Will those of us who have been pissed at Obama for not having pushed hard enough on the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal, now laud and embrace our good and true friend from CT, Joe Lieberman for having been explicitly, consistently out front on this issue?
“The Pentagon report makes it unambiguously clear that the risk of repeal on military effectiveness is minimal, that any risks can be addressed by implementing the report's recommendations, and that a clear majority of active duty servicemen and women have no problem with repeal,'' Lieberman said in a joint statement with Sens. Kristen Gillibrand, D-NY, and Mark Udall, D-CO. “The military has spoken and now is the time to repeal this policy that is damaging to our national security.”
By the way, Lieberman's been damn good on climate as well, which is The Most Important Issue.
What the hell is my point? I think it's to keep pushing the issues — not necessarily to be wedded to one legislative approach or another, and definitely not one elected official or personality. That will invariably disappoint. Obama is not RFK. But RFK probably wasn't RFK either — certainly not if he'd ever been elected.
This was from the mouth of a Tea Partier, but it seems like political wisdom:
Picture this sailing ship, the old wooden clipper sailing out on the ocean. Man, they're describing the decks on the ship, they're talking about the ship's wheel and the bell and the – and they're all predicting that this ship is going to crash on the rocks. But in fact, the Tea Party's not the ship, it's the wind. Look at the wind and you'll see the Tea Party. You're not going to control it, but it's going to move the way it's going to move.
The question in my mind is: would Ned Lamont have been as good on these two issues? I think so. Would he have been better on some other issues? I think so. Would he have gone out of his way to sabotage the Democratic Party narrative on Sunday morning talk shows? I think not.
<
p>I’d be thrilled if Senator Lieberman were a SOTUS from, say, Montana or New Mexico or Missouri. But from very liberal Connecticut? Nawp. Not good enough.
<
p>So kudos to Senator Lieberman for being on the side of righteousness for these two issues… but I believe that a “generic” senator from Connecticut would do better for progressive change overall than Senator Lieberman has, and without sacrificing an iota on climate change or gay rights.
I guess my question is about how, when, and how much the bloggy left gives out praise and criticism.
<
p>Choosing candidates is critical; I’m not denying that. But I think pushing issues is more important, b/c you may make surprising allies.
Praise for success?
<
p>I’m thrilled that Lieberman is concerned about Climate Change. Where are his successes? I’m tickled that Lieberman wants to repeal DADT. But he hasn’t achieved that success yet either.
<
p>My father-in-law likes to say “want in one hand and sh!7 in the other. See which one fills up first.” So far as I can tell, at this point Lieberman has a hand full of want and another hand full of crap.
If your father-in-law were the Senator from CT, can you tell me that DADT would be gone and we’d have a carbon cap?
is that he’d chastise anyone who praised him for working toward goals not yet accomplished.
<
p>Praise is reserved for success. For achievement. For victory. With respect to leaders, effort is not praiseworthy. People won’t be treated better because somebody tried hard. Disastrous climate change won’t be averted/mitigated because some senator really wanted to make things better. No sir. Civil rights will be extended because somebodies got the job done. Leveling carbon at 350 ppm will happen because leaders made it happen. Those folks will deserve praise.
who used to say that a pitcher who lost a 1-0 game pitched just well enough to lose.
<
p>I don’t believe that argument. Things you can control, things you can’t control, etc.