According to pro-Iraq War “liberal” Marc Danzinger, not having Joe Lieberman in Washington to trash the Democratic party every five minutes in the press is somehow a bad thing and will hurt our electoral chances in 2006 and 2008.
Because those Democratic gains in 2000, 2002, and 2004 showed such powerful Joementum.
The LA Times had another article on Friday I think that was also along the same lines (I’d link but its member only and cant be bothered) that, basically, even if you think Leiberman is a bad democrat, a bad politician, or just a bad human being, that even in spite of all your disagreements with him (and neither article makes the attempt to argue that such criticisms are unwarranted) you should still vote for him anyway because he has tenure. Sort of the “dont change horses mid stream” thing there again, even if the horse is running backwards or something, I dunno, dont have the time to clever up the analogy right now. Just really dont like this whole “like him or not, vote for him or else” meme thats going around there. Wouldnt surprise me to find that Holy Joe hisself put it out there.
Two points:
1. One more time: the opposition to Lieberman does not stem purely, or possibly even primarily, because of his pro-war stance. This is how the media have chosen to frame it though. Glenn Greenwald has an absolutely outstanding post today which really coalesced the heart of the problem with Lieberman (and also why so many traditional conservatives like Pat Buchanan are now considered “traitors” to the Republicans and oppose Bush, and why so many other traditional liberals, like Ed Koch, support him). It’s the entire neoconservative agenda, of which Iraq is only a part. The political divide in this country is really no longer liberal vs. conservative, it’s neocon vs. everybody else. (Really, go read the post, it’s better than anything I can write.)
2. The dominant media narrative on Democrats is that they’re “indecisive”, they “can’t make up their minds on anything”. But, apparently, attempts by ordinary voters to address this question (by making sure that their representatives reflect what is now the opinion of the majority of the American people) represent an evil Stalinist purge. So straighten me out here, is heterodoxy a good or a bad thing? Apparently it’s good for Republicans (Tom Delay isn’t called “The Hammer” because of his loving embrace of dissenting Republican views), but bad for Democrats, unless Democrats try to get some too, which is even worse.
Uh, yea.
First of all, Greenwald writes a bunch about “neocons”, but never defines one, or demonstrates how any of these people fit his defination. It stretches the imagination to think that conservatives are just going to accept his completely unproven thesis.
I have yet to hear a cogent argument about why Joe is so reviled, except the war, oh, and ollie stating (again without example) how bad joe is for the democrats.
It cracks me up to see Ollie blame the entire weakness of the democrats in the early part of this millenia on Lieberman. Maybe the failure is with the poorly crafted platform….
Greenwald defines neocons as “authoritarian cultists”, who follow Bush through thick or thin and label all anyone who dissents a scintilla from the Bush line as “liberals”.
Of course, Greenwald had the brilliance to publish this theory right before the Dubai ports deal was announced. Before that, we had Harriet Myers. Since then, we’ve had the immigration debate. Thus displaying that Facts are Kryptonite to Greenwald.
As for Joementum, if you really think that purging the strongest pro-war voice from the party will help “grow the tent”, then there’s probably nothing really I can say. “Reality-based” indeed…
Oliver, Oliver, ya gotta read the posts before you comment on them.
I didn’t say that “not having Joe Lieberman in Washington” was a bad thing, I said that “having Joe Lieberman in Washington after having been kicked in the nuts by the netroots and the Democratic Party” was a bad thing.
It’s a subtle difference, but it matters.
Hugs to George and all the folks at M.M.
A.L.
