For Lieberman you are correct, he did pay the price. But the issue of bipartisanship will not be a fronline issue until after November's election. If the Democrats can wrest control of even one house of Congress the issue will be paramount.

Also, a point that cannot be overlooked is the fact that the Neoconservative branch of the GOP does not represent the views of the party as a whole. Once the Neoconservatives are marginalized, then the process of true bipartisanship can begin in earnest.

One of the more intriguing aspects of this discussion is the fact that the Lamont/Lieberman debate is almost a perfect parallel to the conservative/neoconservative debate.

In this case, let us hope that Trotsky can throw Stalin to the dogs...

I think Gettysburg you are wrong when you say;

"Neoconservative branch of the GOP does not represent the views of the party as a whole".

Most Republicans probably do not care much about neoconservatism as such. But in terms of a unilateral, militaristic, aggressive foreign policy that can reap rewards by labelling everyone else appeasers, weak and un-American and then be used as an electoral ram to loot the treasury and roll back any social programs, I think it not only owns the party but it really accurately represents the overwhelming majority of the party. I think it wll continue to do so until so until Democfrats role up sizable victories at which point silent, neutered conservatives may discover their voice (and rediscover their discarded politics).

VLaszlo, the fact is that while the republicans appear weak on the Iraq war, and on the economy, there are other issues that they can help cement further divides nationally to help secure their control.

The issues of jobs, the borders, illegal immigration is just one example in which the American people are upset about and see democrats as a whole as colluding with Bush on. The neo-left side with Bush on the issue and are as easily pointed out as being disconnected to the realities of American workers. They are also easily pointed out as being anti-American, and while the American people are more and more against the war, they love their country and have a legitimate right to expect a firm stand be taken against terrorism.

The neo-left has a documented history of siding with Islamic jihad and Al Quaida. What is coming is going to be a splintering of the democratic party. The neo-left aren't democratic, and the weak rationales they and those democrats who fell for them in this campaign are going to be held up as prime examples as why people shouldn't vote democrat in future. They crow about how the democratic party is weak if it allows it to be controlled by the neo-left, and that is what the neo-left want this campaign to be seen as.. pulling strings, controlling the party.

The challenge for leaders in the party-out-of-power is securing presidential accountability in exchange for their vote. This was the price Republicans exacted from Truman in return for backing the Marshall Plan. Democrats failed to secure a comparable commitment from Bush. Lieberman has paid the price for this mistake.

Good point. The Democratic party has failed on many issues to hold this administration accountable. Lieberman is just one casualty of that dereliction. The country itself, is paying a far greater price, with endless war, skyrocketing deficit, and significant loss of privacy rights. The Patriot Act should never have been renewed and the FISA law should have been enforced.

How about taking this out of the realm of the passion about the Joe Lieberman story?

Bill Clinton, whether you believe the result was for good or for ill, probably could not have done much about Kosovo without Bob Dole very publicly pushing. The "bring slick Willie down no matter what the cost, no matter what the issue" partisan fighters were bound and determined to frame anything he did in foreign policy as a bad thing.

I will add these thoughts: the more partisan foreign policy becomes, the less other countries take any foreign policy seriously. They can just hedge their bets, wait 4 or 8 years for the next president. Also, I remember I found the Bush administration attitude upon inauguration about not just wanting a policy change, but throwing all foreign policy intel and info. from the exiting Clintonites in the circular file, quite appalling.

the effect will be less democratic victories this fall, and potentially the same for '08. 

Like we saw last night?

So far, your track record of predicting the mindset of the American people ain't too good.

Let me try and get through to you:

There is no neo-left. There is no agenda of power. Or string pulling.

If there is any revolution going on, it is bringing regular people back into politics. People are tired of the establishment. People are tired of ineffectual politicians. People are tired of the Democratic party getting shit on by the Republicans.

Lieberman represented Democrats getting shit on by Republicans. He got shit on time and time again. In fact, he seemed to enjoy it. 

Lamont represented a revolution -- a change in direction for CT. Regular people, not paid political consultants, getting out the vote and supporting someone new, with fresh ideas.

In November, I suspect we see the same sentiment from all over this country. A change in direction.

To the extent that bloggers help make that happen, here's the them.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

Ok, then, it's hopeless, why not just get rid of civil service at the State Department, make every single job there a political appointment? You can't get a job in government without your party I.D.

Trubowitz is talking big picture (example: Marshall Plan); so am I. It's about the future, not the past. Everything is not about the DLC. My point in raising Clinton was actually to suggest that the rightist GOP reaction to his foreign policy was when things started to go overboard on the dishonest partisanship with foreign policy. It's not the historic state of things overall. Just because the Democrats didn't do their due diligence during the build-up to the Iraq war and gave too much knee-jerk support right off the bat doesn't mean that the parties have to have totally opposing foreign policies and not compromise in the end to show a somewhat united front to the world.

Mary from RI:

I agree with you that the "bread and butter issues" are essential issues. I do not know on what you base your appraisal on the "neo-left" and I am unsure who is included in this rubric. I myself consider myself a leftist and a progressive and always have been; I am old so maybe am not a "neo-leftist" but if I am that might be OK too depending on who else is there and what they stand for. I am very much against Bush's stupid, destructive, and counter-productive war on Iraq and the subsequent criminal occupation with all its horrors and neocon excesses. It undermines the security that you and I and blue-collar Americans and others demand. It also causes an incredible drain on the American economy and has contributed to higher oil prices and inflation all of which hits the working poor and middle class and the unemployed hardest. If the "neo-left" or individuals therein support these policies, and wholesale outsourcing, privatizing social security, attacks on the environment and civil rights, contraction of pensions and health care, bankruptcy protection, then I agree with you wholeheartedly. I do not think the left that I am familiar with comes under this criticism; on the contrary it is in the forefront of defending workers and others from the class warfare waged by the Republicans and some of their corporate-backed Democratic supporters. To the extent that they sell-out, we must hold their feet to the fire. (BTW, I do NOT know ANYONE in America who sides with Al-Qaeda. Perhaps you meant that as a figure of speech.)

But just wishing there'd be civil bipartisanship isn't gonna make it happen.

I don't disagree that bipartisan solutions in foreign policy are important. I was just pointing out that it's not going to happen with the GOP Congress. Nor is it to anyone's benefit to compromise (if it's at all possible) with neo-con fantasies of freedom-spreading in the Middle East.

Why would we do that? I don't even understand why Republicans go along with it? It's not a real policy -- it's a failure. 

Longer-term, I completely agree with you.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

With all due respect to these courageous moderate/conservatives the instinct for survival is strong especially in political contexts.

How do you think Karl Rove and George Bush's offers of help to Lieberman fit into Mary's....let's say peculiar...peculiar worldview?