Think back to November 2004. President Bush just won reelection. Most actively religious people in the U.S. were cheering. Many, a minority, of sincerely religious people were not. They spent a lot of time pondering the issue of why so many religious people voted for Bush and other Republicans. Hundreds of articles and a long list of books were written on the subject. How could the Left get religious people to vote for Leftists? (Don’t you remember the amusing scene of Hillary Clinton reminding everybody how religious she really is?)
Now, fast forward to 2006.
This article just published in Slate makes the point better than I can.
Take a look at this article.
The Democratic Party’s one-time VP candidate, Joe Lieberman, is in a race for his political life. As you know, he lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut this week. An Orthodox Jew, Lieberman is, in many ways, potentially the consummate liberal religious candidate. He was an early supporter of the civil rights movement mostly for religious reasons, and he has taken many moral stances over his career while citing his religious viewpoint. If you don’t believe me, ask Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian magazine Sojourners, who wrote:
“Joe Lieberman’s strong advocacy for religion in the public square further establishes a place for moderate and even progressive faith perspectives.” Thanks in part to people like Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Wallis continued, “the religious right is now only one of many voices on issues of political ethics, as it should be.”
As the WSJ article linked above points out, Jim Wallis has abandoned Joe Lieberman, as have all of his one-time friends.
As far as I’m concerned, the Left can spend all day beating up moderate Democrats. Joe Lieberman, who is pro-choice and pro-big government, is way too liberal for me. If he loses in November, I will miss his support of the Iraq war, but if I lived in Connecticut I’d likely not vote for Lieberman anyway. The Republican front-runner is a little-known former mayor but he’s more conservative than Lieberman, and I’d likely vote for him.
But there is a point here that bears remembering. Democrats in late 2004 and early 2005 spent all of their time telling the world about how they were going to reach out to religious Americans. But the Lieberman primary loss shows they have completely forgotten this effort. If they couldn’t support a moderate like Lieberman, who can they support?
In pondering this issue, it might be worthwhile to consider the complete demonization of Lieberman that took place on the Left. Leftist blogs were filled with vitriol and hatred for Lieberman when, in fact, he agrees with them on more issues than he disagrees.
How can this intense hatred be squared with the Democrats’ attempt to be a party with which religious people can be comfortable?
Lieberman’s loss has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with his support of the war.
I think Rusty’s spot on. Not one article I’ve read concerning his loss in the primaries has mentioned religion as a reason. If his religion was a problem for Lefties before, how did he ever get elected in a Democratic state? Isn’t this just a case of looking for a reason to label Democrats and Liberals as God-haters?
Rusty is dead on. Religion is not the only reason for the loss, just as, I assume you would agree, it wasn’t the only reason for Bush’s win. What it really is an example of is the left’s on-going tendancy to eat itself.
The interesting thing is that his religion is what got him the VP nod in the first place. The Dems were trying to present someone with religion (i.e. morals) in order to have a contrast to the previous president, Clinton.
And, yes, the Dems are clueless how to run things. It’s amazing they lost to Bush in the last election and will probably lose agian in the upcoming one.
The only folks who truly seem amazed and shocked by the Lieberman ousting are righties. And this pretty much says it all.
Geoff, your suggestion that this has something to do with religious intolerance and hatred on the left raises this post to the level of trolling. Nice.
The Left has never been a hospitable place for those with religious tendencies. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling himself. See Lanny Davis’s piece in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday for an interesting take on the anti-Semitic vitriol poured out towards Lieberman during this campaign. To say that Lieberman lost because of his anti-war stance is accurate, but to then say that the vitriol heaped upon him is only because of his anti-war stance is naive and uninformed. For an interesting take on the mindset that leads to this vitriol, see Jim Pinkerton’s piece today.
The Connecticut primary shows all that can be good in American politics. A successful grass-roots efforts to toss a calcified, multi-decade incumbent that puts more effort into Sunday morning talk shows than his Senate job. A guy who tries to attract the national spotlight by taking potshots at his own party. He’s been rubber stampting Bush’s appointees for years (“heckuva job Brownie” made it through Joe’s hearings in less than an hour), he supported federal intervention into the Schiavo case, he turned his back on Guantanamo abuses, and now he uses the McCarthy-esque tactic of saying that anyone who questions our military misadventures in Iraq is giving comfort to terrorists. Thanks for the memories, Joe, and three cheers for all those that fought inertia, money, and the powers that be (even Clinton was stumping for him) to get a fresh voice into the Connecticut election. Maybe November bring more of the same.
I must be reading the wrong liberal blogs and magazines. Anti-semitic words have never been used to describe why people didn’t vote for Lieberman in anything I’ve read. Painting the Iraq situation as “getting better” and his general support of Bush’s war are the two main points against him in everything I’ve read. And none of the quotes in your link carry any anti-semitism that I can tell.
This garbage about “anti-Semitism” is ridiculous. First of all, I don’t hold Republican responsible for every hateful thing said on Michael Savage’s or Rush Limbaugh’s shows, and Democrats shouldn’t have to answer for drive-by commenters on lefty blogs. In any event, “anti-Semitism” is typically about culture and race, not religion per se; to the extent it is about religion, its source is typical not seculars, but rather WASPs(and Catholic conservatives like Mel Gibson).
“The Left has never been a hospitable place for those with religious tendencies.”
Really? Never? Not for William Jennings Bryan? Not for Catholic Al Smith? Not for Jack Kennedy? Not for Martin Luther King Jr.? Not for Jimmy Carter? Not for Barack Obama? Not for David O. McKay? Thanks for the careful observation.
The fact is that the only blogs where you hear this take in earnest are the rightie blogs like the ones linked to in the above post and comments…and on M*.
I just re-read my post, and I can’t for the life of me see how so many people misunderstood my point. But given that at least four people (and probably many others who didn’t comment) did misunderstand my point, the problem must be with what I wrote and not with them, so let me try again.
I am NOT stating that Lieberman’s defeat was because of anti-semitism. I understand that it was primarily for his support of the Iraq war and especially for his support of the president and his WSJ article. I think it’s probably a decent point that he was more popular in Washington than in CT, and this certainly hurt him.
My point is that Lieberman was a one-time hero of the Democratic party who was once lauded as a respectable openly religious Democrat and a model of how religous Democrats should act. He was a person whose moral and religious views openly affected how he voted. He is a person who can appeal to the many Americans who are religious and let their politics be openly guided by their religions.
My point is that the Democrats in late 2004 and early 2005 spent a lot of time anguishing over the issue of religion. They clearly felt and stated that Bush’s tremendous turnout in 2004 was directly related to mobilizing religious people to vote. Many Democrats came to the conclusion that if they were ever going to win the presidency they had to somehow appeal to religious people.
My point is that Lieberman is the kind of moderate Democrat that the Democratic party should be championing if it wants to win the presidency again. He agrees with Democrats on more issues than he disagrees. People of faith are comfortable with him.
So, if Democrats cannot support Lieberman, who is a moderate and way too liberal for many conservatives like me, but has the potential to appeal to religious swing voters, who can they support? Is it possible for the Democrats ever again to have an openly religious candidate who is a moderate? How are they ever going to win the presidency if they cannot appeal to mid-America, which is religious?
That is really my point. I hope I made it more clearly this time.
Regarding #10, I agree with your comment but would point out that according to the David O McKay biography he was NOT a Democrat. He was certainly more liberal than ETB (just about everybody was) but is clearly described as a Republican.
Matt, after you read my comment #12, I would please ask you to reconsider the vitriol expressed in your comments #5 and #11. I really don’t understand the level of your anger about this issue.
Regarding #10, if you would like to cite a prominent GA Democrat (relatively modern), Hugh B. Brown would be a good choice.
“How are they ever going to win the presidency if they cannot appeal to mid-America, which is religious?”
Easy. Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and Kerry was a few hundred thousand Ohioans away from winning in 2004. As long as the nominee isn’t Hillary, I’ll take the Dems in 2008.
That’s how it always is with Dems. As long as its not…
But WHO WILL IT BE? Who is there that will challenge the republicans. There are a few that I could see challenge a little bit down the line, but right now? I don’t see any Dem winning in the upcoming election…especially against McCain, Rice, or Giuliani.
Apologies for the David O McKay mistake. I was remembering his close relationship with LBJ, but you’re right. I’d better stick with Brown.
Giuliani? Really? He’s has about the same religious credential as Bill Clinton, and they have about the same position on abortion. We won’t see him in 08. Rice? No way. She’s presided over the biggest foreign policy blunders since Vietnam. McCain would be a good candidate (though he’d be older than Reagan when elected). For the Dems, we’ll see. I’ll take Edwards, Kerry, Gore, Warner, Obama, Feingold. Probably too early for Spitzer.
And you might add James Faust.
Geoff (15),
Vitriol and anger? You may call it indignation but “vitriol and anger” would be an exaggeration.
With this post you have transmitted (perhaps inadvertantly) the ugly idea that Lieberman’s ousting was an anti-religious, and by association, anti-Semitic affair. As per your comment (12) I see that this was not your intent. Nevertheless, you’ve walked-in with a good chunk of hornets nest on your shoe (so to speak). Based on comments other than mine this should be obvious.
Obama and Feingold are the ones I was referring to when I said down the line. Though they would have the best shot this year, but the Dems won’t have the guts to nominate them.
I haven’t seen or heard anything from Edwards in a long time so I can’t imagine him being in it, though I liked him the best before he joined the Kerry ticket.
I don’t see Gore running, and I don’t see Kerry getting another nomination. Again, the Dems just won’t be willing to give him another shot at it.
I don’t religion matters much if you’re a Republican. It’s almost as if you are now religious by default. THey’ve mastered the are of religious pandering. SO I don’t see that as being a problem for Giuliani.
I don’t think the nut – oops, I mean net roots supporter of Liberman’s ousting were thinking about religion at all. It was all about Iraq.
Didn’t Harry Reid say the Democratic Party was going to stop focusing on the war on terror and instead focus on things that the American public are really concerned about, like Health care and the economy?
Or not. It is all about the war. And despite the war’s unpopularity, it isn’t the only issue for the American public. But the Democratic party has decided it IS the only issue – and those who do not toe the line will be cast out like the heretics they are (As Michael Moore said – Liberman will not be allowed to enter the promised land now). So much for the big tent that allows moderate viewpoints.
So, when Lieberman wins as an indepedent, the Democratic party will once again find itself even more out of power. They will have signaled to the American public that they don’t care about anything other than Iraq, and the American people probably won’t like that message.
Harry Reid and Howard Dean need to decide if that is the message they really want to send. If it is – well, it’s about time a third party took off. One of the major parties needs to take a dive. I guess the Dems have decided it’s going to be them.
“And despite the war’s unpopularity, it isn’t the only issue for the American public.”
Republicans should keep telling themselves this. The single worst military and political decision (and execution) in this generation, which will endanger the well-being of America for another generation “isn’t the only issue.” Judging by the actions of Republican legislators, they agree — it’s much more important to repeal the tax on dead rich people, or to protect the flag, or keep minimum wage down.
Lieberman wins and an independant and American’s (60% of which now think the war was a mistake) will interpret a focus on the war as meaning the Dems care about nothing else? Yeah, keep thinking that too. It’s in the nation’s and the Dem’s best interest that the Repubs remain disconnected from reality for as long as possible.
K. Gunn McKay, a relative of David O. Mckay, both of Huntsville, Utah, was represented the relatively conservative Utah 1st District in Congress from 1971-1980. He was then defeated twice by James V. Hansen, a Republican from Farmington, with a stint as a mission president in between. Hansen went on to represent the 1st District for twenty two years (1981-2002).
Both Hansen and G. McKay are/were former stake presidents. In fact both were serving as such the year they were first elected to Congress.
#23 & 24
exactly. Keep telling yourselves that. And when the Republicans (sadly, in my view – I was hoping for a major shake-up) gains seats in both houses of Congress, the far left will probably keep talking about how they were robbed or something. Easier than admitting there might be other more important issues to deal with.
The person you can thank for tipping the election to Bush was Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco. He was the one who legitimized gay marriage (at least for a little bit) and couples flocked to the courthouse in droves.
It was just what the right needed to galvanize a Bible Belt base (hey, how’s that for alliteration?) right before a major election. There were/ are plenty on the right who are ticked at Bush but one can always depend on good ol’ gay marriage to inflame one’s base.
What’s ironic for the left is that if Newsome hadn’t pulled that particular political stunt we’d probably have a President Kerry now. It was just that last little bit that put Bush over the top.
There are religious leftists…but since most politics resort to soundbites, are you going to choose the party of “family values/anti abortion/marriage is sacred” vs well…the opposite. 😉
“…there might be other more important issues to deal with.”
This is political spin for “don’t pay attention to that man behind the curtain.” But it’s all about the war. Dead people may tell no tells but their families and the state of this nation are telling a whopper. If the shake-up isn’t about the war, there will be no shake-up.
“one can always depend on good ol’ gay marriage to inflame one’s base”
Thus the reason why CLinton told Kerry the only way he was going to win the election, was to openly oppose gay marriage.
Barack Obama consistently talks about his faith, as well as scolding the part of the Democratic Party that is anti-religion. Let Your Mind Alone posted about it recently here. Obama is becoming a superstar for the Democrats, and is openly religious, somewhat moderate, and seems to appeal to a cross section of the public.
Well, whether or not our entering Iraq was a blunder the important issue now is to do all we can to keep that region from decending into chaos. The loss would be almost incalculable–not to mention almost interminable. This is what I think many (level-headed) Americans (right and left) are concerned with.
And for those who leverage our domestic concerns against the war–fully aware of a possible eminent loss of untold hundreds of thousands of middle-eastern lives should we get weak in the knees–well, all I can say is, they can watch their nice neat little row of political ducks march straight into hell.
jjohnsen,
I agree about Obama. I think he is the best Dem. candidate to come along in a long time. But, I don’t think he’ll run, at least whole-heartedly, until 2012. THere’s too much crap clogging the drain ahead of him.
Jack, I agree that most folks are concerned about doing the right thing and that we should do all in our power to keep the place from melting-down entirely. But am far from convinced that “staying the course” will save us or them. And holding our elected officials to account for creating the mess in the first place does not constitute “going weak in the knees”. If anything, it may be the strongest possible message of peace we can send at this point.
#9 & #10 Jimmy Carter is a moral idiot, as are just about all those on the left who are also religious, but I didn’t say that all liberals are not religious, nor did I say that Democrats are not religious. I certainly wouldn’t call Barak Obama a leftist. But black politicians get a pass from the left on their Christianity, but both Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have made anti-Semitic remarks in the past. I have no problem with forgiving them, but it’s interesting that they feel so comfortable in that party with those views. Same with Hillary Clinton. I wouldn’t call her an anti-Semite but she did make that off color joke a few years ago. Carter is a liberal but not quite a leftist from what I’ve read. He’s a fool, but he’s not a leftist. But come on, Jack Kennedy? Al Smith? William Jennings Bryan? Al Smith is one of my heroes, but he was by no means a leftist. Go back and read JFK’s inaugural speech and tell me if he sounds more like a modern day Democrat or a Republican and we’ll continue this conversation. The values that animate today’s modern day Democratic party are not the same values that motivated them 45 years ago. They’ve been taken over by the Left. Time was, being a liberal and being on the Left were not synonomous. They very nearly are now. I would have been a Democrat in the days of Truman and JFK. I can’t in good conscience be one now.
As for anti-Semitism only being about culture and not religion, that, too, is naive, though I think in their case it’s a distinction without a difference. Where do you suppose their unique culture comes from? I’m not sure I understand the point. If Mel Gibson was merely referring to their culture, that would be excusable, but if he was referring to their religion, it would not? One of the best bell-weathers as to the morality of a society is how well they treat Jews. For a detailed look at this, take a look at Why the Jews? by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin.
I don’t want to turn this into a blog-of-war, but in response to you, Matt, I don’t believe that anything we do to account for our mistakes in the eyes of the world will stay the hand of inter-tribal hostilities in the middle-east.
Geoff,
Nice and accurate post.
On one of your responses as to if you lived in CT, you would probably vote for the Republican, apparently he has some major ethics issues that were outlined recently. Sorry I don’t have the source.
What a perfectly insipid thing for Democrats and the left to be cheering; the loss by Lieberman in the PRIMARY. Because as has been so aptly stated here, (Ivan) Lieberman will most likely win in November. How desperate the Democrats must be for encouraging news. While I don’t agree with many of Lieberman’s positions, he has almost never been the shrill, intolerant politician (right or left) that makes me ill.
Seems like a decent guy; a guy that 52% of the dems in a state not half the size of the county I live in, rejected. Still, building on that 48% of dems that did support him, throw in a few independents and he will be back in the Senate.
And I know this will get you liberals upset, but I expect my nationally elected officials to catch and/or kill the people who want to kill us. Come November, I think enough of the people of CT will agree.
OK, we finally have an indignant liberal blogger who is concentrating on the actual point of my post (see #30). Congratulations jjohnsen. Yes, the Democrats have some leaders who are openly religious. See Barack Obama as an example. And Barack Obama also “gets it” that the Democrats have a problem in that they are becoming known as the anti-religious party, and he’s trying to help them change that image. I’d personally feel much more comfortable with a Barack Obama in the White House than a Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, John Edwards and on an on.
Obama is not on the radar for Democrats in 2008. Of course that could change, but as of today it looks like the Democrats will nominate somebody in 2008 who is NOT in the Barack Obama mold.
It’s of course possible that the Republicans could do the same thing, but I doubt it. I predict McCain and Giuliani, though they both have the highest name recognition today, will both fade. The Republicans are much more likely to nominate a standard-bearer who is openly religious, such as Romney, Brownback or Allen.
Matt #20, I’ve seen the claim before that James E Faust is a Democrat. Do you have any citations for that, or is it just “generally known?” Is he politically active in the Democratic party?
Geoff B.,
Pres. Faust served as a member of the Utah State Legislature from 1949-1951 as a Democrat.
Mark IV, thanks for that.
Ivan, actually I’m afraid the war is the single most important issue right now. I wish it wasn’t, but this thing has mushroomed so out of control that it’s going to be impossible for most of the nation to talk about anything else until it’s resolved.
This is just as much the fault of the GOP as the Dems. Republicans have tried to link the “war on terror” to just about every issue they possibly could. The issues that weren’t linked to it, were absolute flops for the GOP. Social Security reform, marriage protection, flag burning. For good or ill, the Republicans have hung all their hopes on the Iraq War.
There is absolutely no way they are going to weasle out of this one without paying a serious toll. It is very likely that the GOP will lose control of Congress over the war. The fate of the Presidency is an open question. It depends on whether we’re still stuck in Iraq in 2008.
And that’s probably the way it ought to be. Iraq is running such a massive deficit, and devouring such a huge portion of tax revenues, that it simply muscles-out any other conversation about government spending. There’s no way to talk about tax policy, health care spending, or anything else until the financial hemorraging in the Middle East is stopped.
Hopefully this will teach the right-wing knuckleheads to think twice before advocating Tom Clancy style foreign policy again in the future.
#37, if you re-read post #0 I think you’ll understand why people were indignant. The Democratic party is full of problems, but it feels like you are trying to create a new one with this post. My apologies for misinterpreting it. I appreciate the follow-up (although not agreeing totally) in #12.
Because the current administration has done so well at catching the man respinsible for killing thousands of Americans on 9/11? What exactly do you base this expectation on?
I know many in the Bloggernacle keep championing Romney, but if he wasn’t LDS would he even be on your radar? McCain (bleagh) or Giuliani (not bad) both have a better chance of making it to office. If one of them did win would this signal that the Republican party is abandoning religion? Of course not, just like CT choosing somone over Lieberman doesn’t signal they are abanding religious Democrats. Believe me, if I thought there was no place for religion in the Democratic Party, I’d stop voting for Democrats.
I do believe as Republicans became viewed as the Religious party, Democrats may have mistakenly decided they needed to appeal to the non-religious, which is a mistake (see the Obama speech I linked earlier). The stupidity of the Democratic Party shows they’re great at making mistakes.
I wasn’t sure what this is in referance too, but an article I read talking about prominent LDS Democrats listed sources for Marlin Jensen, Boyd K Packer and James Faust. I’ll try to dig it up.
The differnece between the Dems and the Repubs is that only the Republicans will take a stance on the issues, while the Democrats will simply take a stance…against the Republicans. They have simply become a reactionary party. So, while the Republicans come out with Religion, the Dems feel the need to do the opposite.
RE: The War
I too feel this is the biggest issue we are facing, but that doesn’t mean the Republicans are going to lose their foothold. Many well-known Republicans are now admitting mistakes were made while the Dems are still wondering what kind of stance to take on the whole thing.
Remember, Hillary got booed during a speech in which she refused to set a timeline for troop withdrawals. The first candidate, Republican or Democrat, to come up with a sensible plan of withdrawal is going to win. Doing so would be difficult as one would be setting him/herself up for political suicide if things didn’t go according to plan. But, it’s what the AMerican people want to hear right now. People are sick of this war.
THe other thing that has left me wondering, is how we haven’t had a “Perot” work his way up to challenge the system. It seems as thought the American people have grown weary of the two choices they have been offered and may be willing to elect who offers something different. I know a lot of Republicans who would love to have someone other than Bush or his clan in office, but would never vote for any of the current Democratic candidates.
Marlin Jensen is an outspoken Democrat, probably the most prominent LDS Democrat since Wayne Owens, although the former strikes me as rather more moderate than the latter.
Boyd K. Packer was almost certainly a Democrat in his younger years (his whole family was), but I understand from people who have reason to know that he is most definitely not enchanted with the Democratic party any more. I can hardly think of anybody less likely to be a contemporary left liberal.
I wish. If a party emerged that combined the (what I consider)more moderate parts of the two parties I’d sign up day one. I’m jealous of other countries that have more than two options that actually have a chance of winning on a large scale. I’d love to see a congress that was divided 27 Democrats/26 Republicans/24 Xboxians/23 Butterfingerians. People might have to actually work together instead of deciding how to vote based on whether they support the current President or not.
Sign me up for the Xboxian party. I hear they have a really strong Halo platform.
Master Chief instead of Commander in Chief? I’m ok with that.
Geoff B (38),
It looks like you have your answer…except for this part:
I don’t know of any living apostle who is active in a political party. Do you?
jjohnson (46),
I am so with you on this sentiment. I say start with campaign reform then move on to reforming the elector system. We should be having representation with a much higher bias toward popular representation as a percentage of the popular vote.
As for which party I’d promote…Xboxian sounds good, but Halo is a tad bit too Gladiatorial for my tastes in democracy. We’d probably need a new title or two. Maybe something along the lines of “Civil Disobediance” or “Poll Watcher”.
jjohnson (42),
The article you read may have been Todd Compton’s “The Spiritual Roots of the Democratic Party: Why I Am a Mormon Democrat” (follow the link from his homepage) which has a section at the end listing prominent Mormon Democrats. He’s befuddled by BKP as well, saying “and here’s a surprise” then adding to end notes: “I’m not sure what kind of Democrat Packer is”…
I’d say: probably an “old school” Democrat. 🙂
Ahh yes, that was the article. I had it saved at home, but was posting from work and couldn’ remember the title.
I’m coming late to the party and haven’t (yet) read all the comments. So here are a few thoughts in no particular order.
1. I’m not sure one could call Liebermann a moderate. On most domestic issues he’s far left. He’s got the moderate label only because of the war. It’s weird how folks who endorse either a more pro-active democracy building or stronger defense get labeled moderates even though some are pretty radical Marxists. I’ve never quite understood this about the current debate. After all conservatives against the war like Pat Buchanan don’t suddenly get labeled moderates.
2. I think Geoff’s original point was ultimately just that there aren’t really may Democrats right now who are obviously religious, outside of some African-American Democrats like Jesse Jackson and perhaps Obana although Obana’s religious seems more a kind of liberal civic religion. (I may be wrong on that – but it’s hard to see him as akin to say Pres. Carter) Certainly in the past this wasn’t the case. And many folks are working to get religious respect back into the Democratic party. I fully support this since I think in a two party system it’s important for there not to be a party polarization over religion. But I think even those bringing up Democratic figures must note that most are from the past. The big exception is, of course, Harry Reid, who is an active Mormon. And there are others. But they don’t play up their religion the way say Jimmy Carter does. Which I think is ultimately the point: less practical issue of religion than a superficial rhetoric of religion.
3. By the same extension if it is wrong for so many Democrats to demonize religion and look down upon it, it is wrong for Republicans to think they are the party of religious values. I think sometimes Republicans take religion for granted the way many Democrats take African Americans for granted.
4. Once one gets out of the leadership of either party clearly there are many, many religious Democrats. Further I think it fair for many religious people to say that the religious concerns that are co-opted by Republicans are often less significant or practical. (i.e. as a practical matter abortion isn’t going to change significantly, and birth control issues are perhaps less obviously an important religious issue) They then note economics and religious concern which is a valid concern even if I might not ultimately agree on theological grounds.
BTW – when discussing Democrats and Republicans one has to mention whether one is talking national or local politics. The dynamics are quite different.
BTW – interesting argument that the main reason Lieberman lost was because Jewish voters abandoned him.
I am all for independent candidacies and third parties, viable and not. I might have respected Lieberman if he had determined to run as an independent from the beginning. But he wanted all the advantages of the Democratic establishment behind him, and the endorsement of his many friends, Dodd, Clinton, etc. Only when those advantages were insufficient to deliver what he thought he was entitled to, did he decide to play the independent card, demonstrating that his highest priority is maintaining his perks and privileges.
In the year 2000, faced with a similar choice, he chose his career over the good of the party. He ran for the Senate as an insurance policy while simultaneously campaigning as the vice-presidential nominee. As it turned out, VP Cheney broke ties in the Senate; if the Supreme Court had decided otherwise, however, the Republicans would have had the majority in the senate, since Republican Gov. Rowland (who resigned in disgrace two summers ago) would have appointed Lieberman’s replacement.
Many Democrats are dissatisfied with Lieberman not just because of his support for the war. It’s that he can’t seem to bring himself to articulate any criticism of the Bush administration whatsoever. The gross incompetence on display since the very beginning days of the war, a staggering record of missed opportunities and squandered goodwill that even many generals and Republicans have bestirred themselves to comment upon, seems to have escaped Lieberman altogether.
The true patriot will not blithely dismiss strategic blunders on the dubious proposition that any dissent, however well-intentioned, is necessarily a boon to our enemies. On the contrary, he will fulfill the role so eloquently described by Wendell Willkie in 1940, a role Lieberman has abdicated:
“A vital element in the balanced operation of democracy is a strong, alert and watchful opposition. That is our task for the next four years. We must constitute ourselves a vigorous, loyal and public-spirited opposition party.
It has been suggested that in order to present a united front to a threatening world, the minority should now surrender its convictions and join the majority. This would mean that in the United States of America there would be only one dominant party – only one economic philosophy – only one political philosophy of life. This is a totalitarian idea – it is a slave idea – it must be rejected utterly….â€
#43 The differnece between the Dems and the Repubs is that only the Republicans will take a stance on the issues, while the Democrats will simply take a stance…against the Republicans.
Exactly.
The War may be the single most important issue, but it is not a winner for the Democrats. There are dozens of other issues they could focus on and build a good strategy around in order to at least pick up several more seats in congress. I was rather hopeful when Harry Reid announced that was what they were going to do.
Nope. The Democrats think that by attacking the war on terror (and otherwise automatically opposing everything Bush and/or the Republicans propose withou acgtually taking any real stands) that they will still somehow win.
Ain’t gonna happen. Give us another Contract With America and the Dems will take Congress. Keep reflexively letting the Republicans set the agenda, and the public will (somewhat reluctantly) at least go with the party that keeps the terrorists over in Iraq and the Middle East rather than in planes headed for New York.
But sure, go ahead and keep saying that opposing the war is a winner. In primaries – yes. In general elections: I doubt it.
Marlin K. Jensen was the Church’s champion of resisting Homosexual Marriage – until he was replaced by a gun-shy attorney. He was behind the California effort to defeat Homosexual Marriage last decade and organized 501-c3 organizations in each state.
I’m quite sure he would not be supporting the monolithic Democrat position on Homosexual Marriage today, and likely wouldn’t support any Democrat candidate which toed the party line on that subject.
I’d still like to see a ressurection of Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party (with a different name of course).
What monolithic position on Democratic gay marriage? Most Democrats are opposed to it.
This is politics today. Party leadership for both sides either has to attack Republicans for the War and loving the rich, or attack the Democrats for supporting terrorists and loving homosexuals.
There are no solutions now, only blame, and both sides are guilty of it. These days anyone that tells me they are voting Democrat or Republican because the candidate is so great instead of the candidate being the lesser of two evils astonishes me.
#56 as a whole is a great post. Back in April or May, Democratic leadership was proposing “Six for ’06”, six things they wanted to focus on.
# National security
# Jobs and wages
# Energy independence
# Affordable health care
# Retirement security
# College access for all
This was going to be the platform for everyone running in 2006, and possibly 2008. I hope they haven’t given up on the idea and decided to focus only on the war. The Primary in CT was focused on war, but I hope this isn’t sign of what all national elections are going to be. There are so many problems, war is only one of them.
I think that repeatedly calling Lieberman a moderate Democrat, and then criticizing Democrats for not supporting a moderate, is a bit disingenous (even if not deliberately so).
Actually, Lieberman is quite liberal on some issues and on those issues is solidly in the Democratic camp. But on the issue that mattered in this election, Lieberman may have been to the right of even George Bush. That one issue, Iraq, dominated the election, and on that issue Lieberman lost. It didn’t have anything to do with his religion or much of anything else.
I, for one, am sad to see to see Lieberman find himself on the outs with the Democratic Party. The Iraq issue aside, he’s been a great senator and one with integrity. But I, too, given a clear chance to vote against Bush’s handling of the Iraq disaster, would have probably voted against Lieberman as well.
Interesting numbers here.
Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41% (see crosstabs).
A month ago, the candidates were tied at 40% each.
Republican Alan Schlesinger earns just 6% of the vote, down from 13% a month ago.
57% of the state’s voters view Lieberman as politically moderate while 51% see Lamont as liberal.
Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.
Overall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.
Thirty-one percent (31%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Lieberman, 18% Very Unfavorable.
For Lamont, the numbers are 19% Very Favorable, 23% Very Unfavorable.
#61 –
exactly what I was saying. If Democrats can do that – they will pick up seats and likely at least one house of Congress.
But indications seem to be that they won’t. Which is too bad. As they say in The Lost Skeletion of Cadavra: Oh well.
Democrats are better at losing themselves in the foot than Republicans are at beating them. The way the country has gone these past few years, only their stupidity will prevent them from winning. Election time would sure be less stressful and emotional if I could convince myself to support more Republicans.
#62, I’m surprised that Lamont is so far behind Lieberman when it comes to War on Terror considering so many equate War on Terror with War in Iraq. In fact all those number make it seem that the only reason Lieberman lost is his supporters didn’t vote, which could mean he has Republican supporters while Lamont’s are mostly Democrat.
What a strange state that a Democrat gets more Republican votes(or points in a poll) than a Republican candidate. If a similar poll were done in Utah, I can’t imagine more than 5-10% of Republicans choosing a Democratic candidate over a Republican candidate, no matter how unqualified the Republican candidate is.
Ivan,
Your numbers and link bear out what I was saying as to what I think the final result in CT will be. Thank-you for the info and source.
As for the wider picture?
Congressional Quarterly says that “If the 2006 midterm election were held today, tomorrow or even next week, it would be safe to say that Republicans would hold on — barely, but with just enough room to spare — to their majorities in both the House and Senate.”
I don’t think anyone was realistically thinking Democrats would gain a majority this election, I’m just hoping they make the gap a little smaller.
I think in general people are frustrated with everything going on and they want change in the big spending government. Unfortunately it appears that both parties are in favor of spending to attract voters and the voters are too short sighted to see the problems inherent in deficit spending.
As a young voter I can’t believe so many of my fellow voters are not interested in fiscal responsibility now so that we will not bear the financial burdens of today throughout the next fifty years. But I guess the millenium will start within 40 years so why worry?
Jjohnsen, I actually agree with your #61 that such a platform would be more of a winner for the Dems. And all of these issues have the potential of attracting religious voters (ie, isn’t it more moral, humane and in line with Biblical teaching to support education for all and more access to affordable health care?). But the national Democratic party these days has a tendency to ignore such issues and concentrate on rage and posturing against Bush and against Karl Rove and against the war and against religious consersatives. The American people are smart enough to spot a campaign that is primarily negative and significant for what it is against rather than primarily positive and upbeat and optimistic. This is exactly what Lamont is about — he is the negative candidatelined up to be against somebody (Lieberman and by extension Bush) rather than for something. The result is that he is behind in Connecticut, a relatively liberal state. How can the Dems possibly think that such a strategy will work on a national basis?
I hope they don’t, if they want to gain ground they need to be smarter than that.
Here is a LDS religious leftist running for Congress. Bill and his wife are converts of Jewish origins. I known him and his wife since the mid 1980’s. He has raised some good kids…. some of whom have even served in Iraq despite the families opposition to the war in Iraq.
One of his daughters has had some acting roles in prime time TV
http://www.blogger.com/profile/2902768
http://billscheurer.blogspot.com/2006/06/third-party-candidate-expects-to-get.html
Hey, at least he’s pro-life, according to the article. But otherwise, well, yet another fringe candidate (sorry Bill, if you read this — I’m glad you’re a member of the Church, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree on political views).
LDS? Pro-Life? Kids in the military? That’s three strikes, pal. Sorry, if the Lieberman phenomonon has proven anything, it’s that Democrats like Mr. Scheurer will go nowhere in the Democratic Party. Unfortunate, but true.
How could kids in a military possibly be perceived as a negative? If anything it would allow a candidate to declare themselves anti-war while stopping Republicans from labeling them as not supporting the troops. And I think Geoff B would disagree with LDS as being a negative after the amount of pro-Romney articles he’s linked too recently.
The Left, by large, is not religion-friendly. The Left, by large, is not pro-life. The left, by large, is not military-friendly. The Left just disowned it’s only prominent representative that dared to go against Leftist grain on things like this.
And having kids in the military would be as helpful to a Democrat candidate as having a lesbian daughter was to Dick Cheney in the ’04 election. If anything, it would be used against him, just as Joe Lieberman’s percieved “coziness” with Bush and his support of the military was the very basis for which the Left ousted him.
It wasn’t his support of the military, it was his support of the Iraq war. Only the right equates Iraq with supporing the military.
Democrats Promote Homosexual Marriage (in response to Clark Goble #59):
The Democratic National Committee has developed plans to help the homosexual activists achieve their goal of homosexual marriage. DNC spokesman Danien LaVera says the DNC has developed a five-point plan to help homosexuals block any legislation which prohibits homosexual marriage, and to push homosexual marriage.
The first successful effort by the Democrats occurred in Illinois where the Democrats donated $10,000 to help the activists keep the marriage protection law off the ballot in that state.
LaVera said the DNC strongly opposes efforts to ban homosexual marriage by amending the federal or state constitutions and that the Democratic party plans to step up efforts to promote pro-homosexual marriage bills in several states.
Democratic parties in eight states have already adopted platforms endorsing homosexual marriage bills. They include New York, California, Washington, Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts and Hawaii.
I actually agree with both #75 and #76. How’s that for triangulation?!! I agree with Tossman that many candidates who are Democrats run a risk if they are pro-life, are LDS and have kids in the military. They could be seen as “stealth” conservatives. Secular liberals have a big problem with religious people in general. So I understand Tossman’s point. On the other hand, if a candidate has “true blue” liberal credentials, then having kids in the military while opposing the Iraq war is a golden position. It turns a candidate into a Cindy Sheehan type — somebody who has made a sacrifice in his own family. In addition, that candidate can appeal to the blue collar Murkha Democrats by saying, “I understand the military — my own kids are in Iraq.” In many ways, the ideal Democratic candidate is somebody who is liberal on all the important issues, against the Iraqi war but who cannot be spun as being “soft on terrorism” because he or she has some kind of military bona fides — a kid in the military, once served in Vietnam (this is why Kerry brought it up so much) or is a former policeman or prosecutor. Thank goodness the Democrats don’t have a candidate like this, or else the world would be in trouble in 2008.
You’re right, Geoff- that would sort of give a Dem candidate a degree of Sheehan gravitas, in a sick sort of way.
I’m personally torn. Part of me would love the Democratic party to come to its senses and become a viable and healthy alternative to a corrupt, idiot Republican party. But the other part of me rather delights in seeing Dems self destruct.
Wonderful. Looks like the last time I posted from this particular PC was in the Sunday shopping post. I have been exposed for the Sunday shopper that I am. Dang this archaic message board for not having an edit feature!
Tossman, do you want me to edit your #81 so it says “Tossman” rather than “Sunday Shopper?”
Nah, it’s all good.
Re: bona fides.
Of the 11 Iraq War veterans running for Congress, 10 are democrats, according to the Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s03-uspo.html
David H., I think that a good point and personally a big problem for Republicans. i.e. that Republicans of the current generation, for all their focus on defense, often have little experience with it. That might explain a lot of the incompetence of the current administration.
The downside is that the Democrats are deeply divided over defense.