It begins.
August 10, 2006, 2:44 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date
certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people
who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It
will strengthen them and they will strike again.”
Gee, it sounds like Joe got the Republican talking points too. Cheney is quoted as having said something eerily similar in today’s Times..
“The mass of [politicians] lead lives of quiet desperation.”
— Thoreau (with apologies)
Just a couple of days after being rope-a-doped by Lamont, Joe Lieberman’s quiet desperation is becoming more palpable. Yesterday, he told a Today Show interviewer that he has to run as an independent because someone has to do something about our two-party system. Huh? His supposed dissatisfaction with the two-party system had never come up during the primary, and even if true, why didn’t Lieberman become an independent years ago, as Jim Jeffords did when he could no longer remain a Republican nor commit to the Democratic Party?
There certainly is a growing sense of desperation surrounding Lieberman. He’s fired all of his pre-primary campaign staff, and he’s been abandoned by the Democratic establishment. His fundraising ability will almost certainly suffer, too, unless some Republican deep pockets step up and somehow funnel money to him. He doesn’t have the personal fortune that Lamont has to fund a campaign, so the $$$ issue could be Lieberman’s biggest challenge by October.
However, the pundits say he can still win. The Republican challenger is basically a non-entity, with no name recognition and ethical (gambling) problems following him. Lamont has caught an anti-war wave, but he’s something of a lightweight on most other issues. Lieberman has a core group of supporters that he seems to be relying on, and he’ll likely draw Republican votes with quotes like the one posted by Grant, but he’s walking a tightrope in trying to cobble together Republican votes and his still loyal Democratic base. There’s much I’ve admired about Joe Lieberman in the past (all the way back to when he held state office). It will be embarrassing if he starts pandering for votes now.
And the scenario gets even scarier if Lieberman does win as an Independent. When Frist and the Republican leadership feed his ego with the offer of a committee chairmanship or something better in exchange for his coming over to the Republican side, the CT Democrats will have been paid back. He has no loyalty but to himself and what furthers him. Yesterday’s NY Times editorial analyzed the situation better than most of the pundits had.
G5pod,
First, there is absolutely no way that Joe Lieberman will “come over” to the Republican side.
As far as no loyalty but to himself, you must be kidding. If all he cared about is power and maintaining it, he would have fed the lefties in his party, won the primary in a walk and won the election as well. You may not like his views, but he clearly holds them on principle.
Sean,
You obviously have not read Lieberman’s post-defeat statement or listened to what he has said on the evening news, on the Today show Wednesday morning, and at all the other venues he availed himself on cable to stand his ground. In none of those statements did I hear this loyalty to the party of which you speak. His words make it hard to believe that he is not interested in himself above all else.
I hope you are right that he is still loyal to the party that, in his own words, honored him with a vice-presidential candidacy. The best way he can show his loyalty now is to back the Democratic candidate Lamont and get out of the way. That would be the principled thing to do. So let’s just wait and see how his devotion to the Democratic party plays out over the next few months.
G5pod,
You seem to hold loyalty to party above everything else. A few points are worth making –
Institutionally, loyalty must run both ways. I would contrast Lieberman’s position with what happened to Arlen Specter last election. Lieberman was faced with an onslaught of out-of-state money and advertising – as was Specter. The difference was that the Democratic leadership either were willing to toss Lieberman overboard, or ignore him, or give him only lukewarm support. In the case of Specter, party leadership almost unanimously came out to support him despite grave differences in policy.
The reason the Democrats “honored” him in 2000 was because they were still sane – they understood there was a large moderate element to the party. Eventually they will go too far, and this is an example of it. The movers and shakers in any party tend to be on the more extreme ends, but the Democrats haven’t awakened to the fact that the nation at large is more conservative – despite the war. I live in Massachusetts, and even here I see the disconnect. The Democrats are actually run by Boston/Cambridge/Brookline leftists, but they rely on working class and middle class people – trade unions and ethnic groups to win elections. They do this mostly, from what I have seen, with broad promises of “help” from the government, and class warfare rhetoric. When you talk to these people, however, they really aren’t very liberal. An Irish Catholic from Southie is going to vote Democratic, but he sure isn’t a liberal. It’s people like Joe Lieberman (and as much as I can’t stand him, Bill Clinton) that keep people like that voting Democratic – this and inertia.
I don’t know if this really is the begining of a sea change like the early 70′s where the Democrats lost their hold on the South, but it smells like it.
Sean,
I see where you are coming from. Your analysis of why Liberman lost is not confirmed by the polling data or reliable political analysis of the election. Lieberman was done in by moderates who were angry with his support of the war and his closeness to Bush among other issues including judicial nominations, the economy and health care. The bloggers had onty a small effect on the outcome of the election. As is daily becoming more and more obvious there is an increasing number of moderate Democrats who are fed up with the way the right is controlling the agenda. Lieberman voted to confirm Roberts and Alito, and this too was a big factor. So what is happening in the Democratic partty is that disenfranchised moderates are stajking their claim on the future. This is the reason why so many leading Democrats like Hilary Clinton and Chris Dood have come out in support of Lamont; they have seen the future. They would not have done that for a fringe movement of bloggers who matter little.
G5pod,
I think we’ll see in the next two years what happens. Outside of a few issues I would not say that Lieberman is “close” to Bush at all. As for judicial nominees, Lieberman has voted the way almost every senator, Democrat or Republican, has voted for more than 200 years until the Democrats came up with “Borking.” Almost every single Republican voted for Bader-Ginsberg notwithstanding a clear leftist record. Lieberman understands the proper role of the Senate.
I am truly convinced that if George Bush came out and said drinking water is good for you we’d have a “don’t drink water” campaign start the next day. Time and time again we see objections to policies or programs that other administrations, Republican and Democrat, have shared just because it is George Bush proposing it.
A Democratic movement must be based on more than – let’s get the Bushies. The left has been having some success doing this because of the war. When it comes to positive policy movement, they are always vague because they know most people don’t agree with them.
Even on the war I don’t think they really understand the nature of the discontent. If massive and spectacular victories and progress were evident tomorrow, the vast majority of Americans would change their minds on the war. In other words, they are fickle. The Lamont types, however, aren’t opposing the war because of a failure to progress, but because they hate Bush or hate American policy generally. In other words, if we began clearly winning the war tomorrow, the “majority” that you say support Lamont’s position would be cheering in the streets for George Bush, while the moveon.org crowd would be devestated.
Like I said – time will tell.
This is my last post on the topic. I think we have gone as far as we can. we will simply have to agree to disagree. But my last suggestion is to read E.J.Dionne in today’s Post where in the end of his piece he talks about all the Democratic support Lieberman had.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001314.html
Poor Joe, he got himself in a box and can’t gracefully get out of it.
In a recent poll 60% disagree with the war, I hardly think there are that many “lefties” otherwise why would I be so frustrated.
Joe is a politician, who will soon be looking for work.
Sean H:
” Lieberman understands the proper role of the Senate ”
Rubber stamp?
Little Sir (or Madame) Echo?
Daddy’s Favorite Child?
What exactly are you getting at?
Jimmy Mac,
For two centuries, the Senate treated its advise and consent role as just that. The executive has the power of appointment, and the check of the Senate was to stop him from things like nepotism and the selling of offices and other types of corruption. It was never intended, and almost never used, as an ideological test.
Robert Bork is a great example. He was a Professor at Yale. When I was in law school we used to read articles by him. He was considered one of the most important legal scholars of the time. He was appointed to the DC Circuit, probably the most influential court beside the USC, on a near unanimous vote. He gets a nomination to the USC and suddenly he is considered on the wacky fringe.
He was no more conservative than Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is liberal. The Senate’s role is not to decide who is on the court, but to make sure the President doesn’t abuse his power. Lieberman understands that, and he also understands what goes around comes around, and if the next President is a liberal Democrat with 46 Republican Senators – watch out.
According to the most recent Rasmussen poll, Lieberman leads Lamont by 46% to 41%. This does not bode well for Lamont in November, since the Republican candidate only polled 6% (!).
If Lieberman wins as an independent in Novemeber, the Democrats will realize that they have kneecapped themselves, a situation devoutly to be wished for.
Since the Left is slowly being engulfed by anti- semitism masked as hatred of Israel, and the Left is increasing its stranglehold on the Democratic party, we may be in for a partial repeat of what happened to the Democrats from 1968 to 1992.
Here’s hoping!
RFS, your charge if anti-Semitism against the Left, and by extension, the Democratic Party, requires substantiation. The rejection of Lieberman in the primary is insufficient evidence.
Grant:
The Left that is slowly being engulfed by anti-semitism never condemns Hezbollah (or Hamas, or al queada), never mentions that Iran’s leader has stated publicly that he wants to wipe Israel off the map (which in practical terms means the extermination of everyone in Israel), and always runs interference for the various homicidal sociopaths draping themselves in the Islamic religion.
If you scratch a terrorist, a leftist will bleed. The emotional committment is always to whoever is trying to destroy Israel or kill the jews because, among other things, Israel is a friend of the U.S., and the Left operates on the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
The Left is essentially militant secularism and the Hebrew religion will always be a thorn in its side. The Left feels comfortable with islamo-fascism because islamo-fascism hates judeo-christian civilization (the enemy of my enemy…)
Try and find a left-wing site that strongly and vigorously condemns the islamo-fascists – I would love to see it.
You paint with broad strokes, and that makes it easy for you to assert, well, anything, countervailing facts be damned. It seems clear from your comment that no amount of evidence of that sort could impinge on your dramatic overstatements.
Grant:
Fair enough. Let me remind you that I said,…”anti- semitism masked as hatred of Israel…” So I will nail down what I am asserting so that we’ll both be clear:
1) The Left increasingly exhibits a hatred of Israel
2) The new anti-semitism wears the mask of hatred of Israel
3) Since Israel was created by jews for jews, as the penultimate jewish homeland, the essence of jewishness is inextricably interwoven with the state of Israel. Israel and jews simply cannot be separated: one cannot rip out the jewishness from Israel without destroying Israel. It is their ancient motherland, their beloved ancestral soil, it is their Abraham and their Job, their Moses, their Jeremiah, all their holy prophets, and finally, the progenitor of the greatest of all the jews Jesus, Who gathers all of this Jewishness into His holy and magnificent Self not to destroy them but to bring that ancient race to holy fruition.
Do you not think that Israel is so very precious to Christ, do you not remember what He said about Jerusalem, the way he spoke with a maternal fondness – well, you get my long-winded point. Bottom line:
If you hate Israel, you hate jews.
So I will go out to the web and bring back links so you can see for yourself.
I do think you’re overstating things again. I don’t deny there is hatred for Isreal and for the Jews. But there is a world of difference between “if you scratch a terrorist, a Leftist will bleed” and “the Left increasingly exhibits a hatred of Israel.” By naming it “hatred,” you’ve created an awfully high standard of proof for yourself. Given the height of your rhetoric, I have to ask whether you consider most forms of criticism of Israel a manifestation of anti-Semitism.
Grant:
A fair question. As for my overstating my position, it is one of my admittedly regrettable weaknesses.
Hatred of Israel masquerading as criticism is, I guess, something like pornography: Difficult to define but obvious when encountered. A few of the criteria I use (as they come to mind) are:
Is the criticism voiced expressed in the spirit of brotherly affection?
Is the criticism voiced in the obvious hope that Israel will survive?
Is the criticism accompanied by an acknowledgement of Israel’s geographic vulnerability?
Is the criticism accompanied by an equally vigorous criticism of, for example, Hezbollah/Hamas/et al?
Lastly, and relating to the first, If I criticize my father, a man who had many failings, but who I loved dearly and miss very much, anyone listening would know I loved him. The affection would be there, in the interstices: in the choice of words, the phrasing, the almost indefinable tone of the sentence construction and juxtapositions, things of that nature. You know, I’m sure Grant, what I’m saying: Have you ever been at a family gathering where the members were discussing the habits and perhaps foibles, of a beloved aunt or uncle, amidst laughter and yes, even some derision: The affection was palpable, and there was no bitterness or anger. Even the derision was expressed with an obvious fondness.
But I’m overstating things again.
I hope I have at least conveyed some intelligible information regarding your really excellent question, which is both very fair and extremely important.
RFS writes
“It is their ancient motherland, their beloved ancestral soil”
What is so special about the motherland? Is it also not the motherland of the arabs who were there? What happened to the motherland of the Native Americans?
“finally, the progenitor of the greatest of all the jews Jesus”
Which Jew will agree with you?
“If you hate Israel, you hate jews.”
Doesn’t seem self evident to me. I dont hate Israel, may be I hate some of the things they do, as I hate many things many terrorists do, even as I hate some things my own government does.
From what I’ve written above you may feel I am anti- Israel. The fact is I have always been sympathetic to Israel. So I feel saddened when they do some of the things which they do, like the excessive reaction in Lebanon.
Sunil Korah
Sunil:
You wrote:
“What is so special about the motherland? Is it also not the motherland of the arabs who were there? What happened to the motherland of the Native Americans?”
United Nations Resolution 181 in 1947 approved the creation of the Jewish state. There were people living in the area that became Israel, but there was no established nation. It is special to the jews for the obvious biblical history.
It is not clear to me what Native Americans have to do with Israel; were the jews involved with Native Americans?
You ask: “Which Jew will agree with you?”
Probably none. So what’s your point?
You write: “I dont hate Israel, may be I hate some of the things they do, as I hate many things many terrorists do, even as I hate some things my own government does.”
This answer is one of many variations of the moral equivalence formulation, where homicidal sociopaths draped with the islamic religion are deemed morally equivalent to a U.N.-created sovereign state defending itself against terrorism.
You talked about Israel’s “excessive” reaction in Lebanon. Israel’s strategy is to target Hezbollah missile-launching areas and Hezbollah fighters, who hide behind women and children for the public relations benefits they receive when said civilians are killed. In addition, many of the Shiite Lebanese aid and shelter the Hezbollah. This makes them Hezbollah themselves. If you sleep with the devil, you’re going to go to Hell.
According to the latest Quinnipiac University poll, conducted between August 10-14, Leiberman leads Lamont by 12 points! Heh, heh, heh,…