Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Chait: "Lieberman’s irritating, but his enemies in the party are worse"
Posted by: McQ on Monday, July 10, 2006

Jonathan Chait's LA Times article distills perfectly the point many of us have been trying to make concerning the vendetta launched by a faction of Democrats trying to take over the party and purge the less ideologically desirable:
But if Lieberman's allies are irritating and often wrongheaded, alas, his enemies are worse. Lieberman recently declared, "I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party." Markos Moulitsas, the lefty blogger from Daily Kos who has appeared in a Lamont commercial and has made Lieberman's defeat a personal crusade, posted this quote on his website in the obvious belief that it's self-evidently absurd. But shouldn't we all have greater loyalties than the one to our party — say, to our country? Partisanship isn't nothing, but must it be everything?

Moulitsas and many of his allies insist that they just want Democrats to win. But in fact, they believe that any deviation from the party line — except for a few circumscribed instances, such as Democrats running for office in red states — is an unforgivable crime. They have consigned large chunks of the center-left to enemy status. It is an odd way to go about building a majority.
Uh, hello out there? Why is this obvious to everyone but Kos and the "net roots" crowd?

I particularly like Chait's question which asks, "Partisanship isn't nothing, but must it be everything?"

To that faction, the answer is obviously "yes", at least for now. And while the irony seems to be lost on them, it certainly argues against the insistence of the Kossacks that they "just want Democrats to win".

No.

They don't.

They want a certain type of Democrat to win and it is only that type that they'll acknowledge as a Democrat.

And their attack on an incumbent Democrat who doesn't fit that template may fulfill the law of unintended consequences:
Their technique of victory-via-purge is on display in Connecticut. Although Lamont decided on his own to run, the left bloggers made his campaign their central cause. One result is that Lieberman has announced his intention to run an independent candidacy should he lose the primary. Moulitsas and other Lamont supporters are filled with outrage that Lieberman has opened up the possibility of splitting the liberal vote and letting a Republican win.

Well, OK, some anger is appropriate here. But doesn't this suggest that the whole Lamont crusade has sort of backfired? Although I'm no Karl Rove, it seems to me that turning a rock-solid Democratic seat into a potential Republican pickup represents something less than a political masterstroke.
Incredibly, after targeting Lieberman for defeat with a vicious campaign this crowd thinks he should just quietly fade away if they manage to help Ned Lamont beat him in the primary. "We don't want you in the party Joe, but we expect you to support it if you lose."

Make sense?

And the lesson Kos takes from all of this?
My biggest lesson I've taken from the Connecticut primary is how much the beltway elite hate democracy and the plebes who demand a say in it.
My goodness man, you're a direct competitor now. You're trying to dictate the party's ideology and who is or isn't welcome. You're one of the elite now, beltway or no beltway. As we pointed out previously with power and visibility comes scrutiny and criticism. And your tactic is to make the tent smaller, not larger, ideologically pure and move it further to the left (he sounds like someone from Libertarian Party for heaven sake).

Chait nails it with his conclusion:
The whole anti-Lieberman blog campaign has a self-fulfilling quality: They charge that Lieberman isn't a Democrat, they drive him from the party, and they declare themselves to be correct. The more ex-Democrats they create, the more sure of their own virtue they become.
And the less sure they are that a Democrat will win. Meanwhile Republicans are stocking up on popcorn and beer to watch the CT primary unfold. And, unsurprisingly, most are with Kos on this one. Most will be with Kos every time he tries to purge a Democrat incumbent. That sort of inter-party friction and the narrowing of ideological lines works to the advantage of Republicans and they know it.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, no the "net roots" crowd is not amused and Chait joins those at The New Repbulic on the list of those marginalized for speaking truth to power, er, uh ... not supporting the cause.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
All over I read the left taking very strong issue with Chait on this matter.

They dislike Lieberman because he doesn’t fight for Dem issues and publicly disses other Dems. That’s why, for example, Digby angrily rejects Chait’s accusations:

Joe Lieberman actively undermines the Democratic Party, to its detriment and for his own purposes. He could support the Iraq war, for instance, without lecturing those of us who are opposed to it from the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal for gawd’s sake! ... He often "triangulates" against rank and file Democrats, making common cause with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. He uses liberals as his favorite foils happily helping the Republicans to demonize half of his party.

The rank and file accept that the Democratic coalition is going to have to include conservatives from red states and nobody is arguing that they are not allowed to have latitude in their voting patterns and even in their rhetoric. They represent conservative people. That’s democracy at work. But I don’t see Mary Landrieu or Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson writing op-eds in the Wall Street Journal telling dissenters that we are undermining national security by criticizing the war. Even they don’t do that, and they could probably benefit sometimes from triangulating against the liberals. (And we’d grit our teeth and bear it, out of pragmatism.)
But Digby points out Lieberman is from a very Blue state, and does what he does anyway — not to appease the conservatives back home. Dems like Digby want other Dems to have some party loyalty, not blindly, but some. They see none with Lieberman. Digby after all does like support Jim Webb’s candidacy, even tho he is much less liberal than Digby himself is. Digby regards Webb as a fighting, reasonably loyal Dem.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Why is this obvious to everyone but Kos...
Kos tapped into the internet for the liberals and should get credit for that. But why does he get any credit from the Left for understanding anything else? How many of his endorsed candidates have to go down in flames before people ignore his (lack of) political insight?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
All over I read the left taking very strong issue with Chait on this matter.
I’m not sure who you mean when you say "the left" is taking very strong issue with Chait.

Seems to me that a number of Senators I can only associate with the left essentially agree with Chait and that is why they’re openly supporting Lieberman.

Certainly the left blogsphere might be upset with Chait, but I’ve already mentioned that, and, frankly, that’s to be expected.
Dems like Digby want other Dems to have some party loyalty, not blindly, but some.
Nonsense Mona. Digby and the like want him to have "party loyalty" on those subjects they or others chose for him. In this case the war in Iraq. So yes, they do indeed want blind loyalty, they just don’t want to admit it.
Digby after all does like support Jim Webb’s candidacy, even tho he is much less liberal than Digby himself is. Digby regards Webb as a fighting, reasonably loyal Dem.
Well right now he does, but there is certainly nothing about Digby which should give Webb any confidence future stances he may assume might not run afoul of the arbitrary party litmus test.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
They dislike Lieberman because he doesn’t fight for Dem issues and publicly disses other Dems.
I find it unfortunate, but I’m coming to understand the rationale behind opposing Lieberman. It doesn’t seem any less legitimate than the Republican grassroot attempts to unseat Arlen Specter. The Democrats seem to generally be coalescing around the idea that they’ll support the Democratic primary winner — which is exactly what the Republicans would have done. (and did) I still find the notion that Lieberman is insufficiently liberal fairly unpersuasive and I’m dismayed by the move to replace him, but I can understand their strategic arguments for doing so.

That’s democracy. You vote for or against the candidates you think most likely to achieve your ends. I can’t really argue that there’s anything wrong with that, except insofar as I disagree with their ends.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Nonsense Mona. Digby and the like want him to have "party loyalty" on those subjects they or others chose for him. In this case the war in Iraq. So yes, they do indeed want blind loyalty, they just don’t want to admit it.
Why would you claim to know Digby’s mind? What he writes about this is entirely consistent with Digby’s posts for quite some time now. On what basis do you discredit Digby’s stated reasons and instead attribute to him a demand for "blind loyalty"?

Based on everything I’ve long read at left-of-center blogs, Digby and others hold particular antipathy for Lieberman for the reasons Digby stated in my link — which I’ve read elsewhere from others who are not raving, radical leftists. Almost uniquely, they regard him as "Democrat in Name Only." If I can find it, I’ll link to the HuffPo guy who is a centrist, former Republican who dislikes Leiberman for essentially the same reasons Digby cites.

Harry Reid is pro-life, and they all seem to like him well enough, because he fights the Bush administration on many issues of concern to Democrats.

 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Mona,
he doesn’t fight for Dem issues and publicly disses other Dems
!!??

Digby is full of it. Lieberman can be counted to vote with the core democratic party principles and platforms 90% of the time. He is rated as one of the most liberal senators and he has a christian coalition rating of 0. Yes, zero!

They are against him because of his consistent position on the Iraq war. The rest of the arguments are ginned up bs. Lets not forget the name that the other Townhouse member, Hamsher, pinned him with; "rape gurney joe". Really nice epithet there. So conducize to reasoned argument.

By picking Lieberman as their target, the nutroots are sending a message to the main democratic party that they are next if they don’t toe the line. Chait is right on the money. The Kos brigades could be on the edge of delivering the Democratic party a huge lost. How does that help anyone. How "you’re with us or against us" Bushian that sounds.

Whenever I see an issue that Greenwald (the guy on that townhouse Kos coordinated talking point list) picks as a stand, you always accept it no matter what. I don’t trust your neutrality in this.

Make of this what you will.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Why would you claim to know Digby’s mind?
More the inclination of the whole net roots group. And Digby’s as big a part of it as Kos. They are the ones who’ve admitted to a limus test, it’s not something I made up.

Litmus tests don’t speak to some party loyalty ... they speak to complete party loyalty or you’re out.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Actually I’d like to see Lieberman fight for his job in the primary and, if he wins I’d like to see him re-elected.

However, by announcing he would not support Lamont should he lose the primary Lieberman has shown what is truly important to him.

Contrast that with John McCain in 2000 and I think the problem with Lieberman is obvious. It’s not that he doesn’t toe the line on all democrat issues, it’s that he puts his own interests before his party’s interests.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
I think the difference between Toomey V. Specter and Lamont v. Lieberman is that the CONSERVATIVES felt that Specter was too soft, whereas Lieberman has a 90-Plus ADA rating, as I have said before, a measure of "liberalism" created by Liberals. It’s just he’s NOT Liberal enough, or he supports the war and Bush’s stance on the war. He fails a pretty much single-point litmus test.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I deeply admire Sam Tanenhaus, who is a liberal Democrat and scholar, editor of the NYT Review of Books, author of a superb biography of Whittaker Chambers, and currently working on one about WFB. (NR highly praised the Chambers bio: "Bit by bit, the record is being set straight on Communism, and the publication of Whittaker Chambers: A Biography marks an essential step toward that goal. The journalists of today may casually subscribe to the notion that Whittaker Chambers was a man of dishonor, but the historians of tomorrow — guided by this indispensable book — will know better.")

Tanenhaus isn’t upset by phenomena like the netroots, as he wrote a few years ago:

The Republican Party [since the Goldwater era] would never again underestimate the uses of zeal and continues to exploit it. In fact, even as the Democratic Leadership Council sounded its alarm in Philadelphia, some 1,000 young right-wing firebrands assembled at the Republican college convention in Washington. They excitedly discussed Ann Coulter’s new book "Treason," which depicts liberals as the enemy within, and heard from a prominent lobbyist who described Democrats as "the ascension of evil, the bad guys, the Bolsheviks." Other highlights were speeches by Tom DeLay, the vociferous House majority leader, and Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political maestro, who looked delighted by the enthusiasm of these extremists.

Our two major parties seem to have swapped identities. The Republican establishment, presumably allied with the rich and privileged, embraces its populist core of hard-edged activists, while the Democratic elite, supposed champions of "the people," evidently fears them. Only one party has learned the lesson of 1964 - that extremists should not be lectured to but listened to, because they may have something important to say.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
They are against him because of his consistent position on the Iraq war. The rest of the arguments are ginned up bs.
I don’t think that quite captures it. Lieberman is not getting this kind of abuse because he’s pro-Iraq war so much as because he’s insufficiently anti-Republican. The netroots can take a modicum of disagreement; for them, the unforgivable sin is in not being a part of their movement. Lieberman appears willing to sacrifice Democratic Party goals. For a Movement, lack of loyalty on the specifics is much less important than lack of loyalty to the Movement.

That said...
However, by announcing he would not support Lamont should he lose the primary Lieberman has shown what is truly important to him. [...] It’s not that he doesn’t toe the line on all democrat issues, it’s that he puts his own interests before his party’s interests.
...I find it a bit depressing that we’re now criticizing politicians for being too motivated by what they think is right, rather than by Party loyalty. We must bear in mind the motivations of the actors involved, though. We all admire in the abstract a person who does what they think is right. In practice, we admire people who do what we think is right.
I think the difference between Toomey V. Specter and Lamont v. Lieberman is that the CONSERVATIVES felt that Specter was too soft, whereas Lieberman has a 90-Plus ADA rating, as I have said before, a measure of "liberalism" created by Liberals. It’s just he’s NOT Liberal enough, or he supports the war and Bush’s stance on the war. He fails a pretty much single-point litmus test.
Well, the Club For Growth led the anti-Specter movement, and they did so because of his position on tax cuts, if I recall correctly. Grover Norquist and his groups refuse to support any Republican who will not sign a pledge not to increase taxes on anything, ever.

But perhaps McCain would be a better analogy. Despite his very conservative vote rating, he’s constantly called a RINO and the Republican grassroots have often urged his removal — or at least tried to defeat him in Presidential primaries in favor of the less conservative Bush.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Despite his very conservative vote rating, he’s constantly called a RINO and the Republican grassroots have often urged his removal — or at least tried to defeat him in Presidential primaries in favor of the less conservative Bush.
Well yes, but the analogy would hold better if McCain were an incumbent and they were supporting Bush for whatever reason. But the fact is they were both candidates vying for an open seat.

I think it is that which has most people scratching their head. Liberman’s seat is a safe seat. If all they want, as they insist, is for Democrats to win, then Lieberman can do that.

So one has to conclude, given the opposition to Lieberman, that’s not all they want.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
So one has to conclude, given the opposition to Lieberman, that’s not all they want.
I thought I’d made that point. They don’y simply want a [D] in the seat. They want a [D] who will be a part of the movement. The specific policies are less important than is helping the movement. Similarly, Specter and McCain’s willingness to go "maverick" on some issues has endangered them with much of the Republican grassroots, despite Specter having the clount to make his a "safe seat" and McCain’s strong conservative voting record.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I thought I’d made that point.
I don’t think I was disputing your point, which, in fact, is the same point I made in the post. I was simply amplifying it. I just didn’t find the analogy to be that much of a fit.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
We all admire in the abstract a person who does what they think is right. In practice, we admire people who do what we think is right.
That’s one of the best things I ever read.
 
Written By: jinnmabe
URL: http://
I find it a bit depressing that we’re now criticizing politicians for being too motivated by what they think is right, rather than by Party loyalty.
So Joe’s overriding principle to which he adheres to is simple self preservation?

Can’t really argue with that I guess. You’ve got him down cold.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
So Joe’s overriding principle to which he adheres to is simple self preservation?
That’s a dishonest representation of what Jon said.

So what you think the phrase "what they think is right". Mostly that is anti simple preservation. Voting with the herd is safer, voting according to a principle is more dangerous. Don’t you agree or are you just messing with Jon?
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
No.

They don’t.

They want a certain type of Democrat to win and it is only that type that they’ll acknowledge as a Democrat
To be more specific, they only want those those "Dems" to win that they can say they "made"

Kos wants so desperately to get even 1 victory, so he can claim to be the kingmaker, a Rove from the Netroots.

And these idiots whos anger he’s exploiting via that website don’t even know how baldly they’re being played to parlay one man’s status upward into the beltway "elite"
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Shark, I suspect that you’ve hit the nail on the head. What I have read of Kos’ work speaks very clearly of a man who hates the "elite, beltway insiders," but wants to be one of them so desperately that it becomes almost pathetic. His whole goal in life is to be the power behind the throne. As soon as one of "his" candidates is elected, they are going to learn the price of his support. And I suspect it will be sooner, rather than later.

For a guy who speaks so frequently of principle, methinks Kos should put up or shut up. If he really wants his agenda pushed so badly, he should declare his candidacy for office. In this respect, I think many of the more "firebrand" bloggers, editorialists, and politicos fail both themselves and their audiences. None of them has ever had the courage to actually wade into the frontline of the political war in America. All are happy to snipe from a distance because their own heads aren’t on the block. Rush, Coulter, Kos, Atrios, and most of the other "hardcores" simply lack the courage of their convictions.

This is symptomatic of most fiction writers who love to have their characters deliver lines that they themselves believe in, but would never have the courage to own up to in real life. Until Kos steps up to the plate and runs for something, I’ll still consider him to be nothing more than a novelist with a gift for self-promotion.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
Capt Joe writes:
Whenever I see an issue that Greenwald (the guy on that townhouse Kos coordinated talking point list) picks as a stand, you always accept it no matter what. I don’t trust your neutrality in this.

Make of this what you will.
Obviously you think there is something to be made of my agreement with Greenwald, when I in fact actually do agree with him.

But you could not be more mistaken about my always accepting Greenwald’s position; I actively worked to undermine that stupid campaign to "defend" Michael Moore that he got himself involved with. Further, I supported the Alito appointment, which he did not.

That all said, I agree with Greenwald’s assessments about Bush’s abuses of Executive power, and consider those issues to be of paramount importance. Further, my documented disgust with Bush and the GOP precedes Greenwald’s arrival on the blog scene, and began when I was flaming right-wingers at various sites who were promoting the "Save Terri!" attacks on the Florida judiciary, undermining the rule of law and failing to accept the prerogatives of the several states to legislate in such areas.

In any event, what any of this speculation about me and my purportedly impugned neutrality has to do with why various left-wing bloggers, and the "netroots" in general, so dislike Lieberman, I don’t know.

I am a Reason-style libertarian. My views on Bush, the left & etc. are no less consistent with what you will read there than what you will find at Greenwald’s.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Lieberman not only supports the war, but lies about the "progress" there. Why in the world would any sane person want him in the party?

This weekend saw the violence in Iraq taken to a new level. From the NYT:
BAGHDAD, July 9 — A mob of gunmen went on a brazen daytime rampage through a predominantly Sunni Arab district of western Baghdad on Sunday, pulling people from their cars and homes and killing them in what officials and residents called a spasm of revenge by Shiite militias for the bombing of a Shiite mosque on Saturday. Hours later, two car bombs exploded beside a Shiite mosque in another Baghdad neighborhood in a deadly act of what appeared to be retaliation.

While Baghdad has been ravaged by Sunni-Shiite bloodletting in recent months, even by recent standards the violence here on Sunday was frightening, delivered with impunity by gun-wielding vigilantes on the street. In the culture of revenge that has seized Iraq, residents all over the city braced for an escalation in the cycle of retributive mayhem between the Shiites and Sunnis that has threatened to expand into civil war.
From the LA Times:
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Brutality and corruption are rampant in Iraq’s police force, with abuses including the rape of female prisoners, the release of terrorism suspects in exchange for bribes, assassinations of police officers and participation in insurgent bombings, according to confidential Iraqi government documents detailing more than 400 police corruption investigations.
A recent assessment by State Department police training contractors underscores the investigative documents, concluding that strong paramilitary and insurgent influences within the force and endemic corruption have undermined public confidence in the government.

Officers have beaten prisoners to death, been involved in kidnapping rings, sold thousands of stolen and forged Iraqi passports and passed along vital information to insurgents, the Iraqi documents allege.

The documents, which cover most of 2005 and part of 2006, were obtained by the Los Angeles Times and authenticated by current and former police officials. The alleged offenses cover dozens of police units and hundreds of officers ranging from beat cops to generals and police chiefs.

Officers were punished in some cases, but the vast majority of offenses are either under investigation or were dropped because of a lack of evidence or witness testimony.

The documents are the latest in a string of disturbing revelations of abuse and corruption by Iraq’s Interior Ministry, a huge, Cabinet-level agency that employs 268,610 police, and immigration, facilities security and dignitary protection officers.

After the discovery in November of a secret Interior Ministry detention facility in Baghdad operated by police intelligence officials affiliated with a Shiite Muslim militia, U.S. officials declared 2006 "the year of the police." They vowed a renewed effort to expand and professionalize Iraq’s civilian officer corps.

President Bush has said that the training of a competent Iraqi police force is linked to the timing of an eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops and a key element in the war in Iraq.

But U.S. officials say the renegade force in the ministry’s intelligence service that ran the bunker in Baghdad’s Jadiriyah neighborhood continues to operate out of the Interior Ministry building’s seventh floor. A senior U.S. military official in Iraq, who was interviewed last month on condition of anonymity, confirmed that one of the leaders of the renegade group, Mahmoud Waeli, is the "minister of intelligence for the Badr Corps" Shiite militia and a main recruiter of paramilitary elements for interior police forces.
Iraq is descending further into chaos. Lieberman says things are getting better.

Lieberman is lying.

The "net roots" or whatever you want to call them don’t want someone in the Democratic party who habitually lies about the war.

Why is this is so hard to understand?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The "net roots" or whatever you want to call them don’t want someone in the Democratic party who habitually lies about the war
As long as you admit that the war is your limtus test MK, it’s all good.

PS- I guess that means you and the netroots no longer support Hillary, correct?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
These two Ezra Klein pieces also illuminate what is so off-target about Chait’s accusations.




 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Mona, if you say so, but having started from a position of neutrality I am coming to agree with your citics.

So lets just leave it there.

Now on to my point.

I think that the nutroots (and I will continue to call them that) need desparately to defeat Joe Lieberman. With absoultely no success whatsoever in any of their attempts to gain seats for their pet politicos, if they can’t elect a liberal in one of the most blue seats in America then they are completely useless and everyone will know that.

IF they are defeated in running Lamont against Lieberman with the entire left side of the sphere (including Townhouse Greenwald) pushing all the smears and distortions that can be launched, then I would think that there may be a night of the long knives with the main democratic party apparatus realizes that that the Kos dog (which seems to have a mighty bark and howl) has no bite.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
"PS- I guess that means you and the netroots no longer support Hillary, correct?"

shark, the left netroots, at least the parts I read, haven’t supported Hillary in a long time. In fact, they’ve been openly against her.
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
revenge by Shiite militias for the bombing of a Shiite mosque on Saturday. Hours later, two car bombs exploded beside a Shiite mosque in another Baghdad neighborhood in a deadly act of what appeared to be retaliation
So your version of the world goes like this....

Muhammed Al-Sunni - "Achmed, you know those two car bombs (and two cars) I had laying around, I think we should use them as a response to the attack those filthy Shiite’s launched a couple of hours ago. Thank Allah! we developed the plug-and-play bomb schematic!"

Rather than -
Syrian Bob-Al-Queda-Muhammed - "Then we will launch attacks on both the Sunnis and Shiites in yet another attempt to cause a Civil War".

This is why I enjoy you, you always take things at face value provided they agree with your world view, and always look for the subplots in the text only when they don’t.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
So Joe’s overriding principle to which he adheres to is simple self preservation?

Can’t really argue with that I guess. You’ve got him down cold.


To some extent that’s every politicians overriding principle, so singling Joe out for being so seems a little suspect at best.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I don’t really care that Kos and the "netroots" (I hate that term) want Lamont rather than Lieberman. I think it is alright that they want to get someone, who is in fact very liberal, out so they can find someone who is more combative. Those are perfectly reasonable partisan goals.

What gets me, and I think drives Lieberman to want to stay in office, is the dishonesty and stupidity of how they are doing it. Take Digby’s whining about the editorial in the Wall Street Journal. So Joe is allowed to have his opinion, he just can’t argue why he has that opinion? He can’t explain why his opponents in his own party are wrong on an issue he feels strongly about? That isn’t loyalty, that is hackery.

The fact is that the netroots wants him out because they think they can get someone they like more. They can’t do that in Georgia so they pick on Joe. Digby admits that. That is okay, but Digby and Kos et al can’t leave it at that. No, they need to feel that they have been driven, forced, to oppose him and so we get the CT version of the Moscow show trials where Joe’s record is distorted, vile names are hurled and we hear that old leftist trope of deviationism. Kos had the gall to claim Joe was a neo-con, a part of the vast right wing conspiracy and is a good bit to the right of much of the Republican Party!

Mona, you can’t claim they have legitimate reasons to dislike him as much as they do when they can trot out whoppers like that. Kos has no idea what a neo-con is, he has proven that often enough, but he knows enough to know that is a line of hooey. If not, well, he and his followers have bigger issues than honesty, such as they must be loons. You can tell me which is worse.

The New Republic has it right. Kos, with a Stalinist approach, can’t just disagree and work to defeat Joe. No, Joe has to be tried in the court of public opinion and painted as a traitor, portrayed as a conservative so his defeat can be justified as a necessity that loyal Democrats have been forced to undertake. The rhetoric is more akin to the purges in leftist (I mean various communist and other far left parties) organizations than typical Republican and Democratic infighting. Specter may have been targeted by some, but for the most part he was not misrepresented or portrayed as an actual leftist or part of a left wing plot. He was just more liberal than some conservatives wanted. Big deal.

If Kos and the others were just to say they prefer Lamont, admit that the war and a couple of other issues are enough for them and drop the apocalyptic rhetoric it would be different. Instead we get the big lie. I think that is why Joe wants to stick it out. He doesn’t want to reward such tactics, it makes him angry that he is being lied about and misrepresented.

Mona uses Digby’s support of Webb as a plus. If this was just showing his pragmatism maybe it would be. However, Webb certainly has held, and will in the future, positions which are well to the right of Lieberman’s. Is he disloyal when he gives his reasons for disagreeing? No, because Webb is their best hope. CT however is different, there they don’t have to accept a Webb. In CT they can do better, but you can’t just throw out a popular, influential, long time, liberal senator and talk about party loyalty can you? So, like the leftists of yore. we get the trumped up charges. Both the left and the right, Republican and Democrat have heaved trumped up charges at the other guy, but the hard core left has always been most vicious when it comes to their own. Maybe you are right Mona and Kos and his pals are relatively centrist. Their tactics within their "movement" and the rhetoric they employ however are reminiscent of the extremes, whatever they really believe.

 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
I just love the irony of the TalkHouse Gang saving the Democratic party by destroying it. Here’s a tip for the NetRoots Amateur Roves: When you’re trying to re-take Congress, don’t undermine a safe incumbent from your own party. Back when I frequented Greenwald’s blog, I read a piece he wrote defending the coordinated attacks on Lieberman. Greenwald’s rationale being some tripe that competition is good. Well, sure, but that applies then to Democratic incumbents elsewhere, I should think. Or is competition only good in CT? I also agree w PoetOmar that these NetRoots gurus are just power-hungry wannabes, only without the guts to declare their candidacies and take thier lumps. (One thing, Omar: Must poets disparage novelists?)
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Or to put it another way,
If the LeftNet cannot elect a candidate of its own choosing in a Democratic Primary in one of the most liberal states in the Union, then they can’t win elections, period.
So lie. How big a lie?
In August 2003 (before turning against Lieberman), Kos himself reviewed Lieberman’s ADA and American Conservative Union ratings and called the charge that he was a closet Republican "b.s."
They need a win, they are desperate and they want to feel like they are on the side of the angels, not just behind someone they like more.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
As long as you admit that the war is your limtus test MK, it’s all good.

PS- I guess that means you and the netroots no longer support Hillary, correct?
The reason why one’s take on the war is so important is that it goes to the man’s judgment. Those who have championed this war have shown unsound judgment. Those who believe that the Bush administration is capable of handling this war have shown unsound judgment. Those who lie about the "progess" of the war in Iraq in an effort to mislead the American people have shown unsound judgment.

Do I dislike Lieberman for other reasons? Sure. Are Americans being killed because of those policy differences? No.

There is a reason the war is a litmus test: It is the biggest public policy blunder of the last 30 years. And Lieberman is not just a supporter of the war, he is a champion of the war effort. Again, the man has displayed incredibly unsound judgment. And for that reason, the Dems should hire someone else.

As for Hillary, the same comments apply, albeit to a lesser extent.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Capt Joe cryptically states:
Mona, if you say so, but having started from a position of neutrality I am coming to agree with your citics.
Well, which critics might those be? The left-wing zealots at Greenwald’s who think I’m a fascist and McCarthyite who lacks a soul and who is sick with evil for criticizing American Stalinists like the "martyred" Hollywood Ten and for supporting the Alito nomination, or would you have in mind those Bush supporters who think I’m a closet Democrat masquerading as a libertarian in the service of my Master, Glenn Greenwald?

You know, Greenwald and I have had several public spats, and his loyal minions have admonished me for being "rude" to him & etc. Then I come over here, and face thinly veiled accusations that I have some sort of suspicious affiliation with him that ostensibly corrupts my "neutrality."

Well look Joe, the fact is, I think for myself, and if I come to a particular conclusion, I state it and tend to hold it rather tenaciously, and even militantly — regardless of who it is that disagrees with me. And actually, no one knows that better than Mr. Greenwald and his readers. Another fact, however, is this: Greenwald is correct about much that he writes about Bush and the current crop of the GOP.

But to the actual point at hand, I stand by my links to Sam Tanenhaus and Ezra Klein. There are obvious reasons why many Democrats would be especially unhappy with Joe Lieberman, no doubt the same reasons that render Lieberman the favorite Democrat of Bush supporters.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Well look Joe, the fact is, I think for myself, and if I come to a particular conclusion, I state it and tend to hold it rather tenaciously, and even militantly — regardless of who it is that disagrees with me.
Yeah you do, Mona and I for one appreciate it.

It’s not like these folks don’t do the same. And who said you had to be neutral here?

Christ, if you folks don’t like what she says, rebut it for heaven sake. But all this psychoanalysis is giving me a headache. Leave the labels and person alone and attack the ideas (and yes, I promise at some point to take my own advice).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"It is the biggest public policy blunder of the last 30 years."
Thus saith the Liberal Narrative. All issues must, therefore, be interpreted to support that narrative. Hence, Lieberman’s position must be discredited. The way to do that is to not re-elect him. It’s not about Lieberman, it is about the Narrative.
Truth? Truth is whatever is needed to support the Narrative. MK citing both the NYT and the LAT to make a point on a neutral site is laughable.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
These two Ezra Klein pieces also illuminate what is so off-target about Chait’s accusations.
Mona ... neither of the links seem to work.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Leave the labels and person alone and attack the ideas
Great advice, and I will do my best to follow it. It does become tricky, however, when the topic under discuission is political machinations. Then it becomes difficult to entirely remove Machiavelli from the discussion.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Lol David! Poets and novelists are always natural enemies. The major points of contention being the purity of the art and the medium of delivery so to speak. Novelists scribble together their opinions about the condition of the world, fit them into a loose framework and declare, tres bon travail.

Novelists like to hide in the shadows and only loosely claim responsibility for the words and ideas of their characters (except when it suits them to do so). Poets, on the other hand, speak from the heart and almost always in first person. They claim total responsibility for what they write. They are not afforded the luxury of the shield of fiction which novelists frequently employ. IMHO the vulnerability and enforced personal responsibility of poetry always makes it a superior art to mere pulp fiction.

As a very brief example of this compare Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon with Ernest Hemingway.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
Novelists like to hide in the shadows and only loosely claim responsibility for the words and ideas of their characters (except when it suits them to do so). Poets, on the other hand, speak from the heart and almost always in first person.
Or is it that poets simply lack imagination? . . . (One of my characters must have said that.)
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Thus saith the Liberal Narrative. All issues must, therefore, be interpreted to support that narrative. Hence, Lieberman’s position must be discredited. The way to do that is to not re-elect him. It’s not about Lieberman, it is about the Narrative.
Truth? Truth is whatever is needed to support the Narrative. MK citing both the NYT and the LAT to make a point on a neutral site is laughable.
So, there wasn’t a massacre of Sunni men, women and children by masked gunmen on Sunday in Baghdad, as the NYT reported. And the LA Times is in the business of forging Iraqi government documents that show the Iraqi police are basically the same thing as the Shia militas that infect them. These newspapers just make this stuff up. Just to fit the narrative.

It’s sad to say, but you’re take on the facts, Robert, is probably common on the right: bad facts out of Iraq aren’t bad facts at all, just bad reporting.

Wingers like Lieberman because he tells the same kind of lies they do about the disaster in Iraq. Lefties dislike him for the same reason.

Again, this isn’t complicated. When a member of a political party begins preaching the message of the opposition, and the facts are to the contrary, that member no longer has a right to expect support from his party.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Alas, I have neither the time nor the talent for fiction writing. But I would certainly give any work of yours a fair chance, David. :)

PS Enjoyed your "Offense of the President’s Defense" piece. I think it was spot on target and just as applicable today (to any elected officials) as when it was originally written.

 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
Welcome back MK! I haven’t seen you around for awhile. I think that I have a fair grasp of your opinion here, however I am curious about your opinion of one or two other figures here that potentially fall into the category you are lumping Senator Lieberman into.

1. Peter Beinart. Very much a centrist Democrat and, at least initially, a supporter of the war in Iraq. He has recently reversed course on this, but as a rule Beinart has been very "hawkish" and very opposed to the left wing of the Democrat party.

2. Christopher Hitchens. A huge supporter of the Iraq war, yet still demonstrably a man of the left. Also, since Hitch has become a celebrated figure on the right these days and a prominent opponent of leftist celebrities, how does he fit into all of this?
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
McQ: I’m notorious for screwing up links. Here.

And here.

(I think I know why this sometimes happens to my links, but it is too tedious and revealing of my lack of tech skills to comfortably go into.)
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Before impugning an opponent’s motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments.
-Sidney Hook
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
McQ and Mona,

I just went to Klein’s site and read his commentary on Lieberman since mona’s links didn’t work. He states why he doesn’t like Lieberman, and I get it. Of course it is pretty much what I said above, except, unlike the netroots, he is honest about seeing Lamont as better (by his criteria) and therefore he supports moving on. I have no problem with that, even if I think Lieberman’s complaints about the base are accurate, there is no reason the left can’t look for someone more attuned to their sensibilities.

However Klein is not doing what Kos and others are doing to Lieberman, he is not pretending he is not a liberal, or making vile comments about him. I don’t know what goes on in Lieberman’s mind (though Klein irritatingly seems to think he does) but if I had to guess it is the manner of the assault upon him that drives him to want to stay in the race as an independent if he has too. Merely losing to someone would probably have him moving on, even if reluctantly. Thus their strategy may be backfiring and could lead to a Republican getting the seat.

It seems hypocritical for the left to attack him on the grounds of loyalty to the party as they seek not just to beat him on issues, whether of substance or style (and outside of the fact of his support for the war in Iraq he is mostly hated for his style, as Klein makes clear)but by actually viciously distorting his substance and his character. Where is the loyalty in that? After you do that do you get to ask for loyalty in return?

To read Klein and get a relatively accurate diagnoses of Lieberman’s problem with the left and then go read the rhetoric from Kos and others which is being used to attempt to defeat him is quite enlightening and for that I appreciate the reference Mona. My only complaint is that if Klein really believes what he is writing then he should call out those saying what he knows is untrue such as this on the front page of one site, the Daily Kos:
Sorry David, Joe isn’t a Democrat any more


Mona,

I appreciate the reference to Hook. I highly suggest his autobiography, "Out Of Step" to all. It is interestingly enough on topic. No book I have ever read has given a better feel for the last century’s battles on the left from a man deeply involved most of the way.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
It’s sad to say, but you’re take on the facts, Robert, is probably common on the right: bad facts out of Iraq aren’t bad facts at all, just bad reporting.
Any supportive, positive facts out of Iraq, are to be ignored or dismissed if you’re on the left...

And your missive that recent events in Bahgdad means that "violence in Iraq taken to a new level" means more that you haven’t been paying attention then anything else.

For a "reality based" dude, your description of the "ground truth" in Iraq are mechanically simplistic.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
This kind of happenings is not entirely new for the residents of Baghdad but became more and more visible recently especially after the two bloody massacres in Sadr city last week and in Jihad district yesterday.

Even people in the provinces have the feeling that Baghdad is under extreme pressure right now as if they feel that violence lessened in their provinces only to increase in Baghdad. I had relatives and friends calling me to check on us, express sympathy and sometimes offer me and my family a place to stay at for a couple weeks in this or that province.

...

Anyway, I do not consider the recent wave of violence as sectarian violence even though it assumed a sectarian shape…both terrorists/insurgents and outlaw militias are concerned about their existence more than about defeating their sectarian counterparts, therefore each party uses the existence of the other as pretext for its own activity. Our friend Shalash the Iraqi put it eloquently in one of his posts just a week ago:

"There will be no excuse for the Mehdi army to exist if terror groups ceased to exist and there will be no excuse for the terrorists to exist when the Sadr gangs and rats of Badr drop their weapons. one depends on the other...
Whenever the government tries to disarm the militias, the terrorists would come to attack at the strongholds of the militias to give them reason to exist and whenever the government tries to attack terrorist strongholds the militias would take to the streets to distract the government and drag its forces into side battles…"


Baghdad is the key to Iraq, and Iraq is the key to the Middle East, and from this fact this battle draws its significance.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/feature/Jul/060708c.htm
The Iraqi Army’s 5th Division officially took charge of military operations in northern Iraq’s Diyala province from Coalition forces during a ceremony on July 3.

The division’s colors, a symbolic flag, were unveiled and presented to its commander, Maj. Gen. Ahmed Klepos Awad Majhool al-Kozaee by British Maj. Gen. Peter Everson, who serves as deputy commanding general, Multi-National Corps - Iraq.

The Iraqi division earned its colors after being trained and recognized as a viable fighting force by the 101st Airborne Division.
“I’d like to say that this division will be successful because it is composed of the full spectrum of Iraqi people,” al-Kozaee said. “It represents the hand of the government that carries the weapon and the olive branch at the same time.”
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/feature/Jul/060710a.htm
Iraqi forces with Coalition aviation support captured a "significant criminal" in East Baghdad Thursday, Coalition spokesman Army Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV said Friday.

Speaking to reporters by satellite from Baghdad, Caldwell was able to show video of the Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-led and Iraqi-executed operation. Coalition personnel accompanied the operation, but only in an "overwatch" role, Caldwell said. Overwatch means they observed the operation and could have advised Iraqi leaders if needed, the general explained.

Caldwell said the criminal was picked up with four other men. "He led multiple insurgent cells in Baghdad," the general said.

"His main focus is to conduct attacks against Iraqi and Coalition forces. These attacks have included using improvised explosive devices and vehicle(-borne) improvised explosive devices.”
The terrorist’s group has kidnapped, tortured and murdered Iraqi citizens, and he personally killed two Iraqi Soldiers "in an attempt to improve his organization’s status with his higher leadership," Caldwell said.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
there is no reason the left can’t look for someone more attuned to their sensibilities.


One thing I think many Democrats are forgetting, the anti-war activist left aren’t the majority of Democrats. And I think, one point out of all this is that the far left is likely to alienate much of the middle-of-the-road Democrats out there.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Lance writes:
However Klein is not doing what Kos and others are doing to Lieberman, he is not pretending he is not a liberal, or making vile comments about him.
What they are saying is that he doesn’t act like a Democrat. Yeah, there is Jane Hamsher (whom I do not like and do not read unless someone links to her for some reason) who says over the top stuff about him (she is frequently that way), but what have Kos or others said about Lieberman that is any more "vile" than a lot of prominent right-wing bloggers say about Gore, Clinton or liberals at large?
I appreciate the reference to Hook. I highly suggest his autobiography, "Out Of Step" to all. It is interestingly enough on topic. No book I have ever read has given a better feel for the last century’s battles on the left from a man deeply involved most of the way.
Most assuredly true. However, Hook was also very astute about both recognizing the menace of Stalinism and the Communist Party USA on the one hand, and opposing hysteria and erosion of civil liberties in the name of fighting that enemy on the other. Moreover, I do not think Kos and the netroots are akin to the Communists and fellow-travelers that Hook rightly advocated be repudiated and ejected from the Democratic Party. Kos is not radically left, and neither are a lot of others so tagged by the Bush GOP. (I can’t and won’t call most of the Bush supporters conservatives, which they are not.) International A.N.S.W.E.R. is not remotely the critical mass behind the netroots.

 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Mona,

You misinterpret my comment. I only compare the internal warfare to the past leftist squabbles. Hook still applies. Kos doesn’t disassociate or attack A.N.S.W.E.R., but I have never considered him a communist.
What they are saying is that he doesn’t act like a Democrat.
If you take that seriously then I guess I have to lump you in with Kos. The idea that Lieberman doesn’t act like a Democrat is laughable given his voting record and history. The idea he is some kind of right wing fellow traveling neo con is laughable. The differences between he and those Kos prefers have to be exaggerated or misrepresented to make them large enough to justify this level of vituperation. That is also characteristic of the left wing conflicts Hook documents.
what have Kos or others said about Lieberman that is any more "vile" than a lot of prominent right-wing bloggers say about Gore, Clinton or liberals at large?
That is exactly my point. When the rhetoric you employ against someone who has a very liberal voting record is akin to what partisans from the other side might employ against liberals you have become unhinged. This has not been an issue in the Democratic party since the last time the left began trying to take over the party in the late sixties. That was pretty ugly. While Kos may, as you claim, be more centrist than those radicals, the over the top rhetoric and exaggerated claims about the liberals in their own party are pretty similar, or as I said above:
Both the left and the right, Republican and Democrat have heaved trumped up charges at the other guy, but the hard core left has always been most vicious when it comes to their own.
Maybe the Kossacks aren’t the hard core left, but my point is they have adopted its pathologies. It also seems Kos is so "all about winning" he has a site which hosts a large contingent of them. I guess that is better than linking to them, that would really be dastardly. You can also forgive many for concluding kos may be a bit more left than he or you sometimes claim when they have to deal with a man who considers someone like Lieberman a neo-con. I suggest you might feel the same about someone on the right claiming William F. Buckley is a pinko. I know I would.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Lance writes:
The New Republic has it right. Kos, with a Stalinist approach, can’t just disagree and work to defeat Joe. No, Joe has to be tried in the court of public opinion and painted as a traitor, portrayed as a conservative so his defeat can be justified as a necessity that loyal Democrats have been forced to undertake. The rhetoric is more akin to the purges in leftist (I mean various communist and other far left parties) organizations than typical Republican and Democratic infighting. Specter may have been targeted by some, but for the most part he was not misrepresented or portrayed as an actual leftist or part of a left wing plot.
That’s pretty astute, Lance. What I find the most irritating trait of all in Lefties is their tendency to go Stalinist on any follower that does not agree with them 100% — except when some "dispensation" exists "for the good of the cause". A dispensation, it appears, that is the sole provenence not of regular Democrat Party workers but only of each zit-faced little teen or 20-something gay, tofu-nibbling twit who worships some luminary on the Internet.

Yes, Lieberman must be confronted with his crimes in true Marxist revolutionary dialectic...made to confess to the Tribunal...and only them will his wiser and more moral superiors amidst the Koz Kids possibly relent and accept his withdrawal from the race with applause and one day possibly permit Joe some other political post. Or, since the absolute moral authority is theirs, simply purge him.

In their deluded self-important minds...that is how it plays out. But as McQ properly notes, in the real world many puerile activists have yet to experience, you drive people off and weaken your movement as you seek "higher purity".

News to these "netroots" people. CT has 3 of it’s 5 Reps Republican, has a Reuplican Gov, has a substantial number of Independents and enough Republicans to ensure races are competitive outside the recent runs of popular Senator Dodd and Lieberman. It is not The People’s Leninist State of Massachusetts, Gay-money dominated Vermont, or Mass’s stunted, corrupt little "Mini-Me" Rhode Island...which was so desperate for it’s own Kennedy that Teddy sent his best son down there for a taste of true liberal royalty.

As other posters have noted, the joke is that Lieberman is basically another flaming Jewish liberal with a 90% ADA rating - marked only by his apostasy on Iraq and Hollywood culture. The bigger joke is Lefty fanatics descending in a state that likes to make up it’s own mind and occasionally toss non-performers or those whose schtick has simply grown old out of office....CT residents, as in many "independent-inclined" states may do so eagerly and not care about seniority or how good a politician was 10-20 years ago...but they won’t do it if outsiders come in and tell them they are "baby killer supporters" unless they toss Lieberman. NO surer way to get a Yankee to vote against you, than to tell them they are a bad, evil, racist, sexist, Nixonian, LBJ-like Fascist and a homophobe to boot unless you vote as the great Howard Dean, Dubya, or Marcos "Kos" say you must vote.

When it is done right, a primary challenge to an unsatisfactory incumbent strengthens the Party. If the people agree with the legitimacy of the challenge and the challenge is not conducted as a vicious civil war. [Recently, NH dumped its bizarre "I’m running for President because Jesus wants it so" and irredeemably stupid Sen R. Smith for Sununu. Making Barbara Boxer briefly the new stupidest person in the Senate until Mel Martinez was sworn in.] Sununu and national Republican leadership worked well to smooth ruffled Smith backer’s feathers.

Spector could have gone if a better candidate than Twoomey had run, but Toomey was Son of Santorum...too conservative these days for Pennsylvania that had Religious Right heebie-jeebies, widespread distrust for Bush back in 2004. Because Spector is not just disliked as a RINO, he is personally disliked. The Hill poll of staffers and workers rate both Spector (Snarlin’ Arlen) and Kerry (snobbish blowhard empty suit prick) among the 5 most reviled by Congressional workers. John Warner (THE Man!)and Hillary (wonderful boss and a very smart lady who listens well. A real pleasant surprise, given how some demonize her!) among the 5 best-liked.

But despite all that baggage Arlen has, the National Republicans thought Toomey unelectable state-wide until he gets a few of his more radical religious right, extremist economic beliefs. And Toomey played good soldier as did several Repub bigwigs who detest Spector..because the Senate is tight and even a RINO is better than a Teddy Kennedy Team member.

Repubs avoid the fratricide the Dems are stuck with.


 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
There is a reason the war is a litmus test: It is the biggest public policy blunder of the last 30 years
*Jaw drops open in disbelief*

Does the name Jimmy Carter mean anything to you? That whole Iranian hostages thingee (just for an example?)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Any supportive, positive facts out of Iraq, are to be ignored or dismissed if you’re on the left...

And your missive that recent events in Bahgdad means that "violence in Iraq taken to a new level" means more that you haven’t been paying attention then anything else.

For a "reality based" dude, your description of the "ground truth" in Iraq are mechanically simplistic.
Right.

The current government is on the verge of collapsing, the interior ministry and the police are hopelessly corrupt and filled with terrorists, and Baghdad is in the middle of the civil war, or what do you call it when bands of armed men go out in the middle of the day and drag women and children from their cars and execute them in broad daylight? Oh, and by the way, where were the Iraqi "police"? Reportedly assisting the Shia militiamen as they put bullets in the heads of children.

And your example of progress? A handholding operation where the Iraqi "army" - with the assistance of air power, yes, air power, caught a bad guy, and a symbolic yet meaningless "handover" of power to the "army" in a province that is as violent as ever.

BFD.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
*Jaw drops open in disbelief*

Does the name Jimmy Carter mean anything to you? That whole Iranian hostages thingee (just for an example?)
Let’s see ... The Dulles brothers, hardcore Republicans, in a dramatic turn from the policy of the previous Democratic administration, engineer the overthrow of a secular, democratically elected government in Iran and in its place install a dictatorship. Some 25 years later, with the US backed dictator still in charge, Iranian reolutionaries take over the US embassay in retaliation.

But of course that would be Carter’s fault. The right was not in any way responsible in any way for overthrowing Mossadegh or for installing the Shah in his place.

And so to it will come to pass with Iraq. Let’s just assume Iraq turns into a total disaster. Just assume that. Do you think for one moment the right will blame Bush in any way? Not a chance.

Shark, your ignorance of history is matched only by your inability to understand the historical and politcal signifigance of what little you do know.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Shark, your ignorance of history is matched only by your inability to understand the historical and politcal signifigance of what little you do know
Coming from you, that’s the best compliment I can imagine.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Let’s just assume Iraq turns into a total disaster. Just assume that.
So you’re admitting that Iraq isn’t a total disaster yet.....this makes a lie of your previous posts on the subject.

Or maybe you’ve been lying along with Lieberman?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
mkultra writes:
Lieberman not only supports the war, but lies about the "progress" there. Why in the world would any sane person want him in the party?
This is the template attack that the internet Left routinely uses on their opponents. It is not enough to say that Lieberman’s optimism about Iraq is misguided given the facts on the ground. Lieberman must be accused of deliberately LYING about Iraq’s progress.

In support of this serious allegation, Mr. Ultra quotes a blurb in the New York Times about a rampage in Baghdad on Sunday, and a blurb in the Los Angeles Times about corruption in the Interior Ministry in 2005 and early 2006.

Mr. Ultra does not quote Lieberman at all or specify exactly which of Liebermnan’s supposed misrepresentations are contradicted by these reports. We are supposed to understand that these two blurbs stand alone in proving that anything positive Lieberman has said about progress in Iraq is not only wrong but a deliberate lie as well.

To my mind mind, these two anecdotes are not even sufficient to prove that no progress has been made in Iraq. Certainly reasonable people can argue that point, right? It is this tinge of fanatacism, this habit of glossing over the facts and the arguments, and going right into the full-throated "LIES!!!" rhetoric that bothers me about the internet Left.


 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Mr. Ultra
LMFAO
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Iraq is descending further into chaos. "
There are places in the world where lurid reporting of shootings between the "Bloods" and the "Crips" in LA ghettos are cited to support the contention that America is on the verge of anarchy. Well informed readers ignore these ridiculous sources. Why? Because most anyone knows that those betting on impending anarchy in America are going to be wrong "big time". MK’s "the world is flat" wisdom is quaint. It has no place in a serious discussion of world affairs.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Gunmen went on a rampage in Baghdad on Sunday.

Reading that, there are a lot of inferences I might have made, but, I must admit, "Joe Lieberman lied to me!!" did not spring to mind right away.

Somewhere in the internet fever swamp I can hear drums and chanting... "Joe lied, people died!"
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
I’m sorry, but some of this commentary is simply crazy. Joseph Lieberman is a neoconservative, and could not possibly be more of a Middle East hawk. Lieberman is 100% behind Bush’s neocon foreign policy, so much so that there was serious speculation that if Bush dumped Rumsfeld he might replace him with Lieberman; LGF found that prospect "interesting."

Further, as The Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review points out, my emphasis:

Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, was elected to the United States Senate in 1988 with the endorsement of National Review and the support of many conservatives who preferred him to incumbent Republican Lowell Weicker.
Lieberman showed his appreciation.

If National Review can prefer a Democrat over a Republican they deem unacceptable, I hardly see why it would be shocking or unseemly that some Democrats might find a primary challenger preferable to that same Democrat, Lieberman, who is prefered by Republicans. It isn’t "Stalinism" or any of the other overwrought claims that have appeared in this thread if some Dems, including the "netroots," are ardent about opposing Lieberman.

In many ways, Lieberman is embraced by Republicans, both online today, and by Bill Buckley yesteryear, which isn’t any indictment of the man from a non-Democratic perspective. But finding fault with liberal Democrats who think Lieberman doesn’t represent their party’s interests is truly absurd.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
"...liberal Democrats who think Lieberman doesn’t represent [my emphasis] their party’s interests is truly absurd."
Mona, have you been following this discussion? It is NOT "their" party, at least not yet.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Mona, have you been following this discussion? It is NOT "their" party, at least not yet.
What piffle. Of course it is, if they are registered Democrats. And if many of them balk at a Senator who has been endorsed by National Review and floated (with interest among some Bush supporters) as a possible replacement for Rumsfeld, it is not "patholigical" on their part. Any more so than it was pathological or Stalinist for Buckely & Co. to endorse Lieberman over Republican Weicker.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
This post resonates with me. It envisions what it would be like if the progressives win:
“...even if the public doesn’t fall in behind the leadership, and the party loses every election, there will be great consulting gigs and staff jobs. And there’s a part of me that believes that’s the real issue."

And Mona, I apologize profusely for proffering pathological piffle.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
This is the template attack that the internet Left routinely uses on their opponents. It is not enough to say that Lieberman’s optimism about Iraq is misguided given the facts on the ground. Lieberman must be accused of deliberately LYING about Iraq’s progress.

In support of this serious allegation, Mr. Ultra quotes a blurb in the New York Times about a rampage in Baghdad on Sunday, and a blurb in the Los Angeles Times about corruption in the Interior Ministry in 2005 and early 2006.

Mr. Ultra does not quote Lieberman at all or specify exactly which of Liebermnan’s supposed misrepresentations are contradicted by these reports. We are supposed to understand that these two blurbs stand alone in proving that anything positive Lieberman has said about progress in Iraq is not only wrong but a deliberate lie as well.

To my mind mind, these two anecdotes are not even sufficient to prove that no progress has been made in Iraq. Certainly reasonable people can argue that point, right? It is this tinge of fanatacism, this habit of glossing over the facts and the arguments, and going right into the full-throated "LIES!!!" rhetoric that bothers me about the internet Left.
Not that it would matter, but here is what Lieberman said last Thursday:
...The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago. The Iraqis held three elections. They formed a unity government.
Now, this is a blanket assertion. So the question is this: Is Iraq "a lot" better than it was a year ago?

No. By any metric that has any meaning beyond political symbolism, Iraqis are not "a lot" better off than they were a year ago. Is there really any doubt about this? The secuirty situation is not " a lot" better. Sectarian violence has increased, especially since February of ’06, for obvious reasons. Electrical output is not "a lot" better. Nor clean water. Nor gasoline. The militia problem is not "a lot" better. The rights of women, particularly in Shia dominated areas, are certainly not "a lot" better. By any metric that is meaningful, life in Iraq is not "a lot" better than it was a year ago.

But that is what Lieberman said 4 days ago. And that was a lie. And Lieberman does or should know better.

I cited two articles. One cited deep and systemic and problems of militia inflitration and corruption in the police and domestic security forces. The story cited several pages of reports that came from the Iraqi government itself. You call that an "anecdote." Of course you do. Of course you cite no data, report, official statement, or other reliable source to disprove the story.

As for the NYT story, I think the massacre in Baghdad yesterday speaks for itself. It could not have happened without support from or deliberate indifference of the Iraqi government.

Of course, your main complaint seems to be that I cited only the latest reports about the disaster that is Iraq, instead of citing every single one of them from the last 3 years.

You use a familiar winger tactic: Ignore the trend, isolate the particular. The tactic has of course lost its punch, but what else can you do?

In their hearts, wingers know I’m right. It was a mistake to go into Iraq. They can’t admit it out loud, of course. But they know it. You know it too.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Mona, I’m late to the party, but let me add this: don’t sweat the people who try to pigeonhole you. I’ve encountered the same thing. Disagree with some people, and you’re accused of "BDS", of being "on the left" or some other ad hominem attempt to dismiss you. You don’t need to prove your bona fides to the chatterati. If they demand you prove your loyalty to their "side", then they’re not going to listen to you, anyway. And that goes for both sides.

Think seriously, evaluate objectively, write honestly, and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Joseph Lieberman is a neoconservative, and could not possibly be more of a Middle East hawk.
Being a hawk about Iraq doesn’t really make Lieberman a "neoconservative" any more than being in favor of more medicare spending makes Bush a liberal. (well...)

In any event, Buckley, et al, pushed Lieberman many years ago because he was the person most likely to unseat the unacceptable incumbent. That doesn’t make Lieberman a non-Democrat, either, any more than, say, Doug Bandow’s Cato endorsement of John Kerry made Kerry a libertarian.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Mona,
It isn’t "Stalinism" or any of the other overwrought claims that have appeared in this thread if some Dems, including the "netroots," are ardent about opposing Lieberman.
True, but as is often true in these discussions with you we get a strawman. I haven’t claimed that opposing Lieberman or even being ardent in doing so is Stalinist. Their tactics are, exaggerating differences and misrepresenting positions so as to create a false picture so as to justify pulling out all the stops in opposing him. That is the third strawman you have erected, can we stick to the argument at hand?

Joseph Lieberman is a neoconservative, and could not possibly be more of a Middle East hawk. Lieberman is 100% behind Bush’s neocon foreign policy, so much so that there was serious speculation that if Bush dumped Rumsfeld he might replace him with Lieberman; LGF found that prospect "interesting."
So, a man with the foreign policy views of Lieberman is a Neocon? William F Buckley supports ending the drug war, it is also the editorial position of National Review. Is Buckley a libertarian? Is the National Review comparable to Reason? Is being able to work with another party’s administration a sign of apostasy? Is bipartisanship of no value? It has shown one thing. For all your bluster, when it comes down to proving your point it comes down to the war and the war alone. His voting record is far too liberal to serve your purposes. To repeat my point, the war and a few positions, rarely pursued with any ardor, have been used to claim he is to the right of much of the Republican party. That is absurd.
Any more so than it was pathological or Stalinist for Buckely & Co. to endorse Lieberman over Republican Weicker.
Obviously your familiarity with Weicker and the events surrounding his defeat is rather limited. Note that conservatives preferred Lieberman, a Democrat, over Weicker, a Republican. Why? Simple, Weicker was more liberal than most Democrats, unlike Lieberman who is not more conservative than most Republicans. That seems to be rather an important distinction, doesn’t it? It would be similar if Joe were so conservative that Democrats found it necessary to vote for John McCain, who on most matters has a very conservative voting record, because he is more liberal than Joe. That is not the situation here. Lieberman is not a conservative, on most issues he is among the most liberal and reliable votes in the senate. He is influential, which Lamont will not be. So Kos and company can’t just work to defeat him, no, we get the lies and distortions.

I think a good comparison would be McCain. Imagine that conservatives decided to run someone against him in Arizona. Imagine that they not only wanted someone else because he would be less of a maverick in front of the press (he irritates Republican activists for the same reasons Joe irritates Democratic ones.) The activists not only oppose him, but use McCain-Feingold and a few other votes to claim he was a liberal, to the left of most of the Democratic party and filled their rhetoric with over the top insults and disgust. Not just a few supporters, the main thrust of the campaign. I promise you, I could understand the desire to dump McCain but I wouldn’t support people doing what is now being done to Lieberman.

Of course that kind of stuff always happens actually, but in CT it is happening and you are asking us to understand not just Joe’s ouster, but have sympathy for the behavior of those ousting him. These tactics are not limited to a few dirty tricks, or some over zealous supporters of Lamont, but are the heart of the movement to replace him.

I await your reply, but before you attack my arguments again, I do ask that you disagree with what I am saying instead of something you find more convenient. I am not claiming Kos is a radical leftist, a Stalinist, that democratic activists shouldn’t support Lamont or greatly desire Lieberman’s defeat. Their tactics however are greatly reminescent of the internal conflicts of the radical left and I am going to find that lamentable.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
MK : You still did not answer my question about the position of Peter Beinart and Christopher Hitchens. Are either of them persona non grata in the Democrat party today?
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
mkultra:

You provided the following snippet from Joe Lieberman:
...The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago. The Iraqis held three elections. They formed a unity government.
You then proceed to explain how Lieberman’s conclusion is a lie, based on every possible "metric" except the one that he actually based it on.

You proceed to assert that Iraq is not a lot better in terms of its security situation, sectarian violence, electrical output, clean water, gasoline or women’s rights.

Lieberman was not talking about any of these subjects. He said that three elections and the formation of a unity government in a year are a sign of progress.

You could counter this by arguing that elections and a unity government are somehow NOT a sign of progress. You could reasonably argue that the progress on Lieberman’s metric is outweighed by detrioration on other metrics. You are not doing either of these things. You are completely ignoring the basis on which Lieberman drew his conclusion, and then accusing him of being a liar because HIS conclusion does not follow from YOUR premises. That is not reasonable.

 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Aldo,
You are ... accusing him of being a liar because HIS conclusion does not follow from YOUR premises. That is not reasonable.
Exactly!
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
You use a familiar winger tactic: Ignore the trend, isolate the particular. The tactic has of course lost its punch, but what else can you do?
LMFAO, project much? That’s exactly what you did with your 2 little snippets there.
In their hearts, wingers know I’m right. It was a mistake to go into Iraq. They can’t admit it out loud, of course. But they know it. You know it too.
Don’t speak for me mKos. Going into Iraq was the right move for lots of reasons. Get over it.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Joe Lieberman is a full-throated neocon, and I sincerely do not see how any intelligent observer of the political scene could fail to notice that — he is beloved by Bush supporters, as I said, to the extent that it was not ill-received when he was being floated as a Rummy replacement. And yes, I’m going to link to Greenwald to further make the point. (You might have to scroll up to get past comments and get to the post.)

He’s wordy, but the substance is spot on.

The hissy fits of some Bush supporters over the primary challenge to Democrat Lieberman is not taking place for absolutely no reason. You’d think a primary challenge was some unprecedented, totalitarian monstrosity to read some of the rhetoric coming from pro-Bush bloggers and commenters, and there is a reason for that.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Joe Lieberman is a full-throated neocon, and I sincerely do not see how any intelligent observer of the political scene could fail to notice that — he is beloved by Bush supporters, as I said, to the extent that it was not ill-received when he was being floated as a Rummy replacement. And yes, I’m going to link to Greenwald to further make the point. (You might have to scroll up to get past comments and get to the post.)
Mona

Look at Lieberman’s ratings from liberal and conservative groups. You tell me if that makes him a "full throated" neocon- if you think so, you and Greenwald are the only ones.

And yes, we would’ve taken Lieberman as Rummy’s replacement since a GOP governor could’ve appointed a GOP member to the vacant Senate seat. We wanted a GOP member to take that seat and have a shot to hold it in reelection as incumbent. So yes, the idea of Lieberman was not "ill-recieved" Where’s your context?

I usually only stoop to this level against MK, but you’re being an idiot here.
The hissy fits of some Bush supporters over the primary challenge to Democrat Lieberman is not taking place for absolutely no reason.
What hissy fit? Examples please? I see lots of interested observers, disdain for your bloody stalinist-type purge politics, and quite a bit of chuckling over your infighting. You’ll have to show examples of some of these mythical "hissy fits" .
he is beloved by Bush supporters,
BELOVED? Not quite. Agreement on Iraq and maybe a drop of respect for that stance but no beloved status.

It’s getting old Mona.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
But perhaps McCain would be a better analogy. Despite his very conservative vote rating, he’s constantly called a RINO and the Republican grassroots have often urged his removal — or at least tried to defeat him in Presidential primaries in favor of the less conservative Bush.
McCain’s attacks on the 1st and 2nd Amendments pretty much kills him as a candidate I could support. Where has he been more conservative than Bush?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Our two major parties seem to have swapped identities. The Republican establishment, presumably allied with the rich and privileged, embraces its populist core of hard-edged activists, while the Democratic elite, supposed champions of "the people," evidently fears them. Only one party has learned the lesson of 1964 - that extremists should not be lectured to but listened to, because they may have something important to say.
The left’s extremists already had their say, and all of their ideas have been found wanting.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Lieberman is likely to win as an indepedent candidate over both the Democrat and Republican candidates.

So why would some quietly (or not so quietly) applaud the visciousness of the Kos crowd in trying to foist their candidate of choice on CT???

Because, anything that illuminates the visciousness of political opponents is a good thing.

Lieberman has always carried himself with respect for others and kept to his principles. I admire the man, even though I probably do not support many of his policy choices.
It is not traditional conservatism or liberalism, but rather one’s views on neoconservativsm, which have become the single most important factor in where one falls on the political spectrum.
So, it isn’t that Joe is a neo-conservative, he isn’t an anti-neocon. And I suppose, that is just as evil in the eyes of leftist/liberal/democrat anti-neocons.

It certainly seems a strawman argument to me.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth.

Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable.

AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies.

Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.

With power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.

The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
he is beloved by Bush supporters, as I said, to the extent that it was not ill-received when he was being floated as a Rummy replacement.
If Bush replaced Rummy with Lieberman, this Bush supporter would be further towards being a former Bush supporter.
The hissy fits of some Bush supporters over the primary challenge to Democrat Lieberman is not taking place for absolutely no reason. You’d think a primary challenge was some unprecedented, totalitarian monstrosity to read some of the rhetoric coming from pro-Bush bloggers and commenters, and there is a reason for that.
This Bush supporter is absoulutly delighted to see Democrats consuming their own; it ain’t a hissy fit, Mona; it’s amusment.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Well,

Shark, I think you say it well, but I am going to go ahead and type a lot more, I don’t know if I’ll be able to say much more.

Mona,

I asked for you to tear down your straw men, but you keep erecting them.

I am not pro Bush, and I have no love for Lieberman. I probably would have voted for him in 2004 just to punish Bush and hope divided government might be of benefit, while I couldn’t stomach that with Kerry, but that is hardly a ringing endorsement. Disagreeing with you or the netroots about how they are conducting the campaign hardly qualifies as a hissy fit. I personally don’t care much if Lamont wins, I think I and others here have made that clear Mona. Exactly where on this thread have you seen any love for Lieberman? So if you have that problem somewhere else go attack them. We have problems with the netroots behavior and rhetoric, we think they are handling it in a way that could possibly backfire(an intellectual question, an outcome that doesn’t really bother us, and probably not many Republicans either. In fact I am sure the Republican party is quite pleased.)

You are the one emotionally invested in this, which your continued assertion that Lieberman is a neo-con makes clear. You won’t back the statement up except to keep talking about the Iraq War or his views on the Middle East. You ignore his overall record which is solidly liberal.

