Anti-War Movement Takes Control Of Democrat Party

[Dr. Shane]

Lieberman Concedes Defeat In Senate Race

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Challenger Ned Lamont appears to have defeated Lieberman by more than 10,000 votes, according to unofficial vote returns.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"The old politics of partisan polarization won today," Lieberman said. "For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The world is watching the hotly contested race, which many view as a referendum on the Iraq War and President Bush.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Seems a lot of money was flowing into Lamont's campaign from outside the state and an unprecident 20,000 new voters registared to vote in the primary. What that tells me is that the political machines were working the people.

[Dr. Shane]

Lieberman votes with the Senate Democrats 90% of the time. He favors universal healthcare, is pro-union, pro-life, favors big government and grass-roots economics. He can be described as nothing else but a Democrat. Even tonight when declaring his canadacy as an independant he called himself an independant Democrat.

Current polls have him ahead to win in the fall as an independant canidate. If that happens, it will show that Lamont got the nomination just because the anti-war segment of the Democrat party has taken control but the ordinary, everyday, blue-collar, voting Democrats are not solidly behind the extreame wing of the party.

[Bravus]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/08/poll/index.html

[Dr. Shane]

The fact that people are unhappy with the Bush Administration is no secret and hardly debatable. I believe he deserves credit for managing a tough economy over the past few years, but in light of the troubles in Iraq and high gas prices, few are going to be willing to give him credit there.

While Bush's low approval ratings may well have a negetive impact on Republicans, the fact that the extreame wing of the Democrat party has been able to overthrow an esteemed senator who was on their presidencial ticket just six years ago shows how much control they have gained since the moderate Bill Clinton was in the White House.

I tend to believe (and perhaps I am wrong) that most Americans are closer to the middle than the extreames. Most Americans are not happy with the President or with the Republicans in Congress. However if our only choice is extreame, left-wing Democrats or bumbling Republicans, the Republicans may continue to maintain power.

[Parade Orange]

a bumbling republican is in the white house as we speak

[Bravus]

But Shane, the point of the article (or at least the reason I posted it) wasn't to talk about dissatisfaction with the President, but to show that being against the Iraq war is not extreme (to the Democratic Party), but in fact is the mainstream view in America today. That means Lieberman's defeat is not at all evidence of a hijacking of the Democrats by extremists, but a very predictable result in a race where one candidate is for the war, the other against it and the voters are strongly against the war. If the Republicans continue to stand by this war (with courageous exceptions like Murtha), this result is pretty much guaranteed to be repeated in November *despite* a pathetic and directionless effort on the part of Democrats.

[Dr. Shane]

Murtha is a Democrat and may be in trouble this election year as a lot of money is pouring into his opponent's campaign from all over the country.

Yes, a lot of Democrats are against the war. BUT Lieberman has 18 years in the Senate, he is in a position to make a lot of things happen for his home state (and he does). He is a dyed in the wool liberal. He is against drilling for oil in Alaska, he is for partial-birth abortion and he is against tax-cuts. However he is stong on defense. He is what many call a JFK Democrat because JFK was strong on defense.

It is comparable to the Republican party's pro-life group. The pro-life segment of the Republican party is one of its most active and powerful voices - much like the anti-war segment of the Democrat party. Yet the Republicans do not throw pro-choice Republicans like Senator Arlen Specter ort Governor Schwarzenegger out. That is because in all other areas these people are solid Republicans just as Lieberman is a solid Democrat.

It appears that the radical, left-wing of the Democrat party may have more influence in it than the Religious Right does in the Republican party.

Now 44% of registared voters in Connecticut are registared as independants and Lieberman won 49% of the Democrat vote yesterday so it looks like this election is his to lose. Unless he does something stupid, he shouldn't have a problem winning in the Fall.

[Bravus]

D'oh! You're right, Murtha is a Democrat... I think I was confusing him with McCain.

[Neil D]

http://download10.rbn.com/airam/airam/pod/download/franken/davidbrock.mp3

[Neil D]

Why Ned Lamont -- and Democracy -- Won the Day

Many pundits have suggested that the Ned Lamont campaign was the work of partisan extremists and crazed left-wing bloggers who wanted nothing less than to purge a decent man out of the Senate, and in the process, ruin the Democratic Party.

Marty Peretz, owner of The New Republic, said that a Lamont victory would be Karl Rove's dream come true. He added that ";If [Lamont], and others of his stripe carry the day the Democratic Party will lose the future, and deservedly" David Brooks of The New York Times actually called the growing discontent for Lieberman ";a liberal inquisition." Sean Hannity said the Democrats were "eating their own."

Thankfully, the voters of Connecticut did not buy into such nonsense, and instead actually voted for the person they felt best represented their views on important issues. This wasn't an inquisition ,.... it was Democracy!

The notion that the anti-war base has decided not to allow ideological diversity -a claim made by many including the Democratic Leadership Council - is equally laughable. In truth, anti-war voices represent ideological diversity that was simply not represented by Democrats in Congress , particularly the US Senate. (See votes on Iraq War, war funding, The Patriot Act etc,)

The voices of the anti-war movement were simply out of the narrow parameters of discourse among Washington insiders. So they voted for someone who shares their views.

How dare they?

*******************************************

[:"green"] Lamount's view of the war. From his website... Ned Lamont for Senate [/]

The War in Iraq

Three years ago, President George Bush rushed our country to war in Iraq and Senator Lieberman has cheered him on every step of the way. No, there was no imminent threat to America, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and we were not greeted as liberators.

Today, America is no safer, Israel is no safer, Iran is more dangerous, Osama bin Laden is still at large, and our brave troops are stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war. I believe that those leaders who got us into this mess should be held accountable.

Looking forward, I salute the patriotism and wisdom of Congressman Murtha and others who emphasize that "stay the course" is not a winning strategy for Iraq or America. Our best chance of success requires that the Iraqis take control of their own destiny. America should make clear that we have no designs upon their oil and no plans for permanent bases. While we will continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked, our frontline military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home

[Dr. Shane]

Please.....................

I am not a top.

I don't spin.

[Neil D]

don't make me revert to the "put up or shut up" montra, Shane. Where is your facts to refute the post?

of course, one could say that you're as dense as a top but i am sure the the cry of "foul" would soon polute the adventist bbs. So, mainly to advoid the detraction that the cry of foul would entail, i ain't gonna say it.

[Dr. Shane]

Just straight talk. Joe Lieberman is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. He differs with the liberal wing of the Democrat party on only one issue. So they toss him out of the party. No spin there.

He was on the party's presidencial ticket six years ago. He has a far left liberal record on things like the environment, abortion, taxes, government spending and education. He disagrees on one issue and they toss him out.

How can people that are worried about the Religious Right's influence on the Republican party not be concerned about the Anti-War Movement's influence on the Democrat party?

Should the Republicans throw out every Republican that isn't pro-life?

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

He differs with the liberal wing of the Democrat party on only one issue. So they toss him out of the party.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Weeellll, no...that wasn't the only issue...And if you had been following the democratic party and thier base, you will have known that the democratic party is redefining itself and finding it's voice...

2nd, connecticut is a dye-in-th-wool left wing state. Joe Lieberman was a Republican-style Democrat - strong on defense, conciliatory toward presidents and presidential power, especially Republican presidents, and moralistic.

"Connecticut Democrats said, in effect, "..., we don't want 'strong on defense' if it means ill-conceived wars. And we don't want to give presidents power to override the law. And we don't need the feds telling us when life begins or when it should end."

Re: The War- The government made a terrible mistake. How did it make it? What can we learn from it? And how do we clean up the mess now?

Lieberman had no idea. His answer was the absurd Republican line: "Stay the course." And voters, roughly 52 percent of Democratic voters in this primary at least, are smarter than that. Not that there are any easy, or really good, answers to those questions. But we must ask them and grapple with them. There has to be a reckoning.

Another reason Lieberman lost: A bad campaign. From the start the Lieberman campaign was defensive and negative. Having to face a challenger stunned, shocked, and offended him. And that never changed. The candidate, his staff, and his advocates took the position that Ned Lamont was a nobody, an upstart. Who was he to run? Well, he was a citizen with an issue and a passion and a couple hundred million in his bank account, that's who. But Lieberman and his people never got it. They kept belittling Lamont rather than responding to him on the merits. And that turned voters off, even voters who had been for Lieberman in the past.

Why should anyone vote for Joe Lieberman? If he answers as he has-"I have been here a long time and I should stay here. I am moderate and compromising. I am a decent guy"- he will lose again. For Lamont's answer to the same question has force: Our government misled us into a terrible war, so we need to get out of the war and change the government. Second, the Democratic Party needs candidates and officeholders who will stand up for civil liberties and work for national health care, not ones who will "work with" George W. Bush.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Weeellll, no...that wasn't the only issue...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Well, yes it was.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

2nd, connecticut is a dye-in-th-wool left wing state.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Well, with 44% of their voters registared as independants... I am not sure I would call that a dye-in-the-wool left wing state.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Joe Lieberman was a Republican-style Democrat

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

SPIN ALERT! SPIN ALERT! This is the same Joe Lierberman that the Democrat party nominated to be on the 2000 presidencial ballot, right?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

His answer was the absurd Republican line: "Stay the course."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Nope, that is wrong. Lieberman is a big critic of President Bush and how the war has been executed. (I think I am getting dizzy)

Since he got about 48% or 49% of the Democrat vot, 44% of the voters are registared as independents and the Republican canidate is weak, Lieberman is likely to return to the Senate as an independent. The big question than is, if he ends up being there with 49 Democrats, will he vote with them to give them control of the Senate or will he abstain and let Dick Chenney cast the tie-breaking vote to decide?

My, oh, my... politics is better than any reality show. Isn't it?

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Well, yes it was.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Ah, evidence that you are not up to speed on what the progressives/democratic voters are realizing.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Well, with 44% of their voters registared as independants... I am not sure I would call that a dye-in-the-wool left wing state.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That's a matter of perception and definition on your part. It occurs to me that if there are that many independants, they have thier own opinion, and they are not going to toe the Republican line any more than your perception that they would toe the Democratic line [ which is pretty elusive to define, admittedly]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

SPIN ALERT! SPIN ALERT! This is the same Joe Lierberman that the Democrat party nominated to be on the 2000 presidencial ballot, right?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No, not necessarily. He was percieved as a person who was ambitious to be president, but did not have the ideas nor the ability to fight against Bush. He was perceived as a back room negotiator, not a fighter.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Nope, that is wrong. Lieberman is a big critic of President Bush and how the war has been executed. (I think I am getting dizzy)

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Well, that is not how he has been percieved. In fact, his record on some crucial issues have been just down right bad. For example-

-Lieberman developed working alliances with the most hypocritical and dangerous right-wingnuts like Ralph Reed and Charles Murray and Bill Bennett.

-he played the leading role in 1993 to thwart Democrats who tried to close loopholes allowing companies to cook the books on millions of dollars of stock options. Thus began the regulatory abandonment that spawned Enron and its sibling rip-offs.

-Lieberman joined with Republican Sen. Alphonse M. D'Amato of New York and against Democrats to "work the cloakrooms" of the Senate, in the words of a news account, to "line up unanimous support so that a tax break eagerly sought by the real estate industry could be passed without senators having to vote on the record."

-was one of only two Democrats who voted with Republicans in 1995 to kill a lobbyist-gift ban? Or that he called affirmative action "un-American?" Or that in August 1994 he voted in favor of a proposal by Republican Jesse Helms to cut off all federal money from schools that offer counseling to suicidal gay teens by referring them to gay support groups or in any way suggesting it's OK to be gay?

-Or that Gov. John Rowland and Lieberman had the same fundraiser, Michael Lewan, raising the same campaign cash from the same fat cats, because, as Lewan told the Courant, "they're two like-minded guys?"

-Lieberman helped Lynne Cheney found a McCarthy-style group called the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which hounded liberal university professors for criticizing American foreign policy, including the president of Wesleyan University?

-Lieberman could vote to confirm an attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez, who wrote the legal opinion excusing torture.

-He gets the "right" mark for voting against Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination, for instance. But he gives the Bush administration the vote it needs to make Alito a judge, by voting to stop a filibuster.

-It's fine for Lieberman to join Republicans in ideological arguments. He does that a lot for someone still calling himself a Democrat. And when he can publicly excoriate President Clinton for having sex with an intern - then hold back on President Bush's immoral lying about Iraq and illegal spying on Americans

-According to LCV's [Legue of Conservative Voters] own scorecard, Lieberman has transitioned from a solid environmental vote to a clearly unreliable swing vote. It would be one thing if this weren't a trend in other areas, but Lieberman has been moving right all over the place

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Well, that is not how he has been percieved.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Let me reword that to be a little clearer, if I may take such liberty.

Well, that is not how his anti-war critics have spun his record.

Ah, yes, that is better. The extreame anti-war element of the Democratic party spun Lieberman's record in an effort to make him look like a Republican. But thinking people know better. If he was more of a Republican than a Democrat he would just switched parties and run as a Republican and get a lot of money from the RNC in the process. Truth is the Republican party wouldn't have him because he is a liberal Democrat.

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The extreame anti-war element of the Democratic party spun Lieberman's record in an effort to make him look like a Republican.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Ah, another control issue for you...You have to define it into your terms so that you understand it....Ok, you define it that way if you like...

However, because reality is outside of your definition, you will be confused in November by the current stream of neo-conservative rhetoric that is currently being lauded by the conservative talking heads.

[Dr. Shane]

Just to clarify... I use the word "extreame" because there are those that are anti-war but not extreame. Just because someone is anti-war doesn't mean they are extreame. They show that they are extreame when they push a long-term senator out of the party over a single issue.

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

They show that they are extreame when they push a long-term senator out of the party over a single issue.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No, voters vote reps out when the reps don't represent them. As shown in a previous post, Lieberman has consistantly moved to the right since his nomination...If you can not see that, that is YOUR perception problem...not the voters...

[Dr. Shane]

No Lieberman has not moved to the right. His critics have tried to paint him as if he has. That is simply spin and I don't fall for it.

What took place in Conneticut was a political machine. Lieberman's downfall was that he didn't take Lamont seriously until it was too late (although it was quite close). If the same Democrat voters that endorsed Lieberman for the Senate in 2000 were the only ones voting, Lieberman would have won. Lamont knew that. Lamont knew he had get new or additional Democrats to registar as Democrats that were anti-war. That was his key to winning. He had to get lots of $$$ to organize a political machine that would get anti-war Democrats registared and out to vote for him. By the time Lieberman understood he was in trouble, it was too late.

Many do not understand how elections are won. Once in a while the people get motivated and choose their canidate. That was the case in the 2004 presidencial election as indicated by very high voter turn-out. Most of the time it is the canidate with the best political machine that wins. The first thing a canidate must do is identify those that want him or her in office. Then they must make sure these people get registared. Then they must make sure they get out to the polls. That all takes $$$ and organization.

The reason the Democrats lost Congress in 1994 is because their base sat at home and didn't go to the polls. It isn't that there was a sudden conservative shift in the country so the Republicans won control. The Republicans were successful in getting their supporters to the polls and the Democrats were not. That is what winning elections is all about. The reason idealoges like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity are hollering so much isn't to convince moderates (like me) or liberals to vote Republican. They are hollering to make sure the Republican base gets out to the polls. If Republicans sit home, the Democrats are guarenteed a victory.

If Lieberman gets his act together (his political machine), he will win in the Fall. Lamont simple does not have the support of the majority of voters in Conneticut. However if Lieberman doesn't get his act together, those that would vote for him, may not even be motivated to go to the polls. Lieberman has more supporters but he needs to make sure they all vote.

BTW: I have not decided who I am going to vote for this Fall yet. I am still undecided.

[Planey]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Lamont simple does not have the support of the majority of voters in Conneticut.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

And you know this because..?

Lamont won the vote. ie more people voted for him than for Lieberman. So where do you get your figures from?

Graeme

[Dr. Shane]

Lamont won the primary vote. Only registared Democrats are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary. Lamont will still need to win the general election in the fall where all voters are eligible to vote. The most recent polls show Lieberman with a 5 point lead.

Sorry, sometimes I forget our members in other countries don't always understand how our polical system works.

[Dr. Shane]

Here is a quote from Rabbi Marc Gellman who blames the Jews for Lieberman losing the primary. He raises an interesting point in this paragraph.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

So he supports the war. So what? The actual difference between intelligent people's positions on the war in Iraq is between those who know we must leave eventually but do not want to embolden our enemies and weaken our friends by telling them when we will leave, and those who also know we will leave eventually and also do not want to set an arbitrary timetable, but who really, really, really want everybody to know that we will be leaving. Those who want to bring all the troops home by next Monday, and those who want to “nuke the bastards” are both nuts. So among reasonable non-rabid people, the differences over Iraq are just not that big. And for this we dumped Joe? It just makes no sense to me and it ought to be a huge embarrassment to all card-carrying Jews whether they agreed with Joe or not.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Bravus]

Um, there are also those who strongly opposed the war at every step, said it was morally wrong, arguably illegal under international law and irrelevant to the problem it was supposed to solve... and who have been saying that ever since. Yes, as of right now there are the 'get out nows' and the 'get out soons' among the general population - and (as bevin has pointed out) the 'get out in a while but leave a massive permanent bases' among the administration... But those who voted against Lieberman, to the extent that they did it on the basis of the war, are likely the ones I described above: they never believed in the war or the rationales for it, and can't accept how enthusiastically Lieberman signed on for it in the first place and kept supporting it despite the evidence that they'd been right all along.