Tuesday, April 4, 2006

The G.O.B.

BY THERSITES:
Here's a jaw-dropper: Joe Lieberman, former Democratic Party vice-presidential nominee, puts his personal interests so far ahead of the party's interests that he is refusing to rule out a run as an independent if he loses the party's nomination to Ned Lamont. Update, April 9: Here's the astounding quote from Lieberman.

Here's another jaw-dropper: Connecticut's other senator, Chris Dodd -- a former DNC Chair! -- also refuses to say whether he'll support Lamont if Lamont wins the Democratic nomination.

Puts Barack Obama's loyalty to Lieberman -- and his opposition to the Alito filibuster, and his opposition to censure, and his support for newcomer Tami Duckworth over long-time Democratic loyalist Christine Cegelis -- into perspective, doesn't it?

We don't need to start a new party. We need to reclaim our party from these people, so they can start their own third party, with Lieberman as its nominee. The Good Old Boy Party, they can call it. G.O.B. -- just like the G.O.P., only a tiny bit to its left, at least alphabetically.

My angry suit's only been back on for 24 hours and it's already feeling really comfortable again...

Action:
Donate, donate, donate to Ned Lamont here. It's the most important race in the country; put some spare change behind it. And visit ConnecticutBlog to make one little phone call to put the fear of the electorate into Sen. Dodd. Reportedly, his office doesn't even ask where you're from when you call.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

6 comments:

lucretia said...

G.O.B. Party is perfect for crevice face/farce Lieberman aka Dorian Grey post mortum, and what can we say Obama, that is, Grand Old Bastards.

Katherine said...

Re: Obama -- Do you honestly expect America's future first black President to politick from inside the leftist bubble just because his home state is perhaps the most consistently Democratic in the nation?

The man is stuck working in the Senate we've got. In fact, he's stuck being a black man in a Senate full of racists like Saxby Chambliss, and yet still he's managed to gain prominence.

Hillary got the same scorn when she started in the Senate - working with Republicans to get bills passed, etc. Her critics must be pretty poor at math, since without at least a few Republicans on board it's going to be pretty hard to get any vote to pass, hmm?

As of late, listening to the NYTimes when it comes to their discussion of the Democratic party is like sticking one's hand in a meat grinder. They're ridiculous! Not a day goes by in which the news department doesn't put a negative spin on positive Democratic actions.

Give Barack a break. Do you think they'd have asked him to speak if he was going to stand up there and call Lieberman a toad? How much do you know about this supposed "mentorship" anyways? They they've sponsored a bill together?

Barack remains highly critical of the Bush administration - just read about his speech at the annual Associated Press luncheon. He has voted unequivocably to curtail lobbying and for real energy reform. He's in his SECOND YEAR in the Senate - he's supposed to stick his neck out there on every vote?

Katherine said...

Wait, sorry, that last part wasn't what I meant, and as a former Illinois resident who voted for the man, I'm not done yet! :-)

He *does* stick his neck out there on practically every vote. But do you think the news media and the rest of the Senate is going to let him get anywhere if he becomes a magnet for their criticism? Look at what's happened to Feingold, and he's merely stating what a majority of Americans think!

Thersites D. Scott said...

Katherine:
I understand where you're coming from, and in fact I've taken flak from some of my readers for being willing to tolerate some centrist or even conservative Democrats instead of immediately labeling them "Vichys." So I don't automatically hold it against a politician who votes against the party line on occasion. I've also taken flak from readers for saying that there are "liberal" Democrats (i.e., relatively progressive on the issues) who are still bad guys because they're gaming the system in an undemocratic way; Obama is one of those.

My beef isn't with Obama's votes, it's with the choices he's made in the "power politics" game. Even while he was publicly undecided on the Alito filibuster, he was actively encouraging other senators to vote for cloture. He campaigned hard for Tammy Duckworth over Christine Cegelis in the Illinois primary (one of my beefs is with party officials who give their preferred candidate an unfair boost over other good candidates in primaries instead of letting the voters decide). He decided whether or not to attend the Lieberman fundraiser, and wouldn't have suffered electorally in his own state if he'd "had a scheduling conflict", but he not only chose to attend, but boosted Lieberman over his Democratic primary opponent, Ned Lamont (again, why is he taking sides in a primary?)

Obama's not the usual freshman senator trying to get secure enough to win re-election. He's positioning himself as a power player within the Democratic Party, and he's doing it with the backing of the DLC crowd I despise, and by engineering the outcomes of primary contests that should be democratic. Political pragmatism doesn't excuse that.

I've got other posts on this topic here, here, here, here, here.

If you still think I'm off-base, though, I'd like to hear it. I don't want to slam a guy who doesn't deserve it, if you can show me why that's the case!

Katherine said...

Obama isn't a member of the DLC. They're using his name after he expressly told them he was NOT a member.

I don't want to bring this down to the argument about "electability," but Barack has already been identified as the party's future. He is a very public face for the party, and as such has a terrible chance of becoming the lightning rod for news media attacks.

The fact is, he's stuck working in the political climate we have today, in which calling for a filibuster makes local news network accuse the party of "hampering democracy." If the man wants to be President, then he's got enough to overcome in the racists in the nation without also irritating all of the people who think they hate "liberals."

Was I pissed that it took so long for him to come around on the filibuster? Yes! Do I think that the mainstream news media is just waiting for him to screw up big time and take a strong stance on something so they can nail him? Absolutely.

lucretia said...

Katherine:

I agree Obama is in a difficult position. But he's very good as himself. I suggest he go that way and get right out of the difficult position. That's what Howard Dean did.

What is the leftist bubble you mention, which he must avoid?

I'm glad he is not a member of the DLC. But still he's subject to their wishes, isn't he?

He didn't have to gush so much over Lieberman. A little goes a long way with our Dorien.

Why was he identified as the party's future? And by whom? Obviously something like that happened because before he became senator he gave the Dem Keynote. I would appreciate knowing the origin of the Obama backing.

Thanks.