And the far left continues to try to shred their party...

[Larry Gude]

R R...

I am no ideological purist, I support the big tent, and I really do have a problem with the liberal blogosphere's decision to emphasize this race at such an extreme point when there are competitive races all over the country that should receive more attention (and I'm sick of the knee-jerk criticism of the DLC on liberal sites). Still, I am also tired of Lieberman's decision to criticize the party more than support it. We need to rebuild the Democratic brand so that the party can make gains in this election and in the future and Lieberman's tactics do not do that.

But there is the issue; there is no big tent in the Democratic party and it is not just the blogosphere.

The GOP has pro choice national level figures. The GOP has people with concerns over the war, drilling in ANWR and equal rights for gays as regards marriage.

Right now, with this race, Hillary is on notice, being the lone national level Democrat who is not vigorously anti-war.

 

[rraley]

Mr. Gude,

Mark Warner, a probable 2008 candidate, is very pro-war. Tom Vilsak, a probable 2008 candidate, is very pro-war. Bill Richardson...pro-war. They are not down-the-line Bush supporters on the war or defenders of Republican talking points, but they are indeed no fans of Kerry-esque withdrawal plans (only 11 Democrats in the Senate supported a Kerry-esque, definite withdrawal plan).

Bob Casey, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania, is opposed to abortion rights. Harold Ford, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, is for many aboriton restrictions and is very pro-war. Ben Nelson, the senator from Nebraska, is against abortion rights and gay marriage. That seems quite big tent to me. The Democratic Party has no ideological purity, there is room for healthy dissent.

For the Republicans, I have yet to find a prominent national figure who is pro-gay marriage, though I do agree that there are prominent pro-choice and anti-ANWR drilling (but honestly, is ANWR that big of an issue? Absolutely not) leaders. But I would say that the ideological consistency in the GOP is no less than the Democrats' consistency.

 

[Pete]

Mr. Gude,

Mark Warner, a probable 2008 candidate, is very pro-war. Tom Vilsak, a probable 2008 candidate, is very pro-war. Bill Richardson...pro-war. They are not down-the-line Bush supporters on the war or defenders of Republican talking points, but they are indeed no fans of Kerry-esque withdrawal plans (only 11 Democrats in the Senate supported a Kerry-esque, definite withdrawal plan).

Bob Casey, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania, is opposed to abortion rights. Harold Ford, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, is for many aboriton restrictions and is very pro-war. Ben Nelson, the senator from Nebraska, is against abortion rights and gay marriage. That seems quite big tent to me. The Democratic Party has no ideological purity, there is room for healthy dissent.

For the Republicans, I have yet to find a prominent national figure who is pro-gay marriage, though I do agree that there are prominent pro-choice and anti-ANWR drilling (but honestly, is ANWR that big of an issue? Absolutely not) leaders. But I would say that the ideological consistency in the GOP is no less than the Democrats' consistency.

Harold Ford Sr and much of his familiy are the biggest criminals in Memphis and have been for years. Jr. is not bad, as long as he doesn't become his father.

Carry on.

 

[rraley]

Harold Ford Sr and much of his familiy are the biggest criminals in Memphis and have been for years. Jr. is not bad, as long as he doesn't become his father.

Carry on.

If I recall correctly, Harold's uncle was recently indicted for bribery. Oh well...Harold Ford, Jr. has proven himself to be a great leader with a good streak of moderation that is different from what his father had. I think that he would be a great senator for Tennesee.

 

[Bruzilla]

Still, I am also tired of Lieberman's decision to criticize the party more than support it. We need to rebuild the Democratic brand so that the party can make gains in this election and in the future and Lieberman's tactics do not do that.

When was the last time that the Democratic brand won anything meaningful? Your last big claim to fame was Bill Clinton, but he backed into the White House with less than a majority of the vote both times. Al Gore horribly miscalculated his campaign and threw away a golden opportunity; Kerry was seen as the best of the worst and lost big; and we've been hearing about how Dems are going to seize back the Congress more times than we've heard about George Foreman comebacks... and with the same results.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Democratic brand is in need of someone with Lieberman's views? That maybe following Lieberman instead of Pilosi, Clinton, Dean, Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, the Democratic Leadership et al, might be the way to rebuild the Democratic brand into a real winner? Your view, that Lieberman's views are bad for the party, echos what the other "winners" in your party are saying, and yet you're the old nag in every race. I would think that maybe it's time to start listening to Joe and his Fox News Democratic ideas since the other guys aren't getting you anywhere but dead-ass last place.

And, also, to further suggest that this isn't just about the war...look at Ben Nelson from Nebraska. He's the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, even more conservative than Republican Lincoln Chaffee. A supporter of the gay marriage amendment and the Iraq War, Ben Nelson does not receive the ire of the liberal blogosphere or the Democrats of Nebraska. Why? Because he isn't out there complaining about the party every chance he gets a microphone in his face and because he represents a conservative state.

No... I would guess he doesn't get much flack from Nebraska Democrats because A: There aren't that many; and B: Most Nebraskans support the war. You can't compare the voters of one of the bluest of the blue states with voters of one of the reddest of the red states.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I kinda hope that a democrat wins the next presidential election so I can hear everyone on here whine about it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Mr. R R...

Mr. Gude,

Mark Warner, a probable 2008 candidate, is very pro-war. Tom Vilsak, a probable 2008 candidate, is very pro-war. Bill Richardson...pro-war. They are not down-the-line Bush supporters on the war or defenders of Republican talking points, but they are indeed no fans of Kerry-esque withdrawal plans (only 11 Democrats in the Senate supported a Kerry-esque, definite withdrawal plan).

Bob Casey, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania, is opposed to abortion rights. Harold Ford, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, is for many abortion restrictions and is very pro-war. Ben Nelson, the senator from Nebraska, is against abortion rights and gay marriage. That seems quite big tent to me. The Democratic Party has no ideological purity, there is room for healthy dissent.

For the Republicans, I have yet to find a prominent national figure who is pro-gay marriage, though I do agree that there are prominent pro-choice and anti-ANWR drilling (but honestly, is ANWR that big of an issue? Absolutely not) leaders. But I would say that the ideological consistency in the GOP is no less than the Democrats' consistency.

...there is one candidate for President right now from the Democratic party. One. And she will be the only one unless she decides to not run. Joe Lieberman was the party's choice for Veep not to long ago and, had they won, may be at this point preparing his own bid after two terms of Al Gore. Excuse me a moment...

...


All better. As I was saying, Joe was the #2 guy and now, 6 years later, he's being publicly drummed our of the party. That speaks for itself. Hell, even Dan Quayle was a potential candidate in 1996.

All the folks you mention are not top line leaders of the party. They are not leading contenders for the nomination and, at best, will be used like Lieberman was in 2000, as a 'God fearing' trump card to balance the ticket.

As for gay rights, ever heard of Rudy? He is as far up the list for the GOP nomination as anyone else right now.

You can declare moral relevancy as you see fit but the parties do not share the same level of, as you say, ideological consistency.

There was zero public disagreement during the Clinton years among leading Democrats. The GOP has just gotten done with major public brawls over the Schiavo travesty, the port deal, the Medicare prescription battle and is still actively engaged in a ideological battle over illegal immigration and Bush loses as many points as he scores in his own party when he brings up an amendment to ban gay marriage.

We'll see how much room there is, how much dissent, on your side this fall and in two years. I haven't seen much the last 20 years including a lockstep battle to not convict Clinton for lying under oath, a sin, lying, in which several GOP Senators told a GOP President that his days were over for having committed.

In the mean time, your big tent is trying to show a sitting US Senator the door.

 

[Penn]

--Carlson: Hillary Still Resents Lieberman Over Lewinsky
There could be an additional, unspoken reason behind Sen. Hillary Clinton’s recent declaration that she won’t support Sen. Joe Lieberman if he loses the Democratic primary in Connecticut – payback.

Lieberman, as Hillary well recalls, took her husband Bill to task over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

"I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters,” Hillary said.

But columnist Margaret Carlson, writing for Bloomberg.com, points out:


"You can also interpret (Ms)Clinton’s swipe at Lieberman as an act of lingering resentment against the man who scolded her husband during impeachment proceedings shortly after his admission in August 1998 that he had been lying to the country for seven months."

"Lieberman took to the Senate floor to slam Clinton ‘for having extramarital relations with an employee half his age . . . in the vicinity of the Oval Office. Such behavior is not just inappropriate. It is immoral."

Carlson then opines: "Revenge isn’t an admirable emotion but at least it’s evidence of some emotion from a woman who showed none during one of the most public cases of philandering ever . . . She may have been finally getting back at the Democrat who didn’t stand by her man.” Carlson is a long time Clinton supporter and Time magazine contributor.

 

[Bruzilla]

I find that assessment highly unlikely. Hillary is far too shrewd a political operator to let her personal feelings place her in jeopardy. If she was the type to hold a grudge, and act on it, against Lieberman she would also have left Bill years ago.

The simple truth is that Hillary has been taking it on the chin from the far left for the past year for her vote on the war, and more and more the only press she gets is when someone on the far left bashes her for her vote. She's come out publically against Lieberman because of his strong support for the war, and it's nothing but a typically transparent attempt to bolster her image with the anti-war crowd. It's a nice, safe, low-risk way to give the impression she's against the war without having to do anything too committal... like voting against it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Couldn't agree more...

and it's nothing but a typically transparent attempt to bolster Larry's chance of getting into Bruzilla's bling. It's a nice, safe, low-risk way to give to those most deserving; namely Larry.

 

[rraley]

She's come out publically against Lieberman

Very, very wrong. Hillary Clinton has endorsed Lieberman in his primary race. What she has done, however, is that she has said that she will support the winner of the Democratic primary, even if it's Ned Lamont. Imagine that, a Democrat endorsing the Democratic candidate...that would make so much sense.

And in regards to your earlier statement about how maybe a person like Lieberman needs to take the lead in forming the Democratic brand. I agree with that; the party needs a more moderate, practical leadership. For that role, I support someone like Mark Warner who is growing his party and not running away from the fact that he is a Democrat (the resurgence of the Virginia Democratic Party is amazing and should be a blueprint for the future). Joe Lieberman has good moderate views, but he does not use them to show to people that the Democratic Party can be moderate, he uses them to show how wrong the Democratic Party is. He frames it completely wrong; he is not the appropriate person to do this with his biting criticism of Democratic ideas, lack of charisma, and whiney voice.

On another point, I truly do not understand why Lieberman is so positively viewed by Republicans. Looking at his interest group ratings, he's among the most liberal in the Senate; far more liberal than Republican targets like Bobby Byrd. And why do liberals hate him so much...sure he's had some outrageous rhetoric in support of administration policies on Iraq, but come on, he's nowhere near being a neoconservative. I think it's a big fuss over little. I just want Joe to be nicer about Democrats...after all, he does agree with us 80% of the time.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

On another point, I truly do not understand why Lieberman is so positively viewed by Republicans. Looking at his interest group ratings, he's among the most liberal in the Senate; far more liberal than Republican targets like Bobby Byrd. And why do liberals hate him so much...sure he's had some outrageous rhetoric in support of administration policies on Iraq, but come on, he's nowhere near being a neoconservative. I think it's a big fuss over little. I just want Joe to be nicer about Democrats...after all, he does agree with us 80% of the time.

...I don't view Joe favorably. I thought he completely sold out his long standing public positions during the 2000 election in courting Hollywood.
And you are right, he is rather liberal. Him being viewed as some sort of moderate or centrist is one more piece of evidence as to how far left the party has moved.

 

[Bruzilla]

Very, very wrong. Hillary Clinton has endorsed Lieberman in his primary race. What she has done, however, is that she has said that she will support the winner of the Democratic primary, even if it's Ned Lamont. Imagine that, a Democrat endorsing the Democratic candidate...that would make so much sense.

It would make perfect sense except Hillary has spent the last three or so years positioning herself as a moderate. So you've now got her claiming she'll support a far-left newbie, Lamont, over a moderate guy, who she's known for decades, like Lieberman. What does that tell you? Why would she endanger her hard-sought moderate position to help throw a recognized moderate under a bus driven by a staunchly far-left liberal? It seems to me that if she were worried about her moderate appeal she would endore the guy she felt best reflected her views, regardless of party. She also loses much needed loyalty and friendship points as well. So why do it? Because she's not getting beat up in the press, polls, and blogs about being moderate or loyal, she's getting beat for her war vote. Lieberman is down in the polls because of his war vote, so there's no way she's going to show much support for him.

On another point, I truly do not understand why Lieberman is so positively viewed by Republicans.

I don't know any Republicans who like Lieberman. I especially don't like him because it was him and his fellow CT senator Chris Dodd who put the laws in place that allowed the ENRON debalacle to happen, then they sit back and act like it was all the doings of Bush and the Republicans.

 

[Larry Gude]

Now there's a story...

I don't know any Republicans who like Lieberman. I especially don't like him because it was him and his fellow CT senator Chris Dodd who put the laws in place that allowed the ENRON debalacle to happen, then they sit back and act like it was all the doings of Bush and the Republicans.

...that ain't being reported!

Good point.