A Few Last Thoughts on Connecticut
Some random thoughts in the closing days:
First, is there a better expression of what I called “checklist liberalism” than Lieberman’s I-gave-at-the-office answer to George Stephanopoulos this morning, complete with the Rumsfeldian question-answer format?:
Lieberman: “Did I keep in touch with Democrats? You bet I did….I have the support of most of the key inner constituencies, advocacy groups within the Democratic Party : the AFL-CIO, the League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife, Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, Planned Parenthood PAC. They wouldn’t support me if I lost touch with them.”
Second, I want to comment on some bits of Dan Balz’s article, billed on the Washington Post website as “What A Lieberman Loss Would Mean.”
Balz’s unsurprising argument is that if Lieberman loses, it will increase the importance of the Iraq War in the 2008 Democratic primaries, and advantage candidates like Al Gore whose opposition has been stronger.
In contrast, Balz says, “many party moderates say they see worrisome parallels to what happened to the Democrats during Vietnam, when they opposed an unpopular war but paid a price politically for years after because of a perception the party was too dovish on national security.
“‘Candidates know they cannot appease [antiwar] activists if they are going to run winning national campaigns,’ said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute.”
Two comments on this: First, the 2008 primaries are seventeen months away. Balz projects a straight line from the way the issue breaks today to that point. And seems to take it for granted that we’ll still be embroiled in Iraq. But consider that at the time of the 2004 primaries, the war was less than one year old! By the time of the first primary votes in 2008, it will be almost five years of war. We’re now in the fourth year of the war; does anyone seriously think that by the sixth, absent some enormous change, that “antiwar activists” won’t be the vast majority of people? If the issue - the war - remains unchanged, the politics of it cannot remain unchanged.
This is why I’ve never been worried in the past about the “split” on Iraq among Democrats. I thought that by the time we got within sight of the 2008 primaries, either something dramatic would have happened to change things, or it would become completely obvious to everyone that withdrawal on a timetable was the only option. With David Broder and Tom Friedman now in the “cut and run” camp, with Senator Clinton standing up to Rumsfeld, that moment has almost come. And while the Lamont challenge may accelerate it somewhat among the more cautious politicians, it’s the reality, the fact that we are now in the middle of someone else’s civil war, that is driving everyone else to that consensus.
Also, I’m really tired of the Vietnam/Democrats analogy, in which the entire political history of Vietnam is reduced to McGovern’s loss in 1972. The real reason the Vietnam War divided and discredited Democrats and splintered the liberal consensus was because - let’s not be afraid to admit it -- Democrats started that war. Opposition to the war didn’t unify or define the party, it divided it. Nixon won the 1968 election because Humphrey was associated with the war, couldn’t split with LBJ, and Nixon promised - dishonestly -- to end it. The national security gap for Democrats first appeared in polls in 1967-68, because LBJ was held responsible for the war itself, not because they were associated with antiwar activists. (See this paper from the Truman Project for more.) And in the election after 1972, the 75+ Democrats who won congressional seats were overwhelmingly anti-war, a transforming fresh spirit in politics that dominated Congress for the next two decades. We can only hope that a new class of legislators elected on a wave of revulsion at the war and at corruption will be as skilled and resilient.
[See update below]
Third, I’ve been predicting for weeks that the Lieberman independent bid would amount to nothing, and that seems to now be the conventional wisdom, especially after Senator Frank Lautenberg suggested that if he did not come within 10 points of Lamont, he should drop the Party of One bid.
Politicians can be superficially supportive but also cruelly contemptuous toward colleagues who can’t take care of their own business. I think that some of the establishment figures have to be noticing that not only did Lieberman put himself in this situation, but he did absolutely nothing, at any point, to get himself out of it. From attacking Lamont, acting peevish and entitled, declaring the independent bid, refusing to say anything that would show any difference between his view of Iraq and Bush’s (even with George Stephanopoulos this morning he was mouthing the WH line that the only threat to a unified, stable Iraq was “the terrorists”), to finally trying a clumsy imitation of Lamont’s enthusiastic rallies, the only result of which was that the face of his campaign for a day was a loudmouth DC lobbyist who looked like an understudy for the “Billionaires for Bush” comedy troupe, Lieberman didn’t make one right move in six months. He doesn’t even seem to realize that if he denounces his opponent for voting with Republicans and calls him “center-right,” he can’t credibly also say, “That’s something that separates me from my opponent - I don’t hate Republicans.”
I was going to end this post with some attempt to figure out why it happened, but all explanation - such as that he doesn’t quite understand how politics has changed since the 1990s - seems inadequate to the magnitude of the flame-out. I think it’s possible that after the primary, unleashed from the obligation of being a checklist Democrat, Lieberman may emerge as a very, very conservative figure, one of those real neoconservatives (in the older sense of the word) whose main politics is to obsess over and recoil at what they see as the excesses of the left. Michael Barone is a good example of such a figure, and that way madness lies. I’m just speculating, but if that does occur, we’ll understand why he couldn’t run a plausible Democratic campaign in 2006: he couldn’t bring himself to.
[UPDATE: My comments on Vietnam have been interpreted, both in comments and by Kevin Drum, as a dismissal of the entire argument that Democrat's perceived weakness was a problem. It was a problem. When I said that I didn't think the history of the politics of Vietnam should be reduced to the 1972 election, that doesn't mean I'm writing the 1972 election out of history. It was one event, one factor. And there is no doubt that McGovern's "Come Home America" brand of liberal isolationism was not appealing, just as "a broadly dovish foreign policy" would not be politically successful or wise now. I am all for -- really all for -- Wesley Clark's prescription for engagement and Peter Beinart's and Joe Biden's and George Soros's. It is a call to engage the world with all of our power, soft power as well as hard.
But in the face of a war that was a huge mistake, that approach is also entirely compatible with an anti-war movement, some branches of which might be dovish and others more in the Clark/Friedman/Broder wing. An anti-war movement will have its J. William Fulbrights as well as its Abbie Hoffman's.
My only point is that the Vietnam analogy is as flawed as the Munich analogy because Vietnam broke up the Democratic coalition for particular reasons, because Dems bore first responsibility for the war. To say that "Dems were identified with the anti-war movement and therefore lost, therefore Dems should avoid the anti-war movement today" is flawed both in its premise and its conclusion.
Peter Beinart's book, which I've been critical of in other respects, covers the full scope of this history fairly well, particularly in resuscitating figures like Allard Lowenstein who were part of the anti-war movement but not "broadly dovish."
Thoughtful post.
August 6, 2006 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the best analyses I've read of the race, and the ramifications. I agree that win or lose, when the primary is over Lieberman is going to show his true face: anti-choice, neocon hawk, pro-religious fundamentalism in public life, etc.
He's forced himself to accomidate liberals in order to get elected in a blue state, but if he loses on Tuesday we'll see the Zell Miller side of him come out once and for all.
August 6, 2006 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your comments on the way that the politics of the Iraq War will shift between now and 2008 are exactly right. It's not Lamont-Lieberman that's going to drive it, it's the situation on the ground in Iraq and the slow way Americans become aware of it through the media filter.
It's one of the reasons why I, being a massive Edwards partisan, rejoiced back in 2005 when he rejected his previous pro-war vote and apologized for it. Even if he didn't get in on the IPO of antiwar stock, he was buying low and he'd be able to sell high when 2008 came around.
August 6, 2006 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to recall that Humphrey barely lost and probably wouldn't have if the Convention had been in July and not 10 weeks before the election and if he'd given the Salt Lake City speech and broken with Johnson a few weeks earlier.
Enough of this lefty peaceniks destroyed the Democratic Party DLC revisionist history!
Poll results: "In view of the developments since we entered the fighting in Vietnam, do you think the U.S. made a mistake sending troops to fight in Vietnam?" Yes-54% (9/26-10/1/1968)
August 6, 2006 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it’s possible that after the primary, unleashed from the obligation of being a checklist Democrat, Lieberman may emerge as a very, very conservative figure, one of those real neoconservatives (in the older sense of the word) whose main politics is to obsess over and recoil at what they see as the excesses of the left.
Indeed. Lieberman is a guy who has been undergoing a painfully extended coversion to total neocon wingnuttery. The primary will give him his chance to sever his last ties.
August 6, 2006 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm partial to Edwards myself. Shame we lost his Senate Seat.
He DID things in the Senate. Joe is pure status quo.
I'm sick of the status quo, and that's WHY I'm voting for Lamont on Tuesday
August 6, 2006 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Democrats started that war."
I think this is the big difference ignored by the talking heads. Democrats were on the defensive in 1968.
It is different this time. It is the GOP that will be on the defensive, if Democrats can stop acting like Lieberman and go on the offensive. This is Bush's war.
"establishment figures have to be noticing that not only did Lieberman put himself in this situation,"
I just don't understand Lieberman's strategy. This should have been an easy win for him. He was holding all the cards. All he had to do was start putting a distance between himself and Bush on Iraq and maybe a few other issues. Give a few speeches critical of Bush. Kinda like what Hillary has been doing. Lieberman would have defeated Lamont in a landslide.
Lieberman did not have to do a 180. He could have continued supporting the war. But he could have gone on Meet the Press, written op-eds demanding resignations and criticizing the Bush war strategy. He could have criticized Bush from the right. Instead he repeated "stay the course" message.
It is almost as if Lieberman wants to lose.
August 6, 2006 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least give Balz credit for finally confronting the elephant in the living room-- a lot of the people who support Lieberman do so because they are VERY afraid of a base that will demand a candidate who was either correct on the Iraq War (meaning who opposed it) or apologized for being wrong on it. And they view this through the lens of 1972, where McGovern had the correct position on the Vietnam War, which by 1972 was also the popular position, and lost the election big time to a candidate who trashed McGovern as weak on foreign policy and kept us in Vietnam another 2 years.
I can't say I share Schmitt's complete confidence that an anti-war candidate won't suffer the fate of McGovern. Remember, it's really easy for Rove et al. to paint the Democrats as weak on defense, and somehow that can override a sensible assessment of the particular war we are in and whether it is a good idea.
But what I can say is that for me, and I think for many other Democrats, the electoral calculation is secondary. The fact is, the Democrats should have stood up and opposed the Iraq War because it was a dumb idea and thousands of Americans were going to die in it, and it wasn't going to make the country safer. And what is infuriating about Lieberman and Hillary and a few others now is that even when it is obvious that the thing WAS a bad idea, they won't admit it; doing something to stop any more Americans from getting killed in Iraq is less important than saving their own face, not admitting they were wrong, and continuing to look "tough" on foreign policy.
The fact is, if the Democratic standard bearer in 2008 doesn't stand foursquare against this debacle, there's no point in having a Democratic Party. Having both candidates support the indefinite continuation of an idiotic war is simply unacceptable. That's the reason why I am not persuaded by the McGovern fear.
August 7, 2006 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
No offense Mark, but this is some pretty self serving revisionism.
If you read any news or publications about the Democratic party in the late 60's, about vietnam, about war protestors, about Eugene & Bobby, about Humphrey, you won't hear anybody saying "Because the Democrats' war is going so bad, Democrats are losing credibility on National Security" If the source of The Democratic parties woes on National Security "credibility", which remember, is usually defined by that age old poll question "Which party/candidate do you trust more to keep America safe" was that THEIR war was going bad, then how come this credibility dipped even further after the sad McGovern campaign, which no matter how annoying it's embarassment warped the fragile psyche of the party for years to come, can't just be written out of the narrative of the party just because it's inconvenient.
August 7, 2006 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, what were the poll numbers on that question in 1968? and in 1972?
August 7, 2006 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
McGovern lost for many reasons, primarily cultural ones -- that he was perceived as aligned with and representative of disturbing social trends -- civil rights (affirmative action and busing), feminism (ERA) and the questioning of knee-jerk nationalism (amnesty) and America's right to an imperium.
As well, he was left to hang out and dry by the Party's Old Guard and he himself made campaign mistakes.
McGovern's problems were those of 1972. Our problems today are different, and the results of the McGovern nomination and campaign are not particularly instructive.
August 7, 2006 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's it! Please, no more, "We're at war, just like World War II, Saddam = Hitler, Dems are Chamberlain, Bush = Churchill." No more, "Being against Iraq means you're a hippy, you're drugged, rioting at the draft board, screwing all kinds of people, or you're black and you're killing Whitey."
Has anybody noticed any of that actually happening in reality? Now? This is NOT 'like' anything of the sort.
In the '60s, not only was there "a dissident campaign," every single precept of Western society, good and bad, was being questioned. The whole society was falling apart, and the "silent majority" just wanted some place where the war would end only with honor, of course, and they could go back to the '50s, and Archie and Veronica and the kids and mowing the lawn. Well, that's what Nixon promised. Didn't happen, but that's what he promised.
I'm all in favor of being tough-nosed, realistic and pragmatic. But today's Democrat is a wimp -- not the idealists, the friggin' "realistic" ones. They're the ones who, after being subjected to a six month campaign of lies, bullying and fear, went along with the war vote so as NOT TO BE CALLED WEAK! How frickin' weak is that?
What happened? They weakly voted for the war, and Rove gutted them. Twice. Even when the war was turning to a vast latrine. He didn't gut the peaceniks, the radicals, the roots Democrats, he gutted the Bidens and Clintons and all the triangulators. He gutted Kerry. He plays smarter than them, because why? He PLAYS TO HIS BASE.
August 7, 2006 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll certainly second Dustin's sentiments. Mark writes:
"Also, I’m really tired of the Vietnam/Democrats analogy, in which the entire political history of Vietnam is reduced to McGovern’s loss in 1972."
I agree with this entirely. The political history of Vietnam should not be reduced merely to the '72 debacle. Instead, it resulted in the 40 year GOP advantage in national security, and played an enormous part (along with racial issues) in the Democrats having the minority electoral coalition during that time period.
"The national security gap for Democrats first appeared in polls in 1967-68, because LBJ was held responsible for the war itself, not because they were associated with antiwar activists. (See this paper from the Truman Project for more.)"
I've really got to wonder if Mark actually read the linked Truman Project paper, as opposed to just skimming through it looking for supporting evidence.
The paper clearly outlines a conclusion quite different from Mark's - one where a perceived Democratic lack of resolve on national security issues in the post-1968 period has cost the party very dearly.
And FWIW, it's a good paper, well worth reading.
-----
The Iraq war is quite unpopular for entirely justified reasons, much as the Vietnam war was. But the Democrats' positioning on Vietnam planted the seeds of a very bitter electoral harvest that persists to this day. And such a willful misreading of the politics of Vietnam runs a strong risk of leading to another long-term bitter harvest over Iraq.
I understand that the Bradley wing of the party, and the folks participating on blogs in general, can financially withstand another generation in the minority, if that's what it takes to make a moral statement of principles now over the war. However, most of the rest of the folks Democrats represent cannot withstand another generation of right-wing rule.
2006 is going to be a good year for us, in large part because of Iraq. But the willful refusal to examine what our current actions will reap beyond 2006 really chills me.
August 7, 2006 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is also good to recall that the Democratic Party was split by the war and by civil rights. George Wallace's Angry Racist campaign took votes away from Humphrey (one of the early advocates of civil rights) all over the country. Word was that Daley's people were showing their voters how to split a ticket.
The lie that Democrats are "weak" on national security does not date to the Viet Nam War. Opposition to that war was bipartisan. It dates to a later time, the time of the Viet Nam Dolchstosslegende in the mid to late 70s. It started with the Panama Canal Treaty and was fueled by the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, both of which were used by the Republicans and the corporate press/media to create the illusion that America was losing the Cold War.
August 7, 2006 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dustin, your hardheadedness is sorely misplaced. Listen to the angriest rhetoric of the radical anti-war movement from 1967 to '72. Who were they viciously denouncing? Conservatives? Of course not. They were denouncing liberals. The crucial year was never 1972. It was 1968, when the war split the Democratic Party and destroyed the liberal consensus. McGovern lost big in '72 because the left had split, pushing its working-class centrist elements out of the party.
Now, which party, and which ideology, is being split down the middle by the Iraq war? Which party is experiencing its own 1968 right now? It's conservativism that is being torn into its constituent fractions by the Iraq War. As the pro-War faction shrinks and ultimately evaporates, Democrats have less and less to fear on the national security question. It is the GOP that had better start thinking about what nominating a pro-war figure like McCain could mean in '08, when its own conservative base is already tearing itself apart over the war.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
August 7, 2006 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
All he had to do was start putting a distance between himself and Bush on Iraq and maybe a few other issues. Give a few speeches critical of Bush....
Hm. What you describe, though, is the kind of tacking left or right to chase opinion polls that has been a real problem for Dems. It's to Lieberman's credit that he hasn't done that. In fact, running on the "man of priniciple" platform is exactly what I've wished more Dems would do--I've made the argument lots of times that acting from principle is not just right but also an effective electoral strategy, that people will vote for someone they think is principled even if they disagree with some of that person's positions.
Guess that theory kinda breaks down here. Or maybe not. The reason Lieberman has been in so much trouble is not because of his position on Bush's war, but his position on Bush. He wants to be seen as Mr Compromise, but "compromise" means "capitulate" when you're dealing with this thuggish, overbearing and overreaching GOP. Deflecting their course on some bill or other by a micron or two makes little difference if you then go out on Fox news and start repeating their talking points and legitimizing their radicalism. There's a time to compromise and a time to fight, and Joe seems to only pick fights with his own side.
That's what changes Lieberman from a guy I disagree with to a guy who infuriates me. You just know that every time the Dems start to show a little unity and finally get a little traction against the GOP juggernaut Bush's Pal Joey will see this as yet another opportunity to show what a maverick free-thinking kinda guy he is by firing a torpedo into them.
It's not his principles that are at issue. It's his politics.
August 7, 2006 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just gotta throw this out there:
Proposed: The reason opnion has turned against the war is not because of the lies or inherent futility or antipathy toward the idea of Pax Americana. It's because of the perception that we're losing. Right now Bush and the GOP are suffering in opnion polls because they are associated with that loss.
Therefore: When the Dems take over and finally--inevitably--pull us out of Iraq, don't they take on the mantle of being the ones who really "lost" the war?
August 7, 2006 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's to Lieberman's credit that he hasn't done that. In fact, running on the "man of priniciple" platform is exactly what I've wished more Dems would do--I've made the argument lots of times that acting from principle is not just right but also an effective electoral strategy, that people will vote for someone they think is principled even if they disagree with some of that person's positions.
There's a difference between having principles and refusing to admit your mistakes. What has Lieberman in trouble is that he seems detached from reality.
Principles are things like "Health care is a human right." You can stick to that principle and still admit that the Medicare drug benefit is a mess. Lieberman could have stuck to principles about the importance of standing up to terrorists and still recognize that the invasion of Iraq has turned out to be a colossal blunder. That he won't do so makes him pig-headed, not principled.
August 7, 2006 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
A number of points I agree with, but your point on the 1972 parallel is particularly well made.
Granted Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail should not be regarded as an authoritative source, but Frank Mankiewicz has referred to it as the least factual but most accurate account of the McGovern campaign. And everyone on the McGovern team pointed to the botched VP selection as the moment McGovern tanked. Every other question was secondary to the fact McGovern was seen as flaky, with poor judgement, and was running for POTUS with sloppy-seconds.
And I totally agree that the Dems were hamstrung by the fact one of their own had turned Vietnam into a quagmire. The fact is the Dems weren't so much "weak on national security" (as the GOP would have you believe), but rather were evidently divided at the highest levels and this translated into fatal uncertainty over what the Dems stood for regarding national security.
In 2006, the roles have sort of been reversed; just the anti-war movement is still on the same side. Whilst the GOP (to date) has done a better job of presenting itself as unified, their judgement on matters of national security is in question, and the fissures will open.
So, here's my suggestion for the Dems right now - It's the unity, stupid.
Get behind Harry Reid, and support an immediate and significant withdrawal of the troops. It's a political no-brainer.
August 7, 2006 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Y'know has anyone done a stistical pattern analysis of 'close Presidential loses by Dems"....I suppose with this whole voter fraud thing I am beginning to wonder if the GOP has been stealing elections for decades. Yes, I know that Kennedy stole IL with a lot 'dead voters'
But I am just curious about this 'it's a tight race' where the GOP consistently wins pattern.
August 7, 2006 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Folks in NC say he did nothing for the state as their Senator and they did not vote for him either, as you recall the tkt loss the state of NC.
August 7, 2006 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, you're analysis doesn't stand up against the evidence.
John Edwards Would Have Won Re-Election to a Second Term in North Carolina in 2004
1. According to a Fox News Poll on Election Day in 2004, had John Edwards run for re-election to the Senate, he'd have won. "In the senate race, the Republicans gained the seat formerly held by John Edwards. If Edwards had run for reelection against Republican Richard Burr, it appears Edwards would have held on to his seat by a 53 percent -- 47 percent margin. Seven percent of those voters that would have voted for Edwards voted for Burr.”
By the way, those poll numbers match up almost exactly with the 1998 results:
John Edwards: 52%
Incumbent Republican Sen. Lauch Faircloth: 47%
Erskine Bowles lost that Senate race, not John Edwards.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137521,00.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/28/174143/458
Also of note: Bush won NC, 58% to 41%. So that means that a state going 58% to Bush would have also voted 53% for Edwards. That sounds pretty good to me: strong ability to win swing-voters in Red States.
2. Edwards Was Far Ahead in Every Poll in 2003
Mason-Dixon poll, conducted 10/11-14/02 for the Winston-Salem Journal, surveyed 625 likely North Carolina voters; margin of error +- 4%.
Edwards: 45%
Burr: 30%
Undecided: 25%
A Research 2000 poll; conducted 7/13-16/03 for the Raleigh News and Observer; surveyed 600 likely voters; margin of error +- 4%.
Edwards: 47%
Burr: 39%
Undecided: 14%
A Research 2000 poll, conducted 5/18-21/03 for the Raleigh News and Observer, surveyed 600 likely voters; margin of error +- 4%.
Edwards: 47%
Burr: 36%
Undecided: 17%
3. The goper meme on "Edwards couldn't have won re-election” was brought to you by the same people who said "Edwards can't beat incumbent Senator Faircloth and the Helms Machine” in 1998, so I for one don't give it any weight whatsoever.
PS: You're correct, the ticket lost NC. Of course, the ticket was led by John Kerry you might remember.
Do you know the number of times the Kerry campaign had Edwards visit NC?
Do you know the number of times the Kerry campaign had Kerry visit NC?
Do you know the number of days the Kerry campaign advertised on the air in NC?
Do you know when the Kerry campaign opened an official HQ in NC?
2, 1 (one each in July), 5, October.
Kerry said he was writing off the South during the primary and that's exactly what he did.
August 7, 2006 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just wanted to highlight this post because I think it is dangerous to formulate strategy and not recognize the power of pro-republican propaganda in America.
Up until now our most senior leaders response to this conservative onslaught has been to agree with some of their premises in order to neutralise their attack and fight back on other fronts. I think we can say that this has been a mistake. Maybe the key is not trying to out hawk the right but to label their ideas as dangerous and their supporters as crazy fools. After all, that approach has the benefit of being in line with reality as opposed to controlling its interpretation. At what point have Republican foreign policy positions not been insane? Commit to a land war in China in 46; Nuke Communist China in 53; Nuke and Invade North Vietnam in 67; Invade Iran in 79?
The answer to a warmonger who calls you a traitor for not supporting a war is not to demure and hesitate, you have to immediatly hit him back; "No sir you are the traitor for dragging America into wars to keep you in office. You are using dead American servicemen to pave your way to the (insert whitehouse, Senate, etc...) I am protecting the honor of the American armed froces from crazy fools like you."
Harsh? Yes it is, but you see the moment he questions your patriotism it is permitted for you to attack his character as well. In fact, by not attacking his character he will win the argument.
This is the problem the Democratic Party has faces since Vietnam, we thought that when it came to foreign policy our Republican opponents, like us, would put America first and politics second. But this has not been the case. They have used foreign policy as an electoral wedge, so much so that they now consider war to be in their electoral interest. When you are dealing with a political opponent that unprincipled you just can not pull your punches and I think Democrats, center, right and left, are all starting to understand this. Thank God.
August 7, 2006 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, but here's the deal. Suppose the Dem Candidate is agains the Iraq war, but pro-Israel? Recall, Senators up for re-election or election have stated 'Israel has a right to defend herself"...Klobuchar, Cliniton and Lamont have asserted this.
Is that not the same thing as indefinite continuation of war in the ME? There are no Democratic candidates who are coming out against Israel and the way this SNAFU has turned into a FUBAR in the ME...how can any reasonable person expect us not to be in a war in the ME in 2008?
AIPAC is alive and well, they dictate our ME foreign policy and all the politicians seem to be pro-Israel. Any politician with the temerity to speak out and be pro-America interests vs. pro-Israel is run out of Congress with money from AIPAC.
So do Americans just want out of Iraq or out of war in the ME period?
August 7, 2006 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is purely anecdotal. As someone who was very active in the Anti-War movement during the Vietnam period, I didn't vote for for about a 20 year period dating from the start of the Vietnam War...in my case, it was anger at the Democratic Party, especially Johnson and Humphrey, over Vietnam and foreign policy more generally.
August 7, 2006 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who does history 'percieve as losing' the Vietnam war..Johnson who escalated it or Nixon?
August 7, 2006 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm getting more than a little tired of Senators who cast their votes on policy questions as important as war based on political expediency. Kerry, Clinton, Biden and most other Democrats who supported the war did so to fend off the "weak on national security" narrative. Now look where they are--forced to defend a failed policy that can't even be expressed in a coherent fashion.
All the military objectives have been taken. All the political milestones have been hit. And the result is a failed state, complete disruption of the Middle East, an empowered Iran, enormous loss of American moral authority and an enormous budget deficit.
The political calculations proved to be perverse. This is now Joe's war and Hillary's war, not just Bush's war. Maybe, just maybe, next time you vote for what's right. Outcomes are hard to predict, so there's really no certain downside in doing what's right.
August 7, 2006 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look,
It's not Lieberman's position on the war that is killing him! It's his turncoat behavior against his fellow democrats! He was already a party of one even before his threatened independent run. He wants to be loved by all, especially neoconservatives. Every time the democrats get a good issue he pulls the rug out from under them! He has no loyalty to anyone except himself.
This is about building a strong democratic party. Plain and simple. Got to get the weak links out first.
I think that we should learn from what we did wrong with the Vietnam comparison. there has to be a way that we can do the right thing (i.e. get out of Iraq) and still look strong. I think we have to do it in such a way that we express anger at the republicans for weakening America in the eyes of the world and blaming them for trouble. We can also do it by saying look, we got Saddam out of there and have tried to help the Iraqis. Now is the time for them to stand on their own two feet. There is a way to do it and sound tough.
All these pundits just love the status quo and they love bipartisan types like McCain and Lieberman. But when one party is completely partisan (the republicans), the other party must take a similar stance or they will perish.
Raindog
August 7, 2006 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
While it is not ONLY his position on the war that's killing him--he's run the worst incumbent campaign I've ever seen--it is at the heart of his troubles.
It's impossible to state a principled reason or a coherent strategy for going forward in Iraq that doesn't amount to an open-ended occupation. Reading him trying to parse this in today's NYT piece on the race is an object lesson for Dem challengers pf republican incumbents on how to frame support for the war--open-ended commitment, with no exit strategy in sight. Bush can get away with this because he doesn't take questions. We've seen what that does to somebody on the campaign trail. Lieberman literally can't take questions while running for office. That hamstrings a candidate for a seat on the Hill.
Pundits can blather all they want. It's not compromise when the other side won't change its position on an issue or, worse, lies about the intent of a bill. It's capitulation.
August 7, 2006 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman's problem is that he just doesn't understand that his model of bipartisanship just doesn't exist any more. True bipartisanship is where senators from both parties get together to write legislation that can gain backing from a majority of both parties. The current Republican model is to write wildly partisan legislation and then add a few goodies to pick off one or two Lieberman-like Dems so that Bush can claim he has broad backing. His continual efforts to provide this support have only enabled the mess we are in.
August 7, 2006 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please post this as a diary to the Democrats Table or something. It deserves wider discussion.
sPh
August 7, 2006 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think people miss the real reason Lieberman is in trouble - he clearly has not spent much time in CT the last 6 years and has lost touch with his constituents. The war is a big issue but a campaign similar to Lamont's was run against Jane Harman and she won easily. Why? Because she had not lost touch with her constituents. The same with Hillary Clinton who remains popular in NY because she is everywhere.
The whole VP thing went to Joementum's head and he thought he was above all this "retail politics stuff". His stance on the war has galvanized the Dem voters of CT mainly because they don't see him and believe he is out of touch with their views. You'd be surprised how forgiving constituents are of opposing views when you are around to hear their side. If he had been around his state the way Hillary is around hers I'd bet heavy money he'd be cruising to re-election.
August 7, 2006 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure it does. The Kerry/Edward tkt lost the state of NC..are you refuting that?
UM, Edwards did not run for re-election he ran as VP on the Presidential ticket and did not carry his home state for the tkt. I am not speaking about your 'fantasy Fox news poll race for the Senate' I am stating the reality and fact that Edwards did not carry his home state of NC on the 2002 Presidential Dem tkt. Are you refuting that?
BTW are you a wolverine 'goblue'...leaders and best.?
August 7, 2006 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harry Reid doens't support an immediate withdrawal. Nor do I. In fact, only a minority support an immediate withdrawal.
August 7, 2006 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink