat,” he would vote with the Democratic leadership. His bona fides were not enough, because the war, and the war alone, was the decisive issue for Democrats.

Some have drawn a contrast with Cynthia McKinney’s primary loss last night. However, McKinney lost for personal reasons: “allegedly” striking a Capitol Hill police officer and publicly skipping a televised debate. She lost her 2002 primary after intimating President Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and soliciting the Saudis for millions of dollars. The fact that she was re-elected is itself testament to the party’s extremist drift.

The Left is not fooled. Last night, the Nation asked, “Will Democrats in Washington get the message that the war is the issue that gets voters to the polls and that, ultimately, poses a threat to stay-the-course incumbents of both parties?” [3] The answer is: thanks to the remarkable funding of “Vietnam II,” they already have.


  1. “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren,” Fox News. August 8, 2006.
  2. David Horowitz and Richard Poe. The Shadow Party, pp. 8-9, 16.
  3. Katrina vanden Heuvel has praised Lamont’s great-great-uncle, Hammond Lamont, who served as editor of Nation. His other notorious political relative is great-uncle Corliss Lamont, the fellowing traveling Stalinist and president of the ACLU,1932-54.

This article originally appeared on August 9, 2006, on FrontPage Magazine.