Losing Lieberman: Assessing Current Events
It all started last week. Markos Moulitsas spoke to Washington Post reporter Chris Cilliza and boasted the following prognostication: Lieberman will loose his party primary to Lamont. His proof resides within a recent poll that showing Lamont gaining considerably among both registered Democrats and likely voters.
The first question is the most obvious: Why are Connecticut democracy retreating from their mainstay since 1988? Answer from most pundits: Too conservative.
Is Joe turning red? Two internet sources help one cut through Lieberman's voting record. The first is from a very good Brookings Institute paper ( http://www.brook.edu/Views/Op-Ed/Mann/20000810.htm), discussing the perceptions of the then-2000 VP candidates. Strangely enough, one finds Lieberman fitting right next to Al Gore ideologically. As the graph to the left points out: Lieberman, while no Teddy Kennedy, seems firmly within the Democratic camp.
The other source is wikipedia, which offers brief descriptions of the most serious charges against him: support for the Iraq War, involvement within the Terri Schiavo case, and support for Bush's Social Security Reform Bill.
These issues show Lieberman as he 'truly' is: a God-imposing, war-touting, welfare cutting wolf out to hoodwink the progressive public. The result: an active campaign by bloggers (Moulitas) and progressive groups (Americans for Democracy Now headed by Jim Dean) ganging up on Joe and trying to push him out of soon-to-be majority Democratic party.
Yet, one finds more wrong with the opponents of Lieberman than the man himself. On the war, Moulitsas assails Lieberman while welcoming Kerry: a Senator famous for his vote in favor of 'authorization' but against 'appropriation' for the Iraq War. While some wings of the party may forgive Kerry with his recent turn around, the public repudiated this line of logic in '04. Lieberman was not the cause of authorization: that triumph goes to Democratic party leaders and most of the party establishment-- Gephardt and Daschle at the head of the charge. As the archives of CNN show (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/), Dashcle was more concerned with the wording of the act than with either the rationale for an Iraqi conflict or the erosion of balances within the federal system. At least Lieberman comes out consistent: continuously supporting the war and the path to success than switching sides along with public opinion.
Regardless of one's position of Bush's Social Security Reform Bill, any future bill (which will come up during the next administration) will require moderates like Lieberman to pass. Social Security reform and general entitlement reform will have to occur someday: demanding innovative solutions and strong political capital. Without middle voices that can coax bipartisan support, the politics of inaction will continue.
On the Terri Schiavo case Lieberman did show himself out of step not only with most Democrats but most Americans. This was a strategic blunder, but one dwarfed Senate Majority Leader Fist's turnaround position and video tape diagnosis on the floor of the Senate. Lieberman's social 'conscious' is essential to Democratic success: the ability to speak the moral language to voters. On a more pressing moral issue of the day-- abortion-- Lieberman still stands as a stalwart defender of a woman's right to choose (http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Joseph_Lieberman_Abortion.htm), while comfortable with and using the language of faith. Its ironic that Lieberman is bashed while Bob Casey is priased as the necessary tool to take down Rick Santorum. Could not Lieberman be used within a resurgent Democratic party as an established voice of moderation? Clinton, the ultimate political moderate, upon his entry into the White House opened a brief window where progressive items such as National Healthcare and National Service (Americorps) could be seen as tangible policy achievements-- not to mention protecting a woman's right to choose, environmental protections and consumer protection policies.
The progressive Jim Dean-Moulitsas outlash against Lieberman is unjustified and dangerous. Instead of showing reports of constructive Democratic actions, these small progressive groups threaten to unleash a subjectively driven purge and proliferate the image of the Democratic Party as a conflicted, directionless party. Few have yet investigated the potenial dangers of the new and nebulous blog-osphere powercenter within the Democratic Party. But even more to the point, this battle is a worthless one: the same poll that highlights Lieberman's growing weakness gives him still a 10-point led in his primary among likely voters, not to mention a clear victory as an Indepedent should he choose to run outside the Party. Not only does he have popular support, he holds the support of his fellow colleauge and DSCC chair Chuck Schumer. (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/06/dean_v_dscc_ove.html)
Even FDR failed to purge his own party of truly pernicious Democratic roadblocks to progressive legislation in his second term. Can Moulitsas and Dean really expect a productive outcome that bucks today's reality and past history?
Democracts must stop the infighting. In an excellent op-ed by David Boder (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601561.html), Lieberman himself states it best:
"I know I'm taking a position [in favor of the Iraq War] that is not popular within the party, but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."
The first question is the most obvious: Why are Connecticut democracy retreating from their mainstay since 1988? Answer from most pundits: Too conservative.
Is Joe turning red? Two internet sources help one cut through Lieberman's voting record. The first is from a very good Brookings Institute paper ( http://www.brook.edu/Views/Op-Ed/Mann/20000810.htm), discussing the perceptions of the then-2000 VP candidates. Strangely enough, one finds Lieberman fitting right next to Al Gore ideologically. As the graph to the left points out: Lieberman, while no Teddy Kennedy, seems firmly within the Democratic camp.
The other source is wikipedia, which offers brief descriptions of the most serious charges against him: support for the Iraq War, involvement within the Terri Schiavo case, and support for Bush's Social Security Reform Bill.
These issues show Lieberman as he 'truly' is: a God-imposing, war-touting, welfare cutting wolf out to hoodwink the progressive public. The result: an active campaign by bloggers (Moulitas) and progressive groups (Americans for Democracy Now headed by Jim Dean) ganging up on Joe and trying to push him out of soon-to-be majority Democratic party.
Yet, one finds more wrong with the opponents of Lieberman than the man himself. On the war, Moulitsas assails Lieberman while welcoming Kerry: a Senator famous for his vote in favor of 'authorization' but against 'appropriation' for the Iraq War. While some wings of the party may forgive Kerry with his recent turn around, the public repudiated this line of logic in '04. Lieberman was not the cause of authorization: that triumph goes to Democratic party leaders and most of the party establishment-- Gephardt and Daschle at the head of the charge. As the archives of CNN show (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/), Dashcle was more concerned with the wording of the act than with either the rationale for an Iraqi conflict or the erosion of balances within the federal system. At least Lieberman comes out consistent: continuously supporting the war and the path to success than switching sides along with public opinion.
Regardless of one's position of Bush's Social Security Reform Bill, any future bill (which will come up during the next administration) will require moderates like Lieberman to pass. Social Security reform and general entitlement reform will have to occur someday: demanding innovative solutions and strong political capital. Without middle voices that can coax bipartisan support, the politics of inaction will continue.
On the Terri Schiavo case Lieberman did show himself out of step not only with most Democrats but most Americans. This was a strategic blunder, but one dwarfed Senate Majority Leader Fist's turnaround position and video tape diagnosis on the floor of the Senate. Lieberman's social 'conscious' is essential to Democratic success: the ability to speak the moral language to voters. On a more pressing moral issue of the day-- abortion-- Lieberman still stands as a stalwart defender of a woman's right to choose (http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Joseph_Lieberman_Abortion.htm), while comfortable with and using the language of faith. Its ironic that Lieberman is bashed while Bob Casey is priased as the necessary tool to take down Rick Santorum. Could not Lieberman be used within a resurgent Democratic party as an established voice of moderation? Clinton, the ultimate political moderate, upon his entry into the White House opened a brief window where progressive items such as National Healthcare and National Service (Americorps) could be seen as tangible policy achievements-- not to mention protecting a woman's right to choose, environmental protections and consumer protection policies.
The progressive Jim Dean-Moulitsas outlash against Lieberman is unjustified and dangerous. Instead of showing reports of constructive Democratic actions, these small progressive groups threaten to unleash a subjectively driven purge and proliferate the image of the Democratic Party as a conflicted, directionless party. Few have yet investigated the potenial dangers of the new and nebulous blog-osphere powercenter within the Democratic Party. But even more to the point, this battle is a worthless one: the same poll that highlights Lieberman's growing weakness gives him still a 10-point led in his primary among likely voters, not to mention a clear victory as an Indepedent should he choose to run outside the Party. Not only does he have popular support, he holds the support of his fellow colleauge and DSCC chair Chuck Schumer. (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/06/dean_v_dscc_ove.html)
Even FDR failed to purge his own party of truly pernicious Democratic roadblocks to progressive legislation in his second term. Can Moulitsas and Dean really expect a productive outcome that bucks today's reality and past history?
Democracts must stop the infighting. In an excellent op-ed by David Boder (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601561.html), Lieberman himself states it best:
"I know I'm taking a position [in favor of the Iraq War] that is not popular within the party, but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."
posted by keithedwhite at 12:26 PM
0 comments
