Tuesday is truly “D-Day” for Joe Lieberman and the Democratic party.
For Lieberman, will it be the day Democrats defeat his re-nomination bid and send him (and others) a message that he is outside what many anti-war and anti-Bush Democrats believe is the Democratic party’s new, majority-supported mainstream? Will it be the day he must define himself as an independent who will run against his party’s nominee, perhaps causing a Republican victory or a victory where a big chunk of his November re-election votes come from Republicans rather than from Democrats?
Will it be a day when Connecticut Democrats nudged on by national political and Internet forces define their party as one that has set a boundary on the degree of bipartisanship (which some believe is “enabling”) shown to the GOP and President George Bush? And will that direct the party to new electoral victories…or long-range defeat if moderates feel locked out?
A key debate surrounding Lieberman is whether “true moderates” can support him given the Bush administration’s suggestion that those who questioning and criticizing the Iraq war are in effect tolerating terrorism or don’t care about the troops in the field. Another key question if Lieberman loses will be whether American politics’ political gravity points have shifted that old definitions of where “the center” and “moderates” need to be adjusted.
What’s clear is this: news stories and talking heads begin latching onto a conventional wisdom before elections and it is now clear that Lieberman is expected to lose. Perhaps big time. And if that happens the framework for much of the analyses done before may be “inoperative” because some of the conventional wisdoms will fall by the wayside.
Just look at a few key developments and what they say about the conclusions politicos and political thinkers are now drawing:
--Hillary Clinton’s confrontation with Donald Rumsfeld this week is seen by some as what the New York Times calls “dodging a political bullet,” as she has moved to reposition herself on the war and not become Joe Lieberman The Sequel. She cannot be accused of not providing spirited oversight.
--Former vice presidential candidate John Edwards, who is making all of the noises and doing all of the travels of someone who wants to run for president, has called for the United States to start pulling out of Iraq immediately.
--Bill Curry, a former counselor to President Bill Clinton, warns in a Hartford Courant piece that the Democrats could be making the mistake they made in 1968 and veering so sharply anti-war that they will lose major parts of the electorate. He writes:
“Many Republicans are fleeing their party. They want a foreign policy based on mutual respect, a domestic policy based on mutual tolerance, and fiscal and environmental sanity. With nudging they might even agree to a new health care system. It's time Democrats finished sorting out their own identity and began getting bipartisan with them. Gene McCarthy's New Hampshire challenge might have led to a Robert Kennedy presidency, or to peace. It didn't. It led instead into a wilderness. Ironically, another small New England primary of unexpected import may help lead us back.”
--On Fox News Newt Gingrich said: “a legitimate insurgency in Connecticut, which needs to be met head on and debated head on, which is people who say this is so hard, it is so frightening, it’s so painful, can’t we come home and hide? And I think if Lamont wins next Tuesday, it will be the beginning of extraordinarily important period in American politics, and in American history. For all of us to have this debate. How dangerous are the terrorists? How dangerous are the dictatorships? And what does America have to do in that kind of a dangerous world?” Is he urging that if Lieberman wins the GOP frame this debate in a way to suggest that Democrats don’t think terrorists are very dangerous? What would that mean to Democrats and how will they counter that?
Surprises do happen in politics, and Lieberman could theoretically win. But given polls like the latest showing challenger Ned Lamont ahead of Lieberman among Democratic voters 54 to 41 percent , if you believe that you also expect a nice, furry rabbit to hide eggs in your house next Easter. The Los Angeles Times notes that Lamont went from zero to favorite in seven months. What has happened since then? What’s clear: there is a TREND -- and it is not in Joe Lieberman’s favor.
If Lieberman does lose as expected, you can look at it and draw all kinds of lessons and conclusions (and some may be contradictory). A few:
Bipartisanship Has Limits: If Karl Rove’s strategy has been to paint the United States’ security in danger if Democrats win control, and accuse Democrats who raise questions about the war as wanting to “cut and run” (event it is conceivable that someone supported the war but has very serious questions about its conduct), then it doomed Lieberman’s brand of bipartisanship. Rather than cultivate cooperation, Bush’s “your either with us or against us” has been applied to domestic politics and it sabotaged Lieberman’s cooperation with Bush would be perceived by many in his party.
