Okay, I’m calling it. It’s over. Ned Lamont has won the primary. Democrats in my home state of Connecticut have seen fit to give their incumbent U.S. senator, the honorable Joseph Lieberman, the old heave-ho. Get out of our party, the Democratic voters have told Joe. You aren’t one of us anymore.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that Lieberman’s fine Senate career is over — he says he’ll run as an independent, and if he does, he may well win. Nor does it necessarily mean that the majority of national Democrats, or even the majority of Connecticut progressives and liberals, agree with the decision that today’s voters made. Connecticut’s largest “party” is unaffiliated voters, who were ineligible to vote in today’s primary, and they have long been big Lieberman supporters. Moreover, even among registered Democrats, it was always going to be more difficult for Lieberman to motivate his contented-but-not-fervent supporters to vote in the same numbers as his rabidly angry critics. Lamont was bound to have a natural advantage in this primary, and Lieberman a natural disadvantage, for the same reason that moderates are almost always at a disadvantage in primaries. (See, e.g., the 2002 GOP gubernatorial primary in California.)
But regardless of all that, the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: there’s no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonight’s result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. It’s really much more than just a single primary in a single state; it’s a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, there’s one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today:
I am no longer a Democrat.
I’ve been calling myself a Democrat since I was ten years old, when I marched around the schoolyard in fifth grade chanting “Jerry Brown! Jerry Brown!” and, later, played the part of Bill Clinton in a sixth-grade mock debate. At the age of 13, I threw my hands up in dismay when the GOP took over Congress. When I turned 18, I registered without hesitation as a Democrat. I proudly cast my ballot for Al Gore in 2000, and — somewhat less proudly — for John Kerry in 2004. In recent years, I’ve seen the “base” of the Democratic Party drifting away from sense and sanity, and at the same time, I’ve felt my own ideological compass pulled somewhat to the right by world events. Yet I remain profoundly uncomfortable with the Republican Party for a variety of reasons, and I’ve never much liked the idea of being an “independent,” considering it — with all due respect to those who wear the label proudly — something of a cop-out in many cases.
So I’ve continued to cling to the label of Democrat, and to the hope that the party would somehow save itself from the tired orthodoxies of its interest groups and the execrable excesses of its far-left wing. I’ve shaken my head at the irrational policies and irresponsible rhetoric coming from so many corners of the party, comforting myself with the thought that while Dennis Kucinich may be a nutjob and Al Sharpton may be a charlatan and Howard Dean may be an idiot and Dick Durbin may be, well, a dick, at least there’s still Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman stood for just about everything good in the Democratic Party, while shunning most of the bad. He was — he is — an honest, decent and rational progressive, a moral but not overly moralistic man, a loyal but not blindly loyal Democrat. He agreed with the party most of the time, but he was willing to disagree when he felt his collegues were wrong. He was also willing to challenge liberal orthodoxies when they needed to be challenged, a rare and crucial trait. Mind you, I don’t worship the man, and I haven’t always agreed with him. He was wrong on Terri Schiavo, for instance, and in his views on the entertainment industry he sometimes tiptoes uncomfortably far toward the line separating criticism from censorship (though, to his credit, he never actually crosses it). But he was — he is — usually right, especially on the big issues, particularly the global war on terrorism and the conflict in Iraq.
Perhaps, I told myself, despite the ascendancy of Nancy Pelosi, the Deaniacs and the Kos Kidz, perhaps Lieberman’s side could still somehow win the struggle for the party’s soul. As long as that hope remained viable, I could continue to be a Democrat. A “Lieberman Democrat,” I called myself, and I was proud.
But now the voters have spoken. Lieberman may still consider himself a Democrat — he says that, if elected as an independent, he’ll vote to organize with the Dems, and I believe him — but the Democrats don’t consider Lieberman a Democrat anymore. That’s the cold, hard truth of today’s results. He’s been kicked out of the “big tent” because his loyalty wasn’t blind enough, because his conscience wasn’t pliable enough. He’s been replaced by the shiny new millionaire who said all the right things to win over the hearts and minds of the netroots. The war in Iraq is wrong, wrong, wrong; President Bush is bad, bad, bad; and Joe Lieberman is a traitor, a traitor, a traitor. That’s the undeniable message that Democratic voters from my home state have sent out across the land this fateful day.
Well, if there’s no room in the Democratic Party for Joe Lieberman, then there’s no room in it for me.
So I’m done. I’m out. See ya later. Sayonara.
This might seem like an overreaction to a single primary result in a single state, but really, it’s just the straw that broke the donkey’s back. As I said, the Democratic Party and I have been drifting apart for some time now. I believe it began on a Tuesday morning in the fall of 2001; I can’t exactly remember the date, but let’s just say a certain catastrophic event happened which changed the world in the eyes of most people — but not of many liberals and Democrats. Oh, they were sad and mad, just like everybody else. But as the weeks and months wore on, I learned to my dismay that the far left didn’t see 9/11 as a world-changing event or a paradigm shift, but rather, just a minor historical blip that didn’t require any adjustments whatsoever to their worldview or their policy ideas. And as the months turned to years, I watched with even greater dismay as the Democratic Party establishment concluded that the best way to win elections was to drift ever closer to the poisonous views of the far left. When Dick Durbin compared American soldiers to Nazis back in 2005, I almost bid adieu to the party of FDR and JFK… almost. I started drafting a blog post much like this one, declaring that “I am no longer a Democrat,” but then thought better of it. There was still hope for the Democrats, still a possibility that the party would save itself. After all, there was still Joe Lieberman.
Well, I don’t see the point is holding out hope anymore. It’s official now: the Democrats have jumped off the cliff, and are in free fall toward a richly deserved oblivion. I’ll continue to vote for Democratic candidates when and if they’re the best for the job. I might even continue to root for a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate this November, if only to shake things up and rebuke the Republicans for their corruption, their lies and their failures. But my “default” setting in the voting booth is no longer the Democratic column. As of today, I’m an independent.
I never wanted to be an independent. As I said earlier, it always struck me as something of a cop-out, the meaningless refuge of those who “don’t want to be labeled.” Screw that, I said; I have no problem with being labeled, so long as the label fits. But now, I finally understand where earnest independents are coming from, because now, for me, neither label fits. I’m not a Republican; I’m far too liberal on social issues to join their camp, and there’s quite a lot else I disapprove of, too. I’m not a Democrat; those who support a sane foreign policy, and who put loyalty to conscience and country ahead of loyalty to party, are no longer welcome on that side of the aisle. Nor I am aware of any national minor party that adequately represents my views. So I’m an independent.
Mind you, this doesn’t mean I’ll never register in either major party if doing so would be pragmatically useful for a particular purpose. For example, come 2008, I’ll decide which party’s presidential nomination race I care more about, and I’ll register in that party so I can vote in their primary. Indeed, this decision isn’t really about party registration at all. Technically, I am not currently registered in either party, since the way Indiana’s system works, you don’t pick a party upon registration, and I haven’t yet had the opportunity to vote in an Indiana primary, so I’ve been listed since 2004 as an unaffiliated voter. Unfortunately, that means I’ll be denied the catharsis of calling up the town clerk and demanding to be removed from the Democratic voter rolls. Darn it.
But again, this isn’t about party registration. It’s about self-labeling. That might strike some people are trivial, but to me, it matters. I’ve always been proud to call myself a Democrat. No more.
I have no doubt that this post will inspire a barrage of comments, so I want to make a few things clear. First, if you disagree with me on the war in Iraq, that’s fine. I respect that. I think reasonable people can disagree on the war in Iraq. There are some views that are patently unreasonable, of course (hence my references to “sense and sanity” above), but it isn’t inherently unreasonable to be against the war. In fact, where I truly part company with so many liberals is that they don’t think reasonable people can disagree; they believe their view is the only reasonable one. That’s why they think Lieberman is “spineless” and a “sellout” and a “closet Republican” — because they can’t conceive of how any non-Republican with a spine (by which they mean, any non-evil person with a spine, since all Republicans are evil… or, in the case of red-state hicks, maybe just stupid) could possibly support the war. They have no interest in a dialogue with the other side because they believe the opinions of everyone who disagrees with them are inherently worthless. That’s a sign of dangerous extremism right there, and I have no tolerance for it.
Secondly, as mentioned here, I want to emphasize again that I consider the argument that Lieberman is “spineless” and has “no principles beyond winning and political expedience and no honor beyond his own self interest” to be idiotic, asinine, and utterly absurd on its face, and anyone who makes such an argument is on notice that they may be ruthlessly pilloried by yours truly.
Thirdly and finally, in keeping with the notion of respecting those who disagree with me on the war, I also respect those Connecticut residents who voted against Lieberman because they believe “Iraq is the crucible of our age” and they simply can’t abide someone who disagrees with them on that issue. I’m not generally a single-issue voter, but I do feel that way about certain things — for instance, I could not under any circumstances vote for Bush, because he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment. So if you voted for Lamont because you can’t stand Lieberman’s stance on the war, I strongly disagree with your position, but I respect it. Likewise for voters who picked Lamont because of disagreements with Lieberman about various other issue(s). If that had been all this campaign was about — honest disagreements over issues — I wouldn’t nearly be as angry about Lieberman’s defeat as I am. But this hasn’t just been a campaign about issues. It’s also been a campaign about innuendo and lies and character assassination. Lieberman has been portrayed as a Bush stooge, a disloyal Democrat, a spineless sissy, a closet conservative and so forth. None of these characterizations are remotely supported by the facts, and all of them suggest a disturbing willingness on the part of the Democratic Party’s ascendant far left to throw under the bus anyone who gets in their way. These people are downright scary in their insistence on lock-step loyalty. They represent the precise opposite of the direction the party ought to be moving in, and that’s why I personally am jumping off the bus at this point. It’s ironic, really, that Democrats and MSM analysts (but I repeat myself) still trot out the old stereotype that the Republican Party is the one with the “small tent,” the one that’s unwilling to entertain dissent on its core issues. This despite the fact that, among others, Rudy Giuliani (pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun), Arnold Schwarzenegger (same), and John McCain (just generally a maverick) are nationally renowned Republican leaders — and, in the case of Giuliani and McCain, leading contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination. News flash, people: the Democratic Party is the “small tent” party of the 21st century. That’s been getting clearer for a while, and today it became official. You dissent from the party line, you’re hung out to dry. That’s the lesson of today’s vote, and it’s a disturbing one to anyone who cares about the future of the Democratic Party. (Which, frankly, I no longer do, particularly. I do believe it’s important to have a viable opposition party, but personally I’d love to see McCain and Lieberman hook up, form a third party, a centrist/unity party — let’s call it the Liberty Party, since Libertarian is already taken — and watch the Democrats’ numbers shrink and shrink until they become the third party. That’d be sweet.)
Anyway… so long, Democrats. And now, let the comment-flaming begin. :)
P.S. If you get the sense that I’ve been working on this post for a while… I have. I started drafting it when it became clear that Lieberman was trailing badly in the polls and was very likely to lose. I sincerely hoped that I wouldn’t have to post it. But here we are. Democratic voters have just given a big, unambiguous “f*** you” to moderates like me, and you know what? I can take a hint. You don’t want me in your party anymore. I get it. I’m going. Bye.
UPDATE: Far more surprisingly, my mom is jumping ship, too!
UPDATE 2: Welcome, InstaPundit readers! Please visit my homepage for much more on the Connecticut Senate election… not to mention a live travel blog by cute babes. :)
August 8th, 2006 at 8:11:35 pm
Terrific. DOnt’ slam the door on your way out, honeychile !!
August 8th, 2006 at 8:11:36 pm
The fifth-colmn left has finally gone too far. By pushing out moderates, they no longer deserve to be called ‘liberal’. They are now fascist.
But hey, does this finally mean that the far-left will shut up about the 2000 election being stolen? Lieberman was supposed to be the VPOTUS, but now they don’t like him. So will they finally shut up about it?
August 8th, 2006 at 8:13:57 pm
And make no mistake - the Lamont supporters truly are a hard-core anti-American fifth-column, that would resort to Maoist tactics of re-education if they could.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:19:26 pm
I have felt the same way for months now. I am also without a party. And I feel lost. ALL politicians have forgotten about moderates. It is one extreme or the other, and I am not a fringe-dweller. It is extremely depressing.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:20:00 pm
Oddly enough, I feel your pain, Brendan! While I’m not on board with everything you’ve written (do I even need
to make that explicit? Heeheehee.), I, too, am a disgruntled independent. I do flirt with the idea of joining the Green
party, which is probably ideologically the closest to my own socialist visions of ecovegetaritopia. I certainly agree that
there is a broad spectrum of “liberal” thought that is utterly stagnant and wants to stomp out dissent (a la Marshall) by
arguing that only idiots and murderers would think differently. Maybe you can found your own moderate party for all the
disgruntled moderates out there: the Republicrats or the Demlicans.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:20:29 pm
Twok, do you know anything at all about politics? I mean at all?
Brendan, they didn’t tell Lieberman he wasn’t a democrat they told him they didn’t want him to represent them anymore. There is a difference.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:21:48 pm
Lamont is not anywhere close to an extremist.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:22:00 pm
Welcome to the club.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:24:28 pm
Oh, and brendan, to be totally crass about it, the message is not no room for moderates. the message is don’t suck Bush’s [redacted] for six years and expect to win a primary in the opposing party.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:27:12 pm
The fifth column was Franco’s theory that the people of Madrid would support his siege of four columns with acts of sabotage. Moron.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:28:52 pm
Personally I have no problem if you don’t want to affiliate yourself with a political party anymore. I think that it would be better if MORE people weren’t beholdin to political parties. I also have no problem if you feel that the democrats don’t represent your views, thats a prefectly good reason to not want to belong to a group.
On the other hand, I think your conclusion that the entire democratic party has no room for someone with views that aren’t from the far left based on a single election in which a Democrat who many (who aren’t you) consider to be more to the right than to the left these days anyway might not win? Again I ask you, why are you placing the blame on the WHOLE party for the actions of the voters in one state? Do you actually think that the party should turn around and say, no sorry we don’t want to use the results from the primary because we like Lieberman better?
It seem to me this i smore personal than anything else. I can’t imagine you reacting this way if Lieberman WEREN’T the politician you grew up with. You think very highly of him, and thats fine, but I think you really are over reacting based on what has actually happened.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:30:33 pm
[…] Ramifications: Brendan Loy says it’s time for a divorce. Brendan Loy’s got an interesting post that it likely taking place all over the co […]
August 8th, 2006 at 8:30:57 pm
Look at all these left-wing faggots happy that their faggotty ideology is turining more moderates away from them. Tee hee….
There are Democrats like Lieberman, and then there are Dumbocrats (or should we call them Homocrats)? Ha ha….
August 8th, 2006 at 8:31:41 pm
As I said, David, this was the last straw. It was the latest in a series of incidents that has finally left me with no reason to keep calling myself a Democrat. Joe Lieberman was basically my last reason.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:34:58 pm
Wake up and smell the coffee, David. The Democrats are the party of moonbats.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:35:28 pm
I have 40 years on you, as a person and as a Democrat, but you’re right. I too consider this an invitation to go elsewhere.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:35:45 pm
It’s been pretty obvious you aren’t comfortable as a Democrat for awhile, but I see nothing but overreaction through this entire thread.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:36:14 pm
I know a law degree is a professional degree and all, but you realize ND is a catholic school. And it’s not like Georgetown, which is catholic in name only. Given your hostility to Bush and Republicans on gay marriage and abortion, why on earth did you affiliate yourself with a school that shares the President’s views on these issues. When I was a student the Gay students group couldn’t even meet on campus because they put ads in the Observer.
By the way, I wouldn’t call Lierberman much of a moderate. He is extremely liberal but he is serious on foreign policy. He always showed leadership in that area, including the crisis in Bosnia (Clinton followed his lead). I worked for a pro-choice (I’m not) Senator that was always labeled moderate for that one stance but was extremely conservative otherwise. Funny how that works sometimes.
I see from your bio you are going BIGLAW. We’ll see how long you remain idealistic in the big firm environment, especially since it’s your first real job. Good luck in your 3d year of law school, enjoy it while you can.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:38:29 pm
[…] ats into the Lamont camp? If I was a lefty blogger, I’d say so. [Update: Already one has gone the other way, but I get the impression he wasn’t old enough to be regis […]
August 8th, 2006 at 8:38:30 pm
You aren’t and won’t be alone. I’m no Democrat - never have been - but I had room to respect a number of Democrats. I even voted for Pat Moynihan once upon a time. But those days are over.
Repuublicans really are the bigger tent now. Lieberman was, at worst, a 90% Democrat - with the party on almost everything except the war in Iraq. If that’s not good enough, then the party has problems bigger than Joe Lieberman.
