In a perverse way, conservative Republicans and liberal doves have a shared interest in making Lieberman the symbol of the Democratic hawk. Dovish lefties want everybody to think that if you're a hawk, you must be cozy with Bush. Conservatives want everybody to think that if you're not cozy with Bush, you can't be a hawk.Chait is writing as if the election of a senator in Connecticut is a debate about the meaning of the Democratic Party. But the people of the state are choosing their senator, after a primary that took place in the dead of summer produced a 10,ooo gap between the two best candidates. As they go into fall and start concentrating on recomposing Congress, they've got Lamont (an inexperienced politician who ran to the left), an irrelevant Republican, and Joe, their long-time senator. Why shouldn't the fall campaign season offer them a full-scale comparison between Lieberman and Lamont?
Still, the Lieberman rationale held together, just barely, as long as he was fighting the good fight within the Democratic Party. But now that he's running as an independent, the last pillars of that rationale have crumbled.
What's the point of running to uphold Democratic hawkishness when you're running against the Democratic Party and its chosen nominee? Lieberman is fighting on terrain that, from the perspective of the liberal hawks, could not be less advantageous.
But looking at the national debate about the meaning of the Democratic Party, I really want Lieberman to get it together and fight for the life of the liberal hawk. We desperately need that now. Say what you want about his pillars and his terrain, he is where he is and he's got to fight there. Show us what a good hawk is. A good Democratic hawk, even it the loudest Democrats don't want there to be such a thing.
पोस्ट्स
५९ टिप्पण्या:
The reason that all these people want Lieberman to get out of the race is because they know that he is, at present, likely to win. And they think that they were able to put together the grass roots campaign sufficient to get the nomination (by a whisker), and thus Lamont should have the seat because of that.
So, to some extent, they feel like Lieberman is cheating by making this third party run. But what they forget is that the election is not won in the Democratic primary - the Democratic senator has to still carry a majority of the independants to win.
And that is why I think that Lieberman's run here is legitimate, because so much of the electorate hasn't spoken, and is most likely going to send him back when they do.
Ann is right. Lieberman will not leave the Democratic party if he wins. A Lieberman win will only help Democrats in the end. Lieberman can claim that the party in Conn. was hijacked by the left for purposes of the primary and that is why he ran as an independent.
A Lieberman win will be a loss for the left-wing of the party and could seriously sideline the left for the 2008 elections.
It always seems to me that when a senator or rep of national significance is running for re-election, the media forgets that the polls and the vote counts are local. The CT voters are electing a senator, not a Recent Vice-Presidential Nominee.
Reminds me a bit of the Daschle race a while ago... you almost got this sense that the media was indignant that the vote was left up to South Dakotans, of all people.
Mark,
We shall see come the general election whether Lieberman's loss in the primary was because of your exhaustion, or because he was outmaneuvered on the left. If you are correct, then Lamont should win handily. If the rest of us are, and Lieberman wins, then the problem is in the Democratic party, and not with Lieberman.
I agree with SippicanCottage here. Some of the information used apparently came from some of those programs that the NYT exposed and that have become so suspect by the anti-war / civil liberties crowds.
The other thing of note here is that part of the reason that the Britts were able to break this plot was that their level / concept of civil liberties, etc. is not as robust as ours. In other words, they can do stuff in their investigations that we cannot do because of our Bill of Rights and laws such as FISA.
David's last blog post (in reference to Mark) really hits the nail on the head.
By contrast, the Democratic understanding of the situation in the Middle-East really hasn't changed since 2004 (right down to an almost John Kerry-esque reference to the "Pottery Barn rule"). The left insists it could do a better job winning the minds and hearts of those followers of Radical Islam who hate and want to kill Americans....but haven't come up with a single realistic plan for doing so in the almost 5 years since 9/11.
...and for a party centering its election chances on Iraq, that's going to be a problem.
This seems to me a question of intra-party protocol. Does the defeated primary candidate have an obligation to the party to stand down so as not to hurt the party in the general election?
In the abstract, I think there is a good argument in favor of such an obligation. The party has devoted its energy and resources to the incumbent in the past and is entitled to expect a return of that loyalty. The incumbent had every opportunity to use his incumbency to his advantage in the primary, and should step aside if, despite that advantage, he couldn't hang on to the nomination.
This Lieberman thing seems like a strong case for an exception to the general rule, however. The party was more or less indifferent to the unusually nasty campaign against Lieberman. The harsh tenor of Lamont's and his proxies' attacks on Lieberman were unusual even for a general election and nearly unheard of in a primary involving a high profile incumbent. Rahm Emanual's "love child" comment betrayed the party's complicity in the smear campaign against Lieberman.
So I don't think the party is in much of a position to demand Lieberman's loyalty. It buckled to the intimidation tactics of the far left, leaving Lieberman to fend for himself with a handful of lukewarm endorsements against a well-organized and ethically uninhibited attack machine. It really isn't entitled to tell Lieberman what to do.
In any event, the Chait article is more likely the start of the second waive of Lieberman-smearing than a sincere call for Lieberman to step down. Dems are working to erode Liberman's strength by pounding on "character" issues: questioning his party loyalty, independence from Bush, and personal integrity. If they are hoping to contrast Lieberman unfavorably with Lamont on character issues and willingness to think and act independently, they have a lot of work ahead of them.
Art,
Good question. I would suggest that to some extent it revolves around how important you think parties should be, and whether loyalty should go both ways, or just from the candidate to the party, and not in reverse.
I would suggest in Lieberman's case, that what he is doing is not immoral because he is giving his party as much loyalty as they gave him here. The idea to the contrary, that he owes a duty to the Democratic Party to sit this out, just because they helped him in the past, is opportunistic and disengenuous. It ignores any loyalty that they might owe him, having represented them and his state ably for the last 18 years.
And things could be worse - imagine the Democratic Party here in CO awhile back when they helped Ben Campbell win a Senate seat, just to watch him switch parties when the Republicans gained control of the Senate.
It's 1968 and the Democratic Party is officially split. Joe shouldn't run as a matter of principle, but since when do liberals have principle? I love this, the Moveon & Kos crowd will cry foul. Democrats are more afraid of the moonbat base than they are of Islamo fascism.
Yes, Mark, they have hated us for longer than Bush's term in office; from the Barbary Wars to the Beirut bombing of the peacekeeping Marines, to the '93 WTC bombing, they have hated us. They have hated us since they lost Andalusia and Jerusalem--long before Republicans A ever existed.
And since we became the world's only superpower, our reputation has been under attack by government and non-government propagandizers. Love of liberty though still equates to love of American values: ask any immigrant from Vietnam or Romania. It exists still on an individual level across the globe, even if the NYT doesn't like it.
As for Chait's hypothesis, Lieberman's run is not about restoring Democratic hawkishness, it's about a man who wants to win and sees the number of independents to do it.
art,
If CT had the Wisconsin rules for primary elections, Sen. Lieberman wouldn't have needed to re-file. With no meaningful candidates on the Republican ticket, most of the 44% of registered independents in CT would have been able to vote in an "open" Democratic primary (along with a number of cross-over Republicans eager to shut down a malevolent cause...make that Kos). Just like in the general election, the other 2/3 of the electorate swings heavily away from Lamont.
The extremes of either political party have their greatest strength in a closed primary (where they make up an artificially high % of the vote)....that's what made Joe so very vulnerable in what should otherwise have made his reelection a given.
Mr Hayden seems to be the only person who actually responded to Mark’s points, or at least one of them. Personally, I don’t think it is exhaustion so much as a recognition of his other point, namely that we have made a large mess in Iraq. Why is so difficult to admit that? Is it really that hard to say “we made a mistake?” Will we sail off the end of the earth?
I see also the traditional “Ds don’t understand that they are out to get us” talking point. Just once, I’d like to see someone back that assertion up with an actual statement from a prominent D. Extra points for a twenty-foot NYC sewer-raised alligator as a companion piece.
As for Leiberman, he's demonstrating that he has--at least since 2000--been about Leiberman first and foremost. The notion that somehow the party didn't support him is just wishful rewriting. Ask Bill Clinton.
There's nothing wrong with asking Leiberman to drop out. After all, it's a bit odd to claim you are against division and then turn on your party. Here's a question: should the Rs ask Alan Schlesinger to drop out?
As for the fall, I think we'll have to wait to see what happens in the actual election.
In a country where 50% of the public has bought into the notion that there were WMDs in Iraq, anything is possible.
I think Bruce nailed it, frankly. If Lieberman is in the election, he wins, and the dems are well aware of that. They are fretting at the very real possibility that if they can't bully Lieberman out of the race, he'll trounce them, and far from having purged the apostate, they will simply have managed to place a loose cannon on the deck, and made the Democrats look utterly out of touch with the prevailing mood of the country.
Oops. Clarification. I should have said that in addition to Iraq, I think many folks in CT found Leiberman out of touch with them on other issues, such as T. Schaivo. I think of Leiberman as really more of a moderate R who finally got pushed out of the D party. Not so earth-shaking when you look at it that way, especially since the Rs have been purging their moderates for quite some time.
To Prof. Althouse and any other conservatives who resent us liberals for thinking we're smarter than you, Critical Observer's recent comments should explain why we do.
I see also the traditional “Ds don’t understand that they are out to get us” talking point. Just once, I’d like to see someone back that assertion up with an actual statement from a prominent D.
"We killed the Patriot Act." - Harry Reid.
It's a sign of the ideological polarization of our time that both sides keep looking at Lieberman through an ideological lens.
I think the story is much simpler, and older -- the story of an incumbent who "went Beltway" and lost touch with his constituents.
We had an example in the Madison area a few years ago with the ideological roles reversed: That was when Scott Klug knocked off the highly respected liberal conressman Robert Kastenmeier, who simply had lost touch with his constituents and totally underestimated his challenger.
To some extent, all politics is local -- which is exactly why I think that in November Connecticut voters will reject Joe Lieberman, who has run a simply atrocious campaign and whose motto seems to be "L'etat, c'est moi."
In a country where 50% of the public has bought into the notion that there were WMDs in Iraq, anything is possible.
You'll have to be more specific. It's pretty clear that at one time there "were WMDs in Iraq," given that they were used. This won't count in your calculus, but the 500+ sarin-laced shells that have been found also indicate something other than complete innocence. You need to add somne qualifier to your statement such as "vast stockpiles of WMDs" if you want to make this point.
BJK said...
"The extremes of either political party have their greatest strength in a closed primary (where they make up an artificially high % of the vote)"
True enough - although I have to admit, I'm not quite sure how state-mandated open primaries are still constitutional in light of Wisconsin ex rel LaFollette and California Democratic Party v. Jones.
DaveG:
Thanks for responding, but I think I have to disagree unless I've misunderstood your post or unless you can point me to some other information. So far as I can tell, the shells you're referring to were there before the first Gulf War so they can't count either. That leaves us with essentially zip or some insignificant amount. Whether the number is actually zero or otherwise close to it is irrelevant in that the small amounts found cannot support the claims of WMDs made before the invasion. That's the sense that I meant. I think a qualifier like the one you suggest obfuscates more than it clarifies.
Madison Guy said...
"I think the story is much simpler, and older -- the story of an incumbent who "went Beltway" and lost touch with his constituents."
If - and only if - Lieberman goes on to lose the general election, then you will be in a position to make the assertion that Lieberman "lost touch with his constituents," as opposed to the considerably smaller claim you can legitimately make today, which is that Lieberman has lost the support of a small sub-section of his constituents (specifically, 146,587 of them, who may or indeed may not, in any event, have been part of the 2,179,562 who voted for Lieberman in 2000). Thusfar, even assuming that all 146,587 Lamont voters actually voted for Lieberman in 2000 (itself an unproven assertion), at an absolute maximum, Lieberman has lost 6.8% of his erstwhile supporters. I'm sure he's shaking in his boots, especially since he doesn't appear to be having any problems raising money and already leads Lamont in the polls.
since they arrested those fellows using information many would desperately like to keep old George Bush from analyzing
Nope, it's not that we want Bush not to analyze the info; we want him to follow the laws in doing it. Get the damn warrants, what's so hard about that? The Brits did it with this investigation, so if anything, this is great evidence that Bush's overreaching is hubris. Sound anti-terrorism intelligence can be gained lawfully, without further aggrandizing the executive.
DaveG:
Thanks for your Reid quote. It's certainly a good R talking point when taken out of context. But I don't see how it rebuts my point. Especially since some Rs agreed that it was a bad bill.
Disagreeing with the GOP doesn't equal not understanding terrorism. That's what I meant when I said I was tired of seeing the same old talking point. I repeat: show me something--even a ripped out of context remark--that suggests Ds don't understand terrorism. Or a 20 foot alligator living in the NYC sewers.
Chait is appealing to Lieberman's sense of fairness when I think Joe is being fair and is following the rules as written.
In fact, I think the Dems were far more unfair (in 2005 or 2003) when they put Lautenberg on the ballot as a last-minute replacement for the mortally-wounded scumbag Toricelli.
Let me address this as a Liberal Democrat.
First, being a hawk does not entail continuing to support a ruinous war that only strengthens the terrorists by making their case better than they ever could and which we can't win (as even a lot of our generals are now coming out and saying.) There is such a thing as being realistic. And polls are now showing over 60% opposition to the Iraq war. Does this mean that 60% of Americans are now 'doves'? No, it means that 60% of Americans agree with doves that this is a bad war and we need to get out of it.
There are still liberal hawks around. Prime example: John Murtha. Former marine, spent many years in the house working and voting for military projects, including supporting higher defense budgets, many weapons systems and in fact supporting the President every time a U.S. President wanted to commit American forces. So, he bought the lies that were told about WMD and the need to get rid of Saddam before the war and went on record as favoring it.
Once he saw how poorly we were prepared and how our military was being abused and squandered, he had the guts to stand up, admit he'd been wrong, and propose a workable plan for how we can leave and turn things over to the Iraqi government (you know, those elected fanatics who are still out there on the streets leading anti-American demonstrations and burning American flags in Baghdad). Murtha knew of course that he would be castigated by some on the right (including some of the very Republicans he had reached across the aisle to support on military issues for years) but he did it anyway. Sometimes there are worse things for a man's id than being criticized.
Iraq, which in its present form was just a bunch of lines drawn on a map when the French and British divvied up the spoils of the Ottoman empire after WWI is sooner or later going to splinter into three countries (Sunni, Shiite and Kurd). Trying to forcibly hold it together is like trying to forcibly hold the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia together.
It's time to let go. At least Boris Yeltsin was smart enough to understand that. The sooner we understand it (and elect leaders who understand it) the less the long term damage to America will be when the inevitable happens and Iraq flies apart. If there was ever a window to 'win' Iraq then it is so far behind us that we can't even see where it might have been anymore.
aj lynch:
True, but hardly new.
Just this past week, Bob Ney of Ohio, who is hip deep in the Abramoff scandal, quit running for re-election to his Congressional seat so the Ohio Republican party could name a replacement to run for the seat.
Tom DeLay is fuming because Texas is one of the few states that has a law that prevents that kind of thing.
"Get the damn warrants, what's so hard about that?"
You need first to identify the persons you want to wiretap. How do you develop that information?
It is true that John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi do not believe in fighting terrorists; they believe in pulling out our troops as quickly as possible.
This argument, of course, depends on the fallacy that the Iraq war is about fighting terrorism. Yes, there are terrorists flocking to Iraq, because we invaded it and opened the borders to them. Nice self-fulfilling rationalization, that. Meanwhile, terrorist activities continue in other countries, and Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike all support efforts to fight them.
Re: "..it's not that we want Bush not to analyze the info; we want him to follow the laws in doing it. Get the damn warrants..."
Yet the NY Times most recent expose' reported on a secret but entirely legal review of bank transactions.
So I have to disagree with you here. In my view, the NY Times are no longer merely anti-Bush, they're actively assisting the other side.
You need first to identify the persons you want to wiretap. How do you develop that information?
The same way we develop any surveillance case, in national security or local organized crime? The FISA setup is effective. How many warrant requests have they ever turned down? Probably fewer than ten. It even allows for retroactive warrants, which answers your question--if an agency needs to move on a surveillance, they can do so, and get the warrant later. The point is that there is oversight and accountability. That's a good, good thing, and we ought to maintain it.
Pogo, I don't care about the NYT, so you won't get any argument from me on that. My concern was pointing out that Britain followed its laws in gathering the info on this plot. We can do that, too.
You tell me, Seven. I've been wondering for since 2003. The rationale keeps shifting. WMDs? Get rid of Saddam? Take the fight "over there"? A democracy domino effect? It's not about 9/11, I know that much.
Elizabeth, the Blair administration just arrested the head of al-Qaeda in Britain after monitoring him for three years, seizing his assets, holding him without charges for a month (not even naming him), with potential for a judge to hold him indefinitely without charges.
Can you imagine the furor had Bush done this? In my view, the left simply isn't serious about terrorism.
You tell me, Ms. Liberal Hawk, where exactly are you willing to have American forces fight terrorism if you don't want the government infiltrating terrorist groups here, you don't want any American forces in the Middle East, and you think we should just let Iran have all the nuclear reactors it wants, and we should stop sending money to Israel.
Let me start by saying, CO, that you're really a piece of work. One who builds strawmen at an astonishing rate.
Look at the quote above. Who's "Ms. Liberal Hawk"? Me? Why? Have I claimed to be a hawk? Are you saying that liberals who support fighting terrorism are hawks? What is your point?
When did I say we shouldn't be in the Middle East? We tracked Al Queda to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Okay, they're Central Asia, but's let's not quibble. But I did't say it, you just made it up.
Quit funding Israel? I didn't say that; you made that up.
Not infiltrate terrorist groups? Nope, didn't say that. More straw from the strawman factory.
Nor did I say anything about Iran, much less about its nuclear reactors. More crap.
You apparently have to just make stuff up, just like you make up "Democrats don't want to fight terrorism!"
Pogo, furor over which part? Not the surveillance or monitoring--that's standard procedure, isn't it? Do you mean holding him without charges, and without naming him? I'd expect to see reaction in Britain over that if it goes on too long, or is done again and again to the point where people question exactly who is being held and why; we saw it with their handling of IRA suspects over time, in the past.
Seven, thanks for the response. We're going to continue to disagree, particularly over item 3; right now, I can't see that we've much improved that. The elected government is turning Islamist and fundamentalist, and cheers on terrorists, Hizbollah. I can't support the notion that we can justify our own interests (1 and 2) against the many, many lives the war cost. Too many Iraqi civilians have been put on the sacrificial altar.
It's a shame to have to say this, but I do appreciate that you and I can talk without calling each other names. Some Nutty Commenters on this thread can't manage to pull that off.
CO, you're still making it up. It is not the position of the Democratic party to stop giving money to Israel. You're lying. It's that simple. The Democratic Party does not oppose infilitrating terrorist organizations. More lies. Nor our being in Afghanistan. Liar. Nor does it support Iran going nuclear. Lying, lying, lying. Making shit up. Blah blah blah.
No, you just opposed the President's wiretapping programs that accomplish that goal.
Ok, on from strawmen to false dilemmas. And the name-calling, that's real persuasive, too.
Enough. Rant on, CO. I have nothing to say to you. Do a little end-zone dance, and declare victory, Hizbollah-style.
seven machos--
as a person who generally agrees with Elizabeth, i say: Thanks!
Elizebeth,
Your understanding of the operation of FISA seems a bit weak. The problem with FISA warrants is that they are time consuming to get - on average, according to several who have done such as part of their job, taking maybe a month or so to get all the paper work together for one.
So, as Ann suggests, a call comes in from a suspect source, to someone somewhere in the U.S. (whether here legally or not), and the NSA wants to hear what is being said. But if they followed the normal FISA warrant route, they would get the warrant a month after the recipient of the phone call had dumped his cell phone for another.
Theoretically, the 72 hour "Emergency Orders" provision should allow procuring a warrant on an emergency basis (it has to be granted w/i the 72 hours, or they are stuck with the month long process). But the reality doesn't work that way. The problem is that there is no reduction in the required paperwork - it just has to be completed, presented to the AG (himself - no delegation), approved by him, and submitted to a FISA judge w/i the 72 hours. In short, as he has repeatedly testified, nearly useless.
The fact that very few FISA warrants are rejected is also irrelevant. Given the amount of paperwork required, it is not really surprising that the DoJ doesn't spend its resources on weak cases.
The basic problem with FISA is that it was designed to combat a very different threat, involving very different technology. Both the technology and the threat have changed significantly since then, and the law needs to be brought into the 21st Century.
Simon said...
If - and only if - Lieberman goes on to lose the general election, then you will be in a position to make the assertion that Lieberman "lost touch with his constituents," as opposed to the considerably smaller claim you can legitimately make today, which is that Lieberman has lost the support of a small sub-section of his constituents (specifically, 146,587 of them, who may or indeed may not, in any event, have been part of the 2,179,562 who voted for Lieberman in 2000). ...
My views were based on his godawful campaign, not the results of an admittedly oddball, badly timed and not very representative primary. Of course he's lost touch with his constituents. What else would you call a long-time incumbent U.S. Senator and former VP candidate who blows a 30-some point lead in the polls and loses to a complete political novice? It should never even have been close. As Geoduck2 suggests, it would never happen to Hillary, whose views are similar.
I'm curious why so many conservatives seem determined to recruit such an inept, sanctimonious, self-serving Democrat to the war on terror. Surely we would want our warriors made of sterner stuff?
Madison Guy said...
"Of course [Lieberman]'s lost touch with his constituents. What else would you call a long-time incumbent U.S. Senator and former VP candidate who blows a 30-some point lead in the polls and loses to a complete political novice?"
I call him someone who was specifically targeted by a well-funded national organization determined to purge the party of apostates. The exit poll results make it wholly clear that Lamont's novicehood was irrelevant because the election was not about Lamont; indeed, it was barely even about Lieberman. It was about a fringe group that is not only dissatisfied with the way the war has been conducted, but which disapproves of the use of American military power and which has done so since at the very least the late 1960s.
"I'm curious why so many conservatives seem determined to recruit such an inept, sanctimonious, self-serving Democrat to the war on terror. Surely we would want our warriors made of sterner stuff?"
Yes, we would - but sad to say, that "inept, sanctimonious, self-serving" man is about as good as it gets in the Democratic party. Which is, in itself, a pretty damning indictment against them. And given a choice between a Democratic party controlled by people like Nancy Pelosi & Russ Feingold, on the one hand, or Stephanie Herseth & Joe Lieberman on the other, I'll take the lesser evil.
CriticalObserver said...
"These are not fringe positions that I am imputing to mainstream Democrats, they are mainstream Democrat positions that Elizabeth does not want to own up to."
Or, perhaps, they are mainstream positions which Elizabeth does not share and thus does not want to believe are mainstream positions. Speaking for myself, there are various views that I realize are held by many in the GOP, views which I find quite disagreeable, but I comfort myself by telling myself - although without a shred of evidence - that these are not actually mainstream Republican positions, they are simply views held by a significant chunk of the base. Nobody likes the idea that they are in a minority on an issue in their party, and perhaps Elizabeth is as much in denial over her party's middle eastern policy as I frequently am over my party's environmental policy.
Ann is absolutely right. Of course Lieberman should run. Chait's concerns make sense only to those who are more concerned about the success of the Democratic party as a partisan institution. Even on its own terms, Chait's argument that "the last pillars of that rationale [for an independent Lieberman campaign] have crumbled" doesn't make much sense if the frame of reference is anything larger than "what's good for the Democrats?"
Lieberman's candidacy will necessarily focus the election on the national security issues that are of paramount importance. Those issues certainly include the wisdom of continuing the Bush administration approach to the Iraqi war, as well as its views on the propriety of the NSA intercepts, the efforts to deal with the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, how to deal with Hezbollah and Hamas, the extent to which the US should support the Israelis or instead seek a more "neutral" position, and on and on. We were all reminded that those are the central political issues of the day, as the break-up of the recent al Qaeda plot showed powerfully last week. All of those issues should be the focus of this election, as they were in 2002 and 2004. Lamont has always been a one-issue candidate, and this is his issue too.
It's obvious that there are sharp divisions in the country, to say nothing of the Democratic party, the writers associated with the New Republic (Chait vs. Marty Peretz, for example), and the commenters on this thread. Since the Republican nominee seems not to be a factor, the race between Lamont and Lieberman should help clarify where we as a country and the Democratic party stand on those issues. The worst result will be a political stalemate, where the US becomes paralyzed because of the inability to reach a political consensus supported by a majority of the country. Elections are all about developing and making manifest that kind of political consensus.
By staying in the race, Lieberman makes that possible. The rest is up to the voters.
I don’t think Elizabeth needs any help, but I am going to make this one response.
"Am I? If you think the views of the DaliyKos are fringe views, then why did they deprive Joe Lieberman of the Democratic nomination?"
Blogs don’t vote. CT residents do.
"And if Elizabeth does support American troops in the Middle East, then where in the Middle East does she support stationing American troops?"
Is it your position that the US should have a permanent standing army in the Middle East? I suspect that position will come as a surprise to many people.
"And if Elizabeth does support infilitrating terrorist organizations, then why does she oppose the best means to do so and propose unworkable means of doing so?"
Not sure exactly what you are talking about here. The Bush administration has been rather spectacularly unsuccessful at even reading Arabic let alone infiltrating terrorist organizations. If you are as concerned as you say you are, perhaps you should ask Mr. Bush why so many Arab linguists have been dismissed from the armed forces.
As to unworkable, what does that mean? No warrants? Ever? For anything? Or just those things you think don’t need them?
"And if Elizabeth doesn't believe the Democratic Party supports cutting funding to Israel, then what does it mean to her that the Democratic Party supports both "even-handedness" in the Middle East and reducing the defense budget?"
Yeah, I guess all those votes in favor of Israel are fakes. See H. Res. 921 (410-8); S. Res. 534 (unan.). Come on back down to Earth; the gravity's fine.
"Is she really arguing that isoloationism is not on the surge in the Democratic ranks?"
Actually, isolationism’s abiding home is the GOP. And if you are using some sort of GOP code phrase for withdrawal from Iraq here, then the majority of Americans are with Elizabeth.
"If so, she is calling The New Republic a dirty lying publication."
Well they publish some pretty silly stuff. Is that what you mean?
"And are you really claiming that the 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate is "on the fringe" of the Democratic Party?"
These kind of rhetorical moves only work when everyone knows where you are going.
"Really?"
Yes.
"He won almost every Democratic primary in a landslide! Turn-out for Kerry was abnormally high and great. The election was close. And yet John Kerry called for giving Iran heavy water nuclear reactors during the 2004 election and John Kerry calls for pulling out our troops by a date certain."
What’s your point? Sounds scary but not even a tempest in a teapot. The idea—which was also apparently taken up by the EU—was to take away the enrichment process and give access to non-weapons material. Hardly wacky. In fact, your man Mr. Bush may have contributed to another arms race by legitimizing India’s weapons program. That’s a much scarier prospect as India and Pakistan have already come close to a nuclear exchange.
"These are not fringe positions that I am imputing to mainstream Democrats, they are mainstream Democrat positions that Elizabeth does not want to own up to"
No, it’s your mischaracterization of them. And some egregious factual rewriting, too. Explain, please, why exactly we should rewrite history for your benefit.
"What you are noticing is that when you put all of the meainstresm Democratic positions together in one gestalt, they look like the position of a fringe group -- and that's the problem. But I'm not "making up" the problem; the problem is what Democratic strategists have been complaining about since Clinton has been out of office."
For our departing contestants from the land of fiction, we have some lovely parting gifts. How about this “Who lost China?” button?
CO asserts it's the policy of the DCC to end aid to Israel. Where is that stated in the party platform? Has it been proposed and supported by Democrats in Congress? You're full of hot air, not facts.
No, it just opposes any and all wiretapping programs (or asset tracking programs) that are used to infilitrate terrorist organizations. And it opposes any interrogation techniques that get the kind of information that results in infilitration of terrorist groups. More bullshit. The Dems don't oppose "any and all" wiretapping programs. Stop lying. And opposing torture, which doesn't reveal the kind of information we need, but more likely the kind of information the subject thinks we want to hear. You continually try to make the case that opposing a particular strategy means opposing a larger set of strategies and the overall goal. That's bull.
Really? No prominent Democrats oppose our invasion of Afghanistan? Not one? Is that your criteria for asserting that Democrats oppose our efforts against terrorism? That one Democrat might oppose being in Afghanistan means that's the party's policy? Insane.
Finally, you're stooping to accusing me of name-calling when you've slung names at me for this entire thread is despicable. I'd love to see some of the same conservatives (Simon, are you out there?) who decry so-called liberal name-calling and hostility show some consistency and condemn it when it's coming from their side. I'm not holding my breath.
you are imputing some fringe beliefs of some Democrats to the entire left and the entire Democratic party.
Seven, many thanks. My challenge to conservatives to take on their own side was issued before I read this. I apologize for not acknowledging this first.
At the time of the Iraq invasion, the U.S. public was overwhelmingly in favor of war, against any of a number of countries. The American public did not need convincing.
Seven, I partially agree here, but the public was in favor of war against those who had attacked us on 9/11. The administration used WMDs and false associations with 9/11 to target that public support at Iraq.
"These are not fringe positions that I am imputing to mainstream Democrats, they are mainstream Democrat positions that Elizabeth does not want to own up to"
No, it’s your mischaracterization of them.
Thanks, sparky. Well said.
Simon, I appreciate what you say about denial, and I won't disagree that that is sometimes a factor with me. But in CO's case, he has consistently mischaracterized positions, and then declared them mainstream. Top that with his general nastiness and namecalling, and what's the point in going on?
Whoever elected to the Senate will represent *all* the people in the state, not just the Democrats. If the majority of voters want Joe then that is what the majority wants.
Yes, that subverts the primary process but it also puts pressure on the primary process to select candidates that CAN represent a larger constituency.
This thread reminds me that it's been said again and again and AGAIN, but liberals never understand the most basic fact of campaigning - you can't win by employing nothing but negative tactics.
"Pull out! Shut down gitmo! Bush is ruining the economy!" All this without ever saying what they'd do instead. (besides "hold talks")
The other really, really obnoxious habit of the left is the knee-jerk tu quoque(a fallacy - latin for "you too!"). Immediately after being confonted with a fundamental flaw of the left wing, many instictively come back with, "oh yeah, well you evil wingers do blah blah blah too!"
People, this doesn't do anything but let you artifically shut down an argument.
1. You have problems.
2. Deal with them or you'll never get elected again.
CriticalObserver said...
"Thanks for quoting me nicely. I almost sound eloquent in that sound-byte. And, who are you, by the way? You should probably run for office."
Thankyou; I'm this guy, but the day you see me run for public office is the day that you'll know that the GOP has run out of other candidates.
sparky said...
"Actually, isolationism’s abiding home is the GOP."
Given that we're the party who is in favor of free trade and a robust military policy, it's going to be interesting watching you justify that comment with an explanation. You are, I take it, going to back that comment up, or does the point stand conceded?
"I'd love to see some of the same conservatives (Simon, are you out there?) who decry so-called liberal name-calling and hostility show some consistency and condemn it when it's coming from their side"
I frequently do, actually.
It seems as if every election, we hear how the Dems are going to beat the Reps since 1994. Every year. With the loss of Lieberman, the Democrats have expunged the last "Scoop" Jackson Democrat. After reading the Anti-semetic comments about Sen. Leiberman in the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post, he should stand for election just to disarm the Anti-semites in the Democratic mainstream.
i'll bite:
isolationism:
Wendell Willkie
George Bush in 2000: no nation building.
"robust military" seems rather devoid of content since it would be rather surprising to find someone in favor of a bed-ridden military. if you mean acts, "reckless adventurism" seems a bit more accurate.
the GOP must be for free trade. that would explain the torpedoing of Doha. destroying world trade to save it, perhaps?
Perhaps it is usage Tuesday after all:
Mr CO writes:
"Me: If you think the views of the DaliyKos are fringe views, then why did they deprive Joe Lieberman of the Democratic nomination?"
Sparky, Another Illiterate Liberal: Blogs don’t vote. CT residents do.
Where did I say that blogs vote? I refer to the views of DailyKos. Certainly, voters have views, and voters read blogs that express views, and voters are mobilized by campaign staff and volunteers that read blogs and have views, and Lamont's campaign explicitly used blog-outreach to do just that.
LEARN TO READ. The rest of your claims that I mischaracterized X or Y are all based on your apparent illiteracy."
Having never been called illiterate before, I thought I should see what exactly it is that I don’t know. Here is the American Heritage College Dictionary definition:
The condition of being unable to read and write. 2. An error, as in writing or speech, made by or thought to be characteristic of one who is illiterate. . . . 3. The condition or quality of being ignorant or unknowledgeable in a particular subject or field: cultural illiteracy; scientific illiteracy.
Number one is out, presumably. Number three is also out, as the gist of the comment is that I was unable to understand exactly what Mr. CO wrote. That leaves number two. So, definition in hand, it’s possible to reconstruct the accident. Mr CO writes “Where did I say that blogs vote?” Well, perhaps here: “If you think the views of the DaliyKos are fringe views, then why did they deprive Joe Lieberman of the Democratic nomination?"
The word “they” is a pronoun. So that means it stands in for something. What ever could that something be? Twelve ladies leaping? the King of England? Stalin? George W. Bush? A knotty problem, to be sure, as Daffy Duck so memorably observed. Being an illiterate, I used the only tool at hand. What was that, you may ask? Being an illiterate, I am happy to respond. Why, I borrowed a notion of how words might relate to each other. From Standard English Usage:
The antecedent of a pronoun is its referent, the word it replaces: My brother is over there; he is the one in the red sweater. In Standard English, pronouns nearly always agree in number and gender with their antecedents.
Being an illiterate, I foolishly attempt to apply that silly notion. When I do, I find that, magically, “they” refers to “Daliy Kos” [sic]. The answer is upon us now: I, silly person, read Mr CO’s language as if he was writing according to “Standard English.” My bad.
So, in conclusion, speaking on behalf of all illiterates, I would be most appreciative if you, Mr CO, would favor us with a copy of your manual. I have no doubt that many such digressions might be happily avoided in the future.
Presumably, no one else is reading this thread at this point so I will not go through the motions of quoting again. You are quite right in pointing out that I should (or could) have used "the views of [dk]." You are also kind enough to offer some other alternatives, for which I thank you. Sadly, none of those constructions seem to include the voters of CT.
My dear CO, it is incumbent upon you, not your poor ignorant readers, to make your meaning clear.
PS: While this has been fun, I must take my leave. Do keep up the invective; it's so much more fun than discussing facts.
"Democrats did not kick Lieberman out of the party -- he was defeated in a free election."
Let's see. Democrats did not kick Lieberman out of the party; sure, he was simply defeated in an election in which everyone voting was a Democrat. If Democrats did not eject Lieberman,who was voting for Lamont?
"4. Last point - How many of you so called conservatives swould feel confortable if the President who fabricated the basis for war, who unilaterally suspended the 4th amendment, and who has been conducting warrantless searches, wiretapping, and other domestic surveillance under a claim of war powers -- and then lying or equivocating about it to Congress -- were Hillary Clinton instead of George W. Bush?"
Well, the President didn't fabricate the basis for war, didn't lie about it to Congress, and certainly hasn't suspended the Fourth Amendment (ludicrous hyperbole is the surest sign of a liberal gone wild), and yes, if Gore was President on 9/11, I would absolutely have supported giving his administration the authority the Patriot Act gave to the Bush administration, at least to the extent that act isactually Constitutional.
Simon:
You overlooked another choice nugget from Mark T's rant:
"We deliberately rejected the British model, and its disregard for privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the like. We chose liberty and freedom over tyranny, and it carries with it a price, which is accepting some lesser degree of central control and security than you get in a tyranny."
"Tyranny" isn't the first word that comes to mind when you think of the British parliamentary system. If Mark T feels that Tony Blair is a tyrant, what terms does he have left for someone like Kim Jong Il?
Hyperbole at this shrill a pitch doesn't inspire much confidence in the points Mark T is trying to make.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा