There's something really disturbing in the idea that republicans would vote for a (more or less) liberal politician simply because he supports a war. How puerile.
another josh post... I'm sorry. I just don't see it. Mike Allen has a piece in Time arguing that Republicans are thanking their lucky stars and Democrats are shaking in their boots because of the cudgel Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut has given them for November. The piece runs down each of the key GOP players -- Mehlman, Cheney, Snow -- each bellowing out RNC talking points claiming that Lieberman's defeat means the Democratic party is beholden to the hard-left and ostrich-like isolationists. Lieberman, as Mike explains, is now slated to become the martyr to isolationism whom Republicans will laud at every turn. "On television and in speeches in coming days," writes Allen, "party officials and strategists plan to talk about their respect for Lieberman as a distinguished public servant and argue that Lamont's victory represents the end of the long tradition of strong-on-national-defense Democratic leaders in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy." This is sad. Not because I think any of this is true or that it will resonate with the public. Not even because I'm surprised at how easily many of my press colleagues pen stories like this recounting GOP press offensives without questioning whether it really seems likely to succeed. What's really sad is that the nexus of national press and political operative bigwigs really needs to get over itself a bit here. Because once they do, they may actually be able to get over Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman is not a world-historical figure. He's not fighting some long twilight struggle. He thinks he's both. But he's not. I really don't think the Missouri senate race is going to turn on Jim Talent challenging Claire McCaskill on whether she'll endorse Ned Lamont and abandon Joe Lieberman. I don't think most voters around the country really know or care that much about Joe Lieberman. And to the extent that they know who he is, outside of the committed partisans on both sides, they don't realize or think or imagine (as the Russert/Kristol/Matalin/Broder axis does) that he's this symbolically resonant figure on whom the fate of the nation may alas rest. The heart of the matter here is that everyone knows Joe in DC. They like him. They think he's a nice guy, which he is. His staff likes him, which also makes him seem like a nice guy. He's schmoozed the city for two decades. But really he's just a pol who ignored his constituents, went into serious denial about a major foreign policy disaster, was more lockstep with the president's non-policy than many Republicans, and got bounced by his constituents. That's politics. And that's accountability. And, really? It's not that big a deal. Many Americans are not comfortable with the idea of just pulling out of Iraq. But the war is really unpopular. I think most Americans realize that the president thinks his Iraq policy is a rousing success and most Democrats don't. They get that. They see it. They understand it. If Republicans think the Martyrdom of Joe is going to be their killer issue, let them have at it. They're trying to knock the Dems off their stride but they're showing their desperation. The whole thing is, in both the most serious and frivolous senses of the word, a joke. -- Josh Marshall
I'd like to know exactly what you mean. Lieberman is a Democrat, so how is it a huge victory for the Democratic Party when one of theirs lost while another won. How can that be a victory for the Party? I think what you mean is that this indicates a shift in the Democratic Party of which you approve... and nothing more.
I see. It rests on the characterization of Lieberman as a "disloyal" Democrat? It's a confusing situation for sure. He had the usual endorsements which seemed to be made fatalistically and without conviction-- as if in obligation to an incumbent. Who knows what was said to him in private by those same people. It's the kind of things he's going to hear for sure from here on out-- if he indeed decides to run as an "independent" Democrat.
I couldn't agree more. Lieberman on practically every other issue was a solid, even liberal, Democrat. This was single issue politics at its greatest. Of course Lieberman's got to shoulder a lot of blame being a sore loser. While this might make the Democrats more ideologically consistent I don't see how an intraparty fight this prominent can help. What this means is that Red state and Red district Democrats will have a harder time portraying themselves as moderates if the perception is that the Democrats punish moderates.
Bull. Iraq, Terry Shiavo, Alito, Social Security and one or two others I'm forgetting now. Worst, he carried water for the basest line the GOP had which was that dissent was unpatriotic. You have totally bought the mainstream media lines on this race. You should read more about it. This is not an intraparty fight. Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat. He has been endorsed or virtually endorsed by Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove and George W. Bush. Here's a hint for you: Ann Coulter doesn't endorse Democrats. And an enemy from within (not just to partisan interests but to real, issue oriented ones like, for example, the hugest issue of our day) does far more damage to Democrats than any one Republican, by giving Bush lines like, "As prominent Democrats say..." Joe Lieberman is no more a Democrat than Lincoln Chaffee is a Republican.
Jeepers Batman. How quickly we become the enemy after being the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee with a 90% liberal voting record pedigree. If Lieberman remains in the race, it will be the most interesting in the country despite Connecticut's relative lack of influence. I'm without a Congressional candidate this time around, but 2006 should shape the course of the 2008 races. BTW, where and what is your latest directing / playwright gig?
The bankruptcy bill. Lieberman voted against the bill in final vote when there was no chance it would be defeated, so he could say he opposed it. But he voted for cloture on the debate over the bill, when voting against cloture was the only path true opponents could take to defeat the bill. Real Democrats are sick of the the stealth Democrats that pull this kind of bs and the chickens are coming home to roost. This is one way that the blogs are having a real impact on politics today, because they can focus a great deal of time, space, and energy on relatively obscure procedural issues like this and hold politicians accountable in a way that just wasn't possible before.
Hey thumbs. Long time no. Good to see you. I'm still in Houston for the remount of SPEEDING MOTORCYCLE, the rock opera I put together with my old company IBP around Daniel Johnston's songs. It opens back up tonight and runs through 9/2. This weekend's sold out but there are still a few seats left for the rest of the run. Yes, a lot has changed since Lieberman was the VP nominee. The priniciple change was that he and Gore lost, giving us the most partisan, most divisive president in the history of our country and also a stupid, unnecessary, immoral, illegal war launched on false and dishonest premises. Thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died for no reason in that war and Lieberman not only supports it but he says that if we even deign to criticize Bush about it we do so "at our nation's peril." For that alone (although there are many other reasons), he deserves to lose the support of the vast majority of voters in his state who disagree with him not only on the issue that they have repeatedly said is the number one issue to them but on various other ones as well. This was only Democracy. We have elections. Even if you're a three term incumbent, if you do not represent your constituents, you might lose an election. Joe did. Good. Now it's time for him to lose another.
Fuzzy math... how about "mandate +1" Bush's 51% was an actual general election which "unseated" a sitting VP following a generally popular presidency. Dems have been taking pot-shots at Lieberman for years now.
I understand your meaning, but 52-48 is overwhelming had this been a national election. Percentages can be deceiving. The more telling fact is the vote differential -- about 10,000 votes. That is pretty close, even in a state election.
Not fuzzy at all. 51% (rounded up generously for Bushies) - 49% = 2%, 52% - 48% = 4%, so if 2% was a mandate, 4% has to be 2x mandate. You are out of your mind, giddy. Al Gore as a sitting VP was in 2000, when actually he won the popular vote. Bush's 51% was in 2004. Time flies? Fuzzy math? You reeeeaaally make Republicans look dumb.
