Lieberman lost like so many others will, mostly Republican, because they hitched their wagons to George Bush’s star and that fucker went supernova.
one more time:
Lieberman lost like so many others will, mostly Republican, because they hitched their wagons to George Bush’s star and that fucker went supernova.
The important thing here is that Lieberman (having received the infamous Bush kiss of death), is seen as a LOSER.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 9 2006 17:29 utc | 4

Only 6 years ago this guy was the (largely beloved) democratic canadate for VICE-PRESIDENT. Only 3 years ago he was a (seriously taken) democratic canadate for the PRESIDENT.
Today, he is a FOOL and a LOSER.
This is a GOOD THING.
YAH-HOO!!

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 9 2006 17:46 utc | 6

Those who claim that Lamont’s money was a factor are ignoring the fact that Lieberman had the full backing of AIPAC and various other groups in the Israeli lobby. It was an even contest, and Lieberman lost on the issues, on his support for the war, and on his consistent support for the republican platform. As much as everyone around here likes to be pessimistic, this is at long last a positive sign for the democratic process, a sign that the Democratic party establishment can be shaken up, a sign that AIPAC’s favored candidates don’t always win, and a sign that change, however slight, is possible.

Posted by: Alan | Aug 9 2006 18:38 utc | 8

“The August Purge of Joe Lieberman is not good for the Democratic party. It is now, officially, a small-tent party, not a mainstream party. Americans last night saw Ned Lamont standing on the stage with Al Sharpton at one shoulder and Jesse Jackson hovering over the other. Neither Sharpton nor Jackson has ever won an election. One hopes neither ever will.”
—Clifford May
It’s ‘cos you black.

Posted by: &y | Aug 9 2006 19:53 utc | 10

Joe Lieberman says he’ll run as an “independent Democratic candidate.”
Oh boy another bizarre euphemism. Malooga, you are going to have to put that in that great big bank of viral meta-narrative soundbites that we could call “Pandora’s Box”

Posted by: 2nd anonymous | Aug 9 2006 20:22 utc | 12

Here some comedy for ya:
September 11 — what year? 30 percent of Americans don’t know

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Some 30 percent of Americans cannot say in what year the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington took place, according to a poll published in the Washington Post newspaper.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ahhhhahahahahahaha…
It’s not the hysterical laughter that bothers me, it the inability to stop. I smoked my prozac too. Now, I’m happy to be hysterical, “How bout them red socks”?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 9 2006 21:00 utc | 14

I’d be willing to bet that 20% of Americans don’t know what DATE the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington took place.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 9 2006 21:06 utc | 16

As in, “What DATE did the September 11th terrorist attacks take place on?”

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 9 2006 21:08 utc | 18

…thanks, Billmon!
Just…, thanks!

Posted by: Darryl Pearce | Aug 9 2006 22:50 utc | 20

What’s the point of peeing on Lamont’s mojo?
Is identifying and asking for truth now the equivalent of peeing on someones mojo?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 9 2006 23:04 utc | 22

Fitz was gonna save us. Obama was gonna save us. Lamont . . is gonna save us. Hope springs eternal and it also the thing with feathers that percheth in the soul.

Posted by: degustibus | Aug 9 2006 23:32 utc | 24

Good luck in your tunnels.
I know what Berthold Brecht would have to say about negative little tunnel rats.
For me, that’s more than enough that I know.
Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Posted by: Werner Dieter Thomas | Aug 9 2006 23:46 utc | 26

I forgot to mention what was Lieberman’s funniest line on the News Hour, tonight.
It happened as he discussed his plans to run as an Independent in November. He actually couldn’t keep a straight face (so monstrous the lie) when he said that he saw himself running “against the Establishment”.
He couldn’t quite stifle his demonic glee while delivering the punchline. It was Comedy Gold.

Posted by: Copeland | Aug 10 2006 1:40 utc | 28

@Copeland:
Unfortunately, we have 12 threads going today so that my reasons for not feeling that Lamont is not significantly different from Lieberman are spread out all over the place. Please take a moment to browse all of my postings, fom the Open Thread on, to read the whole story.
I’ve heard no serious candidate other than Lamont speak in such strong terms against the war in Iraq.
He is not against the war in Iraq. If he ever was against the war in Iraq when it began there is no public record of it. He is against the tactics being used to enforce US domination in Iraq. He is in favor of the redeployment of approximately 100,000 troops, Murtha’s position of several months ago, and Tom Friedman’s current position. He is in favor of maintaining a garrison of 30,000 troops protecting our “enduring” bases and the world’s largest CIA station-cum-green zone embassy. He is in favor of the US controlling Iraqi affairs, including laws affecting corporations and labor. He would like the 100,000 troops to rest up in case we need them again, perhaps in order to attack Iran and Syria.
He is in favor of the US sponsored wars in Lebanon and Palestine. He is in favor of US intervention in Cuba and Venezuela “Should the need arise,” whatever that means. He is in favor of US intervention in Haiti where we overthrew the democratically elected government there 1 1/2 ago. He supported “humanitarian intervention” in Serbia. He is in favor of “humanitarian intervention” in the Sudan.
He is in favor of official US security policy which calls for US domination of the entire world — air, sea, land, and space — but whatever means are necessary. In other words, he supports the US empire, and all its depredations, all the suffering and starvation it has caused worldwide.
I’m not sure what your definition of “anti-war” is, but this does not fit my definition.
I am unable to see any bs or lack of integrity in the man. For instance, he doesn’t start cutting his eyes or get that cowardly, dishonest tone of voice, when people happen to ask him if he’s a liberal.
Politicians are paid actors. So, for that matter, are the ultra-wealthy, (If Lamont were elected, he would be the Senate’s third wealthiest member, behind only the “populists” Kerry, and Kohl.) who must continually justify the vast inequalities which separate them from the vast majority of others they come in contact with. They must be in favor of private charities, which are insufficient to address problems, but allow them to look benificent, and against government-oriented solutions.
I have seen and heard Lamont, and I agree that he is a terrific candidate. So was Ronald Reagan. In other words, while one might be able to spot a liar by shifty eyes, other liars have studied Neuro-Linguistic Progamming and understand which reflexes to control and how. I suggest that you never trust anybody in life by what they say and how they look — not a used-car salesman, not a stockbroker, not a new lover who wants unprotected sex, not a lawyer, not a land estate salesman, and certainly not a politician. Go to their past record and study it hard. Past actions are far more indicative than appearance in front of a crowd.
I heard him say he’s a liberal, a progressive, in the most straightforward way.

Again, this goes to what your definition of a liberal and a progressive is, and what you expect from government.
Lamont has publicly stated that his views, outside of Iraq, are not that different from Lieberman’s, which is to say center-right in this country; hard-right by world historical standards. Fortunately, an obliging media has not pressed him on social or domestic questions very much. In this case, what a person or candidate chooses NOT to say is often more revealing than what they choose to say.
We know from his record with his own businesses that he is anti-union; he worked against unions representing his employees. That doesn’t sound very progressive to me. We can assume that he stands with the bulk of the Democratic party on abortion; that is to say that he is in favor of ever progressive restrictions on a woman’s right to control her own body. Not quite the meaning of “progressive” which would excite me.
As I posted earlier, on today’s Democracy Now, Ralph Nader listed a whole bunch of issues where Lieberman’s position was horrible: Labor, NAFTA, Energy, Medical care, etc. Tellingly, Lamont has chosen NOT to speak out publicly about any of these specific issues. Instead, because of the careful use of political language, one is left with the warm, glowing feeling that he is a liberal, a true progressive, one of us.
But he is clearly not one of us. He is one of the five thousand most privileged people in America, possibly one out of a thousand. He is more blue-blood than George Bush. And publicly, he is a cipher. He has no public record as mayor, or in state government that we can analyze as an indication to what positions he might actually take. Personally, I am against anybody be elected to such a high office without a public record in some lower office.
I remember the last time we elected a cipher to high office. His name was George W. Bush. He spoke earnestly during the debates about the need for a “more humble” foreign policy, for more compassion in this country, and for trusting people. He brought us the doctrine of “pre-emptive” war, which says that you can attack any country anywhere, any time, as long as you first state that you feel threatened by them; New Orleans, which showed his compassion for private contractors and para-military forces, while over a million were dislocated, most permanently — the rich got insurance, the poor got nothing, most poor with insurance are still waiting; and the demise of the fourth amendment — we have no right to privacy anymore, it is gone. Anyway, its just a thought about trusting others. I’m not suggesting that Lamont would be as bad as Bush. That kind of record takes real talent.
We elected a cipher for Governor in my state, Massachusetts, Romney. Like Lamont, he was suave, urbane, and well-coached. He is a Republican, and running in the second most Democratic state in the country, he presented himself as a trust-worthy moderate. Once in office, he has pushed through policy after policy which favor the wealthy. The last one was health-care. The local papers played it up as “near-universal” healthcare. What it says is that everybody HAS to purchase private health insurance. (For the ill, this offers little protection as the only policies offered have more holes than a soccer net.) If they don’t (because they are sick and can’t afford to) they can be thrown in jail. Sounds moderate to me.
So, we need to think deeply about what the terms liberal and progressive mean to us. I would suggest not getting to caught up in artificial “wedge” issues, like stem cells, which politicians conjure up to manipulate the voting base into a frenzy of emotion, but which have little effect on daily lives.
Instead, I would focus on a basic progressive agenda: Domestically — Universal, single-payer health insurance; increase in the minimum wage, and restoration of the myriad social benefits which have been cut under Bush and Clinton; repeal of all Bush tax cuts; a reduction of 25% in military spending; signing on to Kyoto; funding energy efficiency and alternate energy programs; funding programs to support small farmers and defunding agri-business giveaways. Internationally — Repudiating the doctrine of “preventive” war; repealing NAFTA, and all other free-trade agreements, while adding labor and environmental agreements in their place; Restructuring the World Bank and IMF to help poor counties instead of bankrupting them; and following all internationally accepted laws, such as the Geneva conventions.
That, to me, might represent a minimal liberal or progressive agenda, which could possibly be able to save the country from complete collapse. Anything less than that would be taking the country in the wrong direction, and hastening an anarchic collapse.
Cynthia McKinney, who lost her primary today (nobody much noticed here because she isn’t tall, white, rich and handsome; but black and shrill, though I do consider her to be quite attractive), might have supported the majority of what I have outlined. So might Kucinich, and perhaps 5-10 others in the House. No one in the Senate would support even 30% of what I outlined.
Because this is so, we who support these candidates, the Obamas and Clintons and Lamonts, with money and energy, have to ask ourselves which direction we would really like to see our country head in: lesser disparity of wealth and opportunity, or greater; greater peace and stability, or lesser.
If you keep tacking right, you might eventually end up towards your left, but only after you have sailed around the world.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 10 2006 2:13 utc | 30

Is Everyone but a few of us around here on drugs or somethin’???
Lamont is an undiluted, unreconstructed, 19th cen. WASP Robber Baron. (Anybody who hasn’t been to Greenwich, Conn., should swing by. It’s a one-of-kind hellhole. There are plenty of beautiful places for affluent people to live. You only live there if you want to be absolutely sure you never have to interact w/real American people. By the standards of Park Avenue, or the Cape, it is Absolutely Off the Charts. This bastard is so sheltered from real people, that even his wife is a venture capitalist.) How can it not be transparently obvious that America is dead when those are your choices.
P.S. @Malooga, you’re a bit off on Robber Baron not speaking out on NAFTA etc. He spoke out in support of them. But then after meeting real American people for the first time in his life, he added a Gee Whiz Addenda – “something has to be done for the American people”. As in sure, I support totally destroying them, but at least we can throw ’em a bone & raise the poor serfs wages a buck or so an hour. This is what that right-wing prick kos supports. (He had a post on his blog from Nathan Newmann calling for that.) When will Americans wake up & realize that kos is a Vampire, growing fat on your blood?
Repudiating the doctrine of “preventive” war; repealing NAFTA, and all other free-trade agreements, while adding labor and environmental agreements in their place;
That’s not going to do it. We need to bring All the Factories back. Otherwise America turns into a Third World Nation. Probably best mechanism is 100% tax on wage differential between here & wherever they shipped factory off to. 2 reasons. We need the jobs & it’s a waste of oil to ship stuff back. We need a Produce Locally, Consume Locally Ethos. Plus to pay off the deficit Corps. have to get back up to paying ~40% of taxes, as they once did. Now it’s below 6% & going down. Need to factories here to have the necessary tax base. In fact, requiring Corps. & Elite to pay off All the Deficit that they generated has to be the First Principle. Otherwise no one has pensions or Social Security & they’ll implement a 20+% National Sales Tax.
I’ll write another time why yr. “Universal Medical Plan” is a case of be careful what you wish for. If you like slum schools, you’ll love what they have planned for you.

Posted by: jj | Aug 10 2006 2:41 utc | 32

You know I always agree with you, jj.
It’s good to see some fire in the belly!
I did say “minimal” — and my point was, not so much spell out everything a left agenda would entail, but to show just how far it is, from what people should expect, to what they get excited and campaign for. I’m trying to talk as simply as possible to hope I can get through even one protective fantasy shell — but no luck, on perhaps 15 posts about just this today.
I did get conchita to complain that I was making the blog “not worth reading anymore.”
Well, I can stop posting, and then the blog will again be worth reading.
I would love to have a thread on just this topic: What should a legitimate true left agenda look like. I have been hinting for months. I’ve been thinking about this for a long time, and I think it relates well to Billmon’s post about giving up on both parties. I’ve been collecting other’s thoughts on this: Chomsky, Petras, Frank, and Bookchin, among others, in addition to my own.
I believe that if you don’t think this issue through, both thoroughly and carefully, then you are much more easily swayed by political rhetoric, because you don’t know where your true center lies. Find your heart first, then you can pursue it.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 10 2006 3:00 utc | 34

When’s Billmon going to do a Photoshop of Joenertia as the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

Posted by: ahem | Aug 10 2006 3:39 utc | 36

one last thing. if i had the time to get into this i would at least base my argument on facts rather than take someone to task because he has money or is perceived by some as handsome.

Posted by: conchita | Aug 10 2006 4:31 utc | 38

I did get conchita to complain that I was making the blog “not worth reading anymore.
Leave me alone.
Pity party?

Posted by: Oh Really | Aug 10 2006 4:57 utc | 40

The Sweetness of Lieberman’s Defeat
Ak! Cockburn and St.Clair agree with all the points I made today. I must be doing something wrong.

Any morning which carries the fragrance of a defeat for Joe Lieberman is one that should be savored. And his humiliation at the hands of Connecticut voters yesterday is all the sweeter for the fact that it looks as though we may be able to enjoy another Lieberman defeat in November. No longer able to run as the junior Democratic senator from Connecticut Lieberman insists that he will run as an independent in the fall election. If he does so, it may deny victory to the man who defeated him yesterday in the primary, Ned Lamont, but Lieberman himself will plummet once again. There are a lot of people in Connecticut who quite rightly can’t stand the guy.
There are no mysteries to what happened on Tuesday. A lot of Connecticut voters don’t like the war in Iraq and don’t like Lieberman who has been one of the wars keenest supporters. When he was first challenged by Lamont, the New York Times insisted that the senator was hugely popular in his home state. He wasn’t. Al Gore made the same mistake when he put Lieberman on the 2002 ticket in the hopes that his vice presidential candidate would win him Florida. Instead Lieberman showed in his amiable “debate” with Cheney that he was a de facto endorser of the Bush ticket.
Lieberman’s rise as a national politician coincided with the Democratic Party’s refashioning as full-time corporate whore-without-shame, in the late 1980s. This was when the Democratic Leadership Council was ramping up, with denunciations of the Democratic Party as a sinkhole of of old liberals in the mold of George McGovern or Walter Mondale. Lieberman, a former prosecutor, berserk Zionist, cultural conservative and race-baiter was exactly what they were looking for.
In his ensuing three terms as senator Lieberman never deviated from servility to Connecticut’s arms and pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurance companies and financial sector overall. He did the heavy lifting on the Bankruptcy bill so eagerly sought by the banks and credit card companies. He was among the most vigorous advocates of telecommunications “reform” in the mid-90s, which made instant millionaires of men like Ned Lamont, who amassed the fortune in cable tv that enabled him to spend $4 million of his own money, to beat Lieberman.
Today the press is agog at what the political pundits are calling an exhibition of the power of the bloggers. We don’t see it that way. $4 million in greenbacks carries a lot more clout than electronic drizzle from the blathersphere. Hillary Clinton has now hired a “blog outreach adviser”, but her husband is no doubt reminding her that elections are won by promising the Fortune 500 and the National Association of Manufacturers everything they want.
Sweet too was the humiliation of Bill Clinton whose campaigning with Lieberman seems to have precipitated the final collapse of the senator’s campaign. All those who tied themselves to Lieberman, like Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or Barbara Boxer have been bruised by the admirable good sense of the Connecticut voters.
The simplest message of all that comes out of Connecticut is that the war in Iraq is hugely unpopular, and since that war was supported by about 90 per cent of the US congress, all its members have something to fear from the voters, which is why many of them are redeploying as advocates of withdrawal.
But the question remains whether there is any home in the Democratic Party for a true progressive. Lamont’s victory in the primary certainly doesn’t answer that question. On most issues he’s almost indistinguishable from Lieberman. On Tuesday you had only to travel down I-95 to Georgia to see what happens to real progressives, where the Democratic Party conspired with Fox News and the rest of the press to try to destroy Cynthia McKinney’s political career. For the second time.
The Democratic Party won’t tolerate any outspoken dissent. It is a cheerleader for Israel’s destruction of Lebanon. Just listen to Jerry Nadler, a New York congressman identified as among the most progressive in the Democratic congressional caucus. On a pro-Israel rally on July 18 Nadler asked the crowd, “Since when should a response to aggression and murder be proportionate?” In other words, a green light for war crimes, such as Israel has been committing every day. Despite all the schedules for withdrawal suddenly offered by candidates such as Hillary Clinton, or Maria Cantwell, it’s still a Party of War in the service of empire. Who is the leading mainstream political voice calling for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon? The Republican senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel. The Democrats rushed to attack him, with Joe Biden winning by a nose, from Charles Schumer and the rest of the pack.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 10 2006 5:21 utc | 42

America has reach the backside of the event horizon of organised, institutionalised corruption and fraud on every level. Where protection rackets, embezzlement, larceny, confiscation, entrapment, misappropriation, and rico crimes, as well as murder have become the norm; by bullies, fraudsters, pervert class elites, politicians with their sykophants*, lobbys, lawyers of the Kelptomania class who run everything. A litigation nation where truth is treason, justice is a mockery, and liberty is for sale to the highest bidder, where action of the State, arising from suspicion and not from proof, has degenerated into the satisfaction of vendettas by a “coin-operated congress”, a “blue-blooded-aristocratic Senate” and finally, a power hungry blood thirsty executive branch- a general system of tyranny, all in the name of “public safety.”
The general public means nothing to them, we have been and are being, carved out like a pumpkin, the seeds spit in our faces, while they laugh at our poverty. “The essential political choice is the same as it always was: “freedom or security” nor, is the blame entirely with the warmongers, plutocrats, and demagogues.
If a people permit exploitation and regimentation in any name they deserve their slavery. The law has always been perverted to serve the “haves” and not the “haves-not”, only not always as heavy handed as it is now. We have made progress in the recent past with “the New Deal”, labor unions, civil rights, and the constitution. Only within the last few decades have the ruling elites pushed back, with their hatred of liberal democracy. What once existied in ancient Athens – now hold sway in America and Britain , (it’s transatlantic and trans-national now ) where powerful and corrupt individuals, organizations and corporations are routinely using threats of vexatious and malicious litigation to bully and oppress ordinary innocent and working class people.
Coercion seems to be covering-up greater crimes committed by these individuals / organizations. Their corrupt misuse of Law takes the form of restraint of trade and prevention of free speech, eminent domain, tax cuts for the top 1%, hidden fiat/poll-taxes, money laundering in off shore bankings and usury interests and loans. All nothing more than hypocrisy, hiding behind law.
Take for instance, What Congress Does Not Know about Enron and 9/11. I’m sure you could come up with hundreds of other examples but make no mistake, “the Class War” has shifted and started a dramatic new phase of Supernova proportions with The Rise of Rove’s Republic. And the one thing that todays “New America” has in common is the elite stranglehold on Politics, medicine, law, policing, media, bureaucracy etc. where, they are all “self-regulating”. Further, and not so coincidentally, all these ‘trades’ tend, more or less, to control their own incomes at the top levels. [i.e. the fat cats decide their own].
RANT OVER. Note: I am certainly not upset with anyone here, I’m just livid at what this country, this entropy nation, has become, the sooner the ecnomy collaspes the better, it can’t happen fast enough for me.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 10 2006 6:15 utc | 44

Malooga,
I hope you won’t be offended if I say that I find some of your discourse to be a little paranoid. You handle Lamont, at times, as if he were radioactive, like he was the Manchurian Candidate or something.
The issue of the war (and I mean the Iraq war and occupation) and the encroaching Big Brother=War on Terror/Police State, is without doubt, the premier issue right now for our country. This is about whether we make it at all, whether we have civil rights, and whether we have a real rule of law and due process, or connect with our founders’ principles of representative government that respects human rights.
You throw so many issues at the wall and find Lamont wanting in every instance. And you make the absolutely incredible assertion that Lieberman would be preferable. Even now there are reports that Karl Rove wants to throw a rope to Joe. Oh there’s a kiss to build a dream on. “The boss wants to help you”, Lieberman’s people are told. And Lieberman has the effrontery and pluck to say on TV today that his November race, as an Independent, will be one “against the Establishment”.
There are three elements of your argument that I question: the conspiritorial aspect, the preferability and reliability of Lieberman, and what I perceive as your dismissive attitude toward Murtha, Lamont, the NYT article supporting Lamont, and this crucial moment of support for the anti-war movement.
Look, I realize that Lamont is no Kucinich. But in another thread I read where you think the political elite makes up progressive stress-relief candidates and throws them to hungry liberal activists, the way one would toss a bone to a dog. But you offer not one scintilla of evidence that Lamont is one, or that there is even such a thing as a progressive “stress-relief” candidate. This seems paranoid. We may not be immune to conspiracy theory because we’ve seen stolen elections; but perhaps we subscribe to different ideas about conspiracy.
The thing I find most shocking of all is your idea about the suitability of Lieberman, and that you would prefer him to be in the Senate. The case against Lieberman did not rise up overnight, nor has it been the product of frivolous thought. Stirling Newberry at BOP has made a reasoned case against Lieberman. He is one of the most careful analysts, but many other progressive observers have noted where Joe attacked fellow Democrats for criticizing Bush, That he betrayed the party on crucial votes, that he was playing footsie with the White House on privatizing Social Security, that he has been the blindest and most obdurate of Democratic supporters of Bush. That Senator Lieberman is intellectually detached from the disaster on the ground in Iraq and speaks with optimism about a situation which has deteriorated into civil war.
Where did Lieberman stand on the Patriot Act, on Justice Alito? And lets rethink the kiss, which occured after that appalling State of the Union, where the President confirmed the policy of illegal wiretap to an applauding Congress, and indicated that he was proud to go on breaking the law. Netroots people worked so hard for Lamont, in part, because the back-stabbing, mealy-mouthed, viper-in-the-busom, disloyal Lieberman could no longer be trusted or tolerated. It is for guys like Joe, that the term Vichy Democrat was invented. The war and its apologists are Issue One to our party and our country’s future. This horrid war is destroying our liberties at home and our place among nations. It is causing death, grief, and misery to thousands of people.
Something else bothers me, Malooga. There is so much “white noise” and buzz in all your comments on this subject, that the crucial issue of the Iraq war and the cancer of despotism that’s creeping up on us, not only seems to get lost, but I have the sense that you are dismissing it, or pushing it out of the way somehow.
For instance, did we read the same damn NYT editorial that endorsed Lamont? It’s hard to believe that we did, Digby praised the editorial highly, and I followed the link and read it myself. The article I read was profound and ground-breaking. It didn’t merely endorse Lamont, but gave dear evidence as to why we should part company with President Bush and the faux democrat who smooched him. This article, full of gravitas and well-written, spoke of our domestic peril and the government that is becoming a threat to our liberties.
I am sorry if I’m being unfair to you. Your heart may be in the right place, but I disagree with your analysis, and I think your emphasis and focus are wrong. I don’t like the fact that you find a scoundrel like Joe Lieberman acceptable. I also don’t like the way you dismissed Murtha in the other thread. We need both conservatives and liberals to get through this darkest night. I may agree with you on many of the issues that define “progressive”; but that doesn’t matter now.
Unless we elect men and women who indeed have a content of character, who have integrity; unless we expell the insane and venal, we are finished. And time is running out.

Posted by: Copeland | Aug 10 2006 6:50 utc | 46

@Malooga,
Thanks for the kindness and candor of your reply.
You cleared a number of things up for me; and I’m sorry to have put your comments together in the wrong way, so as to misunderstand your attitude toward Lieberman. It was late and I was reading across several threads. I doubt, however, the wisdom of keeping a figure like Lieberman in the Senate, in order to bring down the Empire faster.
It’s dangerous to apply that kind of chaos mechanism to a political system in crisis.
Yes, I agree; and I take your point that Lamont is a cipher. All who are involved as activists and voters in Connecticut should be attentive, during the period in which Lamont will be asked more wide-ranging political questions. If, under intensified scrutiny, he continues to answer forthrightly, and doesn’t lie or indulge in the evasion that is typical of bad politicians, he will be alright.
It is much better for all of us, if political change comes about through a process in which gradual progress is visible; and this would be a process through which people can see that their participation is empowering them, and is having an impact for the common good.
I am worried as hell about the PNAC blueprint for a series of aggressive wars. But the Iraq war is utterly symbolic of this imperial project. The United States has suffered a definitive defeat in Iraq. The collapse of the policies upon which the aggression was based is total.
And I can see three outcomes, any one of which is possible.
I don’t know if the Bush Gang is sufficiently insane; but the first possibility is a regional conflagration. And Billmon’s most recent story on the jacked-up “Red Alert” is just a little more proof that our leaders are nuts and are playing fast and loose. Great Powers may be lining up as they did in 1914. Some alliances are visible, while others may have been connected in secret. And Iran begins to look like the “Serbia of Old” which is in line to be “punished”. I would hate to be us if that is true.
Now that the worst case scenario is out of the way, let’s go on to the second case. Blowback, blowback, blowback. US domestic political blowback. (Billmon has talked about this, I believe) We withdraw our troops from Iraq in the teeth of a civil war there. However, as a nation, we show a complete disdain or disinterest in taking responsibility for the defeat. None of the higher authorities responsible for the war of aggression, or the conspiracy to commit other wars of aggression, are brought to justice. National disgrace, anger, scapegoats, but no atonement or accountability or reconcilliation.
The third case (and God help us, perhaps the more unlikely one) involves the reviving of democracy in our own country, the real restitution of the process of representative government. The people and their newly elected leaders would agree that it is morally imperative to take responsibility for war crimes and to bring those responsible for those crimes to trial. And since the Executive Branch, in this instance is so deeply implicated, there should be no executive clemency, period.
That charlatan, George W. Bush, lied about pursuing a humble foreign policy; but perhaps after his time in office is past, America can finally stop what it has been doing in its “Imperial Adolescence”. Let us work for that day when then our nation can absorb its whole history and walk with humility.

Posted by: Copeland | Aug 10 2006 21:16 utc | 48