Daily Kos

DLC and Lieberman: typecast

Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:19:54 AM PDT

A while back, on an email exchange with the DLC's Ed Kilgore, Ed complained to me that while the DLC did a lot of GOP bashing, the only time the press paid attention was when they attacked fellow Democrats. There was a refrain of that complaint in the recent Nation piece on that organization.
After Kerry's defeat, the DLC promised to "avoid the circular firing squad" mentality but then quickly broke the promise, reverting to its favorite target: the Democratic base. Instead of labor unions and feminists, the DLC fixated on MoveOn.org and Michael Moore. "We need to be the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not Michael Moore," the DLC wrote on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, of all places. "What leftist elites smugly imagine is a sophisticated view of their country's flaws strikes much of America as a false and malicious cartoon," the DLC's Will Marshall wrote in Blueprint, the group's magazine, in a rant worthy of The Weekly Standard. "Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left." The DLC continued this vitriol into March.

Such attacks put the DLC back on the front page--a fact that speaks to one of its ongoing sources of strength. For Washington journalists, the DLC is an ideal organization, frequently critical and readily accessible. Privately, DLC staffers complain that only controversy will bring coverage.

Lieberman shares this with the DLC -- no one wants them to come aboard to talk about issues. Lieberman and the DLC are the designated "Democrat-bashers" for Fox News and the rest of the media world. They have so consistently delivered, for so long, that they are the first to be called on when a reporter is looking for that conflict in his or her story. Writing about MoveOn or Michael Moore? Call the DLC! They'll provide the "Democrats" are divided quote. Need to bash Democrats on any particular issue? Call Joe Lieberman! He has no concept of party loyalty and will happily blaze away.

The DLCers like to pretend that it's all a big ideological witch hunt, with us big, bad bloggers going after Lieberman because he's not looney left (or something like that). But notice how Reid escapes the vitriol. Stephanie Herseth may not vote with Democrats 100 percent of the time, but when was the last time you saw her bash her own party? Ben Nelson, the Democrats' most wayward member when it comes time to vote, spent an entire hour on Russert's Meet The Press last Sunday, and didn't bash Democrats once.

Some Democrats live in tough places, and must stray from party orthodoxy to survive. Others stray from the party based on genuine differences of opinion. That's fine and a political reality we should be able to deal with. What is out of bounds is the propensity of Lieberman (and only Lieberman) to hit the talk show circuit for the express purpose of criticizing his fellow Democrats.

Just as it is out of bounds for the DLC -- at a time when the left is more unified than ever -- to demand the party purge millions of supporters from its ranks.

I assume the DLC's Marshall Wittmann isn't a dense idiot, he just plays one on TV his blog, since he refuses to see this point. Yesterday, he took to berating bloggers for targetting Lieberman, which he had just praised for voting against the bankruptcy bill. Of course, in a craven act of political caculus like no other, Lieberman voted for cloture -- the one vote that could've derailed the legislation. Lieberman protected the legislation when it matter, then voted against it when it didn't matter.

But Wittmann (a former Christian Coalition staffer) celebrates such political dishonesty, pretending that his hero is getting blasted for his ideology, rather than for his anti-Democratic behavior. But it's no coincidence that the DLC is in the same boat -- attacked for its anti-Democratic behavior even as it pretends to be persecuted for its ideology.

They are two sides of the same coin -- the media's handy tool for Democratic bashing. Enemies of unity of the left. Self-important fools who existmerely to advance the other side's agenda.

  • ::

Tags: Vichy Democrats, Joe Lieberman (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 172 comments

  •  I don't agree with Kos about everything, but (none / 1)

    He is exactly right about Lieberman and the DLC here.  

    "W" must stand for "Worst President Ever."

    by lungfish on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:14:41 AM PDT

    •  Yes And (none / 1)


      There is a way to be a Democratic centrist and to avoid being the designated Fox Democrat-basher.

      There was a really perceptive diary the other day (take credit for it if you're out there, author!) that went through Ben Nelson's MTP appearance and noted just how well he managed to never buck party unity while meanwhile coming across to his Bush-lovin' constituents as a moderate open-minded guy.

      I agree with Chait and others that openmindedness on social security is stupid ... but if you're going to play that game, at least take a leaf from Nelson's book and don't shoot your own guys. Lieberman and those at the DLC still salvagable (Kilgore for one) should take heed.

    •  JOIN US (4.00 / 2)

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/
         What better way to show that Dems who are disloyal and give cover to the radical Bush agenda than to increase the membership from 150 to a few thousand.

      After you've joined ciick here and make a pledge.
        http://timetogojoe.com/

      http://dumpjoe.com/

      by ctkeith on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:32:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that Joe has got to go... (none / 1)

        and I live in his home town of New Haven, CT. I'm happy to pledge money to a primary challenger, but I'd also like to link up with other people to talk candidates, strategy etc.
      •  Lieberman? (2.00 / 9)

        He won't leave. He won't lose. His seat is probably the most secure in the nation. Both Democrats and Republicans like him.
        •  Baloney. (4.00 / 3)

          I'd like to see a poll, Joementum vs. a household sponge in the CT Dem. primary, and see who comes out on top.
        •  go back and look at Q poll (none / 1)

          during the 2004 primary season.The more the people of CT see of joe the more his numbers go down.He's been hiding from his constituents for 5 yrs.hasn't held an open to the public meeting in Ct. since 2000 and doesn't dare show his face at any event OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

            COME OUT OF HIDING JOE,WHERE WERE YOU WHEN ROSA DeLAURO and JOHN LARSON HELD THEIR OPEN TO THE PUBLIC SOCIAL SECURITY FORUMS.

          http://dumpjoe.com/

          by ctkeith on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:28:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  For fuck's sake, people (none / 0)

          Why is this supertrolled?  

          "Raybin is not a lying maniac. I've found this person to be an extremely clever and devious lying conartist, but never a maniac."--RElland on Daily Kos

          by Raybin on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:54:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because he is a troll (none / 0)

            look at the fraudulent link in his sig.
            •  I don't much giv e a shit... (none / 0)

              ...about his sig.  

              I will freely mock his guile for falling for an obvious troll-blog.  But I try to rate what people say.

              "Raybin is not a lying maniac. I've found this person to be an extremely clever and devious lying conartist, but never a maniac."--RElland on Daily Kos

              by Raybin on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 12:39:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Clarification (none / 0)

                Not that what he said deserved a 4, mind you, but I felt the need to uprate.

                "Raybin is not a lying maniac. I've found this person to be an extremely clever and devious lying conartist, but never a maniac."--RElland on Daily Kos

                by Raybin on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 12:40:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  He's not 'falling for it' he's actively promoting (4.00 / 2)

                a lie.  

                You are welcome to rate however you want. You asked why people were troll rating him and I told you why.  If you disagree with that and wish to provide positive ratings for 'balance', that's your choice and I won't try to change your mind any further.

        •  Quinnipiac University Poll results on Lieberman (none / 0)

          Quinnipiac University ran a poll    in February, and Question 3 addressed Lieberman's approval ratings. Here are the results:

          Approve -- 69%
          Disapprove -- 20%
          Don't Know/No Answer -- 12%

          Breaking the approval figure down:

          Among Republicans -- 74% approve, 17% disapprove
          Among Democrats -- 72% approve, 19% disapprove
          Among Independents -- 65% approve, 23% disapprove

          So everyone that gave a low rating to mongoosejuice2004 should go back in and change your ratings. You may not like Lieberman, but the poll numbers support mongoosejuice2004's statement pretty emphatically.

          In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

          by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:19:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  very good Paul (none / 0)

            Now do a graph of Liebermans Q poll results over the last 2 yrs and see if my comment above holds water.

            http://dumpjoe.com/

            by ctkeith on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 12:16:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your turn (none / 0)

              Nah, it's your turn.  This stuff makes my head hurt.  

              And believe me, I'm as ticked as anyone here about the way Lieberman attacks Dems on camera. Even Krugman took him to the woodshed today.  

              The question is, what's the likelihood of defeating an incumbent Senator with high poll numbers in a primary race?  Lieberman will have a huge advantage in name recognition, fundraising, Democratic Party organizational support, etc. If someone is willing to give it a try, I wish them luck. They won't have my vote, however -- I live in California.

              In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:13:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Clarification (none / 0)

              The reason I'm saying it's your turn is that you mentioned the Q-Poll, but didn't provide a citation or link to the specific poll, nor did you provide any details. I'd be interested in seeing them, but it's a lot easy for you to provide the information than for me to go hunting around in search of it.  And I'm feeling lazy.

              In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:20:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Heres the numbers (none / 0)

                Feb 18, 2005            69      20     12
                Jan 13, 2005            73      15     12
                Nov 23, 2004            71      17     12
                Sep 30, 2004            66      22     12
                Aug 19, 2004            65      21     13
                Jun 30, 2004            66      22     12
                Jun 4, 2004             63      24     14
                Nov 20, 2003            52      36     12
                Oct 10, 2003            54      34     12
                Jul 31, 2003            51      33     17
                May 1, 2003             53      25     22
                Mar 14, 2003            60      28     12
                Oct 2, 2002             58      29     13
                Aug 1, 2002             64      26     10
                Jul 31, 2002            64      26     10
                May 23, 2002            65      23     12
                Feb 14, 2002            64      21

                these are approve/disapprove/don't know

                notice when Joes public profile was the highest his numbers were the lowest
                COME OUT FROM HIDING JOE,PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE FUN!

                http://dumpjoe.com/

                by ctkeith on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 02:46:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Walk me through it (none / 0)

                  I see that Lieberman's poll numbers are lowest for May through November 2003, with steady rises since then.  He's certainly been quite prominent as a self-appointed spokesman in the past few months, when his poll numbers have been 15 points higher than during the primaries.  And in the primaries, he was matched up in a large field against people like Dean, Kerry, and Edwards, all of whom got a lot more press than him.

                  So I guess I'm not convinced that his job approval numbers have any relationship to his public profile.

                  In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:27:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ok (none / 0)

                    March through nov 03 was the time when Joe got his heaviest exposure at home in terms of his running for president.The more CT.residents saw and heard Joe the less they liked him.He's a scold and noone likes a scold.He has no base here.Labor doesn't trust him,Minority community knows he's bought and just pays lip service to them,machine Dems know he's toxic to the base and even Farrell got bigger crowds and more donations when Dean came to her event than when Lieberman did and the antiwar people hate his guts.Miles wide and 1/2" deep ain't gonna win a primary.

                    http://dumpjoe.com/

                    by ctkeith on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 06:48:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Kos Is Right On (none / 0)

      Yesterday on CNN watched Reed of DLC talking blah blah about "addressing problems with Democrats", and in general using the DLC to get some legitimacy on TV media.   Lieberman and DLC in general are simply opportunists on wrong track, and continually allow GOP to feast on Democrats and grassroots.  These people need to be starved out of existence.....their purpose is entirely negative. Their act is that of "the moderate and true conscience of Democratic Party".  Nothing could be further, as I have only seen them as a) ineffectual and out-of-touch political hack/oppportunists  b) Democrat Dividers for their own gain.
    •  I can't believe that this peice in the New Yorker (none / 0)

      http://dumpjoe.com/

      by ctkeith on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:39:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow... (none / 0)

        That was a real interesting article...

        But honestly, I feel like all the DLC democrats are willing to bargain away important democratic principles to win.

        Dr. Dean...Paging Dr. Dean...he's not on-call you say...then get me DR. MATT!! STAT!!!

        by doctormatt06 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:16:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  woah..... (none / 0)

        Great article man.

        Kinda creepy how neoconnish Leiberman comes off in that article.  But it actually makes me like Biden better.  He's clearly not upset at his party, as Leiberman so often seems to be.

        I agree w/Kerry though, to be honest; the Dems ARE perceived as just as cridible on defense. I mean hell, he almost won against an incumbent President who was free to beat the drums of war whenever he so chose.  That by itself ought to diffuse any talk that the Dems are somehow "behind" on defense.  What lost the election was homophobia.  I was amazed at how many nuts pressed the Bush button just on account of that.

        And as a last thought, war is always the last resort, but I agree that it CAN be necessary, and even good.  When pressed on this point, I tend to say: "It's not that I'm completely against the use of force.  I'm just against the way Republicans use force."  That is to say, giving no thought to the consequences and cynically using it to score PR points.

        All your vote are belong to us

        All your vote are belong to us.

        by Harkov311 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:20:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There's a good line the Gladiator..... (none / 0)

      "The time for honoring yourself is at an end."

      Right now no one is paying a political price for strongly associating with the DLC. We should beat our drums everyday, however long it takes and remind grassroots Democrats of how the DLC has been trashing the Democratic base. By 2006, the DLC should be synonymous with failure and disloyalty. Association with the DLC should be the kiss of death for EVERY politician. I hope we can build something in the meanwhile where we (grassroots Democrats) can give all the Democrats associated with the DLC a semi-serious (or atleast annoying) primary challenge.  

      I have been an apologist for Lieberman and the DLC before, but this is getting ridiculous. The DLC has to be ended. The time for honoring themselves is at an end.

    •  You got that right. (none / 0)

      Even if this site didn't already have so many excellent contributors and Kos just had his own blog, posts like this one would keep me coming back.

      (-5.88, -6.46) Democracy is what happens between elections.

      by autoegocrat on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 04:40:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I figured it out (none / 0)

      Michael Moore is the new Sistah Souljah (for cynical Rovian-trained opportunists, that is)
    •  Excommunicate the DLC! (none / 0)

      They are Republicans. Kudos to Kos for his righteous handling of these stealth Republicans. The DLC has done much more damage to our party from within than any opposition group has done from outside. If the Democrats could just purge our party of these eager sell-out, BOOT-LICKING, Bush-Lovers, we would crush the Repugnazis.

      Thank goodness that Dean has got the DNC Chairmanship! That is the best damned thing to happen to the Democratic party in many years. Look what it cost the Democrats to finally wake up - We had to lose two straight presidential elections and multiple congressional elections before the DLC's PROFESSIONAL LOSERS finally lost control of the party.

      We must kick these bastards when they're down. They're eager to sell us out again at the next available opportunity.

      EXCOMMUNICATE THE DLC!

  •  Lieberman will never get it (none / 0)

    He doesn't understand the damage he causes his OWN party because he's too busy patting himself on the back.  He doesn't get it that it's not his positions that we find fault with but the WAY he goes about them. Fox is not your friend, Joe!

    There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated...insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason.-NoFx

    by SairaLV on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:16:22 AM PDT

    •  Not just his party (none / 0)

      By misunderstanding the state of the nation and the changed nature of partisanship in America, Lieberman is not just damaging the Democratic Party but also the democratic process. He really doesn't get it.
    •  CS Lewis was brought up in another thread (none / 0)

      earlier today and brought Lewis' take on wilful ignorance to mind- it's a sin to have a mind and choose not to use it, so the DLC's and Lieberman's foolishness shouldn't be excused on the grounds that they don't know what they're doing.
      They should know.
    •  self-delusion (none / 0)

      I knew a guy once who always used to find fault in every situation or person. He could be funny, but generally it got to be a drag to be with him because just everything was negative. He couldn't keep relationships and switched jobs. He would tell me, "I'm just too honest for people." He would delude himself into thinking it was a positive trait that kept people away, when really it was that he was an asshole.

      That's Joe Lieberman and the DLC. They delude themselves into thinking they get attacked by the grassroots because they are "moderate" or "open-minded" or "practical," when really, they're just divisive assholes.

      disclaimer: I'm John Kerry's Internet Director

      by BriVT on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:45:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Joe's a flip-flopping Neo-Lib moral phony.... (4.00 / 3)

      He was a prime champion of abolishing the death penalty as a state legislator in CT when it was popular after Furman in '72.  

      Then he flipped when he needed to become Mr. Tough Guy and go national.  

      I know.  I'm a CT death penalty lawyer and Joe's all over the freakin' legislative history.

      Self-Rightious Weasle.

      Democrats Will Win if We Are The Party of the People see: Progressive Populism

      by jsmckay on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:48:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  food for thought (none / 0)

    Which, in your esteemed opinions, is worse for the unity of their respective parties: John McCain, or Lieberman?

    "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

    by CaptUnderpants on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:17:05 AM PDT

    •  Lieberman (none / 0)

      1.McCain is part of the majority -- thus they don't unity as much, making his deviations way less consequential.
      2.Note the style differences - McCain goes after policy differences - he doesn't bash his party or say they are out of touch.  He knows not to attack his compatriots.  
      •  Also note that it's rare for McCain... (none / 0)

        ...to even be against his party on an actual issue.  Only one I can think of, off the top of my head, is the marriage amendment.

        And you are right-he doesn't bash his party.

      •  True (none / 0)

        I have seen McCain on CSPAN questioning Rummy and the panel about torture comparing it to his experience in North Vietnamese POW Camps and really going after them on torture or on Bush's spending.
        But he will only do this in the Senate, not with the media. And if he does get fired about something he disagrees with, he is very  careful not to bash his party and in the end votes with his party.
        All McCain does is the occasional venting and asks a lot of tough questions of Republicans but he does not bash his party, he keeps it quite general.

        Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

        by wishingwell on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:55:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  true (none / 0)

        And when McCain disagrees w/other Republicans, he has the good sense to disagree with the people, not with the party.

        All your vote are belong to us

        All your vote are belong to us.

        by Harkov311 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:48:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm in the DLC (none / 0)

    and I have stopped bashing other Democrats but I come from a perspective of what we need to win in red states.

    http://kydem.blogspot.com

    Can't we all just get along?

  •  If the DLC doesn't like witchhunts (none / 1)

    it shouldn't have started one.

    Funny how the crowd with the torches and pitchforks - and blogs - turned back on the ones who were hunting witches, isn't it?

    Too bad, so sad. Does Al From even live in Washington anymore? Does anyone take his phone calls?

  •  When the DLC (none / 1)

    supported the invasion of Iraq I pulled my membership and could care less what happens to them.

    The do NOT represent me, my ideas, or much of anything but an "old boys network."

    Time for them to go and a newer, more progressive organization put into place.

    AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com

    by SanJoseLady on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:19:17 AM PDT

  •  "Give 'em hell, Markos!" (none / 0)

    "I don't care whether he is a pig fucker, just that he denies it..." -Lyndon B. Johnson

    by lobezno on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:19:28 AM PDT

  •  What good is the DLC? (none / 0)

    I don't know much about the DLC, but it seems like every time I read about them, it because they're doing something counterproductive. Do they do anything helpful to counterbalance the damage they do in the media?
  •  yup (2.10 / 10)

    because lord know St. Leftinus and his holy 'progressive' bloggers have NEVER EVER EVER bashed a conservative democrat.  its not like theyve ever accused any democrat with not being a real democrat.  its not like they openly and wistfully talk about primarying good democrats in some states.  

    whatever.

    •  check the details (4.00 / 2)

      Look at the origin of each little pissing match.

      The vast majority start with DLCers dissing Democrats and activists.

      If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

      by Carl Nyberg on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:31:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  but (4.00 / 2)

      Several key differences:
      1. they aren't spouting republican talking points
      2. they aren't doing it on TV, radio, and newspapers - where most of the public gets its news
      3. they aren't using scarce media opportunities to bash their own party rather than to advance the agenda
      4. they aren't themselves elected politicians (no one is calling for elected Democrats to denounce Lieberman)
  •  Amen, brother (none / 1)

    Well said.  Wittman is either a complete idiot, or has the integrity of a three-card monte hustler. Perhaps both.

    I will add that it's unseemly to be lectured on the need to "grow up" by someone who refers to himself as THE MOOSE -- in third person, no less.

    JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.

    by chumley on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:19:51 AM PDT

    •  Does Wittman live inside the beltway? (none / 0)

      I'd guess he does. He also thinks in "Washington-speak."

      He also feels that Lieberman is correct and is being unfairly attacked. He's wrong on both of those.

      I am a Texas Democrat, and I was really proud when our Democrats headed for Oklahoma and New Mexico to stop the Rethugs from mid-decade redistricting.

      It took exactly one turn-coat Democrat to come back and give the rethugs their quorum. Just one.

      Joe Lieberman wants to be that Democrat in the Senate and he needs to be stopped. Neither Wittman nor Lieberman recognize that we are a minority party.

      That means no more shooting off the mouth and ~naming~ the Democrats you disagree with, and no more playing lone wolf centerist without a special dispensation from the leadership.

      Anyone who violates those rules is not a Democrat.

      Democrats stand for Liberty, Security, Support of Families and Opportunity Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

      by Rick B on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:30:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Moose Juice (none / 0)

      The Moose grazes in the vital center! The Moose drinks moose juice! Braaaaaaaaay!
    •  That was my first exposure to their blog. (2.00 / 1)

      I will add that it's unseemly to be lectured on the need to "grow up" by someone who refers to himself as THE MOOSE -- in third person, no less.

       I think they've been honest in their selection of a guy with an enormously overinflated ego and, apparently, little else. I mean one just hates the evil little fucker after his first paragraph. The place is as much of a swamp as Free Republic

      I considered writing him some email in response to this:

      Lefties should have more humility and thoughtfulness. After all, they have not enjoyed power in many a day. Perhaps they should examine why. Has it been because their message hasn't been heard?

      but realised it would be a complete waste of time. He's a 'I talk, you listen, you suck, I'm wonderful' sort of guy. Naturally the DLC would select someone with a pronounced authoritarian bent and not include a comments feature on their sorry excuse for a blog.
      And these guys fancy themselves leaders? At the very least they should change their name to 'Centrist Leadership Council' and adopt the motto "We hate the base of the party we pretend to lead more than anyone else."

  •  DLC attack dogs (4.00 / 8)

    Still amazed that the only time the DLC doesn't act like a bunch of f*cking poodles is when they're attacking fellow Dems.
    Same with Liebermann.

    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

    by meade on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:23:05 AM PDT

    •  Woof, woof (none / 0)

      Still amazed that the only time the DLC doesn't act like a bunch of f*cking poodles

      Excuse me, but why do you think the DLC endorses timidity in political campaigns?

      Pro-DLCers such as James Carville invented the concept of the war room and rapid response teams.

      It was decidedly un-DLC politicians such Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis who fought timid campaigns and "declined to dignify Republican charges with a response."

      •  I think the DLC's ideology, (2.00 / 1)

        Excuse me, but why do you think the DLC endorses timidity in political campaigns?

         their documented vast distaste for the base of the party and their natural biases produce a stream of poor strategies which have focused primarily on the affluent and white males. I think (and indeed, can demonstrate all day) that they are far, far more vicious in their criticism of folks who vote for Democrats than any neo-con (with whom they are generally far more ideologically compatible)Their actions and the actions of DLC elected representatives have alienated many people from what was once a vibrant and effective political party.

        The only thing I've seen Carville fight for consistently is Bill Clinton's legacy and the reputation of his ethically compromised wife. He and Begala should never have taken that job with CNN. We've gotten to know them rather more than
        is good for their respective political careers.

      •  And Kerry couldn't take a stand (none / 0)

        to save his career or do anything or effectively retort the "flip flopper" name because the DLC joins the GOP in pushing everything liberal out of the realm of discussion.
  •  Who is Wittman? (4.00 / 2)

    And what's his connection with the DLC? And how did he get into it?

    And Kos, if he's a former Christian Coalition staffer is it not counter to reason to assume he's not a dense idiot?

    Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

    by DaveW on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:23:11 AM PDT

    •  CC Democrats? (none / 1)

      But Wittmann (a former Christian Coalition staffer)

      I'll second that question. What the hell are subversive Dominionist fifth columnists doing in a Democrat organization?

      I'm all for a big tent, but I say the theocrats can get their own damn tent. Out there. Way out there.

      Is it fair to draw the line here? Can we reasonably argue that a minimum qualification for membership in the party is a firm and unshakeable belief in a free and democratic state with equality before the law?

      Support Our Troops: Send the Commander-in-Chief to the Front!

      by eodell on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:38:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This Post Is Worthy of a 10 (none / 0)

    Great post, Kos!

    DTH

  •  The Money Paragraphs Are Right Here (4.00 / 6)

    Lieberman shares this with the DLC -- no one wants them to come aboard to talk about issues. Lieberman and the DLC are the designated "Democrat-bashers" for Fox News and the rest of the media world. They have so consistently delivered, for so long, that they are the first to be called on when a reporter is looking for that conflict in his or her story. Writing about MoveOn or Michael Moore? Call the DLC! They'll provide the "Democrats" are divided quote. Need to bash Democrats on any particular issue? Call Joe Lieberman! He has no concept of party loyalty and will happily blaze away.

    The DLCers like to pretend that it's all a big ideological witch hunt, with us big, bad bloggers going after Lieberman because he's not looney left (or something like that). But notice how Reid escapes the vitriol. Stephanie Herseth may not vote with Democrats 100 percent of the time, but when was the last time you saw her bash her own party? Ben Nelson, the Democrats' most wayward member when it comes time to vote, spent an entire hour on Russert's Meet The Press last Sunday, and didn't bash Democrats once.

    Cut this out and tape it to your computer monitor for when you run across somebody who says "But Lieberman's more liberal than Reid!" Lefty stances aren't the point. Refusing to be a trained seal for FOX is the point.

    John McCain will end Roe v. Wade if he's president.

    by Phoenix Woman on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:24:27 AM PDT

    •  For people like Wittman (4.00 / 3)

      that is a point best left unsaid. They know that's the point but if they acknowleged it they would have nothing left to complain about and their money would start to dry up..

      Lieberman was defended quite a bit here during the primaries. Markos had many front page posts talking about his voting record and saying we need all types of Dems. I consistantly defended him even though most of his attacks were against my candidate and a majority of them were unfair, imo. But with each passing FOX appearance and comment of "Sean, my good friend, you are a great American!" his defenders washed away. When Little Sean says that Democrats hate America and want us to lose the WOT I expect Democrats to at the very least deny it. But Joe never did. Instead he went on Seans show over and over bashing the whole party.

      Every defender here had a different breaking point. Mine was the day Abu Ghraib broke. When a Freedom Rider morphs into a torture appoligist, and now supporter, their soul is sold.

      Joe is dead to me.

      •  I think watching Zell Miller perform (4.00 / 4)

        as a trained monkey for the Rethugs really opened my eyes.

        I consider myself a Scoop-Jackson Democrat. Strong on military and defense, conservative on finances and highly oriented on  Civil Rights and social issues.

        As one with an undergrad in Economics and an MBA I find a lot of the extremist left views to be simply idiocy. I also need people with those views to join with me (and vice versa) so that we can win and keep our modern society intact and even improve it. So I will try to educate my friends and allies while I work with them. They need to trust me and I need to trust them. (I'll also occasionally learn a few things.)

        Joe has gone off the reservation too often. He has lost my trust, and I find no one who I trust who will defend him. He either needs to change or he needs to go, and I don't think he can change. He's been an outsider all his life and sees what is happening now as just another of many attacks that he will not react to.

        That means he must go. We can no longer afford the luxury of putting up with his defeating Democratic positions.

        Democrats stand for Liberty, Security, Support of Families and Opportunity Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

        by Rick B on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:44:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Jeez... (none / 1)

          So I will try to educate my friends and allies while I work with them. They need to trust me and I need to trust them. (I'll also occasionally learn a few things.)

          Well gosh durn, thanks for deigning to 'educate' extremist lefties like me (undergrad economics, political science with a focus on radical political economy). In case you hadn't noticed this before, there are outright radical leftists who have an excellent grasp on economics and still are radicals. There are well developed non-liberal (in the classical sense) schools of economics and everything!

          Take this as one of those posts where you get to occasionally learn something for trying to wield an undergrad in economics like a club to edu-smake non-heterodox lefties.

          •  Face it. I wouldn't hold any wrong opinions (none / 0)

            I have my opinions because they are right, or I would change them.

            And, surprisingly, I do change them at times. Always going from one opinion that is correct to another that is more correct.

            And may I suggest at this point that if your snark-meter isn't going off, it is broken?

            But I will ask you which of the opinions you hold are wrong, and why you hold them when they are.

            By the way, regarding an undergrad in Economics, I found it a good degree to assist in reading US News and World Report. But it was also a decent preparation for my MBA.

            I also have 18 graduate semester hours in Econ, 27 graduate semester hours in Finance, 12 graduate semester hours in research statistics, and 34 hours of accounting. I also have 68 graduate semester hours of Management and 21 semester hours of psychology. Plus some other things. And yes, I have been a professional student.

            For the last year I have been reading European and Middle Eastern history [and would very strongly recommend "A New History of India" by Stanley Wolpert - it nicely covers the Middle East.] I have taught undergrad finance and undergrad macro-economics as well as management and graduate behavioral science research methods. So I have a smattering of education here and there, and I come to dKos to get more.

            I really do think that many of the extremist lefties are conspiracy nuts. Not that there isn't evidence to support a lot of it to some extent, but primarily because many of them tend to pick out certian people to 'blame' without ever really understanding how those people think. (Wolfowitz?)It is hard to get into the head of your enemy. But most of those people think the way they do because of personal reasons and rather large cultural movements that have a combination of economic and ideological/religious bases.

            The radical free-marketers, for example, have bought into the libertarian idea that Economics is so powerful that it explains everything that matters about people. It doesn't. At best, it explains some social transactions to which numbers can be attached with more or less reliable and consistent degrees of accuracy. They are looking for physics-like mathematical models of human life in which you can establish a few simple models to explain everything.

            Managers 30 years ago were making the same error. They thought you could manage a company if your reports were accurate enough, because they could see the numbers and failed to recognize the qualitative variables. McNamara's whiz-kids were also examples of this. Good accountants, oddly enough, are a little less likely to make this error, but I think that is because you can't do auditing strictly by any formula. Auditing is a very human discipline.

            So, yeah, I will try to educate my friends and allies while I work with them. They need to trust me and I need to trust them. (I'll also occasionally learn a few things.)

            Apply your own snark tags to that, but remember, neither you nor I hold opinions that we believe are wrong. If we did, we would drop them for something better.

            And if you feel uncomfortable because I disagree with you, remember - I know I'm correct. Prove otherwise, or adapt. 'Cause we still need to work together to get the idiots currently messing up our government out of office and into the mental hospitals where they belong. [Unlike those right-wing mental defectives, I AM subject to modifying my opinions when given relevant new evidence. Just don't expect me to admit it immediately.]

            Democrats stand for Liberty, Security, Support of Families and Opportunity Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

            by Rick B on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:41:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  An undergrad degree in economics... (none / 0)

          and you are acting all smarty pants and stuff? That just gave me my first good laugh of the night.

          Write Al Gore a letter asking him to run: The Honorable Al Gore 2100 West End Avenue Suite 620 Nashville, TN 37203

          by MonkeyDog102 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:57:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, an undgergrad degree in Economics (none / 0)

            That's what you get when history is too difficult and you don't want to take all the business courses in a Management degree.

            Right?

            I'll admit it. I was really an ROTC major, and they made me get some kind of a degree. English was a possibility, but I really can't stand English lit. American is OK, but English? Yuk! Now if I could have majored in Science Fiction...  But I did minor in math, if that matters any. Turns out that by 1966 they would have commissioned me without the degree as long as I had the ROTC and was a senior, but how was I to know in 1965?

            All I really wanted was to become an artillery second lieutenant forward observer and fire 8 inchers at the Viet Cong. Turns out they decided (after I graduated but before I was commissioned) that my nearsightedness was so bad that they wouldn't even let me go infantry.

            I wound up as an Ordnance officer. I spent six months at Aberdeen Proving Grouds with some really fine people, including a Nigerian Lieutenant (Bernard Oteri) of the Ibo tribe with an ME degree. When we graduated, he flew back to Nigeria two months before the Biafran war blew up. I still wonder if he survived.

            I flew to Germany and spent three years supervising venicle, radio and weapons maintenance and supply in Germany. Learned to love history in Bad Friedberg and Frankfurt. Stood in Fulda at the headquarters of the 3rd ACR who defended the Fulda Gap and watched Russian jets fly overhead, 50 clicks on our side of the border. Talked to guys who had served in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment with Elvis Presley six years earlier and nearly got command of the regiment's maintenance company.

            A year later I was sitting in my office in downtown Frankfurt when my German employee told me the Russians had invaded Chezkslovakia. The Army didn't tell us for two days. We were to do nothing that might indicate we were mobilizing.

            Voted for Nixon because I thought he'd be tough enough to get us out of Viet Nam, and Humphrey didn't much impress me. (I'm still payng penance. I have never voted for a Republican since, except when I crossed over in 1980 and voted for Bush against Reagan in the Texas Republican Primary.) Considered visiting the Tripoli US Air Force Base in Libya until a Libyan Captain (Khadaffi) overthrew the King there and kicked us out of Libya. I loved it all and I'd go back in a heartbeat.

            I have no doubt that my poor vision kept me alive through the Viet Nam era. My education really came after the degree.

            Clearly OT, but does anyone really care after several days?

            Democrats stand for Liberty, Security, Support of Families and Opportunity Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

            by Rick B on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 12:37:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yes it is not (none / 0)

      The voting record as much as if these Democrats bash other Democrats and the party on these New programs, particularly Fox News! Liebermann cuddles up to Bush and Sean Hannity, I Have never seen Reid or Nelson do that...ever !

      Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

      by wishingwell on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:59:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  arf arf (none / 1)

      DLC, have a fish.

      McCain is not a moderate, a maverick, or a man of integrity.

      by marjo on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:22:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The quotes you included (none / 1)

    are just chilling. The language is pure right wing noise machine.

    I don't know what the DLC thought it would accomplish using those frames, other than what you concluded, kos: that it brings the media to them.

    Otherwise, the only logic would be that it would lure the soft middle; the base, though offended, wouldn't go anywhere because where would they go when it came time to vote?

    Either reason for the use of Republican frames against their own---any reason, for that matter---is pathetic. The conduct of conservative Democrats like Reid and Ben Nelson have to be the template.

  •  Practice what you preach (4.00 / 2)

    just wondering, what about the incesant bashing of certain democrats and their associated organizations by lefty blogs?

    we can attack the DLC but they can't attack us?

    •  fundamental difference (4.00 / 5)

      the DLC attacks us to make nice with Repubs--we attack the DLC to make war on Repubs
      •  Still a Fundamental (3.75 / 4)

        double standard.

        Two types of DLC diaries on this blog:

        1. DLC to blame for all Democratic Party Ills
        2. DLC Can't bash bloggers but bloggers can bash DLC (as long as they include the "They Started It" tag line)

        Both unproductive...Both encourage a smaller party over a larger one...both do nothing towards getting more Democrats elected.

        No matter what you think of the DLC, there are a number of moderate to conservative Democrats that agree with their views (even if they don't agree with their tactics). I am a member of the organization and while I don't like From and some of the rhetoric against the left, I believe their policy positions are more suited to growing the party in the Western States, South, and Great Plains.

        I understand the frustration with From, Lieberman, and others but like every organization, much of the membership does not agree with their tactics.

        I think one thing that could foster a movement towards true party unity is how successful Howard Dean is at the DNC. Once moderates see concrete results of the grassroots efforts and the proven ability for candidates to win in moderate/conservative areas of the country then they cannot say that the Dean approach doesn't work. If Dean can prove that you can win anywhere with a Democratic message that doesn't need to be tailored to an ideological slant then I think the DLC will have a choice. Either they compromise and find middle ground or they become even more alienated.

        I think Democrats can only reemerge as a political force when we figure out a way to reconcile the moderates and liberals on policy. I don't think we'll ever get anywhere if we get stuck on the personalities involved.

        •  Who cares? (4.00 / 3)

          They've lost election after election since 1994. They can't win, who cares what they think. The fact that they are tools who savage other dems just makes it all the worse.
        •  Both parties have to want to reconcile (4.00 / 5)

          as people have pointed out over and over again--with examples--the DLC types dont' want to work with the actual centrist/left democrats. They simply want them to shut up so that DLC types can represent them by moving further to the right. Lieberman's policies don't represent me, the DLC's policies don't represent me, and I consider myself a centrist.

          The whole idea that there is some kind of cosmic judge determining what is "fair" and not "fair"--but we bash them for bashing us! it doesn't make sense! its not "fair!" is absurd. As steve gilliard (who I worship!) posted elsewhere this if f*&^ing war. NO one decides what is fair or not. Winning is what we are here for--winning for our side, and for our principles.  The DLC can't even post up winning as one of their goals since even if one of their candidates "wins" it is for republican positions. Thanks, but the republicans have enough representation at the moment. I want to hear my side taken by serious, strong, angry candidates who can articulate our positions without undercutting everyone else on the team.

          aimai

        •  I think there is a key difference (4.00 / 7)

          I do agree that both sides of the debate need to stop the weenie-waving and focus on working together as a party.  Democrats in general seem too eager to open the circular firing squad, a problem seen from a variety of sources, from the far left or the most moderate of moderates.

          The key difference in this case is what the argument is about.  The DLC, well, excuse me, certain members of the DLC have decided that anyone not a centrist democrat should be purged from the party.  They attack Howard Dean or Micheal Moore (yes, even if he deserves it) not to benefit the party, but to benefit themselves.  For some of the old consultants and strategists lingering on after years of losses, this is about playing kingmaker, not winning elections.

          Now, it is quite true that too many leftists are eager to "purge" the party of the "unclean."  But Kos et al (everyone else I can think of that posted on this issue) has always been careful to point out:

          This isn't about idealogy.
          This is about strategy.

          The DLC isn't a problem because they're a centrist organization, they're a problem because they attack other democrats on idealogical grounds for their own benefit.

          The party most definately needs all factions, the liberals, the reformed conservatives, the new Clinton democrats, every faction is important to the Democratic party.

          If the DLC is worried about Micheal Moore or Howard Dean or whoever else on strategic grounds, that's fine.  The DLC should write about how Micheal Moore needs to be less vocal, how the party shouldn't identify itself by extremists, or that the party has to avoid scaring away swing voters.

          The DLC doesn't write about that.  They write about how the "looney-left" will destroy America.  They tell us we need to compromise with Republicans on Social Security.  They tell us we need to support Bush in Iraq.  They aren't talking strategy, they're rehashing Republican talking points.  They're more interested in keeping the power they have than moving the party forward.

          This doesn't have to be the case.  Imagine someone like Marshall Witmann writing about Howard Dean positively, saying "We have our differences, but we're both interested in making America stronger, so while we disagree, we're both working towards the same goal."  that sounds so much better than "Aaaaugh, Howard Dean is exactly what Karl Rove wanted, we're doomed, it's McGovern all over again!"

          So, while all sides are engaging in this childish "No, you're not a real Democrat!", one side is doing so in an effort to strengthen and solidify the party.  The other is doing so in an effort to get some airtime on Fox News.

          It's unfortunate that this kind of infighting seems necessary, but the failed kingmakers aren't going to start winning elections with the same failed strategies.  Their experience, knowledge, and leadership should afford them considerable influence within the party.  Their continued arrogance and failures should not afford them complete control.

          Honor. Dignity. French Fries.

          by PotatoNinja on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:32:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The problem is trying to win within the party ... (none / 0)

            and compromise without.

            Al From and Joe Lieberman both have the strategy wrong. They haven't gotten the message. 9/11 changed everything, and the old "play nicy-nicy with the other guys" rules disappeared when the Republicans got the whip hand.

            They are old school in Washington. Sorry - new school was redistricting in Texas, and the Tom DeLay financing that bought that Legislature for the Republicans. Also, the way the financial industry bought the bankruptcy bill. The American people will pay for that bill for years!

            There simply in no room for Democrats to compromise with the Republicans while they own all three branches of government and are being paid off by the Credit Card companies and Haliburton to make their ownership unassailable.

            The DLC isn't a problem because they're a centrist organization, they're a problem because they attack other democrats on idealogical grounds for their own benefit.

            and not for the benefit of the Democratic Party and the American people. Not American corporations, but American people!

            Democrats stand for Liberty, Security, Support of Families and Opportunity Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

            by Rick B on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:17:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Partially (none / 0)

              Pure obstructionism isn't an advisable path at this moment, but on some issues (like Social Security), there's no reason to play nice.

              As (IIRC) Carville put it, "If your opponent is drowning, you throw the bastard an anvil."

              Kos had some good analysis of why Democrats flopped on issues like the bankruptcy bill.  Dissapointing, I know, but at least there are strategic explanations.

              We still need friendly, centrist politicians, especially if we attempt to regain the South, but we need smart centrists.  There will be times, even with Bush in office, during which the Democrats would be best served by courting Republican support or negotiating.  Not many times, but when those times come, we'll want people like Joe who can play nice.

              If we could just get Joe shut up until then....

              Honor. Dignity. French Fries.

              by PotatoNinja on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:31:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Double Standard? (4.00 / 2)

          I don't know if the DLC has a constituency in the way MoveOn, Kos, or even journals like the Nation do. Not that they wouldn't cash your check if you sent them one, but I don't know if their purpose is to engage and activate voters, or even the Democratic party base.

          If Dean can prove that you can win anywhere with a Democratic message that doesn't need to be tailored to an ideological slant then I think the DLC will have a choice. Either they compromise and find middle ground or they become even more alienated.

          The DLC isn't interested in compromising with groups to their left: they are interested (per Reed and From) in eliminating/purging them. This is what corporate contributors to the DLC are buying: a vigorous, constant pulping of the party's "left". Why else do you think they hold so fast to the right/left axis metaphor, despite it being so thoroughly discredited?

    •  Fight fire with fire (4.00 / 2)

      This touches on a subject very near to my heart, brain, and blog. Rethugs have taken control of all three branches of government by attacking anyone who opposes them, even moderate Rethugs. Why are we so afraid to do the same? Has staying above the fray helped us?

      In my first Diary post here at the KOS, I make the case that we should be creatively caustic because we can afford to be when we have facts on our side. I use Oregons Death with Dignity act as an example that I just can't be nice about. The Rethuglican Church is telling these dying people they have to suffer (and keep paying big bills) rather than take a peaceful exit. How can we not be passionate about our response to that? How can you not attack anyone who would wish that on someone?

      In this case, take the indentured servitude (bankruptcy) bill or the Minimum Wage (pre-empted by Jackson PJs) bill. How can we not attack anyone who backed these class warfare mandates? No matter where they come from? This isn't about what you say your party is, it's what side you take on issues.

      If we don't stand up for the principles in which we believe, no one will ever think we'll stand up for them, and they'll never vote for us.

    •  you don't hear repug moderates (4.00 / 2)

      (assuming there are any left) denouncing the radicals of their "base."

      No, the GOP seems to be one big happy ruling family.

      No one over there (the GOP) cares to make nice with us or work genuinely together in the country's best interest.  Everything they do is tainted with lies, corruption, arrogance and bullshit.

      we didn't start this fight.  The GOP can't be trusted because it's "in their nature" to dissemble and deceive.  So, it's war.  and during wartime (as the hawks are so fond of pointing out) if you are not agin us, you're against us.

      I have nothing against moderate dems.  I have a problem with moderate dems bashing the base.

      McCain is not a moderate, a maverick, or a man of integrity.

      by marjo on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:21:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  what is this? Kindergarden? (4.00 / 2)

      we can attack the DLC but they can't attack us?

      They're welcome to attack. they've been doing it for a very long time.
      The differences between us are irresolvable. What they aren't welcome to is claims to leadership of or dominance over the party or any claim to represent the party. We clearly do not share the same values. Time for a divorce.

    •  The difference is (none / 0)

      I criticize the DLC because their tactics sow divisions.  They criticize liberals because they believe our opinions should not be even considered.  

      I would ally with moderates who respect my opinions, but not the DLC.  They have spent too long attempting to marginalize me.

  •  Moose News (4.00 / 3)

    The moose is far from being a dense idiot and I was turned on to his blog by the very reasons I eventually left it.  Solid, centrist thinking and a failure to be dazzled by the liberal left.  He has backed Liberman in the same way he has countless other unpopular democratic issues, with the full moose-weight slow lean of obstruction.  

    What I have learned from him is that the democratic party is big enough for thinkers like him as well as thinkers like me.  There's more than one way to represent the people's interest. The Moose is the only Blog I directed my father to read, because it represented the kind of anti-internet slow populism that his generation could understand.

    What sent me away finally was the staunch protection of his opinion even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That and the sense that Pinnochio could never be a "real" democrat unless he had a blue collar job and went to Nascar.

    If we are saying the Moose is Dead, we must also say Long Live the Moose.  His thinking has been the abrasive on our my ideas, making them more polished.

    "And what will we do if there are no Barbarians?" - C.P. Cavafy

  •  Praise in Public; Criticize in Private... (4.00 / 5)

    should be the golden rule when it comes to internal disagreement.

    And Lieberman is an idiot.  No matter what he does to get republicans to like him, they'll never vote for him.  

  •  Beautifully put (4.00 / 3)

    Lieberman was the first Dem senator to trash Clinton when he was under heavy attack for his "character"--apparently a loyalty deficit isn't a character flaw in Lieberman-world.

    Actually, I think these fawning people-pleasing obsequious brown-nosing enablers are the reason half the country is under the impression the Dems are weak on defense.  Most people aren't studying policy positions, then reaching a determination that Repub policy will better protect them than Dem policy.  They look at our demeanor.  They see Dems falling all over themselves to get a Fox Friends pat on the head for having the courage and honesty to go against their party.  When we need Churchills, the Liebermans deliver (and are seen to deliver) Stockholm Syndrome.

    •  Grandstanding 101 (none / 0)

      When saw Lieberman's denunciation of Clinton on TV, I had to be restrained from throwing my shoe. One can't ruin a TV set at the beginning of football season.

      That speech epitomized what's wrong with Lieberman: A self-righteous, authoritarian finger-wagger who cloaks his arrogance in religious righteousness.

      What possessed Al Gore to put this modern-day Mrs. Grundy on the ticket?

      John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:13:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Loyalty (none / 0)

      apparently a loyalty deficit isn't a character flaw in Lieberman-world.

      Except, of course, when he cried the world a river because Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean. See, loyalty only matters when you're disloyal to Joementum. It actually fits perfectly: He can bash the Dems all he likes (in his warped worldview), but heaven forbid anyone attack him.