Thursday, July 20, 2006

Article in Roll Call

Mort Kondracke penned an article in today's Roll Call, of which he is executive editor, on the Connecticut Senate race. Here are some excerpts:

Lieberman, one of the last “liberal hawks” in the Democratic Party and a leader in efforts to find bipartisan solutions to America’s problems, is being targeted for defeat by an emergent new left that’s using savage, Internet-based attacks to push moderation out of politics.

If former Greenwich Selectman Ned Lamont beats Lieberman in the Democratic primary, it will represent a signal victory...for vicious name-calling as a political tactic...

Lieberman is a target primarily because he supports the Iraq war, but also because he rejects Bush-hatred and often cooperates with Republicans, even though he votes with his party 80 percent of the time...

To his credit, Lamont himself is not stooping as low as his supporters are, though he is distorting Lieberman’s record on the environment, energy and Social Security...

Lieberman is a rare remaining vestige of the assertive Democratic foreign policy typified by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy. Though he’s accused of being Bush’s cheerleader on Iraq, Lieberman first called for toppling Saddam Hussein in 1993, before Bush was even governor of Texas.

Lieberman surely is out of his party’s force-averse post-Vietnam mainstream on foreign policy. But the party desperately needs his voice, and American politics also needs his willingness to cooperate with his political adversaries and to act independently.

“Hatred divides the country and blinds us to the fact that we are all in this together, particularly when it comes to national security,” Lieberman said. “You can have disagreement, but once you think the other side is evil — and there is a group in each party that thinks the other side is evil — we have a problem. The hatred of Bush among some Democrats mirrors the hatred of Bill Clinton among some Republicans in the 1990s. It’s destructive.”

And it’s now up to Connecticut voters to decide whether hatred-politics will prevail.

Kondracke is a well-known critic of the more intractable liberal elements of the Democratic Party, but he is certainly no conservative - the man had the honor of being on Richard Nixon's "Enemies List" along with Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, and Paul Newman.

It does bring up a pretty good point about the way this race will be perceived nationally. In the sheltered world of the blogosphere, it often seems as if a liberal groundswell is underway across the country. But the truth is that the blogosphere is about reinforcing the opinions that people already have, not about changing people's minds. The extremes on both sides dump on anyone who disagrees with them on a key issue, throwing red meat to keep their readers happy, but also making the moderates on both sides feel increasingly resentful.

They use the self-reinforcing posts on DailyKos as evidence of this supposed liberal groundswell, implicitly dismissing those who don't hold their views as part of a Washington insider, special interest-powered enclave - despite the fact that probably 75% of the country doesn't hold their views. They often use the term "people power" to describe their movement, and even to criticize the possibility of a independent bid by Lieberman - despite the fact that probably ten times as many voters (who are indeed people) will show up in November than will show up for the Democratic primary. In this context, the only "people power" that matters is the power of people who agree with them.

Kondracke is right on one major point - the Democrats are in a lot of trouble if what happens to Lieberman starts happening to other moderate Democrats. Liberals may well be on the ascendant, but they can't truly help the Democrats take back Washington unless they learn to ally themselves with moderates in the party, or at least learn to not hurl insults at them.

And yes, that even applies to Democrats who break with and criticize other Democrats on some key issues, because a party that refuses to tolerate dissent within its ranks risks exile to the political wilderness.

Note: At some point in the next day, I'll be doing a post which is critical of the Lieberman campaign. Try not to look too shocked!


Blogger SeedFreak said...

There is a very good article under the Primary Prolitics header of USA Today, I'll paste in the top half which has to do with Joe--it's called Jiltin Joe.

Here is the link to the full article--

Jilting Joe.

Joe Lieberman has done much for the Democratic Party. He got to the Senate in 1989 by unseating a Republican incumbent of 18 years. He helped found the New Democrat movement that paved the way for Bill Clinton's election as president. And, as Al Gore's running mate in 2000, he was widely seen as a boost to the ticket.

So how do many Democrats want to reward him for his service to the party? Kick him out of the Senate. Largely because of his support for the Iraq war, he's under attack from liberal bloggers and faces a stiff challenge from multimillionaire Ned Lamont in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary.

If Connecticut Democrats want to oust Lieberman, who plans to run as an independent if he loses the primary, that's their entitlement. But the strident attacks on Lieberman from the out-of-state anti-war left reflect a common, and regrettable, trend: true believers going on ideological purity crusades to rid their party of those who don't conform.

Two years ago, some conservative Republican purists went after Arlen Specter, a centrist senator from Pennsylvania. Before that they targeted Marge Roukema, a now-retired congresswoman from New Jersey.

These efforts undermine the parties' efforts to achieve or maintain majority power and corrode effective government.

Ideologically pure politics harm a party because they target the people who can appeal across party lines and who tend to represent areas with traditions of political centrism. Lieberman has helped market the Democratic Party to swing voters. Specter has done something similar for the GOP, at least in his own state.

More important, the nation is harmed. Both parties agree, for instance, that a Social Security crisis could be averted by acting now. Centrist, pragmatic leadership did just that in 1983. But this year, reform died because both parties used it to gain political advantage. The same problem makes it harder to develop a bipartisan foreign policy, as Lieberman found out, even at a time of war.

Ideology has a proper place, but it's second place behind the nation's common needs.

I look forward to the announcement ;-)

7/20/2006 11:37 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Good catch.

Both articles are good analyses. The Democrats need to maintain their big tent and get those swing voters to win.

Now let's see how long it takes for liebermanforlieberman to get off topic.

7/20/2006 11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm assuming that "good catch" was aimed at seedfreak, and I agree :).

