Lieberman: Obama Puts Party Before Country

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:55


While trashing Obama yet again, Lieberman repeats one of the more obnoxious "non-partisan" talking points around (emphasis mine):

"In my opinion, the choice could not be more clear: between one candidate, John McCain, who's had experience, been tested in war and tried in peace, another candidate who has not,'' Lieberman said. "Between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not."

Not only should a statement like this against the Democratic nominee be grounds, in and of itself, to strip Lieberman of his committee chair, but it repeats one of the more absurd, offensive and self-congratulatory talking points by those who take pride in being non-partisan.

How many times have we heard the claim that partisans supposedly rank party over country? How many times has this happened without a single instance of what that actually means being provided? It is right up there with arguing that partisan gridlock is preventing real solutions in D.C., even though no examples of what policies are being blocked by partisanship for the sake of partisanship are ever given.

Who knowingly does things that s/he believes will be bad for the country, but good for the party? Sounds like the Republican talking point that Democrats want to lose a war in order to win an election. Or, it could mean that Lieberman is accusing Obama of being an old school communist since, in their quest for international revolution, they put the party above all countries. Or maybe he is accusing Obama of seeking an aunschluss between the USA and other countries.

But really, we don't know, because Lieberman, like many people who pride themselves on being non-partisan, just accused Obama and a whole range of people of being traitors without giving examples of how. I mean, I am a partisan who ranks everything in my life--from my family, my country, and even my nagging desire to eat--below being a Democrat, but that is just me. However, when others are accused of being as deranged as I am in this matter, they really need to provide examples. Above all else, I hate to see my fellow Democrats be criticized.  

Chris Bowers :: Lieberman: Obama Puts Party Before Country

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Lieberman: Obama Puts Party Before Country | 28 comments
Lincoln, Jefferson, FDR, LBJ All Put Party Over Country (4.00 / 2)
Just ask any sensible bipartisan centrist of their time, and they'll agree--these were all dangerously partisan Presidents who threatened to destroy the republic.

Where, oh where is Grover Cleveland Alexander when we really need him?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Who would (4.00 / 3)
Who knowingly does things that s/he believes will be bad for the country, but good for the party?

How about turning the government into a cash cow for favored corporations to build the GOP even if it bankrupts the country?

How about turning agencies like FEMA over to incompetent cronies so that the people will lose faith in the ability of government to help, thus undermining the opposing party?

How about taking millions in campaign contributions from defense contractors and inserting earmarks for things the military doesn't want further bankrupting the country in order to keep the GOP in power?

How about staffing the country's premier law enforcement agency with incompetent hacks, thereby costing the government victories in court and pursuing politically motivated prosecutions that undermine elections and respect for the law, all in order to create a "permanent Republican majority"?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Well, It's All For The Good of The Country (Club) (4.00 / 1)
Conservatives have always believed that elites are the embodiment of the country.  What's good for them is by definition good for the country.  What's good for the rabble is irrelevant, if not downright subversive.

Your mistake, Mimi, is in thinking like like a Lockean 17th Century liberal.  We're back in a pre-1215 mindset these days.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Is Lieberman daring his party to rebuke him? (0.00 / 0)
Maybe this is too conspiratorial of me, but I can't help wonder whether Lieberman is baiting Democrats to rebuke him and argue with him, so that he can later accept the VP slot with McCain and take the posture that he is the one who is above party politics.

If this scenario is at all plausible, perhaps it means that Democrats should be somewhat careful on how to respond to Lieberman? Or is there simply no scenario where it makes sense to reply with anything less than complete outrage?

I suppose this depends upon whether we think Lieberman helps or hurts a McCain ticket.  I'm not sure why, but my gut reaction, honestly, is that McCain would score some political points by selecting Lieberman, and that he may actually be the best choice McCain could make (politically).

Nah (4.00 / 4)
Lieberman helps the "stick it to liberals" bully sect of the party, but hurts the ticket with ideological conservatives (such as evangelicals) who won't vote for someone with his voting record and views on almost everything other than war. Lieberman is a sociopath who isn't troubled by lying, but, like Romney, he's got too much baggage. Rove's minions won't let McCain add Lieberman to the ticket for that reason alone, let alone the fact that he looks old and reinforces the fact that McCain is older than dirt.

We kicked Lieberman out of the party in 2006, so you could observe that this is his revenge or that he's doing it more in sorrow than anger or whatever, but you could not successfully portray his selection as above petty party politics. In 2004, you could have done that, but there is now progressive pushback against such crap.

The conversation at McCain's HQ right now probably looks something like this:

ROVE MINION 1: I think Pawlenty is best of a bad bunch, but we'll try to fly with the Morman if we gotta. At least he'll pick up financial conservatives.

MCCAIN: I want Lieberman. I don't care. I like him a lot.

CINDY: Johnny, have some sense. It has to be Pawlenty or Romney, or you simply have no chance.

MCCAIN (turning red): !#$$ you @!!!$$%@# trollop! I'll kill you! !!!$$$@@%#@!

[CINDY sighs and shakes her head in weary resignation.]

ROVE MINION 2: John, Lieberman's record will absolutely f**k us in November. He supports birth control, for god's sake!

[MCCAIN growls, SHAKES a fist at the ROVE MINIONS and STAGGERS offstage.]

[ Parent ]
I'm really not sure about this (0.00 / 0)
Doesn't the fact that ideological conservatives would be unhappy with Lieberman provide McCain with more room to claim he is the true post-partisan moderate?

Considering that the conservative base is never going to be passionate about McCain, I really wonder whether a Lieberman choice would help him overall.

[ Parent ]
Lieberman hurts McCain (0.00 / 0)
But he does have his friends in some constituencies of the Dem Party, so the Dems should continue to ignore him until after McCain makes his selection.  If he picks Lieberman, then have every Dem talking head go on TV to talk up Lieberman's record on choice and other liberal issues.  If not, there's still plenty of time to kick him out in January.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
We should ratfuck him (4.00 / 2)
Harry Reid needs to drop the 'everything but the war' line and start saying how glad he is that Joe Lieberman is such good friends with John McCain, and that he hopes he'll be using his influence to foster his stance on Hot Button Issue X.

Just make the bastard squirm.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
This is exactly the right plan (0.00 / 0)
My only concern is that Lieberman has never really taken a strong stand on issues like gay rights and choice (although he generally votes the right way).

Lieberman has also veered towards a Republican tack on affirmative action in the past...

[ Parent ]
Lieberman's liberalism is highly overrated (0.00 / 0)
He's a doctrinaire Republican on free trade and corporate issues. He led a one-man crusade against the expensing of stock options in the early nineties, which later became a scandal on Wall Street after the tech bubble burst. Lieberman's a neoconservative on foreign policy. He's been for social security privatization. He's for "tort reform". He's been for school vouchers. His views on affirmative action are spotty. I've often scratched my head on what exactly was liberal about Joe Lieberman? He's pro-choice, and.... Lieberman has always used show votes to pump up his progressive cred. He would vote against drilling in ANWR, then turn around and be the only New England senator to vote for Cheney's Energy Bill. He voted against the bankruptcy bill, while voting for cloture on the bankruptcy bill, which was of course the important vote. He's done this repeatedly in his career. There is a reason he was supported by the National Review when he ran against Lowell Weicker in 1988.  
[ Parent ]
The fact that Lieberman's desk isn't in the men's room already (0.00 / 0)
proves that Reid is afraid to exert control of his caucus. Lieberman's committee chairmanship is at the behest of the Democratic leadership, it should have been pulled long ago on the grounds of ineptitude, let alone disloyalty. Lieberman should have been tossed from the ramparts like Phil Gramm was in the House in 1983. There is no discipline in the caucus because the leadership will not impose it. If the leadership won't bring the hammer down on Lieberman, for deeds of the most egregious sort, what hope is there that they'd put the screws to party members who just screwed them on a key vote? None.

Lieberman has no value to the McCain ticket, and he has no leverage. Who is Lieberman going to attract to the McCain ticket? He might repel the right-wing, even though he's more conservative than some let on, and he certainly isn't going to pull any Democrats. Lieberman must realize at this point that his political career is in its terminal phase. He's a pariah on Capitol Hill. If he runs for re-election in Connecticut those loyal Democratic voters that couldn't bring themselves to vote for Ned Lamont in 2006 will turn on Lieberman in 2012 like a pack of rabid hyenas.  

[ Parent ]
Screw him...after Nov, throw his ass overboard.... (4.00 / 2)
the projections are that the democrats should pick up anywhere from 6-10 seats.  So after November, see ya...don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out the door.  

Lieberman is living in a delusional world of being a centrist democrat and that his wisdom will scare other democrats and independents to vote for a McCain-Lieberman ticket.  I say bring it on, as he will scare off the hardcore republicans and not attract any independents or moderate republicans.  

I think that Lieberman as the VP would be even more entertaining that Mittens...can you imagine the fun...the fact that the majority of CT would not vote for him now, two years later is a huge indicator of where he has fallen to.

DON'T. WAIT. (4.00 / 1)
NOW.
[ Parent ]
ya have to wait...if he goes over to the other side now.... (0.00 / 0)
then the republicans gain control of the senate...50-50 and Darth Vader is the tie breaker.   We would lose the chairmanship's to all the committee's which have actually gotten some stuff done (Waxman and Conyers have been very good)...so no, I would say wait until we have a 5-9 seat majority and boot him the hell out.
[ Parent ]
No it won't ... (0.00 / 0)
and I don't know why you bring the House into it .. because what goes on in the Senate re:HoJo has no bearing in the House.  So we could kick out HoJo now and Reid would still be majority leader
[ Parent ]
Kicking Lieberman out won't do that (0.00 / 0)
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007...

But it won't happen before 2009 anyway, and we should, hopefully, have enough margin to cope at that point.

[ Parent ]
You're assuming that party leadership wants to do that (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't make that assumption.
[ Parent ]
Example of partisanship first (4.00 / 2)
Republicans blocking S-CHIP.
But in fairness, that's not putting party ahead of COUNTRY (4.00 / 1)
...just the country's future.
[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
It is important to be fair.  Thank you for providing some bipartisan perspective.
[ Parent ]
Epic example of party before country: (4.00 / 2)
Bill Kristol advising the Republicans in 1993 to block any and all health care reform, because any reform that a Democratic pres and Democratic House pass would cause the middle class to tilt Democratic for the next 15 years.  So he tells the GOP minority in the Senate to not compromise, not try to shape the bill to their liking in exchange for their votes, but instead just kill everything.  Because the consequences of any Democratic health care reform for the GOP were so dire.

That's party before country.

Now if you want a Democratic example, I don't know what to tell you.  I imagine Lieberman is "thinking" of McCain's line about Obama snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.  So in short, all our interlocutors are delusional.

[ Parent ]
Wasn't it Phil Gramm who (0.00 / 0)
said that if the Democrats manage to pass universal health care, the Republicans would be the minority for another 70-years?  
[ Parent ]
Joe = Zell (0.00 / 0)
All Joe needs is a spittle flying speech at the Republican convention and he'll have gone full Zell. Why are we or anybody else even paying any attention to him anymore?  
Nicknaming him that would help (0.00 / 0)
Republicans love nicknames. They're cheap ways to score political points and to get your line of argument across. Referring to him as Zell Miller would do the job quite well and would have the added benefit of not being completely inaccurate.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Zell Lieberman! (0.00 / 0)
Spread the word:
Zell Lieberman loves him some McSame!
[ Parent ]
Lieberman making a sad spectacle of himself (4.00 / 1)
Here's the guy who couldn't win the Democratic OR Republican primary in his home state, shafting the Democratic nominee to support the Republican nominee. His sorry excuses are pathetic as he tries to justify his own party disloyalty.

Hey you Republicans were right on when you called him Joe Loserman. He's yours so please take him away from our party. We'll flush out a turncoat prig with a superiority complex, you'll get a token "liberal" for your convention speaker circuit.

This is a very good narrative for McCain (0.00 / 0)
This is such an excellent angle for McCain, it builds on his perceived outsider status relative to the GOP - which is his best shot at distancing himself from Bush, it frames him as patriotic, and it attacks Obama on one his greatest vulnerability - not being patriotic enough. Its so effective that it makes me nervous, I'd hate to see two months of this as the lead frame from the cable chowder heads. Obama and the Dems need to come up with a good counter punch to this. Chris' denunciation isn't going to be it.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
Jeebus, we're pathetic (0.00 / 0)
It's truly sad when even wimpy Lieberman can bully us* with impunity as unpatriotic and treasonous, with nary a peep from our leaders, who are supposed to stand up and represent/defend us. Either they're too scared to respond or they just don't care that they're (we're) being bitch-slapped.

If our leaders won't stand up to the bullies on our behalf, why should they expect us to stand up on their behalf? You wonder if there's a Democrat left in this country. I mean, one honest-to-God Democrat with a full set of balls... (cf)

* When they say this about our elected leaders and nominees they're saying it about all of us who support them.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

Lieberman: Obama Puts Party Before Country | 28 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox