Marla R. Stevens

Lieberman and the Loss Leaders (with a Chambliss/Martin twist)

Filed By Marla R. Stevens | November 22, 2008 4:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics, Politics
Tags: Bill Nelson, Democratic Party, Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, Saxby Chambliss, Stonewall Democrats, U.S. Senate

The Senate has kissed Lieberman's sorry ass yet again and the party powers that be are now celebrating how nice and big their tent is.

Lieberman and McCain.jpg

All they made Lieberman do was sit through a resolution -- that only two-thirds of the caucus would vote for -- that was the milquetoast version that he was a bad boy -- and he had to appear contrite and say that maybe (only maybe) some of what he said crossed the line. Florida's Senator Bill Nelson helped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid organize the wimp brigade.

The resolution without concrete consequence is just more of the "cronies-before-constituents", toothless Democrat behavior that has disgusted so many that has resulted in party division and the withholding of funds by an increasing number of the members of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

It doesn't pass the "Mom Test" -- i.e., it wouldn't work when dealing with a two-year-old, so how do Reid et al think it's going to work for a rogue actor like Lieberman?

In other words, I'll believe Lieberman's contrite when his behavior proves it and not one second before. Crocodile tears do not count.

As far as I'm concerned, the tent's too big when it lets in Republicans who are behaving increasingly like Republicans, which, for all intents and purposes, is what Lieberman has devolved into.

The Republicans, meanwhile, must be getting a good laugh out of this one -- in the manner of the KGB when they successfully kept a double-agent in a position of U.S. government power.

The sign on the Big Tent must now read, "SUCKERS!"

Special to Stonewall Dems begging for contributions in the runoff for Senator Saxby Chambliss' seat:

Please ask yourselves what this says about how the new party leadership plans to handle that race.

Challenger Jim Martin's not that good a buddy, after all, and I will be quite surprised if we see the president-elect risking bringing his momentum to an embarrassing halt by stumping for him in the Peach State anytime soon.

Save your pennies for something that's not so pre-telegraphed as a lost cause.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


EXCUSE ME??? I live in Georgia and I know Jim Martin personally. I worked on his campaign when he was running for Lt. Gov and I support him now. Martin is a highly LGBT supportive person and deserves to be our senator. I don't appreciate someone from Des Moines, IA thinking she knows what's best for Georgia.

Martin deserves our support, in spite of what Marla thinks. Go to: http://www.actblue.com/page/changetogeorgia?refcode=splash to donate to Martin's campaign. He supports us more than half the other Dem Senators do.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | November 24, 2008 1:39 PM

a. "Supporting us more than half the Dem Senators do" is not saying much. I have frequently had higher standards for queer issues political acceptability for candidates than the Atlanta queer political establishment. Martin's 'better than' simply falls short of my standards for what it would take for me to advise throwing good money down what's looking to be a rabbit hole.
b. Iowa is where I get my mail, vote, and serve jury duty but I am not an Iowan the way I'm a Georgian. I have no land in Iowa whereas one branch of my mother's side of the family has lived on the same land the British king granted to us to entice our tall Pilgrim selves down from Dorchester, Massachusetts (which we founded after coming over on the second ship to land in the colony, the Anne over a century before that) to create a bulwark south of Savannah against Spanish incursion north from Florida prior to the halfway mark in the eighteenth century. I could go on through generals and members of Congress, mayors and aldermen, diplomats, etc., scions of business -- particularly shipping, sea captains, artists and musicians, champions of historic restoration, civil rights, science, engineering, and the environment but, to make a long story short, Iowa, for me, is temporary geography whereas Georgia always has my heart.
c. Martin vs Chambliss is not the issue. Of course, Martin is far superior to Chambliss and dumping Chambliss is a grudge match worthy in and of itself -- but neither of those change the odds nor do they change what the new party standard-bearer is telegraphing. I would be delighted for the run-off to prove me wrong but that doesn't make the run-off a good investment of queer dollars that are too few and much needed elsewhere.

Kyle Bailey, who works for the National Stonewall Democrats and lives here in Georgia is actively campaigning and working for Jim Martin, and is with him at Amsterdam this very minute. And, if you forgot, Amsterdam is a gay club. Your evaluation of NSD's view of Martin is false and WAY off the mark.

I have been so confused about the hatred towards Lieberman. He supported McCain, and still supports the war. Other than that, he is on our side (and on our side includes being a staunch supporter of gay rights)-a hell of lot more than other Democrats you don't seem to be wanting to throw out. Oh wait, you do want to throw out those who don't belong to the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party."

The only reason the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" has any power is because Southern Democrats and those much less friendly to us than Lieberman helped form a majority. We may not like it, but it's reality.

Obama forgave him. The caucus forgave him. In return, they take the high road, get another member in the caucus who will vote overwhelmingly with them, and can hold a lot over his head in exchange.

I can't wait for the tears in your beer when Obama disappoints you. Oh, wait, he already is, in case you missed the no action on Don't Ask, Don't tell until at least 2010.

Ah, but he doesn't vote with the Democrats on "most things," Chuck. He voted for the Patriot Act, he refused to hold hearings on Katrina, he supports the war in Iraq, he publicly denigrated Obama, he supported John McCain and campaigned on his behalf while also denigrating other Democrats running for office.

And most importantly? When another Democrat beat him in the primary, he became "an independent" so he could keep his seat. That doesn't say, "Democrat" or "Republican" actually. It says, "I'm desperate to remain in power."

Lieberman thought by backing McCain he'd get more power. He backed the wrong horse. It's time for him to lose what power he does have.

Aside from the fact that most Dems supported the Patriot Act the first time, and a heck of lot the second, Obama is doing exactly what he needs to do to get anything done. And as for holding hearings on Katrina, just about any Dem committee chairman could have done so if they were so inclined, the subpeona powers and jurisdiction are broad enough to.

And let's not forget that Lieberman could have simply switched to a Republican at any time in the last two years and gave control of the Senate to them. And who knows what the makeup of the Senate will look like in two years?

And both of us have supported candidates in the past that ran against the party. It happens, for some reasons more noble than others.

Idealism is nice but when has it ever gotten anything productive done? If you think a Chicago politican got where he is by idealism, I got news for ya. He cut a lot of deals, as you can tell by who is coming into his Cabinet. Get ready for four more years of it. I'm okay with it, because it gets things done.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | November 24, 2008 2:42 PM

Chuck -- you mistake me for one of those starry-eyed Obamacans who think he walks on water or something and who have this strange ability to 'anomalize' every one of his demonstrations that he's a solid DLC clone built on a civil libertarian foundation of the sort that, if you're not careful, will lull you into wishfully seeing only the latter only to break your heart again and again with the former. Did not support him in the primary and warned many that he's not the (Great Black) "Hopey" they seek and that we should be studying Perkins'/Dobkins' relationship with the Shrub admin for clues about how to survive and thrive in this one -- but voted for him because it was the right thing to do.

And you're wrong, too, about my wanting to shut down the size of the tent to only accommodate the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. If I'd meant that, I would've said that. I didn't. What I said was that I want to throw Lieberman-who-might-as-well-be-a-Republican out of the tent flap. There are no more like him so that would end the pitching/catapaulting/pine-tree-skinning* exercise as far as I'm concerned. If the Republicans really want him -- and they don't or they'd have offered him enough to make it worth his while while he was "negotiating" with them (aka talking to the Republicans by way of scaring the chickenhearts who run the Dems -- predictably). The Republicans are not the weak-kneed whores our leadership has become.

Beyond that, Bil, Michael, and more here have laid out the obvious case and even Bill Perdue makes some interesting points (although I don't see the demise of the Dems he does, seeing, as you seem to, that the country is more right than left -- although I have hope that it could change a bit and now swing so far that a back swing would result.)

*And, Monica, if you don't understand that last term, perhaps you should consider that, comparatively, I'm the real Georgian in the equation and that you're a denizen of that odd Eastern megalopolis plunked down in the NORTHERN part of my real home state who wouldn't understand the relationship between marsh hens, spring tides, and dinner if your grits did a tango with the bird shot discretely (we hope) deposited upon your plate. ;-)

Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | November 22, 2008 9:59 PM

Lieberman didn't just support McCain. He campaigned for him, criticized Obama as the Democratic nominee and supported Republican candidates including Norm Coleman who is in a tight race against Democrat Al Franken.

That's not what Democrats do. But, then again Lieberman got beaten by a real Democrat during the primary in his last race and decided that he was an independent.

Yeah, that sounds like someone we can trust.

You do not invite a known snake to sleep in your bed and that is what Lieberman is. His betrayal was extremely public. Keep in mind he supported McCain knowing everything that the man stood for so where he stands cannot be that different. I don't care what he professes to believe, actions speak louder than words.
It is my belief that they are going to regret this decision to keep him around.

The problem is not Lieberman, it's Obama.

Obama forgave Lieberman for the same reasons He forgave war criminals like Bill Clinton and Colin Powell and for the same reason He surrounds Himself with the usual pro-war suspects: Hillary Clinton, Biden, Nunn, Rahm Emanuel, Richard Holbrook, Gates, Madeline Albright, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Lee Hamilton, and Jami Misnik. His list of economic advisors is also a rogues gallery of the right.

Obama's foreign policy, like His economic policies and His plans to deal with racism, homobigotry, deregulation, attacks on unions etc. will be a repeat of Clintons. They’re right wing policies because the Democratic (sic) party is at core a party run by right wingers, by the rich.

In terms of the war He plans an escalation against Palestine, where He calls for Jerusalem to be the capitol of a zionist apartheid state; to cross bolder interdiction raids against Syria; to Iraq, where He plans on an indefinite occupation; to Iran, where He opened the way for an invasion by calling the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization; to an escalation in Afghanistan and cross border raids against Pakistan.

Obama’s prowar because He’s a Democrat, in the long tradition of that Party’s support for wars and imperial conquest from Democrat James Polk’s predatory war on Mexico and his plans to annex Cuba and expand slavery to Wilsons entry into World War One to protect accounts receivables for DuPont’s Merchant of Death business to LBJs mass murder in Vietnam and Bill Clintons mass murder of children in Iraq.

His pro war views were well known before the election but ignored by conscious right-wingers and lots of less savvy gullible people. They also gave Obama a pass on his bigotry about same sex marriage and the fact that he’s a lap dog of the rich. Caught up in the futility of voting for the lesser evil they saw no alternative but to elect anther right wing swindler.

However not all Democrats are gullible or unprincipled, and as He turns right some of them will turn left. We can add a deepening left/right internal polarization to the list of problems that will hasten the political extinction of the jackass party.

Holt, Michael The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War. OUP 1999

Foner, Eric Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War OUP 1995
Excerpted free at http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_%28United_States%29