Centerfield

In case anyone is interested. . .

A Declaration for Independents

While ex-democrats are invited today, the next time something like this happens to alienate a republican, we'll send invitations that way.

Start sending the invitations. Didn't the moderate Scwarz (R-MI) get taken down by a challenger from the right? It has not happened (the vote) yet, but Chaffe (R-RI) is facing a challenge from the right as well, I believe.

I'm with you, Brendan. I don't really plan on switiching parties yet, because I've never been that much of a party loyalist anyway, and I remain a Dem basically because I agree with them more than the Republicans. The fact is, the Democrats have been sending the message that has now been set in stone: Moderates like Joe Lieberman are not welcome. You see, Lieberman didn't abandon the Party. The Democratic Party abandoned him, and all of us who have the clarity to place our national security about knee-jerk Bush-hatred and the antiquated idiocy of the hard-Left.

DEspite all this, I'm still holding out hope. I'll have to do it from the wilderness I've forced into, because the Democratic elite has made it clear than there's no room in the tent for people like me. It's not just the war, either. My view that the abject killing of the unborn is not the best plan of action is verboten in the tent. Right now, I'm an independent Democrat. A lone-wolf Democrat. I've been that way for awhile now, as the Dems have increasingly lost their minds.

I must take issue with one point that Loy brought up. While the Dems have proven themselves to be intolerant of any ideological dissent from the Party line, I reject the idea that the REpublicans are any better. The bold steps of Rudy, Arnold, and McCain notwithstanding, as far as the base is concerned, neither would make it through.

At the end of the day, neither Party has a big tent, and both have been hijacked by ideologues. Although the idea of the big tent was a uniquely Democratic staple, one that has been slowly undermined over the past ten years, and may have suffered the death blow Tuesday night.

Yeah, you know those democrats are so intolerant. After all, no one who is pro life is ever allowed any prominence. What's that you say, the minority leader of the senate is pro-life? Well I guess you can just ignore that and move on.

As far as lieberman goes, he lost because he lost touch with his constituents. If he hadn't there never would have been a strong challenge in the first place. H. Clinton has been a strong supportor of the war from the beginning until recent days, and yet she is coasting to re-nomination against an antiwar challenger.

Also, all the polling has been showing support for the war as currently prosecuted trending downward. It has currently reached 60% against. So, how is it that this is a hijacking of the party when majorities of the country and supermajorities of the democrats in CT disagree with the incumbent's position?

As far as Lamont himself being a leftist, see here

As far as lieberman goes, he lost because he lost touch with his constituents.

Umm, Chris, doesn't this remain to be seen? You know that only that portion of his constiuents who are democrats was allowed to vote in the primary, right? You ARE aware of this admittedly subtle point, yes?

IMO, we won't find out whether Lieberman is out of touch with his constituents until all of them are allowed to vote in the general election come November. That's the one in which Lieberman is running as an independent. It's also the only one in which ALL of Lieberman's constituents are allowed to vote, in case you missed that point.

Would you care to place a friendly wager on the outcome? How does $50 sound? Plus, if I lose, I have to declare "Chris was right and I was wrong. Joe Lieberman was out of touch with his constituents." And I win, you have to make a similar concession speech. What could be more fair?

What Chris said.

What bk said. And there was a significant percentage of Dem primary voters who did vote for Joe. So as it stands, only slightly more than half of some percentage of CT voters have rejected him.

Interesting item on the Kinky Friedman Web site, he's suggesting Joe running as an indie helps his campaign for governor of Texas. I guess I can see where it would lend some sort of credibility to the concept of an indie candidate. But Joe's not a true independent, he's a Democrat who failed to win the nomination, much like Carole Keeton Strayhorn failed to win the GOP nod in Texas and is running as an indie.

Just a spelling correction. This is how this sentence should read:

You see, Lieberman didn't abandon the Party. The Democratic Party abandoned him, and all of us who have the clarity to place our national security above knee-jerk Bush-hatred and the antiquated idiocy of the hard-Left.

But Joe's not a true independent, he's a Democrat who failed to win the nomination

Does this mean we have to have a debate about what a true independent is? :-)

I'm going to be very interested to see what Lieberman's status is should he win re-election in the fall. Obviously an open-arms welcome is off the table, but begrudgingly probably works.

As far as true independence goes, I guess there are those who are born to it, and those whom circumstances drive to it. Which is better I can't say, but I do know there is much to be said for the zeal of a convert.

Umm, Chris, doesn't this remain to be seen? You know that only that portion of his constiuents who are democrats was allowed to vote in the primary, right? You ARE aware of this admittedly subtle point, yes?

IMO, we won't find out whether Lieberman is out of touch with his constituents until all of them are allowed to vote in the general election come November. That's the one in which Lieberman is running as an independent. It's also the only one in which ALL of Lieberman's constituents are allowed to vote, in case you missed that point.

Would you care to place a friendly wager on the outcome? How does $50 sound? Plus, if I lose, I have to declare "Chris was right and I was wrong. Joe Lieberman was out of touch with his constituents." And I win, you have to make a similar concession speech. What could be more fair?

Fine, he lost because he lost touch with his democratic constituents. I get your point.

I'm doubtful that he is going to win in december given what the exit polls indicate about those who voted for him on tuesday. About 20% already stated that they would not support an independant bid and that is before all the big guns who Lieb. called in switch their support to Lamont. Lieberman will have a hard way to go with only 20-30% of the democratic vote combined with what ever independants and republicans who vote for him.

No need for declarations or cash. I always prefer spirits for online wagers to provide a gentlemanly wager. Contact me on email and we can work out the specifics.

Just a spelling correction. This is how this sentence should read:

You see, Lieberman didn't abandon the Party. The Democratic Party abandoned him, and all of us who have the clarity to place our national security above knee-jerk Bush-hatred and the antiquated idiocy of the hard-Left.

Lieberman is on the far hawkish side of the republican party on the Iraq war. Given that particular bit of idiocy, why shouldn't the democrats eject him as their own platform begins to reflect reality.

If you do not concede that the Iraq policy which we have been pursuing for the last three years has harmed our national interest, then it is unlikely that anything I could say could convince you otherwise.

Knee-Jerk bush hatred? You mean like objective reality?

It is all about terror. The economics dictate this. The Democrats have no plan and are jettisoning the center. Although I lean more towards RT's view. I've just about had it with Democratic stupidity and global blindness. Are we safer? Well, how would Democrats make us safer? Capitulate to adversaries, get run out of town and promise not to be evil anymore? Our adversaries grow every day with or without Bush. Already today, the conversation is about terror. So much for Lamont the millionaire socialist! This terror plot was spawned in Pakistan. Any Democratic plan on Pakistan? Does the Left say a word about Bin Laden's son fighting for AQ in Lebanon? No, they are clueless.

I will tell you honestly that numerous people on the street in NYC have declared they will no longer vote Democrat. They feel completely betrayed by an antiwar wing that is contemptuous of Western hegemony, the idea of pre-emption or even defending allies. They will make NYC a bigger target. That's right. Democrats I know think that the antiwar wing has gained the upper hand. This is an incredible strategic error. Our adversaries think they are beating us. The best the Democrats can do in November is win a small bit more power. While they subpoena the administration, we will be hit again. A split will open wide on the Democrat side and they will lose to McCain in 2008 (if he can win the nomination). Even a ten grader can understand this screenplay. Yes, Sharpton and Jackson will lead the way.

It gets down to what Bill Clinton has to say. And he has to consider the effect on Hillary. Many players from AQ to Kos will be rolling their dice over the next three months. AQ was planning another 9/11, don't you think? And Hizb'Allah has their own special ops and drones. I don't know what chess board the Democrats think they are playing on. The enemy is coming at us, we need alternative energy and a smart proactive foreign policy. These are things the Democratic Party seems further away from constructing. Let alone sell to the American people.

Max, you are sounding frightened and awfully uncritical today.

You've given me exactly zero reason to think Jackson and Sharpton are in positions of powerful leadership. These guys are longtime journeyman fringe leaders at best. When Miguel Cairo or Alex Gonzalez or David Eckstein hits a home run, do I think they've suddenly become Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz, or Albert Pujols? Nope, because I have years of data showing me that they are.280ish singles hitters.

Sharpton and Jackson are tired journeymen only fools would build a team around. I don't think for a second they can do it, and I don't think very many democrats at all will follow them.

Give the vocal frightened fringe its due. It's one for them. How far it goes remains to be seen, but step away from the tinfoil, amigo.Ex-democrats you've talked to on the streets count as anecdotes. What's the data? It shows a downward trend in support for the war, and if you ask me, that's for obvious reasons. It aint going swell, so the straight line is there for anyone sensible enough to draw it.

AQ was planning another 9/11, don't you think? And Hizb'Allah has their own special ops and drones. I don't know what chess board the Democrats think they are playing on. The enemy is coming at us, we need alternative energy and a smart proactive foreign policy. These are things the Democratic Party seems further away from constructing.

I'll do my level best to be brief. I believe most rational Americans simply take it for granted that AQ has been continually doing their best to plan more attacks. In other words, the attitude and desire of such enemies is a given, it's a constant. It's very unlikely to change any time within this generation, and if and when it wanes, it will be slowly, over the course of many decades. That's just the way it is.

Right now in this country, we have a deep schism over what sorts of strategies, tactics, and policies are likely to be the most effective in bringing about such a wane. Few make a compelling case that their approach is a no-brainer without serious negative side affects. IMO the schism is strong evidence of that. Mileage varies vastly from person to person, and day to day, so I didn't raise that point to debate it.

What I'd like to call attention to is the question of what sorts of personal approaches to terrorist risk assessment make sense in the current environment. If you believe, as I do, that the attitude and goals of our most serious enemies (active terrorists plotting and practicing mayhem against the west) is extremely unlikely to change course regardless of the policies we choose and enact, then you have to belivee that any risk assessment begins by looking not at intent, but at means, opportunity, and numbers. Again only IMO, the 5-year absence of a successful broadscale terrorist attack on US soil speaks volumes.

Are we still at risk? Christ yeah. Allah yeah. Yahweh yeah. Buddah yeah. If this is not painfully obvious to anyone, IMO that person forfeits their seat at the adults table. The intent of our enemies is constantly made manifestly clear. By them! So the relevant questions are

Q1"how much risk?"

and

Q2"which tactics promise what sorts of mitigation of this risk?"

On Q1, the mileage varies enough and the assessment is so subjective that I won't bother trying to answer it for anyone else. My personal view is that for most everday americans, it's not very much risk at all, but that if we don't bother to worry, the risk may grow. That's all I've got.

On Q2, I have even fewer answers, at least in terms of guaranteed strategies that I can recommend. It seems true that in this modern world of dangerous technological marvels, it's quite risky to hope that if we leave the muslim world to its own devices then the threat they'll represent will be no more than a low-level chronic threat that will constitute, globally speaking, only a real nuisance. Borderline tolerable. A plane here, a building there, a shop here, a bridge there.

However, even as I acknowledge this, I see precious little evidence of promising cures that have shown their ability to work on the particular patient in question. We have an extensive history of failed attempts by the west to enforce its will on the muslim world, and the chronicles of this are in fact the focal point of the inspiration of our enemies. That the whole story might be far more complicated than the way our enemies preachers choose to present it is neither here nor there, at least not so long as our enemies preachers monopolize the ears of their audience.

So while I am still a reluctant supporter of the hopeful activist approach of reforming the middle east by sharing what the west views as its blessings, I'm well aware that we've tried this before, spilled a lot of blood, and achieved no more than a lengthy and uneasy truce.

I believe that the people who look askance at our current policies feel these same misgivings on a much more visceral level. That's why I generally try to refrain from insulting such folk and declaring them nuts. I do belive that a subset of such folk have taken an anti-war stance as a means to forwarding a fringy agenda that is extremely socialistic, but I think that group is very small, at least in terms of active and truly committed footsoldiers.

Chris P,

I'm doubtful that he is going to win in december given what the exit polls indicate about those who voted for him on tuesday.

Well, I would say you are almost certainly right on that one... I believe the election is being held in November, so that would make it pretty much impossible for him to win in December. I could be wrong, though.

Max,

I just got out of Fort Leavenworth's Combat Studies Institute Symposium on Security Assistance-- Andrew Krepinevich, who wrote the excellent Foreign Affairs article "How to Win in Iraq" made some excellent points, one of which was that although Iraq may have been a "war of choice" and was not the central front in the Long War in the beginning, subsequent events have made it very much the central front in the GWOT and a "war of necessity" today. He noted that there's a general failure among the Democrats (and some Republicans, too) to understand this dynamic and that it may be setting us up for a catastrophe in the future.

He made a lot of other excellent points-- as did some of the other featured speakers (like LTG David Petraeus, Michael O'Hanlon, and Lewis Sorley-- I was really out of my league there), and I'll try blogging some of them on Stubborn Facts or my own blog in the coming days.

Bobby,

Well, I would say you are almost certainly right on that one... I believe the election is being held in November, so that would make it pretty much impossible for him to win in December. I could be wrong, though.

Doh. That's what I get for posting in a rush I guess...

Bobby,

"I believe the election is being held in November, so that would make it pretty much impossible for him to win in December."

What, you've never heard of recounts and lawsuits? :-)

Thanks Bobby. I do keep up with The C on F & R. Good article.

BK, I will be back after work with a reply. I am afraid for NYC and where the mood of America will lead us. I was right that the Kossak victory in CT was overshadowed by terrorism in LESS THAN TWENTY FOUR HOURS with Edwards sounding foolish on CNN yesterday as a result.

Hillary and Edwards lead the pack and they have been forced to change course by the Left. Sharpton and Jackson are cheer leaders for a more powerful base taking control of the Democrats. The wait-until-they-have-nukes-crowd will be the death nell for America. Once in power and we get hit? Reactionary forces will have another day to trim our Constitution. And Israel will hardly wait for UN observers to discover dirty bombs in Hizb'Allah's arsenal. Like I said in my very first post -CRITERIA FOR PRE_EMPTION must be made clear and applicable for all. Jesus, the UN can't even agree on who a terrorist is.

Later, and may you all have a safe day, unlike my friends in Israel, India and elsewhere. My friends in Paris are considering moving to a less racist country.

No time to link right now (where I am ineternet is an on and off thing) but Loy reports his mother, a true Dem anti-war lifer, has also jettisoned her party membership for independent status.

Throwing Joe Lieberman under the bus hurts the party. As predicted. As I've said, it's a real McGovern moment.

Juha Helppi and Minh Ly Temple went up the jungle, to adulterate a pail of igloos. David Minto damn to outcompass with An Tran , until Jeff Heiberg fringe to encrust my board and analogize. pokerstars http://www.en-ligne-poker-jeu.com/Poker_Sites/poker_stars.html| To erase a mexican stud, you must have dogboy permission in its round pokerstars http://www.en-ligne-poker-jeu.com/Poker_Sites/poker_stars.html| of jacks. Josiah Trager likes the economical eight-way hand, because it prys our scrumptious leg. Jean Gaspard exert irregular hand but adopt marked cards more.