The Attempted Purge of Joe Lieberman

[Tigermike 3,027]

May 27, 2006

The Attempted Purge of Joe Lieberman

By Barry Casselman

The left wing of the Democratic Party is now adopting the strategy of purging the party of some of its moderate and centrist elected officials who don't agree with their version of the party line. (Is this the reforming of the party we have been hearing about?)

This radical wing, with cheerleading by the Internet-based hard left groups, apparently is determined to eliminate any diversity of opinion in the party. All across the nation, Democrats who do not share certain views about abortion, social security reform, the war in Iraq, and other issues are to be given the boot. Motivating this radical faction is not only ideology, but an uncontrollable hatred of the president on the United States and his vision of America.

The most notable of these purges is the current attempt to defeat Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut in the Democratic primary two months from now.

I had some hope that this would not be a trend when Pennsylvania Democrats united behind pro-life moderate Bob Casey Jr. to be their candidate against Republican incumbent Rick Santorum. This was a signal, I thought, that some Democrats at least were determined to govern again, and would allow there to be a range of opinion within their party.

Pennsylvania Democrats had seen in 2004 that moderate GOP Senator Arlen Specter was challenged from his far right and was in danger of being defeated for renomination. Conservatives Santorum and President Bush came to his aid and enabled him to win a narrow victory. Other moderate Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, and John Warner of Virginia often take much heat from their colleagues who are more conservative, yet without them, the GOP does not have a majority.

But Pennsylvania seems to be a very rare exception.

To be fair, I will note that some Republicans in Rhode Island are trying to purge liberal GOP senator Lincoln Chaffee from office this year. I would find this equally self-defeating except that Chaffee has hinted that he might, like Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, not vote for his party's leadership, in which case there would be no reason for Republicans to support him.. But I want to make clear that these type of tactics by either the left or right are equally wrong.

After Lieberman is purged, it is only a matter of time before these radical left-wing groups go after Democratic centrist Senators Tom Carper of Delaware, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Diane Feinstein of California, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Furthermore, every time Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Joe Biden of Delaware, both serious presidential contenders for 2008, attempt to articulate a moderate and thoughtful position on major issues, they receive a barrage of attacks and threats from this purist, left-wing faction of their own party.

America, whether the left and right wants to admit it or not, is always governed from the political center. In many states the political center, be it more Republican or Democratic, is so strong that only moderate or centrist candidates can win major office there. A national political party, if it wishes to be a majority party and to govern, must respect and accomodate this. This difference of opinion does produce internal conflicts and occasionally sharp or bitter disagreements, but this is a nation of almost 300 million persons, each of whom is entitled to his or her own opinion on the issues of the day, and the only way to govern successfully in such a representative democracy is by compromise, civility and good faith resolve.

Today, a great many Americans, including some Republicans, are unhappy with public policy and public issues. The president is distinctly unpopular, and a growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq is evident.

But the last thing any political party wants to do in this uneasy and critical time is to fundamentally weaken itself by purging those who belong to it, yet hold diverse views.

The spectacle of trying to purge Joe Lieberman, one of the most respected members of the Congress in either party, after a lifetime of extraordinary public service to his state and his nation, is ludicrous. An oustanding attorney general of Connecticut, three-term senator, Democratic candidate for vice president of the United States (who won a majority of the popular vote), and long-time conscience of his party, Lieberman should be the LAST person the Democrats should try to purge.

The good news is that the voters of Connecticut are not likely to listen to a bunch of outsiders and throw out one of the most distinguished public servants in the history of the state. Yes, probably more Connecticut Democrats now disagree with Senator Lieberman on the issue of the war in Iraq than agree with him, but his position has always been consistent and principled. There are even those who say, popular or not, that Lieberman's position on Iraq is the right position.

When I heard Mr. Lieberman speak only a few months ago, he was not uncritical of the mistakes made there, but he did maintain his support for our foreign policy and our troops in harm's way. His call for bipartisanship in foreign policy is being treated as a terrible sin by the far left faction of the Democratic party. I think it is among his best moments as a senator. Lieberman's critics attack him, but they dare not challenge his integrity, his moral purpose, or his political conscience.

Lieberman has also been attacked because he thinks we need to reform Social Security. That perennial media ostrich, Paul Krugman, recently echoed this and other criticisms of Mr. Lieberman in the New York Times, contending that the Connecticut senator is an alarmist on Social Security. It is propagandist Krugman, however, about whom his readers should be alarmed since his head is buried in so much Long Island sand. We need to do something soon on Social Security and all public and private pension funds.

Meanwhile, "grassroots organizers" are being encouraged to come into Connecticut during the next two months to defeat Senator Lieberman in the Democratic primary. I suspect that the voters of Connecticut won't be impressed with this political thuggery, and rightly will consider it an intrusion on their right to make up their own minds.

As for the choice they make, I'm betting that a lifetime of brilliant and brave public service will trump the empty slogans and the smears against a distinguished American.

Barry Casselman writes about national politics for Preludium News Service.

link

[TexasTiger 12,865]

May 27, 2006

The Attempted Purge of Joe Lieberman

By Barry Casselman

The left wing of the Democratic Party is now adopting the strategy of purging the party of some of its moderate and centrist elected officials who don't agree with their version of the party line. (Is this the reforming of the party we have been hearing about?)

This radical wing, with cheerleading by the Internet-based hard left groups, apparently is determined to eliminate any diversity of opinion in the party. All across the nation, Democrats who do not share certain views about abortion, social security reform, the war in Iraq, and other issues are to be given the boot. Motivating this radical faction is not only ideology, but an uncontrollable hatred of the president on the United States and his vision of America.

The most notable of these purges is the current attempt to defeat Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut in the Democratic primary two months from now.

I had some hope that this would not be a trend when Pennsylvania Democrats united behind pro-life moderate Bob Casey Jr. to be their candidate against Republican incumbent Rick Santorum. This was a signal, I thought, that some Democrats at least were determined to govern again, and would allow there to be a range of opinion within their party.

Pennsylvania Democrats had seen in 2004 that moderate GOP Senator Arlen Specter was challenged from his far right and was in danger of being defeated for renomination. Conservatives Santorum and President Bush came to his aid and enabled him to win a narrow victory. Other moderate Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, and John Warner of Virginia often take much heat from their colleagues who are more conservative, yet without them, the GOP does not have a majority.

But Pennsylvania seems to be a very rare exception.

To be fair, I will note that some Republicans in Rhode Island are trying to purge liberal GOP senator Lincoln Chaffee from office this year. I would find this equally self-defeating except that Chaffee has hinted that he might, like Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, not vote for his party's leadership, in which case there would be no reason for Republicans to support him.. But I want to make clear that these type of tactics by either the left or right are equally wrong.

After Lieberman is purged, it is only a matter of time before these radical left-wing groups go after Democratic centrist Senators Tom Carper of Delaware, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Diane Feinstein of California, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Furthermore, every time Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Joe Biden of Delaware, both serious presidential contenders for 2008, attempt to articulate a moderate and thoughtful position on major issues, they receive a barrage of attacks and threats from this purist, left-wing faction of their own party.

America, whether the left and right wants to admit it or not, is always governed from the political center. In many states the political center, be it more Republican or Democratic, is so strong that only moderate or centrist candidates can win major office there. A national political party, if it wishes to be a majority party and to govern, must respect and accomodate this. This difference of opinion does produce internal conflicts and occasionally sharp or bitter disagreements, but this is a nation of almost 300 million persons, each of whom is entitled to his or her own opinion on the issues of the day, and the only way to govern successfully in such a representative democracy is by compromise, civility and good faith resolve.

Today, a great many Americans, including some Republicans, are unhappy with public policy and public issues. The president is distinctly unpopular, and a growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq is evident.

But the last thing any political party wants to do in this uneasy and critical time is to fundamentally weaken itself by purging those who belong to it, yet hold diverse views.

The spectacle of trying to purge Joe Lieberman, one of the most respected members of the Congress in either party, after a lifetime of extraordinary public service to his state and his nation, is ludicrous. An oustanding attorney general of Connecticut, three-term senator, Democratic candidate for vice president of the United States (who won a majority of the popular vote), and long-time conscience of his party, Lieberman should be the LAST person the Democrats should try to purge.

The good news is that the voters of Connecticut are not likely to listen to a bunch of outsiders and throw out one of the most distinguished public servants in the history of the state. Yes, probably more Connecticut Democrats now disagree with Senator Lieberman on the issue of the war in Iraq than agree with him, but his position has always been consistent and principled. There are even those who say, popular or not, that Lieberman's position on Iraq is the right position.

When I heard Mr. Lieberman speak only a few months ago, he was not uncritical of the mistakes made there, but he did maintain his support for our foreign policy and our troops in harm's way. His call for bipartisanship in foreign policy is being treated as a terrible sin by the far left faction of the Democratic party. I think it is among his best moments as a senator. Lieberman's critics attack him, but they dare not challenge his integrity, his moral purpose, or his political conscience.

Lieberman has also been attacked because he thinks we need to reform Social Security. That perennial media ostrich, Paul Krugman, recently echoed this and other criticisms of Mr. Lieberman in the New York Times, contending that the Connecticut senator is an alarmist on Social Security. It is propagandist Krugman, however, about whom his readers should be alarmed since his head is buried in so much Long Island sand. We need to do something soon on Social Security and all public and private pension funds.

Meanwhile, "grassroots organizers" are being encouraged to come into Connecticut during the next two months to defeat Senator Lieberman in the Democratic primary. I suspect that the voters of Connecticut won't be impressed with this political thuggery, and rightly will consider it an intrusion on their right to make up their own minds.

As for the choice they make, I'm betting that a lifetime of brilliant and brave public service will trump the empty slogans and the smears against a distinguished American.

Barry Casselman writes about national politics for Preludium News Service.

link

237308[/snapback]

This is too funny. Lieberman was elected in 1988 when conservative Republicans, including William F. Buckley. supported him over then Republican Senator Lowell Weicker. Weicker was considered too independent for Republican tastes. They found Lieberman more reliable to support their causes. Weicker later became an independent when it said it was clear that there was no room for people who did not toe the party line. He was then elected as Governor as an independent.

Lieberman still has the support of the Democratic party apparatus in this race, but this is a democracy, as much as guys like you wish it wasn't, and people with differing views can run in primaries and attempt to appeal to voters. At the recent CT Dem convention, Lieberman got about 67% of the delegates and his opponent got about 33%. Both are on the ballot and the voters can now decide.

The Dem apparatus has chosen and supports Pro-life Casey to be the Dem nominee for PA, and the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, is a pro-life Mormon. Are their any pro-choice Republicans in the congressional leadership?

Both parties have they extremists, but to suggest that the Dems are more controlled by their's than the Republicans is flat wrong.

[Tigermike 3,027]

Once again, a tirade from Tex that completely misses the mark.

,,,,,,,,,but this is a democracy, as much as guys like you wish it wasn't, and people with differing views can run in primaries and attempt to appeal to voters. 

237331[/snapback]

Once again Tex you jump to conclusions and make outlandish and unfounded personal attacks. But I have learned to espect that from you and now Shug. But let's get this straight, I didn't write the article, I merely posted it. And if you had read the article, you would know the author said:

Meanwhile, "grassroots organizers" are being encouraged to come into Connecticut during the next two months to defeat Senator Lieberman in the Democratic primary. I suspect that the voters of Connecticut won't be impressed with this political thuggery, and rightly will consider it an intrusion on their right to make up their own minds.

As for the choice they make, I'm betting that a lifetime of brilliant and brave public service will trump the empty slogans and the smears against a distinguished American.

He didn't say a single thing about the Democratic party apparatus working against Lieberman did he? He was talking about the left wing outsiders. But it is entirely possible you know that but want to reframe the argument. Which is a normal tatic for you.

Are you saying there are no left winger's who want Lieberman out and will be and are working to that end?

Try these.

http://blogforamerica.com/

Hearing from many people about Joe Lieberman, I understand some people's nervousness about a grassroots and netroots campaign to unseat a sitting Democratic incumbent.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24074

MoveOn.org is campaigning against Lieberman aren't they? But you don't consider them left wing do you?

Here is Mr. Casselman's e-mail address take up sack of bull**** with him if you wish.

Barry Casselman is a freelance writer who has analyzed national politics since 1972. E-mail: barcass@mr.net

[TexasTiger 12,865]

Once again, a tirade from Tex that completely misses the mark.

,,,,,,,,,but this is a democracy, as much as guys like you wish it wasn't, and people with differing views can run in primaries and attempt to appeal to voters. 

237331[/snapback]

Once again Tex you jump to conclusions and make outlandish and unfounded personal attacks. But I have learned to espect that from you and now Shug. But let's get this straight, I didn't write the article, I merely posted it. And if you had read the article, you would know the author said:

Meanwhile, "grassroots organizers" are being encouraged to come into Connecticut during the next two months to defeat Senator Lieberman in the Democratic primary. I suspect that the voters of Connecticut won't be impressed with this political thuggery, and rightly will consider it an intrusion on their right to make up their own minds.

As for the choice they make, I'm betting that a lifetime of brilliant and brave public service will trump the empty slogans and the smears against a distinguished American.

He didn't say a single thing about the Democratic party apparatus working against Lieberman did he? He was talking about the left wing outsiders. But it is entirely possible you know that but want to reframe the argument. Which is a normal tatic for you.

Are you saying there are no left winger's who want Lieberman out and will be and are working to that end?

Try these.

http://blogforamerica.com/

Hearing from many people about Joe Lieberman, I understand some people's nervousness about a grassroots and netroots campaign to unseat a sitting Democratic incumbent.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24074

MoveOn.org is campaigning against Lieberman aren't they? But you don't consider them left wing do you?

Here is Mr. Casselman's e-mail address take up sack of bull**** with him if you wish.

Barry Casselman is a freelance writer who has analyzed national politics since 1972. E-mail: barcass@mr.net

237367[/snapback]

"Tirade?" Look that word up. Your response comes a bit closer to being one than does my post.

You didn't write the article, but you did insert this into it, didn't you?

(Is this the reforming of the party we have been hearing about?)

You seem to think because a guy has a primary opponent that's a bad thing. Its just not the big deal you make it out to be.

Some folks don't like Lieberman and want him out. Some folks in Alabama want Moore over the incumbent Riley. Some folks outside of both states have support the outsider. In Lieberman's case, his opponent is a multimillionaire who actually tried to convince Lowell Weicker to run and when he decided not to, chose to do it himself.

Chill out. You'll live longer.

[Tigermike 3,027]

"Tirade?"  Look that word up.  Your response comes a bit closer to being one than does my post.

You didn't write the article, but you did insert this into it, didn't you?

(Is this the reforming of the party we have been hearing about?)

You seem to think because a guy has a primary opponent that's a bad thing. Its just not the big deal you make it out to be.

Some folks don't like Lieberman and want him out. Some folks in Alabama want Moore over the incumbent Riley. Some folks outside of both states have support the outsider. In Lieberman's case, his opponent is a multimillionaire who actually tried to convince Lowell Weicker to run and when he decided not to, chose to do it himself.

Chill out. You'll live longer.

237383[/snapback]

Yeah I know the meaning of the word and used it correctly in your instance.

"A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature; a diatribe. Fits you to a T doesn't it."

Once again you come to conclusions based entirely on your own bias and bigotry. Nearly all people running for political office will have an opponent.

Show me one instance where I have ever said or indicated that having a primary opponent is a bad thing. Just one.

Furthermore you know the article was not about having a primary opponent, don't you? Why are you avoiding the issue? Which is the left wing of the democrats are the ones after Lieberman's seat. Not conservatives or republicans. Dims are working harder to unseat a ranking Democrat Senator than the Republicans are,

I think it's a good thing that the libs look to be almost cannibalistic in their desire to purge the party of moderates. It would be great for the DNC if they were honest and embraced liberalism openly and wholeheartedly.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

"Tirade?"  Look that word up.  Your response comes a bit closer to being one than does my post.

You didn't write the article, but you did insert this into it, didn't you?

(Is this the reforming of the party we have been hearing about?)

You seem to think because a guy has a primary opponent that's a bad thing. Its just not the big deal you make it out to be.

Some folks don't like Lieberman and want him out. Some folks in Alabama want Moore over the incumbent Riley. Some folks outside of both states have support the outsider. In Lieberman's case, his opponent is a multimillionaire who actually tried to convince Lowell Weicker to run and when he decided not to, chose to do it himself.

Chill out. You'll live longer.

237383[/snapback]

Yeah I know the meaning of the word and used it correctly in your instance.

"A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature; a diatribe. Fits you to a T doesn't it."

Once again you come to conclusions based entirely on your own bias and bigotry. Nearly all people running for political office will have an opponent.

Show me one instance where I have ever said or indicated that having a primary opponent is a bad thing. Just one.

Furthermore you know the article was not about having a primary opponent, don't you? Why are you avoiding the issue? Which is the left wing of the democrats are the ones after Lieberman's seat. Not conservatives or republicans. Dims are working harder to unseat a ranking Democrat Senator than the Republicans are,

I think it's a good thing that the libs look to be almost cannibalistic in their desire to purge the party of moderates. It would be great for the DNC if they were honest and embraced liberalism openly and wholeheartedly.

237387[/snapback]

You're becoming unhinged. Don't be embarassed to seek help.

[Tigermike 3,027]

Then it would be safe to assume I was getting close to your level.

It would also be safe to say the article must have been on target since you went to so much effort attempting to change the subject.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

Then it would be safe to assume I was getting close to your level. 

It would also be safe to say the article must have been on target since you went to so much effort attempting to change the subject. 

237404[/snapback]

Actually, if you read my post, you would notice that I discussed the subject. You just incapable of following a discussion on most political matters.

[Tigermike 3,027]

Then it would be safe to assume I was getting close to your level. 

It would also be safe to say the article must have been on target since you went to so much effort attempting to change the subject. 

237404[/snapback]

Actually, if you read my post, you would notice that I discussed the subject. You just incapable of following a discussion on most political matters.

237411[/snapback]

Actually you need to read the article and your post again, Mr. Deflection. Or would Mr. Circular argument be better? Or Mr. Change the direction or intent of articles and what people say? They all are appropriate for you.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

Then it would be safe to assume I was getting close to your level. 

It would also be safe to say the article must have been on target since you went to so much effort attempting to change the subject. 

237404[/snapback]

Actually, if you read my post, you would notice that I discussed the subject. You just incapable of following a discussion on most political matters.

237411[/snapback]

Actually you need to read the article and your post again, Mr. Deflection. Or would Mr. Circular argument be better? Or Mr. Change the direction or intent of articles and what people say? They all are appropriate for you.

237415[/snapback]

Oh yeah?