I’ve been swamped this last week and over the weekend, so have been remiss in a couple areas here – one of them replying to Rev Sensing (sorry, I owe you a response…), and in mentioning that Mark Tapscott approached me last week and asked if I’d contribute occasional pieces to the Examiner chain as a member of their ‘Blogger Board’. The group includes Jeralyn Merritt – with whom I’ve had some serious disagreements, but who stepped up and wrote a great response to the whole Deb Frisch embarrassment. Others include Dan Gillmor, Ed from Captain’s Quarters, Betsy Newmark and others I don’t have the time to look up just now (I’ve got a package to mail to Iraq).
So I dashed off a piece to see if I could get some feedback on whether it was the kind of thing they were looking for, and darn if they didn’t go and publish it…
…it’s on Joe Lieberman and the ‘marching off the cliff’ wing of the Democratic Party, who think they will win by beating him in the primary and forcing him to run – and likely win – as an Independent. If I’d had more time, I’d have added the image that was really in the back of my mind when I wrote it – the Black Knight from ‘Holy Grail.
It’s less polished than I wish, and I promise to do better next time. Check it out and let me know how.
Despite the political demographics, I think you’re assertion that Lieberman would win as an independant is off the mark.
Remember, Lieberman won’t run as an independant unless he loses the primary. And if he loses the primary he’s in the hole already. Ignoring tradition and refusing to support the primary winner is not going to gain him a lot of votes in CT, especially in CT.
While I respect your views on the Iraq war, polls in CT clearly show they are in the minority, which is why Lamont is gaining traction to begin with. And is it really so hard to believe that a population would disown a long loved politician because he continues to support what the majority believe is the greatest foreign policy blunder in US history?
Combine that with the past votes you mentioned and I really don’t see Joe winning in any other way than by winning the primary.
And of course, acting like a petulant child isn’t helping him much either.
Nice piece, but you know you are going to be put in the “traitor” column at DU, and DailyKos now right. Or better yet, you are now a Rovian hack, who has been compromised and is used as a tool against the cause.
If absolute irrelevance is what the nutroots was hoping to achieve with their political machinations, then they are well on the course to achieving that “victory”. When Lamont goes down, it will be something like 2-23 for the Kos-kids.
What is it with the Democrats and loser political “konsultants”? Bob Shrum has never won a national race, yet he gets top billing. Kos can’t win anything close to a race that doesn’t occur in a heavily favored district, yet he’s all over the place as if he was the second coming.
As a right of center voter myself, I can’t recall a political hack of that flavor being kept around after so many losses. Its almost as if the Dems have become gluttons for punishment.
Your piece levels cynical accusations at bloggers that you cannot substantiate. It is a typical example of your obsesssion with political gamesmanship over substance that you try to pass along as “analysis” under the false guise of promoting Democratic Party Ideals.
You don’t seem to want to acknowledge the fact that since Lamont supporters realize that Lieberman could potentially run strong as an Independent (a big “if” which you presume to be a given in your piece) and this might, in the end, work against what you presume to be their cynical political motives, then their support can also be viewed as a stand on principle, not politics.
Furthermore, how do you reconcile your criticism that supporting Lieberman over Lamont could backfire against Dems when you yourself voted for Bush in 2004???
The mind boggles at the contortions you are forcing us to continue to witness.
So to answer your question, I don’t think very much of your inaugural piece at all.
My personal hope is that (a) Lamont does win a low turnout, high vitriol primary, then (b) Lieberman goes on to kick both Lamont and the Republican to the curb in November.
This might — might — make the point to the Democratic establishment that their recently adopted strategies and tactics are counterproductive.
Quick snark: “The mind boggles at the contortions you are forcing us to continue to witness.”
Or, “The food here is terrible! And the portions are so small!”
So Walters Ridge, you’re either with us (the nutroots) or you are against us.
How very Bushish.
One reason why I can’t take the left seriously is their “party line” mentality. If you wander even a yard off the reservation, its high treason.
Nice article Mark. I agree completely that the far-left wing is self-serving to the point that they don’t see that they are becoming the ruinous bane of the Democratic Party. They celebrate their populous growth but feign ignorance that they have become a malignant carcinoma that poisons the internet and the minds of malleable citizens.
AFIC, it’s all about control–the Nedizens are controlled–they are not free thinking, they are not thinking, and are blinded by the spotlight they’ve gotten. That spotlight is not for their successes but for their filth-mouthed diatribes, their fathomless rage, their bullying and enemy-lists. They are online political skin-heads–rallied to hate and to generate more hate. When the bubble bursts and their hot-air hate balloon collapses in their faces all they will have is self-loathing and their own feces-flinging posts thrown back at them in retribution.
Well I’d be rooting for Alan Schlesinger to win the GOP primary of course (largely because he seems to supporting either means-testing or a higher eligibility age for Medicare) and I’m one of the Republicans to say that Lieberman’s reputation as a “moderate” is largely a product of who he’s being compared to within his own party. IMO other than his support for the GWOT and free trade, he pretty much threw away his “moderate” positions in 2000 after he got picked for the VP slot*.
As the GOPer is unlikely to win, I’ll settle for a bloody and bitter primary fight between the far-left and not-quite-so-far left with a plenty of media attention further dampening the enthusiasm of independent voters for the Democratic Party in races that will actually be competitive.
* IMO this is largely what is driving the effort by the Far Left to support Lamont over Lieberman who most realistic people agree will continue to be Connecticut’s Senator next year. Lieberman demonstrated in 2000 that if he is pressured enough he will throw away any “conservative” or “moderate” positions he has previously stood for as he did on Social Security and school choice. IMO Lieberman is unlikely to outright repudiate his support for the Iraqi phase of the GWOT but if he is bloodied enough, there is a hope that he will respond by becoming more critical of the administration or how the war is progressing. In which case expect stories of “even Lieberman says it’s becoming a disaster” or the like to be hyped by the MSM.
At least that’s what I’d do if I were in their shoes.
Democrats are massively overestimating the anti-war sentiment in this country. This is very much one of those situations where the reflexively anti-Bush media has backfired on the left- the media publishes poling data that looks awful for Bush and the war, but their failure to analyze the underlying sentiment will lead to costly mistakes. Americans are indeed pissed at Bush and war-weary, but that does not translate into the type of Vietnam like fantasy of retreat and national self-flagellation that is the way the left remembers things (and yearns for).
“Here”:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-26-poll-results_x.htm is case and point. This USAToday article on a USAT/Gallup poll is titled “Poll results show support for Iraq pullout, flag-burning amendment”. Here are the results:
June 23-25 06: 17% withdraw now, 33% withdraw 12 months time, 41% withdraw as many years as needed, 8% send more troops, 1% no opinion.
Ok, so essentially 49% want to stay indefinately, 33% want to stay up to a year, and 17% want out now (the Murtha plan). Is it really accurate to premise this entire article on support for a pullout? Particularly when a ‘pullout’ has the definate connotation of leaving now. The 12 months time vote can be intrepretted as not pulling out until the job is done, but making sure it gets done in the next year. There are no subtleties allowed in the anwsers, and thats what going to kill the Dems if they keep this cut and run fervor up. Think about it, if even 5% of the ‘leave within the year’ folk are completely and utterly against the cut and run type of disengagement, Dems have lost the plurality. This is not a strong position to be in.
So maybe the article is implying that support for pulling out has accelerated, and hence the headline. Nope:
In March the leave now was 19%, leave in 1 year 35%, total = 54%
Last November the leave now was 19%, leave in 1 year 33%, total = 52%
In fact support for staying in Iraq until the mission is complete has _increased_ since last November, support for pulling out has slipped across the board. Support for sending more troops has actually doubled since March. So where did this headline come from?
Who knows, who cares. It probably sells more papers. The point is 50% of the nation seems committed to winning this war, but the Democrats seem to only read headlines and are increasingly climbing out on a limb assuming they are going with a current that actually doesnt exist. This is remarkably pathetic, in that their is a huge opportunity for a hawkish Dem platform with a legitimate vision to wipe the floor with Republicans. Also from this poll:
“Do you think George W. Bush does – or does not – have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq?” 31% yes, 67% no
“Do you think the Democrats in Congress do – or do not – have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq?” 25% yes, 68% no
That is astonishing.
Actually that’s the signal sent out by Lieberman by canvassing for signatures before the primary. But Walter did have a point. Curiously you failed to address it.
But hey, if you guys love him so much (second favorite dem behind Zell Miller, maybe if he drooled more?) why not convincing to change to the GOP?
Good job, Marc.
Consider this concerning such exclusionary games:
“Tis better to reign in hell than serve in heav’n.” – Milton
Joe Lieberman is a Fifth Columnist, and Democrats all over the country recognized that when he got single digits in primary after primary.
It’s not just his “moderate” positions, although his rosy description of our progress in Iraq is demented. That’s the facile analysis, and it’s wrong. The root problem is that Joe hates everyone to his left and basks in the admiration of everyone to his right, which makes him worthless as a member of the Democratic Party.
Joe goes on Hannity and O’Reilly, to slag other Democrats. Have you ever seen Chaffee or Snowe on Al Franken’s show, running down other Republicans? But Joe loves to hang with the right wingers, basking in the compliments that he is the Democrat they would support (if they weren’t, of course, supporting the Republican). Remind me, which Republican was first to jump up and applaud Pres. Clinton? Hmmmm.
If Lieberman had shown half the determination in his debate with Cheney as he did with Lamont, he’d be Vice President today. But with Cheney, it was pure suck-up. “I have great respect for Dick Cheney. I don’t agree with a lot of things he said in this campaign. He was a very distinguished Secretary of Defense, and I don’t have anything negative to say about him.” You didn’t hear him say anything like that about Ned Lamont, did you? And if he had shown half the ingenuity with the Florida Recount as he has with Connecticut primary law, he’d have a shot at being VP today. But he couldn’t wait to sell out Gore on military ballots, even fraudulent ones, not when his chance to show his “bipartisan” and “moderate” side.
And if he were running, I wouldn’t vote for Armed Liberal, either.
Marc, it was a good rational article, and was polished well enough, too; keep up the good work. Although I am conservative and disagree with many of your positions, I respect and appreciate your sanity and the common sense you inject into the discussion, both here and elsewhere. I can live with liberals who approach issues as you do, but have trouble with intolerant hypocritical liberals (which seem to be the norm these days). Perhaps this is one reason I can look up to liberals like Lieberman (and respect him), even though we share few positions in common. I believe his honorable character has much to do with my ability to respect him.
It will be interesting to see how your fellow liberals react and treat you; I suspect they won’t be civil.
There’s NO DOUBT you are a Lieberman type of democrat.
The type of guy who simply confirms the unprovable negative media narratives about Democrats, who uses his time and energy to criticize democrats, and who basks in the admiration of right wingers. There is a reason you post on this blog, by the way – whose collection of links IS the rightwing blogosphere – such as it is.
When the chips are down, and the Bush administration is eroding essential freedoms that define what an American is, you will be right there, manning the barricades by…criticizing democrats.
What’s mysterious is how you ever were approved for print. You have no natural constituency, except for Republicans who happily use you to destroy the things you supposedly care about.
You say you are “pro-choice”. Doing a search for that word, I find “this article”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/004913.php
Which obscurely criticizes the movement for its “tone”. Without mentioning that there WERE some religious groups represented at the march, which WERE speaking in the same manner you idealize.
“pro gay marriage” – well, yes, this is true. You have wrote positive article on gay marriage, and my searching finds them. But this is more of a libertarian stand, as well as a democratic one.
Pro-progressive taxation:
I found two posts on this:
“This one which I assume states your position”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/003554.php
“And this one that criticizes an actual implementation”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/004510.php
Now, there is a a statement of philosophy, and then tactics. There has been NO criticism of, say, George Bush, regarding the adminstration’s tax policies. NO enthusiasm for a DEMOCRAT’s tax position.
Just a blase statement of “I support”, followed with a criticism of an implementation.
Clearly your “support” for progressive taxation is underwhelming.
“Pro environment”.
I actually haven’t been able to find a pro environment post. It might exist, but clearly it isn’t something that important to you, based on your writings.
I’m not sure what, or how, you were burned enough to become a Benedict Arnold to the Democratic party.
But it’s clear that, based on your writings, you occupy this position, and the fact that you hold democratic positions, doesn’t really affect that judgement, considering you don’t advocate for them, or criticize those in power who undermine your stated positions.
To Davebo, Walter’s Ridge, Andrew Lazarus –
From a media level, what is interesting is why Armed Liberal was chosen. How was that decision made? I wonder if the bookers KNEW what they were getting?
If so, then this is a clear embrace of “a democrat who slams democrats”, thus buying into the rightwing media narrative.
If not – quite clueless actions from our media buyers, yes?
Oh, Armed Liberal.
It was boorish of me, and I apologize.
Congratulations for your first step into the world of media! Keep it up!
I look forward to seeing you, in a year or two, as the Fox News Democrat!
hypocracyrules –
I’d expect nothing less from you…
But you forgot this key post – “Charge The Guns or Build Tanks”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008031.php which pretty much explains things from my point of view.
A.L.
Good article, good representation of your style and argument.
Hypocrisyrules and Andrew Lazarus, thank you for your services in demonstrating AL’s points for readers who may have come here to visit. People do like to see such things for themselves.
It’s also nice to know that with the Kim Jong-Il, Solobdan Milsoevic, and Tienanmen Square massacre fans at International ANSWER leading the so-called “anti-war” movement, al-Qaeda on the loose, et. al., Andrew Lazarus has finally identified a fifth column element somewhere.
Wow!
Great comments by Chris! Just awesome! Does he have his own blog?
He takes you apart, piece by piece. Just amazing to read.
Thanks for engaging my substantive points, Joe. Oh, wait! You forgot! So I’ll repeat: where is the Republican Joe Lieberman who goes to liberal media outlets to denounce other Republicans as too conservative? I assure you, if there were such a person, I’d be glad to write an article about his importance to the Republican Party, but even Chaffee doesn’t fit the bill.
Yeah, I’m sure the conservatives love liberals who don’t mind losing (filibuster Alito? who me?) and are polite and respectful not only to the right-wingers—off the Internet I kind of appreciate that type of civility myself—but to their positions, too. Remember Lieberman crawling around looking for some way he could be “bipartisan” on Social Security? Instead the Dems hung tough and gave this Administration one of its few domestic political failures (as opposed to program failures, which are legion).
You’ll notice: nobody is going after Ben Nelson in Nebraska. No one of the least importance ran against anti-choice Bob Casey in his primary. I see on Daily Kos that (pro-Iraq-mess) Maria Cantwell’s primary opponent dropped out today. The “litmus test” we are applying is “Does this candidate want the Democratic Party to win?” and in Lieberman’s case, the answer is no. It’s understandable that other people who don’t really want the Democrats to win (such as yourself) would admire Lieberman, but many British were disgusted with Benedict Arnold anyway.
Agreed, you’d almost think that Lieberman wasn’t their 2000 Vice Presidential nominee and didn’t vote their way 60-80 percent of the time. Seems to like this would be an ideal time to say something to the effect of “we respect Joe Lieberman’s years of service but disagree with him on this issue and have decided to support Lamont instead” rather than crying “fifth columnist!”
#16 JK,
Heh – that comment is completely hackworthy, and completely devoid of any worthwhile content, neither addressing my comments, nor adding any value of any information, as well as containing some loony nonsequitur, there at the end.
Pick up the quality Joe, you’re slipping badly.
Bottom line is, in A.L’s writings, the only “stand” that is trackable, he keeps beating up on the tank he hopes to build, as what he does is critize, criticize, criticize, his own side.
Andrew has clearly never heard of John McCain or Governor Arnold. There are conservatives out there screaming for their heads. Difference is they dont have the strength to bring down the party doing it. Your party is obviously different, because the moonbats are gaining control. Instead of seeking out converts you are smoking out heretics.
What I remember about the VP debate in 2000 was thinking that America would have been better off if both parties had flipped their tickets. Both men were clearly sharper than their running mates, and the civility and mutual respect on display was a very refreshing change-of-pace from politics as usual.
Well, maybe Joe had respect for Cheney, and doesn’t have respect for Lamont. From what I’ve read, that theory fits the data. Also from what I’ve read, I think Joe’s judgement, assuming the theory is correct, is spot-on.
The Kos Krew demanding that anyone be respectful of anyone else gives you 3000% of your recommended daily allowance of irony.
I’d rather see a lefty criticize what is wrong with his own party, than one that can only criticize what is wrong with the other party.
I don’t agree with much of the GOP, and I am vocal about what I don’t agree with and I can debate those differences with others who are more supportive of Republican Party and its current positions, but I don’t see that with the Dems anymore. There appears to be little or no dissent that is tolerated or allowed. You either get in lockstep or you get bounced.
Joe doesn’t agree with a single issue that seems to drive the nutroots into a frothing mass, so he’s a “traitor”. I guess the “tolerance” of the left has morphed into what we always thought it was, pseudo-fascist groupthink.
Given the demographics of the Kos-kids, etc. Can they have any impact on an election like this? Did anyone in Connecticut even recognize Kos when he was pulling a mentos for Lamont? Sure us political hack types watched and laughed, but did anyone besides Ned Lamonts staff know who was on the TV? Probably not.
My prediction is Joe has no problem winning the primary against Lamont, and Kos et al, will be 2-23.
AL — great article. Congrats.
Walter — where does the cynicism seem unwarranted in light of Kosola? Kos’s “buy one get one free” deal with Armstrong, throwing Hackett under the bus, etc. after a deal with Hackett’s opponent? His pay-to-play with Howard Dean?
Follow the money.
Davebo — In the general election, do you think Lamont’s ties to “screw em” Kos, the “I hate the troops” sentiments regularly posted there won’t play? A Republican or Independent candidate can easily paint Lamont as: a. a wealthy Blue-Blood dilettante with radical politics; b. a nut-root crazy America-hater who despises the Red White and Blue; c. someone who despises the middle class American.
Particularly since Lamont outside the nutroots does not have the lifetime skills that politics requires. See: Arnold, Perot, Ventura, etc. Politics ain’t beanbag and Lamont’s desire to get rid of CT highways and bridges as part of an anti-Pork campaign will hurt him in a brutal general election. As will his perceived anti-Americanism (be sure his opponents will tie him to every insane, American hating comment on Kos etc).
Hippie 1960’s politics are a loser. Particularly when we’ll see inevitably another mass-casualty attack by Al Qaeda and Lamont’s general election opponents will tie him to the “Al Qaeda is no threat, let’s give them what they want or prevent anything from stopping them.”
There is considerable 1960 Missile Gap room to make the GOP and Centrists vulnerable on Muslim Terror. Lamont isn’t it. Quite simply there is no room for anyone in the Dem Party who wishes for strong measures to safeguard the nation. Dems have culturally decided on a program of:
*Moral relativism, i.e. America is not perfect so deserves to be attacked.
*Political Correctness, i.e. no non-White non-Christian can ever do anything wrong.
*Multi-culturalism, i.e. Western Civilization is “worthless” and the wisdom of tribal autarks and endless tribal bloodletting is preferred as “authentic.”
Mixed in of course is the subtext of Democratic hatred for Lieberman’s support for Israel and his Jewish faith. The nutroots who control or mostly control the party have embraced anti-semitic crazy conspiracy theories, see Howard Dean turning the DNC HQ over to the Conspiracy Theorists.
Andrew — you look for the Republican equivalents to Joe? I’ll give you THREE:
Arlen Spector
John McCain
Rudy Guiliani
The latter two of which are running for President. Plenty of Reps hate McCain, they aren’t running Nutroots campaigns against him. Rudy’s pro-gay marriage, anti-gun ownership, pro-abortion stances are not exactly popular GOP positions either. All available evidence points to Dems as the party of exclusion and Reps as the party of inclusion. Culturally conservative people are not welcome in Dem circles, culturally liberal people are welcome in the GOP.
Dem’s litmus test is cultural. Joe still believes fundamentally that America deserves protecting. Dems just don’t. It’s why Miller left. [Tell me why again a guy who campaigned and WON increased education spending and programs in GA gets kicked out of the Party? Oh yeah right he backed Bush’s efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.]
I’ve yet to see any Dem alternative to Bush’s anti-Terror actions other than surrender. I mean, ANYTHING. Geraghty’s comments (“why should I trust Dems to stand up to Iran if they won’t stand up to Kos?”) holds merit.
There’s a recent post at DKos that parallels this discussion (HT- lgf):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/8/145235/7711
I would not enjoy being in a party that mandated every follower to be in lockstep with the dictates of a few.
Agreed, with the exception of some intense dislike for John McCain (driven largely by his role in McCain-Feingold which many conservative bloggers see as an attack on the right of free expression) which has spilled over into being suspicious of anything he does or piece of legislation he attaches his name to, most of the internal criticism within the GOP has (thankfully) been constructive. Generally we’re upset over the out-of-control spending, failure to enact entitlement reform, and disagree (although there is a pretty vigorous internal debate) with the direction the Senate and administration seem to be going on immigration reform. Other than that, there are the usual disagreements on issues that you find a major political party where not everyone agrees on everything.
The ironic thing is that Howard Dean (for all of the laughter he’s given us) seems to realize that his party needs to do the same. The rightfully-ridiculed “confederate flag” statement during the 2004 election and his botched attempt at pandering to evangelicals on the marriage issue show that he realizes that if his party is ever become a majority party, it will inevitability move further to the right just as Republicans have under Bush moved further to the left on issues like supporting the Department of Education (which they once pushed to abolish), creating a drug benefit for Medicare, and immigration.
HR;
You nailed it right on the head (or should I say hit the bullseye).
Marc Danziger is a Lieberman Democrat.
As to why he was given a voice at that particular media site, your guess is as good as mine. I don’t see him adding anything of substance to the debate, typically, so perhaps he’s there to illustrate the rigid mindedness of the “pretend Democrat”? If so, he’s the perfect choice.
Furthermore, his failure to acknowledge that Kos’ support of Lamont must be based on principle, since he is surely aware that defeating Joementum in the primaries frees him up to abandon the Dems (as he already has in practice, if not in name) and campaign against Lamong.
Danziger’s accusation that it is “just politics” is an offensive and simple-minded effort at a political takedown in the mold of Jonah Goldberg.
Furthermore, the idiotically laughable idea, promulgated here and elsewhere around the righty blogosphere/echo chamber, that Dems are the party of “intolerance” because they seek unity on issues is unbelievable coming from Republicans. That’s like the KKK calling you a racist or something…
“Furthermore, the idiotically laughable idea, promulgated here and elsewhere around the righty blogosphere/echo chamber, that Dems are the party of “intolerance” because they seek unity on issues is unbelievable coming from Republicans. ”
Name me an issue you think Republicans are in lockstep on, and i’ll name you a _prominent_ Republican that opposes it.
I have to say that I prefer the one here at WOC. It’s nice to discuss an issue with folks who are capable of replying without dropping the F-bomb in every other sentence.
hypocrisyrules:
You’re right. What the reality-based community wants is more blind faith. I long ago suggested that Democrats should adopt the Red Army’s commissar system, and I think somebody listened.
So rest assured that your tank is much better than any other tank, and will surely defeat the shoddy products of decadent bourgeois imperialism. At least it had better work, because it has no reverse gear.
“Furthermore, his failure to acknowledge that Kos’ support of Lamont must be based on principle, since he is surely aware that defeating Joementum in the primaries frees him up to abandon the Dems (as he already has in practice, if not in name) and campaign against Lamong.”
What’s the over/under on the number of days until financial ties between Lamont and Jerome Armstrong come to light?
I did not ask for the names of moderate Republicans whom the conservatives don’t like and sometimes criticize. (Although I would point out, the GOP base is pretty quiet about Chafee, Snowe, and Collins because they know they’re the best they can get out of New England.)
I asked for the names of moderate Republicans who go on the liberal media and criticize conservatives. McCain doesn’t, at least any more. He’s made up with Falwell. You find me those tapes of Specter and Giuliani on Air America trashing the rest of their party, and then I’ll align them with Lieberman. This isn’t a subtle point; it’s what makes Lieberman less palatable than any number of Democrats who, on an issue scorecard, are to his right. Until then, I would align them with Nelson, Landrieu, etc. And you don’t see them getting attacked at dKos.
To put it another way, you guys like Democrats with the guts to stand up to Marcos Moulitsas. We like Democrats with the guts to stand up to George Bush.
“I asked for the names of moderate Republicans who go on the liberal media and criticize conservatives. McCain doesn’t, at least any more.”
McCain is running for his party’s nomination for president, Lieberman is not. See a connection there?
How bout Pat Buchannon on the war? Tom Tancredo (when they’ll have him) on illegals? Guys like Dick Armey, Bill Owens, and Dennis Kucinich have gone all over blasting Republican spending.
I agree. Both sides are making unreasonable demands here.
What’s really nuts is that some people want Democrats who can stand up to lobbyists, corporate interests – even tort lawyers! And I want a Buick I can drive to the moon.
McCain is running for his party’s nomination for president, Lieberman is not. See a connection there?
But Lieberman was just as critical of Democrats while he was running for President in the primaries. It just didn’t resonate well with the voters. Oh, wait, it’s different, because McCain was attacking good people and Lieberman was attacking bad people. This isn’t some new-found Kos-crusade: Lieberman was so unpopular with real Democrats voting in primaries all across the country he usually got single digits.
I’m getting a headache…
AJL makes the mistake of lumping the activists who pump up pre-primary buzz, with the voters who decide elections. Case in point, Howard Dean.
Activists (aka the Kos crowd) think that the candidates they are continuing to prop up are electable and represetnative of mainstream Democrats except nearly every contest they have entered into, the voters (aka the majority of the base) have not accepted this “wisdom” and have decided to put the guy that has a chance into the final runoff.
To put it another way, you guys like Democrats with the guts to stand up to Marcos Moulitsas. We like Democrats with the guts to stand up to George Bush.
– like it takes guts to diss Kos or Bush. As if.
I’d vote for a Democrat with the guts to stand up to the Ba’thists and Islamists. (remember them?)
Can you name one?
Andrew:
I suppose the people who have been sending him to the senate all these years are imaginary Democrats, as are the ones who advised Gore to make him his running mate.
In fact, left-wing (or if you prefer, “real”) Democrats have hated Lieberman since he dared to voice tepid criticism of King William the First’s behavior. “Robert Scheer’s berserk screed”:http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=6022 (“carping Clinton critic … even duller [than Al Gore] … sanctimonious … betrayed Clinton at a time when the right-wing jackals could taste the president’s blood … a Cheney-like concession to the politics of the right … preening moralizer … obnoxious … Hollywood basher [!!!!] … prude”) is an ample demonstration of this, I think.
Jeez, he even squeezed the blood drinking in there.
Fortunately, the Kossack Left has the memory of a busted Commodore 64, else they would know that Lieberman was originally elected with the help of a PAC organized by William F. Buckley, aimed at unseating liberal Republican Lowell Weicker. I can almost imagine their eyes bulging right out of their heads if this information fell into their hands.
If people want to spend their own time and their own money supporting a candidate who has little chance of winning but who more closely mirrors their views, isn’t that their business? Besides, sometimes these Quixotic contests do result in victory (see Al “the pal” Dixon in Illinois) or at the very least bring a strong grassroots presence to a state (see Toomey’s unsuccessful challenge to Specter in PA.)
So why all the sturm und drang? Do you despise the popular lefty blogs so much that whatever action they take, no matter how reasonable or heavily precedented, it must needs be “moonbatty”?
Joe Lieberman belongs to the “opposition” party. In this case that means “opposition to George Bush,” a man with single digit approval ratings among Democrats. Sen. Lieberman does not face this challenge because of one or even a set of policies he has supported. Rather, he faces the very public perception that he has given aid and comfort to a man that the vast, vast, vast majority of Democrats, comprising the entire spectrum of the party, despise. Why’s it so unusual that these people might decide to support someone else? It is certainly their right.
So before you go telling everyone else what they should or shouldn’t do maybe you should exercise your rights like they have. Write a check to Joe Lieberman and stop worrying so much about what other people want to do with the money they earned.
No, Glen, we know all about Lieberman, Buckley, and Weicker. Kos reported it last October.
The context of Kos’s post is interesting, too: Joementum sitting at the head table of a National Review bash, with Buckley and Rush Limbaugh. Is there a Republican who sat at The Nation’s anniversary dinner head table, yucking it up with Navasky and Franken?
Oh, wait: Lieberman is a great moderate patriot. Any Republican who did any such thing would be a traitor, weasel, proto-terrorist. I’m learning the drill.
I’m so amazed, I won’t even deduct points for the fact that Kos hasn’t got the slightest idea what a “neocon” is, or he would know that neither Buckley or Lieberman is a neoconservative.
If Kos is shocked at Lieberman sitting at the same table with Rush Limbaugh, he obviously has no idea what social life in DC is like, either.
I pray to the Almighty God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that he never finds out.
Geeze the Democrats as a Party of principle.
Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! Libertarians.
So a toast. May the Democrats do as well as the Libertarians.
Let us know when the new Socialist man shows up. The new Libertarian man is a no show too.
So I woke up this morning to discover that Andrew Olmsted is now posting at Obsidian Wings.
“How can this be?” I asked. Has he stopped posting at Winds of Change? He did say he was voting Democratic come November – did he finally just jump ship?
Well, nope, Andrew’s still posting here, more the pity. But what he posted, and the context of that response on the front page of WoC is extremely informative. To wit:
– Andrew’s post is a commentary-free examination of Iraq news, the majority of it quite grim. It drew a whopping two comments.
– The rest of the page is covered with all sorts of commentary: arguing oil policy, arguing about Joe Lieberman, arguing about SWIFT and Kelo and the World Cup, and these are the posts that are drawing comments in the 30-90 range.
– Most of those comments trash leftist Democratic policies and proposals in a number of ways, while offering little in the way of competing ideas.
– But there’s almost no talk about what’s happening in the War on Terror, and about how to win that war here at WoC.
So let’s put all of that in perspective. The article in AL’s post above immediately breaks out the idea that Lieberman’s being attacked because he has the audacity to support the Iraq war, as does AL’s follow-up post. But there’s two problems with that argument. First, as AJL pointed out here, and other people have pointed out in articles that AL has linked to, the problem isn’t support for Iraq – plenty of other Democrats who do support Iraq haven’t faced the challenges Lieberman has, nor are they likely to. The problem is Lieberman’s blind, often enthusiastic support for Bush administration and the administration’s incompetence in carrying out the Iraq war. AL utterly fails to recognize that point in virtually everything he writes on this subject, but that doesn’t make the point invalid, it just makes AL dishonest.
Second, AL’s argument is false because it rests on the assumption that AL really does care about the Iraq war. Which is false, because AL’s own writing has, for a fairly long time now, almost completely ignored news of the Iraq war, and strategies for winning it. Likewise, the posters and most of the commentators here at WoC, where AL primarily hangs out, pretty much completely ignore the Iraq war. They don’t talk strategy, they don’t talk facts, they don’t ever mention Al Qeada or OBL or the insurgency… unless, that is, they’re trashing Democrats, accusing them of being fifth columnists who don’t have the nation’s best interests at heart and the like. Then it’s time to break out the “don’t you know we’re in a war?” line. But, y’know, when you only mention the war to slime your political opponents, your commitment to winning Iraq tends to sound kind of hollow, guys.
So, bottom line: Davebo, Walter’s Ridge, AJL, hypocrisyrules and the rest, please, please take some heartfelt advice – stop engaging with, and legitimizing, Armed “Liberal” and Winds of Change. They don’t deserve it. Most of them will never listen to any argument you make with an open mind, no matter how reasonable or pointed you make it, which means no progress can possibly be made. And, at worst, they’ll pull the kind of crap Katzman pulled above, where he uses your very existence on these boards as proof of some evil Democratic conspiracy to silence dissent.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy butting heads as much as the next guy, but there are people worth butting heads with, and there are people who aren’t. And at this point, I firmly believe nothing would do more to discredit WoC and its blind Bush loyalty than for the boards here to become filled solely with dittoheads, assuring each other that they’re in the right and that Democrats hate America. I came to this conclusion back in March, but I just wish I’d done a better job of expressing it back then.
Meanwhile places like American Footprints, which post more insightful commentary on the War on Terror in one day than Winds of Change has in all of 2006, could surely use your input and support. And like I said, Andrew Olmsted, a man who’s genuinely committed to conservative and libertarian principles but who hasn’t bought in to the partisan venom that’s taken over this site, is posting at Obsidian Wings. I wholeheartedly suggest that y’all head over there and participate in the productive dialog that’s sure to develop between him and Hilzoy, rather than dragging out a lost cause over here.
BTW, hypocrisyrules, thanks for the kind words – but no, I don’t have a blog, and don’t really want the hassle of maintaining one. And major props to unpaid halfwit and his straightforward response to AL’s post. At the end of the day this is Connecticut’s decision to make for itself, not a proxy battle in AL’s war to prove himself smarter than the rest of the Democratic party.
Chris;
Agreed, 100%. No one here, especially AL, is interested in having an honest debate. I’ll give most here credit for civility, but not much else.
Especially accurate are your comments regarding their true (very quickly receding) interest in the Iraq war. Just in the last few days the news has been filled with stories about US soldiers brutally killing unarmed Iraqi civilians, and others being inducted into the armed services from the ranks of domestic White Supremacists.
The civil war grows weekly, and with it the civilian death toll.
Today, I saw a picture of a little Iraqi girl, about the age of my oldest daughter, being cradled in the arms of a gentleman who could have been her father or grandpa. Her right foot was blown off.
All this idiocy about Lieberman and Lamont, in the face of the historic disaster that Marc Danziger and the others here have helped to support and sustain with their mindless propoganda, is simply too much for a feeling, caring, freedom-loving human being to believe.
A typical refrain around here is that the opinions of folks like myself are evidence for why “Dems are unfit to lead”, but we have only to look eastward toward Baghdad to see what the consequences are when leadership is given to the mindless barbarians that populate this site.
Checking out, as suggested, and with no regrets that I will miss the final screams of the rats on the sinking ship of modern conservatism issuing from this remote hold.
Chris,
Good thoughts. Thanks for the comment.
I’m not sure about “ignoring the nutjobs”, though. You may be right – probably are – I’m just not sure. It hasn’t worked for Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter. Exposing of the nuttiness is necessary, in some cases. If the majority of a group share an outlook that “everything is going well in Iraq”,or “stay the course”, etc, is such an absolutely fantasist position, based in fantasy and ignoring the realities on the ground.
“Like this”:http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008992.php
“Or also this on the breakdown of the final excuse for the U.S. going to Iraq”:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_07/009134.php
. It seems to me it might be worthwhile to point it out.
But then again – “don’t feed the trolls, it only encourages them” – may also be the right perspective, so ignoring may be the way to go.
I’m just not sure.
Chris, we stopped listening to you guys back when you were still crying for more troops. You remember…before you started crying for more troops…in Okinawa. If there were any reason to expect more from the “opposition” than crass political opportunism more people might actually care what it is you aren’t putting into policy proposals. Or not. You know how fickle we voters can be.
It was a nice column in any event, AL.