Lieberman "INSULTED" by his own voters- terrific article on the arrogance of power of a senator who is contemptuous of those he represents.....
WE here at C-dems.blgspt.com would hope that Mr. Lieberman's Democratic primary opponent would run commericial after commercial of, #1. a graphic of Mr. Lieberman's anti-democratic votes (and non-vote maneuvering); and #2. Mr. Lieberman's KISS OF BETRAYAL from George W. Bush [paraphrase]: "Thanks, Joe, for helping us STEAMROLL those timid Democrats in the House and Senate on issue after issue, so we could STEAL *two* elections from the popular majority, and run with our 'tax-cuts-for-rich, MORE taxes for everyone else' agenda."
<< There is no way a Democrat can embrace this president and continue to support this war and run on his record in a Democratic primary. >>
<< It may not always be true to them, but the Democratic Party has a few core beliefs. The Party is Green, populist (which in real terms means national health insurance), restrained in its approach to military force, and (since Bill Clinton) reasoned on federal spending. And while Democrats love and probably will always love the Nanny State - "Thank you for not smoking" - they have always been civil libertarians on the power of the state versus the person. They defend due process and privacy, even when this hurts at the polls, as it often does.
Joe Lieberman has never been very close to these political values. He started out in the Senate as, essentially, a moderate Republican, and HAS MOVED TO THE RIGHT from there - to Bush's side. >>
Democracy an insult to those who live only for power
By Journal Enquirer.com
June 16, 2006
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16800389&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565859&rfi=6
For ludicrous and bizarre remarks, it would be hard to top the comments of Gen. Harry B. Harris, the commandant of the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo. Harris reasoned that the suicides of three prisoners of war who were kept without charge, counsel, or hope of release.
A lot of us are still saying "wow" about that one.
But first runner-up in the Spiro T. Agnew Foot-in-Mouth, Mind-in-Space Award this week is John F. Droney Jr., a former Connecticut Democratic chairman.
Droney said Sen. Joe Lieberman should bolt the Democratic Party and run as an independent.
"I think to be terrorized through the summer by an extremely small group of the Democratic Party, much less the voting population, is total insanity for a person who is a three-term senator," Droney said.
Terrorized?
It's called an election, dude.
We know that long-time incumbents don't expect such disturbances of the peace. And it may feel like terror, just as it is terrifying to a nobleman when the serfs ask for their wages. But truly, having to debate a primary opponent is not like being blown up or beheaded.
The Lieberman campaign has, meanwhile, been peddling to the press and the public that it is Lamont, not Lieberman, who is right, or Republican-leaning. After all, Lamont is rich, he lives in Greenwich, and as a selectman there, he occasionally - hold your breath now - voted with the Republicans.
So, let's see. Lamont is a closet Fallwellite backed by Trotskyites.
Hmm. Seems unlikely.
Maybe it will fly. Who knows what will sell in American politics? After all, George Bush was re-elected and it was pretty clear where his war and deficit spending were headed.
But it strikes many of us that the Lieberman assault on Lamont is increasingly desperate.
It is also clear why.
The great issues of this year are the war, the compromise of our constitutional liberties, federal spending, and the trashing of environmental laws - in that order. In short, the disastrous reign of President Bush.
There is no way a Democrat can embrace this president and continue to support this war and run on his record in a Democratic primary.
A GOP primary, maybe.
And while Lieberman's record on the environment is decent, he seems to have no trouble with the Patriot Act, the merging of the NSA and CIA, or the Bush judicial appointments.
The red ink does not seem to bother him.
And he still says we are winning the war.
It may not always be true to them, but the Democratic Party has a few core beliefs. The Party is Green, populist (which in real terms means national health insurance), restrained in its approach to military force, and (since Bill Clinton) reasoned on federal spending. And while Democrats love and probably will always love the Nanny State - "Thank you for not smoking" - they have always been civil libertarians on the power of the state versus the person. They defend due process and privacy, even when this hurts at the polls, as it often does.
Joe Lieberman has never been very close to these political values. He started out in the Senate as, essentially, a moderate Republican, and has moved to the right from there - to Bush's side.
Lamont probably began about where Joe began, and then moved to the left. Lamont was influenced by two things: The abuses of Bush and his own core supporters - bloggers and berry eaters. Lamont listened to them and actually moved their way on, for example, health insurance.
So Lamont is near the center of the Democratic heart. And Lieberman is far from it. He flunks almost every litmus test.
Of course Lamont is a strong primary candidate. Of course Lieberman can win the primary only by smearing Lamont, in the great GOP tradition of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.
The shocking thing is that Lieberman is revealing what he really believes. And what he really believes is not that there are too many nasty lyrics on rap records, or that the U.S. can sustain a Pax Americana in the Middle East. Lieberman's deepest conviction is that he should hold office; he and his friends should retain power.
Is he running as a Democrat?
Then he should pledge to support the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. That's the rule, as Joe knows full well. Unless the nominee has some deep character flaw or there is some great moral issue at stake. And neither is the case in this race.
Is he running as an independent?
Then let him do that, as Lowell Weicker did.
Be honorable and drop out of the primary now.
Stop with the political bigamy and make a choice.
But no, Joe is running as the Hedging His Bets Guy. Just like when he ran for the Senate and vice president at the same time. Most of us don't get to do that. ("Boss, I'm going job interviewing for about a year. Send my salary to this address while I'm out, would you?")
And, of course, Droney rose to defend the great principle that animates Lieberman and is the organizing precept of his own political life: Power guys must hold on to power. Stick together. And when the people rise up to demand their politics back, remind them that they are out of order and crush their champions. There is a tradition here too: Mayor Daley and the police riot of 1968; John Bailey and the crushing of the anti-war majority in Connecticut in that same year; and the Connecticut laws that for so many years made it virtually impossible for an insurgent to challenge in a primary, even if he had an issue and support.
No doubt Droney is feeling nostalgic for the good old days. He's a "door-opener." Politics is his living. Democracy is always an insult to those who live only for power.
In elective politics there are two types. There are professional politicians whose main goal is re-election. Most of them do no harm and many do as much good as they can without endangering themselves. The Ribicoffs and Dodds and Blumenthals are part of that tribe. Hillary Clinton is their current Great Spirit. They are honorable people. But sometimes they err, even dishonor themselves, by refusing to take risks.
And then there are so-called conviction politicians, who come into politics or into a particular race because of an issue - the cause candidates. (Hubert Humphrey on civil rights; Gene McCarthy on Vietnam). Al Gore and Russ Feingold are the current standard bearers. And Ned Lamont is their acolyte.
Our nation is engaged in a tragic and senseless war, with no end in sight except to declare victory and get out. Our best sons and daughters are being used for insurgent target practice. Our national liberties are compromised. We are swimming in an endless sea of debt.
The professional politician who cares only about holding on to power and holding back the riffraff in the face of all that, looks small. Almost absurd.
That doesn't mean he won't have the last laugh. The pros usually do. But it does mean he has a fight on his hands. And it might mean that we are entering an era in which conviction will count.
©Journal Inquirer 2006
<< There is no way a Democrat can embrace this president and continue to support this war and run on his record in a Democratic primary. >>
<< It may not always be true to them, but the Democratic Party has a few core beliefs. The Party is Green, populist (which in real terms means national health insurance), restrained in its approach to military force, and (since Bill Clinton) reasoned on federal spending. And while Democrats love and probably will always love the Nanny State - "Thank you for not smoking" - they have always been civil libertarians on the power of the state versus the person. They defend due process and privacy, even when this hurts at the polls, as it often does.
Joe Lieberman has never been very close to these political values. He started out in the Senate as, essentially, a moderate Republican, and HAS MOVED TO THE RIGHT from there - to Bush's side. >>
Democracy an insult to those who live only for power
By Journal Enquirer.com
June 16, 2006
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16800389&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565859&rfi=6
For ludicrous and bizarre remarks, it would be hard to top the comments of Gen. Harry B. Harris, the commandant of the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo. Harris reasoned that the suicides of three prisoners of war who were kept without charge, counsel, or hope of release.
A lot of us are still saying "wow" about that one.
But first runner-up in the Spiro T. Agnew Foot-in-Mouth, Mind-in-Space Award this week is John F. Droney Jr., a former Connecticut Democratic chairman.
Droney said Sen. Joe Lieberman should bolt the Democratic Party and run as an independent.
"I think to be terrorized through the summer by an extremely small group of the Democratic Party, much less the voting population, is total insanity for a person who is a three-term senator," Droney said.
Terrorized?
It's called an election, dude.
We know that long-time incumbents don't expect such disturbances of the peace. And it may feel like terror, just as it is terrifying to a nobleman when the serfs ask for their wages. But truly, having to debate a primary opponent is not like being blown up or beheaded.
The Lieberman campaign has, meanwhile, been peddling to the press and the public that it is Lamont, not Lieberman, who is right, or Republican-leaning. After all, Lamont is rich, he lives in Greenwich, and as a selectman there, he occasionally - hold your breath now - voted with the Republicans.
So, let's see. Lamont is a closet Fallwellite backed by Trotskyites.
Hmm. Seems unlikely.
Maybe it will fly. Who knows what will sell in American politics? After all, George Bush was re-elected and it was pretty clear where his war and deficit spending were headed.
But it strikes many of us that the Lieberman assault on Lamont is increasingly desperate.
It is also clear why.
The great issues of this year are the war, the compromise of our constitutional liberties, federal spending, and the trashing of environmental laws - in that order. In short, the disastrous reign of President Bush.
There is no way a Democrat can embrace this president and continue to support this war and run on his record in a Democratic primary.
A GOP primary, maybe.
And while Lieberman's record on the environment is decent, he seems to have no trouble with the Patriot Act, the merging of the NSA and CIA, or the Bush judicial appointments.
The red ink does not seem to bother him.
And he still says we are winning the war.
It may not always be true to them, but the Democratic Party has a few core beliefs. The Party is Green, populist (which in real terms means national health insurance), restrained in its approach to military force, and (since Bill Clinton) reasoned on federal spending. And while Democrats love and probably will always love the Nanny State - "Thank you for not smoking" - they have always been civil libertarians on the power of the state versus the person. They defend due process and privacy, even when this hurts at the polls, as it often does.
Joe Lieberman has never been very close to these political values. He started out in the Senate as, essentially, a moderate Republican, and has moved to the right from there - to Bush's side.
Lamont probably began about where Joe began, and then moved to the left. Lamont was influenced by two things: The abuses of Bush and his own core supporters - bloggers and berry eaters. Lamont listened to them and actually moved their way on, for example, health insurance.
So Lamont is near the center of the Democratic heart. And Lieberman is far from it. He flunks almost every litmus test.
Of course Lamont is a strong primary candidate. Of course Lieberman can win the primary only by smearing Lamont, in the great GOP tradition of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.
The shocking thing is that Lieberman is revealing what he really believes. And what he really believes is not that there are too many nasty lyrics on rap records, or that the U.S. can sustain a Pax Americana in the Middle East. Lieberman's deepest conviction is that he should hold office; he and his friends should retain power.
Is he running as a Democrat?
Then he should pledge to support the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. That's the rule, as Joe knows full well. Unless the nominee has some deep character flaw or there is some great moral issue at stake. And neither is the case in this race.
Is he running as an independent?
Then let him do that, as Lowell Weicker did.
Be honorable and drop out of the primary now.
Stop with the political bigamy and make a choice.
But no, Joe is running as the Hedging His Bets Guy. Just like when he ran for the Senate and vice president at the same time. Most of us don't get to do that. ("Boss, I'm going job interviewing for about a year. Send my salary to this address while I'm out, would you?")
And, of course, Droney rose to defend the great principle that animates Lieberman and is the organizing precept of his own political life: Power guys must hold on to power. Stick together. And when the people rise up to demand their politics back, remind them that they are out of order and crush their champions. There is a tradition here too: Mayor Daley and the police riot of 1968; John Bailey and the crushing of the anti-war majority in Connecticut in that same year; and the Connecticut laws that for so many years made it virtually impossible for an insurgent to challenge in a primary, even if he had an issue and support.
No doubt Droney is feeling nostalgic for the good old days. He's a "door-opener." Politics is his living. Democracy is always an insult to those who live only for power.
In elective politics there are two types. There are professional politicians whose main goal is re-election. Most of them do no harm and many do as much good as they can without endangering themselves. The Ribicoffs and Dodds and Blumenthals are part of that tribe. Hillary Clinton is their current Great Spirit. They are honorable people. But sometimes they err, even dishonor themselves, by refusing to take risks.
And then there are so-called conviction politicians, who come into politics or into a particular race because of an issue - the cause candidates. (Hubert Humphrey on civil rights; Gene McCarthy on Vietnam). Al Gore and Russ Feingold are the current standard bearers. And Ned Lamont is their acolyte.
Our nation is engaged in a tragic and senseless war, with no end in sight except to declare victory and get out. Our best sons and daughters are being used for insurgent target practice. Our national liberties are compromised. We are swimming in an endless sea of debt.
The professional politician who cares only about holding on to power and holding back the riffraff in the face of all that, looks small. Almost absurd.
That doesn't mean he won't have the last laugh. The pros usually do. But it does mean he has a fight on his hands. And it might mean that we are entering an era in which conviction will count.
©Journal Inquirer 2006
posted by verifi at 12:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home