Sunday Discussion Group

So, just how big a deal is Tuesday’s Senate primary in Connecticut? The Washington Post’s Dan [tag]Balz[/tag] has a very good piece today that argues, persuasively, that the outcome “could be a party watershed.”

The passion and energy fueling the antiwar challenge to Sen. Joseph I. [tag]Lieberman[/tag] in Connecticut’s Senate primary signal a power shift inside the Democratic Party that could reshape the politics of national security and dramatically alter the battle for the party’s 2008 presidential nomination, according to strategists in both political parties.

A victory by businessman Ned [tag]Lamont[/tag] on Tuesday would confirm the growing strength of the grass-roots and Internet activists who first emerged in Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. Driven by intense anger at President Bush and fierce opposition to the Iraq war, they are on the brink of claiming their most significant political triumph, one that will reverberate far beyond the borders here if Lieberman loses.

True or not true? Consider the political entities, far beyond the individual candidates, affected by the primary.

The race is likely to have a significant impact on:

* The Democratic Party — “This sends a message to all Democratic officeholders,” said Robert L. Borosage of the liberal Campaign for America’s Future. “You’re going to have a much tougher Democratic Party.”

* The influence of the blogosphere and the netroots community — Blogs aren’t solely responsible for Lamont’s success, but his campaign and the netroots are inextricably linked, especially as far as the media is concerned.

* 2008 positioning — Balz wrote, “An upset by Lamont would affect the political calculations of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who like Lieberman supported giving Bush authority to wage the Iraq war, and could excite interest in a comeback by former vice president Al Gore, who warned in 2002 that the war could be a grave strategic error. For at least the next year, any Democrat hoping to play on the 2008 stage would need to reckon with the implications of Lieberman’s repudiation.”

* Perceptions about Bush and the GOP — “Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Friday he is not worried about the fallout from the Senate primary on House races, arguing that the message from Connecticut is that anyone supporting Bush’s war policies is in deep trouble. ‘What’s playing out here is that being a rubber stamp for George Bush is politically dangerous to life-threatening,’ he said.”

* The right’s short-term strategy — “Republicans are already seeking to exploit a possible victory by Lamont as a sign that Democrats are moving too far to the left on national security issues. ‘They want retreat — under the guise of ‘reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq,’ William Kristol writes in the latest issue of the Weekly Standard.”

What do you think, is the primary hyped, or might the results send a shockwave through the political establishment? If Lamont wins, will the effects leave a lasting impact? If so, what will the results of the shake-up be?

About 8 months ago, I read online a reference that progressives are (ironically) the new “silent majority”. I believe it’s true.

Should Lamont win on Tuesday, I’d love to see that angle get more attention.

  • I don’t think the CT primary is hyped but I also don’t think it is the party watershed moment either. I would say it’s significant part of what’s going on around the nation. I would argue that recent defections of about a half dozen Kansas state legislators from the Republican Party to the Democrats over the past year and the recent defection of a moderate Republican state lawmaker to the Democratic Party in Oklahoma last week are just as important, if not more so. The Bush/GOP policies on the war, economics and their values have become so unpalatable that the pendulum is now swinging the other way. Lamont’s candidacy and the blogosphere/netroots activity are outgrowths of this. Even if Lamont loses and disappears into political obscurity, the pendulum will still be swinging our way.

  • * The Democratic Party โ€” “This sends a message to all Democratic officeholders,” said Robert L. Borosage of the liberal Campaign for America’s Future. “You’re going to have a much tougher Democratic Party.”

    This, above all, should be the key. For going on 2 decades, the Dems have appeased the far right at almost every turn. The result is where we are today.
    To be fair, the right had a well organized propaganda machine that the Dem’s could not counter. Talk radio savaged liberals, while delivering repub talking points to every water cooler in the country.

    We were demonized, and our party couldn’t, or wouldn’t, defend our values. The frustration grew, and disgust with the Dems as a party grew.
    Then came Iraq. Many saw this approaching war as a slow motion train wreck.
    It was wrong, illogical and just plain stupid. The right wing noise machine went into full throated demonization, right on cue. ( My favorite insult of the day was, ‘Brie-eating surrender monkeys’) Once again, our party was nowhere to be found in opposing this debacle.

    Then came the blogs. Progressives, disillusioned with current Dem leaders discovered each other, while bloggers like CB, Atrios, Kos, JMM and others brought us news items that MSM were slow to cover, if at all. This made it much easier for progressive types to approach those water coolers armed with the facts to shred the repub talking points. And as cannot be repeated enough, we were right about the Iraq war from day 1.

    Clearly Iraq was the catalyst. It brought street level frustration with Dem appeasement to the breaking point. It inspired the original lefty blogs that have given a fresh voice and organizing points to progressive causes.

    I think many tend to over-rate the effect of blogs, while others are too dismissive. But the message for the Dems should be clear: If you’re not willing to fight back, we’ll find someone who will. Lieberman is the poster boy of appeasment, and we’ve had quite enough of that.

  • I think it is wildly over-hyped. As many here and elsewhere have pointed out, most of the leading Dems on the national stage at one point or another supported the war or BushCo’s ability to enter it. If there is any broader message, I hope it is this one: if you are in the opposition party, you cannot undermine your own party to enable the majority party and expect support. That, in my view, is the real problem with Lieberman — not his support for the war or any other single issue.

    In addition to being somewhat unique to Joe’s personal brand of sycophantic sucking up to Dumbya, this race is also “local.” Even with Joe’s Dem-bashing pro-Bush moments, this never could have happened had his local constituency not come to believe he was out of touch or taking them for granted. Joe still could have pounded Lamont had his response and his campaign not given the clear impression that he believes he has an entitlement to this seat.

    Voting against him on those points may translate more broadly into an “anti-incumbent” election, but polls have long suggested we are headed for that anyway.

    For those of us who have felt the Dem leadership has been too timid in going after Bush, this race has been an opportunity for some catharsis – a suitable outlet for that frustration. It is far from clear, however, that it translates to a national revolution.

    I think it would be very easy to read too much into what is, in the end, a local race involving a rather unique personality.

  • If Democrats want to succeed, they need to stop seeing themselves as subject to destiny, and out of control of what happens, and start recognizing that how things will turn out depends upon thier own choices and actions- recognize thar they’re in charge of their own fates and their own destinies, and not some pendulum.

  • It’s definitely over-hyped. However, Borosage’s statement about a “new Democratic Party” is right. Zeitgeist has it totally right that it’s about not being a Democrat who undermines your own party – had Holy Joe not been so willing to “Sister Souljah” his party at every turn, he wouldn’t be in this spot, but the whiny little putz did it, and this is what he gets.

    The influence of the blogs is vastly overstated. Holy Joe pissed off Connecticut Democrats. If the netroots did anything, it let the folks in CT who were pissed off know they weren’t alone, which made their taking action easier. The MSM has to blame someone for being caught out in public with their collective head up their collective ass, so blogs will be the whipping boy for that, but the truth is they’ve suffered from Cranial-Rectal Adhesion Syndrome for so long they think they’ve been breathing Chanel No. 5.

    I hope it does make Hillary re-think. HRC for Senate Majority Leader for Life!! Hurrah!!!! Anything to get her out.

    I think Rahm Emmanuel is right about Bush and the Republicans and the public perception.

    The Republicans on the other hand, will be whistling past the graveyard if they think little Billy Moron Kristol knows what he’s talking about. Things are only going to get worse in Iraq, and people are going to see it. “Stay the course” is over. Ditto Lebanon – maybe we’ll start to understand that the days of Crusades is over. Since the national Democratic party is in hock to AIPAC, it’s unlikely anyone’s going to mention that the national interests of the United States and the national interests of the State of Israel are not synonymous, but that’s going to become as apparent as the fact that Iraq is a quagmire soon enough.

  • It will mean that neo-conservativism–as practiced by the Bush administration, Bill Kristol, and Joe Lieberman–is on the decline. (E. J. Dionne has written about this.) Otherwise, I pretty much agree with JoeW and Zeitgeist.