Again, pedro does a commendable job of arguing his “If I cant see what I dont want to see and wont really look for, then it must not exist at all” logic. Well, as far as my personal problems with the man, the war doesnt even factor in that greatly considering how many others supported the action, based on the (largely misleading) intel given them. Rather, what causes me to hate the man with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns are a vireity of reasons. Including but not limited to: his poorly thought out crusade against video games because they make kids kill, the same way rock music and comic books do (a campaign I feel designed just to make him feel famous); his belief that there is no problem with a hospital emergency room deciding that a rape victim doesn’t get emergency contraception (not anything like abortion at this point, its soon enough to be prevention) if it makes them feel icky; his lack of political inquisitiveness about what is, in theory, his “opposition” and his unquestioning embrace of neo-con philosophy, coupled with the obvious comfort he feels when attacking other democrats (Lamont, Murtha come to mind); and recently, his shameless self-promotion, such as his firm belief that, even if his core constituency disagrees, he is still the best thing to happen to Connecticut in a century, and he’ll even run in his own party, one which, and I still dont believe this, he has named “Connecticut for Lieberman”. Thats not his campaign, thats his party. He will be the Connecticut for Lieberman party candidate. (The Connecticut for Lieberman party animal of course being a peacock so desperate for attention its glued neon feathers to its face)
The democrat opposition to lieberman is notsomething that the evil internets started, its something Joe himself started the moment he decided that his loyalty, over that to his party and his country, is to himself and his career, even (especially) if that means consistently attacking the party he supposedly represents.
I can’t be sure whether pedro and farris are being deliberately ignorant or just intellectually lazy.
From the article,
Additionally it calls for near total American unilateralism, a la the linked NY Sun Editorial lamenting the loss of the top neocons in the Admin., which complains that “we are working too closely with the United Nations, that we have caved into the ’softer line’ urged by the State Department, and that we have been too cowardly in confronting the evil nations of the world.”
Perhaps the best summation from the comments,
In short, America is and must remain the sole world superpower by any means necessary, and we need a unitary executive not beholden to little things like laws and checks and balances to do it.
And Farris, I’d really appreciate it if you’d address my second point – if it’s so bad that Democrats are unfocused and indecisive, why is it then also bad for Connecticut voters to try and bring about greater national party unity on the biggest issue of our times at the ballot box? (Plus, why exercising the right to vote is apparently such an evil for Connecticut citizens but is an imperative for the good folks in Iraq?)
That’s got to be the most flawed definition of “neocon” I’ve ever seen. By that definition, Barry Goldwater & Reagan would have been considered neo-cons. That’s like labeling Jefferson and FDR as “New Democrats”.
As to your second point, I’ll try to type slowly and use small words.
1. It’s so bad that Democrats are unfocused and indecisive…
It’s not that Dems are indecisive and unfocused (though they are), it’s that they have no agenda, at least not one they’re willing to own up to. Why are you running? If elected, what will you do? If you can’t tell people why you want to go to DC, they won’t vote for you. Because Dems are unable (or unwilling) to give voters a list of programs, they can’t tell us what they’ll “focus” on.
2. why is it then also bad for Connecticut voters to try and bring about greater national party unity
Because any hopes Dems have of a “big tent” will go down in flames. You can’t have a big tent if you don’t accept people who might disagree on an issue or two. And because it appears, at least to this outsider, that Dems are putting “unity” in front of “winning”.
PS. I think it’s funny that the “party of dissent” is trying to purge someone who dissents.
3. why exercising the right to vote is apparently such an evil for Connecticut citizens
You win Strawman of the Day!
I personally wouldn’t vote for Lieberman because he supports the war, but why in the hell would a sane person then vote for a fence straddler? For whatever faults he may have, at least Kerry has admitted that voting in favor of it was a mistake.
The point is the voters of Connecticut will decide who is their senator. From the recent polls, it’s likely that Lieberman will win whether he runs as a democrat or an independent. He says if he has to run as an independent and wins he will remain a democrat. This kind of stuff does more damage than good so why not give it up?
Speaking Truth To Power…
Armed Liberal tries to correct Oliver Willis, gets no comment love….
Lieberman is pro-war, but thats really not his biggest problem. There are other pro-war Dems who somehow don’t continually slag their own party in the press every chance they get. There’s also more conservative Dems than Lieberman who don’t piss on the DNC at the drop of a hat.
The tent is big enough for conservative, moderate and liberal Dems. Just not ones who are trying to bring the whole structure down.
The stupidity parade is on the march again.
except the war
Yeah, if only there was something more substantial.
blame the entire weakness of the democrats in the early part of this millenia on Lieberman
If repubs can blame everything on Clinton, OW gets to blame everything on Joe. Too bad OW never said that, though, ’cause I kinda like the rightwing cartoon villian dynamic.
As for the Dubai ports deal, that was political theater for Congressional repubs struggling under low Bush approval ratings in an election year. I seem to recall there still being some sort of transfer of ports after the initial political storm passed. It must be tough to juggle the illusion of being pro security even as you sell our most vulnerable access points to foreign interests (well, not white foreign interests, anyway), all the while stoking the flames of intolerance, particularly against brown folks.
Harriet Myers was thrashed, but I’m not sure of the actual reasons why. Sure she lacked a hard right paper trail to mollify the crazy fundies, but her nomination seemed so monumentally ill conceived that I have to wonder if it wasn’t part of a plan to knock the door down for Alito. Given the GOP predilection for leveraging the obstructionist label to intimidate the dems into rolling over on any number of issues, it isn’t much of a stretch to believe that they saw Harriet Myers as a sacrificial lamb to throw under the bus. Then, when Alito came along (a clear cut example of judicial Viagra to the cons), they played the “hey, we went out and got a qualified candidate this time and still you guys complain? Obstructionists!” card. And as we readily saw, it worked. The dems rolled right over on Alito despite his seriously troubling history. “What, you are staunchly pro-corporate, anti-abortion, anti-affirmative action, and favor an imperial presidency? Step right this way Mr. Ali…I mean Justice Alito.” In the public sphere, only religious fundies opposed Myers for her lack of a clear cut paper trail on key issues like abortion, which Alito cleary has. Yeah, so in the end, neo-cons got exactly what they wanted, and so did the religious nutters. Awesome example.
The immigration debate struggle, at least on the right, is between the more corporatist factions (which include neo-cons) and the radical right nutjobs (i.e. the fundie Baptists) who effectively hate all things not white and male. Bush wants the crazy racist vote because they helped him get “elected” but for a long time the GOP was trying to court the hispanic vote (often by playing the conservative christian game, which is ironic given who is leading the charge to oust illegal Mexicans). So, again, not a neo con revolt of any kind, but a problematic attempt to balance the corporatists with the extreme social conservatives.
1. What is Lieberman’s agenda? Why is he running? “Re-elect me so I can keep kissing up to W and bashing my fellow Democrats on Fox News”?
2. Again, since something like 60-70% of Americans want out of Iraq, I fail to see how trying to elect more people in line with this position will turn off more voters. Certainly not voters outside Connecticut (unless you believe that voters in New Jersey, or California, or wherever, will somehow think “Gee I’d like to vote Democrat but they’re so mean poor Joe Lieberman, I think I’ll vote Republican this time!”
3. It’s hardly a straw man when a great many pundits and certainly many on the right refer to the act of Connecticut voters voting against Lieberman as an ideological “purge”, and even “fascism”. Fascism?!?! By voting for another candidate in a Democratic party primary!! Somehow I do not think that word means what wingnuts (or Lieberman’s campaign manager) think it means.
Rheinhard says…
“why is it then also bad for Connecticut voters to try and bring about greater national party unity on the biggest issue of our times at the ballot box”
That wouldn’t be so bad, but this whole thing is being driven by Nutroots, and lots of folks outside of connecticut. The Party faithful are excorcising this particular heathen (and jewish) demon….I keep waiting for cartoons of Lieberman to show up with a hooked-nose and a yarmulke…..to paraphrase Ollie…”Give into the hate, lefties, give in..”
Lieberman’s base of fiscal support is also outside money.
If you were successful in defeating Lieberman, would you still support Hillary Clinton who will not endorse any plan for troop withdrawal? Since 70% of the population want to get the hell out of there, how could anyone consider her a mainstream candidate? Might as well go whole hog and support Russ Feingold.
