An Andrew Sullivan reader from Connecticut is unimpressed with Kos’s take on whether Joe Lieberman has been representing his constituents:
What kind of view of Connecticut’s politics does he think he has from San Francisco, exactly? Representing “the people of Connecticut” is exactly what Lieberman has been doing, which is why he is crushing Lamont and the GOP candidate in a 3-way general election with over 50% of the vote. What Kos wants, of course, is for Lieberman to represent his vision of what the Democratic Party should be. He goes on to say that Lieberman would not be abiding “by the democratic will of the people of Connecticut” if he loses the primary and wins the general election. Right, because “people of Connecticut” = “20% of Connecticut’s registered Democrats who turn out for the closed primary in the middle of the summer.” Spare me.
Actually, the three-way vote is 40-40. (source: This Modern World)
Kos may be in San Fran, but over here in CT, I know plenty of people quite irate with the man. Like me.
How to explain my dislike for the man? The fact that he said we shouldn’t question the President? The fact that he seems to think he’s simply entitled to his seat? The way he so loves his censorship lite, the government interference with movies and music that censors resort to when they know they can’t get away with outright censorship? The way Republicans get to use him and point to him to say, “See, a Democrat agrees with us”? How so many of his contributions come from Republicans? How many Republicans tried to switch parties just to vote for him in the primary? His support for a war of aggression that translates into support for death and destruction and misery and torture? Basically, his refusal to oppose Bush as a member of an opposition party?
How can I help you understand just why he’s so unpopular that so many people here would rather have a bright-eyed, inexperienced man than him? Let’s pretend it’s my party. You’ve got Libertarian A. Thing is, he looks kinda silly. And he supports limited gun control, questions abortion rights, and wants the continued existence of the EPA. Libertarian B wants to wage war across the globe to establish an American Empire. Percentage-wise, B is more libertarian. But in terms of issues that simply matter more, no libertarian worth his salt would elect an imperialist when he just has to hold his nose for awhile on other issues that pale in comparison.
Much the same way, war is quite a serious issue for many liberals, and CT is one of the most liberal states around. It’s just too important an issue for them to want a warhawk to represent them in Congress. And no, that doesn’t make them (maybe I should say “us”) unhinged. Just by virtue of being centrist doesn’t mean you have reason on your side.
(P.S. And notice how I didn’t cheapen the debate by pointing out that you don’t live in CT anymore, either, but rather addressed your points?)
“How to explain my dislike for the man? The fact that he said we shouldn’t question the President?”
Has Lieberman actually said that one shouldn’t question the President? While Lieberman supports Bush on Iraq, I don’t recall him ever saying that support should be blind, i.e., without question. Many critics make this inferential step, and it’s just stupid.
“The fact that he seems to think he’s simply entitled to his seat?”
This hardly distinguishes Lieberman from every other princeling in the Senate. See the embarrasing fat ass senator immediately to CT’s north. You might as well dislike Lieberman for wearing a suit.
“The way he so loves his censorship lite, the government interference with movies and music that censors resort to when they know they can’t get away with outright censorship?”
I’m not one for censorship, and don’t know all the details of Lieberman’s positions on this set of issues, so this may be a valid concern. Of course, the debate between free speech and the right to speak obscenities and profanities is as old as the hills and twice as dusty.
“The way Republicans get to use him and point to him to say, ‘See, a Democrat agrees with us’?”
Fair enough, but the Democrats still get the better of Republicans when it comes to using the opposing party’s Senators to bolster their positions on various issues (see Sens. Chafee of RI, Specter of PA, Snowe and Collins of ME, and McCain of AZ).
“How so many of his contributions come from Republicans?”
Can’t really comment here ’cause I don’t know the details of Liebeman’s financial support, but if you’re talking about this primary season, I think one can easily see how Republicans might support Lieberman simply because they fear the obnoxious “nutroots” element (i.e., Kos, MoveOn.org, etc.) that backs Lamont. Also, didn’t Lamont support a few of his Richie Rich Republican neighbors down in Greenwich?
“How many Republicans tried to switch parties just to vote for him in the primary?”
See above.
“His support for a war of aggression that translates into support for death and destruction and misery and torture?”
Heh. Lieberman’s principled statements (and those of others who support our effort in Iraq) are more than adequate to refute that characterization.
“Basically, his refusal to oppose Bush as a member of an opposition party?”
Besides Iraq, Lieberman opposes Buch quite dutifully on a whole host of issues. Unfortunately, the analysis of your average “nutroots” voter simply stops once the focus moves off of Iraq.
I, too, would like to see that Rasmussen poll in more detail, Mouse, since it contravenes every other poll I’ve seen of a 3-way race in CT come November.
Joe Mama, I’m really not sure how providing counter-examples somehow means that Lieberman didn’t do it. If anything, it convinces me to also stand against the others. Maybe the people of AZ will some day decide that McCain is too centrist and doesn’t represent them, so they field a primary challenger. If they do, I, for one, will not dismiss their concerns as “nutroots” or “unhinged” or “loony.” (If anything, I’d address actual policy concerns, only because said Senator will affect my life as well.)
As for the war, nobody comes out and says, “I want to use force to end lives and ruin infrastructure and rip apart families and breed civil war and use “smart” bombs that have a nasty habit of missing and removing limbs from children.” (Though apparently, people do nowadays outright say that they support torture. This, of course, represents reason and moderation. If your voice rises while denouncing torture, that of course proves that you’re irrational, shrill, and just plain insane. But I digress.) Lieberman may not speak in favor of these devastating consequences of war, but by cheerleading the war, these become the consequences. You don’t get a free pass because you somehow didn’t see one Horseman coming alongside the other.
And if LaMont is so much more Republican, then why aren’t Republicans desperate to support him? Why aren’t Andrew Sullivan’s readers casting aspersions against Lieberman supporters? Let’s make up our minds. Is he an archconservative or is he a crazy archliberal?
I’m a CT voter and Lieberman doesn’t represent me. As such, I could only see myself voting for him as slightly better than Schlesinger. I don’t think there’s a Libertarian candidate, so if LaMont runs, two-way or three-way, he’s got my vote.
Sean, you Hyperbolize. (Not to say, hyperventilate. / “Hyperventilate.” Hey, I TOLD Me to to say Hyperventilate! :)
“…How to explain my dislike for the man? The fact that he said we shouldn’t question the President? The fact that he seems to think he’s simply entitled to his seat?…His support for a war of aggression that translates into support for death and destruction and misery and torture? Basically, his refusal to oppose Bush as a member of an opposition party?…”
But No: all said Hypotheses Fail. They Don’t explain your Distaste. :} Because, Joe Didn’t say it, Doesn’t think it, Doesn’t so Translate it, and Maintains no such Refusal ~ quite the Contrary. / Better you should Cheapen the debate by pointing out that Brendan doesn’t live in CT anymore. :)
[btw, any Republicans trying “to switch parties just to vote for him in the primary” better have Tried that Trick ;> Not Later than the May 8 Deadline (see p. 10 of PDF) for doing so ~ which was 11 days before Neddy even got hisself Qualified as the Primary Challenger at the Dimmycratic Convention.]
Re the Rasmussen poll:
(1) It is Widely at Variance with the results from the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute of Hamden, Connecticut ~ http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=940 ~ which show the November 3-way at Joe 51, Ned 27, Alan 9, undecided 13.
(2) Rasmussen’s narrative states,
Schlesinger has even been pressured by some to drop out because of questions about his past as a gambler. Conceivably, the GOP could then hand the nomination to Lieberman, and a rumor has been circulating to that effect.
Rumors on the Internets notwithstanding, (a) it is legally Impossible for Anyone to compel Schlesinger to withdraw & he swears that he Won’t; however (b) if he Does, the GOP Cannot hand its nomination to Lieberman [and Lieberman Accept it] without Cancelling Joe’s ingenious & much-prized “Connecticut for Lieberman” ballot spot by Operation of Law.
{Note: if you did Click on that one, please don’t come back and Argue with me about what Sec. 9-453t Means. I Wrote it. :> No really, I did. Trust Me. ;> / No, “Connecticut for Lieberman” is NOT a “minor party.” It is a Nominating Petition candidacy ~ the kind Voided by major-or-minor-party Nomination of the Same candidate for the Same office. / TRUST me dammit, don’t make me come down there and Hit you with ANOTHER CT statute just to Prove it, you’ll be in a World of pain. :}
So, I Doubt the Damndest that Joe Lieberman is going to give up the Bipartisan, and also Nonpartisan, Appeal of his Connecticut for Lieberman Line, in order to whore for accept a Republican nomination ~ exclusively ~ having just Lost his hardfought battle for the Democratic one, in which he had rightly Propounded his 40 years worth of philosophically Dyed-in-the-Wool Democraticness. / Not a Chance.
(Also, just in case you Didn’t Know ;>, way back, Way Pre-conventions, the Republicans quietly Sounded Joe Out as to whether he’d be Interested. He said Thanks but No Thanks. :)
If Schlesinger withdraws the Republicans will Replace him with a Republican. / Or, conceivably but Improbably, just leave that spot Blank.
December 7, 2005: “It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”
Sean - what that statement says is “In matters of war, we better have credible actions to propose as alternatives, and we better not continue with our current behaviour of simply saying “He’s a poo-head, and is wrong, so there !”" !
It doesn’t say “We must agree with him like good little Stepford Wives.” …
One can question presidential decisions on matters of war as the LOYAL OPPOSITION without deliberately undermining presidential credibility. Unfortunately, far too many Democrats are ONLY concerned with undermining Bush’s credibility.
Credible alternatives eh? So you think that Democrats should sit down, without any presidnetial power or resources, and come up with a comprehensive plan for solving the whole conflict and then present the detailed plan to the public, including the very people we are going to beat? Would that satisfy you Alasdair?
One doesn’t need to know how to compose a symphony to point out that another person clearly doesn’t. Bush’s symphony has all the beauty and quality of a two year old banging on a toy xylophone.
“Credible alternatives eh? So you think that Democrats should sit down, without any presidnetial power or resources, and come up with a comprehensive plan for solving the whole conflict and then present the detailed plan to the public, including the very people we are going to beat? Would that satisfy you Alasdair?”
Actually, yes, that would not only satisfy me, it would astonish me ! And in a good way that I would publicly acknowledge … now, as to the “without any presidnetial power or resources” (leaving aside the stellar accuracy in spelling), the Dems have full Congressional access to Senate and House resources for their representatives, not to mention the DNC’s resources, and also not to mention most of the MSM digging for dirt (who could be politely asked for inspirational ideas and stories, instead) … they have access to a significant portion of Academia … they have access to the funds from Hollywood and Soros and Streisand and the like … hey, here’s a thought, they could even use the resources of the InterNet for inspiration …
“One doesn’t need to know how to compose a symphony to point out that another person clearly doesn’t.” … a very true statement, potentially, in a Microsoft-Tech-Support sorta way … technically accurate, yet without any useful content … while you, yourself, may be more of a Mahler person, many of us enjoy and appreciate Mozart (last week) and Holst’s Planets (tonight), and we don’t have to be able to compose either symphony or suites to know how much what the respective composers referenced did was well-worthwhile and is well-respected and will continue to be so by those who appreciate fine music …
“Bush’s symphony has all the beauty and quality of a two year old banging on a toy xylophone.” … while you, yourself, may well have such an experience when you are faced with what the President is doing and has done, just because you are tone-deaf and colour-blind does not mean that what he has composed has no merit … it simply means that you are describing how you perceive your sensory input … and you describe yourself being in the later throes of BDS … but we knew that already …
Some people just don’t get the concept of a Loyal Opposition … the Loyal Opposition is designed to be able to be a Shadow Government, able to take over at the drop of a General Election, should the current Government be defeated at the polls … a Loyal Opposition has its own policies, sometimes as alternatives to the current Government, and sometimes exactly matching the current Government … the stress is on the Loyal, not the Opposition …
Current Dem policies seem to be principally “Bush is wrong”, with some “Bush was wrong” thrown in, and surrounded by “Bush cannot be anything but wrong” … with the occasional leavening with a Kerry saying “If I was{sic} President, this wouldn’t have happened !” …
There have been plenty of alternatives offered. (Sometimes, simply pointing out the problem gives the solution.) You just don’t want to hear it. Anything other than, “Keep doing exactly as we’re doing” doesn’t count as a solution, for some reason.
Joe Mama, yes you can point out ridiculous statements and say “look, this isn’t a solution either, its absurd”. And you would be right. Just like Kerry’s “If I were President we would all be living in peace and harmony” statement is absurd.
But that doesn’t prove that NO alternatives have been offered. Again I agree with Sean, there have been perfectly sane alternatives offered, right wingers just don’t like hem because it means admitting that they have been wrong.
Alasdair, shocking to see you throw out yet another red herring argument since you can’t address the point being made.
You have, time and again, tried to make the argument that unless you have a better alternative then criticizing a current plan of action is not valid. My point, and the one that actually makes sense and jives with reality, is that one need not be able to come up with a better idea to know a current one is terrible.
I don’t need to be able to dance to know when someone else can’t. I don’t need to be a concert pianist to know that someone else isn’t. I don’t need to be an expert in physics to be able to tell when another person clearly has no idea what they are talking about. Yet you seem to dismiss this as being blind/tone-deaf etc.
I realize that you aren’t interested in changing your mind, so its in your best interests rather than calling into question the ideas you have devoted your worldview to, to imagine that anyone who disagrees must be blind/deaf/stupid/etc. but you have so far failed to make your case about any of that.
Case in point:
“Bush’s symphony has all the beauty and quality of a two year old banging on a toy xylophone.� … while you, yourself, may well have such an experience when you are faced with what the President is doing and has done, just because you are tone-deaf and colour-blind does not mean that what he has composed has no merit … it simply means that you are describing how you perceive your sensory input … and you describe yourself being in the later throes of BDS … but we knew that already …
Rather than offering any defense of Bush’s policies, of explaining why you think they ARE good or ARE succesful, you simply cry “BDS!!!”. Its the weakest form of defense and shows, as i have pointed out to you time and again that you are incapable of having a discussion of IDEAS and of defending those ideas.
Apparently to you, rather than admitting the possiblity that I could be right, and Bush’s policies *MIGHT* be bad, not are, just MIGHT, you seem to think its more believable to assume that anyone who criticizes bush has some sort of “derangement”. Do you honestly not see how ridiculous you sound when you do that? Its like a three year old responding to something they don’t like by calling the other person a doo-doo head. It offers no substance whatsoever. As do the overwhelming majority of your posts on this blog. You are so caught up in trying to sound clever and falling all over yourself to defend Bush that you haven’t even noticed that more and more people in this country are wakeing up to the failures his policies have caused. This not only includes extremem liberals, but moderates and true conservatives. Members of his own party are distancing themselves from him, only the most extreme seem to be holding to this view that you are in which he can do no wrong.
No one is asking you to stop believing that his ideas are better Alasdair, but if you continue to be unwilling to admit the possiblity that he could be wrong, then you are only damaging your own, allready weak, credibility in any discussion of his policies.
David K - try reading the actual words I use, Rather than the ones you manufacture as your lips move slowly letter by letter …
I ask for a credible alternative … doesn’t have to be better, tho it would be nice if it could be ….
And, yes, in many forms of dance, you need to know and understand those forms, or you will believe that, since the dance isn’t what *you* are used to, it MUST be bad … lots of us realise that there are many forms of dance, some of which we like, and some of which we don’t like … and that’s personal taste …
When the Dems current best alternative is their spokesKerry telling us that “If I was{sic} President, this would not have happened ..”, that utterance *already* fails the credibility test, both by the words used and by the person uttering them …
Again Alasdair, to you nothing is credible unless its an outright detailed plan (somethign even Bush won’t offer). You admited above that you would only be satisfied by fully drawn out plan and you think they should release it to the public. How about you encourage Bush to ddo the same, the terrorists would LOVE that.
Second, you are the one who seems to think Kerry is the spokesperson for the Democrats, I don’t think i’ve seen them say such a thing. He can say anything he wants, doesn’t mean he is the final word, anymore than you are the final word on all things GOP.
And finally you still haven’t admitted the obvious truth that anyone can see. You don’t have to have an alternative or be an expert to know when someone is bad at something.
Ok, here is a challanged to you Alasdair. Outline why you think Bush’s policies have been working, how they have made the country better. Lets see if you can do it.
David K.- I’ll leave your challenge for Alasdair to address. I’m more interested in why you can’t answer his request. He strikes some chord in me when he asks for an alternative. Let me suggest an analogy for you to consider. It’s a bit hokie but hopefully that should make it apolitical.
You are having friends over and decide to cook an ambitious (complicated) dinner for them. You choose your recipes and plan your preparation schedule based on the order you will serve the courses. By the time you put your dessert cake in the oven to bake you realize you have made a mistake in your planning. The cake has to bake for 60 minutes and your guests are almost finished with the rest of their meal. How do you solve your dilemma?
You could throw the cake batter in the garbage and forget dessert altogether.(cut-and-run) But you would waste the cost of your cake ingredients so you consider other kitchen appliances as alternatives. Dismiss the silly options right off. The freezer and refrigerator certainly can’t do the job. The toaster gets hot. Maybe it would help, but, no; even if it were big enough it would probably take as much time or more than the conventional oven. Hey, the microwave oven cooks faster, doesn’t it? Yes, but it doesn’t do so well for baking. It might ruin the cake. It looks like there is only one option.
You go back to the dining table, describe the problem, and announce dessert will just take 60 more minutes before it can be served. This upsets some of the guests and you apologize but explain there is nothing else you can do but wait and proceed with your original plan.
I don’t visit Brendan’s blog to try and win political debates so please don’t dismiss the analogy as not fitting the Iraq situation. I know Iraq is not nearly as simple as this. Waiting in Iraq means losing more American lives. I also assume progress is being made in Iraq. If it isn’t then throw the cake batter out and be done with it. What the analogy definitely does fit is my position on wanting an alternative solution. I’m sitting at the table upset about the wait for dessert and I want someone at the table to say, “Hey, waitaminute. I live next door and I have one of those expensive convection ovens that can cook in half the time.”
I think progress is being made in Iraq. I’ve heard various first-hand reports (from supposed returning soldiers) both for and against that but I don’t know if they’re true. I do think the news (MSM included) has been reflecting a trend of terrorists attacking Iraq forces more than American forces. If no progress is being made then I would support either finding a way to fix that or pulling out. I just don’t want the lives that were lost there over the last few years to be for nothing. Disagree with me or not, can you understand why I’d like to hear an alternative?
So what your saying is that Bush should be applauded for driving America into the fiscal abyss slower than predicted? As I recall, those terrible Democrat tax policies resulted in a surplus and the best economy ever.
Your Iraq analogy is reasonably useful (assuming the underlying premises are true).
For my own curiosity: what progress are the returning soldiers describing? Is it of the schools/hospitals variety? Less violence on the streets?
More to the point, if we wait another 60 minutes or 60 days or 60 months, will we have our cake in Iraq? What is that cake?
It occurs to me that your cake analogy quite excellently captures the flavor of what supporters of continued military involvement in Iraq believe:
Look we started out to build something in Iraq (democracy, like the cake), its taking longer than we thought, but don’t be impatient, it will be worth it and wonderful when it is finally finished.
There are two critical differences between the analogies that Iraq supporters gloss over:
1) If I wait 60 minutes at the dinner party, there is a very good chance that I will get what I want, and that thing will be very good (i.e. the wonderful cake). The probabilities are much lower in Iraq, in fact I have no idea what I will end up with in Iraq.
2) If I wait 60 minutes at the dinner party, there is no plausible scenario where the whole house blows up while I am waiting for a simple cake.
Um Alasdair, thats a pretty piss poor example. Why? Because we are spending far more than we are taking in. Under Clinton we may not have had higher tax revenues (we might have, as those revenues are up relative to the previous year, no word on how that year campares to others) but we DID have a budget surplus. A surplus that Bush completely erased. I do give you credit for giving one example, but as I expected its a useless one because it completely ignores any context. How does it compare to previous years? How does it compare adjusted for inflation? And again, taking in more money is fine but not when you are spending even greater amounts. I could get a 100% raise at work but if my expenses go up 200% thats not much of an imporvement when it comes to defending my fiscal responsiblity.
From what (I know I shouldn’t even type the word in a question to Mad Max) LOGICAL basis do you derive your fantasy that “the best economy ever” have given us “the best economy ever” ?
On a related note, I realize nothing will convince you that Clinton was a superior President to Dubya because you are living in your detached little dream world where diplomacy is boring and blowing shit up and killing poor, funny speaking brown people is the only right way to do things in the American interest. I only hope you don’t take this philosophy of yours into the workplace when you are passed over for the assistant night manager position again. Please, just sit in your double-wide and chill with a Lone Star.
Sorry I let the story leave page 1 before I could respond. This time of year is busy for me at work. And to make it worse, I live here too. :-)
The only communication I’ve received from a kid in Iraq that I actually know was recounting the improvements to the infrastructure. As you said, the schools/hospitals, roads, utilities, etc. Not that he said they were up to 100%. They are just generally better than in recent history. In other words, progress was being made. He also noted that the average Iraqi citizen showed gratitude for their presence.
Other reports were forwarded to me second-hand in email so I can’t vouch for their truthfulness. The “good” reports include progress in infrastructure, the Iraqi government continuing to form, and the combined Iraqi/American missions resulting in victories over insurgents. The “bad” reports include stories of rampant corruption in Iraq’s military, complaints that the ethnic strife is not fully reported, and allegations that superior U.S. officers actually impede the training of Iraqi troops.
That last one is the most troubling to me. I don’t want a deadline set to withdraw from Iraq. I want a set of criteria to be met. I thought the criteria was 1) help the Iraqis form their government and 2) train their troops so they can defend their new government. With that done we can bring the troops home and feel the Iraqis have a fighting chance at making something good out of all this. If no progress is being made in training the troops then the excuse is there to stay indefinitely and I am against that.
A set of criteria as a deadline dismisses the cake analogy. You know 60 minutes of waiting will yield a cake of some quality, good or bad. If, instead, we wait until the cake is “done” in the center we may wait 90 minutes and risk burning the outside of the cake. You said “your cake analogy quite excellently captures the flavor of what supporters of continued military involvement in Iraq believe:” That was really my point. If the correct move is to change our plan now then I wanted David to convince me of that. If significant progress is not being made then I would support bringing the troops home. If we are making progress but there is a quicker way to achieve our goal then I would support that new plan. If someone can’t argue one of those two points then I feel they are politically motivated. They want to end it now so they can hang a failure on Bush’s record or at least to keep it from becoming a success.
Mad Max - July 30 @ 7:59 - you found a different satire source …
Are you being for real ?
You quote a Clinton Administration Presidential Election Year Press Release as your credible source ?
It’s also from a period acknowledged with the 20/20 of hindsight to have been pretty much the start of the recession which Dubya had to deal with as a foundation onto which 9/11 was heaped …
Want to try for a genuinely-credible source ?
So which of us is in the basement of our parent’s double-wide, then ?
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:47:33 pm
Kos. Idiot. But I repeat myself.
Yes. You do.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:22:00 am
Sullivan himself is a dithering fool. I call kettle/pot.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:16:18 am
Actually, the three-way vote is 40-40. (source: This Modern World)
Kos may be in San Fran, but over here in CT, I know plenty of people quite irate with the man. Like me.
How to explain my dislike for the man? The fact that he said we shouldn’t question the President? The fact that he seems to think he’s simply entitled to his seat? The way he so loves his censorship lite, the government interference with movies and music that censors resort to when they know they can’t get away with outright censorship? The way Republicans get to use him and point to him to say, “See, a Democrat agrees with us”? How so many of his contributions come from Republicans? How many Republicans tried to switch parties just to vote for him in the primary? His support for a war of aggression that translates into support for death and destruction and misery and torture? Basically, his refusal to oppose Bush as a member of an opposition party?
How can I help you understand just why he’s so unpopular that so many people here would rather have a bright-eyed, inexperienced man than him? Let’s pretend it’s my party. You’ve got Libertarian A. Thing is, he looks kinda silly. And he supports limited gun control, questions abortion rights, and wants the continued existence of the EPA. Libertarian B wants to wage war across the globe to establish an American Empire. Percentage-wise, B is more libertarian. But in terms of issues that simply matter more, no libertarian worth his salt would elect an imperialist when he just has to hold his nose for awhile on other issues that pale in comparison.
Much the same way, war is quite a serious issue for many liberals, and CT is one of the most liberal states around. It’s just too important an issue for them to want a warhawk to represent them in Congress. And no, that doesn’t make them (maybe I should say “us”) unhinged. Just by virtue of being centrist doesn’t mean you have reason on your side.
(P.S. And notice how I didn’t cheapen the debate by pointing out that you don’t live in CT anymore, either, but rather addressed your points?)
July 27th, 2006 at 5:20:55 am
Of course in a recent Rasmussen poll, in a three way race, Lamont had either pulled even or was slightly ahead of Lieberman.
So *yawn*…
July 27th, 2006 at 5:21:33 am
Hint: blogs are often sources of misinformation. But I repeat myself.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:45:19 am
The Left is so vile that when it cannot kill Jews, Infadels or Capitalist pigs, they turn on and eat their own.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:03:06 am
Nun -
You wouldn’t happen to LINK to that rasumussen poll, would you?
July 27th, 2006 at 8:11:34 am
“How to explain my dislike for the man? The fact that he said we shouldn’t question the President?”
Has Lieberman actually said that one shouldn’t question the President? While Lieberman supports Bush on Iraq, I don’t recall him ever saying that support should be blind, i.e., without question. Many critics make this inferential step, and it’s just stupid.
“The fact that he seems to think he’s simply entitled to his seat?”
This hardly distinguishes Lieberman from every other princeling in the Senate. See the embarrasing fat ass senator immediately to CT’s north. You might as well dislike Lieberman for wearing a suit.
“The way he so loves his censorship lite, the government interference with movies and music that censors resort to when they know they can’t get away with outright censorship?”
I’m not one for censorship, and don’t know all the details of Lieberman’s positions on this set of issues, so this may be a valid concern. Of course, the debate between free speech and the right to speak obscenities and profanities is as old as the hills and twice as dusty.
“The way Republicans get to use him and point to him to say, ‘See, a Democrat agrees with us’?”
Fair enough, but the Democrats still get the better of Republicans when it comes to using the opposing party’s Senators to bolster their positions on various issues (see Sens. Chafee of RI, Specter of PA, Snowe and Collins of ME, and McCain of AZ).
“How so many of his contributions come from Republicans?”
Can’t really comment here ’cause I don’t know the details of Liebeman’s financial support, but if you’re talking about this primary season, I think one can easily see how Republicans might support Lieberman simply because they fear the obnoxious “nutroots” element (i.e., Kos, MoveOn.org, etc.) that backs Lamont. Also, didn’t Lamont support a few of his Richie Rich Republican neighbors down in Greenwich?
“How many Republicans tried to switch parties just to vote for him in the primary?”
See above.
“His support for a war of aggression that translates into support for death and destruction and misery and torture?”
Heh. Lieberman’s principled statements (and those of others who support our effort in Iraq) are more than adequate to refute that characterization.
“Basically, his refusal to oppose Bush as a member of an opposition party?”
Besides Iraq, Lieberman opposes Buch quite dutifully on a whole host of issues. Unfortunately, the analysis of your average “nutroots” voter simply stops once the focus moves off of Iraq.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:28:39 am
I, too, would like to see that Rasmussen poll in more detail, Mouse, since it contravenes every other poll I’ve seen of a 3-way race in CT come November.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:08:21 am
Doing Nun’s work for him/her:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/connecticutSenateJuly.htm
If the republicans convince Schlesinger to drop out, this gets REAL interesting, as if it isn’t already.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:56:05 am
Joe Mama, I’m really not sure how providing counter-examples somehow means that Lieberman didn’t do it. If anything, it convinces me to also stand against the others. Maybe the people of AZ will some day decide that McCain is too centrist and doesn’t represent them, so they field a primary challenger. If they do, I, for one, will not dismiss their concerns as “nutroots” or “unhinged” or “loony.” (If anything, I’d address actual policy concerns, only because said Senator will affect my life as well.)
As for the war, nobody comes out and says, “I want to use force to end lives and ruin infrastructure and rip apart families and breed civil war and use “smart” bombs that have a nasty habit of missing and removing limbs from children.” (Though apparently, people do nowadays outright say that they support torture. This, of course, represents reason and moderation. If your voice rises while denouncing torture, that of course proves that you’re irrational, shrill, and just plain insane. But I digress.) Lieberman may not speak in favor of these devastating consequences of war, but by cheerleading the war, these become the consequences. You don’t get a free pass because you somehow didn’t see one Horseman coming alongside the other.
And if LaMont is so much more Republican, then why aren’t Republicans desperate to support him? Why aren’t Andrew Sullivan’s readers casting aspersions against Lieberman supporters? Let’s make up our minds. Is he an archconservative or is he a crazy archliberal?
I’m a CT voter and Lieberman doesn’t represent me. As such, I could only see myself voting for him as slightly better than Schlesinger. I don’t think there’s a Libertarian candidate, so if LaMont runs, two-way or three-way, he’s got my vote.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:21:49 am
Sean, you Hyperbolize. (Not to say, hyperventilate. / “Hyperventilate.” Hey, I TOLD Me to to say Hyperventilate! :)
“…How to explain my dislike for the man? The fact that he said we shouldn’t question the President? The fact that he seems to think he’s simply entitled to his seat?…His support for a war of aggression that translates into support for death and destruction and misery and torture? Basically, his refusal to oppose Bush as a member of an opposition party?…”
But No: all said Hypotheses Fail. They Don’t explain your Distaste. :} Because, Joe Didn’t say it, Doesn’t think it, Doesn’t so Translate it, and Maintains no such Refusal ~ quite the Contrary. / Better you should Cheapen the debate by pointing out that Brendan doesn’t live in CT anymore. :)
[btw, any Republicans trying “to switch parties just to vote for him in the primary” better have Tried that Trick ;> Not Later than the May 8 Deadline (see p. 10 of PDF) for doing so ~ which was 11 days before Neddy even got hisself Qualified as the Primary Challenger at the Dimmycratic Convention.]
Re the Rasmussen poll:
(1) It is Widely at Variance with the results from the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute of Hamden, Connecticut ~ http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=940 ~ which show the November 3-way at Joe 51, Ned 27, Alan 9, undecided 13.
(2) Rasmussen’s narrative states,
Rumors on the Internets notwithstanding, (a) it is legally Impossible for Anyone to compel Schlesinger to withdraw & he swears that he Won’t; however (b) if he Does, the GOP Cannot hand its nomination to Lieberman [and Lieberman Accept it] without Cancelling Joe’s ingenious & much-prized “Connecticut for Lieberman” ballot spot by Operation of Law.
{Note: if you did Click on that one, please don’t come back and Argue with me about what Sec. 9-453t Means. I Wrote it. :> No really, I did. Trust Me. ;> / No, “Connecticut for Lieberman” is NOT a “minor party.” It is a Nominating Petition candidacy ~ the kind Voided by major-or-minor-party Nomination of the Same candidate for the Same office. / TRUST me dammit, don’t make me come down there and Hit you with ANOTHER CT statute just to Prove it, you’ll be in a World of pain. :}
So, I Doubt the Damndest that Joe Lieberman is going to give up the Bipartisan, and also Nonpartisan, Appeal of his Connecticut for Lieberman Line, in order to
whore foraccept a Republican nomination ~ exclusively ~ having just Lost his hardfought battle for the Democratic one, in which he had rightly Propounded his 40 years worth of philosophically Dyed-in-the-Wool Democraticness. / Not a Chance.(Also, just in case you Didn’t Know ;>, way back, Way Pre-conventions, the Republicans quietly Sounded Joe Out as to whether he’d be Interested. He said Thanks but No Thanks. :)
If Schlesinger withdraws the Republicans will Replace him with a Republican. / Or, conceivably but Improbably, just leave that spot Blank.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:40:58 pm
December 7, 2005: “It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”
July 27th, 2006 at 4:23:59 pm
That statement is not in any way an admonition that one should never question the president on matters of war.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:24:25 pm
Sean - what that statement says is “In matters of war, we better have credible actions to propose as alternatives, and we better not continue with our current behaviour of simply saying “He’s a poo-head, and is wrong, so there !”" !
It doesn’t say “We must agree with him like good little Stepford Wives.” …
July 27th, 2006 at 4:26:54 pm
One can question presidential decisions on matters of war as the LOYAL OPPOSITION without deliberately undermining presidential credibility. Unfortunately, far too many Democrats are ONLY concerned with undermining Bush’s credibility.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:39:53 pm
Credible alternatives eh? So you think that Democrats should sit down, without any presidnetial power or resources, and come up with a comprehensive plan for solving the whole conflict and then present the detailed plan to the public, including the very people we are going to beat? Would that satisfy you Alasdair?
One doesn’t need to know how to compose a symphony to point out that another person clearly doesn’t. Bush’s symphony has all the beauty and quality of a two year old banging on a toy xylophone.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:38:20 pm
(excuse the amateur Fisking …)
“Credible alternatives eh? So you think that Democrats should sit down, without any presidnetial power or resources, and come up with a comprehensive plan for solving the whole conflict and then present the detailed plan to the public, including the very people we are going to beat? Would that satisfy you Alasdair?”
Actually, yes, that would not only satisfy me, it would astonish me ! And in a good way that I would publicly acknowledge … now, as to the “without any presidnetial power or resources” (leaving aside the stellar accuracy in spelling), the Dems have full Congressional access to Senate and House resources for their representatives, not to mention the DNC’s resources, and also not to mention most of the MSM digging for dirt (who could be politely asked for inspirational ideas and stories, instead) … they have access to a significant portion of Academia … they have access to the funds from Hollywood and Soros and Streisand and the like … hey, here’s a thought, they could even use the resources of the InterNet for inspiration …
“One doesn’t need to know how to compose a symphony to point out that another person clearly doesn’t.” … a very true statement, potentially, in a Microsoft-Tech-Support sorta way … technically accurate, yet without any useful content … while you, yourself, may be more of a Mahler person, many of us enjoy and appreciate Mozart (last week) and Holst’s Planets (tonight), and we don’t have to be able to compose either symphony or suites to know how much what the respective composers referenced did was well-worthwhile and is well-respected and will continue to be so by those who appreciate fine music …
“Bush’s symphony has all the beauty and quality of a two year old banging on a toy xylophone.” … while you, yourself, may well have such an experience when you are faced with what the President is doing and has done, just because you are tone-deaf and colour-blind does not mean that what he has composed has no merit … it simply means that you are describing how you perceive your sensory input … and you describe yourself being in the later throes of BDS … but we knew that already …
Some people just don’t get the concept of a Loyal Opposition … the Loyal Opposition is designed to be able to be a Shadow Government, able to take over at the drop of a General Election, should the current Government be defeated at the polls … a Loyal Opposition has its own policies, sometimes as alternatives to the current Government, and sometimes exactly matching the current Government … the stress is on the Loyal, not the Opposition …
Current Dem policies seem to be principally “Bush is wrong”, with some “Bush was wrong” thrown in, and surrounded by “Bush cannot be anything but wrong” … with the occasional leavening with a Kerry saying “If I was{sic} President, this wouldn’t have happened !” …
July 28th, 2006 at 4:35:19 am
There have been plenty of alternatives offered. (Sometimes, simply pointing out the problem gives the solution.) You just don’t want to hear it. Anything other than, “Keep doing exactly as we’re doing” doesn’t count as a solution, for some reason.
July 28th, 2006 at 6:16:31 am
Redeploying from Iraq to Okinawa, as Murtha hilariously suggested on Meet the Press, doesn’t count as a solution either.
July 28th, 2006 at 2:39:01 pm
Joe Mama, yes you can point out ridiculous statements and say “look, this isn’t a solution either, its absurd”. And you would be right. Just like Kerry’s “If I were President we would all be living in peace and harmony” statement is absurd.
But that doesn’t prove that NO alternatives have been offered. Again I agree with Sean, there have been perfectly sane alternatives offered, right wingers just don’t like hem because it means admitting that they have been wrong.
July 28th, 2006 at 3:05:59 pm
Alasdair, shocking to see you throw out yet another red herring argument since you can’t address the point being made.
You have, time and again, tried to make the argument that unless you have a better alternative then criticizing a current plan of action is not valid. My point, and the one that actually makes sense and jives with reality, is that one need not be able to come up with a better idea to know a current one is terrible.
I don’t need to be able to dance to know when someone else can’t. I don’t need to be a concert pianist to know that someone else isn’t. I don’t need to be an expert in physics to be able to tell when another person clearly has no idea what they are talking about. Yet you seem to dismiss this as being blind/tone-deaf etc.
I realize that you aren’t interested in changing your mind, so its in your best interests rather than calling into question the ideas you have devoted your worldview to, to imagine that anyone who disagrees must be blind/deaf/stupid/etc. but you have so far failed to make your case about any of that.
Case in point:
“Bush’s symphony has all the beauty and quality of a two year old banging on a toy xylophone.� … while you, yourself, may well have such an experience when you are faced with what the President is doing and has done, just because you are tone-deaf and colour-blind does not mean that what he has composed has no merit … it simply means that you are describing how you perceive your sensory input … and you describe yourself being in the later throes of BDS … but we knew that already …
Rather than offering any defense of Bush’s policies, of explaining why you think they ARE good or ARE succesful, you simply cry “BDS!!!”. Its the weakest form of defense and shows, as i have pointed out to you time and again that you are incapable of having a discussion of IDEAS and of defending those ideas.
Apparently to you, rather than admitting the possiblity that I could be right, and Bush’s policies *MIGHT* be bad, not are, just MIGHT, you seem to think its more believable to assume that anyone who criticizes bush has some sort of “derangement”. Do you honestly not see how ridiculous you sound when you do that? Its like a three year old responding to something they don’t like by calling the other person a doo-doo head. It offers no substance whatsoever. As do the overwhelming majority of your posts on this blog. You are so caught up in trying to sound clever and falling all over yourself to defend Bush that you haven’t even noticed that more and more people in this country are wakeing up to the failures his policies have caused. This not only includes extremem liberals, but moderates and true conservatives. Members of his own party are distancing themselves from him, only the most extreme seem to be holding to this view that you are in which he can do no wrong.
No one is asking you to stop believing that his ideas are better Alasdair, but if you continue to be unwilling to admit the possiblity that he could be wrong, then you are only damaging your own, allready weak, credibility in any discussion of his policies.
July 28th, 2006 at 8:35:46 pm
David K - try reading the actual words I use, Rather than the ones you manufacture as your lips move slowly letter by letter …
I ask for a credible alternative … doesn’t have to be better, tho it would be nice if it could be ….
And, yes, in many forms of dance, you need to know and understand those forms, or you will believe that, since the dance isn’t what *you* are used to, it MUST be bad … lots of us realise that there are many forms of dance, some of which we like, and some of which we don’t like … and that’s personal taste …
When the Dems current best alternative is their spokesKerry telling us that “If I was{sic} President, this would not have happened ..”, that utterance *already* fails the credibility test, both by the words used and by the person uttering them …
July 28th, 2006 at 10:48:45 pm
Again Alasdair, to you nothing is credible unless its an outright detailed plan (somethign even Bush won’t offer). You admited above that you would only be satisfied by fully drawn out plan and you think they should release it to the public. How about you encourage Bush to ddo the same, the terrorists would LOVE that.
Second, you are the one who seems to think Kerry is the spokesperson for the Democrats, I don’t think i’ve seen them say such a thing. He can say anything he wants, doesn’t mean he is the final word, anymore than you are the final word on all things GOP.
And finally you still haven’t admitted the obvious truth that anyone can see. You don’t have to have an alternative or be an expert to know when someone is bad at something.
July 28th, 2006 at 10:49:32 pm
Ok, here is a challanged to you Alasdair. Outline why you think Bush’s policies have been working, how they have made the country better. Lets see if you can do it.
July 29th, 2006 at 2:38:18 am
David K.- I’ll leave your challenge for Alasdair to address. I’m more interested in why you can’t answer his request. He strikes some chord in me when he asks for an alternative. Let me suggest an analogy for you to consider. It’s a bit hokie but hopefully that should make it apolitical.
You are having friends over and decide to cook an ambitious (complicated) dinner for them. You choose your recipes and plan your preparation schedule based on the order you will serve the courses. By the time you put your dessert cake in the oven to bake you realize you have made a mistake in your planning. The cake has to bake for 60 minutes and your guests are almost finished with the rest of their meal. How do you solve your dilemma?
You could throw the cake batter in the garbage and forget dessert altogether.(cut-and-run) But you would waste the cost of your cake ingredients so you consider other kitchen appliances as alternatives. Dismiss the silly options right off. The freezer and refrigerator certainly can’t do the job. The toaster gets hot. Maybe it would help, but, no; even if it were big enough it would probably take as much time or more than the conventional oven. Hey, the microwave oven cooks faster, doesn’t it? Yes, but it doesn’t do so well for baking. It might ruin the cake. It looks like there is only one option.
You go back to the dining table, describe the problem, and announce dessert will just take 60 more minutes before it can be served. This upsets some of the guests and you apologize but explain there is nothing else you can do but wait and proceed with your original plan.
I don’t visit Brendan’s blog to try and win political debates so please don’t dismiss the analogy as not fitting the Iraq situation. I know Iraq is not nearly as simple as this. Waiting in Iraq means losing more American lives. I also assume progress is being made in Iraq. If it isn’t then throw the cake batter out and be done with it. What the analogy definitely does fit is my position on wanting an alternative solution. I’m sitting at the table upset about the wait for dessert and I want someone at the table to say, “Hey, waitaminute. I live next door and I have one of those expensive convection ovens that can cook in half the time.”
I think progress is being made in Iraq. I’ve heard various first-hand reports (from supposed returning soldiers) both for and against that but I don’t know if they’re true. I do think the news (MSM included) has been reflecting a trend of terrorists attacking Iraq forces more than American forces. If no progress is being made then I would support either finding a way to fix that or pulling out. I just don’t want the lives that were lost there over the last few years to be for nothing. Disagree with me or not, can you understand why I’d like to hear an alternative?
July 29th, 2006 at 2:55:39 am
David - Federal tax revenues up as shown here .
That’s one concrete credible result of Administration policies …
What is one concrete credible proposal to increase Federal tax revenues from the Dems ?
July 29th, 2006 at 8:35:30 am
Alasdair-
So what your saying is that Bush should be applauded for driving America into the fiscal abyss slower than predicted? As I recall, those terrible Democrat tax policies resulted in a surplus and the best economy ever.
Hmmm.
July 29th, 2006 at 2:50:17 pm
Scott F,
Your Iraq analogy is reasonably useful (assuming the underlying premises are true).
For my own curiosity: what progress are the returning soldiers describing? Is it of the schools/hospitals variety? Less violence on the streets?
More to the point, if we wait another 60 minutes or 60 days or 60 months, will we have our cake in Iraq? What is that cake?
It occurs to me that your cake analogy quite excellently captures the flavor of what supporters of continued military involvement in Iraq believe:
Look we started out to build something in Iraq (democracy, like the cake), its taking longer than we thought, but don’t be impatient, it will be worth it and wonderful when it is finally finished.
There are two critical differences between the analogies that Iraq supporters gloss over:
1) If I wait 60 minutes at the dinner party, there is a very good chance that I will get what I want, and that thing will be very good (i.e. the wonderful cake). The probabilities are much lower in Iraq, in fact I have no idea what I will end up with in Iraq.
2) If I wait 60 minutes at the dinner party, there is no plausible scenario where the whole house blows up while I am waiting for a simple cake.
July 29th, 2006 at 2:52:08 pm
Um Alasdair, thats a pretty piss poor example. Why? Because we are spending far more than we are taking in. Under Clinton we may not have had higher tax revenues (we might have, as those revenues are up relative to the previous year, no word on how that year campares to others) but we DID have a budget surplus. A surplus that Bush completely erased. I do give you credit for giving one example, but as I expected its a useless one because it completely ignores any context. How does it compare to previous years? How does it compare adjusted for inflation? And again, taking in more money is fine but not when you are spending even greater amounts. I could get a 100% raise at work but if my expenses go up 200% thats not much of an imporvement when it comes to defending my fiscal responsiblity.
July 29th, 2006 at 2:53:23 pm
From what (I know I shouldn’t even type the word in a question to Mad Max) LOGICAL basis do you derive your fantasy that “the best economy ever” have given us “the best economy ever” ?
And citations from The Onion don’t count …
July 30th, 2006 at 7:59:26 am
Alasdair-
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000204_13.html
All things being relative, one could easily argue that the best economy ever occurred under Clinton.
July 30th, 2006 at 8:09:42 am
Alasdair-
On a related note, I realize nothing will convince you that Clinton was a superior President to Dubya because you are living in your detached little dream world where diplomacy is boring and blowing shit up and killing poor, funny speaking brown people is the only right way to do things in the American interest. I only hope you don’t take this philosophy of yours into the workplace when you are passed over for the assistant night manager position again. Please, just sit in your double-wide and chill with a Lone Star.
July 30th, 2006 at 11:47:47 pm
Jazz,
Sorry I let the story leave page 1 before I could respond. This time of year is busy for me at work. And to make it worse, I live here too. :-)
The only communication I’ve received from a kid in Iraq that I actually know was recounting the improvements to the infrastructure. As you said, the schools/hospitals, roads, utilities, etc. Not that he said they were up to 100%. They are just generally better than in recent history. In other words, progress was being made. He also noted that the average Iraqi citizen showed gratitude for their presence.
Other reports were forwarded to me second-hand in email so I can’t vouch for their truthfulness. The “good” reports include progress in infrastructure, the Iraqi government continuing to form, and the combined Iraqi/American missions resulting in victories over insurgents. The “bad” reports include stories of rampant corruption in Iraq’s military, complaints that the ethnic strife is not fully reported, and allegations that superior U.S. officers actually impede the training of Iraqi troops.
That last one is the most troubling to me. I don’t want a deadline set to withdraw from Iraq. I want a set of criteria to be met. I thought the criteria was 1) help the Iraqis form their government and 2) train their troops so they can defend their new government. With that done we can bring the troops home and feel the Iraqis have a fighting chance at making something good out of all this. If no progress is being made in training the troops then the excuse is there to stay indefinitely and I am against that.
A set of criteria as a deadline dismisses the cake analogy. You know 60 minutes of waiting will yield a cake of some quality, good or bad. If, instead, we wait until the cake is “done” in the center we may wait 90 minutes and risk burning the outside of the cake. You said “your cake analogy quite excellently captures the flavor of what supporters of continued military involvement in Iraq believe:” That was really my point. If the correct move is to change our plan now then I wanted David to convince me of that. If significant progress is not being made then I would support bringing the troops home. If we are making progress but there is a quicker way to achieve our goal then I would support that new plan. If someone can’t argue one of those two points then I feel they are politically motivated. They want to end it now so they can hang a failure on Bush’s record or at least to keep it from becoming a success.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:29:36 pm
Mad Max - July 30 @ 7:59 - you found a different satire source …
Are you being for real ?
You quote a Clinton Administration Presidential Election Year Press Release as your credible source ?
It’s also from a period acknowledged with the 20/20 of hindsight to have been pretty much the start of the recession which Dubya had to deal with as a foundation onto which 9/11 was heaped …
Want to try for a genuinely-credible source ?
So which of us is in the basement of our parent’s double-wide, then ?