"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Democratic Party Advertisement: Weasels Wanted

I'm not a fan of weasel words. I think a man or woman should say what he or she thinks straightforwardly. Still, there's something we admire called statesmanship. Temperance, prudence, wisdom.

If I were an officeholder of the Democratic party, I might be tempted to say something like this:


"I congratulate Ned Lamont on his primary victory over Joe Lieberman, and I hope he becomes the next senator from the Great State of Connecticut.

As a committed member of the Democratic Party, I would vote for him.

But neither can I stand against Senator Lieberman, who's now running for re-election as an independent. My friendship, admiration, and respect for his conscientious service to our country, despite our disagreement about the Iraq war, forbid me to work for his defeat. And so, I will place my trust in the people of the state of Connecticut to make the right decision.

May the best man win."


Of course, only after the smoke had cleared (and not before), opportunists like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid didn't miss a beat, gleefully jumping on Joe Lieberman's grave as if boogie-ing to a Gary Glitter tune. Do You Wanna Touch Me There? Vultures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton predictably maneuvered themselves to Ned's side just in time for his victory speech.

Reminds me a bit of an infamous story where Don King started out on the heavily-favored Joe Frazier's side of the ring but had made his way to George Foreman's corner by the time Big George had totally demolished Smokin' Joe by the fifth round.

By comparison to the Don Kings and the current crop of Democratic leadership, give me a weasel over an opportunist anytime. Help wanted.

11 comments:

Francis W. Porretto said...

The Democrats have become a "power uber alles" party. Ultimately, this will cause them to self-destruct, but in the short run, the sort of politician that now dominates their ranks will respond more powerfully to the incentives that seem to bear on his personal future -- i.e., his immediate prospects of re-election, advancement, and so forth -- than to the long-term spectre of Whig-like marginalization.

Pure Public Choice economics at work.

James Elliott said...

"The Democrats have become a "power uber alles" party."

Mrr?

Surely you have something tangible to say after such a broad and unsupported assertion.

(This guy's fun. I like him. Once Buzz and I started agreeing on stuff, I was afraid there'd be no one to fill my rabid mouthpiece fix.)

Doug said...

I find it appalling that the Democratic leadership has been so quick to abandon Senator Lieberman. I have followed his career eversince he defeated Lowell Weicker. I have found him to be a very principled man which is a rarity in Washington today. It is truly a shame that his party has left him out in the cold over a single issue, the Iraq War. Senator Lieberman does not deserve this type of treatment and it shows that the Democratic Party is becoming less and less tolerant of dissention in the ranks, more so than perhaps the Republicans.

Tlaloc said...

"I find it appalling that the Democratic leadership has been so quick to abandon Senator Lieberman."

Quick? The democratic leadership was stumping for Lieberman right up until the primary. It was the Democratic *party* that left Lieberman behind.



"It is truly a shame that his party has left him out in the cold over a single issue, the Iraq War."

That single issue is easily large enough to ruin the careers of those who stubbornly cling to the wrong side. But it doesn't matter since Lieberman was opposed due to a large numebr of issues, not just the one. His position on emergency contraception for instance.

tbmbuzz said...

But it doesn't matter since Lieberman was opposed due to a large numebr of issues, not just the one. His position on emergency contraception for instance.


Bull. Lieberman was cannibalized by the unhinged wing of his party for one reason and one reason only. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this. You will also find out in November that Lamont's primary victory is Pyrrhic. A locked-in Democrat Senate seat will now be Independent. Nice going, Dems!

tbmbuzz said...

Once Buzz and I started agreeing on stuff, I was afraid there'd be no one to fill my rabid mouthpiece fix.


It's the broken clock is right twice a day kind of thing, eh? When I was your age, James, I also knew everything. Now, of course, I know better. I'm confident that in time you will too.

Tlaloc said...

"Bull. Lieberman was cannibalized by the unhinged wing of his party for one reason and one reason only. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this"

No I don;t know it because it's simply untrue. Look which of us do you think spends more time on the left side of the blogosphere and is maybe just a tad more in touch with how they think?

Not a tough question to answer, it's me. But hey don't believe me believe your own eyes:

lookie here

You'll find all the big name lefty blogs there tearing into Lieberman for his stance on EC.



"You will also find out in November that Lamont's primary victory is Pyrrhic. A locked-in Democrat Senate seat will now be Independent. Nice going, Dems!"

And that's a switch how? Look if Lieberman wins he's caucusing with the dems. No loss there. If Lamont wins then a real democrat is in who will of course also caucus with the dems. It's win-win for the dems. The republican candidate has 0 cahnce of winning.

James Elliott said...

“I have followed his career eversince he defeated Lowell Weicker.”

Well then, perhaps you should understand Lieberman’s defeat better if that’s the case. Lieberman defeated Weicker by running on the platform that, after 18 years in the Senate, Weicker was out of touch with Connecticut Democrats. And now Lieberman has been defeated, after 18 years in the Senate, because he was out of touch of the wishes of his constituent.

Oh, the irony. It is delicious and nutritious.

I find it completely normal for the Democratic leadership to hew to Lamont. After all, he is now the Democratic nominee. One of the reasons Lieberman lost was because he was seen as undermining party unity; the Democratic leadership supporting Lieberman now would be suicide in the electoral calculus - he can’t be the Democratic nominee anymore, and so, if he wins as an independent, that makes seven Republicans the Democrats need to unseat in the Senate instead of six in order to gain a majority and enable Congress to start performing the whole “checks and balances” portion of its job description.

James Elliott said...

"Bull. Lieberman was cannibalized by the unhinged wing of his party for one reason and one reason only. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this."

Everyone who knows this must be unspeakably dense or ill-informed.

If Lieberman was the result of some "radical fringe antiwar McGovernite wussy-monkey leftist purge," then why did Dianne Feinstein - who supported the Iraq War resolution, is a die-hard supporter of Israel and the Grand Global Struggle in War Agaist the Islomafascist Terror to End All Terrors, and was a co-sponser of the reviled PATRIOT Act among other idiotic pieces of legislation - skate past her primary opponent with 87% of the vote?

Remember all those massive rallies in Berkeley, San Francisco, and Los Angeles demonizing Feinstein for her stance on the war? If you did, you'd be the only one - because they never happened.

Remember how Ben Nelson lost to his anti-war challenger, another honest Democrat punished for his pro-war stance? Oh, wait, he didn't even have a primary opponent.

See how Washington's Maria Cantwell is in the fight of her life against primary opponent Tranh, who is running on an anti-war platform? Oh, right, Tranh has no money, no support, and is nowhere even remotely close to Cantwell in the polls.

Of the eight pro-war Democratic senators running for re-election this year, five are or were (in Lieberman's case) in solidly blue-states where anti-war opinion burns brightly (including New York and California, where wealthy antiwar liberals abound). Of those five, one - Lieberman - faced or will face serious primary opposition.

I might be young and may or may not know everything, but I'd say it's pretty safe to conclude that the facts are against you.

tbmbuzz said...

I grew up in Connecticut, have family and friends there, spent some time there this past summer, watched the local news and read the local papers, and know a little more about CT politics than both of you. The moveon.org crowd targeted Connecticut and got out its vote to the tune of a little better than half of the 33% of registered voters there who are Democrats. The only issue Lamont ran on, other than a couple of tired, old, cliched liberal issues was Lieberman as Bush's love child supporting the Iraq War. Connecticut voters as a whole will comfortably reject this dilettante lightweight in November. But hey, keep on deluding yourselves, no sweat off my back.

Tlaloc said...

"The only issue Lamont ran on, other than a couple of tired, old, cliched liberal issues"

Tired, old, cliched liberal issues...hrrrm, like abortion?

See why I mentioned Lieberman's stance against EC?

Lieberman may very well win the general election, but as I pointed out that is hardly a loss for the Democrats (who would have had him anyway and may get a better choice in Lamont). Nor was Lieberman opposed solely due to his support of the Iraq war. His support of Bush in all matters is of course one of the other issues upon which he was skewered.