It finally happened. Hillary Clinton has finally made her first tepid step towards anti-war leftism by endorsing the anti-war leftism of the Democratic leadership. Even James Woolsey’s other favorite Democrat, Jane Harman, signed off on the letter. But, according to one of Kos’s sources in Harry Reid’s office, Lieberman is furious that this letter was released at all.
A source in Harry Reid’s office told me leadership decided that their joint letter calling for withdrawal was a better gambit [than a proposed amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill], and that given the press coverage it received (and it did get wide notice), that it was far more effective than introducing another amendment.
But did it need to be an “either/or” proposition?
Indeed, the truth of the matter is a bit more complicated, and runs right through the Connecticut primary. A top Senate aide privy to the situation told me that Lieberman didn’t want to remind voters back in Connecticut that he was so wrong-headed in Iraq (or “principled”, I’m sure he’d say) by having to vote against the withdrawal amendment. In fact, he was furious at the Senate leadership for merely issuing their joint letter.
It’s very ironic to see the Democratic leadership getting all worried about Joe Lieberman losing his primary. We keep hearing how they don’t want the anti-war left to get a victory. Isn’t it obvious, given their letter to the President, that their real concern is incumbent protection?
Go below the fold to see what the party leadership thinks about the PEOPLE picking the candidates.
For an audiotape recording of Chuck Schumer at an August 2, 2005 private party in Georgia.
“Let me tell you one other thing we did. We are no longer letting Democrats get in a circle and shoot each other. I was just in Tennessee with Harry and with (…) and we have a primary and I stood up there Harold Ford is running and he can become the first African-American elected in the south to the Senate since reconstruction which would be a great thing for America. There is this young woman whose… not so young… but a nice woman running against him but everyone says she is going to attack him.”
“…(unintelligible) we are going to intervene if anyone one democrat attacks another, we’re doing that in states where there are primaries. We can’t afford to do it anymore. This always happens in the primaries, we would throw up the cards and see where they landed. No more, we are finding the best candidate in every one of the seats where a Republican is vulnerable.”
“So I called up Governor…our number one target is Rick Santorum…let him go back to wherever he lives, Maryland, you know you heard about it, he is Pennsylvania but he tried to get exempt from the school tax there cause he lives in Maryland even though he is a registered citizen of Pennsylvania. In any case I called up the Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, I said who is the best candidate to beat Santorum. He said there is only one person who could beat him but A he won’t run and B you wouldn’t want him to run. I said why wouldn’t we want him to run, he said he’s pro-life. He’s a deeply religious Catholic man. Bob Casey.”
“I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I’m pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can’t insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can’t anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry using his very…Harry has amazing insights into people…and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run. A poll yesterday…national…all the polls they did…Casey 51 Santorum 40. You should see Santorum nervous and walkin on the floor.”
(unintelligible)
“And we’re doing this in the other states.”
They “intervened” with Paul Hackett in Ohio. The Democratic leadership is now officially part of the anti-war left, but that doesn’t keep them from wanting to protect their own members. If Lamont wins, we might just get into our little plebian minds that we can stand up to Chuck Schumer and select our own candidates who are willing to “check off 18 different issues” before they get our support. Issues like a women’s right to choose and opposition to starting land wars in Asia.
Isn’t it obvious, given their letter to the President, that their real concern is incumbent protection?
Hasn’t that always been the way things really are? Once a politician makes the big splash and gets into office, the overriding concern becomes maintainance of the status quo. Career politicians, a bad idea.
Once a politician makes the big splash and gets into office, the overriding concern becomes maintainance of the status quo. Career politicians, a bad idea.
Agreed – that one bit of audiotape is the best argument I’ve heard for term limits in a looong time.
Who the $#$^$%^ died and appointed him God?
“The Incumbent Protection Racket”
That’s been on the tip of my tongue, but I just wasn’t coming up with the right words. That’s perfect!
A Democratic victory in November will not solve anything. We need to capture the party from the inside, and put Progressive leaders in power. Otherwise the goals we hope to accomplish will never materialize.
I agree that we need to take the party over from the inside — I’ve been saying this for over a year now. However I think we’ve been going about it . . . well, I don’t know if it’s the wrong way, but certainly the hard way. We’ve been trying to get our candidates into the top-level positions, Senators and Representatives, which is a good thing because it’s the only way we’ll ever get any accountability in Washington. But the real way to do it is going to be to get those candidates into the lower offices — school board members and city councilmen and state legislators and governors. Then when the top-level panjundrums come looking for candidates, they won’t have anyone but our candidates to pick.
And again, this is why I am solidly behind Dean’s Fifty State Strategy. It’s the only way I think this is going to happen.
and I’ll say it again…these folks don’t want democracy — they’d be pleased to return to the era of smoke-filled rooms (well, maybe not so smoke-filled these days…health reasons) and present the American “voters” with their hand-picked choices, those choices being the product of patronage rather than who best to serve their constituents.
And I hate to say, a lot of American “voters” wouldn’t mind that if it meant less junk mail.
Democracy is messy, folks…if you can’t stand up to challenges from within your own party, what are you going to do when the opposition sinks its claws into you?
And Schumer…”I’m pro-choice but we need the best candidate…” Wonder how he’s going to feel when Stevens kicks the bucket and Casey and Nelson are the deciding votes to rubber-stamp Bush’s choice to take this country backwards about 50 years?
I’ve got the Cranky Pants on this morning, and I’m not afraid to use them…
Rmm. I’ve never been a fan of term limits. It’s exactly the kind of attempt to enforce control that I’m referencing in my tag line. Far better to present persuasive arguements for allowing change into a system.
The fact is that any organizational system tends to create power foci in the hands of an elite few. These small groups then shape the values of the power structure.
Now obviously, our culture does not value flexibility over selfishness, in fact quite the opposite. We are arguing for flexibility, responsiveness, etc, and the system of governance that we have was designed to provide that as much as possible. The problem is that it was never intended to last as long as it has, and it also could not anticipate technological leaps in mass communications.
Ideally, there would be a move to re-imagine our governmental structure, but that is not going to happen so long as the vast majority of the middle class on up can maintain a decent standard of living. In fact, I think that the shift in cultural attitude from “can-do ingenuity” to “on-demand consumerism” may scuttle that option rather permanently, if it ever existed.
In short, we are doing what we should, and if we succeed, we will have to find our own ways to limit our accumulation of power. This is immensely difficult, and leaves us open to challenges from less scrupulous parties like Karl Rove, et al, but it is our lone best option, and I think we’re doing pretty well.
Get behind Tasini for Senate. He’s a true progressive, fighting for principle, and he needs our $upport.
You just zeroed in on one of the main reasons why I will not vote for Bob Casey. This totalitarian and paternalistic mentality that the Democratic Leadership has adopted needs to be cut off at the knees. How dare they think they have the right to hand-pick our candidates and short-circuit the Democratic process? They may think they have the right to be king-makers, but they don’t, and we need to let them know that. We will only embolden them if we give in and vote for any candidate they choose to shove down our throats. The fact that Schumer openly boasts about this strategy reveals how emboldened he has become. And don’t forget, Schumer was even threatening throw the support of the DSCC behind an independent Lieberman candidacy until the public uproar forced him to do an about-face.
I’d also like to know why Schumer is so pleased with an 11-point Casey lead. Santorum has the lowest job approval rating of any U.S. Senator. Only 28% of Pennsylvanians have a favorable opinion of him. By all rights Casey ought to be 30-points ahead by now. This is a guy who was 20-points ahead of Rendell when he first announced for Governor and ended up losing to Rendell by 13-points. Don’t forget that. He is inarticulate, not terribly bright, a reactionary right-winger on a host of issues, and one of the worst debaters on the planet. With someone like Casey an 11-point edge is perilously vulnerable.
When I vote Green in November I will be voting not only against a candidate who stands for many things I detest, but I will also be sending Chuck Schumer a message to get his nose out of Pennsylvania electoral politics.