Sigh...

Is Peter Beinhart this obtuse, or is he just playing dumb for his audience?

Why are MoveOn, Daily Kos, and so many other liberal activists so keen to find a primary challenger against Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman? The more you peel the onion, the stranger the answer becomes [...]

Lieberman's problem is that bloggers like Kos aren't very ideological either. Temperament defines them, too. It's just the opposite temperament. For Kos and the other Lieberman-haters, liberalism means confrontation, at least in the Bush era. In their view, politics should be guided by the spirit of war. If you don't want to crush conservatives, you are not a liberal.

What a dumbass. It's not about "liberal" or "conservative". This is a point, I think, that most new-school activists understand. It's the old-school DC-centric crowd, exactly the kind of jokers we rip in our book, who insist in seeing the world as it existed back in the 1980s, as a battle between ideological factions.

Do we think Reid is "liberal" because he's stands up to Republican excesses? Nope. Schweitzer? Nope. We call them "Democrats".

I don't like Lieberman because he carries water for the GOP. He reinforces right-wing frames. Because he rolled over during the recount in 2000 without fighting for the victory Gore had earned. Because he is the go-to guy whenever the press needs a Democrat to bash another Democrat. He thinks it makes him a maverick or something. In fact, it makes him a tool of the GOP.

Of course, it doesn't help that his views on Iraq are colored by fantasy and wishful-thinking, rather than the realities on the ground. Let's not forget these words from Time's Bahgdad bureau chief:

I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting.

I suspect Beinhart is smart enough to know all of this. Perhaps he's just itching for a fight. And it worked. His piece garnered a rare link to the dying New Republic (which has seen its circulation plummet from the 100,000 range in 2001 to the low 60,000 range in 2003 and doesn't even bother putting its current circulation in its media kit anymore).

•  From the letter I sent Lieberman

  Since November 2000, when you went on "Meet the Press" and caved in on the issue of counting the military ballots in Florida, you have made statements that damaged the Democratic Party. Your public utterances have become more strident, and increasingly out of step with the rest of your party.

  You recently crossed the line when you threw down the gauntlet to colleagues such as John Murtha and publicly proclaimed your continued support for George W. Bush's war in Iraq.

  For your efforts, you won praise from Mr. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Rush Limbaugh. Are you proud of the company that you are now keeping?

  The language in boldface will be at the heart of my letter to TNR responding to Beinart's apology for Joe Lieberman--for whom a Zell Miller Watch has been posted.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:03:51 PM PDT

  •  Shorter Bienart:

    "It's so hard being a Vichy Dem when we've got REAL Democrats calling us out on our self-serving dishonesty and capitulations, and exposing what we truly are all the time.  I wish you guys would just quit it."

    by SpermDonor on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:48:50 PM PDT

  •  Beinart and Lieberman are both moral blanks

    They both share the same ridiculous self-branding: I'm a Democrat who the Republicans really really like!

    Both of them have made it their cause to kiss Republican ass, without regard to the merit of doing so.  They apparently just consider it good branding.  To mama's boy Beinart who won't actually go FIGHT in the war, he also gets to talk tough and act like he gives a damn about something other than the image of a guy who is OK with war, damn it (as long as other people do the dying).

    Neither of them are serious about the subjects of terrorism or war.  They're all about cool branding.  Remember, Joementum was not so reticent to smack down Bill Clinton in public for his stupid sexual adventures.  So the idea that he just doesn't like to be mean to people is obvious nonsense.  Joe has found a niche as the Democrat who Fox News likes, and he thinks it's a good gig.  So he's always happy to step up and talk crap about a fellow Dem; but can't bring himself to utter a critical word of the GOP.

    Beinart can be dismissed:  he's writing for a shrinking audience, and his brand is tanking.  So buh-bye, fool.

    But Lierbman needs to get booted out of the Senate.  Then maybe he and Beinart can collaborate on a book about how he-men like them didn't belong in the Democratic party anyway.

    by chumley on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:25:32 PM PDT

    •  Joe Has An Excuse Though

      He loves to campaign and he loves the national stage.

      With his presidential aspirations now over and the probability of him giving a speech in the 2008 Democratic Convention he has obviously been campaigning to take Zell Miller's place at the 2008 GOP Convention.

      by talex on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:36:59 PM PDT

    •  Great Post

      very nice

      by The Fool on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 06:13:58 AM PDT

  •  The only thing dropping faster

    Than TNR subscribers are Liebermans Approval Numbers amongst CT. Democrats.

    by ctkeith on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:27:35 PM PDT

•  They are

  part of the contented loser faction. Someone needs to point out to them that when town hall meetings are at 'turn away from the doors' status,something is happening.

  by eastvan on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:05:12 PM PDT

  •  "Contented loser" is too kind.

    I think of a contented loser as somebody who won't fight.

    Liebermann seeks to profit through his triangulation.  Look at all the great attention he got from the right for his comments about Murtha.  The strategy goes as follows:

    "I can be sure of keeping the Democrats on my side, because they have no where else to go.  So now I'll suck up to Republicans and get some of them on my side, too."

    by Dumbo on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:24:19 PM PDT

    •  That may

      well have worked once. No more.

      by eastvan on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:31:02 PM PDT

•  Kos

  You probably give TNR more readers than any other source.  You should consider forgetting 'em.  Officially.

  by manyoso on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:05:29 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    Beinhart may have written that article just to get some links. Who is their audience?
    

    by Alvord on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:14:26 PM PDT

  •  Seriously!

    Joe Lieberman must have pictures of the editors of TNR fellating pigs or something.  Lieberman could boil puppies for breakfast and they'd find a way to praise it.

    Forget those turds, no matter how wrong they get you, Kos. They're so stupid they buy Lieberman. Do you want them to 'get' you?
    

    by Kimberly Stone on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:58:58 PM PDT

  •  Yes!

    It's like arguing with children.  No point.

    by Five of Diamonds on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:29:01 PM PDT

  •  TNR sub dropped in 2002

    The TNR is just a NR with a 'T' (National Review) which it mimics too a t, all too often.

    I dropped the SOBs long ago, and don't follow links to their site.

    by JimPortlandOR on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:42:43 PM PDT

  •  my first thought

    was that Beinart was trying to get more readers.

    As far as Joe  and Beinart - Joe needs to sacrifice at least one of his kids for his war.  Say what you want to about Pataki but at least he's walking the walk with his kid going to serve in Iraq. Joe's kids   probably have some $500K lobbying gigs somewhere. Beinart looks young enough to go serve so go serve on the groung in your f*** war you f*** 101st fighting keyboarder.

    And BTW, as far as Joe not being able to be nasty puhleeze - the asshole was sure willing to tell Dean during the primaries about how he was going to create the "Dean Depression." How come Joe can NEVER come up with snappy "Bungling Bush" or "Bush the Bumbler" or  "Bush the BUGler" soundbites.

    by fnb on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:23:43 PM PDT

  •  First Frankie Foer goes all over Atrios,

    and now Petey dumps on Kos?

    WTF-O?

    So, maybe Atrios hit a nerve when he mentioned that TNR was about to go belly-up?

    Have the DLC's house apologists decided to join Pajamas Media?  Or, the "Dark Side?"

    Petey comes off poorly in this column, is it post nasal drip, or the heartbreak of psoriasis?

    Either way, this prole is left confused.

    by boilerman10 on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 11:14:02 PM PDT

•  A Clinton/Lieberman victory in '08

  ...in a walk. An imperial presidency with all Bush's superduper above the law powers. I'm moving.

  And,

  Town Hall Meeting on Iraq on C-SPAN 2 NOW! Murtha Speaking at the Moment
  

  CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS
  

  by ccnwon on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:06:08 PM PDT

  •  Ugh

    And I'm about to sit down to dinner.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:06:55 PM PDT

    •  Say bye to Terry for me

      Sorry about din din.

      CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS

      by ccnwon on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:18:25 PM PDT

  •  Puh-leeze!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Hillary may or may not be OK; but put together with Joe, and it is lights out for the Dems!!!!

    by Phil S 33 on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:10:54 PM PDT

    •  A Hooverian Presidency With Supercomputers

      Ugh... does halloween ever end?

      by ccnwon on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:15:20 PM PDT

    •  Lieberman

      brings nothing to a ticket anymore.

      by eastvan on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:33:20 PM PDT

      •  Hmm

        If Lieberman was to be a credible VP candidate, I think he'd at least have to show interest by mounting a presidential campaign.

        Of course, he'd be destroyed in the primaries. Hopefully that'd be a warning against anyone asking him.

        It's also possible that his big, wrinkly potato head is too big for a VP position now.

        by Mephistopheles on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:41:20 PM PDT

        •  This quote.

          "On the question that we're celebrating today, Howard Dean throughout this campaign has said he wasn't sure that Saddam really represented a threat to us. At one point he said, 'I suppose the Iraqis are better off with Saddam Hussein gone.' I would say this, and this is a choice the voters have to make in the primaries. If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would be in power today, not in prison."

          www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

          This quote says everything to me.

          That mindset is Republican through and through. He lacks that sense of honest self-criticism that defines the majority of Democrats in opposition to Republicans.

          He's an SOB who doesn't belong in the party, and if it's 'radical' to say so, then call me a radical.

          by Mephistopheles on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:44:56 PM PDT

          •  Far from it,

            you're being accurate, not radical.  It sounds exactly like what a Republican would say.

            There were a bunch of protesters before the war outside the subway entrance near my apartment in Montreal.  They were Muslims holding up pictures of Iraqi children with the caption "Senator Lieberman's face of terror".  That got to me.  I mean, even if they are motivated by anti-Semitism, why isn't it "Paul Wolfowitz's face of terror"?  Goddamn Joementum is tarnishing all Americans with and unnecessary and bungled war, not just Republicans.  

            A ignominious primary defeat would be a fitting end to this joker's political career.

            by Cream Puff on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 08:12:44 PM PDT

        •  I meant Lieberman as VP

          He has no chance at the presidency.

          He's a whacko, but a powerful whacko. Anyone trying to go up against him in his district will be destroyed, and so on.

          Do not misunderestimate him.
          

          by ccnwon on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:48:30 PM PDT

          •  VP

            Don't be so sure. He might yet be VP on a GOP ticket.

            by Miri on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:20:44 PM PDT

            •  Good point

              He and McCain are longtime partners in crime. I recall years before the war, the 2 basteds pedalling an Iraq invasion. Trouble with your scenario is the GOP goose is cooked.

              by ccnwon on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:52:34 PM PDT

  •  That'd be the day I stop being a Dem.

    I just got a migraine thinking of that ticket.  

    by Kimberly Stone on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:00:50 PM PDT

    •  Take two aspirin ...

      ... and do not call Dr. Frist in the morning, right?

      by ccnwon on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:05:42 PM PDT

      •  I'm not callin' Frist for a damned thing.

        Not unless I want catz killed.

        Bastard.
        

        by Kimberly Stone on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:06:23 PM PDT

        •  My apologies about mentioning ...

          ... the Kissingerian realpolitik likehood of this likely victorious ticket. Thought your migraine was meant to be humorous. Apologies for the bad joke.

          And I'll hope your use of "Bastard" was meant for notorious the cat serial killer.

          by ccnwon on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:12:23 PM PDT

•  Give us a break.

  The TNR article is too stupid to even address, but related to the primary issue, my mom lives in Massachusetts most of the time but works and has an apartment in Connecticut.  If Lieberman has a credible primary opponent, she's going to change her voter registration to Connecticut just for the pleasure of voting against him.

  by MissLaura on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:08:46 PM PDT

•  Joe is addicted to bipartisanship.

  Rather than considering it a means to achieving progressive legislation, he thinks that it has value in and of itself. A joint venture between a Democrat and a Republican is thus considered better than one only undertaken by Democrats regardless of what it actually does.

  by Matthew Gertz on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:08:57 PM PDT

  •  Not to blogwhore, but...

    This was one of many topics that can up in the Fairfield County Weekly's interview of Joe, which I just blogged about.

    by Matthew Gertz on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:11:42 PM PDT

    •  You got something against blogwhores ?

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      by ctkeith on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 10:12:07 PM PDT

  •  Bipartisanship has its place...

    The problem with Lieberman is that his bipartisanship is tainted by a peculiar scent of Zell Miller style self-loathing.  Feingold is bipartisan too, but he manages to engage both sides without vicious attacks on fellow Democrats, or dispensing political cover to Republicans.    

    I don't know what kind of complicated psychology powers Joementum, but I don't have time for it.  Self-hate is not going to help us regain Congress or the Presidency, and it is not going to prevent a train wreck on SCOTUS.  To paraphrase Tony Soprano, we ought to focus our loathing on those who really deserve it.  

    by ivorybill on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 08:10:11 AM PDT

•  Lieberman's

  Greatest folly was his uncritical support for Iraq war. From the very start, this war was based on lies upon lies upon lies and he is too smart not to realize it. From the very start it was the wrong war in the wrong country, immoral and illegal under International Law. When Lieberman supported this war with absolute enthusiasm following George Bush and has continued to support it till today when all the lies and fraud of Bush & Cheney Government have been exposed, he has nowhere to hide, no one to blame save himself.

