Lieberman, Lamont and the Future of the Democrats

The last time that Democratic primary voters turned out a nationally-known U.S. Senator because they did not like where he stood on an issue of war and peace was in 1970, when Texas Democrats rejected anti-war incumbent Ralph Yarborough and replaced him with Lloyd Bentsen, a former congressman who favored taking a tougher line against the Vietcong in Vietnam and against student protesters on the campuses of the United States.

The Texas result was big news nationally, and it played a significant part in the decision of the Nixon White House to try and stir up a "silent majority" backlash to congressional liberals in that fall's Senate races.

Thirty-six years later, in a very different state, Democratic primary voters may avenge Yarborough's loss and set in motion a backlash of another character altogether.

If anti-Iraq War challenger Ned Lamont defeats pro-war incumbent Joe Lieberman in today's contest for the Democratic Senate nod in Connecticut, and if Democrats in Washington finally figure our that no message energizes their base so much as the "Bring the Troops Home" signal that Lamont has sent, then the 2006 election could yet be the referendum on George W. Bush's misguided policies that Democrats denied voters in 2002 and 2004.

There were a lot of "ifs" and "coulds" in that previous paragraph. Here's why: Though Lamont took a poll lead several weeks ago, there were some indications in the final days of the race that Lieberman was making something of a comeback. A Quinnipiac poll released yesterday had Lamont at 51 percent and Lieberman at 45 percent – suggesting a closer contest than the one seen in polls from last week, which had Lamont up by 10 to 13 points.

Could Lieberman still win this thing? It's not beyond the realm of possibility. Though his reelection campaign has been pathetic, and though he is dramatically out of touch with Democrats on the war issue, the incumbent retains strong name recognition, he has most of the major endorsements from interest groups and newspapers in the state, and he has spent a lot of money on a bitterly negative television advertising campaign against Lamont.

It is the prospect that Lieberman could have a little more going for him than has seemed to be the case through much of the primary fight that has the Lamont campaign working harder than ever today. The narrowing of the polls is likely to bump turnout, perhaps to an unprecedented 45 or 50 percent of the potential primary electorate. The best bet is that this will help Lamont, but the uncertainty about who all these new voters might be – in a state where it is relatively easy for Republicans and independents to reregister as Democrats and participate in the primary – will have everyone on edge until the results are in this evening.

Even if Lamont wins, there is still that bigger "if." Will Democrats in Washington get the message that the war is the issue that gets voters to the polls and that, ultimately, poses a threat to stay-the-course incumbents of both parties? The answer to that question has a lot to do with the size of the margin in Connecticut.

If Lamont wins narrowly – say, by under four points – Lieberman will claim that Democrats are just about evenly divided and plunge into a third-party challenge to the Democratic nominee as the candidate of his newly-created "Connecticut for Lieberman" party.

On the other hand, if Lamont secures a decisive victory with a margin of ten points of more, then the pressure on Lieberman to accept the result will intensify. It will become difficult for the incumbent to hold onto those endorsements from groups such as the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood and the League of Conservation Voters. And the senator might either forego a fall race or mount a titular campaign that will ultimately be a sad footnote to a lamentable career.

If Lieberman has to hang it up tonight or in the next few days, Democratic Party leaders in Washington are likely – because of the intensity of interest in this contest – to be forced by a suddenly engaged press corps to speak with a measure of clarity about where they stand on the war. Chances are that they will try to firm up a message that on the eve of the primary was still better defined as a "whine" than a muscular challenge to Bush and the neoconservatives.

The prospect that the Connecticut primary could be about more than one state's Senate nomination is what will make tonight a rare moment in American politics. It has been a long time since a Democratic Senate primary shifted the direction of national politics. If this one does, and if it pushes the party in the direction of the anti-war position embraced by most Americans at this point, then this will be a historic day – the day when, after far too long, our politics again became meaningful.

Comments (65)

1. Indeed. Although Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" asserts that the very origin of the Democratic Party with Andrew Jackson on the masthead was (is?) a Machiavellian/Rovian/cynical means to coopt progressive/populist/proletarian/working class interests for the continued benefit of the propertied "powers that be."

   Still, one must, and one can only, do what one can do. Vote for Ned Lamont and other leftists candidates who, we promise, will not attempt to immediately disrupt the venerable and socially Darwinistic "gods of the marketplace." Don't we just want to incentivize just procedures/policies like the peace and pollution reduction; overall the WASTE reduction/elimination movements (even though the science of physics informs us that, ultimately, our time is the only thing even capable of being wasted; again ultimately, however, and admittedly idealistically). Bottom line: no confiscation or taxation without representation AND a chicken in every pot (this implies running water and a fundamentally necessary system of sewage disposal though, n'est-ce pas?)

   Posted by lewwelge at 08/08/2006 @ 07:01am

2. Shouldn't it be a LITTLE scary to Democrats that the date that Mr Nichols picks for his last "turn-around" was 1970?

   Let's see what followed?....1972 and George McGovern. And the growing conservative movement in the Republican Party, as the public became convinced throughout the 1970s that the Democrats were "weak on defense" and linked them to the anti-war protestors/New Left of 1970.

   Though he points to Yarborough and Bentsen, look at what was happening to the Democrats AFTER 1970.

   Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 07:03am

3. get rid of all the democrats who supported action in iraq! that will convince americans their security can be trusted to the democratic party! yeeeehhaaaaaa!

   Posted by FREIHEIT 08/08/2006 @ 01:26am

   Having a hammer doesn't make everything you see a nail, chumly.

   Part of the trust reposed in those charged with our national security lies in the ability of those in power to recognize the error of their ways and rectify (to the degree possible) mistakes made. Bushco and supporters demonstrate no capacity for introspection whasoever.

   To complete the analogy, Bush has been hammering away at our nation's thumb since he invaded Iraq, and Joe-baby has been sycophantically egging him on, telling him what a great job he is doing.

   Past time for them both (and anyone like-minded) to be gone, I say.

   Posted by skeletonman at 08/08/2006 @ 07:12am

4. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/08/2006 @ 03:36am

   Rio, see my post to JM yesterday on the "OLDER - Desparate Measures" Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 08/07/2006 @ 8:59pm for some info pertinent to your rant.

   but on a point by point:

   1) Sems that the Alps (and Europe) did indeed have a warm spell from 3000BC to around 1700AD. But that is noted to be very regional to Europe and likely represents a wind / oceanic phenomena. Will get back to you as I learn more.

   2) According to the Nat'l Corn Growers Assn, while nationall corn is ~2% over last year, large tracts in some areas (20% or tilled areas) are rated "poor to very poor" due to drought. http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2006/august/080106.asp So maybe this fellow is one of those so affected?

   But nice to see you are showing your true Christian nature by laughing at the misfortune of others. I hope you are as lucky at his age.

   3) Climate scientist have not "backed off" per se, but have estimated that while the numbers of storms will probably not increase, that average severity will. As I recall from a news broadcast last week, we are actually just slightly over average in number for June/July... I quote from one forecast report released Aug 4th "...Atlantic basin tropical cyclone activity is forecast to be about 40% above the 1950-2005 norm in 2006. There is a high (84%) likelihood that activity will be in the top one-third of years historically. US landfalling tropical cyclone activity is forecast to be 30% above norm in 2006."

   http://forecast.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/docs/TSRATLForecastAug2006.pdf

   From the "scaling back" news article "There is, however, a considerably higher-than-average probability of at least one intense hurricane making landfall in the United States this year -- 73 percent. The average is 52 percent." It further states that hurricane activity will be above normal for the next 15-20 years.

   http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/03/storm/main1862745.shtml

   4) Uh, regardless of how many states we had in the late 1800s we still had "people" in various areas (call them territories or whatever). And in fact, due to the "discovery" mode of exploration even then, we had lots of broadly trained "natural scientists" so obersvations were probably pretty fair, although accuracy of instruments probably left a bit to be desired.

   So you get partial credit on #1, however, #3-4 are without merit ...but at least you aren't still crowing about artic sea level drop anymore.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 08/08/2006 @ 09:28am

5. LOC,

   There isn't a peer reviewed scientific paper been written in the last ten years that I can find that doubts that man is at least partially responsible for the warming that scientists unanimously state is ongoing.

   The debate is OVER. No need to bother with "flat earthers" like Rio and Limbaugh anymore. It is time to move on to what the hell to do about the man made warming like most of the rest of the industrial world did 5-10 years ago.

   Exxon's paid for science bought them 5 years, but even Pat Robertson isn't giving more than 5 years for that claptrap nonsense!

   Posted by freedomplease at 08/08/2006 @ 09:43am

6. Also, may I re-state for the record (and my loyal archivists)...

   I think Lamont's going to win today....and win the Senate seat.

   Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 10:36am

7. "Let's hope that, at the end of tomorrow night, we can all wave goodbye to Joseph Lieberman, and more, that his well-deserved and long-overdue ouster is a portent of a good things to come."

   And the rest of us will be waving "Good Bye" to the Democratic Party for years to come as they never see national prominence again for another 10 years..the only way they will see inside the White House is to be invited for Christmas punch..

   GO NED GO

   If Ned wins and it looks like he may at this point...the dems will be seen as the weak on defence nationaly and they will have played right into the Rovian plans.. You can't write or make up better events than this...and no one here sees it coming!!! And all Karl had to do was sit back and watch....he did nothing but let the dems do it to themselves..self inflicted wounds are the hardest to heal.

   Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 10:37am

8. Freedom

   As a teacher and scientist my natural inclination is to wash away ignorance with the cleansing light of knowledge. For instance, a poll (dated, but pointed) showed that in the US about 1/2 of the US ppl believes in a creationist version of human development. However, this is correlatable to income and education, meaning that well-to-do and/or more educated folks believe in some form of evolution (natural or "deity-guided") while the poor and ignorant believe in the "presto theory" 2 to 1

   Posted by leftofcenter at 08/08/2006 @ 10:41am

9. LOC,

   As a teacher, you are trained to tolerate fools. I can't take them so easily when the costs of that ignorance (meaning the delay in implementing solutions) is costing our future generations trillions of dollars and probably millions of lives.

   We've suffered the fools long enough.

   Posted by freedomplease at 08/08/2006 @ 10:45am

10. Are anti-war Democrats like Lamont 'One Issue' candidates? It depends on how you define the issue. Go-along-to-get-along 'Democrats' like Lieberman, Hillary, and Kerry try to have it both ways by supporting the Iraq war while quibbling about the chickenhawks' conduct of the war & occupation. But even anti-war Democrats like Pelosi, Feingold, and Jackson have limited their opposition to the truth about Iraq: no 9/11 connection & no WMDs. Where are the Democrats with the temerity to tackle the real issue: the Republicans' treasonous cover-up on behalf of the real enemy, the Saudis? For five years, the Republicans have justified their attack on Iraq - and our Constitution - as necessary to fight terrorism. Once rank-and-file patriots understand that not only did Iraq have nothing to do with 9/11 but that the Republicans are appeasing the real enemy, the Democrats will be shoo-ins. But the greatest obstacle to denouncing the Republicans' treason is Democratic 'leaders', like Lieberman, who went along with the betrayal of our country for the sake of a few roads & bridges. So while the challenge to Lieberman may appear to be weakening the party, the resulting ouster of the Democratic 'leadership' could be the best thing to happen to our country in 6 years.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/08/2006 @ 11:19am

11. Sam,

    .."Once rank-and-file patriots understand that not only did Iraq have nothing to do with 9/11 "...

    I believe many rank-and-file patriots understand it is a part in a long series of events against the west and America by Islamic radical religious nuts who are bring ignored by the left, again, as they were in the 1920s..only then they were Germanic...(Aryans? Are Iraians Aryans?..Just asking..)

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 11:29am

12. Correction,

    ..sorry, being ignored...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 11:29am

13. Of course, it helps Lieberman and other war party democrats that Time Warner requires candidates appearing in their debates to have raised half a million dollars minimally or generated five per cent of the vote. The criminal qualities of the first requirement need hardly be commented on, and the arrogance of the second requirement borders on stupid, given that less then one per cent of the vote very often makes or breaks elections. As usual, the two corporate parties prefer a politics steeped in money requirements and heedless of the handfuls of voters who win elections for them. Those handfuls will continue to join the growing numbers that don't vote at all, who make up better than half of the electorate, and who will create a political leadership reflective of the genuine interests of the working class majority iin this country.

    Posted by MyCrow at 08/08/2006 @ 11:48am

14. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE

    point taken....I can but try to teach them to be something other *than* fools....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/08/2006 @ 11:55am

15. Yes, Iranians are Aryans; so are Hindus. An otherwise good point, John: Republicans, particularly 'pre-millenial' Republicans like Bush, are at least consistent in seeking to wage war on Muslims wherever they may be, from Gitmo to Lebanon. So, for instance, the round-up and torture of Muslim busboys and convenience-store clerks after 9/11 wasn't just a smokescreen for the airlift of the bin Laden family out of the U.S. It's certainly true as you say that some Democrats, like Lieberman, only oppose Muslims who oppose Israel; it is unfortunately also true that Republicans and some 'moderate' Democrats like Lieberman are turning a blind to Wahhabi radicals in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere for the sake of Big Oil profits.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/08/2006 @ 11:59am

16. Sac,

    ,Mumbo jumbo.

    I guess I see a pattern of attacks against the West for 30 years , which was left unanswered, and they intensified until 9/11 changed the course..The West(US in this case) acted...as far as I am concerned, all the attaqcks on the West are tied together and Iraq is just a step in the effort to end it,which may or may not end in our life times, but it will end, and I believe it will end after the radicals explode a weapon here and kill 100,000's of US citizens, and we will make the place(The Mideast) glow in the dark.. Dire predictions, true, pessimistic, true,..a senario that can occur.

    One can't negoitate with people who put bombs on their childrens backs and send them to board public busess...and then celebrate the events as a stairway to heaven...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 12:38pm

17. I am the father of five children. And I've go to tell you, I'm woried as hell about what this country and world will look like when they are my age - @50. They are going to have to pay off yet another record deficit - which the Clinton administration, aided, giving credit where credit is due, by a republican dominated congress which did NOT roll back the small Clinton tax increase - was paying off the last record deficit Ronnie Rayguns left us, the senile fool. And what the hell is this world going to be like? How are they going to afford college education for their kids? I can barely afford the catholic High School tuition for them. When I graduated from (in 1978) from a private college, room, board and tuition was about $5G. That same college now charges about $38 G for the room, board and tuition. Theyt won't have the same privileges as I did. We all want a better life for our kids and their kids etc. We won't get it because the environment is going all to hell thanks to our own -dmes and GOPers - shortsightedness. Education is either substandard or unaffordable. We have a foreign policy that makes everyone except the Israelis and the Limeys hate us. What the f**k? Thank you for allowing me to vent. But to paraphrase Peter Finch, "I'm worried as hell and I want this government of, by and for the multinational corporations to be brought back to We the People.

    Posted by The Goods at 08/08/2006 @ 12:52pm

18. Sam, when you said this...

    "Once rank-and-file patriots understand that not only did Iraq have nothing to do with 9/11..."

    These were John's brilliant counters...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/08/2006 @ 11:29am | ignore this person

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/08/2006 @ 12:38am | ignore this person

    I think we can summarize John's argument thusly...

    'Iraq DID SO have someting to do with 9/11!'

    Brilliantly scathing retort! (rolls eyes)

    Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 12:57pm

19. Apropos of Mr. Nichols' original remark, I'm a little confused. I thought that in Arkansas in 1974 at least some primary voters were punishing Fullbright for his stand on the war. I don't claim any expertise in the matter, but that's the sense I've got from reading about it.

    Not really analogous to today's choice, I know, and not so blatant as the Bentsen/Yarborough race, but it does seem relevant. Not that I think the Dems should knuckle under to hawks, I just want to get clear on the facts.