7/20/2006 11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This doesn't say anything about how this race will be seen nationally. Most people don't have subscriptions to Roll Call. If you want to see how it will play nationally, check out the AP (showing how it is playing in Wyoming):

Lieberman Losing Ground in Senate Race
HAMDEN, Conn. - Sen. Joe Lieberman, under fire from activists in his own party, has lost ground to his challenger and is narrowly trailing him for the first time in their race for the Democratic nomination, a new poll released Thursday shows.

Businessman Ned Lamont had support from 51 percent and Lieberman from 47 percent of likely Democratic voters in the latest Quinnipiac University poll _ a slight Lamont lead given the survey's sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Lieberman had led in a Quinnipiac poll last month, 55 percent to 40 percent.

"This is a surge for Lamont," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz. "It's rare to see such a big change in a race."

It might be nice that the Beltway crowd still like Joe, the problem is Connecticut voters.

7/20/2006 12:03 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

You forgot to mention that the poll also has Lamont losing to Lieberman by a nearly 2-1 in a general election campaign. Or do only those Connecticut voters who hate Lieberman count?

Oh, and LieberDem - we're not surprised that you are willing to criticize the Lieberman campaign. You see, those of us who don't reflexively hate other Democrats are willing to see both sides of an issue. So it might not make sense to the Lieberhaters, but it makes sense to us!

7/20/2006 12:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FWIW, while the poll is certainly troublesome if you are a Lieberman supporter (which I am although I'm not a Connecticut voter) it's probably best to wait until other polls come in although I suspect the news will not be good for us.

Lieberman unfortunately took the Dukakis route of not responding to the lies and smears of his opponent because he assumed that people would have sense enough not to fall for it. Unfortunately, that has never been the case.

7/20/2006 12:14 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Lieberman does nothing but lie and smear

That's why we're here.

7/20/2006 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

damn straight, l4l

7/20/2006 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reflexive hate...that's all you Lieberhaters have to offer.

Thank god you don't speak for the real Democrats.

7/20/2006 12:33 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Some people seem to think that this Q-Poll shows that all of the nattering negativity and limitless Lieberman lying have kind of backfired on Joe. I would have to agree.

With our troops bogged down in a horrible foreign civil war and the country going to hell in a handbasket, who woulda thunk that Connecticut voters might want to hear about something other than Lamont's tax returns?

Who woulda thunk?

7/20/2006 12:34 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Actually, despite all the lies and distortions of the Lieberhaters, he still leads Ned 2-1 among Connecticut voters.

Despite the name-calling and negativity of the Lamontista bloggers, which Kondracke is not alone in noticing, Lieberman still trounces Lamont among the people of CT.

Who woulda thunk?

7/20/2006 12:39 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

The question is will Democrats vote for the cut-and-run party of one.

Time will tell.

7/20/2006 12:42 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Wouldn't it be great to have a somewhat interesting feature on this blog? Well, I'm glad you agree.

Here is a script for some Lieberman TV propaganda that could surely save his faltering campaign. I found it over at DailyKos. It's entertaining and light, and I thought that people here might really appreciate a little break from all the hate, so here it is:

Ominous music in background.

Fade in on glowing computer screen.


The Internet.

First it was the child pornographers.

VISUAL: man watching children at play through a chain link fence.

Then, it was get rich quick schemes from con artists.

VISUAL: Two smirking teenagers with scraggly beards stuffing money into their droopy-drawer jeans, walking away from a house with a sweet little old lady closing the door on them and waving "thank you."

Then we all found out that terrorists use the internet, too.

VISUAL: Two stereotyped muslim-arab terrorists with bandoliers of bullets are typing at a computer. We close in on the screen to see that they have an internet shopping cart at an e-store open, and they are buying something that has a big radioactive symbol on it and laughing at one another.

Now, there's a new threat on the internet. They're called bloggers, and they're out for Senator Joe Lieberman.

VISUAL: Two gay men in bondage outfits french kiss each other, then type away on a screen with a web page up on it: LICKS FOR LAMONT.

VISUAL: A bearded Berkeley radical type throws a burning American flag onto some hay; the camera pulls back to show that he's burning a church. He turns around from his nefarious deed, takes out a blackberry, and texts a blog entry to "GETLIEBERMAN.NET"

VISUAL: An illegal immigrant ducks under a border fence that says "Mexico" on one side and "United States" on the other. He immediately takes out a laptop and starts typing a message on "NATIVE NUTMEGGERS FOR LAMONT".

The Internet. The bloggers are out to get Joe Lieberman because he represents everything they hate.

Vote Joe Lieberman for Senate and stop the hate.

7/20/2006 12:53 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

1. Environment Control. Limitation of many/all forms of communication with those outside the group. Books, magazines, letters and visits with friends and family are taboo. "Come out and be separate!"

2. Mystical Manipulation. The potential convert to the group becomes convinced of the higher purpose and special calling of the group through a profound encounter / experience, for example, through an alleged miracle or prophetic word of those in the group.

3. Demand for Purity. An explicit goal of the group is to bring about some kind of change, whether it be on a global, social, or personal level. "Perfection is possible if one stays with the group and is committed."

4. Cult of Confession. The unhealthy practice of self disclosure to members in the group. Often in the context of a public gathering in the group, admitting past sins and imperfections, even doubts about the group and critical thoughts about the integrity of the leaders.

5. Sacred Science. The group's perspective is absolutely true and completely adequate to explain EVERYTHING. The doctrine is not subject to amendments or question. ABSOLUTE conformity to the doctrine is required.

6. Loaded Language. A new vocabulary emerges within the context of the group. Group members "think" within the very abstract and narrow parameters of the group's doctrine. The terminology sufficiently stops members from thinking critically by reinforcing a "black and white" mentality. Loaded terms and clichés prejudice thinking.

7. Doctrine over Person. Pre-group experience and group experience are narrowly and decisively interpreted through the absolute doctrine, even when experience contradicts the doctrine.

8. Dispensing of Existence. Salvation is possible only in the group. Those who leave the group are doomed.

For more information on these points please read--

"The Process of Brainwashing, Psychological Coercion, and Thought Reform" by Margaret Thayer Singer, PhD.

The world has got a big problem on its hands. Kos, through Lamont, has built a cult that will be unleashed on society after the elections to aimlessly wander and dispel their frustration and anger on the population.

7/20/2006 1:02 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I'll agree that the Lamontistas make some cute videos, although my personal favorite commercials of this cycle are the "Big Guy" series being run by Mark Taylor in GA-Gov.

7/20/2006 1:03 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

This just in, from the Office of Perpetual Lieberman Hypocrisy

As recently as yesterday, the Lieberman campaign was bashing Lamont for having a small ($50K) position in Halliburton stock.

After all that dumping on Lamont, guess what? Lieberman owns Halliburton stock. Not only that, but it's his third largest position.

I just don't know what to say.

7/20/2006 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow - that is so sad..

7/20/2006 1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the primary reason Joe is facing a tough challenge is because his supporters are reasonable, thoughtful and decent.
in short: too nice.
if they'd be as vicious, nasty, and shallow as Kos & kin, Lieberman wouldn't have to respond to the crazies.

7/20/2006 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon: that's no excuse. joe's supporters may be decent - but he has just shown is unworthy of their support. again.

7/20/2006 2:16 PM  
Blogger Mike M. said...

"And yes, that even applies to Democrats who break with and criticize other Democrats on some key issues, because a party that refuses to tolerate dissent within its ranks risks exile to the political wilderness."

So... "moderate Dems" can break with and criticize the liberals but the liberals can't break with or criticize the moderates?

7/20/2006 2:30 PM  
Blogger Mike M. said...

Oh, and LiebermanforLieberman, before this gets out of control: Halliburton is not the 3rd biggest position in Lieberman's portfolio. It is the third largest position in a mutual fund that is in Lieberman's portfolio. I don't think it was fair for Lieberman to pick on Lamont's stock holdings, but let's be fair about it on our end.

7/20/2006 2:35 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I was looking at the KosKlutz files today and see that the Lamonistas are scratching their butts again because they don't understand why Bill Clinton is going to campaign for Joe. They think that Bill has harbored hatred for Joe because of Joe's "famous speech" denouncing Bill for his inability to keep his fly zipped ;-O

Here is a quote from Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis, made in the the Washington Post, 2003.

"Lieberman enabled Democrats "to do a kind of pivot, to condemn Clinton's conduct without calling for his removal," Davis said. "I think now--and a lot of people around the Clinton White House thought--that Joe Lieberman saved Bill Clinton's presidency by giving that speech... But Joe could have been destroyed. Clinton was beloved... But that's Joe. He went his own way. You go back to his start, and it was the same Joe, from the time he left Stamford."

Joe went out on a far limb, he could have been politically destroyed, he took a chance and saved the career of Bill Clinton. Joe's dignity, his sense of honor, and his GUTS are why Al Gore chose him as a running mate.

Let us not forget that Bill Clinton evokes many imageries--one of which is the growth of the economy. He came from poverty to rise in power--during his presidency this nationed boomed, the middle class grew. Pitting Clinton against the image of a Limousine Liberal who only just resigned from his exclusive country club to be politically correct is going to be damaging to Lamont. Bill is a major supporter and friend to minority causes, and when you compare Clinton's sincerity to Lamont's recent need to show a multi-national face it is a one-two punch for Lamont, the limousine liberal, rich-white-guys-are-us, multi-millionaire country clubber. There is an obvious disconnect between Lamont and the population and having Bill Clinton work with Joe Lieberman is going to make that obvious to the public.

7/20/2006 2:41 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Point taken, thanks for that.

I wonder why Lieberman won't talk about his record or the issues?

7/20/2006 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

seedfreek: why all the anger?

7/20/2006 2:43 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

I'm hearing that Clinton will campaign with Lamont after the primary. Does anyone know if that's true?

7/20/2006 2:45 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

No anger here--you can read what you want into it, but you've been lead by Kos through Ned and you don't know why. Ned's been used too and that's something you need to consider. Why did Kos choose Ned to use you?

7/20/2006 2:48 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Looks like the Bill Clinton will campaign with Ned after the primary. I'm glad to see that real Democrats still believe in our democratic process


Do you think Clinton will "miss the train" like Biden when he has to campaign with Joe?

7/20/2006 3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Biden is coming back to campaign for him. Or did that fact escape you in your search for lies?

7/20/2006 3:23 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Now that Lieberman is campaigning "in secret", how will Biden know where to go? Will they use smoke signals or something? Will Biden have to know a password or a secret handshake to get in?

7/20/2006 3:28 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Great New Lieberman Site

The Internet really is marvelous. Someone has done some yeoman work and assembled a very nice little web site about Joe Lieberman.



7/20/2006 4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why stop with Kondracke as an expert on Liberal Democrat policies,just go directly to Karl Rove or Fox. News

7/21/2006 10:55 AM  
Blogger Sundog said...

The great David Sirota lays all your silliness to rest today here.

7/21/2006 2:37 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Oh, and by the way, the polls delivered a load of "supposed liberal groundswell" to your office door this morning, in case it escaped your notice.

7/21/2006 2:38 PM  
Blogger ScoopJacksonDemocrat said...

I preferred the Kondracke who used to write for The New Republic, as opposed to the Kondracke that I see on Fox and who writes for Roll Call. However, he is a symbol of Democrats who were alienated by the leftward drift of the Democratic Party on foreign policy. I disagreed with Lieberman over the advisability of invading Iraq. It was a strategic blunder. However, Kondracke is correct that Lieberman is one of the few remaining representatives of the pro-defense and pro-democratic internationalist wing of the Democratic Party. Lieberman, as Kondracke suggests, is also as interested in governing the country and protecting national security (whether you agree with his positions or not) as he is in partisanship. Finally, Kondracke is correct in suggesting that DailyKos represents hatemongering McCarthyism of the Left. If DailyKos and the other leftist Blogs are empowered by the primary and/or general election victory of Lamont, it will not bode well for the Democratic Party over the long run or for the civility of the American politics.

No matter what I think of Lieberman I could never support Lamont. This is a man who sought and gained the endorsement of Markos Moulitas Zuniga, who appeared on a Lamont commercial. I think that Lamont should be forced to explain whether he supports the tactics, the tenor and frequently McCarthyistic and hatefilled rhetoric of Kos and his minions. Does Lamont support the infamous statement by Kos in which he cheered the deaths of the contractors in Fallujah, a Daily Kos article that led the Kerry campaign to delink? Does he approve of front page articles on Daily Kos, one authored by Kos himself, that approvingly highlighted the Iraq critique by UK member of parliament George Galloway? This is the same Galloway who was a supporter of Saddam Hussein and now is a supporter of the Iraqi insurgents and of Hamas in Palestine. This is the same Galloway who stated that the assassination of British Prime Minister Tony Blair would be morally justified. If Lieberman has some explaining to do about Iraq, then Markos Moulitas Zuniga and Lamont certainly also have some serious explaining to do. Shame on Kos and shame on Lamont for acting as the surrogate of Kos and making common cause with Daily Kos and the denizens of the Leftist Blogosphere.

7/22/2006 7:26 AM  
Blogger ScoopJacksonDemocrat said...

Just go to this article at DAILY KOS and the attached thread to see some hatemongering. Here are typical views on Israel expressed at DAILY KOS

Israel (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:mariva, esquimaux
is not a Democracy.

Terrorists don't want to "destroy our way of life".

These are myths that have enabled the Democrats to support killing of Muslims.

The world knows Israel radicalizes terrorists.

No such thing as a pro Israeli Democrat.

by LandSurveyor on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 09:52:48 AM PDT

So Class (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:freespeech
Please Rank the number 1 Country that destabalizes the Mideast the most:


Well class, while each country has a horse in this race, Israel in NUMBER ONE! And by a big lead. Number 2 is so far back it can't be seen. A big round of appplause please for the US money, weapons, and political support that has made this happen.

by craigb on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 11:13:16 AM PDT

Too bad that the Jewish voters of Connecticut and those Democrats in the nutmeg state who are still pro-Israel aren't reading DAILY KOS. They could then see the anti-Semitism of many of Lamont's supporters. They would also see that more than a few Kossacks, Lamon't most ardent bastion of support, are more sympathetic to HAMAS, Hizballah, Syria and Iran than they are to Israel.

7/22/2006 12:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" because a party that refuses to tolerate dissent within its ranks risks exile to the political wilderness."

Best argument against this claim; GOP

They have been enforcing Stalinist discipline for decades now and they control all 3 branches of govt. It is unthinkable that the GOP would tolerate a conservative bashing senator from Oklahoma. They can't even tolerate a moderate senator from Rhode Island, a true blue state.

And Morton Kondracke complaining about loss of civility is funny. He works for FOX "news", home to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, various other uncivil screaming heads.

7/22/2006 6:32 PM  
Anonymous Scoop Jackson Democrat said...

The Lamont supporter above lambastes Kondracke for appearing on Fox. However, he neglects to mention that the Leftist Blogosphere is full of Left Wing Rush Limbaughs and leftist Joe McCarthys. The Right Wing of the Republican Party, repugnant as it is, unfortunately does not have a monopoly on demagoguery and hatemongering. Want to see some more examples of Israel bashing from Kossacks? How about these?

Perhaps with these kinds of opinions-- (42+ / 0-)

--"It's clear that in the Middle East, no one is sick of the fighting"--it's best that Kos doesn't post on the Middle East. These kinds of tired (and obviously false) "reasons" obscure the truth of why the Middle East is perpetually aflame. (My note: The author of this comment apparently believes that these are not the "real" reasons that Kos refuses to post on Israel.)

Perhaps you should pay more attention to resources and geopolitical strategy than foolish, nearly racist (are people of Middle Eastern origins--Muslim, Jew, or Christian--genetically programmed with "war love"?) throwaway statements that do nothing but enable American detachment from a situation our government has much to do with. It's far more complicated than that.

I respect many of Kos's opinions on domestic realpolitik, but clearly, in international policy he's being wise by staying mum. (My note: The Blogger assumes that Kos is staying "mum" so as not to offend Jews.)

By the way, can anyone name the one nation in the world whose foreign policy is absolutely off-limits for rational discussion (let alone criticism) in the US? One hint: it's not the US. (My note: The country is, of course, Israel. Israel, our traditional ally, need not expect any support from this blogger or the 42 Kossacks who endorsed his sentiments.)

Okay, I've said my piece. Let the character assassination begin! (The Blogger need not have worried. Many of the succeeding Bloggers agreed and nobody took him to task.)

by Mr Clue on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 11:12:09 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

KOS fiddles while Beirut Burns (0 / 0)
"...troubling that someone like Kos, whom I respect immensely, would just throw off a bunch of blatantly false, but oft repeated trivialities like, "they have centuries of grudges to resolve"..." SO "I won't write about Israel..." THUS.

KOS is not an "independent", he's a DEMOCRAT. This is not an independent NETROOTS BBS ~ this is a Democratic Party NETROOTS BBS.

Most American Jews vote Democrat; ie., few people here, or elected Democratic political leaders in the American government will address this issue with anything like reason : and they are likely to put forth excuses similar to KOS to explain their failure to acknowledge "The Jewish Problem". (My note: Note the ominous use of the phrase "Jewish Problem.")

ISRAEL = a Theocracy; Zionism = Racisim, etc... these realities are among the most divisive in American culture, politics. i would rank it up there with Abortion/Sexual Rights and Racism/Immigration Rights.

The Jewish Problem is therefore a godsend for BushCo, Rove et al : the saddest thing, perhaps ~ is that few Democrats (KOS included) apparently have even now yet to see that they have just been finessed, entirely blindsided by The Jewish Problem ~ and have once again been DIVIDED and CONQUERED with but a whimper of protest from the few courageous, independent progressives (like you) WHO KNOW BETTER :-/

nous sommes celui qui nous feignons pour etre

by MonsieurGonzo on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 09:25:20 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

250 million plus 100 million < 2.5 billion (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:vets74
follow the money

our government wants israel killing arabs with our weapons

You will lie to your grandchildren when they ask what you did to prevent climate change.

by Peter Pan on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 09:32:44 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Not all Kossacks express such an extreme anti-Isreali bias. However, these sentiments are very common. Note the assumption of the posters that Markos Moulitas Zuniga, or Kos, understands the nature of the "Jewish Problem," but does not lay out the "facts," because he does not want to alienate Jewish Democratis and the "Jewish Lobby." The use of the phrase "Jewish Problem" is rather troubling to me. Troubling to anybody else? Sometimes the Kossacks, the most ardent bastion of support for Lamont, remind me of the right wing conspiracists of my youth. These were the John Birchers and Goldwaterites who believed that every problem was the making of the "Jewish moneychangers" in New York. As I say, too bad that Jewish voters and pro-Israel Democrats in Connecticut aren't reading the views of some of Lamonts most rabid backers. If you look through the threads on DAILY KOS, you will see this extremism is not limited to Israel and the present conflict raging in Palestine and the Levant that pits Israel against Hizbollah and HAMAS, two terrorist organizations.

7/23/2006 8:01 AM  
Blogger ScoopJacksonDemocrat said...

I will doubtless be accused of being fixated on Israel. Thus, I will re-post something I posted on Raising Kaine. Maybe I will be doing LieberDem and Raising Kaine a favor. Kossacks will go to the latter to denounce. Here I hope to help Lieberman Democrats. This post was in response to an article and comments on a similar article by David Brooks. I an not particularly a fan of Brooks, inasmuch as he is a rather conservative Republican, but he spoke the truth on this issue involving Lieberman and the Leftist Blogosphere.

From Raising Kaine --

I am afraid that I must take a position on this race rather similar to that which Jonathan Chait has stated. I did not support Joe Lieberman on the invasion of Iraq. I believe that Lieberman should have at least "held Bush's feet to the fire" on developing a credible and doctrinally sound counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, just as Ned Lamont should explain how he would withdraw on a timetable and in a manner protecting vital US national security interests. I was appalled to hear that Kos appeared on a commercial with Ned Lamont. I am afraid that the Senate campaign in Connecticut is as much about efforts by the Kossacks, Left Wing Bloggers, Deaniacs, and MoveOn.Org types to "purge and purify" the Democratic Party as it is about "taking back the country" from the hopelessly right wing Republican Party and setting the country's foreign policy on a wiser course. Torquemada lives. I will support Lieberman, despite my opposition to him over Iraq, just to stand in the way of this Inquisition-like approach to politics within the left wing of the Democratic Party.
I am sure that this post will not be very unpopular and will be criticized as being an echo of David Brooks. However, perhaps Brooks generated such howls of protest within DAILY KOS and other Left Wing BLogs (not including Raising Kaine here) precisely because he "hit a nerve" and was dangerously close to being true. Perhaps it especially hurt that Brooks compared the Leftist Bloggers to the most exclusionary elements of the Republican Party. Brooks specifically mentioned the anti-abortion crowd. However, one could just as easily mention the similarities to the Club for Growth, the Christian Coalition, and all of the Grover Norquist types.

Just look below for some examples. Yes, KOS sometimes talks about abolishing litmus tests and making room for Red State Democrats like Knowles, Carson, Chandler, Herseth, etc. However, he and other Leftist Bloggers just as often speak of their desire to purge the Democratic Party of DINOs, Republican-Lite Democrats, Vichy Democrats, and the hated DLC and TNR Democrats. Indeed, KOS has spoken of the need to emulate Karl Rove and concoct a left wing conspiracy to match the right wing conspiracy. He wants his beloved progressives to crash the gates like the Huns, the Vandals, the Ostrogoths, Visigoths and other Barbarians of old. Kos seems even more interested in destroying than he does in buidling. He wants to "euthanize" the DLC and bury The New Republic. Chris Bower wants to purge the Blue Dogs. The leftist Bloggers are frequently as obsessed with their hatred of the Clintons and Clintonites as are the right wing Republicans. If you are a Red State Democrat and are running for office, you are OK unless you get elected and suddenly "get in the way of" the Kossacks, Leftist Bloggers, Deaniacs and MoveOn.Org types. That also goes for any Liberal who steps out of line and does not faithfully follow what these denizens of the Left consider the politically correct doctrine of the moment.

I hate to agree with Brooks, but he is correct that the posts on Left Wing Blogs regarding Lieberman and whatever they consider the evil of the moment are often "laced with profanities." The only example that I have included here is the last, and I have excised the profanity. You can fill in the blanks.

Who would believe it? Even such a stalwart Liberal as Barack Obama has been pilloried of late. Watch out, James Webb. You may think that the Leftist Blogs are your friends now, but if you are actually elected and step out of line, you will receive the same treatment that Ken Salazar and other Red State Democrats have received.

A few quotes:

Markos Moulitas Zuniga or KOS: "The left is already working to build it's own version of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy -- the $300 million annual machine that developes the conservative message (think tanks), disseminates it to the public (Fox News, Rush), and trains their leaders in how to wield it."

KOS: "As for the DLC, it's time to euthenize the organization. ... As such, it deserves nothing but exclusion and ridicule."

KOS: "We need to make the DLC radioactive. And we will."

KOS: "House 'centrists' are about the whiniest sons of bitches you've ever seen."

Chris Bowers on MYDD: "The defections and anti-progressivism ... are actually the result of the Blue Dogs. Obviously, many of these Blue Dogs, and especially the Problem Children, come from pretty red districts. That, however, does not absolve them ..."

KOS: "This is what the once-proud New Republic has evolved into — just another cog of the Vast RIGHT Wing Conspiracy. If you still hold a subscription to that magazine, it really is time to call it quits. If you see it in a magazine rack, you might as well move it behind the National Review or even NewsMax, since that’s who they want to be associated with these days."

Bob Johnson at DAILY KOS: "We have the likes of Evan Bayh, Hillary Clinton and her surrogate campaign manager/mouthpiece, Bill Clinton, running around backing Bush with 'stay-the-course' rhetoric. Nevermind Joe Biden. His assholishness speaks for itself."

KOS: "[Steny] Hoyer is minority whip. He's obviously unsuited for the job, as he seems uninterested in doing it. Ask him to resign."

KOS on a Mary Landrieu speech: "The ocassion was the New Democrat Network annual conference ... This was a vintage Democratic Leadership Council approach to intra-party disagreements -- turn the guns inward, attack internally. Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause."

KOS: "[Hillary Clinton] is part of a failed Democratic Party establishment -- led by her husband -- that enabled the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican majorities, and all the havoc they have wreaked at home and abroad."

Armando at DAILY KOS: "[Sen. Ken] Salazar is an empty suit. Well Kenny Boy, we know who you are now. You'd rather kiss La Raza's butt than stand with Democrats on the most important moral issue before us. ... Salazar, the pro-torture Democrat from Colorado." (Imagine. Armando was supposed to be the house moderate.)

KOS: "As if we needed another excuse to further mock Chris Dodd's 2008 aspirations."

KOS: "Biden is just giving people more reasons to laugh away his presidential ambitions."

Armando at DAILY KOS: "Throughout his career, Max Baucus has been kissing Republican rings and can not seem to break that habit, even with George Bush at the nadir of his Presidency. ... Max Baucus can't say no to Republicans and George Bush. ... [Baucus is] a gutless, unprincipled political coward with not an ounce of loyalty to your Party or respect for your Leader. What a useless tool you are."

KOS: "[Tim] Roemer is not a Reform Democrat, and, beyond that, is clearly outside the party's mainstream."

Chris Bowers of MYDD: Tim Roemer "is utterly unacceptable as DNC chair. Mark my words: if Roemer becomes chair without doing this, I will actively encourage all progressive activists to donate and volunteer to third-party groups instead of and at the expense of the DNC. The Fainthearted Faction has no place in the Democratic leadership. This must be made clear to all involved."

DAILY KOS Diary Article that appeared on front page and had over 800 responses: "Is Barack Obama the next Joe Lieberman? When one reviews Obama's comments, though, such as MyDD did back in March, one begins to see a consistent pattern of undermining the Democratic position on various issues, whether it be his ignorance on Feingold's censure motion or on discussing the use of filibusters. In the end, this is what harms our party the most - by publicly undercutting the party ... [Obama] does nothing to improve our standing - except his own, perhaps."

Typical response to this DAILY KOS Diary article: "[It's,] as your title suggests, that [Obama] is just one more public voice of dissent within the Democratic Party... INCLINING FURTHER TO THE RIGHT than to the left. ... We do not EXPLETIVE DELETED need a MORE CENTRIST Democratic Party. We do not need more chiding from within the party of those of us on the left to move further to the EXPLETIVE DELETED right -- we need more LEFTWARD leaning Democrats WITHIN the party chiding those RIGHTWARD leaning Democrats. And threatening them with EXPLETIVE DELETED expulsion."

Thus, I must dissent. Unlike most of you, I liked Lieberman before the invasision of Iraq. I still like him on most issues not involving Iraq. I will back him, however, because it all does rather sadly remind me of the end of the Vietnam era when the Left was obsessed with jettisoning all of the traditions of Wilsonianism, Cold War Liberalism, etc. and any politicians associated with them, including stalwart Liberals such as Hubert H. Humphrey. Yes, Vietnam was a mistake, especially the dramatic escalation of troop leveles. What did we end up with after the purges of the late 1960s and early 1970s. We ended up with a party that was weak on defense and had largely abandoned the traditions of progressive or liberal democratic internationalism associated with Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK. We also ended up with a party that was almost incapable of building successful national electoral coalitions.

Go ahead and criticize me. That is more than fair. I have done my critique here. However, before you do, read my comments on an earlier such article. It was there that I assessed both Lieberman and Lamont. The left can purge Democrats like me if it wants to do so. However, it will have difficulty taking and/or holding the Congress, winning the White House and keeping the Far Right from taking the Supreme Court permanently out of play. That is especially true since elements of the Leftist Blogosphere evidently are obsessed with wanting to purge much of the Democratic Party anyway, including the Clintonites, the New Democrats, the Blue Dogs, etc.


by: ScoopJacksonDemocrat @ Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 10:40:35 AM MDT

7/23/2006 9:40 AM  
Blogger ScoopJacksonDemocrat said...

Here were the other posts on Raising Kaine to which I referred above.

Lieberman-Lamont Debate (4.00 / 2)
This will not be popular. However, bear with me. I support James Webb and have given him several hundred dollars. I gave similar support to Mark Warner and Tim Kaine. I am a Democrat and certainly plan to vote for Webb against George Allen, although I find the comparison between Allen and Joe Lieberman distasteful and misleading, even if well intentioned. Joe Lieberman has fought for Liberal causes during his entire political career. I disagreed with Senator Lieberman about the invasion of Iraq, but Joe Lieberman is right that he represents in some regards the pro-defense and democratic internationalist wing of the Democratic Party, which Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and LBJ embodied.
It would be impossible really to say what Ned Lamont stands for on defense and foreign policy, except that he is acting as an agent of the leftist blogosphere and the Deaniacs and is opposed to the war in Iraq. Even on that score, Lamont's position is ambiguous, just as Lieberman stated. In fact, Ned Lamont seemed to adopt several positions on Iraq during the debate itself. At one point, Lamont seemed to be embracing simultaneously the Kerry and Levin amendments. At another point, he seemed to embrace the position of Gen Casey, who does not embrace any fixed timetable, although he has spoken of the possibility of beginning to draw down troop levels.

This is why I find James Webb to be an infinitely preferable candidate to Ned Lamont. Webb is an expert on national security affairs and foreign policy. Lamont is a neophyte and it shows. James Webb favors withdrawing from Iraq. However, I am confident that Webb will consider the ramifications of his own proposals on Iraq with regard to: Middle Eastern politics and the current confrontation between Israel and HAMAS; the correlation of forces in the region and Iran's drive for dominance in Iraq and regional geopolitical dominance; policy on Iran and its effort to become a nuclear power; the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and resurgence of the Taliban and al-Qaida there; the overall war against terrorism, specifically the war against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida; and also policy with regard to North Korea, Kim Jong Il, and the situation vis-a-vis the Taepo Dong II and evolving North Korean nuclear weapons technology.

James Webb shows that it is possible to be strong on defense and to have opposed the invasion of Iraq. He also comes out of the Reagan Democrat tradition, whereas Lamont would appear to reflect the traditions of the Eugene McCarthy-George McGovern-Howard Dean-Russ Feingold wing of the Democratic Party. The late Gene McCarthy was a fine man. McGovern, Dean, and Feinfold are fine men. However, unlike them, I was a Cold War Liberal and would like to see Cold War Liberalism updated to meet the needs of the present era. I think that James Webb is up to that challenge, whereas I don't believe that Lamont comes out of that tradition at all.


by: ScoopJacksonDemocrat @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 09:41:26 AM MDT
[ Reply ]

I agree, Jim Webb is by far superior to Ned Lamont (0.00 / 0)
And I do NOT mean that in any way, shape or form as a slap at Ned Lamont or a backhanded compliment to Webb. Fact is, Webb is one of the greatest men I've ever met in my life. He will make an extroardinary Senator, one of tremendous integrity and courage. I greatly look forward to the day, a few months from now, when we have Jim Webb as one of two former Navy Secretaries serving Virginia in the US Senate.
PS I'm also a great admirer of "Scoop" Jackson, but - to paraphrase Lieberman from the debate - "Joe Lieberman is no Scoop Jacskon!"


by: Lowell @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 09:58:10 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply | none0: Troll1: Unproductive2: Marginal3: Good4: Excellent ]

Yes, I agree Lieberman is no Scoop Jackson (4.00 / 1)
I agree with you that Senator Joe Lieberman is no Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson. I think that people misunderstand the philosophy and legacy of Scoop Jackson, and that includes such former disciples as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith. Scoop Jackson believed in a strong defense, an activist foreign policy and pro-democratic internationalism. However, he did not embrace anything approaching a docrtrine of preemption or a foreign policy of reckless adventurism. He supported appropriating money to support our troops in the field in Vietnam, but had never been in the forefront in advocating a dramatic escalation of troop levels in South Vietnam. He understood that our vital strategic interests lay elsewhere. Scoop Jackson did not even support Reagan's disastrous deployment of troops to Lebanon. At least in my opinion, Jackson would most certainly not have supported an invasion of Iraq without a clear causus belli. Indeed, he arguably would not have favored such action without convincing documentation of a "clear and present danger" to vital U.S. national security interests. There was none.
I do not think that Jackson ever would have left the Democratic Party if he had lived, unless he were convinced that "McGovernism" had taken over the Party. Even then, Jackson would not have joined the ultra-Conservatives in today's Republican Party. He would have sympathized with the Reagan Democrats over the weakness of the Democratic Party on Defense and Foreign Policy in the 1980s. He was not happy with Jimmy Carter's foreign policy and most certainly would not have been happy with Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis as nominees. This unhappiness would not have simply derived from his frustration over post-Vietnam Liberalism's weakness and isolation on foreign policy. He also would have been unhappy with modern progressives' so-called Liberalism on cultural and social issues. Jackson was a champion of the labor movement and the working class, regarding himself as embracing the legacy of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. Scoop Jackson also took inspiration form British Laborites such as Hugh Gaitskill and Dennis Healy. He believed in an activist foreign policy in defense of freedom abroad and in defense of the poor, the working class and civil rights here at home. He would not have hidden behind the term "middle class" in standing shoulder to shoulder with Labor and working men and women. However, being a champion of the working class, Scoop Jackson doubtlessly also would have continued to abhor modern Liberals' litmus test mentality on things like guns, religion and abortion. He probably would have found it hard to accept post-Vietnam Liberals' contention that they represent workers, even though those same workers often violently disagree with them on second amendment rights, abortion and religion. At the very least, Jackson would have wanted the Democratic Party to accept different views on these topics.

With regard to Joe Lieberman and Jackson, I think that Scoop Jackson would have wanted Lieberman to pressure the Bush Administration to win a decisive victory in Afghanistan. I think Jackson would have been horrified that we are now bogged down in the same sort of guerrilla war with the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan that so bedeviled the Soviets in their own ill-fated struggle against similar jihadists in that country from the end of the Carter Administration to day of their ignominious withdrawal. I think that Jackson also would have wanted Lieberman to pressure the Bush Administration to formulate a more effective counterinsurgency and counterterrorist strategy in Iraq. I think that Jackson would have agreed with Gens Clark, Zinni and McCaffrey about how difficult it would be to achieve victory, and therefore the advisability of staying out. I think that he would have agreed with them on the need to send more troops, quickly end the looting and establish security in the cities, and show the populace that we were not a force of occupation but rather one of liberation.

Back to Ned Lamont. Having said all of this, I think that Scoop Jackson would have had great difficulty coming to grips with Lamont's alliance with the leftist Blogs (not including Raising Kaine here), particularly DAILY KOS. I think that Scoop Jackson would have great difficulty making common cause with Howard Dean, his brother Jim and DFA, and the legions of Deanias. Meanwhile, he likely would have had the same disdain for the Bush Administration and its corporate backers that FDR had for what he called the economic plutocracy that wished to control the destiny of this country. FDR acknowledged the hatred of the plutocrats and said that he welcomed their hatred. Jackon himself railed against "Big Oil" and Corporate America and would have endlessly attacked the Enrons of today's America. Yet, I think that he would have been horrified by much of what appears on Daily Kos and much of the rhetoric that emanates from DFA and MoveOn.Org.


by: ScoopJacksonDemocrat @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 12:54:35 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply ]

On a More Positive Note (4.00 / 1)
I believe that the Webb candidacy is important. I believe that Webb can take the Democratic Party, if not nationally then in Virginia, another step down the road towards rebuilding the old FDR-Harry Truman-JFK-LBJ coalition. If he wins, it will be partly because he isn't interested in post-Vietnam "litmus test" politics and is willing to reembrace the Reagan Democrats, being one himself.
Why I like James Webb is simple.

--Webb believes in a strong national defense but quite rightly did not support the foolhardy Iraq invasion.
--The Democratic Party desperately needs to reembrace strong national security positions. This, as Webb says, is not the same thing as supporting the Iraq invasion.
--Webb shows the ability to reach out to the white working class, a voting bloc with whom post-Vietnam Liberals have found it quite difficult to communicate.
--Webb is pro-Labor
--Webb supports the same view of Civil Rights that Hubert Humphrey, Mr. Civil Rights, expressed during the debate over the 1964 Civil Rights act. Humphrey wanted a "color blind America" Humphrey did not favor racial quotas. Webb may have been doubtful about Affirmative Action, but so were pre-Vietnam Liberals and so are poor Whites and also Working Class Whites. However, Webb does want to find ways to help the poor, including the Black underclass. He does want a just society, which will provide opportunities for all -- poor Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, etc.
--Webb seems to have a sensible view of immigration reform. As he states, it makes little sense to speak of reform unless we can first secure our borders.

When I think of Webb, I cannot help but think of the 1976 Senate race between Harry F. Byrd, Jr., and Adm Elmo Zumwalt. Zumwalt was pro-defense, in favor of a strong foreign policy, pro-Civil Rights and pro-Labor, in favor of activist government in support of the politically and economically disenfranchised, etc. He was a Scoop Jackson Democrat or, if you prefer, an old Cold War Liberal. I rued the opportunity lost in 1976. I hoped that Chuck Robb might fill those shoes, but was wrong. Well, history is offering us another chance, at least from my perspective, and I plan to take it. I will give Webb mre money, work for him, and vote for him.


by: ScoopJacksonDemocrat @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 13:44:39 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply ]

This is fascinating and very well written (4.00 / 1)
Come back often to Raising Kaine! :) Thanks.


by: Lowell @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 14:46:42 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply | none0: Troll1: Unproductive2: Marginal3: Good4: Excellent ]

Nice job n/t (0.00 / 0)


by: Daniel @ Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 08:32:25 AM MDT

[ Parent | Reply | none0: Troll1: Unproductive2: Marginal3: Good4: Excellent ]

Lamont and Webb: Populist Reformers in Connecticut and Virginia | 7 comments | Post A Comment

7/23/2006 9:44 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home