A growing cast of prominent activists is backing [Democratic challenger Ned] Lamont. Markos Moulitsas, who advised the presidential campaign of Howard Dean in 2004 and founded the blog Daily Kos, is appearing in a campaign commercial for Mr. Lamont....Ah, it's sad, this message that there no such thing as a liberal hawk. I wonder what Hillary's thinking about all this.
"A very simple thing happened that changed Democratic politics dramatically, and that was that the war turned bad," [said Al From, the founder and chief executive of the Democratic Leadership Council], adding of the senator's critics: "There's a group in our party that makes a lot of noise and I don't think they've ever won an election. They're trying to take out one of the great statesmen our party has and that's wrong."
May 19, 2006
"It's absolute Democratic cannibalism."
Fighting Joe Lieberman from the left. (The quote is from John F. Droney, a former Democratic state chairman in Connecticut.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
52 comments:
This makes me think of Kos's ongoing dialogue in Slate. He is the consultant who has hijacked his party!
I wonder what Hillary's thinking about all this.
"Better they concentrate on him than me."
I have no problems with Democrats running against democratic incumbents. I think it's healthy! I don't think it really becomes newsworthy in a National Sense until you have something like what happened in Pennsylvania, where Republican leaders in the legislature like Robert Jubilerer lost their primaries to Republican challengers. I guess that was Republican cannibalism.
Here's hoping that Kos' endorsement will work its usual magic.
Sad that it's become so utterly intolerable that a Democrat support the war (a stance which is inseparable, apparently, from supporting Bush) people like kos are willing to take (practically speaking) foolish risks like this. If I still identified as a democrat, I'd be so discouraged right now.
Pastor Jeff, good point.
"I wonder what Hillary's thinking about all this."
She's probably thinking "so when this Lamont clown bombs, is that going to make Kos 0 for 16, or 0 for 17? It's so hard to keep track of all the failed endorsements of the Kossacks."
You'd think that the Kossacks would by now have figured out the correlation that candidates they endorse keep losing, but then again, we already knew from their refusal to tackle social security reform that aren't any good at math.
Look! It's a grownup! GET HIM!!
gj says: "Joe Lieberman has made a career out of criticizing other Democrats and the Democratic party. No one should be complaining about the fact that some Democrats now have the guts to call him on it."
Do you think that there's nothing to criticize? When McCain or Hagel or Chafee criticizes the Administration's policies, is that the same kind of betrayal meriting the same response? And, to show that political cannibalism doesn't only exist on the Dem side of the great divide, just look at Chafee's problems in RI.
gj's comment gets to the essence of partisan gridlock. As Guiliani has been saying while campaigning for Ralph Reed in GA, we're better off as a nation if the two parties are both "big tents," organized and held together by a collection of beliefs but without an obligation for every standardbearer of the team to sign on to each and every one of them. On most issues, Leiberman is a pretty standard-issue Dem. Too bad for the Dems that so many want to throw him out of their tent.
As for Hillary, she's always had the flexibility to bend with the prevailing winds. What's not clear is whether she will have the agility to dance through all the contradictions after getting the nomination, to make it look like she's making "sense rather than nonsense" (to borrow Sunstein's line from a few days ago) from her "deeply held beliefs". And, more important for her, that she eve has "deeply held beliefs," other than a desire to win for its own sake.
The same problem reduced Kerry to incoherence and he ended up looking foolish, weak and disingenuous. Against a candidate like McCain or Guiliani, Hillary needs to come up with a better plan. She's not quite the wooden stiff that Kerry was. But unlike Bill, dancing through the contradictions between her prior positions and the demands of her base has never been her strong suit.
Sad that it's become so utterly intolerable that a Democrat support the war ...
Given that the war has been a colossal failure, refusing to tolerate the politicians that supported it is an entirely rational response.
I recognize, of course, that one major political party takes the view that mendacity and incompetence should be rewarded by renewed loyalty. Unfortunately for Joe Lieberman, he is not running in that party's primary.
Pennsylvania's recent Republican shakeup at the state level (12 incumbents forced out at the primary level) suggests that similar action may be happening on the right.
alkali,
"Given that the war has been a colossal failure"
obviously, I'd disagree.
I wonder what Hillary's thinking about all this.
Hillary Clinton Life Lessons:
1. 1998: Not okay to be kissed on your privates by shameless wh*re
2. 2005: Not okay to be kissed on your lips by shameless wh*re.
We are all hoping she draws the right conclusion: Not okay to be a shameless wh*re.
Jacques Cuze: What happened to the whimsy of your other names?
Come on, you can do better than this.
Here's hoping.
Let's not turn this thread into a discussion of the details of the Iraq war. I think it's possible -- and desireable -- to be a hawk in the war without endorsing every single aspect of the war. Even assuming you think the administration has done a bad job conducting the war, that does not mean that you must be opposed to finishing the war successfully and making up for whatever mistakes were made. Often wars go badly, but hawks don't conclude that's why we should have never started fighting in the first place.
My issue here is whether the Democrats are trying to exclude hawks from their party. I think that's terrible. I consider myself a liberal hawk, and I get the message that the Democrats don't want me. The way Lieberman is being treated says a lot to me, and I'm interested in what Hillary will do in this climate. Can we talk about that?
The proposed strategy, for Democrats to go even more leftward than before, is thus shown to be operative.
Lieberman, like Zell Miller before him, is shown the door, banished from the liberal's ever-shrinking tent. While expelling the unbelievers worked for Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, success with that strategy requires absolute control over all possible venues of dissent. Damn democracy! You can't ever get anything done in it!
Even assuming you think the administration has done a bad job conducting the war, that does not mean that you must be opposed to finishing the war successfully and making up for whatever mistakes were made.
These neatly encapsulates my thinking. My problem is that I don't think the current administration has the ability to see any mistakes that have been made. See, for example, news reports on CIA operatives being forced out for writing honest ground assessments re: conditions in Iraq.
My problem with Lieberman, other than his kowtowing too much to Insurance companies (natural, given his Nutmegginess) is his whiny voice. That makes me incredibly shallow, I know.
Hillary has her own problems, given that Susan Saradon has endorsed her opponent. (I assume for the same basic reason) I know conservatives are upset that the Republican Party supports Chafee (as it did Specter) so this effect goes both ways.
No doubt a form of republican self mutilation in 1992 and 1996 (AKA as Ross Perot) helped Bill Clinton get elected, Hillary must surely be hoping that happens in 2008.
It's a bit more nuanced than just being a "liberal hawk". The chief complaint you'll hear from the left about Lieberman isn't that he supported (and supports) the war effor as that he constantly criticizes other Democrats for not having done so, and seems too eager to support the President and not ask tough questions.
Because you'll see a lot of netroots support for Bob Casey Jr. this year, whose views on core Democratic issues are generally worse than Lieberman's. But he won't be going around attacking other Democrats.
Is his stance on the war the only reason to oppose Lieberman? He's also taking heat for his filibuster stance, his position on abortion and contraception rights, gay marriage...he's seen as a Democrat in name only. It's not just the war. There are other pro-Iraq Democrats who aren't seen as such a suckup to the right. I'm not convinced that Lieberman losing would be the end of liberal hawks. Nor do I think that being pro-Iraq is synonymous with being pro-defense, but that's another issue.
Kos' personal appearance in Lamont's commercial is fascinating.
What's the value of this from a marketing or political standpoint? Is Kos personally a selling point for voters?
What does it communicate that the consultant breaks into the commercial to deliver people for Ned, sits on the couch with him (while everyone else is standing), tells the candidate to "hurry it up" and has the final shot focus on himself?
The camera even moves away from Ned during his policy statements to follow the Kos crowd.
You could not craft a more obvious statement about who really matters.
Often wars go badly, but hawks don't conclude that's why we should have never started fighting in the first place.
Is it okay if that is A reason, one of many? When is it alright to conclude a war should never have been started? Evidence of lies to the people that had to fight it? Evidence it was never winnable? Evidence that any "successful" conclusion could lead to greater regional instability?
Is it ever okay for a "hawk" to decide not to fight today?
Lieberman's democratic woes go far beyond the war. He has been on the wrong side of the abortion votes, the bankruptcy bill, and civil liberties bills, Terri Schiavo, universal health care, and energy. He has done alot of this in ways in which he failed to support the liberal progressive platform at critical moments while voting for the pre-ordained to defeat bills later on.
Why would you insist of framing this all in terms of Iraq? I think you are projecting your own issues onto this race.
Why is it you want to be a "hawk?" What does "hawk" mean to you? I am looking for Democratic candidates that can bring security to the nation in terms of physicial, economic, and moral and spiritual security. This often means to me candidates from the fighting dems,
Ann, if you want to find people that have progressive values and will not shrink from a fight, start there, and not Senator Lie.
I have never really figured out why Hillary is more hawkish than many of her fellow Democratic Senators. Partly, I do think that she is more hawkish then even her own husband, being apparently taught at a young age to hit back, and to hit back hard.
The other side though is that no matter what those on the vocal left think, someone who has attacked the war in Iraq strongly throughout is not going to win the national election. There are just too many people out there who think that it is somewhere between unpatriotic and treasonous.
Add to this that it is hard to make an cogent argument that you oppose the war in Iraq, but are strong on protecting this country from terrorism. And, in the end, I suspect that there will still be enough people who remembered 9/11, the WTC crashing, etc., to not elect someone weak in this area.
So, I also see Hillary gambling here. She knows that if she goes left, she would most likely would get nominated, but, esp. with her past track record, would get creamed in the general election. But if she stays somewhat in the middle in the war, the nomination will be harder, but the general election would be winnable.
And that is what you have to remember - she still has the inside track on the nomination. She will be able to out fundraise all of her opponents, maybe even combined.
Also, let me note that her stands are starting to look more and more principled (whether they are or not), in comparison with her principal opponents. Kerry, for example, was able to do as well as he did, most likely because he had managed to straddle well enough that he couldn't be tied down. But since then, he has obviously prostituted himself for liberal support (remember, his Iraqi deadline was four days ago).
I don't think that Hillary is panicking yet as to her chances of getting the nomination. She isn't acting panicked. And even if she were, the fact that it isn't apparent would be important in terms of leadership.
Some evidence that the war in Iraq is not a complete disaster:
Is Iraq a quagmire, a disaster, a failure? Certainly not; none of the above. Of all the adjectives used by skeptics and critics to describe todays Iraq, the only one that has a ring of truth is messy. Yes, the situation in Iraq today is messy. Births always are. Since when is that a reason to declare a baby unworthy of life?
I'm fascinated by the Democrats' ability to hang onto the delusion that "the war is a disaster." And to hold onto it so firmly that any heretic must be expunged from the party.
"I am looking for Democratic candidates that can bring security to the nation in terms of physicial, economic, and moral and spiritual security."
Ugh, I don't want "moral" and "spiritual" security from government. See the "politics in religion" post from today. You're, by any chance, wearing a tunic, are you?
And how "universal health care" and "economic security" can coexist in the same party platform is a mystery to me. Maybe what some Democrats (and former Democrats) want is a party that is not lead, ruled and dictated by "liberal progressive" policies, but sound, pragmatic, optimistic ones, that is defined by what it is rather than what it isn't (i.e. "we're not Bush!").
"Progressive" is just a code word for soft socialism.
Jacques Cuze
I don't follow Lieberman that closely, but what impresses a lot of people is that he does take stands that are unpopular with his base. Somewhat akin to what a lot of people think about McCain.
I am glad that Joan got that Iraq article cited. I was going to do it, but Ann asked that we not concentrate on refighting the Iraq war.
How can you dissent and remain a team player simultaneously?
By expressing your own views without attacking fellow Democrats as being weak for having their own. By not saying things like "we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." Etc.
Bruce Hayden: I keep telling people it's going to be McCain/Lieberman in '08 but they keep telling me I'm crazy.
P.S. I suspect they're right.
Ann says: "My issue here is whether the Democrats are trying to exclude hawks from their party. I think that's terrible. I consider myself a liberal hawk, and I get the message that the Democrats don't want me. The way Lieberman is being treated says a lot to me, and I'm interested in what Hillary will do in this climate. Can we talk about that?"
Before getting to Hillary, why "whether" in your first sentence? Of course Leiberman's sin is his support for the Iraqi war and the GWOT in general. He was booed for that during the 2004 primaries, and nothing has changed. When the commenters in this thread say that the real problem was Leiberman's taking "cheap shots" at the Dems, what do they have in mind -- his criticism of Bill for the Monica mess, when he was the first Dem even to speak sensibly or honestly about that mess? When it comes to support for the Iraqi war, there's no room for "whether" on the Dem side, particularly among the activists and the sources of Dem money.
As for Hillary, she'll continue to do what she's been for some time, trying to have it both ways and elide the problem -- Bush messed it all up, he's an incompetent, just look at [Fallujah, Katrina, you name it]. That's her way of going with the anit-Iraq, isolationist flow in the Dem base, without ever having to disavow her votes in favor of the war.
Perhaps she is just taking a slightly longer view, since things may look quite different in early 2008 when the primaries are in full swing and the pressure will really be on. Keeping options open in that way is just standard operating procedure for candidates in her position. Just as the primaries made it impossible in 2004 for the Dem candidates to walk that line, just as the pressure from Dean ultimately pushed Kerry into impossible positions that ultimately sank his campaign, Hillary is in danger of getting caught in the middle as she tries to have it both ways -- hawk in dealing with terrorism in general but harsh critic of the "Bush war" in particular.
For now, I think she just wants to stay with the "it's all about competence" theme (Hillary as Dukakis redux, now there's a winning image). She knows how nutty the "quit now" approach is, but I'm not sure she has any core belief other than a burning desire to win. How she ultimately squares this circle will tell a lot about her as a politician and potential president. It will certainly present her with a real "Sister Souljah" moment or two.
Bob Casey is a good example of the Democratic Party's tolerance for dissent. Many Democrats (including Kos) support Casey in spite of the fact that he has right wing views on many issues.
I suspect he is tolerated, also, because he is polling ahead of his opponent. (I know my parents will vote for him, but Oy! Consider his opponent!). Casey's most right-wingish views are so very far to the left to the views of the Junior Senator from PA who really lives in VA.
7M, I don't believe I've referred to anything as a "vicious attack", but I do believe Lieberman can't expect to have many liberal-activist supporters after having made it.
Just like when Arlen Specter took on the Christian Coalition during his 1996 presidential bid and stated that "neither this nation nor this party can afford a Republican candidate so captive to the demands of the intolerant Right that we end up re-electing a President of the incompetent Left."
Madison Man: You are exactly right about Casey, its not about him its about Santorum.
Trudi: !!!!
Dead on.
palladian said: Ugh, I don't want "moral" and "spiritual" security from government.
I second that "ugh".
Why in the world would anyone look to the government for "spiritual security"??? Not that I'm even sure I understand what "spiritual security" means...
I'd part company on the profiteering bit in significant ways, but otherwise I'm with you.
"Mission Accomplished" did not mean that the war was one. Instead it was a signal to the The Bush Adminstration Friends that a wartime economy had been set up and the profiteering could now begin."
Right about here's where Oliver Stone would insert some creepy, ominous music....
Is it nutty, leftist, conspiracy theory music? If so, yeah.
Moral and spiritual security is treo speak when driving.
But lots of folks these days look to government for choices regarding marriage, abortion, atheism and religion, drug use, war use, sex, ....
I would like a moral government and one that allows me to be secure in my own spirituality, whatever that might be. That means a government that does not promote religion, nor does it force my religion on others, or vice-versa.
But a moral government is not a goverment that violates its constitution, nor condones cronyism, corruption, stealing, or class warfare.
Lieberman's statements and votes on abortion, the bankruptcy bill, torture, Iraq, Terri Schiavo, and tax cuts make me wonder how moral his government would be.
J'accuse: "I would like a moral government and one that allows me to be secure in my own spirituality, whatever that might be."
What the hell are you talking about? Do you want the government to wrap its warm, comforting arms around you when you wake up from a bad dream too?
"But a moral government is not a goverment that violates its constitution, nor condones cronyism, corruption, stealing, or class warfare."
Well that about rules out most of the Democratic party then, doesn't it?
A friend of mine had a weird slip of the tongue and said "Katrina Schaivo" recently.
I think Schaivo is one of those political Pavlov words that causes extreme salivation on the part of the initiates. Schaivo! Katrina! Halliburton! Activist Judge! Diebold! Hillary!
Seven Machos writes:
Dissent is only acceptable when dissenters are "team players."
And then goes on to disparage this idea.
I'd suggest gently that the statement is actually one of the core beliefs of a political party -- any political party. You can dissent to a fair degree from the current tenets of the party (whatever those are, to the extent that they can be articulated coherently), but if you go off the reservation and start attacking the party, or its members, or its other elected officials, you open yourself to the possibility that you won't be seen as a member in good standing.
Zell Miller (whom I admire) has the same problem and the same perception: whatever his dissent was, when he stood up at the RNC, it was pretty much over for him as a Democrat (to his credit, he didn't care, and said so). But one would excuse other loyal Democrats for being angry with Zell.
Ronald Reagan used to proclaim the eleventh commandment: "thou shall not criticize another Republican". That didn't stop Ronnie from the occasional sneaky attack, but it did make clear that Ronnie was a believer in team play. To him, there were indeed limits as to how far you could dissent and still be a Republican.
So while Seven Machos disparages the idea, I think it's the correct one. I'm willing to consider a wide range of Republicans for office, but I won't consider one who isn't a loyal member of the party.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Kos is the heir of Bob Shrum. Every time he mouths off about politics, the record of the candidates he's supported should be printed in poster size.
What is he now, 0 for 16?
I like Lieberman overall. The only time I have ever been concerned was during the 2000 campaign when Lieberman knuckled on some of positions to align himslef with his Party's top of the ticket: Gore. That bothered me.
I liked honest Lieberman, not team player Lieberman
With those trips to Iraq and "We undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."
---------------------------
I guess I want the old days back when our politicans:
1. genuinely supported the troops
2. didn't speak ill of the country or the President when overseas
3. Didn't speak ill of the President when he was overseas
4. Presidents after leaving office Didn't speak ill of the President
There's a common thread there, but it isn't cuz I'm strongly pro-Bush. I just don't remember Bush 41 for example calling for the impeachment of Clinton 42 as an example. I think Bush 41 was very civil after losing.
Lamont does have a pretty awesome commercial though...
My God, if Susan Sarandon, that great political goddess, has endorsed someone, then it's all over but the shouting!
Joe Lieberman is one of the U.S. Senate’s last real liberals. Sadly, Democratic doesn’t mean liberal anymore.
Remember when Democrats were for recognizing facts, defending the defenseless and freeing the oppressed? That's when they were liberal.
I'm going to pose a bit of a conspiracy theory here. I'm not saying I beleive it. But its looking more and more plausible as time goes on. Lets say you're Hillary Clinton. Its 2002. You really don't have a significant record to run on. The incumbant President, a member of the other party, has an uncertain level of popularity going into the election. You're pretty sure, though, that you don't have the wherewithal to take him. But this creates a problem. If someone from your party takes him out, well, you're going to have to wait at least eight years to make your play for the White House. Interparty insurgencies, after all, are notoriously unsuccessful. No, you want to run in four. What do you really, really want? You want the incumbent to win. Let the public grow sick of him. The only question is how? Well, you've got that group of true believers that your husband put together during his impeachment. You'll have to avoid any direct connection with them, but that should be relatively easy. After all, they were formed under the premise of independence from you. So, you trot them out, only this time angry and radicalized. Any plausible candidate is going to have to run in an untennable position to get their nod, and anyone who flirts with their position is going to get squeezed as a flip-flopper. Bingo, "your" candidate loses the election!! Now it might seem you've created a monster. After all, they're out for the sort of red meat you don't want to give them. But, this is also an opportunity. Your husband after all, made his candidacy with a "Sister Soulja" moment. This is your chance to do the same. Moreover, your likely primary opponent has cast his lot with these tools. You quietly begin pulling the resources that allowed the radicals to take on such a role in the Party. All the while, you give them reason to believe they're winning. They decide to take on a pretty well-liked Senator. Now you're approaching the end-game. Its very likely that the Senator in question will handily defeat the insurgency. However, if you time it correctly, you come in with a very public endorsement, even chiding the radicals you created as extremists who don't represent your party. Now, if the Senator wins, you've got your Sister Souja moment. But, even if he loses, you come away wounded, but still viable. After all, you can chalk your support up to party loyalty.
"I wonder what Hillary's thinking about all this."
Excellent point. As the Times article concludes (paraphrasing), 'There are many on the left who make a lot of noise but have never won anything.' After Lieberman's election, none of that will have changed. The politics of Marcos is 'submit to our viewpoint or we'll destroy you'. Yeah, that's effective.
I look forward to the good old days when the Democrats were anti-war and had an anti-war general leading the ticket.
I pine for 1864.
i.e. this is nothing new.
PS the Rs were not very good at supporting the war 1941 - '45. They were full of complaints. Some R leaning papers leaked intel secrets.
i.e. this is nothing new.
PS. Thomas Dewey is head and shoulders above most of the mopes in contention for nomination today.
The ins have hubris and the outs have insanity. Twas ever thus.
Trudi,
You sound oddly familiar.
Great minds, etc., etc.
As a Connecticut resident I have spent the last 5 months reading between the lines. If you listen to Lamont's supporters they hate the fact that Joe clearly has a personal relationship with the president. By the by, there will be a primary in August as Ned got over the 15% he needed to force it. The democrates chose Joe 1004 to 505. Some of Ned's supporters are just lunitic enough that I think the Republicans will get fodder nationally for the 2006 elections.
mcg (way up there near the top), the Pennsylvania shakeup had far more to do withthe legislature's passage of a huge pay raise for themselves in the middle of the night than any party affiliation or war politics.
Re: gj's comment of 5/19 @ 12:15 and seven machos' response a few posts later:
gj, sounds like you're onto something. I think the way you described Joe L. should be awfully familiar to Republicans perpetually outraged by John McCain's media-focussed party heresy.
Seven Machos, are you seriously disagreeing with what gj said? I don't know who you're hanging around with on the right, but many of my VRWC friends have about the same opinion of McCain -- notwithstanding his by 'n large solidly Republican voting record -- as the Kossackists' position on Lieberman. Far as I can see, the main difference is the Kossack Left is acting on their rage, whereas the Republicans prefer to look past the differences and keep McCain in the tent.
"whoop di doo", in other words.
Post a Comment