Dr. P once again proves Rex Mundane correct. P refuses to read the articles, and then publishes laughable opinions right out of right-wingnuttia echo-chamber talking points.
1. As has been abundantly stated, we Democrats have not asked for nor do we need Rethuglycans’ help in our primaries! We do not have to excuse or explain anything we do to anyone, especially to right wingnuts. Really. We don’t need your help in teaching us how to “convince moderates” and “win votes”. Lol.
2. Joe Lieberman represents the DLC wing of the Democratic Party, the wing of corporatists, the wing that worships “electability” and “moderation” and gave us John Kerry as our 2004 candidate. DLC minions like Lanny Davis have been all over the media bashing Lamont; DLC heavyweights have been busy convincing people like Sen. Boxer tha Holy Joe deserves an incumbent’s God-given right to hold his seat.
3. But it ain’t a DLC world anymore, Thank G-d: If Kerry had depended on the DLC to manage and fund his 2004 campaign, he would never have gotten anywhere near GW Bush’s 300 mill in early 2004. It was only because of the Internet bats and drives that Joe Trippi and Howard Dean pioneered, because of activist small donors, that the Democratic Party ever caught up to Bush in August, and caused them in panic to throw everything behind the Swift Boat-Security-911 card that came up a winner for them again. But it was VERY close. And the DLC had nothing to do with it.
4. The DLC has largely become irrelevant to Dem politics today, an atavism, an appendix, a coccyx bone. The Body Politic Democrat runs on much higher octane, we have with the blogosphere begun to equal the flood of new ideas and energies that AEI and the rest of the Conservative media machine provided to fuel GOP dominance. It’s a new world, but Holy Joe has become a symbol of the old, the Democratic Party that lost decades of Elections.
5. After his tirade against his President Clinton in 1998, I would have personally torn off his Dem insignia and cast the smug, Bible-thumping bastard out into the wilderness he earned. I was outraged that Gore made the mistake of picking him for VP, only to watch Lieberman embarrass him by refusing to give up his Senate seat and cushion himself with a little insurance policy. I was outraged at his behavior during those crucial days in November 2000, when he acted the mealy-mouthed “statesman” instead of holding GOre’s coat while he fought. I have been continually outraged by his pro-Bush, pro-corporate, pro-GOP stance on Terri Schiavo, on the bankruptcy bill, on the Roberts confirmation, on so many important national politcal issues, most especially on continually providing cover for Bush on his abuses of power and on Iraq.
There’s a reason why scum like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Brit Hume, and Ann Coulter have publicly and athletically supported Holy Joe: He’s got no balls, and they like that.
Lieberman has made his choice, he’s picked his road. Let’s make him stay on it and finish his journey.
You have to remember Oliver, that Marc is the Armed Liberal, the only Liberal with cojones enough to stand up to Al Qaeda for us. Why Marc IS superman!
Actually Marc isn’t saying that if Lieberman loses we will be worse off. As usual for Danziger, his real point is even dumber than that.
He assumes Lieberman will win. He appears to assume that most of the time Lieberman will vote with the Dems but that he may not always vote with the Dems, as if that were any change from what is happening now.
No, Danzie, if Lieberman wins what Lieberman says will happen is that he will caucus and vote with the Dems. Remember he claims to be a “petitioning Democrat”.
If he wins what will happen is that Hannity, Rush, and Danziger will try to beat us over the head how we kicked ubermensch Lieberman out. BUT, Lieberman, having been kicked out of the Democratic Party, will no longer be able to claim he is a member of the Democratic Party whenever he bends over for a special Rove/Cheney message.
Remember, Danziger was wrong on the most obvious and basic question. Iraq. He still wants to claim he was right, or that he has any cred. Remember too, he picked his monicker, the armed liberal, to remind us all that we are all faggot pussies that would suck Osama’s cock compared to Marc.
Now after having been wrong time and time again, he wants to know where he can go. I suggest back to Roger’s bed, Roger’s site is looking a bit limp these days, perhaps Marc can fluff it up.
If you were successful in defeating Lieberman, would you still support Hillary Clinton who will not endorse any plan for troop withdrawal? Since 70% of the population want to get the hell out of there, how could anyone consider her a mainstream candidate? Might as well go whole hog and support Russ Feingold.
I don’t support Hillary now. Not only because of her pro-war stance, but also because of her anti-video game and general pro-censorship positions.
Yeah, and I’ll expect to see your letter to the Lieberman campaign demanding that he return all contributions from outside Connecticut shortly.
Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for the anti-Semitic meme to creep into this thread. This is an old canard, especially in conjunction with discussion of the ideology of neoconservatism. Used to be that the very existence of same was categorically denied, and anyone raising the question was blasted as an anti-Semite. Thanks for restoring my faith in the vileness of the Right, pedro. Now tell me again who’s “suppressing dissent” and trotting out “infallibility” (as Coulter calls it), when criticism of a sitting Senator and using the ballot box to oppose his views can casually be dismissed as anti-Semitism?
At least Oliver has the class not to call you a white supremacist for always coming out and trashing him while he happens to be black.
you aren’t using a ballot box. You are using propaganda tactics that are being spread on the internets. The driving force is a bunch of wanna-be pols who think they are kingmakers while sitting around in their pathetic 1 bedroom walk-up apartments
If this was a bunch of connecticut residence going door to door, I might have a different opinion of it, but it isn’t.
Either way, it’s fine with me. You guys continue to piss into the wind and comment on ‘that nice cooling mist” that is surrounding you. Spend the money, eat your own young. In the meantime, the grownups will continue to run the country, and may well GAIN seats as the apostate Democrats realize what a bunch of immature sissies their party has become.
Well, I think Pedro’s “I’m taking my ball and going home” pretty much kills this thread, but I think this just needs to be added as a postscript to further reinforce a good part of the reason that Democrats (including all those vicious out-of-state activists and donors of which Lieberman of course has none) oppose Holy Joe:
Registered Republicans are trying to switch party affiliation so they can vote for Joe in the Democratic primary. (fortunately they’re too late… heh)
Now let us pose the following Gendankenexperiemt… if the reverse were happening and, say, loads of Dems were trying to register as Repubs to support a screaming wingnut in a primary opposition to, say, McCain, what do you think the media response would be?
As long as in your experiment, it is
“Several registrars of voters in the New Haven area agreed, saying they are even getting some calls from Republicans asking if they can still change their registrations in time to vote in the Democratic primary.”
only “some” democrats (not “loads), who are actually too late to do anything.
I would expect the media response would be “yawn” a few people are trying to change affiliation….
Yea, the thread did get kinda slaughter didn’t it? Funny how the truth is so hard to argue with isn’t it?
Sure thing, Dr. P-into-the-wind.
It’s the “truth” that killed this thread, not laughable wingnut you.
Yea Cyb, I notice you didn’t argue my points either….
Either way, it s fine with me. You guys continue to piss into the wind and comment on that nice cooling mist that is surrounding you. Spend the money, eat your own young. In the meantime, the grownups will continue to run the country, and may well GAIN seats as the apostate Democrats realize what a bunch of immature sissies their party has become.
Translation: Democrats, like Republicans, should only judge politicians by the banner they carry, and not by their actual merits.
mrpedro, I understand that criticising a member of one’s own party is a strange concept that confuses and angers you, but just because someone plays for a team doesn’t mean they’re a team player. You’ll understand when you get older.
yea, cause republicans never criticize each other *cough, immigration reform,cough*…..
The difference zython is we keep our eye on the ball, and are less concerned with party purification. We understand the need to compromise if you are going to have a big tent.
You say that like I actually believe the “big tent” policy is a good idea. At least not to the level the Dems are taking it.