…and this is a 
Spinelessness, as usual
Category: Politics
Posted on: November 18, 2008 2:20 PM, by PZ Myers
The Democrats are giving Joe Lieberman everything he wants, and this is symptomatic of the party: they stand for nothing but the status quo and internal accommodation. "Bipartisanship" is a dirty word when one of the two sides is a discredited, corrupt mob of wannabe theocrats and greedy thugs, but the Democratic leadership simply rolls over and acts as if they are doing a great thing by flushing progressive principles down the toilet.
Glenn Greenwald lambastes the illusion of partisan bickering. We've been ruled by one party of idiots and another of fawning puppy dogs, and I'm getting a little tired of it.
Comments
Posted by: Azdak | November 18, 2008 2:23 PM
But if they're not nice to Lieberman, they might lose Marvin Gardens, and then how are they going to put up any hotels?
Posted by: RobC | November 18, 2008 2:28 PM
The Democrats are going to get a lot what they want this session-the republicans can't filibuster everything. This early show of bipartisan getting along will be the public face of some nasty fights-culminating (I hope) in Lieberman's failure to win re-election 2 years from now. Putting a centrist face on things takes away the only real Republican talking point-that they are a balance to the Democrats.
That being said, if the Democrats start behaving lovey-dovey can't we all get along centrist, instead of just being press-release centrists, I'm gonna be pissed.....
Posted by: Joey | November 18, 2008 2:28 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3464073/Educated-Catholics-have-sown-dissent-and-confusion-in-the-Church-claims-bishop.html
"Educated Catholics have sown dissent and confusion in the Church, claims bishop "
Hillarious/Sad article
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 18, 2008 2:29 PM
Sure, and Rich Lowry (National Review) crowed in an editorial that if Obama is going to get rid of Reaganism, he'll be fragging Clinton's legacy as well.
Which means it's extremely unlikely that he will.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Moses | November 18, 2008 2:39 PM
You'll get no argument from me. Until McCain picked the theoratically inclined, whack-job Palin I was planning on voting Green. But my fear of a theocracy under a dim-bulb who thinks something akin to an all-out nuclear war to bring "Armageddon in her time" is a good thing (as is preached by her former church) was too much.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 18, 2008 2:39 PM
Joe Lieberman represents my state, or at least he's supposed to, I'm sorry to say. I'll be standing by for any rotten tomatoes you might want to throw my way. I understand your outrage. Let the healing begin.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | November 18, 2008 2:42 PM
Sadly, that would be 4 years from now; LIEberman was last reelected (running as a petitioning candidate after having been defeated by an actual progressive Democrat in the primary) in 2006. BTW, he lied unblinkingly in that campaign, insisting that he was really still a Democrat at heart, and that he opposed the war in Iraq every bit as much as Ned Lamont did (and, outrageously, that Democrats should support him because that would help pave the way for a Democrat to win the White House).
All that said, I worry that all the energy put (esp. by my fellow Nutmeggers) into punishing LIEberman may be a distraction from the work ahead. Unless/until he actively opposes the Democratic/Obama legislative agenda, I think he should simply be ignored. The legacy of faithless dissembling he has created for himself is likely to be punishment enough.
If he does impede the progressive agenda, I think he should be dealt with swiftly and harshly... but I don't think he will. His career has been distinctly weathervane-ish... and I think it's clear which way the wind is currently blowing.
Posted by: RobC | November 18, 2008 2:44 PM
oops---that's 4 years till he's up for reelection, not 2-getting ahead of myself here.....
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 18, 2008 2:44 PM
The good image that "bipartisanship" seems to have in the US always strikes me (eurotrash that I am) as odd. The political system there makes it hard for any third party to get a foot hold. Surely you don't want the two established parties getting too friendly; that's a recipe for a de fact one party state.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | November 18, 2008 3:00 PM
Lieberman irritates the hell out of me. I'd actually have a lot more respect for him if he joined the Republican Party.
But, PZ -- please tell me you didn't just use "spineless" as an insult!
Posted by: Eric | November 18, 2008 3:00 PM
PZ, if atheists are already called militant, surely the Democrats have to roll over to avoid getting called militant by the idiots, right?
Damn, that's an incredibly stupid argument. Shame that it seems to be the reasoning. After all, if the Dems grew spines the Republicans would call them names. What horror, especially when Democrats are already verbally berated.
Posted by: Matt7895 | November 18, 2008 3:08 PM
I'm British and don't know much about American politics (other than a Muslim just won the Presidential election... JUST JOKING! :D). Who is Joe Lieberman?
Posted by: Dave | November 18, 2008 3:11 PM
I just called the DNC to cancel my monthly donation. When I told the operator why she said she had had a number of angry calls doing the same but the people would not tell her why they were canceling. When I told her it was because of their fawning over Lieberman she said "well, I certainly understand your reason." If you call them, please be kind to the operators. They're just working stiffs trying to make a living. They aren't the gutless prima donas who make the "decisions" (read that as take path of least resistance).
Posted by: Randy | November 18, 2008 3:12 PM
Sometimes the English language is inadequate to express the anger and sense of betrayal, tinged with a sort of horrified resignation that the democratic party causes at every turn.
Of course, I guess I saw it coming, because I called it days ago: http://deusexeverriculum.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/dear-joe-lieberman/
Posted by: Kris Rhodes | November 18, 2008 3:13 PM
This may be a shrewd move.
What would you rather have--- another enemy, when he may be the deciding 60th vote in the senate, or someone who owes you big?
Lieberman knows that he owes them after this.
Posted by: Diagoras | November 18, 2008 3:16 PM
@ Matt
Lieberman was the VP nod by Kerry. He's an independent, former Dem. He was McCain's cheerleader and Obama detractor during the election period. Whatever he promises to do - he usually does what benefits him. He's got a chairmanship which he should be stripped of - but the party is too pussy to do it.
Posted by: Matt7895 | November 18, 2008 3:18 PM
What has he done to make people here hate him so much? Surely it's not his support for McCain that have made him hated so much by you guys. I've been trying to find out why, apparently he's pro-choice and pro-gay rights.
Posted by: culmastadm | November 18, 2008 3:22 PM
"But, PZ -- please tell me you didn't just use "spineless" as an insult!"
Yeah, those spineless, sucker-armed, copper-rich protein hemocyanin blood conaining, lying through thier beaks, shooting water jets our of thier asses polititians!!!!!
Posted by: Diagoras | November 18, 2008 3:24 PM
And by Kerry, I mean Gore. (Not even remotely similar. Sorry.) Rachel Maddow gave a good analysis of why catering to this dude is a bad plan. (She's on MSNBC.)
Posted by: Diagoras | November 18, 2008 3:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnKh3N5Vgy4 - This being her analysis. :)
Posted by: Magician | November 18, 2008 3:29 PM
It's really nice to see my two favorite blogs linking to each other.
Posted by: Susan | November 18, 2008 3:30 PM
Glenzilla is great. As he has often said, getting pissed in the moment is fine, but planning ahead to hold people accountable is even better. (You might want to consider sending any money formerly sent to the DNC to Accountability Now.) We need a true opposition party, or nothing's going to change, ever.
Posted by: culmastadm | November 18, 2008 3:31 PM
"It's really nice to see my two favorite blogs linking to each other."
In PUBLIC!!!
Sorry, goofy mood today.
I sent an email through the change.org site complaining about seeing the same old faces in the "new"group.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | November 18, 2008 3:32 PM
You think your tired of it?
I'm only 23 and I'm on the verge of revolt! Thanks to half-assed job of the government I can look foward to growing old in Blade Runner style dystopia without leggy Darryl Hannah robots for comfort.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 18, 2008 3:36 PM
Matt,
I don't like him because he is a hawk who turns his back on progressive causes to propel his war against the Middle East even further. He supports torture, and he wants a tough, no talks without demands, stance towards Iran. He is a supporter of the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Posted by: Josh L | November 18, 2008 3:41 PM
Joe Liberman is an elected official and will be in his post for 4 more years. That's 4 years he can act out and whine and complain and grandstand. Four years he can betray the party he feels has betrayed him.
It is not great that he's on homeland security and can do grandstanding there. On the positive side he is off of public works and environment. If Obama and the dems have plans to remake america, to get things moving again what is more important? Homeland security or public works and the environment? Where is the troublesome senator happily stuck?
You can kick him out and push him all the way over to the other side and they will tout it as a small victory or even an unraveling of obama's wider collation or you can let him have the chair he wants and doesn't realize is no longer the center of attention in the senate.
I'm not that bothered by this and I do hope Ned Lamont runs again- all the way to victory next time.
Posted by: The Chemist | November 18, 2008 3:45 PM
We should take a leaf out of the Australian's book. They get pissed off about an issue, they go and found the Aussie Sex Party.
The problem is that Lieberman is a senator. Since Roman days, senators are hard to get rid of. They become senators in part through their connections, and have power in part through their connections. These connections make senior senators harder to get rid of.
Senator Lieberman is a die-hard right winger for the issues on foreign affairs regarding the Middle East. This is a product of his (and others) bizarre and inexplicable allegiance to Israel on diplomatic affairs. This is the entire logic behind his rightward shift. It's why he supports a hard line with Iran and more entanglements in the Middle East. Otherwise, he'd have probably stuck with the Democrats.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | November 18, 2008 3:53 PM
"""If he does impede the progressive agenda, I think he should be dealt with swiftly and harshly... but I don't think he will. """
The Progressive agenda?
And just WHAT, pray tell, IS the progressive agenda?
To give money to any rich wall street bastard who asks for it? To destroy the cooperative relationship between taxpayers and government by looting the coffers and making sure the financial class can keep their yachts?
To scream about being against war and then authorizing another to go to war while signing the checks to pay for the bullets and bombs?
To scrream about civil rights and then elect a president who supported the dismissal of the 4th Amendment with his FISA vote?
To watch as the supporters of Fannie and Freddie (who collected large sums from both) spearhead the next bad big government snafu by way of an 850 Billion bailout package, all the while blaming everybody but their own ignorance and complicity in creating Mortgage madness '08?
The PROGRESSIVE agenda?
This coming April, there will be a huge new wave of mortgage defaults, coupled with credit card defaults, and a growing tax revolt alongside double digit unemployment numbers...
The National debt will be toppling over the 11 TRILLION dollar mark and the world will be detaching itself from the US dollar as best as it can.
China will be pushing to spawn a new middle class in China, selling goods once bound for debt riddled America to itself. The Mid- East will be trading in other currencies besides the dollar because the dollar is a saturated currency.
The central banks will be trying their best to keep hold of their supremecy by creating a central monetary agency that will attempt to over-ride US sovereignty and dictate monetary terms to the US citizens who, once upon a time, were actually supposed to be in charge of themselves and their own government...
And Bill thinks he's got the tail of a Progressive movement?
Hold on Bill. Hold on!
Posted by: mk | November 18, 2008 3:55 PM
Ugly and painful as it seems, it really is the smart move.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 18, 2008 4:00 PM
PZ,
I can't believe that you used the word SPINELESS as an insult. Why you're nothing but a chordatocentric elitist!!! SHAME!!!
Posted by: Matt7895 | November 18, 2008 4:01 PM
"I don't like him because he is a hawk who turns his back on progressive causes to propel his war against the Middle East even further. He supports torture, and he wants a tough, no talks without demands, stance towards Iran. He is a supporter of the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine."
Presumably you also hate Hitchens then? I know he doesn't support torture or Israel, but he does support the wars in the Middle-East and a tough stance on Iran.
It's so sad how readers of this blog think anyone who takes a tough stance on evil is somehow evil themselves.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 18, 2008 4:06 PM
The more I think about it, the more I defeatedly accept the Democrats' "forgiveness" of Lieberman as politically expedient. If they piss him off too much he might switch to being a full blown Republican, or he might resign. Then Ct' Republican Governor Rell (blech) would just appoint a Republican in his place.
Hopefully in four years my state will be sane enough to get rid of him for good. His campaigning for McCain might be enough to do it, if Lamont or whoever is smart enough to pound on that betrayal.
Posted by: Moses | November 18, 2008 4:11 PM
Please, spare me the false equivalency. Hitchens doesn't vote on our laws now, does he? One person has a great weight in how he effects our country. The other is a mildly amusing sot who mumbles on TV. Which, apparently, makes them exactly the same...
Two evils don't make a good. And the bottom line is that Lieberman supports war crimes and illegal wars. I'm of the opinion that much of the Bush Administration, and much of the House and Senate, for their compliance, should stand trial then be hung and/or imprisoned. It's never going to happen because way too many of them were in on it.But that doesn't mean what Lieberman, and most of the rest, did was right, moral or just. And Hitchens, for all his drunken rambling, didn't send one troop or one farthing to Iraq, did he?
Posted by: Robert W | November 18, 2008 4:12 PM
Absolutely true. We live in a one party system and the Democrats lack a spinal column.
Posted by: bullet | November 18, 2008 4:14 PM
We've been ruled by one party of idiots and another of fawning puppy dogs, and I'm getting a little tired of it.
But which is which? :)
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 18, 2008 4:19 PM
Matt,
I don't much care for Hitchens, it's true. I wouldn't say I hate him, though.
But let's get some things straight. Not talking with Iran isn't simply tough, it's stupid and counterproductive, as are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As far as Lieberman goes, my distaste for him goes farther than my distaste for Hitchens for a few of reasons.
1) Joe actually has political power, and responsibility. When Hitchens rants about dropping bombs in the Middle East, I can just leave the overexcited inebriate as he is.
2) Lieberman supported McCain over Obama. He supported a candidate who's policies were reactionary rather than progressive on the domestic front so that he could have his little wars overseas. He went so far as to encourage questions about whether or not Obama was a Marxist, and used Bush League fear mongering rhetoric to paint Obama as a danger to the country. He traded his pro-choice, equality stances away to support his hawkish positions. That is something Hitchens did not do.
Posted by: charles | November 18, 2008 4:19 PM
which is why i voted for nader, thank you very much.
Posted by: ndt | November 18, 2008 4:19 PM
That's the idea. A viable third party would mean both Democrats and Republicans would have to work harder to get elected, and they don't want that.
Posted by: freelunch | November 18, 2008 4:21 PM
Lieberman owed the Democrats for letting him keep his committee chairmanship after the 2006 election and he not only showed that he wasn't competent or interested in doing his job in the committee, but he then went out campaigning against Democrats in this election. I expect him to continue to prove that he has no respect for the Democrats as long as they let him. As I understand it, only about a dozen Democrats voted to relieve Lieberman of this position. That tells me we have about a dozen Democrats in the Senate.
Reid has been played.
Posted by: Diagoras | November 18, 2008 4:21 PM
@Matt
I know I disagree with Hitchens' pro-war stance in the middle-east. I think war should be avoided for the most part, and preemptive war even more so. But then again, I'm of the view that a nation's sovereignty should be respected - and the big stick of war, in the bundle of sticks of diplomacy, is the very last one you should thwap people with.
Over a million violent deaths as a result of the Iraq War isn't a "tough stance on evil." I hardly think that over a million people can be shunted into the evil category. I've never really been one of those people who has been really great at defining "evil" as any group that happens to disagree with US policy.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 18, 2008 4:23 PM
Ah, I see Moses at 33 already said much of what I intended to, and better than I was able (juggling quite a bit of work at the moment, so my already pathetic wit is spread very thin).
Posted by: Dr. Karl E. Taylor | November 18, 2008 4:28 PM
What did you expect PZ? They are politicians. Low life, pond scum sucking, lying lip flappers. They say what they think you want to hear, just to get into the office, then bend you over the desk and take you from behind once they have the office.
I don't care, dem or rep, they all suck and they all lie.
Posted by: Randy | November 18, 2008 4:33 PM
Freelunch @39 is dead-on.
Posted by: Sili | November 18, 2008 4:43 PM
Thanks for the link to Maddow. She and Olbermann are at times all that keeps me from going "JENS SMASH".
Very disappointing to see Obama push for this. I damn well hope he knows what he's doing.
Posted by: Diagoras | November 18, 2008 4:48 PM
@Sili
Olbermann's special comment of Prop 8 warms the cockles of my heart just a smidge. It's also rather adorable to see him sitting among the View women like an adult at the kids' table. He looks ginormous.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | November 18, 2008 4:51 PM
Taken in isolation this decision makes sense in that Lieberman generally votes with the party on issues of social policy and his vote could prove vital to effect real change. In context though this does indeed suggest a systemic cowardice and a fundamental lack of principle; removed from this it seems purely pragmatic. Sometimes what seems to be the case becomes the case as a result of perception on behalf of the electorate - we see this at work in unsubstantiated fluctuations in the stock markets.
Posted by: Jackal | November 18, 2008 4:55 PM
Thank you for the link Diagoras. Rachel Maddow is right. Watch her analysis, then email your senators.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | November 18, 2008 4:55 PM
"""Very disappointing to see Obama push for this. I damn well hope he knows what he's doing."""
After buying into the Obama teleprompter-promise campaign, true believers are going to be heart-broken by the "change" they were expecting.
Even if Obama were sincere in his promises, the economic reality underway will be the tsunami that floods his presidency.
BTW, there sure are alot of "regulars" coming to feed at the upcoming Obama trough...
Boggle boggle boggle...
Posted by: Ouchimoo | November 18, 2008 4:56 PM
I am SO sick and tired of the Dems rolling over and pissing all over themselves to be "bi-partisan". And the Repubs, they just sit there and cry and bitch that Dems aren't being bi-partisan enough. They don't ever bother to look at the Dems side, but they fully expect the Dems to do everything they want.
Utter Bullshit!
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | November 18, 2008 5:11 PM
Shorter Joe Leiberman:
"Honestly, Harry, I swear I won't come in your mouth THIS time."
The Democratic Party should dump Leiberman from the chairmanship. Then, more importantly, they should revive the traditional "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" style filibuster... No more stating "This is a filibuster" and dropping everything. If the Repugs want to filibuster something, let them speak for hours, throats dry, piss crusting their skivvies. Let Teddy Tubes or another of the fossils stand up 'til his decrepit carcass collapses and he gets hauled off to the hospital with an I.V. tube in his arm.
Who needs a filibuster-proof majority anyway?
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 18, 2008 5:13 PM
Ex-democrat, Republican lapdog, and archetypical "Vichycrat."
Posted by: debaser71 | November 18, 2008 5:14 PM
I don't care about politcs and grudges. I want my country back on track. If Obama and the democrats want to play bitter sore winners, play politics, fuck that. Republicans have fucked us over enough with that sort of playing politics with my country.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 18, 2008 5:31 PM
Joseph Lieberman is the junior Senator from Connecticut. Originally a moderate Democrat, he was Gore's vice presidential running mate in 2000. Then he decided that George W. Bush's Middle Eastern policies were just neato-spiffy-keen. Lieberman became a strong supporter of Bush's Iraqi War.In 2006 he was up for reelection (senators have six year terms) and was defeated in the Democratic Party primary by a man named Ned Lamont. Lieberman ran in the general election as an Independent under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" banner (sometimes referred to as the "Lieberman for Himself" Party). He narrowly defeated Lamont, receiving more Republican votes than Democratic votes (the Republican candidate, whose name escapes me right now, got about 10% of the vote). Although elected as an Independent, he caucuses with the Democrats, was allowed to keep his seniority, and is Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. This was because of the Democrats' tiny majority in the Senate. Without Lieberman, the Democrats wouldn't have had a majority.
During that past election, Lieberman campaigned actively and enthusiastically for McCain. Many Democrats think that Lieberman should have been politically punished for this. It'll be interesting to see how he does in the 2012 election.
Incidentally, Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew. This is a major reason for his pro-Israel/anti-Iran stance.
Posted by: The Chemist | November 18, 2008 5:36 PM
I, for one, never saw fit to like Hitchens in the first place. He's an abrasive snob who makes little headway in the process of saying anything productive or interesting.
Posted by: stogoe | November 18, 2008 5:46 PM
There is no such thing as bipartisanship with the Republican party, the party of lies, bigotry, hatred, bad faith negotiations, and propaganda. Any Democrat who believes that Republicans will honestly reach across the aisle without a poison dagger in their hand is a moron and is unfit for public office.
As a recent POTUS once tried (and failed) to mumble, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Posted by: pharynguphat | November 18, 2008 5:53 PM
Shorter Little Paul:
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 18, 2008 5:57 PM
Is this pharynguphat idiot for real?
Posted by: snuh | November 18, 2008 6:02 PM
It's astonishing how many people openly hope (pray?) for single party rule.
Posted by: prl | November 18, 2008 6:02 PM
The Australian Sex Party isn't yet a real political party (i.e. one registered by the Australian Electoral Commission, so that its name can appear on ballot papers). It's not even on the AEC's list of parties who've applied for registration and which are waiting to see whether there are any objections.I suspect that the announcement of the ASP is more to do with promoting the upcoming Sexpo (www.sexpo.com.au) than any real opposition to the Australian government's plans to censor internet traffic.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 6:04 PM
spgreenlaw,
Yes, he's a genuine 24-carat idiot.
Posted by: stogoe | November 18, 2008 6:09 PM
If you'd been paying attention to the single party rule of the past 8 years, you'd understand how many of us openly hope that those malignant, misogynist war criminals never get their hands on the levers of power ever again.
Single party rule from the party of self-pissing cowards and triangulators is better than three more bridge collapses, two more preemptive wars, and an expanded Patriot Act that lets the TSA shove a camera up your pucker 'cause you're 'shifty-eyed'.
Posted by: Irene Delse | November 18, 2008 6:14 PM
I rather like John Scalzi's take on Lieberman and what "really" went on behind the scenes:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2008/11/13/whats-really-going-on-with-joe-lieberman/
OBAMA: Fine. Hand them over.
LIEBERMAN: Now?
OBAMA: Yes, now
He, he, he.
Posted by: Allen N | November 18, 2008 6:17 PM
Spineless as an insult??? I am simply aghast to hear that from PZ. No self respecting squid would ever put up with the weakness shown by the Democratic party. Repeatedly. I stopped giving money to the DNC two years ago and only contribute to candidates directly.
That said, squid cannae count and in the process of changing the direction of this country it is, sadly, a case of every vote counting. There will be another election in two years and if the Democrats gain a couple of more seats in the senate, then ol' Joe Two Face might be far less important and then ...paybacks are a bitch...
Posted by: MikeM | November 18, 2008 6:20 PM
I like it, for all the wrong reasons. They're going to use him to the point of utter abuse, and they'll tell him the alternative is he can join the Dinosaur Republicans.
Lieberman doesn't have an attractive option. That's good.
I say, Use him up. Any bill Obama proposes will now automatically have one vote for it, for starters. Lieberman is powerless to stop it.
Posted by: The Chemist | November 18, 2008 6:23 PM
Perhaps I was too subtle, I was aware of that :D. My point was that America could use some more influential (and above all, more REASONABLE) third parties.
Our third parties are jokes. The Green Party is full of nanny-staters and the Libertarians are full of... well, libertarians.
Shorter me: I can has beeg sentrist party?
Posted by: Joel | November 18, 2008 6:26 PM
Change, you can believe in?
Posted by: Epikt | November 18, 2008 6:34 PM
I didn't have much of an opinion on Lieberman one way or another, until I heard him pandering to some religious group during the 2000 campaign. He coughed up the old nonsense about "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion!" It made voting for Gore much more of a hold-your-nose experience.
Posted by: Epikt | November 18, 2008 6:36 PM
Dr. Strangelove:
So that would make you Prissed off, right?
Posted by: jj | November 18, 2008 6:48 PM
@Diagoras #45
Obermann did a great job with that special comment, he comes off somewhat over the top for me but that was a good one. Link to that special comment to distribute to your friends:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/invite/SpecialComment
Posted by: senecasam | November 18, 2008 7:09 PM
Senate "bipartisanship" looks too much like appeasement to me.
Reid and Pelosi have had their asses handed to them again and again over the last two years.
It's time the Dems stopped playing nice and punched the bastards back!
That's the CHANGE I voted for!
Posted by: skepsci | November 18, 2008 7:21 PM
Governor Dean responds to criticism in the blogosphere:
Taken from The Daily Kos; link in my signature.
Posted by: The Chemist | November 18, 2008 7:22 PM
In the words of Reverend Wright,
America's chickens...have come home to roost!
(Nothing political, I was just looking for an excuse to use that link.)
Posted by: Radwaste | November 18, 2008 7:37 PM
I'm not sure when not being able to remember your own voting record, and claiming some sort of cultural nobility while spurting petty abuses became "progressive", but that's Newspeak for you.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 18, 2008 7:45 PM
The Chemist #65
The last time an American third party became viable was in the 1850s.
Sectional antagonisms caused by the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 tore the Whig Party apart. The Democrats were pro-slavery but the Whigs refused to take the anti-slavery position. By 1854 mass meetings were held in Wisconsin, Michigan and other Midwestern states and the Republican Party was born. Made up primarily of disaffected Whigs (Lincoln had been a Whig) and anti-slavery Democrats, the party spread to other Northern states.
In 1856, the Republicans nominated John Fremont for the presidency and, while he lost, he did quite respectably. Because the party was purely sectional, Southerners watched its growth with dismay. A Republican victory, many warned, would so endanger Southern interests as to warrant secession from the Union. When Lincoln won in 1860, the threat became reality.
Since that time, there haven't been major national debates where one party took one position and the other refused to assume the other side. Also, the way the election laws are written, it's very difficult for a third party to get any power.
Occasionally third parties do have some influence, but not what they want. In 1912, angry that he hadn't got the Republican presidential nomination, Theodore Roosevelt created the Progressive Party (better known as the Bull Moose Party). Roosevelt had the satisfaction of beating Republican William Howard Taft in the popular and electoral votes, but the split engendered in the Republican vote allowed Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win the presidency.
Posted by: Captain C | November 18, 2008 7:49 PM
sp@#6:
"Joe Lieberman represents my state, or at least he's supposed to, I'm sorry to say. I'll be standing by for any rotten tomatoes you might want to throw my way. I understand your outrage. Let the healing begin."
If we throw any rotten tomatoes, it's because we're expecting you to alley-oop them right at Short Ride as he goes past.
Posted by: jayh | November 18, 2008 8:16 PM
when one of the two sides is a discredited, corrupt mob of wannabe theocrats and greedy thugs
excuse me but it's hard to tell which party you're referring to.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 18, 2008 8:27 PM
They've proved again today that Congress is an exclusive rich person's club that could give a fuck about doing what is right.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 18, 2008 8:53 PM
A devastating assessment of Lieberman via Daily Press:
This senator from my childhood state of Connecticut, who back in 2000 ran as a standard-bearer of the Democratic Party as Al Gore's running mate, since 9-11 has been a warmonger of the first order, even joining the right-wing Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) in trying to pass a resolution in the senate last year which, had it made it through as he originally worded it, would have effectively enabled--even invited-George Bush to attack Iran at will as a part of Bush's megalomaniacal global "War" on Terror.
It is Lieberman's obsession with having the US obliterate first Iraq and now Iran, with nukes if need be, that led him to abandon his party and become a leading supporter and apoligist for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and later to become a key endorser of Sen. John "Bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran" McCain.
Lieberman also signed on enthusiastically to the worst excesses of Bush's and Cheney's eight-year-long assault on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and International Law. As head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Lieberman became the leading advocate of fascist policies in the Senate, rivaled only by such ranting Republican proto-fascists as Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN). It was Lieberman who at least initially enthusiastically backed Attorney General John Ashcroft's mad proposal (thankfully never implemented) to establish an Operation TIPS (for Terrorist Information and Prevention Service) program that would have recruited millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors and co-workers, replicating the dreaded Stasi of Communist East Germany. Only after libertarian-minded Republicans like former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) came out strongly against the scheme did Lieberman have second thoughts. Initially, in fact, Lieberman had personally, in his role as chair, blocked efforts by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to delete funding for Operation TIPS from a Homeland Security Department funding bill before his committee.
http://investment-blog.net/obamas-first-big-mistake-on-the-job-rescuing-joe-lieberman/
It's pretty clear why he wants us all to look forward. Look back and you will want to puke.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | November 18, 2008 9:41 PM
I'm not up on all the details of the Australian system, but I did take a look at the ASP's website (wanted to see if it was legal for a foreigner to make a donation... apparently not), and at the application for membership. One of the things you agree to by joining is that they may use your name on the list they must submit to the AEC to become recognized. I took from that that there's some process of signing up a certain number of members required to become a recognized party. If I've got that right, the fact that they're not a "real" party yet does not mean they're not sincere, or that they don't intend to become a real party.
Posted by: skepsci | November 18, 2008 9:45 PM
I'm all for looking forward. If Lieberman were to be ousted from his committee chairmanship, it should be because he's not very good at his job, not as political retribution for having supported Senator McCain. That, to me, would be in keeping with Obama's message of change: place the focus squarely on the issues, rather than on partisanship and political retribution.
I think what the caucus realized was that however bad Lieberman may be at his job, ejecting him from the caucus would be seen as political retribution, and they didn't want to seem petty.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | November 18, 2008 9:58 PM
skepsci:
I've got no problem with enlightened partisanship (which is a different thing from reflexive partisan warfare), but I agree that retribution might be counterproductive. I despise Joe LIEberman. I worked hard to defeat him in 2006, and will be working hard to re-defeat him in 2012 (if he has the temerity to run again), but that said, sometimes political aikido is better than revenge.
Posted by: Joel Grant | November 18, 2008 10:18 PM
Those of you who are, to varying degrees, Lieberman apologists, consider the actual logical implications of the argument to keep him in the caucus and let him continue to run the Homeland Security Committee for the benefit of his Republican friends.
The basic argument is this: we need Lieberman to cast his vote with the Democrats.
The logical implication: Lieberman does not vote his conscience, he is a whore who votes in favor of the party that gives him the most power and goodies.
I say we kick the whore out and be done with it. He has no honor and can only be laughing at the continuing Dem cowardice.
As for filibusters, the Senate can revoke Rule 22 and force the Repugs to actually filibuster. Bring in the cots. The Dems should not be forced into impotence on the belief that they need 60 votes to do anything.
That is nonsense. They do not need Lieberman; he is a traitor, a warmonger, and a corrupt little whore; get rid of him for once and for all.
Posted by: John Morales | November 18, 2008 10:43 PM
Bill @79: The Australian Secular Party had this problem.
In Australia, Section 126 of the Electoral Act specifies the requirements to make an application for registration as a political party.
Specifically,
Posted by: Josh | November 18, 2008 10:44 PM
Some of the discussants here overlook the fact that Lieberman was always a conservative: Buckley funded his run against liberal Republican Lowell Weicker when LW started talking about lifting the Cuba embargo. Lieberman wanted war with Iraq to start in 1997. Although he was pro-choice for a time, the only issue on which he reliably and consistently both speaks and votes liberal is the environment/climate change, so far as I can tell. So I don't buy the "sense of duty toward Israel" as an explanation of his schmuckery . . .