I have a question about this Lamont/DLC issue...

[Writer]

I understand that Lieberman is a part of the DLC, but why does the belief exist that, somehow, Lamont is against the DLC, or against moderation for that matter?

[Nite Owl]

1. The best I can explain it

is that anything moderate is now right of center. They went and moved the middle so Lamont used to be what is really rather center but is being painted as some wild eyed lefty because they consider someone like nomojoe to be a moderate/centrist/

[Writer]

2. Who is "they"? n/t

[Nite Owl]

28. I'd say they was

the corporate media, the corporations and who they choose to support. That would be the DLC, the third wayers. It isn't right wing because the whole right wing ideology is missing and corporations don't give a hoot about the 'values' part of that agenda they just want to have their interests up front. This is where the moderation needs to come in so people can be included, it's the part that has made the moderates too far right even though on social issues they are willing to compromise somewhat but are still fairly centrist.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Well for one thing, starting a war for no good reason isn't what

many would consider "moderate."

In fact it's a radical move, that destabilizes the entire middle east.

So I'm not sure how you are using your terminology.

Lieberman has been closely associated with the DLC, a private non-profit group of Demos who have for the most part aligned themselves with corporate interests, at the expense of the traditional Democratic base of working people.

[Writer]

4. So... Lamont is anti-moderate because he's vocally against the war?

Is there anything else?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Writer]

7. Uhhh.... no, why?

And why are you now personally attacking me instead of answering my question?

[John Q. Citizen]

10. I'm not attacking you, I just thought you might be a little sad.

Glad to hear you're chipper! Good luck with Joe. Maybe he can run as a moderate independent!

[Writer]

13. Wow. And you still haven't answered my question...

and apparently want to view me as a Joe Lieberman supporter. Oh well.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. Please refer to post #3. I apologise if I misinterpreted your reply.

It appeared that you purposely mis-interpreted my #3 post. Please re-read it and I think you will see that I made a good faith effort to answer your question.

[Zhade]

9. Hi, Writer!

Fair question you ask.

I wouldn't say Lamont is anti-moderate, since today's liberals are yesterday's moderates. I think Lamont is considered not aligned with the DLC's goals for a few reasons, one of the largest of course being his opposition to the criminally unnecessary war on Iraq.

On the issue of so-called "free trade" agreements (the legislation for which was practically, if not literally, written by corporate lobbyists):

I support strictly-enforced fair trade policies which level the playing field, requiring that American products have the same access to Chinese markets that Chinese products have to American markets. I would support only reciprocal trade agreements which include strong labor and environmental standards.

That's just two off the top of my Google head, but they're both pretty important (and pretty non-DLC) stances.

[Writer]

11. Okay. Thanks for that... but why has this whole DLC schism/dynamic ...

been raised at all? It seems like such a marginal conversation compared with the average Democrat/American voter. Personally I don't like Joe Lieberman, but not simply because of his war stance, but because he insists on associating himself so closely with President Bush. I think that's hurt the party in the past.

As far as the whole moderate/liberal dynamic, I say: "Who the fuck cares? This is only one state." Furthermore, if Joe is fringe right in the party... what should we say about Cynthia McKinney's primary challenge? It seems fringe... left, maybe?

[Zhade]

16. No idea why it was raised, except maybe...

...to take the chance to remind people that the DLC is for things like the occupation of Iraq and anti-labor free trade agreements.

Personally, I think those two things can be easily and correctly argued against without bringing up who supports them. It's that easy to make a cogent argument why they are bad.

Not sure what you're asking with regards to Ms. McKinney.

[Writer]

19. Ms. McKinney is also trouble for the party, I think, but in a different...

way. Not to say that she doesn't raise valid points, but that she seems to be a rabble-rouser and I don't think the DNC likes rabble-rousers. I get this feeling that this year the DNC is trying to "trim its hedges."

[Zhade]

21. She's been unfairly accused, even if she is fiery.

The cop thing, for example - she didn't punch a cop, the police refused to show the tape, the indict-a-ham-sandwich grand jury found the cops' case had no merit, etc.

I see her loss as a loss for progressive politics, if as it looks like (with the election shenanigans) she does lose.

[Writer]

23. Weren't there other issues with her outside of the cop incident?

Something more conspiratorial, or her harking on conspiratorial theories?

[MrBenchley]

25. Plenty of other issues

There was the time in 2000 she accused Al Gore of being racist...

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

5. Faith-based fanaticism

The actual fact is that the Unknown Millionaire's whoopsters have no fucking idea what he stands for. That's why they fly into a rage when you point out his stance on Israel's war is exactly the same as Lieberman's.

[Writer]

8. What are their stances... I know Lieberman supports Israel because...

well, he's a conservative Jew himself. But other than foreign policy, how is Lamont "anti-moderate?"

[MrBenchley]

12. Lamont turned out to support "the zionist oppression" himself

I got no idea how Lamont is anything...or even if he's going to say one thing and do another. Nor does anybody else.

About the only thing that anybody can say for sure about the Unknown Millionaire is that he was born rich, and made himself richer by selling security systems to gated communities for the ultra-rich. All else is just feverish fantasy by the far left.

[Writer]

14. Wait a minute... and so now this guy is supposed to be grassroots...

"for the people" populist? WTF? :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

17. Yup....

The entire Lamont movement is pretty much built on the swiftboating of Lieberman.

So assuming the Unknown Millionaire doesn't tank, tomorrow Lamont will be facing 100% of the independents (who lean Republican and are the state's largest voting bloc) and 100% of the Republicans (and there are more of them than there are Democrats in Connecticut) with about 40% to 45% of his own party completely alienated and angry at him.

Prepare for whole rafts of threads here explaining how this is everybody's fault but the far left.

[MrBenchley]

27. From AmericaBlog

"Affluent = Lamont, blue collar = Lieberman. "

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/turnout-may-be-favoring-lamont-vs.html

[eallen]

15. I think that belief is largely the result of the wingnuts.

The right-wing media and blogosphere has repeatedly tried to paint (a) Lamont as extreme "left wing," whatever that might mean, and (b) this primary as a Connecticut plebiscite on defense policy generally. I don't see any reason to believe either of those.

I still say Lieberman's chief mistake was to misunderstand the special time in which we live. Bush is not just a Republican president. He is a president who used an attack on this nation to deceive us into an unrelated war. He is a president who has tried to sieze power in a way not seen since Nixon. He is a president who would rewrite the Constitution. At the time of such a president, senators from the opposition party should not act as if everything were politics as normal. Joe's kissing up to Bush might be forgivable, if Bush were not an abnormally dangerous president. As it is, it's inexcusable.

[Writer]

20. Your argument is quite reasonable.

It may be a referendum on war, or a referendum on Bush himself, but I struggle to see this primary as a referendum on a certain line of thinking within the party.

Honestly I think Lieberman murdered himself by voicing support for Bush. He now will have to pay the price.

[tiptoe]

22. Sirota: "Joe Lieberman & the Hostile Takeover of 'Centrism' "

Joe Lieberman & the Hostile Takeover of "Centrism" by David Sirota

In my new book Hostile Takeover, I spend a good deal of time showing how ultra-conservative right-wingers have hijacked the terms "centrist" and "mainstream" and disconnected them from what's actually "centrist" and "mainstream" among the public. This is no small matter (and a topic I have focused on before) - it is a hugely important and powerful linguistic weapon deviously employed by the most destructive forces. That's right - today in Washington, positions that are way to the right of where the American public stands are regularly called "centrist" or "mainstream." That's no accident - it is a deliberate strategy employed by Big Money interests that run the Establishment to effectively marginalize the vast majority of the population from its own political debate and political system. It is, in short, a hostile takeover not just of our government, but of political discourse itself.

How this semantic strategy legitimates right-wing positions and politicians can best be seen in looking at Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), a man incessantly billed by the Washington media - and himself - as a "centrist." In fact, Lieberman's name has become so synonymous with Washington's propagandistic definition of "centrism" that some of the most insulated Establishment spokespeople are using the term in a pathetic attempt to defend him from grassroots primary challenger Ned Lamont (D).

As just one example, take Marshall Wittman. This ultra-right-wing former Christian Coalition official is now employed at the Democratic Leadership Council, and purports to speak for Democrats. He is one of the most odious icons of Washington's bought-off bipartisan Establishment - and has made a name for himself peddling right-wing talking points, narratives and storylines wholly at odds with actual facts. Last week was no exception. He told the Los Angeles Times that the Connecticut primary "is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party" because "it will have repercussions for the 2008 presidential campaign and whether centrists will feel comfortable within the Democratic Party."

Wittman, a staunch Lieberman shill, is actually correct, though inadvertently. He's right - this is "a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party" and it will indicate "whether centrists will feel comfortable within the Democratic Party." But the actual data shows that the centrist is not Lieberman, as Wittman purports, but those opposing Lieberman. And if Lieberman wins the primary, it could mean that centrists will not feel comfortable in the party, because the actual data shows Lieberman is the out-of-the-mainstream arch-right-winger, and the movement that is challenging him represents the real center.
...

[John Q. Citizen]

26. What he said. n/t

[primative1]

29. BullsEye

I have been dwelling on this point for some time. Unfortunatly I am not as articulate as this author who did a remarkable job in putting words to a feeling that we all have. Thanks.