Skip to main content

UPDATE: Blogometer posted the version of this I sent to them. You can see it at the link below.

In this recent post to the Hotline Blogometer, the author accuses Markos of hypocricy in his support of Lamont against Lieberman:

"The larger lesson Markos took from the story is that Dems ought not sacrifice winning candidates to the whims of single issue groups.

There's just one problem. Substitute "Iraq" for "abortion" and "CT" for "RI" and suddenly Markos becomes everything he hates about the Democratic Party."

I don't know if or how Markos will respond, but as this seems like an accusation directed at the whole Netroots left, I felt moved to respond...

Here is the email I wrote to the Blogometer:

I don't know how Markos will resond to your assertion that he is applying an Iraq litmus test to all Democrats, in contradiction of his "big tent" Democratic philosophy. But here is my personal response: What makes Lieberman so hurtful to the Democratic party is not his stance on the Iraq war. Other Democrats like Hillary Clinton have a similar stance on the war, and they do not attract the ire that Liberman does. We may disagree with Clinton on this issue, but we're not funding a primary challenger or otherwise trying to get her out of the Senate.

The reason Markos, myself, and other members of the progressive movement want to take Lieberman out is that despite his voting record, he often offers the Republican extremists "bi-partisan" cover, and says things like "we [Democrats] undermine the president's credibility at our peril." This propagates the ludicrous Republican meme that it is somehow wrong to criticize Bush. He, on the other hand, is often heard criticising Democrats, and seems more concerned with ingratiating himself with the administration than with the Democratic party. He hasn't even agreed to support the winner of the Democratic primary if it isn't him! He has been unwilling to rule out running as an Independent agaisnt the Democratic candidate. That is why we don't like him. Not because he fails some issue-based litmus-test that we're secretly holding everyone to.

To futher illustrate this point, I offer the example of Senate Minority Leader Harrry Reid. Ideologically, he's more conservative than the Netroots Left would like, and as far as I know he's more conservative than Lieberman. But he's in the tent because he's been willing to fight the Republicans. Not as much as the netroots left wishes he would, but we know but he's on our side. We don't have that confidence in Lieberman, and there's no reason a Sentor from blue-as-it-gets CT shouldn't be a reliable Democrat, both in voting record and in public stance.

No matter how big we make the tent (and I think it should be big), we can't include someone who is taking an axe to the tent itself! And Lieberman has been willing to do so with staggering regularity. The common thread that unites the candidates supported by the Netroots is that they're proud to be Democrats.

-Zachary Drake
zdrake on DailyKos
http://zdrake.blogspot.com/

Originally posted to zdrake on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:00 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good Job, zdrake (7+ / 0-)

    No tip jar?

    A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

    by JekyllnHyde on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 02:55:32 PM PDT

    •  From the Article You Cited (12+ / 0-)

      The New Dem Dispatch highlighted this point on 6/2 under the header: "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism." In language eerily similar to Markos' they write: "One of the major reasons for the DLC's founding in 1985 was to resist what we called "liberal fundamentalism," a conformist tendency to stifle dissent among Democrats and require adherence to litmus tests devised by interest groups and ideological advocates."
      link

      Baloney!

      The DLC's modus operandi is to bow before corporate interests.  The netroots' objective is just the opposite: shun big-money donations and spur campaign contributions from small donors online -- many of whom don't necessarily agree with each other on the issues.

      Steve Rosenthal, former Political Director of the AFL-CIO, memorably asked Mark Penn (now Hillary's pollster) at a post-2000 Election Seminar I remember watching on C-Span, "What does the DLC stand for other than being anti-union and in bed with Big Business?"

      A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

      by JekyllnHyde on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:14:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can answer that question. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wozzle, JekyllnHyde, OCD, Dave925

        Neocon foriegn policy and neoliberal economic policy.

        Both of which are proven disasters, both in terms of elections and in terms of their effects on the American people and the world as a whole.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:41:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, It's important to note.. (8+ / 0-)

        that there is some similarity between the DLC's desire to thwart "interest group Liberalism" in the Democratic party and Markos' and Jerome's criticism of narrow-minded liberal single-issue organizations. Both sides correctly point out that progressive politics suffer when the movement is dominated by factional groups who focus too much on voting scorecards and issue checklists.