As for Republicans liking Lieberman, I am sure they do to an extent. Lieberman conducts himself in a respectful way toward them and has been a supporter, at least in broad strokes, of the foreign policy this administration has pursued, though hardly slavishly. That may be a flaw in the netroots eyes and they have every right to vote him out. We of course have a right to note when they do so in ways that are lamentable and quite possibly counterproductive.

I just read Greenwalds post and frankly I am flabbergasted. It would take hours to properly analyze the tremendous number of errors, falsehoods and tendentious smears, but I was able to take one point which you have denied in the past but linking to this makes clear. It is all about the war, the middle east and ones views about the Islamist threat. Greenwald makes that clear. All other issues are side issues to him. Fine, since the original neo-cons disparaged the term (and they certainly weren’t neo-cons by his definition anyway) I guess he can claim that is what makes one a neo-con if he wants.

Therefore, Lieberman to some extent is a neo-con, but of course let’s point out that that doesn’t keep one from being a liberal. We actually don’t even need the term neo-con because all it means is a supporter of an aggressive posture in the middle east. Of course that aggressive posture only has a tangential relationship to what Greenwald describes, he is pretty much unhinged on the subject, but the point still stands. It is all about the war and all your protestations otherwise are shown to be false. You say the post reflects the way you feel we should look at the issue and Greenwald is very clear on that point. I take you at your word on that.

It also means I am a neo-con, Greg at Belgravia Dispatch is a neo-con, Andrew Sullivan is a neo-con, McQ is a neo-con. Jon Henke, Dale Franks, heck most of the Democratic Party were neo-cons. They may have wobbled since the start of the conflict and their complaints with the wars conduct, but they were all in that big tent at one point.

Of course that is absurd so I am sure that if pressed Glen would only consider you a neo-con if you still favor the war or if you don’t and you are otherwise conservative. You are still in the tent then....or maybe not. I can’t be sure, he is near incoherent at times. What I can say is Greenwald says that being a liberal in every other respect but favoring something akin to Bush’s in foreign policy approach makes you a neo-con, though oddly enough the few people who actually embrace the term neo-con, as Greenwald points out, are busy attacking the Bush administration, so is Bush now not a neo-con? (By the way, the correct answer is he really isn’t and never was and the idea that Rumsfeld is a neo-con is so preposturous as to leave one without the powers of speech, luckily I can type) Of course, this all makes it hard to figure out if those neo-cons who were not in favor of the war are neo-cons. Hmmmm..... Is Michael Ledeen a neo-con? He opposed the Iraq war and opposes military intervention in Iran, but I always heard he was a neo-con. I guess I had the wrong version of the neo-con conspiracy talking points, that definition is soooo 1999.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
My god, I just re-read Greenwald’s essay. Does he actually claim The National Review is neo-conservative? The National Review? I can’t believe anyone reads this guy.

Hey everybody, let’s give the blogosphere equal time. We need to go read an essay arguing Bill Clinton is a communist and how the Bush family is part of some vast conspiracy coordinated by the trilateral commission and bankrolled by the Rothschilds to achieve a socialistic one world government. I think mk has taken over Greenwald’s brain.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Lieberman is likely to win as an indepedent candidate over both the Democrat and Republican candidates.
I tend to hope that the Kos kids bring him down, replaced by an R or by a raving nutcase D.

Moderate D’s are the greatest threat the R’s have. H. Clinton knows this, hence her move right. Kos kids don’t grasp this, hence their attacks on Clinton and Lieberman.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Wonder if the following statements would get one condemned to neocon status...

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20060710/NEWS/60710003
Further, he said pulling out of Iraq would be a mistake.

“Once you break the eggs, you have the responsibility to make an omelet,” he said. “It’d be an error to say we’ll leave by X date.”
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
I guess almost ALL of the Dems are "neocons" since various resolutions in the house and senate requiring/recommending/demanding troop pullout have gone down in bipartisian flames.

Also....I know it’s a can of worms, but I also wonder if the Lieberman=Neocon rancor isn’t fueled a bit by the fact that he’s a Jooo?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Carter was a worse ex president than president, he was just less dangerous. Bill however makes a hell of a lot more sense now than as president.

Is he a neo-con? I know a number of actual neo-cons who have essentially the same views. They supported Afghanistan, opposed Iraq, believe we should stay, no military action against Iran, etc. As a moderate on domestic issues it is hard to see how he doesn’t qualify, especially since as Greenwald points out (he later retracts it by saying it is a whole lot more, but like Mona can’t seem to come up with anything which is definitive)it is all about Mid-east policy. However, maybe neo-cons aren’t really neo-cons.

I personally think the term is pretty meaningless today, but the excerpt from The Weekly Standard seems the best at this point, but boy does that cover a lot of ground. The original neo-cons were quite different, and they hated the term, and of course they did since most of them were socialist’s, social democrats and other members of the anti-communist left who fled or refused to join, the party of McGovern and Carter. Resisting totalitarianism in all its forms was their calling card.

If Lieberman is a neo-con then he would fit best with them, not todays bunch, however we define them and he would rightly hate the label as much as Sidney Hook did. I am assuming you are aware Mona that Hook was one of the original neo-cons? He and Lieberman are a lot closer to each other than Lieberman and Dick Cheney (who prior to this administration would never have been considered a neo-con and I have seen no evidence as to why he should now)or Bill Kristol (who seems to define the contemporary version of the term, at least according to him.)Who was the standard bearer for the Weekly Standard’s version of neoconservative pre 2000? I find it very interesting that it was John McCain.

So I suggest we all read Glen Greenwald’s blood drenched picture of what being a neo-con is and figure out if Hook, Lieberman, McCain and Bill Clinton really fit that version? I won’t try to convince anyone that Cheney, Bush and Kristol don’t. BDS prevents that.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
With Greenwald I think it’s easy to see where he is comming from...
It is not traditional conservatism or liberalism, but rather one’s views on neoconservativsm, which have become the single most important factor in where one falls on the political spectrum.
Liebermen isn’t sufficiently anti-neocon, so therefore he is a neocon.

And how’s this for a simpleminded overview of "neo-conservatism"
Neoconservativsm is rarely defined but its central tenets are, by now, quite clear. At its core, neoconservatism maintains that the greatest threat to America is hostile Muslims in the Middle East, and the only real solution to that problem is increased militarism and belligerence, usually with war as the necessary course of action.
Talk about a strawman argument.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
“And yes, I’m going to link to Greenwald…”
[my critics say that]“…I’m a closet Democrat masquerading as a libertarian in the service of my Master, Glenn Greenwald…”
QED
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
And I know this is decidedly ol’ skool, but...

I do think it should hold true, and is big reason that Lieberman is sticking to his guns on the issue of Iraq.

op-ed
Back in the old days of American politics — the late 1940s — Arthur Vandenberg, a respected Republican senator from Michigan, coined the phrase that partisan politics should end at the water’s edge.

What he had to say is instructive as the nastiness of the current partisan debate over the war in Iraq threatens to divide the country and embolden the enemy.

Here are Vandenberg’s words:

"To me, ’bipartisan foreign policy’ means a mutual effort, under our indispensable, two-party system, to unite our official voice at the water’s edge so that America speaks with one voice to those who would divide and conquer us and the free world."
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Seems the theme is catching on elsewhere...

http://www.unity08.com/node/222
WHAT HAS CHANGED: There is clearly a movement by a segment of the Democratic party to “take back” the party. What that means is “take back” the party from the Clintonistas, who essentially tried to take back the party from McGovernite influences to a more JFK-style orientated politics where the party would try to win elections (and did) by getting a large chunk of Democratic votes, plus centrist votes and votes from Republicans who unhappy with their own party.

IS THERE A PURGE? Some suggest this is part of a purge, and there does seem some of that. Lieberman’s present status and political plight stems from the fact that many Democratic progressives want to send a message to Democrats in Congress, party bigwigs, and to disgruntled liberal Democrats that “me-tooism” won’t work when it comes to the Democratic party. (During the early 50s GOP conservatives blasted the “meetooism” of failed GOP Presidential candidate Thomas E. Dewey). They seek to accentuate differences between the two parties. If Lieberman goes (let’s use the old Domino Theory) is Joe Biden going to be in their target next? How about Hillary Clinton (she’s probably too nimble)?

...

The purging of Lieberman would be a grave blow to the Democratic party as a “big tent” party. It he’s booted will the Democrats gain votes from the disgruntled left to offset moderates and conservatives who would be irked? Danger to Democrats: even moderates and centrists who don’t support the war (and don’t agree with him on that issue) could be unhappy if he’s dumped. And if he wins the primary and/or the election? Yes, it’ll show that a Democrat can be supportive of the President and GOP if he believes as they do on certain issues. And the Democrats could hold onto the moderates and centrists who might evacuate if he loses. BUT…it could lose some liberal Democrats’ votes.

SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN? (a)The Democrats’ focus is perilously off and it could get worse which will make their ostensible goal in November (getting one or both houses of Congress) more elusive. (b)Polarization isn’t just Democrats versus Republicans it’s polarization within parties where those who aren’t pure enough (in both parties) are being essentially told in some cases: “You’re either with us or against us. Totally. And if not totally, get lost.” And you know what? They just might.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Lance,

Thanks for making the argument that I am too consumed with apoplexy to make ;)

I agree with everything you said. To me those statements seem self evident. That has long been my opinion on the Greenwald matter.

Back to my prison cell ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider