It's No Longer Your Father's Democratic Party
What Happened To "Pay Any Price, Bear Any Burden?"
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 | Democrats | Joe Lieberman | John McCain — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party's Vice Presidential nominee in 2000, succinctly described the sad devolution of the Democratic Party:
Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed.The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It's not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It's been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will --and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me.
I'm a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy. It's a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain.
Watch the following video of the exchange between Senator Lieberman and George Stephanopoulos:
Michael Scherer gets it very wrong when he attributes Lieberman's critique to revenge against the antiwar radicals who rebelled against Senator Liberal during his reelection campaign in 2006. The Senator was reelected because he taken a strong principled stand seeking victory in the war the Islamic extremists continue to wage against America. It's really too bad the Democratic Party is now controlled by the same type of left-wing Liberal/Progressive radicals that tried, and failed, to defeat Senator Lieberman. Lieberman's description of the small left-wing cabal that has steered the Democratic Party away from Kennedy's "pay any price, bear any burden," is exactly right.
He's my Senator and I'm glad he is.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Campaign Memo — Comments (3) »
It's No Longer Your Father's Democratic Party 35 Comments (0 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I'm an amateur student of political history. I am really a fan of our 2 party system; to be blunt, it works when there are 2 strong parties that compete. Part of being able to truly compete is that, while there are differences between the parties, neither is way off the deep end of thought. With the ascendancy of the far left anti war moveon.org & dailykos crowd, I fear that the democrat party is moving way toward that deep end. I know that the 2006 elections and the portended problems of the republicans in 2008 House & Senate races may not show it; however, for the long term I fear that the democrat party may move so far toward the statist that the 2 party system may splinter.
Some like the idea of multiple parties with power - I don't. I'm not a fan of parlimentary coalition governments. Instead of multiple powerful parties putting more power in the hands of "the people," they tend to give more power to the party bosses to trade votes & create coalitions. This removal of power from the individual voter is not a good thing. With a strong 2 party system, each party has to compete for the individual voter without dilution of the individual's vote.
Mr. Lieberman, the senior senator from the state of Israel, is about as balanced as a one-legged elephant. When the Republicans finally figure out that the guy is as useful to them as a bucket of warm spit, they will disown him with the same muted enthusiasm as did the Dems. He's as phoney a balogna as they come and real conservatives (and liberals) know it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Lieberman Loves his country more than his party. Go back to Kos and rot.
Use reply to this when commenting on someone's comment.
I think it's misleading to say that the Democrats failed to elect Ned Lamont in 2006. Sure there was an effort, but he didn't lose for lack of it. The final vote in CT in 2006 was about:
Lamont- 40%
Lieberman- 50%
Sclessinger- 10%
I don't know what the D/R registration numbers in Connecticut are, but you can get an idea from the current GE polls Quinnipiac released:
Obama- 53%
McCain- 36%
Clinton- 49%
McCain- 42%
While I'd concede that these numbers aren't a hard and fast representation of the registration numbers, Liberman's only lost popularity since, and I think it demonstrates CT's Republican votership is more than 10% of the general electorate. Ned Lamont wasn't let down by the Democrats. Lieberman was elected because he had the support of the Republicans.
______________________
I am the Pumpkin King.
While Connecticut may be an indigo blue state- that's relative as even the bluest states are shades of purple. Lieberman pulled most of the Republican vote (centrist and liberal) as well as the centrist wing of the Democratic party. He was elected in totality by the center-right. In essence, it was the Republicans splitting from Schlessinger and voting Lieberman which was his most important constituency.
______________________
I am the Pumpkin King.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
More R-leaners, sure. But I think the take home message is that the Democratic base was certainly backing Lamont. (If this is askew to what you're saying, I may have misunderstood your point.)
______________________
I am the Pumpkin King.
The 'base' may have backed Lamont, but the greater sphere of Democratic leaners wasn't there for him. They joined with the base of the Republican leaners to re-elect Lieberman.
I think the state went 55-45 for Kerry. So if Lamont took 40, and we assume that the whole 40 also went for Kerry, that still leaves 15% of the electorate (roughly a quarter of the Democratic leaners in the state) who went for Lieberman.
That's a 1992-Bush-Perot level of defection and the sign of a party that split, rather than being there for the nominee.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Oh I definitely agree. However, on the same note, I doubt the same would happen today. Quinnipiac's poll had some other interesting numbers as well. Dodd, who I *think* has officially backed Obama, is at his lowest popularity level ever and is still above 50. Lieberman is similar but with a higher disapproval. I think this makes the two a wash as far as endorsements (I think there's little doubt Lieberman endorses McCain) count. Meanwhile, Bush's disapproval in CT is *surprise* epic at 76%.
Apologize for threadjacking, but I think this helps show the ball for this election is in the Democrats' court and revolves around their ability to tie Bush around McCain's neck. I think these numbers demonstrate that right now, the country isn't viewing McCain as a third Bush term- if CT isn't, who is? MAYBE Massachusettes. Therefore, McCain's current numbers should not be reflective of being from the party of an unpopular President. There may be some factors like military experience that will help McCain with the general electorate that aren't reflective in his numbers yet, which is good for him. However, by the same token, his numbers now may very well be shown in a few months under the title "BEFORE The DNC Hung Bush around McCain's neck like the Albatross." Whatever your opinion of Bush is, he is very definitely not a popular president. The Democrats have a huge opportunity in this to leverage opinion.
______________________
I am the Pumpkin King.
I would normally assume that, myself - except that I'd also assume that the DNC was capable of running what was supposed to be a fairly straightforward primary season.
Moe
PS: I keep wanting to sing "He is the Pumpkin King." The thought of Tim Burton directing a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta is clearly a sign that I need to drink more coffee.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
When it comes to the being a mavrick and reaching across party lines for the greater good, you guys love Senator Lieberman.
However you guys are hesitant on Senator McCain, who just like Lieberman, is willing to do what's right for the country rather than what is right for their party. I thought this is what we look for when we look for leadership and a President. You would want a Democrat who isn't hard-line left, why want a hard-liner leading the Republican Party?
Sure I do believe a party should have values and should fight for these values. This is why I am a Republican, because I believe in those core Republican values. Hard-liners on either side is what really tears this country apart. Not liberal ideals or conservative ideals, partisn bickering will destroy this country in the end. Rome destroyed itself from the inside long before those on the outside started to pick away at it.
Ok, let's take immigration for example. If we are really serious about securing the boarder, we have to throw the other side a bone (guest-worker program, not amnesty) if they are going to throw us the bone. It is an old game called politics and compromise, and that is what makes the world go round. In order to work as the great melting pot, we must learn to work together or we will fall.
... is really not a sign that the people who relented from the position that [2 + 2 = 4], in order to reach a "consensus" with those on the other side saying [2 + 2 = 5] are acting for the greater good.
Too stark? Okay, let's try it this way; if A brings a glass of orange juice and B brings a glass of water to mix in the same drink, I'm sure there's room for compromise. Like wise with B bringing milk, apple juice, or even soy sauce. But if B brings a nice tall glass of urine to the table, there's no room for compromise as far as A is concerned.
The problem is that nowadays, A would be automatically denounced as an extremist/hardliner/hyperpartisan {horrors!} because he's not willing to budge an inch on mixing his orange juice with urine, while B is more than happy to "compromise" on mixing his urine with orange juice.
See, you are thinking backwards. The idea shouldn't be what they get out of it, you should be asking what you would get out of the deal. If B said "Electrolytes" then A would know to counter with Gatorade as an much more agreeable compromise to add to the orange juice. The minute either one digs in their heels, both A and B lose.
The idea is to offer and then counter-offer, until a deal has been reached. Listening and understanding what the other party is looking for, will also go a long way resolving a lot of problems.
do not so much compromise as capitulate. I am all for compromise , the way you do it is to hold your cards close to your chest, and give as little as you have to. Too often McCain and the other gang of stupid were ready to concede nearly every point to Teddy Kennedy or whomever, even before the cards were dealt.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Your short sighted and limited view of the success of the Gang of 14 perplexes me. If it was up to partisan Republican Leadership of the time, the Senate minority (either Democrat or Republican) would have lost a powerful tool: The Filibuster.
Kyle, sometimes you have to pick and choose your battles. Ask any military strategist and they will tell you that if you try to take all, you lose all.
the stoopid party. and you can lecture me till your blue in the face about picking your battles. The Party was in charge of the presidency and both houses of congress and got essentially NOTHING conservative done.
No, nothing outside of some court appointments, and a temporary tax cut. Meanwhile Kennedy got about everything he wanted from a new medicare scheme to a stupid intrusion of the Federal government into education.
Government grew and grew, and so did regulations and bureaucracy.
If that is your view of success, then yes I do not share your views.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
The Party was in charge of the presidency and both houses of congress and got essentially NOTHING conservative done.
Agreed, that is why conservatives were soundly beaten in 2006 and why McCain is now the nominee. People are starting to realized that maybe that pure Liberals or Conservatives can't get anything done with all the bickering going on. People are leaving both parties in recorded numbers. Independants will soon outnumber either pary by the next election. This country is ripe for a new political party.
Good, honest, conservatism (not fanaticism or unwillingness to compromise) will win in this country every time. But the people must actually believe that you will do as you say.
And you have to take the time to explain your actions and reasoning. People might be leaving the two parties but I believe for different reasons.
They leave the Democratic party because it has been moving ever further left
They leave the Republican party because it offers not alternative to the omnipotent view of government.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
As a Moderate Republican, I am hearing a different story.
Look, I am not saying different views are bad. They inspire debate and there is an exchange of ideas. However there has got to be a time when debate stops and the business of the country needs gets done.
Like McCain himself said: "(W)e will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them."
The filibuster wouldn't have been lost because the so-called "Nuclear Option" was designed to eliminate the filibuster as a tool for blocking Presidential appointments, guaranteeing all nominees a vote on the floor. The justification behind it was that filibusters denied the President the clear assent or rejection of a nominee by a simple majority of the Senate, as specified in the Constitution, and it interfered with his Constitutional duty to fill offices in the Executive and Judicial branches with people he saw as the best and most suited choices.
It had nothing to do with legislation, and I would be perfectly happy to see this apply to Democratic Presidents and their nominees as a matter of principle.
Now, there's an argument that this would have provided the Democrats with a precedent to eliminate the filibuster altogether, but I find two things wrong with that. First of all, many Democrats, not to mention the house organ of the Democratic Party, the New York Times, had been calling for the elimination of the filibuster for both nominations and legislation for years until they were faced with a Republican President, and Republicans in charge of the Senate - then they became passionate defenders of the filibuster.
Second, anyone who thinks that the Democrats require any sort of precedent from Republicans to act in any capacity to advance their agenda has not been paying any attention. They have the Press on their side - which network or major newspaper will blanket the airwaves/ or fill the frontpage with stories of the Democrats' hypocrisy to the extent that the bulk of the electorate would be exercised to protest? Which network would tell the story as one of hypocrisy instead of one where a Republican minority is thwarting the will of the people by frustrating an elected Democratic President's "brilliant" and "mainstream" choices for the Courts?
Let me ask you this; just how confident are you that Harry Reid would not just go ahead and change the rules to get a President Barack Obama's Court nominees confirmed? If he does this, how many newspapers would publish admonishing editorials? How long will their "outrage" (if any), last? Do you think Senate Democrats are not aware of this?
Gatorade, water, milk, soy sauce, etc. to mix with my orange juice? No problem, it's now a matter of composition. Urine, liquified arsenic, methylated spirit, etc. are not negotiable.
Let's take universal (single payer) healthcare for example. The Democrats primarily want to create a gigantic new unionized bureaucracy that will effectively take control of 15+% of the US economy - guaranteeing HUGE campaign contributions and generations of government dependents for the foreseeable future. i.e. money and votes - the two only major currencies of politics.
HSAs, free associative group coverage and portable job-independent insurance are largely out for top Democratic decision makers because widespread adoption of free market solutions would get too many people too used to making their own healthcare decisions and loathe to hand it over to a faceless bureaucrat in an immense government run HMO.
Where is the wiggle room for compromise? Where do we decide to give way without setting ourselves up on a slippery slope for a full scale nationalization of the health industry a few years down the line?
Compromise has its place. But sometimes, it's not appropriate. Sometimes, both sides losing is better than giving even a minor victory to the wrong side that it can build upon. When a total victory can be won on a policy, I believe foregoing it, just to be nice, in the hope that the other side would not pull the trigger when a similar opportunity presents itself to them is foolish.
My problem with McCain and the rest of the Compromising Cadre in the GOP Senate Caucus AKA "moderates" is a regular failure to not fold until absolutely necessary. In fact, McCain's major problem is when he adopts full-scale the other side's position as the correct one and he launches broadsides at his own party for not falling in line.
In these hyperpartisan times Lieberman speaks of, we tend to behave like antibodies when somebody doesn't toe the party line. The reaction to 90% liberal Lieberman on the left is often visceral, just as the reaction to 80% conservative McCain is often visceral on the right.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
Lieberman is very liberal, he only went apostate on one issue (the war), and as far as I know never went out of his way to stymie or insult his own party.
McCain, on the other hand made his reputation with the national media by opposing and even attacking the mainstream of his own party on numerous occasions. He also raged against and insulted conservatives. There is also the little matter of his cavalier attitude towards the first amendment.
I think we have every reason to be distrustful of him.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
McCain is probably every bit that 80% conservative that I've characterized him as. And yet he has been annihilated over that last 20%. It's not as different as it feels to conservatives, I'm thinking.
To put a finer point on it: Conservatives admire Lieberman for breaking ranks on one (albeit huge) issue. They do so because they agree with him on the issue, but claim that it is because they admire his courage and independence. At the same time, conservatives fail to admire McCain's independence in the same way.
I suspect moderates view both men as independent and leaderly (is that a word?) for the stances they've taken.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
... if in asserting it he did not regularly drop rhetorical JDAAMs on his own party while lavishing tons of praises on Democrats and preening in front of the cameras to the admiring prattling of liberal reporters.
It's less that he is divergent on 20%, than his media-houndness on that 20% that Conservatives fail to admire his "independence". From my angle, taking a position favored by the New York Times requires no courage.
What bothers conservatives about McCain is that he seems to relish being a media darling. He wants the press to like him, and many times in the past he's thrown his own party under the bus in order to be praised by the New York Times or get invited on SNL.
Cheers,
Scott in Indy
What this video highlights is something I run into fairly regularly with the people I know who come from the full spectrum of political and ideological viewpoints.
Most of the Democrats, or Democratic leaning Independents, that I know who are supporting McCain aren't counting on him to give them what they want, but on issues McCain believes are the right thing to do, he'll work with them to get it done. They have no illusions that he'll just support something to claim the mantle of bipartisanship, he's already got it... not for votes, but to support things he actually supports.
They're supporting him in spite of their many disagreements because their priorities on the issues of foreign policy outweigh the sheer number of issues where they disagree. If you simply counted the number of issues where they agree/disagree, it wouldn't make any sense why they are supporting him... yet in spite of the Democrats offering them nearly everything they want to here their priority is to have someone who can actually lead us in the world of today, not rely on naive hope in place of strong experience.
They're pragmatic enough to realize that abandoning Iraq will result in an even bigger and greater problem for the US later which trumps many of their social issue concerns greatly. When it comes to doing the right thing, they respect McCain for his bluntness on what he will do and what he won't do, whether you wanna hear it or not. They appreciate that the only way we'll get real change in Washington is if we have a guy up there who will unite people on what they *agree* on, not divide us on every little disagreement. They aren't expecting a dem in GOP clothing... they just wish they had a dem candidate who was as qualified and wasn't putting the interests of their party ahead of the interests of their country when the party should be aligning the party's interests with those of the country.
They see Obama and Hillary as people they generally agree with, but who are so under-qualified for a time of war and potential conflicts in our current day and economic situation that they'd make Carter's malaise seem like Disneyland in comparison. Stagflation on top of every despot and evil regime getting the green light from the Dems who will proudly declare their intentions to rely on the permission of other or the same evil regimes to deal with them.
Taiwan? Obama day 1: We need UNSC permission to intervene, including China's permission. Bye Taiwan.
Iran? Hillary day 1: We need UNSC permission to intervene, including Russia's. Welcome back nuclear weapons program.
Darfur? We need China's permission. Sorry genocide victims.
etc etc...
Pragmatic liberals and independents do exist... and the Hillary/Obama green light to our enemies is a bigger threat than payment plans on hospital bills at the moment. Their endless pandering would be welcome to many of them, if they didn't put the other side of the aisle in the same league as fascists to garner their support on solutions, or parts of solutions, where they might actually agree.
I wish more Democrats were like Lieberman... where we could respectfully disagree on many issues, and they would not put the nation in jeopardy to score cheap political points for the next election. Given the choices of the Democratic primary voters... I don't see the Dems coming around to that idea en masse any time soon (outside of brief periods of time after major attacks where they have to actually feel compelled to appear patriotic). I wonder if they'll ever figure out that if you want to be respected on national security, you actually have to care about it, not care about how it will help or hurt your campaigns.
_____________________________________________
- "Make love not war? Real men can do both!"
If a quarter of even CT Democrats think foreign policy is of supreme importance (see above), then the number must be greater in other, brighter purple, "blue" states.
We may be heading for another McGovern event with a candidate less competant than McGovern. Abject surrender is not attractive in a presidential candidate, it must be left to the dark cloakrooms of Congress.
STOP SAYING DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!
There's nothing democratic about the Democrat Party. Please start calling them the Democrat Party...
Just a suggestion on a pet peeve of mine!
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
Michael Scherer gets it very wrong when he attributes Lieberman's critique to revenge against the antiwar radicals who rebelled against Senator Liberal during his reelection campaign in 2006. The Senator was reelected because he taken a strong principled stand seeking victory in the war the Islamic extremists continue to wage against America
Exactly. They voted him out BECAUSE he's this way, he's not this way because they voted him out.
Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson was a big part of saving the world in the 70's and early 80's. His influence, and many people that worked with him, including Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, and Paul Wolfowitz, were a big part of the end of the cold war.
Thank God, that while Sen. Jackson is gone, we still have Sen. Lieberman, the last of the Scoop Jackson Democrats.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas