Having shocked y’all Friday morning by announcing that I’m retiring the blog on July 20, I figure Monday morning is a good time for yet another shocker. Would a three-page manifesto to Irish Trojan favorite son Joe Lieberman, lambasting him for dishonest and unworthy campaign rhetoric, do the trick?
I sent the letter Friday afternoon to Joe’s D.C. office, and now I’m reprinting it on the blog. I don’t mean to grandstand about this, but having been so vocal in defense of Lieberman, I figure I owe y’all an update on where I stand now. (In point of fact, my sentiments shouldn’t be too shocking; I alluded to my growing disillusionment with Lieberman last month.)
It’s important to emphasize that I have no problem whatsoever with Lieberman endorsing McCain and arguing against Obama’s candidacy; it’s the way he’s been opposing Obama that bothers me, not the mere fact that he’s doing so at all. I object to such things as his role in spreading the Obama’s-a-Marxist and Hamas-loves-Obama memes, his implication that Democrats are not "pro-American," and several other specific statements he’s made recently. Anyway, here’s the money quote:
What happened to your 2006 message, promising a less hyper-partisan brand of politics? Based on your recent statements, it appears you have completely abandoned the premise that Democrats and Republicans have honest disagreements on the issues. Instead of substantively engaging important topics of legitimate debate and disagreement, you have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to vilify and caricature the Democratic Party …
I am deeply disappointed that you have sunk to these lows, and having been such a vocal advocate on your behalf, I must admit that I am somewhat embarrassed. It is becoming more and more difficult to defend you against your critics in the blogosphere, who increasingly feel that they were “right all along†about you.
On reflection, "completely abandoned the premise" is probably a bit much. But it gets the message across, anyway. Joe needs to tone down his rhetoric, or folks like me who once greatly admired him will increasingly come to view him as just another typical politician.
Read the whole thing after the jump.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:35:40 am
Very powerful message. I might suggest that you send it to his CT office as well, since my time on the Hill showed me that usually campaign and election mail is not handled by a Congressman/Senator’s DC office. Lieberman may be different, though.
As you know, my disaffection with Lieberman came shortly after his 2000 VP bid (and my subsequent time working on Capitol Hill). But my issues were primarily around his unwavering support for President Bush up to and at the beginning of the War in Iraq.
Since 2004, since he’s become “free” of the “binding” of the Democratic Party, he has been more willing to side with the administration than I believe is absolutely necessary for a man representing a fairly liberal New England state.
In any case, it’s a good message, and I hope that the staffer who reads it is willing to see its significance and actually pass it on to the campaign manager/chief of staff who will then pass it along to the Senator himself.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:39:51 am
As someone who has used “Democrat Party” to describe the Dems, I have to confess to being totally unaware of any Hendrik Hertzberg’s “linguistic history,” such as it is. I simply used it — sometimes unwittingly, sometimes not — because the big-D Democratic Party behaves in decidedly undemocratic ways (e.g., superdelegates). I’m sure glad no one would dare use the “lowest form of guilt by association” that “has nothing to do with the issues” and accuse me of acting “in the spirit of Joe McCarthy.”
June 9th, 2008 at 9:50:05 am
Hard to take seriously someone purportedly concerned with “substantively engaging important topics of legitimate debate and disagreement” by name-calling the addressee as “Joe McCarthy, Rush Limbaugh, and George W. Bush” in the very same sentence.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:06:40 am
The purpose of the “Joe McCarthy, Rush Limbaugh, and George W. Bush” reference is to succinctly point out that the terminology which Lieberman has very deliberately and specifically chosen to use has a specific history that’s directly associated with people who engage in precisely the sort of partisan warfare that Lieberman supposedly abhors. I don’t regard that as “name-calling.” I do see your point about “guilt by association,” and although that wasn’t my intent, I probably could have been clearer. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that Joe Lieberman = Joe McCarthy.
In any event, since the McCarthy line is clearly distracting some blog readers from the substance of the letter — and since it is by no means the letter’s central point — I’m going to ellipsis it out from the “money quote,” so you’ll have to read the whole letter to see it. That way perhaps people will actually respond to the substance of the letter instead of getting side-tracked by the low-hanging fruit.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:34:49 am
Why is it not a “good question” to ask whether Kristol’s characterization was accurate? Especially when Lieberman’s one-word answer to the question is “No”? I don’t see why Lieberman has an obligation to lecture his interviewers with the sort of post-partisan holier-than-thou claptrap you’ve mythologized and ascribed to him. Much less should he be prohibited from active engagement in this dialog if he says something suggestive of a strong opinion contrary to yours. Particularly when the question involves judgment based on personal knowledge, I should think Lieberman’s honest opinion, forthrightly presented and quite obviously without any viable ulterior motive (McCain’s not picking him; get over it), would be appreciated, respected, and - ideally - followed.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:40:49 am
censor!
June 9th, 2008 at 11:54:58 am
What is your timetable for entering politics and running for office?
June 9th, 2008 at 12:12:53 pm
I don’t believe in timetables. They only serve to embolden my opponents. :)
June 9th, 2008 at 12:29:29 pm
With all these open letters you’ve been sending lately, I worry that after you shut down the blog, you’re just going to spend all your time writing outraged letters to the editor and to various politicians.
I’m picturing a teenaged Loyette rolling her eyes as you launch into a rant at the dinner table in 2015. “Oh, Dad, puh-leeeeeze…not again…can’t you just blog it?”
;)
June 9th, 2008 at 12:31:04 pm
oops… make that 2024..can’t add today.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:18:00 pm
Your letters are nothing short of freakin’ sweet.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:19:54 pm
LOL.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:47:37 pm
Brendan, your words of criticism are un-Joemerican and only embolden Osama bin Lamont and his terrorist followers. How dare you question our dear leader in this time of war! Quit speaking freely, you are undermining his efforts to defend your freedoms from the evils of violent video games!
June 9th, 2008 at 1:56:03 pm
Yeah, Lieberman actually did lose me when he went after video games in the 90s. I was 11 years old and pissed off.
Brendan, one of the strong points of your blog - and your thinking, by extension - is that you are capable of changing your mind and allowing your rationale for supporting a cause or candidate to evolve as you learn more and react. It’s amazing how few people are willing to do this (or how many are eager to label such people as “flip-floppers”).
It’s kind of boring to see many commenters (I’m not going to name names!) on this very blog always come down on the same side of a partisan divide on nearly every issue or candidate.
Way to keep it fresh and honest.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:47:46 pm
Amazing letter from one who always insists that policy differences be hashed out.
You excoriate Lieberman for his open question as to Hamas supporting BHO. Why is it out of bounds to ask such a question? A similar question regarding McCain’s Mexican support is completely inbounds. The GOP should have been questioning this support.
BHO is perceived in the Middle East as being more open to Hamas and Hezbollah grievances/claims. This may be an unpleasant reality, but there it is. Given BHO’s well-known backtracking over his concept of presidential summitry, and his most recent flip-flop over Jerusalum, he ought to be made to state forcefully and clearly his opposition and plans to eradicate H&H, as well as his latest and greatest idea regarding dealing with Iran.
You dare chastise an eminent political expert on Israeli/Middle Eastern diplomacy, and Jewish history, as to the meaning of the word “appeasement?” Are you serious? The concept of appeasement is a settled historical issue? Yeah, right. Get back to me with that other “settled” issue - global warming. Oops, I guess it is now “climate change.” Funny how terminology evolves, huh?
By definition, party leadership represent the party. Pelosi and Reid, and now BHO, are the Democratic Party. They are not as a David Duke, nor even a Joe McCarthy was was to the GOP. They are in charge of policy.
Reid flatly declared defeat. Pelosi and BHO speak forcefully of the impossibility of “winning.” Pelosi recklessly went to Syria. This talk/action has given much comfort to, and emboldened, our enemies. The Democratic Party has every right to say these things. Sen. Lieberman and I have every right to call it/them on it.
Where is Reid’s recantation? Where is Murtha’s? Better, where is the condemnation of Murtha? Six for six acquittals and your party remains silent. Such support, Brendan!
Again, I suggest you yield to the man who has been in the middle of the struggle for peace and justice in that part of the world for decades. He knows the workings of the Dmeocratic Part intimately. He knows who the powerful staffers are and their modus operandi. He’s calling them out.
Do you really and truly believe he would abrogate his sacred trust and responsibility to his people, to the United States, and his God, to engage in mere partisan activity? Really?
June 9th, 2008 at 5:01:18 pm
Ed, why should we believe that Lieberman wouldn’t engage in partisan political hackery when you just claim that all the leaders of the Democratic party do? Why should we, without strong evidence, just give Joe a pass?
Sorry but Brendan is right on this one.
First, its ridiculous to base any argument on the fact that Obama got an “endorsement” from Hamas. Just as it would be ridiculous if/when McCain gets one from the Aryan Nation or the KKK or any other racist group.
Second, you really need to look up what appeasement means. Really. Chamberlin wasn’t guilty of appeasement because he met with Hitler, he’s guilty because he gave in to Hitler’s demands.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:37:13 pm
David - check your history - cuz it’s yours as well as mine … the very act of Chamberlain-as-Prime-Minister agreeing to meet with Hitler was in and of itself an act of appeasement … Chamberlain was guilty of appeasement for *both* things …
What Chamberlain should have done is to have his Foreign Secretary meet with the German equivalent, so as not to give any validity to Hitler … he didn’t do that … instead, he chose the path of appeasement …
We should learn from that hard-learned lesson …
June 9th, 2008 at 6:44:11 pm
Alasdair, were you born this stupid or did you work really hard at it.
Meeting with Hitler was not appeasement. It was not granting him anything. He was the elected leader of Germany, he was as legitimate as they come.
But since you are so unclear on the concept, here is the dictionary definition of appeasement:
The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.
It boggles my mind how much you are unwilling to admit to reality, objective hard reality just to furtheryour own blind partisan agenda. Meeting with Hitler may have been wrong, it may have been pointless, it may have been stupid, but it was NOT appeasement.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:05:13 pm
Alasdair,
As someone who is quite willing to pillory the Brits and French for forcing Czechoslovakia to commit seppuku, I think David has you on the meeting point.
Hitler was Germany’s head of state. Furthermore, given that Great Britain had acquiesced to the annexation of Austria and abrogation of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, 1938 was a bit late to suddenly start playing coy. To coin an analogy, Chamberlain suddenly saying Hitler wasn’t “legitimate” would be the equivalent of a man’s wife claiming she was a virgin after they’d already had five children and been married six years. (Yes, I’m choosing a “like rabbits” birth rate to prove my point.)
Personally, I’m of the opinion it’s well past time to hang up the “Munich was a disaster of utter proportions!” analogies. Yes, Chamberlain was an idiot, the Czechs got screwed, and the Nazis ran a shell game of shell games with regards to their military strength. However, it’s easy to point out all these things _now_, but it was probably a bit harder to see in 1938. When your front-line squadrons are still flying biplanes and that guy with the funny mustache is muttering something about, “Nice city…hate for it to get mustard gassed…”, going to the mat for Czechoslovakia doesn’t seem like a good idea. The only reason _we_ think it’s a bad idea is we know what’s coming in the next chapter. ;)
June 10th, 2008 at 10:04:31 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement_of_Hitler
June 10th, 2008 at 5:49:35 pm
O Most David of Davids - Chamberlain wasn’t an appeaser only in 1938 - it was his ongoing policy (just as Obama is proposing it, using very similar-sounding rhetoric) …
“His attempts to deal with Nazi Germany through diplomatic channels and to quell any sign of dissent from within, particularly from Churchill, were called by Chamberlain “The general policy of appeasement” (30 June 1934).” - this is from Wikipedia’s write-up on Chamberlain here …
Chamberlain could have chosen to keep his diplomatic negotiations at a Cabinet level, but instead allowed himself to be used for propaganda in then-thoroughly-Nazi Germany in 1938 by actually meeting personally and as Prime Minister with Hitler … (most recently, Speaker Pelosi did an equivalent thing by her trip to meet personally with Syria’s leader) …
People had been telling Chamberlain that appeasement was a Bad Idea for some years before the Munich meeting ended up setting up the gift of Poland to Hitler … again, it wasn’t Chamberlain’s intent to do so - the guy wasn’t evil - he just had Very Good Intentions which were unfortunately also grading and paving the 8-lane Motorway to H*ll … again, similarly to President Carter and Senator Obama - well-intentioned, but predictably set for failure …
So, David - feel free to believe that Chamberlain was an appeaser only at Munich … your belief is not based in fact, but you are entitled to your own opinions, just as I am entitled to show why I have reason(s) to believe otherwise and to show the corroboration(s) that are those reason(s) …
June 10th, 2008 at 6:01:23 pm
Youngblai - “Personally, I’m of the opinion it’s well past time to hang up the “Munich was a disaster of utter proportions!” analogies. “ - sadly, as David’s beliefs show, there are way too many who believe that it was only Munich that was appeasement …
The reality, as I cited above in my reply to David, is that Appeasement was a policy deliberately and proudly being followed by Chamberlain for a number of years prior to and leading up to Munich … and it was a miserable and way-too-expensive failure …
And, yes, 1938 was “a bit late to be playing coy” - the Appeasement policy should not have been embarked upon in the first place …
June 10th, 2008 at 6:37:48 pm
Alasdair, look up the definition of the word. Also, I provided you with the example you sought from this very thread. I’m still waiting for you to provide a single example from the previous thread where I have indicated that I blame Bush for all that has gone wrong since his election. You have so far cited none, so get off your high horse you low life lying scum and for once just admitted you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:07:43 pm
Hmmm … an interesting philosophical discussion, at that …
Can a “low life lying scum” even have a “high horse” to get off ?
It is fascinating that our David is more expert on the matter of Appeasement than Neville Chamberlain about whose “general policy of appeasement” dates back to 1934, 4 years before the Munich idiocy …
As I said a couple of comments back, David, feel free to believe the definition of appeasement that goes with your blinkered filtered world-view … I’ll stick with the definition that was good enough for Neville Chamberlain …
June 10th, 2008 at 9:29:43 pm
testing…
June 10th, 2008 at 9:33:03 pm
Not to wade too far into this pitiful debate, but Davie, isn’t it possible that ‘appeasement’ has a specialized meaning in this case (as in referring to a very specific policy)? Not that I love defending Alasdair–who is clearly a child molester–but you and I have discussed the limitations of applying dictionary definitions in a different context.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:48:37 pm
Wobbly, you might have a point except that Alasdair has never differentiated between Chamberlain’s meeting with Hitler vs. the things he continously agreed to or his willingness to meet with him over and over, which might be considered a concession. No, Alasdair claims that merely meeting with another (valid) head of state is in and of itself appeasement, worthy of vilification. The funniest part is he’s basing his whole attack on Obama on the fact that he said he would be willing to meet, not that he would actually end up doing so. Being open to something versus actually deciding to do it are in fact different. In short, Alasdair continues to show his complete and utter lack of intelligence along with his epic partisan blindness.
There is a simple formula that you can do to tell whether Alasdair will agree with something.
Was it done/supported by a Democrat? Then its wrong
Was it done/supported by a Republican? Then its right
What if it was done by both you ask? Well clearly its ok when the Republican does it, but definitely not when a Democrat does.
I am curious Alasdair, what was your opinion of Nixon’s appeasement of China? Isn’t it terrible how poorly that worked out, and how we are now all speaking Chinese and saluting Chairman Mao??
June 10th, 2008 at 11:15:59 pm
Um, could someone help me? My country’s been hijacked by a bunch of partisan clones!
Once again, appeasement seemed like a good idea at the time. You can’t say, “Someone should not have done _x_ at all…” then apply it to another situation when things are not _exactly_ the same.
Put another way, not talking to Iran should stand on its own merits. Likewise, talking to Iran should stand on its own merits.
For example, if I were President, I’d happily talk directly to whomever was leaders of Iran at the time. Why? Because I’m told I do batsh*t crazy much better in person, and I would want to make sure my meaning wasn’t lost in diplospeak. To wit:
“Um, is my translator wrong, because I could’ve swore he said that you said something about sewing my fields with cesium after choking me to death with the intestines of my youngest child.” <–Yes, this batsh*t crazy. Now imagine someone telling you this in person and being _deadly serious_. Add in the fact that, yeah, the other party could probably make this happen well within the War Powers Act window, i.e. Congress wouldn’t be able to do jack and sh*t. See, I just presented a really good reason to talk with Iran’s president that had absolutely _no_ relationship to Neville Chamberlain, didn’t I?
This is what happens when you get out of the narrow paradigm of, “a Republican/Democrat said it, ergo it must be responded to in a partisan fashion.” I don’t have a problem with Obama meeting with Ahm-a-nut-job, I have a problem with his _message_.
Saying that you’re not going to be meet with your enemies sounds great in theory, but so does “fall back and nuke it from orbit.” In the real world, you’re going to have to talk to your opponents at some point. Why not do it in person? As alluded to, worked for Nixon–he got to bomb the living sh*t out of North Vietnam after meeting with Mao and Brezhnev.
Vice versa, it wasn’t the fact that Kennedy met with Kruschev that was bad, it meeting Kruschev while doped to the gills and acting like a little girlie man that caused the subsequent problems.*
*Note: For those sensitive to terms like little girlie man, this is not meant in the sense that women are somehow inferior to men in a contest of strength (um, yeah, have you _met_ my wife / sisters / mother?). However, I think we can all agree that a 5-year-old little girl in her Sunday best is somewhat less threatening than most other beings. Unless she’s packing heat. Then really, someone needs to smack that child’s parents. But I digress.