It's time to stop living in the 1970's. Most people's definition of 'liberals' these days is simply the ability to get things done.

And while that might seem like a radical notion to Republicans, it's a great platform to run on nowadays.

Note: Lamont told George Stephanopolous over the weekend that his favorite U.S. political figure is Teddy Roosevelt!

That's the kind of "radicals" we've got running in the Democratic Party: Teddy Roosevelt Dems!

Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com

There has been an active, unapologetic, unreconstructed McCarthyite wing of the Democratic Party dating from the end of World War II until today. This includes Hubert Humphrey, and early on Robert Kennedy who might have migrated away from Joe McCarthy, George Meany, Irving Kristol, and the ir neocon heirs today. Beinart, Wittman, Peretz, Marshall are not exactly secret admirers of the old demagogue and have adopted many of Joe's techniques. Lieberman is an apt pupil. And his adoption of the snide innuendo as well as the direct attack have been well-documented and publicized. Their worst fear is that people may actually think about problems and exercise their right to speak without fear. Fortunately for him, Peretz has enough money to keep The New Republic afloat despite its failing numbers; Murdoch, as vile, seems to be a better businessman.

to say that this wsj pseudo-intellectual doesn't get it is perhaps the understatment of the century... i believe it was the nyt that used a three-syllable word that completely sums up precisely why joe lieberman should not be returned to the senate - ENABLER... lieberman has sat by actively cheered from the sidelines while george bush and his criminal posse have trashed the united states of america... iraq is just ONE of the ways bush has pissed on everything we stand for... and it ain't the "thought-enforcers of the left" that are bringing down a "centrist..." lieberman's bringing HIMSELF down by being completely out of touch with what's REALLY happened to his own country while he's been busy sucking up to power... THAT'S why he's gotta go... and, ferchrissakes, lamont is NOT A PEACE CANDIDATE...! he's a REAL CANDIDATE, as opposed to one made out of papier-mâché...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

RFK squabbled with Roy Cohn before McCarthy really really got going. It is said even though they disagreed, he always held a large amount of respect for McCarthy (and is rumored to have cried at his funeral).

Martin Peretz was a high-ranking staffer in Eugene McCarthy's 1968 campaign. I'll put his full name at the beginning of my previous post to avoid confusion.

McGovern was the only Democrat in something like the last 60-70 years to run without the endorsement of Labor.

And the reasons for that devastating blow to his campaign went well beyond the issue of the war.

Does anyone for one second think that Robert Kennedy -- who in 1968 ran as an opponent of the war -- would have lost Labor's endorsement?

The fact is that Lieberman and fellow traveler Peretz, along with quite a few other Washington "establishment" politicos and pundits, ARE the "McGovernite" wing of the party. And they are still undermining the party's image, its unity, and its appeal to the broadest number of middle class and working class voters with their scolding, elitist, culturally clueless, holier-than-thou attitudes. They thought they were morally superior to traditional Democratic constituencies in 1972 -- and they still think that way today.

If the Democrats ever want to be a majority again they certainly do need to purge "McGovernites" like these from the party -- starting with Holy Joe's defeat tomorrow.

This is a recurring nightmare for democrats. Fully 56% of the American people oppose this war - that's not a "leftist" position, that's a majority position. The great majority of Americans wnat us out of Iraq by the end of the year. That doesn't make us all "commie leftists" it makes us older and wiser and able to learn from past mistakes. Well, except for the mistake of allowing right wingers to paste the label of "commie appeasers" on our foreheads and march us through the streets. And while this old smear percolates once more through the culture, what will democrat operatives do? Nothing, probably. Which is why it's so successful.

Actually, I think he does believe it. Like so many people he believes that history began with him and probably will end with him. It reminds me of the commentators who insisted that there is no such thing as global warming because it was snowing in their backyard.

Here's a hint for Max Sawcky, you don't recognize what liberalism is, let alone have the ability to identify a "liberal resurgence". Liberals don't act like racists, they don't treat it, or rape as though it was a joke. They don't exploit people and treat the horrors of the world cavalierly. What the lot of you represent is exactly what is represented by the neo-conservative movement. You hate, and need to oppress. You are NOT liberal, you're fascist. 

 The Marxists in Connecticut, are all white, and most are from out of state. Let's get down to brass tacks, shall we? The racism in this campaign has come from affluent, white psuedo-activists. Many from out of state, and many from the blog-o-fascists. One, a one time film wonder resorted to painting blackface on Joe Lieberman, and she also pushed the hate speech even further back on July 30th, referring to young Lieberman volunteers as "Lieberyouth".. a nasty attemt to smear them as being the incarnation of the Hitler Youth Here's the example of Jane "Hitler Youth" Hamsher in action First the quote, then the source url:

Joe arrived after sundown when the Temptations were already in full swing.  A group of LieberYouth holding Lieberman signs over their heads paraded in an orderly fashion on the periphery.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/30/your-daily-ned-7/

The next day, the LamontBlog at blogspot had picked up on Jane's smear and ran with it as a title for a post:

Army of LieberYouth to Invade CT

http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/army-of-lieberyouth-to-invade-ct.html

Then MyLeftNutmeg decided to run with it as well the same day:

Thousands of LieberYouth for Election Day

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2411

 Of course MyDD followed suit, again the same day with:

Surprisingly, Lieberman's youngish political staff, the Lieberyouth, didn't like us very much right off the bat.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/7/31/22578/9235

Let's not forget Jane "Hitler Youth" Hamsher concocting another smear when she referred to him as "rape gurney Joe".. racism, rape, it's all just a joke to das fuehrer-maker Jane Hamsher.

No one’s surprised anymore that this crap goes on within the neo-left, least of all from the likes of neo-lefties like Hamsher, the anti-semitism that spews from her ilk, the rationalizations for the murder of Israeli children. I guess blog-o-fascists, like her, don't think people will care if the neo-left tries to get away with the same thing blog-o-fascist Ben Domenech in the Washington Post tried to. Hamsher is a hypocrite, because she feels she can forget to pretend to democratic priniples when it helps her agenda but who still wants to ensure that anyone who stands up and gives her a bit of her own back, has to abide by what she doesn't feel she has to. Jane "Hitler Youth" Hamsher is the neo-left’s answer to Anne Coulter, racist, bigoted and completely unprincipled.. that said, she's not the only neo-leftist like that.

 I guess that's why some people in CT are waking up and rethinking any support for Ned Lamot.

Nice drivel, Mary.

There is nothing wrong with "Lieber-youth," especially in light of goonery by the Lieberyouth. Anybody who gets excited about the name has already lost. On a one to ten scale of political naughtyness, it rates about a four.

As for the blackface, I thought that was mostly bewildering, not racist. It didn't make any sense, even wicked sense. (Like Lieberyouth.)

Anybody defending Peretz on anti-racist grounds ought to take a spin through "The Bell Curve," an advertisement for eugenics legitimized in the pages of TNR. Who is kidding whom?

The palaver about "Marxists" and blogofascists bespeaks what I discussed -- hysteria. In case anyone doesn't know, it's really all about Israel. Nothing Israel does in its purported self-defense is beyond apologias from otherwise liberal people. Lieberman is a supreme apologist. We need some kind of twelve-step program for this syndrome, because these folks will never change. Even Ariel Sharon showed more adaptability.

Max B. Sawicky

http://maxspeak.org/mt

max@maxspeak.org

Does anyone for one second think that Robert Kennedy -- who in 1968 ran as an opponent of the war -- would have lost Labor's endorsement?

Yeah, as a matter of fact, I think if RFK had lived, and gotten the nomination, labor would have split at best. Your rhetorical question makes me wonder whether you actually remember the atmosphere of those days.

deleted duplicate post.

No way.

The UAW was all about RFK (Paul Schrade took a bullet in the head at the Ambassador). Cesar Chavez was for him, as inconsequential as that may have been back then. But the regulars loved RFK -- he won the blue collar areas in the Indiana primary against a surrogate for Johnson/Humphrey and McCarthy. Even with his battles with Hoffa and Beck, conservative labor respected Kennedy. I once read that he probably would have pardoned Hoffa if he became president. And don't forget that a large bloc of Wallace voters were Kennedy supporters in May.

I think the atmosphere you remember from those days might have been less turbulent had he lived.

Peretz preposed perfectly putrid pontification promoting pathetic puffery.

Predictably.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

That is true, but re: Cesar Chavez, he wasn't inconsequential back then.. he was lighting a spark in labor across the country, and the United Farmworkers Union was a part of the AFL-CIO.

RFK was respected and had support from labor, he, like MLK spoke out for the African American garbage workers who were striking for better wages and benefits. He also advocated for miners all across the country. His stance on poverty, whether rural or urban won him quite a bit of loyalty. True much of the TEAMSTERS hated him, but the TEAMSTERS and Hoffa were increasinling more unpopular among other labor organizations/leaders and their rank and file. My dad was a union worker, so were both of my grandfathers, and my late husband was an AFSCME/AFL-CIO member for 18 years.

I can't claim to say whether RFK would have had wide labor endorsement.. but I do believe he would have won if he'd not been assasinated.

Oh drone, you are so predictable..:)

At any rate, I'll lay odds that the cacophony of acrimonious rot, that is the Lamontsters will be oozing it's way out of CT after a defeat tomorrow.. Real democratic 'net users can expect to hear the sound of their sour grapes spewing forth for some time to come.. but we'll manage to get over it I'm sure.

What Marty doesn't get is that you could be for Regime Change as a policy but be against trying to accomplish it through ground invastion and occupation.

Speaking only for myself the news that Saddam and his sons, along with other key lieutenants had mysteriously been shot to death, would not have sent me in hot anger to the blogs in Fall of 2002. "Good riddance to bad rubbish, and I hope we can keep Iraq from totally falling apart" would have been more like it.

If you see a yellow jacket alighting on a sleeping baby the proper response is not to whack the bee with a sledgehammer. Peretz is swinging around the bloody sledgehammer and suggesting hammer protestors are objectively pro-stinging insect. "How dare you call me a baby killer, just because I killed a baby? Look I nailed that bee didn't I?"

Hmm, yeah Marty, right. (While steadily backing away).

Esmense says:  

If the Democrats ever want to be a majority again they certainly do need to purge "McGovernites" like these from the party -- starting with Holy Joe's defeat tomorrow.

I'm a McGovernite, (not a former McGovernite:  a McGovernite) and I'm not going anywhere. You'll have to find someone else to purge, thank you very much.   And I'm a union member, and I've been a union member since 1961.  I support Project Acorn and favor unionization everywhere, including unionization for white collar workers.  I look for the Union label when I buy products, and I would rather be caught making a lewd gesture in church than shop at a Walmart, largely for its anti-union practices. 

I have a Y chromosome in common with Joe Lieberman, and maybe a few other things, but he's changed in ways I've not.  My roots are blue collar, my grandparents were immigrants with eighth grade educations, my parents made it through high school.  I revere all their accomplishments, including those sacrifices which let me get a college degree. 

I have no truck with elites of any kind, especially political elites.  Neither did George McGovern.  And Joseph Lieberman today represents McGovern's thought just about as much as David Horowitz represents the Students for a Democratic Society. 

aMike

These frickin' boomers is right. Their parents handed them the keys to the world and they got behind the wheel drunk and smashed it all to hell.

My how money and adulthood changed this lot...

The claim that McGovern's campaign crashed and burned "not without" some criminal antics from the Nixon campaign is fascinating.

It would have crashed and burned anyway as there was simply no way McGovern could defeat Nixon.

The important historical lesson to note is that McGovern's campaign took off as a direct result of criminal antics from Nixon's CREEPs(Committee to Re-Elect the President).

Edmund Muskie was the leading Democrat candidate, who might have defeated Nixon. CREEP (which included a younger Karl Rove) went all out to undermine potential candidates that might be strong enough to defeat Nixon and in particular used "criminal antics" ("dirty tricks") to undermine Muskie's campaign so that McGovern would win the Democratic nomination.

This topic is worth researching. A quick scan of google came up with hits mainly rewriting history as though it was CREEP's dirty tricks that defeated the Democratic nominee at the November 1972 rather than the actual historical reality that it was CREEP's dirty tricks that selected McGovern as the Democratic nominee SO THAT he could be easily defeated in November.

This mental blind spot to the point of history re-writing is potentially fatal.

The last sentence above is my own, not Hatfield's.  I cannot, for some reason, move it from the block quotation formatting.

aMike