Article

2003-05-09 Home Front

Gary Hart Fangs Democrats - Dean, Lieberman, Biden, etc.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-09 11:10 am|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Hm. In the beginning there were newspapers. Then there were radio and television.

Then came the Internet and eventually blogs.

Blogs and the 'net will be to 2008 what television was to Nixon vs. Kennedy.

I think I can tell you right now which Democrat will have the best shot at beating Hillary for the nomination in '08.

Posted by FormerLiberal 2003-05-09 11:22:37|| 2003-05-09 11:22:37|| Front Page Top

#2 pardon, but is the idea of the homefront section to be the homefront in the war on terror, or a discussion forum on domestic politics?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 11:23:19|| 2003-05-09 11:23:19|| Front Page Top

#3 Maybe this should go to Fifth Colmun - you know, now that Hart isn't running for President after all.

Posted by FormerLiberal 2003-05-09 11:30:02|| 2003-05-09 11:30:02|| Front Page Top

#4 domestic politics have nothing to do with the WOT? Clue stick necessary? C'mon LH - from your intelligent comments (although I may disagree with your points) you know better than that

Posted by Frank G 2003-05-09 11:31:12|| 2003-05-09 11:31:12|| Front Page Top

#5 Yeah, liberalhawk. Next you'll be dissing my monkey post. It's all cogs in one big machine.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-05-09 11:44:44|| 2003-05-09 11:44:44|| Front Page Top

#6 "And finally, none of these flunkos could bed a babe like Donna Rice."

Posted by Dar 2003-05-09 11:56:02|| 2003-05-09 11:56:02|| Front Page Top

#7 "domestic politics have nothing to do with the WOT"

some aspects do, some dont. This post seems to be an example of what have been posted here more lately, which is simple attacks on the Dem. Party. And that has nothing to do with the WOT.

As you may realize, I have nothing but contempt for those on the left who are more interested in their anger at Bush then in the WOT, and for whom their position on Iraq was more about Bush than about the real situation over there. I also have contempt for those who on the right who are more interested in their anger at Dems then in the WOT, and whose position on Iraq has more to do with Bush and the Dems then with the real situation over there.

It leads to misunderstanding the Dem party (eg. the hatred for Hillary left over from the '92 campaign,the health care initiative, etc has caused many to completely miss her position on Iraq) misunderstanding of the GOP ( a tendency to give a free pass to Chuck Hagel, Brent Scowcroft and others who created real problems wrt Iraq, and who will certainly create real problems again should we ever turn our attention more forcefully to Saudi) and even more to overlooking the real situation in the world - somehow people think of Chirac as "left" and Blair as "right" - a true disservice to the man who I think is the greatest leader in the world right now (listening, Bulldog?)

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 12:09:00|| 2003-05-09 12:09:00|| Front Page Top

#8 Liberalhawk:
" ...the hatred for Hillary left over from the '92 campaign,the health care initiative, etc has caused many to completely miss her position on Iraq ..."

Hillary's PUBLIC position on Iraq is to stay silent and not offend her hardcore liberal base. Please never ever interpert anything Hillary does as a sign of principle. She is driven by pure politics.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-09 12:19:31|| 2003-05-09 12:19:31|| Front Page Top

#9 Ah, the little weasel Joe Biden, author of the Rave Act, who managed to get it passed the second time around by sneakily attaching it to the Amber Alert bill and circumventing any congressional debate or hearing on it.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-05-09 12:48:53|| 2003-05-09 12:48:53|| Front Page Top

#10 L-hawk, told you a couple weeks ago, -liberalism is the new reaction. Conservatism is now progressive. And maybe even pervasive, if you look around the world. The old definitions and facisism/socialism line are obsolete.

Posted by Scott 2003-05-09 12:53:26|| 2003-05-09 12:53:26|| Front Page Top

#11 she voted for the senate resolution. When Bush gave the state of the union she fairly ostentatiously sat next to Lieberman. She's making more of an effort not to offend her New York hawk constituency.

Is it driven by politics - maybe. But if its offensive when someone automatically attributes every position Bush takes to politics, its just as much so when someone does it for Dems.

I wonder how many GOP senators would have voted "no" if clinton had pushed regime change in Iraq - more than a few, i think.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 12:53:40|| 2003-05-09 12:53:40|| Front Page Top

#12 Listening, liberalhawk! Just a little Friday afternoon facetiousness. I share your admiration for Blair, but Bush can't be topped. Blair's words are mighty, but Bush's actions are mightier. They make a good team, all the stronger for the fact that they do not hail from the same side of the political arena. At least nominally. Blair's political leanings are, truth be told, centre-to-right, on balance, and drifting rightwards with time.

In reference to Chirac, he's just a ****. Schroeder has before claimed to emulate Blair's "Third Way" political philosophy. Left/right discriminations don't apply here, and are of little guide to allegiances WRT the WoT, and I think most appreciate that.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-05-09 12:59:29|| 2003-05-09 12:59:29|| Front Page Top

#13 Regarding Scott's post: "Conservatism is now progressive. And maybe even pervasive ... " Have any of you visited the website "Democratic Underground"? They invite only Democrats and those with a "progressive view". Thinking like Scott - that I indeed have a "progressive" world view - I've signed up as "ColoradoConservative" posted a story and had my password promptly revoked and I was tossed out of the discussion formats quite unceremoniously. Once again, I am reminded from my law school years up in Boulder, Colorado - liberals believe in progressive and liberal free speech as long as you toe THEIR line of thought. How fascist.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-09 13:04:00|| 2003-05-09 13:04:00|| Front Page Top

#14 Hillary just this past week made a nearly out-of-control rant to Dem partisans, ripping the President for not adopting the Dem proposals on the WOT (i.e.: more Fed money to state programs, many having absolutely nothing to do with homeland defense) - if that's not open to posting, critical commenting because it might offend Dems, then the terrorists have won ;-)

Posted by Frank G 2003-05-09 13:15:10|| 2003-05-09 13:15:10|| Front Page Top

#15 Blair positions are not center right, at least not by the standards of where I live. hell, the tories arent even particularly center right by the standards of where i live. lots of postering here about liberals, and leftie sites like Democrats underground.

Bulldog i think lots of people dont appreciate that the WOT is different from the old domestic alignments - at least not here in the US. I dont think you realize the extent of partisan bitterness among some elements in this country.

For about 40 years from 1940 to 1980 - we had pretty much a broad consensus in this country - a balance of capitalism and the welfare state, and an anti-communist foreign policy. The anti-com for policy was challenged from the left in the '60s but they never quite took power (although they got a lot of folks into congress in 1974) Reagan broke the consensus - perhaps rightly, but in ways that shocked. And Dems responded with a renewed partisanship over cabinet scandals, judicial nominations, the Presidents personality, etc. GOP has never gotten over that - when Clinton came in they determined on payback - despite Clintons 3rd way ideological moderation. We got GOP partisanship on cabinet scandals, judicial nominations, the Presidents personality, etc. All played up with vicious rhetoric led by talk radio. Then we got Monica-gate. And then the 2000 election, which had plenty of elements to leave both sides embittered.

And then into this mess a bunch of fanatical jihadis flew airplanes at our cities and killed 3000 of us.

many of us have seperated the war from the pre 9/11 partisan divide. A great many on both sides have not. Bush and Cheney and Karl Rove are the enemy - or alternatively Hillary and Gore and Daschle are the enemy - more than Bin Laden or Hekmatyar, Saddam or Rafsanjani. The real problems of the CIA pre 9/11 is not a real problem, but a stick to beat Bush. The failure of Oslo is not a real dilemma in mid east policy, but a stick to beat Clinton.

A few leaders in the US - notably Lieberman and McCain - seem able to go beyond this partisanship - but the continuation of it at this serious time makes me dispair for my country.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 13:29:46|| 2003-05-09 13:29:46|| Front Page Top

#16 Frank - a serious discussion of homeland security spending would be fine
but
"i love it when they turn on their own"
posts about judicial nominations
posts about gun control and the 2nd amendment
about bill bennet being compared to Bill Clinton
about Karl Rove
about Daschle tax proposal
about Gary Harts plans

(note also how many come from a particular poster)

Again those who own and run this blog can do as they like with it - i will only point out that there are, I believe, other places on the net to get this political perspective - not to mention all up and down the AM radio dial

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 13:36:47|| 2003-05-09 13:36:47|| Front Page Top

#17 The Daily Show: "Joe Lieberman - for folks who wanted to vote for Bush, but thought he wasn't jewish enough..."

Posted by mojo 2003-05-09 13:39:19|| 2003-05-09 13:39:19|| Front Page Top

#18 You're whistling past the graveyard, L-hawk. Just come out of the closet and have done with it. The old left-right line doesn't fit. You talk more like US. Are you afraid your friends will find out?

CC - Pervasive was indeed optimistic. Some quarters will never adapt. Like T-rex.

Posted by Scott 2003-05-09 13:46:29|| 2003-05-09 13:46:29|| Front Page Top

#19 im not in the closet - i have never hidden my approach on foreign policy - but I daresay i dont talk like you on taxes, health insurance, guns, minumum wage, or most domestic issues. I daresay i talk like Joe lienberman or John edwards, or on my left leaning days like Dick Gephardt - and i think that some need to ignore these distinctions is a sign that they think they can use the WOT to get folks like me over to their side - sorry guys - it aint gonna work.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 13:57:04|| 2003-05-09 13:57:04|| Front Page Top

#20 L - why point at the social issues when we're talking about governance? Some people believe that the childish masses need told what to do until some hazy point in the future (dictatorship of proletariat or any fascist oligachy) others believe that gov't that governs least governs best. THIS should the line. On this, you probably don't come down too different than most of us. Unlike many liberals and closet socialists.

Posted by Scott 2003-05-09 14:06:19|| 2003-05-09 14:06:19|| Front Page Top

#21 s - and some of us need editing help :)

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 14:14:46|| 2003-05-09 14:14:46|| Front Page Top

#22 liberalhawk -- I think stuff attacking Dem tax policy is OT here but this sort of thing is clearly on point.

As for Hart, what a narcissist! "After me, the deluge."

Posted by someone 2003-05-09 14:24:10|| 2003-05-09 14:24:10|| Front Page Top

#23 L - oh, we're doing ad homeynum now?

C'mon, you're better than that, your own posts have misspells. You could follow it, non? We're not so different. An eastern (probably) Jew and a fly-over Jesus freak. e.g. I like having murat around. You gotta hear what the other side thinks. And you can't let 'em bait you into hate speech.

Now, about my more oppressive/less oppressive gov't continuum, think it could fly?

Posted by Scott 2003-05-09 14:37:08|| 2003-05-09 14:37:08|| Front Page Top

#24 "I want YOU to try posting over at Democratic Underground your hawkish views on Iraq. They will toss you out of the forum quicker then you can say "failed McGovern-like Democratic strategies". Diverse voices, diverse opinions my a**!"

and i would expect to be tossed out of "republican underground" or whatever. Is this "republican underground" my impression was that it is not. I could be wrong.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 14:47:15|| 2003-05-09 14:47:15|| Front Page Top

#25 s - im sorry if i sounded harsh - i thought the smiley helped - i know i make typos - i frankly couldnt understand your last post.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 14:49:05|| 2003-05-09 14:49:05|| Front Page Top

#26 "Blair positions are not center right, at least not by the standards of where I live. hell, the tories arent even particularly center right by the standards of where i live."

True, L. Count yourselves fortunate you don't have REAL authoritarian lefties to contend with. Workers' paradise my arse...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-05-09 14:52:49|| 2003-05-09 14:52:49|| Front Page Top

#27 Fred:

Good reminder. The point is that domestic politics are inextricably linked with our foreign policy and the war on terror. As my radio dial hero, Hugh Hewitt, often says about (invariably) liberal politicians "Don't you understand, they will get you killed." This is why a discussion on who might be the Democratic nominee for President is quite germane to our foreign policy. And statements by Maxine Waters, Howard Dean, Madonna or whomever that undermine the will and resolve of the American people to make America, and the world, safe from terrorism should find a forum.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-09 14:54:04|| 2003-05-09 14:54:04|| Front Page Top

#28 one could also make the case that the US is stronger in the WOT if we have domestic policies I favor and that its worth it to accept the liberal wing of my party - i could also point out that there are plenty of isolationists in the GOP who are on board now only for partisan reasons. I generally dont discuss those points here - as theyre not on topic. I will talk about failures of the Bush Admin in the WOT - (Im beginning to think that a reluctance to nationbuild may get them in real trouble) but when i do so I will try to do so with respect.

I realize most of the posters here are Republicans. If there was a busy forum of liberalhawks with an active comments section id post there. But the closest thing is Katzmans winds of change, and thats a very different kind of blog. So i post here and try to be a good sport. But recently there have been people posting here who seem to want to take this in a different direction - if Fred is cool with that, well its his blogspace, and I respect private property :)

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 14:55:07|| 2003-05-09 14:55:07|| Front Page Top

#29 L - You're a good man. It should have been "This should be the line(that governments are rated by)"

Re: Fred - do we have to do detention hall?

Posted by Scott 2003-05-09 14:58:30|| 2003-05-09 14:58:30|| Front Page Top

#30 ok scott - i'll give it a try

this should (be) the line

Should be the line about what? should be the way we analyze ideological perspectives in US politics? I would say no - very few in the US have either extreme you mention, and to frame the differences among those closer to the center purely in terms of extent of government is to prejudge the issue - if im arguing health insurance, the extent of govt control over life is only one issue - what solution increases or decreases costs, which reduces the number of uninsured, which insures new drugs are developed are all legitimate issues. And in many cases it is not at all clear which side is more "statist" is a regressive tax less statist than a progressive tax?

and in any case, what does this have to do with the price of a kalishnikov in Peshawar?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 15:04:11|| 2003-05-09 15:04:11|| Front Page Top

#31 "and in any case, what does this have to do with the price of a kalishnikov in Peshawar? "

I think ive just got a new response for domestic politics trolls.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 15:06:32|| 2003-05-09 15:06:32|| Front Page Top

#32 No, my willfully obtuse friend. ANY government. Relevance? Right now they're trying to plant democracy in Iraq. One side would say we need to give a democratic framework and let them choose their leaders, form of gov't and kalashnikov sales quotas in Najaf. The other side would say they aren't ready and we need to impose gov't until the institutions are in place that insure what we want (a la Trotsky)

Is a troll a matter of who posts where?

Posted by Scott 2003-05-09 15:29:18|| 2003-05-09 15:29:18|| Front Page Top

#33 s - honestly im not willfully obtuse - I thought you were talking about "nanny state" issues in domestic politics.

What if a people want a non-democracy? I real dilemma. What does it mean to give a democratic framework?? Simply hold elections?? Surely not. In the absence of functioning political parties, a functioning press, an independent judiciary elections are a recipe for an elective dictatorship.

What if even with those institutions people want to vote in a theocracy - what if that means "one man - one vote - once" Im willing to say that there does need to be certain level of development to reach democracy - I dont know that every society is ready for it - OTOH i think its about more than just income or literacy level - India has maintained a functioning, if imperfect demo for many years. Culture plays a role, experience with demo, and the regional expectations and models- thats why in Eastern Europe and east asia we have seen "epidemics" of democracy.

If we had a choice, would it be better to stay long enough to make sure Iraq doesnt become a Mullacrocy? Yeah, but we dont really have that choice. If we stay too long we become "colonialists" and lose the ballgame. But a mullacrocy in Iraq is still better for us (and for the Iraqis) (IMO) than the previous regime. And i really dont think thats how it will turn out. The kurds are dead set against it, the sunnis must realize that they wont have influence in a shiite theocracy, and evidently quite a few shiites dont want one either.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 16:06:14|| 2003-05-09 16:06:14|| Front Page Top

#34 " ... thats why in Eastern Europe and east asia we have seen "epidemics" of democracy.

Thank God for Ronald Reagan. By the way Tommy Daschle was a junior Senator in 1986 and began his senatorial thwarting of Republican good deeds that year.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-09 16:20:10|| 2003-05-09 16:20:10|| Front Page Top

#35 the eastern european epidemic was set off ultimately, by the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan - the US policy there was started by Zbigniew Brezinski, under Carter of all people, and was continued by Reagan. US position in Europe was broadly bi-partisan for years, and began with Harry Truman.

democracy in epidemic in east asia began in phillipines, no particular connection to Reagan policies - and ultimately derived from Japan, another Truman (and MacArthur to give credit where credit is due) success.

Tommy Daschle was thwarting republicans in 1986 - oh my - he was a democrat - how shocking!!!

"Republican good deeds"

Yes, the republicans are GOOD, they do GOOD things, so the democrats who oppose them must be BAD.

But Daddy, was Ross Perot GOOD or BAD?? And how about this McCain fellow, who ran against the our hero? Thats a little more complicated, darling.....

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-09 16:31:46|| 2003-05-09 16:31:46|| Front Page Top

#36 There you go, so you're not a reprobate yet. A realy and truly 'progressive'(as in progressing toward socialism) would demand we impose our handpicked leaders at every level. Knowing that we KNOW what's best for them. Our president is much more Jeffersonian, he wants them to choose for themselves. Is he Pollyanna? No, he actually believes in -"of the people, by the people, for the people". Something many on the left do not. What remains to be seen is whether the majority there will "vote themselves the treasury", or have the moral fortitude to respect a minority that disagrees with them. That'll be a stretch for radical muslims.

Posted by Scott 2003-05-09 16:40:34|| 2003-05-09 16:40:34|| Front Page Top

#37 My God but I love to get people like LiberalHawk stirred up. He/she puts the "rant" in "Rantberg"!

But I do agree with LiberalHawk. Republicans are good. And that is the gospel truth.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-09 16:46:07|| 2003-05-09 16:46:07|| Front Page Top

#38 Hey CC, you do know that when I referred to you as progressive it was in a TR sense. Not in the communist, social engineering sense into which the elitists (which I think LH is) have hijacked the word.

Posted by Scott 2003-05-09 17:10:49|| 2003-05-09 17:10:49|| Front Page Top

#39 Yep, I got the reference. It has always been a burr under my saddle how "progressive" has been appropriated by the left. The inference is that those who oppose are, of course, regressive. However, "progressing" or advancing toward what end or goal is the question to be posed, and the truest definition of the word. I mean lemmings progress toward eventual suicide in a mass migration of irrational motive. Thus, we should always question toward what end so-called progressives are aiming.

This has been my last late-afternoon mental meanderings.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-09 17:31:16|| 2003-05-09 17:31:16|| Front Page Top

04:03 Watcher
03:44 Watcher
03:32 Watcher
02:21 R. McLeod
02:07 R. McLeod
01:44 Mike Kozlowski
01:25 Anonymous
00:29 mojo
23:54 Anonymous
23:30 True German Ally
21:26 Becky
20:27 Matt
20:22 Frank G
19:45 Becky
19:44 Frank G
19:34 someone
19:27 someone
19:11 Fred
18:57 Frank G
18:21 Parabellum
18:05 John Phares
17:57 Sofia
17:56 donner
17:41 Becky