TCS Daily


One Party America?

By Richard H. Shriver - August 7, 2006 12:00 AM

I spent a good portion of my life working to eliminate or replace one-party systems in the world. So it is with mixed emotions I watch the Democratic Party continue to lop off its nose in order to spite its face.

Is it too soon to predict the result will be a one-party system in the US? Not if you are following political events in Connecticut.

The most current evidence of the Democratic Party's self-destruction is the Democratic primary race for the US Senate in Connecticut, pitting 3-term veteran Joseph Lieberman against antiwar candidate Ned Lamont.

According to local polls, Lamont will win the primary forcing into play Lieberman's defensive move of forming his own party to be on the ballot one way or another in November. The token Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, will garner 8% - 15% in the general election, and for a variety of reasons, may even withdraw; Lieberman is expected to win in a three-way (and more-so in a two-way) vote in November, thus depriving the Democrats of an important seat in the Senate.

Lieberman will win because Republicans will vote for this Democrat in droves. Republicans see Lieberman as a statesman, whether or not one agrees with all of his votes. Democrats are turning their backs on one of their few stars. History may elevate Lieberman to the status of "Great American", an elected official who has been remarkably true to his principles and who has a track record of sponsoring, advocating and voting for sensible, responsible US policies on issues that really matter, like national security.

Lamont, on the other hand, is an American made rich via inheritance who, like Sen. Edward Kennedy and some other leaders of the Democratic Party, has turned his back on some of the very institutions that helped make his father (and him) rich in the first place, such as low taxes and a strong defense policy. While his backers claim he is a successful businessman, he will not release his tax returns so there is no way to back up this claim. Meanwhile, Lamont has embarked on futile effort to make a single-issue campaign into a multi-issue campaign by paying lip service to a panoply of liberal causes. This delights his immediate followers and the liberal fringe, but dismays some political realists -- including Bill Clinton who is supporting Lieberman.

When Lieberman first ran for the US Senate against incumbent Republican Lowell Weicker, Republicans remembered Weicker's over-zealous, grandstanding treatment of Richard Nixon as a member of the Watergate Committee in 1974. Many Republicans, therefore, voted for Lieberman, the Democrat, in 1988, in another one-issue election.

Ironically, two years later, Weicker ran as an independent, as Lieberman is now likely to do, for governor of Connecticut, and won. Weicker campaigned against introducing an income tax in the state. A nanosecond after being elected governor, however, he reneged and instituted a state income tax which has since helped make Connecticut one of the most expensive states in the country in which to live and earning the distrust of all Connecticut voters.

Guess who is supporting Ned Lamont today? Lowell Weicker. This time his considerable energies and influence are being used to wreck the Democratic Party instead of the Republican Party.

Mr. Shriver is Provost Emeritus, European College of Liberal Arts, Berlin. He served in President Ford's Defense Department and was Assistant Secretary of Treasury under President Reagan. He has been a resident of Connecticut since 1986. He blogs at SharpandSound.com.

Categories:

182 Comments

The Republicans are handing moderate Democrats an opportunity a mile-wide to stage a comeback.
The left has been pretty intent on sinking their own ship since well before the war in Iraq. Hillarycare, the campaign of Al "Please Oil This Robot With Organically Grown Soy-Products" Gore, opposition to tax cuts and more. However, in the run up to the war and afterwards, they have shown their true colors: The left are a bunch of cheese-eating surrendermonkeys who are willing to provide aid and comfort to this nation's enemies at the drop of a hat. That, along with Christianity, is the only thing that has saved the Republican Party from utter irrelevance.

The RNC is leaping to define the Republican Party as the place for the "Diet Democrat." Ever since I heard Ed Gillespie announce on the Rush Limabugh show that the Republicans were going to be the party of "less government" rather than limited government, I have wonder what genius thought this was going to attract votes. The biggest electoral victories since FDR and George Washington were won by Ronald Reagan. Now, Republicans seek to gain votes by providing the same thing as the Democrats, but in smaller amounts.

The Democratic base, in my experience, consists of three groups:

1) The Benefits Voter: Welfare recipients who want more cash.

2) The Compassion Voter: People who want to use other people's money to finance ways to make life better for the poor, the disadvantaged, whales and trees, etc. They vote a certain way primarily based on who promises to do the nicer (translation: more expensive,) things for the brown people of the world.

3) The Blame America First Voter: People who treat the statements of Hezbollah as if they are gospel truth and believe that people trying to kill terrorists are responsible for the hostages the terrorists put in their way. In other words, many of the more vocal people in this forum.

Groups 1 and 2 will never vote for a Diet Democrat because they know that a Democrat Classic will spend more than even a Diet Democrat. Group 3 is unlikely to even consider voting for anybody from the Republican Party unless they call the President "Hitler" at least five or six times at marches featuring Cindy Sheehan.

The Democratic Party is going to have to fight a serious battle between Lieberman/Zell Miller/Robert Byrd-type America-lovers and Lamont/Pelosi/Reed/Kennedy /Biden-type America-haters. If the haters win, the Democratic Party is finished. If the America-lovers win, the Republicans are going to have to have a serious battle for the sould of their Party as the Democrats resume winning elections. Either way, the Republicans are heading towards a similar faceoff between libertarians, conservatives and Diet Democrats.

Kennedy hasn't turned back on corruption
"has turned his back on some of the very institutions that helped make his father (and him) rich in the first place,"

Joe Kennedy and the Delano family (FDR) got rich running booze in the USA and opium in China (Delano).

Ted Kennedy today hasn't turned his back on what made his family rich, because it was not hard work and low taxes.

Kennedy did turn his back on a part of what made his family rich...
Now he buys his booze legally.

Robert Byrd
I was a little surprised to see you putting Robert Byrd in the company of the righteous. It's true, in his youth he did get a little cozy with the KKK. But that was just a phase, and he outgrew it.

More recently we've seen this Robert Byrd:

http://www.prorev.com/byrdtalk.htm

And I have to tell you-- he doesn't sound like your kind of guy.

Byrd
Senator Byrd was a big wheel in the KKK, not "a little cozy". If prerev.com is any evidence, he hasn't changed much. I looked and half of it is anti-Semitic rants. I hope you are slandering the Senator.

Another Vietnam
The McGovernite wing gained the upper hand in the Democratic party late in teh Vietnam war and earned the party a reputation they were beginning to get past. The perception that they are "soft on defense", cozy with our enemies, unpatriotic and often dowmright disloyal was earned in the 70's and is coming back with a vengeance.

I expect they'll need to lose a couple more elections before there is change. Either the party changes or it will be replaced by a new one as the Whigs were replaced by the Republicans.

Every Democrat becomes a hawk at election time.
The speech you posted is at least four years old. (Sen. Sheets notes that the Bush Administration has been in power for two years.) It is consistent with his past statements and speeches, but not consistent with his election-year behavior.

Recently, he refused to back an amendment offered by Sen. Kerry calling for a pullout of American troops in Iraq by January of next year. He is still pretty claerly against the war, but the fact that he has spoken out against a timetable puts him in the "hawk" category on the Democrat side of the aisle.

Ha! The democrats win every policy battle and still whine...
.. and whine. Bush governs more like a democrats than Repubs of the past. Goldwater wanted to make SS optional Bush made a great expansion of Medicare. Even the Iraq: the war was won in 2 weeks now we are nation building. Attempting to build democracy was the dems thing in the 1960s the repubs where somewhat isolationists and for stability over democracy.

HA HA HA

The Dems will not go away. BTW most Mexican immigrants vote dem. Demographics favor the dems. The dems policies for the country may be stupid but that does not mean that their politicians are stupid, they know how to get votes. They get then the simple way they by them with the votes of the minority rich.

PubliusJr what about Pro war Hillary...
...what are your thoughts. She a portrays herself as Pro America very pro welfare. Is that not what the average Joe wants more goodies and patriotism.


A little cozy in his youth? Hypocrisy Alert!
Interesting how forgiving Roy is for an old hand in the heavy-lifting of the tax and spend brigades, reducing the former office holder in the Klan (who buy the way showed hasn't exactly been completely freed of his youthful indiscretions in a somewhat embarrasing televised lapsus lingua not that many years back), one wonders if Roy was so dismissive of Trent Lott's party favor praises of Strom Thurmond's presidential aspirations a few years a few years ago, or was he among those who wanted Lott deposed, disbarred and decapitated?

Political hack
What a fat mess of political hackery. Democrats of Connecticut have lost faith in Lieberman not because he supported the war, other Dems support it without getting into primary trouble, but because he is a shill for Bush. In the past year he's been acting more like a Republican than a Democrat. Think Zell Miller.

I doubt the Democrats will dissappear right away. They are scheduled to retake the House in November.

It is not clear Lieberman will win as an independent. If he runs, his support from Dems will drop from 40% to near zero.

What does it say about Lamont that Weicker supports him? Remember that even Goldwater supported the occaisonal Democrat late in life when the Republicans had become corrupt.

Pretty funny LG
No one I've heard is predicting the dems are going to take back th house. They will make some significant gains for sure. Still, It is somewhere between possible and unlikely they will win the seats necessary to take control. Several close races for Republican seats are still just that, close. Many vunerable Republicians aren't proving to be as easy to unseat as expected. Also, some Democrats are proving to be in tougher fights than previously anticipated.

It is also considered pretty clear (from every political hack I've heard on the issue) that Liberman "probably" will win if he runs as an independent. It will be a tough race, but he will get all the Republican vote if the Republican candidate drops out. That should make him all but a shoe -in.

The picture isn't all the rosey for either party and I wouldn't be surprised if absolute gridlock ensues.

The Democrats haven't been a serious party for years.
Powerfull, yes. Serious, no.

LBJ was the last time they nominated a serious candidate.

Even if the Democrats completely self destruct
we won't have a one party state for long.
The Greens and Libertarians would fight it out to determine who would replace the Democrats as the new second party.

I personally believe the Libertarians would have a better chance. They have the posibility of picking up some disaffected Republicans as well as former Democrats. The Greens only have a shot at former Democrats.

If he hates jews, then he must be a good guy
according to roy

not very pro-war
she hasn't disavowed her vote to authorize the war, but that is the only thing pro-war about her.

So accurate.
I was a democrat until Bill and Monica. Before that I was willing to overlook Paula Jones and the "Slick Willie" nickname, but the way he destroyed the dignity of the American presidency just shook me off the Democrats' roster.

I would vote for a Joe Lieberman, not a John McCain. President Bush is a liberal Republican. If I'm going to vote conservative, let it be a principled one with a conservative vision. Same with the Dems.

interesting
the Democrats are only interested in appearting tough on defense, during a time when the US had no (acknowledged) international enemies.

shill for Bush = Doesn't declar Bush to be worse than Hitler at every opportunity.
...

Will Rogers
One time, the great American commentator and satirist Will Rogers was asked to which political party be belonged.

His answer: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

GO JOE!!!

anti-semitic rants???
What are you talking about??

Conservative Fantasy
This entire discussion is taking place in some strange Conservative Fantasyland. The Democrats are never going away. Joe Lieberman has many prominent Democrats promoting him, such as Bill & Hillary, Barbara Boxer, etcetera. But he has been the most pro-war Democrat and his political viewpoint on the Middle East is not very far removed from Bush. His other Conservative views have been a strength in getting elected and reaching across the aisle as he claims, but his support for Bush & the war is too much to stomach for most real Democrats. Most Democrats realize the war was a mistake from the get-go. His running as an Independent, if that is what happens, will be a betrayal and will demonstrate his desperation for power.

ps
If I voted Democrat, it would take someone willing to stand up for this country and its security. It would be someone with a strongly-stated solution I thought would work.

I don't want to vote Dem because of gay marriage. I've come to the conclusion that something must be done to give gay people their place in the sun. I don't want to do what the gay lobby says I must do, which is redefine marriage. I need time, and if they won't give me time, I'll fight them and vote them down every time.

forecasts
In the last week I've read several reports that predict the Dems might retake both the House and Senate this Nov.

These reports weren't from the usual Democratic flacks either. If Bush doesn't stop going out of his way to insult his base, he's going to be in a lot of trouble.

One Party America
The bigger, though ignored story about the Leiberman race in CT is that a win for Lamont in the primary and more so the election will spell the beginning of the end of Democratic Party's support of Israel. As it is, the left wing of the party, which he represents with glee, is increasingly contemptuous of Israel, whose creation they now believe was a mistake. Inevitably, and soon, they will call for its reversal, as did one of their intellectuals recently in the New York Review. The left wing of the Democratic Party is the vanguard of another generation that will rationalize another diaspora of Jews.

Byrd the racist?
Your comments make me wonder why it is, then, that you put Byrd in your "good guys" column. He is, after all, one of our most eloquent senators in opposition to the war.

Joe Biden, on the other hand, makes your enemies list despite the fact that he's always favored the war. Odd.

As I admire both men, what category would that put me in?

cheese -eating supermonkeys - I love it! 3 cheers for Hezbollah!
What a great conversation so far. The dimwitted wax with themselves about their own glory, or rather, since Republicans have nothing to offer, they attack anything that is not their color. I love it when deluded people define things they dislike and spew smug like a PETA diehard. You guys would be PETA members if you weren't so superior.

I love your 3 types of the Democratic base Publius. I can't decide if you're right or not. Maybe so, it would mean the Democratic base is pretty small. Which I hope it is, the entire country can use less extremism. We need to wake people up from this fog of fear covering the land, get back to moderate liberalism like the Founders intended.

Thats great to see someone say Christianity is one of the only things saving the Republican party from utter irrelevance. Willful ignorance begets corruption. So it was said in the book of Julius, section II, verse 3.

One part you're totally wrong on though Publius. You grouped the next President of the US with the foolish current leadership of the Democrats. Pelosi, Reed and Kennedy got nothing compared to our next President - Joe Biden. The fact you grouped him with them shows your ignorance. Is he an America-hater because he criticizes Bush? I would argue, and likely win, that people who like Bush are the America-haters. But I already know you're too deluded to even accept such a thought. You're gripped with fear. Oooooohh, the scary terrorists are going to get you...


This article is disappointing too. The author is actually stating the Democratic Party is self-destructing because Connecticut Demos don't want a conservative to represent them. I'll give you this, you have a good imagination. Even to think Republicans will vote for a Democrat in droves is delusional, even if it is Lieberman. He'd have to move to Israel before he could get Republican votes. But I understand, this article isn't for people like me who think for themselves. Its cheerleading, its for the fans, people who picked their team and don't have to think anymore. The Founders would be so proud. NOT!


One more thought, I imagine you guys will bash me for being a critical thinker, you'll say I'm just another delusional Democrat, lets see if you can put your money where your mouth is: I'll gladly criticize specific Democrats, starting with Pelosi and Reed. Are there any Republicans worthy of criticism, other than the ones that are currently indicted or in jail? Can you name 3? (I'm automatically including McCain in those 3, he is already extremists' favorite whipping boy.)

I've read some of those reports
But the basic idea I get from them is "It could happen if…", not one I've read says it is a given. In fact, there are still some Republicans who think they can yet make gains in both houses (highly unlikely, but it could happen if…).
Most of the political analysts I've read and heard are saying it will be significant gains by Dems in both houses, but not likely enough to take control of either. But everyone seems to be hedging right now. Most of the races are still too close to call at this point.

The timetable for withdrawal
I don't think you can equate being against a timetable for withdrawal and being a hawk. The issue is, where do we go from here. There are legitimately two sides at least to this question, and to clearly admit utter failure on the part of the United States would be anathema to most politicians.

I would generally put him in agreement with the antiwar crowd. On a disengagement timetable he is I think in agreement with Joe Biden. Yet Biden is a proponent of fighting the war intelligently. Where can one draw the lines between them?

And I'd be surprised if you didn't remember the day Byrd gave that speech. It was very big in the news cycle.

Yes HA HA HA
And the joke is on you. Keep paying those high taxes, your children will thank you when they compete with the mexicans for the mcdonalds jobs.

And that is the only place democrats can get votes. To cater and fool the unitelligent public. Go after the extreme lower class and hope to allow criminals to vote. That is just want we want, criminals deciding our laws and that will make your children alot safer. Yeh for Hillary!!

Afterall how can Hillary expect to win anything without the criminal and welfare vote? Yes let's get the whole country on welfare and import millions more on welfare.

That will solve all the country's problems. But she will act like a queen and sure will spend the federal money on herself like one.


The democrats can't even keep it's citzens in the blue states beside corporations as it has been evident for years now. Wonder why? And you clowns vote for them.

must have missed this one
Like when Cliton reduced 7-9 divisions of the Armed Forces?

I see the democratic party dividing. The ultra-liberal/socialist party with the clitons/shummer/kennedy team losing ground and if it does not split then we will have more independents and the dems can buy their newspapers too to sway the public.

Afterall these states are so expensive now in cost of living corporations are moving out continually along with it's employees.

Yes that is the democratic party and way. push the small guys out of their own hometowns and force them to either live in like a lower class to pay the exhoborant property taxes and a ca-zillion other taxes, or move.

Everyone that left CA, MA, CT, or NY have never looked back. I hear it everyday, "oh I moved here since I want my children to have a better life, less crime, etc". Have to move to a red state for that.

Wonder what is going to happen after they screw up all the red states too? Will there be a backlash against the dem-liberals then when they can't generate enough taxes then?

No they will get the money for their limos and cavier from the feds.



The question was when it was said
If in 2002, Byrd had made remarks about the KKK having had the right ideas, he'd have been hit as hard as Lott, or even harder, given his past.

Go Will Rogers
That is what I'm talking about. Will Roger's answer is very wise.

And kgkphd presents it as criticism. That is a clue to the problem with conservatives. Sheep.

Interesting
The democrats owns all the big media outlets, so I am not sure what spin they will put on this. It is difficult to think that the big media will allow their party to diminish.

The libertarians have a good chance at gaining both from the dems and repubs, as the repubs move left to attempt to gain these lower class votes.

The dem-left has moved so far left, that they are out of mainstream now. Unless you count all the unemployed and criminals as mainstream which they are counting on since the businessman is too smart for their politics. Did Hillary ever get the criminals the right to vote?

But you do have all those tree-huggers and young voters that are so easy to fool as well. Just give them a bone and you get their votes.



Trent, Strom and Bobby
I'm glad you appreciate my penchant for understatement.

BobJone's Diary
You have to love the irony of an idiot who rails against the smugness and delusion of the other posters with smugness and delusion.

While I wish I could debunk your facts I could not since you have used none. Is this what qualifies for being a "critical thinker" in your fevered mind?

Joe Biden the next President? Damn! I wish my crack dealer had the goods yours obviously has. Let us go through some of your better lines:

>"Oooooohh, the scary terrorists are going to get you..."

This one is great. It would seem that terrorist threat that Clinton, Albright, Gore, and the rest of the Democrats were talking about when Bubba was in office have gone away.

Yep Bobby, those Islamofascists don't really hate you and they have no goal outside of the Middle East. I am sure you will be the first to condemn Bush if another attack strikes the US. How infantile.

>"The author is actually stating the Democratic Party is self-destructing because Connecticut Demos don't want a conservative to represent them."

Liberman has a 95+% record of voting along with his Democratic counterparts. The reason the Democratic party will fall apart is that they are deluded, as you are, to believe that their core constituency is the DailyKos and MoveOn. Neither of which have helped any Democrat get elected yet. This is definitely driving away many a moderate Democrat.

>"Even to think Republicans will vote for a Democrat in droves is delusional, even if it is Lieberman."

If he is an Independent they will. I know I would in that particular race since he is the best candidate.

>"He'd have to move to Israel before he could get Republican votes."

Ah. Like most leftists you have a penchant for tip-toeing the anti-Semetic line. Good job.

>"But I understand, this article isn't for people like me who think for themselves."

Considering your adoption of almost every Democratic talking point I would hardly consider you as one who thinks for themselves. It has already been done for you. Go to DailyKos and get your marching orders.

>"The Founders would be so proud. NOT!"

Did you write this from the playground?

>"I'll gladly criticize specific Democrats, starting with Pelosi and Reed. Are there any Republicans worthy of criticism, other than the ones that are currently indicted or in jail? Can you name 3?"

I can name a Democrat who had $90,000 in his freezer. How about a Democrat who was the subject of Abscam who said he wouldn't take a bribe now but would consider it later. How about an old KKK-member? Better yet, how about one who stood by her man while he abused and raped numerous women while selling military technology to China for campaign contributions?

But yes, I can name more than three Republicans who deserve criticism. They are politicians after all. I only vote Republican because the Democrats are a far worse alternative. They are consumed with hate because the man they believe is stupid has continuously beat the crap out of them at the polls. People so consumed rarely make good judgements.

Lieberman is one of the few who has stood by his choices no matter which way the wind blew. He didn't hide behind the Democrats facade of unintentional ignorance. Such virtue rarely goes unpunished and the Democrats are showing their true colors by sacrificing him to the extreme leftists.

To see sheep...
one merely has to look at which party is sacrificing one of its elder statesmen for the sake of differences on a single issue. Nothing like feeding on your own.

We have a one party system
Contract With America demonstrated that we have a one party system. The R's had a majority in both houses and could have passed a bill for every plank but didn't. The same people own and control both parties. Anyone crosses them gets blown away.

LBJ? Slimiest president of all times.

The more likely scenario
Once the Dems self-desctruct, the Republicans will split into two parties: one "anti-statism" wing, "JFK Democrat" wing, people who left the Democrat party over the last 40 years. It will be the latter who will become the dominant party.

I said they liked to APPEAR tough. I didn't say they actually acted tough.
For liberals, appearances and issue statements are all that matter.

I may not benefit you or me or the country but...
'Yes let's get the whole country on welfare and import millions more on welfare. '

It sure will benefit the Polititcians. Almost of all of our elderly are on welfare already and Bush knowing this increased the pay off with free drugs to the elderly (he knows who votes). In my state the majority voted more money for everyone’s favorite welfare program the government schools, with a little welfare daycare mixed in. The Bush boys are not conservatives but big spending democrat want to be’s.

90+ days out, nothings a given.
Huge swings in either direction are still possible, depending on events.

passing bills
Republicans are not monolithic, they still have planty of RINO's in their midst.

It also takes 60 votes to pass anything controversial in the Senate, and the Republican's do not have 60 seats in the Senate (even before subtracting the RINO's).

most democrats believe all war is a mistake
which is why they will continue to lose.

big media outlets
matter less and less with each passing year.

10 years ago, Dan Rather would have gotten away with his faked memos.

oho! We are sheep.
We disagree with bojo and we're sheep. Baa.

Byrd
I don't have a good guys column nor an enemies list. You invented that in your fevered imagination. I think it's time for more of your medication.

prerev.com
Here are some of the article titles:

"The case for boycotting Israel", "Israel destroying Lebanon, not Hizbollah", "Israel Looking to Annex Part of Lebannon?" Some other fun ones are "Population's Loss is Earths Gain" and "A Thinker's Guide to Conspiracy Theories".

LOL

And Byrd wrote those articles??
I mean, he's responsible for his own words, not every other word on the website.

Why so much hatred??
Is there some reasons why Americans can't disagree about politics without calling each other names?

I mean, lots of Democrats don't think that Lieberman's views represent them. This is the way democracy is supposed to work. And if people aren't democrats, why is what Democrats decide such a big deal to them? And why should democrats assume that Republicans who criticize the decsiions have the best interests of Democrats at heart?

TCS Daily Archives