SEE HOW YOU LIKE IT

I'm only happy when I'm attacking Democrats

I was having a discussion with Casey earlier about Democratic Party strategy, and on many issues, we do agree. But one thing we don't agree on is Joe Lieberman. Casey sees him as in some ways a necessary evil. I think his constant undermining of the Democratic Party, and his crossing over party lines to lend legitimacy to the opposition is unforgivable. Allowing him to attack his own party cements in the public's mind not only the canard that Democrats are wrong on the issues, but that the party as a whole is fractured and without direction. It also blunts our attempts to effectively fight Republican corruption and sadistic policy.

Take a look at how this works in the opposite direction. For a long time, the Republicans have benefitted from lock-step party loyalty. Consider how far Bush has fallen for Chuck Hagel to be this bold. Via Eschaton, from the Washington Post:

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that "the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them."

With President Bush leading the charge, administration officials have lashed out at Democrats who have accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. Bush has suggested that critics are hurting the war effort, telling U.S. troops in Alaska on Monday that critics "are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible."

"To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. "America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

Hagel said Democrats have an obligation to be constructive in their criticism, but he accused the administration of "dividing the country" with its rhetorical tactics.

Hagel supported the 2002 resolution to authorize military action in Iraq, but he has emerged as a strong skeptic of the Bush administration's handling of the war. In his speech, he called for a regional security conference to help invest Iraq's neighbors in the effort to stabilize the country.

At one point, while answering a question from the audience about Syria, Hagel suggested that the Middle East is worse off after the invasion because the administration failed to anticipate the consequences of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "You could probably argue it is worse in many ways in the Middle East because of consequences and ripple effects," he said.

Now, how pissed off do you think the Bush WH is at Hagel? This is Hagel trying to distance himself from Bush, to save his own political skin. And he comes out just as Bush is beginning this push to demonize the Dems, and he gives the media a blast at Bush like this? You think this doesn't hurt them? You think they aren't furious that their rhetoric has been blunted by one of their own? And this is what some Dems are willing to put up with from Lieberman? No thank you. We need Lieberman like we need a hole in the head. Losing his seat to a Republican would be a small price to pay to get rid of stories like the above, except it's him ripping into his party and its leadership. Please.

JC