I hope you are right and the Democrats can show the American people what they are for. They have spent all of their resources over the last six plus years fighting a rhetorical war with Bush.

If they want to win back Congress, or the White House, they are going to have to show quantitatively what they stand for. They cannot merely formulate a plan several months after gaining office; they must have one upon entering office.

Indeed, BBochove.  And it's worth remembering that Lieberman never even dropped his senate race in 2000 to run with Gore.

"The Lamont victory makes a strong statement that Democrats know what the party is against. Now let’s move on more to also what we’re for." Perhaps it does. Regretably, what it stands against is the sort of muscular liberalism that made me proud to be a Democrat. So I'm out. If anyone is interested in details, I've posted them on my own website.

Now, I assume that anyone reading this posting will respond with something ranging from a modestly polite "Who cares?" through a perfectly understandable "go to hell" down to considerably less polite ways to convey the same sentiment with greater emphasis on the specific type of hell to which I should go.

At this point, I can't really say that any of those respondents would be wrong. The Democratic Party--in which I have been an active member my entire life--contains many factions that jockey for position and influence in shaping the party's position and agenda. My faction lost--badly. So perhaps I, like Senator Lieberman, am nothing more than a sore loser going off to sulk in some corner.

And if I'm the only one who feels pushed out of a party that he can no longer support, then kudos to the Nedheads. You've focused the party at minimal cost. It's been so long since I lived in a contested jurisdiction that you won't miss my votes, Democratic candidates will make up the money that I no longer donate, and the few folks who miss my smiling face at party events will know where to find me.

Of course, if I'm not alone, you may have a problem. So once you've finished heaping the inevitable venom on a guy who has no special claim to fame announcing that he feels pushed out of his longtime home, someone might start to wonder how many of the people who feel as I feel are just being a bit quiter about it--and how you're going to replace them.

So to those who feel that their faction will provide the Democratic Party with clarity, direction, and authority--good luck to you. You'll have to build the party without my support. Fortunately for you, the Republican Party seems to be working hard to make itself as unattractive as possible. You shouldn't need my support to beat these guys. Now let's see if you can do it.

Well Ned Lamont is definitely against the War in Iraq.  Could someone please illuminate what his specific positions are for how and when we get the men and women home.  I disagree with Lieberman's support of a war that is both counterproductive, with no specific goals or timetables.  But Lamont just saying he is for bringing our troops home isn't any better then Bush's completely lame "stay the course"...

Regretably, what it stands against is the sort of muscular liberalism that made me proud to be a Democrat.

I'm not really sure what "muscular liberalism" is. I'm assuming it has something to do with killing the terrorists over there so we don't have to kill them here. Or something like that.

Well, that policy has been tested. And it failed. If what you're looking for is represented by Lieberman, and, by extension, George Bush, you're right. It's now gone from the party.

If you're looking for something more effective than "stay the course," something that actually, you know, fights terrorists and makes us safer, I suspect you may end up right where you started.

See? No venom.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

OK, aMike, this one deserved a 5.5!

Jan Knaus

I think your being a bit extreme here to say the least.

There is a wide range of Democratic opinion on the war. Lieberman is pretty much unique in his extreme support of Bush's rosy view. Ther are very few Republicans outside of the extreme right who have a view anywhere near as rosy as Liebermans.

As one commentator put it Joe is to the right of Hagel and most fo the moderate Reps on this.

Also, note that no other Senators with more hawkish or pro-war positions have even faced a serious primary challange let alone a loss. This is really all about Joe.

Now if you think that the Bush foreign policy is just dandy and support the war in Iraq uniquivically, then I'd question what you wer ever doing as a Democrat in the first place.

Thanks, amike -- thoughtful and with great perspective.

Bruce Jentleson

Those are certainly thoughtful exceptions, and I appreciate them. You're certainly correct that "muscular liberalism" lacks a formal definition, but that's probably true for more than a handful of the political labels that get bandied about. So let me try to explain at least what I mean by the term, and let you (or others) either agree or disagree.

The "liberalism" part refers to political systems that respect individual rights, that recognize the general propriety of majority rule, but that limit a majority's ability to impose its political will on a minority. It also refers to the establishment of institutions capable of maintaining this careful balance so as to avoid either a slide into anarchy or a "tyranny of the majority."

The "muscular" part refers to a willingness to allocate resources, including military resources, to promote the growth of liberal societies wherever possible or practical.

It also leads to some attitudes that many consider to be rather "in your face." For example, consider a country whose government believes that women are property, either of their fathers or their husbands--and establishes institutions consistent with that belief. Is that any of our business? Should it be? Because I believe that all people have inherent rights, including women born into societies that feel otherwise, I can only conclude that the government in question lacks legitimacy. Does that mean that we should run around the world identifying such governments and eliminating them? No--and for a very simple reason. We can't be everywhere. Even great resources are fixed, and poor resource allocation can doom even the noblest of adventures. What is does mean is that when such a government is in trouble, or when we find ourselves involved with them for whatever reason, we should take whatever actions are necessary to help replace illegitimate institutions and governance with a legitimately liberal set.

The clearest concrete example of an American failure to do so was with Kuwait. I found it unconscionable that the Bush pere Administration did not make it clear to the Kuwaiti Royals that a Constitution, a Parliament, and citizenship for the exatriate workers trapped during the Iraqi occupation were quid pro quos for their restoration to power. Had we done so, I would cite it as a good example of muscular liberalism. Clearly, we did not and it is not.

As to Bush fils, there is no question that his careless and incompetent actions do not measure up to his lofty rhetoric. It's simply not possible to know what the man believes (though the blogosphere does seem to house many clairvoyants), but certain trends in his behavior are consistent. Somehow or another, our "first MBA" President plans only for the best case, underallocates resources, and never considers contingencies. This behavior pattern is manifest in both his domestic and his foreign agendas. Let's not forget, his first heartfelt program was his faith-based agenda. His implementation chief left in a huff in under a year complaining that the President was unwilling to allocate the resources necessary to do the job.

Where I agree with Bush--and with Lieberman--but find myself in increasing disagreement with much of the Democratic Party is that I believe that Western Civilization is facing an existential threat. I believe that there are large pockets of committed, violent extremists, largely though not exclusively in the Islamic world, who are increasingly unhappy with the global order that started to emerge in the 1990s. I believe that they would like to replace this order with a more traditional hierarchy in which God downloads the Truth to them, and they then impose it through the finest totalitarian means that technology allows. The good news is that there is no consensus among these groups as to precisely what that totalitarian state should look like (or who should lead it). The bad news is that they all recognize that the only way to get there from here is by first passing through a period of global anarchy. Their united drive to create that anarchy is where I see the existential threat.

Given the choice, I would vastly prefer to see Tony Blair as the leader of the free world than George W. Bush. Not only do I agree with him on many issues unrelated to foreign policy, but I think that he is smarter and more trustworthy than Bush. (For those who haven't read Blair's wonderful speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council last week should take a look at it). Regretably, no one gave me that choice. Blair, as you might note, is no longer the most popular guy among the UK's Laborites. I can only wonder what type of reception he would receive were he a Democratic Senator saying the type of things that he says and supporting the war effort in Iraq as he has.

The upshot, though, is that a party that doesn't see an existential threat is unlikely to devise a strategy capable of countering one. And the failure to counter an existential threat (if such exists) renders everything else moot.

Note that nothing that I have said, either above or on my website, suggests that the Republicans are doing a good job (unless you consider my calling them a failed party of government that may have hit rock bottom to be a compliment). The question is how best to express a belief that the direction that the Democratic Part is heading--the direction that the netroots revolution and Dean's DNC leadership exemplify--is bad for the country. The only conclusion that I can find is to withhold my support. If forced to choose between the dangers of the far right and the dangers of the far left, I will do so on a case-by-case basis. But despite what some may think or say about liberal hawks, I adhere to a definite ideology because I believe that it is good for the country and for the world. I can't back a party that rejects it.

B-u-t-t-t, George W. never had a plan, other than to invade Iraq (and not a very good one at that, 2595 dead troops and $500 billion borrowed bucks as of today), and of course his main plan-to get elected. What has Bush ever done for this country? OK he did start some wars, lie, invent color coded terror alerts, vacation a lot and generally screw up.

If the Democrats don't have a clear plan to clean up the huge mess Dubya has created, wouldn't a good Democratic PR machine and powerful Democratic photo-ops be just as effective with the ever uninformed self-absorbed American voter?

Maybe Americans will wake up from this Republican nightmare and give the Democrats a chance at "responsible leadership and a commitment to govern in the public interest." (below)

Neocons and many in the media commentariat are spinning the Lieberman defeat...

It's interesting to see which reporters are transcribing the RNC talking points most accurately, fully prepared to spin it either way, however contorted the logic: "Why Republicans are Loving the Lieberman [Loss][Win]" - feeding a destructive tide of sham reasoning in public discourse.

The Lamont victory makes a strong statement that Democrats know what the party is against. Now let’s move on more to also what we’re for.

It is even more difficult when very senior party members disagree - very publicly - and claim that they are the voice of the party. Again, without leadership positions, such members are difficult to keep quiet or to control.

The rejection of Joe Lieberman in spite of his long service and many fine qualities becomes a signal to the public that the dissarray is over. The rejection of Cynthia McKinney on the same day reinforces this message to the public. The core elements of the Democratic position are already in place. The problem has been getting is accepted as "The Democratic Message."

The removal of the outliar message breakers is a major signal to both the public and to others within the party who might consider going down the path of the Rebel Against The Party. That route is going to become harder to take and a lot less rewarding for those who try. Especially prior to the upcoming election. Suddenly the Democratic Party has soomething it offers that rewards its members if they stick together.

I think we are going to find that the party position will literally come flowing out over the next three months. The flood will be something that Rove and Mehlman are already frantically trying to stick their fingers into the dike to stop it, but it is too late. That dike broke. Yesterday.

Watch new media narratives start being created in the next ten or so days. That will be a major symptom of the crash of the older world and the opening of the new one.

How do I know this? I'm no expert. I just feel it happening today. There are too many explanations and too much to explain for the old patterns to still be holding in place. Any yeah, I could be wrong, or it could get derailed, but if the Democratic Party has leaders who are hungry, conscious and ready, this is the trend they have hoped and prayed for, and it has happend three months before the election.

I really should change my nom-du-plume to "Voice of Hope" for this message, because that really is how I feel after nearly three decades of abuse after Carter.

Informationist, you are not alone.

I've voted Democratic in eight presidential elections. If McCain wins the Republican nomination, I'll be voting for the first time for a Republican.

Like you, my vote probably won't be missed, or the money I donate, or any contribution I made at all. But like you also, I suspect there are lots more out there is same boat. Too bad we don't have a captain.

ergoquid,

Also, aren't these the same folks in 2000 who branded Gore-Lieberman "Sore-Loserman"?  Has anyone here found more than just a handful of American infotainment consumers with memories that stretch further back than the most recent invocation of 9/11?

I'm worried about this "good ole Joe" and "his many years of fine service" sentimentality that's emerging from this battle. Lieberman and his cohort at the DLC have almost ruined our party. This notion, held by them, that the party should be above politics is so counter-intuitive to the very idea of political parties that you wonder if their isn't some ulterior motive pushing this lunacy. Voters don't send people to Washington D.C. to be above politics, they send them to D.C. to be politicians.

I've been watching Joe Lieberman since 2000 and for the life of me, I can't see where he has done anything to advance any democratic cause (and has done quite a bit to thwart it) other than the cause of Joe Lieberman. Of course everyone wants to be a magnanimous winner, but this tendency by our democratic pundits to preface every statement with "Joe's a wonderful guy", and "I love Joe, but" and "Joe's done so much for the party in the past" is just reinforcing the notion that Joe Lieberman is a good candidate for office.

Lieberman lost because he's a selfish prick who cares more about what the D.C. insiders think of him than the CT. voters think. He gummed up the works in 2000, he continued to gum up the works since then, and from the looks of things, he's going to gum them up in the future. There's nothing wonderful about that.

Lieberman is our McCain.

The mythical mavericks, who buck the party line. The difference being McCain has actually never been a maverick, and Lieberman's maverick-ness has been foolish and delusional, and was really just in a fantasy land, toeing the GOP line (on Iraq, not his entire record. But that's the one that counts.)

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

Quick, name the day and month that 9/11 took place?

5% of Americans missed that one.

Quick, name the year that 9/11 took place?

30% of Americans lost out on that one.

So, I'm curious as to how many Americans even remember who was running for President back in 2000? Who was the incumbent? Who was the challenger? Who was the VP candidate?

cscs, a vote for Lieberman is a vote for Bush, a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush, a vote for (fill in the blank) is a vote for Bush....and on and on it goes.

Bush is now the political bogeyman, whose very name is supposed to invoke fear and loathing for any candidate who does not have the Far Left's stamp of approval. That worked among the Democratic voters in CT, but it won't work nationally, and maybe not in the general election in CT.

I take a backseat to no one in my disgust with Dubbya. I voted for Kerry, I voted for Gore, but I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat. There are millions of Dem's just like me.

But don't let voices like mine spoil the party.

We don't count, at least not anymore.

McCain has some "maverick" accomplishments, like campaign finance reform (with Feingold), and he behaved semi-honorably on the issue of torture.

I think we should not deny it, but we should remember that the totality of this "maverick" effort is rather thin.

By the way of contrast, I do not recall Lieberman bucking the party in a commendable fashion, as Feingold is doing quite regularly. Lieberman is not a devil or a Republican, but pleasant surprises like a vote against flag burning amendment were when he follow the majority of the party.

I will admit that you have one good point--there are too many liberals who deny that authoritarianism (not just Islamic authoritarianism) abroad is dangerous to us here at home.

But given a choice between sitting on our hands doing nothing and going out and making the problem worse, I'll take sitting on our hands any day. If the danger is anarchy and disorder, than war and "regime change" is the ally of chaos and the enemy of freedom. That's not to say that war should be off the table, but it should be considered Mututally Assured Defeat--everyone loses.

There are isolationists among both the Republicans and Democrats, but it seems to me that all of the people who are advocating a solution that would actually work--one based on cooperation, patience, and restraint--happen to be liberal Democrats.

You know, it occurs to me how strange that is. There are liberal and conservative hawks, liberal and conservative isolationists, but those who recognize that 21st century power is more about economics, culture, and diplomacy than bombs and guns seem to be overwhelmingly liberal.

Consumatopia--it's not really all that strange. Much of what we see gets filtered through the lens of predisposition. When writers from the center-left talk about economics, culture, and diplomacy, you likely presume that they are expressing their true beliefs; when they talk about the need for military action, you see it as either a narrow exception or as the need for cover against accusations of being soft. When those from the center-right talk about economics, culture, and diplomacy (and they do--often), you may view it as disingenuous.

A couple of examples. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Paul Wolfowitz addressed Congress and said things that were quite silly, not credible, and proved to be untrue. At about the same time, Colin Powell addressed the UN and said a number of things that while perhaps not as silly, were no more credible and contained no more truth. Both spoke as members of the same team, and made it clear that they were supporting the team position. No one outside that team knows exactly who said what at what point during the internal discussions. Yet it is an article of common faith that Wolfowitz stood strongly behind everything that he said while Powell was coerced into lying. Why? Mostly because people who long disliked Wolfowitz will accept any negative interpretation that furthers their distates, while Powell's many fans will excuse his shortcomings as obviously attributable to someone else.

Here's another. Three of the publications that I read rather regularly are The Economist, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard. Though they often reach different conclusions on many issues, their analyses and diagnoses are not that far off. The dividing line among their conclusions typically hinges on whom they trust and whom they distrust. For a particularly interesting comparison, read their endoresements before the 2004 election. All three concluded that Bush did not deserve a second term, but that Kerry had provided no cogent reason to vote for him. All three provided comparable assessments of Bush's first term and of Kerry's campaign. All three believed that America deserved a better choice. And all three conceded that they, like American voters, had to hold their noses and make a choice. With that, two endorsed Kerry and one Bush (you can guess which was which).

The dispersion of ideas and analyses is not much different when you move from left to right--or from right to left. What differs is the choices of individuals or institutions to trust, and the consequent actions that such trust engenders.

The ALP hasn't been in power since 1996, I doubt that their position on Iraq had all that much to do with their current losing streak.

Consumatopia: Point well taken. I filter (at least) as much as the next guy.

And you're also certainly correct that if you look for writers or speakers on the right who use the language of the left, you're unlikely to find them. But there is a fair amount in what they say that indicates a recognition that American military might is but a part of our toolkit--and that it cannot succeed without a significant concerted investment in institution building.

This attitude is most pronounced among those who consider themselves to be neoconservatives (a much smaller group than those casually labeled neocons by others).

Here, for example, is Condi Rice:

To build a balance of power that favors freedom, we must also extend the peace by extending the benefits of liberty and prosperity as broadly as possible. As the President has said, we have a responsibility to build a world that is not only safer, but better.

The United States will fight poverty, disease, and oppression because it is the right thing to do -- and the smart thing to do. We have seen how poor states can become weak or even failed states, vulnerable to hijacking by terrorist networks -- with potentially catastrophic consequences. And in societies where legal avenues for political dissent are stifled, the temptation to speak through violence grows.

We will lead efforts to build a global trading system that is growing and more free. Here in our own hemisphere, for example, we are committed to completing a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005. We are also starting negotiations on a free trade agreement with the Southern African Customs Union. Expanding trade is essential to the development efforts of poor nations and to the economic health of all nations.

We will continue to lead the world in efforts to combat HIV/AIDS -- a pandemic which challenges our humanity and threatens whole societies. We will seek to bring every nation into an expanding circle of development.

Earlier this year the President proposed a 50 percent increase in U.S. development assistance. But he also made clear that new money means new terms. The new resources will only be available to countries that work to govern justly, invest in the health and education of their people, and encourage economic liberty. We know from experience that corruption, bad policies, and bad practices can make aid money worse than useless. In such environments, aid props up bad policy, chasing out investment and perpetuating misery. Good policy, on the other hand, attracts private capital and expands trade. In a sound policy environment, development aid is a catalyst, not a crutch.

At the core of America’s foreign policy is our resolve to stand on the side of men and women in every nation who stand for what the President has called the “non-negotiable demands of human dignity” -- free speech, equal justice, respect for women, religious tolerance, and limits on the power of the state. These principles are universal –- and President Bush has made them part of the debate in regions where many thought that merely to raise them was imprudent or impossible.

Now, you may conclude that she's just being political or disingenuous, or even note the disconnect between the fine words and administration policy. But I just don't think that it's fair to say that those on the right don't discuss or advocate non-military forms of intervention. Recall: back in the 1990s when the Republican mainstream derided Clinton's efforts at "nation building," wirters like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan dissented in his support. The entire idea of "creating a new Middle East" or a new world, is predicated on building new institutions.

The literature is full of such discussions. In fact, the core of the debate between neocons and paleocons hinges on the expense of rebuilding failed states and societies. It may be fair to question any individual's commitment to economic and cultural assistance, or even to dislike the balance between military and non-military intervention, but the ideas are certainly in play as much on the right as they are on the left.

TNR and Weekly Standard - just different flavors of neocons with grandiose answers and no capacity to ask simple questions.

Look at what happened again today. An extremely clever band of zealots almost succeeded in using simple tools to take down our big iconic flagship airlines.

Both sides have zealots but their side has zealots who think outside the box.

We need some thinkers who can get outside the box of shock and awe brute force and you aren't going to find them reading The Economist either.

Try The Guardian.

Bush is now the political bogeyman, whose very name is supposed to invoke fear and loathing for any candidate who does not have the Far Left's stamp of approval.

Uh, yeah. Second term, 35-40% approval rating? Of course.

And, please, check the polls. It has nothing to do with the "far left." Republicans themselves are going to have to distance themselves from Bush. They already are. 

That worked among the Democratic voters in CT, but it won't work nationally,

Of course it will.  

but I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat.

Why? What will he do differently than Bush?

But don't let voices like mine spoil the party. We don't count, at least not anymore.

Awwww, pity party. Buck up.

In all seriousness, how will McCain be any different?

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

In the paleocon vs. neocon argument, it's the paleocons who are correct--it IS impossible to build new institutions from scratch without using up more blood and treasure than those institutions will save. Creating new institutions is impossible. That's the lesson of Iraq (and why we may come to see a lot of former neocons become either liberals or paleocons).

But the neocons are correct too, in that we can't have freedom and prosperity at home unless there is freedom and prosperity abroad.

Perhaps the ideas may be in play on both sides, but it's the combination of ideas that's missing on the right--a combination of the paleocon's recognition of the impossibility of "tabula rasa" nation building, combined with the neocon's determination to achieve humane and liberal aims overseas.

(There's another lesson in there that Rice forgot to learn in post-Soviet Russia--stability and integrity make free markets possible, not the other way around.)

Deleted (moved to correct reply location)

A payola scheme similar to the one he and Markos of Daily Kos run in democratic races? Pay for protection.. ie, either cough up huge sums or we'll slander you and your candidacy?

And speaking of "slander"...

cscs, as long as we are looking at polls, although it is two years out, McCain beats Clinton by 12% in the latest polls. Is that because Americans think "a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush?"

Where is the disconnect? The polls do not show any connection in the voter's minds between Bush and McCain.

What would be the number one security threat in American mind's these days, again, according to the polls?

And the survey says - "Iran" (number one answer). On Lamont's website, he lists his positions on the issues. However, no position is listed on Iran - in fact there is no mention of Iran at all, or Afghanistan. Maybe "soft" on foreign policy isn't the most apt description. "Uninformed," might be more like it.

I don't expect any pity, by the way. It doesn't seem that you're bothered that lifelong Dems are leaving the party. And you've every right to feel that way.

Bruce says,

Now let’s move on more to also what we’re for..

BrianOC, both parties have been leaking oil over the past 50 years to the fastest growing demographic in the United States - the unaffiliated voter. In many states the independent voter is running 85 to 90% of new voter registration.

In relative terms, however, the Dems fare far worse than the Repubs. Those affiliated with the Dem's declined 8% from 1988 to 2004 and declined 2% among the Repub's. In terms of raw numbers, that represents a leakage of millions who consider themeselves Dem's. To a lesser extent, the same for Repub's, but the "glorious circle of life," turns out to be a little less glorious for the Dem's.

Add to that, factor in the "swing" voters, who I'll call Dem's willing to vote for Repubs and vice versa. In California, for example, 14% of registered Dem's in 2000 were willing to vote for a Republican candidate, and only 9% of Repubs were willing to vote for a Dem.

In terms of foreign policy, the latest Gallup information on those who do not state a party affiliation is that they aren't crazy about the way the war in Iraq has worked out so far (who is?), but overall, they are hawks in the war on terror. And the Dem's just lost their last hawk on the war on terror.

Does that help? Probably not, now that you have more information, there will be some other reason(s) why you don't care/recognize that the Dem's aren't surging as a party, they are sinking, and Lamont's victory helped quicken the process.

Does Lamont's victory, do you think, broaden the Democratic party base?

And keep in mind, I voted for McGovern in 1972 and every Democratic presidential candidate since. I'll vote for the candidate in '08 who best represents my interests, regardless of party afflilation. I will not vote for a candidate who does not recognize that there is a war going on, and one not of our choosing.

I don't feel sad, I feel liberated.