The Netroots Won’t Be Counted Out: Howard Dean was widely seen as a product of Internet activists, but he tanked at the ballot box. The “netroots” hasn’t had much luck in winning elections. If Lieberman wins, it’ll be considered a force more blustery than effective. If he loses, it’ll be considered an VITAL 21st Century political force. (Conservatives have recently countered by starting the “Rightroots” to help conservative candidates)
Who Will The Independents Sympathize With After Tuesday? Watch the polls after Tuesday. The conventional wisdom by Lieberman’s defenders is that this primary can be subtitled Revenge of the McGovernites and that centrists and moderates will move towards the GOP in a general election. But is dissatisfaction -- and concern -- over an administration that has even alarmed even many traditional conservatives going to trump anything else? Lieberman’s defenders argue this is part of a historic fight; his critics say we’re in a different era with a government that is showing authoritarian tendencies. Several recent columnists who previously supported the war now basically call it a lost cause. It could be that the political ground is substantially shifting now.
A Lieberman Loss Will Change The 2024 Calculations: Criticism of the war will become stronger. Al Gore has been getting “netroots” praise. Will he seize the moment? And will this also send a message to GOPers that they must nominate a 2024 Presidential candidate who can pick up independent and moderate support (such as John McCain or Rudy Giuilani)?
If Lieberman Had Better Political Skills This Might Not Have Happened: Pundits will attribute a Lieberman political loss to the “netroots,” to Democratic activists wanting to purge their party of people who support the war, to the far left trying to dismember the influence of the moderate DLC. But another factor may be that Joe Lieberman has proven to be a lousy politician. He made some classic errors. He didn’t cultivate his base support back home. (I have a relative who met Lieberman and to this day insists he is a “sourpuss” even though she voted for him in the past).
When Joe Lieberman took Democrats to task for blasting Bush and noted that the commander in chief deserves support while the war is on, he sealed his fate. Bush squandered a once-in-a-lifetime chance to cultivate the bipartisanship that briefly blossomed after 911 and has headed one of the most divisive, polarizing, political attack-mode administrations in American history. Republicans praising Lieberman as a good Democrat cost him votes since they have been going after Democrats as, in effect, a danger to American security…which means protecting American lives.
If Lieberman loses, perhaps this clip from Ed Schultz Show last week where Schultz interviews Lieberman will provide some evidence why. When pressed by Schultz (about whether he would now demand Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation, Lieberman says yes he would but it’s the President’s call to do that.
It’s a fatal mindset due to the way Bush & Co. have encouraged bitter partisanship. It is not only Democrats who want -- and demand -- vigorous Congressional oversight of an administration that has unilaterally expanded the exercise of executive power in a ways seemingly once unimaginable. Quietly deferring to a highly-partisan President is no longer an option for many Americans -- which is why Joe Lieberman’s political career may move into a different phase come Tuesday. As so, if polls are correct, will Ned Lamont’s.
Subscribe
Grr ... Just having to type his name gets me riled. In these days of deeply divided partisan posturing, a time when the basic ideology behind each and every vote is SO EXTREMELY different, Lieberman has found a way to vote with republicans on each and every agregious proposal. ALWAYS!
And now he has the gaul to crawl back to the democrats and demand renomination? What dont I get. He is being evaluated on his performance, something that should happen way more often in politics.
CYA Holy Joe. You're not a democrat, and neither are you an independant or a moderate republican.
You are a panderer who's heart and sould lies entirly in synch with the new morality expressed by the neo con wing of the GOP. Thats you're home. Be Gone.
Normally I don't donate to politicians where I am not elibible to vote but exceptional times call for exceptional action.
Donate at:
http://www.joe2006.com/
vry,
RET
In my opinion its a shame what is happening to Joe, he's probably one of the most moderate congressmen who's now at the receieving end of the uber-anti Bush shaft when he's tried to take care of his constituents the best he could by using common sense politics. In my opinion if Joe goes, U08 needs to pick him up wherever he may land.
MA20
Why does it seem that in these times we need to define EVERYTHING.
The term centrist means a lot of things but it does not mean this ...
This requires an entirly different terminology!
Pick your Favorite Photo: Politics as we have (sadly) come to expect it ...
1)http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c120/zippy890/countcheney.jpg
2)http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/1-mccain_bush_hug.jpg
3)http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/12/images/20041217-1_1217intelpmw9w0546-515h.jpg
Lieberman is reaping exactly what he sowed. If he loses his race then he has obviously misrepresented his constituency.
And if there are here significant numbers who think alignment with Bush on the Iraq war is moderate or centrist then Unity doesn't even stand a chance of success.
Not that I have an opinion on this...
Don't cry big Joe! ... Big Joe is coming soon no matter how badly he fights his destiny! God is forcing him to Independence to be one of many icons to lead us in this fight! Big Joe has been holding lots inside himself and now as a Independent he can let it all out! (unknown?) and I beg he will express himself in this forum along with all other icons who want to express themselves!"... "Come on Big Joe let's roll!"
Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html for more!
As we build a independent movement of all peoples we find no facist policies so we must use polling of party members to dictate plaform... of course we realize technology reform is our common direction - but we must agree on the degree and pace for all reforms using these technologies no generation has had before. A lack of two party facist policy because we have no agenda other than that of the people.
Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Joe Lieberman & the Hostile Takeover of "Centrism" by David Sirota
In my new book Hostile Takeover, I spend a good deal of time showing how ultra-conservative right-wingers have hijacked the terms "centrist" and "mainstream" and disconnected them from what's actually "centrist" and "mainstream" among the public. This is no small matter (and a topic I have focused on before) - it is a hugely important and powerful linguistic weapon deviously employed by the most destructive forces. That's right - today in Washington, positions that are way to the right of where the American public stands are regularly called "centrist" or "mainstream." That's no accident - it is a deliberate strategy employed by Big Money interests that run the Establishment to effectively marginalize the vast majority of the population from its own political debate and political system. It is, in short, a hostile takeover not just of our government, but of political discourse itself.
How this semantic strategy legitimates right-wing positions and politicians can best be seen in looking at Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), a man incessantly billed by the Washington media - and himself - as a "centrist." In fact, Lieberman's name has become so synonymous with Washington's propagandistic definition of "centrism" that some of the most insulated Establishment spokespeople are using the term in a pathetic attempt to defend him from grassroots primary challenger Ned Lamont (D).
As just one example, take Marshall Wittman. This ultra-right-wing former Christian Coalition official is now employed at the Democratic Leadership Council, and purports to speak for Democrats. He is one of the most odious icons of Washington's bought-off bipartisan Establishment - and has made a name for himself peddling right-wing talking points, narratives and storylines wholly at odds with actual facts. Last week was no exception. He told the Los Angeles Times that the Connecticut primary "is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party" because "it will have repercussions for the 2024 presidential campaign and whether centrists will feel comfortable within the Democratic Party."
Wittman, a staunch Lieberman shill, is actually correct, though inadvertently. He's right - this is "a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party" and it will indicate "whether centrists will feel comfortable within the Democratic Party." But the actual data shows that the centrist is not Lieberman, as Wittman purports, but those opposing Lieberman. And if Lieberman wins the primary, it could mean that centrists will not feel comfortable in the party, because the actual data shows Lieberman is the out-of-the-mainstream arch-right-winger, and the movement that is challenging him represents the real center.
If Lieberman isn't a moderate what about the guy who beat him? Lamont's support comes from the far left KOS / Moveon coalition.
The Dems will be commiting suicide in 2024 if they follow the Lamont wing. Fortunately there's a general election in November where Lieberman will run as an independent. When he wins going away it will knock some sense into the Democrats.
Move On certainly isnt moderate but neither is the Christian Coalition.
I know jack about Ned Lamont and I dont need to. I know plenty about Lieberman.
I'm the type that will take a man at his word until he proves otherwise.
If you pencil out Leiberman's work in the 70s and 80s and focus on his actions in the past six years, you will find that he has moved in lockstep with the Bush agenda ... not just on the war, but on EVERYTHING!
Dont quote me procedural votes, look at the issue votes as they have come up. Lieberman has been 100% behind BushCo.
Now if you believe BushCo is moderate than by all means, enjoy. This is your time in the sun, you control everything. Continue making the wonderful progress that has brought us here to UNITY in opposition.
But if you believe the past six years have been detrimental to life as we know it then why support one of its chief enablers?
I just dont get it.
If you want more of the same, then why are you here pandering for change? I actualy am savvy enough to get it but here's hoping that the ploy doesnt work.
Yeah, I know, David Sirota wrote something about a former CC official working for the DLC. And that proves what about Lieberman, his conservative Christian leanings?
Of course if that's true then there is NO moderate running for Senate in CT. But that's only after buying into David Sirota's viewpoint as a "Progressive" (ie Liberal) anti-Conservative (not anti-Liberal or pro-Moderate) who worked for Moveon and can be heard twice a week on the Al Franken Show (I gleaned all that from his website). Knowing all that about Sirota places his concept of what a moderate is in rather a different light than moderates have about themselves.
You write: "Of course if that's true then there is NO moderate running for Senate in CT."
Avoiding the sematics and talking points, let me say that my contention is that there are likely few if any "moderates" running for office anyplace. With established politicians this is easy to discern from a cursory gleaning of their (recent please) actual voting records and public proclamations. I have attached a partial list of JoeMentum's below.
As I share the view of many, that the policies of BushCo border on the maniacal rather than the moderate, it worries me that a movement such as UNITY will squander its potential in courting what the media portrays as what is moderate; rather than pursuing the definition that we know in our hearts.
Correct me if I am wrong ... We have run up X Billion dollars in debt while dismantling our production capacity, struggling under burdunsome energy costs and staggering trade deficits while pursuing, in cost at least, three wars which consume vast quantities of these and other resources, all in pursuit of ..... ?
None of these accomplishments seem like the type of things applauded by moderates.
Lieberman: A Man You Know
OK to invest (Social Security) in private markets. (Aug 2024)
Religion is the foundation of environmentalism. (Oct 2024)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2024)
Death penalty for egregious crimes. (Jan 2024)
Rated 50% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2024)
Support public school choice; experiment with private choice. (Jan 2024)
Supports charter schools, private education savings accounts. (Aug 2024)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2024)
Cheney energy bill was imperfect but good for CT. (Jul 2024)
Rated 42% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2024)
With Bill Bennett, “Silver Sewer Awards” for immoral videos. (Aug 2024)
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2024)
Bush Recession will become Dean Depression. (Sep 2024)
Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2024)
Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2024)
Licensing & registration violate fundamental right to guns. (May 2024)
Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2024)
Too large health programs will force tax increases. (Sep 2024)
Supports health insurance industry (based in Hartford CT). (Aug 2024)
Limited lawsuits against HMOs and automakers. (Jan 2024)
Last thing we want is to release dangerous Gitmo detainees. (Jul 2024)
The president has the right to act alone. (Jan 2024)
Unwavering support for our troops in battle. (Jan 2024)
Win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. (Jan 2024)
Prosecute War on Terror, even if unpopular. (Sep 2024)
9/11 requires strength abroad to provide security at home. (May 2024)
More $ for weapons; including SDI recently. (Aug 2024)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2024)
Rated 10% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2024)
Earn citizenship only after 11 years of waiting within rules. (Jul 2024)
One-time earned legalization for undocumented immigrants. (Jan 2024)
Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2024)
Trade creates jobs, despite it being unpopular to unions. (Sep 2024)
Clinton’s affair was inappropriate, immoral, & harmful. (Aug 2024)
Religion fills “vacuum of values” & provides common ground. (Oct 2024)
Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. (Aug 2024)
Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2024)
New Democrat: "Third Way" instead of left-right debate. (Nov 2024)
Zoning, ratings, & code of conduct to keep Internet safe. (Jun 2024)
Leadership means consistency on war views. (Oct 2024)
Failure is not an option in War on Terror. (Sep 2024)
Overthrowing Saddam was right, and we can't abandon Iraq now. (Jul 2024)
Getting out too soon will be a disaster for Iraq and for us. (Jul 2024)
Saddam's overthrow caused Libya & Iran to capitulate. (Jan 2024)
We made the right decision to send soldiers to Iraq. (Jan 2024)
Iraq victory opens door to Israeli-Palestinian peace. (Jan 2024)
US and world are safer with homicidal maniac Saddam gone. (Jan 2024)
Stabilize Iraq before pulling out the troops. (Dec 2024)
$87B for Iraq was unpopular, but that's leadership. (Nov 2024)
$87B to never leave American troops without support. (Sep 2024)
Not an inch of difference from Bush on Iraq. (Sep 2024)
Purpose of war is to let Iraqis control Iraq. (Sep 2024)
Send more US troops to Iraq, with UN force. (Sep 2024)
Iraq was a heroic struggle against enemies of civilization. (Sep 2024)
Saddam was a threat; we did the right thing by invading. (May 2024)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2024. (Jun 2024)
Nomad,
Thanks for the information.
I will post off another to Senator Lieberman as soon as his website is fixed from the attack of the hate mongering leftits.
http://www.joe2006.com/
vry,
RET
For one, it strikes me as ludicrous to find fault with criticizing too large health programs - those WILL force tax increases. Or his stand on the death penalty, as if there aren't cases that are deserving.
As for supporting charter schools and parental CHOICE, Liberman supports education in general, not just partisan support for the teacher's unions. So what if it's a Bush initiative, is it his duty as a MODERATE to parrot the Democrat party line on every issue?
Lieberman is not convinced that Gitmo detainees are safe to release. Past experience shows that he's correct, as those we have released have come back to attack us. Using common sense here, don't repeat past mistakes.
Unwavering support for our troops in battle? Yes of course, who wants pols who DON'T SUPPORT our troops 100% of the time? (Answer: the Far Left, Moveon, KOS, the people who backed Lamont, and I wouldn't be surprised if Lamont disagrees with them the first time he's asked).
"Prosecute War on Terror, even if unpopular." Like we have a choice?
"Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." Along with Baucus,
Bingaman, Byrd, Carper, Conrad, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Leahy, Levin, Lincoln, Murray, 2 Nelsons,
Pryor, Salazar, Wyden. Also Jeffords, an Independent. Generally a more centrist group than the 22 voting against, a group that included Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer, Boxer, Cantwell, Stabenow, Lautenberg, Mikulski, etc.
Saddam's overthrow DID cause Libya to capitulate.
"Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion." SO?
"Trade creates jobs, despite it being unpopular to unions." Whether trade creates jobs is a concern of moderates. It popularity among unions is no more an issue than its popularity among corporations.
"Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2024." Because setting a date for pullout plays into the terrorist's hands.
ETC.
NotAnon,
Welcome. Don't know if we will disagree on other stuff but I am right there with you on this one.
Please keep posting!
vry,
RET
Nice planet you have here. Take me to your...
Whoops, forgot you don't have one yet. When you figure it out then :)
LOL, yes a bizzare situation but still a bit fun to pop in and out of while Management does whatever it is they are doing.
vry,
RET
I will agree with you as far as the word arguably :)
My first thought was to come back at you one point at a time but thats a matter for numerous other threads.
But since ARGUABLY one might expect that a true moderate might have SOME of these ARGUABLY extreme positions, if one entertains ALL of these positions than what gives this person claim to the term moderate? Wouldnt a true moderate exhibit some tendency to have undeniably moderate positions on at least some matters?
If we need to stretch the definition of moderate on each and every issue one at a time just to accomadate someone with that label, I say that person does not qualify for it.