A lot of people think I'm here to promote Lieberman or diss Lamont or whatever, but it really isn't true. When all is said and done, I actually would prefer Lamont, and I give a big reason for this later in this post. But I do look at things strategically because I believe in getting more of what I want rather than less, and doing the right thing for people other than myself, which means taking the Republicans out of power through the electoral process, a process which doesn't care how you or I feel any more than anyone else, but how many votes go to each candidate. Some important questions I ask with regard to this race are as follows:
1. Of course, would Lamont be able to win the general?At first I was rather worried about this when Lamont's support was smaller than the undecided group in a two-way race. Now I'm not as worried. In the last Quinnipiac poll I saw, there was still a hole big enough for Schlesinger to walk through, but he would pretty much have to win over all the undecideds. The only thing that worries me now is that there seem to be a lot of people here at least who really don't take the general into consideration during the primary. I look at my vote not as a chance to express myself, but an important decision which could mean life or death for at least thousands of people. It's a responsibility, not a box of crayons and some construction paper.
2. Are the reasons for replacing Lieberman given by most other people ones that I would agree with?Somewhat. I was against the Iraq War, enough to participate in what was probably the largest act of civil disobediance in Chicago's history when I marched on Lake Shore Drive during it's onset. I don't have as firm opinion about what to do now about it because guess what: I'm not some expert in foreign policy or defense. How I feel about peace or democracy in the middle east (both of which I honestly hope get achieved with or without us) has nothing to do with how to get to either.
The thing that does very much anger me about Lieberman, to the point where I would think a primary challenge is justified, is his disregard for party loyalty, not so much in relation to his possible independant run (his Democratic affiliation would still get us committee chairmanships, and if it were still very iffy regarding Lamont's chances against Schlesinger, I'd say he actually might in one way have a responsibility to the party to run), but in his tone in addressing Democrats who disagree with him. By far, our own politicians have been much more polite in denouncing Bush*'s positions than Lieberman has been in denouncing fellow Democrats' positions. I'm willing to accept something of a range of opinion on some matters, but the respect for his should come with some reciprocal respect from him, and he should never ever undermine a significant part of his party so severely. I think I've only heard one person bring this up as a reason to drop Lieberman, and it's curious that it was a person I knew in real life and not one I knew online.
I feel the kiss has not much to do with anything, and I still haven't even seen a picture where you can see it's a kiss anyways. Should Kucinich be challenged come next primary for shaking Bush*'s hand? He didn't have to shake hands. We have no kings in America, right? Why didn't he jump up and down like the guy from Rage Against The Machine instead? "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me!" And why is the picture still on Kucinich's web site? Is he proud of it or something?
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/oh10_kucinich/photo_020701_bush.htmlThe idea that Lieberman votes with the Republicans all or even most of the time is demonstrably false, and the ease with which this argument could be debunked demonstrates that those who use it do not show a concern for the party, but a lack of it. For instance, I found said debunking with a simple Google search on these terms: Lieberman voting record Republican
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Lieberman+voting+record+Republican&btnG=Google+SearchThe first article has all the information one needs to know that this isn't true. The lack of diligence in evaluating one's own claims before throwing them out across the country is telling. Have respect for the party and guide it intelligently.
3. If they are not reasons I would agree with, would they hurt the party if generally applied to other primaries?The last one I bring up, along with other related hyperbole, really does concern me; I don't think we can maintain sanity with regards to winning elections and getting more of what we want with this kind of recklessness. Especially with regard to the rumor that was spread that Lieberman was considering running as a Republican; if we want to be effective, we shouldn't have people committing grave betrayal by planting false information to members of their own party. It might take many many lost opportunities for us to learn this, and it may be directly related to netroots. The Internet is of course a powerful tool in disseminating information, but many elements of social interaction are missing; for instance, there are almost no consequences to being credulous or rude, little social cost for failing to act in a reasonable manner during discussion, few cues that the other party is too aware of your manipulative tactics, etcetera. If we were people at a Meetup or local Democratic Party gathering, people couldn't pull the kind of tricks they do here or on some blog for long; they would have to make an effort to make people want to listen to them, prove their worth to a group trying to make progress. Constant threats of secession to third parties would certainly not be tolerated.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
