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

 
Irony alert
Posted by: McQ on Friday, September 29, 2006

Matt Stoller of MyDD after finding an interview with Joe Lieberman on "right wing" Pajamas Media says:

"Lieberman is throwing the whole party under the bus."

Excuse me? Who threw who under the bus?

I'm telling you, you just can't make stuff like this up.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Hey, Matt is just pointing out that the future of the Democrat party hinges on Ned Lamont.

Heh.
Lieberman went on a very right-wing outlet and attacked the party standard-bearer from 2000.
I thought Joe was a party standard bearer in 2000. Must have been a different Joe Lieberman. What’s really interesting is that PJM gots them some billionaire backing! Who are these punka** right-wing billionaires? Where’s Soros when you need him?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
"Lieberman is throwing the whole party under the bus."
What do they expect? Honestly, it’s like dealing with children.

Please please please go ahead and cheese him off enough that he decides to caucus with the Senate GOP. Now that would be throwing your party under the bus
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Umm... let me get this straight.

Losing a primary challenge, where the primary voters of your party choose someone else is "being thrown under the bus"?!

How is this different from Norquist’s (or any other Republican Primary challenges) setup of primary challenges in order to get Republicans to lower taxes (or whatever other "Party Principle") and try to replace or punish them when they don’t?

@Pablo:
The party standard bearer in 2000 was Al Gore. Leiberman was "attacking" Al Gore. I wouldn’t call it "attack" but Matt Stoller did. The comment wasn’t in reference to Ned Lamont. When comparing Gore to Leiberman, Gore was definitely the "Standard Bearer" for the party in 2000.
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
Well Tito it’s being thrown under the bus because your OWN PARTY didn’t support you in the primary....

Pablo points out that Lieberman was A standard bearer, not "THE" standard bearer.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Losing a primary challenge, where the primary voters of your party choose someone else is "being thrown under the bus"?!
Tito, you have to consider the source of the complaint to appreciate the irony.

Who did Matt Stoller support and how rabidly? He expects loyalty when he showed Lieberman none.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
When comparing Gore to Leiberman, Gore was definitely the "Standard Bearer" for the party in 2000.
I believe the ticket read Gore-Lieberman. I’m just sayin’...
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
No, I don’t think he (Matt) expects "loyalty" from Lieberman. (Lieberman’s lack of "loyalty" on specific progressive issues what the whole reason he lost.) I think Matt expects the Democratic Leadership to show loyalty to their party, respect for the voters of CT, and come out to support the real, official, Democratic candidate. ("It’s time for the 2008 presidential candidates to stand up".)

Why is it a personal affront to Leiberman that the Democrats of CT decided that he didn’t represent their views anymore? How is that "being thrown under the bus"? How is it any different from the comments made on this blog (typically by the commenters, not our hosts) regarding Specter or other RINOs? Even the term "RINO" demonstrates the exact same concern (from the other side) that a given Republican is not staying the party line enough.

Lieberman LOST his primary. Why is that different from any other primary challenge; Dem, Repub or otherwise? What is it about the Lieberman/Lamont primary that makes it so different? (Other than it’s Kos-ites instead of Norquist-ians setting up the primary challenge.)

Also, Pablo may have said "a standard bearer", but Matt’s specific statement was "Lieberman went on a very right-wing outlet and attacked the party standard-bearer from 2000." (emphasis mine) My point was that Gore was the standard bearer in 2000, and that Matt’s statement was accurate. (Which is not saying I agree with his whole post.)

 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
You can’t demand party loyalty when you don’t give it, Tito.

Politics 101.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, how many party figures came out for Lamont before the primary? I seem to recall most of them giving at least tacit support to Lieberman. No, the entire Senate caucus didn’t show up in New Haven and Hartford to stump for him, but the party leadership hardly threw him under the bus. At least not until he lost the primary.

But maybe I missed something. Lord knows it happens.
 
Written By: ozymandias
URL: http://
What I thought you were getting at doesn’t appear to be what you were getting at.

I thought you were pointing out the absurdity of the metaphor. If one guy (Lieberman) splits off from a large group and you toss the large group under the bus, the bus doesn’t run the group down, the bus stops.

One guy doesn’t have the power to run down a group this size. If the Democrats are "getting run over", in this case, it’s not Lieberman’s doings. It’s especially not his doing if he wins, proving the voters like him better than the formal Democrats. It’s the Democrat’s fault for putting up an un-electable candidate, for jumping under the bus(/train) with gusto.

There’s this undercurrent of "only a Democratic-supported candidate can be legitimate", but that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. Only a voter-supported candidate is legitimate. Anything else smacks of promoting the Democratic party over the wishes of the voters, which is downright anti-democratic (in the political system sense, not party name). The point of a party is to get voter support for their candidates, and if they can’t do that, they have no purpose. (At least locally; obviously otherwise the Democrats are getting candidates in.)

To me, "loyalty" is an incidental side-show compared to people’s apparently implicit beliefs that Democratic party support somehow trumps voter support, because that’s actually a dangerous viewpoint, all the more dangerous for being unexamined. If Lieberman wins, there is absolutely, positively nothing "illegitimate" about it.
 
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
URL: http://www.jerf.org/iri
McQ, how many party figures came out for Lamont before the primary?
I’m not talking about ’party figures’, I’m talking about Matt Stoller.

Geez.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Lieberman’s lack of "loyalty" on specific progressive issues what the whole reason he lost.
No Tito, Liebermans lack of loyalty (to parts of the party, not the country) on a specific progressive issue was the reason he lost the primary, and it’s the reason he’s going to remain the Junior Senator from Connecticut.

And Stoller’s use of "attacking the standard-bearer" seems a rather misguided critique to use on the guy who was bearing that standard with him, his running mate.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I’m going with Pablo, Tito, Lieberman votes CONSISTENTLY Liberal-Democrat, he breaks ranks on very few issues (Abortion or at least RU-486???) and the War in Iraq. And most of all it was the War in Iraq that got the Kossacks and others baying for his blood. So, this was a "purge" the Nutroots crew have decided that they are enforcing "Party Discipline" and woe betide those who violate that discipline. You can get a score of 90-Plus from the ADA, but in Kossack-Land IF you vote consistently with Dubya on the War THAT OUTWEIGHS EVERYTHING, and your REAL score is -10.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Where’s Soros when you need him?
ANTI-W. $OROS: I QUIT POLITICS
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I’m going with Pablo, Tito, Lieberman votes CONSISTENTLY Liberal-Democrat, he breaks ranks on very few issues (Abortion or at least RU-486???) and the War in Iraq. And most of all it was the War in Iraq that got the Kossacks and others baying for his blood. So, this was a "purge" the Nutroots crew have decided that they are enforcing "Party Discipline" and woe betide those who violate that discipline. You can get a score of 90-Plus from the ADA, but in Kossack-Land IF you vote consistently with Dubya on the War THAT OUTWEIGHS EVERYTHING, and your REAL score is -10.
It’s not about what liberal goodie bags Lieberman might have voted for in the 80’s and 90’s. A lot of Kossacks don’t even like the Democratic special interest groups, though they sympathize with the causes. Since the Dems lost control of both houses of Congress, all the bills are Republican bills. It’s about what you vote against. And it’s even more about not talking smack about your base on Fox News.

Lieberman sucked up to Republicans on their signature issues. He deserves to go down for it. I’d rather see him caucus with the GOP then with the Democrats- then we can finish him off next cycle. F*ck Lieberman. He’s a cancer in the system.

I don’t feel this way about Pryor, or Ben Nelson, or even Blanche Lincoln, or any other Democrats who break ranks and vote Republican. They keep their d*mn heads down and they don’t screw with the message.


 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Lieberman sucked up to Republicans on their signature issues.

Such as ?
He deserves to go down for it. I’d rather see him caucus with the GOP then with the Democrats- then we can finish him off next cycle. F*ck Lieberman. He’s a cancer in the system.
Better to be the MINORITY Party, but PURE, eh, Glasnost? BTW, he’s NOT a "cancer" he will be THE DULY ELECTED SENATOR from Connecticut...you know the guy the VOTERS selected, kind of the basis of a democratic/republican system. Only in Left-land is being ELECTED, being "cancerous"...UNLESS Left-Land likes you.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Lieberman sucked up to Republicans on their signature issues.
1.) The war in Iraq.

What else you got, glasnost? And does everyone who supports a position "suck up"?
He’s a cancer in the system.
So then Chaffee is as well? Funny that the RNC went to the wall for their incumbent in his primary, ain’t it?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Actually, Joe, I think glasnost is just pointing out that the Democrat party has cancer.

Can Doctor Ned save it? Stay tuned for the next episode. ;-)
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I find it interesting that Joe Leiberman has gotten so beat up over Iraq while Harold Ford, Joe’s House stand-in for talking up war with Iraq in 2001-2002, has gone unmolested.
Guess some thought taking out Joe in CT would be easier that Harold in TN.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
If Lieberman wins, there is absolutely, positively nothing "illegitimate" about it.
I totally agree. However, he shouldn’t be viewed (implicitly) as a Democrat if he does. He chose to split with the democratic party when he chose to run as an independant. The Democratic Leadership should be behind Lamont and view Lieberman as an opponent, because he is no longer a Dem.

And so what that a "not liberal enough Dem" was ousted in the primary of a very liberal state. Harold Ford is a D in a conservative state, and therefore there is little point in doing a primary challenge. Specter is a moderate R in a somewhat liberal state, so he’s not going to be challenged, but you can be sure that if he were running in Texas...

All of this is irrespective of the specific details upon which the primary voters in CT based their decision. It was their decision. Why shouldn’t they be able to base their decision on "one issue". Regardless, glasnost is right, his trashing of the Dem party (before the primary challenge) was also a big issue.
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://

And so what that a "not liberal enough Dem" was ousted in the primary of a very liberal state.
If CT is so liberal and Joe isn’t, why is he polling 10 points up? Answer: CT ain’t that liberal, and I type this about 15 minutes from there.
Regardless, glasnost is right, his trashing of the Dem party (before the primary challenge) was also a big issue.
Joe trashed the party and/or anyone in it (who isn’t Ned Lamont) before the primary? Got quotes?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Joe knocked snot out of Fatface Kennedy during the Abu Gharib hearings.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Lieberman votes CONSISTENTLY Liberal-Democrat

Only when he decides to show up to vote, and only when the votes don’t matter. He’ll vote for cloture, then vote the opposite way on the floor when the vote is meaningless. Only an idiot thinks his vote against Alito, for example, has any value.
 
Written By: Seitz
URL: http://
So then Chaffee is as well? Funny that the RNC went to the wall for their incumbent in his primary, ain’t it?


And Chafee is doubtlessly further to the left of the GOP than Liebermann is to the right of Dems.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Specter is a moderate R in a somewhat liberal state, so he’s not going to be challenged, but you can be sure that if he were running in Texas...
What inanity. Specter wouldn’t have even won his first primary had he been a Texan.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
What inanity. Specter wouldn’t have even won his first primary had he been a Texan.
He damned near lost his last primary, IIRC. Again, the RNC saved his bacon and his seat.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Again, the RNC saved his bacon and his seat.
This is part of my problem with both parties, but especially the Republicans after "The K Street Project" and Tom Delay’s tactics.

Now you have OUR elected representatives beholden not only to the corporations, unions, and whoever contributes to their campaigns, but also to the party leadership who can without funding, support, even mount a primary challenge.

It seems to be that no one can even get elected if they have not pledged allegiance (and whatever votes the Whip asks for) to the party.

As time goes by, the people who actually vote are becoming less and less relevant.

Public financing!!! (gonna keep beating this drum as it seems relavent to more than half the topics we discuss)

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
It seems to be that no one can even get elected if they have not pledged allegiance (and whatever votes the Whip asks for) to the party.
How do you draw that out of Chaffee and Specter, who both vote against the party line nearly as often as most Democrats? Chaffee is always off the plantation, and yet the RNC backed him to the hilt in his primary despite the fact that his opponent was an actual Republican. They did the same thing with Specter in ’04 and he won his primary 51% to 49%.

Two guys who take PLENTY of opportunity to poke party leaders in the eye both still get the full benefit of the party apparatus in their primaries against candidates who come much closer to the party base, and that tells you you can’t get elected without toeing the party line? Huh?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
He is chucking the Dems under the bus. He needs to, he cannot win if he stands in the shadow of the Dem party.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/

 
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