Joe Lieberman and the future of the Democratic Party

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democratic candidate for VP just six years ago, was beaten soundly today for the Democratic nomination for U.S. senate. He was beaten by Ned Lamont, a millionare, whose only prior governmental experience was deciding whether or not to fill pot holes in Greenwich.

The campaign against Lieberman was driven by the Lefty blogosphere, which twisted and swiftboated Lieberman's record for months now. In reality, Lieberman voted with the Democrats over 90% of the time. He's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, opposed the Bush tax cuts, and is the only senator willing to attach his sponsorship to full congressional voting rights for DC. He was endorsed by NARAL, as well as most labor unions.

Lamont ran on the Iraq war, which is rather funny, since 29 other Democratic senators voted for the war, including Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer.

No, this wasn't about Iraq. Joe Lieberman failed with Connecticut Democrats because he didn't hate President Bush, didn't hate Republicans, and would rather compromise than jeopardize legislation entirely. This isn't a Joe Lieberman problem, since he will probably win a three-way race of Connecticut voters.

No, this is a problem rather of the Left. Connecticut Democrats today chose a one issue candidate with little experience, rather than voting for the guy who was kissed by W. The Democrats have no policy alternative, and are instead blinded by a hatred for the president. Lieberman will win the support of most voters, and the Democrats will find themselves isolated by a hatred for the opposition party.

I hope this party can do better than this if given power in November.

[mburbank]

I think that's a steaming load of crap. Saying it was driven by the lefty blogosphere is absurd is as absurd as saying that swiftboating caused Kerry to loose. People vote the way they vote, they make a choice, and if they are impacted by propoganda that's the way it goes.

We all know where I stand on the war. It would prevent me from voting Lieberman if I was from Ct, it would prevent me from voting Clinton if I were from Ny.

But there's lot more to vote against than his Iraq stance. I don't really care if he hates W or not. I can do that all on my own. I do think any senator worth their salt should be talking all the time about the fact that the administration holds the constitution and the speraration of powers in contempt. I cannot vote for anyone who does not feel we are in a state of constitutional crisis and for whom that is a key issue. The longer we continue to function as a nation even toying with the idea that the president is above the law the more damage to the Union.

Bipartisanship is a laudible goal IF the other party doesn't routinely play you for a sucker. Christ, they even play the moderate side of their own party for suckers with signing statements.

[Miss Modular]

Here's an idea: Why not just do away with political parties altogether? That way, people could have an easier time choosing candidates based on their merits rather than party politics.

If you indeed believe the lefty blogosphere is to blame for Lieberman's defeat, than how is it any different than Karl Rove manufacturing smear tactics for the right? This is why I've grown tired of politics in general.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'll address the bulk of your post when I get more time, but I'd like for you to tell me a few other issues that Lieberman has consistently voted against liberal interests on. I don't think you can do it, but to help you out, I think counterpunch.org put together a list of like ten votes that make Joe a DINO (this is why i said swiftboating, b/c taking a small list of votes for a U.S. senator and twisting them around is precisely what they did).

"people vote the way they vote" is really profound, but this was at least the second highest turnout for a primary in Connecticut's history. May have been the largest ever. If you don't think the extreme base (which is firmly "netrooted" in the internet) had a key GOTV role in all this, well then you simply haven't paid any attention. New Democrats registered at a record pace, and where do you think that came from?

Furthermore, your comparison to Kerry is moot. Kerry couldn't garner support from a majority of Americans, spanning all parties. Lieberman already has that support in his state. The irony in all of this is if Lieberman had taken Dick Morris' advice and run as an independent from the beginning, this whole thing would be a non-issue. Lieberman would walk to re-election. But he wanted to run as a Democrat, to his own credit, but it may have cost him. Now he has a matter of days to pull together the signatures he needs to run independent.

"In the general election, Lieberman can paint Lamont (a former client of mine) as the rich, light-weight dilettante he is (heir to the fortune of J.P. Morgan's partner) and can focus on the broad range of his legislative agenda. After all, Lieberman has taken the lead on issues ranging from campaign-finance reform to tobacco regulation to corporate-governance reform to tough action against terrorism to the battle against global warming. He'll look better and better, while Lamont will look like a one-issue challenger who is out of his league.

Freed of the confines of the Democratic primary, Lieberman can now appeal to independents, Republicans and mainstream Democrats who were not sufficiently motivated to participate in the primary, he can win."

LINK

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Mod, you make a fair point, and I think Nader actually wrote an open letter welcoming Joe to a non-party race. I think they're friends or something, but I'll post the letter later....

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Here's another question for ya, Max. If this was about the war, and how conservative Lieberman supposedly is, well than why isn't everybody supporting Jonathan Tasini in his bid to beat Hillary in the Dem. primary? I actually met him on the streets of NYC a couple of days ago, nice guy. He's anti-war, and clearly more liberal than Hillary. You could also argue that NY is more left-leaning than Connecticut, so why doesn't this guy have ned lamont-type of support, if people do indeed just vote the way they vote?

The bid against Lieberman was all about political perception. The perception generated by Lefty extremists is that Lieberman is like Zell Miller, which is absolutely false. But like karl Rove says, if you have to spend time defending yourself, you've already lost. THe LEfties took this one right from his book.

[mburbank]

Well, lets see now, should they take stuff from Rove's book, or just simply concede permanent defeat? Maybe they could all be good kids and shut up. After al, they don't know what they want from government really, so they're just impeding the electoral process. I'd personally love it if the left could find some brand new way, but barring that, I'd really like to see some urgency because I think the country is going in a very bad direction, and I don't think Lieberman has fought hard enough against the tide. Or Kerry, or Clinton, etc, etc, etc.

"people vote the way they vote" is really profound, but this was at least the second highest turnout for a primary in Connecticut's history. May have been the largest ever. If you don't think the extreme base (which is firmly "netrooted" in the internet) had a key GOTV role in all this, well then you simply haven't paid any attention. New Democrats registered at a record pace, and where do you think that came from?"

So, what are you saying, Kev? Should or should not these poeple be allowed to vote? I found it disheartnening when the Evangelical right came out in force, but we are still a democracy.

I don't just want a person who votes the way I want, I want someone who does that AND is loud and vigorous and demands attention. The D's walked out once for a few hours because the R's hjad made it clear they were never going to do the promised investigation of the uses of pre war intelligence. That was nine months ago, there is still no report on events that happened almost four years ago. The D's (and you'll note I no longer say we, since I, like Joe, am now an independent) are not an opposition party. Mild mannered has not cut it for the opposition party, does not eevn cut it for the more moderate republicans.

I will be interetsed to see how Hillary "I heart triangulation" does. I wouldn't vote for her if there was a more liberal candidate available.

Why DO you think Lieberman lost? Hypno powers? Stupidity? I think a lot of D's and Ex D's feel the D's in office have not presented a strong enough defense against what I see as damage to the country I love. I don't want to sit back and say, well, that's okay, you incumbents are doing good enough. I can think of only a few incumbent democrats I like enough that I wouldn't at very least look with interest at alternatives.

I think Lieberman is probably a very nice guy. As far as votes go, though, I'll be surprised if Lamont votes more conservatively.

[mburbank]

From an NYT op ed

The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president's choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration's contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.

Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person's right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.

When Mr. Lieberman told The Washington Post, "I haven't changed. Events around me have changed," he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting the nation's basic traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think the fact that the New York Times was so adamently opposed to Lieberman, yet most major Connecticut papers supported him, actually speaks volumes.

"I don't just want a person who votes the way I want, I want someone who does that AND is loud and vigorous and demands attention."

That's funny, because I distinctly recall you once saying that you disliked Ted Kennedy, thought of him as an ass, but liked the fact that he voted exactly the way you wanted him to. Hmm....apparently that isn't satisfactory when it comes to Lieberman.

Apparently it's more important to you that ourected officials grandstand like petulant children, rather than holding principled values. Lieberman has fought for liberal values, and has often lended his name to issues that nobody else could care any less about (ex: DC voting rights).

So 29 other Dems. vote for the war, but b/c Lieberman isn't "loud, vigorous, and demanding attention" he's a bad Democrat? maybe we should run 2-year olds for office instead.

And anytime you'd like to provide me with a couple of issues he has been too conservative on, just go right ahead.

[Abcdxxxx]

The NY Times are idiots. Why would moderates take such an extreme Leftist stance on the war? 90% of his votes have towed the party line, but if it's that last percent, dealing largely with foreign policy that he's being scapegoated over then let's refresh our memories on how the Dems voted in the first place. Will Dianne Feinstine feel the same pressure to drop her party? She supports Israel, and has shilled for the war on terror as much as anyone. Hell, she even started her career as a Republican.

