« The kids may be all right, but fuck 'em anyway | Main | Hillary and the God Botherers »

Neither fight nor switch

By Michael J. Smith on Friday October 6, 2006 04:39 PM

Poor David Sirota is having conniptions as the Lieberman juggernaut rolls on in Connecticut, crushing Democratic loyalist pwogs by the thousands under its sanguinary wheels:
Jerome Armstrong [has] got it all wrong when it comes to the Lamont-Lieberman race....[H]e says he"view[s] this race as one of a weak Democrat that has appeal for Republicans against a strong partisan progressive Democrat."

... [I]t's easy for us all to sit back and comfort ourselves and say, yeah, if Lieberman is reelected, he will just be a bad Democrat, but he won't switch, and he'll be a Democrat, so who cares? People say this even as the mounting evidence suggest the contrary - and very strongly. This is a guy who is now running to national newspapers making overt threats about switching parties.

Why on earth should the man switch parties? The Dems need him more than he needs them. And he's probably more useful to the Administration on his present side of the aisle. If he were a Republican, he'd just be another Republican, but as a Democrat, he's an asset. And of course the other Democrats are fine with that.

Sirota's keening here is in response to a comment by Jerome Armstrong:

I view this race as one of a weak Democrat that has appeal for Republicans against a strong partisan progressive Democrat. It's similar to a lot of mayoral races that happen nowadays, where, because of the weakness of the Republican party, the to-the-right Democrat/Independent wins their vote. Such is the electoral landscape in situations where the Republican party is too weak to compete-- like the CT Senate race.
Never thought I would agree with anything Jerome Armstrong has to say, but he's got this one right. What he doesn't seem to have done is drawn the full implications of his insight.

He paints -- correctly, I think -- a picture of party politics in which the stronger party expands ideologically to fill any vacuum left by the weaker one. But Jerome -- what does this say about the nature of the parties? What, in particular, does it say about the idea, so beloved of you and your fellow Kosniks, that the Democrats are the more "progressive" party, if it's perfectly willing, given the opportunity, to do the Republicans' supposed job as well as its own?

Comments (8)

J. Alva Scruggs:

I'm surprised all over again, MJS, by how reluctant the Democratic activists are to make use of all available tools to forward their agenda. Even the meanest careerist should be able to see the value of a rejectionist bloc; even if all they intend is to position themselves better in power games. These guys have a fat, priggish and torpid look to them.

Fight or switch?
Jebus H. Crips lad (lady)
that reference dates us all!

except certain GOP congressmen...

eeeeeep! and eeeeeee!


Just how is Lieberman doing, anyway? I haven't seen any polls. Probably because they're not worth bragging about for the lefties

J. Alva Scruggs:

Zogby says:

In Connecticut, Democrat-turned- independent Joe Lieberman has rebuilt a big lead over Ned Lamont, the man who beat him in the Democratic Party primary election this summer. Lieberman had led by a substantial margin just after his primary defeat, but then took a dive and recently bottomed out. Clearly, he has now begun to surge again. Lamont continues to lead among Democrats, but by only a 51% to 40% margin. Meanwhile, Lieberman has otherwise taken on the political standing of a Republican—among members of the GOP, Lieberman wins 64% support, compared to 15% for Lamont. The actual Republican in the race, lowly Alan Schlesinger, wins just 12% of his own party’s support, and just 4% overall.

To be taken with however grains of salt seem wise.

We fat prigs deserve better than to be lumped in with the likes of Kos, thankyouverymuch. I came by both qualities honestly, and I'm not making money off them, either.

J. Alva Scruggs:

Fat prigs can only refer to them others, Ms. Xeno, the worried but optimistic types who go back to the Democrats every time. The clean-souled and honest rejectionists, about whom no ill can be said, have earned flattering euphemisms: concerned and of majestic girth, for example.

js paine:

i think this site's
el magnifico gets it dead on here

" What, in particular, does it say about the idea, so beloved of you and your fellow Kosniks, that the Democrats are the more "progressive" party"

if your hardened vote and money producing borg cube
has assumptions about
take overs
winning elections
retaining ney advancing
their "transformative values "
ie principles

well ..
they need to sort out the internal contradictions

not have a fit or tunnel vision
when they so obviously and hopelessly
collide as they have in this nutmeg derby

J. Alva mentioned to me elsewhere that Democrats have no guiding or core principles. I don't think that's the problem, at least among the lower rank and file. My husband, for instance, is a principled guy or I wouldn't be married to him. No, the problem at the Koskiteers' level is that all principles are negotiable. Every election sets even the most liberal-seeming candidate up to do the dance of the seven veils. The only suspense is the order the veils turn out to be in as they are removed one by one to the cheers of the crowd. Even when the crowd is clearly miserable, it must cheer. I don't know why.

You can see this happening with Feingold already and he has yet to even announce that he's running.

Nader, flaws and all, had their number in '04. He asked, "Do you have a breaking point ?" Any breaking point ? The answer was "no" then and it's "no" today. >:

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Friday October 6, 2006 04:39 PM.

The previous post in this blog was The kids may be all right, but fuck 'em anyway.

The next post in this blog is Hillary and the God Botherers.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31