Can Lieberman win in 08?

[headscratcher4]

Just saw Lieberman on CNN, being interviewed by Soledad O'Brien.

She asked him if he will drop out if the party leaders come to him and ask him to drop out, because his indy run will hurt the party. He responded that he's running for the good of the party because he didn't want the party to be captured by extremist elements*. This is why Democrats like me hate Lieberman. Not only is Lamont not an extremist of any kind, but this is just another example of how Lieberman parrots Republican talking points to undermine his party. This is why Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc want Lieberman to remain in the Senate. They support no other Democrat but the one who undermines the party from within.

The challenge is that "extremist element" now represents by every poll a majority of the people in the country. The war is unpopular, it seems to me, for a couple of reasons that the Leiberman lovers fail specifically to deal with.

EVEN IF WE WERE JUSTIFIED IN GOING INTO IRAQ (a dubious conclusion at best) AND EVEN IF THE INTELIGENCE WE HAD WAS BELIEVABLE AND NOT OVERTLY AND POLITICALLY MANIPULATED (arguable) -- the war has been mismananaged from the outsed.

Bush -- and his supporters like Leiberman -- focused on a big picture that they have failed to sell to the American people. Why? Because all of their predictions and brave words have proven to be holllow. Cake-walk, greeted as liberators, insurgency in its last throes, Mission Accomplished, etc. all ring hollow to a growing number of people -- people who begin to see that the danger to national security isn't "extremist elements" in the democratic party (though there is hardly a more main-stream person than Lamont...businessnessman, preppy sort of like what George bush clamied to be) it is the incompetence of the people who got us into war and are running it.

Who has been fired? Who has paid a political or professional price for the incompetence? Is the money we are throwing at the problem well spent? Have the lives lost been lost in a noble or even salvagable cause?

Methinks Bush likes to think of himself as Linconln. Assuming again that victory is the object, Lincoln continually fired people till he got the right general in the right place and a strategy to match. Rummy is still there. Rice is still there. Cheney is still there and on and on. So, even if you give Bush the benefit of the strong defence doubt, he has blown-it to the detriment of our nation...he has few options in his quiver other than "stay the course" -- a sort of Thelma and Louise solution at the present time.

In the end, Leiberman forgot he represented a state. Leiberman forgot he had to answer to voters -- both in his party and beyond. Leiberman turned a blind eye to the fact that the Presidnet he supports wasn't interested at all in Moderate, bi-partisan solutions on foriegn policy or any issue. Leiberman was too comfortable with his role as a "national" leader." It isn't a victory for extremism, in the end. Leiberman was out hussled, out talked, out grass-rooted, out prepared and voted out by people he had abandoned -- he never explained himslef to his own party, he didn't think he had to. That is why he lost. It is why he will lose in November.

The nation will not miss Joe Leiberman's leadership. The crockadile (sp?) tears the GOPers will cry over this are hypocrytical in the extreme.

 

[Mephisto]

Bush -- and his supporters like Leiberman -- focused on a big picture that they have failed to sell to the American people. Why? Because all of their predictions and brave words have proven to be holllow. Cake-walk, greeted as liberators, insurgency in its last throes, Mission Accomplished, etc. all ring hollow to a growing number of people -- people who begin to see that the danger to national security isn't "extremist elements" in the democratic party (though there is hardly a more main-stream person than Lamont...businessnessman, preppy sort of like what George bush clamied to be) it is the incompetence of the people who got us into war and are running it.

Ya'll Librals are all alike!!! Jest give 'er a chance, Iraq is gonna be a Democratic nation and they will thank us by giving us plenty of cheap oil. In fact, I think this war will pay for itself.

 

[hgc]

...
In the end, Leiberman forgot he represented a state. Leiberman forgot he had to answer to voters -- both in his party and beyond. Leiberman turned a blind eye to the fact that the Presidnet he supports wasn't interested at all in Moderate, bi-partisan solutions on foriegn policy or any issue. Leiberman was too comfortable with his role as a "national" leader." It isn't a victory for extremism, in the end. Leiberman was out hussled, out talked, out grass-rooted, out prepared and voted out by people he had abandoned -- he never explained himslef to his own party, he didn't think he had to. That is why he lost. It is why he will lose in November.

The nation will not miss Joe Leiberman's leadership. The crockadile (sp?) tears the GOPers will cry over this are hypocrytical in the extreme.

Thanks for pointing this out. The Republican party is very partisan in governing and in politics. When the Democrats shy away from partisanship, they are shrinking from the battle -- and they get hammered as a result. Lieberman's call for bi-partisanship and saying that party politics is the problem is Exhibit A for the charge of Lieberman-the-useful-idiot. Party politics is a reality of our system and every democratic government on Earth. Not only does Lieberman pretend to eschew party politics, he actually gives unvarnished support to the ridiculous Republican charge that the Democrats are too partisan, when in reality they aren't partisan enough. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Joe.

 

[BPSCG]

captured by extremist elements[/u]*.

Too late. Who's that behind Ned here? Could that be Jesse Jackson? Don't see that other great civil rights titan who endorsed Lamont in the picture, Al Sharpton, but I know he's around somewhere.

The crockadile (sp?) tears the GOPers will cry over this are hypocrytical in the extreme.

Tears? Bah. Lieberman in the senate would be better for the country, but Lamont will be more entertaining.

Okay, the way I see it, there are two ways to spin this:

1. Lamont is the knife edge of increasing nationwide dissatisfaction with Iraq. That's really Lamont's only issue, because Lieberman was dependably liberal otherwise. But dissatisfaction is so strong that a millionaire with no political experience was able to evict one of the senate's true moderates.
2. Lamont got only 52% of he vote in a primary, where the party true-believer extremists tend to come out in greatest force, in a liberal state, against a senator who took a stand on a crucial issue that is unpopular in that liberal state.

If the former is true, it's bad news for the Republicans. If the latter, it's bad news for the Dems if they misinterpet it as actually being the former. Because if it's actually the latter, and the Dems, believing it's the former, nominate a bunch of cut-and-run people for senate and house races in 2008, as well as for the presidency, they'll be scratching their heads in December 2008 wondering how they could have lost to the GOP yet again.

Today, Hillary Clinton is working harder than anyone to try to figure out which it is.

 

[hgc]

Too late. Who's that behind Ned here? Could that be Jesse Jackson? Don't see that other great civil rights titan who endorsed Lamont in the picture, Al Sharpton, but I know he's around somewhere.

Shocking! But you've not made the strongest case possible -- get a pic of Al Sharpton since he was there too. And this makes Lamont an extremist how?

...
Okay, the way I see it, there are two ways to spin this:

Lamont is the knife edge of increasing nationwide dissatisfaction with Iraq. That's really Lamont's only issue, because Lieberman was dependably liberal otherwise. But dissatisfaction is so strong that a millionaire with no political experience was able to evict one of the senate's true moderates.

Lamont has the agreement of almost 2/3 of the country on this issue. That's not what I call a knife edge. Barring some miracle, there will be greater dissatisfaction with the war come November. Lieberman will creep closer and closer to Lamont's position out of desparation.

Lamont got only 52% of he vote in a primary, where the party true-believer extremists tend to come out in greatest force, in a liberal state, against a senator who took a stand on a crucial issue that is unpopular in that liberal state.

A stand that is unpopular in every state. But nonetheless, if it's because Connecticut is whacky, then it's a pity that Joe has to count on them for votes. Perhaps he'd fare better in Wyoming.

 

[BPSCG]

Lamont has the agreement of almost 2/3 of the country on this issue.

I wasn't aware that almost 2/3 of the country wants to bring the troops home now. Doubtless you have a cite for this claim.

 

[hgc]

I wasn't aware that almost 2/3 of the country wants to bring the troops home now. Doubtless you have a cite for this claim.

And I doubt Lamont wants to "bring the troops home now." Doubtless you have a cite for this claim.

 

[BPSCG]

And I doubt Lamont wants to "bring the troops home now." Doubtless you have a cite for this claim.

If that's not what you were referring to when you wrote, "Lamont has the agreement of almost 2/3 of the country on this issue," please explain.

ETA, in answer to your question:

While we will continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked, our frontline military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home.

 

[hgc]

If that's not what you were referring to when you wrote, "Lamont has the agreement of almost 2/3 of the country on this issue," please explain.

Sure. I was referring to polls showing dissatisfaction with the war -- doing it at all, and its execution.

Here's just an example, from over a year ago... http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/

"Bring the troops home now" is a trope that will never sensibly stand alone without more explication. Does it mean get all 130,000 out of there tomorrow? Does it mean start the draw-down by the end of the year and do it in the way that best protects the departing forces? Something in-between?

My point is that Lamont isn't on the extreme on this issue, nor is he the knife edge. Lieberman, while also not in any extreme, joins his friend Bush in the minority opinion.

 

[headscratcher4]

The only thing that is clear to me is that the big loser here is Bush...how do I conclude this?

All that his partisans have is the accusation of "cut and run" by their opponents...but when polling shows the majority of the population is increasingly inclined not just to accept that as a possible policy altenrative, it means that Bush is failure as a leader is quite astonishing.

Lamont could go after Leiberman (as a proxy for Bush) because no one in the Administration or its supprters are offering any sort of vision or option on how to improve the war situation -- other than close your eyes and pray.

There is no Plan for victory -- other than a slogan.
There is no penalty for failure -- other than a national service medal.
There is no strategic vision -- other than can we hold bahgdad.
There is no political analysis -- other than can we paint our opostion as cowards or, worse, traitors.

If Bush had a real strategic vision, could articulate it, execute it and show result (results, you remember what those are?), than those that drank the Administration kool-aid like Leiberman wouldn't be vulnerable.

If Vietnam taught anything, it should have taught that when you lose the people at home, you can't fight the war and cut and run becomes the only viable policy solution...even if all of Asia could/would fall to the commies and millions will die as a result.

The incompetence of this Administration, again assuming that its original reasoning for the war in Iraq in the first place is valid (dubious) is what puts the nation at risk. It has sapped national will. It b.s. has made the public increasingly deaf to the dangers it claims to be fighting. It is a failure of leadership, it is a failure of execution, it is a failure of strategic vision and it is a communications failure.

Instead, we get "cut and run" vs. "stay the course". I argue that neither is, ultimately acceptable, but Bush is leaving the nation with few strategic or tactical options.

BTW... a mnore or less moderate GOP Congressman in Michigan went down to a primary defeat against a real, conservative fundumentalist minister. Where is the media analysis of the capture of the GOP by the extremeist, end-of times fundumentalists? Where is the lamenting of the end of bi-partisanism there?

 

[hgc]

...
BTW... a mnore or less moderate GOP Congressman in Michigan went down to a primary defeat against a real, conservative fundumentalist minister. Where is the media analysis of the capture of the GOP by the extremeist, end-of times fundumentalists? Where is the lamenting of the end of bi-partisanism there?

And where's all the sturm und drang about the primary challenge to Chaffee in Rhode Island? I just love seeing these Republicans and their media mouthpieces being so concerned about the well being of the Democratic party. They know better than Joe himself how useful he is to them.

 

[marksman]

Sure. I was referring to polls showing dissatisfaction with the war -- doing it at all, and its execution.

* * *​

My point is that Lamont isn't on the extreme on this issue, nor is he the knife edge. Lieberman, while also not in any extreme, joins his friend Bush in the minority opinion.

Doesn't that assume that Lieberman is satisfied with the progress of the war?

His official statement on the issue doesn't make it seem like it either. So how could it be fair to state that Lamont is closer to American opinion than Lieberman. Certainly Lamont has proven himself to be closer to mainstream Democrats in Connecticut than Lieberman.

 

[Random]

Doesn't that assume that Lieberman is satisfied with the progress of the war?

His official statement on the issue doesn't make it seem like it either. So how could it be fair to state that Lamont is closer to American opinion than Lieberman. Certainly Lamont has proven himself to be closer to mainstream Democrats in Connecticut than Lieberman.

Please. Look at the release date of that statement. That was released less than a week before the primary, when polls were showing a dead heat. I can’t think of any “anti-war” comment he has made before that. Pure last minute politics.

 

[headscratcher4]

Doesn't that assume that Lieberman is satisfied with the progress of the war?

His official statement on the issue doesn't make it seem like it either. So how could it be fair to state that Lamont is closer to American opinion than Lieberman. Certainly Lamont has proven himself to be closer to mainstream Democrats in Connecticut than Lieberman.

IMO...Leiberman's expressions of dissatisfaction with the war effort has come a little too late... it has looked like he read the polls saw he was losing and than decided to be somewhat critical of the Administrtation's handling of the war.

At the same time, the polls show more and more Americans believe (unlike Leiberman) that the war was wrong in the first place. That also is a gap between Leiberman's criticism and where the public it today.

Third, Leiberman was seen early on as suggesting that disagreeing witht he President was somehow unpatriotic and put the nation at risk...seemingly pointed at Democrats (his fellow party members)...again, as more and more people think the war is wrong, un-winnable, fought badly and that Bush is not compent to win it, the gap grows even further. This was followed by Leiberman's latter campaign position that questioning the war and policies isn't un-patriotic (only to disagree with him on the war is to be not just wrong but devisive and overtly partisan -- unlike the lock-step GOP).

My point is, that along with many other issues, Leiberman was seen as not just out of touch but arrogant...he projected an I'm right your deluded and wrong attitude. He paid a price for it.

 

[marksman]

And where's all the sturm und drang about the primary challenge to Chaffee in Rhode Island?

Here. And here. And here. There's plenty of sturm und drang to go around. But the Rhode Island primary isn't for another month. In a month, the hoopla over Lieberman will be relatively quiet and the hoopla over Chafee will be in full swing.

As for the Michigan primary involving a minister... do you mean this primary? Because the conservative lost.

Or did you mean this one, which didn't involve a minister, but is a tight primary race in which the GOP faithful appear to be backing the more moderate candidate?

Or is there a third tight Michigan primary you were talking about?

 

[marksman]

Please. Look at the release date of that statement. That was released less than a week before the primary, when polls were showing a dead heat. I can’t think of any “anti-war” comment he has made before that. Pure last minute politics.

How about July 2003? Is criticism of Bush from three years ago of sufficient time to indicate he wasn't criticizing Bush merely to save his seat?

I'm not saying that Lieberman was an outspoken critic of Bush. He certainly has not been. But to paint Lieberman as someone who has only been recently critical of Bush's Iraq policies is nonsense. He simply hasn't been sufficiently strident for the Democratic Party in Connecticut.

 

[hgc]

Here. And here. And here. There's plenty of sturm und drang to go around. But the Rhode Island primary isn't for another month. In a month, the hoopla over Lieberman will be relatively quiet and the hoopla over Chafee will be in full swing.

I'm not surprised there are news stories pointing out that there is a primary. What I'm saying is that the commentariat doesn't seem to have noticed or care that a centrist Republican is being primaried from the right and is in trouble. Yes, it's a month away, let's see if they take notice. As for me, I won't pretend that I think that it's a crying shame. I like Chafee alright, but if I lived in R.I., I'd vote for the Democrat.

As for the Michigan primary involving a minister... do you mean this primary? Because the conservative lost.

Or did you mean this one, which didn't involve a minister, but is a tight primary race in which the GOP faithful appear to be backing the more moderate candidate?

Or is there a third tight Michigan primary you were talking about?

I know nothing about it. Headscratcher?

 

[marksman]

My point is, that along with many other issues, Leiberman was seen as not just out of touch but arrogant...he projected an I'm right your deluded and wrong attitude. He paid a price for it.

I won't disagree with that. i think it's an accurate description of why Lieberman lost. I would only note that the way Lieberman (or any politician) is "seen" isn't always consonant with the positions that Lieberman (or any politician) holds. Just ask Kerry if he was seen accurately.

 

[marksman]

I'm not surprised there are news stories pointing out that there is a primary. What I'm saying is that the commentariat doesn't seem to have noticed or care that a centrist Republican is being primaried from the right and is in trouble.

The third article I cited is talking about the Republican efforts to prevent Chafee from being defeated by a surge from the right-wing. The GOP is certainly taking notice.

Yes, it's a month away, let's see if they take notice.

I assume that will depend on whether his primary challenger has as much of a shot of defeating Chafee as Lamont had of defeating Lieberman. I actually think Chafee's primary win is pretty secure, so I'd be surprised if ther eis much of a row about it, unless Chafee's seat starts looking insecure.

From the most recent poll I've seen Chafee is leading his primary challenger by 16 points. (Independents can vote in primaries in Rhode Island and Chafee is quite popular among independents, especially compared to his primary challenger.)

 

[headscratcher4]

Or did you mean this one, which didn't involve a minister, but is a tight primary race in which the GOP faithful appear to be backing the more moderate candidate?

Or is there a third tight Michigan primary you were talking about?

Walberg, the more conservative ex-state representative, won that race (I could be wrong, but my recollection is that he is also a fundumentalist minister). He ousted Schwartz, a "moderate" GOP, pro-choice Congressman. They opted, in short for the more "right-wing" candidtate, thus arguably "extremism" rules there in Jackson, MI.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060809...QcF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--