Nation-Building >> concede, Joe | return to front page

"America has two great dominant strands of political thought - conservatism, which, at its very best, draws lines that should not be crossed; and progressivism, which, at its very best, breaks down barriers that should never have been erected." -- Bill Clinton, Dedication of the Clinton Presidential Library, November 2004

Add to Google Reader or Homepage Subscribe in Bloglines Subscribe in NewsGator Online Add to netvibes

website stats

Previous Posts
Netflix, Inc.
ThinkGeek T-Shirts will make you cool!
illy coffee - 2 cans, 2 mugs for just $26.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

 

concede, Joe

posted by Aziz P. at Wednesday, August 09, 2006 permalink View blog reactions
On the anniversary of 9-11, I wrote of the 2000 election that in the end, Bush was uniquely positioned to win, and Gore uniquely positioned to concede (in possibility the greatest concession speech in history).

I remember thinking in 2000 that while Gore was out there, trying to win, that Joe was nowhere to be seen - especially in the critical post-election Florida limbo. Joe wasn't invested in winnning, just being the winner, and so he left Al to do the dirty work. Many on the right castigated Gore for endorsing Dean over Joe in 2004 and now refusing to support Joe against Lamont, but the simple truth is that Joe abandoned Al, not the other way around.

Now, the Democratic party voters of Connecticut have spoken; they want Lamont, not Joe, to represent them. And Joe will run as an independent. I can't help but make the connection between the lack of commitment to his Party today and the lack of commitment in 2000.

Lieberman lost this race by less than 5 points. The sole reason he lost, in other words, was his public decision to run as an indy should he lose this primary. It was hubris, plain and simple, and it cost him.

There is no dishonor in submission to the will of the people. That is the essence of democracy. I hope that Joe realizes that public service is about the public, not the servant. I hope that he realizes that he should follow the example of Al Gore. Lamont won this primary with honor, and now it is finished.

Concede, Joe. Or bear the title of Sore Loserman as your political legacy.


Discussion

leiberman didn't drop out of his simultaneous run for he senate in 2000 when he was VP candidate. this should be no surprise.

 

That really bothered me then, too. Edwards however did drop out, which really in my mind stood him out from the pack.

fwiw, I am not against independent candidates. What I am against is someone claiming to be a partisan and then acting otherwise. Partisanship is like emotion (to ref your earlier post) - its a good thing, in balance.

 

i don't know. he's a politician. expectations of principle seem bound to be dashed.

 

A quick heads up - Lieberman is a Douche is going to examine the broken system that would allow someone like Sore Loserman to defeat the purpose of party primaries.

 

mark,

but with all due respect, parties are not gods. fundamentally parties and a purple philosophy are an odd fit!

 

What I am against is someone claiming to be a partisan and then acting otherwise.

At what point in time did Lieberman claim he was a Democratic partisan? It's Lamont's supporters who are the partisans that Lieberman opposes.

 

arcane, don't be disingenuous. leibermann clearly distanced himself from his normal bipartisan tone and attempted to emphasize his democratic bonafides. lamont's supporters are partisan as snow is white, that's pretty tautological.

 

exactly. Joe was a chameleon. Lamont ran and won as a Democrat, which is what Democrats are paying for.

Arcane, I am pleased that your tolerance level for our tomfoolery has increased somewhat. Try to bear with us :)

 

Joe was a chameleon.

he was, but in also in a way his supporters like to emphasize: despite his moderate rhetoric, on social and economic issues he was a convential liberal. lieberman's ADA ratings.

 

don't be disingenuous. leibermann clearly distanced himself from his normal bipartisan tone and attempted to emphasize his democratic bonafides.

Uh, his Democratic bonafides was that he was one of the most reliable Democratic voters in the Senate, but has continued to support the war effort. Those who say he wasn't a Democrat are obviously blinded by a blatant disregard of the facts.

The way the primaries are set up, Democrats are forced to move to the left (or Republicans to the right) or else they stand no chance of getting elected.

And while his TONE was bipartisan, his voting record was clearly on the side of the Democrats. He liked to talk the talk of the centrist, but on most issues he never walked the walk.

Lamont ran and won as a Democrat, which is what Democrats are paying for.

Lamont is no more of a Democrat than Lieberman is. The Democrats used to be a big tent party, not an explicitly leftist party... if I get what you're saying right, you're saying that if you're not a leftist, you're not a Democrat. Let the purges begin!

he was, but in also in a way his supporters like to emphasize: despite his moderate rhetoric, on social and economic issues he was a convential liberal. lieberman's ADA ratings.

My point exactly. I support Lieberman because he supports the war effort, but I have been extremely critical of his move to the left since he joined the Gore campaign in 2000. Prior to 2000, he was far more conservative than he is now, opposing affirmative action, proposing capital gains, income, and corporate tax cuts, promoting free trade politics, supporting school vouchers, opposing the Kyoto treaty, etc. He has since ditched all of those positions.

He was punished because he supported the war, not because he didn't vote with the Democrats.

 

Arcane, I am pleased that your tolerance level for our tomfoolery has increased somewhat. Try to bear with us :)

I quit talking about the war, since everybody has their position made up by now and debate is useless. My position on a slew of policies and actions changes on a monthly basis (like in April I was advocating a strategic partnership with Iran, although right now I'm back into my war mode). I seem to be the only person who actually has changing thoughts on the issue, so I've given up.

 

A quote from David Horowitz:

"There are still Democrats who believe [in having a strong national defense and an assertive foreign policy] but they are a diminishing factor in the Party. Jane Harman, who is the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee was until this spring a national security liberal in the Lieberman mold. Then she was challenged in a primary race by a brainless millionaire named Marcie Winograd. Winograd -- a nobody and a flaming anti-American, Cindy Sheehan leftist -- got 40% of the vote, despite the fact that Harman, who is also wealthy, spent $500,000 on her campaign. Following the primary, Harman has done a 180 turn and become a leftwing Democrat on national security issues."

The "progessive" blogosphere, like Kos, MyDD, Seeing the Forest, etc., are actively working to purge all pro-war Democrats from the party.

 

Post a Comment

Archives

View blog top tags
The Assault on Reason

Obama 2008 - I want my country back

I want my country back - Obama 2008

About Nation-Building

Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.