State of Change

Lieberman's New Kiss of Death

posted by Ari Melber on 12/16/2007 @ 7:05pm

Senator Joe Lieberman will finally come clean on Monday, unleashing his inner-Republican to endorse the struggling campaign of Senator John McCain, according to several news reports. It is a bittersweet alliance for both men. Lieberman's move confirms his critics' longtime argument that he is a "Democrat in Name Only," while McCain looks desperate by leaning on backers beyond the G.O.P. base in the homestretch of a partisan primary.

The Politico first reported that Lieberman will "cross the aisle" to back McCain on Monday's edition of the "Today" show. As an independent, however, Lieberman was already standing in the aisle. The article says the joint appearance is "an effort to draw attention to the McCain campaign, which needs a splash. Otherwise, it does not make sense for McCain because it will only remind core Republicans why they distrust him." The pair also have a long history together, having cosponsored the Iraq War resolution, Climate Change legislation, and lobbying disclosure reforms.

During his 2006 reelection campaign, Lieberman emphasized that he would support Democratic candidates in 2008. "I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008," he said during a televised debate in July. Lieberman promptly backtracked after his reelection, announcing this January that he was "open" to supporting a Republican or Democrat for president, depending "on a whole range of issues." By not even waiting to see who the Democrats nominate, now Lieberman is revealing that the issues aren't important to him, either.

But the Democrats' battles over Joe Lieberman are important because they have always been about more than a single politician. Last election, Democratic voters in Connecticut -- along with activists and bloggers across the country -- did something unusual in today's politics. They put issues above incumbency and prioritized leadership over the "strategic" imperative of holding a "safe seat." This activism was derided by many pundits and the Democratic establishment, including Senators Obama and Clinton, who backed the primary campaign of a man who literally cannot wait for the presidential race to start before he endorses one of their Republican opponents. But Lieberman's detractors were right about his loyalties. They were also right about Iraq policy -- and the political imperative of running on an alternative foreign policy in 2006. And as I've argued many times, the activists were right to reject the entire Washington discourse that asks us to think as tacticians instead of citizens.

UPDATE: Here are two other new reactions to the endorsment:

Ned Lamont:

During our debate last year, Senator Lieberman intoned that he wanted to "elect a Democratic President in 2008," and that my election would "frustrate and defeat our hope of doing that." With his endorsement of John McCain today, it is now clear that Joe Lieberman is the one working to defeat our hopes... It is ironic that Lieberman's fellow Connecticut senator, Chris Dodd, is today courageously leading the congressional charge against illegal wiretaps, not to mention bringing America's combat role in the Bush-McCain-Lieberman war to an end. With voters just weeks away from making their first decisions, Democrats are lucky to have many extraordinary candidates running for President. I am disappointed that Senator Lieberman does not feel the same way.

Democracy for America Executive Director Arshad Hasan:

"With his endorsement of John McCain, Senator Lieberman has, once again, shown himself to be nothing more than an irrelevant Republican who is willing to say anything to get elected and curry favor with the Beltway establishment while he continues his quest to get appointed to a cabinet position,"

Comments (114)

  1. Good post, Ari.

    And here are some highly recommended spots worth checking out:

    Howard Zinn's intro to the new book, Bomb After Bomb

    Reconciling Fascism with Reality

    A brief interview of Sy Hersh

    John Pilger in the New Statesman

    By the way, InformationClearingHouse.info is an outstanding resource.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 7:59pm

  2. What is Fascism? Lawrence Britt, writing in Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2, summarizes fourteen common traits of a fascist society.

    1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

    4. Supremacy of the Military

    5. Rampant Sexism

    6. Controlled Mass Media

    7. Obsession with National Security

    8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

    9. Corporate Power is Protected

    10. Labor Power is Suppressed

    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

    14. Fraudulent Elections

    For more, click on the red link above.

    Free Inquiry magazine is pretty cool too.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 8:06pm

  3. Obama did back Lamont in the general election and NOT Lieberman. Therefore, the fact that he did not back Lamont in the primary doesn't mean he supports Lieberman in all that he does.

    It was Hillary that voted for Kyl-Lieberman, whereas Obama OPPOSED this rush to war with Iran.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/16/2007 @ 8:28pm

  4. And another thing.....

    Newsweek's cover story, The Sleeper is about the guy generally getting little play even at The Nation, John Edwards.

    I honestly hate to say I told you so, but I've indicated in these threads before that The Nation magazine was vulnerable to being outflanked by Newsweek.

    I like Newsweek as a mainstream media resource, but this is an embarrassment for The Nation.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 8:35pm

  5. "Obama did back Lamont in the general election and NOT Lieberman. Therefore, the fact that he did not back Lamont in the primary doesn't mean he supports Lieberman in all that he does."

    David Sirota, who was close to the Lamont campaign, begs to differ. And Obama's support for Lieberman AGAINST a grassroots anti-war movement makes mincemeat out of his claim that he's anti-war. Thre's much much less to Obama than meets the eye. He actually makes Hillary Clinton look decisive and principled.

    Posted by haskells at 12/16/2007 @ 8:48pm

  6. After reading the Newsweek cover story --hot off the presses-- I reiterate my brief line of argument in John Edwards' support:

    Bridoc says:

    I don't know whether or not Edwards would pursue his message if elected, maybe he really feels passionately about it, maybe he was conveniently born again populist just in time to run for president again.

    b kool replies:

    That is the crux of our disagreement I think --whether or not Edwards is trustworthy. And I respect your opinion --but respectfully disagree.

    But I am arguing essentially that the clock on American democracy is running short --if it hasn't already expired-- and we have, in Edwards, a highly successful trial attorney with the skill set necessary to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to bring us all on board for a badly needed overhaul of Washington DC.

    Frankly, I don't think Obama quite gets it, and even if he did I question his fortitude and ability to do what Edwards has made a career of --making a case to an American jury.

    The defense rests.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 8:58pm

  7. There's much much less to Obama than meets the eye. He actually makes Hillary Clinton look decisive and principled.

    ~HASKELLS @ 8:48pm

    Succinctly said.

    Now, if we can just get The Nation editorial staff on board.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 9:02pm

  8. BKOOL66:

    thanks for the clearinghouse link. on my first visit to the site:

    "Role of Canadian Intelligence Agencies to Terrorize Citizens"

    " In the Western world, hatred of Muslims has become a key ideological hallmark of rightwing parties. We see this overtly in the United States, France, Italy, Holland …and most lately Canada."

    HELP!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 9:05pm

  9. Newsweek excerpt:

    When Kerry came under the Swift Boat attacks over his war record, Edwards urged him to fight back early. Kerry believed it was beneath him to dignify his attackers with a response.

    And this raises a critically important question: What would Obama do?

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 9:19pm

  10. HELP!!!!!!!!!

    ~FROSTY ZOOM

    Cross the border and volunteer for the Edwards campaign :-)

    The lord helps those who help themselves ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 9:22pm

  11. "But Lieberman's detractors were right about his loyalties."

    But WRONG about Connecticutt politics, which a lot of NON-Connecticutans (the primary backers of Lamont) failed to understand and ending up embarassing the Democratic Party and driving Lieberman even further away, since it showed the he could win without the liberal base.

    Hint to SRJENKS, Empty SPENCE, etc. who think sitting out 2008 is going to do a lot of good for the "progressive cause" if Hillary (or ANY Dem) wins next fall without them.

    Posted by Mask at 12/16/2007 @ 9:23pm

  12. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/16/2007 @ 8:06pm

    What university does Lawrence Britt teach at?

    Posted by Mask at 12/16/2007 @ 9:24pm

  13. What university does Lawrence Britt teach at?

    ~Maskot

    I dunno. You got an issue with the points raised regarding fascism?

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 9:35pm

  14. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/16/2007 @ 9:35pm

    Well, the man is claiming some academic backing to his analysis...just curious as to his credentials for discussing government, politics, or current affairs.

    Posted by Mask at 12/16/2007 @ 9:52pm

  15. My very brief search was fruitless --frankly, I didn't care to spend too much time on it.

    Maybe you can dig up the dope on the guy?

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 10:07pm

  16. Posted by HASKELLS 12/16/2007 @ 8:48pm

    "Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grass-roots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election," Obama wrote. "Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign." Source: AP 10/26/06

    David Sirota is obviously spreading false information about Obama!

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/16/2007 @ 10:36pm

  17. Posted by MASK 12/16/2007 @ 9:23pm

    LIEBERMAN WON IN CT BECAUSE...

    Some 60% of Republicans voted from him. The Bush Administration machine basically switched its support from the Republican candidate to Lieberman and enough Independents and Democrats voted for him to make the difference. To say nothing of the fact that the Democratic Party organization gave Lamont very little support, pretty stupid of them in retrospect (and even at the time it seemed stupid to many of us). My point is that Lieberman's victory was not, in any sense, any kind of "mandate" but was simply the result of some very clever Republican politics. Lieberman sold his soul and now the Devil's collecting....

    Posted by w_m_bear at 12/16/2007 @ 10:37pm

  18. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/16/2007 @ 9:22pm

    i'm doing the best i can from my keyboard.

    i can't vote for the president of the world, so i try to influence those who can.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:42pm

  19. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 10:42pm

    So....if I gave you my (useless, I live in a "red" state), vote, who would you waste it on?

    I cannot figure out which candidate is least underwhelming.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/16/2007 @ 10:48pm

  20. i'm doing the best i can from my keyboard.

    FZ

    That was in the back of my mind as I posted that comment to you.

    Clatter away!

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 10:56pm

  21. I cannot figure out which candidate is least underwhelming.

    Posted by MALCONTENT 12/16/2007 @ 10:48pm

    damn! that's the hard part.

    kucinich -- great ideas, but not much personality to "lead" the pigeons.

    richardson -- good ideas, but probably to clintonized.

    obama -- he says "um" too much. too corporate. funny, though. he'd probably be o.k.

    edwards -- maybe. as prez, he would either be great, or really really suck.

    clinton -- she's already been "co-subpresident" for the last 7 years. enough.

    gravel -- he'd make a good secretary of cut the crap.

    dodd -- too establishment.

    biden -- this is the guy who brought you the "drug czar"

    go with edwards.

    i haven't eaten meat for 8 years. your having to choose from this list is like what i get to eat at the montana steak house -- greasy white bread and wilted lettuce.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 11:02pm

  22. The Democrats threw Lieberman under the bus in 2006 but failed to take his seat and he won as an "Independent Candidate". Who can blame him for going off the democratic reservation in 2008? In fact, if he truly believes that McCain is more qualified than the other candidates, from either party, why should he not say so? For me, I don't need someone to help me with these choices, but Lieberman seems like a good man and I will not beat up on him.

    Posted by Econ Major at 12/16/2007 @ 11:08pm

  23. but Lieberman seems like a good man and I will not beat up on him.

    Posted by ECON MAJOR 12/16/2007 @ 11:08pm

    i guess your not palestinian................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 11:13pm

  24. David Sirota is obviously spreading false information about Obama! Posted by METTEYYA 12/16/2007 @ 10:36pm

    No need to source it: Sirota's aware of that one pitiful e-mail and still concludes that Obama could have done much, much more. For example, he didn't make any campaign stops even as he shuttled back and forth between New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. It's not entirely fair to say that he didn't lift a finger for Ned. It just so happens that it was the middle one. If he couldn't get behind Ned he's no lefty and he's not even a little-D democrat.

    http://davidsirota.com/index.php/mr-obama-goes-to-washington/

    Posted by haskells at 12/16/2007 @ 11:19pm

  25. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 11:02pm

    Yea. I was kinda leaning towards him. I like his brand of unbelievable bullshit better than everybody else's unbelievable bullshit.

    I will henceforth banish my desire to not even bother to vote. And if I cannot choose I will vote edwards in your stead.

    You can send me any of the extra rush memorabilia, you Canadians keep lying around.

    (Yes, jorcheim, you are forgiven for disparaging rush, in an earlier thread).

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/16/2007 @ 11:22pm

  26. It's not entirely fair to say that he didn't lift a finger for Ned. It just so happens that it was the middle one.

    ~Haskells

    I smell something sizzling.

    I think you're getting torched here, Budd Lite (Metteyya ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 11:26pm

  27. You can send me any of the extra rush memorabilia, you Canadians keep lying around.

    ~Eric

    I just heard they're gonna tour in '08. I saw 'em several years ago in AZ, and they can still put on an excellent big venue show. Their latest release, Snakes and Arrows, is a well-crafted work.

    Ever since "Free Will" and "Spirit of Radio" hit the airwaves I've been a fan.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 11:31pm

  28. Posted by HASKELLS 12/16/2007 @ 11:19pm

    You still haven't explained why it was Hillary, NOT Obama, that voted for Kyl-Lieberman. If Obama were the Lieberman booster you suggest, he would have voted for Lieberman's resolution, just like Hillary, right?

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/16/2007 @ 11:34pm

  29. ted by B_KOOL_66 12/16/2007 @ 11:26pm

    Thanks for the kind words BK. Sometimes I think I'm the only person in the world who sees Obama through the mounds of bullshit and corporate cash and that ARE the Obama campaign. And don't even get me started on his creepy cultlike following.

    Posted by haskells at 12/16/2007 @ 11:42pm

  30. Metteyya, check this one out!

    Over the last few days Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have been conducting a long-range argument over health care that gets right to this issue. And I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve....

    As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.

    Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate....

    And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done.

    ~Paul Krugman in his fresh new op-ed

    Have yet another fireball, scarecrow ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 11:43pm

  31. You still haven't explained why it was Hillary, NOT Obama, that voted for Kyl-Lieberman. If Obama were the Lieberman booster you suggest, he would have voted for Lieberman's resolution, just like Hillary, right?

    I'm no Hillary apologist, but I'm nevertheless glad you asked. Obama stayed his scaredy-cat butt away from Washington so as to miss that vote. Once the smoke cleared and the focus group results came in he announced that he would have voted against it. Like I said, he makes HRC look resolute and courageous.

    Posted by haskells at 12/16/2007 @ 11:46pm

  32. Big Table Fantasies by Paul Krugman, NY Times 12/17/07

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 11:46pm

  33. Have yet another fireball, scarecrow ;-) Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/16/2007 @ 11:43pm | ignore this person

    I'll see your movie reference and raise you one:

    Audacity? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    Posted by haskells at 12/16/2007 @ 11:55pm

  34. I don't recognize that one. Hint(s)?

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/17/2007 @ 12:04am

  35. Posted by MALCONTENT 12/16/2007 @ 11:22pm

    YES!!!!!!!!!!

    one down, three million, six hundred and eleven thousand, one hundred and two to go!

    voting for someone like edwards is liking listening to rush. there's good and bad to both. they both can be cheesy. but i think of the corporate music available, rush makes a fine choice.

    hmmm,

    time for another look at the candidates:

    kucinich -- Sun Ra (pbuh), and his Intergalactic Arkestra*

    richardson --Pedro Infante

    obama -- Johnny Clegg

    edwards --Rush

    clinton -- Anita Bryant

    gravel -- Neil Young

    dodd --Herbert von Karajan**

    biden --Perry Como

    *forgive me mr. kucinich. in a frosty world, you'd get my vote***.

    **just kinda because dodd would look like karajan at the end of a long rave.

    ***of available candidates****.

    ****lisa simpson for president!*****

    *****for isn't lisa the only one in "springfield" who truly embodies****** that which is the true beauty of the u.s. constitution.

    ******FOXNEWS! JUST IN! "CANDIDATE SIMPSON SEEN AS 'TWO-DIMENSIONAL'"

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 12:08am

  36. I do know that Baracks book, "The Audacity of Hope" is way overwrought.

    Same as his audience cheers of "Bring the Fire".

    It's pretty obvious he has to repeat this nonsense over and over to hypnotize his audience into believing it.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/17/2007 @ 12:08am

  37. Fun post, FZ!

    It looks like Budd Lite has taken flight. And none too soon, as his tail feathers were starting to crackle.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/17/2007 @ 12:12am

  38. clinton -- Anita Bryant

    lol.

    edwards --Rush

    Alright now...he's not that appealing.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/17/2007 @ 12:15am

  39. edwards - gorgon lightfoot

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/17/2007 @ 12:16am

  40. ...or that guy gordon...

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/17/2007 @ 12:17am

  41. I don't recognize that one. Hint(s)? Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/17/2007 @ 12:04am

    The word in question was "inconceivable!" pronounced with a Sylvester-the-cat lisp and a lot of spittle.

    Posted by haskells at 12/17/2007 @ 12:18am

  42. The word in question was "inconceivable!" pronounced with a Sylvester-the-cat lisp and a lot of spittle.

    ~HASKELLS

    Ah yes! When in doubt consult your loony tunes. Thanks.

    It's fun to look some of that old stuff up on the web. I particularly like some of the Foghorn Leghorn quotes. But there's alot of gold in them old reels.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/17/2007 @ 12:25am

  43. I'm out.

    Til next time, adios amigos.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/17/2007 @ 12:26am

  44. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/17/2007 @ 12:12am

    thanks dude.

    the sandman approacheth i fear,

    and with his umber dust

    mine eyes weary of the lcd.

    'night, let knotteth the begbuds bitethththth.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 12:30am

  45. edwards --Rush

    Alright now...he's not that appealing.

    Posted by MALCONTENT 12/17/2007 @ 12:15am

    it was your line. i just wanted to segue.

    honestly, i wanted to pick Jim Nabors.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 12:38am

  46. Posted by HASKELLS 12/16/2007 @ 11:46pm

    But he OPPOSED both the Iraq and Iran wars BEFORE this became the popular position, so your focus-group story is not very plausible.

    He has even supported drivers licenses for illegals even though focus groups and polls of DEMOCRATS have shown this to be an unpopular position.

    Obama has the courage to take unpopular positions that he believes are the right thing to do, and then make the case to the American people why he believes this is the right position.

    Haskells, it appears that you have "Mama Warbucks" (<--Google this) Clinton, who calculates and pre-polls "all" of her positions, confused with Obama!

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/17/2007 @ 03:21am

  47. Lieberman is neither a Dem or a Rep. He is an Israelite, and of the hard line, pro-war especially against Iran.

    Someone in the blog (Happy???) admires him because of his 'principles'. Principles, overlap with ethics and even a pro-war person to which ethics are more than a word, should at least try to respect the facts that we have found in Iraq and now Iran.

    He backs McCain because of the candidate's strongest support of the war for sure. This is nothing more than a proof that Lieb works for the Israeli lobby. He has just used the Dem shirt as if it was a Patriot football shirt because New England has a lot of respect for Dems.

    I don't think that a person that shows that enormous bias in foreign policy should ever deserve to be a US Senator, because there is clear doubt around his allegiances in the first place. On the same page, I don't think that a person changes that much his political ideology, on the contrary, I believe he always was what he is showing today and so he was a wolf disguised as sheep. He is 'happy' since he has fooled everyone and has several years yet as Senator so the only thing left for Dems is to discredit him totally and brothers and sisters of Connecticut, please repudiate him.

    I really appreciate Al Gore, but how could his vision fail that much on this one? That is the multi million question!

    Posted by Frank42 at 12/17/2007 @ 04:02am

  48. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/17/2007 @ 12:04am

    "Vizzini" (Wallace Shawn) from "The Princess Bride"

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 09:01am

  49. Posted by MASK 12/16/2007 @ 9:23pm

    And voting FOR her does what exactly? I'll grant that whoever gets the Democratic nomination would have to spectacularly blow the campaign (like McGovern) to lose in the general election. But, I don't see how aiding in that outcome suddenly makes Clinton care about the issues I think are important - such as my concern about our militaristic foreign policy.

    If I am going to vote, why not vote Green or something else - for someone who is actually addressing my central issue?

    Posted by MASK 12/16/2007 @ 9:24pm

    I'm guessing you already know the answer - which is why you raised the question in the first place. You shouldn't be so coy about it.

    Here's the dirt: http://altweeklies.com/gyrobase/AltWeeklies/Story?oid=oid%3A142120

    Posted by HASKELLS 12/16/2007 @ 11:42pm

    You're not the only one.

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/17/2007 @ 12:25am

    I took at as a Princess Bride reference.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2007 @ 09:53am

  50. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/16/2007 @ 11:46pm

    Response to Paul Krugman:

    It is you, Paul, that are being naive, if you think "politics as usual" in Washington is the way to go forward in getting universal healthcare for all Americans. Hillary tried your "Let's fight and polarize the country" approach and where did it get her? Where did it get universal healthcare?

    "Politics as usual" pundits like yourself need to understand that we need to turn the page on the divisive partisan wars of the past if we are to bring about meaningful change in Washington. Simply digging a trench and drawing a line in the sand won't get you the votes that you need to pass universal healthcare legislation.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/17/2007 @ 10:04am

  51. Posted by SRJENKINS 12/17/2007 @ 09:53am

    Answer's quite simple, SRJ....

    There IS no "Dr. Lawrence Britt, political scientist".

    His name is "LaUrence Britt"...and he's no academic. He's a former corporate executive.

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 10:31am

  52. i found the original article here:

    http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2

    at the bottom of the page where the usually give the authors credentials it says this:

    "Laurence Britt's novel, "June, 2004", depicts a future America dominated by right-wing extremists."

    and nothing else.

    that article is everywhere, including as a quoted source on two qwiki pages.

    maybe he's trying to sell his book.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 10:43am

  53. Agree or disagree w/McCain's and/or Lieberman's stands on issues is one thing, but to attack them for standing by their own principles, and each other's friendship, just goes to show how small some people are...and which is exactly why Washington is f*&^ed UP!

    I would be proud to cast a vote for McCain for the General Election, even more so if Lieberman is on his ticket.....even though McCain is way too liberal on certain things....but, both of these men are trustworthy.....perhaps the last pols my generation, the Boomers, have faith and trust in!!!!!

    Lieberman Endorses McCain

    Dec 17, 9:28 AM (ET)

    By JENNIFER LOVEN

    HILLSBOROUGH, N.H. (AP) -

    .....Sen. Joseph Lieberman,.....said he chose his longtime Senate colleague because he has the best shot of breaking partisan gridlock in Washington.....

    "On all the issues, you're never going to do anything about them unless you have a leader who can break through the partisan gridlock," Lieberman said. "The status quo in Washington is not working."

    Independents can vote in New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary on Jan. 8 and they are the people McCain is targeting, much as he did in winning the state's Republican primary in 2000 over George W. Bush.

    Traveling with Lieberman Monday morning to Hillsborough's American Legion hall, McCain said the Connecticut senator is his answer to the people he hears in every town hall meeting who ask, "Why can't you all work together?"

    Lieberman said McCain's approach to Iraq and his credentials on national security are the main reasons he is throwing his support to a Republican for president.

    But both men said that the election seems increasingly about the economy and domestic issues, instead of Iraq. On those issues, Lieberman acknowledged he does not always see eye-to-eye with his 2008 pick. But, said Lieberman, McCain is always straightforward about where he stands.

    For McCain, behind in the polls here but gaining, the endorsement carries the risk of alienating conservatives who have been critical of his support for immigration and campaign finance reforms.

    "If I get some criticism for aligning myself with a good friend I have worked with for many years, I will be more than happy to accept that criticism," McCain said.

    For Lieberman, it marks another turn away from his party.

    "Political party is important, but it's not more important than what's good for the country and it's not more important than friendship," Lieberman said.....

    Posted by Happy at 12/17/2007 @ 11:06am

  54. maybe he's trying to sell his book.----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/17/2007 @ 10:43am

    Bingo.

    "Doctor" "Lawrence" Britt's 14 Signs of Fascism have been bouncing around the internet as spam for 4 years now. The "Doctor" part was added by the e-mailers (to heighten his supposed "academic credentials") and the "Americanization" of his first name (From "LaUrence" to "Lawrence") more a function of laziness.

    And it's more a bit of political rhetoric aimed specifically at the Bush Administration...since much of what Britt notes were in place WELL before 2001, if applied to every President back to Truman.

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 11:12am

  55. Posted by HAPPY 12/17/2007 @ 11:06am

    Who does the Lieberman endorsement WIN over for McCain?

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 11:14am

  56. Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 10:31am & @ 11:12am

    My point is why didn't you just supply the evidence rather than asking questions you already knew the answer to?

    The word you are looking for is meme. I don't find any evidence it was a common spam problem. I do find evidence it was copied and pasted into many people's websites - just as it was here.

    Other relevant differences? It was published. I can't think of any case of spam being published.

    You are clearly trying to indicate that it is disreputable, but you don't take issue with the content - which would be where his credentials would most matter. Nor do you take issue with it being applied to an American context - just that it shouldn't be limited to Bush.

    You take issue with his motivations - you think he is trying to sell books and the dishonesty that he is claimed to be a doctor when he is not. Can you be sure he just didn't write this piece as a hobby? Did he claim to be a PhD?

    We can look at the article and see he didn't claim to be a PhD and that the article is slightly more than an editorial, an essay and is more of an opinion piece than anything else. So in short, not particularly interesting or problematic - just a idea starter regarding fascism, which is pretty much how it was offered here. So what's your beef again?

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2007 @ 11:59am

  57. Posted by MASK 12/16/2007 @ 9:23pm

    I'm also still waiting for some kind of comment on your Goldilock's theory of politics - not too left, not too right and let's forget about the bears. Or should we call it politics of the knife fight over the 9mm? Politics of favoring the kick in the crotch over the stick in the eye? Or probably most accurate, politics of the status quo? Everything would just turn out alright if we could all return to those heady Clinton years. Please feel free to elaborate how this is any different from Ronald Reagan worship.

    Bottom line: Voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2007 @ 12:04pm

  58. So what's your beef again?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 12/17/2007 @ 11:59am

    That that "meme" has spun a doctorate for a man who didn't have one. All to lend credence to his claims that were primarily (if not solely) directed at the Bush Administration.

    So, apart from the usual HuffPost or, dare we say, "The Nation" blogger...."Dr." "LaWrence" Britt has no more (or less) authority to speak on fascism than...you...or me.

    And if he was on the RIGHT...you'd demand the same honesty

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 12:30pm

  59. Posted by SRJENKINS 12/17/2007 @ 12:04pm

    And I'm still waiting for the "SRJENKINS Alternative Theory for Implementation of a 'Progressive' Agenda"....what is it?

    You (and those who share your views both of policy and elections) sit out the elections....and then what?

    You expect the Dems to lose...the GOP guys to make things worse...and then the Dems "wise up" and start running as "Kucinich'ites" and pick up the pieces of the mess the Repubs leave behind in 2012?

    or what?

    What's the plan, Stan?

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 12:33pm

  60. This is the biggest non-news story of the whole campaign. Even less newsworthy than how much Edwards pays for a haircut ... almost.

    McCain is simply not going to win. And nobody really cares who Joe Lieberman supports.

    The story on Ron Paul raising a s___load of money yesterday is much more interesting, even though he's not going to win, either. Ron Paul's $$$ will carry him a lot further than a Lieberman endorsement.

    EV

    Posted by EnviroVarmint at 12/17/2007 @ 2:08pm

  61. Many years ago when Gore elevated Lieberman's status to VP nominee, I was wondering why Gore chose such a lightweight secnd tier politician to be his running mate. At that point, I didn't know anything about Lieberman, just by watching him few times on TV, I came to this conclusion.

    Gore was certainly guilty for such a mistake. Did he just want to choose a running mate who would not overshadow him?

    Later on watching Lieberman debated Chenny reinforced my instinct further. During the debate, in many closeups on TV, Lieberman behaved like he was praying and whispering "Amen, Amen." It instantly made me dislike him--he wore religion on his sleeves, trying to signal that he was holier than others. (how disgusting it was!)

    During the 2004 primary, Lieberman spoke his seemingly eqoquent but empty rhetorics throughout the debates, to me all was an phony politician's phony act.

    It was disappointing that Lieberman was not replaced in last year's election. I was not surprised though because I understood our celebrity culture and our can-easily-be-manuipluated electorates. After 2000 election, Lieberman has become a celebrity. It was very hard to beat a incumbent with celebrity status.

    We should not give up. We should keep trying until Lieberman is no longer in our face any more.

    Posted by may2002 at 12/17/2007 @ 3:15pm

  62. If the Democrats pick up two Senate seats, they can just kick Lieberman out of the caucus and deny him any committee seats. Even Chuck Schumer (my other worthless senator) said today that he wished Lieberman hadn't endorsed McCain. Schumer can destroy careers in the Senate, so let us see if he is angry enough to destroy Joe.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 3:34pm

  63. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 3:34pm

    You really don't know much about the US Senate or how US Senators deal with each other, do you?

    This is a body that the WORST of opponents will refer to their opposite as "My good friend" or "My colleague" in debates....and who collapse under pressure from their respective leadership...or cease heated discussion, if it seems "unseemly for the Senate".

    Dems pick up a veto-proof Senate in 2008....Joe Lieberman keeps his committee chairmanships, regardless.

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 3:44pm

  64. Posted by METTEYYA 12/17/2007 @ 03:21am But he OPPOSED both the Iraq and Iran wars BEFORE this became the popular position, so your focus-group story is not very plausible.

    War with Iran was popular? Did I oversleep again?

    Posted by METTEYYA 12/17/2007 @ 03:21am Obama has the courage to take unpopular positions . . .

    Name TWO. I dare ya. You only get credit if those positions DON'T coincide with corporatists' wish lists.

    Posted by haskells at 12/17/2007 @ 3:53pm

  65. Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 12:30pm

    I'm all for full disclosure - right or left. And you'll notice that I provided the link with the evidence once you raised the issue. Something you could have provided at the jump but decided it would be better to waste mine and other people's time first.

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 12:33pm

    Your standard tactic. The problem is in your framing and positing that more government is the solution to the problems of government. Further, instead of coming out and saying that you stand for the status quo, you ridicule the ideas of people that are against it - while at the same time admitting all the problems they highlight regarding governments, corporate influence and so forth.

    So, we have you taking the position that the status quo - even with all the problems you readily admit - is better than any other alternative. It's a politics of despair.

    Even if I had no other positive program, which I do and I went into rather specific detail several months ago for you and was greeted with silence, acknowledging that a politics that places Republicans on the "right" and Democrats on the "left" (in this world YOU are considered left) is a farce is at least a move to acknowledge the truth. You have to percieve the problem before you can do something about it - make that STEP 1 of my program.

    Now, please - what have you got? Hillary Clinton in office and then the end of Iraq? What exactly do you think will happen once you cast you 1/1XX,XXX,XXX of a voice? Well, it will be better than whatever turkey wins the Republican nomination? Yeah, great program you got there.

    Asking about other people's programs is a very clever way is disguising the fact that you have no program, no ideas - other than the mentality of the lessor evil. Stake out your own program and where you stand - and I'll play your role. Want a taste of what you like to dish out? Or would you rather just pass and give up on the program talk?

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2007 @ 4:03pm

  66. Posted by HASKELLS 12/17/2007 @ 3:53pm

    Haskells,

    I can see you are not being very honest about this, or you have a very poor memory. In 2002, when Obama opposed the Iraq war, opposing the war was not the popular thing. The American public was under the spell of Bush/Cheney lies and had Colin Powell tell them about mobile weapons of mass destruction.

    Drivers licenses for illegals is another unpopular position that Obama has taken, a position he believes in because of the complete breakdown of immigration reform at the national level.

    So there are two positions that are unpopular or were unpopular when Obama took the position.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/17/2007 @ 4:27pm

  67. Asking about other people's programs is a very clever way is disguising the fact that you have no program, no ideas - other than the mentality of the lessor evil. Stake out your own program and where you stand - and I'll play your role.----Posted by SRJENKINS 12/17/2007 @ 4:03pm

    First, my question to B_KOOL was to prove a point. That the automatic acceptance of "Dr" Britt's handy-dandy list and it's "academic credibility" is more Internet crap. Socratically tried to see if B_KOOL would figure that out for himself, but as you insisted on "revealing the trick"...I did.

    What pisses you off about that is that Britt's "authority" was just eviscerated, and since he was saying things that you liked...you don't like it. Again, if it was some RIGHT-winger claiming that a supposed "PhD" was recalling the failures of socialism...and he wasn't a doctorate holder...you'd be all over it.

    Second, on your major point....Prove it. I'll happily apologize if I happen to have missed your plan from "several months back", but I don't seem to recall seeing it.

    For both elucidation and crushing me rhetorically, would you care to repeat it, so that YOU can prove yourself the one "offering a program" and I am not.

    Just a few short paragraphs (less than what you wrote attacking me even) and one that offers SOLUTIONS, not just recitations of "the PROBLEM".

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 4:31pm

  68. Response to Paul Krugman:

    It is you, Paul, that are being naive, if you think "politics as usual" in Washington is the way to go forward in getting universal healthcare for all Americans. Hillary tried your "Let's fight and polarize the country" approach and where did it get her? Where did it get universal healthcare?

    "Politics as usual" pundits like yourself need to understand that we need to turn the page on the divisive partisan wars of the past if we are to bring about meaningful change in Washington. Simply digging a trench and drawing a line in the sand won't get you the votes that you need to pass universal healthcare legislation.

    Posted by METTEYYA 12/17/2007 @ 10:04am | ignore this person

    Speaking of a poor memory! The Clintons took single payer off the table from the start, even as polls showed it was the most popular option with the public, and instead came up with a plan that preserved the stranglehold of private insurance, the HMOs and Big Pharma on our health care. I honestly can't remember what the powers that be didn't like about the plan - probably the ounce of patient/consumer rights it built in - but they were the ones who polarized the country. The Clintons hardly fought at all, and they sure as hell didn't start it, gutless, centrist, DLC'er opportunists that they are.

    And that description isn't too far off from Obama, as far as I can tell. I'd never vote for any of them, but Edwards is probably the least wretched of the big 3.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/17/2007 @ 5:04pm

  69. Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 4:31pm

    It basically had a few main points: barracks style housing for anyone that wanted it in exchange for a few hours of work or the money equivalent, low-cost or minimum work arrangements for basic food at soup kitchens housed in same barracks, low-skill minimum wage work for anyone that wanted it (think alternative to military service with no contracts of indentured servitude), initial goal of reducing education indebtness by 50% within 5 years with a long-term goal of making college education available the same as public school, local control over media licensing and support for fostering media diversity through seed-money (focus being on diversity rather than profits), universal availability to a standard set of preventative health care measures (physicals, blood tests, emergency room care, immunizations) at no cost, and drastically reduce "defense" spending to pay for it.

    Then, let business compete to provide better jobs, housing, food, education, and healthcare than what people can get from the government that is provided for everyone at minimal cost. Let government be like Wal-Mart - but making the economies of scale work for meeting people's basic needs.

    It's too bad that The Nation doesn't have good indexing in Google, or I would have simply referred you to the previous post. Ideally, people working together could provide all of these services and government would be unnecessary. But if you want a government solution, here....you have one.

    Now, start all your criticism of how this wouldn't work or whatever. The bottom line is you are still left with lessor evilism and you have no other alternatives than vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is - whatever their positions or what they stand for.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2007 @ 5:26pm

  70. Good job Joe Lieberman!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/17/2007 @ 4:18pm

    now, THERE'S an endorsement!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 5:58pm

  71. ....I don't think that a person that shows that enormous bias in foreign policy should ever deserve to be a US Senator, because there is clear doubt around his allegiances in the first place.....

    Posted by FRANK42 12/17/2007 @ 04:02am

    I'm going to assume at 4 am in the morning, or even 1 am Pacific, your mind is off-peak......

    "enormous bias in foreign policy"?????? I suppose you would consider honoring any security/economic pacts as evidence of "bias"........You believe ZERO-baseline-based foreign policy where each year, we `budget' next year's foreign policy `biases' based on existing and projected foreign events/crises.....

    Say, we want to buddy up to Iran in `08, so let's drop Israel's aid to $1 next year.......and instead, give it to Iran to buy Russian nuke fuel? Just to make it `fair and balanced' so folks like you won't equate Pro-Israel as being Pro-War w/Iran.

    Posted by Happy at 12/17/2007 @ 5:59pm

  72. I have a question for MELBER's fan club....

    This thread is Lieberman's "New Kiss of Death".....can someone bring us up to speed as to what MELBER called Joe's `Old' Kiss of Death? Did Joe "Kiss" Ned? or the Dem Party?

    Posted by Happy at 12/17/2007 @ 6:02pm

  73. Posted by CKA2ND 12/17/2007 @ 5:04pm

    It was Edwards who was a card-carrying member of the DLC when he was in the senate and thought being a centrist was the ticket to the White House!

    Most Democrats are starting to catch on to this act by Edwards and now regard him as a phony progressive who just desperately wants to be president.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/17/2007 @ 6:08pm

  74. Posted by HAPPY 12/17/2007 @ 6:02pm

    we all know what joe kisses. and we all know whose.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 6:11pm

  75. Posted by METTEYYA 12/17/2007 @ 4:27pm

    1. Iraq: He was against the Iraq invasion until he was first asked to fund it three years ago. Since then he's been unequivocally for. In fact he famously refused to support a resolution to censure Bushie for lying us into it.

    2. Licenses: I'll grant you that he hasn't always been a gutless, vain, unprincipled demagogue. I'm just saying that he is one now. But I will say that he frames his position on drivers' licenses in terms of Safety, not immigration, appropriately enough. Besides, the sponsor withdrew the bill before it came up for a vote, so in practical terms, he never cast a vote on it one way or another.

    Posted by haskells at 12/17/2007 @ 6:45pm

  76. Posted by METTEYYA 12/17/2007 @ 6:08pm | ignore this person

    That is true, he was. His conversion is very timely.

    Poverty and the John Edwards Fraud [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by V at 12/17/2007 @ 6:46pm

  77. Posted by V 12/17/2007 @ 6:46pm

    The "fighting the corporations all my life" thing is also suspect. As a NC State graduate and graduate of UNC law school, what sort of options did he have if he wanted to make the big bucks? He couldn't go the white-shoe corporate route like the Duke law graduates across town because these firms don't recruit from UNC. So either you become a government lawyer like a prosecutor or public defender, which don't make that much money, or you chase ambulances, and at least have "a shot" and making big dough, which is what Edwards did.

    You take the big settlement and judgment opportunity away, and I doubt Edwards would have chased ambulances at all. In other words, he really didn't dislike corporations, they were just the deepest pockets available to sue in his desire to become a very wealthy man.

    I wish we could hear from all of those "would-be" plaintiffs that were TURNED AWAY as potential clients of Edwards because the defendants did not have deep enough pockets (i.e., Edwards settlement check wouldn't crack 7 digits). These would-be plaintiffs would expose Edwards as just another huckster lawyer out there trying to get rich, and his anti-corporate rhetoric as very hollow.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/17/2007 @ 7:19pm

  78. Poverty and the John Edwards Fraud [tinyurl.com] Posted by V 12/17/2007 @ 6:46pm

    Let me get this straight: this yoohoo is against John Edwards because he thinks work is one solution to the problem of poverty? Ever heard of the CWA? TVA? WPA? These government programs employed thousands of Americans and, yes, lifted them out of poverty. It's called the "New Deal". Look it up. And tell a friend.

    Posted by haskells at 12/17/2007 @ 7:39pm

  79. Posted by METTEYYA 12/17/2007 @ 7:19pm

    IOW, he was the best in his field, and he made a difference in the lives of his clients, but his HEART probably wasn't in it. How unlike you to be skeptical of a candidate's motives and the sincerity of their rhetoric. Would that you could turn that critical eye on someone who, for example, cowers in a corner while Chris Dodd steps forward to fillibuster a bill calling for amnesty for telecomms. Fillibusters, while confrontation, are often effective in bringing attention to issues that define our, you know, freedom.

    Posted by haskells at 12/17/2007 @ 7:51pm

  80. Mett, nice speculation and amateur psychology. Really deep thought. You didn't actually provide evidence that he wasn't fighting big corporations as a private attorney, you just impugned his motivations on the basis of exactly zero evidence. If you want to start a discussion about his days as a trial lawyer, maybe look up cases he tried and figure out who he was going after. Besides that all you provide us is your personal testimonial, as an Obama supporter, that Edwards is not to be trusted. Big news. I will counter with my equally important testimonial that, as an Edwards supporter, I think Obama is centrist who focuses on transcending partisan divides because he is not on the left to begin with. Now we are tied.

