The Lieberman Defeat: Wes Clark’s Party or George McGovern’s?
Submitted by Bernie Quigley on August 9, 2006 - 9:56am.
Bernie Quigley
Haverhill, NH
The Lieberman Defeat:
Wes Clark’s Party or George McGovern’s?
What a difference a day makes. I think the unfortunate Joe Lieberman of Connecticut fell victim to fate when he lost his primary race yesterday. Had his primary been held tomorrow, or next week, after everyone had seen Oliver Stone’s new movie about two courageous Port Authority officers trapped under the rubble of the World Trade Center, things might have been different.
The events of 9/11 continue to define us. Our century began with 9/11. Our millennium will be remembered first by the events of 9/11. New York City will be remembered by 9/11.
For myself, it is an item tucked away in the permanent places of my soul and in the corners of my desk where I keep the sacred things; painted stones and paper birds my kids give over the years; pictures of our first sheep and critters. There is a picture of a Buddhist monk in orange robes, like those I’d encountered in military service in Thailand 40 years ago. I still pleasantly dream about them today for some reason. There is a newspaper clipping of the New England Patriot’s second quarterback, Doug Flutie, drop-kicking his way to retirement, and there is a tattered news photo of a New York City firefighter calmly, resolutely, walking up the stairwell of the World Trade Center, while office workers pour down the same stairwell in smoke and horror. A woman stops and turns to watch him and seems frozen, her eyes wide with disbelief.
It is those two elements which remain: That a man could walk so calmly to his duty and to his death. And that the rest of us would encounter such a person, and would rise ourselves from the rubble a different people because he had done so.
One writer said that New York joined the country on 9/11. As a one time New Yorker, I would say so. A shadow lifted from New York on 9/11; a shadow as long as the buildings themselves. And the rest of the country joined New York as well. Jim Webb, Virginia’s Democratic candidate for Senate, said all his anger fell from him on 9/11.
I’m glad that Joe Lieberman didn’t win. I never liked him as a politician. He was the first or among the first to advise President Bush to respond to 9/11 by going into Baghdad. It is not wrong or unhealthy to have a gut reaction like Stonewall Jackson’s (”Kill them, sir. Kill them all.”) to an event of such towering evil. It is wrong to implement it as public policy. And I am not sure Joe Lieberman understood the difference. I don’t mind that he cozied up to George Bush. There was good reason to do so on many occasions. But the spiraling cycle of incompetence in policy and performance which has characterized this administration first took its initiative from Joe Lieberman.
But something else is troubling here. As far as I know, Ned Lamont, who beat Lieberman in the primary, might well be a fairly competent person because he made a lot of money as a businessman. But all I hear about him is that he is the “anti-war” candidate. He is today exclusively defined by the press as the “anti-war” candidate. And I don’t know exactly what that is. Truthfully, I think it suggests that the Democrats are retreating to the safety of their shadow again, and see the Lamont victory as the ascending front. Will Senator Clinton now flip and be the “anti-war” candidate? Will Kerry?
If public discussion is reduced to such an absurd simplification as “pro war” or “anti war” it will be a disaster for the Democrats. The shadow only makes the strong one stronger. Democratic Party will be the “anti war” party again, as it became the “anti war” party in 1972 when it lost in a landslide. We in Massachusetts became the only state to vote for the “anti-war” candidate, George McGovern. Massachusetts did so with feelings of pride, righteous indignation, smugness and self-assurance. As one born in that state and reared thereabouts, I felt it was a classic retreat from the collective responsibility of governance and citizenship. And I am feeling that same smugness, which has poisoned both politics and culture in the northeast from then to now, blossoming again up here like a corpse flower.
I do not think it will go that way. Vietnam and the war on Iraq are intrinsically different. The times were different. The wars were different. Americans are different today than we were then and 9/11 contributes vastly to that difference. And if the Democrats do retreat under the mantle of anti-war, this time a third party could well rise in the middle and remove their traditional cloak of responsibility from them once and for all. Political pundit Dick Morris claims that American history has never been so ripe for a third-party challenge as it is today.
It was a relief to read General Clark’s remarks a few weeks ago in the New Jersey Jewish Reporter quoting Colin Powell, who advised the President, “If you break it, you own it.” We broke it and it is still broke. And it is still our responsibility to fix it. That incompetence continues to break it does not change the responsibility of fixing it.
The singular voice which has remained steady in this from the beginning is General Clark’s. When he signed the book in Concord to enter the primary here in New Hampshire, he held a little press conference afterwards in which he presented a plan for the warring regions of the Middle East. The desert sands have shifted considerably since then and the plan is different. But there is always a new plan. That is the hallmark of leadership, management, excellence and competence in policy making. That is the hallmark of adulthood.
Regarding Iraq today, Clark told the New Jersey periodical that it would be virtually impossible to beat a hasty retreat. He said the United States forces should not leave without making sure that there would be at least some kind of stability in the region.
I no longer hear that from any other Democrat who gets her or his name in the daily press. No other Democrat today with a public persona speaks like that. No Democrat in the public eye speaks of responsibilities to the region any longer. None has a plan to put back the broken pieces.
The Lieberman defeat brings the Democrats to a fork in the road. Lieberman was rightfully defeated because his stances were misguided and incompetent, and also as Noam Scheiber, a senior editor of The New Republic, says today in The New York Times, because of the perception that he’s a less than reliable partisan.
But if a Lieberman defeat means the return to McGovernism, the Democrats and the country will face disaster in 2008.
General Clark, says the White House hasn't put in place the diplomatic and political strategies necessary to win the war in Iraq and establish peace in the Middle East and he provides new strategies to anyone who will listen.
"It has been over three years of fumbles and mistakes by the White House," he says.
Today, the Democrats could yield to defeatism and relish in its narcotic and malodorous sweetness as it did in 1972. Increasingly, its only other option is Wesley Clark.
But I do not see a place for him in a party of McGovern Democrats.
But all I hear about him is that he is the “anti-war” candidate. He is today exclusively defined by the press as the “anti-war” candidate.
That's because the MSM is too stupid/lazy/pro-war to cover the other issues that are of concern to Connecticut voters.
Vietnam and the war on Iraq are intrinsically different.
Iraq is Vietnam on crack.
I felt it was a classic retreat from the collective responsibility of governance and citizenship.
No, it was the realization that the war was wrong. To quote
General David M. Shoup, former US Marine Commandant and recipient of the Medal of Honor after Tarawa, 1966,
"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these [Third World] nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own.... And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."
Vietnam was wrong, Iraq is wrong, war is wrong.
"Am I getting smarter or is the propaganda getting dumber?"
- Paul, Vietnam veteran
I don't want to see this rift in the party--Wes's position is does not have to be significantly different than most of the "get out now" Democrats.
For example, take a look at Eric Massa and even Joe Sestak. Both support a timeline which makes Wes cringe. BUT I believe that is semantics. (Yeah, that'll make Wes cringe too--sorry sir.) Listen to what Wes says, and to what Eric says, and to what Joe says. It all roughly sounds the same. And it is different than what the super-charged "get out now" people say. In reality, no one who actually has to govern would be aligned with the super-charged "get out now" folks. We did break it. We do own it. some of the words are different, but I believe that Wes, Eric, and Joe would all DO about the same thing. Will Lamont? I don't know. But we must be careful not to lump all the "get out now" folks together with the super-charged ones.
Last week I had the privilege of seeing Eric Massa and Wes Clark together. Watch them together and you'll see their stances are only separated by choice of words not by what they'd really do if they were in charge. The next night, I saw Joe Sestak at a house party. Same thing.
So, let's have these fighting dems pick up the torch and run with it. As Eric likes to say, they're not anti-war, they are anti this war. But being for getting out, doesn't have to mean being for leaving Bagdad broken. It's mostly semantics. Let's not let ourselves be ripped apart by that. Let's look for what people really mean when they talk.
again, Mr. Q...
Whether or not we will see "Wes Clark's Democratic Party" remains to be seen, just as whether or not Joe wins as an "indie" remains to be seen. I believe much of it will have to do with Dem. senate leadership in the coming days. 'what shall we do about joe?', who has now forced 'cronyism' into a corner, in a sense. Maybe that's a good thing.
...nor do I believe Lieberman's defeat was about his support of the war as the media spins it. Supporting the war really was not exclusive to Joe. Listening to CT voters last night on c-span it really seemed as if for them, as for Lamont, making his judgment about the Schiavo affair was the very last straw. (The Alito confirmation was also consistently mentioned as an issue that had driven them to vote for Lamont.) I heard only a few mentions of the war as their main issue.
...all of the pre-election media spin for joe was not all that effective in the end. So here's to "people driven politics", as Markos likes to put it.
And yes, the only option in the oval office is indeed Wesley Clark.
What would you do for a Klondike Bar?
. . . was pleased to get a request today from WesPAC & Wes to support Ned Lamont . . . from my sources the Rove crowd is staking a lot on getting Lieberman elected in November . . . they see him as their ideal VP candidate with George Allen.
The difference between Gen. Clark's position and the Jack Murtha position is that Murtha doesn't actually want to bring the troops home. Gen Clark does. Murtha is calling for the troops to be pulled back right away to Kuwait and Qatar and put on standby to go back in. Gen. Clark wants to take a little bit more time, but then bring the troops all the way home. I don't think this is fully explained enough.
Lamont is not just an anti-war candidate. His position on universal healthcare was a big factor in Connecticut. We would never get universal healthcare from Lieberman because he is wholly owned by the insurance industry - well, except for the part owned by Colt firearms, which is why we'd never assault weapons legislation that made any sense with Lieberman in either.
to not allow the MSM and repubs frame it this way. Just because they say it doesn't mean it's so. There is a reason for them to do this. Rahm hit them square between the eyes again last night:
"This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means. This is not about the war. It's about blind loyalty to Bush." - Rahm Emanuel
We need to keep saying this....louder.
That's exactly right. Connecticut is one state, one Senate seat, we can't be distracted from the job at hand in the other 49 states by all the hype over this one seat.
Electing the Fighting Dems and other WesPac endorsed candidates will mean that the next Congress will be very different from what we've had in recent years. We can define the future of the Democratic Party and if we do our job those MSM labels will slide off like cheap imitation Post-it notes.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were five years ago?
Both sold out the movement towards democracy for their selfish interests.
Arnold (1776) vs Lieberman (2006)
Perhaps Lieberman should review one of Connecticuts' most shamed residents in American history, when Benedict Arnold betrayed the Continental Army to the British. In similar manner, Lieberman has betrayed the Democratic Party to the GOP.
King George III awarded Arnold the rank of Brigadier General in the British Army. Perhaps King George W will do the same in kind, then send Lieberman to Iraq.
Let's distinguish fact from opinion.
Millions of moderate dems WILL NOT be following the activist left wing of the current leadership running our party. We simply will not. Watch what happens in the general election, the election that actually sends candidates to office.
Liberals habitually miscalculate, cycle after cycle, that winning primaries IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
I have far more confidence in Joe Lieberman than I do in Wes Clark or Howard Dean, Maria Cantwell, or Barbra Boxer, etc...
http://pabloonpolitics.com/index.htm
Wes Clark Teaches Barnstorming 101 in Texas
you are posting on WesPac 45 weeks to rail against Wes Clark?
... I'll let you show the facts.
As a former Independent, I view myself as a "Moderate Dem"; and I'd never support anyone who sold out the Democratic Party for George Bush's failed policies
BTW, I've never viewed myself an "Independent Dem," perhaps you can provide some facts about WTH that means.
what state you live in? Connecticut?
Activist left wing leaders? Harry Reid? Maria Cantwell? She's my Senator....fact: NOT left wing. Far from it. General Wes left wing? Howie's not left wing. Barbara Boxer stumped for Joe.
What do you have more confidence in Joe to do? Stand shoulder to shoulder with the *ush administration? Zero accountability and oversight? Push their right wing judges, and on and on. Well....on all that you're probly right.
"I have far more confidence in Joe Lieberman than I do in Wes Clark or Howard Dean, Maria Cantwell, or Barbra Boxer, etc..."
Then what the hell are you doing here? Go post somewhere else.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
So if you feel that way, as is your right, why not walk like Joe did when he didn't get his way? Why are you on this list and supporting General Clark with statements like that.
10 Joe Libermans couldn't make up one Wes Clark: not in intellect; not in experience where it really counts; not in temperament; not in integrity; not in honor; not in honesty; not in knowledge;
The Democratic Party needs a good high colonic. Quality beats quantity if fully unleashed.
Jim Craven
Whoever says that this result shows that the Democrats are being taken over by ANYONE should have their heads handed to them.
This demonstrates in fact that Democrats are thoughtful and care about the nation AND the party, and can and will stand up a formidable class of challengers to the status quo, for November, 2006, AND November, 2008.
http://pabloonpolitics.com/index.htm
Wes Clark Teaches Barnstorming 101 in Texas
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/09/
ct_sen_will_dems_urge_lieberman_to_leave_race
On August 9, 2006 - 3:18pm Dworkin said:
Lamont and the Party Must Relentlessly Hammer Lieberman on One Issue: Who Will You Caucus With If You Win?
There is NO way Lieberman can be forced from the race by lecturing him. He's already said "my mind's made up." Even if the polls show him losing, his delusions of grandeur will keep him in.
But Joe's tip-toeing on the lip of a volcano. Is he going to vote with the Republicans or Democrats? Becuase if he declares himself he's doomed.
If he says "I'll still vote with the Democrats", then the Republicans have no reason to support him, and Rove and his minions will disappear. Lamont will still control an increasing portion of the Democratic party base. Republicans will go over to Schlesinger since they have nothing to gain from a Lieberman victory.
If he says "I'll caucus with Republicans", the all hell will break loose. His democratic support will fall away, Democratic-leaning independents will go over to Lamont and Joe will be left as a Republican in a blue state.
His only hope is to play both sides against the middle. Flirt with Rove and the Republicans that he will caucus with them, while threatening Democratic politicians that if they put too much pressure on him he'll switch parties.
He wants to be the man in the middle, courted by both sides.
And that's exactly what we can't let him be. The pressure MUST be intesified and unrelenting to force him to declare himself. And if he won't then Lamont should run endless campaign ads accusing him of being a stealth Republican and asking "who do you want to control the next Congress? Karl Rove and the Republicans with the help of Joe Lieberman? Or the Democrats with the help of Ned Lamont?"
Only by forcing Joe to declare himself can Lamont consolidate his position and force Joe out of the race.
Didn't McGovern back Wes in the primary? It's sad that McGovern, who is really a decent guy got such a raw deal in history for his candidacy. He's had real vision in terms of the worlds problems and how to deal with them. I read his book on hunger. He has very solid suggestions on how to repair the world. You are right. It's too bad to be defined according to a war pro or con. Thanks for your insight, BQ.