    Posted by BillyMagic at 08/08/2006 @ 1:01pm

20. It is certainly true that the U.S. has suffered attacks for at least 30 years, with the Oil Embargo of 1973 being the most devastating: it not only crippled our economy but resulted in the compromising of America's security by Reagan and Bush Sr. For in return for cheap Saudi oil, the Republicans agreed to protect the Saudi regime and turn a blind eye to the sponsorship of terrorism by high-ranking Saudis, including members of the House of Saud. We could cut the terrorists off at the knees without war by stopping the flow of petrodollars to terrorism-sponsoring oil dictatorships, but that will never happen as long as the Party of Big Oil, which pretends to fight terrorism while propping up America's number one terrorist enemy, remains in power.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/08/2006 @ 1:05pm

21. Lillian,

    John's worldview is different from someone who opens his/her eyes.

    John thinks that the "muslim's" have attacked us mercilessly and for no reason over the last generation. But American foreign policy in this region has greatly fanned the fame of this hatred for decades.

    Using John's logic that we are justified in invading & occupying Iraq given that it is a "dirty muslim" nation then the Muslim extremists are certainly justified in thier pot shot attacks against US interests.

    John, you want that brand of justice......then we've got to take at least another 100 attacks against us to even the score.

    Grow up you imbecile!

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/08/2006 @ 1:06pm

22. Lil,

    "I think we can summarize John's argument thusly...

    'Iraq DID SO have someting to do with 9/11!' "

    No you can't..I think it is a cog in the wheel, and not the axel as so many here think that I think it is...

    I feel it is a step in the journey to fight the war..not the end all or the focal point, as you all here seem to have made this(Iraq war) the focal point of everything you do, and think about life...

    I think you are mis understanding my views..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 1:15pm

23. By the way....heard something, hoping for some clarification...

    Is it TRUE that Ned Lamont had donated to Lieberman's campaign fund.....just a YEAR AGO?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 1:19pm

24. Sac,

    "with the Oil Embargo of 1973 being the most devastating: it not only crippled our economy but resulted in the compromising of America's security by Reagan and Bush Sr. For in return for cheap Saudi oil, the Republicans agreed to protect the Saudi regime and turn a blind eye to the sponsorship of terrorism by high-ranking Saudis,"

    OR,as many others believe,

    Carter screwed up the Middle East all by himself by letting the Ayatolla Kohmeni enter Iran and set up the next war...like watching Hitler rebuild Germany again...

    Imagine what would have become if Carter had prevented Iran from becoming the mess it is?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 1:19pm

25. No doubt many of our fellow citizens believe that Iraq is indeed a 'cog in the wheel'. But the question is 'how many of our fellow citizens believe that the Iraq war is payback for 9/11?' Those who, like John, see an indirect connection, would not be sufficiently numerous to re-elect Lieberman, or Bush for that matter. I, for one, see a direct correlation between education level and support for the Iraq war: those capable of reading The Nation know that Osama and Saddam are not the same person, while those who rely on Fox 'News' for information are understandably confused.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/08/2006 @ 1:24pm

26. Free,

    1."John's worldview is different from someone who opens his/her eyes. ".....according to your eyes?.. Are YOUR eyes open? How about your ears?

    2. John thinks that the "muslim's" have attacked us mercilessly and for no reason over the last ..."

    ..wrong, never said this...I have also stated their reasons...I will be happy to restate what I believe they are if you wish..

    3."Using John's logic that we are justified in invading & occupying Iraq given that it is a "dirty muslim" nation

    .....I am unable to discern your logic in coming to this, ah, conclusion..dirty muslims? Who has espoused this? What time is it there? Are you drinking?

    4..."......then we've got to take at least another 100 attacks against us to even the score. "

    This is some kind of zero sum game for you? An affirmative action in a war? and I AM THE IMBECILE? Jesus, Mary, and Joesph!!!!!!!!(is it ok to have Jewish names on this site? Is this fair?)

    You are a sick puppy...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 1:37pm

27. Sac,

    "question is 'how many of our fellow citizens believe that the Iraq war is payback for 9/11?' ...

    who cares....if people believe this or not...Some people still believe the moon landings were faked....forget about these people...Iraq is indirectly a piece in the entire equation...not the Alpha or Omega...The Nation and Fox do not matter either...now I have paid attention to both and neither has said, claimed or promoted that Saddam and Osmama are the same or that Iraq is some aort of pay back...

    so , if as you say, so many are believeing this, then are you saying most people are watching something other than Fox(maybe MSM?) or not reading the Nation?...

    or,

    "see a direct correlation between education level and support for the Iraq war: "..

    ...Are these people, educational level wise, victums of the public school system?

    What is it you are worried about? That people believe they have been attacked, or that they think Iraq did it, despite years of denying by almost all media the link?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 1:44pm

28. After we're done with Lieberman, we can turn our eyes to Clinton, and support her anti-war primary challenger, Jonathan Tasini.

    Posted by Spambolaya at 08/08/2006 @ 1:47pm

29. Spam,

    We can only hope and support you in your , ah, eye turning...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 1:49pm

30. .."Once rank-and-file patriots understand that not only did Iraq have nothing to do with 9/11 "...

    I believe many rank-and-file patriots understand it is a part in a long series of events against the west and America by Islamic radical religious nuts who are bring ignored by the left, again, as they were in the 1920s..only then they were Germanic...(Aryans? Are Iraians Aryans?..Just asking..)

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/08/2006 @ 11:29am

    So, you're saying that at the time of the invasion of Iraq, it was in the thrall of Islamic radical religious nuts?

    Surely you aren't really trying to claim this?

    That is so supremely ignorant and so easily disproven with such minor effort and minimal research that it defies belief...

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 1:52pm

31. More supreme ignorance (and a little disingenuousness to boot) from our friend Maasch:

    "The Nation and Fox do not matter either...now I have paid attention to both and neither has said, claimed or promoted that Saddam and Osmama are the same or that Iraq is some aort of pay back..."

    Guess you haven't been watching Fox since 9/11, John, because you are either ignorant or a liar when you say that Fox has not equated Osama and Saddam - it's been done roughly hundreds of times, and even Bush has done it - do you not recall speeches where he "meant" to say "Saddam" and instead said "Osama" or vice-versa? And if you think ean Hannity,for instance, isn't looking for 9/11 payback in Iraq, you are lying to yourself or just mind-numbingly naive.

    Perhaps you were looking at the TV, but not really watching...

    Now, I don't give two shits what John thinks personally - what's disturbing is that there are thousands of people like you who are also ignorant and vote accordingly (see Bush being "elected" twice).

    Ask the soldiers in Iraq (the majority, I believe) if they are fighting in Iraq because Iraq was directly invovled in 9/11... Most think so.

    Are they stupid or willfully ignorant like Maasch? No, they are indoctrinated by their superiors and by a distinct lack of news information to the contrary (not that there's a shortage of proof to the contrary...

    I seem to recall some report, what was it, some report by a government commission that explicitly states that Iraq was not involved with 9/11...

    Hmm.... John, you mind looking that up for me?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 2:03pm

32. By the by, John - I was not calling you "stupid". Wasn't intended to come across that way - stupid, you're not.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 2:05pm

33. Am I worried that people believe that they have been attacked, or that they believe that Iraq did it? No doubt it is well known that the U.S. was, and is, under attack; what is less well known, due to the lies and censorship of corporate 'news' organizations like Fox, is that the 9/11 terrorists and the Sunni insurgents in Iraq today have one thing in common: Saudi petrodollars.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/08/2006 @ 2:17pm

34. Posted by SPAMBOLAYA 08/08/2006 @ 1:47pm | ignore this person

    Okay, maybe I said it about Lamont-Lieberman (maybe I didn't, not sure)....but...

    THAT is delusional! Tasini doesn't stand a chance and if THAT happens, politics has gone officially so far out into fantasy land that I guess we'll see a Feingold-Kucinich ticket in 2008!

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 2:36pm

35. As usual, the right posters here are writing and thinking as though no history outside of their willing reference exists. One case in point, Mr. Maasch's observation that Jimmy Carter "let' the Ayatollah take power in Iran, which is a pseudo-analysis akin to the old cold war mantra that Truman "lost" China. A people in mass revolt- and that was the situation in Iran in 1978-79 before the re-emergence of Khomeini- will never accept a government imposed on them by firepower. One would think that a nation born in revolt would have generated a population with a better understanding of that little fact of life long prior to now, but as usual, the counter revolutionaries have managed to consolidate their refied hegemony over every living political process in question.

    Had the United States not insisted on aiding and abeting the removal of Mossadegh and "restoring" Reza Pavlevi to the "Peacock Throne" in 1954, they would have found in Mossadegh a non-alligned partner to the west. Instead, U.S. reactionaries insisted on having all the marbles, and for 25 years, helped the so-called "Shah" rule Iraq with the iron hand of his security force SAVAAK. The mass movement in Iran removed him, and there was nothing Carter could do, though, to his credit, he did his best to work with Shahpur Bakhtiar, a moderate who was quickly pushed aside when he, too, attempted to shield Reza Pavlevi, the so-called "Shah". Now, that's not to say that Carter was a statesman, but on his worst days, he understands the problem in the Middle East far better than thinkers (?)like John Maasch does.

    The only other option that Carter had at that point was to engage in warfare with the Islamic revolt, something he wasn't going to do because as usual, the United States State Department was attempting to work both sides of the conflict. As a politician loyal to the U.S. "ideal" ("money talks") his hands were tied.

    The U.S. government has been such a renegade and whore to the oil industry for so many decades now that it is hardly surprising the "Middle East" looks as it does today. After all, our government has never supported any genuine democratic movement there, our government always supported either Zionists, or Emirates, or fundamentalist nutcases, all of whom when pushed into a tight corner have a tendency to explode. The west laid the groundwork for the current impasse with the Balfour Declartion in 1917. For close to one hundred years now, every western government has compounded the errors made then, which arose out of nothing more then the ongoing incapacity of Eurocentric thinkers to take responsibility for centuries of European anti-semitism, as well as the endless greed of western competitors in the "great game", as they called it; the struggle for control of central Asian mineral resource.

    And on it goes today. It will end with mass death, here as well as abroad, for, as the scriptures say, like a dog to his vomit, fools always return to their folly.

    Posted by MyCrow at 08/08/2006 @ 3:00pm

36. Crow,

    Nice ledcture but.pfffft

    What would have happened if the Ayatollahs plane "went down" on the way to Tehran? All I am saying is that it would have been better for the world had his plane gone down, as it would have been b etter if Hitlers plane had gone down...for the rest of the world. Iran would be different..so would have Germany..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 3:05pm

37. New Dawn,

    "Guess you haven't been watching Fox since 9/11, John, because you are either ignorant or a liar when you say that Fox has not equated Osama and Saddam - it's been done roughly hundreds of times, and even Bush has done it - do you not recall speeches where he "meant" to say "Saddam" and instead said "Osama" or vice-versa?"

    This is your "proof"..."meant" in quotations? Yikes..

    come on..I don't know of ONE network who says this..period..

    I am sure you know that many think CNN,CBS,NBC,ABC, are just as biased as you feel FOX news is...I for one, think the addition of Katie Curic will finish off CBS..and even turn them into more than an entertainmemnt tonight style show...it doesn't matter what Katie does to her hair...

    New Dawn...read your post over and see if you think, I think Saddam and Osama are the same, and if you think that I believe Iraq is but one part of the war on the West by the Islamic Facists...it is that simple..

    I know most here see the US as the problem and Iraq as the focal point of all that is wrong in the world and you personaly blame Bush....I know you here eat this for breakfast, that it is your very existance...but for a good many of us it isn't..at all....or even close...

    Does this make you stupid? No..nor does my view make me stupid...just different, and isn't that diversity? Is that not what you worhip as the hope for the country and the world? Isn't that what you think makes America great? ... The rest of us think that fact we are free makes us great and the fact we are free makes us diverse...a little different focus...again with the diversity.

    Off to find more profits...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 3:16pm

38. Posted by MYCROW 08/08/2006 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person

    MY, I know the "The Past Was Exactly The Way It Is Today" History classes are in session...but a few points.

    1. The Soviet Union supported the UN Partition Plan of 1947, so don't think it was just "the West".

    2. Not sure how the "oil industries" effected the decision for the US to support the Partition Plan, since I think we were still pretty self-sufficient (even exporting) on oil in 1947.

    3. Balfour was in 1917 and involved mostly the British, not us.

    4. Hasn't exactly been "close to one hundred years", since little if nothing was DONE about establishing Israel until 1946-1947, and nothing came out of Balfour but an unsupported "declaration".

    5. "As a politician loyal to the U.S. "ideal" ("money talks") his hands were tied."....Hmmm, I think a few Carter apologists (not on the Right, I might add), might disagree with your cynical assessment of the former President.

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 3:51pm

39. Rio

    Actually his listed site is Joe2006.com but I could not access that either. Do you have any evidence for your attribution? Or is it merely "the site is down, it must be Lamont"?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/08/2006 @ 3:59pm

40. Well, I guess someone DID hack the site....but "who" is the question. Obviously someone who doesn't like Lieberman...but that might be a long list of anti-war folks.

    http://www.michaelbrazellmurray.com/wordpress/?p=123

    (link above does have a screen capture of the site left by the hacker...)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/08/2006 @ 4:03pm

41. Joe Lieberman is disgusting, standing up there on a stage with Walden ODell - chairman of Diebold Voting Machines, inc., declaring victory, last night on the eve of the election. Joe Lieberman is seen standing next to Walden ODell - chairman of Diebold Voting Machines, inc., grinning no less than the day he voted to drag America into George Bushs disaster in Iraq.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/08/2006 @ 4:07pm

42. Declaring victory, last night with Walden ODell chairman of Diebold Voting Machines, the night before the elections, when the polls have him behind. Walden ODell said the exit polls would be wrong and Lieberman would win by a tiny margin, Joe Lieberman had already scheduled a victory party. Joe Lieberman grinning as though his boyfriend George Bush had his tongue in his ear.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/08/2006 @ 4:08pm

43. I said:

    "Guess you haven't been watching Fox since 9/11, John, because you are either ignorant or a liar when you say that Fox has not equated Osama and Saddam - it's been done roughly hundreds of times, and even Bush has done it - do you not recall speeches where he "meant" to say "Saddam" and instead said "Osama" or vice-versa?"

    John replied:

    "This is your "proof"..."meant" in quotations? Yikes.."

    Your reading comprehension is atrocious, John. Bush has specifically said "Osama" when he meant "Saddam". That is my proof, not the word "meant" in quotations.

    Ever since 9/11 sent his approval ratings shooting up, Bush's popularity has been closely tied to his stance on terrorism. His response, then, to a public that is nervous about war in Iraq and still angry at bin Laden, has been to equate bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. When Bush, in his State of the Union address, talked about Saddam Hussein and "shadowy terrorist networks" in the same breath, he gave thousands of Americans the impression that Saddam masterminded the September 11 attacks.

    The strategy is an old one, but it is more commonly associated with corrupt, cynical totalitarian governments than with democracy. Hitler described it in Mein Kampf: "The art of leadership, as displayed by really great popular leaders in all ages, consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary. ...The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to the one category; for weak and wavering natures among a leader's following may easily begin to be dubious about their own cause if they have to face different enemies…Where there are various enemies...it will be necessary to block them all together as forming one solid front, so that the mass of followers in a popular movement may see only one common enemy against whom they have to fight."

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 4:09pm

44. Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 08/08/2006 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person

    Seriously, if Lieberman wins...and the "Diebold stole it" rumors start flying, the Blogosphere Left better just close up shop, 'cause they're going to get laughed out of town!

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 4:18pm

45. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/08/2006 @ 10:37am

    Yeah, Maasch. Nothing signifies defeat more than winning an election.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/08/2006 @ 4:55pm

46. MBB -

    If you've paid attention, you've seen my very long piece on extremism - I hardly need the likes of you to explain it to me.

    And your answering for John Maasch actually contradicted what he was saying. Thanks for doing my work for me.

    "Saddam was a menace, and he gave us an excuse to make an example of him"...

    THAT is your rationale for an invasion and occupation? Dear God, the inmates are running the asylum.

    And "Iraq was the most likely candidate for a country willing to determine its laws based on democratic elections"? According to who? You?

    See how that assumption worked out...

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 6:25pm

47. "Seriously, if Lieberman wins...and the "Diebold stole it" rumors start flying, the Blogosphere Left better just close up shop, 'cause they're going to get laughed out of town!"

    Posted by MASK 08/08/2006 @ 4:18pm |

    Way to do a "preventative strike" Mask. There's no chance of election fraud is there ? Not here in the good ol' U.S.of A. After all this isn't Mexico is it Mask ? And as far as discrepancies between exit polls and actual election results, well that can be explained, can't it ? It's true I haven't heard an explanation yet that hasn't been quickly refuted but I'm sure someone has come up with one that makes sense.

    But why these polls used to be excellent at predicting results before these new machines came out and why they aren't any more and why exit polls are still used by international monitoring agencies through out the world as one of the best tools for detecting election fraud and why that doesn't seem to work in the U.S.A. anymore, well... that's a tad more troubling.

    Now as far as someone predicting that there is going to be a discrepancy between the exit polls and the election results from the Diebold machines BEFORE the election, I find that even more troubling. And when the person predicting that this discrepancy will occur in advance turns out to be the chairman of Diebold Voting Machines ... !

    But hey folks, not to worry. Mask says it's all just crazy left wing paranoia.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/08/2006 @ 6:51pm

48. There are people in the world who think that a nation's laws should be determined by the legislators and president (or PM) elected by that country's citizens. There are other people in the world, called Muslim extremists, who think that a country's laws should be dictated by the Koran (Sharia).

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/08/2006 @ 5:28pm | ignore this person

    Well MBB, we clearly have a third group of people who don't fit into your 2 versions.

    What do you call the people where the legislature is supposed to MAKE the laws based on secular principles but who is atively working to inject into their country, laws based on the judeo-christian interpretation of the Bible. And where the president is supposed to obey and uphold those laws but has instead spent the past 5 years or so issuing some 700 - 800 'signing statements' so that he doesn't have to.

    A hint...the initals are U and S.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 6:51pm

49. No, 1) Saddam was a homicidal menace to his people. 2) Iraq was the most likely candidate for a country willing to determine its laws based on democratic elections. And, 3) Saddam gave us an excuse to make an example of him.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/08/2006 @ 5:28pm | ignore this person

    Amazing. I wonder why the POTUS didn't stand before the American people and say "I want to start a war in Iraq based on these 3 key points." I'm sure that would have gone over really well and garnered the instant support of all Americans. Instead we got the 'laundry list of WMDs' and 'Saddam-9/11, Saddam-9/11' and 'mushroom clouds are imminent' speeches.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 6:57pm

50. Rove led the Nazi party ?

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/08/2006 @ 6:58pm

51. MARYBRETBRAD ,

    Thank you, if fact New Dawn is DEAD WRONG, you answered for me without contadictions and stated my positions precisely,funny how you seemed to understand in 1 post what most could in 6 months of my being here..and I haven't changed my views.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 7:59pm

52. ALL,

    YOU KEEP READING THINGS THAT ARE NOT THERE..IT IS REALLY VERY STRAIGHT FORWARD AND SIMPLE.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 8:00pm

53. MARYBRETBRAD ,

    Thank you, if fact New Dawn is DEAD WRONG, you answered for me without contadictions and stated my positions precisely,funny how you seemed to understand in 1 post what most could in 6 months of my being here..and I haven't changed my views.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/08/2006 @ 7:59pm

    Your saying it doesn't make it so, but you can backpedal and "clarify" all you like, John.

    Your bullshit is transparent on this one. You definitely tried to say that Iraq was run by Islamic radical religious nuts.

    You're usually a worthy debating adversary, John.

    Here, you're just full of shit.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 8:16pm

54. And wow, John, if all you have in your corner to support your supposition is MBB, your argument is in deep trouble.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 8:17pm

55. As a Republican and an enemy of fascism, I hope that Lamont wins - I and many of us have given money to his campaign, despite its anti-semitic tinge - so that the premature anti-fascists lead by our Lincolnian, though unexpressive, President, can do to the new Democrats what Nixon, that creep, did to McGovern in 1972.

    Posted by grasmere10 at 08/08/2006 @ 8:18pm

56. Maasch:

    You never seize to amaze.

    "Carter screwed up the Middle East all by himself by letting the Ayatolla Kohmeni enter Iran and set up the next war...like watching Hitler rebuild Germany again...

    Imagine what would have become if Carter had prevented Iran from becoming the mess it is?"

    The more I read this, the more I lose any respect I may ever have had for you. Who exactly are you to suggest that overwhelming majority of Iranians did not have the right to choose its own destiny and form of government. Some call this democracy...the people chose Maasch.

    Which "next war" are you referring to Maasch? The one in your cerebral cortex?

    Posted by doumer at 08/08/2006 @ 8:48pm

57. The Diebold thing was a satire, where Lieberman was up there with Walden Odell, it was just a satire - I thought it was pretty believeable

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/08/2006 @ 8:54pm

58. hey look, maasch, freiheit and mask all are curiously supporting lieberman.

    how amusing! especially since lieberman has consistently been a bulwark for the dems...

    Posted by darladoon at 08/08/2006 @ 9:29pm

59. Mask:

    1. The Soviet Union was run in 1947 by the Stalinist regime, which caved to the interests of the west on more than one occasion when it involved the rights of an indigenous population;

    2. US support for the Arab emirates began in the 1920s, and was a large part of our energy "independence";

    3. The Balfour Declaration may not have had more direct U.S. involvement, but my original posting asserts that the western powers played a key role in it. Obviously the U.S. is not the only force in western imperialism.

    4. The Zionist repression of the Palestinian population began in the early 1930s, and the beneficiaries of that repression were early Zionist settlements that were negotiated by David Ben Gurion in wheeling and dealing that did indeed begin during the first world war;

    5. What Jimmy Carter has done since leaving office is very different from how he behaved while in office. I know many disagree with my "cynical" view of his administration, but I also remember how creepy his administration was.

    Posted by MyCrow at 08/08/2006 @ 10:57pm

60. New Dawn

    "Your bullshit is transparent on this one. You definitely tried to say that Iraq was run by Islamic radical religious nuts."

    I will type slow sop you do not make a mistake again..

    Your above statement about want I tried to say ... is unrecognizable to me...I can't even connect the dots to that conclusion using every post I have ever posted here...you are frightening me...I have some respect for your reasoning abilitys, but sweet Jesus....call me so we can talk..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 11:48pm

61. "I'm on record stating that i have a deep desire for the democrats to be a credible and strong opposition party, instead of the lunatic fringe they've come to represent. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/08/2006 @ 7:50pm"

    Usually a silent reader here, but since we've started in on the name-calling, we might as well be fair and well-rounded about it. The republicans are every bit as fractious and inconsistent, and every bit as good as playing the baseless finger-pointing game, as those few dems who have lost touch with the humane, forward-looking constituency which once took confidence in them.

    I am a democrat, and though disillusioned with my party at times, I laugh hysterically at your post's implication that the republicans are a "strong, credible" party who represent the interest of the bulk of the population.

    It's been said before, but the problem here is that the RIGHT has become such a "lunatic fringe" (if you want to point fingers: they started the trend in 2001) that the middle ground has become so unnaturally conservative that moderates are finding themselves unwittingly in uncomfortably partisan territory. The new moderates, like Lieberman, have to compromise on things they once never would have just to be able to keep calling themselves moderates. The backlash among the dems, *your* so-called fringe fanatics, is a gut response probably intended to tug the rope hard the other direction to restore a wide enough middle ground that conservatives & liberals can share without feeling they have to completely eradicate one another on every issue.

    Back to the matter at hand. I voted for Lamont and am happy to report Lieberman ceded the democratic nomination to him just a short while ago. Any of you who may live in CT and have seen the campaign ads over the last week, or watched Lieberman's declaration just now, can laugh with me. Soundbite after soundbite he recorded stating how he is a true democrat who isn't afraid to stand up to Bush on important issues (besides that little practically, you know, inconsequential skirmish taking place in Iraq); how the party's interests are close to his heart, he stands on his long record of working for dem ideals, the most important thing is to keep the party on top, etc. Then in his loser's speech, he declared he has fought tirelessly to stop partisanship from taking center stage over the actual issues and is now going to run as a "democratic independent" instead of backing his party's nominee.

    See, he and Bush belong together; it's that whole "credibility" thing. Now they can leave together, too.

    Posted by shindy77 at 08/09/2006 @ 12:49am

62. In the name of SECURITY, is the age old cry of the despotic opressors.

    The puclic can not be fear mongered for ever, they will wake from thier comatose condition to find their country's suffering middle class, infrastructure and healthcare.

    I hope voting out Lieberman was just the first step.

    Posted by oc2001 at 08/09/2006 @ 10:12am

63. John Maasch -

    Throughout the boards, all of you right-guys have suddenly been aflicted with obtuseness... What gives - is this the new Rovian ploy? Play dumb? Well, it's worked wonders for your President...

    Okay, I'll bite.

    John, little reading comprehension lesson for you (or is it writing comprehension, since it's your own words we're discussing?)...

    When someone says "Once rank-and-file patriots understand that not only did Iraq have nothing to do with 9/11"...

    And you respond with "I believe many rank-and-file patriots understand it [Iraq] is a part in a long series of events against the west and America by Islamic radical religious nuts who are bring ignored by the left, again, as they were in the 1920s..only then they were Germanic...(Aryans? Are Iraians Aryans?..Just asking..)",

    it's pretty clear that you are saying that the Iraq war is "part of a long series of events against the west and America by Islamic radical religious nuts who are bring ignored by the left".

    Since you're wrong, and Iraq had nothing to do with Islamic religious nuts when we went in (unless you're counting worries about Saddam handing over nonexistent WMD to extremists - something that it's widely agreed upon that he would not have done), this is totally disingenuous:

    "Your above statement about want I tried to say ... is unrecognizable to me...I can't even connect the dots to that conclusion using every post I have ever posted here...you are frightening me...I have some respect for your reasoning abilitys, but sweet Jesus....call me so we can talk..."

    Pull your head out and pay attention to what you type - your playing dumb later fools no one but some of your stupider compatriots on the "other side".

    And by the way, genius, typing slow doesn't make your post appear any more slowly to me, but you knew that. I guess you were shooting for clever, but, as usual, you missed your target by a pretty wide margin.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 11:48am

64. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2006 @ 12:58am

    Continued good wishes for both of you, Frank. The countdown continues - he'll be home soon, and safe.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 11:49am

65. "...as usual, you missed your target by a pretty wide margin..."

    Hey, kinda like aiming at Osama and hitting Iraq...?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 11:51am