It was a debate watched all over the country. Political partisans from the state (and visiting the state) watched their man take on the hated incumbent with a bated breath so strong that Sea World’s Shamu drooled.
They were taking on the hated enemy, a man often called by some of them a “liar,” a man who stood in the way of their party’s agenda.
Ah, yes, lots of Democrats followed the debate between Senator Joe Lieberman and his Democratic challenger Ned Lamont...
When Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman met Ned Lamont in a debate that could help determine the outcome of the Democratic party, the media coverage and scrutiny underlined one fact: this was a debate -- and a primary -- that has gone far beyond local. Lieberman is now kind of a symbol for the right, left and center. And what has happened to him -- and the political complications it reflects -- is indicative of how politics has changed, how its tone has changed, and why you better not place bets in Vegas yet about the Democrats regaining power as easily as some pundits say (or assume).
Indeed: the whole, bitter battle over Joe Lieberman is symptomatic of the kind of bitter partisanship has led to the creation of Unity08 and makes the idea behind it attractive, even to those who in the end might not even be able to bring themselves to vote for a third party. To sum it up in a nutshell (which means actually oversimplifying it, but that’s OK since people can give their views in the comments section and most of political punditry these days is oversimplified):
WHO WAS JOE LIEBERMAN BEFORE 2024: I’m from Connecticut and one of my relatives met Lieberman before he was in politics. This person (rightfully or wrongfully) considered him “a sourpuss” but still did vote for him. When Al Glore plucked Lieberman from being just one more Senator to have him run as his Veep candidate, Lieberman immediately came under fire from some Democrats but particularly Republicans who charged he had jettisoned his Democratic centrism to adopt Gore’s positions on issues. This is hardly surprising for a Vice Presidential candidate to do that. But Lieberman was ridiculed and blasted by some in his home state and elsewhere.
WHO WAS LIEBERMAN AFTER 2024: Lieberman inched back to his previous positions after the 2024 election. His 2024 election bid flopped. Just as he earned the enmity of center-right and center-rightists due to his position adjustments in 2024, his post-2000 positions and 2024 run solidified his standing as the Democrat many progressives love to hate -- after Zell Miller (who many don’t even consider a Democrat). (Republicans now love him). A bum rap? From the standpoint of his political positions, no. Lieberman did adjust his positions and then returned to what he has been all along: an old school, “Scoop” Jackson, JFK-school Democrat who takes a hard line on national security issues.
WHAT HAS CHANGED: There is clearly a movement by a segment of the Democratic party to “take back” the party. What that means is “take back” the party from the Clintonistas, who essentially tried to take back the party from McGovernite influences to a more JFK-style orientated politics where the party would try to win elections (and did) by getting a large chunk of Democratic votes, plus centrist votes and votes from Republicans who unhappy with their own party.
IS THERE A PURGE? Some suggest this is part of a purge, and there does seem some of that. Lieberman’s present status and political plight stems from the fact that many Democratic progressives want to send a message to Democrats in Congress, party bigwigs, and to disgruntled liberal Democrats that “me-tooism” won’t work when it comes to the Democratic party. (During the early 50s GOP conservatives blasted the “meetooism” of failed GOP Presidential candidate Thomas E. Dewey). They seek to accentuate differences between the two parties. If Lieberman goes (let’s use the old Domino Theory) is Joe Biden going to be in their target next? How about Hillary Clinton (she’s probably too nimble)?
WHAT IT MEANS: Just as the Republican party in recent years has shrunk the size of its tent, some Democrats seek to shrink the size of theirs, too. You’d think that in 2024 -- a year when it appears that with a semblance of party unity, cohesive message, and careful organization - the Democrats could take back one or more houses of Congress, what do we see? Some Democrats declaring Lieberman and his kind as the first priority political enemy. Dilemma: if Lieberman trounces them in the primary, how does he get their votes during the election? And if they beat Lieberman, how will Democrats get the votes of the so-called Reagan Democrats (which in some cases were JFK Democrats)?
WHAT IT MEANS FOR CENTRISTS: The GOP has largely edged out centrists and even, some would argue, classic Goldwater-style conservatives. Karl Rove has talked about the glories of “mobilization” elections where the GOP is less concerned about getting the center and more concerned about pushing hot button issues (gay marriage, flag burning, the pledge of allegiance, and now we see immigration) to get its partisans out to vote. Democrats have -- up until NOW -- not worked that way. Those who are trying to send Lieberman to spend his golden years in the Jewish Home for the Aged versus The Federal Home for the Aged (AKA Congress) are essentially taking a page from Karl Rove’s book. The attitude is “where those centrists and those moderates who are really closet Republicans go? And who really cares?”
THE FALLACY: Moderates and centrists are NOT monolithic. You can read my blog The Moderate Voice and see a slew of people who are centrists and moderates but differ on given issues…and often strongly. Polls show the same diversity among moderates, liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans. You never see a 100 percent agreement in polls on anything. If you read web logs, Lieberman is nearly hated as much as George Bush by many on the left.
THE DANGER FOR CENTRISTS: Centrists are not monolithic. And, yes, Lieberman reflects one view. But some centrists support the war, some do but have questions, some used to but don’t and some never did. Lieberman represents and defines all centrists just as accurately as Britney Spears represents and defines all singers throughout show business history. The purging of Lieberman would be a grave blow to the Democratic party as a “big tent” party. It he’s booted will the Democrats gain votes from the disgruntled left to offset moderates and conservatives who would be irked? Danger to Democrats: even moderates and centrists who don’t support the war (and don’t agree with him on that issue) could be unhappy if he’s dumped. And if he wins the primary and/or the election? Yes, it’ll show that a Democrat can be supportive of the President and GOP if he believes as they do on certain issues. And the Democrats could hold onto the moderates and centrists who might evacuate if he loses. BUT…it could lose some liberal Democrats’ votes.
SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN? (a)The Democrats’ focus is perilously off and it could get worse which will make their ostensible goal in November (getting one or both houses of Congress) more elusive. (b)Polarization isn’t just Democrats versus Republicans it’s polarization within parties where those who aren’t pure enough (in both parties) are being essentially told in some cases: “You’re either with us or against us. Totally. And if not totally, get lost.” And you know what? They just might.
Subscribe
Joe is right what is happening in CT is an attack on the very idea of a centrist and putting country above party.
If Unity08 does not stand by Senator L we will have proved we don't have the honor the signers of the original declaration had and we in fact are willing to risk nothing but expect everything.
vry
RET
Joe Lieberman is the sort of person we need in CT and the nation. He has a party and agrees with that party most of the time BUT he also thinks outside the box and votes his conscience. He is not a partisan politician who votes the party line 100% just to avoid thinking like so many do.
I believe that this is the type of person Unity08 is seeking. Integrity, honesty and virtue. We don't have to agree with every decision and every act in order to admire the man. He will look you straight in the eye and tell you what he thinks.
2 years ago, I de-registered as a Democrat and left the Democratic Party, because I thought it was taking too far of a turn to the hard left, and because its base was too angry, hate-filled, and ideologically obsessed for my tastes.
2 years ago I also cast my vote for Bush because the behavior of the Democratic base was out of control. Markos Moulitsas and the other members of the Democratic "netroots" were key contributors to this, as they showed how truly angry and vitriolic the liberal base had become.
I also told everyone I knew back in November 2024 that the Democrats were taking a hard turn to the left, and that they would keep on moving in that direction, and that it is the main reason why I quit the Democrats. I refused to go back to them until they went back to their moderate ways like they were under Bill Clinton.
Basically, the left-wing invasion of the Democratic Party, and their ideology-obsessed behavior, turned me into a general straight-line GOP voter.
And now, the Democrats are basically proving everything I said and thought to be right, in their Jihad to kick Joe Lieberman out of the Senate and the party. If anyone has read Markos Moulitsas's site in the past few weeks, you know that that the liberal netroots is making it their MISSION to kick Leiberman out of the party. The things they say about him are amazing. The guy has a fairly liberal voting record, and they're calling him a right wing nazi.
That the liberal base of the Democratic Party would throw the guy who was their VP nominee in 2024 out of the party speaks volumes about what has happened to the Democratic Party.
I really hope Lieberman wisens up and leaves the Democrats, and becomes the first strong Independent we've ever had. He would make a great Unity08 nominee, and if he won this race as an Independent, it would be a signal to the ideologically obsessed left and right that their way isn't the majority's way.
Also, I respectfully disagree with Joe on his insinuation that the Democrats have had the "bigger tent" as of late. I've seen much more inclusiveness among the GOP in the past few years than the Democrats- in a flip of how things were in the 1990s- even though the GOP, of course, has its own problems with ideologues.
The simple fact that John McCain (the GOP's maverick) is their leading nominee in 2024, while Joe Lieberman (the Dem's maverick) is being tossed out of the party, shows that. The GOP's number 2 candidate is Rudy, and he disagrees with the party on a whole plank of their platform (social conservatism).
I myself disagree with the GOP on plenty of things, but I find that I'm not having anywhere near the amount of vitriol thrown at me by Republicans as I got from Democrats in 2024 when I defended some of the President's actions.
The Democrats have moved to the hard ideological left, while the Republicans, while too infested with neoconservatism, are at least willing to tolerate people who disagree with them on some issues.
Both parties are too ideologically exclusive, but I'd say the Democrats have the far smaller tent at this point- and it's about to become even smaller when Joe Lieberman loses this primary.
Joe Lieberman is being undercut by the Republicans while facing the wrath of war protestors. Don't blame the Democratic Party for what happens in his district.
Both parties have big tents when they want your vote and/or contributions. Try affecting policy and see how welcome you are then.
Joe Lieberman has not been tossed out by his party although he may lose a local primary. He is not really a maverick although he can think independently.
I am not sure about the idea that McCain is #1 and Giuliani is #2 on the Republican side. We know "the GOP's maverick" McCain wears the "W" brand so moo-ve along little amnesty grantor.
Regarding McCain / Guilianni both more centrist, SSS is CORRECT both lead in early polling among likely rebulbican primary voters though the poll I say put Rudy 1st, either way it IS the flip of what is happening to Joe.
So Unity Founders Have NOT said what happens if one party moves to center and the other stays extreme, do we forgo running a ticket and support the more moderate party?
30% of self-identified Republicans or Republican leaners in early polls say blah, blah.
How many primaries have been run?
I don't think even CBS is ready to call this race.
You defend the other guy as right except you say his order is reversed. I still say "I am not sure about the idea."
I confess that I watched some of the debate, but I have not followed the election closely. Perhaps I am on the wrong site or perhaps I need to double-check its intent. I want a viable 3rd party that tanscendes bi-partisan 'politics as usual', or, alternatively stated, a 'polis' that has not been reduced to the 'techne' of party organization.
I dislike the terms 'centrist' and 'moderate', as, while the strength of moderation and centrism may be nuance, tolerance for ambiguity, negotiative skills, and mastery of the art of diplomacy and compromise - they know the political 'streets' and know how to mentor decision-making across various neighborhoods, the centrist and moderate position does not suggest risk-taking, entrepreneurial and transformative behavior, and visionary thinking. In the language of leadership theory, the centrist is 'transactional', in contrast to a transformational force.
I agree with the above comments that the 'tent' of the Democratic party is shrinking, I find moderate Republicans more interesting because, though I may disagree with them on various issues, they do not truncate discourse the way the left does. I often joke with myself that I like the position of the left; its the leftists that I can not stand.
So what term/notion do I think Unity08 is about? 'Authenticity, accompanied by pragmatism, passion, compassion, and competence. I do not want someone who is just playing a more nuanced game. I want someone who is sovereign from party organization and, most importantly, someone who can alter political discourse by confronting the nexus between political organizing and the media.
What might authenticity look like? Keen intellect, a skepticism of theory, direct communication, a non-caring disposition as to how their position may be read by the media, a willingness to learn and adapt, and sincerity.
I do not know much about Lamont (sp.?), but Lieberman, from what I know of him - in helping a campaign of a candidate running against him in the most recent Presidential primary - may speak the language of distinctly different neighborhoods, does not meet the criteria of my definition. I like the old adage, 'the right is brainwashed and the left braindead'. But is sitting between the two the '3rd way'? I am not sure. Indeed, my sense is that the public's tacit sense is that 'right vs. left' is a distinction that no longer makes sense.The distinction is an artifact of political convenience and media that profit by reproducing the distinction. I can agree with both Pat Buchanon and Ralph Nader; Kevin Phillips and Todd Gitlin, What many want is someone who is not left and not right, but also not someone who just moderates. Unity is more than 'balance' and 'compromise'.
Joe Lieberman is a very liberal guy, certainly at least as liberal as the average Democrat. The only reason he is having any troubles whatsoever is because of his stance on the Iraq War. He does not want us to leave the country in a hasty retreat before the job is done, and this angers the Democratic party. The fact that they do not want a man who is a strong liberal and strong on national defense in their party is symbolic of the overall problem with the Democratic party: if you support Bush in any way, especially when it comes to national defense, you don't belong. Hopefully, Lieberman will win this primary (against the wishes of his own party) and will show that it really is okay to want to win the War on Terror.
You claim "The only reason he [Joe Liebermen]is having any troubles whatsoever is because of his stance on the Iraq War. He does not want us to leave the country in a hasty retreat before the job is done, and this angers the Democratic party." Some in the party are angry but groups like moveon.org are angrier. Some are angry he sided with Bush in the first place.
Although he opposed amending the Constitution on gay marriage some are angry that he won't walk them down the aisle. Some are even angry he supported the Cheney/Bush energy policy.
Joe's opponent has lots of money and the endorsement of Lowell Weicker and that has nothing to do with the party.
Joe Lieberman is a man of honor as shown by his "voting conscience". He is truly looking out for the U.S.A. Dick Durbin on the other hand, is a man who votes what he thinks the public wants him to vote. He made an error when he said that "U.S.. forces were like Natzis". The public here in Illinois were outraged at that statement (tho the newspapers have yet to mentiond that statement in current race. He is still in the Democratic party, while Lieberman has been shunned for supporting pres Bush. I voted for the Democrat Obama, but cannot vote for Durbin. This does show that the Democrats are truely very left leaning. Too much so for me. I like the idea of a third party that says "all are welcome". Sometimes the Democrats make sense in their positions, and sometimes the Republicans are right. How about some politicians who are "For The U.S.A."
In response to some of the below comments that insinuated that the only reason that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is opposing Lieberman is because of Iraq, I disagree.
It goes far beyond Iraq, though Iraq may be the most visible issue.
You see, Lieberman isn't like modern Democrats. He's one of the few Democrats who didn't change with the new millennium. He is one of the few Democrats who are still 1990s Clinton "Third Way" Democrats- and the modern Democrats, who are more like McGovernites, hate that. THAT is why they oppose Joe Lieberman.
If you read Daily Kos, you'll see how the liberal base of the Democratic Party acts towards Leiberman. They attack him WHENEVER he keeps an open mind. Last year when the President proposed doing something about Social Security, Lieberman kept an open mind at first- he was TORCHED by the liberal base for that. Oh, the horror, that he would keep an open mind towards reform! Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos CONSTANTLY attacks him for this.
And how about an even more childish example- does anyone remember when Bush kissed Lieberman on the cheek when he was coming in to Congress to give his State of the Union speech? Markos Moulitsas and the liberal base treated that as if it was SACRILEGE or something. They constantly tout "the kiss" as a reason why Lieberman should be kicked out of the Democratic Party.
Back in the 1980s, Reagan and Tip O'Neill waged political warfare with each other, but they were able to have amicable relations after business was taken care of. Bush and Lieberman have that kind of relationship now, but what does the left do? They FREAK OUT over it, as if George Bush is some sort of virus or something.
I agree with the poster below who insinuated that it isn't the left's policies that make the left so disgusting, but that it is the BEHAVIOR of the left that makes them so hard to support. It's the main reason I de-registered as a Democrat, and it appears that my predictions in 2024 about the Democrats becoming more and more nuts has proven to be true.
Lieberman will lose this primary, because the trend is obvious- this is no longer the moderate party of Bill Clinton, it is once again the leftist party of McGovern.
In saying that Iraq was the only issue that the Democrats opposed Lieberman on, I was somewhat wrong. It is just the biggest and most obvious reason. The general trend in the Democratic party is to quickly move away from supporting the war, but Joe does not seem to want to follow the party line. I suppose this isn't the first time he didn't want to follow the Democratic party line-- as some have said, the fact that he simply keeps an open mind when judging Republican initiatives drives the Left crazy-- but it is the best example that I can find of the falseness of the Left's mantra of "inclusiveness." They are glad to include you, as long as you follow them blindly.
And thanks for the comments all. Good discussion.
The way this registered Independent voter saw the'04 Presidential election is one party rallying its base while the other ran a "hate Bush" campaign largely endorsed by moveon.org and Hollywood.
Joe Liberman may be one of the few in the Democratic party that realizes this, hence, he supports the incumbent administration decisions if he believes it has merit (ie. Iraq War) or he opposes the administration if he doesn't.
Liberman has shown many voters that politicians CAN disagree with one another in a civilized manner without resorting to name calling and hate-mongering.
And it's for this very reason that a lot of the democratic politicians who value ideology over integrity don't see Joe as one of their own. It is also for this very reason why a centrist voter will have a hard time voting for the Democratic party. It seems the party of "tolerance" is tolerant only if one agrees with their ideology and heretics like Liberman will be thrown to the wolves.
The Independents want to hear how the Democratic party will lead the nation if elected, or do a better job than the current administration not how much the far left hates Bush.
Maybe it's time for Joe to run on his own as an Independent in '08, and maybe the GOP will have their own "maverick" running as an independent as well, say...........John McCain.
I caution those who use terms like 'left' and 'far left' as an identifier for liberal politicians who are corporate-funded, corporate-deferent. There is little 'left' left in this country and what is now designated as left would have to now include Ford, Nixon, and any 'Rocketfeller Republican' (and perhaps a number who shaped our constitution). I run into a few 'left' faculty where I work, but they lie-low, bite their tongue, and stay 'underground'.
What does a 'far left' agenda look like: federally mandated vacation time (i.e., six weeks), a 35 hour work week, comparable pay for comparable work, union representation on the board or directors of any complex organization, nationally guaranteed income and health care, and aggressive public funding of the arts. Who is running under this agenda?
