But how many of them agree with the Right in the first place ? Being forced to listen to Limbaugh by a boss/superior officer who pipes him in on a PA system is a complaint I’ve heard from more than a few left wingers who despise him.
Fair enough. Having seen similar false fronts of “inclusiveness” which went nowhere and weren’t followed up on, I understand your cynicism. One way we’ll know if Obama is more than talk is if you begin hearing McConnell and others using the same language as the President in more and more general cases. If he gets echoes from the Republican leadership as well as the Dems, it’ll mean they’re acting from common agreement. Another indicator of success will be legislative voting; if this continues to stay mostly along party lines, Obama might still be able to move his agenda along, but he certainly won’t have been successful at post partisanship.
I agree with what you’re saying. I’m simply telling you how Obama can lose my support. There’s no need to reassure me.
This strikes me as a ridiculous suggestion on its face. The man was against him, and not in merely a lukewarm fashion. It would be a show of spinelessness to take him on the cabinet.
Pretty much by definition, 'bipartisan" means you will work with those from the other side, even if they opposed you.
If Obama isn’t willing to do that, fine, but he is then going to have troubles passing himself off as “bipartisan”.
That’s absurd and delusional as a definition of bipartisan.
Appointing a guy of his own party (apostated to independent) who actively campaigned against you is idiocy of the highest order (and it is among the most retarded or dishonest advice to call for it as bipartisan).
Of course I find it hard to make sense as I understand Leiberman is a Left-Center fellow on domestic policy, and really only makes common cause with the Republicans over his Israel centred pro-war views; a neo-Con in its original sense as I understand it).
Choosing to keep the Minister of Defence, Gates, or choosing the Senator Hagel, the genuine Republican, now this would be interesting, possibly smart. I can see this appealing to those who can be appealed to.
Choosing an undisciplined opponent who proved to have bad judgement in a sustained manner? Pure bollocks as a suggestion.
“Working with those on the other side” is absurd and delusional as a definition of “bipartisan”?
Well, if Obama can’t work with independents if they campaigned against him, and can’t work with Republicans, because they campaigned against him, who does that leave? Bernie Sanders?
Aside from his political orientation, what exactly do you think Lieberman brings to the table? There are a dozen Republicans whom I believe would be far better choices for pretty much everything than Lieberman.
Twenty years experience in the Senate. Strong record on homeland security. He is pro-voucher.
Plus he is an independent.
As mentioned, if Obama is saying that he can reach out in a bipartisan manner, but only to those in lockstep with the left wing of the Democratic party, then he is not going to get very far. Biden voted in favor of the AUMF,and campaigned for the Democratic nomination in 2008, and he’s Vice-President (or will be).
Fairly or not, Leiberman is despised by the left, and it would be a massively unpopular move among Obama’s base, and not add much. It would be a poor use of political capital, and I don’t think he’s that stupid.
Chuck Hegel is the same thing. He’s the democrat’s favorite republican, almost exactly as Lieberman is/was the reps favorite dem. If you’re dem who hates Lieberman, ask yourself how much bipartisanship you’d credit McCain with if he appointed Lieberman.
But frankly, I think people don’t care much who a president’s advisors and underlings are, except insofar as the choices actually affect policy. Having a republican in the cabinet is a nice gesture, but that’s all.
Well, try using a bit of reflection here; what does that tell you about the Lieberman situation when you have such clear evidence that the party is entirely comfortable with people on both sides of the aisle who’ve also voted, albeit somewhat reluctantly, for the AUMF?
I’ll tell you what it means: it means that there isn’t an litmus test, based on the AUMF, which is being applied to Lieberman.
Also, Hagel is not like Liberman - give me a break. He and people like Dick Lugar don’t aggrandise themselves by going into the belly of Countdown, or whatever Fox News quasi-equivalent partisan den you want to suggest, with the pure objective to call their party weak on defence, appeasers of terrorism and to employ pathetic denunciations of any criticism of the president as undermining the troops. They don’t bloody go to the Democratic Convention and bask in the adulation of histrionic attacks on their own party or publicly campaign for the other party.
Hagel, Lugar et al are simply critics of the Bush policy, as if you need to be partisan jerk to do that, and they’ve simply done their job in reasserting some kind of Congressional accountability through the mechanism of Senate Foreign Relations Committee - arguing along the lines of the Baker - Hamilton bipartisan, realist approach. This isn’t reactionary ideology - it’s basic international relations, and certainly Hagel’s experience in the Vietnam war gives him an insight into the importance and utility of using force wisely. Hagel didn’t even publicly endorse Obama, despite his values and approach to foreign policy being entirely more in sympathy with Obama. In contrast, Lieberman, the douche-bag, was standing behind McCain at every rally, and through the primaries.
Ask any Democrat why they dislike Lieberman and the answer is that he is slimy, beyond the pale and a neo-conservative.
The same concrete, good faith steps Bush did.
He is neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. He represents a party of one.
I’m not seeing a plus side to Obama embracing tripartisanship.
Well, for one thing, it tells me that the Democrats in Lieberman’s home state are a wee bit more out of touch with the electorate in that state than Lieberman is.
It also tells me that, if Lieberman is willing to caucus with a party that actively campaigned against him, he might be a good candidate for outreach, even if he actively campaigned against them. And, since Lieberman was able rather handily to be re-elected because of his bipartisan appeal to Republicans and independents, he might have some good ideas on how to appeal to Republicans and independents outside his state as well.
You do recall, do you not, that he was on a Presidential ticket that won the popular vote in 2000?
That’s not the correct question to ask if you want bipartisanship.
Ask any independent why he likes Lieberman. Better still, ask Lieberman why the electorate in general likes him.
Or don’t, as you prefer. Again, if you want to be bipartisan, except for neo-cons, Republicans, or independents, well, OK, good luck with that.
Genocide would take care of his problem with conservatives, otherwise it probably isn’t happening. Oh hey don’t worry, I can say that because I am a conservative.
So in other words, he has twenty years in the senate and a political orientation you find tolerable.
This does not exactly commend him for a cabinet position.
How did I know you’d respond as such?
No absurd & delusional is this particular ‘other side’ to work with suggestion.
You do have a talent for straw men and deliberate distortion.
No, I obviously was referring to this specific person - Lieberman - obviously especially since I cited two proper Republicans as good potential choices in explicit contrast, your hard ideological lens notwithstanding. Proper centre right personnages, from which Obama received some conditional across-the-lines acceptance and/or support are very rationale choices. Someone as Leiberman who brings Left domestic politics, and discredited NeoCon foreign policy brings nothing to the table, he in fact would seem to represent precisely what has been repudiated.
Actual rationale advice by non-ideologues (that is people who can in fact be pleased, you will not be by any centre left personality, that we can divine from your record here) would focus on a respected personage such as a Hagel or a Gates who showed reasonable judgement and points in common with the incoming party.
This would be more or less my outsider’s take on the difference is well.
There is a difference between being an honest critic of one’s own party and a particular line or policy, and betrayal. As seen from afar, Leiberman went well beyond the pale. Open criticism, I should think, a sign of critical thinking perhaps, even being critical of a specific candidates qualifications… but actively campaigning and appearing with the opposition, and taking part in more scurrilous critiques, well, one hardly needs to be party political purist to say that’s well beyond the pale.
Further, there is the question of which specific portion of the other side one wishes to have a rapprochement with. Some parts are not either worthy or worth attempting a rapprochement. Leiberman in the foreign policy part certainly represents the portion of American FP that needs rejecting and shaming given the stunning incompetence it has shown. And as I understand (I may have misunderstood), Leiberman is on the Leftish side of even the Centre Left on much of domestic social policy.
Where is the advantage then?
He brings little but the portion of the NeoCon voters whose policy prefernces are being repudiated and do not deserve a voice, whereas the logical portion of the Centre Right to speak to is the FP realists like Hagel, who could bring sage advice (but checking Left adventurism as well). On domestic policy he brings nothing… and for party discipline he is an actively bad example.
No, again to suggest he’s a good choice for “bi partisan” inclusion in an Administration really just boggles and simply is not serious, if not verging on actively dishonest in the sense that it suggest the only bipartisanship said suggestion admits is the capitulation of the winning side in some fashion.
I should rather think that the new American administration would be best served to bring in Centre Right people with a critical view of the past 8 years in FP to help handle the Iraq issue and/or Financial/Economic policy to help handle the global financial crisis. To suggest an uncritical backer of Iraq as Lieberman is in effect (as far as one can tell via press) is ridiculous.
Lucky guess?
Yet, oddly enough, I am the one who suggested Lieberman, who you described as center-left on domestic policy.
You mean like someone who is (for instance) pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gay rights, center-left on domestic policy, and who caucuses with Democrats?
Face it, it is going to be quite difficult to be bipartisan and still lockstep with the left. But the fact that some folks come down with a fit of the vapors at the very mention of Lieberman’s name is not necessarily a Bad Thing. Like I say, no one is forcing Obama to be bipartisan. If he thinks he can go it alone, fine and dandy. But the premise of the OP, and some of the things Obama has said in the past, would suggest that it might be something to consider. If Obama was just blowing smoke, that’s fine too. Presidents sometimes make noises about things they don’t intend to do. The record of success for those who don’t value bipartisanship is, at best, a mixed bag.
I suspect the problem is not Lieberman’s political positions. It is the fact that he wiped the eye of the Democratic establishment, dared them to do their worst, and still waltzed to re-election. He doesn’t need them. He is, in fact, independent. Therefore, they hold no power over him.
People you can’t control are harder to work with, because you can’t take them for granted. I suspect Obama is going to learn that lesson in more than just this case.
So you disagree with the Biden as VP pick, but what does that have to do with Lieberman?