Monday, February 05, 2007

In my years in the consulting business, I've never had the opportunity to work with Dan Gerstein, Joe Lieberman's erstwhile defender. So I hesitate to call him names, like a delusional egomaniac. But after reading his latest treatise, it's hard to think of him in any other way.

Gerstein goes on to say that there are two kinds of Democrats - Polarizers (i.e. the people who disagree with Joe Lieberman) and the "Problem Solvers." (i.e. the people who agree with Joe Lieberman). Only in the twisted mind of Gerstein can the people who want to end the war in Iraq be described as polarizers, but the folks who want to extend the conflict through the "surge" are the problem solvers (Dick Cheney, problem solver! Who knew?).

Gerstein goes on to explain that Lieberman-Lamont match-up showed what happens when these two groups fight each other, as the race "provided the party with a nearly pure real-world test of these two competing approaches." In his mind, the "problem solvers" won out.

This is where Gerstein shows he is, in fact, delusional. During the cycle, Gerstein not only worked for Lieberman, but also participated in another Democratic primary in New York. He worked for Tom Suozzi, a conservative Democrat who ran against Eliot Spitzer. Like Lieberman, Suozzi ran to the center in his primary, ostensibly to gain the vote of these "problem solving" Democrats. And like Lieberman, he lost his primary. So in primaries, Polarizers 2, Gerstein-Problem Solvers 0.

So clearly, for Gerstein to proclaim the Problem Solvers as winners, Lieberman must have really racked up a huge margin among Democrats in the General Election. Here's what he writes

"The Election Day exit polls said it all. They confirmed that Lamont's partisan, polarizing strategy failed to drive down Lieberman's Democratic vote. He won 33 percent of the Democrats, almost the same percentage he had gotten in the first major poll nine days after the primary."

Yes, you read that correctly. Gerstein admits that Lieberman got only 33% of Dems on Election Day. So "Problem Solvers" lose in the primary and then get beat in the General Election by a 2-1 margin. Yet Gerstein claims victory! With such dysfunctional math skills, no wonder the Lieberman team thinks we're winning in Iraq.

The real message, as the numbers show, is that Democrats oppose the accomodationist strategies of Gerstein and Joe Lieberman. They want Democrats who will opposed the President when he is wrong (which seems to be most of the time) and work with him when he is right, not sell out their beliefs for a quick peck on the cheek.

If Gerstein doubts my analysis (and considering his delusion, he most certainly will) he ought to listen to the speeches made before the DNC meetings this past week. Every major Democratic contender took a so-called "polarizing"tone. So either they all want to turn off Democratic voters, or Gerstein doesn't know anything about Democrats.


At 1:02 AM, Blogger Fernando said...

Are you spending enough time with your kid?

You've been on overdrive.

At 5:49 AM, Blogger Cliff Schecter said...

Yes Fernando. You gotta start looking at the author these days, as we now have some additional hands here.

This piece was by BC, not me. Although I did write a bit more than usual yesterday.

And BC my friend, stop being a polarizing asshole and do try and use some of Gerstein's problem-solving skills, like how to get help from the entire GOP establishment to win a race and then claim you understand Democrats

At 7:53 AM, Blogger Fernando said...

I'll be more careful Cliff. I still wonder how you did all those things you mentioned on your Pre-Super Bowl post.

Thanks for bringing fruit to my frequent stops here BC.

At 8:35 AM, Blogger Cliff Schecter said...

No problem Fernando. Just want to give BC credit where it is due. I was on overdrive, have been lately. Lots going on and lots to do.

Believe me baby time isn't a casualty, I am watching him today while my wife works and am psyched (except the poor thing has a bad cough).

The casualty has been sleep....

At 9:37 AM, Blogger BC said...

Hope you enjoyed it Fernando, because I had to ignore my kid to right it

At 9:43 AM, Blogger Mary Ellen said...


Look at the bright side....

As you get older and your children grow to teens, you will appreciate the skills you are honing to ignore your kids. If you can't hear them ask for money or the car save your money and your car!

Ok...that was my positive spin on this.

We do appreciate your time and your posts!

At 11:01 AM, Blogger BC said...

I was just kidding about ignoring the child. He was long asleep when I put this together. What did you think Mary Ellen?

At 8:39 AM, Blogger DisNoir36 said...

Joe Lieberman and math go hand in hand like cats and dogs do or satan and snowballs. Lest we forget, it was Joe who proudly proclaimed that he was 'tied for third' in the New Hampshire presidential primary after he finished a distant fifth.

At 2:55 PM, Blogger El Cid said...

You don't come to the "middle" of a stupid policy.

You only "compromise" to form a policy when the compromise policy is still a good policy. Coming to the "middle" of two political sides in order to produce a harmful policy is not admirable.

Let's say that House Republicans, for example, proposed shooting Nancy Pelosi in the head and killing her.

Now, sure, some "extremist" Democrats who aren't "Problem Solvers" would probably block any move to shoot Nancy Pelosi in the head and kill her.

But maybe a group of "Problem Solving" Democrats / Connecticut For Liebermans might step forward with helpful "compromises".

For example, perhaps House Republicans would be asked to shoot Nancy Pelosi in the stomache, instead, and then allow Democrats to take her to a hospital.

Or instead of shooting Pelosi in the head, the Problem Solvers would allow the House Republicans to hit her in the head with a baseball bat, and only once.

Surely all of us smart, moderate people would agree that a "compromise" "problem solving" solution would be far better for the American People than either of the EXTREME positions on either side.

At 11:01 PM, Blogger AppleCider said...

To me, the weirdest thing about all this is that DANGERSTEIN has become someone who show producers actually call.

Oh, wait...I just remembered others they've had on.

At 4:56 PM, Blogger Steve Smith said...

It seems to me that if a challenger to a Democratic nominee gets a third of the party vote, the Democratic nominee won't have a prayer of winning. In most instances, that means the Republican wins, although thanks to the weakness of the GOP candidate in Connecticut, Lieberman had a chance to get a do-over in the general election. If Gerstein's point is that a candidate whose overly partisan message alienates a third of his party base is doomed to lose, that would seem to make his point well-taken.


Post a Comment

<< Home