“Tomorrow morning, our campaign will file the necessary petitions with the Connecticut Secretary of State’s office so that we can continue this campaign for a new politics of unity and purpose. If the people of Connecticut are good enough to send me back to Washington as an independent Democrat, I promise them I will keep fighting for the same progressive new ideas and for stronger national security. That’s who I am. And I will never hestitate to work with members of the other party if it helps me achieve solutions that will build a better life for the people of Connecticut. And as I have done before — and maybe this causes controversy — I promise you, I will always do what I believe is right for my state and country, regardless of what the political consequences may be.”
“Tomorrow is a brand new day.”
Now he’s speaking to people outside the state who may be watching, and asking for their help if they’re sick of politics-as-usual. Asks for “your ideas for how we can build this new politics of unity and purpose.” This sounds like the opening speech of a third-party movement. Where is John McCain? Is he watching? Lieberman-McCain ‘08! :)
Yes Sean, you’re right! Allowing the left-wing base to further broaden the partisan rift that divides the nation is the best way to achieve unity! F*ck the moderates—support short-sighted opportunism!
Sorry, I have a hard time believing that voting your conscience against endless war is equivalent to short-sighted opportunism. If anybody’s the opportunist, it’s the guy jumping the party to try desperately to keep his seat.
I remember watching a local debate last year. The Republican and Democrat candidates bickered back and forth as usual, but they put this Libertarian guy on there too. Every time the guy opened his mouth I kept thinking “This has got to be some fucking joke, right?” Really off the wall shit.
The government of the USA is *entirely* unified in purpose. One party controls all three branches of the federal government. It never even schedules votes for bills the opposition party wants to introduce. They can’t even HOLD VOTES that they know they’d lose. The unified purpose of the current government is unprecedented, and the congress has completely abdicated its duty of oversight, because of that unanimity.
There just happens to be people that believe that the -policies- of that unified and powerful movement have taken the country in the wrong direction.
And Joe Lieberman isn’t one of those people. He, in fact, provides cover for those policies. And if he truly does oppose them at any level, he is totally ineffective at it.
Claiming that saving his own personal career is tantamount to unifying the country is ludicrous.
Lieberman is no McCain.
When McCain goes against his party, he is coming from a point of total strength, conceding minor but significant points to the minority, creating ACTUAL INCLUSION.
When Lieberman goes against his party, he is coming from a point of total weakness in our winner-take-all non-parliamentary system, and thus further weakens the minority, creating ADDITIONAL IRRELEVANCE. Those people feel bad enough being out of power, but then get insulted on top of it.
McCain is a statesman. Lieberman is a self-serving out of touch moderate Republican and should just admit as much. He’s already halfway there, tonight proving he is no Democrat.
People in Berkeley are consistantly amazed when I tell them I supported Lieberman over Kerry. (They’d probably shoot me if they knew who I voted for… TWICE.) He is the most principled Senator out there. I’ll definitely donate to his independent campaign.
“One party controls all three branches of the federal government.” - one can look at it that way … just as it was back in 1993-1994 … the biggest difference between then and now is that, back then, this country had a Loyal Opposition …
Of course, if one has studied the way this country was put together, NO-ONE controls one of the three branches of the federal Government (as far as I, a Mere Humble Innocent Resident Alien, understands such things …
The GOP currently controls two of the three branches … or am I mistaken, Loys Elder and Younger ?
“The unified purpose of the current government is unprecedented. One party controls all three branches of the federal government.”
Not exactly “unprecedented.” See, e.g., 1920-1931 (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover as President with Republican majorities in both chambers); 1933-1947 (FDR and Truman as President with Dem majorities in both chambers); 1949-1953 (Truman as President with Dem majorities in both chambers); 1953-1955 (Eisenhower as President with GOP majorities in both chambers); 1961-1969 (Kennedy and Johnson as President with Dem majorities in both chambers); 1977-1981 (Carter as President with Dem majorities in both chambers); 1993-1995 (Clinton as President with Dem majorities in both chambers).
Otherwise, yes, I agree, *completely* unprecedented.
Lieberman will be out of the race by October. When no money is coming in. When no organization is happening on the ground in CT. When Bill Clinton comes calling. Lieberman will stop being a self-centered ass.
A Lieberman-McCain ticket would be a spectacular boon for the country. I sure as hell wouldn’t vote for them, but the country might actually be convinced.
Am I glad to have a more liberal person win the Dems’ nomination? Yes. Am I going to jump ship? Probably not. Until a viable third party presents itself, we really are stuck with dumb and dumber when the screen on the voting booth closes.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:18:17 pm
He’s talking about dividing the party in the name of unity. Lamont, you see, split the party. The only person I see splitting the party is Lieberman.
I’ve never really liked the guy, but I never realized what a smarmy jackass he was until today.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:33:59 pm
Yes Sean, you’re right! Allowing the left-wing base to further broaden the partisan rift that divides the nation is the best way to achieve unity! F*ck the moderates—support short-sighted opportunism!
August 8th, 2006 at 8:37:06 pm
Sean, this seems like a move that should appeal to your Libertarian tastes.
Instead, you’re siding with the left-wing kooks. What gives?
August 8th, 2006 at 8:38:56 pm
Sorry, I have a hard time believing that voting your conscience against endless war is equivalent to short-sighted opportunism. If anybody’s the opportunist, it’s the guy jumping the party to try desperately to keep his seat.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:39:43 pm
Wars of aggression based on falsehood are hardly libertarian.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:44:59 pm
I remember watching a local debate last year. The Republican and Democrat candidates bickered back and forth as usual, but they put this Libertarian guy on there too. Every time the guy opened his mouth I kept thinking “This has got to be some fucking joke, right?” Really off the wall shit.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:05:36 pm
What country is Joe Lieberman living in?
The government of the USA is *entirely* unified in purpose. One party controls all three branches of the federal government. It never even schedules votes for bills the opposition party wants to introduce. They can’t even HOLD VOTES that they know they’d lose. The unified purpose of the current government is unprecedented, and the congress has completely abdicated its duty of oversight, because of that unanimity.
There just happens to be people that believe that the -policies- of that unified and powerful movement have taken the country in the wrong direction.
And Joe Lieberman isn’t one of those people. He, in fact, provides cover for those policies. And if he truly does oppose them at any level, he is totally ineffective at it.
Claiming that saving his own personal career is tantamount to unifying the country is ludicrous.
Lieberman is no McCain.
When McCain goes against his party, he is coming from a point of total strength, conceding minor but significant points to the minority, creating ACTUAL INCLUSION.
When Lieberman goes against his party, he is coming from a point of total weakness in our winner-take-all non-parliamentary system, and thus further weakens the minority, creating ADDITIONAL IRRELEVANCE. Those people feel bad enough being out of power, but then get insulted on top of it.
McCain is a statesman. Lieberman is a self-serving out of touch moderate Republican and should just admit as much. He’s already halfway there, tonight proving he is no Democrat.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:47:12 pm
People in Berkeley are consistantly amazed when I tell them I supported Lieberman over Kerry. (They’d probably shoot me if they knew who I voted for… TWICE.) He is the most principled Senator out there. I’ll definitely donate to his independent campaign.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:39:04 pm
Milton - are you for real ?
“One party controls all three branches of the federal government.” - one can look at it that way … just as it was back in 1993-1994 … the biggest difference between then and now is that, back then, this country had a Loyal Opposition …
Of course, if one has studied the way this country was put together, NO-ONE controls one of the three branches of the federal Government (as far as I, a Mere Humble Innocent Resident Alien, understands such things …
The GOP currently controls two of the three branches … or am I mistaken, Loys Elder and Younger ?
August 9th, 2006 at 12:03:23 am
Alasdair, while Milton wrote ‘three brances’ implying the Presidency, Congress and Supreme Court, I think he meant the Presidency, Senate and House.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:54:44 am
“The unified purpose of the current government is unprecedented. One party controls all three branches of the federal government.”
Not exactly “unprecedented.” See, e.g., 1920-1931 (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover as President with Republican majorities in both chambers); 1933-1947 (FDR and Truman as President with Dem majorities in both chambers); 1949-1953 (Truman as President with Dem majorities in both chambers); 1953-1955 (Eisenhower as President with GOP majorities in both chambers); 1961-1969 (Kennedy and Johnson as President with Dem majorities in both chambers); 1977-1981 (Carter as President with Dem majorities in both chambers); 1993-1995 (Clinton as President with Dem majorities in both chambers).
Otherwise, yes, I agree, *completely* unprecedented.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:59:16 am
Sorry — 1920 should have been 1921.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:10:50 am
Lieberman will be out of the race by October. When no money is coming in. When no organization is happening on the ground in CT. When Bill Clinton comes calling. Lieberman will stop being a self-centered ass.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:30:13 am
A Lieberman-McCain ticket would be a spectacular boon for the country. I sure as hell wouldn’t vote for them, but the country might actually be convinced.
Am I glad to have a more liberal person win the Dems’ nomination? Yes. Am I going to jump ship? Probably not. Until a viable third party presents itself, we really are stuck with dumb and dumber when the screen on the voting booth closes.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:55:06 am
Lieberman-McCain will never happen. If Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t win as a Third Party candidate, these guys certainly won’t.