As a point of historical interest, let me amplify the point I make over at the Examiner and below about the netroots and Lieberman.
Note that today, there are a number of explanations as to why Lieberman was opposed and why the blogs came out against him.
Let me refer you to a key blog post (from back in January; I saved it when it was new) by Matt Stoller at MyDD.
Believe it or not, I’m not sold on a primary challenge to Lieberman. As I have written before, Connecticut is a machine state; facing down a machine is not easy.
The issues Matt raises go more to the risks to the progressive blogsphere
We face real risks should we pick this fight. The progressive blogosphere is right now facing a crisis of legitimacy. Though blogs funneled massive amounts of money to Kerry in 2004, to the DNC when Dean was elected, and to individual candidates, we are seen as disorganized, immature and incoherent. We tend not to break through to the established media. Big donors do not fund us, unlike all the other groups in the party. We truly are on our own. Our latent allies – Dean, Reid, Slaughter – cannot work through us because we don’t bring enough to the table. Contrast this to Redstate, which has around 20,000 readers, around 2% of the traffic of Daily Kos, yet has played some role in the current House leadership election contest. They know politics, they take politics seriously, and they are taken seriously as a result. They also have advantages we do not – the founders of Redstate were already members of the Republican political elite.
and he’s not sure why Joe should be challenged
Yet, in picking this fight against Lieberman, we’re not really running ‘on’ something. I see no thread of articulated principles here that would justify a Lieberman challenge. The Sierra Club at least looks at your environmental record. What do we look at? The number of times someone has reiterated right-wing frames? What are we looking for in a candidate, that Lieberman isn’t? I’m looking for principles here, things to wrap ourselves in.
If we are making demands, which supporting a primary challenger is doing, what are they? If we simply make the demand that a candidate not be Lieberman, then what kind of legitimacy does that confer on us as a group? How can other politicians follow that lead? They can’t. And if we are demanding leadership from our party, and from our political system as a whole, we have to show some ourselves.
The he updates, based on the comments (and you should read them all)
UPDATE: I’m really liking the comments so far. Three points in particular are principles that define what he does that we do not like:
– His support for policies that are ruining America’s military and standing in the world
– His support for borrow and spend policies that are bringing the American economy to a grinding halt
– His failure to hold the executive branch accountable
So if I can restate the three reasons:
a) He supports the war;
b) He’s supported Bush’s fiscally irresponsible budget policies;
c) He isn’t vehement enough in opposing Bush (which really reflects back to a) and b) in my view)
Hmmm. The short answer is that he isn’t fighting Bush as hard as he can.
One of the posts linked to in Matt’s piece is by Mark Schmitt at the Decembrist (great blog title, btw):
Another line was certainly crossed by Joe Lieberman last week, when he said, “It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”
Well, if like I and a few others do, you think there is an actual war on, you have a fine tightrope to walk as the opposition party. You need to oppose, but you also ostensibly have some obligation to the greater national loyalty you are supposed to feel ahead of your party loyalty.
Hmmmm. And that’s why Lieberman is being pushed off the island. Because he feels a greater loyalty to the national interest than to his party interest,
Now I’d be remiss in pointing out that Bush has left himself open to this by his abject failure to – as I’ve said in the past – sell the war, reach across the aisle and realize that this is an effort that will continue long after he’s out of office, and that the Democrats need to be brought along as well.
But in the context of Pelosi’s threat to push Jane Harman off of the Intelligence Committee, the only conclusion I can draw is that to be a good Democrat these days, it’s all for the good of the party.
“Hmmmm. And that’s why Lieberman is being pushed off the island. Because he feels a greater loyalty to the national interest than to his party interest”
Bull. First of all, the Democratic party is not so much an island as an archipelago.
Second, it’s only YOUR characterization that puts Lieberman’s positions closer to “the National Interest” than “his parties”.
The Democratic party’s interests ARE the National Interest. The majority of Americans are opposed to the War in Iraq, suspicious if not downright opposed to Bush’s illegal domestic spying, the torturing of prisoners who have been denied basic human rights, etc. Even the Supreme Court, in the Hamdan ruling, categorizes Bushes activities as going beyond the legal fringes and into the extreme.
Because of that, Bush/Cheny have opened up the possibility that US servicemen executing their “war plan” could now be charged with war crimes.
And the War in Iraq, in all the brutality it has unleased on both sides of the lines, has brought a new slice of hell on earth to the middle east, courtesy of Bush, Joementum and Iraq war supporters like yourself who cannot, or do not want, to recognize the sad truth that it has worked against everything you say it is working for.
It’s Lieberman (and Lieberman Democrats like yourself) who are taking positions agains the National Interest, Marc.
And in case anyone’s interested in how Stoller’s views have evolved, “here’s a post from today.”:http://mydd.com/story/2006/7/10/12411/4195
In it, Stoller also points out recent polling data refuting your now suddently out-of-date post (and article) below that Lieberman has strong support among Indies and Repugs. His approval is going south fast among all groups.
Here’s Stoller:
1) LIEBERMAN’S SUPPORT OF FAILED CONSERVATIVE POLICIES: Lieberman supports the war in Iraq. But he doesn’t just support it, he thinks that the situation in Iraq is good and getting better. Other pro-war Democrats, like Murtha, Kerry, Reid, Edwards, etc, have recognized their error. Lieberman not only won’t admit error, he also thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is unprincipled at best, and unpatriotic and treacherous at worst. The voters of Connecticut don’t agree, and understand that more failed conservative policies is not principled judgment, but simply more failed conservative policies.
2) LIEBERMAN ROUTINELY INSULTS VOTERS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS: Senator Lieberman’s surrogates are constantly attacking voters, and Lieberman is constantly demonstrating his contempt for them. John Droney, a Lieberman advisor, says that voters of Connecticut are ‘terrorizing’ Lieberman. Senator Lieberman himself has written that we undermine the “President’s credibility at our nation’s peril”, with the clear implication that the anti-war views of most Connecticut (and American) voters hurts our military and our country. Lieberman’s ‘double-dipping’, running for office as an Independent if he loses the primary, is a further insult to Democratic primary voters.
3) NED LAMONT IS AN ACCOMPLISHED ENTREPRENEUR, AND HAS GOOD JUDGMENT: While Lieberman is a lightning rod, the fact is that voters will not drop support for an incumbent unless there is a viable alternative. Ned Lamont is a viable and great candidate. Lamont is an entrepreneur, a community leader, and has clear good judgment. When I talked to him in February, he told me that he believes government needs to be more entrepreneurial, and in the broken system that we have, entrepreneurs are exactly what we need. That’s why voters who are changing their minds about Lieberman have somewhere to go.
—-
I think the narrative that it’s all about “patriotism” and “the War in Iraq” with the accompanying attempt to conflate this disaster with a “war on terrorism”, is starting to deflate rapidly, Marco.
So it seems to me that the challenge is: what does the opposition party do when the Administration is screwing up its war beyond all possibility of redemption? Are you actually looking at the news from Irsq? Afghanistan? Doesn’t look like it.
We heard a lot that the Democrats needed to come up with a unified plan. Hunh? It isn’t enough that we see the Bush plan and it is a failure.
“The voters of Connecticut don’t agree, and understand that more failed conservative policies is not principled judgment, but simply more failed conservative policies.”
Wow, wish I’d said that.
“It isn’t enough that we see the Bush plan and it is a failure. ”
No, its not nearly enough. Like that poll shows, even a majority of democrats dont seem to trust democrats to handle the war. Failure (as you say) can be managed. Disaster cannot, and that seems to be what Democrats are courting if you listen to Pelosi, and Murtha, and Kerry.
This is the problem. If you listen (to the leadership mind you) of the Democratic party, the only vague outline of a vision you find is to pack up and abandon Iraq, grovel to our allies (not for help at this point, just for forgiveness), cut off our domestic intelligence gathering, and basically sit home and glibly blame Bush for everything that invariably will go wrong for the next few years. This is not a strategy, this is a juvenile indulgence. John Kerry wants to take the wheel, not because he has a way to right the ship, but because he wants to make sure it sinks his way and the right people get blamed for it. Are you really surprised this isnt palatable to the American people? A bad plan is better than no plan. At least Bush is _trying_ to make the world a better place. When did Democrats become pre-WW2 Republicans? When did the platform become- nothing good can come from our foriegn policy but we might be able to hurt the Republicans with it and thats good enough!?
So it seems to me that the challenge is: what does the opposition party do when the Administration is screwing up its war beyond all possibility of redemption?
Now, Mr. Lazarus. Surely you’ve read Winds of Change before today.
Opinion around these parts is pretty uniform:
1) This Administration isn’t screwing up — any evidence to the contrary is a product of The Left/Hollywood/The Mainstream Media;
and
2) the opposition party is patriotism-bound to keep its mouth shut during a Time Of War, when The War President embarks on a policy, no matter how objectively foolhardy that policy may be.
To objectively report on the mistakes of this Administration is treason. To oppose the war policy is treason. I know, because I’ve read it right here on this fine website.
If you listen (to the leadership mind you) of the Democratic party, the only vague outline of a vision you find is to pack up and abandon Iraq, grovel to our allies (not for help at this point, just for forgiveness), cut off our domestic intelligence gathering, and basically sit home and glibly blame Bush for everything that invariably will go wrong for the next few years.
Four assertions – four lies – no links. Imagine that.
Translation, he voted for it like many Democrats including their last Presidential and Vice Presidential nominee but unlike them, he meant it.
As opposed to the even more “fiscally irresponsible budget policies” offered by Democrats who have proposed even larger increases in spending while opposing even modest attempts at trimming the rate of growth and scuttling any meaningful attempts at entitlement reform before the baby boom generation begins to retire.
“The Democratic party’s interests ARE the National Interest.”
I wish this were true. Our nation is stronger when we have two (or more) valid parties. Unfortunately, the Democrats have devolved into a party of all hate all the time.
Walter — I read your statements with astonishment.
Don’t like Bush’s Iraq policy?
WHAT do Dems have on offer as an alternative? Run away? That’s guaranteed to make Al Qaeda pursue us even harder here at home (I count about five six Al Qaeda connected plots recently in various planning stages). Iraq is a mess true. It was a mess (a different kind of mess, one pointed like a dagger at the US) with Saddam. Perhaps not the closest dagger. But a dagger nevertheless. Dems arguing that Iraq took away our options for payback and score settling and example making with Iran (not to mention derailing the obvious nuclear power) would have a real point. Treating the world like it’s a Disneyland Small World ride is not good or smart politics.
No Democrat is willing to stand up and say that Islam itself, is the problem. That “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” cannot exist on the same small, interconnected planet as “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.”
The ME mess has been generations coming; basically Islam has not accepted the modern world and has been in various ways trying to destroy it. Islam and Muslims have been in general war (ala tribal raiding parties) with us since the 1970s. The only answer is to break their ability to hit us and transform them into moderns.
Dems have no answer for this, enthralled with romanticized views of pre-modern tribalism. The tag on Dems as being “progressivites” and the enemy of classical liberalism is apt.
Lamont? See my post in the thread below. Basically, he’s easily pegged as a elitist blue blood who finds the Average Joe in contempt, and is tied to radical, American-hating politics. He’s also a newbie at politics and thus going to be a disaster. Arnold and Ventura at least had experience in manipulating crowds, public speaking etc. Lamont doesn’t even have that.
To about a billion or so Muslims intent on wiping out America, Lamont and Dems have no clue or policy other than surrender and groveling. Don’t like Bush’s policies, fine, offer genuine alternatives:
*We are harder than GWB, we will nuke Iran pre-emptively, payback’s a bi**
*We’ll deport anyone is related to terrorist activities and refuse Muslims Visas.
*We’ll put a FBI agent in every Mosque that has Wahabbist ties; and surveil every Muslim charity with shaky financial ties to terrorists.
isn’t enough that we see the Bush plan and it is a failure.
AJL, get serious. You must know enough political history to realize that isn’t nearly enough.
Think back to Mondale in ’84, promising to raise taxes, then put these words in the mouth of your candidate:
“Bush will lose the war. I will surrender. He won’t tell you, I just did.”
Didn’t work for McGovern, didn’t work for Mondale, and the Kerry equivalent (“I will surrender before I attack, but the attack will not involve assault weapons, only exquisite double shotguns suitable for deer which pass the global test”) didn’t work for him.
I just commented on your Examiner piece at Dailykos.
I thought I would do you the courtesy of sending along the link
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/10/23023/0005
Needless to say, I disagree quite strongly find your opinion on the war to be inane and stupid, and think that your reference to “dependent classes” is quite revealing, and odious.
As a parting word, I would highly recommend reading RedDan’s diary.
I don’t think I’ve seen such a righteous beeatch-slappin’ in a long time!
Domo Arigato, RedDan San.
How is the war going?
Check out Iraq the Model. BTW note * in url and change to o
He gives a cross section of Iraqi opinion. They are so disgusted with the “insurgents” that some of them are saying the Israelis are not being hard enough on the Palestinians.
The war for public opinion is going so badly in Iraq that some Iraqis are supporting the Israelis – let alone the Americans.
Osama says Iraq is the key to the whole region:
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/07/iraq-is-key.html
And the Dems want to hand the keys to the head choppers or at best throw them up in the air followed by catch as catch can. I suppose either could be considered good strategy. After all the French have employed such manuvers often. From my understanding Americans are not keen on all things French this year.