Those Were The Days
Before hating Joe Lieberman was the hip thing, there used to be a Senator by the name of John Breaux who was far and away America's Worst Democrat. And, apparently, he's still whoring around for big business trying to wreck America's domestic policy.
Advertisement
Not that Breaux isn't appalling, but worse than Zell Miller?
August 16, 2006 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miller really only got that bad at the very end - and by then he wasn't particularly effective. What made Breaux so bad is that he was really pretty effective as a Senator - and in the '90s, with the DLC at its zenith, that meant there were a lot of bipartisan bills named [GOP whackjob]-Breaux. He was good at it.
A big part of this is, as others have noted, the fact that Breaux is that very peculiar species of Bad Democrat, the Louisiana Democrat - not a pre-realignment holdover from the Southern Democrats, but possessed of their own unique, corrupt history. Politics is just really weird down there, though I am curious whether things will change in any substantial way in a post-Katrina Louisiana.
August 16, 2006 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh thanks for the nice segueway for a (warning) rambling rant.... :-)
The overkill and obsession with this in the blogosphere is really starting to get to me.
While it wouldn't affect who I would vote for if I were a CT voter (against Lieberman in my case,) as I pride myself on trying very hard not to be affected by such things as my dislike of other supporters of the candidate in voting, it also makes me wonder whether I should consider the factor of any candidate aligned with this supposed net-activist-based "new party" as a real strong negative, a hint that they may lack perspective and judgment.
I just don't buy that this race is a fight for the soul of the party, WWIII, or Armageddon. It's politically interesting, but the passion of many of the non-CT-resident activists seems misplaced, increasingly irrational, and very personal, very much on the order of right wingnut hatred of Bill Clinton.
Barack Obama seems wiser all the time for his infamous tamping down of blog triumphalism post on Kos a ways back. There's just that pitchfork-yielding mob feeling to it all sometimes. And maybe the main problem there is that it is pitchforks, and not more sophisticated political weapons? Perhaps rather than looking like 1972, it's looking more "Deaniac" all the time?
Suppose a whole bunch of people not in his district had made it a point to blog on Zell Miller every other day with extreme passion and vitriol when he was in the Senate. Would that be healthy and rational?
Just my own personal reaction, but wondering how many others out there are feeling like me.
Keep in mind that what Lamont's job is now is not just to get the vote of 48% of the dems that purposely came out to vote against him, but also to win over some of those "unaffiliated" voters, and to get them out to vote, which I have read are 1/3 of the electorate in CT?
"Hip" and "early adopter" does not equal "majority." It's the echo chamber thingie, drowning out all the "silents" out there.
August 16, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we in a state of Lieberman overkill? I'd say yes, but only by a little.
As long as the Republicans are insane, and I don't know when that'll stop being the case, fierce partisanship and party discipline are the only way to go. Making an example of Lieberman is, as far as I can tell, the best way to jolt recalcitrant Democratic Senators into getting with this program.
I look forward to the day -- my wildly optimistic hope is that it comes in 2009 under President Edwards -- when dramatic antipoverty measures and universal health care are passed, and not one Democratic Senator plays the idiot-bipartisanship game and sells out the plan, because they're afraid of being ripped to bloody shreds by the netroots. I like the way that Mark Schmitt characterized the netroots -- "the vanguard of a strong and cohesive party". And that's what we need to be.
August 17, 2006 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
If one could say that it's irrational and personal for the anti-Lieberman folks, it seems many more orders of magnitude more irrational for Lieberman himself. What rational interest of his was served by picking a fight with the pitchfork mob with that infamous "undermine the president's credibility" line? It's good that you pride yourself on ignoring supporters, because this seems like the perfect example of how doing so would lead you astray--of the two candidates, Lieberman seems like he has more personal, irrational resentment, even if Lamont's followers have more of it than Lieberman's. (In fact, I'd say it's the first inequality that caused the second).
I also think there are some districts in which outside blogging makes more sense than others. Clearly, no Yankee saying anything about Georgia is going to help anything.
August 17, 2006 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Breaux was a whore with hardly any pretence of being anything else. His most lofty principle was that among his johns, bussinesses from Lousiana come first.
You could be appalled, but harranguing a "working girl" that just shrugs it off is not all that satisfying.
Lieberman has his mercenary side, but it is what he does "from true love" is most terrifying. Committee on Current and Present Danger? Stand behind the President in time of war or else? Burn those CDs and video games? And "we are facing an enemy worse than Stalin and Hitler" -- so torture them and bomb flat?
As a whore, I grant you, Lieberman was one of many. But is a modern-day crusader and Savonarola, he is a clear outlier. And now picture Savonarola who is also a whore, however mediocre (although his work on gutting improvements in accounting rules deserves an honorable mention).
August 17, 2006 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Move on.
Was just thinking that the Clinton-hating wingnuts were not the ones that delivered the House for Gingrich. Obsession with one person is no good. Others will not see the evil you might in a single character. Indeed, a significant number of people that voted for a GOP rep in 94 gave Clinton a high approval rating all through his persecution. A persecution by wingnuts that was partly enabled, BTW, by winning the House. You can pick on Lieberman much easier with a majority on your side.
August 18, 2006 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Winning an election to the senate is not a guarantee of a lifetime job. We hold elections for that job every 6 years, and at that time the incumbent is scrutinized to see if he/she deserves another 6 years. The voters then make the decision. We refer to this process as democracy.
Lieberman, just as all incumbent senators do, went thru this process called democracy and lost, but refused to accept the loss. I don't see anything in that process involving Lieberman that was wrong, wrong headed, immoral, or anything except playing the game of democracy as it is supposed to be played, except Lieberman's refusal to accept the vote of the people. That was wrong.
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 19, 2006 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink