Now What?
Amidst the early yakking about the Lieberman defeat, one posting at Tapped really got my attention. Alec Oveis argues that pouring so many resources into defeating Lieberman might have been a gigantic "waste of influence" by the netroots. Instead, he says, a better target would have been some vulnerable New England House Republicans. Defeating them might actually help the Democrats take back the lower chamber.
I've no idea if there's any merit to this argument. But it's one of the few original liberal takes on last night's election -- one that doesn't equate electing Lamont with the storming of the Winter Palace.
On a somewhat related note: I knew Lamont was rich, very rich. I had no idea that he lived in a $30 million home. That's spectacular even by local Malibu standards.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:19 am
Trying to force Lieberman (or anyone else INCLUDING Nader) off of a ballot strikes me as just slightly anti-democratic. Meanwhile, I wonder if the Lamont (D-Conn) -Lieberman (I-Conn) race will split the Democrat vote and elect the token republican challenger? Anyone making a guess?
August 9th, 2006 at 6:32 am
Marc,
Lamont lives in Greenwich, CT. Greenwich is the only municipality in the US that the USPS doesn’t require the postmaster for that town to live in the town as it is impossible for them to find a place to live there based on the salary.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:04 am
GM: Who is forcing Holy Joe off the ballot? Who has even suggested forcing him off? And how have they suggested doing it?
If you’re just making this stuff up, why?
People have suggested that a man of greater conscience might accept the primary defeat, rather than running directly against a party who’s endorsement he just sought but failed to receive, but no one I’m aware of has suggested “forcing” Lieberman off any ballot.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:47 am
Actually, I thought one of the comments on the Ovies post was more trenchant: removing Lieberman (and the rest of the defecting Dems) from the political talk show limelight will be helpful to Democratic efforts to find thier base.
I think the dems better start thinking long- term. Thier prospects for ’06/’08 look bleak.
An opposition party facing a president and congress with such low approval ratings, mired in Iraq, equivocal economic numbers etc. should have incredible momentum at this point – instead they have incredible anxiety.
The reason: the small slice of the electorate that does vote, clearly doesn’t see the Dems as an opposition party. Just look at the last two prez elections. Both had relatively large turnouts (though still highly skewed as to income level), both were stolen – where’s the outrage?
The DNC needs to shun the Dems who regularly defect to the Repubs, start demonstrating some genuine concern for the disenfranchised and the middle class, and increase thier turnout. Then, of course, they have to hope that thier pathetic acquiesence
in the electronic voting scandal doesn’t preclude thier chances of winning no matter what they do. (Dems, for future reference: if you are the victim of campaign-theft, at least act like there was something significant at stake. Gore’s “for the good of the country” concession speech was such a betrayal).
Regardless of whether you have your hopes for a democratic (small “d”) future for this country riding on the Democratic party (which to me is a depressingly futile hope) or the emergence of a viable 3rd party (less depressing, more futile) then you better get involved in (bellwhether) California’s public campaign funding initiative…
August 9th, 2006 at 7:49 am
Of course Lieberman has to run, otherwise the Pro-Israeli military lobby loses one of its representatives.
How come FireDogLake / Jane Hamsher’s blog is not on your list anymore? As I recall, she substituted for you during absences previously?
August 9th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Anyone who thinks Ned Lamont will be any less Pro-Israel than Lieberman is dreaming.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:28 am
http://nedlamont.com/issues/627/situation-in-the-middle-east
August 9th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
How curious it is, Cooper, that you encouraged people to give money to Hank Johnson’s campaign against a left-wing Democratic congresswoman (Cynthia McKinney) but you pooh pooh the efforts of Democrats to oust a right-wing Democratic Senator (Lieberman). This is why people on the left have about as much respect for you as they have for Lieberman.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
I guess mr Ovies doesn’t read KOS, MYDD or ATRIOS. If he did he would see regular appeals for the readers to contribute to any number of Democratic Challengers (See Kos’s “Fighting Dems” for example) by providing thos challenger’s websites.
Oh and I guess he wasn’t aware of Jon Tester in Montana or Paul Hackett in Ohio or Jim Webb in Virginia or . . .
August 9th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
And as for Lamont’s house. We all know he is a relative of Corliss Lamont, but don’t forget he also is descended from Thomas W Lamont who was J.P. Morgan’s right-hand man. Yes, that J.P. Morgan. So not only does he have “Stalinists” in the attic but also the numero uno capitalist. Kinda covers the bases doesn’t it?
August 9th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
I have to say, JC, that Lamont’s moderate tone on issues of the Middle East strike me as a far cry from the neo-con hawks over at Committe on the Present Danger that Holy Joe embodies. Of course, if you’re one of those who holds to the left-fundamentalist position that there wasn’t a dimes worth of difference between Gore and Bush, there’s not much basis for discussion. Personally, I’m persuaded that at that level the argument isn’t about any actually-existing politics but about personal salvation.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Reg I have no problem identifying as one of thos “left fundementalist”, bete noire, folks who agree with Jcummings that on the question of israel a dimes worth of difference sounds about right. There’s a mountain of evidence to justify this position but for now let me reference you to the truly disgusting attack mounted by the likes of dean and hillary on the iraqi pm for refusing top decalre his solidarity with the bombing of lebonese children. Yes, i too,relished seeig lieberman defeated but lets be a little realistic when talking about the acceptable framework of US electoral poltics. Here’s the last paragraph of cockburns latest piece
The Democratic Party won’t tolerate any outspoken dissent. It is a cheerleader for Israel’s destruction of Lebanon. Just listen to Jerry Nadler, a New York congressman identified as among the most progressive in the Democratic congressional caucus. On a pro-Israel rally on July 18 Nadler asked the crowd, “Since when should a response to aggression and murder be proportionate?†In other words, a green light for war crimes, such as Israel has been committing every day. Despite all the schedules for withdrawal suddenly offered by candidates such as Hillary Clinton, or Maria Cantwell, it’s still a Party of War in the service of empire. Who is the leading mainstream political voice calling for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon? The Republican senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel. The Democrats rushed to attack him, with Joe Biden winning by a nose, from Charles Schumer and the rest of the pack
August 9th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Sorry Reg but I’m afraid I have to side with Ahmed on this one. There are some voices in the Democratic party that are not knee-jerk supporters of Israel but they have other baggage – see Cynthia McKinney for example. If Chuck Hagel continues to talk sense about foreign policy he just might be hard to beat in ’08. Of course I’m assuming by that time even GOP stalwarts see the folly in Bush’s war.
August 9th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
While not agreeing with every one of his premises and propositions i can say that repub Chuck Hagel has at least been fairly reasonable and thoughtful in the face of the bipartisan war mongering and thumb twiggling over Lebanon. Here’s Hagel’s appeal, we wont be hearing anything soon from any of the major players from either party
“Mr. President, The Middle East is a region in crisis. After three weeks of escalating and continuing violence, the potential for wider regional conflict becomes more real each day. The hatred in the Middle East is being driven deeper and deeper into the fabric of the region…which will make any lasting and sustained peace effort very difficult to achieve. How do we realistically believe that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend, the country and people of Lebanon, is going to enhance America’s image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East? The sickening slaughter on both sides must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease fire. This madness must stop.â€
Hagel then added:
“Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one. But, it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice…Extended military action is tearing Lebanon apart, killing innocent civilians, destroying its economy and infrastructure, creating a humanitarian disaster, further weakening Lebanon’s fragile democratic government, strengthening popular Muslim and Arab support for Hezbollah, and deepening hatred of Israel across the Middle East…The war against Hezbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battlefield.â€
August 9th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
rlc and ahmad – I would agree that the question of kissing Israel’s ass finds most Dems at their worst, but I don’t buy the notion, which is JCummings reductio-ad-absurdum, that if, say Hillary Clinton, who for a number of reasons is one of the biggest offenders on this issue IMHO, were Prez, that she would be stopping her own Secretary of State from engaging in diplomacy at this juncture, which is what we’ve currently got. There’s significant space between Lieberman and Lamont on the current failures of this administration in the Middle East, including carte blanche to Israel.
Even Ahmed seems to agree that there is “a dimes worth of difference”, which isn’t what I take as the fundamentalist left-sectarian position. Chuck Hagel, incidentally, is one of the only Republicans I could imagine voting for – if, say, he ended up running against Joe Lieberman (a script which is, thankfully, now extremely unlikely but wasn’t an impossible scenario.)
August 10th, 2006 at 12:25 am
I would vote for Hagel if he were running against Hillary.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:47 am
On this specific issue, that is our blantantly one sided support of Israel, our enabling of their montrous campaign in Lebanon there is absolutely a bipartisan concensus. I’ve read what every major democrat has said from the odious Hillary Clinton right through to Jerry Nadler. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that if push came to shove we wouldnt once again be giving the Israelis carte blanche to do as they wish. As for the “dimes worth of difference”, the term was introduced to this conversation by Reg not me, making the “even Ahmed seems to agree” ploy stand out as a smart but ultimately devious debating tactic. Cummings gets things right here. Onto Lamont Im glad he won. I listened to him last night speaking about the crisis of health care and the need to treat the rest of the world with a level of respect–an allusion, of course, to our current admistration of neo con crazies. I was mostly impressed. The guy deserves some props for giving his speech while being flanked by the two Revs (Al and Jesse) as well. I woulndt be surprised if Lieberman, who told a reprter today that he wants to save the dems from Maxine Waters, uses that against Ned in the future. What a disgusting hack Joe is
August 10th, 2006 at 12:58 am
Jonathan Tasani, Hillary’s unfortunately nominal chanllenger in the dem primaries, was on Democracy Now this morning along with an approving Ralph Nader. Here is what he had to say on Hillary’s position vis a vis Lebanon.
“Why could we not negotiate? And the United States was the only country that did everything possible to prevent a ceasefire. Condoleezza Rice was sent by George Bush to Rome to scuttle that ceasefire, and Hillary Rodham Clinton stopped just short of saying, “Let the bombs fall.†She abrogated her responsibility as a leading figure in the Democratic Party and, I believe, fanned the flames of violence in the Middle East.”
I understand that this guy has no chance in hell of winning but lets hope that he keeps up the criticism and makes his voice heard. Word is that the Hillary campaign is in overdrive, doing everything possible in order no to ebate him
August 10th, 2006 at 2:09 am
Isn’t this the result that’s actually most likely to contribute to Dem gainst in the CT house seats: a lot of people will be motivated to vote in the Senate race, and the vast majority of those will be supporters of either Lamont or Lieberman. And you’d think that virtually all of Lamont votes and a big chunk of Lieberman voters will vote Dem in the House.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:06 am
“I understand that this guy has no chance in hell of winning but lets hope that he keeps up the criticism and makes his voice heard.”
I have known Jonathan for 22 years, and am contributing 20 dollars/month to his campaign. You can too at
http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/
August 10th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Ahmed – actually Ralph introduced “dimes worth of difference” into this general discussion and he said there’s none. That was a crackpot position which enabled the madmen who harbored notions like “A Clean Break” to capture the Executive Branch and the civvie command over at the Pentagon. You at least suggested there might be. I think the “smart but devious debating tactic” might well be taking the entirely valid generalization that there is a “bipartisan consensus” as proof that a Democratic White House would be acting as irresponsibly and pushing Israel from their own Right in this crisis. I suggested a few threads back that David Wurmser, Cheney’s point man and one of the Clean Break crowd, would be having more influence on the “diplomacy” than Condi Rice and events are bearing me out. At this point I consider even Rice – who I loathe – as exhibiting a “dimes worth of difference” on the question of doing something, anything to get talks started. But she’s inherited Colin Powell’s window dressing role while the crazies run amok (which might be just desserts, but I’m not so nihilistic that I can enjoy it.) Taking, say, a Joe Biden’s rhetorical stances as indication that his counsel and perspective on the possiblities and the dangers inherent in this crisis are effectively the same as David Wurmser’s is completely fucking nuts. No less. And the finger-on-the-trigger crowd will be delighted, and add to the coffers if it comes to that, to have spoilers and useful idiots who believe the “not a dimes worth of difference” thesis to assist them in their project of keeping Democrats – not to mention moderate Republicans – out of power at all costs. Frankly, if anyone thinks Lamont and Lieberman’s perspectives on war in the Middle East are essentially identical, I find it hard to understand why they would celebrate Lamont’s victory, because Lieberman’s totally wimping out to Bush precisely on that issue was most of the ball game.
Hagel has been far better than most on Lebanon, but it’s no surprise because he’s been far better than most on Iraq for a long time. The Dems suck – most of them even in comparison to a GOP “realist” like Hagel who lived Vietnam on the ground and understands the limits of warfare – but the notion that a de facto foreign policy team in a Dem White House would respond no differently than the neo-con crazies who are currently in the drivers seat throwing gas on a fire is, as I said, totally nuts.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Hillary apparently likes everybody. She doesn’t choose sides:
” the real Hillary Rodham-Clinton… one whose pre-Senate race record on Israel is appalling. It’s a record of supporting the terrorist PLO, even before the 1993 signing of the first Oslo Agreement on the White House lawn, of ignoring blatant calumny heaped on Israel by Suha Arafat, of supporting the creation of a Palestinian PLO State, of hosting and legitimizing extremist Islamic groups in the United States. ”
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hillarSy.htm
August 10th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Dimes worth of difference, as a phrase, was introudced on Counterpunch – coming from a meeting between Jeff St. Clair and Waylon Jennings, who may well have coined the phrase.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:32 am
I am glad Lamont won, but he seems a neoliberal centrist, ala Dean. He is not legitimately antiwar either, but his win, more than him himself, is godo news. I am not a big fan of the blogosphere, but I wish them well. Perhaps Kos and all could start pushing the Palestine issue? No one would be offended, since it now seems to be liberal mainstream thinking.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Dimes worth a difference? See George Wallace 1968. Maybe 1964, I don’t know but definitely ’68.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
phentermine…
About……
January 24th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
The Dilemma was amazing! http://bit.ly/kings_speech