Democrats & Liberals Archives

Main Event: Connecticut Smackdown

Why is the Democratic senatorial primary race in Connecticut being fought on the national stage? On the marquee, it is being billed as Iraq war supporters vs. anti-war activists. Nevertheless, once we step into the ring we discover that it is a different rivalry altogether.

Is the Iraq war the only thing driving this challenge? Is it the only issue that has caused the fight to spill into the national arena? The answer to both questions is a resounding no.

What's driving this fight are the internal workings of the Democratic Party itself. When critics contend that the Democratic Party is not unified, they're right. That’s because within the Democratic Party you have two major movements happening at the same time, both vying for party control.

Joe Lieberman is the posterchild for the first major movement, representing the "New Democrats," and driven by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

The DLC, was formed in 1985 in response to the presidential landslide victory of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale. The aim of the DLC is to move the party to the right, in order to appeal to moderate voters, and to shut up liberals.

One of the major reasons for the DLC's founding in 1985 was to resist what we called "liberal fundamentalism," a conformist tendency to stifle dissent among Democrats and require adherence to litmus tests devised by interest groups and ideological advocates. ~DLC, The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism

Critics contend that the DLC is nothing more than a Republican implant into the Democratic Party. The result has been the perception that there is little difference between the two major national parties. The DLC has succeeded in transforming the party into "Republican-lite."

Indeed, the New Democrats are beholden to big business interests, from which they draw large financial support. They also favor legislation that is good for their big business donors, abandoning the poor, the working class, and labor unions in the process.

The DLC's golden child is former President Bill Clinton, by far their biggest success. Since the DLC became a driving force in the Democratic Party, they have slowly lost control of all branches of the federal government. The DLC hopes to strike gold again in 2008 with another Clinton, Hillary. She is a major player at the DLC and heads their American Dream Initiative.

Ned Lamont represents the other major movement within the Democratic Party. His support comes from energized liberals in the grassroots, the netroots, Democracy for America (DFA) (founded by Howard Dean and run by his brother, Jim), moveon.org, and "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

In 2004, the DLC successfully got their candidate, John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nomination despite widespread grassroots support for Howard Dean.

However, with the failed Kerry presidential bid, Howard Dean’s strong appeal with the grassroots, his ability to raise large sums of money from individual donors, Dean's winning of the DNC chair, and his strategy of bringing the people back into the party have all contributed to weakening the influence of the DLC.

The DLC, with it's powerful corporate backing, is not taking it lying down. We see them flex their muscle whenever a grassroots backed liberal candidate gains popularity and creates a threat to a "Republican-lite" candidate. It happened earlier this year in Ohio to Democratic senatorial candidate Paul Hackett. Paul gained national notoriety and was able to raise large sums of money, not only in Ohio but also across the country. The New Democrat movement moved quickly to cut off his support and kill his candidacy.

The Connecticut race is the next battleground for influence within the party, and the DLC is putting all their might behind Joe Lieberman. Some are questioning why Bill Clinton is going to rally for Lieberman, after Lieberman rallied against Clinton in '98. Clinton's visit is less about Joe Lieberman than it is about his loyalty to the DLC.

In a battle royal like this, friendships and foes take a backseat to furthering the cause. In fact, some like long time friend and colleague Irving Stolberg have turned their backs on Lieberman.

August 8th will be a test of DLC strength and liberal grassroots influence. The gloves are coming off for the fight between Corporate Power vs. the Power of the People.

Posted by JayJay Snow at July 25, 2006 2:00 PM
Comments
Comment #170590

JJ,

Good analysis of the situation. Which side are you coming down on? What do you think is best for the Party?

Posted by: Rob at July 25, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #170594

It looks more to me like Joe Lieberman is the posterchild for what I like to call “Desperate Incumbent Syndrome”. It seems to me that Joe believes that no matter what anyone else thinks (including his own party) that he BELONGS in the senate. He may be the first of his kind, but he surely won’t be the last.

Posted by: Bill C. at July 25, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #170595

Rob,

Thanks. I have to come down of the side of the people. This is democracy at work, and I believe the best thing that can happen in this country is for the people to take our governance back.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 25, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #170597

good post JJ, but as a conservative I would have a hard time labeling Hillary or Kerry for that matter as republican-lite. I could however see myself voting for a libermanesqe politician.

I would think that most Dems wounldnt want their party going to a Dean or a Michael Moore type candidate much like the republicans wouldnt want theirs going to a Rush or Falwell type.

In that respect, im anxious for 2008. Whoever runs on either side, it is sure to be a great election year.

Posted by: b0mbay at July 25, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #170598

The Republicans had to deal with this over the last twenty years when they were forced to align two agendas, fiscal conservatives and the religious right. They were lucky in that the two camps rarely had conflicting views, just different core issues.

The Dems issue is more complicated. The middle-of-the-road DLC Dem differs considerably from the far-left. My guess is that any success the party is to ahve in the near future lies in how well the two sides can come together. The CT primary and the immediate fallout will be a good indicator of what is to come. If Lieberman wins the primary, he’ll coast to an easy victory and disaster will be averted. If Lamont wins the primary, it will be important for the party to put the venom of the primary behind them and ensure he wins the general as well. If Lieberman wins as an Indie, it will be a huge blow to the party, and could go a long way towards the establishment of a legitimate, centrist third party.

Posted by: David S at July 25, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #170600

David S,

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought Liberman withdrew from the primary and the show-down will be in the General. Did I miss something?

Posted by: Rob at July 25, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #170606

Hooray! Excellent analysis, Snowman.
I also say down with the corporately beholden at the DLC. And thumbs up for We, the People!!!

Posted by: Adrienne at July 25, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #170614

JayJay
Nailed it!

Rob
No, he didn’t withdraw, just set himself up if he is defeated in the primary by filing to run as an independent if he is defeated.

Posted by: mark at July 25, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #170617

I may be crazy but it would seem to me that this is an issue between Lieberman and his constituents, and little to do with the Democratic party.
While it may seem to be interesting fodder for a discussion, Connecticut should and will have the final say whether or not he gets re-elected.

This is much like any issues with people have with Kennedy.
Criticize him all you like, but Lieberman still only answers to the people of Connecticut, just as Kennedy answers to the people of Massachusetts.

Posted by: Rocky at July 25, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #170620

JayJay
Interesting and informative piece, thanks.

DLC? dla? Where does the majority of “left” voters stand?

Wouldn’t a “Republican-lite/Democrat-lite” candidate be best for our country? The majority of Americans do fall in between the two party’s.

I’m right there with Bombay and Rocky, well said guys.

Posted by: kctim at July 25, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #170623

Speaking as a Green and someone who voted for Nader in 2004 I can say that alot of the abandonment or outright hate of the Democratic Party comes from the power of the likes of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and the DLC. If the Democratic Party were to be full of nothing but the likes of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sen. Russell Feingold, Rep. John Conyers Jr, Rep. Lynn Woolsey and Rep. Jim McDermott (the only Democrats I personally like)I think alot of disallusioned independents and progressives would go back to the party of ‘The Great Society’ but you Democrats have a whole lot of work to do until that becomes a reality. Your first assignment is making sure that Senator Feingold is your nominee in 2008, thats your assigment, now go and get to work on it.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 25, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #170626

Who is to be the new John F. Kennedy or Sam Nunn or Scoop Jackson or Zell Miller for the democrats? Is there to be no Truman or FDR? I ask this respectfully.

Posted by: nikkolai at July 25, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #170629

I assume it’s all perfectly legal under election laws or someone would be screaming, and if the majority of the people of Connecticut want Lieberman as thier senator, so be it.

It does kind of have that ‘93-NBC-CBS-Letterman quality to it though, doesn’t it? Mildly juvenile, but not career suicide.

Posted by: DOC at July 25, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #170630

kctim,

I think the majority of “left” voters stand in Ned Lamont’s corner. When you talk about moderate voters that is a different story. While most voters may consider themselves “moderates” I think that term is relative. That is why a moderate candidate is usually not successful. What somebody calls moderate depends on where the country as a whole falls.

We seem to go back and forth between the two extremes, but never seem to land in the middle. One party will take us too far to the left, so we vote for the party that will take us back to the right, hoping to land somewhere in the middle.

The problem we face today is that we are too far to the right, so who is going to get us back to the middle? A moderate that sounds just like what we have now, or someone who falls to the left?

The other problem with being a moderate trying to attract moderate voters is that no one takes a moderate view on every single issue, and we don’t give equal weight to every issue. Two voters who have moderate views on every issue except let’s say the Iraq war. One is for ending the war, the other for staying the course. Both put the Iraq war at the top of their list of important issues. How does a moderate appeal to both of these voters on this issue?

John Kerry in ‘04, probably represented moderate voters best, waffling between the two sides. Yet he lost because of it. (BTW: I think JK has moved to the left since ‘04)

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 25, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #170634

I thought all you Dems loved Bill Clinton. Now we hear that some of you want to renounce all his works. You really cannot really love him and brag about his good economic management etc and reject the things that made him possible.

You talk about “the people”. Who are these guys exactly? Nearly 60% of the voters voted for Ronald Reagan. That is why the DLC was formed (as JayJay rightly points out). It seems to me that if you added the people who voted for Reagan with those who voted for DLC champion Clinton (adjusting for those who voted for both) you would have almost all the people. Who is left in this groundswell that rejects Republicans and the DLC?

The Dems created the DLC because the understood that a majority of “the people” wanted either the straight Republican or the “Republican light”.

The people - UNITED - will vote for guys like Reagan or Clinton. The lefties - rejected - will worry about their ideological purity.

Posted by: Jack at July 25, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #170635

JayJay,


“That is why a moderate candidate is usually not successful. What somebody calls moderate depends on where the country as a whole falls.”

Though I consider myself a dreaded moderate, I am an issues driven voter.

I cannot, however, reconcile myself with the screed I am hearing from the extremes on both sides.

The quandary you pose about candidates and getting out of Iraq, for instance, for me is more about how we leave, than when we leave, and I would have to vote my conscience on that.

If “stay the course” is just making the same stupid mistakes, then that would also be a factor.

“John Kerry in ‘04, probably represented moderate voters best, waffling between the two sides. Yet he lost because of it.”

Kerry lost in ‘04 because he made his service in the military more of an issue than his service to his country after he got out.

Posted by: Rocky at July 25, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #170637
I thought all you Dems loved Bill Clinton. Now we hear that some of you want to renounce all his works. You really cannot really love him and brag about his good economic management etc and reject the things that made him possible.

Jack,

Personally, I liked Clinton, and I think he did a great job as president. Yes, he is the crowning achievment of the DLC, but since that time the DLC has lost all branches of government and their last candidate for president was a failure.

The DLC seems to be a one hit wonder. Liberals on the other hand have a long history of success.

If my choice was between a candidate from the DLC and a Neocon, the DLC would win hands down. If it were between the DLC and a liberal candidate, I would probably choose the liberal.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 25, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #170640
Indeed, the New Democrats are beholden to big business interests, from which they draw large financial support. They also favor legislation that is good for their big business donors, abandoning the poor, the working class, and labor unions in the process.

In the Kerry vs Bush election campaign Kerry received more money from individual donors than he did from big business donors. Kerry did not favor legislation that abandoned the poor or the working class. George W. Bush has abandoned all but the corporations and extreme right wing fanatical groups.

Posted by: Pat at July 25, 2006 7:11 PM
Comment #170644

JayJay,

When I first found WatchBlog I believe I stated that I was a Moderate Democrat. Well, I was dead wrong! After reading and participating here for a few months I’m a Democrat, period! I’ve read messages from a few that are more liberal but, for the most part, I am just a liberal Democrat. Not a communist, or a socialist, or a coward, just a liberal Democrat and I’m proud to be just that. No more and no less.

Enter the Lieberman controversy, WOW! I’ve said before that I was no big fan of Bill Clinton, but now this crap! What’s up with this? I honestly wish that Billy, Hilly, and Joey would all pack their freakin’ bags and sign on as staff members of Bush & Co. or maybe join the rank and file of the many low-life career lobbyists in DC.

We Democrats not only need to do a house cleaning in the Senate and the House, we also need to do some house cleaning of our own. We need to let our fellow Democrats know that we still do represent the “people” and not just a chosen few.

Myself, I’m gettin’ a little bit “Greener” every freakin’ day!

KansasDem

PS: KansasGreen sounds no more stupid than KansasDem.

Posted by: KansasDem at July 25, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #170645

—-Rob—You may have blinked,
Liberman only filed legal papers to run as an Independent, if he loses to
Lamont in the Primary election.

Posted by: DAVID at July 25, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #170654

Both sides of the extreme scare me equally. The uber conservative side scares me because im a bit more moderate on social issues. The ultraleft scares me…well because they are just plain scary (im talking about the barbara streisand/michael moore/chomsky/cindy sheehan/dean liberals).

So Im left with the muddled middle. In that regard I wont vote strictly on part lines, but who I believe will represent most according to my ideals as well as who would be a better overall fit. But here’s the kicker. Those types of politicians are more often known for their weatherman type qualities than their steadfastedness (is that a word). One thing that you have to give George Bush (weather you hate him or not) is his willingness to stick to his guns. I hate the term “flip flop” but I have little respect for those that are more worried about opinion poles than execution of initiatives. Maybe that is why I can respect Liberman. He still votes 90% against what I would support, but he sticks to his guns (and goes against the grain). I can admire that.

Anyone willing to venture a guess as to who the fantasy candidates will be for 2008?

Ill throw my hat in with Guiliani/Rice vs Clinton/Obama. That would be a great race…

Good post JJ - and I appreciate the civility of the other contributers…

Posted by: b0mbay at July 25, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #170655

Great post J.J.,

Lieberman/Lamont is a certainly a Democratic showdown.

The thing I respect about the Democrats is their willingness to allow dissent.

There aren’t enough political parties who believe that dissent is patriotic. The Democrats will continue to debate the issues and will continue to find solutions for America, without having to fall in lock-step with one another.

Democrats are extremely inclusive and open to all points of view.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 25, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #170657

I will say that Lieberman running as an independent if he doesn’t win the primary seems a little disengenuous. Lieberman should just declare himself an independent if that is what he represents. If Lieberman bolts to spite the Connecticut majority, what does that say about his character? Whose interests does he represent? If he runs as an independent just because he loses the primary than he certainly couldn’t say he represents the Democratic Party.

But it doesn’t matter because ulitmately it will be a decision Connecticut voters will make.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 25, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #170668

Speaking as an independent but ideologically conservative, I like lieberman. Its nice to see a politician who is willing to work with the other side easily. I don’t like any politician who sticks to bashing the other side. Michael Moore, Jerry Falwell, Cindy Sheehan and Ann Coulter come readily to mind. Whatever happens, the will of the people of Conneticut is what will happen. Such is our American democracy, and praise God and the Founding Fathers for it.

In any case it seems that for once an election is being decided by logical discussions of the issues, namely the Iraq war, than trying to scare more crap out of more undecided voters than the other side can.

As a pro-lifer (in every sense of the phrase) I take issue with calling democrats “very inclusive.” The party could not even allow a link to the democratic parties largest pro-life group. (democrats for life)Also, I note far more powerful pro-choice republicans than powerful pro-life democrats. But that is just one issue and in general I am not knowledgable in the democratic party in general. Benji if you have anything you could show for democratic inclusiveness I would love to see it. A book I just read by Jim Wallis didn’t have much to say for it and a little info from the democratic side would balance it out.

Posted by: Silima at July 25, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #170674

Silma,

Technically, I’m not a Democrat. But the “pro-life” Democrats are certainly up for a battle with “pro-choice” Democrats and if “pro-life” Democrats want a voice in the Democratic Party by all means.

You are not a Democrat though so I guess the point is mute.

Either way, I find any controversial point that I may make among Democrats is always taken with a grain of salt and a respect for freedom of speech than anything I’ve ever personally witnessed among Republicans.

Independents are another breed and I’m not going to elaborate.

According the the top of this blog:

Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I don’t see Democrats coming out of the woodwork feasting on your “pro-life” position.

Maybe it’s because this Democratic blog is inclusive enought to respect your choices (even if your choice is “pro-life”).

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 25, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #170675

My apologies for veering off the topic…

Lieberman and Lamont is going to be an interesting primary…

Will this inner Democratic rivalry be the undoing of the Democrats…

Or will the Democrats end up patching up their diverse and dissenting views and work together as a whole…

Stay tuned for the Primary.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 25, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #170681

Many pro-bush “conservatives” are authoritarian cultists: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/john-dean-and-authoritarian-cultism_23.html

They do not care what happens to this country, they instead focus on attacking their opposition. Here is one of the most insightful articles I’ve read, it’s about time to dismiss chickenhawks who equate advocacy of a war with actual fighting.

Posted by: mark at July 25, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #170682

Mark,

I couldn’t agree with you more.

Interesting article.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 25, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #170686

Silima,

I am not a big fan of the “big tent” concept. As I see it there are actually four major viewpoints being represented by two major parties:

Conservatives= fiscal conservative, social conservative

Neocon= fiscal liberal, social conservative

New Democrat= fiscal conservative, social liberal

Liberal= fiscal liberal, social liberal

I would rather see the 2 major parties split into 4 separate parties each representing it’s own viewpoint. All the “big tent” seems to do is cause in party bickering and division. That could probably easily happen now, unfortunatly the 2 major parties work hard to make it hard for other parties to make it onto a national ballot.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 25, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #170687

Benji

You respect how the Dems allow dissent.

I guess you mean trying to toss a winning candidate over the side because he disagrees with the activists on the issue of the Iraq war. That is an interesting type of toleration. Dems can dissent all they want, but if they do they won’t be allowed to keep their jobs. Decent trade off for the self employed.

The funny thing is that you really don’t know how much people are laughing.

Posted by: Jack at July 25, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #170690

Jack,

I guess you mean trying to toss a winning candidate over the side because he disagrees with the activists on the issue of the Iraq war.
If Lieberman gets “tossed over the side” by the voters—then by definition he is not a winning candidate. Let the democratic process work. Nobody is guaranteed a lifetime career in Congress.

Posted by: Introspective at July 25, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #170693

I’m a Dem and a Liberal and proud of it, and I hope that Liberman falls on his as. I’d love a wake up call for the DLC too. I’m sick of a one party system, and I think most Dem’s are. And, it don’t matter what that one party calls itself:

Dem’s, Rep’s, Rep-lite, DLC, (Independent), don’t matter. (If they are all laying in the same bed together, who cares what they want to call themselves?)

If you’re in the pocket of big business, against the American people, union busting, private interest protectionism, corporate favoritism, tax cuts for the wealthy, I won’t vote for you….

No matter what you want to call yourself, you’re still a scum-bag (in my book)!

Posted by: PlayNice at July 26, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #170695

Intro

No. He is getting thrown over by activists. He would certainly win the general election, and probably will as a Dem or Independent.

Posted by: Jack at July 26, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #170696

Silima:
“I like lieberman. Its nice to see a politician who is willing to work with the other side easily.”

I don’t like Lieberman, because in order for him to “work with” the other side, he first had to lose most of his formerly progressive principles. This is instead why I admire Russ Feingold so much. He doesn’t have to do that in order for him to work effectively while reaching across the aisle.

“I don’t like any politician who sticks to bashing the other side. Michael Moore, Jerry Falwell, Cindy Sheehan and Ann Coulter come readily to mind.”

FYI, most of these folks aren’t politicians. Michael Moore is a film-maker, sh*t disturber, and rightwing critic. Btw, contrary to what seems to be popular belief, Moore is not a Democrat. Jerry Falwell is a so-called “Man of God”, but he’s more of a evangelical propagandist and lobbyist working on rightwing politicians. Cindy Sheehan is an peace activist whose Marine son Casey died in Iraq. I honestly don’t know what political party she belongs to. And Ann Coulter is a hate-filled slut of a leftwing critic who is constantly inciting all sorts of violence against “Libruhllls”.

Jay Jay:
“New Democrat= fiscal conservative, social liberal
Liberal= fiscal liberal, social liberal”

Sorry, I find this is too simplistic. I happen to be a fiscal conservative* and a social liberal, but I am in no way, shape, or form a “New Democrat”. New Democrats sold out the people in the Democratic Party to give support for the corporate take over of America, while pocketing their money for campaigns. I despise that fact, and a great many of these politicians for doing so.

* I say I’m a fiscal conservative because I feel America really has no other choice at the moment! IMO, we must get our economic house in order, or we’re all headed for disaster. If however a miracle happens, and the economy can actually recover one day, I’d no doubt go right back to advocating for much needed social programs/spending — though managed shrewdly and intelligently, of course.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 26, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #170702

It’s really pretty simple: either the left wing internet-based activist Democrats will get their way, which is the same thing as Karl Rove getting his way, or the DLC will prevail and the Democratic party will continue to be competitive on the national political scene.

The internet Democrats, just as happened with the Howard Dean campaign, keep mistaking their ability to make a lot of noise with actual political power.

Despite whatever muscle they’re managing to flex in Connecticut, all they’re achieving is making life difficult for Lieberman, a Democrat, on his way to his next term the Senate. And to state the obvious, Connecticut is politically not very representative of the rest of the country.

Karl Rove would love it, actually, if Lieberman were to actually lose (though that’s incredibly unlikely). It would mean that the Democratic party was cracked wide open, and it would empower the far left to bring forward more far left-wingers in places where they have no chance of winning.

Take for example the desire that the far-left Dems have to see Russ Feingold run for president.

Anyone who cannot see why Feingold has absolutely zero chance of winning outside of a handful of Northeast states has not been paying any attention at all to American politics.

An unmarried Jewish man from Wisconsin who is anti death penalty and has a a record of statements and votes on national security which would be a political ad-writer’s dream would be lucky to equal Walter Mondale or Dukakis’s electoral votes.

I’m not saying it’s fair, but it’s reality. Something in very short supply among activist liberals, much to the delight of Karl Rove.

Posted by: M P at July 26, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #170703

Jack,

No. He is getting thrown over by activists.
I’m curious to know what your definition of “activist” is. Mine is similar to that on Wikipedia:
Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social or political change. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument.
Isn’t activism what politics is about—or what it’s supposed to be about? The question you should be asking is, if Lieberman is such a “winner”, then why aren’t there more activists on his side?

Adrienne,

Sorry, I find this is too simplistic. I happen to be a fiscal conservative* and a social liberal, but I am in no way, shape, or form a “New Democrat”
Exactly. You beat me to it.

Posted by: Introspective at July 26, 2006 1:10 AM
Comment #170715

Playnice:

No matter what you want to call yourself, you’re still a scum-bag (in my book)!

Glad to know I have a title now…

you probably offended 90% of the people who post here…

Posted by: b0mbay at July 26, 2006 3:04 AM
Comment #170722

b0mbay,

Glad to know I have a title now…
You apparently believe that Playnice was calling you a scum-bag, but Playnice was calling those that meet the following description scum-bags:
If you’re in the pocket of big business, against the American people, union busting, private interest protectionism, corporate favoritism, tax cuts for the wealthy, I won’t vote for you…
So you’re a politician, and you believe in all of the above?

you probably offended 90% of the people who post here…
Playnice’s post was referring to politicians, and a subset of politicians at that. I’m willing to venture that less than 1% of the people who post here should feel offended. At least not personally offended, whether or not you agree with his assessment.
Posted by: Introspective at July 26, 2006 4:06 AM
Comment #170725

Dem’s, Rep’s, Rep-lite, DLC, (Independent), don’t matter. (If they are all laying in the same bed together, who cares what they want to call themselves?)

I was referring to that…

Posted by: b0mbay at July 26, 2006 4:22 AM
Comment #170727

b0mbay,

I was referring to that…
Again, he’s talking about politicians. Even without taking that into account, how is that sentence offensive?

Posted by: Introspective at July 26, 2006 5:02 AM
Comment #170752

Jack,

If he loses, he won’t be the “winning candidate” anymore.

It’s really pretty simple: either the left wing internet-based activist Democrats will get their way, which is the same thing as Karl Rove getting his way, or the DLC will prevail and the Democratic party will continue to be competitive on the national political scene.

MP,

This “simple” analysis that conservatives have come up with is totally wrong. We aren’t talking about “national political scene”. We’re talking about Connecticut, which as you point out is a pretty liberal state.

Would you expect Republicans in say, Kansas, to choose a moderate Senator so they can fit in with the “national political scene? What do they care? They’re in Kansas!

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 26, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #170753

MP,

You’re right about the DLC, though. If only we had listened to them in 2004! Oh.. wait a minute.. we did. They supported Kerry.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 26, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #170762

BOmbay,

Introspective is right. I was refering to those politicians, (or people) who believe (or vote for their beliefs in):

busting unions, tax cuts for only the wealthest Americans, war for profit, and corporate protectionism:

If your are a voter, or a polititian, who supports the above adgenda?

Then you’re a “scum-bag” (in my book), and I don’t care which paticular party or sub party you want to belong to (Republician, Democrat, Old Republician, New Democrat, Independant, or what-ever), … or who you vote for.

You’re underminding America, Americans, and the American way of life. If that offends YOU?

Then “OK”. (Guilty as charged).

Posted by: PlayNice at July 26, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #170768

Once again, partisan politics takes precedence over good public policy.

Reps and Dems alike have dug in their heels, staked their positional claim, and closed their minds. One senator chooses a position not in line with “the party line” (as determined by the self-proclaimed leaders of the free world) and he not only is scolded like a 3rd grader, but has a recruited opponent in the primary. Childish.

One former secretary of state (Colin Powell) expresses regret for having represented a certain position on the war (imagine that you dems, a rep who can actually admit a mistake) and gets politically relegated to the back of the bus (believe me, no pun intended). Childish.

Joe Lieberman deserves what ever he gets, because for the last many years, he has been just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. Just once, we should vote almost all incumbents out of office and shove the red hot poker of reality right where it will do the most good.

I am generally not such a pessimist. I usually try to take the most optimistic view possible to help motivate people into proper action. That’s my job as a manager. These super-partisans drive me to drink.

Maybe the best thing for them, and “we the people,” would be to “permit” them to go back to the private sector where they can relearn what the meaning of “truth” is. oops, hanging preposition.

Vote them out!!!

Posted by: Chi Chi at July 26, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #170771

My preference is 12 year old blended Scotch, by the way.

Posted by: Chi Chi at July 26, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #170772

Chi,

Much more of this …stuff… and we’ll all be drinking scotch…Here’s 2 ya, have one for me too.

Why is it that those voted into office by the “people”, don’t actually want to work for the “people”? But in their own best interest or in the best interest of “their own party”?

Posted by: PlayNice at July 26, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #170776

Chi Chi,

I’m confused. Lieberman made decisions that people strongly disagreed with, and now they want to vote him out. How on earth in that childish?! Looks to me like accountability.

And by the way, the Democratic leadership is supporting Lieberman.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 26, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #170797

Woody,

It is childish because of its motives. The dem leadership’s support of Lieberman has, at best, been token and reserved. Additionally, they have not attempted to deter his opponent from running. In political terms, that is bet hedging. More politics, less loyalty. Look beyond the sound bites and see the subtle qualities of this campaign.

I have been a staffer on more campaigns, local and national, than I care to admit to. Some of them I actually regret. I can recognize partisanship even within a single party from a mile off. Joe Lieberman has been all but abandoned by his party. Just take a moment and think outside the partisan line. Linear thought would dictate that his opponent would not be running a campaign the scope of this one if he had not been strongly encouraged by dem leadership. It just stands to reason.

Posted by: Chi Chi at July 26, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #170802

Chi Chi,

It doesn’t matter what the Democratic leadership think about the two candidates. This is democracy in action and it should be happening all across the country. The people of Connecticut, a left leaning state, will have a real choice between two democrats with differing views. How can that possibly be a bad thing? Some of us will only a choice between the same ol’ Democrat and a Republican alternative. For those of us in blue states, there is not a real choice to be made.

Look at what happened in Ohio. The Democratic leadership killed Paul Hackett’s bid for a senate seat in favor of Sherrod Brown. I think that was horrible on the part of the Democratic leadership. Instead of letting the people go to the polls and choosing between the two, the party leadership made the decision for them. How is that democracy? Let the people choose who they want representing them!

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 26, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #170805

Chi Chi,

Your argument just doesn’t make any frickin’ sense. A purely partisan voter would support Lieberman in a heartbeat. He has a (D) after his name, right?

He is in trouble because of the war. That isn’t partisan at all. It’s an important issue.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 26, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #170806

—-Chi Chi—-Being a Manager of any Business is a
responsibility, which takes a cohesive togetherness
in order to be a productive functional company. When
by your own choice, decide to go against the
the policies of you company you had better be looking for different job. The same scenario applies
to Senator Liberman in that the voters will
decide his fate, as would your General Manager
decide yours had you gone against their policies.
I believe, by making known his intentions, of
becoming an Independent if he lost in the primary, sealed his fate.

Posted by: DAVID at July 26, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #170807

JayJay,

“It doesn’t matter what the Democratic leadership think about the two candidates.”

It shouldn’t, but it does—very much. Who has control of the money? Who has control of who third parties spend their time and money on? Who really decided Joe Lieberman needed to go? The people? Who recruited his opponent? The people?

“Look at what happened in Ohio. The Democratic leadership killed Paul Hackett’s bid for a senate seat in favor Sherrod Brown.”

That is exactly my point. Leadership should stay out of it in a contested primary. By the same token, if leadership oversteps itself and recruits a challenger, they ought to at least have the gonads to admit it.

What it comes down to is Lieberman was not in lock step with leadership. Before his challenger was recruited, Lieberman enjoyed high approval ratings in his state. Then leadership started circulating their disapproval of his stance on the Iraq war and a challenger emerges. Hmmmm.

Posted by: Chi Chi at July 26, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #170809

Chi Chi,

Are you sure it was the Democratic leadership that recruited Ned? It was my understanding that it was the grass/netroots that recruited him.

The only thing I have seen coming from party leadership has been support for Lieberman.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 26, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #170810

I live in Arkansas,where two of my Democratic Senators are lapdogs of the DLC.A Ned Lamont Democratic is what the state of Arkansas needs,not a bunch of DLC hacks.

Posted by: thelibertine at July 26, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #170812

Chi Chi,

Even if the Democratic leadership did recruit Ned, so what? The people of Connecticut now have a choice between two Dems. I would rather see the Dem leadership recruit challengers and give the people a choice, than to see them deter an opponent from running and taking a choice away from the people.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 26, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #170816

—-Jay Jay Snow— I would sat, that’s politics at it’s best. Right on the the money.

Posted by: DAVID at July 26, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #170817

typ-goof—say

Posted by: DAVID at July 26, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #170824

JJ:

You are exactly right.

You can tell where Lieberman stands by those who support him. Even on this site, Jack is for Lieberman. Need I say more?

The battle in the Democratic Party is NOT between moderates and “lefties.” The battle is between those who work for the interests of Big Business and those who work for the rest of us.

Those who work for the average guy are not “lefties.” They are in the mainstream. Ned Lamont is in the mainstream.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 26, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #170842

JayJay,

” I would rather see the Dem leadership recruit challengers and give the people a choice, than to see them deter an opponent from running and taking a choice away from the people.”

If I honestly thought he was recruited by leadership, and I believe he was, for the sole purpose of providing the people a choice, I would be all for it. I do not believe it for a minute. Choice is a good thing, but I tend to look deeper to the motive, and I don’t like it. It looks a lot like the kid who took his ball and went home because the others would not play the way he wanted to. Lieberman wanted to bend some rules of engagement and the leadership did not like it.

Perhaps I am overthinking this a bit. Perhaps I have become too skeptical. Believe me, I have the same feelings toward the Reps as the Dems. The last 15 years of politics have made me a bit gun shy.

When all is said and done, if Lieberman is re-elected as a Dem, I will be perfectly fine with that. If his primary opponent is elected, I will be rather suspicious. If the republican is elected, I will fall over dead.


Posted by: Chi Chi at July 26, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #170844

Paul,

“You can tell where Lieberman stands by those who support him. Even on this site, Jack is for Lieberman. Need I say more?”

WOW! How did gentleman Joe go from the darling VP candidate to having to field barbs like this in such a short time? Didn’t the dems know where he stood on the war before the last pres election? That kind of turn around just serves to make me even more suspicious.


Posted by: Chi Chi at July 26, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #170847

Chi Chi,

WOW! How did gentleman Joe go from the darling VP candidate to having to field barbs like this in such a short time? Didn’t the dems know where he stood on the war before the last pres election? That kind of turn around just serves to make me even more suspicious.
What turn around? There was no war when Joe was the VP candidate, and Lieberman has not been up for reelection until now.

Posted by: Introspective at July 26, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #170866

Intro,

“What turn around? There was no war when Joe was the VP candidate, and Lieberman has not been up for reelection until now.”

Oh, come on. You mean to tell me that you honestly don’t think the dems knew of Lieberman’s hardline stance in the middle east (even if the war had not yet started) during his stint as the VP candidate? He was the darling then, and now, since the was began, he gets hung out to dry.

Please don’t be so naive. I may be over analyzing this a bit, but it is better than having your head buried in the political sand.

Posted by: Chi Chi at July 26, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #170873

Chi Chi,

Your insistence that there is some sort of sinister anti-Lieberman conspiracy continues to mystify me. Connecticut is pretty liberal, Democratic state. I would wager that most Connecticans, if that’s the word, are against the war. So why is it surprising that he is in trouble over the war?

A lot of prominent Democrats have campaigned for Lieberman. I don’t know of any who have campaigned for Lamont. You argue that the Democratic leaders are pushing for Lamont, but all of the evidence points the other way.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories out there with no evidence to support them, and they’re all lame.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 26, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #170883

Woody,

Continue to believe as you will. My rather extensive experience in national campaigns combined with the circumstances unfolding in this campaign have may hackles up. I realize this sounds like a conspiracy theory. I am a realist and I don’t deny appearances.

I can’t help but believe, based on the lack luster support of “leadership” and virtually no opposition to Lamont, that there is more going on here. If “leadership” was truly backing Lieberman, there would be alot more comments against Lamont.

Posted by: Chi Chi at July 26, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #170952

There’s a reason serious presidential candidates of either party try to move more to the center: The American people don’t like extremists of any ilk.

If the far left of the Democratic Party wrests control from the DLC and gets their candidate on the ticket in ‘08, the Dems will lose big.

If the Republicans make the same mistake, Joe Lieberman running as an Independent could find himself moving into the White House.

Posted by: ulysses at July 26, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #170988

—Chi Chi—Most of us do know Lamont, there has been very said about him. I do how ever have some
knowledge of Liberman, an I find very little animosity towards Liberman, You might show us a
a list, showing a conspiracy against him, then
we could form a better conclusion about your concerns!

Posted by: DAVID at July 26, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #171004

All you will find in the middle of the road,is a yellow line and a dead armadillo.

Posted by: thelibertine at July 27, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #171009
If the far left of the Democratic Party wrests control from the DLC and gets their candidate on the ticket in ‘08, the Dems will lose big.

ulysses,

We’ve been doing it the DLC way since before Clinton and we have already lost big. Clinton was the DLC’s one hit wonder and since then we have lost all branches of the federal government. We are only now starting to see signs of a turnaround since Dean took over the DNC.

I really wish that the Democratic Party would get back to it’s roots, and stop taking advice from the RNC.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 27, 2006 1:51 AM
Comment #171026

“The majority of Americans do fall in between the two party’s”.


Would that be the majority of Americans who do not even know who their congressional representatives are or the one that do not vote?

Why continue to present America as if it is a functioning democracy when it is not?

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at July 27, 2006 5:14 AM
Comment #171058

—Jay Jay Snow—You are right about getting bad advice. I bet if we could put up one million dollar
prize for one person who voted on the Democratic
side, we might draw out the vote? (something I heard)

Posted by: DAVID at July 27, 2006 11:44 AM
Post a comment