The moment I saw George Bush cozying up to Joe Lieberman, I had a feeling that Lieberman was toast.
Understand, I was never that wild about Lieberman. Whenever I heard him speak I always felt like I was being scolded by a dyspectic rabbi. It says something, though, that Bush gets himself reelected despite being the originator of his wildly unpopular policies (or at least the perpetrator of the policies he’s told to institute) but those who wind up supporting those policies get killed in elections. Remember the day that Kerry said he would have voted the same way in the Iraqi question even if he knew then what he knew now, and I said that right then, right there, he’d just lost the election even though it wasn’t for another three months? We’re seeing a fascinating example of a classic truth: That Americans are reluctant to switch Commanders in Chief during war (naturally one of the great benefits of Bush launching it) but apparently we’re now seeing they sure don’t mind dumping anyone else who was in favor of it.
It’s almost as if the current crop of Democrats have neither a chance nor a clue. To put it in Lieberman terms, it may be that the entire generation of Democrats have to die out (i.e., be voted out) and a new generation of young turks with little experience, but no ties to the misbegotten launching of the war before they’ll be allowed to enter the promised land.
PAD
• 
“We ARE at war though. The war started well before George Bush became President. We displayed our vulnerability by failing to meaningfully respond when the Kobar towers were destroyed, when the US Cole was attacked. Bombing an aspirin factory and a few tents made us look weak and innefectual.
No wonder Al-Quaida thought that they would have no problem when they took down the World Trade Center on September 11th.
How soon we forget the threat.”
And how soon we forget that every move Clinton made was second guessed and hamstrung by his political opponents and right wing pundits who declared that any offensive or retaliatory actions Clinton took were designed purely to take attention away from Monica Lewinsky.
In a day and age where the focus is on terrorism, thank God that ten years ago, the foresighted right wing was more concerned about what really mattered: Oral sex in the Oval office.
PAD
>Thanks, Bill. Considering that the pre-primary polls showed JoeyBaby leading by something like a 30% margin, I’d read this as evidence that he’s not likely to make it all the way to November. Too bad, so sad.
Yeah but then again, Lamont was up by 15 in those same polls and ended up just barely winning. The momentum–I refuse to say “Joementum”–is clearly on Lieberman’s side.
If Lieberman runs the campaign he did up until the last week, it’s Senator Lamont time. If he shows some of the fire he had in the closing days and/or the Lamont internut crowd keeps shooting themselves in the foot I think Lieberman will win.
The focus so far has been almost entirely on Lieberman. Now there will be closer looks at Lamont–which could cut either way. I have to say, he has been less than impressive in what I’ve seen and not because I may disagree with his policies. He needs to develop a personality and fast. You don’t win elections just by being “the guy next to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson”.
And how soon we forget that every move Clinton made was second guessed and hamstrung by his political opponents and right wing pundits who declared that any offensive or retaliatory actions Clinton took were designed purely to take attention away from Monica Lewinsky.
But did that stop him? I mean, does anyone think that, but for Monica, Clinton would have zeroed his lazer-like focus on stopping international terrorism? Did terrorism even come up during any of the debates of 92 and 96?
Had there been no Monica the Clinton second term would have been more or less like the first–Clinton adopting Republican policies and making Democrats believe they’d won, while the Republicans continued to rack up seats in the House, Senate, Governorships and State Houses. Terrorism? Wasn’t anything most people cared about.
When California gets hit with The Big One in 2017 there will probably be some Bush apologist that will claim that, but for the distraction of the investigations into Abu Ghraib, Bush would have been able to prepare for the inevitable. And so it goes.
And for some REAL nightmare fodder for you folks who dislike Lieberman, how about the thought of a unity ticket of McCain and Lieberman in 2008? Who exactly could beat them?
Bill Mulligan: “But did that stop him? I mean, does anyone think that, but for Monica, Clinton would have zeroed his lazer-like focus on stopping international terrorism? Did terrorism even come up during any of the debates of 92 and 96?”
Actually, yeah, I think it did. When Clinton’s term ended, I watched a Frontline documentary about the Clinton years. Some people who were “in the know” stated that Clinton’s fear of negative public reaction led him to avoid giving an order to strike at bin Laden, even though intel strongly indicated they had him pin-pointed. Clinton feared that if the intel was wrong, he’d be accused of killing people to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal. After all, that’s what happened after Clinton ordered the bombing of that alleged “baby bottle factory” in retaliation for Al Qaeda activity.
That said, I think your larger thesis is correct. Even if Clinton had felt empowered to strike at bin Laden, there would have been no national appetite for anything more than very, very limited strikes. I think it’s safe to say the vast majority of the U.S. wouldn’t have been prepared for an all-out assault on Afghanistan until after September 11, 2001.
W. has had no such excuses, though. Once the World Trade Centers were toppled and a good portion of the Pentagon leveled, people’s perceptions changed. Most of us were willing to back our president, even though some of us (like me) had reservations about him. W. took that goodwill and squandered it with his one-dimensional “for-me-or-against-me” worldview, and with his wrongheaded, ill-advised and stupidly executed invasion of Iraq.
Regarding Iraq, it’s true that hindsight is 20-20. But, you know, there were intelligence and military officials who were telling W. from the get-go that Iraq was the wrong target, and that his plan for the invasion and its aftermath were flawed. It looks like their foresight was 20-20.
W. and the neo-cons exhibited monstrous, colossal, and almost unimaginable hubris in believing that they knew more about waging war than did military experts, many of whom have actually had experience fighting wars.
Bill Mulligan: “And for some REAL nightmare fodder for you folks who dislike Lieberman, how about the thought of a unity ticket of McCain and Lieberman in 2008? Who exactly could beat them?”
I’d probably vote for that ticket. Unless the president kicks the bucket, Veep isn’t a terribly important job, and I don’t think McCain would’ve actually gotten us involved in Iraq. I know he’s pretending to be W.’s best bud now, but both Democrats and Republicans have to play to their respective bases to win the primary, and then rush back to the middle to win the election. It is a sad fact of life that I hope changes in my lifetime, but for now it is what it is.
Bill, normally that’s true but McCain is not the picture of health. I hope he runs and unless Guliani is in the picture I don’t know who else I’d prefer but I think everyone will have to take a good hard look at who he picks for VP.
I really hope McCain gets the Republican nomination in ’08. He’s my favorite Republican (okay, he’s the only Republican I actually like). I probably still won’t vote for him, but that really depends on who the Democrats run against him. I’m not too fond of the new Hillary for instance, so that could be a toss up there.
Bill Mulligan “Bill, normally that’s true but McCain is not the picture of health. I hope he runs and unless Guliani is in the picture I don’t know who else I’d prefer but I think everyone will have to take a good hard look at who he picks for VP.”
Well, I was being somewhat flip — I don’t know that I’d place any bets on a McCain-Lieberman pairing in ’08.
And, to be fair, although Lieberman continues to voice support for the war in Iraq, I tend to wonder if he would have initiated it had he been president. I think a large part of what got us into Iraq is the Bush family’s personal grudge against Saddam Hussein for humiliating the elder Bush by, y’know, withstanding the first Iraq war and thumbing his nose at us.
Thanks, Bill. Considering that the pre-primary polls showed JoeyBaby leading by something like a 30% margin, I’d read this as evidence that he’s not likely to make it all the way to November. Too bad, so sad.
Yeah but then again, Lamont was up by 15 in those same polls and ended up just barely winning.
No reflection on you, but I love the way that a margin of victory greater than Bush’s alleged “mandate” is now depicted as “just barely winning.” And he was never up by as many as 15 points, so far as I know — 13, maybe.
The momentum–I refuse to say “Joementum”–is clearly on Lieberman’s side.
T’ain’t so clear on this side of the screen. I’ll just leave it at that.
If Lieberman runs the campaign he did up until the last week, it’s Senator Lamont time. If he shows some of the fire he had in the closing days and/or the Lamont internut crowd keeps shooting themselves in the foot I think Lieberman will win.
Exactly what shooting do you think is going on here? Don’t tell me you’ve bought in to the “Lamont hacked the Lieberman site!” nonsense.
I completely agree that there’s now going to be a sharper focus on Lamont, and that said focus could conceivably cut either way. Obviously, my hope is obvious.
(And as for a McCain/Lieberman ticket, that would actually make me significantly LESS likely to vote McCain in ’08.)
TWL
Tim Lynch: “I love the way that a margin of victory greater than Bush’s alleged “mandate” is now depicted as “just barely winning.” And he was never up by as many as 15 points, so far as I know — 13, maybe.”
I was one of those people whose jaw hit the floor the day after the 2004 election, when W. and his supporters had the temerity to call his slim margin of victory a “mandate.” Love W. or hate him, the indisputable fact is that calling his slim majority a mandate is identical to calling a circle a square.
It’s particularly ironic that a man who campaigned in 2000 as a “uniter, not a divider” has done such a good job of aggravating the polarization of this country (I don’t want to say he created it, because the polarization pre-dates his candidacy). And it’s come back to bite him in the ášš. Dubya was only able to speak to and gain the support of roughly half the nation when things were going relatively in his favor. That’s why things are gettin’ mighty lonely for him now that conditions are less favorable.
1Re: Possible McCain Presidential bid.
I used to like McCain. Now though, I see him as the man who failed to prevent us from having to face the horrors of Bush II. The fact that he’s now cozying up to the man who threw so much mud at him during the 2000 GOP primaries doesn’t do much for him in my eyes either.
As soon as I first heard about Bush’s “mandate” the first thing that went through my mind was “This guy is only talking to the people he thinks he has in his pocket, the heck with everyone else.” I can really see, in my darker moments(Dark Sean, a scary concept in itself!) Bush looking around the Oval Office and saying “To hëll with everyone that DIDN’T vote me in, I’m going to give all my backers whatever they want.”
The far left Dean-ocrats got rid of a friend who voted with the party over 90% of the time.
Exactly what shooting do you think is going on here? Don’t tell me you’ve bought in to the “Lamont hacked the Lieberman site!” nonsense.
No, I was thinking more of the Lieberman in blackface crap that Jane Hamsher, one of Lamont’s major backers, ran. It was stupid and his attempts to pretend that he was barely aware of blogs and what they do was worse. (At least that’s how it came off in the reports I read–I wasn’t following this primary with my usual zeal).
The bloggers are a two edged sword. Without them I doubt that Lamont would have gotten anywhere so they have been a tremendous asset. The danger is that you can end up having to defend or denounce them every time they say something stupid, which for a lot of them is a regular occurrence. The blogosphere has a pretty high degree of vulgarity, demonization, crude humor, and other attributes that may not play well with the general public.
I honestly don’t know which way the general election will go. If I had to bet I’d give a slight edge to Lieberman but a lot may depend on what the national party does–they may give lip service to supporting Lamont but if they keep Lieberman in positions of power in the Senate it’s clear who they will expect to win.
Re: McCain as a presidential candidate in 2008.
I might have voted for McCain in 2000 or 2004 (though only if I were even less satisfied with the Democratic nominees), but since McCain decided to “mend fences” with the Falwell Faction of the GOP, there’s not a chance in hëll that McCain will ever earn my potential vote. He was right about Falwell and the Far Right Christian Conservatives in 2000, and he should have stuck to his guns about them. But, noooooooooooooo. He decided that his plans to run in 2008 required sucking up to Falwell. McCain lost whatever “maverick independent” claim he had when he kowtowed to Falwell.
The bitter irony, of course, will be that Falwell won’t endorse McCain anyway since there will be an even more “acceptable” Republican that Falwell (and Robertson and all the rest of the Krew) will prefer.
You know yesterday I spoke to my uncle in London, and asked him what the feeling was over there.
his response. the general feeling is I hope we got the right ones this time.
Apparently there’s been a few mistaken arrests and one shot.
I wouldn’t say that it was the general feeling – but it’s certainly not an unusual response.
And so far there have been two people shot. The first was a Brazillian national (Jean Charles de Menezes) who was being followed when the police mistook him for a suspect they were supposed to be following, someone panicked and he was shot point blank eight times (seven in the head – one in the shoulder), while a further three bullets missed.
(We Brits like to be sure we get our man – even when it isn’t our man)
The second was the result of a police dawn raid on a house in Forest Gate, London based on received intelligence(!) where one of the suspects was shot throught the shoulder when he came down the stairs thinking his house was being robbed. The shooter apparently did not realise he shot the suspect.
So based on their track record, people are a little skeptical of the police when it comes to foiling of terror plots.
Incidentally, for the conspiracy theorists concerned about the timing of the raid – it actually came at the same time as a report was released on the failures to (still) properly equip British soldiers in Iraq, which was promptly buried by the big (and often insubstantial) story. So maybe we Brits are possible with coming up with our own political machinations without any help from y’all.
I seriously will never understand why so many Jews are liberals (or on the far-left).
This is what the extreme leftists think of Jews.
http://www.zombietime.com/stop_the_us_israeli_war_8_12_2006/
(I tried to post this yesterday, but it seems to have not went through for some reason. So reposting.)
PAD: The moment I saw George Bush cozying up to Joe Lieberman, I had a feeling that Lieberman was toast.
Remember this quote in November. We’ll see just how “toasted” Lieberman is.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm
The Rasmussen poll has Lieberman at 46% to Lamont’s 41% in a general election. Lamont’s 52% of Democrats is pretty much all the votes he’s ever going to be able to get. Lieberman, on the other hand, will keep his 48% of the Democrats and has enough crossover appeal to pick up moderate and Republican votes.
No, I was thinking more of the Lieberman in blackface crap that Jane Hamsher, one of Lamont’s major backers, ran.
Ah, yes. I do remember that (and yes, it was highly stupid) — I had not heard that it was a major backer who ran it. (“Major” in what sense, BTW? Financial, or just outspoken?)
The bloggers are a two edged sword. Without them I doubt that Lamont would have gotten anywhere so they have been a tremendous asset. The danger is that you can end up having to defend or denounce them every time they say something stupid, which for a lot of them is a regular occurrence.
Haven’t you been arguing in the past that people shouldn’t have to denounce people on “their side” when they act stupid or extreme, though? I seem to recall that coming up more than once over the past year and change.
The blogosphere has a pretty high degree of vulgarity, demonization, crude humor, and other attributes that may not play well with the general public.
Your opinion of the general public is far more genteel than mine. 🙂
TWL
It looks like I have to retract something that I said in a previous post, about how I didn’t think the British government would have been pressured by America to wait for a bit in terms of picking up the alleged terrorists. According to NBC News this morning, it appears that the opposite is in fact true and that our government applied pressure resulting in the terrorists getting arrested a few days EARLY, which means it may now be difficult to make some of the charges stick. Some of the suspects didn’t have plane tickets yet, or in fact passports when they were arrested, so they may not exactly have been caught as red-handed as they could have been had the British goverment waited a few days as they originally intended. I’m not quite sure why the US applied that pressure prematurely, although it seems reasonable to assume that with the anniversary of 9/11 coming up, the White House probably felt more comfortable knowing these terrorists were tucked up in their cells.
Regarding a 2008 McCain presidency, I would would have no hesitation in voting for him, nor would I have had any hesitation back in 2000. I can’t help thinking but for the Republicans wanting a much more malleable presidential candidate and basically forcing McCain out during the primaries, the world would be a very different and maybe safer place. I can’t help thinking though, that McCain probably has to take a lot of showers at night, having to cozy up to the Christian right republican base he thinks he needs to get elected. Personally, I believe there are enough moderates, independents and disaffected Democrats out there that he could still get elected without having to kiss Falwell’s ášš, but that’s just my opinion. I do know this: although I usually vote Democrat, if it’s a Clinton vs McCain match-up in 2008, I’m voting McCain. And by then, I strongly suspect that Lieberman will be just a political memory.
I might have voted for McCain in 2000 or 2004 (though only if I were even less satisfied with the Democratic nominees), but since McCain decided to “mend fences” with the Falwell Faction of the GOP, there’s not a chance in hëll that McCain will ever earn my potential vote.
Well, one of the things that McCain’s supporters used to say was that he was far better able than Bush to be a true uniter not a divider. His ability to work with and be good friends with democrats was evidence of such. While Fallwell is right down there with Sharpton in my eyes, McCain’s ability to deal with him with something other than the usual Ann Coulter/Randi Rhodes cheap shots, to me, idicates a tempermate well suited to the presidency.
But, as I’ve suspected all along, I think a lot of Democrats who have been saying for the last 8 years that McCain was a republican they could support will suddenly discover that he is just another “enemy”. But enough will cross over to make his victory assured, assuming no other factors come into play (ie I have no idea what will happen 🙂
Ah, yes. I do remember that (and yes, it was highly stupid) — I had not heard that it was a major backer who ran it. (“Major” in what sense, BTW? Financial, or just outspoken?)
A bit of both, it would seem. She raised a good bit of cash and pimped his campaign tirelessly in her blog–even moving to CT to work on the campaign. No big deal there. But she also directed a video for them and drove the campain manager to Lamont’s Colbert report appearance in New York. She’s high enough on the food chain that his attempts to disavow her were somewhat suspect.
Haven’t you been arguing in the past that people shouldn’t have to denounce people on “their side” when they act stupid or extreme, though? I seem to recall that coming up more than once over the past year and change.
Indeed, though I would draw a distinction between some shmuck who happens to share a few views with you and some shmuck who you have working on your campaign. I’m also probably in the minority in thinking that the
guilt by association” card has been overplayed. That being the case, one had better be prepared for it, not look like Dan Quayle caught in the headlights.
A bit of both, it would seem. She raised a good bit of cash and pimped his campaign tirelessly in her blog–even moving to CT to work on the campaign. No big deal there. But she also directed a video for them and drove the campain manager to Lamont’s Colbert report appearance in New York. She’s high enough on the food chain that his attempts to disavow her were somewhat suspect.
Given that information, I’d agree with that. Bad call.
(McCain)
But, as I’ve suspected all along, I think a lot of Democrats who have been saying for the last 8 years that McCain was a republican they could support will suddenly discover that he is just another “enemy”.
A couple of comments here:
1) Obligatory cheap shot: as opposed to Republicans, who have been the very soul of magnanimity when it comes to Democratic presidents. You’d think Clinton singlehandedly brought about hëll on earth to hear a lot of GOP’ers at the time talk.
2) More seriously, there is a difference between “could support” and “would support”. McCain is someone who has my respect as a person, though that’s faded somewhat in the last few years of Bush-ášš-kìššìņg and Falwell-kowtowing. That does not mean I would wholeheartedly support everything on his “to do” list, nor that I would refrain from working against his policies in some situations — but it does mean that I would be dealing with someone whose positions are generally self-consistent and who has shown at least some ability to consider the option that he’s wrong. That does get significant credit.
Basically, if McCain won I doubt you’d see remotely as many people demonizing him the way they do Bush (justifiably, IMO), and you wouldn’t see people claiming that the American ideal has gone down the šhìŧŧër. Then again, that might be because McCain wouldn’t do things like justify torture, discard the Geneva Convention, set up his own personal star chambers, etc.
Would I vote for him in ’08? Honestly, probably not — there are too many things I disagree with him on — but it would depend on who was running against him. On the other hand, if a Democrat in office were to nominate him as, oh, Secretary of Defense or something akin, I would not only agree with the nomination, but would probably write my Congresscritters urging them to as well.
TWL
Oddly, Lieberman always sounded like George Jessel to me.
1) Obligatory cheap shot: as opposed to Republicans, who have been the very soul of magnanimity when it comes to Democratic presidents. You’d think Clinton singlehandedly brought about hëll on earth to hear a lot of GOP’ers at the time talk.
I didn’t mean it as such. I’d feel the same way if there were some Democrat that many Republicans have been touting as someone they would vote for. Can’t think of one at the moment, which one could just as easily interpret as a sign that Democrats are more open minded than republicans, if one were so inclined.
And I don’t doubt your sincerity on the issue (but keep in mind I think you are about as typical a Democrat as I am a Republican. For better or worse.). However–and this is a big however–I honestly beilieve that what has made McCain so appealing to many of the Democrats that supported him was the perception that he was a victim of GW Bush and someone who disliked Bush almost as much as they did. When that is no longer an issue they will discover that McCain is just another of those crazy right wing intolerant neo-nazi jackbooted Christianist Constitution shredders (Whew!). Or something like that.
And I have no doubt that whoever gets the nod from the Democrats will get very similar treatment, but unless it’s Zell Miller it won’t be anyone that a lot of Republicans have praised to the heavens.
I think it will take more than one election cycle to get things back on a less poisonous track (if they ever do). Can’t say that lamont’s candidacy points to a more civil future but it worked and I can hardly blame Democrats for wanting to se a few checks in the win column at this point. Whether a full embrace of the take no prisoners approach is the wisest tactic in the long run is debatable–I could see it blowing up big time by 2008.
I didn’t mean it as such. I’d feel the same way if there were some Democrat that many Republicans have been touting as someone they would vote for.
Fair ’nuff.
And I can think of one Republican who I honestly might see myself supporting for national office if he ran — Mike Bloomberg, current NY mayor. He seems to get it.
And I have no doubt that whoever gets the nod from the Democrats will get very similar treatment, but unless it’s Zell Miller it won’t be anyone that a lot of Republicans have praised to the heavens.
And if it’s Zell, those same heavens are likely to open up. 🙂
TWL
Hey, can the “other, nicer Bill” still play?
(Hey, that’s what Bill Mulligan called me, OK?)
Look, no one is more disappointed than I to watch John McCain peddling his backside to those ultra-radical right-wing forces he has criticized out of conviction in the past. The fact remains, however, that McCain will have to appeal first to the ultra-conservative base of the Republican party in order to win the nomination. Afterwards, I think we’ll see him scrambling back to moderation-ville.
Democratic candidates for president have to do much the same thing: appeal to the ultra-left to win the nomination, and then shift to more moderate positions to win the general election.
It would be nice if candidates from both the Democratic and Republican parties could keep their hands spotlessly clean, but politics has always and will always be messy. I think it would be a shame if McCain lost votes for doing what any presidential candidate, Republican or Democratic, has to do these days.
I’d love to see the system change, but until it does, I don’t want to turn my nose up at a quality candidate because he or she is doing what he or she must.
I mean, remember the last election? Kerry vs. Dubya? What a crappy choice that was. McCain would, in my view, be a refreshing change.
And Mr. Mulligan, I disagree with the implication that we are seeing “the real John McCain” coming out, in all his conservative glory. I think the John McCain who is cozying up to Dubya and Jerry “Neither Moral Nor in the Majority” Falwell is the facade. The real McCain, the maverick who broke with GOP ranks on principle, is the true McCain, and I think we’ll see him back after the primaries are over.
Yeah, McCain is a true conservative. That’s why I, a liberal, like him so much — he’s a man of principle. Dubya, Falwell, and their ilk are demagogues and hypocrites, not true conservatives.
So, no, I didn’t like McCain because he seemed like a victim of Dubya. I like him because in the past he’s made principled stands despite the potential political consequences. And he’s willing to reach out across the aisle and be a “uniter, not a divider” in deed, as opposed to Dubya, who is only a “uniter” in his rhetoric.
I don’t know why I’m going to address Anonymous Internet Jerk’s statements because if his handle didn’t already do it, his statements make it clear that the only opinion he respects is his own. But of late I’ve lost my taste for the coarsing of the political debate in this country. Much to my embarrassment, I admit to having allowed myself to get drawn into such “screaming” matches before. Maybe it is the Lexapro, but lately, I’ve been hoping in vain for some intelligent political discourse. Instead, I see people like “AIJ” all over the web these days.
Sigh.
The first fallacy he commits is taking signs and statements by obvious extremists and trying to imply that all liberals hold anti-semitic views. And he goes further tells Jews that they shouldn’t be liberals because liberals hate them. Oddly enough, this attitude of “Everyone who oppose this view (in this case, support for Israel) is automatically racist/sexist/anti-semitic etc” and “You people in racial/ethnic/religious group X shouldn’t join with political group Y because they secretly hate” is exactly the kind of racial politically the republicans USED to condemn democrats for engagin in. Now I see the “race card” used very frequently to shut any criticism of Condi Rice as another example.
His second fallacy is something I’ve seen conservative bloggers and message board postings commit a lot this week: treat a poll taken this week as if those numbers are frozen in stone and declaring Lieberman the winner three months in advance. Again, ironically, it’s often the same people who dismiss polls showing Bush at a dismal approval rating as the product of liberal conspiracy who are taking this one poll in the CT senate race as the final word on the outcome. Reminder all those exit polls from the 2004 race that were derided because they predicted a Kerry win? But this poll is “gospel”, right?
Polls shift all the time and to use one to predict an election three months from now is a major fallacy.
One question I’d like some to ask Lieberman between now and November is, “given what’s happened, you are reelected, will you still caucus with the democrats or join the republican caucus.” I think his answer to that question will be very enlightening to the voters of CT.
No, I was thinking more of the Lieberman in blackface crap that Jane Hamsher, one of Lamont’s major backers, ran.
I saw that and wondered what the hëll she was thinking. What was the point? To portray Lieberman as a poser? Or just to be insulting for its own sake?
It was an idiotic thing to do and if he hasn’t already, Lamont should put as much distance from her as possible and make it clear her “help” isn’t welcome.
Something similar happened in the governor’s primary race for the GOP in PA (such as it was, since everyone but Lynn Swann was eventually forced out of the race before the election was even held). The campaign manager of one of the candidates called Lynn Swann the “real rich white guy of this race”. (For those of you who aren’t football fans, Lynn Swann is black). He was fired the next day.
As for McCain, I think I’ve said it before here that I vote more on who I think will do a better job than ideology, which is why Bush has never gotten my vote. That McCain is a “true conservative” was never a real mystery for those who were paying attention. I agree with Bill Myers that his brand of conservatism is much more sincere than the “compassionate conservatism” or “neocon” or whatever it’s called this week that Bush espouses. So, on that level, I can respect him. He has held strong to what he believes in, even when it bucked his own party’s position.
That he’s sucking up to the likes of Falwell sickens me, as it would if anyone did it. But I also understand that he does have to build up his conservative “cred” in order to win the nomination. Sad, but that’s politics.
Would I vote for him? Possibly. At this point, I can honestly say that my vote in 2008 is completely up for grabs. I’ll have to see who ultimately gets the nomination from both parties.
I doubt we’d see a McCain/Lieberman ticket. That kind of party jumping only happens in the movies.
Just a few corrections here…
“We ARE at war though. The war started well before George Bush became President.”
A minority of dangerous lunatics committing criminal acts don’t constitute a “war,” no matter how atrocious those acts were. If that were the case, then we’re also at “war” against white supremacist “Christian” fundamentalists, because they blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
“We displayed our vulnerability by failing to meaningfully respond when the Kobar towers were destroyed, when the US Cole was attacked.”
There was no failure to respond in those instances. The attackers who were *directly* involved (those that didn’t “martyr” themselves in the process, at least) were rounded up and brought to justice — in a few cases, “justice” came with the swing of whatever it is the Saudis use to relieve a man from the burden of his own head.
“Bombing an aspirin factory and a few tents made us look weak and innefectual”
Nothing has ever been presented to back up the “aspirin factory” claim. The facility was targeted as a source for chemical weapons and was dealt with. Seems pretty effective to me.
Wildcat
And I can think of one Republican who I honestly might see myself supporting for national office if he ran — Mike Bloomberg, current NY mayor. He seems to get it.
Hmmm…I haven’t been too impressed with Bloomberg but my exposure has been admitedly limited. I’m put off by the nannystate crap I see NYC going through when I visit–nobody is more anti-smoking than I am, hate the filthy things, but the antismoking measures Bloomberg pushed though seem nuts to me. I’m not looking for a candidate who will EXPAND the “war on drugs”! But he may have other charms that elude me. I haven’t seen much evidence that he is motivating Republicans to vote for him though. If any former mayor of NYC gets the nod I think his initials will be RG.
One question I’d like some to ask Lieberman between now and November is, “given what’s happened, you are reelected, will you still caucus with the democrats or join the republican caucus.” I think his answer to that question will be very enlightening to the voters of CT.
Lieberman has said that he would still caucas with the Democrats. Now I wonder if that will stand should the party get aggressive in seeing Lamont elected. I would not be surprised to see the Democratic Party take an unofficial back seat if the poll numbers consistantly favor Lieberman.
BTW, if I were handicapping the 2008 race at this point I’d say that the past week has been a very very good one for Mitt Romney. he looked far more presidential during his press conference than the last 3 presidents ever did.
Tim Lynch,
“In short, either Lieberman is a rank opportunist
who’ll turn on his own party to maintain his image as a ‘moralist’, or he honestly believes all the tripe he’s been peddling. In the latter case, his opinions should put him in the Republican camp”
I tend to believe it is the latter. Despite voting the Democratic party line about about 90% of the time, I would welcome him with open arms. he is a far preferable Republican than Lincoln Chafee – and it’s funny that HIS attempted purge by Republicans has been all but ignored.
“I’m overjoyed to see him lose”
So am I. You really don’t appreciate a “moderate” when he disagrees with you, do you?
“The formation of his ‘Connecticut for Lieberman’ party once agin sees him putting his own agenda well ahead of the good of the party or the good of the country.”
As Clinton did, when he allowed the country to go through the whole impeachment ordeal? Wouldn’t an incumbent President Gore – free to run on the Clinton record – been more formidable in 2000?
By the way, Tim, you owe me $100 to the charity of my choice. July 1, 2006 has passed and there has been no military draft. I would like the donation made to ACTOR, please. Thank you.
Den: “I agree with Bill Myers…”
Okay, you don’t want to say that too loudly. Bill Myers is a freakin’ crackpot…
You really don’t appreciate a “moderate” when he disagrees with you, do you?
Sigh. Clearly your willingness to read what I write is as strong as ever.
Lieberman is a special case, as I have said. It’s not that he has occasionally or even frequently disagreed with me — it’s that he has crossed very significant lines on a regular basis, including the “criticizing the president harms the country” line. Lieberman could be agreeing with me 99% of the time — but as soon as he equates dissent with near-treason, in my opinion he needs to be gone.
The formation of his ‘Connecticut for Lieberman’ party once agin sees him putting his own agenda well ahead of the good of the party or the good of the country.
As Clinton did
Psst.
Jerome.
CLINTON IS OUT OF OFFICE AND HAS BEEN FOR NEARLY SIX YEARS, YOU DOPE. HE’S NOT RELEVANT TO A DISCUSSION OF LIEBERMAN IN THE HERE-AND-NOW.
Boy, that felt better.
By the way, Tim, you owe me $100 to the charity of my choice.
I agree. It actually occurred to me a few days ago — I was just waiting for us both to be in a political thread to publicly concede.
I may hold off on sending the donation until after Labor Day, as money is somewhat tight at present, but I will send it soon. Do you need me to send you a receipt, or will my word suffice?
TWL
If any former mayor of NYC gets the nod I think his initials will be RG.
As I’ve said many times before Rudy will never get the GOP nod.
Rudy Giuliani, the so-called America’s Mayor. The Luntz crowd loved it when he conversed about 9/11, his whole rap about how the dead were 80 nationalities, “rich or poor, white or black…” One participant sounded like a movie ad: “Giuliani is inspirational, idealistic, and a visionary. I like him!” Another said, “He speaks with conviction…this man could sell meat to PETA.” However, this was all before Luntz told them that Giuliani was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control. At that point, Luntz writes, “his support melted away like butter on a warm dinner roll.” In other words, he flunked the GOP primary litmus tests.
And this was from a focus group conducted by a GOP organizer.
http://dickpolman.blogspot.com/
Lieberman has said that he would still caucas with the Democrats. Now I wonder if that will stand should the party get aggressive in seeing Lamont elected. I would not be surprised to see the Democratic Party take an unofficial back seat if the poll numbers consistantly favor Lieberman.
It will be interesting. Lieberman’s decision to caucus with the dems will definitely make many democrats more comfortable with voting for him. I think Lieberman’s campaign right now will hinge on whether he has enough cash on hand to stay in the race (reportedly, he had about $2 million in the bank at the end of the primary election).
BTW, if I were handicapping the 2008 race at this point I’d say that the past week has been a very very good one for Mitt Romney. he looked far more presidential during his press conference than the last 3 presidents ever did.
Romney does look pretty good right now. Here’s what the focus groups had to say about him:
his Mormon religion was fine with the New Hampshire participants, but the Iowa folks, particularly the women, had a real problem with it.
So, his big handicap is going to be winning over midwestern and southern conservative Christians. Not that surprising.
As Clinton did, when he allowed the country to go through the whole impeachment ordeal?
Tim already broke the news that Clinton is out of office, so I’ll just ask Jerome exactly how Clinton “allowed” the impeachment ordeal? It’s not like he could have stopped it once the GOP were hellbent on finding any reason to impeach him. Yes, he got caught covering up an affair, but since the ultimate result was a failure to conclude that this was an offense worthy of removal from office, I’d say it was the GOP who put us through the ordeal that turned out to be a huge was of time and money.
What Clinton did was indefensible, but did people seriously think that it was serious enough to remove him from office?
Sigh.
What I wouldn’t give for a return to the days when our biggest problem was a stained dress.
By the way, it occurred to me that some people reading may have no idea what the bet is that Jerome and I are settling. Jerome’s post made the basics of it quite clear, but in case anybody who wasn’t around at the time wants to read the thread, go to
http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/002292.html
and start reading around 9:00 on the morning of December 7 for the specifics of the bet.
This is, of course, assuming anyone is actually interested. 🙂
TWL
Clinton allowed it by not resigning as soon as it all started. Y’know, because his marital infidelity affected his ability to be the president. So much.
Lieberman is a special case, as I have said.
And, as I recall, you had some personal dealings with the guy that left a bad taste in your mouth. That’s significant–a politician can be 100% on my side on every issue there is but if he cuts in front of my mom in an airport line he’s dirt in my book.
CLINTON IS OUT OF OFFICE AND HAS BEEN FOR NEARLY SIX YEARS, YOU DOPE. HE’S NOT RELEVANT TO A DISCUSSION OF LIEBERMAN IN THE HERE-AND-NOW.
Now to be fair, before someone else points it out, PAD himself brought Billy C into the discussion.
By the way, Tim, you owe me $100 to the charity of my choice.
I agree. It actually occurred to me a few days ago — I was just waiting for us both to be in a political thread to publicly concede.
You are, sir, an honerable gentleman.
What I wouldn’t give for a return to the days when our biggest problem was a stained dress.
It wasn’t our biggest problem–it was just the one we focused on. We are a reactive species, it’s only what faces us in the here and now that concerns us in the slightest.
But I see your point; one of the possible reasons to vote for Hillary is to have Bill back in the spotlight. Can you imagine what sort of mischief he’ll be getting into as First Man?
Actually, Bill, I’d call that a reason not to vote for Hillary. What Clinton’s legion of detractors have always failed to understand is that he is a classic narcissist. He craves the spotlight more than anything else. Everytime a consverative pundit or blogger brings him up, he smiles, because it keeps him in the news. If the conservatives really wanted to punish him, they should vow never to talk about him in public again.
And in fairness to PAD, his first mention of Clinton was in reaction to garyb making the comment about just bombing a few tents and an aspiran encouraged Al Qaida. He didn’t mention Clinton by name, but it was a clear shot him.
Den, true on both counts.
In case anyone missed the story, a “senior British official” reportedly told NBC news that the U.S. put pressure on Britain to speed up rather than delay the arrests of the would-be plane blower-uppers. Here’s a link to an article on MSNBC about that very subject:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/
If true, that cuts the legs out from under the idea that Dubya deliberately delayed the arrests in order to manipulate the results of Connecticut’s Democratic primary vote last week.
That jibes with an article I saw the other said that said that one major difference between UK and US investigators it that the UK investigators are more patient for long term surveillance while the US counterparts want more immediate arrests.
I never understood the Bush delayed the announcement argument. If Bush did want to help Lieberman pushing for the arrests before the primary would have made more sense.
Posted by Bill Myers at August 11, 2006 04:54 PM
Den, you’re right, divisive behavior has increased over the past five years (although, I would blame the nut-bags on the radio more than message boards), but I assure you, my path is quite clear and quite light.
Actions speak louder — and mean more, in many cases — than words. Since we’re using “The Dark Side” as a metaphor in this instance for engaging in divisive and unproductive rhetorical tactics, you are in fact treading “The Dark Side.” You can declare you’re not until you’re blue in the face, but it’s like asserting that a circle is a square; you can repeat the falsehood to your heart’s content, but the circle will remain a square and reality will remain unbudged.
Good sir, if engaging in “divisive and unproductive rhetorical tactics” is tantamount to engaging in the Dark Side, then I would suggest you take a mirror to PAD’s dear old site, which vacillates between rightful self-promotion and Bush bashing. My point, however poorly conceived, written or received, was to point out that while the world was getting a reminder that danger far beyond that of a mere common criminal element exists, PAD and his loyal self-styled politicking sycophants (who seem to thrill at finding square into circle examples of how Bush stole this, schemed to do that or conspired to attack whoever) were talking about how Lieberman was tainted by his shared beliefs with Bush. Golly, how insightful and productive that is!
And before the ole, “how sad is it that you’re swinging by to point this out” card gets played, again, let me just say that on some level I respect PAD as a successful writer, and am therefore – when extremely bored – occasionally curious as to how he conducts himself with his fans, especially in this day and age when it is getting increasingly harder to separate the creator’s product from the creator’s political viewpoints. Sometimes I can laugh and move on, other times … I get irritated, and very, very rarely, I learn something or come away with an opinion more informed.
Bill Myers wrote (at August 14, 2006 11:03 AM ):
If true, that cuts the legs out from under the idea that Dubya deliberately delayed the arrests in order to manipulate the results of Connecticut’s Democratic primary vote last week.
Does it?
Because I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, I tend to assume that fear of a slip-up that would let these people succeed in their plot is a more likely motivation for Bush’s alleged pressure to hurry things up than any plan to manipulate elections. On the other hand, those people who believed that he’d delayed things for that reason are likely to point to this as proof that he manipulated the timing for purely political reasons, even if they were wrong about the direction in which he manipulated it, aren’t they?
(Full disclosure: I’m a reluctant supporter of Bush’s. I disagree with a good number of his policies, but in general, I’m closer to him politically than I am to, say, John Kerry, particularly on issues such as the War on Terror.)
Anonymous Internet Jerks: “Good sir, if engaging in “divisive and unproductive rhetorical tactics” is tantamount to engaging in the Dark Side, then I would suggest you take a mirror to PAD’s dear old site, which vacillates between rightful self-promotion and Bush bashing.”
Well, you yourself said Peter’s “self-promotion” is “rightful” (an assertion with which I agree wholeheartedly), so I don’t see anything very “dark” about that.
As for “Bush-bashing,” I would actually agree that, from time-to-time, Peter’s political rhetoric can be a bit divisive. And I have expressed marked disagreement with his views on occasion.
Nevertheless, I think Peter could lay fair claim to the mantle of being “a uniter, not a divider” by virtue of the fact that he kindly gives us a forum within which to freely exchange ideas, even if those ideas are ones with which he passionately disagrees. Moreover, I have noticed that while Peter chimes in from time to time, and can be very blunt when he does so, he does not dominate the discussion even though he has every right to do so — because this is his blog.
So, yeah, I’m looking in that mirror and I’m not seeing what you’re seeing.
Anonymous Internet Jerks: “My point, however poorly conceived, written or received, was to point out that while the world was getting a reminder that danger far beyond that of a mere common criminal element exists, PAD and his loyal self-styled politicking sycophants (who seem to thrill at finding square into circle examples of how Bush stole this, schemed to do that or conspired to attack whoever) were talking about how Lieberman was tainted by his shared beliefs with Bush. Golly, how insightful and productive that is!”
Den, Tim Lynch, Bill Mulligan, Iowa Jim, myself and others (sorry, didn’t have time to cull through every post — no slight intended to anyone I had to shoehorn into the “others” category) all rejected that particular conspiracy theory. Hëll, I just posted a link to an article that debunks it.
Moreover, Den, Tim, and Bill Mulligan in particular took the discussion into more thoughtful and productive directions.
You seem to be dwelling only on those posters that support your distorted view of these discussions, while ignoring the diversity of views represented here. Rather than patting yourself on the back for being a bit better than the worst, wouldn’t it be better to aim for a higher standard?
Anonymous Internet Jerks: “And before the ole, “how sad is it that you’re swinging by to point this out” card gets played, again, let me just say that on some level I respect PAD as a successful writer, and am therefore – when extremely bored – occasionally curious as to how he conducts himself with his fans, especially in this day and age when it is getting increasingly harder to separate the creator’s product from the creator’s political viewpoints. Sometimes I can laugh and move on, other times … I get irritated, and very, very rarely, I learn something or come away with an opinion more informed.”
Frankly, I don’t care why you swing by. It’s not my blog and I don’t call the shots. But I’d like to suggest that telling yourself and us that you’re better than some of the more irrational posters in this forum is, to quote Dennis Miller, akin to “being the Valedictorian in summer school.”
Robin S.: “On the other hand, those people who believed that he’d delayed things for that reason are likely to point to this as proof that he manipulated the timing for purely political reasons, even if they were wrong about the direction in which he manipulated it, aren’t they?”
Very true. But, if you accept the premise that timing the arrests to occur after the Connecticut primary hurt Lieberman, then it stands to reason that timing them sooner would have helped him. I’m not sure I buy into either premise myself, but am just trying to examine them logically.
Anyway, my statement wasn’t really concerned with how the conspiracy theorists would perceive this latest fact. I was pointing out that it invalidates their argument from a purely logical standpoint, whether they choose to accept that or not.
Robin S.: “(Full disclosure: I’m a reluctant supporter of Bush’s. I disagree with a good number of his policies, but in general, I’m closer to him politically than I am to, say, John Kerry, particularly on issues such as the War on Terror.)”
Full disclosure: That would put you and I in disagreement more often than not. But you’re obviously an intelligent person, and even if I disagree with your views, I admire the thoughtful and articulate way in which you express yourself.
Lieberman is a special case, as I have said.
And, as I recall, you had some personal dealings with the guy that left a bad taste in your mouth.
Not quite, or at least not directly. He and my dad were at Yale together (and only a year apart, so there was plenty of overlap), and my dad remembers him as being something of a sanctimonious dìçk even then … but that’s about it, to the best of my memory. Certainly no personal dealings on my own account — my intense dislike of him is purely political.
My mom lives in CT and is thus one of Lieberman’s alleged constituents. If anything, she dislikes him even more than I do — she was driving Lamont voters to the polls.
TWL
“But, if you accept the premise that timing the arrests to occur after the Connecticut primary hurt Lieberman, then it stands to reason that timing them sooner would have helped him.”
And if you subscribe to the theory that timing the arrests right after Lamont’s victory was known — to provide emphasis for the Administration’s “the Democrats are soft on terror” spin — then it works perfectly. Just look at the comments Tony Snow and Ðìçk Cheney were making about Lamont last Wednesday, for instance. If the Bush Administration had no political incentive to manipulate the timing of the raid, then why not just sit back and let British authorities do the job on their timetable? Why put pressure at all?
(And the Bush Administration has lots of incentive to help Lieberman; he is, after all, the classic definition of a “useful idiot”.)
–R.J.
But Robert, the problem is, the rhetoric by Snow and Cheney works whether or not the timetable was actually manipulated by the Bush administration. They knew the arrest were coming. Snow even hinted at it. Therefore, their comments could simply be a prelude of the political to come. The problem with the manipulation argument is that their rhetoric against Lamont fits their overall strategy against the democrats in general whether the arrests occured before or after the CT primary.
Golly, how insightful and productive that is!
The problem, AIJ, is that you’re coming across not as “this is what I believe and why”, but as “this is what I believe and if you disagree you’re stupid.” How insightful and productive is that attitude?
BTW, if the most recent polls are any indication, the majority of Americans are no longer buying the “only we republicans can protect you from terrorists” line from Bush administration.
And finally, the “reminder” you brought up has nothing to do to with support for the invasion of Iraq. In case you’ve forgotten, our original reason for invading that country was about getting the mythical WMDs, not 9/11 or Al Qaida. I know, the justification has changed so many times since then, it’s hard to keep track. But my point is, one can actually be in favor of protecting the country from terrorists and still realize that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea poorly executed and has done nothing to increase the security of our nation.
Robert Jung: And if you subscribe to the theory that timing the arrests right after Lamont’s victory was known — to provide emphasis for the Administration’s “the Democrats are soft on terror” spin — then it works perfectly.”
No, it doesn’t. Because there’s another, more plausible explanation: that the U.S. Government has gotten quite edgy about these things, given the miscues that prevented our intelligence and law enforcement officials from preventing the September 11, 2001 attacks.
And frankly, given that these terrorists were poised to try a dry run to see if they could smuggle the necessary materials aboard a plane, I think the U.S. officials were justified in wanting to bring the hammer down sooner, rather than later.
I don’t like, nor do I respect, George W. Bush. That doesn’t mean I have to impute ill motives for every action he takes. Especially in this instance, where your argument uses its own conjecture as proof, a logical fallacy known as “begging the question.”