Well, I have to admit that it hasn’t worked real well for the Democrats in the past…and I agree completely that telling voters that ‘They don’t get it’ ain’t going to work real well for the Republicans now either. This could be a critical error (compounded by all the OTHER ones the 'Pubs have made in the last 6 years) that could potentially spell some happy news this election cycle.
We’ll see what the Democrats DO with the opportunity though. If they come out swinging, if they come out with something other than ‘We ain’t Bush!’, then maybe, just maybe, we are at the cusp of a sea change in US politics. One of those large pendulum swings that can shift the nations internal direction for years or even decades.
We can only hope… Lots of social problems out there that need good bipartisan solutions to solve them. Maybe this cycle can be the kick in the pants each side needs to work on the actual problems instead of all these half-assed token commitments they make.
Fine. But that’s an entirely different thing than saying “that he sides pretty often with Republicans”. I don’t see why it’s necessary to have it both ways. Why isn’t it enought to say “he supports the war, off with his head”?
The war, yes. That’s a given. The Schiavo case, yes. But if you actually want to use vouchers and SS, let’s delve into exactly how he supported those things and how that meshes with Bush’s agenda, or not. One might just as easily say that he had the courage to stand up to the powerful Teacher’s Union and put the option of vouchers on the table.
So, other than the war (which I’ve alread said is enought to dump him), you’ve got 1 issue that can be pretty clearly linked to Bush. Is it shock that a “centrist Democrat” will agree with the Pubs on a few things? Again, it all comes down to a definition of “often”. If once or twice is “often”, then we have vastly different definitions.
Well, that’s an assertion that can neither be proved nor disproved, so it doesn’t have any place in a debate. Frankly, it sounds like a just so story made up after the fact by his detractors.
As for your interest in whether or not he’s been true to Democratic principles over the years, I think it unnecessary to comb thru his legislative past to uncover that. He was the freakin’ VP candidate for the party in '00, for Og’s sake. If the party nominates a closet Republican for their VP, then WTF does it mean to be true to Democratic principles? I never claimed that he was out in front, leading the charge towards progressive politics, only that his voting record shows him to be a solid Democrat. The liberal interest groups that do comb thru all the legislative history always come to the same conclusion, when you look at his record as a whole.
No, it’s an accurate descrption of what happened. Clinton went to CT and stumped around for JL. That’s what “active” means. True, he only did it recently, but it’s only been recently that JL got in serious trouble and needed help.
Well, yes, of course, “centrism”, reaching out to one’s political opponents to arrive at a reasonable concensus. One should avoid inflammatory name-calling, stuff like that…
As far as I know, he made one appearance and one speech. If it’s important to you to dress that up a bit by calling it “actively,” there’s nothing I can do about it but wonder why it’s important to you to make it sound like Clinton was more energetic and involved in campaigning for Lieberman. Hell, in his speech, not only did he refer to Lieberman’s weakest issue, he also called Lamont a fine man whom he had nothing against, and who had every right to campaign vigorously.
I can’t help but notice you’re ignoring most of my observations about why Democrats might have been unhappy with Lieberman apart from his voting record. I would at least like to know how the wide support Lieberman enjoyed from the most vitriolic and partisan Republicans (e.g. Hannity, O’Reilly, Bush & Cheney) fits into your model of Lieberman as a good and centrist Democrat who was purged. If you have time, you might address the “undermine the president’s credibility at our own peril” bit and the sycophantic, ingratiating first-out-of-his-seat applause for Bush at the state of the union. I’ll stop asking about the voting for Alito before he voted against him bit because it is clear you want only to focus on the ultimate vote Lieberman cast against Alito.
No it’s not at all an entirely different thing. I don’t know why you think it is–that’s just bizarre to me.
Because that’s not what I’m saying, that’s why. I’m not looking to say the minimum necessary; I’m looking to describe what’s happened accurately.
Good grief. One might just as easily say that he had the courage to stand up to the powerful anti-life forces and stand firm for Terri Schiavo’s right to life–but what relevance would that have? Surely you recognize that the Democratic party has traditionally stood foursquare behind the teacher’s unions, and that his departure from that in favor of a voucher approach is a departure from a Democratic position in favor of a position usually put forward by Republicans? Phrasing it in a fashion more complimentary to him is just spin; the question at hand is whether he’s tended to back traditional Democratic issues more often than traditional Republican issues.
No, I still have three issues plus the war–you’ve just waved your hands at two of them. The question, again, isn’t whether you can describe positions in complimentary terms. The question is whether they’re positions that dovetail with the Democratic position.
Nonsense: I asked you to show bills that he’s sponsored. That would be proof. I’ve asked you to show things he’s said to the media. That would be proof. You’re handwaving.
And Gore was criticized for doing so, and there’s been plenty of speculation that Gore nominated him as an attempt to win over some Republicans. The question isn’t what he’s been nominated for, the question is what his stance on issues has been. If you think he’s stood in favor of Democratic issues in opposition to the Republicans in recent years, some examples would really be nice; changing the subject is unhelpful.
But his participation in the public sphere shows him to be out in front, leading the charge against progressive politics in his party. I’ve mentioned four issues in which this is the case. If he were just never out in front, that’d be different–but it seems that whenever he is out in front, it’s against progressivism.
I waved my had because there was nothing to your assertion, other than the asseriton itself. He supported vouchers. What the hell does that mean? When? How? Or, if you will… cite? How am I suppsed to refute the entirely amorphous claim that he supported vouchers? Ditto on SS. What I remember is that he was open to talking about SS reform, not that he supported any version of Bush’s plan. Now, I may be wrong on that, or you may be wrong. But you made the assertion… you back it up.
n.b.: Don’t misunderstand me here. I’m not defending Lieberman on those two issues, as of yet. I’m just saying you have not made a case that there is anything that needs defense against.
Proof of what? I never claimed he was a great sponsorer of bills. With all due respect, Daniel, that’s a strawman. He’s not a true Democrat unless he sponsors a bunch of bills?
Lieberman is viewed by a lot of Democrats as not representing the values of Democrats. You, a non-Democrat, saying that they are wrong is kinda silly, don’t you think?
I don’t think its (necessarily) silly at all. Sometimes a person with no emotional stake, looking from the outside in can give you a better evaluation than someone who is deeply and emotionally involved on the inside.
In addition, I don’t believe that all of the folks stating that Lieberman does not represent the Democratic party are good representitives of the party AS A WHOLE either. I think its safe to say that Democrats in Liebermans home state don’t feel he represents THEM very well…as is evident by the fact that he won’t be on the Democrat ticket this election cycle. Whether the good people of Connecticut feel the same over all…well, I suppose we’ll find out, as Lieberman seems determined to run as an Independant.
That’s just not true. You responded to my assertion by reframing it as a courageous act, not by asking for a cite. It didn’t even occur to me that you doubted its occurrence.
There you go–support for vouchers. Never mind whether his support for vouchers is a wise program. Is this position one that’s more in line with traditional Democratic platform, or with traditional Republican platform? Preliminary Google results for social security:
Again, never mind whether his willingness to work with Bush is wise: is that more in line with the Democratic platform or the Republican platform?
If you want cites, you just have to ask for them. Apparently that’s not the case for me: I want cites of Lieberman acting notably as a Democrat, and you’ve refused to give them to me by saying things like
That’s just one way you can show that he sometimes sticks his neck out in favor of traditional Democratic issues. If you have a different way of showing it, more power to you. But you’ve made the claim that Democrats are purging him for not being liberal enough, and I’m saying that he got kicked out because he makes waves primarily in his opposition to Democratic platform issues. And I’ve offered four different areas in which he’s done this. If you think my theory is wrong, the ball’s in your court.
What else is there? If you want to argue that he’s an overall swell guy and a great representative of Connecticut, fine. But don’t try to tell CT democrats that they are wrong not to want him. If you’re a CT democrat and want to say why you want him, that’s one thing. But an outsider claiming that people shouldn’t vote the way they want because they really really should just like the guy you want them to like even though they have an option of a guy they like better? That’s silly.
Because Bush and Cheney are grasping at whatever staws they’ve got. As for Rush et al, they sure seem quite happy that the Dems are kicking JL out. What of that? Are we to believe that they just want us to think that they’re happy? Let’s not go down that road, because it just leads to an endless second guessing of what is a feint and what is not.
I’ve not seen the entire quote in context, but I took it to mean: Criticize the prez’s policies = OK. Call the prez a liar = bad. If you want to explore it further, I’ll be happy to. But do you have a cite that shows the what he said in full?
Never saw it. Can we get some more details? What was the issue or issues, and how many times did it happen?
Now that is “vastly misstating what actually happened”. A vote for cloture is not a vote for something. I already quoted what Harry Reid said on that issue-- do you want me to quote him again? They didn’t have enough votes. A fillibuster would not even have been on the table if Kerry and few other '08 hopefuls hadn’t wanted to do some poltical posturing.
Um…I didn’t. I don’t have any opinion one way or the other wrt Lieberman, except that I generally categorize him as ‘Centrist, Democrat’ in my own mental catelogue of politicians.
I’m not telling CT Democrats a damn thing…did you actually read what you quoted from me? I SAID that obviously, from their perspective he does not represent what they feel is important for a Democratic candidate for their state. I didn’t say anything at all about whether this is wrong or right…to me its moot. THEY think its right to get rid of Jumpin Joe and bring in someone else…so its right for them.
I still think that my point that an outsider, looking at things in a detached and unemotional way can sometimes give greater insights than someone who has emotional attachments and stake in the issues. If you interperet this as saying that CT Dems were wrong not to keep Joe, then I appologize…thats not what I was getting at.
The general tone of this thread is: “But you should like him!” “We don’t.” “But you should!” “We don’t, and here’s why.” “But you shoououououououould!”
Daniel, I was asking for more detail. I thought that was clear. I threw out that hypothetical because, based on all the evidence you’d actuall show, it could have been true. IOW, there was no meat to your assertion. Sorry if that was confusing. I always enjoy debating with you, so no snark was intendend.
From your cite:
So, he’s willing to talk about SS solvency, but does not support Bush’s plan to partially privatize SS. Just like I said.
I gotta go until tomorrow, so I’ll try and address this in more detail, as well as the vouchers thing (your cite was many, many pages). In all honesty, though, do you really understand what JL’s positions are, or are you just repeating what you’ve heard from his detractors and then fishing for cites after the fact? Because clearly your own cite does not support the claim you made that JL “supported… the president’s social security modification proposal.”
Then how do you interpret “If we can figure out a way to help people through private accounts or something else, great”? That’s the passage that I’m asking you about: does this sound to you more like a Democratic platform or a Republican platform?
He did not support it wholeheartedly, but there were definitely aspects of it that he supported, in opposition to the Democratic party.
As for you question: I’ve built an impression of Lieberman dating back to 1999, when I wasn’t very happy with him as the veep candidate. Back then, he contributed to my voting for Nader (also, the fact that Gore didn’t have a chance in hell of winning NC contributed). The vouchers and the social security are things I vaguely remembered and was reminded of by this thread. I’ve dug up specific cites only when you’ve reminded me.
I’m one of his detractors. I’m not just repeating what I’ve heard. But yeah, I don’t have his precise positions memorized, so I do need to look up cites when someone doubts my memory.
Note also that I’m not saying he’s in lockstep with Bush; rather, I’m saying he tends to stick his neck out in favor of Republican positions more often than he sticks his neck out in favor of Democratic positions.