Still Time To Squeeze In One More Asshole! August 8, 2006 zuzu Joe Lieberman loses Democratic primary; vows to keep his seat by running as an independent. Way to prove you’re a loyal Democrat there, Joe.
Belledame, not even, I dunno. Bush? Cheney? Rove? Harris? Other Bush? But man. I didn’t know it was all said and done today. Fuck you, Joe Lieberman. Fuck you.
You know, I actually think I dislike Lieberman more than I dislike Bush. That may be irrational, but there you have it.
Joe Lieberman loses to an anti-war Democrat? That gives me the warm fuzzies inside! May he and his Republican running mate go down in flames in the general election, too.
What’s interesting to me is that I’m hearing a lot of people (particularly the rabid folk who post in Rants & Raves in my local Craigslist) bein all, ‘Way to go, dems! Way to get rid of the only democrate moderates and conservatives could conceivably vote for!’ Personally I’m torn- I’m totally disgusted at democrats who openly support Bush’s foreign policy, but I’m also well aware that Lamont doesn’t have the greatest record (whereas Lieberman did, in other areas, clearly have a history of progressive voting). But, man. Entering as an independent? That just further marginalizes candidates who Legitimately enter elections as independents, meaning that qualified third-party options still won’t get a fair shake.
Actually, Lieberman’s biggest problem wasn’t only that he supported Bush’s foreign policy, but that he gave the Republicans “bipartisan” cover on all sorts of issues – the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the Bankruptcy bill, the ridiculous Defense of Marriage and anti-contraception crap, mortality-based restrictions on freedom of expression, the Alito cloture vote and the “Gang of Fourteen”. Even during the 2000 election fiasco, Joementum didn’t fight as hard as he’s fighting this (to say nothing of his decision to run for BOTH the VP and his Senate seat, which would have given the Rs control of the Senate had Gore won). Heck, he was even waffling on Social Security and giving BushCo. cover there until it became obvious that W was going down in flames. All of that gets lost in the “people only voted against him because of Iraq” nonsense. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.
Lieberman’s real problem was not the war. Providing bipartisan cover was only the half of it. He was an open suck-up to a Republican president that has become so toxic even Republicans run from him. He stood for the proposition (beloved of the chattering classes) that the only way to be a moderate Democrat was to be divisive within and derisive towards his own party. Harry Reid is a moderate Dem. Joe Lieberman was a turncoat. And now he’s not a Democrat.
In a time of ridiculous movements to the right and left, where no-one compromises any longer, Lieberman was a maverick in reaching across the aisle. Nothing gets done, even with a bad prez in place (and we have an awful, maybe the worst prez ever) unless there is movement from party-based entrenched positions. When Kerry and Bush went negative in the last election, who didn’t? Lieberman. He wouldn’t. I grew up in CT and have been represented by this guy. Voted for him and would again. And I’m a libertarian who couldn’t find a presidential candidate in the last race because everyone was so ridiculously and obviously unable to work with the other side. I just think it’s great when Democrats choose a guy that resigns from his pretty much all white social clubs to become their champion. What a bunch of hypocrites! The Democratic party used to cover everything from the far left to the slight Right. That was it’s strength. Losing a guy like this is a huge blow. Y’all just don’t know it yet.
I’m a great believer in civility. But civility and partisanship can coexist, and I think that at times Joe Lieberman confused the two. Partisanship, as the execrable Tom Delay pointed out, is not a bad thing — cruelty, dishonesty, and rudeness are. It’s possible to be a passionate partisan and do so with grace, humor, and a belief that one’s opponents are decent. Lieberman confused personal decency with waffling centrism. They aren’t the same thing at all, at all. Yay Lamont.
Nothing gets done, even with a bad prez in place (and we have an awful, maybe the worst prez ever) unless there is movement from party-based entrenched positions. Getting something done is NOT the test of effective public service, when the thing done is negative. Searching for compromises does not work when your opponents are not interested in compromising. That is very much the case in Congress right now, especially in the House, where the Republican Party leadership exercises near total control over their caucus. And it has been clear since 2001 that the President has no interest in reaching compromises he isn’t forced to reach.
So both sides dig in? No-one is nobler than that whack job from Texas. That’s your solution? Cuz he’s an ass, Dems dig in a act like asses too? How about floating compromisable legislation and getting it knocked down by that dug in little Bush and his evil empire? At least you then show America you are trying to govern and make change. Instead of collecting yourself behind the bullwarks on your side and perpetuating the problem. Then you just become exactly like Texas boy. The whole country is waiting for Democratic leadership. Instead that get infighting, rock throwing, chickens. Guliani is gonna kick anyone’s butt you guys put up, and that is soooooo sad. It’s right there for the taking but you got no horses to run. Where have all the leaders gone?
“Dig in”? The Lieber-haters are choosing the candidate whose positions have the most popular support, a candidate who will probably not have much more difficulty than Lieberman winning the seat. So far as I can tell, the greatest danger to the Democratic lock is Lieberman’s insistence on running as a non-Democrat.
I’m sorry, Giuliani? Clearly you have no clue what you’re talking about. You see, to run for president as a Republican, he first has to, you know, win the Republican nomination. Please, pray-tell, how do you think a pro-choice pro-gay-rights former mayor of New York is going to win said nomination? And that’s without going into his personal history (which shouldn’t have a bearing on his chances, but will because Americans love to know what’s going on in the bedroom).
about floating compromisable legislation and getting it knocked down by that dug in little Bush and his evil empire? That’s what Reid did with the minimum-wage/estate tax bill. If you’re looking for moderates, Reid is your guy, not Lieberman. And he keeps getting reelected in a red state. Guliani is gonna kick anyone’s butt you guys put up, and that is soooooo sad. Delusional. The right wing will never back a guy from Noo Yawk with a solid track record of backing GLBT rights. Also, Catholic, which to many Protestant Evangelicals might as well be Satan-worshipping. Giuliani will never be the POTUS. He can’t even win a primary outside the Northeast. Hillary cannot win either. Mark Warner is the most likely next POTUS. He’s well to the right of me, so that’s a prediction and not a wish.
Piny – First off, why be a hater. What does hating on anyone do other than hurt you? Disagree, fine. Hate? Second – It’s no about winning elections it’s about governing and leading. Who gives a rip who gets the seat if they are just going to sit behind their fort and throw snowballs at the other guys instead of making substantive changes to what’s going on. This guy has new ideas? What are they? What is he going to do to change the nonexistent Democratic agenda? Where’s the part leadership on TV everyday saying get out of Iraq. Where’s Harry Reid, every day? This is just another moneyed-country club liberal who will be too unpopular to say what’s true. You know who did say what was true and wasn’t a Democratic wuss? Paul Wellstone. And the Dems constantly pushed him to the side because he was principled and vocal. There’s a voting record to imitate.
Piny – First off, why be a hater. What does hating on anyone do other than hurt you? Disagree, fine. Hate? Because he’s a spineless, whiny, craven, unprincipled, reactionary asshole. And his political views are inimical to people like me. If you like, I’m happy to use words such as dislike, disgust, utter lack of respect, and low probability of braking if I ever see the guy in a crosswalk. Second – It’s no about winning elections it’s about governing and leading. Who gives a rip who gets the seat if they are just going to sit behind their fort and throw snowballs at the other guys instead of making substantive changes to what’s going on. This guy has new ideas? What are they? What is he going to do to change the nonexistent Democratic agenda? Where’s the part leadership on TV everyday saying get out of Iraq. Where’s Harry Reid, every day? This is just another moneyed-country club liberal who will be too unpopular to say what’s true. You know who did say what was true and wasn’t a Democratic wuss? Paul Wellstone. And the Dems constantly pushed him to the side because he was principled and vocal. There’s a voting record to imitate. Lieberman is no leader. He has no new ideas; his platform is a maiming-and-pastry compromise with the Republican agenda that is fucking this country up down and sideways. And, “throwing snowballs” is what people do to their opponents during a race. Lieberman has been as vituperative, combative, and selfish as everyone else–and with far less party rationale.
zuzu – Who said the Repubs are doing a good job. They are horrible. We may have the worst government in power in the history of this nation right now with a President with a 36% approval rating and yet the Dems have no alternative plan, no momentum, no new ideas, nothing original, and no back bone in the face of this. If you can’t take the bull by the horns against these jokers, what in the world do you see in your party? Seriously? Who gives a crap what they say. What do they do. Nothing! Kids dying on foreign soil, corporations forcing us into wars, poverty rampant, and a bunch of Hardvard and Yale educated lefties in office doing jack about it b/c they are too chicken to be unpopular and lose an election. Hate the Repubs all ou like, at least they push their agenda. I disagree with most of it but I respect them for believing in something and pushing it. Dems believe in something and push nothing. Real inspiring. Where do I sign up?
Yes, but the difference between the Lieberman and the Democrats is Lieberman’s greater ideological and affiliational tendency towards Republicanism. He’s not just conservative; he’s friendly to the Bush administration.
And I gotta say I have trouble seeing the problem with the opposition party making a litmus test out of opposition.
Here’s someone who gets it, Simon Roseburg at the centrist New Democratic Network 2. In this new era, partisanship is a virtue. The conservatives rise to power, and their utter failure to govern responsibly or effectively, requires a new progressive politics of confrontation, not accommodation. This new politics may be uncomfortable to those used to an America governed by Democrats and progressive values, but for our politics and values to triumph progressives must and are learning how to resist “cutting deals,” working to “get things done” on terms set by an irresponsible governing majority. This is not an ideological development in progressive politics, but a pragmatic one. Senator Lieberman never understood this, constantly seeing this discussion through an outdated and inappropriate ideological prism. Of course there is room for someone with Senator Lieberman’s view on the War, for example. He was after all endorsed by virtually ever major institution in the Democratic family. There is a growing, and necessary, intolerance, however, of progressive leaders unwilling to take on Bush and his failed government head on – and this was the battleground in this election, whether the Senator understood it or not. I have great sympathy for those wishing our politics could be more genteel, where both sides could come together to work things out for the common good. But we live in a different time, and our the rising partisanship in the Democratic Party is a necessary, pragmatic and I believe virtuous response to the circumstances we face today at the dawn of the 21st century. I agree that Paul Wellstone was the true Senate hero, but please don’t try to tell us that Lamont won’t be better than Lieberman. Even if he does nothing different than giving Bush and Frist and Hastert “bi-partisan” cover for their conservative agenda, the Democratic Party is stronger. I’m in Pennsylvania – would I have preferred Chuch Pennaccio to Robert Casey as the nominee? Yes, but I’m still supporting Casey because he will be LIGHT YEARS better than “man-on-dog” Ricky Santorum, and he will bring us one seat closer to taking back the Senate.
If you can’t take the bull by the horns against these jokers, what in the world do you see in your party? You do realize that the whole point of getting Lieberman bounced from the Senate was to put someone in who would be more likely to take the bull by the horns against these jokers, hm? So what is your problem with the primary, exactly?
“There is a growing, and necessary, intolerance, however, of progressive leaders unwilling to take on Bush and his failed government head on – and this was the battleground in this election, whether the Senator understood it or not” You mean to “talk” about taking them head on, but then not really do anything about it. Hmmmm, yes. Impressive.
So no Republican has a chance against a Dem in CT. Your boy wins 52 to 48 in his own party. Joe is more like a Republican. Why wouldn’t he keep most of his 48% Dem voters and pick up a bunch of Republicans who would never want Lamont and know their horse can’t win, and win fairly easily as an Independent? And if he does, are the Dems shortsighted for not recognizing this very real possibility and simply giving their seat away or are they principled?
You seem to have real trouble with the concept of a primary. There were a lot of people who supported Lieberman, but only insofar as he was going for the nomination. That includes people from the party establishment, who have all thrown their support behind Lamont now that he’s the party nominee. Lieberman won’t get all of those people who voted for him in the primary to do so in the general election, especially not if he’s seen as not only petulant about being challenged, but also a spoiler. Joe’s been out for Joe for quite some time, but voters haven’t been able to do much about it because nobody would run against him in primaries and the Republicans who’ve run against him were useless sacrificial lambs. In 2000, remember, Joe wanted to hang onto being in Washington at all costs, so instead of giving up his Senate seat so that a highly electable and popular AG could run while Joe pursued the Vice Presidency and the seat could stay in the D column even if Gore and Lieberman lost, he refused to step aside and ran for his seat, thus ensuring that if Gore had been allowed to take office, the Senate would have gone Republican, because the Republican governor of Connecticut would have appointed his successor. I really don’t understand what your problem with this is — if you think this shows that the Democrats are in disarray, shouldn’t you be cheering that on? Or are you sad that you lost the Republicans’ favorite Democrat?
Whoops – that should be “MORALITY-BASED” not “mortality-based” Ha ha, I was wondering about that. “Mortality-based freedom of expression” would make a really awesome euphemism, but for what, I don’t know. (Hunger strikes? Suicide bombings?)
zuzu wrote – “if you think this shows that the Democrats are in disarray, shouldn’t you be cheering that on? Or are you sad that you lost the Republicans’ favorite Democrat?” Mr wrote earlier: “Who said the Repubs are doing a good job. They are horrible.” and “Hate the Repubs all you like, at least they push their agenda. I disagree with most of it” Perhaps you should read a little more carefully before asking pissy little questions.
Don’t talk to me about pissy. Your eyes are yellow. You’re the one making entirely inconsistent statements without making a damn point.
and yet the Dems have no alternative plan, no momentum, no new ideas, nothing original, and no back bone in the face of this. And Leiberman did? Last I listened to him he was parrotting the right wing. If you can’t take the bull by the horns against these jokers, what in the world do you see in your party? Seriously? Who gives a crap what they say. What do they do. Nothing! Kids dying on foreign soil, corporations forcing us into wars, poverty rampant Exactly and Joe and many other entrenched deal maker dems that aren’t making a coalition against and blockade of oppositin against Bush and Co., should be outted like Joey. …, and a bunch of Hardvard and Yale educated lefties in office doing jack about it b/c they are too chicken to be unpopular and lose an election. Well this is a double hitter. You’ve got classism all mixed up with political entrenchment and its attendent issues. And speaking of Ivy League educated no-nothings, ever hear of our pres.? What’s more important is doing something about a system that enables a empty headed, spoiled, elitist, failed oil-man become the prez. Hate the Repubs all you like, at least they push their agenda. I guess then by that measure Stalin, Hitler, Attila the Hun and Napoleon should arise from the dead to save democracy? At least they pushed an agenda.