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
One of Humphrey's problems was not only could he not break with Johnson but despite imploring by his aids, including my father-in-law, he would not denounce what went on in Chicago.
Also one reason he lost was that a number of McCarthy and Kennedy supporters were so disillusioned they stayed home.
Lastly the Republicans have used to two different themes to beat up on Democrats on Vietnam. The first one mentioned here is McGovern and the anti-war Democrats are basically unAmerican hippies etal and unrepresentative of the "silent majority."
The other theme was that Johnson did not let us win in Vietnam. This theme is echoed everytime you hear a civilian leader say they are going to leave the war to the generals.
The irony of this is that those who favored the war in Iraq, especially the neo-cons, urged Bush reading Eliot Cohen's book "Supreme Command" precisely because he debunks that claim. The neo-cons found current generals too pacific and wanted the Commander-in-Chief to override the military. Unfortunately Bush did not actually read the whole book.
Democrats having been so dependent on the "checklist" of groups they never seem to be sure of what they are for, while the Republicans almost always do. Bush as made it a political truism that he does not waver no matter how inept his policy.
Democrats split over Vietnam and then lost two major segments of their coalition, the South and northern Catholics. Maybe Demcorats should worry less about winning as such and more being for beliefs, and thus they might actually win more.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
August 7, 2006 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. It's Campaigning 101. One-to-one is the best way to win votes. Barbara Boxer's reelection campaign in '04 wasn't close, but they were quite active throughout. It doesn't seem like Lieberman bothered to try. Since Lamont was using a lot of money--and using it wisely--Lieberman should have known better.
August 7, 2006 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm looking forward to him challenging Chris Matthews to a duel. Or speaking at the 2008 Republican convention in a spittle-flecked rage. That will be about all he has left after he loses the primary.
August 7, 2006 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The word "mess" needs to be reiterated by Democrats, now and if/when they get some power.
Establishing the fact that Bush created a huge mess -- here and in the Middle East -- and that everybody will want to be part of the process of "cleaning up the mess" and "getting freedom back" would go a long way to preventing Republicans -- who've been so much more adept at turning language against us -- from making it a Democrat(ic) mess, a Democrat(ic) towel that was thrown in.
And something else: withdrawal from Iraq will involve a very carefully designed process. Those who want withdrawal tomorrow-without-fail need to calm down and go with what I hope will be a genuinely intelligent Democratic plan for a workable process. I want the troops out yesterday... last year. But I also recognize that's impossible unless you're up for an even bigger, crueler mess...
Right now, even out here in redsville, everyone except Rush seems to accept the fact that Bush has screwed up. He may have defenders on one or two levels (mainly taxes, "he's a nice guy"), but I don't know a Republican who doesn't groan over Iraq, Katrina, secrecy, wiretapping, deficits, lies, etc. We should build on that, be straightforward and very careful not to trip their defense systems, get started on the process of building coalitions which include Republicans before ringing the accountability bells. Then ring 'em hard and hang the bastards high.
August 7, 2006 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe he voted for a withdrawal - to begin this year.
That seems to me to be as good as "immediate".
And at least half the country appears to hold a similar view.
August 7, 2006 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read the paper thoroughly (thanks, Petey) and specifically did not intend to write the 1972 election out of the history. It was exactly as Loren Griffith puts it: "Both parties' Presidential candidates, Nixon and George McGovern, promised to move toward an end to the war. But while Nixon talked about "peace with honor," McGovern left the impression that if he were elected, America would put its tail between its legs and go home. He called the war in Vietnam "a policy of mass murder," said he would "beg" Hanoi for the return of American POWs, and urged massive cuts in defense spending."
That's one episode in the history of Vietnam, and the politics of national security. The sense of ineptness during the Carter Administration (oh, my gosh, we lost two helicopters!) further contributed.
But there is more to Vietnam, and as Griffith writes, "as public opinion began to turn against the war in Vietnam in 1967-68, Democrats—who had occupied the White House for the war's duration—took the blame." That was accelerated by the fact that Dems were seen as unable to control domestic chaos in Chicago, sure, and by the fact that after RFK's death, the anti-war wing became part of the elitist wing of the party -- McCarthy, McGovern -- rather than the more effectively populist heritage, a gap which RFK bridged. (Am I speaking your language now, Petey?)
All I want to do is challenge the simplistic idea that Vietnam proves that if Dems associate themselves with an antiwar movement, they're doomed. Vietnam as a whole proves no such thing.
August 7, 2006 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an interesting piece of Democratic news. Is Clinton travelling in the same direction as Lieberman?
August 7, 2006 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
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?
I've thought about this more than once. The same can be said about the congress/president who takes over and tries to right the economic injury that the Bush Presidency has wrought on our country.
It would behoove the Dems to get it into the American psyche that the guy who ran up the bill is responsible not those who are forced to pay it off. Not sure how to do this, but I sure don't want to be blamed for the high taxes required to pay of George W Bush's debt.
W's War, W's debt=Our taxes tomorrow.
August 7, 2006 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Petey Said:
So I did what Petey suggested. I went over to the Truman Project paper by Loren Griffith, Where We Went Wrong How the Public Lost Faith in Democrats' Ability to Protect Our National Security, and How to Stage a Comeback and read it thoroughly, including the footnotes. I think Mark Schmitt probably shouldn't have used the paper to buttress his point. But my reason is that the paper isn't really a very good paper. It's the kind of pseudo-scholarly work one finds published by advocacy think-tanks, dressing the language of emotion with the trappings of scholarship, using ad hominem attacks, and the kind of unreason which would, if submitted to a college professor result in red ink bespattered all over the place.
Just a couple of examples. the author of the paper attributes two statements to McGovern:
He references this assertion, complete with its direct quotations, not to direct McGovern statement, but to a 2000 New Republic Article by Lawrence Kaplan. Is Kaplan a reliable source for analysis of the thinking of McGovern? Kaplan, who criticized Colin Powell for disliking "military intervention because he has problems understanding the world." In the academic world, integrity requires a higher standard. One either references the original source of a direct quotation, or provides a statement of the point of view of the secondary source (in this case Kaplan) or provides a context for the quotation of the first instance (McGovern's words): ideally, the author does all three.
Example two: He describes (I would say libels) Cyrus Vance and Andrew Young this way:
Who are these "some"? The reference is to Steven F. Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute. Is Hayward a person without a point of view? For that matter is the American Enterprise Institute without a point of view itself? A look at its Board of Directors suggest not. It also suggests that many of the interests of the American Enterprise Institute are inimical to those of the Democratic Party.
This is becoming a rant, but at least I hope it is a principled rant. I close with one last example of why I really dislike essays like Griffith's, and why, yes, I think they need to be carefully read before writers use them to buttress points. Here's Griffith on Carter, and on Reagan
So we have a Truman Institute author damning Carter (and elsewhere, Clinton) and Lauding Reagan? Perhaps we need to take a closer look at the Truman Institute itself. Who are its directors and principals? What are their credentials? What do they do in their day jobs? Would Harry S Truman approve of the uses to which his name is being put?
End of Rant. (phew)
aMike
August 7, 2006 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe's most recent speach has left me a little confused. He knows the "liberal anti-war" dems are against him, so he calls Ned Lamont a "right-center dem". I'm not sure how this is supposed to hurt Lamont. . . since we already have the anti-war liberals 100% in the Lamont camp, seems that calling Lamont right-center only hurts Joe by giving the "Reagan democrats" an excuse to for Lamont as well.
August 7, 2006 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Self-hating Democrats
I'd like to make two points:
1.) Lieberman is only one of the worst examples of the type of Democrat who has been perpetuating the party's minority status -- in part by agreeing with and perpetuating the worst Republican-created smears against their own constituencies. Democrats who believe it is more in their interest to bash the people who vote for them than to stand up for those voter's interests by standing up to the Republicans.
These Democrats never ask themselves this question -- why should those "swing" voters I am trying to attract trust that I will stand up for them when I am constantly demonstrating my disdain for, and my unwillingness to stand up for, the people who DO vote for me?
2.) These party leaders, and the liberal pundits who support them, are for the most part yesterday's McGovernites. And they are as elitist, out of touch with, and disdainful of the millions of ordinary Americans who desperately NEED their party to act as a real and effective alternative to the Republican party and its destructive policies as they were clueless about and disdainful of the broader concerns (beyond the war) of middle and working class Americans 30 years ago.
The reason these people see McGovernites everywhere they look is because they aren't looking beyond their own tiny circle or their own class prejudices.
August 7, 2006 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I catagorically refute that Edwards didn't carry his home state of NC in the 2002 Presidential election.
August 7, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you are refering to Edwards the Vice President, then your comment is merely snark and not terribly germane to the comments made. As has been pointed out, if he had been as cynical as Lieberman and ran for his senate seat while running for VP, he would have held on to it.
He has more integrity then Lieberman and I admire him for it.
Yes, Edwards did plenty for the "folks" in North Carolina, as well as the rest of the Country.
Ever hear of the Patients Bill of Rights?
Geez.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 7, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listening to the "checklist liberalism" speech I had a gloomy foreshadowing of Lieberman as Rummy II.
The guy just can't help himself-all his heroes and role models are Republicans.
August 7, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fine, don't believe a poll taken of actual voters as they walked out of the ballot booth. But, my guess is, that since there couldn't be a more likely to be correct poll taken, you won't find many who accept your claims.
August 7, 2006 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"LBJ, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
I wasn't there, but that is perhaps the most persistant cheer from the 60's that I heard. Doesn't sound like a neocon cheer to me. Could even be interpretted as a split of the left from LBJ.
Perhaps if one is going to make analogies to Vietnam we should start asking America, "Do we want some Republican to carry on W's war like LBJ continued Vietnam, or would we rather confront reality and start to do something positive about this mess."
W's War, W's debt:
America deserves better.
August 7, 2006 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen has the right of it, I think. The fight is still going on. The odd thing of it is that time seems to be proving McGovern was right. In terms of the culture agenda...equality for blacks, women, gays--the anger on the right masks a kind of fear that it is losing, if it hasn't lost already. I'd guess the same is true on the immigration/amnesty issue, though the jury is still out on that.
And absolutely! McGovern was left to hang out and dry. Our Party will always have an Old Guard. The faces and names change, but the position persists. One hopes that today's Old Guard may have learned a few things--enough to prevent it behaving as the Old Old Guard did.
Nice Post, Ellen
aMike
August 7, 2006 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't just Lamonts money. He's working for this. He's been anywhere and everywhere in the state talking to people, which is why he had so much support months before Joe Lieberman even remembered he had an election coming up.
From what I've read, plenty of people tried to warn Joe that he was facing a real challenge, perhaps it was hubris on his part that caused him to ignore it. I still think he's basically in denial.
We'll see what happens tomorrow. Based on lawn signs alone, I'd say Lamont will carry my town by a landslide.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 7, 2006 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does not help that this "political expediency" was just "strategery". Democrats cave in and got clobbered, both in 2002 and 2004.
One should make a Compendium of Misguided Opportunistic Votes. A comprehensive compendium would have a size of Britannica Encyclopaedia, but the list of chief highlights would be instructive.
One case I remember well: a widow of late Sen. Carnahan became junior Senator from MO and was facing special elections, she made all pandering votes commons wisdom and strategery required, including the tax cuts and the war authorization, and was duly defeated in 2002.
A wise kind of political expediency would be to rally behind Sen. Byrd, make a symbolic resolution urging Saddam to "comply", and refuse in blanco war authorization on the grounds of preserving proper Constitutional order guarding against recklessness. In particular, Bush refused to provide any estimate of the cost of war etc.
Similarly with taxes. Bush offered totally bogus numbers and all politicians knew it.
Similarly with bancruptcy reform etc.
The only good outcome is that most probably, manipulated war fever would win seats for GOP anyway, and the gurus of "strategery" would have another argument for pandering to the "center". Now it started to dawn at the more smart of them that this is self-defeating.
USA will not be better than Saddam at torture and intimidation, in fact, we do not come remotedly close when we try. Similarly, riding the wave of war hysteria is not what Democrats are good at. This is the economic theory of comparative advantage in action. Sticking to principles is also sticking to what you do well.
August 7, 2006 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Lieberman operated under the principle "Excess in defence of Liberty is a good thing." However, this is a very bad principle.
August 7, 2006 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark, I realize this was not your main point but thank you for the succinct takedown of Michael Barone--who has long been undeservedly put up on a pedestal by a small but devoted cadre of insider loyalists, notably George Will.
Your commentary on the Lamont-Lieberman race has been the best I've seen.
August 7, 2006 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The favorite Spartan tactic was to focus the attack at the point where the enemy was strongest -- breaking him there led to a swift victory.
Yet, when the calculus of force was showing that this would not happen, they were using different tactics. A frontal attack at "AIPAC influence" is a suicide, and we know it. One has to start with the doctrine of exceptionalism, and even there not on moral grounds, but because it does not work. At the end of the day, a vast majority of us want to support Israel --- which does not entail her role as a gladiator for our exceptionalist fantasies.
August 7, 2006 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being against the Iraq War IS Pro-Israel.
Our invasion and continued presense in Iraq has radicalized the populace which has, in turn, jeopardized Israel's national security. The Iraq war has set back the chances for peace in the Middle East at least a generation.
One could make the argument that if you support staying in Iraq, you are in fact ANTI-Israel. It'd be an interesting frame for someone to try.
August 7, 2006 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
whiterosebuddy: I don't follow your logic. Why do you--why would anyone, for that matter--take being in favor of gradual drawdawn in Iraq to be "anti-Israel"?
Do you see Iraq and now Lebanon-Hezbollah-Israel as distinct wars or as part of the same war? I see them as distinct wars, with different causes and dynamics, although obviously those dynamics and their outcomes can affect one another.
August 7, 2006 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are welcome to your fantasy about AIPAC but Bandar Bush and the purveyors of oil are probably a lot more important.
If the United States withdraws from Iraq the chaos that will ensue should keep both the Iranians and the Saudis busy for some time.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
August 7, 2006 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a FWIW anedote, my spry father-in-law, a liberal Democrat backing Lamont, reports sentiment in the seniors center in Hamden he has lived in for the past 3 years to be running roughly 70-30 for Lamont. Quite a few quite passionate lefties associated in one way or another with Yale live there. He reports strong sentiment against the war there going back several years now.
He said a few days ago he believes Lieberman, who he has long despised, may just squeak it out, but said he fears Joe may win if he runs as an independent. These predictions must be taken with more than a grain of salt, as my father-in-law is a lifelong Red Sox fan. :
August 7, 2006 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps a wee quibble, perhaps not. There very well may have been Republicans arguing to nuke China in 1953 (I remember a very conservative member of the House of Representatives, Dr. Walter Judd, but I don't think he went that far), but I don't think one can lay that charge to the Eisenhower Administration. Eisenhower had an understanding of the limits of military power (similar to Powell's, but he was the boss and could act on the basis of his understanding). A saber or two might have been rattled, but none were drawn.
I hold Ike in a kind of reverence for one contribution specifically, his understanding of the danger of the Military Industrial Complex, and his taking the opportunity to address the nation about the matter. That speech needs resurrection.
aMike
August 7, 2006 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly right. Lieberman reinforces republican frames of democrats as being weak on national security, immoral, etc. you can't build a party with guys like this in it. If he loses tomorrow, we have a great chance in the Fall and in 2008. If he wins, look for more of the same old confused democrats who are all trying to triangulate off each other.
August 7, 2006 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are right. Dems need to vote on what they believe, defend their votes with pride and attack Republicans for their reprehensible behavior. When they cave because they are worried about what people will say about them on Fox News then we have all lost.
August 7, 2006 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Not sure how you got that from what I said AD. I am not saying that being against Iraq means you are anti-Israel. I am saying that all the candidates, so far who are anti-war are ALSO pro-Israel. They all say that 'Israel has a right to defend herself" which means they are still supportive of the continuing centuries old Palestinian/Israeli ME conflict. There has been no peace in that area for 60 years...the Arabs whether Sunni or Shia are basically anti-Israel. So much so that right now, they are joining forces to unite against America and Israel subsequent to Israel's attacks on Hezbollah.
Which to me says..this is just more war..this last 20+ days are just the beginning of what appears to be WWIII.. so if we support candidates who are pro-Israel even IF they are anti-war in Iraq...we are looking at continued war.
Both. They were initiated as distinct wars, but both conflicts have had the unprecedented yet highly predictable result of uniting the various Arab factions against Israel and America. There is a civil war breaking out in Bahgdad now and our soldiers will not be able to survive once the Shia and Sunni unite...how fast the Shia and Sunni unite in Iraq is being driven by the unification of those two factions in Lebanon which is basically going to spread ( thanks to Israels excessive aggression) and the entire region is now de-stabilized and poised to erupt.
In the meanwhile that damn DUbya, sits and twiddles his thumbs, just like he did with Katrina. That jerk is not even ATTEMPTING to negotiate with Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah or the Hamas..he is just sitting there like he did in FL and reading the Goat book...How in the hell is he President?? You have Senators on TV (Hagel and Dodd) basically saying have his daddy Bush and Clinton go over and negotiate but for friggin sakes we have to negotiate. But no, this numbskull nitwit numbnut says he is leaving this all for the next President to resolve. MY GOD!
Yes, and they are quickly coalescing into one friggin REgional war....as Newt said WWIII
August 7, 2006 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your link is to a blog news hub portal...interesting site..but not quite the piece I think you wanted to link to?
BTW..how about sending me a pvt msg on how you do use that site.
August 7, 2006 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand what you are saying now.
You wrote: "They all say that 'Israel has a right to defend herself" which means they are still supportive of the continuing centuries old Palestinian/Israeli ME conflict."
I don't see that the latter follows from the former. I am sure many of those saying Israel has a right to defend herself (do you disagree?) continue to see a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians as something they will support in any way they can.
You wrote: "There is a civil war breaking out in Bahgdad now and our soldiers will not be able to survive once the Shia and Sunni unite...how fast the Shia and Sunni unite in Iraq is being driven by the unification of those two factions in Lebanon which is basically going to spread ( thanks to Israels excessive aggression) and the entire region is now de-stabilized and poised to erupt."
Are you saying that the Sunnis and Shiites are going to stop killing one another in Iraq sometime soon and...what, exactly? Hop the next bus for Lebanon to fight the Israelis together? Is that happening now, or is there evidence suggesting it may be happening soon?
August 7, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"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."
This is such nonsense. I am tired of people telling me I should support a politician because he is principled even though his "principles" are contrary to my principles.
Bush is principled. Cheney is principled. They stick to their principles. Their principles are repugnant to me. They are not my principles. I don't support them.
August 7, 2006 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where I disagree is that I think our policy is one-sided and that the Palestinians have just as much right to the land as Israel. Israel is seemingly defending themselves against a land grab and I cannot find a way to reason that as anything other than inequitable. I also do not believe theat there is going to be a settlement, this war is 60 years old, and nothing about the inimity and hostilities has changed. It is never ending with each new conflict merely generating another generation that hates on both sides.
At the core this seems to be a religious battle and religion does not lend itself to reason. Reason is just about the antithesis of religion. Faith requires folks to suspend reason and that is why I do not see there ever being a settlement. Neither said is going to give grown on their basic right to 'holy land' Moreover, the way the Palestinians are being treated is simply inhumane.
IIRC there have been reports of Shia and Sunni's marching together in Baghdad and there are news reports of Shia's taking in Sunni's who have been attacked in Lebanon and are homeless....so yes there appears to be growing evidence daily that folks are heading to Lebanon and banding together against Israel and America.
August 7, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
whiterosebuddy, you wrote: "IIRC there have been reports of Shia and Sunni's marching together in Baghdad and there are news reports of Shia's taking in Sunni's who have been attacked in Lebanon and are homeless....so yes there appears to be growing evidence daily that folks are heading to Lebanon and banding together against Israel and America."
If you are able to locate or come across links on this I would be interested to read what is being reported. Thanks.
August 7, 2006 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Here is another article excerpt:
August 7, 2006 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did. Click on the words in bold text in both posts.(above and below)
August 7, 2006 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't have to read a carload of sociologists and others to know that voters have become notoriously subject to influence -- to marketing -- notoriously shy about making up their own minds, often bewildered and unfocused. Not all Americans, but plenty enough for there to be an occasional majority which swallows all kinds of bs because someone spoke forcefully, or sounded like dad, or has been targetted by people with money and the knowledge of how to swing votes.
As Peter Wallsten reports:
August 7, 2006 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad. I should have cleaned up that URL. Here it is, but here's the short squib from Political Wire:
August 7, 2006 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to give you a "4" till I read that Red Sox remark....!
August 7, 2006 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Whiterosebuddy (and everyone else)
The Blog News Hub Portal is a fascinating tool. Thanks to PW for bringing it to our attention. I can't say that I'm an expert on how to use it, but here's what I've found out in a few minutes fooling around.
aMike
August 7, 2006 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Please, please, please. This topic gets to the center of the problems the American center and left has been experiencing.
August 7, 2006 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I went to the links.
One of them, the Steele and McCarthy piece in the Guardian, goes back to April 2004. It reports on a Baghdad rally calling for the US to leave Iraq that was attended by both Shiites and Sunnis. This was about shared Shia/Sunni anti-US sentiment in Iraq--nothing new there. Obviously the 2004 rally has nothing to do with whether Shiites and Sunnis, doubtless many of whom also despise Israel, are today joining forces to support those fighting the Israelis in Lebanon.
The August 4 CBS report begins: "Tens of thousands of Shiites thronged a Baghdad slum Friday to show support for Hezbollah as Arab anger toward Israel mounted on the Muslim holy day. Such protests have even reached Saudi Arabia, where public discontent is rare."
What would be consistent with what I understood you to be saying would be if this rally included Sunnis, and if it featured calls for specific forms of assistance to those fighting in Lebanon. The article doesn't say if there was Sunni-Shia representation at the Saudi Arabian rally. Nor is there a report of Sunni-Shia representation at the rallies in the other 3 capital cities mentioned. Nor is there any report of Shia-Sunni collaboration to provide support in fighting Israel in Saudi Arabia or the 3 other cities mentioned.
So, while it may be the case that Sunnis and Shias are joining together to provide some type of tangible support for those fighting the Israelis, as opposed to independently expressing rhetorical opposition to Israel (hardly surprising), these two links do not lend support to that claim.
August 7, 2006 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I like the Sox! (Mets are my #1 team but Sox prob #2) I just can see how a lifelong Sox fan might have difficulty feeling hopeful at times, notwithstanding more recent developments. :
My 9 year old nephew lives in Lexington, Mass, just outside Boston. There was a time not long ago when the Sox had just won the World Series and the Pats were going for a threepeat. He had come to think of world championships for the local teams as a ho hum phenomenon.
My poor father-in-law is--still--unable to watch when the Red Sox are on TV. It's too nerve wracking for him. He'll watch a ticker on some other station. During the year they won the Series I would call him from time to time to give him updates.
August 7, 2006 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just saw this post and link.
They have a common enemy-Israel. Again, what is new here? Reid's claim that the hostility is "drawing together" Iraq's rival Sunni and Shiite communities is not substantiated by anything in the article other than the stances of the clerics condemning Israel. If there is some sort of actual joint supportive action that the clerics have called for, and that ordinary Sunni and Shiite Iraqis are following, beyond the rhetorical condemnation of Israel by the clerics, the article didn't mention it.
Rhetorical condemnation of Israel is both pervasive and cheap in the ME. What would be truly surprising would be if there emerged some difference along Sunni-Shiite lines in that regard.
August 7, 2006 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, yes it does AD, the title alone says Iraq Supports Lebanon...did you keep reading?. I even posted the excerpt from the CBS article where it stated that the clerics for the Sunni's and Shia were there and called for both sides to unite in support of Hezbollah due to the fighting in Lebanon.
Am I missing something when the two main clerics for Sunni and Shiite are calling on their sects to unite against Israel and support Hezbollah?
Here is another article, talking about banners with Sunni's and Shiia unite.
August 7, 2006 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
whiterosebuddy, you wrote: "Am I missing something when the two main clerics for Sunni and Shiite are calling on their sects to unite against Israel and support Hezbollah?"
It may be that we are interpreting this sentence differently. I don't see evidence in the articles linked to of anything specific being done, or called for, by the clerics--such as sending money, volunteering to go fight alongside Hezbollah in Lebanon, etc.--as part of the effort to "unite" the two groups against Israel.
Based on what I saw--or more accurately did not see--reported in the articles linked to, it sounds to me like the clerics are firing on all rhetorical cylinders but beyond that I am not sure what, if any, specific sort of support for Hezbollah they are asking their adherents to provide. Again, rhetorical bashing of Israel in the ME is cheap.
August 7, 2006 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awright awready. I changed it to a "4." But only because I feel pity for you as a Mets fan!
August 7, 2006 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, AD..here is your original query:
Based on this, the links I provided all show evidence suggesting that Iraq Sunnis and Shiites are uniting to support Lebanon and that it is certainly happening soon, as in last week.
Now though you seek greater specificity and ask:
OK, AD
Yes, I agree that the articles did not provide that level of detail. But for the Sunni's and Shiites to even be setting aside their centuries old sectarian rivalry/hatred is significant to me and probably the very first step toward the level of support details you are asking for. First people have to unite, wouldn't you agree and all that rhetoric creates that, no?
I suspect, based on articles like this, where we basically have Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt all calling for Muslim unity against Jews with a rallying cry that 'we are Muslims first' that the greater detail you seek may soon be forthcoming.
August 7, 2006 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welllll, hotdamn Mike!
...thank you verrrry much for that succinct and nifty Bob's Your Uncle tutorial...love it!!
Never know what a wonderful learning experience a glitch might be. I think I am going to enjoy this site. One spot for news is awesome.
Thanks PW for not right clicking on that and opening a new window to link to the story!!
August 7, 2006 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not good enough! We must reject neocon foreign policy not tweak it. This is about the future of the country and the threat of war spiraling out of control in the Mideast not about silly little political games over withdrawing X number of troops on date Y.
So far the only two people who appear to understand that are Feingold and Hagel.
August 7, 2006 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the phenomena we are looking at is populism. It could be linked to the same movement that put Howard Dean in as Chair, that has rocketed us to success in Montana and elsewhere. Populism is often a reaction to mealy mouthed politicians.
Seen from that perspective, Lamont is much more a Mr. Smith goes to Washington character, rather than a 1968 radical leftist. They are two completely different narratives, with the populist one having a lot of history behind it.
August 7, 2006 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Hagel and think he would make a good leader. Feingold has the courage of his convictions but no one would ever follow him..which is why his censure bill went nowhere. You have to be able to build a consensus if you want to lead...so I'll take Hagel.
August 7, 2006 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ihave not yet checked to see if you posted your comments to the Democrats page but I thought you might be interested in the remarks of Thomas Frank (What's the Matter With Kansas) in this morning's NYTime. Op-Ed. I know I'm not supposed to do this but I did.
August 8, 2006
The Culture Crusade of Kansas By THOMAS FRANKThe nation breathed a sigh of relief last week after the conservative majority on the Kansas school board, world famous for its war on the theory of evolution, went down to defeat in Republican primary elections. Conservative candidates for several state government posts foundered as well (but others won). It seemed as though moderation had finally returned to this middlemost of American places. Even better: perhaps the country itself had turned the corner in its long and frustrating war over culture.
I was as pleased as anyone else to hear the news. Could the conservative uprising in my home state finally have run its course? Fourteen years ago, the armies of the right came pouring out of Kansas’ evangelical churches to protest abortion and all the other liberal plagues upon the culture, and they’ve had a big role in the state’s Republican Party ever since. But it must be difficult to stay angry that long, especially when the crusade you signed up for is now a hairsplitting fight that your leaders have picked with the biology professors of the entire world. Could the faction’s rank and file simply have given up, grown disgusted with the absurdity that their grand cause has become?
Perhaps, but I think it is far too soon to write the obituary for the godly radicals. Their faction may have chosen lousy candidates this time around, and their public appeal may have dissipated thanks to the preposterous issues (evolution, stem-cell research) against which their leaders have lately been hurling themselves, but the movement is deeply ingrained in Kansas culture. The conservatives will undoubtedly be back.
The culture war will remain with us, both in Kansas and in the nation, because it is larger than any of its leaders, larger than its legions of citizen activists, larger even than the particular causes in which these forces are enlisted. Seen from the streets of Wichita, the rightist rebellion of Kansas seems to fulfill that most romantic of American political traditions: the uprising of the little guy.
To the faithful, theirs is a war against “elites,” and, with striking regularity, that means a war against the professions. The anti-abortion movement, for example, dwells obsessively on the villainy of the medical establishment. The uproar over the liberal media, a popular delusion going on 40, is a veiled reaction to the professionalization of journalism. The war on judges, now enjoying a new vogue, is a response to an imagined “grab for legislative power” (as one current Kansas campaign mailing puts it) by unelected representatives of the legal profession. And the attack on evolution, the most ill-conceived thrust of them all, is a direct shot at the authority of science and, by extension, at the education system, the very foundation of professional expertise.
Sometimes this is right out in the open. At one point in Kansas’ endless slugfest over curriculum, the conservative-dominated school board appointed a state schools chief with virtually no experience in education. Moderates erupted in fury. Returning their fire, one member of the Kansas Senate declared that the mere fact that “the elitists in Kansas today” — meaning, apparently, “education insiders” and prominent suburban lawyers — opposed this fellow made him “the perfect man for this job.”
When I caught up with the various Republican personalities, at a candidate forum in Independence, what struck me was the feebleness of the moderate response to this kind of onslaught. Again and again I saw Cons play the populist card — railing against the National Education Association, suggesting their opponents belonged in the wealthy suburbs of Kansas City, alleging epic voter fraud right here in Kansas — and then heard the Mods, dressed in neat professional attire, simply dismiss the criticism out of hand. C’mon, you know me. Now, let’s get out there and put up some yard signs.
That the moderate Republicans succeeded this time around is testimony more to the sheer fatuity of the conservative issues than to the strength of their own message. But the pseudo-populist offensive is hardly going to cease. It is, after all, the prevailing rhetorical mode of the national Republican Party, from the commander in chief down to the lowliest Internet troll. They talk this way because it works. Since its opening shots in the 1960’s, the culture war has turned the politics of this country upside down — and with distinctly unpopulist results.
That it has now gone far enough to discomfit Bob Dole Republicans in Kansas as well as liberal Democrats from Massachusetts is merely the price of success. Until the day its opponents learn to confront it directly, we will all bleed with Kansas.
Thomas Frank is the author, most recently, of “What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America.’’ He will be a guest columnist during August.
August 8, 2006 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
this sounds just like the rise of the Reich.
It is called TALK radio!!! Limbaugh and Hannity and that Laura women are the new populist leaders..it is their angry empty minded twaddle and rhetoric that fuels the populist
August 8, 2006 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark,
I thought that Lowenstein was one of the reasons Eugene McCarthy ran. I do not recall his being "not broadly dovish" unless you mean Lowenstein tended to express his anti-war sentiments while wearing a coat and tie, albeit disheveled, rather than organize anti-war protests in the streets.
August 8, 2006 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink