Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

kelticwizard wrote:

Without the Democratic Party backing him, you would never have heard of Joe Lieberman.

I think it's best if we agree to disagree here. I have made my point, you have made yours, and I don't think either of us can make his position much clearer at this point.

0 Replies

Well, if you wish to rest your case, Thomas, that's certainly okay. However, you proposed a US without political parties and asked why I think Lieberman would not do well in that case. In reply, I simply pointed out the kinds of candidates who do well outside the two party system, (there have been a few), and those candidates are nothing like Joe Lieberman.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
So the party is bigger than the candidates?

I haven't the vaguest idea what you mean. Without the Democratic Party and it's primaries, Lieberman would have never been elected to any office at all.

So, again, you believe the party is bigger than the candidates. The party can do without the candidates, but the candidates cannot do without the party.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
At least he announced he would do so in advance of the primary so that voters could make an informed decision. It certainly seems, based on the Democratic reaction on this thread, that by being upfront about his intentions, he lost himself quite a few primary votes.

That "analysis" is nonsense. Lieberman announced he would go independent if he loses the primary as a way to try to force Democrats to vote for him who otherwise would vote for Lamont. A Democrat who votes for Lamont now has to worry that if Lamont wins, he and Lieberman would split the Democratic vote and the Republican could sneak in.

The party supported him loyally all these years when the primaries worked in Lieberman's favor. Now that it looks like the primary might go against him, Lieberman is pulling stunts against the very party which made his political career possible.

That reply doesn't make much sense.

It would seem that the Democrats of A2K (yourself, edgar, princess et al) are precisely the sort of Democrats who vote in Democratic primaries.

You've all made it clear that you would not vote for Lieberman in this primary election, and one of the things, among a few, which really stick in your collective craw is his "threat" to run as an independent.

A number of you have indicated that he might as well be a Republican and edgar has gone so far as to suggest it's no loss if Lieberman leaves the party.

If Lieberman is no better than a Republican, how is it better that he win than the Republican? Why would any of you vote for him rather than face the threat of his splitting the Democratic vote and allowing a Republican to win?

It still boils down to the fact that if the voters of Connecticut want to vote for Joe Lieberman, and the polls certainly suggest that is the case, then they should have the opportunity to do so.

Your position might be on firmer ground if Lieberman's running as an independent could only provide him with the success of a spoiler, but that's not the case. He stands an excellent chance, as an independent, of being the person the majority of Connecticut citizens want as one of their representatives in Washington. Isn't that supposed to be the idea? Running for a position in the government to serve your fellow citizens, rather than a political party?

It appears that not only do you believe the party to be bigger than the candidate, but it's bigger than the voters as well. Now where have I seen that sort of thinking before?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

If Lieberman is no better than a Republican, how is it better that he win than the Republican?

You will have to ask Edgar on that. I do not feel Lieberman is no better than a Republican.

However, he has become too accommodating to the Republicans on many issues, when what is needed is someone who will fight the Republicans harder.

As for the rest of it, the polls for Lieberman are fading fast, as you would expect as Lamont gets to be known better. Early polls are about name recognition more than anything else. As people get to know Lamont, expect the polls to swing more in his favor.

You are trying to make things complicated, when they are not. Many people have lost to Lieberman in primaries during the course of his career. These people did not talk rubbish about the "party turning their backs on them" and threaten to go independent. They shook Lieberman's hand, wished him well, and worked for him in the general election. Joe Lieberman enjoyed other Democrats' support when he won the primaries-but now that he is faced with the prospect of losing, instead of showing some class like his fallen opponents did, he instead is talking about going independent and splitting the Democratic vote.

These actions do not speak well for Joe Lieberman.

0 Replies

Keltic Wizard wrote:
quote
oh, please. William F. Buckley is the founder of the National Review. His idea of "taking a hard left turn" is publicly supporting the New Deal.
end of quote
Of course, Keltic Wizard attacks the messenger and not the idea. Keltic Wizard has proved that he is a left wing partisan with his ridiculous position on the evisceration of free speech for the anti-abortion groups who counsel women against murdering their fetus.

I am sure that while Keltic Wizard has disdain for Senator Lieberman, he was four square for the "principled" turncoat Jeffords.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Well, if you wish to rest your case, Thomas, that's certainly okay. However, you proposed a US without political parties and asked why I think Lieberman would not do well in that case. In reply, I simply pointed out the kinds of candidates who do well outside the two party system, (there have been a few), and those candidates are nothing like Joe Lieberman.

That's apples to oranges. Ventura and Perot are candidates who did well in spite of a two party system that monopolizes conventional politics. These tell us nothing about candidates who would do well in a system without political parties. (Analogously, it would be a very unusual grocer who does well in a mafia town without paying protection money. He tells us nothing about grocers who'd do well in a town without the mafia.)

0 Replies

On the contrary, if a grocer is so good, can offer groceries at such a price that he grows so big so fast that the Mafia figures they better not touch him, imagine how well he would do if he didn't have the Mafia to deal with at all. It would indeed be difficult to imagine that if the Mafia disappeared from that neighborhood, the grocer would do worse. Common sense says he would do even better in a free competition unhindered by the mob.

Thomas, if examples of people who did well outside the two party system strike you as invalid, then how can you hold up as remotely valid a politician like Lieberman who spent his whole political career utilizing a political party to his advantage?

An electiion is all about getting votes. You can either get votes on your own, which only a few people have been successful doing, or you can get to the top of a vote getting organization, (which is what a political party is). the second choice is the usual way.

Eliminate the second choice, and you are left with the first. I see no justification for your contention that those who do well getting votes on their own when they are bucking a huge vote getting organization are not those who would do well if those organizations didn't exist. That doesn't make any sense. If anything, those people would do even better.

And Joe Lieberman does not have any qualities in common with those who are able to get votes on their own. I see nothing to indicate that he would do well politically if the parties never existed.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

On the contrary, if a grocer is so good, can offer groceries at such a price that he grows so big so fast that the Mafia figures they better not touch him, imagine how well he would do if he didn't have the Mafia to deal with at all. It would indeed be difficult to imagine that if the Mafia disappeared from that neighborhood, the grocer would do worse. Common sense says he would do even better in a free competition unhindered by the mob.

But Lieberman isn't like that grocer -- I guess so far we even agree. Instead, Lieberman is like a grocer who, in a two-gang system, needs the protection of one gang. But in a system without gangs (read: parties), he may well run a successful business; that means he doesn't owe any allegiance to the West Side gang (read: the Democrats). Which was the point of my comparison.

0 Replies

But once again, Thomas, the mob doesn't really give the grocer any opportunities to be successful than if they never existed at all. The grocer still has to get financing, choose his place of business, decide on what he stocks, hire people and meet payroll, etc all on his own. The mob doesn't help him with that at all. The only thing they do is to promise not to destroy him if he pays them.

A political party is different. The party WILL make your career. You start going to meetings and working on other people's campaigns, which gives you experience in how to use the party's machinery to your advantage when you run. Moreover, working on other people's campaigns puts you in contact with people and organizations which donate money to Democratic campaigns-these are going to be the same people and organizations who you will get funded by when you run.

This is what Lieberman has done. His whole political career has been working within the Democratic Party organization, utilizing it's machinery and money contacts. Eliminate the party system, and I see no reason to think a young, unknown Lieberman would be successful getting votes on his own any more than any other bright young people entering politics, who are extremely plentiful in number.

On the other hand, I think the best indication of the sort of people who would be successful getting votes on their own if no political parties existed would be the same people who are successful getting votes on their own when the parties do exist. Political parties give candidates great advantages in the election. The same sort of people who would do well despite the disadvantage of having no political party to aid them certainly would be the be the people who would do well if no political party existed.

What you seem to be saying is that if a fellow does well winning races with a 100 pound sack on his back that his opponents don't have, it is no indication of how well he would do if he didn't have that sack when he raced. Well, I think the fellow can be expected to do even better. And the people he was running against can be expected to do worse when they have to run against him on an equal basis.

Lieberman has none of the qualities we find in candidates who do well in getting votes on their own, outside the political party machinery.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

But once again, Thomas, the mob doesn't really give the grocer any opportunities to be successful than if they never existed at all. The grocer still has to get financing, choose his place of business, decide on what he stocks, hire people and meet payroll, etc all on his own. The mob doesn't help him with that at all. The only thing they do is to promise not to destroy him if he pays them.

A political party is different.

And this last sentence, kelticwizard, is where you and I will not find an agreement, no matter how many more loops we continue our argument for. I re-rest my case.

0 Replies

Lieberman votes for many Democrat issues, so he is better than a Republican. But, I prefer a whole Democrat to a partial one. (Which is also my main problem with Bill Clinton, but that's for another thread).

0 Replies

Edgar
I agree that we haven't had a real democrat in office as president since Johnson.

0 Replies

Rabel 22- I think you are correct, sir. Johnson was the last true Democrat but he did leave a legacy for Bill Clinton. Johnson allegedly was a crude man who showed others his "member". Clinton was much smoother, When he showed his member it soon disappeared from sight because Monica was there.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Rabel 22- I think you are correct, sir. Johnson was the last true Democrat but he did leave a legacy for Bill Clinton. Johnson allegedly was a crude man who showed others his "member". Clinton was much smoother, When he showed his member it soon disappeared from sight because Monica was there.

BernardR

With all due respects & as someone who is watching this debate from the other side of the world, I'd like to have a bit of input from you.: I'm really curious as to why, when conservatives such as yourself are discussing US politics, that the boring sexual peccadillos of Bill Clinton, etc, often feature as an important part of the the supposed "argument". Has it never occurred to you that Republican politicians might well have had/are still having their own little peccadillos, too? My guess is that this could be highly probable. So who cares? Why, then, do you & your ilk keep bringing up such irrelevant arguments involving particular Democrat politicians when something else, completely, is being debated? What, precisely does this have on an elected representative's ability to effectively do his or her job?

0 Replies

Everybody focuses on Clinton and sex, ignoring that his big specialty as president was usurping Republican ideas as his own. He undermined the Democrats by doing this. All those Republicans who keep bringing up Monica ought to get on their knees and thank him.

0 Replies

Joe and the Republicans Who Love Him

Interesting video collage on YouTube here: Dear Joe: A GOP Love Letter.

Quite an amazing rollcall of prominent conservatives there.

0 Replies

kelticwizard's argument is so inherently anti-democratic that it must be confronted again and again.

The Party is not the final arbiter of elections.

It is dangerously perverse to suggest that a politician owes more to The Party than to the electorate.

If a candidate betrays a party but keeps faith with the electorate he is a person to admire.

0 Replies

Lieberman is entirely welcome to run as an independant. But, as Keltiwizard points out, he is a product of the Democratic party. He doesn't have charisma and the whiny voice makes me think he would not have made it outside an organized party.

0 Replies

He may not have to run as an Independent. The Dems (once again) showed their true colors today.

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/3107/blackfacehamsherqp9.jpg

0 Replies

Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know