I realize Liebermann is the neo-dems, red headed step-child... He is the bust of the anti-christ's side kick legacy to loathe and scorn for neo-demo minded. The scorn and Khan-like wrath has no fury in the hearts and minds of neo-dems moreso other than Bush... Or so it seems. What I do appreciate about Liebermann is his mindset appeals to independent thinking, not being assimilated to collective neo-demo ideology that is so absurdly rampant...The problem for Liebermann is many moderates and some Republicans at least respect him (even though agreement is political thought differs) for earnestly working towards meeting the "other side"... Tsssk..Someone tell Liebermann this is the new world order of the neo-dems! The mantra of the driving force of the neo-demo is CONFRONTATION!...and he is either with the neo-demo program or he isn't,...and if he is against the neo-demos, he is the enemy...The realized and only righteous WAR the neo-demos believe in! CONFRONTATION!.... http://www.forward.com/articles/7438 'Lieberman Democrats' Have No Place In an Opposition Party By Ari Melber March 3, 2006 Politicians of all stripes were outraged when news first broke about the Dubai port deal, but not Senator Joseph Lieberman. Declaring that it was "not yet" time to block the deal, Lieberman distinguished himself as one of the few legislators — and the only prominent Democrat — to support the Bush administration in the firestorm over Dubai Ports World's bid to take over terminal operations at six major American ports. Lieberman's position was roundly condemned in Democratic activist and online communities, where many consider him a turncoat. Some Democrats are even openly supporting a challenger in the August primary for his Senate seat. The groundswell of opposition from within Lieberman's own party runs far deeper than the Dubai deal — and, for that matter, his continued support for the war in Iraq. The fallout between the Connecticut senator and the Democratic base illustrates a broader debate that has gripped the party since the most recent presidential election. The debate has little to do with ideology. It is, first and foremost, about leadership. Many activists believe that Lieberman's conciliatory approach undercuts the party's unity, consistency and confrontational posture, all of which are essential for an effective opposition party. They resent his style more than they resent his voting record, which is not very different from those of many popular Democrats. Democrats saw in the Dubai ports debacle an opportunity to catch President Bush on the defensive. They wanted a unified message blasting the administration's failure to handle port security and touting their own solid record on the issue, including the Hollings and Byrd port appropriations amendments that Republicans squelched in 2004. Instead, Lieberman broke ranks to support the outsourcing of port security to a country that housed September 11 hijackers and has a diplomatic policy that recognized the Taliban but not Israel. This reflexive support of Bush infuriated the Democratic base. The founder of Daily Kos, the top Democratic blog with about 3 million unique visitors a week, charged that the valid port security issues were trumped by "Lieberman's allegiance to Bush." Progressive blogger Jane Hamsher was even harsher, questioning how Lieberman could support the president on a policy that sends the message "Screw Israel." Such online thrashings have become common for Lieberman, who has experienced a sudden and severe fall. He was the Democrats' widely respected running mate in 2000 and an aspiring national candidate in 2004. Now he faces scorn from the party's activist base and rebellion at home, where businessman Ned Lamont says he will formally declare a primary challenge this month. In case anyone thinks Lieberman is not taking this seriously, last week he held an elaborate press conference to announce endorsements — simply to be his party's nominee. Lieberman obviously still has incumbency, fund raising, name recognition and good poll numbers on his side. Yet Democrats' enthusiasm for devoting resources to this internal battle, instead of to races that actually could win back Congress, reveals the increasing significance of leadership strategy in the debate over the party's future. While Lieberman may be the most noticeable target, he is not alone. Last month, the influential progressive organization MoveOn.org asked its members if it should devote resources toward similar primary challenges. (For full disclosure, I wrote a chapter for the 2004 book "MoveOn's 50 Ways To Love Your Country.") The group announced that 84% of respondents agreed, and it is now leading a primary challenge to Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar. Cuellar voted for the war, but like Lieberman he is facing attacks as much for party disloyalty as for policy. MoveOn's fund-raising e-mails have featured a picture of Bush clasping Cuellar's cheeks, and they have denounced him for undermining Democratic initiatives and for making statements that poke "progressives in the eye." Critics of this approach say an opposition party cannot afford to quibble with its elected members, and that all resources should be devoted to winnable swing districts in the next election. But that misses the whole point: Proponents of primary challenges are actually strategizing beyond the next election. They believe that some of the party's most visible scars are self-inflicted. Its reputation is tarnished by prominent Democrats who capitulate to Republicans at every turn, undercutting the entire rationale for an opposition party, and by candidates who define their personal strengths by knocking their party's perceived weakness, as Zell Miller and Evan Bayh have done with national security. Eradicating such timidity and disloyalty would be good for the party; challenging it is just common sense. To elucidate the substantive cost of capitulation, it is worth reviewing one of Lieberman's most infamous failures. In 2002, he introduced a Democratic proposal for a Homeland Security Department to reorganize government preparation for domestic attacks. It was initially opposed by Bush, who was more interested in using security as a campaign issue than for bipartisan public policy. When opposing the idea of a Homeland Security Department became politically difficult, Bush reversed his stance and Lieberman naively pursued a "bipartisan compromise" with him. That created an opening for Bush to build credibility on the bill. He stole the idea, stifled its passage to politicize the issue for the midterm campaigns, and lied by claiming that legislation was delayed because "Democrats are not interested in the security of the American people." And it all worked. The GOP won seats and passed a similar bill after the election. Republicans celebrated, Democrats mourned and Lieberman didn't seem to notice. That was more than three years ago. Today, Democratic activists have little patience for leaders who still don't get it. The Santa Monica-based Digby's Blog explained the contrast in a post this month: "The grass roots of the Democratic Party see something that all the establishment politicians have not yet realized: Bipartisanship is dead for the momentb, and there is no margin in making deals. The rules have changed. When you capitulate to the Republicans for promises of something down the road, you are being a fool. When you make a deal with them for personal reasons, you are selling out your party. When you use Republican talking points to make your argument, you are helping the other side." If Democratic leaders listened to this insight, they would understand that many of their supporters yearn for confrontational leadership and unwavering allegiance to the party — reasonable requests that do not require major ideological shifts. The primary challenges to Lieberman, Cuellar and other like-minded Democrats are designed either to purge the targets or to temper their conduct, while warning other elected Democrats that disloyalty now has a cost. It is a valiant effort finally to give the Democratic Party more discipline, all the more striking because the calls for unity are coming from the bottom up.
I agree, but it shouldn't be,...the democrats talk as if they are the party to bring people in America together, but the reality is this mindset they have is only a rally to bring their own together which will do nothing in the future, but strengthen the opposition...
Are you really criticizing the Democratic party for challenging disloyalty? You realize Republicans actually threatened to destroy one of their member's son's political future if he didn't vote with them on a bill? The Republicans during the Delay era are beyond absurd in their tactics to discourage disloyalty. Or are you criticizing the party's obstructionist stance, something that virtually every minority party in the history of US politics has taken? Why propose solutions when there is no chance anything you suggest will get passed? Even if Democrats had the ultimate solution to some particular issue, it would be dead on arrival because Republicans would not allow Democrats to get credit for an issue. This has always been the case, regardless of which party is in charge - the only time things truly get done are when there's split leadership (mid/late 1990's) or the party in power does what they want (current). A minority party has never accomplished anything in terms of government except preventing the other party from doing bad things.
Excellent post. I find it incredible that you're taking this stance towards the Democratic Party, Rox, when the GOP have produced an entirely new art form when it comes to punishing their own for daring to take a different stance on an issue. Any issue. You should consider taking those blinders off. They hurt your aim, anyway. Keep D&D Civil.
The article is completely right. Censorship-mongers like Lieberman (and Hillary) have no place in the Democratic party.
Are you really criticizing the Democratic party for challenging disloyalty? I am criticizing thinking beyond one ideology in a certain area which is bemused of neo-demo thought or far left pervasiveness. You realize Republicans actually threatened to destroy one of their member's son's political future if he didn't vote with them on a bill? The Republicans during the Delay era are beyond absurd in their tactics to discourage disloyalty. Shame on this, but if one party wants to elevate from the common folk criticism of being a "politician", they will go sans this procedure...The pervasiveness of confrontation on issues is exemplified from the democrats on numerous examples and avenues, examples include your moveon.org, and the very site I sampled from (a pro neo-demo site)..I don't see the republican blog sites that come down with such wrath, seething hate and scorn, then I do from the democrats Or are you criticizing the party's obstructionist stance, something that virtually every minority party in the history of US politics has taken? Why propose solutions when there is no chance anything you suggest will get passed? Even if Democrats had the ultimate solution to some particular issue, it would be dead on arrival because Republicans would not allow Democrats to get credit for an issue. This has always been the case, regardless of which party is in charge - the only time things truly get done are when there's split leadership (mid/late 1990's) or the party in power does what they want (current). A minority party has never accomplished anything in terms of government except preventing the other party from doing bad things I am criticizing what I see as poor leadership from your democratic side. I see more openess to "tilt" on issues not pervasive from your republican base. I distinctly and utterly see this contrast and it is clear beyond approach, your democratic leadership either has no clue, or a failed strategy they will repeat
Excellent at pointing away, when three fingers are pointing right back at him. p.s. the blinders is all you buddy!...
A Neo-Demo is the demostration version of Neo that was downloaded to the Matrix to test if there really could be "the One".
What the once great Democratic party has sadly become... Actually, many heard of this supposed "neo-cons",...the neo-demos are the antithesis or something to that effect...
in other words.... you dont know is this term the latest madeup word(meant to be an insult Im sure) from Rush/Oreilly? thanks for asking Nolen, I was curious myself.
I know...I know... The characteristics include CONFRONTATION for the sake of, sans deliberate thought. It includes saying something without saying anything ala gore... It includes the squelchy screams and spit of the Dean... The posturization to weak effect from the Kerry... The numerous bloggy sites which even admit there own leadership "sucks" (not my words)...btw, Feingold, even added reluctance of others to fully embrace the censure is indicative of his party's weakness ala the Pelosci-Feingold feud... Not to mention, the straddling of positioning of the Hillary... This is what the once great party has devolved into. I still can't fathom an answer for a "neo-con", but I'm not asking because I want to focus on what the other side of the fence can offer. Unfortunately, It only shows how green my side is...
well....i was hoping(against hope) for an answer that would be relatively free of political hackerry... look at me as a someone without a political leaning(its true)....try to explain to me in basic terms what the hell you just said.
all those are just personal attacks.. what policies/ideologies does neo dems believe in? just like the term neo con, its based on the policies/ideologies..
Pretty lame post. You strung a bunch of insults together. So what. There has actually been some interesting, even (gasp) enlightening conversation re: what a neocon is. Take a look at the Pact for a New American Century for some ideas. "Neodem" is a silly comeback word. It insinuates that "neocon" is some kind of insult, so you've creatively thought of an equal insult. Ha! Take that, liberals! Neocon isn't an inslut, it has made it into modern American parlance for a reason. Your thread shows you to be blatantly biased and occasionally hateful. Are you using the phrase "this once-great party" sarcastically or are you trying to pretend that you value anything that is or was related to the democratic party?
Actually a pretty accurate post, as far as I see it. the characteristics of style and leadership is quite different from the days when being a democrat had righteousness and respect. I have taken a "look" at the style and characteristics of leadership and I can tell you what is presented now and before is incredulously different...So incredulous. What is enlightening is the degree of pervasiveness and substantiality of the term neo-democrat in as you say,...the modern American parlance and for a distinct reason. My quest is to validate a specter of leadership in a manner of style and characteristics which lends itself towards renaissance...Renaissance is about being well rounded enough that a bridge develops which transcends willingness to follow solely based on partisanship...My idea of righteous characteristics is in comparison with leaders of the past, through film, literature, and interrogatories derived from first hand account...The leadership of what can only be described as "neo-democratic" due to the incredulous differance in past style and characteristics, say from the Truman era is clearly evident...It is a leadership style, that the very own blog sites claim as "sucks"...This from the very own "hooray-go get 'em" folks complete with old bumper stickers...
