He’s probably got enough friends in high places to make it a non-issue.
I dunno. DOS attacks leave pretty clear records in the server logs, don’t they? It seems trivially easy to figure out whether an attack occurred; and if one did occur, even if the website was poorly run, the attackers ought to be prosecuted. If they’re claiming an attack that’s not backed up in the logs, then they’re really idiots.
And I think there are other explanations for Clinton’s support of Lieberman than his belief that Lieberman-style democrats are essential to the party. Lieberman has a fair amount of pull; maybe Clinton believes that his support for JL would later translate into JL’s support for a HRC presidency. Or maybe he owes JL a favor.
John, I think it’s going overboard to suggest that claims of JL’s closet Republicanhood are Nonsense. They might be slight exaggerations, but the basic complaint–that he sides pretty often with Republicans, and that he undermines Democratic positions more often than he loudly champions them–seems pretty valid. I’m not wanting the party to consist entirely of Cynthia McKinney, but I am glad that someone as conservative as JL isn’t going to be the Democratic candidate for Connecticut.
Calling this a “purge” is really hyperbolic. This is a democratic election, not a purge; and if the more liberal candidates win, there’s some chance that’s because they hold more popular positions.
Daniel
Bold prediction: Lieberman is going to fade, fade, fade, and have a humiliating loss in the general election.
Joe is going to find himself with leprosy, all the centrist Democrats who supported him in the past are going to support Lamont when all is said and done. Bill Clinton, no matter what his personal feelings are, is going to support Lamont. Every Democrat who holds elective office is going to support Lamont. They can’t support Lieberman without cutting the throat of the Democratic party.
Sure, there’ll be a few retired guys like Ed Koch, a few pundits and such. But Lieberman is finished.
I’ve said this before in this thread: Using terms like ‘centrist’ and ‘moderate’ is not applicable in this primary, because Ned Lamont is most likely going to take a moderate approach to governance, not tack hard left.
This was all about defeating a senator who preferred to spew GOP talking points on Iraq, and gave cover to right-wing shrills who screamed about directionless Democrats.
It’s not about mere policy differences; it’s the fact that he confused bipartisanship with capitulation. The public isn’t stupid; they can see that the Bush administration sees the War on Terror as a vehicle to re-election first, a threat to the Republic second.
If Lieberman in the next few months starts taking a more active role against the Bush administration’s Iraq policy–and pulls Karl Rove’s hand out of his ass–then I frankly almost wouldn’t mind his re-election. It gives credibility to the notion that Bush has mismanaged the War on Terror so poorly he’s lost even his most ardent supporters, as well as any shred of bipartisanship.
If you want evidence a purge, you need look no further than Walberg’s 53-47 victory over Schwarz in Michigan. Of course, that’s in a different party.
Listening to Rush just a moment ago. “Hezbollah Democrats, funded by George Soros…”
So it appears that one result of the primary is to send a moderate, temperate fellow like Rush into a bit of a snit. Either that, or he’s jonesing.
Yes. It’s doubtful that a junior senator from Connecticut without connections among the other Senators will have any effect on the course of things for the next two years. The good think is that this might show other Senators that at least a pretty substantial number of voters support a political stance calling for getting the hell out. If some lamebrain spinning clone of Rove wants to call that “cut and run” so be it.
However, will Lieberman do what you aske of him? His statement that his defeat is a triumph for the “old politics of polarization” doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in him. It appears to me that he still thinks bipartisaship means complete subservience of Congress to the Executive in this matter of Iraq. That whatever the Executive decides is what is to be done and Congress is merely there to supply the money. I am trouble that he doesn’t seem to see that “stay the course” is meaningless babble unless “the course” is defined, and “establish democracy in Iraq and thus the region” is a goal and not a plan.
I find it somewhat amusing that Republicans are “advising” Democrats to stay “centrist”, while at the same time the Republican party is moving further and further to the right.
I keep hearing people say that, but where’s the supporting evidence? Maybe we have different definitions of “pretty often”. I don’t consider 10% of the time to be “pretty often”. Let’s see something more than the mere assertion.
Well, you can adress to the Republicans, then. I’m not a Republican, and my advice to them is that they’ve moved way too far to the (religious) right.
Will someone answer this question for me, because it seems to be something that everyone is ignoring in this story: Why did Bill Clinton so actively campaign for JL? Surely he didn’t do so because he supports the war. Could it just be that he thinks the party is in danger of moving too far to the left…?
Like LHoD says, it takes voters to engage in this hypothetical purge. It’s not like Howard Dean or Markos Moulitsas can say, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome centrist?” and someone will take the hint and purge the party of Mark Warner. (OK, not Warner - Kos is a fan of his. Which kinda illustrates the level of support in the lefty blogsphere for such a purge.)
The blogsphere can organize, it can raise some cash, it can raise awareness of a candidate. But the bulk of the money, and practically all the votes, has to come from non-bloggers. If what’s being said in the blogs doesn’t resonate with a good many other Dems who are in a position to vote for the blogsphere’s candidate, then what’s being said there won’t have any effect. Even if Kos, Atrios, Jane Hamsher, John Aravosis, and a bunch of other opinion leaders in the ‘fever swamp’ decided Sen. Ben Nelson had to go - which they wouldn’t - it would accomplish nothing if the voters of Nebraska thought they were full of it.
There ain’t no purge; there ain’t gonna be no purge. Nobody of note even wants such a purge. We’ve gotten rid of the Democrats Who Hate Democrats caucus. Now we can go fight Republicans.
Oh yeah - Lieberman’s new campaign forgot to register its name as a domain name. Somebody beat them to it, and it’s mildly amusing.
I wonder if Rove intends to extend this kind offer to other Democrats?
Message from Lieberman: Give me just another kiss, just another kiss…
Serioiusly, I think Bush has done more than enough to “help” Lieberman.
If Liberman does decide to run, the Republicans should just stay out of the race altogether and let the two Dems slug it out.
I dare say it’s to cover Hillary’s butt. If a hawkish Dem Senator can’t win renomination in a true blue state, it bodes ill for a hawkish Dem to be nominated to the national ticket.
Well, there’s one question answered.
If Lamont were smart, he’d slug Karl Rove’s corpulent mug on billboards all across the state, and soon. The best thing to do against the new Lieberman campaign is define it quickly as a pawn of the White House. Kneecap it before Labor Day, any wavering support will avoid Lieberman like the plague and Lamont should be able to cruise to victory.
Bill Clinton made a few campaign appearances, maybe just one; I can’t find out right now how many, but it was my impression that while he did pop up at the end it is a stretch to say that he was “actively campaigning” for Lieberman.
As to why, keep in mind that Clinton and Lieberman both represent the DLC faction of the Democratic party, and this primary could be seen as a referendum on the DLC. Maybe he does think the party is in danger of moving too far leftward; maybe he’s concerned about the political environment for his wife’s 2008 presidential bid; or maybe Joe called in a marker, we don’t know.
Point taken, although who else is he campaigning for these days? Also, it wasn’t just Clinton, remember. Lieberman had a lot of other Big-name Dems behind him, and Max Cleland aslo made at least one trip up to CT to get out the JL vote.
Of course we don’t know, but the DLC hypothesis is probably the best one. It would be wise for use to watch the next moves Clinton makes as we march towards November. Not just what he does wrt JL, but if he starts taking a more active role in other campaigns.
I agree - calling Clinton’s efforts re: Lieberman “actively campaigning” is vastly misstating what actually happened. I also thought it telling that in the one speech Clinton did make for Lieberman, he pointedly brought up the “pink elephant” in the room, and didn’t offer any sort of defense of Lieberman’s support of the war. Listening to the audio clip of Clinton at the time, I wondered if he were sneakily working against Lieberman by bringing it up.
I also had to wonder about “pink elephant.” Probably just a slip from the usually sharp Clinton. But pink elephants used to be associated with drunks, and such a colorful slip-up helped to make sure that people would attend to the comment.
It’s not about a percentage. If he opposes the president on small issues, but supports the president on major issues, that’s what matters. And as I understand it, he’s supported school vouchers, the president’s social security modification proposal, the war, the Schiavo case. And as I understand it, these are the issues that he made the most noise about.
If you think that he’s otherwise been an effective champion for traditional Democratic principles, can you point out some specifics? Can you link me to an article in which he’s not in campaign mode and is criticizing the Administration on specific issues from a Democratic perspective? Can you point me toward the bills he sponsored that were from a Democratic perspective? Seriously, I’d like to see these things. The impression I’ve gotten is that he spent his political capital on showing his conservative credentials, and now that strategy has paid up.
Post 162, which you quoted from, contains some other possible answers:
Clinton is all about the politics; he may be doing this for areason other than the health of the overall party. He may even be doing this because he supports incumbents, given that incumbents have a better chance of winning. We can’t know, and so to conclude that he’s doing it to keep the party from losing the general election is quite a reach.
Daniel
I think a reasonable response would also have to provide some idea as to why, if Lieberman were such a solid Democrat, he’s garnered the support of Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter, and a host of other clearly partisan Republicans.
Pointing at a 90% voting record, as has been repeatedly pointed out, fails to acknowledge that there are many ways to subvert the interests of Democrats other than the final votes one casts.
How many other Democrats chastized Democrats by saying that we undermine the president’s credibility at our own peril. The voting record also doesn’t illustrate subtle things like being the first or only Democrat out of the seat to applaud the president at the state of the union.
Voting for Alito before voting against him doesn’t make a Democratic voter happy, it just looks squirrelly.
Not sure if this has been put in yet, but thought I’d put in this Time article into the pot. It gives some insight into how the Republican’s are viewing all this.
Personally I feel the Republicans are both full of shit and out of touch on this one…but I thought I’d put this in just to give their perspective.
-XT
I think they’re in for a big suprise. All they seem to know is ‘attack’. This isn’t some orchestration by a left wing mob - its the will of the connecticut voters. Instead of using this as a chance to look in the mirror with respect to their and lieberman’s positions, they’re mocking the choice of voters. I don’t think directing “They don’t get it” at voters is going to fly.