Sunday, August 13, 2006

Nedrenaline!

It can become addictive!

That's what last Tuesday in Connecticut proves. Things had gotten so bad with Lieberman's misrepresentation of Connecticut voters, that Joe provided them with an opportunity and an excuse to make a dramatic improvement. And Ned Lamont's underdogging Lieberman can prove to be allegorical to what can happen nationally.As Margaret Carlson wrote last week,
Democrats are fed up with the bipartisanship that gets the wrong things done. . . . The day of reasonable, centrist politics for most Democrats is over.

Over because the other side doesn't practice it. Over because this president who launched a war deceitfully and with insufficient planning and troops doesn't deserve it. Over because if you disagree with the president over his disaster in Iraq, you are accused of wanting to cut and run, of not supporting the troops.
Lieberman's determination to delay his departure from the Senate at all costs will amount to an unbecoming epilogue for which his biographers will have to deal. He is like an athlete playing past his time. So far, in his four-day effort to do so, he discloses his true colors.

Have you noticed his line on Lamont is as shrill as the Republicans'? Have you noticed how Lieberman's supporters have called Ned Lamont an "Al Sharpton Democrat"? How Lieberman stated on the Today Show that he was committed "to bringing the Democratic Party back from the extreme, back from Ned Lamont and Maxine Waters."

Have you noticed how his line (thanks, Em!) on opponents to our Iraqi occupation has become Cheney-esque?
If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.
His state's constituents are smart enough not mistake Lieberman for bipartisan. True centrists don't cozy up with radically Un-American Neocons. His loyalties are clearly not to his (former) party. In fact, he has already switched parties. Since Tuesday, Lieberman has become Bush's other poodle, second to Tony Blair.

Who's Ned Lamont?

Remember back when people were asking that? "Lamont Cranston?"

It's a different tune now. I hear comparisons of Ned Lamont to Eugene McCarthy, disrobing emperor LBJ in the 1968 New Hampshire presidential primary. Ned L. has proven that the party of loyal opposition does not have to tip-toe around our self-anointed "war-time president" like a bunch of Lilliputians. As someone observed last week,
". . . Democrats like Senators Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden shift progressively more in favor of withdrawal from Iraq and is certainly going to alter the entire spectrum of political views over the issue of Iraq, not only for Democrats, but for Republicans, too. In short, this is likely to be the turning point -- downward -- for the Bush presidency."
Political seismographers are detecting a sea change. Like Lieberman's overstay in the Senate, things have gotten so bad on a national and international scale that Democrats have been provided with an opportunity and an excuse to make a dramatic improvement.

Impossible as it is to overstate the need for a political tsunami, it's equally impermissible to expect a storm tide capable of lifting boats from Lilliputian shores without unstinting effort.

Let's get it done.

24 comments:

  1. Jonathan Chait: Give It Up, Joe, brings up a fact not well known:

    Lieberman's "decision to run as an independent after contesting the primary is not illegal in Connecticut (unlike other states, which have "sore loser" laws prohibiting such a gambit)..."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lamont is going to have a problem with consistency if he continues to support Israel's aggression against Lebanon while opposing the war in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Connecticut's answer to Elmer Fudd goes to show what a little power can do to your mind. While Elmer claims to be a loyal progressive Democrat he can not accept that the voters of his state have rejected him over his poodle like stance with Bush over the war. So I have to ask the simple question is Elmer really running to save Connecticut from a "defeatist" like Lemont or is he just unwilling to give up his Senate seat and the privileged perks that comes with the office?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have to believe your second option is the correct one, BeachBum. He's a cling-on celebrity who has become 'entitled' to his seat, desk and locker in the Senate building.

    To Dr. Maxtor I have to say that I oppose Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebanon more (I think) than Vigilante opposes the same of our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Still, I say, better that the future Senator Lamont get himself elected than de-selected by AIPAC.

    You and I can be consistent. Let's just get this senator elected.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, Messenger. Lieberman's day has come and gone. AIPAC's day approaches. Netroots must lead...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Latest poll has Lieberman at 46% versus Lamont 41% in the general election.

    There is still plenty of time for that to change.

    I'm still a Lieberman supporter and believe your negative and dismissive comments are misplaced. But that is just my very humble opinion.

    I do understand the very high priority you place on the War in Iraq.

    the Wizard.....

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree Messenger, however politicians have a habit of flip flopping. I'm glad LIEberman is out but Lamont should understand that the same fate awaits him he tries to blow smoke up the electorates skirts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. By Novemver, Lieberman will not have succeeded in re-defining himself as either a Democrat or a Republican; he'll be seen only as a war-monger among war-mongers

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hmmmmmm....My concern is that the left will collectively push the pendulum far left. I don't like extremism, to the left or the right. I would hate to see a movement that picks off incumbent democrats because they may believe in, or have supported at one time, a single issue, when they are representing us well in all other ways. I agree that the Iraq war is our nation's nightmare but there are other issues that are equally as important, whether they be long or short term. We need to be careful as we travel this road.......

    ReplyDelete
  10. Drmaxtor, I can find more than a grain of logical consistency between supporting Israel's retaliation against Hezbollah, and our stupid and groundless invasion of Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Actually Israeli soldiers were caught in Lebanese territory Malfrat. Read Sy Hersh's piece in the New Yorker, there should be little doubt who started the craven assault on Lebanon.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hitler's "excuse" for invading Czechoslovakia was the alleged murder of German troops stationed at the border. The fact is that criminals were dressed in Wehrmacht uniforms, shot, and carried across the border.

    This is different from the Israeli/Hizbollah conflict. The Israeli army attacked a dangerous enemy because they needed to in order to protect their homeland.I don't care what excuse they used. These terrorists have been killing Jews since the early 80's and they need to be destroyed. While I feel for the Lebanese people, they and the government were harboring the Hizbollah, just like Afghanistan was harboring al Qaeda. War is hell....

    ReplyDelete
  13. DRMaxtor: Israel's aggression against Lebanon? A "craven" assault?

    Malfrat: You really see a similarity between Iraq and the Israel/Hezbollah conflict?

    I respectfully suggest you guys read your history. The fact is that Hezbollah wants Israel and the Israeli's wiped off the map. They lobbed Iranian missiles into Israel. They have been persectuing and harassing them for years. I am sorry there is a cease-fire. These people need to be destroyed, not the INNOCENT Lebanese but those who are members of the terrorist gang and those who support them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sparsefield, I did not express myself very clearly.

    I was commenting on Drmaxtor's earlier: I meant to say that I can find some consistency in supporting Israel's retaliation against the Hezbollah and opposing our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Not much, but enough for a fledgling Senatorial candidacy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Malfrat, Israeli retaliation against Lebanon because of Hezbollah compares more closely to our retaliation against Afghanistan because of al Qaida, until you remember that the Zionists didn't wait for (or didn't fabricate) a Pearl Harbor-scale pretext.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am responding to MadMike's comment:

    My concern is that the left will collectively push the pendulum far left. I don't like extremism, to the left or the right. I would hate to see a movement that picks off incumbent democrats because they may believe in, or have supported at one time, a single issue, when they are representing us well in all other ways. I agree that the Iraq war is our nation's nightmare but there are other issues that are equally as important, whether they be long or short term. We need to be careful as we travel this road.......

    You should reassure yourself, Mike, by reading Lamont's editorial in the Wall Street Journal or these excerpts, Democrats Mean Business

    The second point I'm making is that being against our continued occupation of Iraq is not 'far left'. Telling the truth or being even-handed about Israel and Palestine is far left; (okay for you and me as long as we don't spend other people's money running for public office). But Bush saying he'll never leave Iraq is the extreme 'far-out' position.

    Finally, with respect to 'other issues' you allude to, as long as our treasure and miliary assets (people) continue to swirl downward in Bush's Iraqi toilet, you can kiss them good-bye.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Recidivist: I don't think the "Zionists" needed a pretext. They had history behind them. I feel they demonstrated remarkable restraint over the years. The destruction, or at the least the crippling of Hizbollah was a step in the right direction. I always feel great sadness for the collateral lives that are lost in war. In this case the lives were lost on both sides of this virtual fence. I hate war because it has uncertain outcomes but sometimes the choices are limited.

    Vigilante: I agree with you completely, and I think we are saying the same thing only in different ways. The "other" issues to which I allude are terrorism. Very bad things are going to happen to the United States in the next decade, things which will make the horror of 9/11 seem "insignificant" (and I mean that respectfully) in comparison. While we waste our resources in Iraq we conserve our resources in areas that are critical to the security of our nation. I am debating posting a very scary prediction (it came into my hands in a very strange way) by an al Qaeda operative as to their dreams for future terrorist attacks. I have been reluctant to do so because it is the most frightening things I have ever read and Bush plays right into their plans.

    Oh well! Enough! I could write a blog post if I keep this up. Thanks to all for a great [and civilized] discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have to add about Lamont:

    In addition to being surprisingly ready as a politician, Lamont, appears not be lacking the kind of organization that can keep him within the bounds of the mindless media discourse so that saying something a little complex would not rebound against him.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh get off it Sparsfield, you're the one in need of learning from the history books. You know as well as I do that there wouldnt be a Hezbollah if not Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. It always amuses me how Israel's amen corner plays the whole "they want to wipe us out" card, the only country which got wiped out was Palestine. Those precious Israeli soldiers of yours were caught in The Lebanese town of Aitaa al-Chaab. Spare us the zionist spin.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Gosh! Do we have a Jew hater amongst us? Maxtor, tell me why the Jews invaded Lebanon the first time? Try and do it without the "spin." Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dr. M. My apologies. I just visited your web site. Of course you hate Israel. According to what I read on your blog you are a SERIOUS Muslim, and a non-forgiving one. So, let me ask you this...Does al Qaeda pay well? In Pace Requiescat.......

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sparsefield, it doesn't square with my impression that Maxtor deserves to be called "a Jew-hater", based upon what he has said in this discussion, anyway. Being a Muslim - alone - does not make him a 'Jew hater".

    Neither do I hate Jews. I may use the word "Zionist" occasionally to refer to Israelis who push the Pan-Israeli goal of extending and expanding the occupation of Palestine lands on the West Bank with the implicit goal for forestalling the mere possibility of there ever coming into being a Palestinian state.

    I have been deeply disappoint by both Palestinian and Israeli leadership for decades (but that's a different story) and disgusted by the attitude of the present American mis-government on the issue for the past six years. In Light of recent history as posted by Indicted Plagiarist, the point I wish to make is when it comes to the current protracted struggle between Hezbollah and the IDF, I feel I am - at best - completely neutral, (verging on sympathy Lebanon).

    I certainly don't hate Jews. I don't hate Israel. But I no longer 'love' Israel, either. Israel is turning a corner in history and is headed to the dark side.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Messenger: I agree somewhat with your observations, however I am rather ambivalent when it comes to Israel and their regional politics. I must confess while I sympathize with the innocent victims of conflict, I cannot blame Israel for defending themselves. I do not think there was some vast conspiracy, as some suggest, to justify their advance into Lebanon. As is to be expected our president and his asses of evil have done nothing to ameliorate this conflict. I am eternally optimistic that once there is a drastic change in our government peace may once again come to the region, if only for a short time.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Bob Gieger has done the research:

    Of the 43 Democratic Senators in Congress, 27 Senators who are supporting Nominee Lamont, 10 Senators who can't make up their mind, 6 Democratic Senators supporting the man Bush supports, Lieberman.

    The toll-free number for the Capitol is 888-355-3588.

    ReplyDelete