You say that is if “purge” were a negative thing. It isn’t. So long as it isn’t a Soviet-style purge with the purged getting shot or jailed, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a purge – by electoral means or otherwise.
I’m afraid the only solutions that would work would be unacceptable even to moderate Pubs.
Huh? Their support for Lieberman was all over the place before he lost. Changing their tune afterwards is irrelevant. Here’s a video compilation of the “smooches” of Lieberman from the following collection of people: Dick Cheney, George Bush, Scott McClellan, former White House spokesperson, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Steve Gill, former Congressional candidate, Pat Robertson, William F. Buckley, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, David Brooks, Carl Cameron, Fox News, Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, Fred Barnes, Oliver North, Ed Rogers, Republican strategist, Ken Mehlman, RNC Chair. If Lieberman is a good and steadfast Democrat, why in particular does he get all the love from this collection of people?
What the…? Where did lying have anything to do with that quote. For someone so expert on Lieberman and the Democrats, I’d expect a greater grasp on these key points of Lieberman’s relationship with the Dems.CNN:
How many times did it have to happen? Here’s the video.
Again, what the fuck are you talking about? Pulled from your own goddamn cite:
Part of the very reason why there weren’t enough votes for a filibuster was Lieberman. Damn dude - I know you say you aren’t a Republican, but it seems like you are trying very, very hard to toe the party line on this. You’ve got no reasoning, no grasp of key events, you’re misrepresenting things at odds with your own cite, and are just trying to hand-wave everything away.
What do you think “credibilty” means?
A fuzzy picture in someone’s blog. BFD.
There were 72 votes in favor of cloture. If Lieberman voted against, it would’ve been 71. Not enought votes. Not even close.
It doesn’t mean “not lying.” It means credible. Lieberman’s point had nothing to do with concerns that people were calling Bush a liar. It had everything to do with suggesting that if he is getting criticized, he will be seen as less credible.
As I said, there’s a VIDEO clip. You suggested that there was no good evidence that Lieberman was a lapdog of the president. Many Democrats saw his having been the first in the whole room to leap to his feet in applause as overly ingratiating. Handwave it away, if you will, but this is why you don’t understand the meaning of the backlash against Lieberman. Otherwise, watch the fucking clip.
Again, my perception of you is that you are smarter than this, so I think you are being obtuse here. Votes, as those not ignorant of the process, are not static, but are subject to being swayed, coerced, influenced… Lieberman was working as part of a gang of Senators to come to an agreement by which the Democrats would not filibuster, in exchange for the Republicans not engaging their nuclear option of removing the filibuster. These efforts must have undoubtedly influenced others’ votes. If you know its going to be tight, and one of your own party takes a chunk of votes into some sort of commitment to vote a particular way, it becomes moot how you will vote. Come on, man. Give these issues a little more thought, if you really are having trouble understanding that this was not a “purge” of some run of the mill moderate, centrist Democrat.
Ok, let’s do some more math. The working group was 14 Senators-- 7 from each party. If all 7 had voted against cloture, that would’ve still been 65 votes for. It only takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. There weren’t enough votes. It wasn’t Lieberman. There were 17 Democratic Senators who voted for cloture.
It’s pretty clear what your problem with Lieberman’s position in the Democratic party is. He votes with the Democrats most of the time, but he doesn’t like to betray his own principles for purely partisan reasons. If he were a Republican doing that you’d be praising him as the one of the mots honorable politicians in the nation.
Just speaking for myself, I would think that said Pubbie politician was either a)belatedly recognizing the blazingly obvious or b) exhibiting typical rodent behavior when confronted with nautical disaster.
I want to be clear on something: I don’t think Lieberman is dishonorable. He’s probably more honorable than a majority of politicians in DC. It’s not his honor I question; it’s his agreement with the positions that I value. I want the Democratic party to represent the positions I value, and Lieberman does so to a lesser degree than most Democrats. That’s why I’m glad to see him go, not because I think he’s a skank.
Daniel
Another point is the obstinance of his position. Two years ago, maybe even one, such a position of support for failed policy might make a degree of sense, and it simply takes some people longer to catch on. Witness several of our own he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into awareness that they were supporting an utterly bankrupt position, and had the good sense to bail.
There comes a point where it isn’t a matter of maintaining personal honor, but denying that honor. That point is pride, when one simply will not admit having been wrong. There’s nothing left, right or centrist about being wrong.
I never said you thought that.
But what you’re saying is that you do want to “purge” the Democratic party of its more centrist elements. The war may be the main issue here, but would you feel differently about Lieberman if he opposed the war but otherwise held the same poltical position on the rest of the issues?
You got that I want to purge the Democratic party from my statement that I think “purge” is a hyperbolic description? Huh.
I don’t want to purge anyone. I really want to get rid of the two-party system. But as long as we have it, I want at least one of the choices to be as close possible to the views I want to vote for. And with Lieberman in power, neither of the CT candidates was very close at all to the views I want to vote for.
There’s no purging going on here. And of course if he opposed the war but otherwise held the same political position, that would be exactly one big important issue more that he and I agreed on. So that would make me that less opposed to his being the Democratic candidate.
Daniel
Is it really necessary to get so hung up on that one word, Daniel? I put it in quotes because I know you don’t like it. Subsitute any word you prefer-- it doesn’t matter to me. You want them out of office, no?
Well, yes, in the same way that I want Republicans out of office; that doesn’t mean I want to purge the Republican party. “Purge” does carry very negative connotations in politics, calling to mind Stalin and Mao’s famous purges. So yeah, I don’t appreciate it.
What I want is for folks to be in office who share my beliefs. Lieberman doesn’t. What’s so complicated about that?
Daniel
I have a few problems with this statement (I think it hints at some of our political problems).
First, since you don’t live in CT, why is it any of your business wether or not JL adheres to all (heck, any) of your beliefs? He’s not representing you.
Second, why do you expect an entire party to possess all of the same values that you do? Thats asking an awful lot out of such a large group of individuals isn’t it?
Yeah, but I am bullshitting on an Internet messageboard. It’s my business because, as a dude making federal laws, it affects me.
I don’t expect them to, but the more that do, the happier I am.
Don’t turn this into anything bigger than it is, please.
Daniel
alrighty, those statements just rubbed me the wrong way 
Fair enough!
Daniel
You could use “a semantic nitpick of no consequence…” But that would be wrong.
How about *you * use whatever word *you * think most accurately represents what *you * think? :dubious:
Popular sentiment against the war is in the 60-70% range, depending on the polls. Looks like the moderate candidate *won * the nomination, don’t it?
Out of a sense of personal obligation to a friend, as he made clear. You also missed the part where Clinton simultaneously made it quite clear that he would support his party’s nominee anyway. A real show of support does not include pulling one’s punches so blatantly, or at all, and it’s questionable if Clinton’s efforts didn’t actually have a negative effect because of that - given his political shrewdness, he might actually have intended that.
In fact, he is. The Senate acts as a single body. Its actions and votes affect all of us. Lieberman’s vote has as much effect on, say, California as Boxer’s does on Connecticut. It matters.
If he did, that would only further entrench Lieberman’s self-centered stubbornness. Better to let ol’ Joe finally absorb what’s happened, break out of his denial, and pull out on his own. I don’t doubt that he has many friends in the party speaking quietly to him about that. Let them do their work.
Even if he doesn’tIt might not help Lamont to keep hammering on the theme that Lieberman is a crypto-Rep, not when there are so few minds left to change. The greater damage to Lieberman would be any continued show of support from the GOP - it would be like jumping from the iceberg onto the Titanic, this year.
This new poll, taken after the primaries, gives Lieberman a 46 to 41 percent lead over Lamont. It’ll be interesting to see how that continues to develop.