Sunday, July 30, 2006

Ich Bin Ein Connecticuter

Asking only what I can do for my country?

The New York Times endorses Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman; the Washington Post endorses Lieberman over Lamont.
I endorse the New York Times.

I believe in the principle of the big tent for the Democratic Party. We have seen what the opposite principle has done to the GOP and to our partisan governance. Bipartisanship must not become a crime; it is necessary to good government.

But Momentum Joe has gone partisan on Iraq.

Iraq, the central political question of our times. Not the only issue, (progressive income tax, universal health care access, recognition of the environmental sciences, energy independence, Congressional ethics, etc.) but it is the biggest issue. As the Times says,
The race has taken on a national character. . . . This primary would never have happened absent Iraq.
There are many -- too many -- Democrats who have supported and still support Bush's un-provoked, unnecessary, largely unilateral invasion and unplanned occupation of Iraq (UULUIUOI). Lieberman goes a step beyond and casts asperions of disloyality on his fellow Democrats who oppose the war.

We are at a critical point in our nation's history. The UULUIUOI has been an abomination as far as its affect on our polity. I am convinced that the American people are finally catching up with that realization. They want and expect a reckoning with Bush. Many traditional Republican voters, who can't face up to their own complicity in this titanic wreck, want the Democrats to spank their own GOP leaders. Other war party loyalists point to Lieberman to validate their 'staying the course'.

In order for anti-war Democrats to make their point about Bush's war, they have to start with Joe. He's the first beachhead which has to be taken in the restoration of our democracy and non-predatory foreign policy.

I am convinced that the American people are looking expectantly forward to a Democratic tsunami this November. The tidal wave should start this August. Do not disappoint us, Connecticut.


  1. The American public couldn`t care less. As long as they have their supply of toilet paper and light bulbs. Hillary is a war flunky also. Why.? War is big business. She and her husband are only in it for the money, and phony social prestige. These people are applause junkies. Clinton a Rhodes scholar.? So, that does not mean he has a brain. Joe and Bill are old Buddy`s. These two are predatory cutthroats that work for the corporate machine.- As far as the American public, you must mean the odd ball stuff that comes out of the focus groups.? To expect politics to have any influence on the people that are really running the country is wasting your time. Do you honestly expect that we are going to have a good country with a Hillary or a McCain.? I think it is now time to tear the Constitution into little pieces. It is now time to reorganize this place into a better society. - As they say , you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. - A new American revolution is in order.- We live in a corrupt society. It won`t get better. Only worse with this political system. Don`t vote. You are wasting your time, and only encouraging them. How about marching. How about surrounding the White House and ripping down the protective fence, and showing what we are make off. Vote.? Whats the point.

  2. Ignoring the previous comment I will be line that early November morning praying that the Democrats do take at least one of the houses of Congress. As for tearing the Constitution "into little pieces" to be replaced with some idiotic pie in the sky system. I'll just wait around for the Easter Bunny he will be knocking on my door sooner.

  3. Actors, such as Lamont and Lieberman, in this Greek tragedy called the American politics, are unknown quality to me, thus, I venture to skate on a thinn ice by commenting here. However, I do it, despite my woeful knowledege, because of the broader issues around it which are the ones that have intriqued me since I started to follow politics in your country.

    Vigil's preference, no insistance, of "the big tent" under these circumstances is the only sensible way. Partisanship has been the over riding principle of your politics for too long and made logical solutions almost impossible. Surely, it can't go on any longer. However, I don't see too many of your politicians worried about it and, business as usual still goes on and propably will.

    Question is; if the patient (system itself) can be rescued by an extensive operatio or would it be more humane to (all) let it die?
    This is partially what Skippy is advocating, although his brand of medicine is not just to turn off the respirator but to strangle the patient.

  4. Sievert says:

    "I think it is now time to tear the Constitution into little pieces. . . "

    I didn't believe my eyes. I'll have to re-read it.

  5. Readers may begin to notice I have begun exercising my responsibility as host to moderate the comments of Skip Sievert. I would prefer that I could edit out portions of his commentary based on brevity, personal rudeness and topic impertinence, but BlogSpot software doesn't give me that option. Consequently, in the interest of facilitating discussions, in the future I will be disappearing some of Skip's contributions in their entirety for not being contributions.

    In doing so, I have not violated Skip's rights to free speech and press as guaranteed under our Constitution, which he has just totally dissed in his statement above.

    He has alternative venues available to him in the Internet, as has been previously pointed out. They include his own site.

  6. Finally! Some moderation on this site is long over due.

  7. Joe "Likud" Lieberman has done more for Israel in his voting than he has ever done for the state of Connecticut. If he loses his Zionist seat in the US Senate he can always go home to the Promised Land and run for office in the Knesset.

  8. On the issue of sacrificing "the central political question of our time" for "the big tent": Newsweek's Jonathan Alter (The Putting of First Things First) is totally wrong when he says:

    And the revival of the romance of the antiwar left is a potential disaster for the Democrats. That's what gave the world Richard Nixon in 1968, when ideologically pure liberals who had backed Eugene McCarthy in the primaries refused to rally around Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey was "complicit" in the Vietnam War machine.

    What gave the world Richard Nixon was not the candidacy of Eugene McCarthy, but the bullet that took Robert F. Kennedy off on the night he won the California Primary.

  9. I appreciate that my comments have been welcomed here. Lest anyone feel there is any censorship at work here, my continued dialog in this forum should well prove that is untrue.

    I want to go on record here in my support of and my endorsement of Senator Joe Lieberman.

    Unlike our honorable host, vigilante, I do not believe the UULUIUOI is the over riding issue facing the voters in Connecticut or in America in general.

    I've always believed we need to elect individuals of overwhelming integrety and honesty. I want a leader who isn't poll driven and is an honest broker of facts and postions.

    Former Republican and former Lieberman supporter Ned Lamont fails on every conceivable count.

    He has virtually no deeply held convictions beyond his desire to be senator. The people of Connecticut deserve a lot better.

    Let's not put bad people in the Senate just because of the war. And certainly lets not throw out true liberals with honest deeply held liberal convictions just because we want some sort of "referendum on the war."

    With deep respect for those who disagree with me, the Wizard....

  10. IMHO, conversing with Wizard (and his like) renews, refreshes, and reinforces the all too narrow thread of national identity, unity and trust between all Americans which we have been in danger of losing.

    His congenial company and reasoned arguments are welcome here.

  11. If Lieberman loses his primary and betrays his party by running as an independent in the November, Democratic Party Leadership should help Lamont a lot and threaten to take away not only Lieberman's seniority but also his committee assignments.

  12. I have published my Lieberman opinions and I have not been reluctant to speak my mind. However, when it comes right down to it, the Wiz is absolutely right. This former VP candidate was at one time embraced by the democrats, however his wrong headed stance on the upside down war in Iraq put him in bed with the hated Bushmaster. My greatest criticism is his lack of good judgement, not only for supporting the war, but also for not being more critical of the Dubman. I suspect he thought himself to be "bullet-proof". I am afraid he may discover otherwise but the alternative in the person of Ned Lamont may even be less savory than the obsequious Lieberman.

  13. Just a second, Wizard: if the UULUIUOI is not the over riding issue facing the voters in Connecticut or in America, what issue trumps it?

    Secondly, Lamont may be a newer Democrat than Lieberman, but he's also 'truer'. He has said that if he loses the primary he will support the Democratic nominee. Not so Lieberman who has said quite the opposite: Lieberman will run as a 3rd "party" candidate. For Momentum Joe, it has always been about himself, hedging his bets by cooperating and being co-opted by Republicans.