Lieberman going not just because of war but because he demonizes Democrats

[Crankie Avalon]

Demonizing fellow Democrats

The primary challenge to Joe Lieberman was never fueled exclusively, or even primarily, by his support for the Iraq war. That proposition is conclusively proved by the fact that numerous other Senate and House Democrats who voted for the war are not facing similar challenges. The vigor and intensity of the opposition to Lieberman stem not merely from the fact that he shared the president's positions on Iraq and foreign policy generally, but far worse, that he adopted the Bush/Rove political rhetoric on those issues and -- alone among prominent Democrats -- repeatedly wielded that rhetoric as a tool to bash and demonize anyone who opposed Bush's policies.

Lieberman provided a stark reminder of that point Monday night when he made a last-ditch effort to persuade Connecticut voters to allow him to keep his Senate seat:

He said a victory for Lamont will send a message to the country: "In the Democratic Party, there's no room for strong-on-security Dems." He said that would be disastrous for the Democrats. "You can't win in this country," he said, "unless you assure people" that you aren't going to compromise on national security. He said he has backed the war on terror because he never forgets about the "radical Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and want to do it again."

As he has done so many times before, Lieberman suggested that anyone who disagrees with him on Iraq -- which happens to be the vast majority of the Democratic Party, as well as the country -- is not a "strong-on-security" Democrat, and that Lamont supporters and those like them want "to compromise on national security."

That is exactly the demonization scheme Karl Rove has exploited to help win two straight national elections and will undoubtedly try this year for a third. By this "reasoning," opponents of the war in Iraq and other Bush policies criticize those policies not because they consider them counterproductive and misguided, but because they are "weak" on defense and want to "compromise national security."

SNIP

More: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

[warrens]

1. Remember who invented the "too liberal" meme

That was Holy Joe, when running against Lowell Weicker, a Liberal Republican.

[NVMojo]

2. and that's why the Repugs love him and are so mad at us for being

so mean to him.

[jerry611]

3. Why do people think this primary will change anything?

Hillary is in favor of the war and no one is allowed to say a peep against her.

There are many other pro-war democrats in the same boat that will have no problem being re-elected.

We focus on one in Connecticut...why?

[Crankie Avalon]

6. I think the author's point is that there ARE indeed a lot of pro-war Dems

...who are going to be re-elected with no problem. The reason there is such a focus on one pro-war Dem in Connecticut is because (concluding paragraph of article):

"It cannot be argued in good faith that Democrats are intolerant of any elected official who supported the war in Iraq or that such support is some sort of "litmus test." There are scores of pro-war Democrats who are not being ejected from the party or even being challenged electorally. Lieberman went far beyond mere support for the war, and repeatedly adopted the most demonizing and extremist rhetoric used by Bush's supporters to equate opposition to the Bush administration's foreign policies with anti-Americanism and support for America's enemies. It should surprise nobody if the people whom Lieberman has been attacking and demonizing in this manner decide that they would like to have a different senator. "

[BuhByeChimp]

4. Did he use those quotes in the context you are leading me to...

believe he used them in or are you taking them out of context?

Did he really say that those that criticize him are weak on defense and want to comprimise national security? Or did you simply take those quotes out of context?

[Crankie Avalon]

7. I'm not the author of the piece, I only provided an excerpt and linked...

...to the rest of someone else's article. However, is it really news that Lieberman last night smeared those that disagree with him as "weak on defense"? He's been doing it for a while now, no?

[kenny blankenship]

5. Demonizing *the base* should get you the guillotine

Don't triangulate against us and count on our votes.