What? Come again, you say. Didn’t Joe Lieberman – the longtime Senator from Connecticut who once ran for Vice-President of the United States – just lose to a businessman named Ned Lamont few of us had ever heard of until about two weeks ago (okay, four weeks)?
Yes, indeed. But as everyone, including Lieberman obviously (because he just officially announced he’s running as an independent), now knows, Joe did much better than predicted in recent polls, which showed him trailing by as much as 13%. He lost by more like three percent. If I were Lamont, I ‘d be afraid. I’d be very afraid. Because the Daily Kos and all his cronies will not be able to help him in the general election. In fact, they will only hurt him. Watch for Lamont to move away from them as if they had avian fllu and watch the Kossites start to turn on Lamont.
But more importantly… and much more excitingly for those of us who are tired of the traditional American political parties… we are going to see someone … in what may well be the most watched election of the year … run as an independent in a major state and quite probably win. Will this be a sea change in American politics? Will we see an end to the dimwitted politics of “My Party Right or Wrong?” Time will tell, but it’s going to be fun to watch.
If you think I’m excited, you’re right. It rarely happens, but this election turned out exactly the way I hoped it would.
UPDATE – MORNING SOBRIETY TEST – In the clear light of day I think I was being a bit effusive last night. There are social issues on which I clearly disagree with Joe Lieberman. Yet still I think his running as an independent is a good thing. Our rigid system needs a solid shaking. And, yes, I think he stands a good chance of winning and, if he does, I hope he declares himself an Independent when he takes his seat back and not become some version of a Democrat or Republican.
I’m not sure Connecticut qualifies as a major state; regardless, the Children of the Corn always turn on the adults. Lieberman will very likely win and, in doing so, make himself invulnerable to the Children of the Corn democrats Kos and his ilk represent. Losers. Too funny.
Roger, I guess I am the wet blanket. Independents are far from being significant in this country. I’ve always maintained that I have voted straight demo, I have lied, somewhat, my digressions were Fred Harris and John Anderson. Both handily defeated.
For better or worse, for the foreseeable future, we are a two party system. I think this actually has to be sorted out before we can progress to a multi-party mindset, if ever. For a third party to have credence, it must have a leader, those are in short supply. Leaders in general, are in short supply, which is why our country falters.
I mean this as a straight question, who in the national pantheon, do we have, that can unite and not divide? The greater question may be, is such a thing even possible anymore?
Don’t swing so wide of the point, Luther.
Independents don’t have anything to do with a “third party” or “multi-party mindset”. The point of being truly independent is that one is not joined at the brain stem to either of the two political parties, irregardless of the worth of their ideas and positions. An independent reserves the right to give support to any initiative, regardless of the party affiliation of the sponsor, simply because of the worth of that position.
The problem with independent politicians is not in being able to do the job, but in finding the money and the organization to get elected.
Personally, I like the somewhat anarchical concept of independent thinking elected officials. It’s at least a step up from the non-thinking herd speak we get too much of.
Dave in W-S
Will this be a sea change in American politics?
No.
Apart from the obvious reason which is who really cares who gets elected from Connecticut, Lieberman does not seem to be the type of guy who is willing or able to make a big issue out of this.
He just wants to be elected. He will not likely really conduct a slash & burn campaign against the ‘progressives’ that are subsuming the Democratic Party. He wants to be ‘liked’. He is in the end just a Party Guy. He should give them a broadside, but he won’t. He just wants to be a Democrat in a Party that is heading over the Progressive Cliff. Frankly I don’t rate him nearly as high as I rate Zell Miller who at least went out on his own terms.
Wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time.
There really is only room for two parties in the system as Luther says. It’s not really the number of parties that poses the problem. It’s really the parties that make up the number. One is IMO, only marginally better than the other, and since one of them is arguably ‘insane’, that takes some doing.
No wonder the ‘people’ are apathetic and enraged at the very same time.
I’m reminded of the Communists’ slogan in early Thiries Germany: “Nach Hitler, Uns” (“After Hitler, us.) Yeah, right.
A Democratic party in the hands of the deranged left will sooner or later win a national election. Not a pretty picture–Copperheads winning in a time of national danger.
I agree more with Roger than with Luther in this case. This election is largely a symbolic one and does not involve the typical “practical politics” template.
The Kossite and Deaniac movement in the Democratic Party chose Connecticut as its battlefield. It pulled out all the stops and wounded but did not kill the intended victim.
The intended victim has two things the intended victor does not have; political experience and a fervent belief in his principles.
My guess is he will win rather handily, and this election will split the democratic party and take some air out of its overall Congressional ambitions.
I guess I must be one of the few neo-con Right Wingers who post here, but I like my party of the GOP very much and I don’t think it’s “dimwitted” to say it’s right 99% of the time, because I research and think deeply about the issues and the GOP represents my values and issues.
What is wrong with the “My Party right or wrong” Democrats is that this Lieberman vs. Lamont primary is a cautionary tale about what happens to Dems who don’t obey that motto.
“Holy Joe” has been purged and the only thing that gives me any glee about that is that Hillary is next…
One of the more frightening aspects of the Lamont campaign was the creeping appearance of anti-Semitic rhetoric to discredit Lieberman: things like calling him the “Senator from Israel.”
Read Lanny Davis’s column in today’s WSJ about Left Wing hate.
Roger, again, I disagree with you; I don’t think this primary was about 3rd party candidates or Independents at all; it was about the Left wing of the Dem Party hijacking the CN Senate race.
See DailyKos threads about it for more and uglier.
While Lieberman was purged for his pro-war stance (and nothing else, because he was equally liberal as Lamont on all other issues), the ramping up of war in the Middle East highlit both his Jewishness and his strong pro-war stance.
That he “lost” for this and that the Left Wing of the Dem party made sure he lost for this shouldn’t give you joy about any of it.
ìFor better or worse, for the foreseeable future, we are a two party system.î
Yup, and that is unlikely (thank God) to change anytime in the near future. The electoral college stands firmly in the way. 270 electoral college votes will still be required to elect the next president of our country. Joseph Liebermanís predicament will remain the exception to the rule—and he is only campaigning to retain his senatorial seat in Connecticut. The crap would hit the proverbial fan if he were running for the grand prize.
Senator Lieberman should easily defeat Ned Lamont. I expect him to have close to a ten point lead in the polls by this weekend. He will never look back. The real question is this: who will Lieberman support for president in 2008? Also, will he ever return to the Democratic Party?
I think this is a two party system and will remain so. However, I think the point here is that Lieberman is trying to bring his party back from the brink. He lost because he did not reverse his stand on the war and because he knows that in a fight between Hezbellah and Israel, our allegiance is with Israel and because he knows we should not just run screaming from Iraq.
If Lieberman runs as an Independent and wins it will not only represent a victory for him…it will signal the Hugo Chavez/Saddam Hussein fan club on the left that they can not win in the big time. That will give other Democrats more courage to stand up to them.
Roger,
If you think I’m excited, you’re right. It rarely happens, but this election turned out exactly the way I hoped it would.
You should have been more careful what you asked for. Because you just got a hijacking of our two major political parties – which exercises REAL power unlike independents – by the extremist, internationalist, marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-Western and, yes, anti-Semitic left.
It tells you a great deal about the state of our two parties when the Republicans purge Pat Buchanan and the Democrats purge that uppity Jew Joe Lieberman.
I hoped for a decisive victory by Lieberman and I’m extremely disappointed by this outcome. A victory for Lieberman may have driven a stake through the heart of the extreme left. Instead, that vampire has arisen and is now prowling the night.
Let’s hope that Lieberman can win in November. Although polls today look favorable, I wouldn’t bet on Lieberman yet. I expect that between now and November you will see the MSM flood the zone with anti-Lieberman propaganda. I expect the Democrats will break for Lamont and the Republicans will break for Schlesinger. And a victory for Lieberman is not assured.
