Joe Liebermann loses Democrat senate nomination
Well it appears Liebermann's unabashed support of George W. Bush's war in Iraq has cost him his nomination to run on the Democrat ticket for the senate in Connecticut. He lost to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. While this is good in the sense of punishing those who supported the War in Iraq, I do have serious reservations about whether this is a good thing in the bigger scheme of things or not. Over the last 40 years, the Republicans have continuously moved to the right under each successive leader. Barry Goldwater who was seen as a right wing wacko in the 60s, complained about the Republicans being too right wing in the 80s under Reagan, whose family has since complained about Bush Jr. being too right wing. The party that once occupied the pragmatic centre-right has became an ideological right wing party. This has left a huge opening for the Democrats to exploit, which Clinton successfully did in the 90s by placing the party firmly in the centre, rather than on the left. While I agree the Democrats should oppose the increasingly unpopular Iraq War, they must not move too far to the left. The United States is quite conservative relative to Canada so many left liberal ideas that may sell well in Canada are simply non-starters in the United States. Issues such as legalizing gay marriage, universal health care, ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, and tough gun control laws make perfect sense in Canada, but are not mainstream in the United States. The question left liberals (and note I am a blue Liberal) need to ask is do they want to put the brakes on Bush and his extreme right wing agenda by ensuring the Democrats retake control of Congress and the Senate or are they more interested in promoting their own ideology even if it means losing. I want to put the brakes on Bush and his extreme agenda and know this cannot be done by moving the Democrats to the left. I am glad they choose an anti-war candidate, but my advice to Ned Lamont and all other Democrats, stay in the centre, don't move to the left or you will regret it later.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 9:40 PM
14 Comments:
The Dems are going to live to regret this. Of that I have little doubt.
It's the kind of moderate voters that are attracted to people like Joe Lieberman that win elections for Democrats. You would figure that after the failures of McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry (and the success of Clinton), they would have learned that lesson.
I guess not.
Couldn't agree more. I don't agree with Liebermann's stance on Iraq, but I don't think moving to the left is the solution. Even for the Liberals I don't think it is the solution either although the Liberals are generally to the left of the Democrats simply due to Canada's more leftist leanings. Liberals in the US might want to learn many left wing ideas that might fly in Canada and Europe won't in the US.
Perhaps if Gore had been a little more to the left he would have captured the Green vote and Bush wouldn't have been able to steal the 2000 election...
You'd think that with the Iraq disaster (duh, who could predicted this would happen! What a shock!) combined with a balooning deficit would lead some to question the tough-talking right-wingers. However I suppose if one is hypnotized by FOX news...
Thought you guys might be interested in this. Keep in mind it's an average and not a median, which would be a more telling statistic. Statistics on "Total Private Average Weekly Earnings, 1982 Dollars - Seasonally Adjusted" for the U.S. gathered here.
Average weekly earnings, 1982 dollars:
1965-69: $313
1970-74: $321
1974-79: $307
1980-84: $278
1985-89: $272
1990-94: $259
1995-99: $266
2000-04: $277
2005-06: $276 (through may 06)
As you can see there was a downward slide which only started to improve after Clinton had been in office for a term. Once Bush snuck into the White House, things have stagnated and it's too early to see which direction things are moving. In any case, and I've said it before, I would say that in general, the rightward shift of American politics has been detrimental to the majority. If the Dems move left I hope for everyone's sake the voters move with them. If we could only get FOX news' owners to agree...
With the kind of tactics the Lamont camp used against Lieberman, from the photo of him in blackface to the anti-semitic rants he & the nutroots who support him are gonna make the Dems as irrelevant as they were for 25 years until Clinton came around.
With enemies like the Democrats, the Republicans don't need any friends
As you can see there was a downward slide which only started to improve after Clinton had been in office for a term.
And conversely, one can point out that the slide ended when the Republicans took back the House in 1994 for the first time in four decades. After all, it is the chamber where all appropriations bills must originate.
McGuire's right by the way. The Democrats simply don't win by going left, no matter how much guys like Ned Lamont and Howard Dean and their supporters would like to believe otherwise.
And conversely, one can point out that the slide ended when the Republicans took back the House in 1994 for the first time in four decades. After all, it is the chamber where all appropriations bills must originate.
True, although regardless of what party controlled which portion of the government, both sides have shifted right. Today's Democrat probably looks a lot like yesterday's Republican. Nice to see there has been an improvement in the last decade, although we are still a long ways off from the 60s/70s (before the righward slide began).
The Democrats simply don't win by going left, no matter how much guys like Ned Lamont and Howard Dean and their supporters would like to believe otherwise.
I would disagree. I think if they got a good looking, well spoken charismatic leader he could walk left of Clinton without problems. When you listened to Kerry speak it all made sense but his level of speech was way too far above the casual understanding of a typical "wal-mart shopper". Unlike Bush he didn't speak the same language as many Americans (short simple easy to understand sentences) and it showed in the polls. Bring it down a level: "enough with wasting massive resources in an iraq civil war, enough with George Bush's balooning govnerment, enough with education plans that don't help,... let's get real and get America back on track". Not that exactly, but something more like that. People aren't happy with Bush or Iraq right now... the dems should be able to capitalize.
Perhaps if Gore had been a little more to the left he would have captured the Green vote and Bush wouldn't have been able to steal the 2000 election...
You'd think that with the Iraq disaster (duh, who could predicted this would happen! What a shock!) combined with a balooning deficit would lead some to question the tough-talking right-wingers. However I suppose if one is hypnotized by FOX news...
Thats possible, but I've seen polls that say a good chunk of the Green vote would have stayed home. One could equally argue had Bush been more right wing he could have brought out much of the religious right vote that came out in 2004, but not 2000. I don't think it is just Fox News, but rather the fact conservatives dominate all spheres pretty much of political debate in the US rather it be radio shows. More importantly they will portray anyone who isn't a conservative as un-American. In addition the population shift from the more liberal leaning Rust Belt to the mroe conservative Sun Belt has also pulled the country to the right.
As you can see there was a downward slide which only started to improve after Clinton had been in office for a term. Once Bush snuck into the White House, things have stagnated and it's too early to see which direction things are moving. In any case, and I've said it before, I would say that in general, the rightward shift of American politics has been detrimental to the majority. If the Dems move left I hope for everyone's sake the voters move with them. If we could only get FOX news' owners to agree...
I don't think one can just say a rightward shift causes average incomes to fall, although the Republican economic record is not very good. In some places such as Ireland, centre-right governments have helped improve their standard of living while in Germany since Schroeder was elected real incomes have fallen right up to his defeat and unemployment has risen. I think centre-right governments improve standards of living, but not far right ones. I should also note Americans tend to be more concerned about keeping government out of their lives rather than creating a more just society. They were founded on the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while we were founded on peace, order, and good government. In fact whenever a state initiative to introduce universal health care has been brought forward it has been voted down, and most recently in Oregon by a margin of 78% to 22%. This would be unthinkable even in a conservative province like Alberta. The reason here is not because the American health care system is better, which it isn't, it is because Americans don't like government and feel government involvement in something as personal as health care infringes on their freedom, whereas Canadians see universal health care as a great equalizer and also a responsibility to take care of our fellow citizens.
McGuire's right by the way. The Democrats simply don't win by going left, no matter how much guys like Ned Lamont and Howard Dean and their supporters would like to believe otherwise.
I have to agree with Brandon here. To put things in perspective, the Democrats are like the Old Progressive Conservatives, while the Republicans are like the Reform Party in its early days. Anything to the left of a Brian Mulroney type PC just won't fly in the United States. Those on the left have to realize, their views aren't going to become mainstream in the US overnight; it took the Republicans forty years to take the US from a liberal society like Canada is today to be as conservative as it is today, so it will take a long-time for the left to turn things around. So those on the left have to decide, do they insist the Democrats stick to their views and continue to lose or accept the Democrats being further to the right than they are, but at least not as far right as the Republicans.
True, although regardless of what party controlled which portion of the government, both sides have shifted right. Today's Democrat probably looks a lot like yesterday's Republican. Nice to see there has been an improvement in the last decade, although we are still a long ways off from the 60s/70s (before the righward slide began).
I would say thats been the case with pretty much every party in the Western world. The simply reality is high deficits, high taxes, and out of control spending weren't working so the left wing parties stuck to their principles of a just society, but changed their approaches. Right wing parties had to find a way to differentiate themselves from the previous left wing parties, so that is why they swung to the right.
would disagree. I think if they got a good looking, well spoken charismatic leader he could walk left of Clinton without problems. When you listened to Kerry speak it all made sense but his level of speech was way too far above the casual understanding of a typical "wal-mart shopper". Unlike Bush he didn't speak the same language as many Americans (short simple easy to understand sentences) and it showed in the polls. Bring it down a level: "enough with wasting massive resources in an iraq civil war, enough with George Bush's balooning govnerment, enough with education plans that don't help,... let's get real and get America back on track". Not that exactly, but something more like that. People aren't happy with Bush or Iraq right now... the dems should be able to capitalize.
Perhaps, but I wouldn't count on it. In 1964, Barry Goldwater was seen as a right wing wacko even by many Republicans. Today, he would be seen as not right wing enough to be a Republican. People are dissatisfied with Iraq and the way things are going, but I don't think they are prepared for a radical shift to the left. The simple reality, and I say this as a Liberal, that had the Democrats run on a platform similiar to what the Liberals can run on and win here in Canada, they would be crushed in the United States. A more charismatic leader who can relate more to the average American will help, but I think trying to stick close to the centre like Clinton is the way to go, not to the left, which is a dead end in the US.
I would disagree. I think if they got a good looking, well spoken charismatic leader he could walk left of Clinton without problems. When you listened to Kerry speak it all made sense but his level of speech was way too far above the casual understanding of a typical "wal-mart shopper". Unlike Bush he didn't speak the same language as many Americans (short simple easy to understand sentences) and it showed in the polls. Bring it down a level: "enough with wasting massive resources in an iraq civil war, enough with George Bush's balooning govnerment, enoxes).ugh with education plans that don't help,... let's get real and get America back on track". Not that exactly, but something more like that. People aren't happy with Bush or Iraq right now... the dems should be able to capitalize.
Let me put it this way Brian:
In 2004, Karl Rove's strategy was targeted almost entirely toward the conservative base.
And look how well it worked. Bush won the first majority mandate since his Dad's back in '88, and he won more votes than any other presidential candidate ever.
Likewise, no one would ever accuse a guy like Ronald Reagan of being a centrist. And he obliterated the competition in two elections.
In contrast, guys like McGovern and Mondale and Dukakis, from the more leftist side of the Democratic Party, all had their asses handed to them.
The last three Democrats to be elected president all had two things in common: they were all southerners, and they were seen to be from the moderate wing of the party.
The last solidly liberal Democrat to be elected president was FDR (Kennedy was no Howard Dean). And that was at a time when free enterprise was facing it greatest crisis ever.
Just like is said about Conservatives here, the only path to victory for Democrats is through the centre of the spectrum. It's as simple as that.
Perhaps, but I wouldn't count on it. In 1964, Barry Goldwater was seen as a right wing wacko even by many Republicans. Today, he would be seen as not right wing enough to be a Republican.
Are you out of your mind Miles?
This is the guy who proposed using nuclear bombs to defoliate the jungles of Vietnam, and you consider him too moderate to be a Republican today?
I think you're somehow under the illusion that the only thing that equates with right-wing extremism is social conservatism.
Wow.
Tell me Miles, has Stephen Harper, or George Bush, or even Pat Buchanan for that matter, ever proposed to run amok with nuclear weapons?
I think not.
If there was ever a right-wing candidate worth being afraid of, it was Barry Goldwater.
On foreign policy Barry Goldwater was a nutbar, but he did in the 80s accuse Ronald Reagan of being too socially conservative and accused the Republicans of being hijacked by the religious right. On foreign policy he was certainly nuts in my view. However, he was more of a libertarian on domestic issues than a staunch social conservative.
Changing the subject:
Miles, good luck with your adsense ads.
Also it's been widely shown that if you eliminate the border (i.e. make it white rather than grey), more people will click on it.
This forum is a great resource if you ever get really in to adsense.
Thanks Brian for the tip. I'll when I have a moment take a look at it.
Only part of Reagans family says Bush is too right wing, and that part is democrat anyways and would say that about any Republican leader.
And Miles I am kinda shocked to hear you Barry Goldwater as a point kinda shocked me. Him calling Reagan too right just proved he was that much more of a nut, not that Reagan was actually more right.
Only part of Reagans family says Bush is too right wing, and that part is democrat anyways and would say that about any Republican leader.
And Miles I am kinda shocked to hear you Barry Goldwater as a point kinda shocked me. Him calling Reagan too right just proved he was that much more of a nut, not that Reagan was actually more right.
I realize Reagan's family is divided, but even Nancy Reagan has disagreed with Bush on stem cell research funding. Certainly one of their sons Ron Reagan who I should note has voted Republican in every election up until 2004 dislikes Bush. Barry Goldwater was a hawkish libertarian. He would have endorsed Bush on foreign policy, but he was for smaller government (which hasn't happened under Bush) while believed church and state should be separate. He criticized Reagan for pandering to the religious right too much despite the fact Reagan pandered to them far less than Bush has.
Post a Comment
<< Home