Lieberman, Loyalty, and Liberalism
Jeff Alworth
Tomorrow Joe Lieberman fights for his political life in Connecticut's primary against Ned Lamont, the insurgent backed by much of the national liberal blogosphere. The race has been cast, wrongly, as one about the single issue of the war, and now pundits from the right and left are studying the race as if it is a tarot reading about the November elections. Conservatives assert (rather disingenuously) that if Lamont wins, it signals the end--again!--of the Democratic Party, which would obviously have succumbed to radicals. (It is odd that the irony of this position never seems to dawn on conservatives: essentially, they argue that the Dems remain strong by voting for the Republicans' choice. Hmmm.)
For Dems, two narratives are playing out, and in this case, and from this discussion there is some value. On the one hand, Dems point out that Joe's history is pretty good--he's been a reliable vote on the environment and civil liberties, and mostly votes with the party. At Furious Nads, Kari made this point in comments to a post about Lieberman:
And yes, Lieberman - despite the war stuff and his idiotic attacks on tv violence and swear words - is basically a liberal. He's got strong 85%+ career voting records from AFL-CIO, NARAL, Human Rights Campaign, League of Conservation Voters, etc. Which is why all those organizations have endorsed him.
On the other hand, you have the Kos contingent, who see purging "sell-outs" like Lieberman as a critical step for Dems to regain power. They argue that it's not his position on the issues that's the problem; rather, it's his tendency to break party discipline at key moments and hand the GOP important victories. Many of the same folks who want Joe gone support more conservative members of the caucus like give-'em-hell Harry Reid.
The Kos contingent (I would love "Kossacks" to become the standard designator) is right.
Lieberman's not a bad guy, and I think his impulse is generally good: he wants to work with the GOP to come up with decent, bipartisan bills. The problem is that the GOP has no such interest: they not only practice a winner-take-all variety of politics, they also try to punish their foes. Good Dems forgive their leaders for supporting the President early in his administration; they couldn't have guessed the degree to which he would politicize terrorism and war. But after a certain point, it became necessary to act like an opposition party. Lieberman, oblivious, continued on like it was 1990 and the Bush in office was HW.
On the issues, he hasn't exactly been so liberal. He argued for privatizing Social Security as early as 2000, and while Bush made his obscene, whistle-stop tour to promote "reform," continued to waffle. He sided with Republicans in the Terri Schiavo debacle. He voted for Bush's [Cheney's] energy bill. He served on boards of conservative organizations like Parents Television Council and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (an offshoot of the neocon collective Project for the New American Century). And of course, he's a hawk who remains one of the staunchest defenders of the Iraq invasion.
But the thing that really galls liberals is that since Bush has taken office--and notably, since the Iraq war--Lieberman has seemed to relish his role as the critic of the left. A perfect example was last November, when he scolded Democrats in a Wall Street Journal editorial:
"I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead."
Foreign policy is messy, and the argument against pulling out isn't without merit. But there was no reason for Lieberman to take a shot at his party, who are after all doing what an opposition party should do (some might even say that this is the role of Congress, to balance executive power, but that's a little too much to ask for.) Time and again, Lieberman has taken these kinds of shots and undermined the party.
The Dems don't have it all figured out. We're casting about on a number of issues, and often there's no party unity. Party moderates are right to fear a cleansing of the kind that happened in 1978 and '80 in the GOP. But liberals are also right to ask that moderates not take potshots at other Dems--the effect of which can only be to strengthen the power of the majority party. In the Connecticut primary, I don't see liberals punishing Lieberman for failing a purity test--they're punishing him for being a crappy Democrat.
Seems reasonable to me.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Aug 7, '06
Well put. Lieberman is overall a good Democrat. The late Lloyd Bentsen of Texan, who was Dukakis's '88 running mate, was far more conservative than Lieberman, but remained popular in tha party and Clinton picked him as treasury secretary. I would also add that of the five or six 2004 candidiates I met, Lieberman seemed to be the most freindly and sincere, qualities sometimes missing in politicans. Many of us disagree with Lieberman on the war, but at least he is consisitent, vs. someone like Kerry who never seemed to be able to make up his mind on the war in 2004, one of the reasons he lost.
I would add that I think it's pathetic that Gore isn't supporting the man he picked as his running mate in 2000. Liberman was a centrist then, and rather hawkish, and that apparently was no problem for Gore. For that matter, Gore ran in '88 as a hawkish presidential candidiate and was one of only 10 Demcoratic senators who voted for the Gulf War in '91, along with Liberman. Now Gore is selling himself as the liberal darling and won't stand with Lieberman.
One last thought, the loss of moderates like Hatfield, Bentsen, Simpson, ect. has not been healthy to our country. The loss of Lieberman will only increase the polarization on Capitol Hill, and in the nation.
Aug 7, '06
Its true Lieberman's potential loss is about far more then iraq. First, it represents an independance among voters that has not been seen in decades, if ever. Incumbants are reelected 98% of the time and never lose in primaries where they are backed by the party and its entire infrastructure. The party is scared about this, not because they think Lieberman is a good Dem, he isn't, but because they don't know how to deal with the loss of control.
Second, any suggestion that Lieberman is a good Dem died when Lieberman began preparing his run as an independant and refused to rule out his run as a republican.
Third, Lieberman has always been a key player in the Dems central/right wing--the same group that got Bill elected and still hopes to get Hillary elected. By definition that group has always courted the potential republican swing vote. Lieberman, however, is the first victim in the death of that group's ideology. There will always be and should be a centrist democratic movement that court's moderate republicans. But even moderate republicans don't support Iraq, Terri Shivo, and many of the other "conservative" positions Lieberman embraced. As one commentator has called it, his defeat could be the beginning of a new democratic right philosophy--just watch Hillary as she changes tone. There are certainly many disenfranchised moderate republicans. Lieberman- like Democrats, however, are no longer answer to woing them.
12:46 p.m.
Aug 7, '06
The conventional press is painting the Lieberman/Lamont race as a single issue, a vote on the Iraq War. Most of us know Lamant has repeatedly stated he's also running against Joe's support for big oil, supporting Alito, and castagating Bill Clinton even while Joe knew the corruption of the Republican party was well underway and said nothing. Democrats of all stripes are portrayed as a single issue party, and blamed because we are "victimizing" poor Joe Lieberman. The insider Democratic "beltway-think" appears to demand centerist's ala' Hillary Clinton, run for the Democratic presidential nomination and demand that we deliver Lieberman a win against Lamont. Many are writing about the Lieberman/Lamont race as a battle for the soul of the Democratic party. Republicans and centerist Dems are holding their breath until tomorrow's results become public.
I don't see the Democratic party under the influence of the blogosphere as much as I see mainstream Dems like myself moving a "smidge" left of center ready to support a Wes Clark over Russ Fiengold and a Ned Lamont over Lieberman. I'll be hoping the election results in Connecticut will set the stage for a party that opens it's arms to different ways of winning elections, ways that include Dems who are attempting to "crash the gates" of the insulated beltway.
Aug 7, '06
The conventional press is painting the Lieberman/Lamont race as a single issue, a vote on the Iraq War.
Obviously that is true. If Lieberman was not a supporter of the war in Iraq, Lamont would not even be in the race.
But it ought to be clear by now that the "war on terror" and the "war in Iraq" are the central issues of our time. Lyndon Johnson was one of the most effective progressive Presidents in history with the Civil Rights Act, the war on poverty, medicare ... a long list of real accomplishments that are still alive today. He had one fatal flaw - Vietnam. And it took him down.
That said, Lieberman has demonstrated that his support for the war in Iraq is not an abberration. He is not just a military hawk or an unrestrained supporter of Israel. His support of the war in Iraq is ther result of the same dangerous and thoughtless moralizing that characterizes his involvment in Schiavo, violence on TV. It reflects the same desire to ingratiate himself to conservatives that can be seen in his criticisms of Clinton, vote for ALito, support of school vouchers and personal retirement accounts.
Without the war, Lieberman would still be safe. But if it was just the war he wouldn't be in danger any more than Hillary Clinton is.
1:30 p.m.
Aug 7, '06
Ross -- That was very well put.
2:10 p.m.
Aug 7, '06
If Lieberman was not a supporter of the war in Iraq, Lamont would not even be in the race.
I think we're in agreement, but I have to say I really hate this frame. The implication is that the only real issue is the war, when in fact, I think Joe's support for the war is a symptom of the actual issue. It's an effect as well as a cause. To characterize this race as solely one of the pacifist fringe versus a principled hawk is to imply liberals haven't the ability for complex thought.
To use a different truism: if politicians who support the war are under fire from the left, why aren't pro-war Senators like Hillary Clinton getting attacked?
Aug 7, '06
To characterize this race as solely one of the pacifist fringe versus a principled hawk is to imply liberals haven't the ability for complex thought.
But that is the nature of public discussion. Red/Blue. Hawk/Dove. These hard lines are necessary for compelling stories that create an audience for advertisers. Real discourse on public policy is boring, the way old fashioned educational television was boring. There just isn't that big an audience for it.
Aug 7, '06
Ross' description is one of public relations, not discussion of public policy. Is that all at issue here?
Aug 7, '06
I guess there are different views of makes "good Democrat". Lieberman was active in the civil rights movement as a young man. That, along with a progressive voting record on human/civil rights issues makes him a good Democrat in my book. George Wallace and James Eastland were racists and therefore bad Democrats. Hubert Humphrey was a very good liberal Democrat who was punished by many liberals for his support of the Vietnam War. SOme people don't think that Ron Wyden is a good Democrat because of his votes on NAFTA and other trade issues. Overall, though, his record is still progressive. I think it's important to look at the big picture.
Aug 7, '06
Mavericks are great. That is part of the appeal of both McCain (until he recently started sucking up to the religious right) and Feingod (who is far more centrists then most realize). Even Bush's initial mass public appeal hinged on a perception that he did what he believed was correct regardless of its popularity (in general or within party). Lieberman, like Bush, however, is learning that while standing for principals is admirable, even desirable among policitians, when your beliefs are no longer remotely mainstream you eventually fall out of popularity. Lieberman is not a bad Democrat because he occassionally crosses party lines. He's a bad democrat because most of his important stances are not what the democrats who voted for him want any more. For him the war in iraq was the straw that broke the camel's back and put his seat in play. That's why it gets the attention. But his mainstream Democratic credentials have long been under attack and suspicion. Was anyone reading this page really excited for him as VP or did you just think it was an attempt to make the Dem ticket look more conservative?
Aug 7, '06
Polarization of the political landscape is a fait-accompli, and it's not because Dems are purging their ranks of moderates. The majority party has been hijacked by extremist elements that have seen fit to cut all input to public policy from any but themselves, and go adventuring abroad in the most volatile countries in the world with a view to retaining power through fear. The times call for leaving behind people who don't recognize the danger of appeasement of such mob-style leadership.
3:39 p.m.
Aug 7, '06
Purging itself of moderates? Examples please.
Aug 7, '06
2 most intelligent comments about Lieberman's primary challenge:
First: Ross saying " result of the same dangerous and thoughtless moralizing "
which basically sums up my feelings about this (and why I think Cokie Roberts went overboard yesterday in claiming a Lamont win would be the equivalent of the 1972 Dem. convention "hurting the party on national security for many years").
Second: The Political Unit of ABC News:
The Note: Faux-mentum? The Chattering Class Loves to Learn Life Lessons
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html
There will also be during those same 36 hours (and beyond) a lot more speculating and punditing about What It All Means if Lieberman loses.
One thing it means: a lot of voters are passionate about the Iraq issue.
However, some of the WIAMs speculation has been and will be overblown. We hate to rain on the Chattering Class parade, but there is a danger in over interpreting a Lieberman loss in the primary. (And, remember, The Note is certain that no Connecticut Democrats will base their votes on what is written here.)
Why Joe Lieberman's case is sui generis:
He is the most conservative Democratic Senator in a Blue State.
No other Democrat has said "in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," or written a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece talking about how much progress had been made in Iraq. LINK
Most incumbent Senators, even if they have no obvious opposition, raise plenty of money, build competent campaign structures, and take issue positions intended to shore up their political standing. Lieberman did none of those things.
Connecticut is a very liberal, very anti-war state.
So take a deep breath or two before you start to (a) assume Lieberman will lose, or (b) assume that there are big implications for 2006 and/or 2008 if he does.
Aug 7, '06
I think it's important to look at the big picture.