  Joe had it coming.

  by Shuvo Dutta on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:10:43 PM PDT

•  Joe's problem

  is he talks bad about Democrats, and then hands Bush his "bipartisan" support for Bullshit.  

  by pacified on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:11:17 PM PDT

•  The New Republicans live in an alternate universe

  by Krush on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:13:06 PM PDT

•  Same crap as Kathleen Parker

  Bloggers, the new enemy within.

  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/...

  by Scarce on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:13:11 PM PDT

•  we are at war

  to save our democratic republic from the far far right.  if this is not your life long duty then i do not know what you are ....

  by cognitive dissonance on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:13:13 PM PDT

•  Fantasy and Wishful thinking

  Of course, it doesn't help that his views on Iraq are colored by fantasy and wishful-thinking,

  
  While magical thinking may color Lieberman's view of Iraq, I'm willing to bet a large amount of money against a small amount of money that companies like GE, United Technology (Pratt & Whitney, Sigorsky Helicopter), Kaman Aerospace, Electric Boat (general Dynamics) and Sturm Ruger have a much greater influence on Lieberman's view of Iraq.

  Those companies are major employers in CT and it's likely that he's pandering to the CT workers for votes.

  Follow the money.

  by A Rational Being on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:13:19 PM PDT

  •  Check out where Lieberman's money comes from...

    ...via OpenSecrets.org...

    Lieberman's 2000 Senate race funding (That was the last time he was elected. Of course, he's up for reelection this year.)

    Of particular interest: his top contributors and top industries contributing to his election.

    See also his PAC contributors. Looks like defense is actually surprisingly low, well behind real estate, health and labor PACs. (But the largest part of his contribution from Health PACs came from pharmaceuticals. Gee whiz!)

    by Smaragd on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 05:05:53 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for the links

      I see who contributes - but who votes for him? Anybody with a job in the military industrial complex is likely to support a candidate that supports the war...

      by A Rational Being on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 05:34:19 AM PDT

•  I am tired of this conservative/liberal crap

  kos, just like you want to retire the msm meme, getting rid of this conservative-liberal code word dyad is critical to saving democracy here. These words are used again and again to label groups, they have absolutely no meaning any more.

  The conservatives really are about gaining power, ideology and principles be damned. There's nothing conservative about it. And the liberals - that's just become a four letter word used to vilify a section of the population that doesn't agree. This has worked wonders in the past few election cycles, despite it being obviously clear that the terms have long lost their meaning.

  by SwingVoter on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:13:42 PM PDT

  •  Self-proclaimed conservatives

    are what they are.  Who cares what they call themselves?  It's our job to show them for what they are - fascists.

    Also, we - rather than the fascists - need to define what being a liberal is all about. As long as they define the terms, it doesn't matter what we call ourselves.

    Unfortunately, I don't believe Joe or Hillary have any sympathy with this crucial project.  They seem more inclined to define us down.

    by chuckvw on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 08:24:43 PM PDT

•  Klingon

  As an obtuse SoCal independent/nee conservative Republican/agnostic who has transiently resided in London, San Francisco, and now the heart of conservative Michigan, I latched on to this blog while trying to dissect the confusion that is conservative v. liberal ideology.

  Screw the party-line.

  I am a dKos klingon (cling-on folks) because of the sometimes obtuse and non-idealogical discussion.

  Ditch ideology. Embrace pluralism and debate.

  by dr tunafish on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:14:31 PM PDT

•  Don't be a hater, Kos...(/joking)

  Beinhart is also using the "L" word like it's some kind of crime...there's nothing wrong with being a liberal...in fact, many, if not most, of the greatest minds in the history of our planet belonged to liberals: Ghandi, Lincoln, Kennedy, Dylan(bob), Garcia(a personal favorite), Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, Socrates, Plato, Jesus(if he did exist, was certainly a liberal)...

  So please send Beinhart a link to this thread on my behalf, so when he gets to this post, he can get a hearty, "Fuck you!" from me.

  Thanks, and no apologies necessary for not trusting Lieberman as far as you can throw him...he's not bush-lite...bush is Lieberman-lite(my own personal opinion about him, at least regarding international issues).

  by darthstar on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:14:54 PM PDT

•  Some CT Dems are pushing harder

  on Lieberman to get back in line. Manchester Dem Committee sent a resolution to him to get back with the party line on Iraq specifically.
  We'll see how he responds at a possible meeting next week.

   http://www.courant.com/....
  

  by Phil S 33 on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:14:57 PM PDT

•  More about Peter Beinart

  From Ari Berman's article, "The Strategic Class", in the August 29, 2005, The Nation:

  At the bottom of the [Democratic "strategic class"] pyramid are the liberal hawks in the punditocracy, figures like New Republic editor Peter Beinart, Time writer Joe Klein and New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. These pundits, along with purely partisan outfits like the Democratic Leadership Council's Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), help to both set the agenda and frame the debate.

  snip

  Central to the liberal hawks' mission is a challenge to other Democrats that they too must become "national security Democrats"

  snip  

  The liberal hawks caricature other Democrats just as Republicans long stereotyped them. The pundits magnify the perception that Democrats are soft on national security, and they influence how consultants view public opinion and develop the message for candidates. In that sense, the bottom of the pyramid is always interacting with the top. It matters little that people like Beinart have no national security experience--as long as the hawks identify themselves as national security Democrats, they're free to play the game.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:18:26 PM PDT

  •  oh hi

    i was kind of looking for you.

    i am pissed off at your sen. levin for cosponsoring some nasty legislation w/ Lindsey Graham - the one about how the courts can't have any say about the Guantanamo prisoners. What's going on in MI over that? Did people even notice?

    by OrangeClouds115 on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:20:11 PM PDT

    •  Levin made the legislation less bad

      But the administration's contempt for the Supreme Court's decision in the Guantanamo detainee case is infuriating, and Lindsey Graham is providing it with a legal fig leaf. Grr.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:23:04 PM PDT

•  i looooove that

  quote about lieberman. it just sums it right up.

  by OrangeClouds115 on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:19:10 PM PDT

•  Beinart, Foer - Birds of a feather

  Both endangered. Both lashing out at ungrateful librulz. No longer needed...

  Ha Ha.

  by Volvo Liberal on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:21:07 PM PDT

•  No More Useful Idiots

  Here's the deal, Beinart:

  Lieberman is an asset to the GOP. 'Even Joe Lieberman' is an asset to GOP talking points. He may not be as batshit as Zell Miller, but he's stepped into that role.

  Lieberman can distance himself and rebuke the Republicans who invoke his name, or he can justify his position in the primary.

  2006 is too important for the Dems to have useful idiots on board.

  by etagloh on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:21:16 PM PDT

•  asdf

  " In their view, politics should be guided by the spirit of war. If you don't want to crush conservatives, you are not a liberal."

  Oh, and the conservatives have NEVER done that....  eyes rolling

  Thanks,

  Mike
  

  by LordMike on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:24:26 PM PDT

•  Kos

  Take a look at this democrats.org blog and one blogger called you Koward  eh..  

  http://www.democrats.com/...

  by Boult on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:32:55 PM PDT

  •  forgot to add this

    what's up with this blogger,  Bob Fertik.  

    by Boult on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:34:05 PM PDT

    •  i dunno, man

      I used to depend on Democrats.com to keep me sane. I saw that post and posted my own feelings that it was unfair and inappropriate, while still being appreciative of what Fertik has done.

      It got removed quickly. Guess I wont be going back there.

      by odum on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 07:48:11 AM PDT

•  Putting the issue in terms Beinart can understand.

  Instead of using older terminology such as "liberal" or "Democrat"--with all the attendant baggage and associations of those terms--Beinart just needs to hear the new progressive attitudes expressed in clear, fresh language.  He needs to hear language that would appeal to a guy who thinks like he does.

  So I propose that we call Dems who aren't afraid to be Dems, and who aren't afraid to criticize the Bush administration, "hards" in the political struggle against Republicans.  And then we can call the Lieberman Fox News Dems "softs".

  Ah, hell.  Let's just call 'em "erects" and "flacids", since that's all Beinart himself means by those words.

  by ScottInPhilly on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:34:03 PM PDT

•  sysop, ban thyself

  well, not really.  but do be aware of the rules you posted Tuesday:

  
  Diaries on contested Democratic primaries: Be positive. Make an affirmative case for your favored candidate.

  Not that I disagree with your criticism of Lieberman.  And you do follow the second half of your own rule:  "If you do criticize a Democratic candidate, don't make ad hominem attacks - stick to substantive criticisms, and back them up with hard evidence."  In fact, this post is a good example of how to criticize substantively.

  But still -- the first part of the rule is, "Be positive."  Who do you recommend over Lieberman?

  by emptypockets on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:40:13 PM PDT

  •  Tch.

    You blew it on the first word.

    Note that it says DIARIES.

    Front page entries aren't diaries.

    As to the final question: "A real Democrat".

    by ogre on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:07:43 PM PDT

•  He is a BoBo in the making, Bobo is an

  exemplar of false consciousness. What asinine twaddle. I feel like I want to drag all the Enligtenment thinkers, Marx, and Hegel from behind a sign and have them say: if this is your analysis, you have no understanding of liberalism or history.

  by lecsmith on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:40:23 PM PDT

•  No! No! Let *me* answer!

  
   First of all, I'm a Suthun Moderate.  Maybe populist.  Whatever.  Labels suck.

   Second, re:  this "Gee, why d'you all gang up on Lieberman?" crap --

    Well, gee, let's see:  he sucks up to Bush, he's never met a mega-corporate hiney he didn't want to kiss (this guy's a Democrat?), he backstabs Dems on every Sunday Morning Blather Show, and, did I mention?, he sucks up to Bush.

   And this guy just can't fathom why anybody could want a challenger to weigh-in against Lieberman in the Primary?  

    Oh, Mystery of the Ages!

   BenGoshi
  __________________

  by BenGoshi on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:42:24 PM PDT

  •  Kos, Democrats and Ideology

    Actually Kos is wrong to see the struggle as only one about partisanship.  It is that, but it is also one between "ideological factions."

    I'm against Lieberman and for a primary challenger because of his threat to the Party and its standing, but I'm more opposed to Lieberman because of his support for privatizing public schools, Social Security, and his continued support for Bush's war.

    There are some contrarian positions that Kos takes re the military, guns, and the emphasis on abortion which I see as correct.  But, he also supports DLC economics on trade and budgets which I find incorrect both as policies and politics and will struggle against here and elsewhere for ideological reasons.  It's not all about framing and the politics of contrast.

    by philgoblue on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 06:20:28 AM PDT

•  Is this a Democratic blog or a progressive blog?

  I'm not trying to troll.

  Obviously, a true, genuine progressive from any party has to vote for Democratic control of the House and Senate right now because the Republicans are lunatics.

  If members of Congress who called themselves Republicans started voting for Democratic leadership of the House and Senate and for Democratic committee and voted with the Democrats on a bunch of issues, would Daily Kos support officially them because they were progressives who happened to be Republicans or oppose them simply because they were Republicans (albeit, Republicans disowned by the Republican party).

  If this is officially, permanently a Democratic progressive party, cool, but I do think it would be great if we also could support any progressive, break-away wing of the Republican Party that formed.

  Also: many people here aren't opposing Lieberman because he's moderate or because he's mellow. I'm moderate, and I'm mellow.

  Many of us here are opposing Lieberman because it seems at first glance as if he's supporting Darth Vader-level evil on the part of the Republicans. How is it mellow to back a president who seems to think it's OK to rape boys to get information out of mothers who may not even actually be married to someone who knows something about terrorism?  To back a president who thinks it's OK to spy on ordinary citizens outside of the supervision of any court?

  I don't have the time to follow all this closely. It could be that I'm mis understanding Lieberman's position. If so, I would sincerely appreciate it if he or one of his staff people would come here to dissociate him with these positions and explain why he's supporting the Bush people.

  by sclminc on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:43:40 PM PDT

•  Lieberman has never been a real Democrat

  Everyone has short-term memory and conveniently forgets that he was recruited by William F. Buckley Jr. to run against Lowell Weicker, because conservatives were offended that Weicker was an honest-to-God liberal Republican.

  by Eddie727 on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:48:48 PM PDT

•  It occurs to me....

  -that you are right.

  -If I were a writer for a slowly failing magazine who's subscription rate had plummeted by %40 over the course of the Bush years... and I was flirting with complete irrelevency altogether... it would be a great marketing-slash-publicity stunt idea to needle and nudge the biggest liberal blog and-or the most well known lefty activist group into responding to get attention.

  Don't take the bait too often though, because I'm sure you know that if Lieberman didn't exist this clown would make something else the 'I'm outraged, simply OUTRAGED!' test. Some of Donnie Fowler's stuff over at the occasionally wonderful and occasionally awful (the rightwing bloggers Arianna has are just pathetic grade z types) HufflePuff Post is the same shit.

  I call it the 'Mickey Kaus' theory... the closer that one is to being completely irrelevant as a pundit... the more of a name dropping crank you become just to stay alive.

  by LeftHandedMan on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:51:24 PM PDT

•  Ahead of the curve

  Wasn't that the infamous mag with Stephen Glass? Back in the days before it was common practice.....of creative writing in the news media.

  by primate on the left on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:54:30 PM PDT

•  If I remember correctly

  didn't TNR endorse Lieberman in the Democratic primaries?

  by Radiowalla on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:57:08 PM PDT

  •  They did.

    And if it hadn't been printed on somewhat slick and nonabsorbent paper, I would have happily ripped up that issue and used it for toilet paper.

    by Kimberly Stone on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:05:14 PM PDT

•  Kos? Answer:

  Yes.

  by ogre on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:02:11 PM PDT

•  please check out my earlier post on the topic

  I've posted about this at length. Please check it out: http://www.dailykos.com/...

  I think I've made some good points, including a few that Kos mentioned.

  Hope you check it out and hope you enjoy.

  by ChesterCrat on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:02:49 PM PDT

•  TNR

  "Lieberman's heresy isn't ideological; it's temperamental. He loathes confrontation, he exudes goodwill toward all; he takes it as an article of faith that what binds us together as Americans is more important than what divides us, always. He is chronically happy with American life."

  This is pure bs. Lieberman is a backstabbing SOB and has a record to prove it. Who can forget his joining the anti Clinton jihadists and faux moralizing during Monicagate? He doesn't seem to have any outrage about far more egrerious moral failings of the Bush regime. Who can forget his WSJ editorial, in effect accusing Democrats of disloyalty to USA?

  Lieberman and his apologists at TNR represent everything that is wrong with the Democratic party. Liebermanism must be purged from the Democratic party for them to be relevant again.

  by Miri on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:05:36 PM PDT

•  Faux bipartisanship

  The problem with Lieberman, and the reason I despise him, is that he's always willing and eager to lend a gloss of faux bipartisanship to the most viciously partisan administration in living memory.  

  Half a century ago, there was a word for guys like him.

  Quisling.
  

  by JoyceH on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:06:58 PM PDT

•  Kos

  Your last point is almost certainly correct. Your link to Beinart's piece alone would have increased his readership 10-fold if only TNR didn't keep its content behind a subscription wall.

  After all, Beinart made sure to call Daily Kos out by name in the first sentence of his piece, so it shows up in the preview to even non-subscribers.

  Pathetic.

  by thirdparty on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:12:55 PM PDT

•  bein.......

  I realize that it is expected to in some way comment on lieberman but guess what- every second devoted to that piece of refuse is a second that could be devoted to supporting real Dems across the country and god knows that they the support.
   Lieberman is a fraud. Done. As is beinhart or however ya spell that rep of  a losing publication.
   When the hell are all the writers and posters going to wake up and see what the gop is in the process of doing?
   Just don't bitch when it is all gone.
             [e-mail]
  

  by billjpa on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:23:57 PM PDT

•  Liberalism means standing for principles

  Lieberman ain't got any.

  by kuvasz on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:25:41 PM PDT

•  Is Beinhart obtuse you ask?

  Yes.

  But more, he's a morally imbalanced cult member with his head up his ass.  Job requirements for working at that hack-shop.

  If Bush kicked a toddler in the teeth on camera these people would still apologize for him.  

  by Five of Diamonds on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:28:21 PM PDT

•  Hey, The New Republican!

  I forgot all about them.

  Interestingly, I used to get all pissed off at the DLC and their allies like this, but now I know their moment has pretty much passed, and so it doesn't bother me as much.

  Beinart is pro-Iraq war, just another marching member of the bedwetter brigade.  

  by bosdcla14 on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:46:00 PM PDT

•  Go Joe! ... Really, Go!

  The problem here is that the point of an opposition is to oppose. The DLC/TNR crowd makes its positions on the basis that 51% support it. Problem is, most of that 51% are Republicans who won't vote for their candidates anyways. Rather than take a position based on it being right and try to sway some of that number to morality, they choose to lose.

  They are stuck at 49% because they want to be stuck at 49%. Governing means nothing, donations mean everything. And the big donors do not read Howard Zinn.

  by Diamond LeGrande on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:50:40 PM PDT

  •  lieberman

    Can somebody tell me what Lieberman has ever accomplished?   Is his name on any significant legislation?  How exactly did he manage to get into a position of some prominence?  

    by Eagleye on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:53:30 PM PDT

•  Joe is a schmuck!

  I wish Joe would "come out" and really be a republican, if that's what he wants to be.  Maybe Pat Robertson's comments today saying that Ariel Sharon was smote down for trying to give Isreal away will give him some cause to question the repugs.  

  by letsbepragmatic on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:08:41 PM PDT

•  When is his term up?

  I know i'm ignorant for not reading all previous posts, but isn't his term up this year?  if so, should we run someone against him in case he bolts our party?

  by letsbepragmatic on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:10:52 PM PDT

•  Republican's have McCaine

  Democrats have Liberman.

  by craigb on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:26:31 PM PDT

•  sitting in a tree

  http://photos1.blogger.com/...

  by moeman on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:50:00 PM PDT

  •  oops

    http://bushspeaks.com/...

    by moeman on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:52:39 PM PDT

•  I see that someone's

  been watching too much Fox News.  

  Eventually all habitual viewers absorb the Democrats=bad vibes.

  by sagra on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:58:44 PM PDT

•  They so don't get our anger.

  And yet to me it's roots are so obvious.

  by Pescadero Bill on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 08:00:48 PM PDT

  •  'its' dang it!

    by Pescadero Bill on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 08:02:00 PM PDT

•  Hate?

  Mr. Beinart assumes because I don't like Mr. Lieberman's politics that I hate him.  I don't hate anyone and to use that kind of language is oversimplistic and juvenile.  Beinart ought to go back into the hole where he came from.  I, like KOS, don't like the fact that Lieberman is the Republican's waterboy.  He ought to grow some balls and fight back. It's the namby pamby behavior like Mr. Lieberman's that has gotten the Democrats and thus my Country into the fix we are in. Perhaps if Mr. Lieberman had stood up for Democratic principles and confronted the oppossition we wouldn't be in the pickle we are in.  There are 2000+ families without children because of this lack of guts.  

  by billj1 on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 08:06:27 PM PDT

  •  What he said

    hate has nothing to do with it.Pity Sure, but never hate.

    by ctkeith on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 10:14:54 PM PDT

  •  Question about Lieberman

    As I understand it, Lieberman objected to Bush I stopping the Persian Gulf War and not going in and removing Saddam in '91, and has been a cheerleader for invading Iraq ever since.

    Is that correct?

    by Rick B on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 10:47:56 AM PDT

•  Liberalism as defined by the Right

  Just about anyone who challenges the Bush administration these days is referred to as something akin to an "extreme left-winger". It doesn't matter what your political leanings truly are or the nature of the complaint against Bush.  It's a symptom of this "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" mindset among Bush supporters/apologists. They have no interest in criticism, no matter how constructive it might be. They know what they're doing and they will not be told otherwise. It is verboten!

  Consequently, the right has redefined what it means to be a "Liberal".  Even those in the center are considered to be "Liberals" by current right-wing definition. If you're not with Bush, then you're a Liberal who doesn't want what's best for the country. In this way, they paint the "Liberals" as comparable to the terrorists in their effort to do harm to this nation.

  The funny thing is that many of the concepts that used to define the term "conservative" are now considered to be liberal viewpoints, such as personal privacy and personal choice. This insane "war on terror" has allowed the right to redefine government power, influence and interference as conservative principles. It's crazy!

  Personally, I think Lieberman is beholden to Israel in too many ways. This colors his stand on a variety of issues and forces him to fall in line with the Bush camp on far too many issues. He's a sad excuse for a Democrat, that's for sure.

  by Drew Lillie on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 08:31:32 PM PDT

  •  Additionally...

    Forgot to mention the interesting twist on how the parties view government influence in people's lives. The Republicans have defined for themselves a 100% negative view of government: too much influence in people's lives but minimal assistance for people that need it.

    On the other side, I think that Democrats now have the opening to position themselves as supporting the quintessentially GOOD role of government: staying out of people's lives and decisions, but providing the necessary support system (and all that such support would entail, including national defense, education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.) for people when and where they need it. "We'll leave you alone to live your life as you see fit, but we'll be there to help you if and when you need it."  This is the model for a benevolent, arms-length governmental system that we really should strive for.

    That's my two cents on the direction we need to go.

    by Drew Lillie on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 08:46:27 PM PDT

    •  This is the southern fundamentalist Xtian...

      influence on the Republican Party.

      When the Democrats as populists got serious about purging racism from the nation, the Southern racists (who were, incidently also Xtian fundamentalists) felt rejected from the traditional anti-Yankee Democratic Party. They went over to Nixon who was a traditional autocrat.

      When they did that, they took the cancer of racism with them, and racism's support was fundamentalist Xtianity. The Republicans accepted this because they took with them control of the Southern states and gave the Republicans for the first time a real lock on national politics, one that had previously belonged to the Democrats.

      The Southern position had traditionaly been one of an agricultural autocracy. It is incompatable with a technological industrial and post-industrial society. It is a cancer on the American post-industrial society -- and on the South as a developing society. It is similar to (but much less powerful than) the Muslim fundamentalist reaction against modernism and its' carrier, globalism. The Democratic Party is well rid of it, in spite of the decades of problems losing it has cost in national terms.

      I think you are correct when you said "I think that Democrats now have the opening to position themselves as supporting the quintessentially GOOD role of government: staying out of people's lives and decisions, but providing the necessary support system (and all that such support would entail, including national defense, education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.) for people when and where they need it."

      Talent and ability come from all strata of society, but are easily repressed by a society that fears opposition or by failure to nurture it. The Democratic Party will best help build a 21st century America by nurturing talent, wherever it is found, by protecting the weak without regard to race, religion, gender  or country of origen and providing an enviromnemt within which the powers of free enterprise can best be nurtured to provide an increasing standard of living for everyone. The tool by which that is done is competent and efficient government.

      That's my opinion, anyway.

      by Rick B on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 11:19:38 AM PDT

•  Beinart is a Tool

  Tool has many connotations.  Beinart fits only the most negative of them.  I dropped TNR from my rather extensive reading list after just a few weeks of Beinart's regime there.

  I'm not sure if dilletante qualifies here because he's not actually playing at what he does; it just seems that way.

  by sww92498 on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 08:34:25 PM PDT

•  Probably flame bait, but...

  I don't like Lieberman any more than any of the rest of you; still, I think the last 3 paragraphs of the Beinart article are very much worth reading.

  by looty on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 09:12:42 PM PDT

•  No Need to Slam OLD School

  Selling out, pandering, and sucking ass is NOT old school.

  Old School is kicking Nixon's corrupt criminal ass out of the White House.

  What YOU gonna do, Gen X?

  by easong on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 09:14:21 PM PDT

•  I tried to Cancel my TNR subscription and they

  wouldn't let me! So I still get it.

  Peter Beinart can bite me!

  by Tim the Democrat on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 09:29:16 PM PDT

•  TNR is wrong, but so is Kos

  I want a party that stands up for liberal ideals, I don't want a party that just stands up.  Both TNR and Kos stand for nothing, if you ask me.  TNR is all over the place in what they think is right.  Kos thinks that if Democrats stand up then that is enough, it's not, the Dems have to stand up for something and it should be a set of ideals that are liberal, because we have plenty of people on the other side standing up for their right wing ideals.  

  Kos, what do you expect from the Democrats once they win?  

  by jbou on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 09:35:58 PM PDT

  •  That's an unpopular point

    But, a good one. Let's not forget what happened when Nixon was brought down. 1974 should be our watchword, our "never again" mantra.

    Sure, we elected a shitload of Dems. But they were a deeply divided group. Unable to come together on the major issues of the day - and in the '70s, there were many. It was made worse when Carter won his 1976 victory. The lack of unity and consensus in Congress made it that much more difficult for him to advance policies that would solve the nation's problems. After 1978 he had to turn to more right-leaning policies and votes for support, to get things done, alienating liberals. By 1980 Carter had little political capital with which to withstand Reagan - who brought in some serious GOP coattails. In the end 1974 poisoned the Democrats.

    At this point in time, repeating 1974 isn't such a hot idea. Yes, elect Democrats - but elect the right ones.

    by eugene on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 09:52:18 PM PDT

  •  Thank you!

    Crowding people with diverse ideologies under a "big tent" named the Democratic party does not inspire people with passion to become Democrats.  It is a short-term, band-aid strategy.

    If it works, then what?  We fill Congress with Democrats who vote with Republicans for war spending, anti-abortion measures, pro-corporate laws, anti-environmental bills...  

    So what if the Dems own Congress--we win the battle, but lose the war.  

    by LittlegNYC on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 07:16:57 AM PDT

  •  We may soon see an effort to state principles

    My understanding last Summer was that the Congressional Democrats were going to come out this Spring with something resembling the Republican Contract on America.

    The tactics require that whatever it is, it be done in secrecy and not be released until the campaign for 2006 is beginning, so I am not surprised it isn't out yet. My hope is that it is short, pithy, and not too damned wonkish to relate to real voters.

    That means that important things must be left out, and the details of how things are to be achieves will be very skimpy. It will be a PR document, not a blueprint.

    I suspect that the major controllers on this will be Pelosi, Reid and Dean. Having a good deal of respect for all three, I think it will be a good document.

    At the same time, I consider the 2006 election to be a test runup to the 2008 election. We are going to see a lot of things that work and a lot that don't.

    by Rick B on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 11:32:36 AM PDT

•  There's nothing wrong with a primary challenge...

  That's Democracy! Kudos to Kos and Weicker!

  by Tim the Democrat on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 09:40:16 PM PDT

•  Why didn't Kos address this?

  What disturbs me about Kos is that he never anwsered this.  He even ignored his own defense of Lieberman.  Sad.  

  ---------------------------------------------------

  "The common explanation is that Lieberman is a conservative. Or, more specifically, he's a conservative who represents a liberal state--and, therefore, has no excuse. But, according to conventional indices, Lieberman is not a conservative. His lifetime rating from the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) is 76, six points higher than the man MoveOn and Kos have encouraged to enter the race, former Senator Lowell Weicker. In August 2003 (before turning against Lieberman), Kos himself reviewed Lieberman's ADA and American Conservative Union ratings and called the charge that he was a closet Republican "b.s."

  by ira13ping on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 09:59:25 PM PDT

  •  I will

    Whens the last time you saw Weicker on fox yucking it up on Hannity and Colmes and saying "you're a wonderful american" to Hannity?

    by ctkeith on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 10:18:52 PM PDT

  •  Did you notice...

    First, the Kos thing was well over two years ago. Lieberman's voting record appears okay (nothing to brag about, though), but you seem not to understand that his public statements have been extremely damaging to Democrats and he has been the Bush Administration's waterboy on many a subject, most especially Iraq. If he voted and kept his trap shut, that would be acceptable, but he can't help but open that yap of his at every opportunity, deliberately damaging his own party. He may consider himself above being a Democrat and serving his party's interests, but I don't. If he wishes to be above party, then he should stop taking Democrat's money and beome an independent.

    by mndean on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 06:41:46 AM PDT

    •  I am not sure I agree....

      I thought Nancy Pelosi's move to attach the ENTIRE party (centrists and all) to Murtha's plan on Iraq was extrememly damaging.  She didn't even have the common sense to contact Reid!  Do you remember his interviews right after she did that?  You could tell he was pissed.  All his hard work at navigating the Democrats in position to critique where the onus layed on Bush soley was ruined. She did it. Not lieberman.

      Furthermore, Lieberman has been a solid vote in domestic issues.  Even liberal groups (the ADA group for instance) gave him solid creditentials.  

      by ira13ping on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 11:51:08 AM PDT

      •  This has NOTHING to do with my comments...

        and I have no idea why you keep making excuses and do not address the issue of Lieberman's comments on Fox and elsewhere. ANSWER THE QUESTION - what about Joe's comments betraying Democratic positions and ideals?

        by mndean on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 12:17:19 PM PDT

        •  Okay

          So what?  Is it a crime to simply appear on Fox News now? Besides senators should have the right to air thier different opinions on TV.  Somehow, I doubt that he is deliberately going on fox news (or any other news station for that matter) with intent to destroy the Democratic Party.

          How is this strict demand to follow party orthodoxy make democrats realistic?  Even Schwietzer doesn't do that.  Seriously, why aren't you make a HUGE deal out of everyone who does it too?

          by ira13ping on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 10:07:30 PM PDT

•  Mnnn...

  When did liberal become a bad word?    Remember the good ol' days when we used to just come out and call someone an asshole without politicizing it?

  by Sleeps in Trees on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 10:05:42 PM PDT

•  It isn't always about you

  the guys an idiot.

  The world is full of them.

  If you keep giving the a*holes who get you wrong front page it will just drive you crazy.

  Fuck 'em.  

  by padraig pearse on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 11:55:00 PM PDT

•  the New Republic is still great, even under P.B.

  ...I am still a proud reader after 10 years.  Why?  Well, other mags like the Nation offer great articles as well -- but their liberal advocacy can lead them to leave out material that is damaging to their own side.  TNR still pulls for the liberals to win -- BUT -- a TNR article will give you the objective strengths and weaknesses of liberal positions, so you don't end up drinking your own side's koolaid.  I love them because they have the liberal position at heart, but also have a hard eye for reality.  They don't lose their objectivity and fall into pandering or wishful thinking.

  Where does this amazing objectivity come from?  It's because they have an outsider's viewpoint in some ways; they are totally unobjective on one subject -- Israel.  Many of the staff are Jewish, and their editorial positions about the Middle East reflect that fact.  For instance, American liberals could blame them for having a conflict of interest about the war in Iraq.  Toppling Saddam helps Israel's security, so they're for the Iraq war.  The rest of us may not identify America's interests with Israel's interests that closely.

  Joe Lieberman has the same conflict of interest, when viewed by non-Jewish American liberals.  I think that explains a lot of the chasm that has opened up between him and other Democrats.

  As a transplanted Midwestern Methodist (i.e., a non-Jew), I have two final thoughts about this.

  (1) American Jewish liberals have played a huge part in advancing the progressive agenda in this country over the years.  I am incredibly grateful to them for that, and that has tempered my dislike of TNR's pro-Iraq-war advocacy.

  (2) The two news sources I turn to the most are TNR and DailyKos, because they work.  They enlighten me.  It's depressing to see them turn on each other.  My plea:  please find a way to get out of this fight, and even work together, if that's possible.  

  by SVPublius on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 12:07:16 AM PDT

  •  peace

    Good advice from SVPlublius to end the personal fighting. Thanks for your comments regarding Lieberman and TNR, you're right about the Lieberman Democratic divide being over the support of the Iraq war for the sake of Israel's security.

    Kos, I also agree with your basic complaints about Lieberman being a tool of the GOP, and your definition of what being a Democrat means (in the least). I hope TNR takes notice of your rebuttal.

    by CalNM on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 01:44:47 AM PDT

    •  not so sure

      I credited his position on the war on to his (natural) strong ties to the state of Israel and the large amount of influence the AIPAC has on him (and the rest of the party, including Dean if you heard his speech at the Policy Conference he was pratically Zionist and then Stabs the entire Jewish population in the back).

      by ira13ping on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 11:54:16 AM PDT

  •  Toppling Saddam helps Israel's security?

    Maybe it's understandable how people might have believed that in 2002-3.  But how can anybody believe it now?

    by lysias on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 06:34:10 AM PDT

  •  They aren't just neocon on Israel

    They also dislike Unions, social security, National Health Insurance and they promoted the Bell Curve. I have wanted someone to run a primary challenge against Lieberman since 2000. The only liberal issue they embrace is abortion, and seperation of church and state. They should have become republicans long ago.

    by Moonchild on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 01:45:25 PM PDT

    •  good points

      V - peace, right on.

      Ira - sorry to hear that Dean put his foot in his mouth.

      lysias - you are right.  But I suspect Israelis are still glad the best of the US Army is deployed nearby.

      Moonchild - I hear you.  But consider:  20 years ago TNR ran tobacco ads, while excoriating tobacco companies in their articles.  They were like, if they are dumb enough to pay us to run their ads, we'll take the money.  I guess the advertising dept. and editorial guys are separate.

      If they ran ads for the Bell Curve, it was the same deal.  Mickey Kaus, Jeffrey Rosen and others wrote searing denounciations of that book for TNR, which I read.  Trust me, TNR thinks the Bell Curve sucks.

      You can find both pro and anti union stuff in there; I think it's balanced, which is deserved, because unions sometimes screw up too.  But TNR wants unions to exist and be a force, and they ripped bad ideas like "paycheck protection".

      As for social security, I'll quote their 2005 editorial:

      "Well, grant conservatives this much: Social Security has always been about values. But the values calculus overwhelmingly favors the current system. With the possible exception of the military, Social Security is the government enterprise most responsible for ensuring that the United States remains a liberal, democratic, and capitalist country.  Abandon the program's core social insurance function, which is the practical goal of privatization, and you would have a society that neither Democrats nor Republicans would much want to live in."  In this and many other articles they support Soc. Sec. and stomp on privatization ideas.

      by SVPublius on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 10:50:07 PM PDT

•  What is so ''fighting'' about Beinart?

  Wasn't it Peter Beinart who wrote an article about war-loving Democrats called "A Fighting Faith"?

  (https link isn't working for me in Scoop "auto format", and anyway it's a pay-per-view article, plus I wouldn't give him the hits)

  Yet he will not join the army, even though the war he supports is going badly and the soldiers he sent to Iraq desperately need relief. So maybe he means "fighting" in a metaphorical, political sense? But no, now he's against Democrats who fight Republicans; in fact, he's against Democrats who even see politics in terms of a "fight" at all!

  So somebody help me out here: what is "fighting" about Mr. Macho Peter "Fighting Faith" Beinart?

  by Del C on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 01:35:25 AM PDT

•  Once again, TNR completely misses the point.

  The fact that Joe Lieberman is an unrepentant Iraq hawk isn't the reason I loathe him with every fiber of my black little soul. The fact that he's a DINO-bordering-on-GOP-shill isn't what makes me angrier with him than with many Republicans. Once again, the New Republic completely misses the point - and does so without an email link for me to type my chagrin to them directly.

  Indeed, why should he anger me more than Republicans? Sure, his policies are plenty nauseating, but on paper, the Republicans eat nauseating for breakfast, puke it up and then submit it to Congress. It's much more abstract than that: I hate what Lieberman represents.

  So what is Joe Lieberman to me? Well, he's the segment of the Democratic Party that is perfectly happy to sell out our freedoms and liberties, provided it is done under the auspeices of warm, fuzzy "communitarianism" - not that I'm convinced he's actually a communitarian. The truth is, I think he's just a demogogue. He's of that vile little pustule of politics that profits with equal glee from warhawk fearmongering and Concerned Parents' Issues, first to stand whenever there are a few votes to be gained by ramming an opportunistic bullshit piece of legislation down our collective throats.

  Frankly, after all the self-important sanctimony we've all been made to endure from him, the fact that he supports George W. Bush in his abject insanity and helps the Republicans paint their pretty frames is merely the cherry on the proverbial shit sundae. The fact that he triangulates like Imhotep only confirms to me that he's a power-grabber pure and unalloyed, fully on the side of those who benefit from a broken system and enjoy the fact.

  Gah, I think I need Listerine now.

  by Joseph Hale on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 02:35:44 AM PDT

•  Pffft...the New Republic

  They're so indicative of the problem you could write a textbook.  

  Too scared to be truly liberal, so they endorse Lieberman for president even when it was painfully obvious his presidential bid was going nowhere (Joementum notwithstanding).

  Scared to be considered liberal so they gathered as many convoluted "liberal" excuses to go to war as they could.  Up to and including a bloviated essay on the dangers of a nuclear Iraq (I know, I know).

  Then they turn around and advertise on Air America.

  I've posted this here before, but I will again.  I take great joy whenever they send their "come back and renew subscription" letters in sending them back in the prepaid envelope with FUCK YOU scrawled angrily in black magic marker all over it.

  DIE New Republic.  You're useless to anyone who likes the truth.

  by guyute16 on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 03:31:32 AM PDT

•  You Can Say That Again

  "What a dumbass"

  You could have ended your post right there.  

  Beinart is a careerist asshole.

  by The Fool on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 06:09:43 AM PDT

•  Who cares?

  Ok, I'm in the minority here.  But I don't care what Joe Lieberman says on Fox News, or on Hannity and Colmes.  I don't watch or listen to them.  And guess what, the only people that do are people who aren't going to be convinced anyway.

  Lieberman is a threat only if you think you are being harmed by having points scored on you on conservative talk shows.  Personally, I look at his record and see that he's a decent democrat with the same flaws as most of the democratic congresscritters (voting for war, catering to business groups).  And when I do hear him, I don't hear the shrill whining that I hear from other representatives that make them look like blowhards.

  So in the end I have a guy who has a decent voting record, is respectful to others, and who is actually well liked.  The fact that he may say some things on Hannity & Colmes just doesn't matter to me one bit.

  by JPhurst on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 07:04:49 AM PDT

  •  decent voting record

    while i don't agree with lieberman's recent comment on iraq, i can assure you he is NOT zell miller! living in georgia, i voted for him because i had no choice.  i'm still furious about zell campaigning in this state for. i can't see lieberman ever doing a thing like that. he was for the war in iraq, no inconsistency there.  but the comments about iraq  weren't unexpected. so i guess i'm in the minority too.  every now and then some bipartisanship helps... if it's more than 1.

    by laura m on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 07:39:13 AM PDT

    •  Exactly!

      Well said!

      by ira13ping on Fri Jan 06,