  • There is no doubt, if Ned wins the primary next Tuesday it will send shock waves through the DNC. Even if Joe decideds to run as in Independent if he loses, there are nearly three months till November and we will witness a sea change within the party. The anti-war rhetoric will escalate as will the anti-bush advertisements.

    On another note – Steve, you have done a wonderful job over at Crooks and Liars!

  • 1. The CT primary is first and foremost a lesson in how a politician can become deluded about his standing in the community. Lieberman lost interest in CT and started playing international non-partisan or bi-partisan politics as a locally-elected partisan politician. That’s why he’s in trouble.

    2. The CT primary will also be a watershed in gloating, much like the Dean campaign would have been if it hadn’t imploded. There’s no real connection between Ned Lamont’s success and the netroots, because the reason Lamont is leading has little to do with either and everything to do with Lieberman’s failings (see above). Activist progressives and the far left will become unbearably smug, and will begin the long, slow decline of the Democratic Party’s apparent ascension.

    3. Lieberman will get his ass kicked for blindly supporting Bush. From where I sit, that’s all that matters.

  • A necessary, but not sufficient step to shake the Democratic establishment out of its doldrums. Fortunately, for once, if Lamont wins, the MSM will be obliged to recognize grass-roots progressivism as a factor in American politics. They can’t sweep us under the rug as a bunch of ranting, rabid dead-enders of no consequence. Maybe.

  • The last Democrat I excitedly cheered for was Robert Kennedy. A bullet brought his life and his campaign to halt, and I haven’t had much to cheer about since. Wikipedia has an excellent, brief description of the 1968 race(s). To understand today’s political world, and my lack of enthusiasm, this article is a must-read. A host of things “went wrong” for the Democrats, aside from Kennedy’s death: the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., LBJ’s grim withdrawl when confronted by his Vietnam Quagmire, violence in the streets and on the floor of the 1968 Democratic Convention (with Chicago police beating delegates in the hall and on our TVs), defection of the racist Southern Democrats (to the American Independent Party under George Wallace), the death of most Great Society programs, strong-arm tactics of Chicago’s Mayor Daley (cutting off Gov. Abe Ribicoff’s mike), the almost whimsical (certainly poetic) failures of extreme idealists like Gene McCarthy (“Keep clean with Gene”) and George McGovern (who failed to even mention his own heroic military record), the ultimate “victory” of the party bosses in nominating Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey (who had not run in any primaries, and wasn’t sure whether he should step aside from the Vietnam Quagmire).

    There were so many flip sides to that 1968 Democratic catastrophe it’s hard, nearly forty years later, to grasp what happened. For one, we got to be kicked around by risen-from-the-dead Dick Nixon. For another, the surviving Democrats went on a reform campaign which could have been designed by Savonarola. While noble-minded, the reforms made it extremely difficult for anyone of talent to campaign as a Democrat — party-line conformity (“politically correct” conventions were more like fascist show trials), unbelievably demanding public revelation of private lives (mostly one’s financial status, but medical and sexual and mental questions, too). The Solid South, which Johnson had kicked out with the Voting and Civil Rights Acts and which Wallace had failed to take much beyond the south, provided the bigoted basis for later emergence so-called Reagan Democrats nationwide (beginning with “White Flight” from the pulic schools). Unions lost their clout. Academics (“the best and the brightest” described many advisors to Kennedy’s older brother John) returned to campus classrooms and, for the most, gave up on politics or wrote cyncially about them.

    I don’t like thinking or writing about all that even now. Suffice to say, a lot our Nation died with Kennedy, and I don’t think it will ever come back. What I am happy about, at long last, is the arrival of the Blogosphere. No one can fully assess it yet, but this technology which we’re using here and now, has made it possible to work around (or under or through) the old party machinery. It’s made it possible for US to become the editors of tomorrow’s news and to be as organized as many one-issue churches. We as individuals can contribute out thoughts without having to reveal our family’s personal finances (or even our names unless we choose to do so). Howard Dean’s surprising ability to raise money through internet, and now Lamont’s apparently successful turnaround of a three term incumbent (just recently nominated for VP by his party) is truly astounding. “… just how big a deal is Tuesday’s Senate primary in Connecticut?” Very big indeed. As a precursor of what’s to come, unimaginably BIG.

    I no longer look for Kennedyesque knights on white chargers to save the Party and the Nation, but I can at least hope that reason and good hearts now have a fighting chance against the obscenely rich and criminally cynical who have been running the show for years now.

  • For years, Democratic voters have been asking of their so -called congressional leaders, “where is the opposition?” We watched as a few individuals stepped forward from time to time in rare moments of courage, while others refused to follow for fear of being labeled unpatriotic or partisan.

    When Democrats in Congress should have taken principled stands, they too often capitulated. Lieberman, through his own actions, became the poster boy of capitulation, and to that extent has become the focus of frustration that voters feel for nearly all of our Democratic Party leaders.

    If there’s a message in the CT race, I hope other Democrats in Congress understand that we WANT opposition. Not petty partisanship, but a force that pushes back against the true excesses of Republican actions and ideology.

  • The real question is what happens after the blow-out Lamont victory.

    Will other long shot candidates like Barry Welsh in Indiana or John Laesch in Illinois find resources to take the fight against other seemingly unassailable icons? I’m betting on it.

    I think this is a watershed year, where supporters of the traitors who have robbed this country blind, and embarked on disastrous wars will be booted out of office in district after district, state after state. The tide is building. True patriots rooted in their communities will replace entrenched incumbents, the punditocracy will become massively irrelevant as they are surprised, and the corporate media will become increasingly obsolete.

    The fate of triangulators like Senator Clinton will be similar to that of Lieberman. Their constituents are far ahead of them and they won’t be interested in more of the same.

  • This would be a huge victory for the democrats if Lieberman were soundly beaten and subsequently forced to withdraw from his run as an independent. He has had the full backing of the democratic Washington establishment political machine that has manufactured one defeat after another for the party. He has the blind support of liberal single interest groups like NARAL that refuse to look beyond their immediate needs. (Without Lieberman’s support would that well known feminist Alito be a Supreme Court judge today?). A Lamont victory would signal that it is possible to win by catering to the will of the electorate and not special interest lobbyists.

  • I hope and don’t think Lamont’s pending victory in the primary will pull the Democratic Party hard to the ‘left’. There is nothing left-wing about opposition to the Iraqi War. The War is going badly, has been badly planned and executed, and has undermined the U.S. Military’s ability to fight anywhere else in the world.

    All of which would not matter particularly except that Joe Lieberman has embraced the ‘Everything is great and you can’t complain and we’ll leave when -I- say and you can’t talk about withdrawal but -I- can because -I’m- a patriot and you are a traitor and you support terrorists but -I’m- defending America there so we don’t have to fight them here’ meme of the Republican’t party. Which just sickens me!

    Joe deserves to lose and lose big. If not for Iraq, for his disgusting defense of ‘keeping jobs at Groton’ earmarks and pork barrel corruption. While Connecticut’s industry has been declining over his terms, he brags about keeping military contracts as though that is some great thing.

    Frankly, I don’t need or want Lieberman in the party anymore. If this is what ‘moderates’ (and I consider myself moderate, certainly compared to some here ๐Ÿ˜‰ ) stand for in the DLC, they need a serious talking to.

    But I don’t want this to become overblown by the MSM or the blogs as some great turning of America to leftist isolationism. Joe has too many problems and the Iraq War has given the members of the Connecticut Democratic Party a chance to find a new voice to represent their state. I hope they get it.

  • You’ve got to remember that Joe’s machine, the state Democratic Party, gave Lamont a full third of the delgates at the convention. The vote was not a secret ballot. If it had been secret Lamont could well have taken better than half. This shows that the resentment for Joe was broad and festering within the state. All it needed was the credible alternative Lamont provided. Joe lost touch with his constituents, appearing more often on Fox than in their towns. His war stance was directly at odds with the sentiment at home, his sense of entitlement grated as did his holier than thou attitude. His free trade votes, his backing for the Social Security boondogle, the have it both ways vote on Alito, the don’t dis Bush in wartime pronouncement, and etc. etc.

    This is the lesson that some of the other Dem pols will heed: all that is needed is an option to their pandering ways and they’re in for a fight. I believe that Hillary noticed. Will the others?

  • * The right’s short-term strategy โ€” “Republicans are already seeking to exploit a possible victory by Lamont as a sign that Democrats are moving too far to the left on national security issues. ‘They want retreat โ€” under the guise of ‘reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq,’ William Kristol writes in the latest issue of the Weekly Standard.”

    Newt Gingrich on Faux News this morning, via ThinkProgress: “Third, you have what I think is a legitimate insurgency in Connecticut, which needs to be met head on and debated head on, which is people who say this is so hard, it is so frightening, itโ€™s so painful, canโ€™t we come home and hide? And I think if Lamont wins next Tuesday, it will be the beginning of extraordinarily important period in American politics, and in American history. For all of us to have this debate. How dangerous are the terrorists? How dangerous are the dictatorships? And what does America have to do in that kind of a dangerous world?”

    Whether it’s hype or not, there are palms that are getting sweaty and slippery at the top of the Republican Bullshitocracy. The unbelievable ability their crap has had to travel under the radar for a ridiculously long period of time is finally getting small slivers of sunshine beaming down upon it and even that tiny bit of light and warmth is causing the Bullshitocrats to squirm like the maggots they are, caught eating a decomposing corpse.

    If Gingrich has to pull out the epithet of “insurgent” to attempt to discredit good people who care about turning away from the cliff that he and his fellow war worshipers would have us go over endlessly, than we must be doing something right.

    HoJo may have been more useful to the right than he or anyone else realized.

    And the way Gingrich says, “…it will be the beginning of an extraordinarily important period in American politics, and in American history.”, his tone sounds calamitous. And it may be to him. But there’s hope in that simple phrase from the other side.

  • Ed at # 11:

    …but I can at least hope that reason and good hearts now have a fighting chance against the obscenely rich and criminally cynical who have been running the show for years now.

    Which is why the obscenely rich are trying to privatize the internet.

    Which is also why I claim–without blushing–that those who oppose network neutrality are enemies of humanity. And are far more dangerous to the future than any throw-a-bomb terrorist…

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Now in regards to Lamont/Lieberman:

    Yes there is something deeper happening here:

    Left blogistan has proven itself to have sharper minds, quicker wits, fiercer creativity, and substantially more arguments based on facts than anything being presented on the right.

    Right blogistan simply can’t keep up intellectually.

    Kristol’s comments on CB’s post are a prime example.
    It is empty rhetoric based again on the old familiar bogeymen:

    “Too far to the left”

    What’s that suppose to mean Kristol?
    Nothing really.
    When you have no arguments you rely on scary slogans to shock the masses.

    But… this will only work effectively for so long.
    What was once traumatic grows trite.

    Quite frankly, the battle of language… the battle of wits… is being won by left bloggers (Drum, Benen, Josh, Jane, C&L, etc.) and left videographers (Colbert & Stewart).

    There is nothing on the right that can match that…
    They are out of ideas…
    Out of gas…
    Bankrupt.
    Defunct.
    Decaying.

    Lamont/Lieberman is a telltale of all this…

    It is a telltale of the power of the web…

    That is why Republicans are trying to privatize the net.
    They can’t win the war of free words…
    And so they must “own and control” their delivery…

  • If this becomes some kind of “watershed moment” in the party, it’s going to be one manufactured by the media.

    It would be nice to see Lieberman lose, but either way, in this race, a Dem’s going to hold that seat.

    If the Dem’s can take control of the one or both houses of congress, that would be a true watershed moment for national politics.

  • Followup: I don’t think the emergence of the internet (and I mean the “net neutral” one) is, in itself, any kind watershed. It’s a developing and spreading, interactive mass communications technology.

    What will someday look like a watershed, I think, will have nothing to do with how the MSM handles it, now or later. Rather, the effect of the internet will the be in the kinds of ideas which are so easily communicated through this technology. I can express my criticisms, reasons and hopes without going through any editor or power structure.

    Of course, so can the other side. But the Republicans, it seems to me, have nothing to offer but Fear and Loathing. Entertaining to certain fraction of the citizenry, no doubt, but after a while even Rush Limbaugh begins to sour. So does Kristol. Coulter. They literally offer nothing but Fear and Loathing.

    It’s the Democrats’ message — uplifting the downtrodden, exposing greed (particularly, as it often becomes, illegal greed), cherishing and enhancing our still impressive natural environment and its resources, providing food and shelter and medical care and education for all who need it in order to make a better society for all of us, living within our means, diplomacy rather than war — it’s that message which was so hard to get out through the cumbersome mechanisms of the fearful party bosses who have lost all recent elections since Robert Kennedy was shot — unless, like Bill Clinton, we became Republican Lite (DADT, e.g.). They were so interested in preserving their own, personal positions of power that they buried the idealism which may have brought them into politics in the first place. It’s the internet which offers a way around that, a chance to participate directly, with the full strength of the idealism which brought into politics.

    Republicans are simply incapable of offering that. Idealistic greed? Idealistic race hatred? Idealistic selfishness? Idealistic rape of the environment? Idealistic putdowns of gays? Idealistic Wars of Conquest? All the internet will do for such lack of idealism is expose it.

  • Driven by intense anger at President Bush and fierce opposition to the Iraq war

    Hype. The “intense anger” driiving this is directed at Lieberman, rightly, and pretty much Lieberman only – otherwise you would see movements to dump many other Democratic enablers and appeasers, starting with Hillary Clinton. Because the pundocracy loves Joe, they just can’t believe that it really is an anti-Joe movement. If they want to draw some anti-Bush lessons from it (would Hillary have publicly challenged Rumsfeld the other day if Lamont wasn’t leading in CT?) so much the better, but it really is all about anger against Joe.

    Very few in the pundocracy seems to make a big deal about Joe thinking himself bigger that the Democratic party and refusing to honor the primary results – if I was a CT Dem I would be so offended by that imperious attitude that I would vote against him regardless of the war or Bush. He’s basically given the finger to the Democratic party voters in CT and that is being ignored.

  • Actually, there is some sliver of hope re the MSM and DDD’s post #21 — Jeff Greenfield had a piece on CNN.com Thursday or so titled “With Lieberman, its More Than Just Iraq” that made many of the same points made above about why this is hitting Joementum, but not Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Bayh, etc. If I get a chance to find it I’ll post the link.

  • Overhyped, my arse. This is step one in taking back the Democratic party from the influence of the lobbyists. If that doesn’t ultimately happen, it won’t matter which party is in power. And the only way to do it is in Dem primaries from the grassroots level.

  • Loserman supporter Lanny Davis was on Meet Tim Russert, uh…I mean Meet The Press, this morning and at one point turned directly to the camera and began giving a Loserman campaign speech! He was literally *pleading* with the voters he assumed were watching not to throw Loserman into the briar patch. It was a pathetic performance by a bought-and-paid-for DLC hack on behalf of another hack. Now tell me establishment Democrats are not petrified of the outcome of this local primary election. They’re all asking, “how many of the Democrats in my state would vote for Lamont if they were CT voters?” and, “How closely do I resemble Lieberman?”.

    Personally, I can’t wait to see the little asshat handed his walking papers by real Democrats in CT.

  • About 8 months ago, I read online a reference that progressives are (ironically) the new “silent majority”. I believe it’s true.

    Could someone send a note to TPTB in the Democratic Party and suggest that the phrase “silent majority” should begin every campaign speech and media appearance between now and November.

    E.g., Americans won’t be fooled by Karl Rove’s lies any longer. The great silent majority of Americans know the war in Iraq is a failure and that the Republican foreign policy has brought us perilously close to disaster. The great silent majority of Americans know we need to …[then they can have their 6 in ’06].

    It’s nice because it’s true, it’s rhetorically effective, an as observed, it is deliciously ironic.

  • Sorry to contradict those who feel that “this is overhyped”—But I don’t think so. Borosage hints at what I believe IS going to be a tidal shift within the Democratic Party. Basically, the Dems are going to go into a closet-period as the wimpish little gaggle of cave-in artists—this goes especially toward the House, where far too many Dems and moderate GOPpers have repeatedly yielded the field to “FundieMan” on issue after issue—and come out as a pack of junkyard dogs. This has been fed, to a fair degree, by the blogosphere and netroot communities; in turn, this shift will further encourage those communities to become even more aggressive in their assault on the Reich. One feeds the other, the other feeds the one—the cycle feeds upon itself, and becomes the predator—with the uberschweinen changing roles from predator to prey..

    Will it affect 2008? Yes—and well beyond, as the status quo within the Dem camp realizes that it can no longer play its own little version of “stay the course.” The GOP cannot be beaten by merely offering a “kinder, gentler” (where have we heard THOSE words before) version of the GOP. Change, no matter how painful, is inevitable—and anyone who resists the changes necessary to wrench victory from the dishonesty of the Bushian Horde will find themselves crumpled along the roadside, with the empty beer bottles, cigarette butts, and roadkill to keep them company.

    This will not be limited only to those who have supported Bush; it will include those who have abandoned The Cause for others in the Reich such as Frist, DeLay, the dolts at FAUXnews, Dobson, et al—and this will also expand beyond the simplicity of the antiwar effort, to include other issues upon which various Dems have traded their loyalties for a bit of favor from the Imperial Poo-Bahs on the Hill. Frist and Bones know this all too well, as does Kid George and his brutish collection of bootlickers. That’s why they’ll play the cut-n-run card to the hilt against Lamont—they’re mortally afraid that, should the grassroots effort spread beyond any hope of control, neoconservativism will not be the only casualty in the space of a few election cycles. Conservativism itself—and the GOP itself—may well find themselves consigned to the ash-heap of historical forgetfullness.

    The point is that anyone who played the compromise card for personal gain, at the expense of either his/her constituency or the Cause (and in many cases, both) should consider themselves a political target. Joe Lie is nothing more than the proverbial “first against the wall when the Revolution comes….”

  • Then there are idiot ‘Dems” like Cokie Roberts. Please someone, please tell her to keep her mouth shut and stop damaging the party’s progress. She is more of the type that need to be silenced as she, and other ‘Dem” talking heads will talk the Dems right out of a comeback.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200608060002

  • My only hope for American democracy is that this helps destroy the complancency of the incumbents and their sense of entitlement which led the world into this mess.

    I’d rather Hilary Clinton be Senate Majority Leader than Prez.

  • Steve, no one will be happier than me if your prediction (#26) proves mine (#4) completely wrong.

  • Being “anit-Iraq War” is now the mainstream !! Except to Cokie and Newt !!!

  • koreyel (31), that links in nicely with my reasoning behind the comparison between the Theo-Fascists of today and the jackbooters of the previous century. Ever read Gregor Zeimer’s “Education for Death: The Making of a Nazi?” Ithink the idiots are using it as a textbook; it’s just too damned similar to be coincidence….

  • Steve… no I haven’t read that.
    Interesting enough I did a search on it…

    Turns out there is a Disney 10 minute animation film based on the book.

    But apparently YouTube was forced to remove the short.

    Here is a cached website where people discuss the film and wonder why it isn’t released:

    http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:DTE3LVzehicJ:disneyshorts.toonzone.net/years/1943/educationfordeath.html+%22Education+for+Death:+The+Making+of+a+Nazi%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

    [To wit: From Shaunistheman : Excellent short. Let’s not ban history, release this with a disclaimer or an introduction. Yes it’s dark. Yes it is total propaganda. But it is history, Hitler was pure evil, why are we hiding this stuff?? and while I’m on my soapbox, release “Song of the South” and “Runaway Brain” too.]

    Remarkably I was able to find a site that still has the short up for viewing:

    http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/25585/1947_Disney_Education_For_Death.html

    What stuck in my mind most: Hereditary passports with space for 12 children.

    Is this faithful to the book’s description of Hitler’s Germany?
    I suspect so.

    By the way… wasn’t there some right wing pundit recently exhorting White Christians to have children?

    I think so…

  • The reich winger from Faux exhorting others to produce children for da motherland was the single child father albino rat boy John Gibson.

  • Lieberman has well represented Israel. He hasn’t done so well for his home state or the Democartic party. His race IS one of a kind in politics. May he lose.

  • I will not count my chickens… I will not count my chickens… I will NOT count my chickens before they’re hatched…

    This said, I wish Lamont the best of luck on Tuesday and I wish Lieberman all that he deserves – a graceful retirement, so he can concentrate on tending to his religious life and spending quality time with his grandchildren.

    I don’t think the importance of this primary is overhyped or, if it is, not by much. As many people have pointed out, the rancor is aimed less at Dem-hawks in general and more at Joe — and his peculiar behaviour — himself. But, if the Dem-hawks draw other conclusions and mind their step a bit more in the future… I’d be the last one to complain. For that matter, should Lieberman win the primary (tfui, tfui, over the left shoulder), he himself might reconsider the degree of coziness with the WH he wants to engage in in the future.

    What gets my hackles up is the idea that Lamont is a single-issue (anti Iraq war) guy. It’s a piece of propaganda that Lieberman’s campaign “sold” — successfully — to the MSM and to the upper echelons/pundits of the Dem Party. So, OK, *they* “bought” it (vide #27). When they mention Lamont, they all use it as the starting — and only — point of reference in their arguments.

    But is it any reason for *us* to buy that crock? The guy has more than one dimension…

    With everyone concentrating on Lamont’s stance on Iraq, he is reduced — literally — to talking only about this one issue, with little chance of presenting his views on other aspects of American life. It reminds me of the “hounding of Kerry” during the ’04 campaign; every time he tried to mention health care, economy, poverty, whatever… *Every time* the “discussion” reverted to his contradicting votes on Iraq (he was for it before he was against it).

    In general, the progressive blogosphere seems (to me) to have a bigger share of both heart and brain than most. While it, probably, cannot be credited with turning the tide against Lieberman and for Lamont all by itself, it certainly has played a big part in picking up and exposing the *relevant* instances of Lieberman’s misbehaviour, beyond his intractability on the Iraq issue. That criticism had, slowly but surely, found an echo in the MSM (the blogosphere and the MSM seem to live in a mutually-dependent symbiosis, to a certain extent), with the result that Lamont’s poll numbers surged.

    So… Can we perhaps do more? Not before Tuesday, obviously — there’s too little time left — but if Lamont wins the primary? Can we start thinking of him as a 3-D person, with more than one thought in his brain?

  • Big money owns the establishment on both sides of congress. It owna the courts. It writes the laws. It counts the votes. It reports the news,
    Ted Lamont is also a wealthy man.

    It’s too soon to know if America can take it’s government back from the rich and powerful. A Lamont victory may be a start but it’s too soon to know.

  • If we lived in a real democracy where machines couldn’t be rigged to throw elections, I would be extremely hopeful.

    If.

    Since we don’t, I would encourage everyone in CT to vote and make sure their friends all vote, in hopes that the machine-masters will see a blowout even they don’t dare tamper with, but if Lieberman squeaks out a “miracle” win and the exit polls mysteriously disagree or get poofed, get ready to rush the barricades.

  • WOW! Someone quoted me! Thank God for Google, otherwise I never would have found out about it!

    Although,

    I would be curious to know what koreyel was using my quote to illustrate. it doesn’t seem to be at all related to the rest of this discussion!

  • Comments are closed.