The New Republic: "Party Foul - The stakes of Kos vs Lieberman"

[ConservativeDemocrat]

by Johnithan Chait

Ned Lamont's challenge to Senator Joe Lieberman in next month's Connecticut primary has blossomed into a full-scale Democratic civil war. What's at stake is the legitimacy of partisanship. A good window into the competing mentalities can be found in two arguments, one by prominent Lieberman supporters, the other by a prominent critic. First, the supporters. Writing in the Hartford Courant, Marshall Wittmann and Steven J. Nider of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council complain that "far too many Democrats view George W. Bush as a greater threat to the nation than Osama Bin Laden."

Those loony Democrats! But wait, is this really such a crazy view? Even though all but the loopiest Democrat would concede that Bin Laden is more evil than Bush, that doesn't mean he's a greater threat. Bin Laden is hiding somewhere in the mountains, has no weapons of mass destruction and apparently very limited numbers of followers capable of striking at the United States.

Bush, on the other hand, has wreaked enormous damage on the political and social fabric of the country. He has massively mismanaged a major war, with catastrophic consequences; he has strained the fabric of American democracy with his claims of nearly unchecked power and morally corrupt Gilded Age policies. It's quite reasonable to conclude that Bush will harm the nation more--if not more than Bin Laden would like to, than more than he actually can.
...
But if Lieberman's allies are irritating and often wrongheaded, alas, his enemies are worse. Lieberman recently declared, "I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party." Markos Moulitsas, the lefty blogger from Daily Kos who has appeared in a Lamont commercial and has made Lieberman's defeat a personal crusade, posted this quote on his website in the obvious belief that it's self-evidently absurd. But shouldn't we all have greater loyalties than the one to our party--say, to our country? Partisanship isn't nothing, but must it be everything?

The full article is here.

[madfloridian]

1. Bullmoose taking up for his friend, Bush, again.

And lecturing the bad Democrats who disagree with Republicans.

We all agree that our country's well-being must come first, so that is just silly talk.

[endarkenment]

2. I'll bite.

Why exactly is bin laden obviously more evil that george bush? Please provide a factual argument that is convincing.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[endarkenment]

6. Yeah I can't figure it out.

I have made no argument at all, certainly not a conspiracy argument claiming that 9-11 was our work and not theirs. All I asked for was some facts to back up the claim that bin laden is of course more evil than bush. You really haven't presented any.

Perhaps we should just approach this objectively. Lets just count the bodies. Which one of these murderers has the larger count? Ah yes of course, but our bombs and bullets used to terrorize the people of Iraq and Afghanistan only kill civilians 'accidentally'. They are smart bombs after all, and I suppose smart bullets too, and smart torturers who only accidentally torture their victims. And of course bin laden kills deliberately. So his deliberate killing of perhaps 4,000 total over his career overwhelms the 50-100,000 bush has murdered 'accidentally' so far through his deliberate fraudulent illegal and on-going war of conquest in Iraq. When he extends this accident to Iran, when the butcher bill there reaches multiples of hundreds of thousands, then will we know who is more evil?

But bin laden, as per your unfounded assertion, intends to establish a global regime, to conquer the world, while Bush and his PNAC buddies, as per their own plain documentation, merely intend to establish an American hegemony through the use of military force, they just want the world to operate in our best interest. I see of course how one is more evil than other.

One of these two dreams of theocratic rule, much as he dreams of, according to you, global domination. The other not only dreams of theocratic rule, but has moved to transform our republic into exactly that: a theocratic regime. I wonder which muslim state it is that bin laden has transformed into a Salafist theocracy? Perhaps Sudan, but there is scant evidence that bin laden had much of a role other than inspirational behind the recent success of the fundamentalists there. Our supreme court is one vote away from supporting theocratic tyranny. We are one election away from outright disaster here.

Which of these men is obviously more evil than the other?

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. truly an excellent post...thank you

:applause:

I don't know if it is possible to argue about who is more evil. The assumptions of ideology are always based on emotions and doctrine - never on facts. In politics--words like evil are almost always based on emotions and doctrine - never on facts. But there can be no question about who has caused the most suffering for humanity in the past and who is more likely to--and more in a position to--cause the most suffering for humanity in the future.

____________________________________________

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

[endarkenment]

14. It seems my conversation was abruptly terminated.

I guess my friend had to take a leave of absence. Oh well, too bad, I can take the heat and I actually enjoy watching the opposition attempt to defend a position that has no rational basis. As you say, the argument on 'who is the evilist' cannot in fact be rational.

Zbigniew's only mistake there is that he thinks Iraq is redeemable.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. well, Zbigniew did qualify that statement with "if we get out fast"

I realize that old uncle Zbigniew has a whole lot of skeletons in his own closet--to put it mildly -- but like many old cold warriors he recognizes the fraud put forward by the neocons and echoed by the loony toons over at The New Republic of trying to equate the "War on Terror" with the conflict with the former Soviet Union.

and here are some more interesting comments from the ultimate cold warrior himself. :

Zbigniew Brzezinski calls War on Terror Narrow and Extremist Demagoguery:

link:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html

snip: "This phrase in a way is part of what might be considered to be the central defining focus that our policy-makers embrace in determining the American position in the world and is summed up by the words "war on terrorism." War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.

snip:" That failure was contributed to and was compensated for by extremist demagogy which emphasizes the worst case scenarios which stimulates fear, which induces a very simple dichotomic view of world reality. "

snip:" what is the definition of success? More killing, more repression, more effective counter-insurgency, the introduction of newer devices of technological type to crush the resistance or whatever one wishes to call it -- the terrorism?"

snip:"And if we take preemptory action we will reinforce the worst tendencies in the theocratic fundamentalist regime, not to speak about the widening of the zone of conflict in the Middle East."

snip:" Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall. Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50% unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering. "

read full speech - link:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003...
_______________

and while on the subject of Mr. Brzezinski here are his thoughts regarding Iran:

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

snip:"likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."
_________

[ConservativeDemocrat]

18. Again, why should I waste my time?

When the so-called "Democratic" Underground deletes views held by 90% of the Democratic Party?

It's not me who can't take the heat. It all of you who filter your view of reality through this anti-Democratic-Party website - an echo chamber whose main sport is bashing Democrats for being patriotic and/or non-Communist. And which removes mainstream Democratic facts and opinion lest your fragile minds be shaken by dangerous thoughts. Ignorance is Strength, and all that.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s.: Anyone who considers ME to be "the opposition" in Bush's America, plainly haven't moved out of their mom's basement yet.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. I do not believe your post was deleted for your views

Every range of the Democratic Party posts here on Democratic Underground all the time.

The other poster asked you for facts and you didn't give even one. You responded with abuse.

[monarch]

20. For all you 90per-centers, I remind you:

Strom Thurmond was a good Democrat except for his position on civil rights.

[endarkenment]

21. You have nothing much to say do you?

Why not take the opportunity to respond to my post, to the content, rather than just keep on with stuff like this: "Anyone who considers ME to be "the opposition" in Bush's America, plainly haven't moved out of their mom's basement yet."

[ConservativeDemocrat]

22. There is nothing much to reply to

...again - to repeat part of my deleted post - there is no point in arguing with a true believer. You have decided your strained (though popular on the extreme-left) interpretations about Bush's motivations are worse than Bin Laden's repeated public statements about his intent to establish a worldwide Islamic theocracy.

There is really nothing I can say about this other than to note that it is a waste of time arguing with people who do not accept established fact as evidence. And it's worse when talking about things as nebulous as "who is evilest". I have no more chance of knocking any sense into you than I do at a revivalist prayer gathering with Origin of Species under my arm.

Insofar as your point that Bin Laden can't be the evilest because he hasn't done as much damage as Bush, that was a point discussed in the original TNR article, which stated that while only the loopiest Democrats would not argue Bin Laden was more evil than Bush, the President has paved America's road with good intentions straight to hell.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. Now lets see with the new moderators if this post gets deleted as well.

[leveymg]

3. The same lame argument also applies to Zell Miller.

Zell also thought he's serving some good greater than loyalty to his Party, so he allowed himself to be used as key note speaker at the Republican National Convention.

I wonder if Mr. Chait and all those nice TNR neocons (or is it neoliberals? I get the two confused)think that was also a principled thing to do? Are Democrats unpatriotic because we don't support President Bush?

The Lieberman types need to think through their positions before they call us unprincipled.

[endarkenment]

4. Neocons are neoliberals backed by nukes and cruise missiles. nt.

[yurbud]

7. When Lieberman said he had loyalties greater than to his party, it implied

others in the party were unpatriotic for not backing him, and by extension Bush.

[yurbud]

8. It's ironic that the DLC is bold when it comes to attacking progressives

and pretty much drop their drawers and assume the position with the Bushies.

Do they even understand what opposition means?

How could we call it a two party system if we have two corporate owned parties, as the DLC would prefer, one with religious nuts and one without?

[yurbud]

9. can someone explain to the DLC that they can't kick us in the nuts

and expect us to work dilligently for their elections?

If they love the fucking GOP so much, they should learn something simple from them: feed YOUR base, not your opponents.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. kos's personal politics: definitely NOT left-wing; not at all

I'm not knocking these guys. There the kind of "centrist" I can handle even if I don't agree with them on many issues. Their contribution is enormous.

They are a bit iconoclastic in their own way. They don't stick to strict doctrinaire definition. They may have a few idiosyncratic leftie thoughts here and there that sound more like personal eccentricity than anything philosophic. But they are not left-wing; not by any means.

I'm not posting this to either attack or defend Kos (Markos Moulitsas Zuniga). He certainly does not however share my personal political convictions. I'm just pointing out that he is not by any means left-wing and is at most only moderately liberal. His complaints with the DLC are strictly strategic and tactical - not ideological. On philosophy he is probably one notch to the left of the DLC. Peter Beinart wrote a glowing review of their book, Crashing The Gate which he highlights at the top of his frontpage:



--an insightful guide to how the Democratic Party can retake power -- Peter Beinart, NY Times
Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1931498997/qid=1150209528/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1846545-3744063?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

article from Washington Monthly:
link:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.wallace-wells.html

"Kos Call
For America's number one liberal blogger
politics is like sports: It's all about winning.

By Benjamin Wallace-Wells

snip:"The conventional wisdom is that a Democratic Party in which Moulitsas calls the shots would cater to every whim of its liberal base. But though he can match Michael Moore for shrillness, the most salient thing about Moulitsas's politics is not where he falls on the left-right spectrum (he's actually not very far left). It's his relentless competitiveness, founded not on any particular set of political principles, but on an obsession with tactics —and in particular, with the tactics of a besieged minority, struggling for survival: stand up for your principles, stay united, and never back down from a fight. “They want to make me into the latest Jesse Jackson, but I'm not ideological at all,” Moulitsas told me, “I'm just all about winning.” "

snip"Simon Rosenberg, the president of the centrist New Democratic Network (NDN), says that “frankly I don't think there's anyone who's had the potential to revolutionize the Democratic Party that Markos does.” This great faith has put Moulitsas—an extremely smart, irascible, self-contradictory, often petty, always difficult, non-practicing attorney and web programmer with no real political experience—in the position of trying to understand, on the fly, what real power is and how it might be exercised, thrust him into a flailing, wild-eyed and bold solitary venture, trying to turn a website into a movement."

snip;"He went after the Democratic consultant hierarchy for its refusal to innovate, and the party establishment for providing a “gravy train” for consultants who keep losing races. He attacked NARAL after the abortion rights organization endorsed pro-choice Republican senator Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) over his predicted challenger, a pro-life Democrat. He has also argued, along with others, that to win back red states, Democrats should avoid talking about gun-control—advice the party has largely taken, with some initial success."

snip:"Moulitsas, for his part, had spent the previous few months focused on taking on the liberal interest groups, urging Democrats to run more pro-life candidates, and to contest rural contests with rural values—all long-held tenets of the DLC. So Moulitsas's beef with the group wasn't over ideology, it was, predictably, over tactics" "

link to full article:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.wallace-wells.html

[ShortnFiery]

11. I noticed a sharp turn to the right during the run up to the invasion

of Iraq and promptly CANCELED my subscription.

Perhaps a name change is in order: "THE NEW REPUBLICAN" sounds more in line with their publication.

[JPZenger]

13. Does anyone read New Republic anymore?

It seems that The Nation has become the voice of progressive thought. New Republic has gone through wierd changes for many years, as explained by Eric Alterman in his book "The Myth of the Liberal Media."

Here's an excerpt about New Republic from an article in conservative American Spectator:

"the magazine is trying to win back its former subscribers on the Left. In 2002 and 2003, TNR broke with the left to support the Iraq war -- and watched its subscriptions slide. In one year, 2003-2004, TNR's "total paid and/or requested" circulation fell from 61,723 to 51,723. Despite its later apology for supporting the war, circulation has continued to decline -- to 50,403 in 2005. Meanwhile circulation is way up at leftist magazines that opposed the war, like the American Prospect, the Nation, and the Washington Monthly."

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. the Nation has 3 times the subscription rate as the New Republican

"The Nation, which claimed 20,000 subscribers in 1978, today boasts a circulation of 187,625 and is the most widely read weekly political opinion magazine in America. Its readership has nearly doubled since the 2000 presidential election. The Nation's website draws more than 800,000 unique visitors a month. "

links:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/passing_the_torch
______________

but that Nation is "fringe" and the New Republic with their loony forever-war cheerleaders like Martin Peretz and Peter Beinart are "mainstream".

[bunkerbuster1]

17. Thanks Jon for reminding me why I don't subscribe to your rag.

For all the decent investigative work they've done over the years, I just couldn't stand the self-loathing, whiny ass titty-baby crying your publication managed about these evil fringe-lefty types.

Your website's good for a look now and again, but I'll never again spend a goddamned dime to read your tripe. And I was a loyal subscriber for many years.