|
Joe Liberman (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| emc^2 |
| I detest him. He reminds me of Smeegol for some reason. Only fatter Smeegol. :mad: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
I detest him. He reminds me of Smeegol for some reason. Only fatter Smeegol. :mad: |
you mean Gollum?
 |
|
|
| Q5echo |
OH WAIT!
 |
|
|
| Q5echo |
no.
 |
|
|
| Shakka |
I'm sure Opus will enjoy this article.
| quote: | The mainstreaming of Taliban Democrats?
By Cal Thomas
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The narrow primary defeat of veteran senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing.
They used to be "San Francisco Democrats," a phrase coined by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick to describe the party's 1984 convention. But they have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe.
Lieberman's one "sin," in the eyes of the Taliban Democrats, was that he supported the effort to defeat the insurgent-terrorists in Iraq. As a Jew, Lieberman is particularly sensitive to those who have targeted the Jewish people for extinction. But even if he weren't Jewish, he would still "get it," because he understands what's at stake in the region and has correctly concluded that the consequences of American failure in Iraq would be catastrophic.
His detractors, who brought him down in the primary with a one-issue, inexperienced and unqualified candidate, Ned Lamont, hate President Bush so much that their judgment has been distorted. Former Bill Clinton aide Lanny Davis, in a recent column for The Wall Street Journal titled "Liberal McCarthyism," printed a sample of the incendiary rhetoric directed toward Lieberman. There is thinly-veiled anti-Semitism ("As everybody knows, Jews ONLY care about the welfare of other Jews…" posted on Daily Kos); irrationality ("Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot." Daily Kos) and personal attack ("Lieberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover." Posted on the Huffington Post blog).
It didn't matter that Lieberman, whose wife's name, by the way, is Hadassah, ran as the vice presidential candidate with Al Gore in 2000, or that he has voted against most of President Bush's domestic agenda. The Taliban wing of the Democratic Party cannot countenance any "heretics" who do not toe their line.
Though Lieberman says he will run as an independent, the damage has been done. It will be difficult for any Democrat to seek consensus with any Republican without being targeted as an infidel worthy of electoral death. Our already-poisoned political dialogue has not only been made more toxic, but contagious. Taliban Democrats have effectively issued a political "fatwah" that warns all Democrats not to deviate from their narrow line, or else face the end of their careers through a political jihad. Perhaps the few remaining rational Democrats should put on their burkas now and submit to the will of the party mullahs.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
What is wrong with Democrats? Can't they see that when the face of their party belongs to ultra-leftists like George McGovern, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, they lose? For those who still believe not only in a strong two-party system, but also in compromise and conciliation in order to promote the general welfare and seek the common good, the Lieberman defeat strikes an especially harmful blow.
At the height of social conservative power in the Republican Party, pro-choicers and pro gay rights officials like Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger were featured speakers at GOP conventions. Republican officials described their party as a "big tent" with room for everybody.
Lieberman's loss reduces the size of the Democrats' tent to that of a pup tent. The message it sends is that only those who conform to the left-wing fundamentalist worldview will be allowed in. Is that a message Democrats want to take into future campaigns? Do they wish to pervert John F. Kennedy's vision and instead say that the United States will pay no price, bear no burden and go nowhere in the defense of liberty?
If that is the message the Taliban Democrats want to send to the nation, they have all but guaranteed a Republican presidential victory in 2008 and GOP losses, if any, might not be as bad as predicted this November. Karl Rove could not have devised a more brilliant plan. But Joe Lieberman deserves better.
|
|
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
never before have i seen the word taliban used so much with nary a mention of afghanistan.
oh, and cal thomas is an idiot. perhaps he should become aquainted with the party primary process. the only democrats whining are the democrats cut from the same cloth, those that betray principle for electability. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
the only democrats whining are the democrats cut from the same cloth, those that betray principle for electability. |
I'd hardly say he "betrayed principle for electability," when that is exactly the opposite of what just happened. Ironic that sticking to his principles ultimately got him abandoned by his party and cost him an election. You may not like him for his positions or his apparent "softer" demeanor, but I think your statement is inaccurate.
Great insight from Kos and Huffington as well. Real classy. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'd hardly say he "betrayed principle for electability," when that is exactly the opposite of what just happened. Ironic that sticking to his principles ultimately got him abandoned by his party and cost him an election. You may not like him for his positions or his apparent "softer" demeanor, but I think your statement is inaccurate. |
I agree, and I think we should better examine exactly what principles Joe was sticking to. For example, he was a leading advocate for the Iraq war, and I had statements from him earlier that aptly demonstrated his sentiment that arguing about the war or disagreeing with Bush about his decision to go to war not only undermines his authority but hurts our nation ("nation's peril"). Or quotes like this:
| quote: | | "questioning how we got into the last war against Saddam ... is not acceptable anymore." |
Now, we can talk of principles all we wish, but it is these very principles that the Connecticut Democrats as well as the majority of American citizens disagree with completely. It was these principles that the voters of CT voted on and voted Joe out.
It's called a primary.
It's also called a ing democracy.
Are these really strange concepts to the most vitriolic Wingnut mouthpieces that they cannot understand these most basic principles? Joe sided with Bush's asinine, ill-conceived, and counterproductive Neoconservative foreign policies. You know, the ones in which we were supposed to bring peace in the Middle East through invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist group that attacked us. Or furthermore, taking our eye off that very group and leader of that group that attacked us to invade a country that had no operational connections to that terrorist group that attacked us.
Why is Cal so vehement in faulting the process of democracy and a primary to vote out a person that has sided with such a highly counterproductive and ill-conceived foreign policy?
I realize that Joe is one of Cal's favorite neocons. Hell, he really is most if not all the Winger mouthpieces favorite neocons. They ing gush over the guy at every chance (which I mentioned previously). Are we really supposed to be surprised to see Cal and his nutbag minions defended him and simultaneously bash the Democrats who just so happen to have the American public on their side with this Iraq issue?
I mean take a look at this statement from our dear Cal:
| quote: | | "Taliban Democrats because they are willing to 'kill' one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe." |
Now please no one don't tell Cal this, but like I said there's a reason why voters voted him out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/w...serland&emc=rss
Having "intense objections" to the Iraqi War as well as "a view of Senator Lieberman as 'too close' to President Bush account[ed] for Mr. Lamont's victory".
So shall we assume that the majority of the American public are Taliban-like advocates for objecting with the same feelings on the matter?:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf...oll.pdf#page=32
One can only conclude that by using such logic the majority of Americans are also terrorists along with the "radical" Democratic party.
Really, does this kind of vitriolic bull really need commentary at all? Does one really need to point out such irony of calling an American political party a "Taliban" in such a hate-filled manner?
Who's really demonstrating Taliban-like behavior here, the American people AND the Democratic party who exercised their Constitutional rights in a Primary, or the vitriolic GOP mouthpieces that are frothing about their favorite neocon going down in serious ing flames? And you guys have been frothing pretty damn badly as of late. I've never seen so many GOP Wingers show so much concern for a Democratic primary before - Christ you had your hacks like Tony Snow and even Cheney for 's sake say something about a primary that wasn't even involving their own party! And the full-on smear has hit the airwaves hard too, no accident of course. Let's talk about politization of this war on terror:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlate...6009373,00.html
Let's talk about unhinged:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/10/delay-liberals/
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/10/cheney-ct/
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/09/snow-lamont/
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/10/oreilly-lieberman/
And then when we've all had a good laugh on the matter, let's try and get serious for a moment and examine just how serious our fringe ideologue Administration is truly about this War on Terra:
| quote: | WASHINGTON -- While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology. [...]
Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.
The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.
The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/natio..._Detection.html |
That's six ing million dollars there, folks. Let's compare that to the diversion we call the Iraqi Debacle which is upwards of $300 billion. Or we can talk about Bush's tax cuts which have cost our gov't hundreds of billions as well.
You see, pointing out these obvious discrepancies and ironies of this Administration between its rhetoric and reality is quite easy, and there's many more. It also silences the crowd rather quickly too.
How seriously are we really here about the War on Terra when Bush cuts funds for simple projects like these? And we haven't even touched all the other things with the ports and airports, let alone the $ being diverted away from cities like New York to places like Smallville, Indiana from our Homeland Security bull.
What is being seen is something that's a bit peculiar to many folks out there, and it's what's really got the GOP's panties in a bunch:
Jesus, I think the Dems. are finally becoming united on some issues.
I'll admit, it's surprising the crap out of me, but it is happening, albeit slowly but surely:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1155
By God they're almost starting to look like the Republicans - having both a message and party unity. It is a scary moment, to be certain.
But it is happening, and it's not what Rove and the rest of the Wingnutters have ever wanted.
Finally, back to Cal, I'll just let a radical-left wing fringe blogger get the last word on the matter:
| quote: | Let me be clear here: I don't particularly give two bits about Cal Thomas. He was a -for-brains hack the day he first put pen to paper, and got worse from there.
But if we're asking where the lines of responsible discourse are, in this country, I think it's quite reasonable to say that using columns in the national press to declare an opposing political party representing over half of America to now be a terrorist organization is a bit f-cking over that line. Maybe, you think? A wee bit?
To the editors that read, accept, and publish this crap: you are responsible for it. You need to decide whether you support this speech or not. And I think it's long past time we start identifying the newspapers that think comparing a political party directly to a terrorist movement using an entire column of hate speech is acceptable practices for their editorial contributors. Ann Coulter has gotten fired for a heck of a lot less.
Papers that publish Thomas need to ask themselves -- right now -- if they stand by Thomas' virulent speech or not. We're long done with taking silence as an answer from the purveyors of mainstreamed hatemongering who innocently twiddle their thumbs as some of the most loathsome crap imaginable gets horked out on a regular basis.
If your local paper publishes Cal Thomas' syndicated column, contact the editors and ask them whether they support Cal Thomas' remarks, and whether or not they feel it is speech that should be given play in their newspaper. I'll be more than happy to publish the responses of individual editors, so make sure you let them know that their words will be made very, very public.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/11/185344/622 |
And before you cry "foul" over this thought, please remind us all how you and your wingers feel about the NYTimes, as well as the Wingnut activism against it for things as simple as publishing Rummy's summer home WITH HIS OWN PERMISSION. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Hey Opus. Let's back up just a minute. I'm going to try to be fairly objective and admittedly broad based with this comment. You started to lose me with that last post towards the end. ;)
From a big picture point of view, my view is that Joe Lieberman is arguably much more of a centrist(hell, I really don't think this is debatable). He appeals to some core beliefs of both parties and he is probably well liked and well regarded among moderate fence-sitters. Personality wise, he is certainly much more of a teddy bear (part of the reason I get the feeling he's not cut out for the job--he doesn't seem to have the decisiveness and command for the post, though maybe that comes later). Anyway, in theory you have a guy who can appeal to both sides and who very well could represent a bridge that is so badly needed at a time when our country is so divided on so many issues. Maybe we could use a guy to blur the lines a little bit and bring an element of sanity back into our political realm. Then again, maybe that's absurdly wishful thinking. But in any event, I think we both agree that Hillary Clinton certainly isn't the person that we'd like to see in that position.
But then you have a guy like Lamont, who is a political neophyte and more than anything seems to embody the further left anti-war, anti-Bush viewpoint (with no real record to judge him on). Maybe he'll do great, maybe he won't. I don't think he'll be a real force for some time given that he's a gumshoe.
But back to Lieberman--by accepting Lamont and rejecting Lieberman, voters have clearly made their choice, as is their right to do. However, they have effectively embraced continued partisanship over a potentially bipartisan candidate. This is one reason it will be critical for Lieberman or some other mutually acceptable moderate (republican, democrat or something else) to run for office in '08 to calm the political tensions in this country. Do you see where I'm going with this? Without getting into the "he said, she said" blogospheres of political hatred. I mean in the end, Lieberman will was a VP candidate in '00 and a Presidential candidate in '04. These days he probably doesn't even get invited to dinners anymore.
Anyway, you certainly haven't heard the last from Lieberman. It will be interesting to see what happens to him. Will the party kick him out like Zell Miller? Will some quietly endorse him? Will he ultimately stick with the Independent label? Who knows. Only time will tell. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I'll answer your post in more detail, Shakka, but I first want to post some more links to some of Joe's problems and rationale as to why he does not represent the Democrats well at all (and we he is no longer on the Dem. ticket):
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/4/222041/6912
Keep in mind that those reasons listed above are not in relation to his Iraqi commentary (at least not directly related).
Here's another:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cliff...an_b_26708.html
What is really interesting about this vote is that so many people center it around Iraq and Iraq only. To be sure, it definitely played a major role, if not THE role in his ouster. But I pointed these other points out to demonstrate that there was more than Iraq at play here - voters have been dissatisfied with Joe from a time that has preceeded Iraq.
What occurred, however was that Lamont had supporters and advisors that were not only top notch, but knew how to capitalize on Joe's weaknesses such as these and Iraq. But the other part that was missing was this: Joe didn't have these kind of advisors and analysts. Rather - Joe listened to the same dip Beltway consultants that have continually handed our Party loss after loss after loss over the past 12 years (spare Clinton's re-election). He has nothing but himself to blame for their idiocy.
Okay, I'll talk more about "centrism" in the next post. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
In my observation, Joe Lieberman is exactly what anyone who calls themselves a libertarian hates in a politician. Many people who consider themselves libertarian hate what the Republican party is doing lately, as they aren't following the policies where libertarians agree with the GOP.
I want the government out of my life in most areas. I want to watch porn, listen to offensive music, watch violent movies, shoot guns, etc. and at the same time, feel free to use drugs (while not shooting guns), not be at war, not have myself tracked like I'm a character in 1984, and not feel like religion is controlling the world around me. That's why Joe Lieberman represents most things that I hate, even if you think he's a centrist because he agrees with both Republicans and Democrats. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Okay, on to the details:
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
From a big picture point of view, my view is that Joe Lieberman is arguably much more of a centrist(hell, I really don't think this is debatable). He appeals to some core beliefs of both parties and he is probably well liked and well regarded among moderate fence-sitters.
.....Anyway, in theory you have a guy who can appeal to both sides and who very well could represent a bridge that is so badly needed at a time when our country is so divided on so many issues. Maybe we could use a guy to blur the lines a little bit and bring an element of sanity back into our political realm. Then again, maybe that's absurdly wishful thinking.
|
And this is where I think a debate is needed. How shall we define a "centrist" in today's political arena with Bush and the GOP controlling all 3 branches, 2 of those branches rather decisively? We can discuss someone who attempts to reach across the aisle and seek compromises as a centrist, and if put into that light I might categorize Joe as partially in that category. And perhaps if we were living in a time where all 3 branches weren't controlled by one party such a context of a centrist as a compromiser might not be such a point of contention.
But let's be clear here about the times we are living in under Bush's Administration and this GOP in control. I cannot fathom how anyone, let alone any Bush supporter could disagree with the fact that today's partisan times were created by anyone other than yourselves. It has been YOU guys who are in control who've controlled the agenda from the getgo. Democrats have had NO say in hardly any matter outside of say, Social Security, which strangely they came together united along with some moderate Republicans who saw their constituency under question back home. YOU GOPers have controlled EVERYTHING that has come out of Washington, ranging from K-Street to ALL bills coming onto the Congressional floor. YOU guys have driven out all dissent in Committee meetings, some of which you've deliberately left out Democratic Legislatures completely. It is the control that any party could have possibly wanted and more, much of it the doings of Delay, Cheney, Frist (somewhat), and their political consultants/attorneys/advisors.
And this was the context that has controlled the Bush agenda from the getgo - my way or the highway. Whether you agree with the agenda or not is not the issue here, it's how it was controlled and conducted that I am discussing. So with this kind of background, we need to examine exactly how a "centrist" fits into such a context. How does one reach across the aisle and try to shake hands and compromise with a party that controls all agendas, quells down consent not just from the opposing party but from its own party (Delay was the master at this), and refuses to compromise at every step unless you essentially agree with their agenda at all stops?
You don't. There is no compromise. There never was a compromise. With Far Right folks controlling the agenda rather than centrist Republicans having a voice, what kind of compromise are we really talking about here? And keep in mind, this isn't a point of view that's merely a Democratic one. I've read and discussed this issue with the most diehard Republicans, and they not only agree with this "no compromise" agenda of theirs - they are damn proud of it. How else could they get anything accomplished, according to them?
Enter Joe Lieberman.
Our "centrist" compromiser. Put into the context described above, how does one become a "compromiser" in these partisan times? How does one "reach across the aisle"? There's only one way to do it - agree with the other side's issues and step away from your party who's views are different from your own. That's simply not a centrist - that's a Republican-lite. Why do you think his nickname is "Bush-lite"? A compromise entails that you come together on issues that are not only in the interest of the party you represent but the party you oppose. You give a little, you take a little. Joe has not met that criterion very well at all in these times. He gives all and takes hardly anything for his party whatsoever.
That's not a "centrist" compromising Democrat, Shakka - that's a Bush-supporting Republican.
And Lamont capitalized on that very, very well.
Furthermore, I posted a link to this piece by a blogger named Glenn Greenwald in another thread you created. I think it puts into context very well the modern times of neoconservatism and how their philosophy has successfully driven political partisanship on both sides of the aisle. Here's an excerpt, though the entire post is worth reading:
| quote: | Neoconservativsm is rarely defined but its central tenets are, by now, quite clear. At its core, neoconservatism maintains that the greatest threat to America is hostile Muslims in the Middle East, and the only real solution to that problem is increased militarism and belligerence, usually with war as the necessary course of action. Our mistake has been excessive restraint, a lack of courage, and a naive and cowardly belief that measures short of war and all-out aggression are effective in dealing with this problem. This threat is not just uniquely dangerous, but unprecedentedly so, such that Islamic extremists render prior American ideals and principles -- both foreign and domestic -- obsolete, and only radically more militaristic approaches have any chance of saving us from destruction at their hands.
This is the neoconservative mentality -- the bloodthirsty, militaristic, largely authoritarian world-view -- which has been driving not only our foreign policy since the September 11 attacks, but also the bulk of our most controversial domestic policies undertaken in the name of fighting terrorists. Over the last five years, neoconservatism has been the central force of American political life, and it has resulted in a fundamental ideological realignment. Far more important than one's views on traditional matters of political controversy is the extent to which one supports or opposes neoconservative theories.
Throughout the 1990s, one's political orientation was determined by a finite set of primarily domestic issues -- social spending, affirmative action, government regulation, gun control, welfare reform, abortion, gay rights. One's position on those issues determined whether one was conservative, liberal, moderate, etc. But those issues have become entirely secondary, at most, in our political debates. They are barely discussed any longer. Instead, what has dominated our political conflicts over the last five years are terrorism-related issues -- Iraq, U.S. treatment of detainees, domestic surveillance, attacks on press freedoms, executive power abuses, Iran, the equating of dissent with treason.
It is one's positions on those issues -- and, more specifically, whether one agrees with the neoconservative approach which has dominated the Bush administration's approach to those issues -- which now determines one's political orientation. That is why so many traditional conservatives who reject neoconservatism-- the Pat Buchanans and Bob Barrs and George Wills and a long roster of military generals -- have broken with the Bush administration. And it is also why so many so-called traditional liberals -- the Ed Kochs, The New Republic, and Joe Lieberman -- have become some of the administration's most vocal supporters and reliable allies. Individuals who have traditionally conservative views on those 1990s issues are considered "liberals" by virtue of their opposition to the administration's neoconservative agenda.
More than anything else, this ideological realignment is what accounts for the intense passions ignited by the Joe Lieberman Senate seat. Despite his history as a life-long Democrat and a "liberal"on the predominant 1990s issues, Joe Lieberman is a pure neoconservative, which now matters much more. On the predominant issues of the day, his political comrades are Bill Kristol, Lawrence Kaplan, National Review, The New York Sun, and Dick Cheney.
Those who are most supportive of Lieberman and angry about the challenge he faces are people like David Frum and David Brooks. Why would hard-core Republican neoconservatives be so emotionally attached to defending Democrat Joe Lieberman? Why do pro-Bush, highly conservative Republicans such as blogger Mark Coffey proclaim themselves to be "huge fans" of Lieberman? Because far more than he is a Democrat or a "liberal," Joe Lieberman is a neoconservative and therefore -- on the issues that matter most -- is their ideological and political compatriot. In the 1990s, Joe Lieberman's positions on the dominant issues of the day may have rendered him "moderate to conservative," but on the issues that matter most now -- in light of the ideological realignment we have had in the wake of 9/11 -- he is nothing of the sort. He is a neoconservative, and therefore the political enemy of those who oppose that philosophy. Why would opponents of neoconservatism possibly support the re-election of a neconservative?
Much of the criticism directed at the challenge to Joe Lieberman is based on the premise that dissatisfaction with Lieberman is driven merely by one little issue - Iraq. But that argument is at once both factually false and absurd. Lieberman is supportive of the neonconservative agenda almost across the board. And this ideological conflict, far from being one little issue, is really the issue, and Joe Lieberman is on the other side, politically and ideologically, from those who are opposing his re-election. He has even adopted the neoconservative rhetoric of equating criticisms of George Bush with undermining American interests and national security. What could be more legitimate than urging the defeat of an elected official who has enthusiastically embraced and promoted a disastrous and destructive philosophical approach to the most significant foreign and domestic issues our country faces?
Whether the U.S. will continue to follow the increasingly militaristic and authoritarian approach advocated by neoconservates is the predominant political question we face. More than anything else, one's views on that question are the primary determinant of one's political orientation. And anything which fuels a political resolution to that fundamental ideological conflict, such as the Lieberman challenge is doing, is something which ought to be encouraged by anyone who believes in democratic debate.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/...sm-and-joe.html |
I find myself in full agreeance with him here. Iraq has done very well in shifting the party spectrum on who is an "extremist" or who is a "centrist".
| quote: | | But in any event, I think we both agree that Hillary Clinton certainly isn't the person that we'd like to see in that position. |
That goes without saying.
| quote: | | But then you have a guy like Lamont, who is a political neophyte and more than anything seems to embody the further left anti-war, anti-Bush viewpoint (with no real record to judge him on). Maybe he'll do great, maybe he won't. I don't think he'll be a real force for some time given that he's a gumshoe. |
Most rookie Senators aren't. But again, let's keep in mind the language you are using here - sure he may be embodying the left, anti-war, anti-Bush viewpoint, but he's also embodying the majority of American sentiment. The majority of Americans want our asses out of Iraq or at least redeployment, the majority of Americans believe Iraq was a mistake, the majority of Americans support justified wars (Afghanistan), not unjustified ones (Iraq), and the majority of Americans disapprove of Bush and have disapproved of him for some time now (all polls indicate this rather strongly).
So again, Lamont may represent the Left pretty well (*gasp* - an actual Democrat being a Democrat!), but he's also a good representation of the American sentiment as well. To that I continue to hear no argument from at all.
| quote: | | But back to Lieberman--by accepting Lamont and rejecting Lieberman, voters have clearly made their choice, as is their right to do. However, they have effectively embraced continued partisanship over a potentially bipartisan candidate. |
As I've mentioned previously, the partisanship was successfully created long ago by you guys, which we could actually go back to the
'94 takeover. The history of course has demonstrated partisanship by the Dems. in the Legislature prior to that time, which could be argued was why the Republicans took over and created their own partisan agenda. It wasn't until they got one of their own in the White House did the true partisanship come to fruition. I'm not necessarily blaming you guys for it, though. It would have happened if Dems. had control of both the Executive and Legislature. I'm just pointing out that it is what it is.
So are the Dems. finally coming to terms with these partisan times? Why shouldn't they? They needed to understand that they are the party of the minority, the party of dissent in the EXACT same terms and manner the Republicans once were prior to '94 and how it led to their victorious takeover in '94 and 2000. Again I cannot fault them for that, nor would Republicans if they were in the same position. Lamont is merely a symptom of the times.
And again, let's also keep in mind that Lamont represents the majority sentiment of Americans as well.
| quote: | | This is one reason it will be critical for Lieberman or some other mutually acceptable moderate (republican, democrat or something else) to run for office in '08 to calm the political tensions in this country. Do you see where I'm going with this? Without getting into the "he said, she said" blogospheres of political hatred. I mean in the end, Lieberman will was a VP candidate in '00 and a Presidential candidate in '04. These days he probably doesn't even get invited to dinners anymore. |
I see where you're going and I couldn't agree more. My preferred government is when one party controls the Executive while the other controls the Legislative, or at the very least one party has control of either the House or Senate. That is a true situation of "compromise" where both sides are forced to sit down and make sacrifices. And if things don't get passed out because the sides are being too partisan, so be it. That has always been my preference, and I have mentioned this numerous of times here.
| quote: | | Anyway, you certainly haven't heard the last from Lieberman. It will be interesting to see what happens to him. Will the party kick him out like Zell Miller? Will some quietly endorse him? Will he ultimately stick with the Independent label? Who knows. Only time will tell. |
Ah , speaking of Zell that reminds me of one other potent criticism of Lieberman that I left out. There are a number of Dems. who have different stances on certain issues - I mentioned abortion previously (Reid vs. Hillary, for example). Disagreeance in the party should not necessarily be frowned upon, because by and large the vast majority of issues you will agree upon, otherwise you wouldn't be in the same party together.
There are a number of Democrats that disagree with each other and tend to agree with Republicans on various issues, thus marking them as "centrists". Ken Salazaar (CO), Nelson (NE), and Nelson (FL) are 3 that comes to mind. But what separated these guys from Lieberman is not the fact that they disagreed with their party on certain issues, but that Lieberman would take it a step further and openly bash his party and party members on the issues he would disagree with such as the Iraq War. Salazaar and the Nelsons would NEVER do this, nor would you find too many Republicans doing such actions against their party or party members on things they disagree with. Lieberman would do it and seemingly do so with ing glee on the Hannity show and what not, and you would then hear his quotes bashing his fellow Dems. on every Conservative radio/TV show around as well as in the conservative op-eds. This is why your Conservative mouthpieces looooved the guy - not just because of his neoconservative views but because he gave them exactly the quotes they needed for their shows. He did their dirty work for them.
That's what really pissed off the librul blogosphere as well as the majority of Democratic supporters all around. That was simply unacceptable to give more voice to these ing blowhards, ESPECIALLY coming from the supposed party that they so much despise. It made no sense. The Democrats had had enough, the Connecticut Dems. had had enough and were tired of a man who held so much contempt for his party and had so much disconnect with his own voters. So they did what they had to do. |
|
|
|
|
