Democrats & Liberals Archives

Nine Out of Ten

Lieberman tells us that he’s with us nine out of ten times with his votes, so we’re just being partisan by not reelecting him as our Democratic candidate for that Senate seat, and opposing his reelection altogether. The trouble with this argument is this: that ten percent was the wrong ten percent. There are issues that we Democrats could have let slide, and often do, such as those on abortion, gay rights, and gun control.

But there are times, like he purports to be doing right now, where we must stand up for what we believe in, and where nine points of agreement on other votes doesn't make the tenth vote any more tolerable.

Such a time is now. The primary purpose for which we started this war has turned out to be false. We didn't go to Iraq, as a nation, merely so we could plant the seeds of Democracy. We didn't have the luxury of being so generous with our armed forces for that purpose alone. We went there to answer a threat. That threat did not exist. As of this writing, it cannot be determined in what proportion this was merely about sloppy standards of evidence, and how much was outright lies for political gain, but in whatever proportion it was, Americans like myself were deeply dismayed and disheartened to find out how badly we were misled.

It is a moral issue of the deepest kind, to be sure: when do we go to war, why do we go to war, and what do we do when we find out we were wrong about a war. If we go to war, especially a pre-emptive war, our evidence must be there to back our actions up, and the actions of our soldiers as well. It is immoral to send soldiers to die unless the best evidence or the most desperate circumstances are at hand.

In determining why we go to war, we must also consider the moral implications of the coercion we wish to exercise. It is not only moral, it is also necessary to go to war to defend our country from threats, both conventional and unconventional. Let there be no mistake: American Liberals have never had a problem with the pursuit of and the defense against our terrorist enemies in the world. We are not fools, we are not suicidal or self destructive. To go to war, though, simply because we want some sort of geopolitical arrangement is not only bad foreign policy, it is bad war-fighting.

It is also bad war-fighting not to recognize your errors, in both kind and extent. Those who do not see their errors, do not correct them. Those who do not correct their errors both hinder their own efforts and provide aid and comfort to the enemy in terms of weakness that we not only don't address, but won't.

Because Bush failed to properly study the situation in Iraq and the Middle East, failed to properly plan out the offensive, and subsequently deal with the errors there in good time, American soldiers have been put in the unenviable position of fighting a war that the folks back home do not entirely back. Worse yet, trying to cover his own political backside on these issues, he's turned the issue from one of common defense to one of attacking one half of the country to defend his actions to the other half. No other president in the history of this country has attempted to fight a war under such divisive rhetoric, and with good reason. It is a fundamentally, strategically unsound way to fight a war. It may yield temporary political benefits to do this, but it does so at the cost of morale on the homefront. Many people despair now of a successful war on terrorism, because of how Bush has gotten us stuck in the tarpit of Iraq.

Joe Lieberman, though, unlike 9/10ths of his fellow Democrats, supports the President. Republicans like this about him, and back Joe even to the exception of their own poorly chosen candidate, who is now dealing with a gambling scandal. But what they like about Joe is the kind of loyalty that years of terrible policy in Iraq and at home have predisposed we Democrats not to appreciate. Loyalty to Bush.

Does it matter that 90% of the rest of the time, he stands with us? Not when he fights tooth and nail for that 10% where he doesn't agree with us, even to the point of repeating the worst, most vicious, most divisive slanders of Bush, Dick Cheney, and our Republican opponents. Not when he attempts to humiliate fellow party-members with Red-baiting, terror-baiting, and all the other filthy tactics that anger us when use by people who are rivals; should we tolerate these things more readily from our friends than our enemies?

I have long preached against the evils of blind partisanship, and excessive strictness of political platform, but there is a point where even I recognize that I must stand with the rest of my political party, despite my differences. Even the least partisan of us recognize that there is a point where the moral necessities of dissent and disagreement do not justify the kind of rhetoric that Lieberman and his predecessor Zell Miller used against their own party, nor the kind of cooperation they have shown with the opposition. And even the most naive schoolboy or school girl knows that an elected official is responsible to their constituency. As of this moment, 9/10ths of all Democrats oppose the President's plan for the war in Iraq.

Honestly, you on the Right, when do we get to decide who our own party members are? When do we get to tell someone they are no longer welcome as a member of our party? I read of massive defections from your side, in terms of candidates at the state and even national level. I have read for years about the efforts of special interests like the NRA, The Club For Growth, the Religious Right, and others to purge moderates from your midst. Yet you folks have the temerity to take us to task for saying no to the reelection of one man, a man who has put a dagger into our back on your behalf. Just how quickly would you react to that kind of disloyalty, with your track record of pushing people out of your party?

We have a right to define the limits of our membership. We have the right, constitutionally granted, to decide who we associate with, and who we do not. Right now, we do not want much to do with Joe Lieberman. If you want to support a man who has only 10% loyalty to your side, despite the 90% of differences you have time and again ejected your own party members over, go ahead. Just don't expect any neutral observer, much less any Democrat to believe you're doing it on principle. We know why you're on Lieberman's side, and it's for the exact same reasons we are no longer on his: He has betrayed his constituents and his party, and that betrayal is in the interests of a Republican party desperately seeking to retain power by any methods it can.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2006 8:01 AM
Comments
Comment #176711

I’m reaching the point where I find all this hate flowing from the radicalized left wing very boring.

Islamo Fascists are waging war against the west, the N. Korean nuts Clinton paid blackmail money to are building nukes, Iran is building a bomb to start a middle east nuclear war and to possible arm terrorists with nuclear material to use against the US and the “progressives” think their greatest enemies are Americans who do not share their extreme left wing views.

I’m all for running out of the democratic party every liberal who does not agree with the progressives.

Take Hillary next please. She is still for the war. She has DARED to oppose the democratic party. It’s time for you to trash, smear, and run her out of the party.

As I said, all this hate flowing from the left is boring. And they feel they are so intellecutual when they do it.

Posted by: Stephen at August 21, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #176712

The situation with Lieberman reminds of the concept of “clutch hitting” in baseball.

For those who are not familiar, the idea is that in evaluating someone’s hitting, you have to look at how well they hit when it really counts: when the game is close, someone is on base, etc.

In theory, someone could have a phenomenally high batting average and not help their team at all, because they don’t drive runs in or do so when the game is already a blowout. In some cases, corrupt players even have been known to intentionally make meaningless hits so they could point at their high batting average as evidence that they weren’t throwing games.

Well, you can see what I am getting at with Lieberman. In theory, he has a high “batting average” as a Democrat, but he is a lousy “clutch hitter”. In fact, when the game is on the line he is often hanging out with the other team. And, interestingly enough, it is the players on the other team who like to point out his high batting average. “Are you kidding, Joe is slaughtering us, look at his high batting average!” Uh huh. Old Joe is a fearsome hitter, he just never helps his team.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 21, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #176713

You guys should lay off Lieberman already. We know you don’t like him and we heard how terrible he is.

It is true that the right does not get to choose the candidates the left chooses to run. But all the voters, right and left, get to choose who will win. I think that is what really is bothering Democrats about Lieberman. The people of Conn may just not go with the Democratic party line.

Posted by: Jack at August 21, 2006 9:35 AM
Comment #176716

Jack,

I actually agree with you that this whole contest has been overanalyzed, by BOTH sides. (But I couldn’t let my point about clutch hitting go to waste.) It is basically a contest between two Democrats, so in theory Republicans shouldn’t be interested at all. In theory. In actuality the GOP has all but endorsed Lieberman.

But yeah, it is probably getting a little old. On the plus, it keeps you guys distracted from problems on your own side.

(Right-wing) Stephen,

You guys should ration your use of the word “hate”. By using it whenever liberals dare to talk about anything, you have pretty much nullified it as a rhetorical weapon.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 21, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #176720

Stephen Daugherty, well said, to the other Stephen why are you even here, this is a demo/liberal chat and message board if you don’t like what is being said simply leave, but, as a typical neocon you come in and start spewing hate, it is not an attitude that I understand or do I wish to, HAVE A NICE DAY!

Posted by: jim at August 21, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #176722

I truly respect Joe Lieberman for sticking to his views. But the bigger issue, larger even than the war, is that he seems to have lost touch with his constituents. He’s become a symbol of what’s wrong with the Dems: stodgy and un-innovative. He’s part of the power brokers who, fearing someone like an insurgent Howard Dean, gave us John Kerry in 2004, who went on to run a dismal campaign against a President who should have been beaten. The future of the Democratic party does not lie with the Reids (boring!), Liebermans or even Pelosis. It lies with the Obamas, the Hacketts (who the party drummed out of the Senate race in Ohio) and the Lamonts. Fresh articulate people who stand for something! The good ol’ boys will only serve to keep the Dems the minority party.

Posted by: Lee at August 21, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #176726

I agree with Lee. As a CT voter, I’d simply like to see some new blood and new ideas. 18 years is more than enough time to advance your ideas. Let someone else have a try, if he stinks, we’ll get someone else in there who doesn’t.
Even the same old good ideas need to be updated with something less stinky. Joe still might smell okay, but the “kiss with the devil” has spread his deoderant thin. It’s time to put the stink where it belongs, in the recycling center, where his same old good ideas can be combined with new ones.

Posted by: dutch_expat at August 21, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #176739

Jim, please see below

“this is a demo/liberal chat and message board if you don’t like what is being said simply leave, but, as a typical neocon you come in and start spewing hate”

I take it you never go to the Republican/conservative blogs do you? Where 6 out of 10 comments posted are from liberals spewing hate? We tell you to leave there, and typically you people scream FASCIST or something along those lines. As for the subject matter, Lieberman wouldn’t tow the liberal party line 110%, so you tried to throw him under a bus. Unfortunately for you, the voters in CT are saying otherwise, and as usual your plan to install a moveon.org nut into Congress is going to fail

HAVE A PLEASANT DAY !

Posted by: Randy at August 21, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #176744

Randy, Right Stephen,

It’s a shame you can’t enter this blog with something to actually discuss. Apparently one man’s argument is another’s hate spew. Perhaps you could find something more meaningful to do with your time?

Posted by: Loren at August 21, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #176745

Loren I guess you, like most left-minded people, missed the point entirely. You people on the left consistantly persistantly whine, complain, and accuse others of committing the exact same actions that you commit on a regular daily basis. Also, I added something to the discussion regarding Lieberman and the subject matter.

guess you didn’t read that far huh?

Posted by: Randy at August 21, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #176750

Yes, I read that far, but you offer nothing but generalizations and liberal bashing, otherwise. CT is a blue state, generally speaking, and the Democratic voters made their decision. I guess the war in Iraq was a deal breaker for them. If Lieberman no longer represents them, they have the duty to do that. If you don’t like it, move to CT and vote for him in the general election.

Posted by: Loren at August 21, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #176752

Jim-
There is no restriction by party as to who can post here. I in fact welcome rational right-wing debate of my points.

(rightwing)Stephen-
If what I wrote was hatred, it was only hatred for the contempt coming from the other side for our political independence of their ideology. I don’t really hate the Republican. I feel strongly about Bush and the others, to be sure, but my feelings are based on very legitimate grounds, which you have not chosen to debate.

If you guys can kick out your moderates, why can’t we kick out a person who has betrayed our values and his fellow Democrats for his own political benefit?

As for your war with the Islamic Fascists? It’s a poor man’s version of the fight against communism, only you don’t even have a real political philosophy or party to oppose. All you have is an vague, muddled overgeneralization about politics, religion and ethnic demographics in the Middle East.

As for the threats facing us, stop buying your own rhetoric. You have no other cause to doubt our loyalty to this country than our lack of loyalty to you and your agendas. Other than that, we have put great effort into keeping this nation secure over the last century.

Loren-
Attack their argument, not them. It’s their logic we need to defeat.

Randy-
Your standards of hate are loose enough to include reasoned dissent. Your party has crossed the line repeatedly, and have gotten hypersensitive to even the suggestion of change or the redistribution of power.

Your party’s political discipline has been far stricter, its expulsions far greater in number. We are not the ones overreacting to differences in the party, or crippling it through excessive rigidity in the agenda.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #176755

Stephen

Both sides can kick out the moderates if they want. The problem for Dems is that the moderate is going to kick back. It comes down to whose keister is being kicked. As I wrote in a different post, the Dems have accomplished the impossible feat of kicking their own ass.

Posted by: Jack at August 21, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #176758

The actions of the Dems in CT and elsewhere seem to give lie to the claim that the Democratic Party is a big umbrella with room for differing opinions. It looks like that is true only as long as the opinions are those approved by the Party leaders. Nice! How does this differ from the Reps?

Posted by: John Back at August 21, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #176759

I believe I did enter this blog with something to discuss. The “progressives” simply ignore what is painfully inconvenient.

What about Hillary? Your great smear and hate crusade against Lieberman is based on his pro Iraq war stance. What about Hillary? Is she next? She seems to fit the same criteria of not bowing down to the raidical left on the war.

Please, don’t tell em what we are seeing from the left is not radicalized hatred and smearing. The name calling from the left is moronic. Lets see, Lieberman is a “neocon”, a “Bushie”, a “neonazi”, a “republican”, a “republicon” etc etc etc.

Lieberman was a good democrat and a good statemen. But the radicalized left wing smear mongers in the DNC waged war on him and ran him out of the party.

Do you folks oppose terrorists? Do you OPPOSE Hezbollah? Do you oppose Hamas? Do you Oppose N. Korea? Do you oppose Iran? Do you oppose insurgants and terrorists in Iran? Do you pretend Bush brought down the twin towers? Do you see Bush as a greater threat to the US than terrorists? Do you spend your days attacking Americas enemies or attacking Republicans and attacking members of your own party whom you see standing in the way of the radicalized left wing taking control?

Yes, HATE is an Issue. Smearing is an Issue. Being a party of Division IS an issue. They are your issues, they are your parties problems.

The progressive agenda aimed at taking down “christian capitalist” america and replacing it with some sort of political correct, amoral, weak, socialist america is as far as I’m concerned every bit an enemy of this nation as the enemies we fight abroad. It’s a war on two fronts. Terrorists from without and hate mongering progressives from within. We have to fight them both.

Posted by: Stephen at August 21, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #176761

Jack,

I think you are correct about them kicking themselves in the hind quarters on this one. Imagine this, Lieberman wins, which he might well do. And the democrats need one more seat to control the Senate. LAUGH. It’s as if they took out a gun and shot themselves.

Lieberman wasn’t just a democrat, he was a LIBERAL democrat. And they ran him out. It’s enough to make your Jaw drop. The party of JFK is no longer. The party that led us into WWII to victory, is no longer. Now it’s some sort of socialist party run by what Stalin called “Useful Idiots”. The term he used to lable so called “intellectuals” in the west who opposed capitalism and supported socialism.

I see the larger issue as a problem of the “progressive” cultural war against Americans who do not agree with them. In my opinion we saw the progressives gather ranks around Hezbollah because they see any foreign force that is hostile to the US as a potential allie in taking down the “old” America and replacing it with “political correctness” which is nothing more than thinly veiled socialism.


The crowd that supports the like of Sadam, Hamas are the same as the ones that supported Mao and wanted appeasement with Hitler. The left wingers of today and an age ago supported Mao as a man of the people, a great leader for socialism around the globe….while he was butchering tens of millions behind his bambo curtain. Today we see the progressives supporting the terrorists and mad dictators and rooting for the defeat of any American foreign agenda.

Of course, progressives dare not cross that line and OPENLY DECLARE they support terrorists, they just put forward their propaganda and do all they can to aid them politically and via the press. But in my opinon we may not be far from the day when progressives do announce, openly that they support such as Hamas.

Look at the game they play here while smearing Lieberman. Spewing hate as intellectualism, and then claiming the moral high ground.

It’s very sad to watch what’s happening to the Democratic party as the left drags it down and further toward radical extremes.

Ultimately the capture of the democratic party by the progressives is not only bad for the democratic party, it’s bad for America.

Posted by: Stephen at August 21, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #176774

Wow Stephen

I’m a lifelong Liberal Democrat and so are almost all of my friends. We don’t practice hate and we don’t smear people, what ever that means. We all have real jobs, pay taxes and vote. It’s offensive to read what you have to say. Is it so difficult for you to understand that real people can be against terrorism and NOT SUPPORT the WAR in IRAQ at the same time? All of us have suffered through terrorism. We want to stop Al Qaeda and anyone else who would try to kill us. We believe that what GW is doing is not making us safer, and bashing us or calling us traitors changes nothing. People like us voted Lieberman out, not radical leftwing types.

Posted by: Loren at August 21, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #176779
Imagine this, Lieberman wins, which he might well do. And the democrats need one more seat to control the Senate. LAUGH. It’s as if they took out a gun and shot themselves.

Imagine that you are the only person in the world smart enough to think of that scenario.

Lieberman has promised all along to caucus with the Democrats if he wins. If he has the advertised integrity, Democrats have nothing to worry about.

If Lieberman is a “LIBERAL democrat”, then I guess kicking him out will move the Democratic Party to the Right…

The progressive agenda aimed at taking down “christian capitalist” america and replacing it with some sort of political correct, amoral, weak, socialist america is as far as I’m concerned every bit an enemy of this nation as the enemies we fight abroad.

Does the word “hypocrite” mean anything to you? You accuse US of name-calling…

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 21, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #176782

“As I said, all this hate flowing from the left is boring. And they feel they are so intellecutual when they do it.”

What’s really boring is hearing right wing talking points, repeated verbatim, ad nauseum.

Posted by: Observer at August 21, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #176784

“I guess you, like most left-minded people, missed the point entirely. You people on the left “

LEFT LEFT LEFT.
If these posts aren’t generalizations, or, by their real name, PREjudice, I don’t know what is.
I could care less who posts what on the right wing blogs. I don’t read them because they are redundant talking points I’ve already heard 100 times.
What we have on this list, minus a few trolls, are AMERICANS sharing opinions. I welcome dissent and debate.
Too bad it’s becoming more and more rare.
On a side note, I wonder if the republicans so enamoured with Leiberman last week are still supporting him today after his call for Rumsfeld to resign??
As for hating him, I’ve seen little of that from the democrats. We don’t have to demonize someone in order to vote for the alternative. Lamont is hardly a far left nut. And Joe was not “thrown under the bus”. HE JUST WASN’T CHOSEN FOR REELECTION! That’s called DEMOCRACY!!

Posted by: Observer at August 21, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #176785
As I wrote in a different post, the Dems have accomplished the impossible feat of kicking their own ass.

And yet is the Republican candidate who is going to end up with about five percent of the vote, because his own political party has told voters not to bother supporting him.

On the other hand we have two “liberal” Democrats who are going to divvy up the other 95% of the vote.

You’re right about the ass-kicking, but I think you’re confused about the kickee.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 21, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #176786

“The actions of the Dems in CT and elsewhere seem to give lie to the claim that the Democratic Party is a big umbrella with room for differing opinions. It looks like that is true only as long as the opinions are those approved by the Party leaders”

A RIDICULOUS statement considering the big name party leaders all came to Joe’s defense. It was the average, ‘man on the street’ democrat voter that made the decision to change horses.
All the caterwauling by the right over this leads me to the conclusion that it was a very good thing.
CT voters made democracy work again. Thank god!

Posted by: Observer at August 21, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #176788

“Your great smear and hate crusade against Lieberman is based on his pro Iraq war stance. “

Not to “attack the messenger”, but all I’m starting to hear from these couple guys is “BLAH,BLAH,BLAH”.
Count the number of times “hate” is used in this post. It’s becoming ridiculous, AND as the same guy claimed earlier, B O R I N G .


“Today we see the progressives supporting the terrorists and mad dictators and rooting for the defeat of any American foreign agenda.”

Can you back up this claim? Can you produce a quote from a progressive party leader supporting dictators and rooting against America?
The voices in your head don’t count.

Posted by: Observer at August 21, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #176801

Woody

The Republican candidate could not have won anyway. We lose nothing if you guys fight among yourselves. We would have had Lieberman for sure and he would have been a Democrat. Now we will probably have Lieberman and he will be an independent and the Dems will have spent a lot of time and treasure fighting a battle they did not need to fight. That is what I call kicking their own asses.

Posted by: Jack at August 21, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #176806

Jack-
Let me tell you what the Democrat’s perspective on Bush is: He’s done his absolute best to take his party and his country to the right-wing fringe. On several occasions, Lieberman has aided him in taking this country, already too far to the right in many’s estimation, further away from center. His position on the Iraq war is not merely that the war needs to be fought to the last, it’s also that we need to stay Bush’s course. The majority of Americans, and the vast majority of Democrats disagree with that view.

Unless you are willing to call most of mainstream American fringe, which kind of invalidates the use of the term, we Democrats can make this point: Lieberman is no moderate on this war. He is part of the hardline, supporting policies supported by the far right.

John Back-
Democrats are willing to embrace fiscal conservatism. We’re willing to embrace welfare reform. We’re willing to embrace deregulation, within limits, to open up avenues of business. We were even willing to support this war, when the evidence seemed to be on Bush’s side.

We have bent over backwards to be tolerant of the right, and cooperative with the GOP, in many cases. Look at the past few years. There are good reasons many Democrats have been concerned that we are far too willing to embrace that.

This war, and this President have created greater discontent than ever with such cooperation. And why not? Again and again we’re excoriated by the oh-so-tolerant right. Now, you folks are expecting us to take it from one of our own. We’ve gotten tired with the right charging we’re soft on terrorism, and we’re certainly not about to take it from one of our own.

Stephen-
Excuse me here: what qualifies you to judge who is a good Democrat? You aren’t exactly one of us from the looks of things. I mean, you’re free to say what you like, but why exactly should we take your advice seriously. Don’t you have a little conflict of interest here? Don’t you want submission to your leaders from our people? The Right wants a dim echo of itself, there to be a punching bag and scapegoat for when things go wrong with America.

Do we oppose Hezbollah? Yes. Do we oppose Hamas? Yes. Do I oppose the insurgents? Yes. Do I pretend Bush brought down the WTC? No. In fact, one of my main problems with him is that he hasn’t done a good enough job in pursuing exactly those enemies. He’s gotten tangled in esoteric theories, used rough but ultimately fruitless methods that blacken our names, and he’s employed policies that have had a corrosive effect on our ability to tell fact from fancy, fantasy from real-world.

It’s the right that seems intent on attacking Democrats all day, simply for our disagreement.

As for hate? Why do you find it necessary to fight your own people as if they were terrorists? Why do you not see fit in this Democracy to let us make up our own damn minds?

Ultimately, you run down your list of tyrants and murderers and tyrants to link us to, and then ask us why we are so angry with you folks, with such a distaste for your people. Maybe it comes down to getting out what you put in.

The resurgence of Liberalism is not a strictly far left phenomenon. The change has taken place across the board. We are no longer interested in letting the Republicans or their helpers retain power. We want our country to move back towards the center, back towards liberalism. You’ve had your chance, you’ve had your fun. Now it’s our turn to lead, and we’re going to do our damnedest to do a better job.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #176818

Bush was so use to using wedge issues and dividing AMERICANS that he thought it was going to last forever. Bush would screw something up and his poll numbers would go up. Regardless what negative crap he would come up with the outhouse smelled like a rose garden. 60 million stupid people voted for a baby killer, against a war hero. And then along came Katrina. Then everybody got to see what he was really made out of. Even the news media he had in his back pocket are dumping him.

Posted by: jwfisher at August 21, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #176849

> I dont post here too often but as soon as i read a statement like this, I totaly discount any thing in the post and by the person that posted it.
Oh and who was the crowd that supported saddam?
respectfully
W. E. Savage

Posted by: THE SAVAGE at August 21, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #176848

Stephen

If you don’t like Lieberman, fine. It is your party and you can cry if you want to. My only point is that the man will probably win the general election, demonstrating that he is the more popular candidate and causing the Dems to spend a lot of time fighting an election where the previous opposition (Republican) candidate had (to extend my metaphor) about as much chance as a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.

If you want to spend your time in internecine conflict, I think that is just great. Go at it all you want. Kick out any moderates you don’t like. Bring it on (to yourselves).

Posted by: Jack at August 21, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #176854

pardon the quote I was refering to did not post.
[
The crowd that supports the like of Sadam, Hamas are the same as the ones that supported Mao and wanted appeasement with Hitler. The left wingers of today

Posted by: THE SAVAGE at August 21, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #176857

Although I was more than happy to see Lamont take the primary and am no big fan of Lieberman I wish the rest of country would stay out of it and let the voters of Conn. decide who they want to represent them in the Senate. I would resent it if people form outside of Michigan were telling me who to vote for in the senate race.

Loren
I am against terrorism and the Iraq occupation because it has become nothing but a huge breeding ground for terrorists and will continue to be as long as we continue to occupy it.

Posted by: mark at August 21, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #176882

Jack-
I said he wasn’t a moderate where it counts. You can’t see how extremist your party’s line on Iraq has become, how out of tune with the mainstream it is.

Lieberman has decided to campaign on behalf of the line of Dick Cheney, a man who once went out of his way to correct a reporter who said he was a moderate. He has decided to embark on a course of procrastination that indefinitely prolongs a war that we can only win by successfully extracting ourselves from it.

Bush’s staying the course, with no timetable, no real solid notion of how we depart this war, sounds great on paper, but it doesn’t work in the real world. We do not have the resources, or enough of an Army numerically speaking to continue this indefinitely.

This is having a corrosive effect across the board on policy and conditions for us. The Democrats will support definite goals for victory. We always have. And we have the American people behind us. If you want to imagine that your support for indefinite fighting is the moderate position, go ahead. But as this war drags on, this will be less and less true.

Lieberman’s position is a minority position, and a fringe position within his own party. His support for Bush is equally immoderate, especially since it comes at the expense of his own fellow Democrats and echoes the criticisms of immoderate Republicans who have badly politicized this war.

THE SAVAGE-
Who supported Saddam? Why, Reagan did. Reagan also supported a number of other dictators.

Did your average Republican therefore support dictatorships? Not really.

Let me put it to you plainly: Most folks in America do not support tyrants. Democrat, Republican, third party and independent, we love our way of doing things. However, expedience has reared its ugly head, and individuals within the party have idolized folks who didn’t deserve their high regard.

There’s not much use in denying this. Someone can always find an example to bring out.

So what do we do? We do our damnedest to make sure policy reflects our morality, and if we have to settle for less, we start with these non-ideal situations and make them part of a process of gradual improvement.

Of course, we could instead sit around and mudsling about embarrassing bedfellows of the past, but that would get nothing done, and would invite future episodes of embarrassing expedience.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #176887

Stephen D
That was what I was trying to point out. the left was not the ones that support and helped inpower saddam.
The post I was refering to [By the other Stephen] claimed that the left supported/supports him.
Respectfully W. E. S.

Posted by: THE SAVAGE at August 21, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #176892

Stephen

The Pew Research from a couple days ago found that 48% of Americans want to keep the troops in; 46% want to bring them home now and 6% do not know. These numbers have remained essentially unchanged.

On whether or not using force was a right decision, it is almost exactly equal. There has never been a majority (more than 50%) that said it was a wrong decision.

Lieberman falls in with about half the population. The other half disagrees. There really is no mainstream on this issue. It looks like there are two different rivers.

This question will soon be decided by the voters anyway. If Lieberman wins a majority, he is the choice of the people.

He probably will win, BTW. That is what scares all you guys. That HE is in the mainstream.

Posted by: Jack at August 21, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #176895

Savage

zero point four seven percent 0.47%. That is the U.S. contribution to Saddam’s weapon pile. Left or right, we didn’t do enough to empower him. I know you saw a picture of him with Donald Rumsfeld and that made you jump to various conclusions. Maybe you saw other people pictured with dictators.

here, here or here.

Posted by: Jack at August 21, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #176906

The Savage-
Sorry for misunderstanding you.

Jack-
Read the next item after that: 52 percent of Americans want timetables.

Then, you should read the second table on the paragraph Divisions Within the Parties on Iraq
First and foremost, between the moderate and liberal wings of our party, we are of one mind. At 66% and 62% support for going home, respectively, our party is unified. Funny enough, the group between the two that is more apt to have us remain in Iraq are the Liberal Democrats, at 31%!

Of all the groups, only conservative Republicans have the majority of their respondents advocating a continuation of the war without a timetable. Support for that position drops by a full 25 percentage points for Liberal to Moderate Republicans. There are 42 percentage points fewer independents who take that line, and the percentage points of Moderate to conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats respectively are 11 and 10%.

Based on such data, Bush’s position, which is continuation of the war without a timetable is only the most popular option among those farthest to the right, with support from everybody else below 40%, and barely in double digits with Democrats.

On this crucial position, Lieberman is no moderate. The strongest support for his position is not in the center but on the far right.

Another interesting point for those trying to paint us as cutting and running is that by a margin of three quarters, we favor more gradual, measured approaches.

If you look at the numbers closely, you will notice an odd fact: the position of remaining without setting a timetable is mainly propped up by the overwhelming majority of conservative Republicans who support it, whereas the Democrat’s strongest position, that of gradual, measured withdrawal is much broader in its appeal among moderates. There is only 19 points of spread between the percentage of Liberal Democrats who support a phased withdrawal and the conservative Republicans who do the same, while the gap between them on staying without a time table is a full 53 points difference. Yet at the end, they’re neatly balanced.

Lieberman falls in which a third of the population, the vast majority of which are Conservative Republicans. What’s so moderate about that? Sooner or later, he’ll mistep. If his performance in the debates is too aggressive or too much like the last one, whatever support he is getting will dwindle. He also has to be careful not to get too close to you guys, or to fail to defend his views properly. He’s walking a tightrope, and his conviction is no replacement for his positions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #176917

I may be wrong about Lieberman, but you Republicans shouldn’t get your hopes up. It seems that his convictions may have only gotten at odds with Connecticut Democrat voters when they got at odds with him.

This is your man of Conviction last Month:

So I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops, and by the end of the next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home.

Or how about his confusion over whether Rumsfeld should keep his job?

I guess the rule of thumb with Lieberman is similar to that regarding Houston weather. If you don’t like what he thinks, just wait five minutes, and he’ll agree with you, too.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #176918

Stephen

Currently a majority of the people of Conn support Lieberman. He is - by defintion - acceptable to the mainstream. We can parse the other numbers as much as we want.

Yours is a common fallacy among people who really believe something. I tell that that Lieberman is the most popular of the Senate candidates in Conn. (he is BTW) You tell me why he SHOULD not be. But he IS.

So either Lieberman is acceptable to the mainstream or … what?

Posted by: Jack at August 21, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #176921

—-Jack— If Lieberman is so popular, why did he
not win his last election?

Posted by: DAVID at August 21, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #176922

Jack-
Everything we’re talking about here is not concerning the status quo. Were the status quo the limit of things, Lamont would have made his concession speech.

No, I can acknowledge that Lamont isn’t there yet, but I think he will age over the course of the main campaign much more gracefully than Lieberman, if for no other reason than Lamont’s consistency. And isn’t that what matters, where we’re going, rather than where we’ve been?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #176923

So it looks like if you don’t support the pull out of our troops from Iraq, there isn’t room for you in the party anymore.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 21, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #176935

Craig—Life is full of choices, for you an every one
else, never fault someone else if you let them
make the choices for you!

Posted by: DAVID at August 22, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #176937

The whole lieberman thing is a good lesson in politics. We have some influence. It is possible to kick someone out of the party. But it is another thing to kick them out of the Senate.

In terms of what is important to the country, as per what is important to democrats, the whole lieberman thing is a non event.

Lieberman will still be US Senator from the same state. The Democratic party will be one seat shorter than they would have been.

The real action looks like it is in the house where Democrats are slightly favored. It looks like Americans don’t want Democrats to lead, but want them to keep an eye on Republicans.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 22, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #176939

—-Craig— I saw a pole showing Joe Lieberman with
a 35% support from the Republican side. What
do think the significance of those high numbers
signify

Posted by: DAVID at August 22, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #176953

David

The significance of that is the Republicans are a one issue party. Support the Iraqui Occupation and they will favor you regardless of party affiliation and views on other issues.

Posted by: mark at August 22, 2006 7:35 AM
Comment #176954

Craig-
Be a darling and check out that link that Jack posted, and go to the table I’m refering to. A full third of Democrats favor staying in Iraq, though most of those want a timetable.

No place? Balderdash, they have a full third of the party to run around in. It’s only unconditional, indefinite presence there that most Democrats, and most everybody else except the Conservative Republicans with less and less room to manuever.

And why not? The only person who benefits from an indefinite war is Bush, and the Republicans, because it proves they’re tougher than everybody else. Unfortunately, the whole point of a war meant to end in the foundation of a Democracy is eventually you leave and let them govern themselves.

As for Lieberman? He’s got more flip-flops than Walmart. Just wait five minutes, and you’ll hear him give another opinion. He’s too sensitive to polls and not sensitive enough to the fact that voters remember his previous positions. If Lieberman wins, it will be because Republicans voted him in to spite us.

That may be a victory for Republicans, short term, but there’s no guarantee that he will be part of a majority, and no guarantee that when the wins shift that Lieberman won’t turn on the GOP and bite the hand that elected him. In short, working to elect Lieberman will be nothing more than a cheap, vindictive stunt which will not likely bring benefit to the Republican party.

Personally, I think he will lose. He got too use to Clinton era politics and is too close to Bush for his own good. He started out in the primaries with one lead and lost that, so counting this chicken before he’s hatched is ill-advised.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #176958

A correction. My last post has a paragraph that reads:

No place? Balderdash, they have a full third of the party to run around in. It’s only unconditional, indefinite presence there that most Democrats, and most everybody else except the Conservative Republicans with less and less room to manuever.

Let me clarify:

No place? Balderdash, they have a full third of the party to run around in. It’s only unconditional, indefinite presence that leaves Democrats, and most everybody else except the Conservative Republicans, with less and less room to manuever.

Some additional thoughts: I think this war might have been over by now, or at least the situation in much better shape, had the far right not tried to keep this war all to themselves.

I have watched as people have warned them of approaching difficulties, as the conservatives close ranks and defend the policy, and as the predictions come to pass and our situation in Iraq get worse and worse. The defense of this war is playing a large part, ironically enough, in making it possible for us to lose it.

You cannot win by morale alone. You cannot improve morale at home or in the battlefield by accusing dissenters, critics, and even those offering constructive criticism of disloyalty and hatred of their country.

Our troops have lacked for material support, just so the politicians could claim that there were no problems with the war, that the people making criticisms were wrong. Our troops have been stuck with an ineffective policy and unrealistic expectations because our manager in chief has this philosophy about getting things done that involves painting others into a corner and “inspiring” them that way to do better.

I think our soldiers are doing the best they can under the circumstances. I think they deserve our thanks for that, and for the sacrifices they make on our behalf, even when we are unworthy of those sacrifices. This war has not been so problematic on account of any failing of theirs. This has been a failure of those whose job was to take a critical look at policy, and decide what to do based on reasoned analysis and disciplined intuition.

If we lose this war, I think the right will claim once more that dissent at home discouraged our soldiers, and encouraged the other side. They will do this rather than admit the terrible flaws of their policies. They will blame our soldiers, and those who pointed out their errors for the loss.

They will not point out how they hamstrung us by poorly investigating the situation in the region, substituting advocacy of a policy and rationalization of it in the place of a clear-eyed look at the situation, and our interests in that context.

They will not admit that they gambled the success of this war on a military doctrine both untested in battle and unbacked by contigency planning for this great experiment’s failure. They will not admit that they waited far too long to acknowledge their errors with any change in policy, allowing the beginning of our future grief to be sown in the desert sands.

They will not admit that their rushed plans thereafter only made the situation worse, and that continued adherence to a light presence in military forces, even to this day, has made it far more difficult to gain satisfactory results in the region.

They will not admit that they imposed an arbitrary timetable, hobbling the political and economic rehabilitation of Iraq by making it all the more difficult to get more American soldiers into theatre without making it look like we were going back on giving them their sovereignty.

They will not admit that staying the course means putting off the inevitable test of our efforts: successfully withdrawing without the failure of the Iraqi state. They will not admit that the reason they feel they cannot leave is that their policy has failed to do its job.

This is what conservatives are breaking this country apart over: a failure they won’t admit. If we could admit this failure, then the majority party of this country would be free to do something about it. But they won’t, so America will elect a majority party that will do something about it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #176974

David

He lost among Democrats. His party rejected him. He may be able to win among the general population. Democrats and “the people” are not the same. These are the reasons we are even talking about it.

And as I repeat many times, we will be able to test all our assumptions in November. The candidate that wins a majority is the choice of the people, as George Bush was in 2004. We will see if Lieberman or Lamont is the people’s choice in November.

You guys are doing the Fitzmas thing again - talking about something as true without waiting for the decision. BTW - were you happy with your Fitzmas presents.

Posted by: Jack at August 22, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #176980

And don’t forget, Lieberman may benefit from Republican controled voting machines.

Posted by: mark at August 22, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #176998

Jack-
I’m not one to overemphasize the power of positive thinking, nor underestimate the uncertainty of the world.

I’m sure people are implicitly aware of the uncertainty of an election. That being the case, the task of somebody like me should not be to state that fact ad nauseam.

I think it’s time the Democrats stop hedging their bets as to the outcome, and start giving it their all. Folks on the fence should know from the very tone of our voices and the words we speak that we don’t just think we might win, no we are intent on winning, on defeating our opponents. Regardless of what rationalizations one applies to Lieberman’s political games, he is our opponent, and we do not intend to lose.

As for Fitzmas? It’s not over yet, not with Libby’s trial and the civil suit about to be filed, or perhaps filed already.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #177048

Stephen

Hu-Ra

Go for it if you can. I really do not have a dog in that fight. Our guy can’t win, but I enjoy watching the Democratic poodle against the now independent golden retriever. Neither was really that much of a fighter, but I think the retriever will beat the poodle, although the poodle will bark louder and all the out-of-state chihuahuas, pekanese and weiner dogs will howl in support. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs or war and let the dogs of society howl.

Posted by: Jack at August 22, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #177068

Go Joe. I’d support a man of principle (even one who votes left 90% of the time) over a lame-brain opportunist anytime.

Posted by: nikkolai at August 23, 2006 8:34 AM
Comment #177071

Jack-
Lamont comes into this election a winner, with support from that in addition to the support of a good chunk of Lieberman supporters now.

The election is not being held today. Lamont is campaigning, and his message is mainstream. If you think he’s apt to lose, fine. I think he’s got a chance.

(As for Poodle’s and Golden Retrievers, it’s not size that matters. Large dogs have been known to run from small dogs, when the small dog is mor aggressive. If Lamont can unseat a party incumbent, doesn’t that imply he’s got the stuff to totally unseat him as an incumbent of the senate?)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #177088

nikkolai-
I have no doubt you would support a man of principle. Given, though, the information I’ve given you about Lieberman’s consistent inconsistency on where his position lies, why are you latching on to Joe?

You’ve been told that Joe agreed with the president out of principle, but if you look at the evidence, the pattern is one of him telling the people he thinks will elect him what they want to hear, even if it means crossing party lines and then crossing right back.

He’s an opportunist. Only a month ago, he took the line that we should withdraw over the space of a few years, a position that would appeal to left-leaning moderates and independents. Now he’s taking the hard right position of staying indefinitely until things cool down. What could have possibly happened in the space of a month to bring about this “principled” change of heart?

He lost the primary, that’s what. And now he’s going to try and hit you fellow’s up for votes, and he’s going to do it by saying whatever you need to hear to support him. And then when he has to appeal to broader audience, he’ll sell you out, too.

The main reason Democrats got rid of him is that we are sick of being sold out when we need his help the most. If somebody sells you out when you need him on your side, what’s the problem with trying for a more reliable, more principled candidate? Lamont won fair and square. Now he and the Republicans are both trying to make up for their boneheaded politics (the Republican’s nominating a compulsive gambler, Lieberman losing to a challenger in the primary) by running a supposedly independent campaign.

Well, sorry. The campaign is not that independent. Lieberman is promising to come back into the Democrat fold when he gets elected, but he’s enlisting the help of Republican infrastructure and staff to get back in that position. He sucks up to whoever can give him what he wants. He’s no more independent than that spoiled brat that runs to his father to get what he wants when his mother refuses, and vice versa.

After all the disasters, trials and tribulations, one point should be clear across party lines: We do not need needy political brats like Lieberman. We need true men and women of principle who are committed to governing effectively as a first priority, and getting re-elected as a distant second.

If you run a country well, people will re-elect you, often regardless of their politics. If you screw things up, then your support will eventually collapse if all you do is simply play politics. People will not long tolerate politicians who play games while their nation descends into debt, decadence, and destruction.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #177091

“I think it’s time the Democrats stop hedging their bets as to the outcome, and start giving it their all. “

This is excellent news! I’ve been advocating that the Dems start stealing elections, too. It’s long overdue.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 23, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #177093

Tim Crow-
I hope you’re joking. I have always said we should win by legitimate means. Illegitimate means erode morale among our own people, acceptance of our authority, and encourage the kind of compounding of miseries and mistakes that get majorities booted.

St. Francis of Assisi once said “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words when necessary.” I believe that we Democrats should preach liberalism at all times, and only use words when necessary.

Our actions as a party will determine the depth of support we can generate as we take back the country. We should make ourselves the party of the people in our actions as well as our words.

For too long, politics has focused on the relativistic abstracts of image and propaganda. As a writer, a student of the media, and a student of cognitive science, I can tell you there is no more treacherous soil pour your foundation over than that. Words and images and other things can be manipulated to no end.

Reality nonetheless imposes itself. If our great words echo a great or even merely good reality, the reality will support the image like bedrock supports skyscrapers. If our great words stand on a reality that is neutral to negative by comparison, then we will have to fight that to keep our support at the same level; we will exhaust ourselves running to stay still, like the Republicans have tried to do.

I believe that our politics must not be a mechanism by which we bubble ourselves away, but must instead function as a way to get done what we believe is right, with the added caution that we do our utmost to determine whether a policy is truly beneficial. In looking at the Republican party’s recent ordeals, and at our own past, we must draw the lesson that this is what happens to people and politicians that become divorced from reality.

Only when we face the political landscape with integrity of will and action will we have any chance of properly meeting the challenges before us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #177099

Jack

Your comment about Lamont’s out-of-state support is off target. Lieberman had greater support from outside both in $’s(90%) and in Dem Senators and ex-Presidents.

Posted by: mark at August 23, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #177117

“I hope you’re joking. I have always said we should win by legitimate means. Illegitimate means erode morale among our own people, acceptance of our authority….”

Well, Stephen my boy, I was joking, until you strafed me with another one of your sententious lectures.

St Francis of Assisi aside, I believe the Democratic party should go all out to steal the presidential election in ‘08—just to prove they can do it. Kind of level the ‘playing field’, don’t you know.

As Dwight Eisenhower said, (and Bush & Cheney have taken to heart in their Iraqi policy as well as their more disasterous domestic policies),” If a problem can’t be solved, enlarge it.”

This is a real solution to a corrupt electoral system to my mind—enlarge the stink, make it so obvious that it isn’t working that even the bi-polar political party morons running the country can’t ignore it, not to mention this country’s ‘free press.’

As for further erosion of people’s belief in the legitimacy of Democratic power, with over half of the elgible voters not voting in this country, and the other less-than-half voting for card-carrying morons, I think that horse has already left the barn. When the Democratic party can be so ineffectual in combating a runaway fascist, law-breaking neo-con administration, and refuse to defend voter rights in Florida, Ohio and elsewhere by pretending there’s no problem, I think the erosion of citizen’s ‘belief’ in Democratic governence is nigh on complete.

The DLC hasn’t a clue about everyday problems most Americans are dealing with. They have a coloring book attitude about running a real oppostion to Republican thuggery—I suspect their notions of governance won’t be any better, as they are a part of the problem, not any part of a solution.

So, yes, let’s see the Democrats prove their manhood. Steal an election, massage the media afterwards to convince the people that isn’t what they just witnessed, and snarl and ridicule anyone who questions their legitmacy. Let’s see if they can really govern.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 23, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #177118

“If you run a country well, people will re-elect you, often regardless of their politics.”

Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well—if you run a crummy government, the people will re-elect you. Witness 2002 and 2004.

True, the Republicans look to be behind the proverbial eight-ball right now, but only because the GOP has shit the bed. Of course, the Democratic party will make this out to be some ringing endorsement of them—talk about living in a bubble!

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 23, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #177130

Tim Crow-
We will not triumph over the Republicans by sinking deeper into the subjective mire of image-based politics than they already are. The people in the Bubbles are the ones who think this is a problem of rhetoric or framing by itself.

Two wrongs will not make a right. It will make a consensus for bad behavior. We should not compromise ourselves as such. We should make ourselves capable of facing the worst in our party, and resolving it, so when we cast the sunshine on our opponents, it doesn’t burn us as it it does them.

I’m tired of politics taking precedence over things getting done. I oppose those on the right who insist on covering for what may be one of the most feckless presidents since the 1920s. I also, though, oppose those center, left, and among the third parties who put politics above practice in terms of governance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #177146

What say you now Jack

Two polls out today show a dead heat between Lieberman and Lamont.

Posted by: mark at August 23, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #177220

come November, the Republicans of Connecticut will elect Joe Leiberman to represent this state. Too bad

Posted by: smitty at August 24, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #177309

Smitty-
It’s a dead heat, and Lieberman’s burned too many bridges. He’s stuck between supporting Bush in a blue state with most of his party against Bush’s policies and losing the support of the only people who can keep him alive in this race, who just happen to be ideologically opposed to him on most issues. He’s got very little room for error. God helps him if he does anything to alienate Bush.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2006 10:21 PM
Post a comment