Meanwhile, from the echo chamber...
By Socrates Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (DailyKos) has a certain perspective that I seem to lack. Living in an echo chamber can do that to a guy.
Speaking of Tuesday night primary winners and losers, he goes through a long list you can read about at his site if (if you promise to wash before returning). Then he says this:
Losers
Republicans. They're going to do some silly press conference on Wednesday claiming the Democratic Party is held in thrall by craaaazy people who agree with, um, 2/3rds of the American people on Iraq. If they want to make a big deal and remind people they have no exit strategy for Iraq, then by all means, therein lies the path to bizarro 1994.
If they really thought Lieberman losing was such a bad thing for the Democratic Party they wouldn't have gone out of their way to prop him up. Instead, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, the wingnutosphere, several Republican congresscritters, and the GOP's Big Money all rallied around their man. This is not a happy day for them.
Winners
Democrats. Did you see Rahm out of the gate tonight?
"This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the leader of the Democratic House Congressional campaign. "This is not about the war. It's blind loyalty to Bush."
This is a party with purpose. United on the war (under the call for withdrawal from Iraq), fueled by record fundraising and shockingly good poll numbers, and operating in the best political climate for the opposition since 1994, Dems are poised to make killer gains this fall. And without Lieberman in the caucus to undermine it from within, unity and commonality of purpose is now on the table.
One more point, and an important one to close with --
Tonight's race was watched from every corner of this country. There wasn't a city I hit during my book tour (and I hit over 40 of them) in which someone didn't ask about this race, where people didn't cheer when I mentioned Lamont's name.
Ignore for a moment that the leader of the Congressional Democrats called Senator Joseph Lieberman George Bush's "love child".
Kos thinks we "backed" Lieberman. He's sure that we aren't happy to see a three-way race in Connecticut, in which the huge war chest of Lieberman and the hordes of the nutosphere will do battle over one Senate seat in a Blue State, a seat that was so solidly theirs that it wasn't even on the radar.
So instead of getting behind their party chairbat, they'll be stuck in CT. Instead of taking advantage of the Internet's leverage to bring together local supporters with non-local ones across the country, as Republicans are doing, they will be stuck in the Purple Northeast, doing their best to beat Lieberman again.
Happy? You bet we are.
Ok, so what is this about an echo chamber?
Kos went on a book tour, out among the people of this great land. How many Conservatives showed up? Uh, I would say approximately none. The only voice he heard on his nationwide book tour and Venus natal declension party was the same one he hears every day on his blog, and every year at their little love fest. More moonbats.
So no wonder he thinks he's winning. Get someone in office first, n'kay?
The leader of the Congressional Democrats called Senator Joseph Lieberman George Bush's "love child". I wonder where Joe will caucus when he wins in November: with his knuckledragging neocon worshippers in the Republican Party, or with someone who dishes out personal insults?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Didn't even consider the possiblity that supporting Lieberman was just the right thing to do. That the republicans that supported Lieberman did so because they wanted to do what was best for the country.
Why do you say that? Republicans have been single-mindedly focussed on winning for a decade now, why should Kos suddenly roll over and accept that Republicans supported Lieberman because of more altruistic reasons? Lieberman voted with Bush over 50% of the time - Bush just lost a Senate vote (maybe).
I'm sure that you have a link for that statistic, and I'm sure that you'll share it with us.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Here you go, Politex over at Bushwatch monitors Dem voting patterns: Bushwatch
I've taken the liberty of modifying the link to make it more accessible. Any site that refers to Senator Byrd as a 'near-Republican' deserves a wider audience, albeit not for the reasons that the original author might have intended. - Moe Lane
How can we trust the research of a site that refers to North Dakota's senior senator as Robert Conrad? Look it up: it's Kent Conrad (born Gaylord Kent Conrad).
Furthermore, I have to ask if a vote for Bush is a vote against Democrats simply for the reason that Bush is a Republican, and Democrats hate Republicans. Could it be that Lieberman voted in a certain manner because that was his feelings on a particular issue?
The fear I have of the virulent left-wing blogosphere in this instance is that of poisoning the atmosphere even further. Much of the divided landscape you see is a result of the aftermath of 2000, when so many people thought Bush 'stole' the election that they were not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Lieberman is a true throwback Democrat. He is a Democrat of the mold of JFK, and even of Tip O'Neill, where you had your moderate to liberal leanings, but you treated the other side with respect and realized that, at the end of the day, different ideologies shouldn't be divisive, but rather viewed as a natural outcome of a democratic society. Those people who clamor for a world where only one ideology reigns should check out North Korea and see how well it works.
Yet that is what I see from the left-wing blogosphere: a hatred of those who are loyal Democrats, but don't kowtow or toe the line on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. I'm no Democrat, but I'm looking at the race, and I see the best choice as Lieberman. And if you think I'm solely looking out for Republicans, consider that, until I moved from Missouri's 4th District, my vote was solidly for Democrat Ike Skelton every two years. It's the best man that gets my vote and my support.
In summation, my feelings on this are that Lieberman is getting kicked over the side of the boat for two reasons: the war, and the fact that he doesn't have a pure hatred for every conservative. This kind of treatment will be the end of the Democratic Party if it continues. Those who are moderate will see the party leaving them behind, and go where they are represented, until the Democratic Party will be a shell of its former self.
Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan
With your statement. First, Lieberman votes with the Dems over 90% of the time. Second, the link you give is only results of the 109th Congress. Third, of the 20 votes mentioned at that site, three were for confirmation (Roberts, Rice and Gonzales) six were for *cloture* (as in not confirmation), which was traditionally given without much rancor. Another was for apologizing for the absence of lynching laws - and I still don't understand why that even came up for a vote. One was about Terri Schiavo, and yet another was a letter requesting President Bush to not do things he has a right to do like make recess appointments of highly-qualified people. And, there was the crucially important "Ohio vote rejection" vote.
So, you're left with what - 7 votes on actual issues? Anyone care to guess what Lieberman's record was on those? (You'll have to, because I'm not going to look it up.) I'd guess it wasn't 50% "pro-Bush." But, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Steve
it's possible that Markos is right. I can quite possibly seeing this being a bloodbath for the GOP (though not completely over Iraq but more a combination of the tin-eared-ness on immigration and spending PLUS war fatigue (even if people think its the right thing to do).
One of my closest friends who is as conservative as you'll ever want to meet is considering voting Democratic this year to wake up the GOP and his core issue is immigration (or as he told me this morning: I'm having trouble telling the difference between George Bush and Ted Kennedy on immigration).
So I wouldn't be surprised if we lose in November (though I don't see the house going), but do better in 2008 IF (and this is a big IF), the GOP congress gets a clue on spending and immigration -- which very few of them seem to have done.
****************
Having said all of the above, I'm still hoping that the winds blow a bit better for the GOP in these last few months and we at least keep our losses to 3 in the Senate.
I'm not sanguine about last night's results, either. Yet in the long run, the fanatics will hurt the Democratic Party. I only hope that in these attention-starved times "long run" means a few months.
Republicans may very well lose in November, but the question for today is: Did what happened last night help or hurt the cause?
That part of the question is easy.
Coarse Analogy Alert: The Democrats have been itching to get laid since 2000. Last night the bar was smoky, it was very late, and they had their beer glasses on. They released a little of the tension, I suppose, but now they have to wake up the next morning and take a hard look at who they slept with.
So far it's: She gorgeous! I'm gonna marry her! (At least she's not my ex!)
Do such things ever last?
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
I'm having trouble telling the difference between George Bush and Ted Kennedy on immigration).
I can't argue with your friend on that, but Bush is not on the ballot this November, and the only obstacle to his immigration nonsense is the GOP House. If the Dems take the House back they will rubberstamp Bush's "guest-worker" ideas first, before they get around to impeaching him. The Dem's are crazy, but not stupid.
And that should be the drum that every Repulican house member who is at risk in November needs to beat.
"I voted against Amnesty and it was the GOP house the prevented the Senate from giving amnesty to illegals."
To watch the donks waste money. They take a safe seat and turn it into, what? A three ring money waster. While Lieberman is a decent person, he sure isn't my kind of representative, big nanny state guy and all that.
So grab the pop corn, watch and listen. We have better things to do. Who cares what the nutroots are doing.
Strengthening the majority Republican caucus should be our first priority. And we made good progress on that last night.
Agree with Oz, spending and immigration have got to be brought under control. Border security first. Spending needs to be cut. Now that the deficit is the lowest in 4 years, time to get started on reducing spending.
he needs every win he can get. He has a great read on the Democratic Senate caucus, one guy will revolutionize things. Finally they have an anti war voice in there to counter the militarists like Reid and Kennedy, one new voice to unplug the logjam. Sure.
I do wonder what's going thru the mind of Hillary this morning while she's receiving her liposuction treatments.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
"...just come a little closer. Closer. See my broken wing? I can't fly at all, at all. Easy meat. You won't have to work for it. Just come three steps closer. Three little steps..."
At a guess. :)
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Conservatives at this board are still living in a delusional state about the absolute disdain a majority of Americans has for this administration and congress. Make jokes you idiots. Nutroots, moonbats ha ha ha. You and the entrenched beltway dems alike are about to be flushed down history's toilet like the turds you are. There is a tsunami of overwhelming anti-incumbent sentiment about to hit the status quo in DC. Its not just about the war either. Many of my conservative friends are upset by the far right's myopic stupidity and fiscal irresponsibility. So laugh all you want. The days of Republican majority are coming to an end. The only people left still defending this criminal cabal and the horrific mess they've made of our beloved country, are those either too stupid to form their own opinions based on available facts or those too rigid to admit when they've made a mistake no matter how egregious. Which are you? Oh never mind.
Aren't we a little testy today?
You make some reasonable assertions here. But you obviously don't read the posts here, or you'd know that most here have stated -- over and over and over again -- that the Republican majority is at risk.
These "delusions" you speak of have nothing to do with illusions about the wonderful performance of the Republican majority. They have to do with the weak, pathetic, and unhinged opposition by the Democratic Party.
To wit: Does the Democratic Party see Islamic Fascism as a threat? f yes, what's the plan to confront that threat? So far, all I'm hearing is "Get out ot Iraq." Not exactly something that will have Al Qaeda and Hizbollah shaking in their boots, now is it?
Remember: Watergate brought down the Republicans in the 70's. Opposing Vietnam was a monumental political loser for the Democrats. So, again, what's the plan? Throw out consciencious progressives in favor of anti-war activists? Cool. Have at it.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
Let's get one thing straight, the only reason you are conscious right now is because Jack Bauer does not feel like carrying you.
I guess the morning after a Democratic primary is the time to try to turn a victory over a not-as-liberal Democrat into a win against Republicans. Sorry, those of us who as you say "form their own opinions based on available facts" understand that despite your distaste for Joe, he's not our fellow traveler. Nor is a party primary, by definition the measure of how the wind blows for one party's base, a national referendum on the war or anything else. Come November, Joe will still be a senator, just with a different letter after his name. Enjoy your victory, but don't make it into something it's not.
Rahm Emanuel is "the leader of the Congressional Democrats?" Does that make Liddy Dole "the leader of the Senate Republicans?"
Don't say things like that.
The true answer of course is: There is no LEADER among the Senate Republicans.
There are those who could be leaders (Coburn comes to mind) but there's no one following.
In fact, now that I think about it McCain is quite often the leader of the Senate Republicans ( Gang of 14, Amnesty, etc )
Conventional wisdom seems to be that this is a great victory for the lefty blogs.
All I see is that a billionaire candidate who is running in a very liberal state was able to scape out a narrow primary victory.
The lefty blogs raised about $250,000 for Lamont. That's not bad, but he kicked in ten times that much himself.
I'll have to see the netroots carry a poor unknown across the finish line in a competitive state before I accept them as kingmakers.
The only thing that could have been funnier would have been if instead of Rahm Emmanuel saying it, it had come from Lamont backer Jesse Jackson.
...how we always seem to have the big political battles on Democratic Party turf.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.