Republican barrage aims to halt advance of anti-war Democrats

[T_i_B]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1843512,00.html

The Republican party has launched a major attack to portray the Democrats as against the Iraq war and caught in the grip of an extremist fringe that wants to pull out of the conflict.

In television ads, newspaper columns and television interviews Republican politicians and conservative commentators have branded Democrats as weak in the 'war on terror'.

The move is paving the way for the vital November mid-term elections to be fought on national security with a bitter campaign echoing the 1968 presidential election fought against the background of the Vietnam war.

The shift in gear comes in the wake of last week's stunning defeat of Democrat Joe Lieberman in a primary election for Lieberman's Connecticut seat in the Senate. A former vice-presidential candidate, Lieberman was a high-profile supporter of the invasion of Iraq. But he was defeated by an anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont, sending shock waves through the Democratic party and prompting celebrations among anti-war Democrats.

[Grateful for Hope]

1. Quite an astute article

Thank you for posting this.

[magellan]

2. The Guardian is being misleading

The Repugs aren't trying to portray Democrats as "against the Iraq war", etc. They want to portray Democrats as anti-war, full stop, which is a flat out lie. And of course the so-called "extremist fringe" is actually made up of many moderates who are equally disgusted with the Dems' continued support of Bush**'s war based on lies.

I'm surprised the Guardian would be so inaccurate in their word choice. There's a big difference between being anti-war and Lamont's position, which is anti-Iraq-war.