FIRST---AND I SWEAR THIS IS RELEVANT---LET'S HEAR FROM CHUCK ROBERTS AT CNN.
Oh, man. What?
[quote from Think Progress begins]
Today on CNN Headline News, anchor Chuck Roberts discussed the impact of the foiled British terror plot with Hotline senior editor John Mercurio. Roberts asked Mercurio, “How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?”
[quote ends]
Has anyone made this argument? I mean really come out and said this? Well, no, not exactly; so far---till now--- it's merely been heavily implied.
Even the worst sort of right wing pundits haven't stooped this low so far, so I assume that they are starting to get pretty desperate. But saying that a vote for a Democrat (or any Democrat) is a vote for Al-Quaeda will definitely be a new low. And considering that one of the main traits of the far-right is constant generalized rage (with a huge helping of fear), this is a dangerous tactic for the Republicans to take (dangerous for Democrats, that is).
But whether such an argument would be helpful in an election remains to be seen. I don't think the majority of Americans are as stupid as politicians and their handlers assume and we may be slow learners, but sooner or later we do, learn.
SPEAKING OF SLOW LEARNERS...
I was wrong about Lieberman. I defended him initially because I thought he was a man of principle, but there is nothing principled about implying that the voters who chose Lamont were voting in favor of terrorism. Republicans do as Republicans do, but for a Democrat to make such an allegation about another Democrat? Inexcusable.
I think it's hilarious that Cheney sees something wrong with the Dems' repudiation of Lieberman. From the transcript posted at Think Progress:
[quote begins]
And as I look at what happened yesterday, it strikes me that it’s a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for Vice President, is of concern, especially over the issue of Joe’s support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror."
[quote ends]
Well, Cheney would think that, wouldn't he? God knows he doesn't want voters to think they can "repudiate" a candidate whose performance has disappointed them if he was their candidate for Vice President six years ago!
We were wrong, all right? And I have been wrong. What was I thinking? So I am "flip-flopping." As I've said before, failing to flip-flop when you receive evidence that your prior view was wrong is the sign of a...well, of a person of limited intellectual capability.
All the hype from the Republicans and the right about how principled and indispensable and necessary to the "global war on terror" Joe Lieberman merely indicate that he must indeed be indispensable to the Republicans.
INSULT TO THE VOTERS.
The message from Connecticut Democrats isn't "We prefer terrorism" , but "You haven't done an adequate job of representing us." They are doing what voters do: throwing out the guy who isn't conveying their message.
A really scary number of politicians and pundits seem to forget that our government is not in fact intended to be an oligarchy. No one is entitled to serve in the Senate; a Senator must convince the voters that he will represent their views.
In other words: Joe Lieberman isn't in Congress to represent himself and his principles, but to represent the people who sent him there. Clearly, however useful to the Republicans his views may be, Connecticut Democrats don't want him representing Democrats.
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER VOTERS?
I am, like, a Z-list blogger, so I am okay with relying on David Sirota's blog at Huff Post as my source for this quote. I really can't afford to subscribe to New York Times Select, so I'm going to quote from Sirota's quote for my next point. (Bad form, I know, so sorry). I'm bringing it up because it's an interesting point.
[quote from David Sirota's blog, Finally, the Media Elite Admit the Truth...About Themselves]
New York Times columnist David Brooks's piece yesterday....is arguably the most brazen admission of elite disdain for democracy that has ever been printed in a major American newspaper. Before you dismiss that as hyperbole, read the third line of Brooks' piece:
"Polarized primary voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics."
Yes, you read that correctly: According to one of the most prominent columnists in America, "voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics." Sure, he tries to couch his statement by targeting "polarized primary voters" (because, of course, in the world of David Brooks - a chickenhawk who avoided military service himself but aggressively pushed the Iraq War - the 60 percent of Americans who are now "polarized" in opposition to the war should have their voting rights immediately revoked). But his underlying message is, again, right there in black and white: "Voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics." Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the first major American newspaper columnist to officially go on record publicly demanding that American democracy be substitued with dictatorship - and one undoubtedly run by a small, bodyguarded council, cloistered in a luxury Manhattan high-rise, made up of David Brooks, a few of his country-club golfing buddies and maybe - if Davey decides billionaire Tom Friedman is deserving enough - a few other select New York Times columnists.
[quote ends]
Sirota's blog is very funny, but of course that isn't what Brook means at all What I suppose he must mean is that voters in primaries---who are people who belong to one of the other political parties and who feel strongly enough about the issues to turn out at all---shouldn't be allowed to limit the choices of other voters who can't vote in the primaries. In other words, why should a bunch of "polarized" Democrats be permitted to choose the Democratic candidate for the whole rest of the state of Connecticut?
I felt that way myself a bit during many a Republican primary. Why should a lot of "polarized" Republicans get to pick the person to run for the Republican party? And why should my fellow Democrats get to shove John Kerry down my throat?
Which is why we allow independent candidates. Which is why Lieberman has a perfect right to run as an independent.
But he does not have the right to run as an independent and continue enjoying the prestige he has gained as a high-ranking Democrat. Which brings me to the next point.
CALLING LIEBERMAN OUT
Lieberman's remarks were inexcusably insulting to the Democratic voters of Connecticut. Fortunately, he's being called on it :
[quote from Boston.com begins]
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who backed Lamont after he won the Democratic primary on Tuesday, also rejected Lieberman's remarks.
``Connecticut voters certainly aren't supporting terrorists," Reid said. ``Joe has to play on the field of Connecticut; this is Connecticut politics. The people of this country and the people of Connecticut want a change in direction."
[quote from Boston.com ends]
General Wesley Clark---my first choice in the last election---is calling on Democrats to urge Joe Lieberman to STEP OFF. In a message posted at WESPAC, he says:
[quote from WESPAC begins]
On Tuesday, the message sent by Connecticut voters was loud and clear. They want change, and they want Ned Lamont to represent them in the U.S. Senate, voting for Ned by a 52% - 48% margin over Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary.
You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party.
Indeed, Connecticut Democrats recognized all of this, and yesterday they chose Ned Lamont as their nominee for the U.S. Senate. Now, I hope you'll join me in supporting Ned as he heads into the general election this November.
As a Democrat, I respect the will of the Connecticut Democratic voters and their decision to make Ned Lamont their nominee. Even before the election results came in on Tuesday, Ned Lamont showed his respect for the voters by committing to abide by the Democratic primary result and support whoever won.
Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, began collecting petition signatures to run as an Independent several weeks ago while concurrently running in the Democratic primary. In short, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
Despite his efforts to appear on the November ballot as an Independent, I held out hope that Joe would withdraw from the Connecticut Senate race after the primary votes were counted. Unfortunately, Joe has announced his candidacy as an Independent candidate, running against Ned, the Democratic nominee.
[quote from WESPAC ends (link in original); (emphasis mine)]
Arianna Huffington discusses how the Democrats should respond if Lieberman continues on this self-destructive course.
[quote from Joe Lieberman: Spoiler-ed Rotten (Arianna Huffington) begins]
[I]t's not enough for party leaders to back Lamont, they have to do everything in their power -- publicly and privately -- to pressure Lieberman to drop his For the Sake of My Ego run.
And that includes making it crystal clear that if Lieberman insists on running and somehow wins, they will refuse to allow him to caucus with them in the future. They should also, as David Sirota and Kos suggest, remove Lieberman from his committee assignments.
What Lieberman is doing is an act of betrayal and should be treated as such. Democratic donors, as Rick Jacobs suggests, need to let it be known that no Democrat running for office will see a penny from them unless they support Lamont.
[quote ends; links to other relevant blogs in original]
I don't approve of any such course of action as a means to force someone to fall into political line---it's reminiscent of the tactics the Republicans supposedly use to create solidarity---but in this instance, given that Lieberman has essentially chosen to repudiate Democratic voters, I think it's appropriate.
OH HOW REPUBLICANS LOVE JOE LIEBERMAN!
If they really love him, of course, they'll encourage him to cross to their side of the fence, not foster his run as an independent. I wonder what they'll do?
[quote from Boston.com begins]
Lamont's campaign manager, Tom Swan, blasted Lieberman for suggesting on Thursday that leaving Iraq would be ``a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes."
``Joe Lieberman's fear campaign is off to a quick start, and it won't be long until Republican money starts completely funding his campaign," Swan said in a fund-raising appeal sent yesterday.
[quote from Boston.com ends]
This blog by Jane Hamsher suggests how Lieberman, whatever value he may be in the "war against global terror," can be useful to Republicans in holding on to control in the Senate. She says:
[quote from blog begins]
Rove has put the word out that Connecticut Republicans are no longer supposed to push Alan Schlessinger and his awkward gambling problem out of the race, because he wants Joe Lieberman and his giant wounded ego running against the Democrats from within the Democratic party. It doesn't look like Joe will see his dream fulfilled of getting the GOP nomination in CT after all. His useful idiocy depends on his willingness to keep the Democratic party in chaos and running against their own in November...
[quote from blog ends]
Hmmm, we'll see whether Lieberman falls for it, or whether he'll cave under pressure from his old friends and colleagues.
Comments