I'd say this is pretty accurate, though I think the political element isn't quite complete. They don't need to do this embodiment-of-chastisement to their own party in order to defend their seats, but they both dream of the Presidency. It seems that they are trying to attract the 'curse-on-both-their-houses' crowd by being seen cursing their own house.
In Lieberman's case, this is exarcerbated by being on the wrong side of a major Democratic issue, particularly the Iraqi occupation. Would you say this is mirrored by McCain's immigration stance with the Republican base?
I've not paid enough attention to Lieberman to notice enough of that defiance of his own party. Given this new understanding and comparison to McCain, I now understand how many democrats feel about him.
McCain damage to the GOP no doubt dwarfs Lieberman's efforts and for that reason I agree with Machiavel's conclusion. McCain understands some of it and has recently been courting the base with renewed vigor.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
As Leon points out below, those efforts did come at particularly bad times on issues ranging from tax cuts to torture to campaign finance reform to high profile efforts with Kennedy to Gang of 14 and most recently immigration. I am sure I am missing a few.
Most of the time it's his smiling, holier than though, mug denigrating other republicans while using liberal talking points on my tv screen that makes me promise to myself that I will never vote for him.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I've thought on many occasions that this pair of manufactured public personas bely the realities. Inattentive Republican and Democratic voters both view them as positive, yet neither are who they are perceived to be.
Activists only have one vote, but the voters of AZ and CT have many and "maverick" and "moderate" media appearances hold the advantage of perception not reality.
McCain has been trying to court the religious right lately, which had been a major hurdle against him. 2008 is still light years away in political terms. I really don't think McCain or Giuliani can get the nod though. I would guess someone more like Jeb Bush or Mike Huckabee.
McCain has historically run to the fiscal side of the Republican conservatism, and when this administration has gone hog wild on spending and social issues its not a big surprise McCain has looked like a maverick.
But the immigration debate kicks the entire party in the belly. Republicans want to pander to big business AND their xenophobic small town constituency. And that's very hard to do when both want opposite things from the immigration debate. Why do you think Frist has been so schitzophrenic on the issue?
But McCain and Liberman are generally moderate politicians. Check Liberman's voting record. Like Specter, the Republican "rebel" on the Judiciary committee, he talks big talk, but he never really breaks party ranks. McCain does actually vote against Republican social legislation and for the famous anti-torture bill, but he doesn't go much father than that when Bush po-po's the Senatorial check on Presidential power, and I've never seen McCain's defiance actually bring down a bill that wasn't doomed to failure anyway.
Machieval has a point. It's alot of big talk, but at the end of the day these are very mainstream politicians and they don't break ranks nearly as much as they appear to.
Actually, a large part of the problem is that this is a sham issue - McCain is very talented at bringing the pork home to Arizona. The last guy to lead a fiscally conservative charge in the Senate was Tom Coburn. McCain was conspicuously absent from the floor votes on the Coburn amendments. Kyl wasn't, and voted for them. Kyl's record on fiscal conservatism is actually superior to McCain's, but he doesn't get as much attention because he doesn't go on all the TV shows to stab the Republican party in the eyes every month.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
There is one crucial difference and it is to McCain's benefit. Unlike Lieberman, when McCain courts the media and goes onto media outlets, he is very circumspect as to how he speaks about the Republican party, itself and in general. While Lieberman has for most of his last 2 terms in office been the go to guy when the media wants a Democrat who is happy to trash his own party -- its principles and even its members --- on air and in print.
McCain much more than Lieberman is wont to observe Reagan's commandment -- that you don't speak ill of other Republicans. Joe Lieberman thinks that is his god given role -- to criticize his own party and have the media pat him on the back for it.
That reason is the one that Democrats despise him for, much more so than his stance on the war in Iraq.
Lieberman is a much bigger party traitor than McCain.
While there was much smoke about McCain possibly being invited to join Kerry's ticket, there was never any fire there. Lieberman, OTOH, is openly considering the possibility of running as an independent and even has the DSCC considering backing him over the party's own nominee.
I have wondered about that because I get the feeling that many Republicans feel otherwise. I'm never sure whether Rush Limbaugh represents the heart of the GOP or not, but I know he bashes McCain a lot as if he thought McCain were a Democrat. I'd be interested in hearing their take on this.
Sorry, guys not around much today, probably like most of the others - father's day and all :) Will try to do a post dealing with the environment either later today or tomorrow.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Now McCain is a liberal? How can we have a discussion when definitions are so nonexistent? There is nothing in his history or political philosophy that makes MaCain liberal other than the fact that at times he refuses to kowtow to the Bush-Cheney cabal. I find it truly amazing that supposedly intelligent educated self-identified conservatives can spout this claptrap with a straight face. The party operatives say these things realizing its BS and done for political purposes to tar an opponent. They do it for money. What in God's name is your excuse?
I spent a great deal of time during the primaries defending Lieberman. His Dem voting record was and is pretty reliable. I took a lot of crap for it but wasn't phazed by it.
Two things have turned me against him since then. One is his refusal to defend Democrats. He'll go on Sean Hannity's show, sit quietly by as Sean calls Democrats traitors and says that we want to lose the war on terror and then calls him a "great American. At best he'll throw out something like "I'm not sure that's true."
The final straw though was when Abu Ghraib broke. Joe defended it, in a sense, by saying that the terrorists never appologized for 9/11 and Daniel Perle. IOW, it was OK because we weren't as bad as the worst people on the planet. President Bush was far more direct and said it exactly right at the time. What happened there was unAmerican.
John McCain seems to be the opposite in those regards. Even when he dsagrees with his party he defends them. And the look of horror on his face after Abu Ghraib said all you needed to know.
At the same time though McCain seems to be all talk and no action. And these days he seems to flip-flop on an almost daily basis.
Comments :
I'd say this is pret
I'd say this is pretty accurate, though I think the political element isn't quite complete. They don't need to do this embodiment-of-chastisement to their own party in order to defend their seats, but they both dream of the Presidency. It seems that they are trying to attract the 'curse-on-both-their-houses' crowd by being seen cursing their own house.
In Lieberman's case, this is exarcerbated by being on the wrong side of a major Democratic issue, particularly the Iraqi occupation. Would you say this is mirrored by McCain's immigration stance with the Republican base?
I've not paid enough
I've not paid enough attention to Lieberman to notice enough of that defiance of his own party. Given this new understanding and comparison to McCain, I now understand how many democrats feel about him.
McCain damage to the GOP no doubt dwarfs Lieberman's efforts and for that reason I agree with Machiavel's conclusion. McCain understands some of it and has recently been courting the base with renewed vigor.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The issue with McCai
The issue with McCain predates the immigration flare-up by far. It seems to crop up at the worst times - tax cuts, "Gang of 14," etc etc.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
It seems like with M
It seems like with McCain it's been a lot more than just the immigration issue.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Sure, and Lieberman'
Sure, and Lieberman's issue predates the war (pushed to censure Clinton for instance)
I was just asking if it was death by a thousand cuts or if there was a specific BIG issue.
<i>McCain damage to
McCain damage to the GOP no doubt dwarfs Lieberman?s efforts
How so? Not saying the opposite mind you, but considering McCain is still a big draw at Republican fundraisers, I'd say there is at least some doubt..
As Leon points out b
As Leon points out below, those efforts did come at particularly bad times on issues ranging from tax cuts to torture to campaign finance reform to high profile efforts with Kennedy to Gang of 14 and most recently immigration. I am sure I am missing a few.
Most of the time it's his smiling, holier than though, mug denigrating other republicans while using liberal talking points on my tv screen that makes me promise to myself that I will never vote for him.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I've thought on many
I've thought on many occasions that this pair of manufactured public personas bely the realities. Inattentive Republican and Democratic voters both view them as positive, yet neither are who they are perceived to be.
Activists only have one vote, but the voters of AZ and CT have many and "maverick" and "moderate" media appearances hold the advantage of perception not reality.
McCain has been tryi
McCain has been trying to court the religious right lately, which had been a major hurdle against him. 2008 is still light years away in political terms. I really don't think McCain or Giuliani can get the nod though. I would guess someone more like Jeb Bush or Mike Huckabee.
McCain has historica
McCain has historically run to the fiscal side of the Republican conservatism, and when this administration has gone hog wild on spending and social issues its not a big surprise McCain has looked like a maverick.
But the immigration debate kicks the entire party in the belly. Republicans want to pander to big business AND their xenophobic small town constituency. And that's very hard to do when both want opposite things from the immigration debate. Why do you think Frist has been so schitzophrenic on the issue?
But McCain and Liber
But McCain and Liberman are generally moderate politicians. Check Liberman's voting record. Like Specter, the Republican "rebel" on the Judiciary committee, he talks big talk, but he never really breaks party ranks. McCain does actually vote against Republican social legislation and for the famous anti-torture bill, but he doesn't go much father than that when Bush po-po's the Senatorial check on Presidential power, and I've never seen McCain's defiance actually bring down a bill that wasn't doomed to failure anyway.
Machieval has a point. It's alot of big talk, but at the end of the day these are very mainstream politicians and they don't break ranks nearly as much as they appear to.
Actually, a large pa
Actually, a large part of the problem is that this is a sham issue - McCain is very talented at bringing the pork home to Arizona. The last guy to lead a fiscally conservative charge in the Senate was Tom Coburn. McCain was conspicuously absent from the floor votes on the Coburn amendments. Kyl wasn't, and voted for them. Kyl's record on fiscal conservatism is actually superior to McCain's, but he doesn't get as much attention because he doesn't go on all the TV shows to stab the Republican party in the eyes every month.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
There is one crucial
There is one crucial difference and it is to McCain's benefit. Unlike Lieberman, when McCain courts the media and goes onto media outlets, he is very circumspect as to how he speaks about the Republican party, itself and in general. While Lieberman has for most of his last 2 terms in office been the go to guy when the media wants a Democrat who is happy to trash his own party -- its principles and even its members --- on air and in print.
McCain much more than Lieberman is wont to observe Reagan's commandment -- that you don't speak ill of other Republicans. Joe Lieberman thinks that is his god given role -- to criticize his own party and have the media pat him on the back for it.
That reason is the one that Democrats despise him for, much more so than his stance on the war in Iraq.
Lieberman is a much
Lieberman is a much bigger party traitor than McCain.
While there was much smoke about McCain possibly being invited to join Kerry's ticket, there was never any fire there. Lieberman, OTOH, is openly considering the possibility of running as an independent and even has the DSCC considering backing him over the party's own nominee.
qui tacet consentire
I have wondered abou
I have wondered about that because I get the feeling that many Republicans feel otherwise. I'm never sure whether Rush Limbaugh represents the heart of the GOP or not, but I know he bashes McCain a lot as if he thought McCain were a Democrat. I'd be interested in hearing their take on this.
Sorry, guys not arou
Sorry, guys not around much today, probably like most of the others - father's day and all :) Will try to do a post dealing with the environment either later today or tomorrow.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Check the Murtha bit
Check the Murtha bit from Face the Nation on Crooks and Liars. We can always talk about cutting and running.
Now McCain is a libe
Now McCain is a liberal? How can we have a discussion when definitions are so nonexistent? There is nothing in his history or political philosophy that makes MaCain liberal other than the fact that at times he refuses to kowtow to the Bush-Cheney cabal. I find it truly amazing that supposedly intelligent educated self-identified conservatives can spout this claptrap with a straight face. The party operatives say these things realizing its BS and done for political purposes to tar an opponent. They do it for money. What in God's name is your excuse?
The stories about Mc
The stories about McCain being added to the Kerry ticket were disinformation concocted by party hacks to muddy the waters.
I spent a great deal
I spent a great deal of time during the primaries defending Lieberman. His Dem voting record was and is pretty reliable. I took a lot of crap for it but wasn't phazed by it.
Two things have turned me against him since then. One is his refusal to defend Democrats. He'll go on Sean Hannity's show, sit quietly by as Sean calls Democrats traitors and says that we want to lose the war on terror and then calls him a "great American. At best he'll throw out something like "I'm not sure that's true."
The final straw though was when Abu Ghraib broke. Joe defended it, in a sense, by saying that the terrorists never appologized for 9/11 and Daniel Perle. IOW, it was OK because we weren't as bad as the worst people on the planet. President Bush was far more direct and said it exactly right at the time. What happened there was unAmerican.
John McCain seems to be the opposite in those regards. Even when he dsagrees with his party he defends them. And the look of horror on his face after Abu Ghraib said all you needed to know.
At the same time though McCain seems to be all talk and no action. And these days he seems to flip-flop on an almost daily basis.
I've watched it. The
I've watched it. There is only so much frothing at the mouth idiocy I can take. I am just glad people like him are not in charge.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR