“It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government,” he said. “It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me.”
This sounds like the Joe Lieberman who surfaced during the primary, a defensive, grouchy guy who has absolutely no idea why Democrats turned on him (hint: here are a few reasons).
If what Lieberman sees as the leftward drift of the Democratic Party was happening in some kind of vacuum, his grumblings might make more sense. But what he says completely discards the constant national crisis and trauma of the last eight years, from hanging chads to 9/11 to Iraq to Katrina to now, and the complete inability of our government to deal with any of it in a useful and productive way. Given where he was in 2000, it’s a bizarre position to take.
Then again, Lieberman has had a strange and traumatic journey over the past eight years himself. He came within a few hundred votes of being a Democratic vice president, but after that incredible high he’s run into a brick wall within his own party. He was their nominee for the second highest office in the land in 2000, only to be all but drummed out after a miserable failure of a presidential campaign and a bitter primary six years later. It isn’t that Joe Lieberman has changed… so obviously the party has.
In fact, both the Democrats and Joe Lieberman are different. But more importantly, the world shifted around them, and around us. It can never be the fall of 2000 again, that America is gone. Ralph Nader’s argument that the major parties were too alike caught on then (and cost Joe four to eight years in the Naval Observatory), but it wouldn’t now. For Lieberman, the world only shifted in one way–a new threat appeared. And that’s it. He doesn’t see the rest of it. He doesn’t see how things changed for Democrats after 2002 and 2003.
If Democrats are more partisan and more liberal, Joe has only to look to the Republicans, who have been dominated by deeply conservative and hyper-partisan groups for more than two decades, for the reason.
But I shouldn’t have to tell him that. It should be obvious. History is like science, sometimes. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Democrats have gone to the left because Republicans went to the right… because in the 1960s Democrats went to the left… because in the 1950s the country went too far to the right… and so on. It may not be healthy (or maybe it is, and that’s democracy), but it’s hardly surprising. Except that Joe Lieberman has made a name for himself by being surprised that Democrats are not the same as they were when he was a boy. That Republicans are radically different now, too, is lost on him.
Lieberman will continue on his strange, lonely road–this time as the McCain campaign’s favorite prop–and he’ll continue to be bitter, frustrated and angry. And so he’ll head forward into a dim and uncertain future, as he continues to fight to regain that which was stolen from him.
Source
“Lieberman Blasts Democrats As Protectionist, Isolationist.” WFSB 30 March, 2008.
16 responses so far ↓
1 Stamfordinho // Mar 31, 2008 at 6:14 am ·
+6
Lieberman’s presidential campaign in 2004 was exceptional in comparison to Dodd’s presidential campaign in 2008.
The Democrats will have the most liberal member of the US Senate from 2007 (Obama) as their presidential candidate this year and the Republicans will have a person who is typically viewed as “moderate” (McCain) as their candidate.
The idea that the Republicans have moved so far to the right is 100% wrong when you take a look at who they’ve chosen to run as their presidential candidate.
By the way, after McCain gets elected to president, Lieberman will be a very happy-camper in the McCain administration. To call Lieberman’s future “dim” is as absurd as absurd gets.
2 Genghis Conn // Mar 31, 2008 at 6:44 am ·
--8
Uh huh. Chosen by acclimation, was he?
And maybe it’s time for a “liberal” president.
3 Stamfordinho // Mar 31, 2008 at 7:03 am ·
+6
No, you don’t get it.
The Democrats are apparently extremely confident in their situation. This confidence allows them to cater to the far left in determining appropriate stances for their presidential candidate. Such “idealism” by the Democrats has not been a part of their presidential candidacies since 1984. Having such an extreme liberal as a presidential candidate assures them of a loss in the general election.
America is more conservative than you think it is or want it to be.
4 ACR // Mar 31, 2008 at 7:09 am ·
+4
>>continue to be bitter, frustrated and angry
Actually that sounds more like his critics.
Joe Lieberman on the other hand, seems quite cheerful.
5 The Dude // Mar 31, 2008 at 10:13 am ·
+9
This post is really comical almost. As ACR said– Lieberman doesn’t seem angry at all to me, in fact he seems pretty cheerful. He’s out campaigning for McCain and doing whatever he feels like, all with a smile on his face. The ones who seem bitter are the Lamont supporters who somehow can’t figure out why Lieberman won’t go hide in a whole now that he’s hated by them.
I am not so sure Lieberman is heading down a “lonely” road. Most likely if McCain wins he’ll be secretary of something and if not he’ll head on to a lucrative post Senatorial career somewhere in the private sector.
6 The Dude // Mar 31, 2008 at 10:16 am ·
+8
Another point, I agree with Stamford. Here’s an important point: “conservative” Joe Lieberman WON by a wide margin in blue state Connecticut! Imagine how more liberal candidates will fare in the rest of the this red state country.
7 wtfdnucsailor // Mar 31, 2008 at 12:06 pm ·
--3
I think that Joe has let his strong support of the Iraq War cloud his judgement on other issues. That is a real shame. He is fortunate that he does not have to run for reelection until 2012.
8 adb67 // Mar 31, 2008 at 12:08 pm ·
+5
McCain will win because he is a moderate. He is not a conservative, nor a liberal….he is right in the middle and despite the misgivings conservatives may have for him, they have even more about Obama and Hillary. AT the end of the day, unless Obama were to shift to the center on a number of issues, he is likely to lose. The real problem with this election is that the best candidates are not who we are left to choose from. Dodd, Edwards, Romney, Huckabee were far better candidates than these, but they did not have the endorsement of the media. Without being the darling or the favorite, no matter how much money you have , its tough to win.
9 TrueBlueCT // Mar 31, 2008 at 12:16 pm ·
--10
Can someone please tell me what is “moderate” about our current Mid-East foreign poilicy?
Then you could keep going by telling me what was “moderate” about Alberto Gonzales? What was “moderate” about Roberts and Alito? What was “moderate” about John Bolton? What is “moderate” about Lieberman’s good friend Sean Hannity?
Finally, can some one tell me what is “moderate” about domestic spying, and the use of torture, the un-American ugliness of which was exposed last night on “60 Minutes”…..
10 conncon // Mar 31, 2008 at 12:27 pm ·
+3
TrueBlue: We live in a center-right country which would seem to give McCain an edge, since he is center-right.
Seperately, I agree with you that everyone you named (except Lieberman) is not a moderate. Of course, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that!
As Barry Goldwater said at the ‘64 Convention: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! ”
11 Tony Stark // Mar 31, 2008 at 1:33 pm ·
+1
TBCT - Of the laundry list of 8 issues you just posted I am pretty sure McCain only agrees with one…..he supported the Roberts and Alito nominations. And they’re moderates!
12 KTinkel // Mar 31, 2008 at 4:44 pm ·
--3
If McCain, Roberts and Alito are being called “moderate”, imagine how far to the Right those correspondents are.
13 pharg // Mar 31, 2008 at 6:39 pm ·
+1
Why is that Joe didn’t express these feeling in 2006?
Are we to believe that these feeling only developed in the last year?
Or was he deceiving all those gullable “Stick with Joe” Dems”.
Do they feel foolish yet?
14 TrueBlueCT // Mar 31, 2008 at 6:46 pm ·
--3
I don’t know. Someone should ask Jimmy Amann if he regrets having been up on that stage with Lieberpuke, celebrating his November victory.
Bill Finch too. And Jim Maloney. And Kenny Curran. And Bill Dyson. And that ass-clown Russo from Middletown…
15 ACR // Mar 31, 2008 at 6:56 pm ·
+0
>>Can someone please tell me what is “moderate” about our current Mid-East foreign poilicy?
We haven’t used any “big” weapons.
16 Don Pesci // Mar 31, 2008 at 8:50 pm ·
+0
So, what’s liberal about calling someone Lieberpuke?
You must log in to post a comment.