Thought Experiment
Imagine that it's the year 2000, and moderate Republican Senator John Danforth was running for reelection to the U.S. Senate (actually, he retired in 1994). Imagine further that a paleoconservative from the hard right -- a Pat Buchanan type, say --started to present a real threat of defeating Danforth in the primary. Imagine further that then-Governor George W. Bush announced that if the Buchanan type won the primary, he'd have no trouble supporting him.
Do you think it would be covered with as little criticism as this -- Hillary Clinton's expressed intention to desert Joe Lieberman if Ned Lamont wins the primary?
If Hillary lacks the guts to stand up to the crazy netroots as a candidate, how's she supposed to stand up to Islamofascists or Kim Jung Il as president?
Do you think it would be covered with as little criticism as this -- Hillary Clinton's expressed intention to desert Joe Lieberman if Ned Lamont wins the primary?
If Hillary lacks the guts to stand up to the crazy netroots as a candidate, how's she supposed to stand up to Islamofascists or Kim Jung Il as president?
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:55 AM
14 Comments:
Lieberman's continuing to run despite a hypothetical primary loss is a sell-out to his party?
Easy, Wrabkin.
Your point is a good one and can be made without the vitriol.
Carol is simply pointing out the growing influence the hard left is enjoying in the Democratic Party. She also notes that a similar situation on the other side of the aisle would be treated entirely differently by the media.
Both valid and true points.
Your point that the wishes of the people should be honored is also a valid and true point. And it's all that is necessary to counter Carol's points and thereby defend what is happening regarding the Democrats and Connecticut.
No need to get nasty. That only cheapens your argument.
Carol, will you consider it a "desertion" when Duh-bya fails to attend his buddy Ken Lay's funeral?
wrabkin wrote:
Neither point is valid or true, and if I show vitriol, maybe it's because I'm really annoyed that any Democratic candidate who dares question Immortal Leader is immediately labelled "crazy," "wacko," "insane."
On the other hand, it would seem that if a Democrat is perceived as going along with the the president, he is a sell out to the party.
wrabkin wrote:
Neither point is valid or true, and if I show vitriol, maybe it's because I'm really annoyed that any Democratic candidate who dares question Immortal Leader is immediately labelled "crazy," "wacko," "insane."
On the other hand, it would seem that if a Democrat is perceived as going along with the the president, he is a sell out to the party.
larson writes: "On the other hand, it would seem that if a Democrat is perceived as going along with the the president, he is a sell out to the party."
Hmm...which party is it that has coined a term for those who don't go along with its ideology? I've never heard Democrats yelling "DINO." It is the Repugnicans that have the all-consuming obsession with ideological conformity.
Actually Wrabkin used the term "sell out" with respect to his party. Whether you use the term "Democrat in Name Only" or "sell out" is of no real concern to me. Why would you of all people care what Republican activists call members of the Republican party? For that matter, why do you particularly care what happens to Lincoln Chafee?
wrabkin further wrote: Somehow you equate that with childish name calling.
I was quoting you in your first comment in this post.
Then this: Why do you find this comparable to comparing your political opponents to Kim Jong Il?
You're losing it, man. Put the strawman down before you hurt yourself. Go ahead and show me where I made any such analogy. HINT: Showing me where any other person on Earth did that does NOT count as me doing it myself.
I'll pre-empt your huffing and puffing and go back to Carol's post. She was wondering what kind of moral courage Hil' Clinton has. By not facing down the far left of the party, Carol wonders aloud how she would do in a faceoff with Li'l Kim.
That isn't to say that the Far Left of the party IS Kim Jong Il. (Their hair is likely to be far better than the Kimster's.)
(International ANSWER's parent organization, the Worker's World Party, on the other hand, might not shy away from the comparison. See their report from NoKo here.
First, let me say that I'm glad that you disavow the likes of International ANSWER. I didn't mean to link the specific candidate with that group, but I think you might find some of their fellow travelers on your left flank.
It is exactly the same situation, and she makes precisely opposite moral decisions based on the politics of the person involved.
So why not come out and use the "h" word?
Carol calls them "The Crazy Netroots".
Greg calls them "The Hard left".
You're talking about Daily Kos, Markos and the others who make up the lefty blogosphere.
A word of advice to my conservative opponents here at Carol's site: Do not write this movement off as being radical and crazy.
The effects of Kos and others will have an enormous effect upon the direction of both parties in the future.
It would do conservatives no harm at all to take the leftist blogosphere seriously.
Tom Tomorrow, the author of the cartoon "This modern world" has a great strip about how Democrats are depicted by the right wing. You can find it HERE.
I'll transcribe it for you all:
Title: The absolutely true story of the liberal cocktail party that caused a lifelong Democrat to become a Republican!
Scene: Cocktail party. Man with Beard (Man #1) and Man with Glasses (Man #2) talk in background. Lifelong Democrat (LLD) is in the foreground.
Man #1: Now that there are no conservatives around, we can say what we really think.
Man #2: Thank God -- who of course doesn't exist.
(Lifelong Democrat begins to look concerned)
Man #1: It's such a struggle keeping all this America-hatred bottled up inside all the time.
Man #2: Does this country suck or what? I wish the terrorists would just win already!
Man #1: And the American people themselves -- what a bunch of imbeciles!
Man #2: They'd rather go to a NASCAR rally than spend a quiet evening at home reading Proust! Ha Ha!
Man #1: But you know who I really hate? George W. Bush! And for no rational reason -- I just hate him!
Man #2: Barbara Streisand is MY president.
LLD: Stop! I can't take it! I'm not leaving the party... the party is leaving me! (walks out)
Man #1: What's his problem?
Man #2: As a self-invovled liberal elitist I really can't be bothered to care. More chardonnay?
It's laid on a little thick. I think an essential piece of the cocktail party would be "I hope I don't get sneared at when I go to Europe this season" or some such.
Wrabkin - I appreciate your post. It comes across more sincerely than pretty much any other I've read. But if you don't mind, what was the point over which Lieberman would be considered a sellout?
Was it his support for the President over the war on Jihad, or would it be the hypothetical continuation of his run should he lose the Democrat primary? I'm guessing it is one of those, but if it is neither, correct me.
How about a trade? The Dems can have Lincoln Chafee and the GOP can have Lieberman. :-D
(I don't know that Lieberman would go for it, although I was shocked about the announcement he would run as an (I)... I really thought he was one of those guys who thought of himself as a Democrat in the old school, and would always be.)
There are two judgments to be made here -- one about Lieberman and another about Clinton.
If Lieberman chooses to run as an independent in the event he loses the Democratic primary, he's not abandoning democracy or disrespecting the will of the people. Rather, he's merely deciding that he can still win a majority (plurality?) of Connecticut's votes for Senate as an independent, and he's willing to serve in that capacity.
As for the suggestion that he's somehow more incumbency-obsessed than any other politician, get real. They all want to be re-elected, and 90 out of 100 senators would do exactly what Lieberman might do if they thought it would work -- in almost every case, they'd have no shot at all. Lieberman is the unusual case where he has solid (perhaps a majority of) support from voters in both parties, but not enough support from either party to win a primary. Few senators face this situation -- if they lost their own primary, it would be a profound statement of weakness, and they'd retreat to the nearest dark corner to lick their wounds, not run as an independent.
So, Lieberman's (potential) decision to run as an independent is reason neither to praise nor condemn him on a moral basis. He's being a politician, doing what politicians do -- seeking re-election. The only grounds to judge him are partisan grounds. He may very well make it difficult for a left-of-center candidate to win this year, just as Jim Jeffords' defection guaranteed Republicans 2 years of a Democratic Senate. The same people who might condemn Lieberman were shouting for joy when Jeffords left the GOP -- and that's OK. Just realize that it's no more than rooting for your team, rather than passing judgment on the candidate's character.
Hillary's choice to back the nominee is nothing more than the team's reaction to a player's defection. Parties exist for one reason - to elect candidates to office. While we like to think of them as repositories of ideas (and they are to some extent), they're mostly about identification and consolidation of resources. If Lieberman chooses to opt out of the team, that's his choice, but he leaves behind all the protection and resources that come with the team. Hillary is part of those resources, and she could choose to give Lieberman considerable electoral power by backing him. If she did that, though, she'd be abandoning her team. Again, it's not about ideology -- it's about helping the team win as many games as possible.
If Lieberman returns to the Senate as an independent, he won't be counted on to help with fundraising, to stand tough on the big votes, or even to attend the annual retreat. If a politician can win on his own, without a party, it's an incredibly validating, powerful thing -- but it's also alienating. Lieberman will become a force unto himself, but he will also be an isolated voter that both parties will court on every major issue of the day. That's not useful for your average Democrat -- it's unreliable, time-consuming, and it places Lieberman on a pedestal in a room of the largest egos on the planet. Therefore, once Lieberman bolts the Democrats, they're wise to stick with the team instead of their old friend.
Lieberman knows what he's doing, and what the consequences are. If he runs as an independent, it will be fascinating political theater. But it's not a morality play -- think more like a messy high school drama.
Post a Comment
<< Home