kos: "Stuart Rothenberg hates democracy"

[BurtWorm]

Sorry if this makes anyone sick first thing in the morning. :puke:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/22/154147/805

by kos
Mon May 22, 2006 at 12:41:47 PM PDT

Stuart Rothenberg:

Everyone has his or her opinion about the worthiness of each of these challenges, and there is no right answer about when a Member of Congress has proved to be so "independent" that he or she deserves to be defeated in a primary. But there certainly ought to be a place in our political system for someone like Lieberman. His defeat, unlikely as it may be, would be a sad, sad chapter in American politics.

< :puke: >

Funny how the establishment in DC, of which Rothenberg is one of its biggest defenders, hates democracy. God fucking forbid that an incumbent have to justify his existence to the voters of his state! What a fucking travesty! I mean, once elected, an incumbent shouldn't have to answer to the voters, should he?

Really, Rothenberg is one of the worst. Like the rest of the establishment apologists for Lieberman, Stu really is angry that their homeboy has to work to keep his job. Those extremist DC insiders don't believe in democracy and quaint notions such as the "will of the people". All that matters is that their country club and cocktail party buddies get a free pass election after election.

Here's a message to Stu -- if Lieberman wants to be an independent voice, then great. He can justify his votes and his values to the people of Connecticut. If they agree with him, then Joementum has nothing to worry about, right?

[BurtWorm]

1. kick

[robcon]

2. What evidence do you have that he hates democracy?

He hopes Lieberman will be re-elected. So do I.

Are you saying everyone who hopes Joe will win, and continue to be a Senator, hates democracy? Is that the new standard of democracy... not supporting a particular candidate?

I think your thread title is disgraceful.

[CTLawGuy]

3. he said that it is sad that Democrats would rather have

another person as the Democratic Nominee for Senate. Thus, he believes Dem voters should not say who the party's nominee is.

[robcon]

4. Your 'logic' escapes me.

By backing one of the Democrats, and supporting/voting for the one I prefer, and saying it would be sad if the person I backed didn't win, you are saying I'm anti-democratic?????

I'm not trying to overthrow the government, just expressing that I would prefer one candidate, and would be disappointed if he doesn't win.

I think it would be sad if either Hillary Clinton (my senator) or Nita Lowey (my representative) doesn't carry the Democratic nod this fall. They are great public servants, and I like them both, and will vote for them, and urge others to vote for them - in a primary or in a general election. Am I anti-democratic because I would be saddened if either of them lost, by your 'logic'?

[CTLawGuy]

5. the title of the piece is

"Challenge to Lieberman Shows What's Wrong with Politics."

He is not merely "hoping Lieberman wins" he is condemning people who would challenge Joe as extremists who hate him because he doesn't "toe the party line".

The title itself begs the question, why is such a challenge a "wrong" in politics?

[BurtWorm]

7. Why is Rothenburg saying it's sad?

It's because he thinks the country needs one Uncle Joe Democrat who sucks up to the right wing. It's not because he gives a shit what the people of Connecticut think.

[BurtWorm]

6. The title is kos's, but I borrowed it because I understood his point

which is that Rothenburg's lament over the danger Lieberman is in in CT betrays a suspicion of the democratic processes that are endangering Lieberman. If CT wants to give Lieberman the boot for being too cozy with the Bushists, then it's not sad at all. Lieberman can stay in the public eye working for Fox or ABC radio. Or for some other power independent of the will of the people.