Partisan follies

Lieberman's basic talking point is, "re-elect me so that I can continue to give cover to the relentless partisanship Republicans have engaged in since 1994 by attacking the partisanship of 'Washington.'"

The three U.S. Senate candidates appeared on the same stage for the first time yesterday in an hourlong lunchtime debate at the Stamford Marriott Hotel and Spa, hosted by the Business Council of Fairfield County.

Lieberman, continuing his battle for a fourth term as a petition candidate, railed against Washington's "partisanship and bitterness." He said Lamont would make it worse and urged audience members to grab pencils and keep score of how often the Democrat "attacks" him in the debate.

But the tactic, which drew some laughs, had limited traction. At one point when Lieberman said, "I'm counting four or five attacks on me," he got some groans and one "poor baby" from the crowd.

"You have an 18-year-old record," Lamont said. "That's what we talk about in a race like this."

I used to think Lieberman an unwitting tool of the GOP, but now I'm not so sure. He clearly thinks he benefits from pointing at his once fellow Democrats and saying, "See, this partisanship has to stop," when they dare to rail against Republicans ruling as though the Democrat party were no more than a debating society.

And this is truly infuriating.

The one question about international politics focused on who's to blame for last week's nuclear test by North Korea and how it should be handled.

"The Republicans blame (former President) Clinton, Democrats blame President Bush. The blame should go to (North Korean dictator) Kim Jong Il," Lieberman said. "This man, this mad leader will sell these weapons . . . to al-Qaida."

Lieberman said the United States should work with China to put pressure on North Korea.

In other words, do what Bush wants (which Bush calls "diplomacy," but which any sane realist would call "letting China's agenda control the negotiations"). But get this, Lieberman was Al Gore's running mate a mere six years ago, and now he dares to lump Clinton's efforts to stop North Korea's nuclear efforts with Bush's arrogant indifference and belated "diplomacy." My God.

Amidst all of this, it is useful to read Digby's brief history of the last 12 years. A period in which the U.S. government was put to work creating a Republican political fortress, in which only "the majority of the majority" would be listened to.

It really can't be overstated how Newt's bare knuckle style of politics changed the way things worked in Washington. When it was combined with the big money media operations that finally came to fruition during that era --- Limbaugh, FOX etc. --- any old fashioned notions of political comity went out the window. And it was such a strong series of below the belt punches that it knocked the Democrats to the ground for nearly a decade. (It was providence that the Democratic president at the time was a skilled rope-a-dope fighter who could withstand a relentless rain of blows.)

The assault on the political system was so intense that they even pushed the nuclear button and impeached the president for trivial, political purposes. The president's very successful governance and the Senate requirement for a supermajority were all that kept them from going through with it. In the aftermath of the 2000 election, with the use sophisticated media techniques and manipulation of the various levers of government under their control, they managed to seize control of the presidency despite a dubious outcome in a state run by the president's own brother --- and they got away with it. (They even got the press to repeat their snide mantra: "get over it.")

Think about that. Within one two-year period, the Republicans tried to remove a legitimately elected and popular president from office on a purely partisan basis and then assumed the presidency through an unprecedented partisan Supreme Court decision after losing the popular vote.

We all watched that happen, many of us not realizing how extraordinary and how dangerously undemocratic the US political system had become. It was all "legitimate" after all. No laws were broken. Newt's take-no-prisoners political style had become normal. But it was nothing compared to what was to come.

After taking office under the most questionable circumstances in history*, they proceeded to rule as if they had won in a landslide. Once 9/11 happened, he had the mandate he'd been pretending to have and the Republican congress docilely turned their power and responsibility over to the president as if he were a king. What little dissent had been tolerated (such as Jim Jeffords defecting) was completely quashed and Democrats' only function in the government was to serve as a straw-man foil for the Republicans to run against.

Read, as the vituperative bloggers say, the whole thing.

And also read this, in which Digby points out what the press, in their fawning over the latest "Elder Statesman" to come and lead us out of the wilderness, seem to be missing.