    It seems to me that you think Edwards changed his positions in order to get elected. A good criticism to bring up. I have argued that his change in positions made him less likely (because he lost the oppurtunity to get money from the sources your guy does and because the media doesn't cover people without money much, because they don't think they can win) to get elected, and that this was predictable. To my knowledge you have never responded. Have you always stopped reading comment threads right before I post that response or what? I mean surely you have thought this criticism through enough to have a response to such a simple objection as mine.

    These would-be plaintiffs would expose Edwards as just another huckster lawyer out there trying to get rich, and his anti-corporate rhetoric as very hollow.

    Do you have any reason to believe this, or is this just the expression of a hope?

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 7:52pm

  81. Mask, thanks for the question, and yes I do understand how the Senate works. Glad I could satsify your curiosity.

    I know that when people break with a party enough vengeance is swift. When Lieberman ran as an independent corporate democrats like Schumer could say to themselves 'He is still with us, he was forced into this by Lamont.' Endorsing McCain not just for the Republican nomination but for the Presidency, when Senator Clinton is likely to be the democratic nominee is a different thing entirely. I am basing my hope on what I take to be a fact about the Senate, ideas don't matter nearly as much as preserving party power. Schumer, being the head of the Senate re-election committee, is as establishment as it gets, and I have no problem seeing him strip his friend of all power in the Senate.

    Plus there are electoral considerations involved. Lieberman is a risk to to caucus with the Republicans, and votes with them on every foreign policy matter. Stripping him of power allows a Democrat to run in '12 both on a platform of being more progressive and being able to do more for Conn. Turns a purple seat with no party loyalty into a blue seat indebted to party leaders.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 8:01pm

  82. he lost the oppurtunity to get money from the sources your guy does and because the media doesn't cover people without money much, because they don't think they can win) to get elected, and that this was predictable.

    Where is the grassroots fundraising by Edwards? Has he even raised 10% of the grassroots (multiple $20 donations) money as Obama?

    I think Edwards calculated that he could raise the grassroots money but has failed. He has failed, not because he is a true progressive, but because most progressives haven't forgotten his DLC roots and voting record. If the DLC had not fallen out of favor with most Democrats, I'm sure we would hear Edwards playing up his centrist voting record as a senator and not this hollow anti-corporation rhetoric.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/17/2007 @ 8:36pm

  83. How unlike you to be skeptical of a candidate's motives and the sincerity of their rhetoric.

    All we have to do is look at the 28,000 square foot house he is building and we all know what his motives were. Just curious...how many bedrooms does a 28,000 square foot house have? I didn't know he had such a big family! I wonder what the poor that he says he wants to help think about his over-sized house?

    Material excess shows where your HEART really is, especially for a place you call home.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/17/2007 @ 8:46pm

  84. Mett,

    As for the fundraising claim, please provide a source. Further, percentage wise more of Edwards's support is from small donors.

    And here is my source http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008

    Edwards gets less money from every major industry except lawyers.

    And here is my source http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=B02

    Now when you consider that people with a little money to give can be governed by the same considerations as govern those with lots of money you have a good explanation for why Edwards hasn't done as well, and could predict not having done as well with small donors. If you think a candidate is almost sure to lose, it can be hard to rationalize giving them money. Edwards hasn't gotten as much media attention as Obama and Clinton since early this summer and cannot afford to campaign the way they do. These things help determine electability judgments.

    If you can't discuss the issues, and you won't source your fundraising claims, I understand why all you are left with is baseless speculation about the candidate's heart. I suppose you know about Obama's heart from looking into his soul through the TV set or some such nonsense (your claim about houses amounts to the claim that rich people who spend their money cannot care about the poor. Very biblical. Perhaps right. I hope you understand that I care more about whether rich people are capable of helping the poor. And they are. Whatever his motivations FDR helped the poor, and I bet his estate in Hyde Park is nicer than Edwards' house.). I suppose knowing his heart means you can ignore that is being funded by people from very anti-progressive industries.

    I know Edwards is not the ideal candidate, and I know he might not believe what he says he does. I think the odds of getting good progressive change are best with him and I have explained why, with no rebuttal from you. But reasonable people admit they do not know these candidates' characters that well. What we do know is what they supported in the past, what they say they support now, what they are staking the presidential bid on, and who gives them money. Any other speculation belongs in People magazine, or perhaps Teen People.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 9:31pm

  85. Posted by HASKELLS 12/17/2007 @ 7:39pm

    people receiving government assistance should be out planting trees (if they are physically fit). lots of trees.

    same goes for DEFENCE (as opposed to attack) forces.

    go forth and plant!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 9:38pm

  86. Posted by SRJENKINS 12/17/2007 @ 5:26pm

    SRJ, I think you are confused.

    I wasn't looking for your "Great Society-II" programs for fighting poverty, boosting education, etc.

    I was looking for...how you implement such an agenda, by sitting out election after election, and either distancing "progressives" such as yourself from the DNC....or allowing the Repubs to win, and make things worse.

    How...will your plans EVER get implemented? How will people you WANT to be elected ever get elected? What scenario brings that about?

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 10:00pm

  87. Posted by SRJENKINS 12/17/2007 @ 5:26pm

    ....a few main points: barracks style housing for anyone that wanted it in exchange for a few hours of work or the money equivalent,

    Where would such "barrack style housing" be located? On cheap real estate where there is little (public or private) work, or on RE like City Hall parking lot or downtown park? How will these folks get to work? If public work, litter patrol and such, won't AFSCME object? If private work, won't there be cries of exploitation of barrack-dwellers? And, what if few "anyone" wants to do these make-work nor wish to live in "barrack style housing" that will impose some kind of order, quiet hours, lights out and such? Maybe many prefer to stay in existing public rat-trap housing or highway underpasses and only seek shelter for very, very severe weather? It can't be denied that one reason SOME people remain poor is the inability or unwillingness to abide by rules set by employers/society.

    ...low-cost or minimum work arrangements for basic food at soup kitchens housed in same barracks,...

    What do you consider "low-cost" and "minimum work arrangement"? My guess is the "low-cost" is to be sub-Minimum Wage and in cash....like Day labors...paid only if one shows up and work. As to "work arrangement", how many times do a park or public property needs to be patrolled for litter? or flower beds weeded? or sidewalk cleared of snow? Again, won't AFSCME complain that these "low-cost" folks are undercutting the growth of their workforce and wages?

    ...low-skill minimum wage work for anyone that wanted it (think alternative to military service with no contracts of indentured servitude),....

    Similar stuff as before! BTW, minimum wage work is all over the place with few takers....at least here in Houston where the economy is nice and toasty....not enough wants them...though panhandlers seem to be at their usual places.

    Overriding all these seemingly good ideas, is your presumption that most you think ought to be in your "barrack" world, will in fact choose it over whatever their current arrangements are. Somehow, I doubt it. Another thing, how big a layer of supervisory do-gooders will this require? Will they be properly trained to handle folks that fall heavily into this stratum of society? How will you protect these do-gooders doing good? And then there is the money and all its assorted problems.

    NO, SRJ, the type of programs you are likely thinking, like during the Great Depression, is NOT the proper model. Then, some 30% of the people lost their jobs...it's not that those 30% never held steady jobs...they knew what work required and can be organized to do actual work...like the major infrastructures that got built during those years....you had a broad spectrum of skills to draw upon to do real work, not just BS work like litter control or removing graffities.

    Posted by Happy at 12/17/2007 @ 10:43pm

  88. Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 10:00pm

    Mask, I'll remind you that I didn't sit out last election. I may not sit out this election. I don't think government, and by extension electoral politics, is the solution to many of society's problems. In fact, it is the source of many of them.

    Let's imagine that my central issue is peace and the reduction of "defense" spending. How do I get my agenda implemented by voting Democrat or Republican? I can't.

    Now, I could waste a lot of time trying to build a third party and get "progressive" people elected. But it isn't the only method - nor a particularly effective one at that. There's picketing, counter-recruiting, tax resistance, helping pay for people that live in Iraq to come to the U.S. and speak of their experiences, supporting Christian Peacemaker Teams, supporting the creation of the Department of Peace and on and on. If I must do electoral politics, there is also voting for a third-party to demonstrate that people moving in the right direction might be able to earn my vote.

    There is a whole world of creating pressure on the government to change its policies that don't have anything to do with getting people elected. The problem is that you think the ballot box and getting people elected is the answer to every political problem - when in fact, it is the citizen's weakest weapon.

    This framework is also why you have no political imagination outside of two-party politics. I don't know how you stomach that kind of politics of despair - but you'll not sell me on it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2007 @ 10:56pm

  89. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 9:31pm

    $200 is the cutoff for federal disclosure. The multiple $20 grassroots donations don't show up there. If you look at opensecrets.com's full disclosure table, you see a $30 million dollar difference between total raised and the full disclosure amount.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/17/2007 @ 11:01pm

  90. ...we all know what joe kisses. and we all know whose.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/17/2007 @ 6:11pm

    I know for a fact Joe doesn't kiss me and I donated to his campaign while he was still a Dem. The first money I have ever given to a Dem.

    Sure, as a pol, he surely kissed some asses that he would rather skip. But ain't that true for all of us, even the self-employed, like us? Don't you give out FROSTY kisses to your pupils (certainly their parents) and the party organizers and bar owners hoping for more gigs? Don't you just grin and bear it when some customers really deserve to be ripped to shreds?

    The reason McCain and Joe are respected by most people, are considered mavericks, are not as `loved' by their own party's `Establishment', are precisely what leadership calls for. Those that come up the `system', being Party Loyalists, cultivate the usual K-St. friends, are the Mainstream Pols everyone on this board is cynical of.

    Though I am not invested in the GOP nomination fight, I wouldn't mind at all to see McCain to be among the top two as we go toward the wire. McCain will have a tougher fight getting to be the Nominee than, IMHO, winning the General.....that "Electability"...and No, McCain won't hold the youth of his opponents against them, all of them.

    Posted by Happy at 12/17/2007 @ 11:01pm

  91. Way to go, Joe...Better a DINO than a RINO, I always say......

    Posted by davebarlett at 12/17/2007 @ 11:07pm

  92. Now, I could waste a lot of time trying to build a third party and get "progressive" people elected.----Posted by SRJENKINS 12/17/2007 @ 10:56pm

    I'm sorry, SRJ, but ...you've eliminated EVERY means of getting your agenda implemented. All those "pickets" and "supportings"...don't do a damn thing directly.

    They CAN influence REPRESENTATIVES to do something, but on their own, without causing a law to be passed or a program to be implemented...they're meaningless.

    We live in a representative democracy (cynically challenged or otherwise). That means that we ELECT people who implement the public policies we want and force them via both "protests", letter-writing, etc.....AND threatening them with loss of their jobs...to do what we elect them to do.

    And everybody gets to vote (again hopefully) and if YOUR side wins...you get the politicians YOU like in office to make the changes.

    If your side loses...you don't.

    And we have two parties, and for over 150 years, they did a tepid to pretty good job. Hashing it out and moving across the ideological spectrum as the electorate and situation changed.

    But what HASN'T worked is isolating yourself (or those who believe as you do), by saying "If MY guy doesn't get the Party's nomination, I'm taking my ball and going home."

    or more recently, "If DENNIS doesn't get the nom, and it's that corporate shill (insert other Dem here)...I'M not voting".

    Because the options are: (A) He (or she) wins, running to the Center and learning that they CAN win without you...as opposed to considering you a substantial part of what got them elected.

    or (B) the Other Guys win...and the Guys Closer to You learn that there's no pleasing YOU and the rest of the country...so they might as well try to be "nicer versions" of the Other Guys and steal some of THEIR vote.

    BTW, all of this is friendly, if non-supportive advice. By that I mean, I am a "moderate" "centrist" "pragmatist" whatever and if the Kucinich guys (you maybe?) get left aside...as I hope the Religious Right guys (like LVLIB) do....so much the better.

    I'm just telling you why you're being self-defeating!

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 11:11pm

  93. Posted by HAPPY 12/17/2007 @ 11:01pm

    maybe this little ditty will enlighten thee:

    Pro-Israel: Top 20 Recipients

    Election cycle: 2006 List Top 20: Rank

    Lieberman, Joe (I-CT) Senate $1,204,890

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 11:16pm

  94. Posted by MARKCANYON 12/17/2007 @ 11:29pm

    but frank42 is not an anti-semite.

    nor scum.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 11:37pm

  95. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 9:31pm

    If you compare Edwards full disclosure amounts with total raised, he has about $13m in -$200 contributions, compared to Obama's $30m; so Obama is raising almost three times more grassroots cash than Edwards.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 12:31am

  96. You know you always think such-n-such poster is THE craziest poster on the blog....

    and then MARKHIMMLER shows up to prove you wrong!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 09:20am

  97. Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 11:11pm

    I'm familiar with your myopic vision of politics. All I can say it is a good thing that the people in Chicago didn't wait to get their guy elected into office for government to pass a law for the eight hour day - or the Silent Sentinels - or Upton Sinclair - or John Woolman - or the copious other examples. Change can be compelled regardless of whether politicians I like (or you like or LVL likes) are in office. Change can occur individually, within smaller groups and so forth and build organically until it has the desired result, often decades later. Hard to see that when your vision only extends to the next election cycle - see your constant references to 2012 as an example.

    As you correctly note, the electoral system is geared toward far right-wing and just plain ordinary right - which means that helping to get plain ordinary right doesn't help my agenda. But, luckily, we know if we bother to study a little history - which I take that you do, which is why it is surprising this lesson is so difficult for you to grasp - that any major change rarely begins with electoral politics.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2007 @ 09:58am

  98. that is you zooming to the top.

    Posted by MARKCANYON 12/18/2007 @ 04:13am

    why, thank you.

    how's the brimstone?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 10:17am

  99. Posted by SRJENKINS 12/18/2007 @ 09:58am

    SRJ, atleast the "myopic" can still see, at close range....

    while the BLIND cannot see at all!

    Again, what's the scenario? How do the representatives who will implement the SRJ Plan come to office? Does it REQUIRE some major crises or disaster? And if so, aren't you essentially saying that the ONLY way your "kind" of political representation comes to power is if....the country as a whole suffers?

    How does it come to pass?

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 10:47am

  100. ...any major change rarely begins with electoral politics.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 12/18/2007 @ 09:58am

    This observer of your `duel', has to agree w/above!

    But, "rarely" also applies, once a generation or two, where a visionary leader AND orator, NOT from the Washington `elites', burst on the stage to affect "major change". That "rarely" happened in 1980!

    Posted by Happy at 12/18/2007 @ 10:51am

  101. By the way, I believe I've found...

    MRS CANYON [en.wikipedia.org]

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 10:51am

  102. Posted by HAPPY 12/17/2007 @ 10:43pm

    The point is to provide a base standard that people can choose or not choose, as they see fit. If business can provide better opportunities so that few decide to go this route - great. The model is more akin to the military, just changing the military focus to domestic improvement.

    Again, won't AFSCME complain that these "low-cost" folks are undercutting the growth of their workforce and wages...BTW, minimum wage work is all over the place with few takers.

    Which is it Happy? AFSCME wants to do minimum wage work (and get it defined according to their wage scale) or that there is some work that people won't do?

    I don't deny that some people prefer to be homeless, there are issues that would need to be worked out and so forth. The point is that going a route like this effectively provides the same kind of pressure that you say will happen if you cut down on illegal immigration. Wages and benefits will rise to above what is being offered under this program - because business will no longer have an unemployment rate of 5% and offer nothing, because where are people going to go? It also provides an alternative to the military. Win-win.

    ...is your presumption that most you think ought to be in your "barrack" world, will in fact choose it over whatever their current arrangements are...

    Actually, I presume the opposite. The whole reason it is described so unpleasantly is to demonstrate that it is not all that attractive. It would also make it clear that people living below this standard are choosing it - and not that they don't have the opportunity.

    Another thing, how big a layer of supervisory do-gooders will this require? Will they be properly trained to handle folks that fall heavily into this stratum of society?

    Less than the military, and if the military can figure out how to train people to train other people to kill on command - many from this stratum of society as you put it, I think we can manage this relatively minor problem in comparison. I'll not even mention the fact that prisons hire out prisoners to private corporations under programs like the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program. Why not provide something similar before people get put in jail?

    ...you had a broad spectrum of skills to draw upon to do real work...

    People joining the military don't know how to fire a weapon, use the radio, drive a tank. We train them to do these things. You may have seen that they actually use that as a recruiting tool. How is this different again? Why can't people be trained to complete projects - and build the very skills that are needed?

    Further, this is a perfect example of where business cannot solve the problem because they have a disincentive to put upward pressure on the prevaling minimum wage. Government, however, doesn't have this disincentive.

    Posted by HAPPY 12/18/2007 @ 10:51am

    Was this major change the first war of terror that liked to go by another name, such as the "War on Drugs"? I'll pass on Ron's and George's Death Squad Democracy - thank you very much.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2007 @ 1:12pm

  103. Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 10:47am

    Review the Women's Suffrage movement from Seneca Falls in 1848 to the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment - and tell me about the role of electoral politics. I can't think of a more perfect example.

    We can reflect on Margaret Sanger and how her elected representatives weren't instrumental in bringing about Griswold v. Connecticut.

    I could go on all day. The fact is that you are being willfully ignorant in your belief that electoral politics is the end-all-to-be-all. Sanger didn't have a plan to make it to Griswold v. Connecticut when she opened her first family planning clinic. But, it happened because she didn't wait for her "representatives" to do it for her.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2007 @ 1:25pm

  104. BTW, all of this is friendly, if non-supportive advice. By that I mean, I am a "moderate" "centrist" "pragmatist" whatever and if the Kucinich guys (you maybe?) get left aside...as I hope the Religious Right guys (like LVLIB) do....so much the better.

    I'm just telling you why you're being self-defeating!

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 11:11pm

    So... are you saying a vote for hillary is pure, rational pragmatism?

    Or are you implying here, that if kucinich were viable, a vote for him would be tepid and pragmatic?

    If kucinich, somehow won, would you still vote dem.?

    And if it were somehow possible for him to face clinton in the general election, whom would you choose then?

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/18/2007 @ 1:45pm

  105. Posted by MARKCANYON 12/17/2007 @ 11:29pm

    "Of course not exactly an Israelite. Those were allegedly displaced Canaanites who had drifted into Egypt and who then trekked back home, under Moses. They hadn't yet developed their primitive religion..."

    You do realize, this is a blog about 21st. century politics, not 1st century mythology, don't you?

    Or are you retarded, as well as vile?

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/18/2007 @ 1:47pm

  106. ...Why can't people be trained to complete projects - and build the very skills that are needed?...

    Posted by SRJENKINS 12/18/2007 @ 1:12pm

    Of course people can be trained and everyone shares this common ground of wanting the no/low skill labor force to move upward. By your idea of barrack living etc. then, such people will be provided for (room & board), and their children babysat, while undergoing training...say a couple of million around the country. Besides the obvious LARGE amount of funding needed, who on the Left do you think would oppose this? Do you suppose the Welders', Plumbers', SEIU, etc. would go for this?

    Me and many Conservatives? I/we would love to see these `graduates' take over the jobs that the illegal immigrants have mostly taken over, certainly here on the border states!

    Training using military as the model? Don't think so! Discipline makes a world of difference in focusing efforts to learn.....plus, there are known/guaranteed financial incentives in and after military service.

    Anything large scale in the civilian world will f*&^ up when the biggest variable is human nature.....however, I DO agree w/you that on the small, local level, ALL OF US CAN make a difference. It's why I (now) work part-time for the charter school movement/program and have been doing more-than-my-share in helping the poor through Scouting-related activities. My 17-yr old, as his Eagle Scout project, will likely tackle a beautification project for a public elementary school serving low-income kids without an active nor well-off PTO.

    Posted by Happy at 12/18/2007 @ 1:51pm

  107. Posted by HAPPY 12/18/2007 @ 1:51pm

    Besides the obvious LARGE amount of funding needed, who on the Left do you think would oppose this?

    It's an investment, and it is more valuable than Iraq, Star Wars and a whole host of funding that gets labeled as "defense". If you define the left as labor unions, then most of them. Although, I think you could argue that it could add to their membership and work out a deal, particularly if you used union work to provide skilled labor for the projects (starting with building barracks and perhaps teach people their skills in the process), etc.

    ...plus, there are known/guaranteed financial incentives in and after military service...

    Provide similar incentives - people that don't want or don't have the discipline to learn skills, get stuck doing the unfun, unskilled work - and if not enough folks to do it, then rotate it - just as the military does.

    There is also no reason this cannot be run on a local level. Create an organizational blueprint and create cells. Think Catholic Worker movement, small autonomous groups, but with organizational (government) support. These can increase or decrease based on demand. Hit above or below certain size, then split and form a new one or combine or faze the program out.

    It may be that this isn't exactly what is needed. But what we need is pilot programs to try different ideas out. Ever read Leading the Revolution and Shell's program for driving innovation? Ideas get sent to committee, defined turn around times and each progression you get bigger and bigger pilots that eventually get integrated across the whole organization. Government should take best practice from business (and vice versa) and find new and better ways to do its function.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2007 @ 2:15pm

  108. Posted by SRJENKINS 12/18/2007 @ 1:25pm

    Okay, let's review...

    between "Seneca Falls" and the 19th Amendment---72 years (1920-1848)

    between Sanger's opening of the Brownsville clinic and the "Griswold" decision----49 years (1965-1916)

    Are you saying the "SRJ Scenario" involves a 49 to 72 year time-frame?

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 2:19pm

  109. Posted by MALCONTENT 12/18/2007 @ 1:45pm

    If Dennis were the Democratic nominee...I'd vote for him. Simply because I DO NOT want "more of the same", which all but Ron Paul on the Republican side promise.

    If it were some hypothetical "Hillary vs Dennis" match-up....I'd probably vote for Dennis, with the understanding that he would be blocked by Congress on his more hippie-dippie ideas...and appoint "counter-balance" USSC Justices....and that he'd avoid "wars of choice", but would be impeached if he took a "Pearl Harbor" and didn't do anything about it.

    But "Hillary vs. GOP"....I don't stay home on November 4th and WAIT for "the Revolution".

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 2:22pm

  110. Can ARI MELBER, or MASK, explain McCain's fortune turning up....leading to the "Kiss" or caused in part, by the "Kiss".....

    Killing me softly with his Kiss, KILLING ME softly, with his kiss.....(credit: Roberta Flack)

    Posted by Happy at 12/18/2007 @ 3:18pm

  111. [A]ll things excellent are as difficult as they are rare. - Baruch Spinoza

    You see the beauty of my proposal is / It needn't wait on general revolution / I bid you to the one-man revolution--/ The only revolution that is coming. - Robert Frost in Build Soil

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2007 @ 6:32pm

  112. Posted by MARKCANYON 12/18/2007 @ 11:06pm

    I care not about the specifics of any biblical bullshit.

    "It amounts to a tacit demonstration that Malcontent fully shares my feelings about the Jews."

    Your fervent desire to project your hate on everybody else notwithstanding, you logic here, is baffling.

    Your delusions do not amount to my dishonesty.

    You are clueless.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/19/2007 @ 01:27am

  113. " Your feelings are as clear as are your hypocrisy and cowardice."

    Posted by MARKCANYON 12/19/2007 @ 04:22am

    Hey... did we used to date? You make as much sense as my psycho ex...

    BTW, my feelings are opaque, my hypocrisy, non-existent....and my cowardice is kinda yellow-eyish...

    But at least I am not a hate consumed asshole.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/19/2007 @ 10:24am

  114. Posted by MARKCANYON 12/19/2007 @ 8:18pm

    Where do you get this shit from?

    I have made zero characterizations to you, beyond my disdain for your existence and assorted smart ass remarks.

    I don't like leiberman so I am an anti-semite?

    You are a loon. You no longer amuse me. I am done with you.

    Fuck off.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/19/2007 @ 9:44pm

About the Authors

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Bill Moyers Tells a Tale of Two Quagmires: Vietnam & Afghanistan | "Once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it..."
John Nichols
65 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
115 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
76 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
204 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
62 Comments