Author
|
Topic: USA: Challenging the Democrats-In-Name-Only
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 23 June 2006 04:16 AM
quote: Six years ago, Joe Lieberman was the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice-President of the United States (and, were it not for some well-organized cheating by the Republicans and the collusion of the Supreme Court, he would have been elected). In a quirk of the American electoral system, he was also running at the same time for re-election for a third term representing Connecticut in the Senate, a race that he won handily. This election cycle, with the Senate seat again on the line, Lieberman is facing another electoral battle, but his major challenge is not coming from Republicans. Rather, it is coming from Democrats who argue that Lieberman might as well be a Republican. Since 2000, Lieberman has steadfastly supported the Bush Administration on everything to the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, energy policy, the Terri Schiavo case, and judicial appointments. He's the most obvious example of the frustrating phenomenon known as DINOs — Democrats in Name Only.
Scott Piatkowski
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911
|
posted 23 June 2006 08:00 AM
Key passage: quote: In a speech to Lamont supporters, Weicker commented: “I am not a Democratic activist. I am an anti-war activist. I am not some left-wing nut or liberal crazy. I am an American of common sense who can recognize failure and pigheadedness.”Meanwhile, Lieberman is relying on endorsements from the likes of Bill O'Reilly and running an anti-Lamont attack ad that more than one progressive blogger has labelled “the most embarrassing political ad ever.” He's using the same accusations of irrational “Bush hatred” that the American right regularly throws around (even though, as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting noted in their May/June newsletter, polls show that “a majority of Americans 'hate' the president”). He's even compared Lamont supporters to “jihadists” and “crusaders.”
I hope people don't miss the point of Weicker's 'finesse' here. When the terms 'left-wing nut' or 'liberal crazy' are used in this manner it denotes there has been a sea change in the way Democrats look at the electorate in general. One cannot be an out and out 'liberal' any more than one cannot be an out and out 'socialist.' The whole progressive agenda is de facto off the table in favour of soft pedaling a single facet of progressivism (anti-war, but only for very good reasons - we have money to spend here at home). Meanwhile the other side of the coin - where Lieberman forms an alliance with O'Reilly for Chrissakes, can be as absolutely nasty and fascist as they want to be because they seem to realize that Americans will ACCEPT that rhetoric while any true progressive rhetoric will be seen as 'liberal crazy.' I don't see how or why the Democrats can win with this or even bother. Stealth rhetoric will eventually blow up in your face - the true progressives in the party will take your words at face value and they will inevitably be greatly disapointed when the words don't match up to a broader progressive agenda. It all seems so mealy mouthed. Yeah, be anti-war, I'l with ya! But what about national health care? What about corporate power? What about abortion rights? What about environmental protection? See what I mean? Can't go there. And by the way, I wonder about that poll's accuracy. Hate is such a strong word. And even if its true, they hate and do nothing. Why? Because of the old dictum from Lucius Accius (attributed to Caligula): Oderint Dum Metuant (let them hate as long as they fear).
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 23 June 2006 01:53 PM
Lieberman turned in a memoriably stupid performance during the Vice Presidential debates.He was debating Dick Cheney, of course, and at one point Cheney said: I've earned my money by honest labour and not by taking handouts from government. (A near quote, but from memory) Lieberman quickly agreed with Cheney about this. It was a perfect opportunity to point out that Cheney's company, Brown and Root, and it successor, Haliburton, were entirely dependent on government contracts from start to finish, often contracts awarded in secret on a non-competitive basis. In other words, Lieberman could have opened up the political corruption of the American ruling elite, and the emptiness of their rhetoric. But because he thinks within the same tired circes as they do, he passed, agreeing with Cheney that he had worked very hard for his money, indeed.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911
|
posted 24 June 2006 10:03 AM
quote: Originally posted by Adam T: Américain ÉgalitaireAs I'm sure you're aware Weicker isn't a Democrat, so, it's not surprising he wouldn't be with the Democrats on those things. He is a former Republican turned independent when he ran for and won a term as governor of Connecticut.
Yep, but he's been fairly decent since then in a state where one tries to be fairly moderate if you're a Dem. My point remains that framing these issues with that kind of language is indicative of how even moderates like Weicker see most of the progressive agenda playing with the American public. Scott: quote: Lamont is in favour.
Good. Of all these issues this may be the one that Dems can start reliably running on since so many Americans are negatively affected by a lack of health care coverage. The trick is to avoid the word 'socialism.' ceti: quote: Ah, but the backroom boys are getting busy.
Indeed. I'm surprised that Scheurer fell for this scam. I'm also not surprised that the Rahm Emanuel wing of the party (beholden to corporate america) would pull this either. Most people see it as business as usual in American politics so nothing will probably come of it other than reinforcing my and many other's sense of cynicism toward the whole 'two party' system.
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|