I just got a phone call from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, asking for a donation. When I tried to calmly and politely explain that I’m no longer associating myself with the Democrats because they “don’t consider Joe Lieberman a Democrat anymore,” the caller interrupted me and said, “Well, that’s true. He’s not a Democrat. He’s been acting like a Republican.” I responded that “that’s a distortion of his record” and briefly elaborated on why Lieberman is by no means a Republican. The caller again disagreed with me, saying, “Well, if you look at the way he’s been acting for the last few months…” I replied, “See, that just isn’t true, and this is precisely the problem. If the Democrats can’t find room in their party for someone who agrees with them 90 percent of the time, but disagrees on an issue of conscience, then there’s no room for me in the party,” or words to that effect. I proceeded to explain that I feel the Democrats are no longer the “big-tent party” that they once were, but instead are “intolerant of dissenting views” like Lieberman’s. “I might still vote for the Democrat in my district if I think he’s the better candidate,” I said, “but I’m not interested in donating any money to the party.” And then, just as I was in the process of suggesting that he take my name off the DCCC’s list, so as to avoid wasting either of our time in the future, the caller — without saying a word — simply hung up on me.
Mind you, I don’t blame him for wanting to get off the phone with me; if his goal is to raise money, talking to me was clearly a waste of his time. (The call lasted nearly three minutes.) However, the appropriate way to end the conversation would have been to politely thank me for my time — early in the call, as soon as it became clear that I was not a likely donor — rather than arguing with me about my position and then abruptly hanging up on me while I was responding. That’s just ridiculously rude. (Incidentally, I wasn’t been abusive or rude; I was emphatic, but polite, in making my points.) It’s another great example of how so many Democrats have no interest in hearing alternative viewpoints and no respect for those with whom they disagree. Joe Lieberman supports the war? Call him names and smear him out of office. Some former donor supports Lieberman? Hang up on him. Not a winning strategy, folks.
|
Categories: Joe Lieberman, Election 2006
|
August 13th, 2006 at 12:50:40 pm
You give a low-level telemarketer a hard time and he hangs up on you and this is somehow reflective of the Democratic Party? Granted, the person should have just said thank you and hung up to begin with. But a telemarketer - no matter who he or she may be working for - doesn’t have to sit there and be lambasted and take it.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:10:21 pm
That guy clearly needs to work on his diplomatic skills. Can’t argue with that. Which is why, should the Democrats ever regain the executive branch, I call on them to remove him from consideration for any high-profile ambassadorships, State Dept. posts, etc. We can’t let the country be run be such rude people.
Wiseass comments aside, you must have noticed by now that your political posts are progressing toward the personal and away from the substantial. What this blog needs is a good hurricane.
And yes, lest you feel the need to point it out, if I get bored I can always stop reading. Point conceded.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:13:54 pm
Max, you are so freakin’ obtuse sometimes.
First of all, OF COURSE his rudeness reflects poorly on the Democratic Party. He was calling on their behalf. If you get shitty customer service from Dell, it reflects poorly on Dell, doesn’t it? If a Wal-Mart greeter curses at you, it reflects poorly on Wal-Mart, doesn’t it? Well, if a Democratic Party staffer calls me and is rude to me, even though I wasn’t being rude to him, obviously that reflects poorly on the Democratic Party, and I’m well within my rights to comment on it. Does it mean that all Democrats are rude bastards? Obviously not. But it’s perfectly reasonable for me to cite him as “another great example” of the fact that, IMHO, “so many Democrats” (not all) have a similar lack of respect toward people they disagree with.
Second of all, when you call him a “low-level telemarketer,” it brings to mind the image of a hired gun, a mercenary phone-bank staffer with no interest in the cause who is just reading off a script. But this guy was clearly a true believer. He went off-script and started arguing with me about my position. If he didn’t want to have a dialogue with me, then he shouldn’t have started one! I was merely trying to quickly explain why I wasn’t going to be donate any money to his cause (so that he would go away), and he made the choice to start a discussion about the merits of my viewpoint. He could have just said thanks for your time, but he didn’t — he started debating with me about Lieberman. So how, exactly, is it “lambasting” him, and demanding that he “sit there and…take it,” for me to expect that once he’s started a conversation with me, he’ll at least have the decency to not hang up on me when I rebut his points?
August 13th, 2006 at 1:19:55 pm
Aaron, my blog has always been a mixture of the personal and the “substantial.” Nothing new about that.
That said, I disagree with you. I think I’ve actually been publishing more “substantial” posts about politics than usual, lately. My post about quitting the Democratic Party was “substantial” enough, in some people’s eyes anyway, that it’s gotten nearly 200 comments and many thousands of hits and been linked on a whole ton of blogs. Now, if you think that post and this one and others like it are dumb, that’s fine, but just because something has a “personal” edge doesn’t necessarily mean it’s substantively pointless. After all, what is it that determines who wins elections, and thus who governs policy in this country, if not millions and millions of “personal” political decisions by individual voters?
I’ll concede, however, that this post is less “substantial” than some of the others. I just thought it was a mildly interesting incident; it wasn’t meant to be earth-shattering or world-changing by any means. If you’re bored with it, I won’t suggest you stop reading my blog, I’ll simply suggest you scroll up and look at the picture of my cat. Now that’s a substantial post. :)
August 13th, 2006 at 1:26:19 pm
Brendan-
You seem to have a lack of respect for Democrats who disagree with your point of view, so of course you are going to get a lack of respect back for your views. Your rants about Lamont are hardly respectful, even though the guy hasn’t really said anything that controversial or disagreeable.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:30:48 pm
Brendan,
I am not sure who they hire or how they hire the callers for either the Democrat or Repblican party.
What I am sure about is they are brainless.
I am a republican but every time they call me to get money it just bugs me all to hell.
When I feel the need to support a candidate or a cause I send money.
I have recieved calls from republican causes where they have said such mind numbing things as…..
“You know how important the mid term elections are and you would not want a bunch of pot smoking, gun hating liberals to take over would you”
I actualy hang up on them.
Where do they find these yahoos?
August 13th, 2006 at 1:32:08 pm
I live in Connecticut, am a registered democrat, and have received no pollsters’ phone calls.
What has continually surprised me is that Lamont has NO position except to link Joe Lieberman to George Bush. That is not a campaign to win. It is reactionary balderdash. And it is a loser.
I am hoping that I have a chance to vote for Senator Joe - again. I don’t care if he is an independent or a Democrat. He has my vote.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:33:36 pm
“You seem to have a lack of respect for Democrats who disagree with your point of view”.
O.M.G. That is sooo rich! You just can’t make these people up! The guy gets a phone call, responds politely, points out that in fact the DIMocRATs in CT are the ones who have a lack of respect for those with whom they disagree, makes this point politely, and some nimrod responds by saying “you seem to have a lack of respect for Democrats who disagree with your point of view.”
Look. This is pretty much grammar-school level stuff. Not only are DIMocRATs not qualified to be entrusted with the defense of America, they’re apparently not bright enough to be trusted to drive the garbage trucks.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:36:45 pm
Hyperbole and dramatic misuse of words by a ‘progressive’? Say it ain’t so. Max makes Brendan’s point for him perfectly: explaining to the caller why the democrats will not longer get his money is now called “lambasting.” Be careful what you wish for, because this is what purifying your party looks like and democrats ought to get used to it since it is their chosen course of action. Instead of converts you’ll get defectors. Become comfortable with loss of support if you truly want a purified party that has no room for
August 13th, 2006 at 1:38:53 pm
Max, how about this doozy from Lamont:
“Our nation is stronger when we work with our friends and negotiate with our enemies.” Yea, lets negotiate with our enemies. Is that the newest stance of the Democratic party? Please let me know if I am wrong to find this comment entirely disagreeable. If I am wrong and this is the position of Democrats, I, for one, am glad I gave up on them in 2004. Please let me know your thoughts on whether this position is one that some people may find a LITTLE controversial.
Brendan, gotta admit though, you have alot to be bothered by the dems about, but you should see some of the telephone solicitations I have received from Republican callers. No, what you really need to have heard was the call that opened with “of course, I am sure you agree that the best thing this country could do is impeach President Bush…” - that was from a Larouche solicitor. And then I was told to go f*** myself after I couldn’t come up with a response other than “are you kidding me? Is this a prank call or something?”
August 13th, 2006 at 1:39:48 pm
I guess you are a Republican now, whether you want to be or not. The small-tent Democrats just don’t have room for your kind anymore.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:40:33 pm
My comment was chopped for some reason. Oh well… most of my point was made.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:45:23 pm
If you wan to get call just donate money one time… that will put you on ALL the lists!
We actualy donate under a fake name now so they will stop calling/ mailing us hee.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:46:35 pm
Brendan, seriously, your “they have no room for people like Lieberman” rant is getting old fast. A small handful of voters in one of the most liberal states in the country chose someone who they felt better represented THEIR views on issues and suddenly somehow they entireity of the Democrats/Left in this country are now PURGING Lieberman. Again I have absolutely ZERO problem with you choosing not to associate yourself with the Democrats anymore. My problem is that you are an otherwise levelheaded person who can’t seem to accept that not everyone agrees with you on what kind of Senator Lieberman has been, and beyond that you are distorting this into some vast movement to oust Lieberman. I ask again, as I have asked repeatedly before, what is it exactly you would have had the national party and leadership do? Force Lamont to drop out? Ignore the results of the primary? Is that hwo you really want this country run? Lieberman had his chance to win the nomination and he failed to do so, in Connecticut. Not in Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Florida, Texas, New York, or any other state or the entire country for that matter. Just in Connecticut and JUST with a handful of voters. THIS IS NOT A NATIONWIDE ISSUE ITS A CONNECTICUT ONE. Stop with the hyperbole ok? Drop the Dems because they are bad for the country/don’t represent your views/smell bad. Great! Less people alligned to these parties the better. But please, PLEASE stop sounding like a conspiracy theorist.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:47:20 pm
obdurately freakin’ obtuse, evidently.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:49:36 pm
Brendan? No explaining.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:50:28 pm
“You seem to have a lack of respect for Democrats who disagree with your point of view, so of course you are going to get a lack of respect back for your views.”
If that were the case, you might be correct. However, in this case, an official representative of the Democrats called. When he was informed of the change in affilation/loyalty, he could have been polite, thanked Loy, and hung up.
Instead, he started an argument. My intuition would lead me to believe that this was not the first time he’d heard something along those lines. He certainly had the lines down pat - this was something that may have well been coached.
This demonstrates why Loy was correct to abandon the Democrats. Lieberman, who in a perfect Democratic universe, would be serving his 2nd term as Vice President, is instead, derided and insulted as “a Republican”. This proves Loy’s point that the Democrats have lost their way, and are morally bankrupt, caring only for the short term, only for “beating Bush”, and being run by the reactionary left wing.
(Otherwise, Lieberman’s defeat could at least be described as something minor, something other than a referendum on Bush.)
By comparision, I’ve received these fundraising calls from the Republicans, and even when I told them why I wasn’t sending them money (or wouldn’t vote for Dan Quayle), they were polite and deferential. “But you just said that Dan Quayle was qualified, and intelligent, why would you not vote for him?” “The qualifications required are to be Native Born, and over 35. Quayle is both of those. And I think he’s a bright guy. But he would be an atrocious President.” “Well, thank you for your time!”. Very similar to Loy’s call - but I wasn’t hung up on, or insulted, or even argued with.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:55:25 pm
oh come on. like the GOP gives a damn about anyone who doesn’t drink the koolaid. all organized political parties like organized religions are for weak minded people who need someone else to tell them what to think.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:58:01 pm
even though the guy hasn’t really said anything that controversial or disagreeable
Of course not when you’re a silly extremist.
You people are delusional.
August 13th, 2006 at 2:00:18 pm
David, the problem is that Connecticut is not an isolated event. I live in NY and have been a lifelong dem supporter until 2004. It was the rhetoric, nto of the politicians but of all the rank and file dems in NYC that made me change affiliation to none and vote for a Republican for the first time in my life (Bush-Cheney 04). A good friend of mine in DC stopped supporting Democratic candidates after a DNC fundraiser in DC when he was told that the Democrats could do without the likes of him by the wife of one of the top DC legislators. All because he still felt strongly that Iraq was the right thing to do. Another close friend of mind who used to mindlessly repeat the phrase blood for Oil and impeach Bush the other day said something that made my jaw drop - she said, how on earth could I have voted for Kerry when its obvious that Bush is a better friend to my people than someone like Lamont who drapes Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton on his shoulder like a shroud of courage…
Brendan is just using this one example as a learning event that seems to be all too prevalent on the eastern seaboard (no idea if this is the case in the rest of the country). The Democrats need to wake up quickly and realize there are not enough far-left liberals to support the party without alienating everyone else.
August 13th, 2006 at 2:00:57 pm
THIS IS NOT A NATIONWIDE ISSUE ITS A CONNECTICUT ONE.
That would be news to Kos and his minions and Howard “Ken Mehlman is going down” Dean.
August 13th, 2006 at 2:07:20 pm
I voted for Joe Lieberman in 2004 in the Democratic Primary. That was the last one I will ever vote in. I left the party by choice; now the party has left him. Somehow I think we are the rule, not the exceptions.
August 13th, 2006 at 2:10:41 pm
1) Mad Max accusing someone else of having disrespect for someone with an opposing point of view is the most hypocritically hilarious thing I have ever read on this blog.
2) The national party had the chance to do the right thing and support Lieberman and oppose the moonbats supporting Lamont before the primary. The national party organization ALWAYS supports the imcumbent. Hell, the RNC is supporting Chafee and taking huge amounts of flak for it. (some from me) However now the party is tied to Lamont, and is obligated to waste money and resources on his election. (a losing cause)
3) Sadly, one of the skills disappearing from our political landscape is the ability to have a rational discourse, and then to politely agree to disagree.
August 13th, 2006 at 2:10:57 pm
you are distorting this into some vast movement to oust Lieberman. … THIS IS NOT A NATIONWIDE ISSUE ITS A CONNECTICUT ONE.
David, you’re flat wrong. There WAS a “vast movement to oust Lieberman.” The whole reason Lamont, who no one had ever heard of before last December, had any chance at all to win is because of the massive NATIONAL fundraising that he was able to do, thanks to the NATIONAL groundswell of anti-Lieberman sentiment, fomented by distortions and lies on NATIONAL liberal blogs like Daily Kos and My DD. It is absolutely, positively a national issue. Now, of course you’re right that the establishment Democrats don’t have much of a choice now but to endorse Lamont — however that’s not really the point. I never claimed otherwise. The bottom-line reality is that Lieberman was ousted as a result of a NATIONAL smear campaign that convinced just enough Connecticut Democrats that he was various things which he’s not (a closet Republican, Bush’s best friends, a warmongerer who hates dissent, etc.), and now the end result is that the left wing’s power has been greatly increased. Why? Because perception is reality in politics, and Lieberman’s loss creates the perception that the Kos Kids & co. — the NATIONAL left wing — will crucify you if you don’t tow the party line.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, David. You think I’m overreacting; fine. But there’s no need for all this rhetoric about how I’m a crazy conspiracy theorist. There’s nothing conspiratorial about acknowledging the self-evident fact that Lieberman’s defeat was the result of a national campaign and that is has national implications.
August 13th, 2006 at 2:11:47 pm
The other day, I got a phone call from the California Republicans. The caller made a pitch about the importance of keeping Ah-nold, I suggested the bigger problem was our legislature and he went off script in a half-second with some fairly informed commentary about what’s up in Sacramento.
In a lot of cases, the parties use volunteers, not just hired guns. This is good, because they know their stuff, but the passion they bring to the position can be a problem. It sounds like Brendan got a volunteer, and while the treatment Brendan got isn’t enough to justify knocking the whole Democratic party, it is enough to make a guess at the thinking of those committed enough to give up an evening or weekend to make a call for the cause - which makes it a valid data point if you’re trying to decide whether other things you’ve been seeing are part of an identifiable trend.
August 13th, 2006 at 2:15:06 pm
while the treatment Brendan got isn’t enough to justify knocking the whole Democratic party, it is enough to make a guess at the thinking of those committed enough to give up an evening or weekend to make a call for the cause - which makes it a valid data point if you’re trying to decide whether other things you’ve been seeing are part of an identifiable trend.
Yes. Thank you for putting that more articulately than I managed to. :)
August 13th, 2006 at 2:33:57 pm
Until recently I was getting almost daily RNC and RSCC fundraising calls. They were very polite and had very intelligent arguments but I’ve been very disgusted with my party and said so and why. They’ve stopped calling. Now, oddly, I’m starting to feel the compulsion to give to the party and to specific candidates.
I’m in NY. With this latest madness in CT (I am a former lifelong Dem), I feel the strong need to ensure they do not regain control. They are certifiably insane.
August 13th, 2006 at 3:17:17 pm
August 13th, 2006 at 4:07:49 pm
Tis amazing that neither their telemarketers nor the Dem supporters who post here see what the problem is.
1. The telemarketer should have politely thanked Brendan for his time and said good bye after he informed him that he no longer wanted to be associated with the party. Guess he never heard that it is easer to catch flies with honey then it is with vinegar.
2. The posters on here take the attitude that Brendan deserved to be verbally flogged by this telemarketer and they are picking up where he left off. Apparently no one in the party or their supporters ever read “How To Win Friends and Influence People”.
The Democrats sure are doing their level best to make sure that anyone and everyone who is not of the “true new faith” (aka the DU/Kos/Moore crowd)gets out the door without it hitting them in the ass.
August 13th, 2006 at 4:08:10 pm
I have been involved with political party fund raising for decades. The only time “tele-marketers” are used are when a loose cannon candidate decides to go for broke and try to get the job done “his way.” The political party is trying to keep the money flowing for a variety of candidates and the callers are very carefully advised that one negative experience caused by the caller has an enormous ripple effect.
This is not to say that we do not occassionally unleash an idiot. But we cut him off as soon as we spot him.
Unfortunately, some candidates have drifted toward firms that do “push polling” and also offer fund raising. These organizations are usually headed by hungry campaign strategy “wannabes.” There is nothing more dangerous than a revved up colt with the bit in his mouth. Think KOS or Dean.
August 13th, 2006 at 4:34:12 pm
Brendan, I believe there is a law that if you ask to be taken off of the call list, they have to do it. Well the whole point of their operation is to solicit contributions, not take prospective donors off the lists. A caller goes up at the end of their shift with a list of people who want to get taken off the phone list, they get chewed out big time. The only way they can avoid it is if they can hang up on you before you complete the request to be taken off the list. That’s the reason for the quick hang-up. Self-preservation, not rudeness!! :-)
August 13th, 2006 at 4:38:50 pm
While you guys are talking about how horrible the Democrats are to Lieberman for declaring himself an Independent, let me remind you of what the GOP did to former Senator Bob Smith when he ran as an independent for President in 2000 and then tried to re-join the Party…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Smith
…”Big Tent” my ass.
August 13th, 2006 at 4:42:52 pm
gahrie-
I’m not the one in the Ivory Tower casting judgement on others. I’m blatantly partisan and I think anyone who follows Bush is insane. It’s Brendan who is trying to position himself above the partisan rancor when he has been in the middle of it for months as a de facto Republican, regardless of what he has claimed his party affiliation to be.
August 13th, 2006 at 4:53:15 pm
Mad Max:
OK let’s compare.
1) Lieberman declared his intentions to run as an independent BEFORE he narrowly lost in the primary. Smith did so AFTER he lost the primary.
2) After Smith renounced his leaving the party he was GIVEN the chairmanship of a committee, you moonbats are demanding that Lieberman be STRIPPED of his chairmanships.
3) There is absolutely no evidence of a national movement organized to get rid of Smith, Lamont could not have won without a movement to get rid of Lamont.
4) Lieberman is being replaced for NOT changing his positions. Smith was replaced FOR changing his positions.
5) The only true simularity in the two races is that they were both closely decided.
August 13th, 2006 at 4:56:48 pm
Take notice moderate Democrats. If you remain moderate, and oppose the moonbats you are a:
de facto Republican, regardless of what he has claimed his party affiliation to be.
Now which party is a Big Tent? At least we let people themselves decide whether or not they are Republicans, instead of holding them to some mythical standard of purity.
August 13th, 2006 at 4:58:56 pm
I am a moderate with leanings to the right who has the utmost respect for Lieberman because he is one of few, if not only, politician who will actually give his honest opinion on a subject regardless of his party’s position.
But I feel the most important issue in politics today are the candidates being fronted by the parties. Honestly,is the best this country can offer for presidential candidates are Kerry or Bush?
August 13th, 2006 at 5:37:06 pm
Having been a telephone fundraiser for various causes in my life, I can tell you two things I know to be true:
1) This guy did in fact receive training tell him how to end a call.
2) The only time you hang up on someone is when you’re just so crazy frustrated that your actual impulse is to throw the phone across the room ’cause you’re so sick of this.
From those two major premises, two alternatives present themselves, neither one mutually exclusive:
a) It’s quite likely that he’s heard a lot of comments like Brendan’s. Otherwise, he probably wouldn’t be so crazy frustrated.
b) If he’s a paid guy, he hung up because he’s a little unstable. Paid fundraisers tend to be people whose lives are…ummm…. *in transition*, if you know what I mean.
And if b) is true, then the Lamont campaign *can’t get enough volunteers* and is having to resort to paid fundraisers.
If you’re against Lamont, there just isn’t enough good news in this anecdote.
(NB: the plural of anecdote is not “data.”)
August 13th, 2006 at 5:46:09 pm
I don’t know how the democratic party works, but I used to work at the RNC and the “telemarketers” who call for donations work in the basement of the building (or at least they used to). It think they get paid some sort of commission, but they definately worked for the RNC. But the rest of us didn’t have alot of direct contact with them. I imagine the DNC has a similar system.
Phone manners in general just suck these days. I have a coworker who routinely just hangs up when she is done talking. Nobody says goodbye any more. Although it does sound like this was more specific rudeness than general lack of manners :)
August 13th, 2006 at 6:02:57 pm
Man, ~40 comments for this post?
August 13th, 2006 at 7:26:14 pm
Democrats not qualified to drive dump trucks?
That is nothing.
They aren’t even qualified to make phone calls.
BTW had the Ds run Joe in ‘04 he would have got my vote.
Joe gets the war, he gets economics (at least sort of), except for the taxation is theft part.
No way that communist loving pig Kerry was ever going to get my vote even if the Rs had nominated him. My war wounds that he caused in ‘71 still have not healed. (and no I didn’t get those wounds in ‘Nam although I served in the combat zone - DLGN-25)
August 13th, 2006 at 7:30:54 pm
Andrew, it got Instalanched, that’s why.
August 13th, 2006 at 8:20:22 pm
Brendan, i didn’t say you WERE nuts, I said you are starting to sound that way when you talk about purges. I will admit that yes there was outside preasure against Lieberman, but it was by individuals and groups, not the actual party itself. Ultimately however, Liebermans fate was decided by the voters IN Connecticut, not by anyone else.
I’m sorry but I don’t think its the Democratic party pushing moderates out, I think its some groups trying to push Lieberman out, not because he is moderate, but because they believe he has crossed that line and is too buddy buddy with Bush.
August 13th, 2006 at 8:24:17 pm
David K.:
Have you been reading the comments of Mad Max here, and other moonbats around the blogosphere?
August 13th, 2006 at 8:26:44 pm
This isn’t new - I heard the same thing about Leiberman in 2004. “He’s a Republican”. No, he isn’t - but he’s no longer a Democrat. Daily Kos and his boys were out to collect a scalp, and Bush was too hard. So they hit Leiberman.
Is the Leiberman loss indicative of every Democrat in the country? Of course not!
But - is the fact that a popular politician of humble origin can be opportunistically bounced by a near billionaire in the Democratic primary with the strong backing of a bunch of hooting lefties (aka Kos) a big problem for the Democrats? You bet. It’s huge.
Senator Joe is now the poster boy for everyine who doesn’t like the ’small tent’ philosophy shown by many Democrats. Piss off the wrong people (like Soros and his imitator Lamont) and you’ll be sooorrryyyy!
August 13th, 2006 at 8:28:23 pm
Mad Max says: You seem to have a lack of respect for Democrats who disagree with your point of view
Holy crap is that the pot calling the kettle black. Simply replace the word “Democrats” with “anyone” from your sentence and that’s you to a T!
August 13th, 2006 at 8:35:29 pm
Meh, I think you’re over-reacting. The drone who called you was trying to raise money; you launched into a political speech; he hung up. He’s got a thousand more people to call before he gets to collect his meagre telemarketer’s salary and go home, so there’s no point in him letting you tie up more of his time.
I’m not saying he wasn’t impolite, but given the situation he wasn’t particularly rude, either. It’s just business; the guy was doing his job.
Do you get into debates with ballpark hot dog vendors over the quality of your favorite team’s coaching decisions? No. You either buy a hot dog or the hot dog vendor rolls his eyes at you while you rant as he moves on to the next potential customer.
August 13th, 2006 at 8:57:41 pm
Okay Brendan, so it got Instalanched, but it’s still Mad Max and his suspect fellow travelers whining about your post (and you’re responses to them).
So my original disbelief still stands. Don’t you guys have anything better to whine and argue about than Brendan’s story of a jerkoff Dem fundraising call?
August 13th, 2006 at 9:10:27 pm
You just can’t make these people up! The guy gets a phone call, responds politely, points out that in fact the Democrats in CT are the ones who have a lack of respect for those with whom they disagree, makes this point politely, and some nimrod responds by saying “you seem to have a lack of respect for Democrats who disagree with your point of view.�
Hat trick. And the “telemarketer” was obviously a DNC employee. Whats even funnier is the way some here want to whitewash the incident and blame the blogger. What a wonderful method for bringing a disgruntled member back into the fold…
August 13th, 2006 at 9:22:33 pm
Meh, I think you’re over-reacting. The drone who called you was trying to raise money; you launched into a political speech; he hung up.
Nice try, but the “drone” engaged in political argument for some time [3 minute call] so your spin that he hung up b/c he was too busy is bunk. Takes two to tango.
August 13th, 2006 at 9:29:11 pm
Don’t you guys have anything better to whine and argue about than Brendan’s story of a jerkoff Dem fundraising call?
The topic is about the Left purging members who only agree with 90% of the party - bzzzt! - Nothing to see here Comrades, move along!
August 13th, 2006 at 9:30:01 pm
[…]
Brendan Loy Is Finding Out, Little by Little… … about the true face of the Democratic Party. And that’s from a man who stoppe […]
August 13th, 2006 at 9:59:24 pm
Brendand Loy didn’t hang up on the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party hung up on him!
August 13th, 2006 at 10:03:59 pm
I’m sorry but I don’t think its the Democratic party pushing moderates out, I think its some groups trying to push Lieberman out, not because he is moderate, but because they believe he has crossed that line and is too buddy buddy with Bush.
Yes, it’s “some groups” — some vitriolic left-wing radical groups — not just trying, but SUCCEEDING in pushing Lieberman out, and suddenly their power in the party has greatly increased and their demands will be kowtowed to even more. And a Democratic Party that is beholden to those vitriolic left-wing radical groups — a Democratic Party so reflexively liberal and antiwar that those groups are capable of successfully pulling off something like this — is not a Democratic Party that I feel comfortable in. Why is this connection difficult for you to understand, David? An awful lot of moderates seem to understand exactly where I’m coming from. You’re entitled to disagree with me, obviously, but objectively I don’t think it’s true that I “sound nuts.”
And by the way, I have used the word “purge” once - ONCE - since Lieberman’s defeat, and I used it in a moment of extreme exasperation. If I will admit that it was a bit of obviously over-the-top hyperbole (duh), will you please stop harping on it?
August 13th, 2006 at 10:11:27 pm
The drone who called you was trying to raise money; you launched into a political speech; he hung up.
As someone else mentioned, that is not an accurate account of what happened. I didn’t “launch into a political speech”; I gave a brief explanation of why I wasn’t going to be donating money to the party, and then he started arguing with me. Only at THAT point did I “launch into a political speech.” He responded to “speech,” and I responded back with another “speech.” And THEN, after engaging me in a dialogue and wasting 90 seconds of his own time (not my fault - ’twas his decision), THEN he hung up on me.
Why, you may ask, did I even bother to explain myself at all, in the first place, briefly and non-speechifyingly? Because I figured that if I’d just said, “no, I’m really not interested,” he would then have then tried bumping me down from the $100 donation level to the $50 donation level, or whatever. So I wanted to make it immediately clear that there was no way in hell that I was going to donate anything, in hopes of ending the call quickly and painlessly. It was he who chose to prolong it — and then abruptly end it.
“Given the situation he wasn’t particularly rude”? He created the situation, so he can’t use it as an excuse. “The guy was doing his job”? If so, he did it exceptionally poorly.
August 13th, 2006 at 10:27:10 pm
David,
Imagine if you will a hypothetical scenario. Suppose you considered yourself a Democrat. You agreed to disagree with the party on abortion and other social issues, but otherwise agreed with them on most things. Now suppose a whole bunch of liberal groups decided that it was time to purify the party of all those pro-lifers. They’re not real Democrats. So MoveOn.org and Daily Kos and all these groups start raising money to help an unknown challenger defeat Harry Reid in the primary in Nevada. In the process, they make up all sorts of false charges and distort his record in such a way that, rather than admitting their true intention (to kick him out of the party because he’s pro-life), they play it up like they’re kicking him out because he’s disloyal to the party, he’s too close to President Bush, he’s really a closet Republican, etc. etc. None of those things are true, his record contradicts all of them, but because these Dems are single-mindedly interested in booting him for being pro-life, they keep repeating the lies over and over till they begin to believe them. And the voters of Nevada begin to believe them too, thanks to the massive nationally funded ad campaign. So Reid is kicked out, and a chill goes out across the land, as other pro-life Democrats realize that their opinion on abortion could get them kicked out of the party.
Of course, to make this scenario fully comparable, Harry Reid would have to be, like, your personal favorite, most admired politician… but even without that element, can’t you at least imagine that you might feel sorta like I feel about Lieberman? That “your” party (in this hypothetical scenario where you consider yourself a Democrat) allowed itself to be manipulated and dominated by a ideological group intent on eliminating certain party members who have dissenting views on an issue that matters a great deal to you personally?
August 13th, 2006 at 10:29:10 pm
I had a woman get upset with me when I told her I couldn’t understand her, and hang up on me, and she was supposedly a Republican.
I am a Republican mind you. I wondered if she was. Or if she was just some spoiled rich kid who got insulted by my pointing out that she didn’t have good English.
But generally,
August 13th, 2006 at 10:35:16 pm
Aargh. Hit the ’submit’ early by mistake.
Not that its that enthralling a story anyways.
Generally, a canvasser, as pointed out in Heinlein’s “Take Back our Government” will if meeting a committed member of the other side try to leave as smoothly as possible. You are NOT to argue with the person because you might anger them enough to actually vote. No, what you want them to do is to go back to sleep, and forget you were ever there, and then sleep through voting day as well.
And Heinlein was a Democrat when he gave that advice. Of course, the Dems also won elections when he wrote that book too.
My third anecdote is going to a fair. I met two guys at the Dem booth. One refused to argue with me in the proper fashion that he should–he kept his eye on winning. The other was like me, and enjoyed a good arguement. Well, I would have enjoyed it more, but at one point I had to ask him …
“Why do you assume I’m evil?” See he knew I was a Republican, and therefore I was plotting all sorts of nastiness to my fellow citizens. Except I wasn’t. It was only his own paranoia.
August 13th, 2006 at 10:35:18 pm
Brendan, after looking thru your blog I find that you sometimes take on a contrary postition only for the sake of being contrary. Obviously such a smart guy… sorry, I’m not a lawyer so that’s my entire case - heh ehe.
August 13th, 2006 at 10:46:35 pm
I find that you sometimes take on a contrary postition only for the sake of being contrary
Hmm. I’m not sure if that describes me so much as it describes my wife. :) I do play devil’s advocate now and then, but I don’t think I’m generally contrarian for contrariness’s sake. On the contrary, if anything I sometimes get criticized for seeking moderation for moderation’s sake or consensus for consensus’s sake. I don’t think that’s generally true either, but I can at least see where it’s coming from. Anyway, can you cite an example?
August 13th, 2006 at 11:04:48 pm
Those pro-lifers are pretty rude too. I had one hang up on me one time just because I interrupted her in the middle of identifying herself as a representative of a pro-life group, and informed her that, sorry, but I am definitely pro-death. All I heard was *click!*
Some people…
August 13th, 2006 at 11:27:54 pm
LOL
My friend Jen had a good strategy for getting rid of political callers quickly. Whenever the Republicans would call, she’d ask if they starch their underwear. Whenever the Democrats would call, she’d ask if they were wearing underwear. :)
August 13th, 2006 at 11:47:36 pm
I could not agree more Brendon. Our party has been co-opted and the DNC is only interested in the thoughts of the radical left ‘Progressive/Socialist wing of the party. I’m still a Democrat by registration, but other than voting for my local Rep. (Allen Boyd). I have not voted for a Dem in a national election in years (clintons first), and with the candidates they have been fielding I dont see that changing any time soon.
It’s sad realy; To these people JFK was a war monger..what ever that is.
This is not viet nam.
August 14th, 2006 at 12:28:57 am
Not a Democrat any longer. Not giving money. They should stay on the line with you and cater to your inability to accept Lieberman for what he is why?
August 14th, 2006 at 1:01:04 am
Anonymous, no offense intended but… read my damn post. (That goes for Laika’s Last Woof and a couple others here too — it’s like you didn’t read the whole thing, and are raising points I already addressed, without acknowledging that I addressed them. It’s annoying.)
I already acknowledged that “if his goal is to raise money, talking to me was clearly a waste of his time.” However, he’s the one who engaged me in conversation. If his paramount concern was to get off the line with me as quickly as possible, he shouldn’t have started arguing with me about Lieberman. He should have politely ended the call immediately once it became clear that I wasn’t a potential donor. But he didn’t do that. Instead, he chose to debate me. Once he did that, the “just doing his job” excuse became invalid.
Regardless, my complaint isn’t that he ultimately chose to get off the line with me rather than continuing the discussion. My complaint is the manner in which he ended the conversation, hanging up on me without saying a word. If he had tried to politely end the call and I had continued babbling about Lieberman, then hanging up might have been appropriate, or at least forgivable. But I wouldn’t have done that; I would have happily acquiesced to any effort to end the call. I wasn’t given the chance. He made absolutely no effort to end the call. He just hung up on me.
Now then, before someone says that I sound like a self-important blowhard, talking about the indignity of being hung up on … let me be clear. I realize this is a tempest in a teapot. It’s objectively not a big deal that some low-level volunteer hung up on me. I know that. Seriously, I’m not losing any sleep over it. I just thought it was an interesting little anecdote, and possibly indicative of a larger trend — nothing more. I wasn’t personally affronted. Please don’t be under the mistaken impression that I’m ready to march down to DNC headquarters and yell at them for the rudeness of their volunteers. I don’t take myself nearly that seriously. Honestly, I don’t give a crap if some idiot hangs up on me. I just thought it was mildly interesting — and of course I’m always up for a good argument, so if people are going to come here and say “it wasn’t really rude,” naturally I’m going to argue back that yes, in fact, it was rude. Because it clearly was. But just because it was rude doesn’t mean it was terribly consequential.
August 14th, 2006 at 2:50:00 am
Righhht…”read the damn post”…That was why the post ended with “Not a winning strategy, folks.”
You acknowledge it didn’t make sense for them to stay online with you, but then you accuse them of lacking a “good stratetgy.”
I’m sorry, I guess they should have stayed online with you.
August 14th, 2006 at 3:05:15 am
I said it’s “not a winning strategy” for them to hang up on people. In other words, it doesn’t help their cause to be rude and piss people off. Politeness and respect will win a lot more people over than rudeness. That was my point about “strategy” — not that he should have “stayed online with me.” I explicitly acknowledged that it didn’t make any sense for him to stay on the phone with me. A polite “thank you for your time” would have taken care of that. But if he was going to engage me in discussion, he at least owes me the basic respect of not then hanging up on me. Duh.
Seriously, this is not a difficult concept… I don’t understand why some people here don’t get that it’s rude to unceremoniously hang up on someone who you’ve a) called on the phone and b) chosen to engage in substantive discussion, when c) that person is not being rude or difficult or refusing to stop talking.
Y’all are forcing me to make it sound like I was more offended than I really was. I didn’t give a crap, on a personal level. I’m not that easily affronted. And yet here I am, belaboring the simple, obvious logical point that, duh, it is, in fact, rude to hang up on someone!
August 14th, 2006 at 3:18:03 am
“Not a good strategy” is precisely correct. The DNC, like any other group, has limited resources, right? Both in time and in money? The object of the fundraising call was to raise money, right? So the caller has the bad luck to contact someone (our host) who is emphatically not going to donate, and the callee (our host), being apparently a helpful sort, not only makes that fact clear immediately but also gives a reason for his “defection,” just in case the caller has some means to record not just that a particular former donor is not donating but why the change. You’d think the DNC could benefit from that information.
But the good strategy, the one that’s least likely to solidify our host’s determination not to donate in future and that conserves limited current resources, would have been to thank him and end the call, ticking the check-box that said, “Disappointed in CT primary results” if applicable. Instead, the caller lost time in which he could’ve made another call as well as making it that much less likely that Mr. Loy will donate in future, because (as with retail) it’s not the good “customer service” experiences that stick with you longest, it’s the bad ones.
If there’s any commenter out there at all who can indicate why hanging up on, rather than politely ending a call with, a prior donor who is not donating in this round is a good strategy, please do explain.
August 14th, 2006 at 3:19:28 am
Heh. Well put, Jamie.
August 14th, 2006 at 3:22:47 am
P.S. To the list of negative consequences of hanging up on me, we can also add: “…and inspiring Mr. Loy to post about the experience on his blog, in a post which was in turn picked up by InstaPundit, thus causing as many as 10,000+ readers to share in Mr. Loy’s bad ‘customer service’ experience with the Democrats.”
Although, admittedly, I suppose that consequence wasn’t entirely foreseeable. :)
August 14th, 2006 at 4:45:14 am
ANDREW: “Man, ~40 comments for this post?”
Hey, I warned the Loy boy: “no explaining,” becuase it always ends in PuppyBlender tears…. :-)
August 14th, 2006 at 5:55:50 am
You say, “they don’t consider Joe Lieberman a Democrat anymore.” This is your excuse for disassociating yourself from the party? What a pathetic fraud! Lieberman ran in the primary. He lost. He’s decided to run against the party’s nominee — the man who defeated him in the primary election. HE IS CHOOSING NOT TO BE A DEMOCRAT.What a whiner you are! Look, you can support anyone you like. But it’s not the “fault” of the Democrats that Lieberman lost. Most of the leaders supported Lieberman! But his loss was a consequence of his turning off a very hefty slice of Democrats in CT. Your narcissistic “fire-the-voters” posturing is the whine of a 2-year old. My mother used to say, “sookie-sookie baby,” if we behaved this way. So that’s what I say to you!
August 14th, 2006 at 6:02:06 am
Brendan:
I think you’ll find that what is happening here is that a lot of your critics are not in fact reading your post. They are reading what someone else said about your post somewhere else, and then coming here to make their comments.
August 14th, 2006 at 6:55:47 am
God forbid that anyone, especially someone affiliated with the Democratic Party disagree with Brendan Loy.
Being a telemarketer sucks. You made your point. A guy, obviously politically inclined, disagreed and felt like it was more fun to debate (and debating, as is evidenced by some of the hysteria on this board, can get spirited) than it was to get lectured.
Was it savvy of him, as a representative of the Democratic party to hang up? No. Did it represent a break from endless, monotonous calls? Yes.
I wonder if he wrote a blog item about how the whiny, mushy, idea-free, pro-war contingent is dooming our country because of their paralyzing lack of will to support anything that could change the dynamic in Iraq.
August 14th, 2006 at 6:57:11 am
Brendan, cut it out. You are being just as nuts as the rabid right wing psychopaths and the left wing lunatics. Stop, you are giving moderates a bad name, and they have enough troubles as it is. Calm down, I know you really like the big L and can see no wrong in him for some ineffable reason but seriously, stop calm down… have some dip. You are being highly reactionary at the moment.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:03:59 am
Wake me up when we start debating ideas again.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:24:37 am
J. -
Actually, the pro-war side would likely support many alternatives. Problem is that the only alternative the democrats are currently pushing is, to quote King Aurthur, “Run AWAY!!”
August 14th, 2006 at 7:38:05 am
Note to LoJo:
The Republicans have total control over the government. The Democrats have precisely none. Your whining is part of the problem. If they have ideas, why don’t the people running the government implement them?
Jesus Christ, you’ve had four years to plan and execute a war in Iraq unfettered by opposition — and THIS is the best you could do?
Ideas my ass. Pathetic.
August 14th, 2006 at 8:21:52 am
J -
So now its not resistance to trying new things,
“… because of their paralyzing lack of will to support anything that could change the dynamic in Iraq.”
its that there is no new ideas from the government.
Going to change your tune further?
And this isn’t whining, this is me saying, ‘what is the alternative’? Bitching about how things are going and then saying its not your problem or responsibility to come up with an alternative is the definition of childish whining.
Akin to the kid in the backseat complaining how long the drive is taking, you don’t have any better suggestion or even care to come up with any. You just want other people to respect how important your fustration is.
Well, here’s a blankie. Happy now. Now until someone comes up with a better idea than rapid training/development of Iraqi army and police forces, re-building and new construction of infrastructure, and pushing the development of the Iraqi government…
And as for the best that could be done, I would now like for you to state your criteria for judging military occupations of foreign countries whose government has been overthrown. Specifics.
August 14th, 2006 at 8:41:57 am
Perhaps if we built a large wooden badger?
August 14th, 2006 at 8:55:44 am
dcl, ha! lol :)
Brendan, re: your comment at 3:22:47, that’s the only reason I even felt this post was worth commenting on in the first place (hey Andrew.) Because you decided to post this trivial (as you admit) incident as an example of yet another thing wrong with the Democrats. Because you are, in your own small but not completely insignificant way, contributing to a meme which may help the Republicans in November. Since you think the Dems deserve it, I guess there’s no way I can get you to stop. But I’d feel bad if I didn’t try.
August 14th, 2006 at 8:58:20 am
It’s the same thing Lojo.
People like Brendan and Lieberman, in the sense that they want the debate to shape to their tender egos, advocate nothing but staying the course. The government, the Republican government which controls our foreign policy, is also committed to nothing but ’staying the course’ so they don’t ‘cut and run’ or whatever it is they are afraid of doing.
The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked over three and a half years, and, if anything, the situation on the ground is far more unstable than it was when we started this enterprise.
The ‘real men’ in the Weekly Standard and the neo-cons in the administration think the current approach doesn’t go far enough and they are rattling more sabres for a larger war. This is inarguable.
The trouble with this is that the Pentagon has fought them on any escalation because we simply don’t have the resources to do it.
The only other recourse, is to redeploy our resources in a way that Democrats believe is a smarter way to fight terrorism. The first step to this policy realignment requires an orderly withdrawal from the Iraq quagmire. This, even if you don’t like it, is an idea. The escalation types also have an idea, to widen the theater.
Your last point is particularly irrelevent. You want specifics? Why?
When we overthrew the German and Japanese governments, we installed a military government that gave way to civilian democracy and didn’t incur largescale insurgency (the Nazi warewolves are largely a ficition and killed few if any U.S. soliders. The Japanese also submitted to rule and order quickly.).
When we installed a Catholic dictator in South Vietnam then had him assassinated, it was irrelevent because we were already ass deep in occupying a country it was obvious we could never pacify or control.
Why did Germany and Japan ‘work’, but Vietnam and Iraq don’t? It’s the difference between being a victor and an occupier. We had definitive goals in WWII, with a definable enemy — something we utterly lack in the latter two examples.
So I really don’t understand your point of view. I don’t understand your support of a go-nowhere war. I don’t understand your fear of a withdrawal or a face-saving goal-oriented framework for our exit from Iraq. I don’t know why anyone would think that our experience in Iraq would be an equally good thing in Syria and/or Iran.
But what I really don’t get is why people who support the current policy and current administration want other people to fix the problems they alone created.
August 14th, 2006 at 9:03:34 am
Brendan, I don’t think you’re being honest about what happened. It’s easy enough to infer - for example, your talking point that “the Democrats kicked Joe out of the party” is simply not true. I’m quite sure Lieberman would have been welcome to stay and do work for the Democrats, just not as a senator (and that’s for the voters, not the party apparatus, to decide). No, Lieberman stomped off in a snit, he wasn’t kicked out. That you say otherwise speaks volumes about your credibility.
August 14th, 2006 at 9:56:00 am
I find it interesting that you would believe Lieberman has parted ways with the Democrats only on the subject of the War in Iraq. You should also research Lieberman’s stance on Social Security, as well as his operational destruction of the judicial filibuster, his siezing the media in the Terri Schiavo matter as well as his advocacy of the bankruptcy bill.
It would also behoove you to consider the moderation of the current party in power. They are after all running a primary challenge against Chafee in RI, one of their few moderate Senators. They would try it in Maine, but Snowe is perennial there. Furthermore, you should ask yourself what Republicans believe bipartisan is. Can the country sustain itself when the dialogue is dominated by an increasily radical Right that will not budge on any issue but expects their opponents to meet them half way? The sort of facilitation that Lieberman clings to is not viable in that environment.
Furthermore, it is not Democrats who have fostered that environment. The hardnosed lack of compromise in the 90’s is what forced the vaunted Third Way liberalism of the Clinton years. That refusal to negotiate saw minority rights stripped when the GOP took majority. You should research the use of blue slips in the Senate Judiciary during the 90’s as opposed with the use today. I’ll give you a hint- the practice is irrelevant now but it was used to block some 20% of Clinton’s judges.
There may come a time in the future where Lieberman is welcome as a Democract. That will come only after he has separated himself from his Republican tennets and realzed the dangers incumbent in his hewing further and further to the right.
August 14th, 2006 at 9:59:43 am
dcl -
Okay, that was ass funny. Any particular impetus on the recent Flying Circus kick? Was BBC running a Pythonathon?
J. -
Alrightie, this is what I’m talking about.
The whole ’stay the course’ criticism is more than the ‘redeploy’ strategy seems more flawed than ’staying the course’. Problem is that many people see criticism of the ‘redeployment’ strategy as an outright vote of support for Bush. This is not an either-or situation.
People like Brendan (I apologize if I mis-stating your position here, sir) and myself see that Iraq is going poorly and want to see some type of change in strategy or process. But just because we want to see a change does not mean it has to be ANY changed. Kinda like Lieberman/Lamont. A huge portion of those people voting for Lamont would have voted for anybody ‘not Lieberman’. And that is exactly the wrong reason to make that change. ‘Just to shake things up’.
This isn’t just an issue of resources though. I simply don’t see the choices as ‘more troops’ vs. ‘less troops’. That’s arguing details where it looks like a more substantive change is needed. I believe it was Jazz in another thread who floated the idea of pushing any kind of government, even if it isn’t a democracy, in Iraq so long as it is friendly to the US and US interests. Not sure if I agree with it, but as a strategy, it holds a lot of merit and reason to it.
You mentioned the military governments put in place in Japan and Germany. Well the aftermath in WWII led to the German Expulsions and the rise of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. While Japan was a sterling success, Germany could not be said the same of.
And I asked for specifics because you said, “Jesus Christ, you’ve had four years to plan and execute a war in Iraq unfettered by opposition â€â€? and THIS is the best you could do?”
Obviously you’ve judged this as either a disaster or total failure (My apologies if I’m inferring that, but felt it was pretty self-evident). Although I agree the current status of Iraq is a mess and needs to be rectified, by many measures, the occupation has been a success. As much as you denounce Republicans who can’t see Iraq as a mess, equally goes with Democrats who say nothing good has come from or will ever come from the occupation.
As for the idea of redeployment as a strategy, its not fundamentally flawed, but the idea of a complete and immediate redeployment, which is what the majority of democrats are pushing, is dangerous and unsound.
The Iraqi army is not entirely ready to handle security on their own. Iran could easily overwhelm them and take over the country. Border control would be gone, allowing foreign fighters and and into Lebanon. All those terrorists attacking in Iraq, suddenly are free to find greener pastures in Israel, Britian, Greater Europe, or the US. And as I said before, our military will cease to be a deterrent. I’m sorry, but less than 3,000 US troops dead in close to 3 years occupation is statistically minimal.
That’s not being crass with soldier’s lives either, because if we pull out, insurgents, terrorists, and hostile armies (aka Iran and NK) will know that punch US in the face and they wither with 2-3% casualties. That’s about 1% casualties on each year.
And if we pull out now, and Iran invades, whose to say we wouldn’t have to come back in to expel Iran. And, I guarantee you, you’ll be lucky to see only 3,000 dead in 6 months time.
Now, some removal of troops is not only reasonable, but likely helpful in applying more pressure evenly and not overwhelmingly towards the Iraqi army to produce results and take security responsibility.
Thing is that withdrawal of troops IS a goal of the administration and the pentagon, as they have stated many times. But do you withdraw troops given the current security state of the Baghdad? Chicken or the egg. You need to withdraw troops to make Iraqi army more visible and responsible, but can’t withdraw troops given the current security status of the capital. Why can’t you withdraw them? Because they are not ready to handle the security operations.
So in the end, I hear the argument (not from you, but from others) couched in terms of, ‘Its not worth it’ or ‘Our troops lives are worth more than Iraq’. As far as I’m concerned, that is an argument to lose Iraq, because it doesn’t care about how to rectify the situation, but simply remove the problem.
August 14th, 2006 at 10:21:45 am
“his operational destruction of the judicial filibuster”
Which did not exist prior to the 108th Congress.
“You should research the use of blue slips in the Senate Judiciary during the 90’s as opposed with the use today. I’ll give you a hint- the practice is irrelevant now but it was used to block some 20% of Clinton’s judges.”
Unless by “now” you mean “after the Gang of 14 deal,” you are completely incorrect. The practice is not at all irrelevant today. Michigan’s two Democratic Senators in particular blue-slipped four judicial nominees to the 6th Circuit as well as a few to the district courts in Michigan for the entirety of Bush’s first term. They budged on a few of them after the Gang of 14 but held out on the others. One nominee withdrew after more than ofur years without a hearing.
“The hardnosed lack of compromise in the 90’s is what forced the vaunted Third Way liberalism of the Clinton years. ”
This makes no sense unless your intent is to indict the reigning Dem majority in Congress, because the “Third Way” was developed in the mid 80s and early 90s when the GOP occupied the White House while the Dems controlled Congress with their iron grip.
“That refusal to negotiate saw minority rights stripped when the GOP took majority. ”
A fanciful bit of revisionist history. The GOP was far more accommodating of minority rights in 1995 and beyond than the Dems had been for forty years before. For the simple reason that they knew what being in the minority was like.
“It would also behoove you to consider the moderation of the current party in power. They are after all running a primary challenge against Chafee in RI, one of their few moderate Senators. ”
As was already pointed out earlier in the comments, the GOP party apparatus is actively *supporting* Chafee in his primary bid, not opposing him.
Misinformation sucks; please don’t spread it.
August 14th, 2006 at 11:07:16 am
Lojo,
I can agree with some of your post. And you’re right that there are other options than blind support of Bush’s disasterous war.
But Iran and North Korea know they can do whatever they want NOW, regardless of whether you think that treating 3,000 troops as ’statisically minimal’ is an acceptible cost. They know this because we have been sucked in to a hellaciously stupid war of choice with the wrong enemy at the absolute wrong time.
From a military perspective, there’s nothing short of nuking them that we can do about whatever threat you think Iran and NK pose.
The military threat would have been far more credible if made while we weren’t being bogged down in Iraq.
Secondly, the “we’ll stand down as they stand up” mantra is as empty as every other thing that has come out of this administration. There are fewer battle-ready Iraqi troops now then there were two years ago, according to the Pentagon. And the ones who are trained, don’t get the proper support or equipment.
As for this: I believe it was Jazz in another thread who floated the idea of pushing any kind of government, even if it isn’t a democracy, in Iraq so long as it is friendly to the US and US interests. Not sure if I agree with it, but as a strategy, it holds a lot of merit and reason to it.
I don’t see merit or reason. It’s been tried ad nauseum in Iraq and other places, almost always to failure. Hell, it was part of the reason we went to war to begin with, with Chalabi playing that very pro-American/Israel tune. Once the US was disabused of that fantasy, they installed the Garner regime, which didn’t lockdown the arsenals or the museums. Then they replaced that with the purely corrupt CPR, which ‘misplaced’ $9 billion in the course of the Bremmer Era.
By that time, of course, Sistani (an ‘ally’) already forced Bush’s hand on democracy (the President was against elections before he was for them) and that’s toothpaste that won’t go back in the tube. Finally, even if you could do it, how would it look that much different than Hussein’s rule? It would be Shia led, instead of Sunni, but then it would be a rump state of Iran anyway.
August 14th, 2006 at 11:26:29 am
J - did your formative studies involve *anything* of nedieval history between the 7th and 14th centuries ? (Yes, I may be asking that question of a tenured Professor of Medieval History at an Ivy League school, but I seriously doubt that I am, so I’ll take that risk) …
The various Arab countries and factions might as well be the defenders of Jerusalem against Saladin - or various parts of the Holy Roman Empire at various times … as often fratricidal as they were cooperative siblings …
There is just as much reason to believe that a Shia theocracy in Iraq would be led by a Mullah in competition with Iran rather than cooperation with Iran … (think - Italian City-states) …
Brian Foster - you keep bringing up facts and accurate history - that’s no way to discuss Liebermann and the Democrats ! (grin)
Someone in a recent comment tried the old revisionist saw about how it was the Democrats in the early ’60s that forced through the Civil Rights legislation (I’m paraphrasing), completely ignoring the reality that it was the Republicans that gave LBJ the votes he needed to pass the legislation … sometime, I need to take the time to research to see if current Democratic Senator Byrd was there at the time, and, if so, how he voted …
August 14th, 2006 at 12:13:01 pm
Lojo, went to Spam-A-Lot over the weekend… That and someone mentioned King Arthur and Run Away earlier…
August 14th, 2006 at 12:22:03 pm
Alasdair,
There is just as much reason to believe that a Shia theocracy in Iraq would be led by a Mullah in competition with Iran rather than cooperation with Iran … (think - Italian City-states) …
So you’re saying that you’re not worried about the caliphate stretching from Persia to Spain? I wish I could keep track of the concerns du jour of the war folk.
That said, you’re arguing Juan Cole’s argument regarding Sistani and Iran — even though he lived there most of his life, he is opposed to the Persians — which may be true. In which case, you don’t need to understand ancient Arab history, but rather, the modern causes of the long Iran-Iraq war.
Or, you could plug into the reasons why Hezbollah is so powerful and why a proxy Shia nation like Iraq is an attractive possibility for the current nutjob regime in Tehran. There could be an intra-Shiite fight, after the larger goals are met. There usually is in any power struggle.
I don’t see that as a victory. Do you?
August 14th, 2006 at 1:49:51 pm
From that well known lefty rag, National Review, we get this today:
If current trends continue, the Bush administration’s project in the Middle East will require the same sort of expedient we have just seen in the Israel–Lebanon conflict: a papering over of what is essentially a failure.
From that starting point, all that’s required to arrive at the “let’s get out” position is the conviction that current trends will, in fact, continue. Of course, the Editors at NRO aren’t there yet. But I believe eventually they will be, as Buckley Jr. already is. At that point, the only thing left will be to do the “papering over” sooner rather than later.
“Faster, please”, indeed.
August 14th, 2006 at 1:51:19 pm
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/060810/thoughts_on_the.htm
Brendans political views making the US News and World Report…
August 14th, 2006 at 3:27:17 pm
Wow. Just wow.
August 14th, 2006 at 4:00:27 pm
I’m confused.
There was a Democratic primary in CT. The majority of Democrats voted for Ned Lamont, so he gets to be the nominee.
This is a “purge”? I thought that we called it an “election”. Maybe I missed the part where senate seats became life-long titles.
August 14th, 2006 at 5:51:08 pm
All I can say is there - “Where’s your plan, George.”
More of the same won’t cut it.
August 14th, 2006 at 6:48:53 pm
The Democrats hung up on me
The Democrats hung up on me
August 14th, 2006 at 6:49:14 pm
The Democrats hung up on me
The Democrats hung up on me
August 14th, 2006 at 6:50:37 pm
but you voted for him!!!!
August 14th, 2006 at 7:18:54 pm
Anyway, can you cite an example?
I read here sometime within the last few weeks where you were debating Israel’s options and you, somewhere in that text, admitted you were partially just angry at the fact that people couldn’t make an impressive enough case and that you weren’t actually so die hard about the side of the issue you were defending. Sorry if that’s vague. Other than that I don’t think you have reached your full analytical potential. When you drop Lieberman you will be a jedi master.
August 14th, 2006 at 8:20:12 pm
TO all the Conservative commenters here trying to claim that Brendan’s story shows how intolerant the left is, may I direct your attention to my state of Rhode Island where moderate Republican Lincoln Chaffee is on the ropes in his primary against a far more Conservative candidate. May I rewind and remind you of Arlen Specter’s close call a few years back. May I dig up some angry Conservative blog posts directed at the likes of JOhn McCain, Specter and others the past few years? How about a gay republican congressmen delivering a speech at the GOP convention while a bunch of delegates ignored him?
In short, why do you guys think this is something unique to Democrats? I am pretty sure a solid Conservative would rather see another solid COnservative representing his party. Would you ever hear Rush LImbaugh or Sean Hannity shedding a tear if Arlen Specter or JOhn McCain were defeated in a primary by a more staunch COnservative?
August 14th, 2006 at 8:32:00 pm
Glenn-
Don’t bother. These folks live in a Bizarro world where bad things happen only in the Democratic Party and all Republicans are put-upon, hardworking, honest folks who truly believe in small government and who would never manipulate people for power. Go ahead. Ask Andrew or Lojo or Alasdair. They’ll tell you how flawless the Republicans are and how evil the Democrats are.
Whatever.
August 14th, 2006 at 8:33:58 pm
Brendan,
This quote from Lieberman last week sums up why he lost my support:
“I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us â€â€? more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War,”
Those are the words of a man who is clearly out of touch with reality. Not only does he claim that those who disagree with him on Iraq simply “don’t udnerstand the threat”, he himself shows he doesn’t understand the threat with that painful passage. Those are not the words of a man I feel is more “serious” then I on the War on Terror. Anyone who believes the war in Iraq has improved our security needs a bucket of cold water to wake up.
Also Brendan, I think you should point out to everyone how you felt about Bush in 2004. In your own words you said you weren’t that upset over Bush’s victory because you still thought Bush had the chance to be a terrific President. How’s that working out for you? Those aren’t the words of someone I’d consider a very solid Democrat to begin with. If that’s your viewpoint, I’m fine with that. I don’t udnerstand it, but that’s OK. TO each his own. Just stop pretending that you were “betrayed” by your party. You were clearly on the fence to begin with.
August 14th, 2006 at 8:40:30 pm
Mad Max,
Oh stop it! There you go again. You are SOOOOOOO angry and sooooooooo crazy. My head hurts from all the anger I tell you! Why don’t you go burn another efigy of Lieberman while the rest of us read the calm moderate writings of Ann Coulter, Rush LImbaugh, Michael Savage etc. etc.
[sarcasm off]
Yes I know what you mean, but I’d like to try anyways. I’m stubborn, and like to believe that even if I am nto going to get someone to agree with me, I can at least get them to think harder. That’s a start.
August 14th, 2006 at 9:15:39 pm
Glenn “TO all the Conservative commenters here trying to claim that Brendan’s story shows how intolerant the left is - ”
[grabs popcorn]. This is always amusing to watch: the old “its okay that my team is bad, because I think your team is worse” equivalence [and ignore for a moment that the Left has claimed “tolerance” as its mizzenmast for the last four decades]. Hypocrites.
Hey Glenn, when are you guys gonna stop identifying yourselves by the Lowest Common Denominator? Why not set the bar a bit higher? Something along the lines of “I don’t care what they do - I’m shocked we’re heaping abuse on one of our own, simply because he doesn’t agree with us on everthing”
August 15th, 2006 at 12:37:22 am
Glenn - can you show us where there are flocks of folk whose refrain is approximately “You are not sufficiently idealogically pure enough for us - so $@#$#@ off and die !” on the Republican/conservative side ?
It’s a common theme on DU and the like … and it ain’t the GOP doing it there …
It is a common comment on *this* thread (albeit phrased a tad more politely) … and it ain’t the GOP doing it here …
As Fen points out, the Left in the US keeps telling us all how tolerant it is - of everyone except Republicans, the Rich, Big Business, Big Oil, practising Christians, pro-Life folk, pro-nuclear-power-plant folk, pro-school-choice folk, pro-America folk, and on and on … you get the idea …
August 15th, 2006 at 4:21:50 am
Fen, in regard to your first argument that read
“This is always amusing to watch: the old “its okay that my team is bad, because I think your team is worseâ€? equivalence [and ignore for a moment that the Left has claimed “toleranceâ€? as its mizzenmast for the last four decades]. Hypocrites. ”
I didn’t say your side was worse. I said we’re EXACTLY the same. I am not trying to run Brendan out of town, and in fact neither are the Daily Kos folks (Kos also campaigns for moderate Democrats in Montanna and Virginia). Brendan is the one claiming he can’t stay in the party any longer. No one told him to leave. I simply pointed out that the right tends to “prefer” solid Conservatives as well.
As far as your second paragraph: “This is always amusing to watch: the old “its okay that my team is bad, because I think your team is worseâ€? equivalence [and ignore for a moment that the Left has claimed “toleranceâ€? as its mizzenmast for the last four decades]. Hypocrites. Hey Glenn, when are you guys gonna stop identifying yourselves by the Lowest Common Denominator? Why not set the bar a bit higher? Something along the lines of “I don’t care what they do - I’m shocked we’re heaping abuse on one of our own, simply because he doesn’t agree with us on everthingâ€?
This from the people who brought us the argument “It’s OK the US tortures Muslims, at least we don’t cut off people’s heads like they do!” In all seriousness though
no one is running Brendan out of town. Just like when Jim Jeffords jumped to the independent side in 2001, I don’t think any COnservatives told him to leave. He left on his own. The Democratic party and it’s supporters can’t sit around and become “Republican lite” just to staisfy everyone including Brendan. Brendan has to make a personal choice about who represents his views. If he wants to switch, that is up to him. Liebermann was voted out because people in COnneticut liked his opponent better. I don’t see why Lieberman had some God given right to re-election just because he was the incumbent. Do you expect all of us on the left to apologize because we didn’t vote for Lieberman?
August 15th, 2006 at 4:27:33 am
Alasdair:
“As Fen points out, the Left in the US keeps telling us all how tolerant it is - of everyone except Republicans, the Rich, Big Business, Big Oil, practising Christians, pro-Life folk, pro-nuclear-power-plant folk, pro-school-choice folk, pro-America folk, and on and on … you get the idea ”
Arguing passionately against something like “school choice” which I happen to think is a flawed idea in practice, but nice in theory, doesn’t make one intolerant. By that same logic, you guys are “intolerant” of those agaisnt the Iraq War. It is the right by the way that uses terms like treason like it’s going out of style. The left hasn’t been accusing it’s adversaries of being traitors and deserving to die, as is the common theme at Little Green Footballs, Michelle Malkin, Frontpagemag and company. Again, Joe LIeberman narrowly lost a primary. If LIeberman got 2% of the vote, then one might complain about a small tent and intolerance.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:33:46 am
Max -
Except of course that I’ve criticized the GOP and don’t follow them lockstep. Though in your little world, its easy to just throw everyone to the right of you in one rusty bucket called ‘Evil Republicans’.
Glenn -
I don’t have an issue if the left wants to get a Senator more lefty. My issue is that they wanted to get a new Senator over one issue. People are trying to characterize it as, “the people have spoken and have considered wisely,” etc.
But Lamont ran a ONE issue campaign. Iraq, and proceeded to beat Lieberman over the head with it.
Does it generalize to the entire party? I don’t know. But in a few months time, we will certainly find out.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:45:01 pm
LOJO,
It doesn’t seem that you followed much of Lamont’s campaign. He would not have won if he simply mentioned Iraq and nothing else. The reality is he proved himself a likeable and intelligent alternative to Lieberman, and proved competent on many issues. He is hardly the “radical” Fox News and co like to paint him as.
Also, the Iraq war is a pretty BIG issue. Rove has tried to convince voters that if for no other reason, vote Bush and the GOP because they’re better at fighting terror, an assertion the Dems should not let slid this time around.
August 15th, 2006 at 11:44:48 pm
Glenn - for a lot of the rational folk in this country, what the NYT/MSM did with their exposure “journalism