Is there a 'far right'? Yes, there are some out there whose speech reflects what Kevin Phillips (strong Reagonite) called 'benign fascism', and certainly this voice (theocracy, empire, blind nationalism) seeps into talk-radio and that news network that comes closest, in the US, to State-TV (FOX), but, though these voices may rouse and consolidate the 'base', I think that the likes of Atwater (who confessed his sins) and Rove do not believe in these voices; they merely use them.
Except for differences over what we should do now that we are stuck in the Iraq quagmire and except for the very sensitive issue of abortion, the so-called left and right are not too far apart. The majority is centrist and moderate. The partisanship is not due to ideology, but due to how we do politics. I think that McCain-Feingold (that's 'Unity!!! - that's an interesting 08 ticket) was a valuable first step to end politics-as-usual, meaning spending tons of money to manipulate us into thinking that there are substantial differences -are there?
I wish we would stop the political mis-labeling. Frankly, I would like to see a viable 'social-democrat' or 'Green' for the voice, but this will never happen. But let's not label a range of centrist positions (i.e., Lamont, Lieberman, Kerry, Bush, Clinton, Rice, etc.) as right vs. left - they all regress to the mean.
I have always liked the terms radical-middle, maverik republican (McCain) and maverik democrat(Feigold - recall, he voted with the Republicans against Clinton in regards to his Oval Office incident. The radical middle suggests thinking outside-the-box, entrepreneurial behavior, and a commitment, not to party organization and its embedded hacks, but to us.
Response to: Left/ Far Left: Where?
Brian Steffy on July 9, 2024 - 8:43am
A rose by any other name still smells like a rose! M&M's no matter what color still taste like a M&M!
Brian is trying to confound us by realigning the labels. Won't work Brian. Take your agenda elsewhere.
The left is insistent on a larger, more complex, more expensive, less productive govermment with more control over our lives. It's not by accident that most on the left are in the public sector sucking off the productivity and progress of the private sector. More jobs with larger pensions, higher pay, and the ability to hire on relatives and friends to this out of control sow that we call our government.
Right and left and words that have lost all real meaning. And even if it had a meaning in the French Revoultion, we've come along way since this.
There is a possible middle between right and left.
But is there really a middle betwen right and wrong...
And let's take right and wrong in the scientific sense, not the moral sense.
It would probably more even more useful if we could use correct and incorrect... on the basis of the real world.
Americans are fundamentally pragmatic, not ideological. That's always been our historical advantage. It's also why 80% of the people only vote occasionally.
The faster we get back to our pragmatic American roots, the faster we are going to fix the real problems we better solve --- pretty quickly.
I came over to the main Unity08 site plug the Unity Supporters Forum but I hate feeling like a promotion wh*** so I try to find a tie in to make things relevant...
The resonances between the sites are interesting. Over here is a story about Lieberman maybe being pushed out of the Senate for not being liberal enough... But there's a thread in the Unity Supporters Forum where we brought up essentially the same thing happening to Lincoln Chaffee.
Both parties are purging their moderates.
Lieberman's potential purging it more eye catching because he's so prominent since the 2024 and 2024 elections, but every side is doing it and I suspect every side will keep doing it until something changes in the way the system works.
If you want to get active changing that system (instead of just posting comments to a blog) there's a place where that's what we're organizing for :-)
-Jennifer
Response to: Lieberman... and Chaffee too... both parties are doing it.
Jennifer on July 9, 2024 - 5:56pm
Question: Why are these candidates like Lieberman, Chaffee, McCain that often vote in opposition to their respective parties deemed moderates? What is so moderate about their votes? Is it moderates or rebels that we desire? I for one feel very uncomfortable with candidates that cast spurious votes sometimes without rhyme or reason. Are they bending to a secret agenda? or payback on a campaign contribution? or voting on their personal religious affiliation? or have other ambitions like a cozy job? or perhaps a family tie with business associations? I believe trust is the issue .. and i am a bit skeptical of these so called moderates.
Some examples please.
"candidates that cast spurious votes sometimes without rhyme or reason. Are they bending to a secret agenda? or payback on a campaign contribution? or voting on their personal religious affiliation? or have other ambitions like a cozy job? or perhaps a family tie with business associations?"
Re: SMH on July 9, 2024 - 6:25pm
The Senate passed new ethics reforms 90-8… amongst the 8 Nays was John McCain.
One poor example by one of the trio you chastise. McCain had offered a reform plan months ago that had promise. The one that passed was better than nothing but very weak by comparison.
Of course now you can say Lieberman voted for it to show his spurious nature.
Response to: re:Re: SMH on July 9, 2024 - 6:25pm
Anonymous on July 9, 2024 - 6:53pm
In his book "Take on the Street", Arthur Levitt Jr., former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, portrayed Lieberman as a hypocrite. Levitt recalled that in 1993, the Financial Accounting Standards Board "voted unanimously to seek comment on a rule that would make companies put a fair value on their stock option grants and record that number as an expense. Corporate lobbyists, outraged by the FASB's perfidy, persuaded Congress to hold hearings." According to Levitt, Lieberman "led the charge. He introduced legislation to bar the SEC from enforcing the rule. In addition, Lieberman wanted to strip the FASB of authority by requiring the SEC to ratify each of its decisions, in effect relegating private-sector standards to mere recommendations. Lieberman didn't stop there. He also sponsored a Senate resolution that declared the FASB proposal a cockamamie idea that would havegrave consequences for America's entrepreneurs … While Lieberman's bill did not pass, his resolution did—by an overwhelming 88-9 as an unmistakable signal that Lieberman had the votes to stop the FASB if it pushed ahead.
So now we have 22 investigations for stock Options minipulation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/interviews/levitt.html
I don't think making a comparison between Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman is fair grounds for saying that both parties are equally purging their moderates.
Lincoln Chafee is a markedly different cat from Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, overall, has a very liberal voting record. Chafee, on the other hand, does NOT have a very conservative voting record. He doesn't even have a conservative or centrist one- he is actually comparable to many Democrats, sometimes even to the left of Lieberman.
To show how, here are the ACU ratings for the 2:
Lieberman: 8
Chafee: 12
Chafee strays FAR from the GOP on many issues; Lieberman strays far from the Democrat on very few.
Given this, and the fact that the GOP has 2 moderates (McCain and Giuliani) as its top 2 guys, followed up by another center-right guy (Romney) as their people in 2024, while the Democrats are trying to purge their former VP candidate and a guy who ran in 2024, is quite telling that there is a very big difference between the GOP base and the liberal base.
The GOP has its kooks, but they are by no means as out of control, rabid, and vengeful as the Markos Moutitsas-led netroots are.
Lieberman STAYS on the Democratic plantation most of the time and is STILL being thrown out. Chafee STRAYS from the GOP plantation most of the time and Republicans hate him. But notice that there's not much of a GOP netroots-or-activist-led Jihad going against Chafee.
Comparing the two just doesn't work. McCain and Lieberman is an apt comparison, but not Chafee.
I'm a Connecticut voter, and I share the desire of many in this state to replace Joe Lieberman in the Senate with someone less inclined to follow the Neoconservative lead. Yes, politics have become heatedly polarized in the last six years, perhaps more so than at any time since the presidential election of 1860, and certainly since the heated
presidential election of 1964. That is hardly entirely the fault of those who wish to "take back" the Democratic Party from what many perceive to be a compromised, self-interested oligarchy of anachronistic political hacks; the phenomenon could at least equally well be laid at the feet of the rabid political right, who have been ideologically purging the once much more centrist Republican party (remember Ike?), moving it evermore sharply to the right since their election loss of 1964. Add to that the disenchantment of many grass-roots Democrats with often corrupt big-city political machines, once-abusive unions (they are far too weak to be particularly abusive now, the very existence of collective bargaining being, like glaciers and polar icecaps, threatened with complete disappearance), and pandering demagogues, and a sophistication born of adaptation to the ever-changing technological and demographic landscape of American society.
Okay, so the Democratic Party is moving toward the "Progressive" ("left" is such a misleading and conveniently polarizing Cold War era epithet) wing of the party. Such shifts are hardly new in the political history of our dear and argumentative country. One has only to consider the Jackson Revolution, which wrested control of the Democratic Party from the hands of Tidewater aristocrats in 1828, or the Reagan Revolution of 1980, which wrested control of the Republican Party from the hands of clean-government centrist moderates to realize that it is the very nature of American politics to manifest change, and for political movements to reflect the larger currents of the times. And I, for one, am very comfortable with the change.
Jerel, no one is asking you to be uncomfortable with the change, practice put forth your 'progressive ideas' in the arena of ideas. However, don't front as a centrist in Unity08.
You call Joe one of the "anachronistic political hacks" and fault him for sometimes voting with The White House while lamenting polarization.
I don't see he is all that much different from Lamont on most issues. Ned used to be a real supporter of Joe, but now the rich man has ambitions of his own.
Many of the posted comments seem to me just plain inappropriate. One, however, strikes me right on the money---pointing out the need for pragmatism. Both national parties continue their shifts to action based upon blind adherence to mindless political dogma. What we need is action based upon knowledge and reason. To me, that's the point of Unity08.
We need honest debate to find the true facts and to find useful solutions to problems. The dogmatist hides or bends the truth to justify preconceived solutions. Barry Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey were far apart on the political spectrum, but they had a congenial personal relationship and were mutually respectful. More important, I don't believe either let political philosophy trump reason.
What has happened, not just to our polical system, but to our country over the last 40 years that we've allowed ourselves to get into this mess? It, by the way, isn't that principles are unimportant. It's been my observation that when our basic rights and liberties are at stake, the true philosophic liberals and conservations are most frequently on the same side.
Sorry, I do not see a difference between Hillary and Rudy on 08. And I do not see Bush shrinking our government and it is a fact that Clinton shrank it. I do not see a left out there and I am not that sure that the non-libertarian republicans are doing much to get government off my back.
I am not playing with existing categories (right, center,left), which are deceptive and stale, but looking for new terms, and with those terms, new ideas. 'Pragmentism' is a move in the correct direction, though this term varies greatly, depending upon whether it is Dewey pragmaatism or Rorty pragmatism (cultural relativism/decentered self). I am not tryig to manipulate meaning, but like Dewey, desirous of a reasonable polis. I am merely asking what the heck is meant by 'middle' and 'center'. I am noy sure that it means the same thing as pragamatic. Whoever initiates the blogs, please clarify. This is not a challenge, but a pragmatic request.
I think that these are not divisive questions that hide a hidden agenda. Instead, I think that these terms, central as they are to Unity08, need to be fleshed out. There are many out there looking for a 3rd way. We are pretty street smart and have many years behind us. When we see an opportunity like Unity08 we want to know what it is. The questions I am asking are questions that I ask myseld when sitting in my garden smoking a nice cigar.
All I know is that the left has failed and evidence is mounting that post-Reagan Republicans are not doing all that well. I am nether left nor right, nor am I green or libertarian (except when I throw my hands in the air and feel like giving up) but I am not sure what the center is. Is Hegel a centrist. I like him. What does it mean if the pundits say that Hillary is moving to the center. Assuming this is not just triangulation, is she in the center? Is McCain sitting down with Feingold to draft forward-moving legislation the center? I am sure that I am not the only one who feels that more discussion is needed on this matter.
Also, I think that what moderate/center is differs according to whether the person considered for the legilative branch and the executive branch. I am what I called 'transactional' types for the legislative branch. Here we certainly need people willing to negotiate and compromise to attain solutions. But that may not be the kind of moderate or centrist we want for President. This calls for a more transformational type; not just someone who is competent at finding means to an end. Someone needs to project a vision. What is the pragmatist;s vision, or is vision, assuming a Rorty pragmatism merely an outmoded nostalgia?
Unity08, however, is right on target, from my viewpoint, in suggesting that a 08 ticket consisting of a Repub. and Demo is a great idea.
Jerel's comments below are a classic example of the original point here. He's calling Lieberman an "anachronistic political hack", yet Lieberman is as liberal as most Democratic Senators on every issue except for one- Iraq.
If Lieberman is therefore an anachronistic political hack, I suppose all other Democrats who deviate from the liberal line on anything must be, too.
And sadly, this is the angle that liberal "netroots" members tend to take. EVERY SINGLE TIME any Democratic authority takes a moderate or conservative stance on ANYTHING, these people flip out.
Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos is the perfect example. This man actually had the gall to sit there in his chair, sip his latte, and type out a giant rant about how Bill Clinton's "third way" in the 1990s didn't work. He is also the same man who routinely rants about "The New Republic" and the Democratic Leadership Council, two moderate sources within the Democratic Party. He calls them right wing conservatives for crying out loud. Meanwhile, Jerel calls Lieberman a neoconservative.
This all illustrates a point quite clearly- the liberal netroots, and the hardcore liberal members of the Democratic Party CANNOT handle diversity of thought. They're no better than the Soviet Union under Stalin or Germany under Hitler. They're no better than the religious right when it chooses to torpedo a candidate simply because of his religion. This type of ideological groupthink is a cancer to this country's political discourse, and people like Markos Moulitsas are the tumors.
Furthermore, I think it is not only Lieberman's deviation on Iraq that riles the liberal netroots- it is the way Lieberman BEHAVES. Lieberman keeps an open mind. He's willing to listen to his opposition and see what they have to offer. We need more people like that, and less people like Markos Moulitsas.
If the Democrats want to become a monolithic block of drones who think and only think liberal (or "progressive" if you insist on using euphemisms), then they can go right ahead. But in doing so, they are contributing to the problem, not helping solve it.
People always blame the President for dividing this country, but I think equal blame must be placed on the liberal netroots, and they prove it perfectly here in DIVIDING THEIR OWN PARTY!
As a registered Republican of over 50 years, I assure you that it is not only within the Democratic party that elements repress fellow party members. I have been marginalized by the political goons that presently control my own
party.
Also, these blogs are beginning to appear to be mainly Democrats bashing Republics or vice versa. Shouldn't establishment of a unity ticket involve finding common ground---if it indeed exists---and recognizing the healthy as well as the unhealthy diversity that exists in America.
"Astonishment" is the word that leaps to mind, when I read the responses to my comments about Lieberman and polarization. Being an erstwhile Republican emigré from the Heartland, with a whole slew of dear relatives and friends who would sooner vote for the Devil than for a Democrat, it comes as rather a surprise to hear myself branded an intolerant and dogmatic "Liberal". Indeed, it seems that many of my "left-leaning" acquaintances consider me quaintly "Conservative", but, then, truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
It's true that the duplictously "justified" invasion of Iraq, along with the consequent political, cultural, and fiscal disasters into which it has devolved, figures as the most maddening of a panoply of Bush Administration iniquities, but is but one part of a seemingly endless stream of provocations, deceptions, and affronts to good governance.
Lieberman was but one of a gaggle of Democratic lawmakers who rushed to the standards of righteous indignation, uncritical bellicosity and credulous support for our Machiavellian leaders in the wake of September 11, 2024. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and coconspirators deceitfully persuaded a stunned and wounded nation that the secularist thug Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with the Muslim Fundamentalists who attacked us. But all of them should have had the basic general knowledge and the perspicacity to see through the ruse. They should have had the chutzpah to say that the emperor was wearing no clothes.
I don't think for a moment that Joe Lieberman is a Neoconservative, but I do believe that he, like all of us, must ultimately answer for his actions. Senators are not elected for life. I believe, as do an apparent majority of my fellow Nutmegers, that it is time to say thanks to Joe and send him home.
First of all, in response to the prior posts, I could care less whether people are registered Republicans or not. It really doesn't matter.
Secondly, if the liberal netroots are merely trying to have Lieberman answer for his actions in voting for and supporting the Iraq War, they should make everyone else in the Democratic Party who voted for that war answer too. But they're conspicuously not doing that.
Why? Because those Democrats, while voting for that war and supporting it in the buildup, decided to "flip" on the issue and now are scoring political points. I fail to see how Joe Lieberman is an "anachronistic political hack" for sticking to his guns- in an UNPOPULAR VIEW, mind you- while these other Democrats are not. They're the ones who flipped their positions out of political expediency.
If Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq, do you think these Democrats would have flipped their position from support to opposition? Do you think they'd be waging Jihad against Joe Lieberman because he would choose to support a war? No. The political hacks are the ideological fundamentalists who are trying to kick one of their last few moderates out of the party because he chose the intellectually honest position of standing up for what he believed in- and what he voted for.
I completely, absolutely oppose the Iraq War, and I always did. I did as a Democrat in 2024, and I do now as a Republican (after having de-registered as Democrat in 2024 because of the behavior of their base). Despite that, I support Joe Lieberman, because at least he's being intellectually honest. He's also not a moonbatty out of control ideologue like the people trying to bring him down.
I'd rather support someone who is intellectually honest over one who is ideologically obsessed, even if I agree with the ideological person over the honest person. It's all about behavior. The liberal netroots behave entirely the wrong way, and Joe Lieberman has behaved entirely the RIGHT way in the past few years.
Do you oppose the Iraq part of the war on terror completely meaning you think pull out now consequences be damned.
Or do you oppose it meaning it the decision to go and the approach.
What is your position on the broader war and where you move forward in Iraw specifically?
I opposed the decision to go into Iraq entirely back in 2024, and I maintain that position. I think when all is said and done it'll go down in history as just as bad of a decision as going into Vietnam.
As for what we do now, I don't support a withdrawal deadline like what some Democrats have proposed. We're sadly stuck, and should at least attempt to get the Iraqi Security Force on a strong foothold before we leave. Also, if the Iraqi Government works out a deal with the insurgents in which they'll back off if we leave, we should abide by the wishes of the Iraqi Government.
Oh, yes, the Iraq War was sold to us as part of the "War on Terror" by the people who willfully chose to invade it. They planned to invade Iraq even before they took office in 2024. See Paul O'Neil's (first Secretary of the Treasury under the Bush Administration) book, /The Price of Loyalty/, or any of the many related interviews and articles. His voice does not stand alone, and the chorus is growing.
Iraq was a ruled by a really nasty bunch of murderous thugs, who learned how to rule their own people through terror and brutal oppression. Well, they didn't really terrorize their own people, the Sunni Arabs, truth be told, but mostly the Shiiites and Kurds unlucky enough to be assigned to to the new, oil-rich country of Iraq by the British, with the concurrence of the French, when Iraq, ruled for the preceding 500 years by the Ottoman Turks, was created at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 (end of WWI).
You ask whether I oppose the War in Iraq in general, or the wider "War on Terror" (a snappy, oxymoronic name don't you think?). Well, I wish we had indeed pursued the war on terror by finishing the job in Afghanistan, where the Jihadists were homebased, instead of prematurely pulling nearly all our forces out of there, before capturing Osama bin Laden and cohorts, or pacifyiung the Afghani countryside (read the news, lately?), in order to pursue the real geopolitical interest of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their fellow conspirators: control of the Iraqi oilfields, second in size only to those of Saudi Arabia.
I was increasingly and vocally opposed to the invasion of Iraq for a year before it even happened, although I was painfully aware that that was where we were headed, say what one might. The systematic misinformation of the American People, most of whom unfortunately know precious little about anything beyond our own national borders or our short span of personal experience, was obvious in 2024 to anyone who cared to think that far.
Now, you ask me whether I would pull our troops out of Iraq, "regardless of the consequences." I think you meant to say "cut and run", didn't you? Isn't that the perjorative phrase you've been trained to use, like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Do you remember the helicopter flights, departing from the rooftop of the American Embassy in Saigon in 1975? Do you remeber the Vietnamse civilians, clinging to the helicoptere skids, and their bodies plummeting to the street below, when the aircrewmen kicked their desperately clinging hands free? I do.
Nixon exhorted us to stay the course in that war, too. The light at the end of that long and dark tunnel was indeed the onrushing train. The names of friends, fellows and compatriots are etched in that black granite monument on the Capitol Mall, but their faces are more lastingly etched on my memory.
If we don't leave Iraq in good order with a plan, that's how we'll leave Baghdad when we have squandered more lives and treasure than we can as a nation bear, once again trying to impose the will of a few, for the benefit of even fewer, on a foreign populace that is already home.
You can attempt to brand it "cut and run" policy if you like. Anyway you cut it, we will not have our way in Iraq, anymore than we did in SE Asia. I would very much like to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it, but Bush and cabal did not go there for that reason, in spite of what they might tell you. We need to set a timetable for withdrawal and stick to it. If not, you can send your own children and your own fortune to fight Bush's war.
Jarel well it sure as ^&(* is now. Don't think for a second it isn't from a truckload of angles.
Next admin is going to have to face that new reality whatever caused it.
While I did make a comparison that going to Iraq was as stupid and inept as going into Vietnam decades ago, I disagree with Jerel's assertion that we need a timetable for withdrawal, and that if we don't have one, this thing will end just like Vietnam.
Jerel's fundamental premise- that the outcome and ultimate consequences of Iraq and Vietnam will be similar under the current course- is flawed.
Why? Because Vietnam and Iraq are in entirely different portions of the world. It was entirely feasible to deal with the consequences of "cutting and running" (that is what we eventually did) in Vietnam, because it was Southeast Asia. It had little connection to our only real ally in the region at the time- Japan. Our failure there did not have an adverse geopolitical effect anywhere else, outside of maybe forcing the US to put up with a few years of Jimmy Carter.
Conversely, a failure in Iraq would take place in the Middle East, a region in which the US is heavily invested in. A "cut and run" in Iraq could turn that country into another Iran, whereas Vietnam was of little threat to the US.
A "timetable for withdrawal" does nothing more than give the insurgents a "timetable of chaos." All they'd have to do was raise all hell until the withdrawal deadline, then the US would leave, and they'd be able to turn Iraq into Iran.
We are much better off having an open withdrawal deadline- we leave when Iraq's security force and government are ready to do so. Be it through an agreement with the insurgents or through a strengthening of Iraq's security ability, it's the only way to go.
I don't know who the fool who came up with a "timetable for withdrawal" was in the first place, but it reeks of political pandering. The only people served by a timetable for withdrawal are Democrats who want to paint Iraq out to be a failure- because the best way to assure failure is to pull out at a set time before Iraq is even ready to handle its own problems.
We should not have went into Iraq, but simple opposition to the war does not entitle one to promote a hasty withdrawal out of political expediency. The correct thing to do now is to leave, but only when Iraq is ready to handle us leaving.
Love ya Joe, but the days of hiding from real policy are gone... you can no longer go from one contributor to another thinking we don't see you! I would suggest to anyone else currently in office to jump off the train your on and climb aboard our horses, bring your friends and money with you! Cuz we're running out of the material to keep building the track for your crazy train! www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Re "the Middle East, a region in which the US is heavily invested in.": Do you mean oil or Israel?
Re "pull out at a set time before Iraq is even ready to handle its own problems.": I propose an extended period of "Iraqi-ization".
Re "All they'd have to do was raise all hell until the withdrawal": I thought that was what they were already doing.
Re "it sure as ^&(* is [a part of the real War on Terror] now": Mission accomplished, Duhbya!
Not trying to be smarmy, but thought the blogger should know for future writings that the term is "bated" breath, not "baited" with a meaning different from the one implied here.
Actually I think he knew which is why he tossed in Shamu. Would have worked better in spoken word than in writing because the misspelling is distracting. Considering the moveon.org crowd baited might be right.
Jerel says: Re "the Middle East, a region in which the US is heavily invested in.": Do you mean oil or Israel?
My response: It doesn't matter. Oil or Israel, we're heavily invested in the Middle East. We don't drill for our own oil because we have an elitist NIMBY American attitude about everything, so we're reliant on the Middle East for energy. Even if we started to use alternate energy tomorrow, we would still require oil for decades. Like it or not, we're invested in the Middle East, and a Vietnam-type "cut and run" failure in Iraq would have consequences Vietnam never could have possibly had.
Jerel says: Re "All they'd have to do was raise all hell until the withdrawal": I thought that was what they were already doing.
My response: It doesn't matter what they're doing right now. You propose a set timetable, and they'll multiply everything they're doing. When we pull out under your abrupt withdrawal, they'll declare victory, Osama will be all over Al-Jazeera issuing Fatwas, and then the true "fun" begins when the insurgents turn Iraq into Iran.
The bottom line is your "timetable withdrawal" strategy is wholly irresponsible. Again, I don't know who the idiot who came up with the idea in the first place is, but his idea is as stupid as Bush's decision to go into Iraq in the first place.
Stupidity does not need to beget more stupidity.
Re: "We don't drill for our own oil because we have an elitist NIMBY American attitude about everything, so we're reliant on the Middle East for energy. "
The same way we're heavily invested all over the world for manufactured goods. How many factories, how many jobs, and how many tax dollars did we lose simply because of environmental pressure and long drawn out legal wrangling?
Safe drilling in Alska? No way, it might disturb the deer population. Build nuclear plants to reduce our need for foreign oil? Sure, but who's got 20 years and millions to spend on the odd chance that a permit might be issued?
We are too often our own enemy.
RESPONSIBLE FISCAL POLICIES
By Kirk Polizzi
Our nation’s fiscal health is in critical condition. I know, that the conservative Republicans all across America will tell you that the budget deficit does not matter. They will say that the federal budget deficit compared with our total GDP is in fact little or nothing. Remember this crowd inherited the first budget surplus in thirty years, squandered it, then put into motion the largest spending spree since the Great Society of the 1960’s, and the highest budget deficits in American history. In three years they have added $3 trillion to the national debt.
It seems interesting now for Republicans that budget deficits don’t matter when they are in power, but put a Democrat in the White House and immediately the Republicans pull out charts to show big spending, deficit ridden Democratic policies that spend for today, and worry about tomorrow, later.
The Republican Party along with the Democrats is pushing the country towards an economic train wreck that will weaken our nation. Our government runs a deficit because it spends too much of our money, not because it taxes us too little. Today, we are spending over $3 trillion a year. Ten years ago, in 1997, we spent $1.6 trillion. In 1987, that figure was $1 trillion. In ten years we increased federal spending by $1.6 trillion. The prior ten years from 1987-1997 we increased spending by only $600 billion. We do not have to be rocket scientists to see that we are spending ourselves right off an economic cliff.
Both the Republican and Democratic Parties have failed the American people in the use of our money, yours and mine. What they have done is almost criminal. If any American ran their household budget the way our leaders run the government’s budget, those Americans would be put in jail for not paying their bills. Maybe that is just what we need, more politicians in jail, at least they couldn’t spend money like water, funds that we do not have. The Republican White House certainly has not helped one bit, with its bankrupt policies and ideas. We can only wonder what Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would be saying if they were alive today.
The fact of the matter is this: hard choices must be made, pain must be accepted by all, sacrifice must be an honorable word again, and political courage must be found, with real leaders who will demand action no matter what the political costs to themselves, or their party. If anyone can find just one leader in either party, please inform me of whom that person is.
First of all to get a handle on the budget deficits, more power must be given to the individual states in many areas. I can say that Richard Nixon’s new federalism was a darn good idea. Like a lot of good ideas they were abandoned in Washington. Too many people there believe that our politicians on Capitol Hill know what education; transportation and agriculture policies are best for, people living in Chillicothe, Ohio, as well as Chillicothe, Illinois. These politicians believe that they know best about Arizona’s education system, or that they can handle the agriculture policies of Florida.
I say let the states take care of their own local affairs, from education, the state transportation systems, to their own agriculture policies. Every state has an elected governor; he or she is the chief executive officer of the state. Every state has their own legislatures; let them decide to cut or raise taxes or spending. Washington has bitten off way more then it can chew, and we are paying for it with a huge budget deficit that is forcing the American people to live on borrowed money and borrowed time. Our individual states can do a better job then Washington in handling their local affairs. If we are asking all the American people to step up to the plate and sacrifice and take personal responsibility, our states can do so as well.
A line item veto needs to be given to the President of the United States so he can veto individual spending items. Congress passed it once, under Clinton, but our courts thought it was unconstitutional. There is nothing to me more unconstitutional then having our government spend more then it takes in.
Most importantly, we must get a handle, a grip, on entitlement spending. Both Social Security and Medicare cannot sustain themselves at their present levels. Whatever it takes, no matter how much initial pain it will bring upon all of us, this must be done. If it means raising the retirement age, then we must do so. If it means raising the FICA tax on working Americans, to a reasonable level, then we must do it. In an earlier economic piece here, I advocated sharp tax cuts for the struggling middle class.
I do believe that the American people will always do whatever needs to be done to make certain that both Social Security and Medicare are solvent for the future. They will support political courage, and basic common sense, before they will partisan bickering, finger pointing, and scare tactics by both sides. The politicians also need to do their part by keeping their hands off the Social Security money to begin with. The money raised for Social Security and Medicare must be used for those two programs only.
There are no easy answers to the federal budget deficit but to show no political courage, to do nothing, is to destroy America’s future, our foundation as a country, and our promises our government made to working Americans, and retired Americans. We can balance our budget again if we elect new leaders, who will show backbone, and courage, and who will look all of us in the eye, and tell us the truth, not what we want to hear, but what we must hear; the unhappy truth.
Here's the problem:
1) Any idiot can cut taxes. Whose
ever against that? Whenever I
see politicians verbally
pounding their chests over
their tax-cutting I have to
laugh, albeit cynically.
Remember, jumping off the cliff
is the easy part, any bonehead
can do that; the hard part
is surviving the landing!
2) No one wants to cut spending.
That's the hard part!
Dave Schaffer
Salt Lake City
I am a Connecticut native with a great deal of time spent in government and politics.
That Joe Lieberman (US Sen -D)& Christopher Shays (US Rep-4 - R) are being targeted just amazes me. These are two men that are universally recognized for ethics, integrity and honesty, yet their moderate views and support for the Iraq war have made them high profile targets.
While I do not agree with everything said or done by Lieberman and Shays, they have both been in the forefront of trying to return accountability and honesty in the political process in Washington. If we throw people like Joe and Chris out of their jobs, then the public may decry the current political parties and Washington's failure to conduct the business of the people, but their actions will actually increase the power of the extremes in both parties.
These races will tell if Unity08 has a potential, or if the voters of the US are all hot air and vitriol.
Paul, you are right and the fact that Unity08's official position is to sit out these races is seriously wrong!
We should work at all levels for folks that will work for moderate / centrist views even when we don't have a 100% overlap with their record (who does!)
vry,
RET
Lieberman: We Ask For Integrity and Throw it Out.
Paul on July 23, 2024 - 12:51pm
Jeeze,
Q. Who do you think blocked the SEC from initiating corporation reporting laws such that CEO's MUST devuldge all important information including expensing options. No, you guessed wrong. IT WAS Lieberman.
We would not have had the corporate corruption in 2024 if Lieberman was then working at a fast foods as he should be now.
In terms of corruption, Lieberman leads.