Well, if anyone out there doubted that political parties in the United States have gone stark, raving mad,Tuesday’s election results
should have settled the matter.
The most dramatic example was the Deaniac rejection of the Democratic Party’s 2000 vice presidential nominee. (Note the victor, above, in full Dean-style rant mode.)
My colleagues point out that something similar
happened over on the Republican side, but that isn’t nearly as dramatic or meaningful. Still, while I’m often suspicious when some of my colleagues in the media refer to "pro-choice" Republicans as "moderates," this guy was supported by John McCain, which gives him some cred in my eyes.
You want a Republican who is a real moderate, in the sense that Joe Lieberman is a moderate Democrat? Lindsey Graham. In the traditional, rational-human-being sense in which the terms used to be used, Sen. Graham is a true conservative, and Sen. Lieberman is a true liberal. But the extremists in their respective parties (and that’s who generally calls the shots in primaries in both parties) have twisted the terms, and their own standards of acceptance, into grotesque, unrecognizable shapes.
At this point, the only thing to do is wish Mr. Lieberman Godspeed as he seeks to hold his seat as an independent. If he succeeds, it will be a wonderful thing for the entire country.
I’m thinking about offering him the support of the Unparty in my Sunday column. Any thoughts on that from you Unpartisan loyalists out there?
Related Posts
We know Lindsay Graham sold out America on illegal aliens, and immigration, but who was the buyer?
Precisely. No buyer, no sellout. Just a thoughtful man of principle doing what he thought was best with a highly complex issue.
If we continue a discussion on how “wonderful” Graham is, I’ll have to change my nick to READY TO HURL #2
Once again Warthen shows the stupidity and laziness that has led to his failure as a journalist, and the dishonesty that has led to his failure as a journalist and as a human being. Lieberman lost because the voters of Connecticut came to believe that he didn’t represent their views. In addition, Lieberman ran a race that alienated and insulted the voters. A little investigation by Warthen would have revealed the truth. But Warthen isn’t interested in the truth, only in supporting his already held views.
Lieberman supports the war in Iraq, which has cost the United States the lives of thousands of our soldiers, and billions of taxpayer dollars. Warthen doesn’t care about that, because he doesn’t, and wouldn’t, bear any of the burden cause by the war. The war gives him an opportunity to indulge his racist fantasies, and that’s what Warthen cares about.
But the abandonment of Lieberman by the voters of Connecticut goes beyond Liebermanb’s support for the war. Lieberman deliberately sought to undermine the Democratic party and support the Republican party, in return for favors and attention by Washington insiders. That isn’t moderation, that’s dishonesty. Lieberman doesn’t have any principles other than the principle that everything should go his way.
Warthen may call Lamont’s opposition to the war “twisting standards of acceptance into grotesque, unrecognizable shapes,” but 60% of Americans oppose the Iraq war. Lamont’s views on the war are in line with those of 60% of Americans.
Who is twisting terms into unrecognizable shapes? Is it Lamont, a successful businessman, who undertook a campaign that no one thought he could win in order to do something positive for his country? Or is it Warthen, who is too much of a coward to take responsibility for the failure of the course of action he advocated, but who instead seeks to blame that failure on those who accurately predicted it?
And as for Huckleberry Graham’s “moderation”, that’s risible. A “moderate” position isn’t one that allows torture after making some vague, weak objections to it. A “moderate” position is one that upholds the traditions and values of the United States, and that resolutely opposes torture. Huckleberry Graham is a dishonest opportunist, who occationally mouths a few depracatory words about the more egregious actions of the Bush administration, but eventually goes along with whatever they want.
Warthen once again misrepresents moderation, as he misrepresents nearly everything else. Moderation isn’t choosing a middle ground between two opposing positions. In the 1960’s, the Ku Klux Klan tortured and murdered black people who attempted to vote. The NAACP worked hard to make sure that black people were afforded the same rights as everybody else. Warthen’s position, that black people shouldn’t be murdered, but that they should be prevented from voting, isn’t a “moderate” position.
Good luck to Joe. The guy could use some friends since his all have seemed to have diserted him.
Your endorsement couldn’t but help, but I think the Unparty candidate would receive the same support that the Uncola received from the Pepsi generation who make up the majority of voters in his home state.
But who knows..?
Thanks, SGM. Any more rational, relevant comments out there?
If Joe Lieberman is the answer, I don’t want to know what the question is.
The UnParty needs someone who hasn’t spent his entire life in politics. He has been a state senator 1970-1980; attorney general 1980-1988; U.S. Senator 1988-present.
Brad – did you know Joe has championed experimental voucher programs, letting parents use federal money to send children to public or private schools of their choice?
He’s pro-gun control (F rating from NRA),
pro-stem cell reasearch, wanted to keep Terri Schiavo on life support forever, 95% pro choice voting record, against social security reform…
He’s basically a liberal in chickenhawk clothing.
And, personally, I thought Gore picked him for VP because he was the only choice that would make Al look more exciting. Joe ain’t much in the way of being dynamic.
Joe lost fair and square. I’m sure had he eked out a victory he would have expected Lamont to step aside “for the good of the party”. He’s a sore loser.
An Unparty needs a un-politician.
VietVet, I see that Li’l Lindsey has the same effect on you as me.
Holy Joe deserted his party and his friends (except for Kissin’ George). Not the other way around, SGM.
He’s sealing the deal by pursuing his own agenda in the general election.
I wonder what the Republican nominee makes of Karl Rove’s message to Holy Joe that “the boss” told him to help Joe in any way possible.
“In the 1960’s, the Ku Klux Klan tortured and murdered black people who attempted to vote.” Well, in the 1860’s, Democrats did the same thing. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the Confederate South but not the Northern Border States. Wasn’t it worth doing even if it was imperfect and incomplete?
To be sure, moderation isn’t necessarily the middle ground between two extreems, but politics is surely the art of compromise and the possible vice the impossible.
Mary, you say a lot about what moderation isn’t, but what exactly would you say it is?
Right on and dead on,once again Mary.I am so thrilled over the Lamont victory.My friends in Connecticut are having a blast.Will Brad ever stop with this one-word oxymoron(UNPARTY)garbage.Brad should read the new book by Greg Palast(a REAL journalist)and get the facts.But,what can you expect from a guy who thinks Will Ferrel makes “high-brow” comedies.
Doug, I’m not saying he’s “the answer.” I’m saying that if the Unparty were to pick a candidate in the race for U.S. Senator, it would be Joe Lieberman.
And go back and follow the link above — when I set out the whole idea of the Unparty, it was with the caveat that there be no litmus tests. That’s one of the things that would distinquish us from the lockstep ideologues in the parties.
I’m for any reasonable person steering a deliberate, independent course away from the madness of the parties. Of course, I’ve always liked Joe anyway. But the fact that he’s about to run a nationally visible independent campaign is what inspired this post.
Brad,
One of your basic tenets for the Unparty is:
>Contempt for any stupid idea, even if it
> comes from our own party leaders.
Who defines “stupid”? Is Joe’s support of school vouchers stupid?
The Unparty sounds like the AV Club in high school. A bunch of smart people who nobody else wants to be around… 🙂
This is what the Unparty should start with…
From the Libertarian Party website (www.lp.org)…
Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?
Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we’re in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable — rather than government — welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we’re in favor of people’s right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.
This is kind of funny in a weird way.
When the Supremes cost Gore/Lieberman the election, Joe never protested; was very amenable.
Yet the wingnuts promptly labeled the ticket Sore/Loserman.
When Holy Joes gets beat fair and square in a primary, he rejects the candidate chosen by Democratic voters. Instead he becomes the epitome of a sore loser.
And, now rightwing pundits, Fox News and, yes, even Dear Leader hail him as the picture of bipartisanship (if you think bipartisanship = date rape).
As long as Lee is allowed to post comments of this nature (about as juvenile–avoiding other adjectives that I am tempted to use– as it gets, don’t you think?) with anonymity, then I don’t think this blog is going to be a serious forum, anyway.
Herb, what does that have to do with Brad trying to nominate Lieberman for the Unparty’s first national level candidate?
Herb, just ignore Lee and respond to those who chose to post rational statements.
Many of us would like to see your opinions. If you (or any other thoughtful poster) leaves because of Lee then the terrorists win.
(Heh, the last clause was a joke. I couldn’t resist.)
Well Brad you’ve really done it this time. You’ve managed to make Mary Rosh sound down to earth. Most polls find that a solid majority of Americans want us to withdraw from Iraq. Withdrawal, NOT stay-the-course, my journalist friend is the mainstream position on that issue. And that was really the only issue of importance in the Connecticut primary. So who’s the fringe, radical element in this country? The minority who support a failed stay-the-course policy that makes us more vulnerable to terrorism with each passing day. Or, the majority of Americans that now recognize the hopeless quagmire we’ve gotten into and simply want to keep our soldiers from getting killed.
Stay-the-Course = Fringe
Withdraw within 1 year = Mainstream
And by the way Brad, you were the one who went out his way to post reasonable pictures of the Lt. Governor in an earlier post, so why choose a less than flattering picture of Mainstream candidate Ned Lamont. That’s just not intellectually honest now is it?
Bud, with all due respect, "mainstream" does not equal having Al Sharpton
stand behind you as you celebrate your victory.
But you have posed a perfect example of the sort of false choice that parties offer, with the bogus dichotomy of "stay the course"/"cut and run."
I don’t see how any serious person who understands the way the world works could embrace either continuing to handle Iraq the Bush/Rumsfeld way or declaring our defeat and leaving.
As I have said before, we are stuck with a lousy situation in which we are dependent upon the NEXT president to salvage the situation.
Try this: Check back and see who in the Connecticut race has been going around saying the words "stay the course." You’ll find it’s Mr. Lamont, not the incumbent. It’s the challenger’s little straw man he sets up so that he’ll have something to knock down.
… and I think the Sharpton photo (the link above) was quite flattering of both of them, don’t you?
Brad, why not post the photo of W. giving Joe L. a big fat kiss at the state of the union address. That would be far more instructive than the cheap shot photo of Lamont addressing voters during a victory celebration. (Since when is a display of passionate excitement cause for ridicule?) It was that kiss that sealed Loserman’s fate. He doesn’t belong in the Democratic Party so why is it so radical that Democratic voters voted him out?
“Bud, with all due respect, “mainstream” does not equal having Al Sharpton stand behind you as you celebrate your victory.”
Thanks for giving us such a clear insight into your character.
Brad, why is it “false choice?”
What is Dear Leader doing besides “staying the course.” As a matter of fact, isn’t that what you rather desperately advocate?
Now, the comparison on the Democratic side could very well be argued. Most Dems seem to favor “phased withdrawal.” But, being the “intellectually honest guy” that you are, you’d probably favor the GOP slant.
Or, would you rather just make the comparison read “stay the course vs. treasonous defeatist fifth columnists?”
Oh, yes, Brad, the photo choice and comparison to the “Dean Scream” pretty much sinks whatever credibility you have for being impartial– or, even, knowledgeable.
Power to the people
Joe Trippi
August 9, 2006 05:10 PM
Senator Joe Lieberman had it all: powerful endorsements from the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the backing of most of the rest of the Democratic establishment, a huge campaign war chest, and all the other trappings of incumbency. Yet yesterday voters in the state of Connecticut’s Democratic primary sent the former vice-presidential nominee packing.
“This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means.” That reaction to Lieberman’s defeat was not coined by a progressive blogger on the internet, but instead leaped from the lips of congressman Rahm Emmanuel – the man charged with winning back Congress for the Democrats this fall.
Ned Lamont, the man who defeated Lieberman, started his campaign just a few months ago as a complete unknown. His candidacy was embraced by internet activists and bloggers who brought much-needed early publicity to his cause – and ultimately helped bring his campaign to the national attention.
Volunteers began to go to work in Connecticut. People were getting involved in a new kind of politics: one that included them. Astonishingly, as Lamont’s candidacy grew, so did the voter rolls; over 30,000 people registered as new Democrats so they could vote in the party primary. Lamont’s message of change, combined with the rising tide of this new people-powered politics, took Lieberman’s strengths – incumbency, endorsements, and money – and turned them against him. The status quo became the albatross he carried to defeat – while the rest of incumbent Washington watched.
Rahm Emmanuel was correct: many incumbents who blindly supported George Bush will find their careers in peril come November. But there is another, far more important implication to Tuesday’s results. The rules have changed. The power center of American politics is shifting back towards the people.
How it is fueled – by technology, by candidates like Ned Lamont, by a growing community of citizenship, or by a combination of all of these – does not matter. The rise in people-powered politics, which began in the 2004 presidential campaign, continues to gather steam.
It is something that endorsements and money cannot control, and if that makes incumbents who count on such things uncomfortable – good. Democracy and the nation will be better for it. May the people win.
Lindsay Graham has you buffaloed, Mr. W, if you think he’s a moderate.
As for Joe Lieberman, whatever respect I had for him I lost last night. He seems to think he’s entitled to a Senate seat. I hate to see him end his distinguished career by following a primary defeat with an even more ignominious defeat in the general election, but that’s where he’s headed.
Oh, yes, Brad, the photo choice and comparison to the “Dean Scream” pretty much sinks whatever credibility you have for being impartial
I concur. The consistent petty pot-shots at Democrats, with no reference to their actual positions on any issues, gives you away every time.
Bud, with all due respect, “mainstream” does not equal having Al Sharpton stand behind you as you celebrate your victory.
Brad, with all due respect, maybe you could talk about Lamont’s stance on the issues. Yelling “Look out behind you, it’s AL SHARPTON!” doesn’t exactly make your case.
Apologies for hogging the thread, but now I gotta ask: What do you mean by “moderate” anyway, Mr. W? You say that Lieberman and Graham are “real” moderates, then you say one’s a true liberal and the other’s a true conservative. Which means that they’re not moderates.
SGM, you’re right, it was off the subject. It was just so disgusting that I didn’t want to leave it down on the thread where it should have been left.
Still, it seems to me that those who respond within the Unparty forum should at least keep to some basics of human communication. But I’ve made that point before.
Nice joke, RTH. I did laugh. I wonder if the terrorists are also “liberals”, because most of them do believe in heaven and hell, and so do I (and don’t use that last sentence to identify me with the terrorists, besides Bob McAllister already did that).
Lindsay Graham a thoughtful man? He went on a 10 day junket, came back and voted for the McCain-Kennedy package which contained all the things the last Graham newsletter said he opposed.
So what principles drive that flip-flop?
Graham supports amnesty first, with the promise of enforcement. There are 500,000 felons in the US. They aren’t going to sign up for amnesty. Where’s the plan to round them up?
Oops, I guess that last paragraph should have read, “I guess the terrorists don’t qualify as liberals, and neither do I . . .”
Except maybe we do. Makes no sense, does it. Hey, I’m too busy right now to comment anyway.
It sure doesn’t hurt. If I had Al Sharpton standing behind me, I’d really start doubting myself on the issues. Fortunately, he’s … let me check … not there.
Speaking of which, has anyone noticed how people who might, under other circumstances, be quite reasonable, completely lose any semblance of a sense of humor when they go into partisan mode? I mean, was there anybody else out there (besides bill) who thought that my reference to "Old School" as "high-brow" was serious? (That was no doubt a reference to the scene in which pledges attached concrete blocks to their genitals and dropped them off a balcony.) Of course, I’ve thought bill was excessively serious before when it turned out HE was putting ME on, so … ha, ha, I get it now.
Speaking of fun, I know partisan Democrats have to be joking when they talk about "the kiss." Nobody’s that petty, right? What, are we gonna hate Jesus now because Judas planted one on him (but maybe we might as well, since criticizing Jews for being excessively religious seems to be a popular theme)? Anyway, to play along, I thought I’d go find the offending smooch image. The only "kiss" pictures I could find on the AP wire involved Hadassah
(one of them with open mouth
yet). But leave it to the Wonkette to provide the video. I mean, she knows what’s important, right?
Actually, Herb, compared to the terrorists, most of us ARE liberals — at least, I hope so, in the sense of believing in liberal democracy versus THEIR vision for the world.
And kc, I apologize for being confusing. That’s just me being nostaligic for the days when sincere liberals and conservatives managed to disagree strongly without demonizing each other. They conducted themselves in a sensible, civilized, MODERATE manner, instead of engaging in Mutual Attempted Destruction.
A related thought, for Lee: I’m not familiar with the particulars of the incident to which you refer, but to me a thoughtful (and moderate, kc) person is one who is actually capable of changing his or her mind — almost by definition.
That’s not the only qualification (after all, even John Kerry and Strom Thurmond have been known to change their minds), but it’s perfectly consistent with THOUGHTFULness.
That’s just me being nostaligic for the days when sincere liberals and conservatives managed to disagree strongly without demonizing each other. They conducted themselves in a sensible, civilized, MODERATE manner, instead of engaging in Mutual Attempted Destruction.
Fine. I think if you’re honest, though, you have to concede that the extreme rhetoric started with the Republicans. Who do you think said “bipartisanship is date rape?” Hint: It wasn’t a Democrat.
And for the most part it still is that way. Howard Dean has made some intemperate remarks, but aside from him you’d be hard pressed to find any prominent Democrat who’s said things anywhere near as poisonous as what Tom DeLay used to spout on a regular basis.
Getting back to Lamont, I would love it if you could try to put your fears of the bogeyman Sharpton aside just long enough to tell me what you find extreme about Lamont’s position on anything besides the Iraq war (I KNOW you disagree with him on that).
Quite a snapshot of the LaMont team. He has the abortion queen at his side. I forget her name, is it Nancy Ireland? Then he has the Jew hater, Mr. New York is Hymietown in behind him. And then he has Al Sharpton, of Tawana Brawley fame. I think this is great for the Dems actually. The radical left has owned the national party and now it’s driving out the moderate rational pols like Joe L. I say go for it. If LaMont represents where the Dems want to go, that is great for the GOP. I smell George McGovern results all over again. When it really comes down to choosing parties, the middle of the roaders will not trust national security to the Democrats.
AS for Joe L., don’t be surprised if he gets elected as an independent. I like the guy even though I disagree with several of his policy stands and he can put an insomniac to sleep with that monotone. But the guy is a decent patriotic American, and I agree with Brad, when it comes to national defense, we should all be Americans first, partisans second.
KC, please post a quote or two from DeLay that is poisonous. If you can find one, that would be the first I have ever seen.
Happy to oblige, Dave:
“In a calculated and craven political stunt, the national Democrat Party declared its surrender in the war on terror,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican. “But at least — or perhaps, at most — the Washington Democrats finally have taken a position on the war. And that position — that baseless, partisan, shocking position — is that American troops aren’t up to the job.” (from the Wash. Times)
and:
“Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills.” –Tom DeLay, on causes of the Columbine High School massacre, 1999
and:
The majority of us who believe that indeed we are there to govern but more importantly we are there to be an opposition to the Democratic philosophy and the only way to do that is through confrontation. From the Houston Chronicle (April 14, 1991)
And these two aren’t really poisonous, but they’re kinda funny:
“I AM the federal government.” –Tom DeLay, to the owner of Ruth’s Chris Steak House, after being told to put out his cigar because of federal government regulations banning smoking in the building, May 14, 2003
“So many minority youths had volunteered…that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself.” –Tom DeLay, explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he and vice presidential nominee Dan
kc, isn’t that last one the most poisonous of all? What can one say about someone who (interestingly, like Warthen) didn’t serve in a war he strongly advocated, who (again, like Warthen) impugns the motives and patriotism of others who oppose whatever war he happens to advocate at the moment, and who blames minorities for filling up all the positions and thereby preventing him from covering himself in glory (this time, unlike Warthen, who instead blames his alleged asthma). However, in the case of both Warthen and DeLay, SOMETHING kept them from undertaking any sacrifice in support of the war they advocated (and advocate) so strongly.
On another point, it can’t surprise you, can it, that someone of Warthen’s background and attitudes feels that someone like Sharpton isn’t entitled to enter into the public discourse?
Brad,
Lieberman’s loss in the primary dramatizes a paradox of the current American political system. Centrist candidates who think for themselves and are not afraid to buck their own party are villified as traitors and have difficulty winning in the primary.
I actually don’t agree with Lieberman’s unwavering support of the war or his stance on the Schiavo matter, but we agree on many other issues (opposition to the Medicare Drug Plan becuase it failed to negotiate prices down with the drug companies, education, decency in the media, etc.)and he stikes me as a man of integrity whose core beliefs are worth retaining in the Senate.
I usually vote Democratic, but in the 2000 SC Republican presidential primary I crossed over to vote for McCain who lost because he was (is?) too moderate for the Republican base. Likewise in 2004, I voted for Lieberman in the SC Democratic presidential primary where he finished far back in the pack. However, polls at the time showed Lieberman as the strongest challenger to Bush in the general election.
The primary system reduces the chance that a moderate, independent or pragmatic candidate can succeed. I think many people who might otherwise run for office are discouraged by this paradox. They are unwilling to be robots and always toe the party line, so they decide not to run.
One of the appealing aspects of the UnParty, which I envision would capture most of those currently identifying themselves as independents, is that it would give thoughtful public servants a banner under which run.
Mary,
Hey homegirl/boy! Great to be your neighbor on the blog again.
Lieberman lost my respect when he announced he would run for his Senate seat and VP at the same time; I expected a little more dedication to his running mate than that. (I was also unhappy that Gore would accept those terms – it made Lieberman look more interested holding personal power than serving, and Gore look wimpy.)
But Lieberman lost this race on his own. If out of state “star power” counted for anything in local politics, he imported a whole galaxy during his campaign and should have smashed Lamont. The fact that hs still lost means he really was out of step with a large portion of his constituency, and frankly he wasn’t eloquent enough to convince them he was right. The fact that Lamont aligned himself with some losers should just be a further embarrassment for Lieberman – a three term incumbent who can’t explain to people why he should stay? If you want him for your Unparty candidate Brad that’s your business, but if he could lose with all he had going for him don’t expect too much. Voices for the radical middle are obligated to be very clear and very coherent, because they don’t have blind followers that cheer for the cameras. Lieberman does not have that voice.
And tonight’s Daily Show take on the race was great.
“Sen. Graham is a true conservative, and Sen. Lieberman is a true liberal. But the extremists in their respective parties (and that’s who generally calls the shots in primaries in both parties) have twisted the terms, and their own standards of acceptance, into grotesque, unrecognizable shapes”
100% correct.
Joe would have my vote.
Lindsey surely has my vote.
This should cook Lieberman’s goose with Democratic voters and independent voters fed up with Bush’s failed war (60% nationally, probably higher among CT voters).
Rove may be thinking that Lieberman will steal votes from Lamont and let the GOP candidate squeak out a win. More likely Holy Joe will take votes from both parties. Not surprisingly, he’s very popular among CT Republicans.
Rove’s probably going for having the Republican drop out and leaving a rematch between Loserman and Lamont.
Even then Lamont beats Loserman and Rove looks like the craven manipulator that he is.
Look for dirty tricks and smears galore from both Rove’s puppets. He learned good from South Carolina’s Lee Atwater.
George Stephanopoulos: Can Karl help Joe?
According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President’s political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: “The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do.”
But in a year where even some Republican candidates are running away from the President on the campaign trail, does this offer have any value to Lieberman? Still smarting from all that coverage of “the kiss” at last year’s State of the Union, the Lieberman camp isn’t looking for an explicit endorsement. That could create more problems than it solves.
The White House might help Lieberman by putting the kibosh on any move to replace the weak Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, with a stronger candidate.
And it might be able to convince Schlesinger to drop out of the race and endorse Lieberman in the final week or two, when it’s too late for another candidate to fill the GOP slot. A quiet White House effort to steer some money in Lieberman’s direction is another possibility.
This is a tricky dance for Lieberman. He needs to figure out a way to get the benefits of Bush support — some votes from loyal Republicans — without turning off the independents and moderate Democrats he needs to win. The safest course may be a polite “thanks but no thanks” to the White House offer.
By today’s e-mail solicitation, I checked out this thread tonight. I find nothing here that makes me want to devote time to blogging. Wading through & “watching” people carry on simi-public snit-fights to see who can be most clever or the nastiest to the host and to each other is unappealing. I’m outta here!
In a dramatic upset, the Autorantic Virtual Moonbat defeated Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman in last night’s Democratic primary election.
The Autorantic Virtual Moonbat, or A.V.M., is an unthinking Leftist automaton programmed to spout vile insults and random nonsensical allegations against a long list of enemies. Before entering politics in 2004, the A.V.M. worked as a photo editor for Reuters.
In a nine-hour acceptance speech touching upon diverse issues, the A.V.M. said, at one point, “I’m certain, when the Taliban say ‘protecting marriage,’ they really mean ‘guns’!!! It’s like 1960 all over again!!! The truth is at transgenderedwiccansforoutreachefforts.org! Shrub only wants Belfast for the oil!!! I reject meat and pollution! Like I’ve said a million times before, the Repugnantans stole the so-called election by whipping the lesbian voters in Nagasaki, just like Bob Novak helped OUR high PRIEST to steal the ecosystem from the Hispanic forests (while the International Monetary Fund sat on the sidelines, for that matter)!!!! I hate you!! Since 1992, 18,210 innocent bunny RABBITS have been murdered in Louisiana!!!! No child left behind, INDEED. What about jobs!!!!? What about public radio!!? What about reparations and energy crystals for the tens OF trillions of vegetarian species who are enslaved in Antarctica every SINGLE day by our smirking chimp and his congregation of neocon bagmen!!!!?”
Lieberman, the last surviving member of the “relatively sane wing” of the national party, had pinned his re-election hopes on a large turnout of pro-American primary voters, despite numerous pre-election polls indicating that these voters would not be voting in his party’s primary.
Conceding gracefully, Lieberman said, “Jeez. What the … ?” SOURCE
ERvin, Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. The weak minded and overly sensitive need to spend their time surfing Ebay instead of a political blog.
If you’re looking for the best candidate to lead the Unparty, click here: The Perfect Unparty Candidate
and look in column 8.
$500 campaign budget delivered 5% of the vote.
Imagine what he could do with $5000! :-
Disregard last link. It’s broken.
Radical Democrats aren’t anti-war. They liked the failed wars of Clinton in Haiti, Kosovo and Iraq. They are only against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan now because President Bush is waging war now.
Shorter Dave (3:05:27 AM)–
“It’s our sandbox and we can pee in it if we want to.”
Joe would have my vote.
Lindsey surely has my vote
How can that possibly be? They are poles apart on many issues (apart from the Iraq war).
Some of you folks are mighty susceptible to any politician with an affable demeanor.
I’m sure some of our Republican party purists will condemn sabotaging another party’s process…
From the Hotline:
GOPers Thinking Of Lieberman Support
Following up: A senior Republican official in Washington confirms that the party might encourage Republicans and others to support Sen. Lieberman if he runs as an independent. There’s no sense, just yet, about what those signs and signals might look like. Says the GOP official: “I just think there will be folks who want to support – regardless of what we think. And, we don’t think that’s a bad thing.” And Kevin F. Rennie reports that some GOPers in CT are thinking about ways to financially support Lieberman’s independent bid…. [MARC AMBINDER]
——-
from the Philly Inquirer
Santorum donors give to Green Party
They helped fund a drive to get Carl Romanelli on the ballot, which some say may hurt Bob Casey Jr.
When Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) encouraged everyone in state politics to help the Green Party earn a spot on the November ballot, at least one group answered the call: Santorum donors.
Fourteen Santorum supporters gave $40,000 to fund a petition drive that has allowed Carl Romanelli to collect about 100,000 voter signatures to qualify for the Senate race. That’s 33,000 more signatures than required, and double what independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader gathered here in 2004.
But Romanelli and the Green Party of Luzerne County, which collected the money, might have violated federal election law in the process.
In his latest campaign-finance reports, Romanelli listed $66,000 as an in-kind contribution from the Green Party. Such donations cannot exceed $5,000, said Ian Stirton, a Federal Election Commission spokesman, who spoke generally about election law and not about this specific case.
The extreme right, along with willing enablers such as Brad Warthen, are now following a plan to paint all democrats as far left, deranged fringe candidates. I implore everyone on the left to keep it simple. The Lamont victory was due to one very simple fact. He tapped into the growing majority of Americans who recognize what a complete disaster the Bush/Warthen quagmire in Iraq has become. All this posturing with photos of Al Sharpton, the baseless claims of his fringe stand on the issues (even though none are provided). The ongoing claim that the left is soft on terrorism. Claims that the left have no ideas. It’s all a diversion. This is nothing but an attempt to focus attention away from the failures of those in power. And there will surely be a swift-boating assault to come. We need to be prepared.
Lamont is a reasonable man who may not share all my views on every issue but his stance on Iraq is in the mainstream now. It’s the stay-the-quagmire crowd that are becoming more and more on the fringe.
The swift-boating has already started. Even before the primary. The Lieberman campaign accussed the Lamont campaign of sabatoging their web-sight. It turns out the truth wasn’t dirty trickery at all but rather a common computer crash.
From the Daily Kos:
Lieberman’s $15-a-month web hosting company went down, along with all its clients. (Thanks to reader “publius” for the link.)
Here we go with that “UNparty” blather again. I really wish it were a serious thought.
Lieberman is a PRC, nothing more, nothing less. He’s a Politician (professional), fairly Rich (I would think) and he has a certain amount of Celebrity. Ergo, a PRC, “Politicians, the Rich and Celebreties”, i.e., the ruling class of America. By the way, PRC is pronounced “prick” as in “Don’t prick your finger with that pin”. Or rose thorn, or whatever.
There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Lieberman and Lamont. Heck, the new guy’s a multimillionaire, right. Maybe there’s a few million dime’s worth of difference. Throw John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Mark Sanford in this witches brew as well. You think these professional pols give a rat’s blank about you?
Instead of Unparty garbage, how about NO party? Vote for some unknown third party schmuck, or write your neighbors name in on the ballot this fall.
THAT would send a message, if common Joe’s, non-politicians and complete unknowns were elected. And, don’t give me that crap about political experience. That’s our problem now. All that experience of the professional politicians has gotten us to where we are today.
A POX on all Democrats, Republicans and incumbents.
Good post, Mark, though I suspect it is way, WAY over the top floor of most.
It may still be this way, but in Switzerland, they not only had term limits, but a citizenship sense of voting out incumbents, and could nominate and a elect a person even if they were not running for office. Their sense of citizenship is so strong that such a person would, of course, serve his term and with his heart in it.
They would also have referendums required for final approval of tax increases and other legistlation.
Would that it were so here, Lee. Maybe it’s coming. There is a lot of talk about third party choices. I’d love to see an end to PRC rule; boot the Dems, Reps and Incumbents out. Would be great jobs for just normal people. For one term only.
One reason it took so long to write the US Constitution is that the Founders didn’t depend upon their very comprehensive familiarity with Greek and Roman history, and their English and German traditions. They sent envoys to the German states, France, Italy and Switzerland to see firsthand how distributed, decentralized, representative government worked in each of those countries, at all levels. They talked with common people and gentry to learn what worked well, what didn’t, what had been tried and discarded.
For the last 120 years or more, we have less learned, less experienced people with elevated opinions of themselves working to discard the carefully crafted simple elements, and replace them with verbose, arcane, communistic, and corrupt notions.
“Joe would have my vote.
Lindsey surely has my vote
How can that possibly be? They are poles apart on many issues (apart from the Iraq war).
Some of you folks are mighty susceptible to any politician with an affable demeanor.”
Of course they don’t see eye to eye on most issues. But both of them have the ability to actually cross the party divide and vote for things the other side proposes when they think that the other side has a good point.
I had rather vote for someone like that than someone that refuses to cross that divide – even when the other side has a great point.
Going way back to RTH’s comment on this report, to the effect that “I’m sure some of our Republican party purists will condemn sabotaging another party’s process.”
I’m sure they will. But God bless the politicos and voters who will step forward and sabotage the “process” of any party — particularly when we’re talking about challenging this presumption parties have that they own not only primaries, but general elections.
Well, they don’t own anything, as long as voters are willing to shake off their partisan conditioning and take back what is rightfully theirs. Of course, we can only do that if people like Joe Lieberman have the guts to run without the “permission” of partisans.
Oh, on the subject of reports that Karl Rove said “the boss” told him to support Lieberman: I didn’t know Rove had a boss. I thought he WAS the boss. That’s always been one of the main things I don’t like about him.
I thought only the radical Democrat blogsters bought into that nonsensical smear about Karl Rove or Dick Cheney actually running the country.
In the 1970s, the same sort of Democrat smear was used on Nixon, with Kissinger.
Pundits say that if the election in CT had been held the day after news of the latest terrorist plot broke, Joe would have won. LaMont won because the soft-on-terrorism crowd came out in force. In the general election, that won’t work. After NOvember 3rd, people will be saying LaMont who? Kind of like Oscar Lovelace.
What a bizarre world the right lives in. We have continued evidence of a growing threat from terrorists. Flying has become a nightmare of lines, security checks and a growing list of items that can’t be taken on board. Our “Stay-the-Quagmire” war in Iraq has now lasted as long as our involvement in WW II against Nazi Germany. We continue to flounder in Afghanastan. And yet the right continues to hold up chickenhawk enablers like Joe Lieberman as a champion for their cause. This is really unbelievable. The more the Decider fails the stronger his support from the koolaide drinking sheep on the right.
Here’s the choice we face:
1. Stay-the-quagmire. We can continue to pump money and lives into this effort to pacify the nation and bring some measure of order to Iraq. Anyone supporting this effort should honestly look at the current situation and ask if this is really a reasonable expectation. And how much more are you willing to ask OTHERS to sacrifice.
2. A pragmatic, redeployment of American military assets to other regions of the world to begin, in earnest, an effective campaign against radicals. This would involve a broad effort to reach out to the moderates in the region. We could start with Afghanastan. There was a nation that had a promising future until the misadventure in Iraq took hold.
Quagmire vs Pragmatic Redeployment? The choice is clear. Go Lamont!
Bud, newsflash but we still have troops in Nazi Germany. Our problem is we have severe problems but don’t want to use severe solutions. Here are a few suggestions that I would want implemented.
1. All Muslims must be banned from the airports as either workers or passengers. Any Muslim who uses deception to obtain an airport job or board a plane gets a 25 year prison sentence with no parole. Anyone caught with a weapon or explosive gets sent to meet Allah and the virgins.
2. All Moslem mosques must be outlawed in the US. This is not religious discrimination, as the followers are in a violent political party, not a religion. Anyone caught practicing Islam in the USA is deported immediately with no legal appeal.
3. No cellphones should be sold without linkage to a real person, bank account, and credit card.
4. Every foreign visa holder must report in monthly to state or local police. Anyone missing that checkin by even 1 day is deported immediately with no appeal. If that person is caught illegally in the US again, 25 year prison at hard labor. No appeals.
This would be a start to return some sanity to the free world.
This latest terrorist plot was only foiled because the defeat of Saddam Hussein put us in position to monitor terrorists in Pakistan.
These terrorists began planning these airliner bombings back in 1993. On was detonated and failed to down the airplane. Another plot by the same ringleaders was foiled in 1995, saving 10 airplanes. This week, MI5, the NSA, and CIA foiled the London plot to blow up 9 planes.
The 2,000 terrorists captured since 2001 have been unable to participate in any new plots.
The US and British intellingence probably just saved Chuckie Schumer and his family’s lives. Indirectly Bush and Blair saved his backside. Schumer actually was directly quoted saying the fact that his trip was delayed for 3 days in London was a nightmare. This is how these people think. The real nightmare would have been being on that jet when it blew. When will these weak kneed cowards ever learn?
Our “Stay-the-Quagmire” war in Iraq has now lasted as long as our involvement in WW II against Nazi Germany.
Dead wrong. The war itself lasted about 42 months. Then there were another 4 years before West Germany established its own government. And we’re still there 57 years later. Talk to us again in 2067 or so!!
If the right has it’s way we’ll still be killing and being killed (in Iraq) in 2067. Only pragmatic resolve and common sense can save us from that fate.
Lexie and Dave seize on the fact that the U.S. still has troops in Germany.
Since the fall of the USSR the only reason for us to retain bases and troops in Erurope is imperialism.
I’m sure that Lexie and Dave thought they were scoring great debate points. In reality they were exposing one of the neo-cons’ secret aims in invading Iraq. We’re building seven large bases in Iraq, much too large and elaborate for any realistic short-term needs.
The neo-cons have made little secret of their goal– not to be the “world’s policeman” but to be the enforcer of American military dominance, political will and economic power.
The neo-cons will argue that “securing” the oil fields is essential to America’s power and future. That’s music to the ears of Exxon and the other western oil companies.
Of course, rational people who aren’t blinded by oil monies or ideological fanaticism understand that we should be investing the billions that we’re sinking into Iraq towards energy independence.
Just as a point of info for Dave and Lexie, we weren’t in the middle of a shooting civil war between religious/tribal sects in Germany after hostilities ceased.
We stayed because of the continuing threat of a group of nearby nation-states. Staying in the Iraqi quagmire merely adds another catalyst to the ongoing sectarian conflagration. Our presence isn’t deterring civil war; nor even keeping a lid on it.
Face it. This is precisely why knowleagble Americans including Brent Scowcraft and Henry Kissinger opposed the invasion.
Your comparison our invasion of Iraq to WWII is so fallacious and self-serving that it highlights the intellectual bankruptcy and monumental dishonesty of the pro-war faction.
Since the fall of the USSR the only reason for us to retain bases and troops in Erurope is imperialism.
I’m sure that Lexie and Dave thought they were scoring great debate points.”
Have you even noticed that our troop levels in just Germany have dropped from 300,000 to around 50,000 in all of Europe? Barely enough to staff our refuelling points when it’s time to hit Iran. Some “imperialism” that is. Just don’t let your ideology be confused by the facts, ya know!
By the way, what’s wrong with American dominance? Would you prefer to be dominated by some other country?
The neo-cons will argue that “securing” the oil fields is essential to America’s power and future.
Heh. I don’t want to “secure the oil fields” anywhere except right here in the US. Too bad the Left is vociferously opposed to developing any oil fields here, such as in ANWR and on the coasts. Ditto for building new nuclear plants, or even opening windmill farms 10 miles off the coast of Maine.
We stayed because of the continuing threat of a group of nearby nation-states.
Really? So we should pull out of Iraq because Syria and Iran are obviously our friends and mean us no harm?
Your comparison (sic) our invasion of Iraq to WWII is so fallacious and self-serving that it highlights the intellectual bankruptcy and monumental dishonesty
Heh. You wouldn’t recognize “intellectual bankruptcy and monumental dishonesty” if it beat you in the rear end (although it’s kinda hard to bite yourself in the rear).
I am beginning to think the US needs to think much broader in scope about world security. I would like to see a policy where we forbid the shipments of any weapons to any country not identified and approved by us. Give that some thought. We stop the French, Chinese, Russians, Iranians, et. al. from selling any more weaponry unless we approve it. Massive implications but we could effectively enable ONLY defensive weapons to transfer. In a way, disarming the world of offensive weapons. Now, all peace lovers should jump on that with both feet. Any takers?
Note to Brad,
I was sardonically noting the hippocrisy of the Republican partisans on the board. Not one has the intellectual honesty or rigor to be consistent. Some of them apparently aren’t bright enough to even recognize their dishonesty.
So far, none have condemned Loserman’s “sabotage” of the process. Just crickets chirping.
Rove knows better than to “upstage” his petulant boss. While Rove is the brains, Bush doesn’t want anyone to mistake who’s “boss”– and Rove knows it. It’s no accident that Rove, the hired help, calls his blue-blood master “boss.”
Your mistake, Brad, is confusing “brains” with “boss.” Bush and Rove know better.
Dave, I just have one question about your proposal.
How?
Dave sez: Now, all peace lovers should jump on that with both feet.
Better yet, let’s see a show of hands for all the “war lovers” on board.
You first, Dave.
How, in many ways. Between the British, US, Aussie, and other navies, we interdict all shipping coming from suspected arms seller nations. If the ship is found to have offensive weapons, the crew is offloaded and the ship sunk on the spot. Simple and effective.
Movement by air shipments are more of a problem but random inspections of aircraft that are suspect may do it. Same thing, if the air carrier has offensive weapons, unload the crew and destroy the aircraft. Poof, $300 million down the drain for the jet. I will leave the details to experts on shipment tracking, but it can be done.
RTH – This is a free country and anyone who wants to run should be allowed to run if they follow the rules. Joe isnt running as a GOPer so what has the GOP to do with this. Nothing. This is between the Dems and a guy running as an independent. I am contributing money to Go Joe Go as the Senate needs this guy from CT. Many people all over America are sending money. The byproduct will be the justified defeat of the radical left of the Dem party. OK, let’s hear a Dean scream from RTH right now. I love that scream.
“How, in many ways. Between the British, US, Aussie, and other navies, we interdict all shipping coming from suspected arms seller nations.”
How?
Dave, you can’t possibly be as dense as you pretend when it suits your purposes.
Poor Schlessinger, what a sap.
Political parties in America really have little true philosophical significance. (Well, except that the GOP is fast becoming the theo-facist front.) When the titular leader of the party and the professional party apparachik refuse to endorse the candidate selected by CT Republicans then there’s precious little reason to doubt that there is no honor among theives.
Schlessinger should take the hint and quit the race. For Dear Leader, loyalty is a one-way street.
Dave keep sending money to Holy Joe. Your sudden conversion to the Lieberman Fan Club is hugely entertaining and instructional. You’re really just like a little parrot for the propaganda du jour.
You remind me of Glenn Beck, the odious little jerk on CNN Headline News. Today he suddenly developed an ephiphany: “War on Terror” just isn’t accurate enough anymore. Now it’s WW4 against “Islamofacists.”
Your masters call the tune and both of you dance with total sincerity, until your master changes the tune.
What pin heads.
More “good news” for Brad’s delusional belief that the Republicans are high mindedly forgoing “partisanship.”
====
New York Observer Politicker
The state and national party, it seems, have concluded that they can’t succeed in Connecticut this year under any circumstance, and would rather see Joe Lieberman win — which polls show he’s likely to do, absent a credible Republican candidate — than risk handing the election to Democrat Ned Lamont.
This morning, a source at the National Republican Senatorial Committee confirmed in a phone interview that the party will not help Schlesinger or any other potential Republican candidate in Connecticut, and it now favors a Lieberman victory in November.
“We did a poll and there is no way any Republican we put out there can win, so we are just going to leave that one alone,” said the NRSC source.
Instead, the NRSC is pulling for Lieberman over Ned Lamont, who rode an anti-war message to a victory in the Aug 8 primary.
=====
Bad news for Lamont, the Zionist lobby is joining Republicans in supporting Holy Joe.
I’ll be sending Ned a contribution since CT is looking a crucial battlefield in the fight to defeat the neo-con fanatics.
===
The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) today announced it will begin a national advertising campaign to challenge the Jewish community to consider the nature of today’s Democratic Party given the defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman.
Yet another stalwart Republican partisan takes Brad’s “non-partisan” route and endorses Lieberman.
Sooner or later Brad may tumble onto the fact that most sentient political observers knew from the beginning: Holy Joe is just being cynically used by neo-cons, partisan Republicans and dominionist Christian fundies.
New York Times
Senator John McCain of Arizona, while saying he would support the Republican nominee, is not planning to campaign for him, and even allowed two of his aides to consult with the Lieberman camp before the Aug. 8 Democratic primary. And Newt Gingrich, the Republican who once served as House speaker, has endorsed Mr. Lieberman’s candidacy.
RTH – Maybe this is 1938 again. Interesting that the Joos are being singled out and will be blamed by the left if Lieberman wins that seat. Lieberman is one more vote that can ensure the survival of Israel. If the Jews are not supporting him, that would be surprising, even if his name was Scmidlap.