Do the Dems who support Lamont and want to purge Lieberman also want to purge from the party all the Dems who support Lieberman? Or do they want to retain those voters but simply make sure they have no candidates to vote for?
UPDATE [18 July]
Anyone who doubts that the Democratic Left would like to be rid of Lieberman’s voters, not just Lieberman, should take a look at this Los Angeles Times OpEd by Duncan Black, better known as Atrios, author of the left-wing blog Eschaton.
CORRECTION
I originally wrote that Duncan Black’s piece was an editorial, but a diligent reader (and thus occasional appreciated but unpaid copy editor) reminds me (since I knew this, even though I gave no evidence of it) that it was an OpEd, and thus represented his and not the paper’s opinion.
purge? its a vote.
You don’t like “purge”? Fine. How about “take a hike,” as in: “we don’t want voters like you in our party”? Or: “You’re welcome to stay in our party and vote for candidates, but don’t expect to find any candidates here to vote for who take what your regard as responsible positions on national security issues”? I don’t insist on “purge” if it rubs you the wrong way.
“How about “take a hike,” as in: “we don’t want voters like you in our party”?”
How about, if democrats don’t vote for you, you can’t represent democrats?
Duncan Black states that Lieberman’s support for the war on terror is not the main reason for the Left’s anger at him. Rather, he says its….
“For too long he has defined his image by distancing himself from other Democrats, cozying up to right-wing media figures and, at key moments, directing his criticisms at members of his own party instead of at the Republicans in power.”
That is silly. The vast majority of voters do not pay attention that closely to a senator’s actions.
Would you respect someone who states “I can’t vote for Lieberman because he likes to define his image by distancing himself from other democrats.”
What about his voting pattern?
“His what?”
Allow me to paraphrase Michael Ware…. This editorial suggests that Duncan Black is so divorced from reality that he’s completely lost the plot, or he knows he’s spinning a line.
Well, it’s an interesting point, but can’t you always make the same point at every primary? Did you ask, “Do the Republicans who want to get rid of McCain (from the primary) also want to get rid of the voters who want to vote for him?”
Nothing new here. Altho we hear a lot about the Republican “Southern Strategy” to appeal to Southern Whites, what’s not widely known is that the Dems had their own Southern Strategy, which involved purging the white South from the party because they were not good enough to be Democrats. This was the stated goal of many New Left radicals like Tom Hayden. Smart move — they managed to stop winning elections that way. Looks like the new generation of Kossaks are continuing, this time with the moderate Dems, who aren’t pure enough either.
“How about, if democrats don’t vote for you, you can’t represent democrats?”
How about “we like to talk about inclusiveness but if you don’t like us, go somewhere else”?
“How about “we like to talk about inclusiveness but if you don’t like us, go somewhere else”?”
Who says that? This is a primary. This is when democrats each vote to decide who will represent them. Do you have a better system? I can’t think of a system that minimizes the number of losers. Do you?
actus thinks the Lamont v. Lieberman primary is like all other primaries. Simply a contest to determine the party nominee.
I don’t. I think many, perhaps most, Lamont supporters don’t simply want their candidate to win. They want the other candidate to leave the party, and take his voters with him. They don’t want people in the Democratic party who support the president on Iraq and other national security issues.
Although I think it’s bad for the country for the parties to be so polarized, it’s hard for me not to hope that they succeed.
“They want the other candidate to leave the party, and take his voters with him.”
That would result in the democrats losing, and lieberman winning. Thats not what democrats who want a democrat other than lieberman to be in that seat.
I think lamont supporters want to win the votes of a majority of the democrats in connecticut during this primary, and then a majority of the people in connecticut in the midterm.
What makes you say otherwise?
“Who says that?”
No one “says” it, but it is certainly implied when one’s ideas are completely rejected by whichever portion of a party is in power and that portion gives no quarter to other ideas. Democrats, on the national level, have done this with other issues, such as abortion (remember what happened to Casey?).
“That would result in the democrats losing, and lieberman winning. Thats not what democrats who want a democrat other than lieberman to be in that seat.”
I’m not so sure Democrats wouldn’t rather lose than support a candidate who supported President Bush. At least, that’s the impression lefty bloggers leave.
“I think lamont supporters want to win the votes of a majority of the democrats in connecticut during this primary, and then a majority of the people in connecticut in the midterm.”
But isn’t it bad party politics to throw out a senior senator because he’s not fringe enough?
“Democrats, on the national level, have done this with other issues, such as abortion (remember what happened to Casey?).”
He’s going to win a senate seat, beating out a theocrat? Or are you talking about casey Sr, who refused to endorse the democratic ticket, and thus didn’t speak at the convention nominating that ticket?
“But isn’t it bad party politics to throw out a senior senator because he’s not fringe enough?”
Its bad party politics if you can’t convince a majority of your party’s voters in the state to vote for you. You don’t get to be in charge then.
All sorts of evil motives are being ascribed here. Including the idiotic one that left wing bloggers prefer a republican in power to lieberman. All I see here is that lieberman, with an incumbent’s advantage (that is touted as almost a right, by, interestingly, right wingers that care so much about the democrats) is being challenged for not representing what the people who vote for him wish. A pretty fair challenge, which incumbents should face.
“He’s going to win a senate seat, beating out a theocrat? Or are you talking about casey Sr, who refused to endorse the democratic ticket, and thus didn’t speak at the convention nominating that ticket?”
The Casey of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. You should have read that one by now.
“Its bad party politics if you can’t convince a majority of your party’s voters in the state to vote for you. You don’t get to be in charge then.”
It’s bad party politics for one’s fellow party members in Congress to distance themselves from a senior senator from a state, leaving the public with the impression that you don’t want to endorse him.
“(that is touted as almost a right, by, interestingly, right wingers that care so much about the democrats)”
Frankly, I love the fact that Democrats are so inclusive that they boot out a senior senator for not being leftist enough.
“The Casey of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. You should have read that one by now.”
Thats the Sr. Not the Jr, who democrats are hoping will defeat a theocrat.
“It’s bad party politics for one’s fellow party members in Congress to distance themselves from a senior senator from a state, leaving the public with the impression that you don’t want to endorse him.”
He’s an incumbent. I think its healthy if the party leaders let the voters of connecticut choose who will be the democratic candidate. But I will say what is bad party politics: the fact taht they guy is planning an independent run, a second chance, if he doesn’t get the nomination. That’s not very partyish.
“Frankly, I love the fact that Democrats are so inclusive that they boot out a senior senator for not being leftist enough.”
Boot out? Its a incumbent failing to fulfill the wishes of his electorate. Thats healthy when those leave.
“Thats the Sr. Not the Jr, who democrats are hoping will defeat a theocrat.”
Wait. Didn’t the people elect the theocrat? And I knew which Casey I was referring to. You didn’t seem to.
“I think its healthy if the party leaders let the voters of connecticut choose who will be the democratic candidate.”
The people would do that regardless. But it is highly irregular for the party leaders to so publicly diss a senior Senator.
“But I will say what is bad party politics: the fact taht (sic) they (sic) guy is planning an independent run, a second chance, if he doesn’t get the nomination. That’s not very partyish.”
Yes, not very partyish. But since you are in favor of the people picking, it shouldn’t be much of a problem to you.
“Boot out? Its a incumbent failing to fulfill the wishes of his electorate. Thats healthy when those leave.”
It’s just refreshing to watch all that inclusiveness that Democrats talk about. Diversity of opinions and such.
“Wait. Didn’t the people elect the theocrat? ”
And maybe he’ll be defeated.
“But it is highly irregular for the party leaders to so publicly diss a senior Senator.”
Its not really that much of a dis to refuse to intervene in a primary.
“But since you are in favor of the people picking, it shouldn’t be much of a problem to you.”
Of course not. He can turn his back on democrats and still appeal to the general connecticut populace.
“It’s just refreshing to watch all that inclusiveness that Democrats talk about. Diversity of opinions and such.”
Yes. Free exchange of opinions leading to popular results. Fantastic. More incumbents should face this.