I have a hard time understanding what anyone could possibly find objectionable about this statement:
I’m going to do what most independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country.
But I guess some people think party should come before country. I believe there’s a word for such people: unpatriotic.
“I believe there’s a word for such people: unpatriotic.” LAME! Come off it. Unpatriotic is shooting a friggin congressperson or spitting on a vet.
If anything, I would think that reactionary commentary against Lieberman’s sentiments would be expected, considering what the Democrats did to the good Senator from CT.
Unpatriotic is shooting a friggin congressperson or spitting on a vet.
Clearly, yes. But those aren’t the ONLY things that are unpatriotic. Just because you can cite more extreme examples doesn’t prove my example false. That would be like if I said, “Dude, Charlie Weis is fat,” and you replied, “No way, Charlie Weis isn’t fat. Fat is Jabba the Hut or that guy who was on Dr. Phil because he was so fat he couldn’t leave his house.” Clearly, those people are fat — fatter than Charlie Weis. But that doesn’t mean Charlie Weis isn’t fat.
Anyway, I stand by my statement. Putting party before country is, by definition, unpatriotic, and thus, so is advocating the notion of putting party before country. A senator should have no higher loyalty than what he (or she) believes is best for the country.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that anyone who dislikes Joe Lieberman is unpatriotic. It’s perfectly okay to dislike him because you oppose his policies, you disagree with his take on the war, you don’t like his hairstyle, whatever. (Heck, I’m not even sure I completely agree with his take on the war at this point. But that’s more because I’m not sure what my take on the war is anymore.) Nor is it unpatriotic to dislike him because you think he’s a “closet Republican” or “cynical Bush enabler” whatever — it’s idiotic, but not unpatriotic.
But to dislike him because he says he’ll put his country ahead of his party? Perhaps I’m wrong that that’s an unpatriotic sentiment, but off the top of my head, I can’t think of any reason why. I eagerly await a reasoned rebuttal from one of our resident Lieberman-haters explaining precisely why I’m wrong in entirely non-emotional and non-insulting terms. :)
I just think it’s weak to pull out the unpatriotic card in this instance. There are other, IMO, more legitimate criticisms of those who would lash out at Lieberman for his sentiments than a knee-jerk, drooling-doofus, “derr, that’s unpatriotic, derr.” Reading a post that ends like that feels just about as valuable as listening to a reporter interviewing Britney Spears about her opinions on foreign policy.
You’re not wrong, but only because you’ve chosen a phrasing, putting party before country is unpatriotic, that is sort of true by definition. I wouldn’t go quite so far as to call it a strawman, since I suppose there probably are people who put party before country. Call it a straw-munchkin ;)
The interesting question is, does “party trump person?” as the saying goes. It’s a common school of thought, and while it may be wrong it is in no way unpatriotic. It’s in this sense that some people might have an objection to Lieberman’s statement.
Of course, even someone who believes that party trumps person ought to allow for special cases, where one’s party is so wrong on a vital issue as to override the general rule. Iraq is clearly a special case for Lieberman. So I guess, basicly, I’m still agreeing with you. Obviously, whether or not Lieberman is right on the merits to oppose the Democrats on Iraq is the key question.
I was going to write something similar to what Aaron wrote, but probably not as well as he did. I think that it can be a reasonable stance to say that, after the failures in Iraq, it is important to place a Democrat in office in 2008. Some people might not trust someone affiliated with the party that has run the war to continue it. I don’t see how placing party before the individual merits of a candidate is unpatriotic in this case.
In fact, the United States is rare in that it seems to be considered a civic virtue to consider candidates regardless of party. In many countries, people vote for a party rather than a candidate–not that you are suggesting any deficiency in that system, but many people vote the same way here.
Having said that, I think it is poorly thought of to criticize Lieberman for not automatically throwing his support behind the Democratic candidate at this early stage. He, like me, shares the same view that the candidate’s position on the war is central to my choice in voting. This is a perfectly reasonable opinion. But it’s probably not the only one available.
I think it is poorly thought of to criticize Lieberman for not automatically throwing his support behind the Democratic candidate at this early stage
Just like one would expect the Democrats to throw their support behind the incubment candidate for a senate race in 2006? instead of trying to throw him under the bus?
Deer Democrats: What comes around, REALLY comes around. Deal with it.
Putting party before country is, by definition, unpatriotic.
I agree. For my part, while I couldn’t agree less with the big names in the Democratic Party on most issues these days, it may be worth it to support them anyway for no other reason than because the Democratic Party as a whole appears unwilling to take terrorism seriously (i.e., make fighting terrorism a higher priority than fighting Republicans/Bush) unless they are the ones in charge, and combating terrorism is the issue that trumps all other IMHO and requires the full support of both parties.
It all depends on what office you are talking about. Dog catcher, school board, etc. Party doesn’t matter. Member of the House? If they are going to be a freshman party matters–the only thing they will do for the next two years that will amount to more than a hill of beans is the vote for house leadership. Even overall, unless you are talking about a rep with a major leadership position, party matters more than person simply because of how the house works. On the Senate side, party matters a good deal less than on the house side; especially when majorities are small, as they have been. However, the less time the person has been in the Senate the more important their organizing vote becomes relative to just about anything they are going to do in the next two years–of course they are there for six so things change during a single term much more than in the house. When it comes to the President, the importance of party makes a significant shift. However, ultimately it does play an important role for an administration–by the simple fact that a president cannot do everything all by their oncie–appointments matter. Those tend to be based on party over person. So, Brendan, I do apologize for the reality check, but Party does matter.
(i.e., make fighting terrorism a higher priority than fighting Republicans/Bush)
Seriously? How long are we going to have to listen to this right wing tripe? Here’s a clue Joe Mama, just because you seem to need it beat into your head.
Most of us who are critical of Bush, especially regarding his handling of terrorism, are critical because we believe that his approach is not helping, or at the very least the amount of help it brings is not worth the costs. In fact there have been indications that he has in many ways inflamed the situation and made it worse. In other words, the criticism of Bush is necessary in order to effectively fight terrorism because in order to enact effective solutions we first have to stop the ineffective and harmful ones from being used.
I will Joe Mama, along with nearly 70% of the country, face it, even Dubya admitted he screwed things up in Iraq. You can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “lalalala” everytime you hear something about Bush and his plan you don’t like (which is basically anything that doesn’t treat him as the greatest hero in the history of the world) but REALITY has shown that he and his plan has failed miserably. You probably think i’m happy about that, but no, unlike extremeists i’m not happy that things are going so poorly. But I am going to keep pointing out that failure as often as necessary until changes are made, because worse than failure is not acknowledging failure and trying to fix it. Sadly you seem so wrapped up validating your own warped world view that you are incapable of accepting that you, like Bush, were wrong.
You indeed have me pegged. Your tremendous grasp of the issues combined with your sober, objective analysis and superior reasoning ability has led you to conclude that I “stick my fingers in my ears saying ‘lalalala’ whenever I hear something about Bush that doesn’t treat him as the greatest hero in the history of the world.”
Given that you are incapable of engaging in debate, as evidenced by your comment regarding all democrats above, i fail to see your point. Once you’ve demonstrated the ability to grasp the simple concept that disagreeing with HOW the President handles the war on terror is different than thinking that we shouldn’t handle the war on terror period, then maybe you’ll have shown an ability to engage in debate.
Be as condescending as you like, but here’s the simple facts. You can’t differentiate between wanting the terrorists to win and believeing Bush isn’t doing a good job of stopping terrorism. Meanwhile simply because I am highly critical of the man you think that makes me a blind leftist partisan. Uh huh, riiiight.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:39:11 pm
“I believe there’s a word for such people: unpatriotic.” LAME! Come off it. Unpatriotic is shooting a friggin congressperson or spitting on a vet.
If anything, I would think that reactionary commentary against Lieberman’s sentiments would be expected, considering what the Democrats did to the good Senator from CT.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:45:51 pm
Unpatriotic is shooting a friggin congressperson or spitting on a vet.
Clearly, yes. But those aren’t the ONLY things that are unpatriotic. Just because you can cite more extreme examples doesn’t prove my example false. That would be like if I said, “Dude, Charlie Weis is fat,” and you replied, “No way, Charlie Weis isn’t fat. Fat is Jabba the Hut or that guy who was on Dr. Phil because he was so fat he couldn’t leave his house.” Clearly, those people are fat — fatter than Charlie Weis. But that doesn’t mean Charlie Weis isn’t fat.
Anyway, I stand by my statement. Putting party before country is, by definition, unpatriotic, and thus, so is advocating the notion of putting party before country. A senator should have no higher loyalty than what he (or she) believes is best for the country.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that anyone who dislikes Joe Lieberman is unpatriotic. It’s perfectly okay to dislike him because you oppose his policies, you disagree with his take on the war, you don’t like his hairstyle, whatever. (Heck, I’m not even sure I completely agree with his take on the war at this point. But that’s more because I’m not sure what my take on the war is anymore.) Nor is it unpatriotic to dislike him because you think he’s a “closet Republican” or “cynical Bush enabler” whatever — it’s idiotic, but not unpatriotic.
But to dislike him because he says he’ll put his country ahead of his party? Perhaps I’m wrong that that’s an unpatriotic sentiment, but off the top of my head, I can’t think of any reason why. I eagerly await a reasoned rebuttal from one of our resident Lieberman-haters explaining precisely why I’m wrong in entirely non-emotional and non-insulting terms. :)
January 28th, 2007 at 6:02:56 pm
I just think it’s weak to pull out the unpatriotic card in this instance. There are other, IMO, more legitimate criticisms of those who would lash out at Lieberman for his sentiments than a knee-jerk, drooling-doofus, “derr, that’s unpatriotic, derr.” Reading a post that ends like that feels just about as valuable as listening to a reporter interviewing Britney Spears about her opinions on foreign policy.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:03:50 pm
Yeah, well…
You smell.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:59:56 pm
Brendan,
You’re not wrong, but only because you’ve chosen a phrasing, putting party before country is unpatriotic, that is sort of true by definition. I wouldn’t go quite so far as to call it a strawman, since I suppose there probably are people who put party before country. Call it a straw-munchkin ;)
The interesting question is, does “party trump person?” as the saying goes. It’s a common school of thought, and while it may be wrong it is in no way unpatriotic. It’s in this sense that some people might have an objection to Lieberman’s statement.
Of course, even someone who believes that party trumps person ought to allow for special cases, where one’s party is so wrong on a vital issue as to override the general rule. Iraq is clearly a special case for Lieberman. So I guess, basicly, I’m still agreeing with you. Obviously, whether or not Lieberman is right on the merits to oppose the Democrats on Iraq is the key question.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:04:10 pm
Face the facts … you backed a spineless loser.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:49:53 pm
I was going to write something similar to what Aaron wrote, but probably not as well as he did. I think that it can be a reasonable stance to say that, after the failures in Iraq, it is important to place a Democrat in office in 2008. Some people might not trust someone affiliated with the party that has run the war to continue it. I don’t see how placing party before the individual merits of a candidate is unpatriotic in this case.
In fact, the United States is rare in that it seems to be considered a civic virtue to consider candidates regardless of party. In many countries, people vote for a party rather than a candidate–not that you are suggesting any deficiency in that system, but many people vote the same way here.
Having said that, I think it is poorly thought of to criticize Lieberman for not automatically throwing his support behind the Democratic candidate at this early stage. He, like me, shares the same view that the candidate’s position on the war is central to my choice in voting. This is a perfectly reasonable opinion. But it’s probably not the only one available.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:37:59 am
I think it is poorly thought of to criticize Lieberman for not automatically throwing his support behind the Democratic candidate at this early stage
Just like one would expect the Democrats to throw their support behind the incubment candidate for a senate race in 2006? instead of trying to throw him under the bus?
Deer Democrats: What comes around, REALLY comes around. Deal with it.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:46:52 am
Putting party before country is, by definition, unpatriotic.
I agree. For my part, while I couldn’t agree less with the big names in the Democratic Party on most issues these days, it may be worth it to support them anyway for no other reason than because the Democratic Party as a whole appears unwilling to take terrorism seriously (i.e., make fighting terrorism a higher priority than fighting Republicans/Bush) unless they are the ones in charge, and combating terrorism is the issue that trumps all other IMHO and requires the full support of both parties.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:55:15 am
It all depends on what office you are talking about. Dog catcher, school board, etc. Party doesn’t matter. Member of the House? If they are going to be a freshman party matters–the only thing they will do for the next two years that will amount to more than a hill of beans is the vote for house leadership. Even overall, unless you are talking about a rep with a major leadership position, party matters more than person simply because of how the house works. On the Senate side, party matters a good deal less than on the house side; especially when majorities are small, as they have been. However, the less time the person has been in the Senate the more important their organizing vote becomes relative to just about anything they are going to do in the next two years–of course they are there for six so things change during a single term much more than in the house. When it comes to the President, the importance of party makes a significant shift. However, ultimately it does play an important role for an administration–by the simple fact that a president cannot do everything all by their oncie–appointments matter. Those tend to be based on party over person. So, Brendan, I do apologize for the reality check, but Party does matter.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:06:56 pm
Not being allowed to believe what you believe is unpatriotic…and Orwellian.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:12:57 pm
It’s a good thing no one is preventing you from believing what you believe, then.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:13:32 pm
P.S. Confusing criticism with censorship isn’t unpatriotic. It is, however, idiotic.
January 29th, 2007 at 2:44:15 pm
(i.e., make fighting terrorism a higher priority than fighting Republicans/Bush)
Seriously? How long are we going to have to listen to this right wing tripe? Here’s a clue Joe Mama, just because you seem to need it beat into your head.
Most of us who are critical of Bush, especially regarding his handling of terrorism, are critical because we believe that his approach is not helping, or at the very least the amount of help it brings is not worth the costs. In fact there have been indications that he has in many ways inflamed the situation and made it worse. In other words, the criticism of Bush is necessary in order to effectively fight terrorism because in order to enact effective solutions we first have to stop the ineffective and harmful ones from being used.
January 29th, 2007 at 5:35:20 pm
Keep telling yourself that, David.
January 29th, 2007 at 5:47:45 pm
Joe Mama - is it your turn to be Sancho Panza or mine ? (grin)
January 29th, 2007 at 6:12:27 pm
I will Joe Mama, along with nearly 70% of the country, face it, even Dubya admitted he screwed things up in Iraq. You can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “lalalala” everytime you hear something about Bush and his plan you don’t like (which is basically anything that doesn’t treat him as the greatest hero in the history of the world) but REALITY has shown that he and his plan has failed miserably. You probably think i’m happy about that, but no, unlike extremeists i’m not happy that things are going so poorly. But I am going to keep pointing out that failure as often as necessary until changes are made, because worse than failure is not acknowledging failure and trying to fix it. Sadly you seem so wrapped up validating your own warped world view that you are incapable of accepting that you, like Bush, were wrong.
January 29th, 2007 at 6:29:08 pm
David,
You indeed have me pegged. Your tremendous grasp of the issues combined with your sober, objective analysis and superior reasoning ability has led you to conclude that I “stick my fingers in my ears saying ‘lalalala’ whenever I hear something about Bush that doesn’t treat him as the greatest hero in the history of the world.”
A credit to your side of any debate, you are.
January 29th, 2007 at 7:56:21 pm
Given that you are incapable of engaging in debate, as evidenced by your comment regarding all democrats above, i fail to see your point. Once you’ve demonstrated the ability to grasp the simple concept that disagreeing with HOW the President handles the war on terror is different than thinking that we shouldn’t handle the war on terror period, then maybe you’ll have shown an ability to engage in debate.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:54:23 pm
You are truly adorable, David.
Next thing you know, Michael Vick is going to criticize me for not knowing how to sneak drugs through airport security.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:35:33 pm
Be as condescending as you like, but here’s the simple facts. You can’t differentiate between wanting the terrorists to win and believeing Bush isn’t doing a good job of stopping terrorism. Meanwhile simply because I am highly critical of the man you think that makes me a blind leftist partisan. Uh huh, riiiight.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:06:47 am
That statement only makes sense if you have no idea what a fact is, or didn’t bother to actually read what was said in this thread.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:33:31 pm
Joe Mama - you gotta admit that David has a mind like a steel trap … sorta unfortunate, though, that it seems to be rusted shut …