Sen. Lieberman, We Will Beria You

What's the single most deranged thing anyone has said about the Lamont-Lieberman race? The floor is open to nominations, but it'll be hard to top this lulu from David Horowitz:

America is not divided enough for the American Left, which is now in full purge mode in Connecticut, where it is attempting to bring down the one statesman in the Democratic Party who might re-unite this country in the face of its enemies.

An ordinary analyst, asked to pick the person most likely to unite the country in the face of anything, would probably not choose a senator so unpopular that he stands a good chance of losing in the primaries. It takes an extraordinary analyst to recognize that what appears to be the opinion of the electorate is actually the interference of that entirely alien force, "the American Left." Absent its power to cloud men's minds, voters would openly yearn for a little Joementum.

I can't help suspecting, incidentally, that if Cynthia McKinney loses in Georgia tomorrow, Horowitz won't be describing her defeat as a "purge."

Comments

[joe]

Horowitz complaining that the country is divided, and blaming liberals? That's rich.

But what do I know? Not being "with" George Bush and David Horowitz, I clearly want Islamofascists to kill your granny.

Hell, I'm so unconcerned about Americans' well being that I didn't want the DHS bill to allow the President to load up FEMA with political appointees.

The deliberate use of issues of war, peace, terroris, and security as partisan wedge issues, even as American troops were being sent into harm's way, has been the driving intellectual and electoral strategy of Mr. Horowitz's party for the past five years. They've done everything they can to rip the country in half, in the hopes that they'll end up with the bigger half. And now that their half has turned out to be the smaller, they're complaining that the people who agree with the landslide majority about Iraq are too divisive?

The Republicans are the party of unity and reconciliation. The Republicans have always been the party of unity and reconciliation.

[AC]

This isn't the first time Horowitz has made my head hurt.

[Pro Libertate]

To be fair, there is a difference between the national reputation of a candidate and his local reputation. Though I'd say there's no more monolithic "left" in this country than there is a monolithic "right". Or even a monolithic "correct" (i.e., the libertarians) ?

All told, I'll miss Lieberman, solely because he is such an atypical member of the Democratic Party. He's a true liberal, but he has areas where he leaves the reservation for principle. That seems okay to me, even if I don't agree with him. I'm fine with mavericks, just so long as they aren't complete whack jobs (McKinney comes to mind). And, of course, I wish more mavericks like Dr. Paul were around. After all, I'm a libertarian nutjob.

[SR]

Horowitz gets extra points for the fact that the overall column has absolutely nothing to do with the CT senate race. (In fact, when I first started reading it I was going post that Jesse had linked to wrong column, but then I found the quote toward the bottom.)

[Bubba Zanetti]

Right on, Walker...many libertarians undoubtedly enjoyed Cynthia slugging the cop in the same way that the OJ jury saw his acquittal, i.e., a big fuck you to law enforcement for countless unredressed wrongs....

[joe]

I believe Mr. Anti-Purge unificator Horowitz has publically endorses both Pat Twoomey against Arlen Specter, and Senator Lincoln Chafee's opponent.

[the other Mark]

The right's hatred of Arlen Specter comes to mind.

[the other Mark]

Dammit, joe, stop having my thoughts before I do.

[SR]

By the way, did anyone else pick up on Horowitz's bizarre conflation of the al-Sistani peace march (which happened in August '04) and the cease-fire in Fallujah (which happened in April '04)?

[semm]

An ordinary analyst, asked to pick the most likely candidate to unite the country, would probably not choose a senator so unpopular that he stands a good chance of losing his own party's primary

Well this would only be a true statement fi you believed the voting preferences of democratic primary voters in connecticut to be representative of the country as a whole. Are you saying that?

Not that I like leiberman all that much, but I don't think it's a streatch to call someone a uniter who might stand a good chance of winning a primary in either party or win his seat as an independent candidate.

[ChicagoTom]

Will it be a purge if Laffey beats Chafee as well?

Somehow all of these people who are just shocked and outraged that the angry america hating left is posing a primary challenge to Lieberman seem to have completely ignored the fact that a moderate (borderline liberal) GOPer is being challenged from the right by Laffey.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising though.

Somehow the most vile and extreme elements from the right get treated as mainstream by traditional media, yet liberal voters in a blue state who choose to vote against a senator who supports the position opposite of his constituents on the defining issue of most of our lifetimes are labeled fascists, purgers and angry mobs looking for blood from anyone who steps out of line.

[PapayaSF]

Oh, come on now, Jesse. True, Horowitz is pouring it on a bit thick, but what he says here seems largely true. Lieberman is generally liked on both sides of the aisle, and the term "purge" is not inappropriate for party activists defeating their own sitting senator in a primary for ideological deviation (a.k.a. agreeing with the opposition on one issue). Primary voters are part of, but not all of the electorate, and it's common knowledge that they tend to be more extreme than general election voters, so labeling this campaign against him as part of the Left sounds correct to me. It's not the Right or the centrists or the libertarians waging a high-profile campaign to defeat him.

Regarding McKinney, that's not a purge because there isn't a large, nationwide campaign of Democrats out to defeat her. That really does seem like the local voters are simply fed up with her.

[Pro Libertate]

joe, what's your take on Lamont-Lieberman? Sorry if I missed anything you've said (other than in the Wal-Mart thread) on the topic before. I've actually been working a lot (and moving--yuck) over the last month.

Speaking of Wal-Mart, the FDIC issued a six-month moratorium a little over a week ago on approving industrial loan company charters. Huh. While I'll grant that ILCs are a gray area that probably need to be dealt with (from the regulatory perspective, anyway), this has Wal-Mart politics written all over it.

[Jesse Walker]

Well this would only be a true statement fi you believed the voting preferences of democratic primary voters in connecticut to be representative of the country as a whole. Are you saying that?

If you can't unite a base of support that you've been holding, stroking, and feeding pork for nearly two decades, you probably can't unite the rest of the country either.

[joe]

Papaya, "the term "purge" is not inappropriate for party activists defeating their own sitting senator in a primary for ideological deviation (a.k.a. agreeing with the opposition on one issue)"

A recent poll of Lamont supports found that 56% were "single issue voters" regarding the Iraq War. In other words, nearly half of the opposition has nothing to do with a "single issue."

Lieberman has long been a tool of the insurance and medical industries, he has appeared on Fox News by an order of magnitude more than any other Democrat, he supported Bush's anti-Social Security push until the polls turned solidly against it, he gave the famous impeachment speech, and he responded to suggestions that we need a new Sec. of Defense by repeating the Republican talking point that it would make da terrorists happy if we did that.

If the netroots activists who've been opposing Lieberman were the rigid leftist ideologues you claim, then why is it that the candidates they most loudly support are people like John Tester, former Reagan Navy Secretary Jim Webb, Paul Hackett, and NRA-member Howard Dean?

[shecky]

Man, I miss that radio show Horowitz used to do here in L.A. Spades of this stuff used to pour out of his mouth, often with guests who seemed unsuspecting and ignorant of who he really was.

[Mutt]

Purge? Try "flush."

[Jon H]

joe writes: "Lieberman has long been a tool of the insurance and medical industries, he has appeared on Fox News by an order of magnitude more than any other Democrat, he supported Bush's anti-Social Security push until the polls turned solidly against it, he gave the famous impeachment speech, and he responded to suggestions that we need a new Sec. of Defense by repeating the Republican talking point that it would make da terrorists happy if we did that."

He also claims to have opposed the horrid bankruptcy bill, but he voted for cloture which pretty much guaranteed it would pass on the floor in spite of his No vote then.

He did the same thing with the confirmation of authoritarian "signing statement" Sam Alito.

Lieberman trumpets his Senate experience all the time, so he surely knows how things work and must have voted this way intentionally, to support the GOP while retaining "plausible deniability".

[Sas]

Wanna vote Cynthia out early? Here's your chance:
http://truegritz.com/?p=21 Enjoy!

[NoStar]

Forget Lamentable Lamont and Vinegar. Join the campaign to draft one of our own to run.

VOTE FOR THE FERAL GENIUS
!!JENNIFER FOR SENATOR!!

[John]

"Lieberman has long been a tool of the insurance and medical industries, he has appeared on Fox News by an order of magnitude more than any other Democrat"

I would think any Senator from Connecticut would be a tool of the insurance companies. Next you are going to tell me that the Senators from Delaware are tools of the credit card companies. But, Jesus Joe, he appeared on Fox News too much? That is a bit much isn't it? I admit Horowitz is laying it on a bit thick here, but if one of Lieberman's "crimes" is appearing on Fox News, this really is a purge. Why don't you guys just have a show trial rather than a primary.

[Clean Hands]

Hahahahahahaha.

Citing Howard Dean's NRA membership as a means of innoculating him from the label of being a leftist ideologue is one of the funniest things I think I've ever seen you write, joe -- and that's saying something!!

[Scott]

Based on some of the comments, it appears that conservatives and Republicans fully support democracy until the voters decide to elect the wrong person. Lieberman took a stand on the issues and his stand is not popular with the people he was supposed to represent, most notably his support for the Iraq war, for this mistake he should lose his elected position. If the voters decide that they no longer want Lieberman to represent them or their party and he loses his Senate seat, it is not a purge, the takedown of a stateman, or the loss of a chance to reunite the country. It is simply our system of government working as advertised and a sign that even an entrenched incumbent like Lieberman is not invincible and must be responsive to the views of the voters.

[ChicagoTom]

John, even you aren't that naive are you??

It isn't that "he appeared on Fox News" -- it's that he is usually the first Democrat to pop up on Fox News undermining the public positions of other Democrats and talking about how bad the Democrats are and how they need to get serious about security/the war/the NSA wiretaps, etc (ie be more like republicans).

Lot's of Democrats show up on Fox News and the left doesn't have a problem them. The difference is that most Democrats showing up on Fox News aren't using GOP talking points and are supporting Democratic positions and aren't picking up the Sean Hannity endorsement. I mean the guy seems to have more national Republican endorsements than Democratic ones. Not only that, he seems happiest when he is chiding his own party for "undermining the credibility of the president" during this war "at their own peril"

Why don't you guys just have a show trial rather than a primary.

Why do your ilk worry so much about what the left is doing anyway? I mean really, if the loonie left is so darn crazy/angry/rabid/anti-america, one would think that the Republicans and their supporters would be down right giddy at the prospect of having a "loonie lefty" to represent the Dems in CT rather than a centrist "uniter" Dem like Lieberman.

Unless of course they recognize the political advantage of having the hawkish Lieberman providing "bipartisan" support for their war-mongering, anti freedom, anti-privacy ways.
The GOP Caucus + Lieberman = "bipartisan support"

[ChicagoTom]

Citing Howard Dean's NRA membership as a means of innoculating him from the label of being a leftist ideologue is one of the funniest things I think I've ever seen you write, joe -- and that's saying something!!

Dean was a centrist and certainly no liberal or "leftist ideologue". He was a fiscal conservtive, and social moderate. (In fact, the knock on him from other liberals was that he signed the domestic partnership law in the dark of night and only "supported" it when it looked like it was gonna pass anyway)

The only thing that Dean was "liberal" about was early his anti-war stance.

But it's good to see that you aren't buying into Media myths and narratives where everything is either Right or Left.

[Chris Bray]

Reason employs Tim Cavanaugh, but has permitted a reference to Joe Lieberman on its website that makes no use of the glorious nickname "Vinegar Joe." Dude, what about tradition? Is nothing sacred?

[Ashish George]

I'm so glad we didn't listen to Howard Dean. Can you imagine the shape our country would be in now if we had taken his positions on the war in 2003 and 2004 more seriously?

[Akira MacKenzie]

In fact, the knock on him from other liberals was that he signed the domestic partnership law in the dark of night and only "supported" it when it looked like it was gonna pass anyway.

Let's not forget Dean's little guest appearence on The 700 Club.

[Pro Libertate]

In trying to be everything, you achieve nothing, Grasshopper.

[Johnny]

"It takes an extraordinary analyst to recognize that what appears to be the opinion of the electorate is actually the interference of that entirely alien force

Nope, just a republican analyst.

Maybe you have heard of the republicans. This is the way they think. Hadn't you noticed?

You folks correctly tag Democrats but act surprised at Republicans. I don't get it. I hope that someday (although really I don't have that much hope when it comes down to it) you can see republicans for what they are, just like you see the demos.

[Franklin Harris]

"This isn't the first time Horowitz has made my head hurt."

Not to worry. I'm sure I made his head hurt the one time at an ISI conference when I told him that one of his mea culpa books about the 1960s was the funniest book I'd read all year.

[Jim Walsh]

Next you are going to tell me that the Senators from Delaware are tools of the credit card companies.

Nah, that's silly. As anyone from Delaware could tell you, they're all in the pocket of the duPont Company...

[Rick Barton]

Lose Sen. Lieberman, Lose.

[ChrisO]

Wow, all of this passion over which statist fuckwit gets the chance to represent Connecticut. I almost thought I'd stumbled into the Daily Kos by accident.

[joshua corning]

Wow, all of this passion over which statist fuckwit gets the chance to represent Connecticut. I almost thought I'd stumbled into the Daily Kos by accident.

look who wrote the article and then look who responded first.

Anyway PapayaSF nailed this one...

Lieberman is generally liked on both sides of the aisle, and the term "purge" is not inappropriate for party activists defeating their own sitting senator in a primary for ideological deviation (a.k.a. agreeing with the opposition on one issue).