The seriousness of this situation is demonstrated by the fact that a heavy-hitting Democratic insider like Lanny Davis has felt compelled to put his Democratic credentials on the line with a stunning denunciation of “Liberal McArthyism” in the WSJ.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008763
Michael Totten banned me from his blog for characterizing the Democrats as embryonic fascists. That characterization looks better every day when folks like Lanny Davis are compelled to speak truth to fascism.
Lieberman’s loss will result in his election
in November, but most importantly, it is a time of deep concern to the Democrats. Dirty Harry
and Hillary and others will have to decide who
to support.
The liberal press will play it as an expression of the American voters anti war fervor.
The conservative press will play it as the hijacking of the Democrats, rife with commentary about the young radicals from MoveOn.org.
All to the good because that will drive the middle class voters away from the Democrats.
Perhaps it’s time for an UPDATE, Roger: from the NY Times, Aug. 9th, we learn that
‘Lamont Defeats Lieberman in Primary’
Exhibit A: the NY Times mothership of the extreme left charts the course for the general election:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/opinion/09wed1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates.
…
The administration?s contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home
…
Traditional beliefs like every person?s right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative
…
When Mr. Lieberman told The Washington Post, ?I haven?t changed. Events around me have changed,? he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting the nation?s basic traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back.
No extremists here except for Chimpy BushHitlerburton and that mini-me house-Jew Lieberman. Just move right along folks. And, BTW, there was no mass starvation in the Ukraine.
You guys seem to be forgetting the “all politics are local” angle from a CT perspective. The MSM painted this as a referendum on the Iraq War, but there are numerous other issues that riled people up, namely Joe’s social conservative stance on everything from abortion to Schiavo to gay marriage to stem cells. You heard a lot about this in local media over the years but little about it in the national media. There’s also some resentment left over from the 2004 stunt where he slid back into his Senate seat after losing the VP slot when he ran for both… As someone mentioned above, he just wants to win and at some point the “politician thing” wears on the voters. Ned Lamont happened to be the guy holding the bag when all these factors came together to give him an edge… 18 year incumbents carry a lot of baggage along with their clout and sometimes the people just don’t care and want a change… Reminds me a bit of when Al D’Amato lost his seat in NY to Chuck Schumer.
The next thing I’ll be looking for is what voters do in the 2006. Will they just start throwing incumbents out of office regardless of their opponents? The polling data right now would tend to support that, but it’s obviously too early to tell. Stay tuned…
I would love nothing more than to see an active and effective cadre of independent candidates out there, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon. The opportunity for this is now, with so much public discontent with elected leaders, but the independents just haven’t stepped forward (much of it likely for not being able to compete financially with the political machinery) in large enough numbers to give people a choice other than incumbent or challenger, Republican or Democrat. Maybe this will change in the future if discontent remains after the next election…
American politics is unique in that coalitions must be formed within the parties rather than between parties. The Republicans seem to have found room for Sens. Santorum and Spector within the same state. The Republican ideological coalition includes Christian conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, traditional conservatives, moderates of every description, and some who simply defy classification.
This appears to be part of a purge of the moderates from the Democratic coalition. The Kossacks and the Dean faction have been targeting the DLC for expulsion and defeat.
Many people who would have voted Democrat will find that they and their beliefs are not welcome in that party. Some will hang on, hoping for the best; others will do as I did when the hapless Carter wanted to extend his record of incompetence. A lot of Reagan Democrats became Republicans.
Yeah,I’m glad Joe lost.Let Corliss,I mean,Ned Lamont carry the water for the KKKosKKKids and the Dumbocrats.JL will win in Nov.
Great news out of Georgia:Cynthia Sheehan McKinney got her butt handed to her last night,losing the runoff 59%-41%!Woohoo!
How is it that a guy who apparently runs a media company has only heard of Lamont for — at most — a month? That’s kind of pathetic. It seems that you, like Mr. Lieberman, don’t know how to recognize an obvious threat…
The Democrats aren’t incipient fascists; the Progressives are. This will reveal itself to the general public in the next three months. And it’s especially anti-semitic, so the greater portion of the Dems’ thoughtful Jewish constituency will soon be abandoning them. Good.
I, too, am sorry to see the Dems implode, but they’re in need of a major ideology overhaul anyway. Lieberman will ultimately squash Lamont like a toad and the ship of state will right itself again.
Oh, if the NYT thinks these nutroots are moderate, they’re living in another dimension. But we knew that.
“How is it that a guy who apparently runs a media company has only heard of Lamont for — at most — a month? That’s kind of pathetic.”
And you, mrbones, do not recognize irony. That’s even more pathetic.
HA — “…extremist, internationalist, marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-Western and, yes, anti-Semitic left.”
The funny thing is that American non-Orthodox Jews remain overwhelmingly progressive on a wide range of issues, and a great portion of the people that have “hijacked” the Democratic Party, and that voted for or contributed to them, are in fact Jewish Americans.
As YOU would put it, if you were being honest, Jewish Americans tend to be open to “extremist, internationalist, marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-Western” candidates for office. \
As I would put it, Jewish Americans have a wide range of (liberal) issues that they care about, in addition to what’s good for Israel and the Jews.
from a recent WashPost article:
“If you [as a candidate] are not a very strong supporter of Israel, you are disqualified” from getting much, if any, of the Jewish vote, said Steve Rabinowitz, a Democratic strategist. “Once you reach that threshold, for the vast majority of the Jewish community, it switches to domestic issues on which Republicans routinely get killed.”
BTW, is Chuck Hagel a Democrat? And which other Senators have seconded his call for an immediate cease fire?
How exactly is your lack of awareness of Lamont “irony”? To me, it’s seems like you had your head in the sand for the month of July.
While many blather on about Connecticut being a deep blue state, it is actually a deep purple state.
Lieberman’s predecessor in the Senate was Lowell Weiker, a RINO(Republican in name only) if ever there was one. Joe is a DINO if ever there was one.
The republican party in CT is not going to spend a lot of money trying to elect a RINO Senator when they can get a DINO Senator for free.
In case no one has noticed,(the NY Times certainly hasn’t), CT has a Republican Governor.
If one looks at the District by District results, Lieberman did fairly well in what can be described as the “Traditional Democratic Base”, which is Blue Collar workers. Lamont did best in areas of “Elites”.
The Democrats are mightly confused if they don’t understand that their base is Blue Collar Workers and not the Kos Kidz and the Elites.
mrbones, you doofus, I was perfectly aware of who Lamont is and who his family is (for years, down to the association with JP Morgan). I was funning with the two weeks, four weeks thing to make a point – tht he was/is a political nobody. Now do you get it?
But – there is one person whose identity I don’t know – you, mrbones. Care to reveal it?
Good insight, Markus.
ahem, if the Democratic Party pulls to the left and the Republican Party pulls to the right, it’s going to make for a lot of confused American Jews… among others, I’d suspect. I’m really interested in seeing how this plays out on a local and national level over the next two years.
The answer to a Democratic Party that may be pulling to the left is not a Republican Party that is pulling to the right. The Republicans seems to be forgetting that as the current power holders they are a big fat target for the widespread discontent among the American people. Whether or not the Democrats could be doing any better is a theoretical argument that may not have enough weight when it comes time for people to enter the voting booths.
The Repubs are moving more to the center.
Incidentally, Democrat Jews need be confused no longer. Kos just posted his Throw Israel to the Wolves post.
See? Didn’t even have to wait for two years. I’ll be the exodus starts this very afternoon. (No pun intended.)
It is getting quite hot here this morning but
to cool things off, assuming Joe runs as an independent, and wins, who does he caucus with the Dems, or, the GOP?
Figure this: he goes with the GOP, if it retains the Senate on the voiced grounds that he can do more for the voter in Connecticut than he can if he caucuses with the Dems. So what is he offered by Mitch and the rest, a chairmanship of what committee?
Ahem, sorry, but I don’t see any party moving toward the center on anything right now. It’s more of a retreat into your camp of like-minded-thinkers and beat your drum even louder…
Kos is making a lot of noise, but he is not the face of the Democratic Party… at least not yet. There’s a whole lot of people between the Kossacks and Center.
Put another way, if you’re a moderate Republican, are you comfortable with some of the increasingly assertive players on the far right? And furthermore, do you want the entire Republican Party to be painted with that extreme brush even though the tentacles of the more right wing are evident through actual policy actions?
And there’s also the competence issue surrounding Bush and by extension those who continue to defend every thing he does no matter how misguided it may be. When people left of center, and yes even in the center, see this it isn’t exactly appealing. It’s no better than the Deranged Bush Syndrome folks…
It was not a purge. It was democracy in action. Lieberman failed to adequately represent the views of the people in his party and so he lost. I imagine much of the support he did get was soley due to him being the incumbent. Since last night he’s probably already lost a chunk of those voters for running as an independent (ie., lack of party loyalty and addiction to power) and for calling Lamont supporters extremists. Contributing to getting the country into an unpopular, unnecessary, losing war is grounds for throwing the bum out in any civilised democracy.
Lieberman’s head is still swollen from the 2000 campaign. He seems to think the American public almost elected him. Neither the kick in the teeth he received for his farcical run for the presidential nomination nor his humiliating defeat last night seem to have knocked any sense into him. Typical out of touch politician.
I’m reminded of the Communists’ slogan in early Thiries Germany: “Nach Hitler, Uns” (“After Hitler, us.) Yeah, right.
My own feelings are along these lines. The same reasoning was used by radicals in the sixties: Republican victories would “radicalize” the populace and bring on the revolution. These sort of stupidities are ingrained on the left, we shouldn’t import them.
We’ll see how Lieberman does. I’m not a political junky and don’t know much about these things, but it will certainly be interesting to see how things play out. There are also plenty of uncertainties. Will some of Lamont’s supporters become blatantly antisemitic? If so, how will he deal? Where will Lieberman get money? What about world events? Will August 22 bring anything new to the table? Playing prophet is a dangerous game for anyone who values their reputation.
“assuming Joe runs as an independent, and wins, who does he caucus with the Dems, or, the GOP?”
If Harry Reid is Majority Leader, the next two years are going to be taken up with investigating the Bush Administration.
Given this, I am utterly mystified at neocon independent and Republican support for Lieberman. Republicans ought to get Schlesinger to announce that he will drop out of the race if Lieberman agrees to pull a Jim Jeffords and vote for a Republican Leader.
Saint Joe would have comfortably won yesterday’s primary if he had given his Sunday night speech criticizing Bush and supporting dissent a month earlier, and if he had agreed support the winner of the primary. He was just too impressed with his own goodness, and too proud to break a sweat, until he saw that his political life was on the line.
I wouldn’t be that surprised if he agrees to caucus with Republicans, given his sense of entitlement for the seat and his lust for reelection.
Roger:
Kos’s call for a single state solution for Israel is the soft political sell for the destruction of Israel and someone needs to press Lamont on his opinion of it. Kos’s solution of cutting off support for Israel is just the excuse the Arab states need to escalate the war that has never stopped since 1948.
As far as the Jewish vote in America the “Israel is the Problem, get rid of it and peace will break out” mantra will cause some American Jews problems but enough of them are so attached to their “progressive” religion that they will dump Israel long before they dump the Democrats. Especially among the cultural rather then religous Jews. They simply have not grasped the idea that simply because they don’t attend Temple it won’t protect them from the Jew haters of this world. The Jews of the Soviet Union found out the hard way, the American Jews will find themselves in the same situation if they don’t wake up.
Markus,
The funny thing is that American non-Orthodox Jews remain overwhelmingly progressive on a wide range of issues, and a great portion of the people that have “hijacked” the Democratic Party, and that voted for or contributed to them, are in fact Jewish Americans.
There is nothing funny about this. Flanking Lamont at his victory rally were two of the most prominent anti-Semites in the country – Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson and Al “Freddy’s Fashion Mart” Sharpton. Sharpton has the particular distinction of actually inciting a mob to multiple homicides. Pat Buchanan in his wettest of dreams couldn’t hope to an incite an actual murderous mob.
What is it about a violent mob shouting “burn down the Jew store” that “progressives” don’t understand? We’ve been down that road before.
Can any “progressive” (more accurately marxist) credibly deny that Jackson and Sharpton are anti-Semitic? Why haven’t Sharpton and Jackson been denounced and purged from the party? Why instead were these two racist bastards flanking Lamont at his victory rally? I’m sure you’ll deny that it is because Lamont’s opponent was the most prominent Jewish politician in the country.
Any “progressive” Jew who supports this ilk can only be characterized as a God-damned fool. They are gonna wake up one day and wonder why Israel has been destroyed and Jews are no longer safe even in America.
ALL THE PRESIDENTS’ MEN … LOSE
Democracy humbled the powerbrokers in todayís primary election results.
Bill Clinton backed Joe Lieberman for Senator in Connecticut. Bill Clinton lost.
George W. Bush backed Keith Butler for Senator in Michigan. Dubya lost.
Incumbency backed six-term Cynthia McKinney for Congress in Georgia. Incumbency lost.
Some good people lost, but it proves that democracy is alive and well.
HA,
Michael Totten banned me from his blog for characterizing the Democrats as embryonic fascists.
You are mistaken. They are entering their toddler phase. None of us want to witness their Terrible Two phase.
Lieberman has a 55% approval rating in his state. That won’t be easy to defeat in November. And Kos and his ilk are nasty. That might get old after awhile. Just ask McKinney.
And the fact that we will have to spend two years with tiresome, partisan and self destructive investigations of the Bush administration if the Democrats win is a plus for the Republicans.
I just wish the Democrats would get half as serious about dealing with jihadism as they are in attacking the other party.
The President is a joke around the world and political posion here at home. That is all this primary proved.
“Any “progressive” Jew who supports this ilk can only be characterized as a God-damned fool. They are gonna wake up one day and wonder why Israel has been destroyed and Jews are no longer safe even in America.”
-HA
Jewish allegiance to progressive politics is not that hard to understand: social justice has long been championed within the Jewish faith.
Your threat to Jews, I suspect, will come to be a common refrain on the right, as the Christianists tire of wating for their rapture, and their uneasy alliance with Israel comes to an end. Remember that brilliant dialogue from The Sopranos this season:
Beth: You can disagree with evangelicals but they are great friends of the Jews because Israel is the holy land.
Hesh: You wait.
Boy, Lamont brings out another splurge of moonbattery on the net, doesn’t he? To wit:
“And there’s also the competence issue surrounding Bush and by extension those who continue to defend every thing he does no matter how misguided it may be. When people left of center, and yes even in the center, see this it isn’t exactly appealing. It’s no better than the Deranged Bush Syndrome folks…”
Free hint: Standard Democrat boilerplate is to alternately accuse your opponent of stupidity or malice. When those don’t work, you fall back on incompetence. After awhile, some people began to notice the pattern. The failure to see this is a prime sign of BDS. The inmates of the asylum are not good candidates to diagnose the problem in others.
I for one would like to today welcome the new members of the Republican party into the big tent. While I am at it, I’ll wave to the newly minted Independents standing nervously across the street. And of course a hearty thumbs up to the moonbats making all this possible. We “incompetent” Republicans couldn’t do it without you.
So anyone who doesn’t agree lockstep with Bush or questions his competence is a moonbat? Thank you for making my point.
IVV:
Which side of the political spectrum compares the Jihadists to America’s Revolutionary soldiers?(hint, Michael Moore) Which side of the political spectrum is planning to send “human Shields” to Lebanon to protect Hezbollah?Which major religous groups are calling for economic boycotts of Israel, Evangelicals or Liberal protestants?(hint, it’s not the evangelicals) Which side of the political spectrum is calling for an end to aid to Israel and is calling for the end of Israel and a single Palestinian state?(Hint, unless you are trying to say that the Daily Kos is a right wing site I think you know the answer).
Josh,
If you read this site often, you’d know that most of us disagree with Bush a fair amount, so your “lockstep” comment is just pure nonsense.
I can’t speak for HA, but as far as I can tell, the “incompetence” charge is just something that the Left says over and over and over and over and over again, without making any argument that can stand up to honest discussion.
For instance, GWB gets accused of “incompetence” in handling the war in Iraq. Last I checked, he has delegated the major decision making to the experts, which seems entirely correct to me. Apart from (possibly) the first Fallujah assault, I haven’t heard a single claim that he has interfered with the military’s decisions in any way at all. (This is in stark contrast to LBJ’s morning meetings to choose bomb targets or Robert McNamara telling the Navy *how* to blockade Cuba.) So as far as I can tell, when someone says that Bush has handled the Iraq war “incompetently,” that means the person disagrees with the war, period.
Or GWB gets accused of “incompetent” handling of the Katrina disaster. If he handled that disaster “incompetently,” then the word doesn’t mean much, as his performance was just as good as any other president’s in that capacity.
***
One of the reasons your party is changing is because longtime loyalists (20 years) like me (and many others on this site) will not vote for Democrats any more. Have fun in your echo chamber, though.
Bostonian, a bit about where I’m coming from.
I’m not registered with the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party. I have voted for candidates from both parties in national, state and local elections in different states.
My last response above was specifically to Steven Mitchell. I know there is discussion on this site… It’s one of the reasons why I am here.
Do I think Bush has a competency problem? Yes, I do. In the lead-up to Iraq, I was concerned… Not so much that there were no WMD (I believe there were — that’s what the experts told us), but that Iran was still a bigger threat and that we were going after the wrong guy. But I also thought that if executed properly, the goals that GWB put forth could be realized and that maybe it was just such a shakeup that could change the Mideast for the better. What does executed properly mean? Dunno — and I’m not paid to know. But someone was and is and you’ll have to forgive me for wondering if they didn’t get it a wee bit wrong. Could any President have made this mistake? Yes. Would any President have continued to make the mistake with the same cast of characters while blowing sunshine up our asses? Dunno, but all I have is this one President’s record to judge and I find a competency issue.
Katrina? Yes, I throw that in there. You say that any President would have been in the same situation. Well we don’t know that, do we? Even if most of the blame is to be put on the incompetent and corrupt administrators within the New Orleans and Louisiana state government (which I where I think most of the blame deserves to go), another President may not have appointed an incompetent administrator such as Michael Brown to head FEMA and may have been more proactive rather than reactive to the needs of the people of New Orleans. I think this is a clear competency issue.
Fiscal conservatism? I think GWB has made a mockery of the concept… And my list goes on and on. Part of the problem is that IMHO W has gotten bad advice on a lot of things, but another problem is that he won’t let go of these people even after the actual record indicates less than stellar performance. I find this particularly problematic because I think that as an individual he is in over his head and the advice of others is therefore that much more critical.
I haven’t even touched on ideological differences with the man because I don’t want to blur my point here. I have specific concerns with GWB and his administration and I don’t think that these concerns represent so-called BWS or make me a moonbat. Being GWB seems to mean never having to admit you goofed, never having to admit you got bad advice, and never having to try something different lest people perceive you as weak.
For all the problems with the Democratic Party, I feel that the Republican Party has picked up some of the worst traits of their opponents and run with them. Pox on both your houses!
Bottom line: I expect more from conservatives.
/rant off
Josh,
I don’t think much of those arguments.
First, the war in Iraq. The point of the war was/is to start democratizing the ME, draining the swamp. Iran would have been a harder place to start. It’s mountainous, as opposed to being a flat desert. Moreover, being present in Iran would not have bought us much logistically (it’s not in the middle of it all as Iraq is). Last, Saddam Hussein was THE unresolved issue. What credence would anyone give us if we ignored him for another decade?
Even now, when we have troops in Iraq, the idea of invading Iran is highly non-trivial.
As for Katrina, if you could show that some other president responded more quickly in a like condition, you might have an argument. You have nothing but adjectives.
As for spending, GWB is just not a fiscal conservative. Judging by our continuing to elect spend-happy pols, most of our country doesn’t consist of fiscal conservatives, either. You happen to disagree with the desired outcome, so of course that registers as “incompetence” to you.
Just able to get back now.
To relapse upon an old term, WOW.
This may be pandering but, Roger’s place is ‘the’ place to come to for discussion. What a good thread.
A quote I read recently (wish I had saved it) was that there “are reader’s and there are writer’s.”…
I am of the former, and have no intellectual right to write.
But damn the torpedo’s, I will do so anyway.
We sail in new water’s here. Blog’s still new world, mysterious too most, but yet, influential.
We are a country, at heart, of trusting people.
I, at heart, do not think we are being led down the fascist path. I may not agree with some of the individual actions that have occurred in the last four years. But that does not mean I do not agree with the overall goal’s of same. I have read many history’s of ‘true’ fascism. We are not remotely close.
Back to the point. I still disagree with Roger. If Joe had meant to run as a Independent, he would have stayed out of the demo race. As much as I may respect his resoluteness on the ‘greater war’, I suspect he is looking out for “Joe.”
And how do we judge that?
“I have specific concerns with GWB and his administration and I don’t think that these concerns represent so-called BWS or make me a moonbat. Being GWB seems to mean never having to admit you goofed, never having to admit you got bad advice, and never having to try something different lest people perceive you as weak.”
And being a moonbat means making general, vague accusations of incompentence, and never backing them up with an actual argument or evidence, even when directly asked for same. Heaven forbid that any shred of an alternative solution should escape your computer. That would be actually taking responsibility for advancing the discussion. Always got 20 reasons why Bush isn’t getting Iraq done right, but never a hint of some alternate, effective way to combat terrorists and change the places where they live. (Cutting and running isn’t effective.)
Oh, and it means that every time someone posts this tripe, not buying it is, “never having to admit you goofed”, et. al. There’s a difference between discussion with people making serious proposals and “admitting error” to vague, non-serious charges. Republicans do the former all the time, including Bush. The latter? Not so much, depending on the temperament of the people involved. Me, I ran out of patience with the tripe from some of your predecessors here.
I’ll be more than happy if you stick around and prove me wrong. There’s a first time for everything, I suppose. I’ll take back the moonbat charge when that happens.
Luther,
We are a country, at heart, of trusting people. I, at heart, do not think we are being led down the fascist path.
“The failure of the people to speak small truths leads to the victory of the big lie.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer
“All this was inspired by the principle which is quite true in itself that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” – Adolf Hitler
We are living in a world where many small truths are routinely left unspoken. There are layers upon layers of them in a scene where red diaper baby Ned Lamont, family member of Stalinist Corliss Lamont, gets on stage with racists like Sharpton and Jackson after defeating the nation’s most prominent Jewish politician.
And the Big Lie stalks close behind.
There is a deep sickness within the soul of the Democratic party. I see it. Lanny Davis sees it. Most, eventually, will come to see it. I hope that doesn’t come too late.
Steven, I don’t give a shit whether you want me to stick around or not
With 30% approval rating on Iraq, I don’t think I’m the only one who disagrees with the President.
Mutual, but I’ll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt as long as I can.
OK, then you should also know that “disapprove” ratings in a poll count those people who feel that we aren’t doing enough. It’s basic logic, and will help you determine whether such posts are relevant are not. That is, of course, if you actually care to change anyone’s mind…
Steven, I’m one of those people who think we’re not doing enough, actually. I’m of the opinion that going to war should be an option of absolute last resort, but once you commit to war, do what it takes to win the war. Unfortunately, doing that doesn’t make for pretty images on the television. “Partial” wars seem to do nothing but cost a lot of money, piss off the enemy, and cost more lives and heartache in the long run when we have to go back in again later.
Still competence-focused criticism, though. But if I wrote the above over on Koz or somewhere I’d come away worse off than a cow thrown into a lake full of piranhas…