And for those who want to invoke Republican efforts to unseat Lincoln Chafee as a “gotcha” - I will note that Lieberman gets high marks from most liberal interest groups - marks not unlike other prominent liberals in the Senate. Chafee on the other hand typically gets low marks from conservative and Republican groups - in fact, his 2005 score from the American Conservative Union was lower than Russ Feingold’s rating. Chafee is at best a 50% Republican - so he is not at all like Lieberman. A better comparison would be if we were willing to toss aside Rick Santorum because he supported Arlen Specter in 2004.
Serious and responsible Democrats need to look in the mirror and decide if the party of Daily Kos, Nanacy Pelosi, and Howard Dean, is really the party that represents them. Since my guess is most of them would say no - you should fight back and be heard in your party. None of are served well when the two-party system is reduced to one-party rule with an “opposition” that is a caricature of itself.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:39:11 pm
Brendan, enjoy your new friends
August 8th, 2006 at 8:39:22 pm
Barbara Boxer
August 8th, 2006 at 8:40:44 pm
So, will the estimiable Joe Loy also say something similar?
Will this start a Loy family exodus into the wilderness?
Anyway, that rant reverberated with me - I’ve thought similar things many times about Republicans - but on the whole, I still agree with much of the platform. Heck, I DID go down to the voter’s office and get my name removed . . . only to come crawling back in when I had a chance to get rid of my LEAST favorite Senator, Specter. Once I moved to Maryland, I kept my Republican registration because I felt that it made more of a political statement here (Maryland is for all intents and purposes a 1 party state - Ehrlich was the first Republican governor in 30 or 40 years, and I’m sure the legislature hasn’t changed hands since before that time). I’m kept in by the policy, which is still by and large stuff I agree with - and I don’t feel like the weird right wingers are kicking me out.
That’s got to be tough, though. The Democrats have got to figure out that their party is on the downward spiral, or its just going to get worse.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:41:59 pm
Brendan, I am your father. Join me. It is the only way . . .
August 8th, 2006 at 8:44:06 pm
Good for you, Brendan.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:46:27 pm
Welcome to the middle. Now, go vote your conscience. You can do
that now.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:49:20 pm
Joe Lieberman was a wacko fringe extremist, bizarrely out of touch with mainstream normal America. Why? Because he supported Bush’s Folly. By a two-thirds margin, Americans reject the Iraq War. Not “Kos Kids.” Not “netroots.” Not “Connecticut Democrats.” AMERICANS. Being against this war is the moderate position. Ned Lamont is quite, quite moderate.
We currently have the most out-of-touch extremist administration in living memory, driving our country in the wrong direction. And what has Joe Lieberman done? Adopted their extremist arguments from torture to Terri, and said that everybody who questions the necessity of the war–again, that’s the majority mainstream of this country–is “undermining the President, at our peril.”
August 8th, 2006 at 8:49:47 pm
Brendan,
Great post. I pretty much did the same thing around 2001. I was a Dem, but would argue all the time with Repubs and Dems about politics. Dems just seemed to be doing more name calling and less arguing - much as they’re doing in this thread to you. Now, the Dems are now just a hodge podge collection of their own prejudices and juvenile over-reactions. I have no more time for it.
I think there is room for a party that skims the centrist and libertarian segments of both parties. Less religious and socially liberal Rs and Dems who still believe in a foreign policy that doesn’t involve curling into a ball and apologizing for being American. It could make a real dent in American politics.
You’re definitely not alone. Unfortunately, a lot of the sensible people are busy running businesses, raising children, and not commenting on blogs or - alas- voting in primaries. :)
August 8th, 2006 at 8:56:19 pm
[…] arty now, don’t we? It’s hardly surprising that at least one moderate Democrat is saying enough is enough. The trackback URI for this post […]
August 8th, 2006 at 8:56:50 pm
Welcome to the middle Brendan. As a 40+ year old Republican CEO who’s gone to the same place as you have over the last couple years, perhaps we will upset things in ‘08. If only we find real leaders to represent us, instead of the hacks with whom we’ve been presented over the last several elections.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:58:52 pm
Hi, well thought out post.
I’m a social conservative, but more willing to find common ground on economic or other issues, and I mainly consider myself a Republican because the Democrats have gone insane (and like you, I feel like “independent” is a cop out). but like you, I long hoped that people like Joe Lieberman could save a once noble party, because even if I am a Republican and a conservative, I see no good coming from not having a serious opposition to keep US grounded as well. I don’t think we have all the answers. I still hope that people like Joe, and you, Brendan, can save it, even if it has to be as “independents”. Even though I probably disagree with you (and Joe) most of the time, you have my utmost respect, and you’re right on the most important issue of the age.
I don’t do much in the way of campaign contributions, and not to Democrats, but I will send a bit Joe’s way. He is a good man, and it is good to be able to call your opponent good. He does not deserve what he got this night. Hopefully some honesty, decency, civility, and sanity can be restored. Maybe this setback was a necessary part of that. Good luck.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:59:37 pm
As Brendan aptly puts it, this election was not simply another primary. This was the moment in which Democratic politicians across the nation could voice their opposition to allowing the left fringe to define the Party’s platform. Instead, they mostly remained silent—too afraid to upset their own fringe constituency.
I felt that when the Democrats handed Howard Dean the reigns of the Party, the writing was on the wall. However, the Party’s inability to stand up for Joe not only confirms their unwillingness to bridge the mainstream gap of American politics, but also serves as yet another instance of the Democrats’ timidity in the face of making the tough choice of doing what’s right.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:02:07 pm
I guess I’m not surprised. It isn’t a good time to be a non-reactionary in the Democratic Party these days.
I don’t claim to speak for the GOP or even all Republicans, but I know I’d be happy to have you in our political party. Yeah, we have our share of nutballs too, but we actually try to be decent to each other. You and I may disagree on the FMA, but I’m not going to call you a heretic and an extremist just for having a different opinion.
We could use a counterbalancing force to keep us on our toes. I know that the GOP is a pretty big tent, from social conservatives to social libertarians, fiscal conservatives to neoconservatives to squishy moderates. Pretty much the only things you need to believe in to be a Republican are winning the war, upholding the law, and keeping government out of our pocketbooks — and I’ll be the first to admit we don’t always agree on how best to go about those things.
To borrow a phrase, “it’s the civility, stupid”. We may have our disagreements, but at least we don’t eat our own. And if that changes, I’ll be joining you in leaving my political party.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:03:42 pm
Brendan,
You’ve just said good-bye to the “Peace in our time” crowd. Fools…
August 8th, 2006 at 9:04:04 pm
Here’s what’s the kicker. Right now, despite what’s gone wrong in Iraq, the Republican Party remains the serious governing party in this country today. Nobody really wants to run off Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. If Condi gets into the Presidential game, and there’s a better chance than most people think that she will, she could give Rudy and JMC a run for their money with all the Pioneer money behind her. The point is this: for years, the Democrats have peddled the notion that Republicans are racist, exclusive, and unwilling to tolerated those with differing opinions. Yet our party is showing the signs of a mature, governing, coalition-building party that is capable of nominating heavyweights who are manifestly not extremist moonbat types. Any of the top three potential Republican Candidates could build a governing coalition as Reagan did, and would be successful in reaching across the aisle.
No Democratic leader today could do the same. Especially not Hillary. Not while the Democrats exist as a Vanguard Party. This is what you’ve got. This is what happens when the Party of Roosevelt, Truman, George C. Marshall, Dean Acheson, JFK, and Bobby passes into history. The Liebermans of the Party are purged as deviationists. Ideological conformity is insisted upon by the Base.
What’s different now is that the Base has money behind it. This is a strange repeat of the post-Goldwater catastrophe days of the sixties as the Conservative movement swept to power in my party. Only we did not have the handicap of standing for pacifism. That’s the weak hand the Democrats hold, and it will destroy them with the voters.
Not a good night to be Hillary Clinton. Her Double Game has come to a shattering end.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:05:31 pm
[…] nsist of Independents and GOPers that have grown comfortable with Lieberman. Final Finale: Democrat pisses his pants and quits the party. And no, it’s not Lieberman!
[…]
August 8th, 2006 at 9:07:14 pm
Brendan, I’m sorry you feel that way. I respect–while profoundly not sharing–your views on the war. I respect Lieberman’s holding to his beleifs, but his attitude conveyed to many Democrats that he was not comfortable with them, did not hear their concerns, and as the situation in Iraq deteriorated, his unwillingness to confront those difficulties led him to seem more comfortable with the GOP. I don’t mean that he was so; but his appearances on Fox and in the conservative media, and his statement regarding “undermining” the President made him seem to equate dissent with disloyalty. many other hawks–Ben Nelson, Hilary Clinton–did not arouse the ire of the base, because at heart they still feel like Democrats.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:07:40 pm
I understand exactly where you are coming from. Both parties have been trending to extremes, and the last two presidential elections have not helped with how close they were. The main problem of modern American two-party politics has always been that the fringe of both sides rule the primaries. The problem for the Democrats is that their fringe is further out of touch with the mainstream moderates that actualy decide the elections. I have always considered myself a conservative independent, probably shading to Libertarian in that I think government has gotten way out of hand in regards to regulations, entitlements, and the whole “nanny” state thing, but the modern Democratic party just seems to be a bunch of kooks, letting their hatred of Bush, and by association, everything Republican drive their every thought and action. The Republicans have their share of bible-thumper extremists, but they manage to keep them on the reservation more.
I would love to see true moderates like McCain and Lieberman form a true third party, you could count me in in a heartbeat.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:09:36 pm
Hmmmm, I think if the Kos Kidz were smart they’d all shut up for minute, cup their ears, and listen carefully. For if they did, they’d hear the sound of popping champagne corks in the West Wing. Damn, Karl Rove must be pinching himself in disbelief at his good fortune. This is the Dems worst nightmare come true. Quickly! Can anybody tell me when was the last time a political party grabbed a respected, capable, long-serving Senator by the scruff of the neck and pitched him overboard in favor of a ideologically-correct, vapid lightweight? I was born in 1957 and I can’t remember this ever happening before.
We can only wonder how many other Democrats are now asking themselves: “Is my party going to ‘do a Lieberman’ on me too, just because I didn’t always agree with the leadership and crossed the aisle a few times?”
As Flounder in “Animal House” might say, “The next few months are gonna be grrrrrrrreat!”
August 8th, 2006 at 9:11:29 pm
Man, at this point the Lieberman-McCain ticket is like those two friends from school who have been eyeing each other all year and just seriously need to knock boots.
Do it for America, John and Joe. Make some fruity purple babies and fix the freaking country already.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:13:48 pm
[…]
Two Fewer Democrats
Brendan Loy on Lieberman’s loss: “The Democratic Party is the ’small tent’ party of the 21st century.” […]
August 8th, 2006 at 9:14:23 pm
Listening to Kos on Keith Olbermann’s show. Who’s the bigger idiot is a close call. Man, I wish Markos Moulitsas was on tv 24/7. His nonsense should be heard by everyone.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:23:45 pm
There’s still a chance to keep the Irish Trojan on board.
I’m quoting Kos’s marching orders: (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/231459/7695)
1. Push Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all committee assignments.
2. Let people know what a sore loser Lieberman is.
3. Get all Democrats � including Bill Clinton � to publicly back Ned Lamont.
4. Get the Democratic interest groups who backed Lieberman to switch allegiances in the general.
Sen. Reid can follow Kos’s kommandments. Or, he can say “well, the Connecticut Democrats have spoken - but we national Democrats think the CT Democrats have made a mistake. We’re supporting Joe”.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:24:13 pm
I’m a New Mexican. I’m a Republican; although right now, I’m a registered Democrat, because I wanted to help a friend win a Demo primary. I vote for the man/woman, not the party, but I’m a conservative in most respects. I say all that just to lead up to this: I’ll be sending Joe Lieberman a campaign contribution since he’s chosen to run as an Independent. I don’t see eye/eye with JL on many issues, but these are issues I will stand with him ’til the Alamo ain’t Texican: Good Character; Integrity; Honesty; Consistency; Courage in the face of adversity; Refusal to sell the farm when principle is at stake; He’s the epitome of what we should teach our kids to emulate in this country. Go Joe. This New Mexican hopes you continue to represent not just Connecticut, but this whole U. S. of A. in the Senate next term. And will be sendin’ you some cash to help make that happen…….
-jwc-
August 8th, 2006 at 9:24:24 pm
Welcome fellow Trojan to the world of “Common Sense.” Joe has it. Most moderate Republicans and Democrats have it. My question: “How did you ever survive SC as a Democrat?
August 8th, 2006 at 9:33:49 pm
Brendan,
Despite the grandiosity of your post, it’s really simple: Connecticut Democrats had a choice between two candidates. They narrowly chose one. They didn’t “throw anyone out” of a political party; they decided who should represent the party in the general. It’s called representative democracy, and it’s worked pretty well in this country.
Also, in recent decades, moderate incumbents find a way to win nearly 100% of primaries. So instead of castigating the very voters you would love to identify with — if ONLY they hadn’t brought past your rubicon — maybe you should think about why they voted the way they did.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:41:13 pm
I’ll be very interested to see Hillary’s and the other pro-war Democrats’ reactions to these results.
I’ll also be interested to see if Kos now moves on and attacks Hillary if she does the principaled thing and does not kowtow to the Kossacks.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:53:11 pm
While Democrats like to blast Republicans over low polling numbers with regard to support for the war on terror. They forget that Democrats continue to poll lower than Republicans overall. Until Democrats can offer real policies instead of hate speech they won’t be a viable opposition party. It’s really pretty sad. I am a Republican. But I have a great deal of respect for my Democrat friends. At least those that can voice a rational argument and not degenerate into emotionally charged, vitriolic statements when discussing Bush, Iraq or a number of other current topics. I wish you the best. Like Reagan said, you didn’t leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party left you.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:04:40 pm
JK,
It’s worse than that though b/c they threw out a sitting Senator in their own party when they can’t afford to lose seats. They had a choice between a pragmatic, centrist, near-sure winner and a nobody who would be a vehicle to let the far-left thumb their noses at the center…..and that’s what they chose.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:13:49 pm
Template for “life changing event” blog posts. Simply add content in format recommended below, post, and have fun. Repeat as necessary. Works with any political affiliation and on any type of blog! Don’t worry, they never get old!
[Title. Think big — metaphor is good. E.g., Divorce, death, acquisition of venereal disease.]
[Description of watershed event. E.g., Lieberman loses primary. Bush announces support for FMA. You wake up in Toledo next to dead hooker. Miss Meowie bites six-year old cousin.]
[Bold statement announcing momentous personal change affected by watershed event — preferably delivered in a single crisp sentence, offset from abutting paragraphs. E.g., “I am no longer a Democrat.” “I will not vote for President Bush.” “I’m going to stop drinking.” “The cat has rabies.”]
[Wistful remembrance of how things used to be. Possible formats: description of foundational childhood experience; panegyric to maligned truth-teller; funny story about college days; picture of kitten.]
[Unctuous and self-righteous justification. Important: emphasize tragic trend of which watershed event is latest manifestation. Remember, you are the victim. E.g., Democratic party has left you; Bush betrayed conservative principles; parents passed down alcoholism gene; Miss Meowie kept humping that sick looking raccoon. Style recommendations: Short, punchy sentences. If … then … structure. E.g., “If there is no room for Lieberman, then there is no room for me” -or- “If I have one more Mai Tai, then my liver will explode.” Begin sentences with: “But the fact is…” “As of today…” “I’ve started foaming at the mouth, but…” ]
[Sad but firm closing. Good: quote from or evocation of well-known and eloquent world leader. E.g., Churchill, Lincoln, Miss Manners. Bad: Romantic poetry. Emoticons.]
Good luck!
August 8th, 2006 at 10:17:21 pm
Alan,
There is no plausible scenario under which a Republican can win the seat. It’s going to be Lamont or Lieberman.
And given that Connecticut is a liberal state, is it really surprising that Democratic voters would reject a centrist?
August 8th, 2006 at 10:20:52 pm
Welcome to the neocons, Brendan. Once you get past the distaste at the label, you’ll find we’re all really apostate liberals, excommunicated from the Holy Church of the Democratic Party for questioning the socialist orthodoxy, or even being insufficiently fervent in our condemnations of any who don’t think like us.
Heck, Charles Johnson still can’t get used to being called a conservative. He’s a musician, a graphic artist, and rides bikes every day. Pat Robertson would call him a “filthy hippie,” but his judgemental attitude toward terrorists of all kinds has led to him being permanently branded a Right Wing Death Beast.
Of course, Pat Robertson was recently praised by the netroots for his stance on global warming. Just goes to show you, go far enough off the left end and you wind up on the right.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:25:07 pm
[…] Party doesn’t have room for Liberman, it doesn’t have room for them, either, Here’s what Brendan Loy has to say: I’ve been calling myself a Democrat sinc […]
August 8th, 2006 at 10:30:26 pm
And given that Connecticut is a liberal state, is it really surprising that Democratic voters would reject a centrist?
Are we all living on Animal Farm? By what possible form of logic can Lieberman be called a centrist? For Christ’s sake people, look at his record! His ONLY centrist position is his position on the war on terror. By actually voting record he is one of the most liberal of the Democratic Senators.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:31:18 pm
Harry, I realize you’re making fun of me, but damn, that’s funny. LOL!
There is no plausible scenario under which a Republican can win the seat.
Not entirely true. There is no plausible scenario under which the current Republican nominee can win the seat. And there is no way for the Republicans to legally force him to step aside, even though they want to, in the wake of his various gambling scandals and such. However, if they could somehow persuade him to voluntarily step aside, they could nominate a popular moderate Republican — say, Nancy Johnson, thus rescuing her from a tough congressional race and putting her in a possibly-more-winnable Senate race — who might have a chance. Although, honestly, she’d probably have a better chance in a two-way race against Lamont than in a three-way race against Lamont and Lieberman.
Also, if Jodi Rell wanted to give up her completely safe grip on the governorship, she could make a run for it… but I suppose that’s not “plausible.”
Anyway, I agree it’s highly unlikely that a Republican can win the seat, but I think it’s not totally implausible. What’s completely implausible is the thought of a Senator Schlesinger being inaugurated next January. Heh.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:31:22 pm
perhaps you can join the party of Ben Nelson, Harold Ford, Jr. and Mary Landrieu? These are moderate democrats who don’t go on fox news twice a month backstabbing their fellow democrats in the back, and aren’t endorsed by Sean Hannity.
Cry your Liebertears. If Mitch McConnell is more appealing to you than Harry Reid, then you pretty much say all that needs to be said about Lieberman supporters. Christ.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:36:18 pm
Umm, I don’t think I said anything about either Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:36:55 pm
The simple truth is this: for the last 6 years the Democratic party has seen a radical shift in its power base. No longer are Democrats allowed to agree with Republicans, they’re not allowed to compromise. Civility (see Wellstone funeral) and class are forgotten virtues. Instead you have a vicious, often bigotted (since when are minorities not allowed to disagree with what the “race interests” are?), and have a stunning lack of tolerance for any view that isn’t posted on the Moveon.com website. Instead you have proxies that are sent out to blindly attack moderate (and 90% democratic voting record is “moderate”) candidates and expect that the media and/or the Kossian bloggers will have nary a word to say about it.
No, the Democratic Party has left many of its moderates behind. Pushed them to the side and said we’ll take care of our core issues and you just keep voting Democratic like good little boys and girls because what are you going to do, vote Republican?
So now moderates will have a choice, with Lieberman, and probably more to follow, being pushed from the leadership’s ranks will you continue to be used by a Party that thinks or even perhaps knows you’re expendable? Or will they find another way.
I truely think this is the begining of the end of the Democratic party, especially if Joe wins in Nov. Do the citizens of Conneticut really think that this dilletante can do more for them in the Senate? If they do they have truely been blinded then because having worked in D.C. before, being a veteran, a senior member on committees will get you far more than being a first time junior Senator.
And another thing to think about… Democrats coming 2008 will be shouting to the skies about how moderate they are and how extreme those willy and evil corrupt Republicans are. But if they shove Joe L. out of the way, their VP candidate 8 years ago, people will wonder: “If he wasn’t left wing enough, just how moderate are they?”
And they’ll be right.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:41:23 pm
Gahrie,
I was just echoing Alan’s characterization.
But in any case, I think roll call scores place Lieberman somewhere in the middle of the Democratic caucus, which make him a Centrist Democrat, by definition.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:41:57 pm
Good post, Brendan. Having left the Democratic party of my youth (Humphrey, McGovern, Mindale, even Clinton the first time) some years ago for similar reasons, I understand how you feel. Funny how most of those criticizing you don’t get it. GH is gleeful to see a different point of view go, failing apparently to understand that the purpose of political parties is to WIN ELECTIONS, because you don’t make policy if you don’t. TTT thinks the Lamont “nutroots” position on the war is the majority one; misunderstanding the meaning of polling data. If that’s the case, why is Bush still in office (no, TTT, he didn’t steal Ohio, we did land on the moon, and the Earth is not flat. Others claim this was just about two candidates. Nonsense. Lamont is a rich one-issue dilettante whose candidacy existed SOLELY to punish Lieberman for his position on the war. The Democratic left will not tolerate apostasy on this issue; Joe will be back in the Senate. Only the party will be worse off. As the democratic tent gets smaller, the GOP gets larger. They’re hardly pefect, but at least sometimes they’ll listen to opposing views. Which in the end is the reason they keep winning national elections and the Dems keep losing them.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:42:13 pm
What I don’t understand is that everyone fails to grasp the main point in replacing Lieberman with Lamont: liberal states should have liberal Senators.
We live in a partisan country. Republicans have profited from increasing that partisanship, and whether we like it or not, the country will stay partisan. Democrats ignore this at their own peril.
Part of partisanship is that a state’s elected officials should share the same views as their constituents. There used to be dozens of Republican and Democratic moderates from states that are now red, and in almost every case these moderates lost to conservatives, because the states were more conservatives than their representatives.
If Joe Lieberman was from New Hampshire, Ohio, or North Carolina, being a moderate would make sense. It doesn’t in Connecticut, and even a worse official, but a more liberal one, is a better choice for the state.
Senators are powerful. There aren’t many of them. For every Tom Coburn, we need a liberal to counter them. It’s unfortunate that Lieberman will have to leave office, but that’s what happens when your state changes its politics. Just ask Al Gore.
Leaving the Democratic party over this is foolish, because replacing Lieberman with Lamont will make it more likely that Democrats will win elections in the future. The more Chuck Schumers, Russ Feingolds and other liberals we have, the more likely it is that the liberal voice will be heard. This is good for liberal as well as moderate Democrats, because at least someone they partially agree with will be heard.
Again, moderation is dead. Blame it on talk radio (and the end of the fairness doctrine during the Reagan era), on political segregation, or whatever else. But don’t lose elections because you want to try to revive it. You’ll just keep losing, and we can’t afford to lose any more elections.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:48:47 pm
Kos has a bigger penis than you.
And LOTS more readers.
Plus, he’s a smarter legal practitioner than you’ll ever be, having attended a more prestigious law school..
And he’s got a prettier wife than you.
And he makes more money than you . . . and he does it BLOGGING, no less!!!!
Plus, he helped take down a three-term, incumbant Senator with a multi-million dollar warchest, and a whole lot of powerful and connected friends in the media, corporate and political establishments.
And he volunteered for and served in the United States Army, while you are nothing but a chickenhawk.
And he plays music on a cool piano, while you do . . . . what exactly?
By the way, when are the rest of your chickenhawk posters and kindred spirits here on this thread planning on enlisting so they can go to Iraq?
August 8th, 2006 at 10:51:32 pm
Brendan, nothing personal. Just raggin on the genre :)
August 8th, 2006 at 10:53:07 pm
“26. TTT Says:
Joe Lieberman was a wacko fringe extremist, bizarrely out of touch with mainstream normal America. Why? Because he supported Bush’s Folly. By a two-thirds margin, Americans reject the Iraq War. Not “Kos Kids.â€? Not “netroots.â€? Not “Connecticut Democrats.â€? AMERICANS. Being against this war is the moderate position. Ned Lamont is quite, quite moderate.”
Lieberman voted for the war, and still supports it, because he thinks it is the right thing to do.
I believe that a majority of congressional Democrats voted for the war because they wanted to be re-elected; they didn’t believe the war was the right thing to do. Think about that for a second. They let loose the madness of war, the deaths, the carnage, so they could be re-elected. Now those Dems slither and squirm, and take no responsibility for this war. That is extremism, that is unconscionable.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:53:09 pm
Some evidence. The following is a list of Dem senators from the 108th congress, listed in order of increasing conservativeness, as estimated by the NOMINATE roll call scaling procedure (-1 is most liberal, 1 is most conservative). Lieberman is the 32nd most conservative senator out of 48 dems — a few spots right of the median.
So clearly he is a “centrist.” While I don’t know for sure, I would guess that CT is one of the top ten most liberal states, based on public opinion. So there is a mismatch there.
Member Score
FEINGOLD -0.861
CORZINE -0.613
BOXER -0.601
KENNEDY ED -0.566
REED -0.562
DAYTON -0.543
SARBANES -0.541
LAUTENBERG -0.538
DURBIN -0.538
HARKIN -0.532
AKAKA -0.502
CLINTON -0.496
LEVIN CARL -0.492
LEAHY -0.479
STABENOW -0.471
KERRY JOHN -0.458
MIKULSKI -0.453
SCHUMER -0.426
ROCKEFELLER -0.423
DODD -0.413
MURRAY -0.408
CANTWELL -0.407
DASCHLE -0.382
KOHL -0.381
REID -0.381
GRAHAM BOB -0.377
EDWARDS -0.365
INOUYE -0.362
WYDEN -0.362
DORGAN -0.341
FEINSTEIN -0.338
LIEBERMAN -0.335
JOHNSON -0.334
BIDEN -0.327
NELSON CLA -0.32
BINGAMAN -0.319
BYRD ROBER -0.311
CONRAD -0.296
HOLLINGS -0.276
PRYOR -0.267
BAYH -0.258
CARPER -0.247
LANDRIEU -0.232
LINCOLN -0.217
BAUCUS -0.154
BREAUX -0.074
NELSON BEN -0.055
MILLER 0.156
August 8th, 2006 at 10:53:52 pm
Hi Mr. Loy:
Like most of the non-Democratic commentators for this post, I followed the link from Instapundit. I couldn’t agree more: “…where I truly part company with so many liberals is that they don’t think reasonable people can disagree; they believe their view is the only reasonable one.”
From a purely partisan viewpoint, I should be happy about your defection, but no. I am not so stupid as to believe that overwhelming Republican dominance is good for the country.
As an independent, I think you’ll find many moderate Republicans who can at least adequately represent your interests, perhaps even in unexpected ways. Evangelicals generally support programs to alleviate poverty, libertarians generally avoid social meddling. As you mentioned yourself, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, and McCain could be called moderates (although I believe on closer inspection, McCain will probably be too conservative for your taste).
But almost all Republicans agree on one thing - the US must pursue an aggressive foreign policy to combat Islamic terrorism. There is nothing inherently wrong with US power, and there is no shame in strength. While we must be vigilant to avoid abuse of our power, we are completely justified in destroying those who seek to destroy us. There is no moral equivalance. One side takes every effort to avoid innocent casualties, even if it brings undue risk upon itself. The other hides among the innocent, taking perverse pleasure when their human shields are killed. One side seeks to protect the innocent from harm, the other uses the innocent to protect itself from harm.
We may disagree on tactics - the invasion of Iraq, and Afghanistan, diplomacy towards Iran, Lebanon, and Palestine - but it seems to me that you hold the same moral understanding of this war that most conservatives do, and if only on that fact alone, I think you will find “this side” quite hospitable.
You might find a poltical fellow-traveler in Ann Althouse, whom, as far as I can tell, would be a Democrat if not for their proposed foreign policy (or lack of one).
August 8th, 2006 at 11:02:35 pm
But almost all Republicans agree on one thing - the US must pursue an aggressive foreign policy to combat Islamic terrorism
–If so, then why did they support an attack on Iraq, a country that didn’t have WMD, that had been disarmed of WMD after the first Gulf War, and which had no ties to Al Queda, while looking the other way on Saudi Arabia, a country from whom 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came, and which has provided most of the funding for Al Queda?
August 8th, 2006 at 11:06:23 pm
By the way, you right-wingers: Where’s OSAMA?
WHERE IS HE, AND WHY HASN’T YOUR PRESIDENT CAPTURED HIM? I mean, it’s only been ALMOST FIVE YEARS since 9/11. What’s taken Bush so long?
Oh, and again, when are you planning on enlisting so you can fight in this war in against “Islamofascists” that you support so much?
Realize, the age for enlistment has now been pushed to 42.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:09:25 pm
[…] orth reading the whole thing, including much of the comment thread on the post as well.
Time for a divorce
(Brendan Loy, The Irish Trojan’s Blog)Democrats in […]
August 8th, 2006 at 11:15:23 pm
“If so, then why did they support an attack on Iraq, a country that didn’t have WMD, that had been disarmed of WMD after the first Gulf War, and which had no ties to Al Queda, while looking the other way on Saudi Arabia, a country from whom 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came, and which has provided most of the funding for Al Queda?”
I’ve been in the blogosphere long enough to know that wasting words with people like you is a fool’s task. Christopher Hitchens has a excellent defence of the purpose and intent of the Iraq war, although the execution is, of course, open to criticism. He has himself documented numerous ties between Saddam and Islamic terrorism, most notably, interviewing the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing, who was protected by Saddam, and serving as an organ of the Iraqi state.
If you have any real intent of discovering the rationale for the Iraq war, I suggest you start there. If you have only clever comebacks, forgive me if I’m not interested.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:18:19 pm
“67. Good Riddance to you Says:
–If so, then why did they support an attack on Iraq, a country that didn’t have WMD, that had been disarmed of WMD after the first Gulf War, and which had no ties to Al Queda, while looking the other way on Saudi Arabia, a country from whom 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came, and which has provided most of the funding for Al Queda? ”
Wow, they were disarmed. Glad you knew that before we invaded. Glad you KNOW they had no dealings with Al Queda.
So, you are arguing that we should invade Saudi Arabia? Warmongerer!!!!
August 8th, 2006 at 11:55:03 pm
If there are only 10 issues with only two opposing positions (and there are many more than that) then when a voter considers a candidate there are over 1,000 sets of political philosophies a candidate could hold. The two parties are now focusing on just a couple issues and alienating the moderates in both parties. If the voters can be placed in the political spectrum I’d be willing to bet the dispersal could be represented by a bell curve. When the Dems and Reps shift to their respective side just a bit the center grows quite a lot. Neither wants a third party but they sure seem to be trying to help encourage the voters to look for one.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:57:33 pm
Welcome to the Dark Side. Make yourself at home. A word of warning, though: The hard left of the Democrat party tends to react to apostates much the same as the more radical strains of Islam do. Only with more name-calling and less beheadings.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:04:27 am
Brendan - welcome to the sometimes uncomfortable world of political reality …
As an immigrant to this country from the UK, it kept and keeps being mind-boggling how many on hte Democrat side call the Republican Party “fascists” while their own party is the one suppressing alternative points of view from being heard (as much as they can) and the Republican Party is the one where one can and does generally hear both sides or more of most major issues being espoused by elected Republicans …
Yes, the Republican “big tent” does have people that are way more to the right-wing loony side than I am comfortable with - but I recognise that they have no real power, except that they provide a voice for that part of the US population … and the same “big tent” has the Senator Chafees of the planet, who give voice for those in this country who like where he stands on things …
I was literally shocked back during the 1992 Democratic Convention when NO pro-Life speaker was allowed to make a pro-Life speech during Prime Time … and, during the same year, at the Republican Convention, both pro-Life and pro-Choice speakers spoke during Prime Time …
Your world hasn’t ended, by any means … though you may just have to decide if you are going to take your prodigious energies and either grab the Republican Party wherever you live and convert it intot he party that *you* can support, or grab the Democratic Party wherever you live and drag it kicking and screaming back to where it can again be a respected party … my own suspicions is that you are more likely to achieve the former than the latter, mostly because the Republican side is likely to at least hear you out, rather than throw you out …
August 9th, 2006 at 12:06:07 am
Cybrludite - no fair being so funny when some of us are trying to be serius ! (ROTFLMFO!)
August 9th, 2006 at 12:14:01 am
As I read more comments I’m struck by all of the people ready to push Brendan out the door even quicker. I read Brendan’s post as a warning to the party that they are doing just that to a lot more people than just Brendan. They seem to be taking it as someone who doesn’t agree with them on everything just trying to hurt their feelings. Kudos to you guys on proving Brendan’s point.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:24:26 am
Well said, Altoids.
Good Riddance isn’t doing much to make Brendan regret his switch I’m sure.
EVEN THOUGH HE MUST BE PASSIONATE BECAUSE HE USES CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!
August 9th, 2006 at 1:10:11 am
Well, I think this is wrong-headed, but that’s not something I expect to be able to convince you of. Do me a favor though. When you get over your righteous indignation, try to remember one thing. Every time you abstain or vote third party, that’s one fewer vote the Republicans need to maintain power. By all means, vote your conscience. Just don’t kid yourself into thinking your principled moderation isn’t a help to the GOP.
August 9th, 2006 at 1:22:11 am
Aaron, did you ever think that maybe it isn’t self-evident to all right-thinking, rational people that the GOP is obviously always the greater of the two evils?
Your comment assumes that the Democrats are basically entitled to my vote because they are the only viable opposition to the Republicans. That mode of thinking is short-sighted and lends itself to a system that is more and more out-of-touch with the voters. I’m not going to vote for Democrats just because they aren’t Republicans. If the Democrats want my vote, they need to convince me that their candidates are better than the Republican candidates. That means they actually need to stand for something, other than “Bush sucks.”
It’s not about “righteous indignation.” It’s about demanding that the Dems offer me a viable, rational alternative. If they don’t, they won’t get my vote, because I don’t want them in power!
August 9th, 2006 at 2:21:22 am
But in any case, I think roll call scores place Lieberman somewhere in the middle of the Democratic caucus, which make him a Centrist Democrat, by definition.
No a centrist Democrat would be on the far right of the Democratic Party, closer to the center of American politics. Being in the middle of the Democrats makes you a typical liberal Democrat.
… as estimated by the NOMINATE roll call …Lieberman is the 32nd most conservative senator out of 48 dems â€â€? a few spots right of the median.
So clearly he is a “centrist.�
Again I disagree. I think this makes him a typical liberal Democrat, not a centrist. A centrist would be on the far right of the party.
“The American Conservative Union rates him as more liberal than Debbie Stabenow, more liberal than Barbara Boxer, more liberal than Hillary Clinton, more liberal than Russell Feingold - and equally liberal as John Kerry and Barak Obama”
It is true that Lieberman’s ratings have steadily moved him towards the center of the Democratic Party as the years have gone by. However I would argue that that says more about the evolution of the Democratic Party than it does about the evolution of Joe Lieberman.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:22:02 am
Welcome to the club, Brendan!
I left the party about six years ago. And unlike the majority of what passes for a “Democrat” nowadays I was an actual card carrying member of the party.
You see, the 2000 election and what transpired after it and September 11th firmly convinced me that the Democratic party of FDR and JFK is dead. If those two were alive today they would have been run out of the party just like Joe Lieberman was. The radical, anti American Marxist left wing of the party has taken over and there is no room in the party for anyone who does not agree with their policies. You can see that now, can’t you? Just look at the responses from all these “good Democrats” like “Good Riddance” in this thread. Alasdair hit the nail on the head with his post about this subject.
Do not feel bad for the decision you made and don’t bother looking back. The Democratic party too far gone.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:32:11 am
I understand your point about ‘Independent’ being a cop-out but my take has been that it is where many other people stand who feel their party of choice has moved too far from them. In the end I favor the best man for the job and don’t care very much what party label he wears. Joe Lieberman is a very good example of this and I very much hope he runs as an Independent and more, I hope he wins.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:46:32 am
I had this conversation yesterday with a fellow Dem. I told him that if Lieberman lost, I’d have to consider whether or not the Democratic party had left me.
He said, “Where are you going to go?” Ay, there’s the rub.
Aside from their position on Islamic Facism, which is real and which the US must combat and defeat, there is little about the Republican party that attracts me, if anything. The first chance they got to govern in a half-decade, and they were more interested in getting their snouts in the trough than running the country. After years of bellowing about Democrat’s fiscal irresponsibility, they are well on their way to bankrupting the future of the US. While the world is going to hell in a handbasket, they can only find the time to debate flag-burning and the FMA. They are the “Do Nothing” Congress and are led by a President who, to put the best possible face on his actions, is clueless.
Once upon a time, I would have been excited about the Democratic prospects for the mid-terms elections. I believe there is a huge portion of the voting public that opposes the War in Iraq (and actually, I don’t see Iraq as a part of the battle against Islamic Fascists), and a huge backlash against George Bush, which the Republican party richly deserves.
There is a very good chance for the Dems to win back the Senate and the House. The problem is that the “ascendant left” as Brendan puts it, will see this as an endorsement of the far left’s positions not just on Iraq, but on every fringe issue out there. Even if the Dems win back control in the mid-terms, they are going to alienate a lot of former Dem’s, like Brendan and myself in the process. The War in Iraq is going to go away as an issue, sooner or later. Bush is going away as an issue. Once those issues go away, what exactly will the Democratic party be left with? They’ll be left with party leadership that is well outside of the mainstream on virtually every issue left on the table.
What we will see in the Democratic leadership as a result will be the equivalent of the Tom Delay/Bill Frist leadership of the Republican party.
There are lots of moderate Democrats, like myself, that believe that Islamic Fascism must be confronted as perhaps the biggest foreign policy problem into the foreseeable future. The Far Left believes that when American’s attitudes about Iraq changed, that the majority of American’s now share their view that the Islamic Fascists (if they exist at all) aren’t the problem that “chickenhawks” believe them to be.
That doesn’t represent our beliefs, and people like Brendan and myself will shed the Democratic label, and just like a huge percentage of Reagan Democrats, we won’t be back. There is a much better chance, at this point, of reforming the stances of the Republican party on domestic issues than there is of rescuing the Democratic party from the grip of the far left’s blindness on Islamic Fascism.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:51:00 am
To Democrats on the thread:
Brendan said:
“If the Democrats want my vote, they need to convince me that their candidates are better than the Republican candidates. That means they actually need to stand for something, other than “Bush sucks.â€?”
That statement right there is why Bush is still in office and not a Democratic President.
Alot of people are commenting, this is only a primary and its only one election. Thing is though this election was heavily hyped and heavily tracked by Democrat Congressional Leadership as well. It was billed as one big referendum on the Iraq War (which is insulting in its own right, I thought elections were about candidates, not single issues). Further, alot of democratic support that existed in the past for Joe waffled on giving any this time. Grassroots and the KosKids erupted from all over to campaign and push Lamont.
If this were just some straight vote, I would also think Brendan is overreacting. But it wasn’t. This was a major undertaking by a good chunk of the active democrat base to unseat an incumbent because of one issue. When Joe started looking for support from his colleagues, most of them said, “Joe who?”, afraid to anger the radical, but aggressive and tireless, left.
And now that incumbent congresspeople can be intimidated by the Kos crowd, expect to see them move leftward so as to get them on their side.
In the face of all this context, yesterday was hardly one vote for one primary.
To those who cheer this result. That gentle breeze caressing your faces is the rapidly moving air from having just thrown yourselves off the cliff. We tried to stop you.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:54:49 am
Southern Man -
What’s really wierd about your post is that with a few minor word changes, it would adequately represent my grudging support, but frustrated anger, with current Congressional Republicans and Bush.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:11:55 am
So how come we don’t see any of the doom and gloom prophecies or massive media attention when it’s
a conservative defeating a moderate Republican incumbent, like with Schwarz in Michigan?
August 9th, 2006 at 4:48:02 am
[…] e crowing over this one, but not everyone is happy. Brendan Loy calls this the final straw and says he’s no longer a Democrat. At the same time, Don Surber says that conser […]
August 9th, 2006 at 4:50:01 am
Brendan, an excellent post. The Democrats left me in 2001. I voted for Gore in 2000, then he went insane trying to fight ManBearPig or whatever he’s ranting about, with or without the beard. Somehow, the far left hasn’t gotten the idea that some jihadis are actually trying to kill us for real. You can’t hide that uncomnfortable fact under some wacko conspiracy-theory. `They’ve lost their minds enough to kick out a sure winner for their party, a man whse votes are reliably center-left.
Me? I can’t get all that excited about gay marriage or schools or anything much when I see 11 Egyptian “students” have gotten “lost” in the systemhere in the US, and lone jihadis shoot Jews in the street in San Fraqnsisco or drive their cars through college campuses or shoot at cars in gas stations. And Iran, the force behind Hezbollah, is *this close* to having a nuclear weapon. But apparently that’s not enough evidence for the Democrats.
Yes, Brendan, you’ve been kicked out of a party that can’t see reality even when it stares at them down a gun barrel.
August 9th, 2006 at 5:02:10 am
Right idea, but a bit late.
I think in future it will be clear that the moment the Democratic party boarded the train to Planet Bananas was not the Lieberman/Lamont primary, but that dismal afternoon when Gephardt led a group hug on the Capitol steps and announced that the party would sacrifice any and all worthwhile principles in order to defend then-President Clinton (of course he didn’t say it that way - that’s the translation). That was when the party died. The corpse continues to decay. The chance of it coming back to life spontaneously seems mighty slim.
Although that seemed pretty obviuos, even at the time, I didn’t jump ship myself until 2000. It wasn’t easy. I had never voted for anything but a Democrat for any office in the previous twenty years. But although there’s much to dislike, or even hate, about the modern Republican party, it’s just impossible to pretend that the Democrats haven’t become entirely loathesome. More importantly, they have lost the ability to improve. That, coupled with their obsession with “progressive” ideas which had exceeded their “sell by” dates by about 1972, makes them the party of the Living Dead.
August 9th, 2006 at 5:33:25 am
This endless rehashing of “why the democrats disappoint me” is, itself, disappointing.
Look, I’m no democrat, as my political philosophy is right-wing-ish, (somewhere similar to Lojo above), but I offer this challenge back to Brendan and all other lefty-inclined folks lamenting the disappearance of their cherished democratic party:
You don’t like the ideas of the 21st century?
Don’t sit back and bitch.
Suggest some.
Cmon. The heyday of the democratic party (~1930-1980) was an era in which the left succeeded with social programs that ’swept’ the nation and made poverty and human despair tolerable, of it not tolerable, at least mostly invisible. Mission, so to speak, accomplished.
So what’s next? Where do the Democrats go from here? The answer is surely not obvious.
Sitting back and throwing up your hands because some blockhead like Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi has no vision on this difficult issue - that’s fricking lame.
Take part! Get involved! Throw out some ideas! Yes, its difficult when your party’s main reason d’etre has been essentially rendered obsolete - but don’t just sit back and bitch about the fact that moron politicians don’t have easy answers to difficult questions! They’re idiots. That’s why they want to be politicians in the first place.
I think Marcos Zuniga is a gasbag and a fool. Pathetically, he is about the only figure, of any stature, in the democratic party offering ideas or direction - at all! Everyone else sits back and whines that the ‘leaders’ don’t have better suggestions.
Maybe there’s something there. If a doofus (and he is a WAY bigger geek than the Irish Trojan, cmon) like Kos can get the attention of the democratic party with his wacky ideas -
- what are the rest of you waiting for?????
August 9th, 2006 at 5:46:35 am
To be clear - as JK said above, this election was not a referendum on the democratic party, nor was it a hijacking of the principles by Kos (who can’t possibly be THAT powerful) -
- it simply was the Democrats of Connecticut voting their self-interest.
I think a bunch of you might benefit from reading “The Wisdom of Crowds” by James Surowiecki:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385721706/sr=8-1/qid=1155127185/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2417326-7959034?ie=UTF8
Surowiecki’s point is basically that large groups of people tend to get to the right answer when they each have a voice. The Lieberman-loving moonbats may learn something from this book.
Why might Lamont be the ‘correct’ answer?
Because for all the neocon philosophizing about how noble it is for Lieberman to stand on principle, and to stand with the President, blah blah blah - the fact remains that Lieberman is on the wrong side of the Iraq war going forward.
Yes, he was on the right side of the war in March 2003. But not in August 2006. How do you know that? Consider that recently, the most inveterate, unyielding advocate of the Bush vision, Andrew Long, recently conceded that Iraq is a massive clusterfuck waiting to explode.
Is there anyone left who disagrees?
Except George W. Bush?
And Joe Lieberman?
When that clusterfuck blows up, perhaps any day now, and Bush is still spouting his vacuous rhetoric (an “ideas” guy!) and Lieberman is standing right beside him -
- how will that suit the interests of Connecticut democrats having Lieberman as their rep in a restive Senate?
Very obviously it won’t.
A vote for Lamont, as Surowiecki suggests, is a vote for Connecticut Democrat self-interest. I am sorry that the Lieberman fans, with all their abstract talk of his nobility, truthiness, and other irrelevant values, fail to see that.
August 9th, 2006 at 5:58:40 am
So how come we don’t see any of the doom and gloom prophecies or massive media attention when it’s
a conservative defeating a moderate Republican incumbent, like with Schwarz in Michigan?
Because there is no movement by a rightwing loon proclaiming his intentions to drive the party to the right and calling for people to savage moderate republicans and demand ideological purity. Because there are no former Republican national candidates loudly exclaiming that the problem witrh the Republican party is that it is not far enough to the right. Because the RNC is not led by a raving maniac. And lastly because the Republican Party allows dissent on the major issues, and actually has a right and left wing.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:09:54 am
Slouching toward Joeblivion
Empty suit Ned Lamont defeated generic liberal Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut, and that’s enough for Brendan Loy: [T]he hard reality is that the voters have spoken,…
August 9th, 2006 at 6:13:26 am
“…where I truly part company with so many liberals is that they don’t think reasonable people can disagree; they believe their view is the only reasonable one.�
Is this meant to be a joke? As many commenters have already pointed out, the Democrats didn’t kick Lieberman out of the party, Markos Moulitsas didn’t kick Joe Lieberman out of the party, “the liberals” didn’t kick Lieberman out of the party. The people of Connecticut spoke and they decided they didn’t want Joe Lieberman to represent them anymore. This isn’t all about you, son.
And please, let’s knock it off with this crap about how the Democrats don’t tolerate dissent. How quickly you forget that the Democratic establishment actually wanted to keep Lieberman — hence you had people like Reid, Bill Clinton, Barbara Boxer, et al. campaigning for him. But the people of Connecticut dissented and said, “Nope, sorry, we still don’t like him.” If you’ve got a problem with that, then your beef is not with the mean nasty liberals so much as it is with democracy itself.
No, the one who truly showed intolerance of dissent was Lieberman, who consistently acted like an entitled crybaby when Lamont exercised his right to challenge him for office, and who said point-blank that anyone who criticized Bush’s handling of the war was undermining our nation’s security. As a near-lifelong Democrat, I’m not going to miss Lieberman, and Brendan, I dare say I’m not going to miss you either.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:24:02 am
To me, it was all reminiscent of George Orwell’s novel 1984. Lieberman was obviously guilty of insufficient orthodoxy to the fundamental principles of Demsoc (Principle #1: “Hate George W. Bush before all others”), and no doubt of thoughtcrime as well. Unlike most of the members of the Party, he didn’t take part in the daily “Two Minutes Hate”, in which the despised visage of George W. “Goldstein” Bush would appear on the telescreens to induce paroxysms of insane fury among the Party faithful. That right there showed dangerous unorthodoxy. He just didn’t bellyfeel Demsoc.
And the thoughtcrime: His failure to understand that the true enemies of the Party were not the Islamofascist terrorists who flew jet airplanes into skyscrapers or two-bit tinhorn dictators or mad mullahs seeking nuclear weapons, but rather the Republicans. Yes, it was the Republicans who were worthy only of rancor and venom, according to Democrat Party chief Howard Dean, whose quotes included “I hate Republicans.” Civility, working together across the aisle for the benefit of the country, no, there could be none of that. There was no room for compromise. The Party was at war with the Republicans; the Party had always been at war with the Republicans. The Ministry of Truth (aka Reuters - haha, just kidding!) told them so. Eurasia, Eastasia, eh, they could take care of themselves. Not the Party’s problem.
And so, the thought criminal Lieberman was purged, sent to Room 101 in an attempt to make him confess his many crimes. But a funny thing may happen in November: The proles may get a chance to vote for him as an independent. Not that it would really change anything, of course. One sane, civil Senator is not enough to redeem a Party.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:28:48 am
Clyde - you’re kidding right?
Lieberman was purged?
A bunch of average Joes in Connecticut went to their polling stations yesterday, and in spite of much more lobbying from the other guy, opted for Lamont to represent their interests.
Which outcome I, several others, and prominent author James Surowiecki believe will probably suit their interests.
Clyde, do you live in Cuba? Or are you missing the democracy gene?
August 9th, 2006 at 6:31:44 am
Jazz:
Nice try. But you need to get your message straight. Kos and the nutsroots are claiming this as a huge victory over the DLC and the moderate Democrats, and the moderate Democrats are blaming this on Kos and the nutsroots.
Even if you are right (which you aren’t) perception is reality in politics.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:35:18 am
Its curious that the Bushophile regulars back here, so quick to defend Lieberman by reference to totalitarian states, thought police, and the ebb and flow of the Man calling the shots -
- refuse to defend him on the only issue that really matters on the ground.
Why wonR