Liberman flusters Dems

[southsider2k5]

Staffers from Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's office have been placing discreet calls to staffers in Sen. Joseph Lieberman's office in recent weeks.

 

The Reid people ask: What's Lieberman's thinking on Social Security? They're told not to worry, that the Connecticut Democrat is not for personal Social Security accounts.

 

But they say they don't feel confident that Lieberman is in sync with the party, particularly when they see the senator holding private meetings with Republicans, including a lengthy audience with Treasury Secretary John Snow.

 

That makes a lot of Democrats in Washington and Connecticut nervous and angry, particularly because Lieberman has very publicly flirted with the GOP on some issues.

 

He's a staunch backer of the Iraq war, supports faith-based initiatives, voted to confirm Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and was mentioned as a possible Cabinet choice. And perhaps most prominently, President Bush gave him a kiss after January's State of the Union speech.

 

Nothing, though, has triggered as much ire among Democratic loyalists as Lieberman's maneuvers on Social Security.

 

This is the issue the party is counting on to demonize Bush and to win back voters who have been drifting away for years.

 

`Anti-Joe Lieberman feeling'

 

"There is a much more visible anti-Joe Lieberman feeling among more Democrats than I've ever seen," said Thomas Swan, executive director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group.

 

To some observers, Lieberman is little more than an attention-driven politician who can't pass up a chance to get noticed.

 

But it's a measure of Lieberman's strength that many of his Democratic critics wouldn't comment on the record.

 

His supporters say there's another side to what makes Lieberman tick: Since his earliest days in the Connecticut Senate, he has always looked for ways to make the system work.

 

"People understand this is Joe being Joe. I don't think there's any problem," said Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)

 

What's different this year is that the political landscape has become more polarized.

 

Democrats, buoyed by polls, see the lack of ardor for personal accounts as an important way to ignite momentum for the 2006 elections and beyond.

 

Reid, a Nevada Democrat, has made clear he wants complete party loyalty on this issue.

 

But Lieberman on Sunday distanced himself from Reid's remarks about Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. After Greenspan voiced support for personal accounts, Reid last week described him as a "political hack." Lieberman said on CNN Sunday that Greenspan is "sometimes very mistaken," but he is an "above-average human."

 

Key to party's plans

 

It's considered particularly important that Lieberman stay in the fold. He is the best known of the Democratic moderates, and Republicans know that getting the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential candidate's support would be a coup.

 

Since the 109th Congress convened in January, Lieberman has met for about 45 minutes with Snow to discuss Social Security. He has been host to five meetings of the bipartisan Senate Centrist Coalition where the subject has been discussed.

 

"I'm against privatization," Lieberman said flatly in an interview last week, and on Thursday he joined 41 of the 44 Democratic senators in a letter to the White House reiterating that view.

 

But Lieberman will continue to talk to Republicans, and, he said, "I haven't seen too many Democratic ideas yet. This is a program that's been traditionally associated with the Democratic Party, and we have a special obligation to come up with some proposals to fix it."

 

And Lieberman keeps doing what he has always done, showing himself willing to listen to the Bush White House on a variety of matters.

 

The administration dangled the idea of his becoming Homeland Security secretary or United Nations ambassador last year. There is talk that should Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld step down, Lieberman would get a look.

 

Asked if he would rule out taking a position with the administration, he said last week, "I'm on a course, working very actively on my re-election campaign." Asked again, he said such an offer "isn't going to happen."

 

That kind of talk drives many Democrats nuts. "His attitude is not helping us when we're trying to create a clear divide between the two parties," said Don Kusler, communications director for Americans for Democratic Action.

 

But the reality is Lieberman remains an overwhelming favorite to be re-elected.

 

Swan, of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group and one of Lieberman's leading critics, conceded that: "The senator is probably unbeatable in the general election."

[TheBigHurt35]

So, tell me again why Lieberman is still a Democrat?

[Texsox]

I have been a fan of Lieberman for a long time. I match up very well with his views and also his methods.

 

My dream ticket is a McCain - Lieberman Independent Bid. Too bad neither guy would take the 2nd fiddle seat, nor do I really blame them. Both of those guys have gotten themselves into positions where they can thumb their noses at the parties and state what they believe, without fear of reprisal.

[WilliamTell]

Yeeaaah Lieberman. My favorite democrat.

[southsider2k5]

This is the line that got me.

 

"His attitude is not helping us when we're trying to create a clear divide between the two parties," said Don Kusler, communications director for Americans for Democratic Action.

 

 

They are dissing the guy because he thinks for himself, and is willing to work with people on the other side. That is just messed up.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Yeah -- the Dems here really piss me off especially when there is so much to legitimately gripe at Lieberman about like his wanting to develop a council to make sure live rock concerts are not what he deems "obscene" for adults to go watch, etc.

[Queen Prawn]

Just out of curiosity, if a Republican was doing what Joe is doing, how would the Rrepublicans of this board feel?

[southsider2k5]

Just out of curiosity, if a Republican was doing what Joe is doing, how would the Rrepublicans of this board feel?

 

I don't think it is wrong at all. I admire a guy like McCain on the other side of the aisle that does what he believes is right more often than about anyone else.

[Queen Prawn]

McCain

 

[WilliamTell]

I don't have a problem with what Joe's doing either. McCain is a prime example for the republicans. I'm honestly not trying to diss the Democrats here, but when they appointed Howard Dean as chairman, to me, they're showing no signs of trying to win moderate voters.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I don't have a problem with what Joe's doing either. McCain is a prime example for the republicans. I'm honestly not trying to diss the Democrats here, but when they appointed Howard Dean as chairman, to me, they're showing no signs of trying to win moderate voters.

 

They are just showing signs of having a spine in their party since right now its more shaky than cafeteria Jell-O.

 

I really try not to vote for offices based on party but rather on individual candidates running for whatever office -- since both parties seem to be populated with people who care about campaign donations & who is filling their pockets than what John and Jane Q. Public really want.

[TheBigHurt35]

This is the line that got me.

They are dissing the guy because he thinks for himself, and is willing to work with people on the other side.  That is just messed up.

 

What? You didn't realize that we elect and pay the salaries of these public officials just so they can bicker with one another? Didn't you get the memo?

[WilliamTell]

They are just showing signs of having a spine in their party since right now its more shaky than cafeteria Jell-O. 

 

I really try not to vote for offices based on party but rather on individual candidates running for whatever office -- since both parties seem to be populated with people who care about campaign donations & who is filling their pockets than what John and Jane Q. Public really want.

 

 

If you do consider that showing a spine then that's fine. But they're only going ot attract left and far left. Moderate and moderate left may not agree with it. They're losing ground in the House and Senate quickly, now's not the time to try to go far left. A lot of the country is sick of politics as it is.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

If you do consider that showing a spine then that's fine. But they're only going ot attract left and far left. Moderate and moderate left may not agree with it. They're losing ground in the House and Senate quickly, now's not the time to try to go far left. A lot of the country is sick of politics as it is.

 

I think that's because the way that the debate has been framed in this country that there are only two ways to go about issues in this country. There's a great piece in "America the Book": "The candidate can choose one of two platforms, but remember - no substitutions. For example, do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro-limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion. Luckily, all human opinion falls neatly into one of the two clearly defined camps. Thus, the two-party system elegantly reflects the bichromatic rainbow that is American political thought."

 

This simple "Well if you agree with X, you have to agree with Y, Z and A" crap is a disservice to actual debate.

[KipWellsFan]

If you do consider that showing a spine then that's fine. But they're only going ot attract left and far left. Moderate and moderate left may not agree with it. They're losing ground in the House and Senate quickly, now's not the time to try to go far left. A lot of the country is sick of politics as it is.

 

 

Would you consider Kerry and Edwards moderates?

[Texsox]

Neither party wants me

 

Anti-Abortion as a birth control method

Anti-Death Penalty

Balance the Budget

Train people, don't imprison them

Anti-Union

Single Payer health system

Tax the wealthy

Incentives for alternate energies

Use public resources for the public, in a non lethal way.

Social Programs through Religious groups

Control the public airwaves, no smut

Edited March 8, 2005 by Texsox

[southsider2k5]

I think that's because the way that the debate has been framed in this country that there are only two ways to go about issues in this country.  There's a great piece in "America the Book": "The candidate can choose one of two platforms, but remember - no substitutions. For example, do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro-limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion. Luckily, all human opinion falls neatly into one of the two clearly defined camps. Thus, the two-party system elegantly reflects the bichromatic rainbow that is American political thought."

 

This simple "Well if you agree with X, you have to agree with Y, Z and A" crap is a disservice to actual debate.

 

Great post Apu. I totally agree, and that is why it is refreshing to see the McCains and Liebermans of the world come along.

[Texsox]

It is much easier to market Pepsi and Coke as totally different, than shades of the same. Same with Dems vs. GOP. Don't talk about the similarities, focus on the differences, and the more differences, the better.

 

What has to happen IMHAOIO, are the rank and file in both parties to become more like Joe and John and less like Rush and Moore.

 

I have my elected leaders loaded in my address book and I am certain they may have me on spam blocker But I am quick to applaud and jeer. I send the same email to my Senators (GOP) and my Congressman (DEM).

[Rex Kickass]

I think the article is a bit misleading to be totally honest. People aren't pissed about Joe Lieberman being more "moderate" than the rest of the Democratic party. They are more worried that he's betraying the party when they are in a position to not be able to betray. There is plenty of room in the big tent for people with different positions. The governor of Montana is a staunch gun advocate. The Senate minority Leader is not pro-choice.

 

However, when there is an issue for the Democrats where it is important to take a united stance - like the privatization of Social Security, you can't afford to have someone like Joe Lieberman flirt with the GOP about coming over to their side because it makes the power you wield in Congress ineffective.

 

The story is pure inside baseball, and frankly not that accurate. You don't have to tow the party platform 100% of the time while you're in office, but you also need to do what your party asks of you too. The party helps you get there, and once you're there you need to help your party stay there. And the Democrats are far more laissez-faire about the stances of their Senators and Congressmen than the Republicans. Just ask Arlen Specter. Or Chris Shays. Or Olympia Snowe. Or Christie Todd Whitman.

[Texsox]

Both parties operate about the same way. History and competition have honed the process and in that comes efficiencies and survival mechanisms. I believe the GOP has the upper hand today because of their strategy to discredit anyone who criticizes them by calling them bias. That was pure genius. They also have gotten the party faithful to sponsor all GOP talk shows. Again, pure genius. The mid census redistricting strategy led by Texan Tom DeLay, which resulted in 5 new house seats for the GOP, was again, pure genius.

 

They even took the classic tax and spend strategy of the Dems, repackaged it as don't tax and still spend; and crushed the Dems some more. I cannot think of a political strategy that hasn't worked for them in years.

 

In the game of politics for the past 8 or 9 years, it's game-set-match GOP.

Edited March 9, 2005 by Texsox

[Rex Kickass]

Except its amazing how fast the tables turn when someone starts "changing the rules of the game." It can really bite someone in the ass. After the Texas re-redistricting, Dems are looking at doing the same thing in a few states where they now control state houses.

 

Democrats did very well last year on the AAA level of state houses and senates... especially in red states. And that means a year or two down the line, it could cost the GOP some of the very seats they count on today.

[YASNY]

I admire both Lieberman and McCain for their refusal to toe the party line. LCR is right that the Dems are upset about the Social Security reform issue when it comes to Lieberman. Bush's foreign policy is starting to show signs of germination, with the signs of democracy in the Middle East. If Bush's foreign policy is bearing fruit, they damn sure cannot have his domestic issues do so as well.

[YASNY]

Except its amazing how fast the tables turn when someone starts "changing the rules of the game." It can really bite someone in the ass. After the Texas re-redistricting, Dems are looking at doing the same thing in a few states where they now control state houses.

 

Democrats did very well last year on the AAA level of state houses and senates... especially in red states. And that means a year or two down the line, it could cost the GOP some of the very seats they count on today.

 

 

Oh, the Dems have played the same tune before. Just had a different drummer.

[Rex Kickass]

Re-Redistricting is rare.

[TheBigHurt35]

Re-Redistricting is rare.

 

They can only do it after a national census. Unfortunately, both parties have conspired to gerrymander their incumbents back into office recently.