Grant, so do I. And I think the big picture is Lieberman has some basic values that are damaging to forwarding progressive policies. His decision to attack Clinton was not helpful regardless of its merit. It provided cover for what was a partisan attack. His support of Schiavo provided cover for what was a partisan base building exercise by Republicans. His continued support for the war allows the Republicans to duck their strictly partisan support of it. Social Security, vouchers ... you can go down a list of issues where having Lieberman in the Senate weakens the Democrats ability to deliver on progressive issues.
And its not like he is trying to articulate an alternative vision for Democrats and persuade them to support it the way Bill Clinton did. He is simply using his position as a Democrat to provide cover for the Republican's agenda and get attention for himself. The country will be better off if he is gone.
4:16 p.m.
Aug 7, '06
In my view, Ned Lamont's challenge is about far more than Joe Lieberman's support for the Iraq war.
To the extent, however, that Lieberman's support for the Iraq war is an element of Lamont's challenge, I think it is not only about Lieberman's vote to authorize force in 2003, but also that Lieberman appears completely out of touch with the reality of what is occurring on the ground.
To quote Lieberman himself from the same op-ed that Jeff cited:
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.
There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing.
There's much more of the same in Lieberman's op-ed piece where that came from; it is as if Lieberman's Iraq outlook, similar to that of a lot of Iraq war premature triumphalists, became fossilized in amber circa June 2003. Even amid Iraq's continuing descent into anarchy verging on civil war, Lieberman was still touting the "real progress" being made there.
As I said, though, I think Lamont's challenge is about far more than Iraq. If it can be summed up succinctly, I think a lot of Democrats have grave doubts about Lieberman's partisan instincts. I think that politicians on both sides of the aisle should always be striving to find ways to work with one another for the common good. That being said, when it comes to the relationship between the parties in the Senate, with Lieberman I feel like I am watching, with apologies to Phil Hartman and his "unfrozen caveman lawyer" character from SNL, an unfrozen 1970s senator. It is as if Lieberman has slept through the ascendancy of bare-knuckled, scorched-earth Republicans that have come into power in the last 10 years. The Republicans of yesteryear (people for whom I have some admiration) that worked across the aisle -- Warren Rudman, John Chafee, John Heinz, and the like -- have largely disappeared, and they have been replaced by much more conservative politicians far less interested in compromise. I feel like someone needs to point out to him that when the Republicans running Congress these days say to him that they want to work with him to "save Social Security," what they mean by that is far different from what John Chafee would have meant if he used the phrase "save Social Security." To today's Republicans, "saving social security" is code for privatizing social security, except that, if you are a Republican, you should never say you are privatizing it, just turning it into a system of personal accounts.
I think Lieberman could have headed off this challenge long ago by offering up some pointed public criticisms of President Bush and his administration, and by behaving like someone who is a member of the opposition party. Instead, his response to Lamont's primary challenge came across to me as peevish, as if he was annoyed to be asked to explain his positions to the Democratic voters of Connecticut. I think Lieberman's biggest tactical blunder, though, was announcing his intention to gather the signatures necessary to run as an independent if he lost the Democratic primary. Lieberman's plan reinforced all of Lamont's arguments about Lieberman not being a very good Democrat (after all, what kind of Democrat refuses to abide by the outcome of the Democratic primary?).
If Lieberman loses the primary, I expect that, should be run as an independent, he will see many of the elected officials, party leaders and others that have supported him to date refuse to back his independent bid. I suspect a lot of the Democrats and independents that had been supporting Lieberman up to this point will migrate to Lamont. Lieberman won't be able to run from the sore loser charge, either, and I think continuing on as an independent will come across like a kid on the playground wanting a "do over" when the game didn't go his way. For these reasons, I think if Lieberman loses tomorrow (and if he wants to spare himself a second, even more embarrassing, defeat), the best thing he could do would be to drop his plans for the independent bid and endorse Lamont.
Aug 7, '06
1) I agree with Ross that If Lieberman was not a supporter of the war in Iraq, Lamont would not even be in the race. Lieberman's Iraq stance only opened the door. Yes, it's a big issue in the Lieberman/Lamont race, but it's not the only one. There has been a strong feeling for a long time and on a number of issues that "we need someone better than Lieberman". I know I've felt that way, so I'm glad Ned Lamont is making a run at him. Connecticut deserves a Senator that will represent them better than Lieberman has.
2) JeffA wrote: (It is odd that the irony of this position never seems to dawn on conservatives: essentially, they argue that the Dems remain strong by voting for the Republicans' choice. Hmmm.) I don't think it's odd at all. I think they do it on purpose, because Lying Is What Neocons Do Best! They're good at it. Really good. That's why they've done so well in elections.
Aug 7, '06
Let's see,
Connecticut liberal voters have an opportunity to SAFELY punish and vote someone out of office who believes that – unilaterally taking over another country, dumping all kinds of bombs on its population such that 100,000+++ people die, and trying to privatize (steal) their oil -- all based on invented and false "intelligence" was OK.
The question should be: how in anyone’s right mind would anyone vote for someone like that given an acceptable alternative.
Iraq was/is an attempted land (resource/oil) grab pretty high up on the moral travesty scale. The fact that this is not obvious shows numbness of the US population fed by imperialist hubris and corporate propaganda. (Normally, I would not make such an arrogant statement, but a recent poll showing that half of US respondents still think Iraq had WMD makes me a bit cynical).
Lamont is probably an opportunist. His position on the current Israel-Lebanon conflict indicates that he'll not likely represent a significant change as far as foreign policy goes.
Still, Lieberman should be punished, and the opportunity to send a message to the Democratic Party leadership should be milked for all its worth.
Hopefully, one message would be that the US needs to genuinely work for peace. Such work would take putting peacemaking far above military "defense."
Aug 7, '06
Bottom line: Lieberman has enabled the Delay-era repubs AND is a wholly owned subsiderary of the DLC-- a corporate control group at the head of the Democratic Party. Lamont's an unknown quantity, but taking that chance seems less risky than supporting a cog of both these exceptionally corrupt power structures.
Aug 7, '06
Nothing warms my heart more than watching a Senate Democrat with seniority getting replaced by a millionaire populist who will be given the collective cold shoulder by his fellow Democrats.
It's morning in America.
Aug 7, '06
Just heard on TV that Lieberman replaced Lowell Weicker in the US Senate. I wonder how many predictions made then came true. In many ways, my politics are closer to Weicker the hero of Watergate than to Lieberman--who was shown in TV saying publicly very recently that any citizen has the right to question the war, the president, or Joe Lieberman. If Joe had said that publicly a year ago, would he be in the race of his life?
1:18 p.m.
Aug 8, '06
Liebermann is a prissy, self appointed moral guardian when it comes to the behavior of his inferiors. He is a supporter and enabler of the systematic destruction of the Bill of Rights. Secret warrantless intrusions into my computer and financial files, warrantless searches of my house are noit to be questioned. He supports indefinite imprisonment of anyone designated by Our Dear Leader or his henchmen. He is on the record equating dissent from Our Leader's positions with lack of patriotism, and aid to the enemy. He equates opposition to his campaign or to Israeli foreign policy with anti-semitism. He seems outraged that any upstart would try to take His senate seat.
Finally, he is a poster boy for the Corporatist enablers of the DLC, who agree with BushCo that there should be no difference between what's best for the country and what's best for the billionaires who call the shots.
I'm pretty sick and tired of having all opposition to Liebermann equated with opposition to the Big Adventure in Iraq. Karl Rove is loving the frame.
1:37 p.m.
Aug 8, '06
Amen, brother Ryan! Man, that was as satisfying for me to read as it must have been for you to write.
Aug 8, '06
Lieberman has just conceded per the New York Times. Lieberman may get the last laugh according to his campaign manager since he may run as an independent in November. Will those of you expresing support for Lieberman be supporting him as an independent?
For me the war is not simply another policy issue like the bankruptcy "reform" bill or the estate tax debate. The war started in Iraq by George II is killing innocent people by the thousands. I cannot understand how any progressive could EVER justify supporting a candidate who is allied with Bush on the Iraq war.
I assume we will soon be seeing a number of similar posts supporting Hillary for president in spite of her strong support for Bush and the war. No thank you!
Aug 8, '06
Although I would have voted for Lieberman today, I don't want him to divide the party. WHen the NY Liberal Party endorsed primary loser Jacob Javits in 1980, that gave us Al DaMato (however you spell it) for three terms. Lonsdale's pouting and semi write in campaign helped give Packwood a victory over AuCoin in '92. ALthough we call CN a "Blue" state, it voted R for pres through '88 and having two Dems running could throw it to the R. My guess is that if polls show he has no chance and the R is leading, Joementum will drop out. If Lieberman wants to make a statement , he should run for president again as a Democrat or an Ind. Hillary would like that as she would not be THE pro War Democrat. She and her husband can't be happy tonight.
Aug 8, '06
Lonsdale's pouting and semi write in campaign helped give Packwood a victory over AuCoin in '92.
Had Lonsdale never said a word after the concession speech, I wouldn't have voted for AuCoin without an apology for his primary tactics.
The attitude "the primary is over and as long as you are registered with this party you have no right to ask the nominee any questions" contributes to the rising registration numbers of those who do not choose to associate with major parties.
Grant, if you work on a primary and your candidate loses, do you think the primary winner has a responsibility to reach out to the supporters of the primary loser(s)?
And yes, that means I believe Ned Lamont should reach out to Joe's supporters and ask them for their support. If he is smart, that is what he will do. His staff people know the Lieberman staff people, some of his activists known some of Joe's activists, and this will be a good test of how smart Lamont really is.
Aug 8, '06
Whatever happened to the "let him run for the Statehouse first" crowd?
If it was a Repuppycan Gazillionaire making his political debut in the U.S. Senate, y'all would be roasting him alive.
Run Joe, Run!
Aug 9, '06
"“For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot, I will not let this result stand,” Mr. Lieberman said of the Lamont victory."
Talk about ego ... my guess is that there aren't many Democrats who think the fate of the nation depends on Joe Lieberman's personal success.
The problem Lieberman had was a lot of Democrats doubted he was really a Democrat. He appears to be determined to prove them right.
I think he is going to find it hard sledding. If he is continues with any success he will poison Democratic politics in Connecticut for at least a decade. He is already working hard to poison Lamont among his own supporters. And Lamont supporters will not forgive him or, more importantly, any elected leader or party activist who support him, for a long time if he wins. This kind of battle will divide people for decades. Witness the comments here about Lonsdale/Aucoin.
Aug 10, '06
LT- Of coruse the winner should reach out to the losers supporters, but some of those disgruntled supporters will cut the winners hands off as he/she reaches out. You said you wouldn't have supprted AuCoin because of his "tactics" (my memory is that Lonsdale was the more negative of the two but I could be wrong. I met him in Corvallis in '95 when he was gearing up for '96 and all he seemed to do was bash Wyden, DeFazio, and most others Dems.)In the '92 primary there wasn't even a divisive issue like Iraq. When there is that kind of issue, it makes it even tougher for people to come together. Wayne Morse lost to Packwood in '68 in part because Vietnam hawk Demcorat Bob Duncan challenged and almost defeated Mrose in the May primary.
1:33 p.m.
Aug 10, '06
The war IS NOT A SINGLE ISSUE, in the context of Bush fiscal & tax policies. He & the R controlled congress are demanding sacrifice from poor, working-class and middle class Americans, as well as starving basic security at home issues, to pay for the war while continuing his special interest tax cuts. Plus running up the national debt because he hates my 7 year old daughter and her age-mates for some unfathomable reason.
<h2>I voted for Lieberman in 1988 over Weicker, the second worst vote I ever cast, as I once had the opportunity to say directly to him on a call-in radio show. He is a bad Democrat in the sense of being a triangulator, ever-ready to trash fellow Dems for his own purposes, and a hard-core DLCer whose bread and butter has been trying to purge the DP of "liberals" (whom he is ready to call far worse at the drop of a hat). The irony of people accusing the DP of purging him is almost too much to stand -- in fact the DP has stood by him while the Dem voters were the ones who have rejected him. One interesting question is what it means for the DLC itself. Clinton and Gore both started as DLCers, both moved a bit though not a great deal to the left of its hard core like Al Fromm and Lieberman. These days all sorts of people make DLC pilgrimages, from Hillary C., who is more or less in the old mold, though not as far right at Joe L., to Christine Gregoire to Barack Obama. It may be that some folks are trying to de-fang it and remove its threat to act as the spoiler, I am not sure. If so that might be easier with Lieberman out of office. But his independent run exemplifies the worst of everything the DLC has stood for and reflects its roots in Democrats for Nixon.</h2>