If there's a litmus test for being a good Democrat that JFK wouldn't even pass, it's due in great part to MoveOn.org, and the blogs that exist in great part to influence our elections. You have leftist groups that fund activist organizations, documentary funds AND human rights organizations with a single agenda. I know first hand how Counterpunch attempted to manipulate the Kerry platform, and there's a reason why Lieberman keeps a blog now, or why it was symbolically hacked on election day.

I hate Lieberman, and I have to wonder if this isn't payback for his VP run as super Jew when he paraded around in a yarmulke. Where's that fucking yarmulke now? I still think he's being scapegoated.

[Immortal Goat]

I don't dislike Lieberman, for the most part, but I could never vote for him, or Hillary for that matter, and the reason is a simple, stupid one.

I don't like their stance of violent media. I could never vote for someone who thinks that the youth in this country are worse of today because of the media when all the statistics prove otherwise. This shows an indifference to the facts simply because they don't agree, which is the same problem that Bush has. That's not the way I want a governmental official to act, and I want no part of putting them in a position of power.

[mburbank]

I think the fact that the major newsppers of connecticuit supported him and the voters didn't actually speaks volumes.

"That's funny, because I distinctly recall you once saying that you disliked Ted Kennedy, thought of him as an ass, but liked the fact that he voted exactly the way you wanted him to. Hmm....apparently that isn't satisfactory when it comes to Lieberman. "

If Lieberman were as loud, vigorous and demanding of attention as Kennedy in addition to his voting record, it would have been enough, obnoxious ass or otherwise. It's Kennedy the person I have problems with, not Kennedy the politician.

Not two year olds, Kev. Fighters who might stand a chance against Republicans. And he isn't a bad democrat. But not bad democrats haven't had been able to even slow down an administration that won two elections by very small margins that rules as if they won by huge ones. Not bad democrats aren't good enough. I want Democrats who make it clear they will fight as hard as the Republicans do. When a party does as much as the R's have done to undermine American democracy, I think screaming, shouting and tantrums are in order. There are plenty of good Democrats who have already tried politely saying "Oh, hey, now, guys, no fair." Lamont may turn out to be lousy at his job, but the D's in office haven't managed to reign in the administration on... well, anything. Running with what we have, we loose. I'm up for trying something new isntead of staying the course.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

If there's a litmus test for being a good Democrat that JFK wouldn't even pass, it's due in great part to MoveOn.org, and the blogs that exist in great part to influence our elections. You have leftist groups that fund activist organizations, documentary funds AND human rights organizations with a single agenda. I know first hand how Counterpunch attempted to manipulate the Kerry platform, and there's a reason why Lieberman keeps a blog now, or why it was symbolically hacked on election day.

NO! These things do NOT happen! Voters just vote the way they vote, like a stream rolling down a peaceful hill.

From Common Dreams, a liberal site:

Rise of the 'Netroots': Lieberman Upset Hints at Impact of Online Activists
by Joe Garofoli

Ned Lamont's upset victory over incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary Tuesday is an electoral lesson about the power -- and potential liabilities -- of bloggers and online organizers, a growing liberal political force collectively known as the "netroots."

From the initial support of Lamont by influential bloggers like Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos to the cash and volunteers supplied by the online progressive hub MoveOn.org to the 11th-hour accusations on Tuesday that vandals had hacked into Lieberman's campaign Web site, the netroots have been a driving force in the campaign.

If you don't want to take my word for it, then look at what they're saying, Max.

Originally Posted by Max

If Lieberman were as loud, vigorous and demanding of attention as Kennedy in addition to his voting record, it would have been enough, obnoxious ass or otherwise. It's Kennedy the person I have problems with, not Kennedy the politician.

Kennedy the politician, as in the one who helped push the No Child left Behind legislation through??? Ted Kennedy, despite the perception that he is a socialist, is in fact a notorious deal maker, and is a great compromiser.

But as long as he is loud, angry, and bashes Republicans, well then he's ok...?

Fighters who might stand a chance against Republicans.

Lieberman beats Republicans.

I want Democrats who make it clear they will fight as hard as the Republicans do. When a party does as much as the R's have done to undermine American democracy, I think screaming, shouting and tantrums are in order. There are plenty of good Democrats who have already tried politely saying "Oh, hey, now, guys, no fair."

okay, that's fine, but how about some consistency? Did you vote for Kerry/Edwards in '04? Will you vote for Hillary if she's the candidate? abc raised the point, but why aren't other Dems. who supported, and continue to support the war, getting attacked the way Lieberman has?

Is it better if a politican changes their mind with the latest weekly opinion poll, or should they stand by the decisions they make in this republican system? You seem to be arguing the former.

[Abcdxxxx]

20+ Democrats voted for the war. 66 of them just voted to renew the Patriot Act only a few months back.

Do you support a blacklist? Or is Lieberman special?

Let's remember who has subverted and coopted the peace movements to begin with...and now they're subverting and coopting the mainstream left. What are ANSWER, Noam Chomsky, and George Soros really about? More people died in Darfur this week then any other regional conflict, but they are fixated on an entirely different agenda.

[mburbank]

Um, let me see now, If I tell you I'd vote for an alternative to anyone who voted for the patriot act renewal, does that make it a blacklist? 'Cause I had this stupid idea that voting for the renewal was a shameful act that in no way represented what I want done, and that I like it if my the representatives I vote for... represent me.

You guys are both right. I sincerely wish I lived in connecticut so I could have voted for a candidate who'm I don't like and who endorses a war I don't believe in. How could I ever have let the left wing blogosphere convince me otherwise?

Kevin, obviously the reason Lieberman got such negative attention is because he's Jewish. What else separates him from the other folks? We ought to pass some sort of law that says you can't vote for anything the all powerful leftist blogosphere says, even if you'd have voted that way anyway.

Would I vote for Hillary? Hypothetically, who is she running against? If she ran against Frist, I'd hold my nose and vote for her. I cannot see any circumstances that would make me enthusiastic about her, but what do you want from me? I'm pretty sure I won't be allowed to personally choose the candidate.

A lot of voters are against the war. A lot changed their minds, and some, like me, we're against it before it started. Some polls suggest more than half the people in the country think the war was a mistake. I think it's an endless quagmire. No one hypnotized me any more than you've been hypnotized, Kev. Staggeringly, it is possible to disagree with you and not be hypnotized or an idiot. I know that seems flatly impossible, but under distinct and admittedly very rare circumstances, it can happen.

[Abcdxxxx]

Burbank - you're responding as if this was a move by individual voters like yourself who made a choice based on their own politics. If only it was that innocent. This was choreographed by the Democratic party to pull the rug out from under one single candidate, while utilizing the support of a blog/peace movement which go figure, happens to flirt with anti-semitic conspiracy theories. This type of blacklisting of policies makes me about as comfortable as the thought of hearing the Republicans are only letting in ideological counterparts to run on their ticket without a choice of opinion to vote as they please for issues like say abortion, stem cell, or gun control. You expect that sort of behavior from a buncha fundamentalist Right wing cumwads... but now we're talking about the good guys.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Max, you're just being evasive now. Maybe you got the wrong impression, but I never said this had to do with Lieberman being Jewish. I think his support for Israel was a factor, but Iraq was the crux of it.

I don't care if you support or oppose the war, Max. I think you're wrong, but whatever. My primary point of contention is with the Democratic fringe base, and the degree of influence they are currently holding in elections. As far as process goes, yeah, it's great. Yay democracy! But when a small group of Democrats suddenly decide what makes a real Democrat, and what was once a big tent becomes increasingly smaller and smaller, then you risk alienating yourself from the bulk of voters.

I'm also concerned about the honesty of the debate they want to have. They championed a one-issue candidate with very little experience, and are pushing him to be a member of arguably the most powerful deliberative body in the world. You should go back and watch the debate they had. Lieberman schooled him, and lamont came across as uninformed, unprepared, and inconsistent on the issues. Hell, Lamont can't even get his position on Iraq straight, so as far as one issue candidates go, he's pretty eak on that.

Get the troops out. That's what the man who wishes to be senator stands for. That's your fresh new perspective on fighting the war on terror. I asked you to prove to me that Lieberman has consistently voted against the Democrats on other issues, and you can't. But for some reason, you just know that you don't like Lieberman, and that he must not be very liberal. So why is that?

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Although I HATE his stances on censorship, Otherwise I have a lot of respect for Joe. It's sad to see him beaten by this unknown.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It is sad, but for different reasons.

Lieberman will obviously be fine. Let's not cry for a U.S. senator. But a tear should be shed for the Democratic Party, which has just kick started its inquisition.

Lieberman lost with Democrats. About 140,000 of them, to be precise. The general election will probably draw about 1 million Connecticut voters, give or take.

Energized Democrats are the ones who have decided that they want to retreat from the world, but not the majority. Not yet....

[mburbank]

Abcddxxptcrusier; You are a loony. Stick to your areas of expertise. The Deomcratic establishment was behind Lieberman. For God's sake, Preident Clinton stumped for him.

"My primary point of contention is with the Democratic fringe base, and the degree of influence they are currently holding in elections. As far as process goes, yeah, it's great. Yay democracy! But when a small group of Democrats suddenly decide what makes a real Democrat, and what was once a big tent becomes increasingly smaller and smaller, then you risk alienating yourself from the bulk of voters. "

That is your current THEORY and not a matter of physics. Here's mine. A lot more mainstream centrist voters than you think hate the way our country is going and are very angry at the Democrats for not fighting against it more vigorously. 'Reatreat from the world', that's pretty arrogant. You remind me of Dante conveniently finding everyone he disagreed with in hell.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

My "theory" is pretty well supported by history. Show me a Democratic president in the 20th (I'll even grant you the 19th) who won national election based off of retreating and surrendering from a war.

Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. Show me the one who would've supported your ostrich policy towards the war on terrorism, while they were president. (We all know it's really easy now for someone like Carter to say stupid shit with on consequences). How'd it work out for George McGovern?

"The way the country is going" is always a funny argument. i know you have this end of days thing going on, like today is the worst day America has ever seen, and look out for tomorrow! I know that plays well in partisan party politics, but it isn't in line with reality.

I don't like a lot of things about the Republican dominated government. I don't believe we'll need to worry much more about that come November, which is why these primary purges are important to me.

If and when the Democrats take control of the Hill again in November, what is the alternative they offer other than Bush hatred? The Lieberman race was about Bush, period. You've thus far refused to prove otherwise. The only Democrats I honestly see offering domestic plans, as well as alternatives to fighting the war on terror, are the DLC/PPI types. They will be purged from the party though, so don't count on Daily Kos saving them.

[mburbank]

"My "theory" is pretty well supported by history. Show me a Democratic president in the 20th (I'll even grant you the 19th) who won national election based off of retreating and surrendering from a war."

Thank god you found the upside to war! I'd missed it. Weren't you burbling about about concience for poor ol' joe a few posts back. What if, what if it turns out that the majority of Democrats, and good lord, maybe even the majority of americans thinks this war is wrong? And you don't have to win an election to end a war. McGovern lost in a land slide, but we go out of vietnam. Even if someone cpuld prove in advance that being against the war would mean loosing the election, I'd vbote for the anti war candidate. And I think a fair number of other voters might feel the same way. But I'll tell you what, I think getting out of Iraq may well turn out to be a winning idea, when combined with the gross incometence and corruption of the party in power.

I don't have an ostrich policy. Show me a decent moral human being who'd agree with your rabid wolverine policy. don't mean anything much by that except to point out that when you define an oponents terms, you aren't arguing anymore. It's just a way of saying, okay, what person who's right woud be wrong like you are? In adittion, it ain't my policy on the 'war on terror' it's my ploicy on the war ion Iraq. I'm fine disagreeing with you, but hows about you let me decide what I disagree with you on, Johnny Sophist? Mcgovern lost an election. Nixon campaigned on 'staying the course' and ended up 'cutting and tunning' in Vietnam. Oh, and resigning in disgrace for petty crimes, which seems almost gentlemanly in light of current events.

""The way the country is going" is always a funny argument. i know you have this end of days thing going on, like today is the worst day America has ever seen, and look out for tomorrow! I know that plays well in partisan party politics, but it isn't in line with reality. "

Worst gap between rich and poor since the robber barrons. Millions more people below the poverty line. A president who believes he stands above the law and that seperation of powers should be on hold for the duration of a war on terror which by deffinition can't end. Global energy supply in serious trouble. A VP who lobies for torture. A president who signns a statement on an anto torture bill reserving the right to torture.
Medal of freedom for a guy who said WMD was a 'slam dunk'. An American city lost to a disatser. A head a Fema who's previous experience was as a horse judge. A presidential advisor on womens health issues who's previous medical experince was as a veteranarian. A strong probability that the President violated the law by spying on perople without a warrant, and no special prosecutor. Justice department lawyers who call the geneva covention 'quaint'. A president who when asked about the rapidly deteriorating situation in the middle east says he's only intereted in questions about the pig barbecue going on that night. A secretary of state who describes what's happening in Lebanon as 'birth pangs'. Pre-emptive war as foreign policy doctrine. I left my party, so it's hard for my viepoint to be 'partisan politics'. If you don't see all that as being the 'wrong direction', okay. I'm not enough of a history student to tell you how this comapres to other periods in American history. I do feel however it's in line with 'reality' to be concerned. I was unaware you held some sort of rights to defining reality.

"I don't like a lot of things about the Republican dominated government. I don't believe we'll need to worry much more about that come November, which is why these primary purges are important to me."

Why, Kev? Do you think the D's will win a house? Would you then be in favor of investigations, or would that not be 'in line with reality'? What IS your hope for November? That through calm disciplined bipartisan negotiation the Republican party will start playing nice with domestic stuff and the Democrats will realize that birth pangs can be great?

"The only Democrats I honestly see offering domestic plans, as well as alternatives to fighting the war on terror, are the DLC/PPI types. They will be purged from the party though, so don't count on Daily Kos saving them."

Okay, so, wait. The good dems are going to get purged. Which means either the blinded by Bush hatred lefty blogosphere dems get a house, which would be bad, or the Republicans would maintain control and while 'don't like a lot of things about the Republican dominated government', you also 'don't believe we'll need to worry much more about that come November'. I don't get it.

Please clarify.

And if I said I said the Liberman loss wasn't about Bush, I apologize. My contention is that it wasn't solely about the war in Iraq. It's all about W. But while I'll cop to personally hating W, I think you can be so against him for actual things he's actually done that you wouldn't want to vote for anyone who wasn't vigorously shouting that W is very, very, very, very bad for the country and the world. I strongly disagree with the President on every single issue I can think of. I want my representatives to represent that. If, as almost always, I'm forced to vote for the lesser evil, I will. But if and when I'm offered an alternative, I'll vote for it. All of which is moot in this case, as I'm not from Connecticut.

[kahljorn]

Voting because you dislike a war or dislike a person is just as bad as voting for religion and "Morals". I mean, I've heard some people argue that the Clinton sex scandal is basically what gave Bush his 'in'. I don't know if morality was a big issue in the first bush election since I didn't pay much attention to it, but there you have a little bit of a connection if so.
Voting reactionarily rather than reasonably could potentially cause us to have an even worse president than Bush.

Bush isn't running for president again.

not that I'm accusing you guys of being that stupid, I just thought I should throw it out there.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Kahl, I would agree with you completely. I think voting against Republicans, or voting against a Democrat who is perceived to be too close to the Republicans, is sloppy and poorly informed democracy.

I think the person who deserves votes, be them Democrat, Republican, or whatever, is the person who has a "progressive" plan (i mean that word in the literal sense, not the twisted, scared-to-call-myself-liberal sense) for how to deal with Iraq, as well as the overall war.

I don't think this administration has handled this war perfectly, and as I've said before, I'd love to see a Democrat step in and handle it better. But right now what you have are Republicans who generally believe that the war on terror is a war we need to fight, and then you generally have Democrats who don't really seem so sure that terrorism is even something that exists (see John Kerry in '04, who argued that it was just something we'd always have to live with).

Max, I'll answer your stuff later.

[kahljorn]

I guess that depends on how you define a terrorist. If you define a terrorist as a muslim who will kill themselves to kill others Americans and allies then someday there may be an end to terror!!!!
If, however, you define a terrorist as someone(or a small group of people) dissatisfied with something trying to change it forcefully or by sabotage, then yes, we'll always have terrorism.
One could even argue that force and sabotage are not necessary to be a terrorist, in which case terrorism becomes such a loose term it could even describe the american government(not that we don't create terror in other places forcefully because we are dissatisfied with something). If terrorism is simply a political term it becomes so ambiguous... it becomes a political tool, really. One that our government isn't guiltless in using, and I can't imagine any others that are guiltless either.

"..is the person who has a "progressive" plan"

Considering the word progressive means moving forward I think that would be a good trait for any president to have on any issue. Regardless of if the administration wants to stand still, the rest of the world still moves, you know? PS I've used this word in alot of exchanges with preechr and meant it in this light, exactly. I don't think liberals are the only ones who can be "Progressive" either.