McCain-Lieberman

Now Andrew Sullivan has joined David Brooks proposing a McCain-Lieberman party. Says Andrew in the Sunday Times of London:

What if the Democratic left rejects Lieberman and, in the Republican primaries, the religious right rejects McCain? Both are too centrist for their party’s base. Both can reach out to the disenchanted in both parties and maybe form a new movement of the centre: a Ross Perot-style movement without Perot’s lunacy.

A couple of months ago I fantasised about a dream ticket that could both unite the US and rejoin the battle against Islamist terror with new vigour and integrity. An independent McCain-Lieberman ticket for 2008? Stranger things have happened.

Said Brooks:

The McCain-Lieberman Party begins with a rejection of the Sunni-Shiite style of politics itself. It rejects those whose emotional attachment to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism, and who believe the only way to get American voters to respond is through aggression and stridency.

The flamers in the established parties tell themselves that their enemies are so vicious they have to be vicious too. . . .

The McCain-Lieberman Party counters with constant reminders that country comes before party, that in politics a little passion energizes but unmarshaled passion corrupts, and that more people want to vote for civility than for venom.

On policy grounds, too, the McCain-Lieberman Party is distinct. On foreign policy, it agrees with Tony Blair (who could not win a Democratic primary in the U.S. today): The civilized world faces an arc of Islamic extremism that was not caused by American overreaction, and that will only get stronger if America withdraws.

On fiscal policy, the McCain-Lieberman Party sees a Republican Party that will not raise taxes and a Democratic Party that will not cut benefits, and understands that to avoid bankruptcy the country must do both.

Both men are flawed. But their parties are more flawed.

: I haven’t blogged about the Lieberman defeat yet. I have two observations:

First, as Clay Shirky said on On the Media this week, blogs have become so much a part of politics it is now impossible to separate their influence from the process. Even Lamont and the bloggers tried to downplay their weight, not wanting to seem as if he had surfed into victory on the backs of blogs. But it is true that one cannot talk about the bloggers as if they are a constituency or a party or a group. One faction used blogs masterfully to bring in attention and money and to set the agenda of the race. Now everyone will do that, Shirky says.

Second, I fear for politics by attack dogs. The movement in Connecticut did not support Lamont, it opposed Lieberman. Lamont is a cipher, like Robert Redford in The Candidate. I have feared that the left has made its mark these last six years by being against and not being for. I am eager to hear the winning strategy in Iraq and the Middle East — and I do not count leaving alone as a strategy — and the winning strategy against terrorism and Islamic totalitarianism. Democrats attacking Democrats will not win elections. Democrats attacking Republicans will not rule the nation. It’s time for positive leadership.

  • http://deleted Mike G

    The problem with this idea is that McCain has a real shot at the GOP nomination this time. (Remember the old adage that the Republicans tend to nominate the guy whose turn it is. McCain is by far the guy who best fits that profile.)

  • http://www.digitalstreetjournal.com Jonathan Trenn

    Mike G – there’s a sizable amount of Republican primary voters who for some reason can’t stand McCain.

  • http://talkingtonobody.com knots

    It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.
    Joe Lieberman

    So with this kind of a quote and Joe’s ability to carry water constantly for the President, why s it a surprise that the party he has rebuked rebuked him?

  • http://www.essaydepot.com Jim Smith

    You say Mccain’s outcry on SNL, news cast, parodies, and he wishes to come back to the primary. He might be a good candidate but he pretty much lost his reputation that one day. He’s going to have to do some major campaigning to get back.

    I guess if ther eis no other people that want to run then he’ll be the next-in-line. I hope there are better people though.
    ——————-
    Art-Hammer.com (http://www.art-hammer.com) – Have Real Artists Make Your Canvas
    Gamer Fan (http://www.gamerfan.com) – You are the player

  • http://www.schmuckraker.com Bryan

    whatever happened to good ole’ moderation!? The truth is always in the middle…Leiberman’s party abandoned him, as will McCain’s party, since both men are of common sense and non-extreme points of view..

  • http://frumiousb.livejournal.com/ frumiousb

    See, Bryan, there are people who believe that supporting the war in Iraq is what made Leiberman extreme.

  • chico haas

    McCain and Lieberman are unelectable to the presidency for different reasons. McCain will not withstand the scrutiny of perceived “mental” issues. And Lieberman has the most unlistenable voice this side of Bush. Any party they form divides the Democrats and Rudy G wins – as a can-do wartime consigliere. Simple!

  • Angelos

    McCain is a big phony. Don’t buy his maverick, he’s a loser and a coward. But the media loves him because he gives them access.

    As for Leiberman, good riddance.

    They are both unprincipled hacks, blind to reality, always looking for the next TV camera.

    60%+ of America is against the war and our handling of it. By definition, a majority. Or, if you would, the mainstream.

    These two schmucks would then be out of the mainstream.

  • Angelos

    Rudy?

    Holy crap that’s laughable. Another media creation.

    The lack of good radio communication that, in the end, killed many firefighters and cops at WTC? Um, Rudy.

    Bernie Kerik? Thank Rudy for that pile of shit too.

    And how would the right suck up to the bible-thumping morons with a candidate who’s pro-choice?

  • http://www.downes.ca Stephen Downes

    The merit – and the insight – behind the third party suggestion is not that it is centerist but that it does not revolve around a single person, the way recent third party (think Anderson, or Perot) initiatives have, but around a group of roughly like-minded people. People who are not in the Bush-style religious right, or who are moderate left but supported the war.

    Because that’s the other thing. You cannot succeed today in the Democratic party if you supported the war. And especially not if you continue to support the war. Because it shows that when, at a moment of decision, when real leadership was needed, you caved.

    That’s Al Gore’s big advantage, and in fact, failing a surprising showing by a third party, why he is very likely to become the next president.
    http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0925-01.htm

  • Mike G

    “Mike G – there’s a sizable amount of Republican primary voters who for some reason can’t stand McCain”

    So all the right wing bloggers say. Is it true? Are they the equivalent of the extreme that denied Lieberman his party’s nomination? We shall see, won’t we? In any case, the point is, until that’s proven McCain has every reason to pursue the Republican nomination wholeheartedly.

    Meanwhile, to Jeff’s other point: “I am eager to hear the winning strategy in Iraq and the Middle East — and I do not count leaving alone as a strategy.”

    You’ll be waiting a long time to hear one from the Democrats, I fear. I’ve recently been the fly in the ointment of an echofest over at TPMCafe, which was, at least when it started, more serious and thoughtful than the rabid dogs at Daily Kos or DU or that ilk. And the Democratic position on the war against al-Qaeda comes down to things like this:

    “I lived in DC in 2001 and have been living in London since last Summer. You do the math. A bus blew up two blocks from my office. And yet I haven’t run screaming and whimpering to the bed-wetting Bushites”

    “Fascism, represents corporatism to Bush and his corporate raider cabal (Cheney, Rumsfeld/Caryle Group)….so his only point is that he is not going to let the ME fascists (corporatists) have the resources that the ‘western fascists’ want for themselves. This is nothing more than a land grab by the west for the ME resources.”

    “in case you haven’t noticed, a heck of lot more Americans are dying from cancer than from nuclear bombs being dropped on their cities. Serious people know the difference between real risks and fabricated ones.”

    “Has it ever occurred to you that BUSH is the evil one? Or are we proceeding on the simply assumption that whatever we do is by definition good?”

    “Now I want to channel Chomsky for a moment. The firebombing at Dresden was terrorism.”

    “If you needed any more proof that Joe Lieberman is now a default Republican, here it is. He’s now one clearly visible Adam’s apple away from being Ann Coulter.”

    “I agree that fundamental Islam is uncivilized but fundamental Christianity is equally so. ”

    “I don’t attach any particular danger to any particular holder of nukes. Wait a minute, what I mean is that I don’t think it’s more dangerous for Al Qaeda to have nukes than the US — which has shown itself capable of putting, say, Cheney within reach of the red telephone.”

    And I can’t even begin to summarize the ones that look forward to a nuclear first strike by Iran, or the destruction of Israel, because THEN the moral issues would be clear and we could attack in kind. Honestly, go read it. This is today’s Democratic party talking.

    http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/11/who_is_serious_about_terrorism

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    1. Politicians never propose serious, detailed, policies during a campaign. If they do, they find themselves defending them against attack instead of wooing voters. This is a defect in our poltical process, but that’s the way the game is played.

    2. There is a change in public perception occurring, people are becoming more skeptical. This can be seen in the rise in belief in conspiracy theories. I’ve written about this here, if you are interested.

    3. Third parties never succeed, but they can change the balance for the other two candidates. I guy like Perot could run because he financed the campaign himself, but the big money backers will never allow a run by people like McCain. And without money he will go nowhere.

  • http://www.beatcanvas.com Brett Rogers

    I think Lieberman’s defeat simply shows that backroom politics and selection no longer matters. It doesn’t matter whether it is McCain’s “time.” We the people have a lot more power in selection now, and I don’t think McCain supports that at all.

    McCain doesn’t have momentum. Rudy’s polling numbers are consistently strong. I voted for Bush. Next election, unless I see someone more viable come to the fore, Rudy gets my vote. I agree with Chico – McCain is a big phony.

    Terror is still the number one issue. No one on the left appears serious about it, and Rudy is the only one I see on the right who probably wouldn’t care what others thought in prosecuting the war. Bush has become too mamby pamby, and we don’t need more of that.

    Besides, I’d love to see the Christian right have to accept Rudy’s nomination. We don’t need squeaky clean and morally upright presidents. We need leaders who are unafraid to lead and communicate well and someone who is willing to do what it takes to protect the US. I expect Rudy’s nomination would give Jeff a smile, if only to see how the moralists would cope with being handed a candidate with Rudy’s personal past.

  • Dennis Mosher

    Although the idea of a centrist or “moderate” party sounds good, the ideologues of both sides are the ones who provide the passion, fervor and single-mindedness needed to run successful campaigns. There will always be the tension between ideological purity and electability. Ever notice how Clinton’s most ardent supporters were much more liberal than Clinton himself? And Bush’s base voters espouse views that W wouldn’t endorse.

    You need the ideologues to stuff envelopes, man phone banks and knock on doors. Oh yeah, and donate money.

    Under our two party system, the party that drifts too far away from the center is punished by a series of electoral defeats, after which it reverses course, i.e., the DLC movement after the Mondale, Dukakis losses.

    The McCain/Lieberman party is analogous to Israel’s Kadima (Sharon/Peres) party. Under their parliamentary system, maybe that can work. But our winner-take-all electoral system is designed for two parties, and it actually punishes extremism better than the parliamentary model.

  • http://marginalizingmorons.blogspot.com/ CaptiousNut

    If McCain wins the presidency in ’08…

    …I am moving to Canada.

  • Jimmy

    You say Lamont won because he wasn’t the best man but because the people of Connecticut didn’t support Lieberman, but doesn’t that by default mean they support Lamont? I mean, if Lamont is actually willing to listen to the people who elect him doesn’t that make him the right choice? Lieberman lost because he was utterly unwilling to listen to his constituents. Yes, a case can be made that an elected official sometimes has to make difficult decisions that the constituents don’t like, but there comes a time when you have to pay the cost and rememeber you’re there to serve the people, not the other way around. This doesn’t mean the Democrats of Connecticut have veered hard left; it just means they expect their senator to hear what they have to say once and awhile. Lieberman didn’t lose because angry liberals have infiltrated the Democratic Party — they’ve always been there, and considering the political viewpoints of this website I would term Mr. Jarvis an angry liberal himself. Since when did it become a bad thing to be angry, liberal or otherwise? We need a little anger to shake up the status quo. You say, Mr. Jarvis, that both parties are flawed; I agree. Maybe a litle anger is just what we need.

    Secondly, since when did McCain or Lieberman become centrists? Both men have supported, without question, some of the most extreme policies of George Bush. What gives McCain his “moderate” cred? Because he fights pork? He almost always backs down when push comes to shove during budget time. The fact that he doesn’t support a constitutional amednment to ban gay marriage? That isn’t moderate, it’s just the right decision, but I’ll give him credit for that.

  • Dennis Mosher

    Off the top of my head, McCain qualifies as a centrist because:

    1. McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform
    2. Criticism of Bush’s “Tax cuts for the rich,” (he used that phrase).
    3. Support for Clinton during the Kosovo war, when most Senate Republicans were opposed.
    4. Concern about global warming and his criticism of Bush’s denial of same.
    5. Support for federally funded embryonic stem cell research.
    6. And finally, although he recently cozied up to Falwell in preparation for a GOP primary run, he clearly has no use for the extremists on the religious right.

  • http://www.phillyfuture.org Karl

    Lieberman gives centrists, like I believe myself to be, a bad name.

    I want Osama’s head on a stick and regard the Iraq war as a costly distraction from that. A nation building effort that needs to be settled as quickly and as effectively as possible.

    That’s not “anti-war” as it’s been painted by the Right and the media.

    It’s focus.

    I’m happy Lamont won. People should have realized that politics as usual were over with after 9/11. Some didn’t get the hint. And if the web has empowered folks to refocus their parties – isn’t that a good thing?

    I can’t believe I’m quoting Peggy Noonan, but so be it:

    The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they’re closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people–between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there.

    The parties have lost touch with the average Joe. They don’t give a shit about the middle class’s concerns or point of view.

    Lamont’s victory represents progress. It represents people being empowered to make change again. Hopefully we will see similar “corrections” within the Republican party, which is a pale ghost of what it supposedly stands for. We need real debate from our leaders. Not endless, meaningless, us versus them, spin.

  • chico haas

    The average Joe. That is the key to presidential elections, He is not a bible-thumpin’ Christian. That’s bi-coastal ignorance. I believe he accepts Roe because his wife does, doesn’t like gay marriage but thinks civil unions are fair, is beginning to sour on Iraq but wants to do business with oil-producing nations and is greatly inconvenienced by the hardships of flying and takes attacks on our country personally – so he puts terrorism at the top of his list, as stated by others in this post. Whomever taps into this pov wins the election.

  • tony blare

    Tbogg wrote today:

    I have a better idea, Jeff: what is yours? When the car was hurtling towards the cliff and the people sitting in the backseat mentioned that maybe we should slow down if not stop, you reached your foot over and gave it some more gas. Now that it lies on the rocks below in flames and ruin, you want everyone to run over with fire extinguishers because your skinny ass is getting scorched. You don’t have to apologize, but if you don’t have any answers yourself, then just admit that you were wrong and shut the fuck up. Nobody needs a preachy enabler lamenting how others enabled him and how deeply unfair and hurtful it is to mention the bad thing that happened. You want to wash your hands of it, feel free. Just don’t expect us to hand you a towel.

    Really, Jeff. STFU.

  • Jeb

    Jeff, you’re as dated and clueless as Lieberman. And just as irrelevant.

    You have always been in the Zell Miller/Lieberman camp and hve looked to gain attention by trashing dems at every opportunity.

    B O R I N G !

  • http://www.cloggie.org/wissewords/ Martin Wisse

    No withdrawal allowed? Fine.

    Instead we’ll ship all those geniuses like you who got this war started in the first place to Iraq to rebuilt the country. Y’all are so smart, it shouldn’t take you long.

  • Tennessean

    Jarvis, You think nothing about what your arguments mean to the military. Why isn’t Lieberman’s children serving in this war in Iraq I wonder? Any other takers in the neocon/neoliberal camp? You’re all exploiting the military members with your political agendas. Military rank and file are practically BEGGING for their leadership to get them out of there; they are the ones suffering in 120 degree heat, carrying around 100 lbs of gear and fighting a guerilla insurgency, which they cannot win. Some of them have been back FOUR TIMES ALREADY. It’s unconscionable that you would continue to issue your stupid (amazingly authoritarian) dictates about the parameters of the debate in the first place. But, to continue to argue that we must “stay the course” over the cliff is what is known to those of us in the mental health profession as the ‘definition of insanity.’ You are destroying our military; you are bankrupting our treasury. I ask you, Jarvis: Who should be our first consideration in Iraq–US troops or Iraqis? That is now the reality. So, you’ve issued your parameters for any solution; that’s my parameter. If your answer is US troops, then we must leave. If your answer is Iraqis, then you have exposed yourself as ‘not supporting the troops’ but supporting a particular political agenda. We have been in this war since March 19, 2003–3 12 years. The situation has gotten progressively worse, and it will continue to get progressively worse. Your assertions leave all of us no choice but to conclude that you care nothing about the possibility of a large-scale devastating attack on US troops–a distinct possibility which grows each day–at which point the 60% of Americans who now oppose this war, will surge to 90% who demand we get out. At that point, you will be silent. And, it will be a disgusting travesty because you helped take us to that point, and then you and the rest of the neocon cowards–will abandon it in an instant. The soldiers who will inevitably die and suffer in Iraq then and now, will be on your shoulders, Jarvis.

  • Simp

    Too funny.

    You ask for solutions from the left, but then put so many restrictions on any solution offered that it won’t deviate far from how you think it should be handled.

    First, you have to get over yourself. There is no “winning,” period. Define for me what the conditions are for winning the so-called “war on terror?” Elimination of all terrorists? Won’t happen, ever (that’s aside from the Bush’s foreign policy creating more terrorists in droves). Terrorism is a tactic, not a nation-state, not a group. There will always be some terrorists of some size, shape, color, or ideology. That’s whats so genius about this silly-ness. It is a never ending war designed as a front for a massive power grab. The designers don’t want peace in the Middle East, they want containable conflict. Once you accept that, you can make some progress.

    Tell you what, start holding the people responsible for this mess accountable. Then we’ll talk. Not some blame game, but NOTHING is going to be accomplished until the architects and enablers are own up to the mess and removed from the decision making progress and public commentary. Sorry, but they’ve blown it time and time and time again. How may times do you allow an employee to completely screw up before you stop them?

  • Pug

    “Stay the course” has officially been changed to “adapt and win”. I heard this from Ken Mehlman on TV yesterday.

    All good Republicans, and that includes you Joe Lieberman and Jeff Jarvis, need to start using the new talking point, “adapt and win”. Got it? Adapt and win.

    That is the new solution to the “Iraq problem”. OK?

  • Pug

    Sullivan quotes Fox News sage, John Gibson:

    John Gibson: “Hang on, Dems. Here come the Pol Pots of your party. And if you were for national security, you are now emphatically not. Or else. Remember the mountain of skulls in Cambodia? It’s the Democrats’ new reality now that the anti-war rabble has tasted blood by taking Lieberman down.”

    Yeah, Jeff, it’s those out of control Democrats with their harsh rhetoric that are the problem, right? You know, those far-leftists from Greenwhich, Connecticut, some of whom really were victims of terrorism.

    Let there be no more mistaking who the extremists and radicals really are. It’s those in charge in this country: Neo-con warmongers, bible-thumping Rapture right-wingers and the Wall Street Journal crowd who care about nothing except not having to pay estate taxes.

  • Jon G

    I’d like to hear a winning strategy in Iraq? There is no winning strategy in Iraq short of a draft, hundreds of thousands more troops and lots more money. Even that might not work.

    Your spin of the Connecticut vote is just about as far off the mark as was your support for the War. Lieberman’s loss is a statement from the voters of Connecticut that they’re fed up with the Iraq War. That’s the majority position in America right now. And any politician that wants to swim against that tide risks his job.

    Iraq will go down as one of the greatest blunders in our history. It’s laughable that those who let us into that debacle now accuse those who opppose the war as not offering a “solution”. You supported it, where’s your solution?

  • http://subintsoc.net Maximus

    Democrats attacking Democrats will not win elections. Democrats attacking Republicans will not rule the nation. It’s time for positive leadership.

    Republicans attacking Democrats is evidently OK by Jeff.

    The bile and hate spewed against liberals on well-financed TV and radio programs daily has somehow escaped Jeff’s notice, while hotheaded remarks on a few left-wing blogs cause him great indignation.

    The right has been promoting hate speech against liberals as an official policy, directed and sanctioned at the highest levels of the GOP, since Newt Gingrich’s infamous Language: A Key Mechanism of Control memo ten years ago. A few plucky liberals are trying to fight back against the massive tide of extremist, mean-spirited, sometimes even eliminationist anti-liberalism that is spewed daily by Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Gibson, Hume, and dozens of other well-paid right-wing propagandists and think tanks.

    Jarvis and other Lieberman lovers will steadfastly maintain that a few f-words used by bloggers are “uncivil”, while missing the elephant in the room: the conservative-created deluge of anti-liberal hatred.

    You know what I think is uncivil? When Lieberman says that the voters who chose Ned Lamont have thereby chosen to side with an evil force that is supposedly worse than Nazism and Soviet communism.

  • http://subintsoc.net Maximus

    P.S. If the right’s attacking Democrats has won them elections for the last 12 years, why will the left’s attacking Republicans not do so as well?

    Jarvis seems to believe that the GOP wins purely because of its ideological superiority, not because of its tactical superiority. But maybe Dems should stop trying to borrow GOP ideology, and instead borrow some of their tactics.

    Oh, I know, that would be “poisoning the discourse.” Get over it. The discourse was poisoned to death a long time ago, by the right. Are liberals obligated to fight with one hand tied behind their backs? Are liberals obligated to play nice when their enemies — which is what they declare themselves to be — always fight dirty?

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    I guess Joe occupies the center by virtue of his being for and against supporting terrorist organisation.

    “But arm-the-KLA rhetoric isn’t coming just from KLA supporters in the Balkans. “People in Congress are starting to talk about arming the KLA,” said one U.S. official in Washington who is familiar with U.S.-Kosovo policy. “But as a long-term policy — not next week.” He mentioned Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., as one lawmaker increasingly vocal in his support for the idea of at least a train-and-equip program for the KLA.

    There are questions, of course, about supporting the KLA. Would it help alleviate the humanitarian crisis and slow down the killing of ethnic Albanian civilians? Or would it create a Taliban-like force in Kosovo that the international community would be unable to control in the future?”
    http://www.salon.com/news/1999/04/cov_01newsa.html

    “When Belgrade was full of demonstrations in the winter of 1996-97, Milosevic could have been pressured to hold elections while Serbian and Albanian dissidents could have been united in opposing the regime. Instead, the Clinton administration chose to wait for Kosovo to explode and support the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).

    Reports have surfaced that the KLA is involved in drug dealing and with Iranian fundamentalists. Many more reports have been published detailing the KLA’s extremist agenda.

    In Albania, Osama Bin Laden has established a base. Saudi newspapers have called for an Islamic Kosovo. . . . Never has the foreign policy establishment in America and its President been so dangerous or destructive.”
    http://www.greece.org/themis/action_press/serbia.htm

  • http://ackackack judson

    ” But even if he and I and all the hawks, liberal or conservative, agreed to agree with Bunting et al, we are all still no closer to peace in Iraq. Bush and Blair do not have the solution. So what is yours?”

    I have a better idea, Jeff: what is yours? When the car was hurtling towards the cliff and the people sitting in the backseat mentioned that maybe we should slow down if not stop, you reached your foot over and gave it some more gas. Now that it lies on the rocks below in flames and ruin, you want everyone to run over with fire extinguishers because your skinny ass is getting scorched.

  • Tristram

    Tbogg lays the smack down on you, Jeff.

    http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/08/stupidity-got-us-into-this-mess-and_13.html

    Man, you deserved that.

  • http://outlandishjosh.com Outlandish Josh

    Jeff, this is really pretty poor stuff. You sound like an out of touch grumpy old man.

    Leaving them alone is not a strategy???

    While complete disengagement is probably impossible, in a nutshell I think that’s precisely the strategy to use vis-a-vis Iraq in particular and the threat of radical islamic terrorism generally. The US military presence in the region is a cause of instability. We’re not preventing violence, we’re causing it and preventing any real stability from emerging. This is not going to change. We need to remove our combat brigades, stop building imperialistic permanent bases, and Let the people who live in the region decide for themselves how to govern their affairs.

    I think we can offer a lot in terms of support, and from a security angle we should build and maintain much stronger human intelligence networks throughout the middle east. But really, man, it’s time to put down the white man’s burden. We’re not helping anyone out.

    Also, on Lamont did you actually spend any time in CT or talking to the voters there? This would seem to be a critical TODO before rendering an opinion that people were voting against something. Clearly there’s a dynamic of change at work, but that’s something people vote for as well, isn’t it? New direction? An end to a pointless bloody and costly war? A fresh and energetic proponent for universal health care, better labor standards and clean energy?

    I recommend a nap and a juice box.

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    What a team Lierberman and McCain make. They are unprincipled political hacks. Why trust them?

    JOE LIEBERMAN – APOLOGIST FOR THE FASCIST KLA
    by Jared Israel and Eric Garris

    # [The] United States of America and the Kosovo Liberation Army stand for the same human values and principles … Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values.” (Sen. Lieberman quoted in the ‘Washington Post,’ April 28, 1999)

    In April, 1999, during the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, Senators Joe Lieberman (Democrat) and John McCain (Republican) proposed legislation to arm the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army, or KLA. This was the “Kosova Self-Defense Act.”

    Here are a few observations that may assist in putting Joe Lieberman’s actions in perspective.

    a Bosnian Islamist daily published the following:

    *

    “TRAINING OF KLA MEMBERS IN US?
    “According to Tirana daily newspapers, the Albanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Paskal Milo said that KLA members will be trained in the US. During his meeting with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Milo was informed that Albanian guerrilla members from Kosovo would be sent to the US for training. Milo added that this was a promise, which Albright gave him personally.” (‘NEVNI AVAZ’ or ‘Daily Voice,’ pro-Islamist Sarajevo daily, 26 Feb 1999)

    Albright was promising to take military training, which was already going on, and bring it out of the shadows, to flaunt Washington’s right to train the KLA, that is its right to violate International Law in the form of the Helsinki Final Act which requires governments:

    # “To refrain from any use of armed forces inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the provisions of the Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States, against another participating State, in particular from invasion of or attack on its territory.

    # “To refrain from any manifestation of force for the purpose of inducing another participating State to renounce the full exercise of its sovereign rights.”

    Why did training the KLA violate the Helsinki Act?

    *

    1) In February, 1999, the US was not at war with Yugoslavia.

    *

    2) In February, 1999, Albright described Kosovo as “a region of Yugoslavia about the size of Connecticut.” Thus she acknowledged that it was Yugoslav sovereign territory.

    *

    3) In February, 1999, Albright called the KLA a “sometimes brutal and indiscriminate” secessionist group devoted to a “simple answer to the tragedy of Kosovo: independence from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” Again: Kosovo was Yugoslav territory. (Quotes are from “Madeleine Albright delivers remarks on Kosovo at the Institute of Peace,” Feb. 4, 1999)

    For the US to train the KLA secretly meant therefore that it was secretly violating national sovereignty, the cornerstone of international law. But for the US to move to openly train the KLA was to uphold the US government’s right to openly and flagrantly violate national sovereignty, the cornerstone of international law.

    Lieberman referred to the KLA as “Kosovan military forces” at a time (April 9, 1999) when the KLA was largely isolated, even among secessionist-minded Albanians. And note, the phrase “Kosovan military forces” suggests there is some legitimate nation called “Kosova,” though no such place has ever existed except perhaps as a Nazi puppet state during World War II. (3) Indeed, the word “Kosova” has no meaning in either the Serbo-Croatian or Albanian languages. (5)

    And so this Lieberman, who makes a public spectacle of his religious beliefs, who pontificates from a place higher than Morality, this Lieberman fronts for the KLA who are the self-proclaimed heirs to the Balli Kombëtar, the World War II Albanian fascists (3). This Lieberman, who flaunts his Jewishness as if it were a theme park, to the disgust of many Jews, including the writers of this article, this Lieberman fronts for the descendents of the very people who murdered nearly every Jew in Kosovo.

    But please note: since being put in power by NATO and the UN, Senator Lieberman’s beloved KLA has driven from Kosovo those Jews who managed not to be killed by the Balli Kombëtar during W.W. II, driven them out along with their descendents. That is, his KLA has completed the job of producing a judenfrei ‘KosovA.’

    Following is the statement Sen. Lieberman gave to The Guardian (UK) on April 9, 1999

    *

    “If, after extended air strikes, it becomes clear that Mr. Milosevic intends to continue his war of aggression, we must have an answer to the question of what next? The bill we are proposing provides us with such an answer, and an opportunity to send an uncompromising message to Mr Milosevic: we will not stand idly by and allow him to brutalise the people of Kosovo any longer.

    This bill is premised on our belief that Nato ground forces will not be put into Kosovo unless the Serbs and Kosovans reach a peace agreement. If we adopt that stance, though, and Serbian aggression continues, we have an obligation to allow the Kosovans to defend themselves. Our legislation, by providing aid to the Kosovan military forces, would give them a fair chance to fight for their families and their future.

    “I am aware that this proposal will raise some concerns. I recall that when I first raised the idea of training and equipping the Bosnian army, many critics told us that we would destabilise an entire region or accelerate an arms race. In the end, I think those concerns were shown to be misguided.

    “Training and equipping the Bosnians enhanced the stability of the area and helped end the Bosnian war. The situation in Kosovo is different. But that does not diminish the suffering of the Kosovan people subjected to Serb aggression, nor negate their right to defend their families from the threat of genocide.”

    One final note. The ‘Bosnians” whom Sen. Lieberman is so proud of having championed were already being secretly armed and trained by the U.S. at the time he proposed legislation to openly arm them and train them. This seems to be a pattern with Lieberman.

    And who were these “Bosnians?” Not the Serbs who lived in Bosnia. Nor the moderate Muslims who lived in Bosnia; they were militarily allied with the Serbs. Rather, he wanted to openly arm the extreme Islamist faction led by one Alijah Izetbegovich whose views are clearly stated in a book:

    “… The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace or coexistence between the “Islamic faith” and non-Islamic societies and political institutions. … Islam clearly excludes the right and possibility of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf. Therefore, there is no question of any laicistic principles, and the state should be an expression and should support the moral concepts of the religion. …” (“Islamska Deklaracija” or “Islamic Declaration” by Alijah Izetbegovic, p. 22)

    And by the way, as a young man this Izetbegovic was a passionate supporter of the Mufti of Jerusalem, an ally and friend of Adolph Hitler, who recruited tens of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Albania into the Waffen SS which then slaughtered many tens of thousands of Serbs, ‘Gypsies’ and Jews in Yugoslavia.

    (See: George Lepre, Himmler’s Bosnian Division. The Waffen-SS Handschar Division 1943-1945, Schiffer Military History, Atglen, PA, 1997).

  • Davebo

    I have to wonder Jeff, was your plan all along to just screw things up beyond recognition so that later you could complain about how no one is offering solutions to the mess you created?

    Or is this more an instance of you seeing facts on the ground and adjusting your strategy to meet the new reality?

    Either way I could really care less. But I do have to wonder. Have you no shame at all? Are you really so out of touch with reality that you could post this tripe with a straight face?

    And why on earth would you expect anyone to care about your thoughts on the matter? You’re glowing track record on the subject?

    Why not drop the “liberal hawk” moniker and be a bit more honest in describing yourself? The word dupe seems more accurate.

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    this Lieberman, who makes a public spectacle of his religious beliefs, who pontificates from a place higher than Morality, this Lieberman fronts for the KLA who are the self-proclaimed heirs to the Balli Kombëtar, the World War II Albanian fascists (3). This Lieberman, who flaunts his Jewishness as if it were a theme park, to the disgust of many Jews, including the writers of this article, this Lieberman fronts for the descendents of the very people who murdered nearly every Jew in Kosovo.
    http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/garris/duringthe.htm

  • Davebo

    Folks, let this serve as a warning to you.

    DO NOT RELY ON MEDIA CRITICS FOR FOREIGN POLICY IDEAS!!

    Are you listening Rod Dreher? Mark Steyn? Jeff?

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    “While the various Congressional reports confirmed that the US government had been working hand in glove with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, this did not prevent the Clinton and later the Bush Administration from arming and equipping the KLA. The Congressional documents also confirm that members of the Senate and the House knew the relationship of the Administration to international terrorism. To quote the statement of Rep. John Kasich of the House Armed Services Committee: “We connected ourselves [in 1998-99] with the KLA, which was the staging point for bin Laden…” 13

    In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, Republicans and Democrats in unison have given their full support to the President to “wage war on Osama”.

    In 1999, Senator Jo Lieberman had stated authoritatively that “Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values.” In the hours following the October 7 missile attacks on Afghanistan, the same Jo Lieberman called for punitive air strikes against Iraq: “We’re in a war against terrorism… We can’t stop with bin Laden and the Taliban.” Yet Senator Jo Lieberman, as member of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate had access to all the Congressional documents pertaining to “KLA-Osama” links. In making this statement, he was fully aware that that agencies of the US government as well as NATO were supporting international terrorism. . . .
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html

  • expatjourno

    1) It’s enough that the Republicans have failed in Iraq. It’s a trillion-dollar war that broke the army and made us less safe. No one has to propose an alternative to the Republicans’ approach simply because the Republicans are proven failures. A vote for them is a vote for more of the same. Time to give someone else a chance.

    2) How we got there is relevant. Bush and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress lied us into the war. The fact that they lied about their real reasons for wanting this war means that they can’t be trusted on anything. Period.

    3) Neither Lieberman nor McCain are centrists. If they were, they would demonstrate at least some liberal beliefs to balance their conservative ones. They don’t.

    4) After saying that people who voted for his opponent helped Al Qaeda, Lieberman can stop weeping crocodile tears over the loss of civility in politics.

    5) The U.S. is one of the causes of the civil war. It is also an army of occupation sent by a country that refuses to say that it does not plan to have permanent bases there. Moreover, as is inevitable in a guerrilla war, our troops have committed atrocities. When your policy results in a group of Marines holding down and raping a 15-year-old girl and then murdering her and her family, you need to rethink your policy.

    That is all.

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Wankers, all

  • hey

    ooo kay. nice to see that peace at any price folks have had their say.

    Jeff: on McCain there are a large number of people who will not vote for McCain because of his claim to fame. There are a lot of people in this country who can not read (majority of the USSC, congress, etc), but many people believe that “Congress shall make no law” is pretty freaking clear wording and that Congress should make no law restricting speech. 1st amendment absolutists on the right get called nuts while on the left they’re heroes, but be honest, there are lots of reasons for opposing McCain.

    I say this as some one who has Rudy as his second preference, coming after Condi. Security is all, and I like the fire of Rudy. He might even take on the traitors in our midst.

  • Jay

    Party loyalty is not part of the constitutional responsibility of an elected official. Representing properly, the people you are elected to represent, is. I applaud both men for being willing to go against their respective parties. I believe a small number of misguided individuals is at the helm of each political party, and would applaud a strong showing by independants that would reduce the power of these individuals over our lives.

  • Pingback: Pick of the Orchard 8.14.06 « Dallas Public Relations Expert Scott Baradell’s Media Orchard