Reality Based Partisanship
by Mark Adams
Whether you're a moderate triangulator who prefers to be called "progressive" instead of "liberal," a neo-con who claims to "defend the liberal tradition," or just an old fashioned lefty peacenick who's into social justice and still wears the liberal moniker proudly -- like me -- you have to agree that a partisan Democrat calling another Democrat: Joe Lieberman's protege, is a devastating slam.
Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake is one such Proud Partisan:
One of the most pernicious and popular soundbites being exploited these days is the denigration of ‘partisanship.’ When it comes out of the mouths of Republicans who perfected the art of soulless political grandstanding in the 90s, it’s hard enough to take. It’s even tougher to stomach when it comes from George Bush with his thorough devotion to Karl Rove (who needs no better reason to sabotage national security and flagrantly violate the law than the fact that someone is a Democrat). Then there are the useful idiots like Sam Waterston and the Unity ‘08 nuts who really just don’t know what they’re talking about.
But people like Joe Lieberman (and his protege Barack Obama) who consistently indulge this frame ought to know that sometimes the right thing to do is to acknowledge that the other side cannot be bargained with, that no negotiation is possible, that what you’re up against is just wrong and it’s incumbent upon people of conscience to draw a line in the sand and say ‘enough.’ That too is partisanship, and they need to stop decrying it just because it focus groups well with people sick of the GOP and their bully tactics. Partisanship in fact has a glorious history.
To which I offer my own quote from another proud partisan...
But I -- if you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change?
And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't.
I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.
Comments
Barack Obama -- protege of Joe Lieberman.
It's an interesting angle.
True: Obama doesn't say the word "Democrat" or "Democratic" as much as his (Democratic) rivals.
But to say that this makes him a protege of (Republican) Joe Lieberman is preposterous.
Whether by design or coincidence, the lack of the partisan vocabulary lends credence to his call for One America (not Two, as Edwards so famously said during the 2004 campaign).
Yes, yes, I know: a good politician gathers support by identifying "us" versus "them." But Obama's appeal (whether ultimately successful or not) doesn't hinge on that.
P.S. I wrote a piece back in early 2003 where I said only Lieberman had a real shot at outflanking Bush by becoming tougher on terror than the president. Had he done that, had he outflanked him (instead of landing squarely in Bush's lap like a ventriloquist's dummy) he might have gone further during that campaign, if (for no other reason) than to be a clear choice versus Howard Dean.
But no. He smooched Bush instead of slapping him.
To say that Obama is doing the same thing is just...wrong.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan | July 26, 2007 08:28 AM
Barack Obama is no Joe Lieberman. But Mark and Jane have a point. To ignore the partisanship that Republicans have created is to facilitate the conservative movement and every disgusting thing it represents.
John Edwards: +2
Posted by: shep | July 26, 2007 10:04 AM