Smokin' Joe Leiberman proves to be Bush's guy once again
Joe Lieberman once again stabs his party in the back while trying to have it both ways. Lieberman is proving to be as loyal to the party as Zell Miller. Krugman provides the details, as well as valuable insights into the machinations in D.C. over the so-called Social Security crisis.
For some lively comments on this, check this post and this thread at Atrios. Be sure to browse the comments there. They're hugely entertaining.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 3/15/2005
23 comments
23 Comments:
As is usually the case with Atrios, that thread goes too far with too much dramatic left-wing ideology.
While I don't profess to know all of the details about the aforementioned credit card - bankruptcy issue, I do know that Senator Joe Lieberman provides America with a voice of decency, of integrity, of values and of fiscal responsiblity.
And to put him in a league with fire-breathing Zell Miller is an outrage. Whomever you are, you owe your readers and bloggers and threaders a big apology this afternoon.
HA! There you go again. I don't know if you consider yourself a Dem or not, but if that's the case, you really should consider a party switch.
If you've read Atrios for any length of time, I think you'd find that he's certainly not some fringe liberal.
And the fact remains that Liberman, exactly as stated in the post by Atrios, has consistently provided Bush with the cover he needs to say that he has bi-partisan support. Lieberman is a huge obstacle to overcome if you believe that Bush's truly radical policy directions need to be stopped.
But of course, if you're A-OK with the direction Bush is taking us, then you'd love Lieberman.
He's a stealth Republican and is exibit A for why the Democrats are losing the fight.
Remember how much "Joe-mentum" he had during the primaries? Yeah, rank and file Dems just love him too.
Ha - Ha
Don't you feel there is room for a moderate Democrat in YOUR Democratic Party? Don't you feel there is room for a center-left Democrat like Lieberman? My Gosh, Senator Lieberman was Al Gore's runningmate.
You are way out to lunch and need a huge reality check!
There's no room in the party for people willing to aid and abet this administration as they destroy Social Security, further support and drag out a misguided foreign policy, continue to gut consumer protections, civil liberties, environmental protections, and many, many other effect of the Bush administration.
The time for capitulation and sucking up to power, which you apparently mistake for "moderation" is over.
Lieberman was a weak candidate that brought little to the ticket. I suppose you really loved the way he conceded the election almost immediately? Bet the Bush camp could have kissed him on the mouth for that. And he's continued to kiss their behinds ever since.
The Dems would be better if he were gone. He's doing real damage to the Dems attempts to finally stand up to the Bush juggernaut. Apparently this is just hunky-dory with you.
If you think Liberman is a great Dem, then you're in the wrong party. Plain and simple.
In that respect, you are the one that better check your reality.
Boy-oh-Boy, you need a reality check young man.
I guess you are the type who would just as soon slice off all Southern Democrats and tell them to join the Republicans. No, don't stop there. Tell all Demcrats who are pro life to join the Republicans. No, don't stop there. Tell all rural Democrats who support the Second Amendment to switch parties.
But don't stop there. Tell all Democrats who support business to switch parties.
Young man, you are so misinformed and misdirected. If we follow your genius strategy, Democrats will end up with about 20% of the national vote.
That is the number of Americans who identify themselves as "liberals."
Keep it up, young man, and that is precisely what you will have.
I think we can put up a big tent and include Republicans, Independents, Democrats, Southerners, Westererns -- and even misinformed Bloggers like you!
One word for all that. Bullshit.
You've fallen headfirst for all the right-wing claptrap out there.
You apparently think that if we don't suck up to the radical right, we're toast. Bullshit again.
If the middle is 5 on a scale of 1 to 10, and Bush is proposing endless legislation that is about out to 9 or 10, if you then think you should be "moderate" and agree to something around 7 or 8 instead, you are NOT being moderate, and you are NOT in any way following the wishes of the majority, and you are most definitely not even close to fighting for what the majority of Democrats are in favor of and believe.
Just go sign up for the Republicans. Your suggestions would only turn the Democratic party into what the pre-Reagan Republican party anyway.
You've apparently mistaken the massive drive by the wealthy, corporations, fundamentalists, and right wing ideologues to drive the agenda in the country for what the people of the country actually are in favor of, if left alone.
Sucking up to this cabal is disgusiting on many levels, not least of which is that it demonstrates to all that Dems have no spine, no beliefs, and that the radical right has become so all-powerful that no one can dare to succeed unless they position themselves two hairs to the left of extremist the extremist right wing.
The majority isn't crying out for looser gun regulation!! The majority doesn't want to outlaw abortion! The majority have gotten along fine without outlawing gay marriage. These issues are divisive issues which spread hate and intolerance, and they've been skillfully exploited by the right. But the minute you decide to play that game, you're defeated.
To continue to move rightward is a recipe for disaster.
You can't give the people in this country a choice between the far right and the right. Trust me, turning your back on the huge segment of the country who believe in tolerance, equal opportunity, fiscal sanity, and who oppose just about every measure Bush has ever proposed, isn't quite as shrewd as you think.
Well, well, have I struck a nerve?
Let me repeat, young man. Your strategy, though well meaning, will result in Democrats ending up with 20% of the national vote. That is, I repeat, the % of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans.
Go for it!
I would rather, to repeat, bring in all Democrats, including moderates, and all Independents, and some soft Republicans. I want to win the White House. You want to blog on your soap box.
Don't you get it?!
We will get 20% of the vote and probably the electoral votes of Washington, D.C. and Massachucetts if we take your pill.
Senator Joseph Lieberman stands up for middle-class Americans. He stands up for the environment, for a women's right to choose, for gun control.
And you keep spewing this completely misinformed trash about him. It is your blog. You have the right to lie.
What a shame! What a sad sad shame!
Your prediction is pure, 100% USDA bullshit. You have no earthly idea that this would happen. Do you know why? Because too few Dems have had the balls to stand up for the bedrock beliefs of the party. Those few that have have met with success for the most part. Those that have tried to have it both ways have been crucified for waffling and standing for nothing and have met with defeat.
Need I remind you that the Dems have been taking your course for the past 10 years, trying in vain to slice off some of that GOP magic.
Where are we now, smart guy? Is it working? Look around you.
And by the way, I haven't been young for a long time. So don't attempt to take that fatherly tone. But I do enjoy this debate.
And it's not the GOP's issues that are winning. Don't make that fatal mistake. It's their PROPAGANDA effort that has been massively successful. The Dems need to counter it, and counter it hard. And being mealy-mouthed and nice and agreeable with these radical proposals from the right is NOT the way to impress anyone no matter what their political persuasion, left, right, or center.
Again, if we follow your strategy this is where we end up. Losing the South by 70-30, losing the West by 60-40, losing the Middle West by 60-40, losing the East by 55-45. So I owe you a big apology. Under your plan Democrats would win about 39.5% of the national vote.
The last two elections the Democrats have nominated two progressive candidates who came close. Polls showed that American fear about national security issues tipped the election to Bush over Kerry.
You think Democrats need to scream a little louder, march in the streets a little longer, hollar a few more hours a day to win!?
How sadly misdirected you are. Do you live on a college campus? You must!
I know. You are an aging hippie who still wears love beads and smokes grass.
I've got your answer. Move to Bezerkeley, California, because your wayout views fit right in there. Now, that is where your strategy would get you 90% of the vote.
Just stay the hell out of Middle American with your viewpoints.
Joe Lieberman is the answer.
There is a new Democracy Corps poll you need to run up and down this blog, night and day, thread it, man, thread it with your love beads.
What is says is that Democrats are getting their brains bashed in politically on national security and middle-class values.
Nowhere does it say we need to march in the streets a little bit more. Nowhere does it say we need to do a big left U turn.
It's all about creating an opportunity society, with education and employment for all.
You don't do that by bashing business. You don't do that by saturating Americans with ideology.
You do it by fighting for what's right, by having the integrity to do what's right.
By the way, where did you pick up your strategy, at one of those little "meet ups"?
It's time to get real, young man, and you are speaking with a very forked political tongue. You obviously haven't been out in the real world. You live in an ivory blogging world.
First of all, you truly sound like you'd fit better in the right wing with all your bullshit hate and stereotyping. You sound like some angry old man, yelling "Get the hell out of my yard!! at some kids.
First of all, you're a fool if you think anyone to the left of Smokin' Joe is some tie-dyed radical marching in the streets. That's bullshit... which you seem full of.
You should argue honestly, not set up straw men and then argue against them. Point out where I said that we should march in the streets? If you want to rant against "those damn hippies" or whatever boogy-men you're afraid of, then rant against them. Don't lump those with my views in with them.
You just sit there and play nice with the right wing. That's what a lot of Germans did in the 30's too.
You think they'll reward you for your running to the right? Ha!
I've explained this several times already, and apparently it just doesn't sink in.
The country has NOT shifted to the right in any major way. Gore actually won, and Kerry came within a wisker of winning.
If you examine all the seats that the R's picked up in 2004, you'll see that only a tiny shift in votes would have caused the shift to go the other way. In other words, the elections swung on a tiny minority.
There's plenty of people out there who would vote Dem IF they got out and voted. Again, you're very confused and scared because the right got out the vote better than the Dems. You interpret this as somehow indicating that the Dems are way out of touch.
I simply say you're wrong.
Period.
You lose this argument, as evidenced by your resorting to silliness in your last comments. You try to label me and tell me to get out of the midwest! haha! I mean, truly, go sign up with the Republicans. You'd fit like a glove.
And don't give me your "I've been around" crap. You have NO idea what I've experienced in my life, and you have no idea how old I am, so just save it for some unfortunate younger person that you can lecture.
And I get a kick out of your assumption that I'm somehow one of those dreaded Dean followers. Oooooooo... they're dangerous!
I admire Dean, and think he has a lot of very valid ideas. But beyond that, we're not talking about Dean here. We're talking about appeasers and opportunists like Lieberman, who is a disgrace to the pary.
Boy-oh-boy, all that ranting and raving will certainly win over swing voters, won't it.
Get real.
And you better get real -- real soon.
But, listen up. Get close. Your strategy will end up netting Democrats 39% of the vote in a national election.
Americans have shifted to the right on the issue and values scale. That is a fact. Progressive Democrats are raising kids, working hard and sick and tired of endless giveaways to the top 1% of income earners. We are sick of the environment getting raped for profits, we are pro choice and for sensible gun control laws.
That is where I am, and I am for Senator Joseph Lieberman.
How dare you bring up Nazi Germany to me, a Lieberman supporter. You should be ashamed of yourself for grabbing for so many straw men in your "thread."
You think I put up straw men -- Ha, Ha. That seems to be your strategy througout this thread.
When was the last time you studied the bills Joe Lieberman has introduced? When was the last time you got out and talked to moderate and conservative Democrats?
You argue a left-left-left strategy.
Let me sum it, pal. That's a formula for getting wiped out in the West, East, South and North.
Sorry, you lost.
Dope, was that you running the McGovern campaign in Massachusetts back in '72 when McGovern won 39% of the vote? Reading and re-reading your threads today on this site, I'm becoming increasinly convinced that you are a McGovern hold-over, still bitter about '72.
Am I right?
You mean like that big Dem loser, Bill Clinton, who was a state director for McGovern?
Nope. Sorry. Not bitter at all about stuff that far in the past.
You folks just seem to want to sit back and react while the right dictates the terms of the debate. Fine. I think that's a loser.
I think we should get out there and set the terms of the debate for a change. The right has been doing this for years, and look where it got them.
And how people can argue that a tactic that's failed for over 8 years now will somehow be a great move in the future is beyond belief.
But who knows? Supply side economics is a farce and was thoroughly discredited after Reagan tried it and it turned into a financial nightmare. But Bush and his cohort are busy doing it again, only with a vengence, and you folks seem to think it's the way to go.
Perhaps you worship success at the expense of sticking to true blue ideas. Joining 'em is a lot easier than fighting them I suppose. I think that's a pity.
The majority of this country is pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and against privatization, do not think the war in Iraq was justified, and in favor of common sense gun control.
You want to buck that, go ahead.
Hmmm, I seem to remember a Senator Joe Leiberman hammering away at the GOP as Al Gore's running mate.
I seem to remember Joe Leiberman pushing civil rights, womens' rights, environmental rights, etc.
That's the Joe Lieberman I know.
That's the Joe Lieberman who can reach all regions and all segments of our party to win back the White House.
The more I read your stuff, I realize how simple-minded and predictable your line of B.S. really is. A. If someone disagrees you call them, B. Bush lovers or Bush-Lights.
Let me tell you, young man, there is a lot of grey area between being for Bush and being so far to the left that you lose all regions.
And that is the real trick. How to craft a message that speaks to economic opportunity, values of the middle west, opportunity for all ... Great American Values one and all.
You can't be afraid to run away from them, as you seem to want to do. You want to run run run.
Again, that strategy bags about 12 electoral votes.
Base v. Swing voters is the oldest and most innane debate on the political planet. We need BOTH to win.
I believe in a big tent that speaks forcefully against Bush and for our values.
I'm not sure what you believe in, other than trashing fellow Democrats.
What a shame!!
More inanity. I'm basing my arguments on history and results, you're basing yours on some figures you pulled out of the air or from some old entrenched Dem organization.
And you show how little you know by trashing "meet ups", perhaps the only thing to come out of the 2004 elections that are universally regarded as a success, so much so that the Republicans are now doing exactly the same thing.
I suppose you feel the road to victory involves getting young people and swing voters to go to smokey, deadly dull meetings and sit on folding chairs at folding tables at some sterile union hall?
Meet ups were hugely successful and were of incredible benefit to the ticket in 2004, as were organizations such as Move On and ACT. If you are so reactionary that you can't realize that, then you're going nowhere.
And again, you put words in my mouth. Cut it out. First I'm advocating marching in the streets, now you have me calling anyone who disagrees "bush lovers" or "Bush-light". You know, you've got a great talent for seeing things that aren't there. You really ought to be able to make your arguments without making stuff up.
And I still have no idea how you think I'm so way far left? What, exactly, are you basing that on? The fact that I don't want to throw the basic tenets of liberalism in the trash? Does that make me some radical liberal? Get real.
You speak of gray areas... again, I'll say, if the country is at 5 on a 1 to 10 scale, and the right is pushing like hell to take the country to 9 or 10, then advocating to go to 7 or 8 isn't exactly progress, nor is it somehow winning over the country, who is still to the left of that.
This isn't politics as usual, lest you haven't noticed. Something strong has to be done other than the policies of handing everything that Bush asks for over to him without a wimper. That's why Lieberman's constant attempts to appease the radical right winger in the White House sticks in my craw.
And it's fossilized thinking that thinks that anyone that wants to oppose the direction of this country must be young radicals that don't know what they're doing.
Your precious midwestern center right and swing voters have lost all respect for Dems BECAUSE they are so ineffective in standing up for what they supposedly believe in.
That's why a lot of them voted for Bush. They didn't understand what he was for so much as they saw that he believed in SOMEthing and stuck with it.
If you want to give that away to Bush and prove all those people right by moving farther and farther from truly moral and just principals in order to get power, then fine.
But the right spent 30 years fighting and losing without bending, without capitulating, and it's paid off beyond anyone's expectations. The country is with the Dems, if they'd only stand up for it and stop acting like losers who are ashamed of themselves somehow.
And remember in all of this, we all desire the same result. We just differ in how to go about it.
I'm just a bit disgusted by how many Dems have been lured over to the right's way of thinking. Hell, you even start inferring that anyone that disagrees must be somehow young and inexperienced, or some radical. That's straight out of their playbook!
I've laid out my views as best I can. You guys can have the last word. I've spent enough time on it.
It's real simple. We have to learn how to talk to America on national security issues. Our party gets beat by a 2-1 margin on national security issues. That is what re-elected Bush.
What you are talking about -- not fighting Bush hard enough -- goes in the opposite direction. In fact, your direction is the loser's path toward a 50-state wipeout.
How do we regain the American people's trust on national security issues?
Once we do that, we're back in business.
MUST.... RESIST..... URGE TO..... REPLY....
I am relieved that you have finally relented from your silliness on the far, far left.
I know it takes a while to integrate your view into my strategy, but we have made some substantial progress on this long thread.
You have my promise that when and if Senator Joseph Lieberman decides to run for President in 2008, I will personally give you a heads up.
I may even host a reception for him at my house is Milan in case you want to attend.
Let's win in 2008! We've gone to the left with Gore and Kerry and it failed. Let's stick to the middle and we can challenge Bush and co aggressively at the same time. They are far to the right, remember.
I conceed nothing. It's just useless to argue with you.
And little Joe is at it again, giving the Repubs a vote they needed to impose the horrible bankruptcy bill that will turn people who have medical emergencies or lose their jobs into indentured servants to the banks for the rest of their lives.
Hey, way to go, JOE.
And if he comes within 50 miles of here, I'll go throw a tomatoe at him personally.
Supporting Joe Lieberman is like supporting Dennis Kucinich. Both have about an equal chance at being taken seriously.
Joe is a joke and people who are true Democrats recognize him for the phony he is.
And I won't debate with you because you're deaf, dumb, and blind. You continue to ignore my arguments and facts and continue to talk down to me like I'm some young pup. What are you, some crusty old fart? As far as you know, I'm older than YOU! So get a clue.
Continue to live with your head in a hole thinking that the only people that want the Dems to do something other than kiss Republican ass must be 20 years old. That's just ignorant, period.
And you really know how to pick 'em. The country remembers all that Joe-mentum Lieberman had during the primaries. Sure, he's a decent guy, but if you think he's the guy America wants, dream on. He's so unpopular I don't even know if he could mount a credible primary race at this point. No one wanted him last time, and they want him even less now.
And yes, for those with trouble thinking beyond black and white, it is true that you can be vehemently against this war and still for a strong defense. It's not an "either/or" proposition, as much as the Bushniks have convinced a lot of mouth breathers that it is.
I'm moving on to other things. Argue amongst yourselves.
Thanks for the debate. No hard feelings.
Post a Comment
<< Home