Thursday, August 10, 2006

Party First?

In the wake of the Primary-Night Partisan Massacre, some good comments from Lieberman and others about the state of partisanship in America and the state of the two-party system. Lieberman said yesterday on the "Today Show" "I think it's time for somebody to break through the dominance of both parties by the margins of the parties, which happens in primaries. I think it's time for somebody to break through and say, 'Hey, let's cut out the partisan nonsense'. Yes I'm a proud Democrat, but I'm more devoted to my state and my country than I am to my party. And the parties today are getting in the way of our government doing for our people what they need their government to do."

In comments endorsing Lieberman's independent bid, NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg added "This country needs nonpartisan elected officials who think that doing the right thing for the public is more important than supporting some party. The partisan process has just hamstrung Washington; it’s paralyzed government at all different levels," he added - and asked why if he felt that way he hadn't dropped his party affiliation, Bloomberg said there's no reason to, "at the moment." The mayor offered to campaign with Lieberman before the general election. Other Republicans, including Rep. Chris Shays, have also offered their support to Lieberman's independent bid.

Lieberman, Bloomberg, and Shays are right. Party can't be the first priority of our elected leaders - results must be.


At 10:55 AM, Blogger The Cynical Liberal said...

I'm more a fan of Samantha Bee. "Let me try an analogy for you, Jon. We don't want to go out with you anymore, Joe Lieberman! This isn't loyalty. It's stalking."

Or something like that.

At 1:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry but this has been the most partisan administration in history. The Dems MUST unite and oppose vigorsly just to restore balance. Then we can start talking bipartisanship.

At 11:26 PM, Blogger coachhollywood67 said...

Oppose "vigorsly"? Which party is "vigorsly" running for? Seriously, combating right wing Republican partisanship and extremism by supporting left wing Democratic partisanship and extremism is not the way to go. For the good of the country moderates and politicians willing to consider bipartisan approaches (such as Lieberman) need to be supported.

At 8:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Dibbell, coachhollywood, you are all missing an important point here: Lieberman was not defeated in the primary because of his willingness to compromise and act in a bipartisan fashion. He was defeated because of one issue - Iraq - and the way he handled that issue.

In other words, it was not Lieberman's bipartisanship, but rather his partisanship - for Bush's failed Iraq policies - that got him into the situation he finds himself in today.

This centrist sympathy for Lieberman that I see in certain places on the blogosphere is misplaced. On the overriding key issue to voters, Joe was no centrist - he is a reliable, consistent hawk, who believes criticism of the president during wartime is unpatriotic. That places him firmly on the right end of the American political spectrum.

And by any objective evaluation on the issues, Lamont is more "centrist" than Lieberman.

Frankly, I think it was brave of Connecticut democrats to oust a long-time incumbent - with all the perks and pork that came with it.


Post a Comment

<< Home