        I think where the DLC and the CTG crowd diverge is on matters of money, message, and organization. The DLC is an elitist organization, more concerned with controlling the Democratic Party than building the network of people needed to sustain and expand the reach of progressive politics. They like corporate cash because it's a predictable revenue stream, while appearantly never grasping how it underminds their independence and their credibility. Oh, yeah and they HATE economic populism to the point where their policy proposals and the language they use to sell them is so watered-down and ineffective that they solve few real problems and invoke even less passion.

        •  Agreed, To Some Degree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zdrake, grrr

          that there is some similarity between the DLC's desire to thwart "interest group Liberalism" in the Democratic party and Markos' and Jerome's criticism of narrow-minded liberal single-issue organizations.

          ... but it is one thing to explicitly say one thing and another to go about achieving your goals in such a disgusting manner that it negates and overshadows your original purpose.  Big business is certainly a special interest -- if ever there was one!

          While I wasn't a Dean supporter in the 2004 Primaries, he could at least make one legitimate claim in that campaign: he wasn't beholden to any special interest.

          Can any DLC-supported candidate make a similar claim?

          A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

          by JekyllnHyde on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:27:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Random Errors (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        phemme texxii

        Isn't that an odd question to be asking a pollster? That seems a little bit like asking Def Leppard's pyrotechnics technician why their songs suck.

        •  No (0+ / 0-)

          Isn't that an odd question to be asking a pollster?

          The seminar I referenced above consisted of two groups (1) DLC types (including Mark Penn) who contended that Al Gore blew the 2000 Election by promoting populist themes such as 'People vs the Powerful' as opposed to advocating centrist Clinton-like policies in that campaign and (2) Left-of-Center Democrats (including Steve Rosenthal, Robert Borosage, and others) who were responding to criticisms of the Gore Campaign by Penn and other DLC'ers.

          As I remember, another telling comment that Rosenthal made during that seminar was that had Gore won Florida's electoral vote -- absent the shenanigans by Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and intervention by the Supreme Court -- and the election, the DLC would have been in the forefront claiming credit for Gore's victory.

          Another important point: what Penn's side conveniently forgot to mention was that absent Monica Lewinsky, the 2000 Election would have probably resembled the 1988 election -- that is, an incumbent Vice President (Gore) wins by 3 or 4:1 in the electoral college and by 5-7 points in the popular vote count.

          D.L.C. --- Democrats for the Leisure Class indeed!

          A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

          by JekyllnHyde on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:45:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Credit Where It's D'Oh! (0+ / 0-)

            As I remember, another telling comment that Rosenthal made during that seminar was that had Gore won Florida's electoral vote -- absent the shenanigans by Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and intervention by the Supreme Court -- and the election, the DLC would have been in the forefront claiming credit for Gore's victory.

            "Success has many fathers, but failure is always an orphan."

  •  Well done (10+ / 0-)

    You covered the issues at hand in a succinct, effective manner. Good work.

  •  Reid is arguably more liberal than Lieberman. (12+ / 0-)

    He's certainly not more conservative. He just happens to be pro-life.

    Just because a Democrat is pro-life doesn't necessarily mean they're not pretty liberal (James Oberstar of Minnesota is pretty liberal, and he founded the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus).

    Don't take my bluntness and attitude personally-the best weapon for the Democrats is the unvarnished truth, and the truth usually hurts.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:02:23 PM PDT

    •  Cool (0+ / 0-)

      Reid is arguably more liberal than Lieberman.

      In all seriousness, I'd love to see that argument made (from the factual, vote based perspective that you usually work from).

      Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

      by LarryInNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:58:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Right on (19+ / 0-)

    He undermines the party at its core. That's why he needs to go. These pundits can't seem to get their head around the fact that the politicians we support don't explicitly gain our support for their policy stances. We support them because they support forward movement in the Democratic Party.

    Deny My Freedom
    "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

    by PsiFighter37 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:13:48 PM PDT

    •  yes. they've got a fundamental misunderstanding (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zdrake, alizard, fireflynw

      which assumes that "progressive" means "liberal." (and yeah, it's most likely a purposeful and willful misunderstanding.)

      •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

        I wrote a diary about this a couple days ago in the context of John Murtha's announcement that he would run for majority leader if the Dems took back the House this fall. My point (which is essentially what you stated) was met with decidedly mixed views.

        Deny My Freedom
        "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

        by PsiFighter37 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:49:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just went back to read that diary of yours. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Radlein

          I totally agree with you about the definitions of liberal and progressive, but I don't really agree that Murtha is progressive. Without knowing much about him, I'd guess that the reality is he has integrity--rare for a longtime pol, but seems like he's honest and straight-dealing. Progressive? Not so much. Isn't he too entrenched, too static in office to be called progressive? Again, I'm guessing and asking as much as I'm stating, because I just don't know so much about Murtha. It seems like the commentors who were disagreeing with you about Murtha specifically are saying what I'm saying, whereas some other commentors were disagreeing with the definitions of liberal and progressive. Anyway, it's a very good, thought-provoking diary and conversation....

  •  This is so easy to respond to (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spud1, fireflynw, sunbro, va dare

    that making the accusation in the first place is just lazy. It wasn't one thing that Lieberman, it's been a steady stream for years now.

  •  Excellent response. (6+ / 0-)

    Markos has said it lots, and we must repeat it ad nauseum: It is not about ideology.

  •  Mark Warner is with Lieberman/Bush/DLC on Iraq (0+ / 0-)

    And Markos keeps talking him up despite it.

  •  'Offering GOPs 'Bipartisan Cover''? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LarryInNYC, bosdcla14, davybaby, Sam I Am

    Hmmm. Sounds an awful like Russ Feingold being the only Senate Democrat to oppose dismissing the bogus impeachment charges against President Clinton in 1999.

    •  If Dkos had existed back in '98 I wonder (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave925, davybaby

      how those 20th century Kossacks would have responded Feibngold's vote?

      I thought at the time that his vote was naive at best, disloyal at worst.

      In view of Feingold's many couragous stands since then I am more than willing to give him a pass on his unfortunate vote during the Clinton impeachment circus.

  •  My email to blogometer (16+ / 0-)

    Over half the American people now think invading Iraq was a mistake. Something like 90% of Democrats think invading Iraq was a mistake. In a blue state like CT I'd imagine Joe Lieberman is about the only Dem who thinks it wasn't a mistake. This isn't fundamentalism, it's common sense.  

    Lieberman has gone way over the line literally drawing kisses from the President and praise from radical rightwing Republicans. He's sided with them on a whole host of legislation and appointments from telling rape victims they can go to another hospital to refusing to back a filibuster of Alito. It's not just Iraq. Lieberman doesn't support party positions anymore. When his vote is critically needed time and again he can seen cavorting unapologetically with the other side. He's one of the few Dems who lost their minds on 9/11. He's gotta go.

  •  What's the point of haveing a Dem (3+ / 0-)

    in power when he votes Republican? What good is it? it's one reason why we don't have the power. There are more than a few folks who were voted in, who ran as a Democrats, but whose ideology and voting records are more to the right than left. Don't call yourself a Dem just becuase you don't want to ally youself with the criminal right. If you can't vote for ME, then get out! Enough of DINO(saurs) like Lieberman. The man sucks and should either step down or change his party affiliation.

    All Truth is non-partisan

    by MA Liberal on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:46:43 PM PDT

    •  I was wondering when somebody was going (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zdrake, peraspera, Scarce, BiminiCat

      to make a "purge the party" remark (thereby adding a tiny bit of validity to the comment on blogometer).

      If your reason for being against Lieberman is that his voting record is more to the right than the left, then you probably consider over 1/3 of the Democrats in the Senate to be in the wrong party (Lieberman, Carper, Kohl, Feinstein, Biden, Kohl, Dorgan, Bingaman, Conrad, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Lincoln, Pryor, Landrieu, Baucus, Byrd, and Johnson).

      The whole point of the diary was that Daily Kos's support for Lamont is not because of any litmus tests or ideological purity.

      Don't take my bluntness and attitude personally-the best weapon for the Democrats is the unvarnished truth, and the truth usually hurts.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:55:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right, I do. (4+ / 0-)

        There are many Dems that do not vote as I would have them vote. They don't vote what Democrats should vote.
        hell, I'm tired of saying the Democrats should be more "libertarian." NO, they should be more like Democrats. The democratic party establishment has moved away from their core ideals. So I'm against them. So what?
        There's nothing wrong with being tired of Dems who are too afraid to speak up, to vote right, to uphold the values that made the party great. How any of them (any of them) could ever vote for anything this administration promotes is beyond me. I'm angry that so many have just abandoned out core values as Democrats. But then, so have many Americans. We're in a sad state. And it's not the country I remember growing up, or had hope for even in tough times.

        All Truth is non-partisan

        by MA Liberal on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:30:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I suspect that (0+ / 0-)

          There are many Dems that do not vote as I would have them vote. They don't vote what Democrats should vote.

          By any reasonable definition, those two ways of voting are not the same.  By "reasonable definition" I mean defining the way "Democrats should vote" as votes that meet the approval of the majority of the Democratic Party.

          Why does everyone assume that they, themselves, are the arbiter of what's "Democratic".  As a New Yorker, I certainly don't imagine that my own views are held by a majority of Democrats around the country.  I could insist an sticking with New York views and then we'd have a very pure, very one state (or actual, one city) party.  And then were would we be?

          Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

          by LarryInNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:04:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Lieberman is an ass for other reasons (5+ / 0-)

    He defeated Weicker in 1988 with the support of the RNC.
    He wanted Gore to concede in 2000.
    He's to the right of the Bush adminstration on Iran.

  •  I've not liked Lieberman since about 1993 (5+ / 0-)

    when he went after video games.  He's accumulated a lot of ill-will towards him on an assortment various issues and issues of character before the Iraq invasion ever happened.

    Clap louder! That'll help everything.

    by Viktor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:49:59 PM PDT

  •  I will say it again (9+ / 0-)

    Joe can leave Iraq out of the picture totally and I STILL can't support him as my senator.
    There's all the other stuff,  Defence of Marriage Act, Alito, trashing Dems, support of torture, agreement with Repubs on social security, Terry Schiavo etc. etc. etc.

    I AGREE with Markos that we can't be single issue people. Which is why I support Casey in PA. But with Joe, we reached critical mass on about 25 issues, not just 1!

    If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I could have freed thousands more. - Harriet Tubman

    by gladkov on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:56:53 PM PDT

  •  Joe just loves them gays! Shit, he's down (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925

    with keeping religion out of public schools too. Zionism? Well, perhaps nobody in American politics wants to talk about that.

  •  Lieberman appears to be the worst fraud... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Da Buddy, phemme texxii

    ...in either party as far back as I can recall, with respect to many of his views being pretty much the oposite's of his party's.  I know to varying extents there were others, but Leiberman's is especially blatant, and tagged with a big "Fuck you, deal with it" attitude to the rest of the Dems.

    "Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lot of an empty mind." -- Ayn Rand

    by dov12348 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:01:48 PM PDT

  •  Notice this? (5+ / 0-)

    All the petty people with an axe to grind are taking potshots at Markos and the Dkos community while he and others are busy at YK. They know he isn't going to stiff the most powerful Dems in the nation to take time to respond to penny ante attacks.

    What cheese goes with whine made from sour grapes? We should send this guy some.

    Democrats have become outsiders who do things to us, not insiders who do things for us. The 50 state strategy is one way to turn it around.

    by Rat on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:03:32 PM PDT

  •  Right On, Zachary! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, zdrake, georgia10

    Beautifully put!

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:09:25 PM PDT

  •  good response (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zdrake

    all this proves is how easy it is to misrepresent the position of someone else when all you have is a political axe to grind.  or fighting over consultant money.

    there is a hypocrisy in markos's tactics though.

    the iraq/abortion/CT/RI island thing is pretty superficial in itself.

    what it really comes down to is joe lieberman is out there helping repugs paint dems as unpatriotic or incapable of defending america.

    but so is... yes... the blogosphere....

    pundits (they ARE pundits now wether they like it or not) like markos and sirota have been out there, the one single meme of the blogosphere is that dems don't stand up for what they believe in.  which is the same thing as helping repugs make their case:  that dems are incapable of defending america.

    while this is NO DEFENSE AT ALL of joe lieberman, precisely the opposite, it does seem we do reserve the right to criticize dems in public while all the while condemning joe for doing so himself.

    i say we ALL stop doing it.

    "No, I understand that. But I - I would really like to have a chance to discuss what you keep telling me what I'm not discussing." -- Rep. Barney Frank.

    by BiminiCat on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:10:05 PM PDT

    •  Lefty Blogosphere vs. Lieberman-esque criticism (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BiminiCat, Sam I Am

      Yes, both Lieberman and DailyKos criticize Democrats. I'm not advocating that anyone stop criticising Democrats, or anyone else. I think having a lot of criticism going around is a good thing in general. It makes our positions stronger, it keeps us and the Democrats honest, and it prevents ideas from getting out of touch and calcified.

      But when Lieberman criticizes Democrats, it seems like it's not to make Democrats stronger. It seems like its geared to make us look weaker. It's at our expense, and in defense of Republicans. It furthers their agenda, and ingratiates himself with our political foes, to the point where he gets smooched by George W. Bush. who represents everything the Democratic party is fighting against.

      I disagree with BiminiCat that we should never criticize Dems in public. Where should I criticise them? Is it really criticism if I keep it entirely private and I don't air it? My wife and friends would get pretty bored with me if I kept criticism private. I don't get a lot of private time with U.S. Senators, Democratic or Republican, so if I'm going to criticize them at all it almost has to be in public. Yes, I sometimes call their offices or fill out one of those e-mail forms on their web sites. But I don't think that "activism in privacy" has much chance of influencing things.

      Yes, if I was on CNN I would avoid criticism of Democrats, but there has to be some public forum in which we voice our concerns, and it seems like the blogosphere is a good place to do so.

      I understand that some Democrats are more centrist than I am. And that those are their principles, and that they can and should fight for those principles. But when someone impugns the patriotism of his fellow Democrats for their principled opposition to Bush's Iraq policy (as he did with his "at our peril" comment I mentioned), their "Centrism" and my "Progressivism" or "Liberalism" ceases to be the issue. It is for these reasons that I think it is helpful to the Democratic party to support Ned Lemont in his primary challenge.

      And just to put the final capper on it, if Joe Lieberman is the Democratic Candidate for Senator from CT, I will support him against his Republican opponent. And I will urge everyone to vote for him and to put this primary fight behind us. Becasue I do think there is a time when Dems should stick together (like a general election). If Lieberman would say the same thing about Ned Lamont, it would do a lot to mollify my antagonism towards him.

      •  well. from his point of view (0+ / 0-)

        his criticism is offered to make dems stronger.  and i'm sure he believes that.

        so it is from ours.  and i'm sure we believe that.

        while there is a difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism, those differences are not dependent on who you are, where you come from, or your ideology, the constructiveness of the criticism is dependent on  intangibles, something scoffed at by people on both sides of the discussion:  tone.  perspective.  grace.

        joe lacks these things.  the bull moose lacks these things.  beinart lacks these things.

        ..

        ..

        so does the blogosphere democratic party movement.

        "No, I understand that. But I - I would really like to have a chance to discuss what you keep telling me what I'm not discussing." -- Rep. Barney Frank.

        by BiminiCat on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:59:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why I think Lieberman remains a 'Democrat:' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Da Buddy

    A large part of his funding almost certainly comes from the wealthy Jewish community, who are in large part Democratic, but care primarily that he's Jewish and a "Democrat" -- and not so much on his stance on particular issues.

    "Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lot of an empty mind." -- Ayn Rand

    by dov12348 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:12:41 PM PDT

    •  This could be true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Da Buddy

      I have no real knowledge, but this often happens. However, I think the issue that there's a crack in that wall of superficial support -- a crack that's getting wider by the day.

      Why do you have to be a nonconformist like everybody else? - James Thurber

      by JuliaAnn on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:17:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  yep (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Radlein, zdrake, boadicea

    "No matter how big we make the tent (and I think it should be big), we can't include someone who is taking an axe to the tent itself! And Lieberman has been willing to do so with staggering regularity."

    well and powerfully said.

  •  Lieberman gives me the willies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Libertine 777

    He's sold out on so many issues and has bent over backwards to keep Bush happy... I'm guessing whatever spine he has left is shaped like a question mark.

    Great diary - no way is Lamont a one-issue candidate.

    Climate change, peak oil, nuclear proliferation, human rights abuses, electoral fraud, and on and on... or the mystery prize?

    by lmd71 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:33:23 PM PDT

  •  Like it or not, (0+ / 0-)

    The article makes a strong point.

    It's true that Markos made much of achieving  majority by not tripping over single issues for strong candidates.

    While I understand and appreciate th point of view of Anti-liebermann crowd, the point made still stands.

    I too was against the Iraq from as soon as Bush mentionned the idea of going in but taking out Liebermann, who's trying to keep some middle ground and speak his voice at the same time, is not how I would go about things.

    This money and energy would b better focused on Dems trying to take seats from Republicans who do not support the agenda in virtually any way.

    (-0.75 econ., -4.72 social) Democratic Freedom Caucus-a better way.

    by ztn on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:36:19 PM PDT

    •  That is not the reason Joe has to go (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sally in SF, zdrake, Libertine 777

      If Joe had actually been present and engaging the people he represented, Ned Lamont wouldn't have made twice the delegate count he needed to make the ballot.

      If Joe had supported fellow Democrats-even when he disagreed with them-instead of looking for the nearest microphone to declare how out of touch they were--he wouldn't have to shakedown fellow Dems to get their support against a novice challenger.

      If Joe had  no been able to restrain himself from becoming Sean Hannity's favorite Democrat, Ned Lamont's campaign would have not gotten the traction it has with the people of CT.

      And, if he had not traded his integrity for a double dose of ambition, he would not be toying with an independent run, just in case.

      Joe's political problems are of his own making. Period.

      Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKos.

      by boadicea on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:24:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  EXACTLY. (4+ / 0-)

    I can handle a democrat who disagrees with me on Iraq. There's (unfortunately) a lot of em.

    What I will not tolerate is a Democrat who constantly validate the Republican smear tactics in the most toxic political climate in American history.

    ronald reagan is the devil. proof: his names all have 6 letters. Ronald Wilson Reagan = 6 6 6.

    by danthrax on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:39:17 PM PDT

  •  Iraq is 1000 times more urgent than abortion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zdrake

    In the minds of most Americans.

    http://poll.gallup.com/...

    This in response to that blogger who saw it prudent to Substitute "Iraq" for "abortion"

  •  CT is NOT analogous to RI (0+ / 0-)

    Connecticut is a liberal, Democratic state.  And Lieberman isn't just pro-war, he's way more pro-war than most Repubs, table-thumping wild-eyed crazy for "send more troops, we're doing GREAT!"  Chaffee is analogous to Nelson-NE, who does indeed get a pass around here.  Lieberman is like having a pro-abortion Repub from, oh, South  Carolina - and not just pro-*choice*, pro-*abortion*, pro-partial-birth-abortion-of-healthy-babies-during-labor-pro-abortion.  I would FULLY expect such a candidate to get an enthusiastic primary challenge - they did it to Specter, who's an abortion hairsplitter from a swing state.

    •  On the contrary (0+ / 0-)

      Having someone like Lieberman from New England does a lot to dispel the notion that just because you're a Democrat from NE you are outside the mainstream. Pennsylvania is not a "liberal" Democratic state, but it does have a Democratic majority-- and I support Bob Casey, who is conservative on a LOT of issues, 100% nonetheless.

      The advantage of having candidates "with backbone" is it gets the message out there. I think the message IS out there with regard to Iraq. Now's the time to come back to the center.

      Maybe it's just me, but the median voter theorem that somehow gets out of whack once in a long time, as it did in 1980 and 2004-- I think it's kicked back in, and nobody's really noticed it. But you can see the evidence in last week's election in CA-50. A more moderate, DLC Democrat vs. the other Republican-- the one that lost a couple months ago, an I think the seat would have been ours. It IS a metaphor for November. You kick all the Lieberman's out of the party, and you'll give Bush a rubber stamp Congress once again.

      •  We need message, not tactics, in CT (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Beet, zdrake, KathleenM1

        Lamont will win easily if nomination.  If Lieberman wins, we should support him.  But Lamont-CT will be far better than Lieberman-CT because the message is not  out there on the Iraq War or single-payer health care.  In spite of the fact that the progressive position on both is the majority in the country (ie, those median voters) the Dem troglodytes will shut up and the Dem party can't get its act together.  If we can thump a few for supporting strongly RW positions on top-flight issues for the public then the Dem party can start appealing to the mainstream by supporting majority (and commonsense) positions.  

  •  Lieberman is simply a special case (8+ / 0-)

    He's the 'Democrat' that you're most likely to see on television tearing up the Democratic party.  He's intolerant ("homesexuality is evil"), heartless ("it should be a short ride" for rape victims to go to a hospital that will treat them), and delusional (anything he says about Iraq).  

    I tend to be hesitant about these type of challenges---I wasn't one of those who were fired up about getting rid of of Harman, or Casey, etc.  But Lieberman has played a significant role in weakening the Democratic side of the aisle by constantly and gleefully undercutting his own party.  Enough.  

    If the government's going to monitor my phone calls, can they chip in for the bills?

    by bosdcla14 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:16:46 PM PDT

  •  an attack on Markos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beet, crimsonscare

    Is an attack on all of us.

    And fundamentally, it's an attack on the point of view that many of us share, that the Democratic brand and the progressive movement is more important that any candidate or issue.  Lieberman is reviled because he hurts the brand.  Plain and simple.  Ben Nelson voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, but he doesn't ever hurt the brand.  He doesn't bash Democrats in public.  He doesn't use GOP frames and talking points.

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:39:25 PM PDT

  •  What single issue? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, phemme texxii

    Lieberman is practically a republican. Dems aren't supporting Lamont just because of the Iraq War.  There are a LOT of things to hate about Lieberman. For starters - he is the right wing media's favorite democrat, because he can be depended upon to always come on and trash the dems, regardless of the issue. I'm actually afraid that in the unlikely event that we win over the Senate, Lieberman will switch parties, giving it back to the republicans.

  •  Substitute (0+ / 0-)

    'dumb' for 'hot' and 'fucks' for 'line' and you have a much more accurate name for those clowns.

  •  More Markos hippocrissy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LarryInNYC, Beet, crimsonscare

    Markos claims to be a baseball fan but at the same times says he is a Cubs fan! How can one be a baseball fan and a Cubs fan at the same time?!?!?

    Obviously he has his own agenda and is not to be believed.

  •  One point of disagreement. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zdrake

    Other Democrats like Hillary Clinton have a similar stance on the war, and they do not attract the ire that Liberman does. We may disagree with Clinton on this issue, but we're not funding a primary challenger or otherwise trying to get her out of the Senate.

    While it's been a week or so without an eruption of "Hillary must go" diaries, many dKossers are in fact supporting a challenger to Hillary.  He doesn't attract quite as much attention because:

    1. He has never been endorsed from the front page.
    1. From what I've read from a couple of posters, he's a genuinely bad person who has managed to alienate many of the people he's come in contact with.
    1. Clinton is probably more secure than Lieberman.

    But if Tasini were less hated and Markos were to jump on his bandwagon, I don't think there would be a dime's worth of difference in the way we treat Hillary and Joe.

    Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:15:07 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site