Joe Klein on Lieberman

[ProSense]

Web Exclusive | Joe Klein
Lieberman's Last Stand
The Connecticut senator's almost saintly civility may be coming back to haunt him on Iraq

Posted Sunday, Jul. 23, 2006

Snip...

But it is, even though both candidates have decided to talk mostly about other things—a metaphor, perhaps, for the nation's traumatic paralysis over the Mesopotamian disaster. Lieberman's diffidence is understandable. His unflinching support for the war isn't very popular with even his strongest supporters. But Lamont seems almost as reticent. A few days earlier, I'd watched the challenger chug through an entire speech to an Indian-American group without talking about Iraq. "I didn't even talk about the war!" he said with pseudo amazement when he began to take questions. The challenger obviously is out to prove he is more than a single issue anti-Joe. That will be a tough sell, since Lamont's positions on most other issues seem standard cardboard purchased from the Democratic Campaign Depot store. And there is no getting away from the war. The first few questions from the Indian Americans were about Iraq. In answering them, Lamont revealed an additional weakness. He doesn't have a clue about what he'd do about the war beyond a general let's-get-outta-there body language. It's a forgivable offense. At this point, Lieberman is not offering much more than stay-the-course body language.

Let's stipulate that Lieberman's position is honorable, heartfelt and politically courageous. But it is annoying, nonetheless. After his AFL-CIO speech, I asked the Senator, "If you believe that winning this war is so crucial, why haven't you been tougher on the Bush Administration's inept prosecution of it?" Lieberman replied, mildly, that he had criticized the Bush Administration in the past. And then he did a curious thing. "I think we may have wasted the first year in Iraq," he offered, then retreated, "Well, that may be a little hard ... Maybe I should say we lost opportunities," and then, noticing that I was about to splutter with indignation, he retracted his retraction. "No, we wasted it." To say the least!

Snip...

Joe Lieberman is, without question, one of the finest men I've known in public life. I could never imagine myself voting against him. But he was profoundly wrong about the most important issue of the past five years—and now, at the very least, he has to acknowledge that there's an elephant sitting in the pickup truck.

more...

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1218015,00.html

Why is Joe Klein pretending he's always been critical of the war? Only thing I've ever heard him say on all things related to Bush and Iraq is: cool!

[karynnj]

1. I guess he thinks media pundits are allowed to re-invent themselves

while politicians need to never change their position. His comment on Lamont not knowing what to do on Iraq is bizzare - if Lamont were running for President, I would want a plan with some meat. (In 2004, only Kerry would have met this criterion.)

As a freshman Senator in the minority party, his role, if elected, will likely be to vote on bills and amendments related to the war. Klein should ask him how he would have voted on Kerry/Feingold and the Levin amendment - and why he would vote as he says.

As to Lieberman, "saintly civility", aren't many Senators civil. Is mischaracterizing positions taken by your peers, civil. Taking the Senator we know best, I have never heard him say a single thing that was not civil about Lieberman - even though Lieberman, in his infinite wisdom praised Bush's Iraq policies while campaigning for Kerry in FL and when Lieberman has repeatedly called his bill, withdrawal. All he did was say he would endorse the winner of the primary.

[TayTay]

2. Saintly Civility?

From Holy Joe? Ahm, excuse me, isn't this the guy that all the Rethugs go to when they want to find a Democrat to critize other Democrats? Isn't this the guy who is constantly making it harder for the Democrats to coalese around an issue? Isn't this the guy who the Rethugs put up to speak first when the Democratic proposals for withdrawal were on the table?

Saintly civility only applies to appeasing Republicans. They can bite me.

[karynnj]

3. I doubt the cannonization myself and think it really strange that

Joe Klein would use a Christian (I think mainly Catholic) term to describe Lieberman. There are Jewish words to use. I also doubt politician is aiming for sainthood - I think most would prefer the Presidency.

As to civility - I think Lieberman is mild mannered, but lying about positions, even in a nice quiet voice, is NOT civil.

[ProSense]

4. Whoa!! Seems bloggers are not Lieberman's only problem.

COMMENTARY
No More Joe
`Dead Wrong' On The War And Defense Of Bush, White House Excesses
July 23, 2006
By IRVING STOLBERG

Joe Lieberman and I have been friends and colleagues for 38 years. We ran for and won seats in the Connecticut legislature as a team of reformers in 1970. He was my state senator and I was his state representative. He rose to Senate majority leader as I became speaker of the House. With others, we formed the Caucus of Connecticut Democrats, a progressive coalition, to further the causes of peace in Vietnam and justice at home.

I have supported him in every election he has had - until now. This year I am supporting Ned Lamont to unseat Joe. Almost four decades of friendship with Joe has made this a wrenching decision for me.

As Joe points out, his record on a number of issues, such as the environment, is good. But on the two biggest issues of our times, he is dead wrong.

His blind support of the Iraq war, begun illegally and a continuing catastrophe, is monstrous.

And his defense of an incompetent president, a vice president who fits the dictionary definition of fascism and an extremist administration that has perpetrated torture, illegal eavesdropping and a general shredding of the Constitution is insulting to the people who elected him in the first place.

more...

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentarystolberg0723.artjul23,0,1783559.story

[paulk]

5. klein does bring up something that no one seems to be talking

about.

Who is Lamont? Other than the anti - Lieberman?

This whole primary race seems to be focused on being against Holy Joe - and not on being for his opponent.

I look at Lamont's website and I like what he's saying. I mean, how could I not - it's the standard liberal boilerplate. It's tailor made for Democratic primary voters. But talk - especially political talk - is cheap. Who is Lamont? By his own admission he's a northeastern Republican who voted for Reagan. Twice! OK, I guess I can live with that. But, it's quite a leap from there to an all out embrace of left side of the Democratic Party.

I don't know - I'm glad I don't live in Conn., cause this is a tough one for me. I'm not at all fond of Lieberman. I think he's really lost touch with the party on some big issues. He seems to feel he's entitled to the job - and that sort of arrogance is never becoming in a politician.

OTOH - one of my cardinal rules is that for high office like the Senate or President I think someone needs to have paid their political dues. That means having been elected somewhere somehow. And I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of some super rich guy stepping out of his CEO's chair and into a Senate seat.

[karynnj]

6. Voting for Reagan twice - Webb is even worse on this ground

Yet Kerry trusted him enough to endorse him even though he wouldn't shake Kerry's hand for 20 years.

Like you, I'm glad I'm not in Connecticut (or Virgina). I worry that there is no depth of political trickery that is too low for today's Republican party. Can we lose by winning? On the other hand, it is good that we are winning over ex-Republicans. It would be nice though if they put in time as Democrats at a lower level before becoming Senate candidates.

Edited to say that he contributed to Kerry, Dean, and Graham in 2004, Bill Bradley in 2000 (ok by me), Bill Clinton in 1992. Open secrets shows contributions back to 1990 - his are predominately to Democrats and include contributions to the DSCC. So - at least he's been a Democrat for a long time. In 2000, Bradley WAS the more liberal in the primary. In 2004, he gave to Dean, Kerry and Graham in the primaries. So for 6 years he has been on the more liberal side of the party. (The only Republican I saw was 1 contribution to Chris Shays.)

[JanusAscending]

7. Chris Shays is one of the most moderate/ liberal Republicans I have

encountered. He's one of the few "untainted" by the neo cons, in my opinion. He is very well respected in Ct. and if you've ever seen him in one of the hearings on C Span, you'll notice that he doesn't "rubber stamp" everything the rest of the party does. He looks out for his Ct. constituents. Never thought I'd be able to say that much about a Rep. without cussing!!:shrug:

[karynnj]

8. He does seem ato be one of the few Republicans doing that in the house

From Opensecrets, Lamont seems to have been on the side of Democrats - especially some of the more liberal at least for the 16 years in Open secrets.

[JohnKleeb]

9. There were a couple articles actually about the debate

that Webb and Allen had Saturday night. I think it's very interesting that Webb has repeatly said that Reagan is his favorite president. I just hope the guy wins and becomes a good senator but god I hope the DSCC made the right choice running this guy. As much as I disliked Miller's positions on outsourcing I have to say that his party credentials were much more there than Webb's. I'll be happy if Webb wins no doubt but I really hope he supports the party's position more often than not.

[ProSense]

10. The thing about Webb is

that he was the netroots favorite. They might very well have put another Lieberman-like Democrat in office---one who doesn't support the war.

My whole problem in the Lieberman situation (aside from the fact that his position on the war and Bush is atrocious) is all the people who are acting as though something undemocratic is happening. It's fascinating---I don't know Lieberman is the most high-profile incumbent who has ever faced a challenge, but it's a normal part of the process.

What if Lieberman wins? The way these pundits and politicians have condemned this challenge one can almost hear the scolding if that happens. Well, they need to get a grip. This is a democracy.

[JohnKleeb]

11. Webb's a hard one to finger honestly

You hear him talking about how he hates outsourcing of jobs but than you hear him talking about how much he admires the late President Reagan so much, in the primary campaign Webb was very critical and rightfully so I believe of how Harris Miller felt about outsourcing however I just don't get how he can talk about how great a man and president Reagan was while running as a strong opponent of outsourcing. Reagan was a bigger and an outsourcer on a national level yet Webb genuinely admires him. In all honesty though I'd rather have Webb if he's going to be more conservative Democrat than Allen a rubber stamp however I do wish Webb would be honest and consistent. Regarding the netroots though they don't always back the most liberal candidate. The candidates in 2004 that got the most love by the netroots were Dean and Clark and Kerry's record and views were and are considerably more liberal than them. Same thing goes in 2008 especially now that we see that Jerome Armstrong is working for Mark Warner and Kos has made no secret he likes him. Warner I can tell you as a Virginian while he is a good man he is not going to be the most liberal candidate in the race and I'll roll on the floor with laughter if his consultants try to remake him to be an outsider liberal. Now to Lieberman I am not a fan of his but what happens will happen. Primary challenges like this while they aren't totlaly common are far from rare. Pat Toomey nearly beat Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Senate Primary two years ago despite the fact that Rick Santorum and the Bush Administration were backing Specter only because he was the incumbent obviously. I think the turnout will be the factor in seeing how the Connecticut one turns out.

[karynnj]

12. Or an anti-Lieberman in office

Lieberman is on most economic and social issues a solid Democrat, but is as pro war as you can get. Webb likely is less a Democrat on the economic issues (or he wouldn't be so pro-Reagan.) He is obviously not for this idiotic PNAC experiment in reshaping the middle east - which is really not a liberal/conservative issue.

It is interesting that both Lamont and Webb are internet favorites. What they have in common is that they both are more outspoken than average, both were against the war (though Webb sounds like he would have voted against Kerry/Feingold), and both have Republican roots. Lamont's are further back, more passive, and CT's Republicans are pretty liberal (Weicker, Shays) compared to those Webb supported (Allen, Reagan).

It seems the "left" on the web is coming far more from being against the war and hot button social issues (gay rights, abortion etc), than the social justice or economic fairness, FDR like parts of the party. That is where Reagan bothers me. His administration accelerated the concentration of wealth at the top. He was the likable, charismatic face that distracted people from what was happening. The choice of Reagan as his favorite President bothers me, but in fairness, every Democratic President since 1964 has had some major downside. (Clinton could have been our Reagan - he was charismatic, but where Reagan did move the country to the right, Clinton did not move it to the left. LBJ was as close to a second FDR as we got, but there was Vietnam.)

This concerns me as I care most about economic fairness, a sane principled foreign policy and a concern about the environment. These seem to be less important to the net roots than the other issues. (foreign policy is more than just being against the war).

[ProSense]

13. Excellent assessment! n/t

[JohnKleeb]

14. See that's why I don't get the netroots

I am not a fan of Joe Lieberman on big areas, the war in Iraq and video game/music censorship. However, in all fairness to the Senator he has a very good record on choice, while against gay marriage has voted against the gay marriage ban, he's good on most environmental matters too. Lieberman got endorsed by the Connecticut AFL-CIO too for that matter. Now back to Webb that's the weird thing, I remember reading stuff from his campaign manager basically talking about how Mr. Webb's grandmother was a huge fan of Roosevelt and that's his motivation on economic issues but than he does this talk about how much he adores Reagan. I think Truman was a good successor to FDR but he never had the time to do an ambitious plan like the New Deal or the Great Society. Truman to me remains one of the most underrated presidents in our history. I also agree with you that foreign policy is much more than being against the war. Most self described paleocons are against the war but we're probably near opposites on most other foreign policy issues. I being a proponent of foreign aid and most paleocons don't like that. In my opinion if the party wants to win more elections again they need to focus on economics I feel.

[paulk]

15. you make some interesting points

I agree that the "leftist internet" focuses on the war and hot button social issues - and that's a big reason why I can't take it seriously. I don't find those issues the one's motivating the majority of people out here in the real world. I think the influence of the netroots is vastly overstated by, well... the netroots. Maybe things have changed since the Dean campaign... but, I have a feeling that the Lieberman/Lamont race will be decided at the polling place and not the blogosphere. Kind of like Iowa. When it comes time to pull that lever, people are going to feel a lot more comfortable voting for someone rather than against.

I also couldn't agree more on Reagan. Reagan, to me, was the antichrist. Without him a GW Bush would not have been possible.
Henry Kissinger at one time called Reagan the most dangerous man in the world. He felt that Reagan's black and white, good versus evil view of the world would lead to disaster. Communism is bad, therefore it must be defeated. Democracy is good, therefore it must be spread to all four corners of the globe. With no thought about what follows, because, since God is on our side, whatever follows must be good, or at the very least predicted in the bible... This is the thinking that led directly to Bush and the Neocons, IMO.

I'm sure glad I don't have to vote in Virginia. Even with Kerry's endorsement, Webb is a hard sell.

[karynnj]

16. I agree with you 100% on all of this

The thing that was weird about 2004 was that the netroots, the party officials (From etc), and the self satisfied pundit class were all incredibly wrong on the primaries. I seriously read almost nothing positive about Kerry from any of these sources. The pundits were mainly snarky.

I agree with you on Reagan and, in a way, W was sold more like a second Reagan than he really was. It is still mystifying to me why so many in the media were willing to totally ignore W's early 90s reputation as an obnoxious drunk, selling him as the genial born again guy - when many likely had personal experiences from which they knew this was not true.

I also am so glad I didn't live in Virgina - I would vote for him against Allen though because he can't be worse.

[ProSense]

17. It will be interesting

to watch the dynamics when one of Lamont's and Webb's votes goes against the grain.

[JohnKleeb]

18. You know its going to happen if one of em gets elected

especially Webb who while anti Iraq War is not a Dove. I'll be happy if he's my senator of course though.