Very nicely put indeed. And may I just say that Broder attacking "elitists" kept me laughing for hours. Do these people have any self-awareness at all?

Mr. Clinton had told him to acknowledge that Democrats should be able to hold contrary opinions on the war, Mr. Lieberman recounted.

And this, in a nutshell, is the big problem with Lieberman.

His supporters claim that his position on Iraq represents the diversity of the 'big tent' Democratic party, that a Democrat should have the right to be in support of the war.

But that's not the point. The real point is that Lieberman brooks no dissent. In his world, Democrats who oppose the war are traitors undermining the country.

In essence, holy Joe has said "It's my way or the doorway, my big tent isn't big enough for youse guys."

There's been a lot of talk about Democratic 'purges.' But it is clear that the real proponent of purges is Lieberman himself. Were the shoe on the other foot, were he given sufficient power, he would purge and discipline to his heart's content.

The irony of Lieberman is that we have a warmonger on the losing end of his own war. Having drawn his line in the sand, he is now distraught at the reaction of those he would have punished, if he could.

I have no pity for him.

These are “elitist insurgents,” as Broder puts it - since when do they care about bankruptcy?

Yeah, nobody cares about bankruptcy more than the elites.

You make an important point about getting beyond "the checklist." But even before you get there, I noticed something that might bear a second look:

For women, it’s all about “preserve abortion rights.” There are a couple others, but those are the basic buttons you press to be credentialed as a good liberal Democrat. After you press them, you can do whatever you want.

So when Joe seemingly stretches "do whatever you want" to encompass actually eroding those reproductive rights (as he did with his opposition to making emergency contraception available to all rape victims), how should people who care about this issue respond?

And how does Joe fail to comprehend that he is losing our support now?

Sheila in CT

The second reason is that Lamont supporters actually aren’t ideologues. They aren’t looking for the party to be more liberal on traditional dimensions. They’re looking for it to be more of a party. They want to put issues on the table that don’t have an interest group behind them - like Lieberman’s support for the bankruptcy bill -- because they are part of a broader vision. And I think that’s what blows the mind of the traditional Dems.

You nailed it.
The irony of course is that this is exactly the kind of political approach that Broder et all approve of - principled politics. Except they are so wrapped up in their 1970s worldview that they're convinced that Liberals/Democrats are incapable of such an approach. The past blinds them.

I am willing to give them a term to use free of charge: Movement Liberals and Movement Liberalism. As in "movement liberals are motivated by a vision of a just society, not the cultural wedge issues of the last thirty years, and they are looking for leaders who will lead the Democratic Party from a position of principled conviction rather than triangulators and checklist makers. Lamont, Dean and Reid fit the bill, Lieberman does not."
Gee, maybe I should get the pundits to pay me. LOL.

The thought occurred to me that the challange to Rep McKinney in the House is also about principles over check lists in that she is viewed as a hot button checklist candidate and local dems in Georgia are looking for better, more principled representation. Notice how this refutes the "netroots is a lefty purge of the center" viewpoint. McKinney is "left" but she is inacceptable because she puts herself above the party with her fringe positions and ruins our message to the American people, kind of like Liberman. Interesting.

"Checklist Liberalism" is dead.
Good riddence.

How can anyone in his/her right mind tell Lieberman to run on the environment, affirmative action and reproductive rights?

Voting for Cheney's energy bill (like Lieberman did) hurts the environment.

Holding contrary opinions from his party about affirmative action (as Lieberman did in the 1990's) is not a net plus for Lieberman, although I agree with Mark's analysis on the topic above.

Finally, his opinions on which rape victims should get the morning after pill and where they should get it tells me all I need to know about Lieberman's opinion on reproductive rights.

The reason he's not doing well in the primary is that he has done nothing to clearly identify himself as a Democrat in over a decade. Lieberman calls how he operates "bipartisanship". Everyone of import in his party (namely Democratic Connecticut voters) would call it "capitulation".

But how do you account for all of the reporters and pundits who cannot seem to get their (penetrating) minds around the idea that in a dynamic situation what might hold how (Lieberman's poll numbers in a 3 way race) will not necessarily be the case 10 days from now. Is there a test to weed out thinking humans that prevents intelligent life from entering the ranks of Main Stream Media? It would explain a lot.

Mark,

 This is one of the best bits of analysis I have read. I think that what you are saying ties in very nicely with what Kos and Howard Dean have been saying as well. We need our party back!

You have articulated why people are so eager to see Lieberman sent packing - He has been sabotaging efforts to build a party and to support his party. 

 Incidentally, this was also the problem with Bill Clinton.  Through his approach of triangulation, he ended up decimating the democratic party.  In order to triangulate, there has to be a democratic party. When triangulation was demonstrated to be successful, many dems went scrambling to be Clinton clones and left the party in a shambles.  Clinton was a very good president, but he, more than anyone, is responsible for the current sorry, confused state of the democratic party.

 Getting Lieberman out is a very important step towards rebuilding the party. People will think twice about triangulation after this.

This is what I think the party should be about (in addition to no dumbassed wars).

My own--completely speculative and undocumented--opinion is that a lot of these guys see those in power as "just like them." Folks like Russert, Matthews, and Safire come out of the political establishment, at a time when that establishment operated by certain conventions that applied even when applicaiton of those conventions might damage a political party.

Those conventions are obsolete, and became so as of Clinton's impeachment. The media and the government are now (and have been for the past several years) adverse, and the media has not yet, for whatever reason, awoken to that fact. Perhaps a prosecution or two under the espionage act will awaken them, and perhaps not.

Mark is quoted in CtG making this point.

(I)t is liberal group pluralism, the model of liberal advocacy under which all of us over 30 were raised that is finished.

It's certainly the case that for all his endorsements, there's no Joementum. When Boxer got ambushed on Joe's view that hospitals should be permitted to not dispense plan B contraception to rape victims (or anybody else), her response was first a lie (that he didn't take that position) and then pointing out that NARAL endorsed him.

The world is shifting under their feet, and they're a little dazed and confused. Part of the point is that NARAL endorsed Lieberman (and Chafee).

However, it may be the case that the sheer infusion of money may push Lieberman over the top. The stakes keep rising. They can't lose this one, and neither can the progressives.

In addition, of course, on the most important women's rights vote in two decades--the cloture vote on Alito--Lieberman was on the wrong side...

Being that I remember the work of real journalists, I don't waste my time on pretenders like Adam Nagourney. I expect a reporter who informs the public about what is going on, the facts, who takes the time to investigate what is going on behind the scenes and shares that with us as well. Journalistic standards and integrity are as alien to Nagourney as they are to his contemporaries in the MSM, and I'll include the rabid types that populate the blogs of both political extreme.. they confuse reporting with personal opinion and agenda.

Adam Nagourney, whose "I'm taking my ball and going home" answer to reporting political debates and the right wing media controlled Spin Alley that results afterwards is a prime example of the ignorance, the egotism and disconnect from reality of the neo-left. He announced that he was watching said debates from home in Washington on television and that he'd write a critique of them from there. He felt that the best way to combat the spin was to ignore it, and hope that it went away. Nagourney probably confuses the job of a political reporter for that of a fashion/music/film critic.. It wouldn't have occurred to him that the way to combat the effect of the Spin Alley was to actually be there and report on who was spinning what.. expose the reporters and political hacks by shining some light on them.. perhaps though Nagourney isn't so much interested in ending Spin Alley as he is in his own version of the same.

I still can't forget Nagourney's paean to Jeb Bush over his involvement in the Terry Shiavo case. "In a Polarizing Case, Jeb Bush Cements His Political Stature," read Nagourney's NY Times headline (March 25th, '05 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/politics/25jeb.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fS%2fSchiavo%2c%20Terri ), he assured his readers that Jeb's meddling isn't rooted in political calculation, rather it's his conviction and conscience, to quote:

"Several associates noted that he has been devoutly religious longer than President Bush, and even critics said his efforts--prodding the Florida Legislature and the courts and defying much of the electorate--were rooted in a deep-seated opposition to abortion and euthanasia rather than in political positioning."

Well, that's what "associates" are expected to say. Of course, those who are loyal to Jeb Bush are going to testify to his good faith, just as Andy Card et al tell us what a conscientious, thoughtful executive Dubya is. To say otherwise would be to risk banishment. As for the "critics" who amen those sentiments, who are they? Name one, Nagourney. Surely there must be at least ONE quotable "critic" of Jeb Bush in the entire state of Florida who thinks that he's riding the Schiavo story for political gain as far as it can carry him.

And it's really just marvelous how things turn out so neatly for Jeb. Nagourney first assures us Jeb isn't doing this for political advantage, then a paragraph or so later writes,

"The governor now certainly has a place, if he wants it, as a prime contender in what is shaping up as a fight to represent a conservative wing that has proved increasingly dominant."

Only a moron could be gullible enough to think that a career politician, which is what Jeb Bush is, takes a stand without any thought of future advantage and just happens to receive political advantage anyway 'cause that's kind of how things work out. That a politican becomes "a prime contender" by accident or caprice. (It's opposing the religious right that would be the disadvantageous stance to take in the Rovian Republican Party, which every future Republican candidate damn well knows.) So how come Nagourney was so blind about Jeb, and yet he suddenly has the consciousness to recognize what he didn't in the Shrub's brother?

Adam Nagourney really ought to be writing for Tiger Beat. Because only a groupie with a byline could write of Jeb Bush's posturing in the Schiavo story,

 "The events of recent days have fed the mystique of Mr Bush as a reluctant inheritor of perhaps America's most famous dynasty since the Adams family two centuries ago."

Only a cringe inducing, starry-eyed hack could use the word "mystique" about an uninspired lump of political dough like Jeb Bush, and describe him as "a reluctant inheritor," as if Jeb would really rather be in Taos fulfilling his dream of becoming a watercolorist. You don't become governor of Florida and rig things to help your brother become president because your soul is Hamlet-torn... what is Nagourney smoking?

"Still, several Republcans said that while Mr. Bush might be ignoring any political calculations in a case that has etched grief on his face, it..."

Stop right there.. take a gander at the footage of Jeb Bush's recent press conferences and the more casual meeting with reporters over the Schiavo case, and I defy you to find ANYthing "etched" on his smooth, round face, much less grief. The most you can say is he looks a little tired, which is understandable given how long this circus has dragged out. But there are no Lincolnesque dry rivulets ravaging his countenance, contributing haunted shadows to his cement "stature."

It would have been bad enough if the Times had run this slop under the headings of "Political Notes" or "Reporter's Notebook," but it's splashed on page one as a straight political story.

If this is what Mark Schmitt bases his latest bit of opinion on, then I have a dead parrot I'd like to sell him as merely shagged out as the result of a prolonged squawk or perhaps pining for the Fjords! BTW Mr. Schmtt, "checklist journalism" just translates to single issue politics", something yourself and Adam Nagourney are rather guilty of yourselves.. nice try but no cigar. The attempt at spinning Clinton falls flat on it's face, as he wouldn't have written women off as single issuees who care only about abortion.. that remark has arrogant leftist written all over it. Clinton has his faults, but he understood that "women" wasn't a generic term to be used so narrowly.

The cloture vote was regarding ending the filibuster, which could have resulted in the right wing controllers of the senate to end senators ability to filibuster anything in future. Joe Lieberman voted against Alito becoming a judge on the SCOTUS.

Lincoln Chafee voted the same way Lieberman did regarding cloture and NARAL, Planned Parenthood and NOW still are endorsing him.. so apparently they disagree with you..

BTW, choice isn't the "most important women's rights vote" not now, nor was it two decades ago.. it's an important issue, but frankly it pales by comparison to other more crucial issues.

Elections are about ideas and personalities, and how each candidate is able to present each to prospective voters in the political marketplace.

Lieberman is losing the contest of both because: 1) his views are out of touch with the majority of Democrats; and 2) he cannot acknowledge that not only have his policy positions proven to be ineffective, but even more importantly, that the people who disagree with him are at least as principled as he thinks he is, if not more so.

The result is a candidate who has become an anachronism, if not an anathema, to Democratic voters on all sides of the ideological spectrum.

I thought we heard it more first here, but you're right. You were much more first.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

This truly merits the "excellent" rating. I'd give it a 5 if I could.

Please consider re-posting this as a full blog entry. This is a way of thinking about the political spectrum I hadn't previously considered, and I find it very compelling.

It's the end of the Democratic Party as we know it, and I feel fine.

Mark Schmitt has been spot on, consistently, with his commentary on the Lieberman implosion. Whether or not Joe squeezes out a narrow victory in this primary, the proverbial die has been cast. The era during which the American center-left is defined by narrow, self-serving interest group politics is finally drawing to a close.

This is a very important, but dangerous moment in the history of the Democratic Party. Establishment figures and even neutral observers are scrambling to explain what's going on in Connecticut, and as a result they are likely to latch on to the narrative currently being provided by the right-wing talking point militia: the scary Radical Left is taking over the party and knifing a principled centrist in the back. The fact that every single word of that explanation is a lie does not matter. What matters is that this narrative is drowned out, or at minimum equally balanced, by an accurate narrative that will be understood and appreciated by the majority of Americans who are unhappy with the direction this country is headed in.

The sheer madness of the mainstream narrative regarding this campaign is striking. Up is down. Left is right. A grassroots movement composed almost entirely of educated adults who work outside of politics is being described as a mob of "elitist insurgents". Elitist? Elitist as opposed to what? A career politician who has completely lost touch with his constituents? The powerful network of Republican insiders, lobbyists, bureaucrats, contractors, and consultants who designed and implemented the failed policies of the Bush Administration? If we're the elites, then are the energy industry executives, banking titans, scions of multimillion dollar estates, politically-connected megachurches, and Bush Pioneers a bunch of long-suffering proles?

And since when does a contested primary election, with the outcome decided by rank and file voters, constitute an "insurgency?" Where I come from, we used to call that "democracy."

I adopted the nom de guerre of "LaFollette Progressive" primarily as an inside joke, because my name happens to be LaFollette. But I have also generally preferred the label "progressive" rather than a "liberal" because the former term describes a political movement driven by principles, whereas the latter term has come to connote cynical interest group checklist politics.

To see the development of something that might be accurately termed a "liberal movement," as Northern Observer called it earlier in this thread, is a beautiful thing. But it's bound to be frightening for many Democrats in Washington who have not yet grasped that this movement is not driven by a simplistic desire to move the Democratic Party to the "Left." It's driven by a large number of ordinary Americans who want to rescue a country which is tilting dangerously to the Right. There is plenty of room within the Democratic Party for moderates and even conservatives who reject the economic elitism, cultural extremism, and militant myopia of the modern Republican Party. But there is no room in this party for those who want to push a few liberal buttons during the campaign and then cozy up to the Republican establishment on the most important issues of the day.

Not quite, the majority of democrats voted for the filibuster, a group of 14 senators of which Lieberman and Chafee were members got together to avoid a filibuster in this instance. Why not trying to get the point?

Am I the only one who finds it incredibly ironic that David Broder would refer to ANYONE as "elitist"?

Mary
When his vote would have counted, Lieberman supported Alito.
Did you know that the NARAL chapter of CT has split with the national organization over Lieberman? The people who (used to) support special interest groups are rejecting the incumbency protection strategy.
It's nice of you to declare, from the legal and (I'm willing to bet) economic security of Rhode Island, that choice "pales by comparison to other more crucial issues". When some poor woman in South Dakota throws herself down a flight of stairs in an attempt to trigger a miscarriage for a baby she can't afford, maybe because her husband was killed or mutilated in Iraq, I'm sure she'll take great comfort in your certainty and complacency.

This is very well written. It should be published at every democratic and liberal website on the net.

The media and the government are now (and have been for the past several years) adverse, and the media has not yet, for whatever reason, awoken to that fact.

They have always been adversarial - as early as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.  See American Aurora,  a great book about the press in the early republic.

What the trio you mentioned and others have not quite come to grips with is the the current administration's successful defanging of all the "media" by stealth (secrecy) and support of its own establishment media structure (press, radio and television, think tanks and the rest) melding it all with Republican Party agenda politics.  Political or not the trio keeps recalling their own antiquated experiences on the Hill or in the WH and hasn't a clue about how to outsmart much out maneuvre the Bushies in media matters.

So... the whole point is to preserve Filibusters for the Republicans?

I don't know. It strikes me that the whole crisis over the nuclear option threat is an example of Democratic weakness and chickenshittery, of which Lieberman is a prime example.

Threatened with the nuclear option, which was possibly a bluff, the Democrats surrendered yet again. It's not at all clear that the nuclear option would have succeeded. It certainly is not clear that the Republicans would have wanted to eliminate a parliamentary tactic, an elimination which could have come back and bit them on the ass.

Instead, of standing up, the Democrats rolled over without so much as a bleat. And then they celebrate their lack of courage?

The point of backing down on the nuclear option initially was to save the Filibuster for the big ticket item, the absolutely unacceptable supreme court nomination.

That unacceptable supreme court nomination showed up in the form of Alito.

The Republicans were weak, the guy was a nutbar...

And Lieberman stood up and lead the Democrats surrender.

Is it any wonder that the Democratic party has earned such contempt from both the Republicans, from the Right wing, and from its own constitutencies?

So, forgive me for not lauding the clever political maneuvering which seems to amount to 'surrender now in exchange for victory of an undefined nature at some undefined point in the indefinite future!!!'

Lieberman, sadly, is on the firing line because he represents the worst impulses in the Democratic party.

"Lieberman voted against the bankruptcy bill"

...and the gloves didn't fit OJ.

"Elitist" is Gooperspeak for "smart". It's their way of demonizing intelligence. That's why they could claim with a straight face that John Kerry was an elitist while Chimpy wasn't -- in the sense they use the word, they're right.

"If the Dems don't alienate moderate voters in November (how could they do that, I wonder?) "

presumably, since they have lost just about everything in the last ten years they should avoid radical campaigns (like Kerry-Edwards and Gore-Lieberman, maybe induce Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman to play a more prominent role in defining themselve nationally, listen to the idea-people at DLC,and name The New Republic as the official mouthpiece of the party. Great IDEAS. Why haven't we ever tried such good advice in the past (I wonder). I think David Brooks and Ken Mehlman have been giving Dems the same advice and those guys are pretty smart; the Republicans keep winning; we should listen to these guys when they tell us how to win.

But there is no room in this party for those who want to push a few liberal buttons during the campaign and then cozy up to the Republican establishment on the most important issues of the day.

So are you proposing somekind of Litmus Test for democrats?  Is Harry Reid going to face a primary challenge since he is pro-life?  How about Joe Biden for supporting the RW's Bankruptcy Bill?  There are many democrats who can be accused of treason against the party for supporting positions advocated by the RW.  How are "the most important issues of the day" defined and who defines them?

Does the Congressional Record say that the gloves didn't fit? If not, I don't see your point.

Actually, Joe Lieberman was doing a good job of scoring high on liberal checklists while still undercutting liberal positions. For example, if NARAL wants a judicial nominee defeated, they foolishly count the final vote (where Joe voted on the "right" side) while ignoring the vote that really mattered, the cloture vote, where by joining the gang of 14, Joe ensured that George Bush can have any Supreme Court justice that he wants, unless Republicans object, as happened with Harriet Myers.

Lieberman pulled the same trick on the bankruptcy bill that he did with the Alito nomination: he voted with the Republicans on the preliminary votes, the ones that mattered, and he voted with the Democrats on the final vote, when defeat for the Democratic side was already assured. The general public can be fooled on such matters, but the activists know better these days.

The main way that the Democrats can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is by making so many compromises and speaking so weakly that people disgusted with the way things are going get too discouraged to vote. The Republicans know that the way to increase turnout is to energize their base. Moderate Democrats like yourself think that the way Democrats can win is by being Republican-lite.

The Supreme Court currently has four votes for presidential dictatorship. If George Bush gets one more nominee, we may well need the filibuster to save the Republic.

The litmus test is much narrower.

A Democrat who regularly goes onto Fox News and the Hannity show for the purpose of denouncing fellow Democrats is going to be voted out.

I no longer support groups like NARAL, Sierra Club, Campaign for Human Rights which endorse GOP and GOP-lite enablers who then set back the single-issue as well as every other issue I care about. These groups actually DO harm.

This whole "litmus test" meme is a red herring. Yes, a party needs to be inclusive of somewhat differing voices with differing constituencies from different parts of the country. But there are positions, or more correctly combinations of positions, which can clearly disqualify someone from a atually being a member of a party, no matter what they like to call themselves. There are also public statements, regardless of the particular position, which clearly give aid and comfort to one's opponents. Whatever your position, that is politically unforgiveable. How is it defined? By the members of the party and their constituents, of course. How is it expressed? Well, a primary seems a really good way of doing that to me.

That is why a Lamont victory, and a decisive one, is so important.

No, the entire point of Schmitt's article, and my response, is that the Democratic Party should NOT define itself by litmus tests on hot-button liberal issues. That leads to a politics of "pushing buttons" and collecting interest group endorsements, not to a principled movement.

If this was not already clear, then let me make myself clear. I believe the Democratic Party is, and ought to be, an organization defined by its own members. The decision about whether Joe Lieberman ought to be the Democratic Senate candidate from Connecticut should be made by Connecticut Democrats, based on what they believe to be important.

If I were one of them, which I am not, I would oppose Lieberman because he has explicitly sided with the administration-sanctioned stay-the-course position on Iraq and very explicitly attacked his fellow Democrats for questioning the President's decisions. I'm willing to forgive single-issue heresy, but I'm not inclined to forgive one who gets the issues I care about most dead wrong, implicitly questions my patriotism, then expects to win back my support by touting his interest group endorsements.

Personally, I'd at least think twice about voting for any candidate who supported the bankruptcy bill or opposed abortion rights. But I try to consider a candidate's voting record and public image on the whole and take into consideration the fact that all politicians need to serve their own constituents. I'd rather have a pro-life Democrat out West than, say, Ted Stevens. I'd rather have a pro-MBNA Democrat in Delaware than a pro-MBNA Republican, which are probably the only two realistic options. But Connecticut Democrats don't owe Joe Lieberman anything. He owes his career to their support. And they don't need to support the worst type of neocon foreign policy fantasist on the grounds that he dutifully follows the interest group script on other issues.

Your point was absolutely clear, it just wasn't persuasive.

It was absolutely and categorically unconvincing. It was a tired and hackneyed talking point, representing a superficial outlook, in order to justify an act of political cowardice.

Your position is premised on certainties which did not exist, on a course of proceedings which was far from guaranteed.

I offer the following response:

1) The 'gang of 14' deal was predicated on a quid pro quo that the Democrats would not use the Filibuster unless they deemed it vital, and if the Democrats deemed it vital, the Republican members would then oppose a move to terminate the filibuster.

2) Alito was definitely an extremist, this was the classic situation envisioned by the 14, so, the Democrats already having held up their end of the deal with appellate nominations, were in a good position to demand the Republican members of the gang hold up their end.

3) The 'Miers' controversy also worked for the Democrats in legitimizing their right to oppose 'unacceptable' candidates by any means, including Filibuster. The Republicans on the gang of 14 would be in an awkward position arguing that Alito was entitled to an up and down vote when Miers was not. Certainly Republicans were not in a position to argue Alito's moderation.

4) So, the Democrats had reasonable expectations that the republicans of the gang of fourteen would comply with *the deal that they had made.* Certainly they had the right to insist upon that deal.

5) If the Democrats had no faith in Republican integrity (not a leap), then they could have put faith in Republican self interest. It was in the Republican's self interest to preserve the Filibuster for their own use. Thus, at least a few critical Republicans would arguably not have supported the 'nuclear option.'

6) The nuclear option itself was not a foregone conclusion. The change in parliamentary procedure would have required 60 votes, which the Republicans did not have. They had come up with an arcane and unproven technical theory which might have worked... Or it might not. The matter was at best a speculative threat. 'I might have a gun, the gun might have bullets.'

7) The Democrats had their own nuclear option, in the form of threats of technical or procedural moves which could have made life a lot harder in Congress. In short, they had firepower of their own, even if they were the underdogs. The Republicans in similar underdog situations never hesitated to let loose with that firepower, and used it to good effect.

8) The 'nuclear option' fight would not have been about a technicality unimportant to the American people, but it would have and could have been presented as a battle over putting an absolute lunatic on the Supreme Court. Would the Republicans really have wanted to put 'Strip Search Sammy' with his conflicts of interest, ideological rantings, borderline racism, etc., up for a protracted period as a national poster boy for their cause?

In short, the Democrats were unwilling to stand up for their principles, they were unwilling to demand that Republicans hold to their deals, they were unwilling to challenge a goofy procedural technical theory, they were unwilling to stand their ground or threaten back, and they were unwilling to call the bluff.

And for what? Preserving the filibuster for Republicans? Preserving the filibuster for that ill defined, entirely speculative, completely hypothetical day when the Democrats win just enough seats to remain in the minority but close the door on the nuclear option and face an even more lunatic Supreme Court appointment, or some more egregious infringement on civil liberties or war at will.

And when will that day be? As I understand the technical procedural reasoning behind the 'nuclear option' all you need to eliminate the Filibuster is 50 senate votes, maybe 51 and a ruling from the Vice President. In such a case, any Democratic minority, even 49 or 50 senate seats would leave the nuclear option on the table.

I suppose you could argue that if it was that close, then moderate Republicans would take the field. But isn't that what the 'gang of fourteen' deal was about? And if the Democrats had no faith in the 'moderate' Republicans then, where there was an *actual quid pro quo Agreement* in place... what will give them confidence in the absence of such a deal in a more polarized house?

Or your notion is that a Dem Presidency could take the nuclear option off the table for the Republicans... but so what? A Dem President hopefully would not be nominating right wing nutbars and he could veto offensive legislation, so preserving the Filibuster until this point would not offer any particular advantage, compared to the advantages already enjoyed in that situation.

And of course, a democratic majority would take the nuclear option off the table... but then, they wouldn't need it any more. They'd be a majority. At that point, they might want to exercise the nuclear option.

I'm sorry, it's not that I don't understand and appreciate your argument. It is that your argument is not persuasive, it is without merit, it's bankrupt. Your argument amounts to 'run away now... and maybe possibly fight some other day.' It's just an ad hoc, after the fact, justification for moral cowardice and failure of leadership.

Well, sometimes you just have to throw down and fight. All too often, running away becomes a way of life.

I appreciate the fact that you tried to make your position clear, because you had some idea that I might not fully understand it.

I hope that I have made my position clear.

As long as Democrats embrace the values of failure, cowardice and surrender, they're probably not going to amount to much.

It seems Joe's supporters (that is a bit of a misnomer since clearly most people voting for Lieberman, as his vocal backers in the DLC and New Republic (and here) have wisely noted are actally voting against the dangerous influence of the unwashed, antiwar, left-crazy, blogger-brainwashed, unpatriotic rabble) have the same problem dealing with disaffected voters that Joe himself has.

"Lieberman's "crimes" have not been in his votes,"
In fact to a Lieberman supporter (err, Lamont-basher) Lieberman doesn't have any crimes, maybe an error or two in not being as hypocritical as the unwashed,etc, (see above) seem to require. I always love when people tell me why I do something; Marc R knows me better than I do. I thought I opposed Lieberman for what he DID and what he SUPPORTED and OPPOSED. I now understand myself so much better. Just think what the party could do with the talent and wisdom of Marc R. We could have not only Lieberman but Marc R both insulting the Democratic base; what a winning duet.

With respect Libertine, if you were being as "consistent" as you want the anti-Lieberman, pro-Lamont crowd to be, at this point you would be switching over to Lamont. It is now clear even to you, how divisive Lieberman is and how he, (not his opponents as you in the past have asserted (with the intelligence of garden slugs as I recall)) has weakened the Democratic Party in Connecticut by opening deep fissures. If you really value "consistency" as you have stated over and over again, I think it is quite clear that new leadership in the Dem Party in Connecticut is essential. As Reed Hundt has pointed out very persuasively in his "Predictions" thread, if Lieberman wins, he will be still more fractious, and more supportive than ever of the Republican rightwing agenda.

Looks like the party of one option is a GO for Lieberman.

Actually, democratic women, including more moderate women have been criticizing NOW, NARAL and PP for years now because those organizations have insisted that there are only a few issues important enough to matter.. the enabling conduct of those orgs has consisted of their willingness to sell out poor women, to get weak promises from republicans, as a means of attempting to blackmail demcorats. Ever since Kim Gandy took over NOW, this has been going on.

Talk to me when the CT state chapter cares about less affluent women's rights to have access to all forms of health care, workplace protection and rights, and other issues that are important to those who live below the glass ceiling.

"some of you"

well, we all think alike, and since you post here, you must think just like everyone else here, so you're LOLing at yourself...or something.

I didn't see the hearing in question, but my own long-distance impression of Chaffee is that he's a nice young man (a few years older than me, but that doesn't really register) in way over his head, filling his filial duty to a dead father, who himself was voting Republican because his own father was one, and at some point in history, Lincoln won the war.

it's some here who are exagerating and even outright lying about him.

So... Joe didn't denounce fellow Democrats for opposing the war? Joe didn't give the administration a pass on the torture issue? Joe didn't vote for cloture on Alito? Joe didn't vote for cloture on the bankruptcy bill? Joe didn't give Michael Brown a blow job for the FEMA nomination? Joe didn't make his 'rape gurney' comment? Joe didn't wobble on social security?

I'm not seeing a lot of lies or exagerations Mary. The problem that Joe had lies directly with his actions and his words.

As much as I wanted a filibuster, I can understand pragmatism and the reason the gang of 14 wanted to take the long look on the issue... probably because I care about all the issues, not just one or two.

But the trouble is, Mary, that the filibuster argument just doesn't wash. Moreover, even if you are allowed to take your view on it... other peoples views who just happen to disagree with you are just as legitimate. Other people care about all the issues. You are denouncing your opponents even as you climb up on your pedestal. That's hardly cricket.

There are very legitimate reasons to be critical of Lieberman for voting for cloture on Alito, which was the only vote that counted. If Lieberman was really principled, he could have voted against cloture. Sorry, that's all it comes down to.

random attacks on Lamond...

Sorry Mary, but that doesn't address the shortcomings and problems that Lieberman has. Lamont is a contender because Lieberman has been so bad. Surely you can appreciate that there are honest and genuine concerns, even distaste, with his performance.

From what I see, Lieberman, who receives high marks on women's rights, the environment, worker's rights stands head and shoulders above Lamont.

Really? I don't see Lieberman's performance on women's rights being all that sterling. Surely his 'rape gurney' comment weighs against him, as does his support of Alito. Frankly, Mary, apart from game playing in the Senate, racking up the right votes where it won't mean anything, I think that Alito has been bad for the environment, bad for worker's rights, bad for women's rights, bad for minorities, bad for everyone...

What you don't appreciate is that this is all about Lieberman being called to account for his conduct. Instead of his defenders offering up reasonable and principled arguments on his behalf, we receive a cavalcade of exuses, bleatings and cat hisses.

Hardly persuasive.

What I believe is that he's just a handpicked stalking horse.. a straw man

At this point, as we hear angry mutterings about shadowy conspiracies, stalking horses and straw men, it strikes me that black helicopters and gray space aliens are not too far off.

And so, to the theme of the twilight zone, I'll end this response to Mary's comment.

doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo

Re:  Senator Lieberman

I take the holistic view.  I do not love him.  I'd vote for him if forced, but I do not love him.  I probably could tell the reasons, though.  :-)

Mike

Yowza!! Where to begin with this incoherent screed?

**" if you're looking for "purity""

I'm not, I'm looking for, first and foremost, a reality-based candidate, not someone who says Iraq is going great because he saw lots of TV satellite as he was being helicoptered from BIA to the Green Zone, because he'd probably be killed in a car on Route Irish.
I want someone who thinks Abu Grahib was a "big deal", as JoMo said it wasnt' when he was defending his good friend, Donald Rumsfeld.
I want someone who won't go on the floor of the Senate and make a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

**"it's the same one some on the left took to help facillitate Bush's getting into the white house.. and they have as much blood on their hands as any right wing nut."

I assume you're referring to Gore and Nader? to compare Lieberman to Gore is an insult to Gore, and don't bring up 2000, maybe you haven't noticed, but things have changed. And you're comparing Lamont to Nader? I thought Lamont was a greedy capitalist, now he's a wild-eyed leftist? Make up your mind, hon.
And following your logic that Nader supporters have "as much blood on their hands as any right wing nut"...um...you do know that Lieberman has supported invading Iraq since before 9/11, right? and that he has been a supporter and apologist of every decision this administration had made? So, again according to you, Lieberman has blood on his hands. And yet you support him. Interesting.

**"People make decisions on what mutual funds and money market accounts because they know what the high earners are.. Lamont is no different."

Well, Joe owns at least one mutual fund that is heavily invested in Halliburton and GE, so you lose that one too. And do you know what Hadassah does for a living? She's a Big Pharma lobbyist (which job I'm sure she would have if she were married to, say, a school-teacher, right?) So the Liebermans also profit off of sick people.

**"If you can rationalize Nagourney's ass kissing to Jeb Bush, while excoriating Lieberman about his cloture vote, despite knowing that he voted AGAINST Alito (and everyone knew that the dems didn't have enough votes to keep Alito out of the court anyway"

You see a parallel between a political reporter sucking up to a politician and an elected Senator taking a dive on a nomination he supposedly opposes that I don't, but I guess logic isn't really your "thing", as the kids say.
As for the Dems not having the votes to keep Alito off the court, you're right there, because Lieberman, leader of the Democratic half of the fourteeners, announced early on that he wouldn't support a filibuster. So maybe if we get rid of Lieberman, we'll have the votes to stop the next Alito. John Paul Stevens is 85, and Ann Coulter, who like you is a Lieberman fan, is openly advocating his assassination.

Don't thank me, I'm glad I could help you work through your muddled thinking.

I agree with you that failing to standup to the assorted Democratic groups although I think bloggers are just one more of those groups. However, while the Iraqi War maybe what is doing Lieberman in it was Lieberman's disloyal and priggish denouncing of Bill Clinton on the floor of the Senate over Monica Lewinsky that led lots of Democrats to start looking for the exit for him.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Nice!

"Vote for the Democratic vision of a just society".

So... the whole point is to preserve Filibusters for the Republicans?

The GOP really made out like bandits on the judicial filibuster issue. They got their candidates confirmed and kept the judicial filibuster alive for a rainy day.
With any luck that rainy day will come in '09 with a Democratic Senate and a Dem in the White House. But then the GOP will use the filibuster to block any nominee who is the slightest bit left of center (as the GOP defines the center). Then the Dems will have to chose between reviving the nuclear option (it would be interesting to see the GOP rhetorical gymnastics as they try to disavow having created it) or live with a court which is skewed way to the wrong (at least until Scalia and Thomas cease to disgrace the court by their presence).

"By the way, the bankruptcy bill point is quite a stretch. First, Lieberman voted against the bankruptcy bill"

Its not a stretch at all. What Lieberman, this alleged man of principle, did with the bankruptcy bill was an act of total hypocricy.

He voted for the bankruptcy bill when it mattered, by voting to end the filibuster, and then voted against it when it did not matter because the votes to pass it were there. With this manouver he could keep the credit card companies who were giving him campaign contributions happy while deceiving too many of the people, like the poster above, into thinking he opposed it.

The nuclear option was not an issue in the filibuster against this bill, since the nuclear option was only going to be used to stop filibusters against judicial appointments.

"a group of 14 senators of which Lieberman and Chafee were members got together to avoid a filibuster in this instance"

Exactly why BOTH of them should be defeated.

you lack any and all understanding....

... You've not had to suffer, had it too easy....

...Your sense of history ends at the tip of your nose...

...learn about how your ignorance and indifference could reach around and bite you in the ass.

Well, since you don't know me and since we've never met, I'm quite surprised at your judgement of my nose.

I must say, I resent your attack upon my person and character. In particular, I note that I had a lengthy post setting out the particulars of my argument. You chose not to respond to the argument in any way, but merely to attack me.

I really don't think it's in anyone's interests that you should be going down this road. I don't think that it is in your interests.

This sort of thing could get you banned. Or it could result in me eventually becoming unpleasant towards you. I don't think we want to see that.

If you would care to defend Alito and his worthiness or acceptability for the position of Supreme Court Justice... well, go right ahead, we'll discuss that. I've staked my position out on Alito and can argue it forcefully.

Perhaps you would be willing to discuss the impact that Alito will and has had in pulling the Supreme Court further to the extreme right.

If you have some dispute or argument over the nature of the nuclear option, please set it out. Feel free to explain how MarcR is correct and that a shift of one or two seats will theoretically take the nuclear option off the table.

If you have some notion that differs from my statements as to the nature of the compromise or arrangement by the Gang of 14, then hold forth.

I have a very good grasp of history. And facts. I rather like facts.

The driving force for this movement came from outside of CT, by people who wouldn't have known Ned Lamont from a hole in the wall until he was pointed out by their unlikely ally, Lowell Weicker.

Soooo.... where do the black helicopters enter into it. It's all a deep dark liberal-communist-islamofascist conspiracy?

doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo, doo doo

But then, what are we to make of this?

The way I see it people looked at the polling numbers in CT, realized that Joe could be taken out because of the strong anti-war sentiment in CT

So.... the sheeplike Connecticut voters hated Joe, but were going to keep on voting for him until the end of time... until the conspiracy came along?

doo doo doo doo

Lieberman has been far from perfect but so are the vast majority of all democratic politicians.

How many Democratic politicians go on Fox news and chum around with Sean Hannity? How many Democratic politicians go around denouncing their fellow Democratic politicians? How many Democratic politicians accuse Americans of treason for not supporting the President and his war? How many Democratic politicians are openly delusional about Iraq?

Sounds to me like there's a whole passel of them...

Or maybe not. Maybe Lieberman really is special?

All I see is the left wing of the Democratic Party deciding it was better to take on the moderate wing of the party at a time when it would have been perfect to go after the repugs

How is Lieberman the 'moderate' wing of the party?

And given Lieberman's propensity for attacking those in the party to the left of him (everyone), how is it that said people don't have the right to fight back and defend themselves by attacking Lieberman?

It seems to me that you're defending Lieberman's right to take potshots, but you're claiming that people can't take shots back?

Don't work that way.

Disagreeing with you is not a venial sin.

If you to put up a post muttering darkly about outside forces conspiring to manipulate the gullible voters of Connecticut who would otherwise never translate their antipathy to Lieberman's views into votes...

Well, expect it to be mocked. I'd be mocked. Josh would be mocked.

I would also suggest that if you put up a post containing obvious untruths or mischaracterizations, then expect them to be challenged... Or present me with a couple of dozen Democrats who appear regularly on Hannity.

As well, I'd ask you not to mischaracterize those who disagree with Lieberman. Opposition to the war. Those who opposed the war were not all 'left wingers.' It was not a reflexive left wing pacifism. Many people, including the senior Bush and his former advisors had reservations about Iraq. A majority of American people, hardly some 'lefty minority' have reservations about Iraq. Your notion of a 'left wing' launching a purge against a 'moderate' is an inaccurate and possibly dishonest narrative...

Now, feel free to stick around and post your heart out. But if you're going to join the rough and tumble, then make better arguments.

Okay, cool. So.... how do we clamp down on Lieberman in the Senate? How do we enforce party discipline on him? In what way can the Democratic party provide Lieberman with a disincentive to behave as he does?

Let's assume that he is not bothered by Democratic disproval, since he has no problem slagging his fellow Democrats.

What are the tools?

I might have believed that once, but the issues are too vital to the future of our children today. It matters whether you are for WWIII or against it.

Well, maybe if the Democrats had bothered to listen to the Naderites and had a bit more courage to speak out on issues like global warming instead of courting a bunch of bubbas that didn't vote for them anyway, they might have won.

I have declared my independence anyway. Chuck Hagel made more sense today on the war issue than anything coming from any Democrat. These are perilous times. War is my issue and I will vote it.

Doesn't that ignore the fact that both Gore and Kerry ran absolutely terrible campaigns?

Let's face it. Gore was a two term incumbent VP with a very successful record, coming off an extremely successful Presidential administration and a thriving economy. And yet a podunk retard with a silver spoon ran rings around him. Do we want to chronicle all of Gore's endless mistakes? One of the worst of Gore's mistakes, arguably, was Lieberman himself. But that's neither here nor there. The bottom line was that Gore should have had a commanding lead... but he blew it.

And Nader was absolutely right when he claimed that Bush and Gore were the same. Both men staked out the same ideological ground of being 'centre right.' The difference would not become apparent until after the election when Bush went wacky right. But during the election, Gore was unable to distinguish himself ideologically from Bush.

As for Kerry, what can we say? Stiff, wooden, inept, slow. The Swift Boat people made more impact than Dean, and did far more damage. Kerry fumbled every issue, plodded his way through, and disappointed everyone who wanted to believe in them. Despite Bush being the most radical President in generations, Kerry refused to challenge him, and had a hard time distinguishing himself.

The way I see it people looked at the polling numbers in CT, realized that Joe could be taken out because of the strong anti-war sentiment in CT and decided it was time to go after Joe.

Ned Lamont decided to run when Joe Lieberman said that Americans should not question their President's decisions in a time of war (the war here being the GWOT that has no foreseeable end in sight in our lifetimes).

The NYT actually said it quite well.

If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.

Right, cause JoMo 2006 is just like Gore in 2000.

This isn't a very good argument, but you keep making it. And why is it so hard for you to admit that Lieberman votes with the Republicans when it counts? Who was the first Senator on the GOP's program during the Iraq withdrawal debate? Which Democrat do Bush and Cheney cite in their speeches? Which other Democrats have been endorsed by O'Reilly and Hannity? I've got a great big news flash for you: They don't admire his principled bipartisanship: They know what you refuse to admit: he's a useful idiot for their crazy neocon theocrat cause. And so are...well...a few other people.

Insults? I just saw people asking you to explain why it's okay for Lieberman to bash members of his own party, but not okay for members of that party to criticize Lieberman. Seems a reasonable question to me.