Jerome Armstrong [has] got it all wrong when it comes to the Lamont-Lieberman race....[H]e says he"view[s] this race as one of a weak Democrat that has appeal for Republicans against a strong partisan progressive Democrat."Why on earth should the man switch parties? The Dems need him more than he needs them. And he's probably more useful to the Administration on his present side of the aisle. If he were a Republican, he'd just be another Republican, but as a Democrat, he's an asset. And of course the other Democrats are fine with that.... [I]t's easy for us all to sit back and comfort ourselves and say, yeah, if Lieberman is reelected, he will just be a bad Democrat, but he won't switch, and he'll be a Democrat, so who cares? People say this even as the mounting evidence suggest the contrary - and very strongly. This is a guy who is now running to national newspapers making overt threats about switching parties.
Sirota's keening here is in response to a comment by Jerome Armstrong:
I view this race as one of a weak Democrat that has appeal for Republicans against a strong partisan progressive Democrat. It's similar to a lot of mayoral races that happen nowadays, where, because of the weakness of the Republican party, the to-the-right Democrat/Independent wins their vote. Such is the electoral landscape in situations where the Republican party is too weak to compete-- like the CT Senate race.Never thought I would agree with anything Jerome Armstrong has to say, but he's got this one right. What he doesn't seem to have done is drawn the full implications of his insight.
He paints -- correctly, I think -- a picture of party politics in which the stronger party expands ideologically to fill any vacuum left by the weaker one. But Jerome -- what does this say about the nature of the parties? What, in particular, does it say about the idea, so beloved of you and your fellow Kosniks, that the Democrats are the more "progressive" party, if it's perfectly willing, given the opportunity, to do the Republicans' supposed job as well as its own?
Comments (8)
I'm surprised all over again, MJS, by how reluctant the Democratic activists are to make use of all available tools to forward their agenda. Even the meanest careerist should be able to see the value of a rejectionist bloc; even if all they intend is to position themselves better in power games. These guys have a fat, priggish and torpid look to them.
Posted by J. Alva Scruggs | October 6, 2006 9:10 PM
Posted on October 6, 2006 21:10
Fight or switch?
Jebus H. Crips lad (lady)
that reference dates us all!
except certain GOP congressmen...
eeeeeep! and eeeeeee!
Posted by paul Curtin | October 6, 2006 11:05 PM
Posted on October 6, 2006 23:05
Just how is Lieberman doing, anyway? I haven't seen any polls. Probably because they're not worth bragging about for the lefties
Posted by Rowan | October 6, 2006 11:09 PM
Posted on October 6, 2006 23:09
Zogby says:
To be taken with however grains of salt seem wise.
Posted by J. Alva Scruggs | October 6, 2006 11:47 PM
Posted on October 6, 2006 23:47
We fat prigs deserve better than to be lumped in with the likes of Kos, thankyouverymuch. I came by both qualities honestly, and I'm not making money off them, either.
Posted by ms_xeno | October 7, 2006 12:59 AM
Posted on October 7, 2006 00:59
Fat prigs can only refer to them others, Ms. Xeno, the worried but optimistic types who go back to the Democrats every time. The clean-souled and honest rejectionists, about whom no ill can be said, have earned flattering euphemisms: concerned and of majestic girth, for example.
Posted by J. Alva Scruggs | October 7, 2006 1:10 AM
Posted on October 7, 2006 01:10
i think this site's
el magnifico gets it dead on here
" What, in particular, does it say about the idea, so beloved of you and your fellow Kosniks, that the Democrats are the more "progressive" party"
if your hardened vote and money producing borg cube
has assumptions about
take overs
and
winning elections
and
retaining ney advancing
their "transformative values "
ie principles
well ..
they need to sort out the internal contradictions
not have a fit or tunnel vision
when they so obviously and hopelessly
collide as they have in this nutmeg derby
Posted by js paine | October 7, 2006 10:08 AM
Posted on October 7, 2006 10:08
J. Alva mentioned to me elsewhere that Democrats have no guiding or core principles. I don't think that's the problem, at least among the lower rank and file. My husband, for instance, is a principled guy or I wouldn't be married to him. No, the problem at the Koskiteers' level is that all principles are negotiable. Every election sets even the most liberal-seeming candidate up to do the dance of the seven veils. The only suspense is the order the veils turn out to be in as they are removed one by one to the cheers of the crowd. Even when the crowd is clearly miserable, it must cheer. I don't know why.
You can see this happening with Feingold already and he has yet to even announce that he's running.
Nader, flaws and all, had their number in '04. He asked, "Do you have a breaking point ?" Any breaking point ? The answer was "no" then and it's "no" today. >:
Posted by ms_xeno | October 8, 2006 4:57 PM
Posted on October 8, 2006 16:57