
Why is supporting Joe Lieberman more important than winning back the House?
Joe’s base of support lies among Republicans, according to the new Quinnipiac numbers. That means his whole GOTV operation for November will require him to bring Republicans to the polls (assuming no new entrant in the race to replace Schlessinger from the Republican side). This will hurt the three local House races the Democrats are counting on to help them win back the House. And yet, some in the DC Democratic Party are openly supporting Holy Joe, including one who is a senior leader in the DSCC, Mark Pryor. Others are quietly issuing supportive statements for Lamont before taking off like the Road Runner for cover.
This is political malpractice of the highest order. I repeat: why is supporting Joe Lieberman more important than winning back the House? Let’s also not forget the effect of Joe’s GOP GOTV on the governer’s race, where DeStephano needs help against Republican governor Jodi Rell.
The elected official wing of the Party must take away any claim Joe has to being a Democrat, and do so dramatically. Lamont’s numbers among Dems in the Quinnipiac poll must and will rise, even as he broadens his support among independents, as in his approach through his WSJ op-ed yesterday (online subscription required). But this effort also requires active Party involvement: there’s no room for wiggling any longer.
The goal here should be to strip Joe of any scintilla of Democratic credibility from the mind of the most "low information" voter in CT. That means a full party effort to rebrand him from what he’s been able to pretend to be all these years. Eighteen years of branding as a "Democrat" needs to be undone in two and a half months. That takes a coordinated effort, and every wasted day counts. It’s doable, but it requires unified commitment and action.
This is a gut check time for the party: are the people with the D’s after their names Democrats, or will they allow Cheney’s sock puppet to turn what should be a "tsunami" election into an ebb tide? Passive, listless Lamont support must give way to active, aggressive advocacy for the choice of the state’s Democrats.
There’s no way to sell a "New Direction" for America while remaining in any way associated with Sister Joe. Party insiders can’t have it both ways. The decision to make of Joe a smoldering political crater needs to be made and made like yesterday. Lamont has to stay mostly positive, but surrogates need to be brutal. That means us and it means the party establishment. ("Together, we can do better?")
Harry, go ahead and strip him of his seniority. Chuck, go after his donors (Remember what you did to Hackett? Do it now to Joe).
If you make Joe into a martyr, he can’t help but unleash his inner a**hole. He simply can’t help himself. That will drop his numbers. Then he may have to announce he will caucus with the Republicans, breaking his prior (useless, worthless) promise. At the very least, he will be asked the question, which makes his loyalty (or self-serving lack thereof) a campaign issue and a character issue. Fine.
Then we have a nice clean "New Direction" versus "more of the same" election. This can bring the independents back to Ned, because the more Joe does his insufferable martyr routine, the more people abandon him. The more he campaigns, the more he drives up his own negatives.
Once it’s clear to all he’s bleeding support in the polls, the hard core conservatives themselves will begin go after Joe because he’s not really a "conservative." Tribal dynamics will resurface. Once they see him losing general campaign support, his new friends will leech away. He’s only attractive to them as a Trojan Horse candidate anyway, so once he loses his disguise, he will lose popularity and enthusiasm on the right.
In 1992, Bill Clinton effectively rebranded the Democratic Party away from its base by dissing Sister Souljah. Well, maybe the sclerotic base needed it, maybe the times required it, but these are new times. A genuine "New Direction" requires a foil, and Joe is it. It’s time to "Sister Souljah" Joe and come home to the majority of Americans who want a real wave of accountability in Washington and against Bush. Joe is the anti-change candidate, and Lamont is the change candidate. It’s that simple.
Harry, Chuck, Nancy, Rahm: it’s time to get on board, for real. For extra credit, give Sister Joe a wedgie: ask him publicly if he supports the federal judge’s ruling that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional. C’mon: you won’t believe how fun it is! If he supports the court, his new wingnut friends will abandon him and look for a true authoritarian cultist candidate, instead of mamby pamby faithless Joe. If he comes out against the ruling, you have a true accountability narrative to buttress your "new direction" theme for November. See how easy this is?
Graphic courtesy of annatopia.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

PACH!
ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NSA PROGRAM HITS A SNAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COLBERT!
GREAT POST…really right on
Pach – you hit that one out of the park!
Dim bulbs like Senator Pryor ought to think long and hard about supporting Leaverman. Progressives are in the ascendancy within the Democratic party, and they aren’t likely to forget…
give Sister Joe a wedgie:
And hang him out to dry with it. Great post as always Pach.
Watching the GOP triangulate Lamont-Lieberman-Schlesinger makes me realize that Dems can’t use this strategy successfully this year. Lamont is this year’s bright line — either you are with us or against us. Straddling the line, a la Biden, is unacceptable.
As if we needed more evidence that TradDems are captive of their own corporatist base, as GOPLite: their attempts to triangulate and keep the money in their corner as they give lip service to supporting Lamont.
Any word yet on John Edwards’ appearances today in the Land of Steady Habits?
Mary @ #2 – Yuppers! That’s my town! I’ve been waiting and waiting for Judge Diggs Taylor to render this decision.
No sub required:
Ned in the WSJ
and even the IDIOTORIAL Board at WaPo has figured out — this Administration is really serious about putting more journalists in jail.
WaPo – But but but but but but but but but – - Isn’t Being Your Very Most Devoted Apologists ENOUGH Mr. President?
Absolutely dead on. Thanks for bringing up the selling of Paul Hacket down the river.
Lieberman has been in the Senate for 18 years. He has scratched a lot of backs. To insiders, it makes sense to provide comfort and aid to a friend who you know and like. But at the party level, a “more-than-equal” member is to work for the benefit of the party.
This is why Cheney is supporting Lieberman. Introduce hypocracy into the democratic party and Rove will be able to get the corporate media to expose and feed on it. If this is the result, I can see a President Cheney entourage goose-stepping down Pennsylvania Avenue in January 2009.
Look at the bright side Joe, you will always have Hadassa.
Question
Through his committee work and accompanying classified status, what secrets might Schmoe Loserman be sitting on?
OT -Dee, I’m so excited, I’d like to do the happy dance. It sounds like she ruled against them on data mining, but I don’t think they asked for SJ on datamining, so I have to read the opinion later.
And then the ATT Trolling hit Judge Walton (although I don’t have oodles of faith in the 9th) —
It’s nice to see that there are still some uncorrupted lawyers on the bench. It makes it that much more depressing to see the list of judges this adminsitration has at bat now, and the ones they’ve already cycled the last few years.
I AM ABOUT READY TO EXPLODE.
How dare anyone – outside of the Democratic voters in Connecticut – have any right to say anything about who should be supported for senator from our state.
HEY EVERYONE. We voted. We made our choice. Now get in line behind us or shut the fuck up!
Pachacutec !!!
abso freakin’ lutely outta park Pach
love, love, love your point about Hackett !
earlier Incan Sex God Wisdom fueled my comment #64 in first morning thread
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..f/#respond
oh yeah, we forgive, but we don’t forget
Those three Democrats running for Congress in Connecticut… How are they being impacted by Joe Lieberman’s second bite at the apple?
I imagine they aren’t very pleased by the situation.
I’m sure they would like to stay out of the whole mess, rather than endorse Ned (and anger Joe-supporters) or endorse Joe and anger us. But, they HAVE to wish that this thing were all over with. And since Ned Lamont can’t be expected to withdraw after winning the nomination, the logical thing is for them to quietly push for Joe to withdraw.
We should email these three Dems and try to get them to pressure the DSCC (including Mark Pryor) to put it’s big foot down and tell Joe, this is over. It’s in their best interests. They may not want to do it publicly, but it sure as hell isn’t going to help them if this goes all the way to November. It’s simple self-preservation.
cosmo @ 6
Harry, Chuck, Nancy, Rahm: it’s time to get on board, for real.
I can only wonder that maybe reality hasn’t quite slapped them hard enough.
Is it possible that they are quietly watching to see what
actually happens wrt Lamont and Short ride ? The winds have changed, but those in the bubbles can’t feel the wind.Control of the House should be foremost on these peoples minds yet they won’t denounce Lieberman even though he is a De Facto republican.2006 will be a watershed year. Maybe they will find themselves in the same spot as Rummy, increasingly irrelevant.
twolf1 — what bright side can hadassah look on?
this is why ned’s so important — he’s exposing the furtive backscratching that goes on
Not sure Gerstein’s worth what RGJoe’s paying him, if he’s gonna claim RGJoe credit for the Homeland Security Department. Is August the best month to trumpet your guy’s “present-at-the-creation” relationship with DHS? Katrina Anniversary incoming!
Joe’s handling of Katrina should be hammered – that was HIS committee, his baby, his “Gang of 14″ pal Collins that he can “reach across the aisle” with etc —- WH told them to suck eggs, it was NOT going to turn over info.
Lieberman said, “Yes George, whatever you say.”
Ask him:
Did Bush FLAT OUT LIE about there being no warning or way to know NO was going to flood?
Did Bush fail to follow his OWN ADMINSITRATIONS National Emergency Plan – a plan that put the PRESIDENT in the center of the decision making responsiblity, while he went off and played air guitar and had cake?
What did YOU DO ABOUT IT JOE?
Pach: you’re assuming that, despite Schumer’s and Clinton’s and Reid’s ”support” of Ned Lamont, that they really want him to win, and Lieberman to lose.
Perhaps their tepid ”endorsements” are nothing but cover, in that they have absolutely no intentions of undertaking the remedies and actions you prescribe?
Perhaps, in the great D.C. world of AIPAC and K Street, it already has been determined by his fellow cash recipients that Joe will be keeping his seat in the Senate, whatever it takes?
Discuss.
roger the lodger @ 20
She’ll always have WATB’s massive ego to spoon with on those cold, lonely CT winter nights.
Mary for now – TPM Muckraker has some juicy bits from the ruling. Might tide you over for now.
Link on Gerstein: http://www.newhavenindependent…..ghts_g.php
Thanks JWR – sheez freakin louise -I didn’t realize Judge Taylor issued an INJUNCTION!
Damn!
Hadassah can always count on big pharma to supply her and HoJo with some happy pills to dispel the nekkid truth come November!
Mary at 26 — yeah, she took the BIG step. This is going to be quite the haggle.
We are another step away from democracy. Both Ned Lamont and Alan Schlessinger have won their respective party primaries. Yet the incumbency machinery in Washington DC has decided that the will of the voters means shit and winning at any cost is what matters.
Taking and holding power is all that matters anymore, using sham elections as just another tool to accomplish that goal. I am really angry at so-called Democrats who sit in Washington choosing sides with their elite buddies over the democratic desires of the American People.
If Lieberman isn’t stopped, and stopped soon, it’s not just Congressional races in Connecticut that will be affected. The confidence that we even have a say in selecting our government will suffer severe damage.
August 17, 2006
Senate Republicans Will Back Lieberman
A source at the National Republican Senatorial Committee confirmed in an interview with The Politicker that the Republican party will not help Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger (R) “or any other potential Republican candidate in Connecticut, and it now favors a Lieberman victory in November.”
Said the source: “We did a poll and there is no way any Republican we put out there can win, so we are just going to leave that one alone.”
Mary.
yeah Mary, even I got the full strength and weight of Her Honor’s ruling – SWEEEET!
gawd, Joe is toxic!
(great post, Pach…)
About an hour ago, Franken’s cohost said, in “breaking news” that the NRCC was supporting Lieberman. Can’t find it on their site, though.
WAH-HOO! PACH!
NAILED it! (& u thot I wuz a hopeless peacenik, eh?!) I’m with ya.
Just so long as folks let Ned be himself, with a nice strong positive image, tough as he desires to be, but classy & squeeky-clean. (He’s got terrific political instincts & people-skills!)
Prediction: Ned will bring it on home.
Joe’s snake-oil-sale will turn rancid in the bottle.
Attention Democratic leaders;
August 17, 2006
Senate Republicans Will Back Lieberman
A source at the National Republican Senatorial Committee confirmed in an interview with The Politicker that the Republican party will not help Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger (R) “or any other potential Republican candidate in Connecticut, and it now favors a Lieberman victory in November.”
Said the source: “We did a poll and there is no way any Republican we put out there can win, so we are just going to leave that one alone.”
Reprinted in it’s entirety due to the short length.
http://politicalwire.com/archi…..erman.html
OT – Mary – Ditto re: the 9th…
Pach! Good on you! Great article, great fervor.
I had to share this quote I came across from Madame Chiang Kai-Shek because it fit the current Neocon admin so well -
‘Every clique is a refuge for incompetence. It fosters corruption and disloyalty, it begets cowardice, and consequently is a burden upon and a drawback to the progress of the country. Its instincts and actions are those of the pack.’
Okay, back to work now…
Sorry Meta, I was typing while you were posting. *g*
Joe’s snake-oil-sale will turn rancid in the bottle.
It’s gonna be a very tricky campaign for him. He’s gonna have to spend a lot of his time speaking in code to the republicans and avoiding the public.
I hope the campaign is working on some Daily Show type ads, with Joe taking contradictory positions. And I hope Spazeboy has some energy left.
“It is so ordered”!
Bustednuckles @ 38
The more the merrier!!
Joe = Sister Sold-ya down the river
Bustednuckles @ 36
Well there you go.
Called Dorgan and Conrad. Said we are keeping track online just who is supporting the democratic primary winner or the loser. What would that say about the national party if they support the loser?? They will call me back. They better, or I will call again.
OT
Glenn has a detailed analysis up on the warrantless wiretap ruling.
punaise @ 42
Bwahahahah you’ve done it again punaise, perfect. Joe = Sister Sold-ya it is. Sister Sold-gya’ll would work too.
A money quote from Glenn’s piece:
EPU’d –
The best post on LieberLiar’s website crap is by emptypockets at The Next Hurrah — Lieberman’s Internets Problem –
Can get some front page luv, to SpotLight LieberLiars website smear of Ned Lamont?
OT-
So does this unconstitutional ruling mean that the preznut broke the law and we can and should finally impeach the fucker?
WA-HOOOO!!!
Mary, I just heard the Detroit word on the car radio driving home from errands — YA – HA!
WHERE’S LHP?! WHERE’S IMM?!
oboyoboyoboyOBOY
Politics Wire — Good news, bad news
lotus – don’t blow a gasket :-)
‘ear! – that’ll take the edge off.
Can we start a letter/fax campaign to Reid to get Loserman off all his committee’s immediately?
*ilson46201 says
August 17th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Ouch. Sliding into the dugout that far is going to leave a serious raspberry.
NSA ruling is fucking great, but it will be appealed, and allowed to continue as it “works up through the system,” which means SCOTUS. Possibly.
And I don’t have the greatest confidence in that crowd.
Nonetheless, a great ruling and awesome press.
*ilson46201 @ 51
Triangulation is killing us. Pro-choice suburban soccer moms are gonna vote for little Ricky.
about Pryor
From the Arkansas Times Blog
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Re: Sen. Lieberman (R-Ct.)
A blog reader files this report from NE Arkansas:
I was at a “Brown Bag” Question and Answer lunch today with Sen. Pryor in Jonesboro, Arkansas. I asked him the question, “How can you be a member of the DSCC, with a mission to elect Democrats to Congress, and at the same time support Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont?” The room got very quite. With a smile on his face he said, “Don’t ask me to be consistent.” He then went on the rationalize away the problem by talking about how Joe was such a good guy and the Democrats need moderate voices, blah, blah, blah. He also said that in his view, the Republican party was becoming more conservative and the Democrats, more liberal. That is why he supports Lieberman. What a bunch of hooey!
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/…..n_rct.aspx
isn’t it true that joe spent much more money on the primary than ned did?
ned has shown he knows how to marshal the firepower of interest groups like fdl, how to squeeze value out of every last nickel: he knows because he’s had to meet a payroll — this subverts hillary’s power: she’s used to throwing money around like a drunken sailor — i suspect big dog sees this clearer than his loving bride does
Ned Lamont is a refreshing candidate and I’d love to see him win but it is more important that Rick Santorum lose. Dems cannot lose sight of the bigger picture.
Holy Crap!!! NSA program unconstitutional!!!
There is still hope.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI…..index.html
wondering aloud ” does someone who is a candiate running as an independant, when they file do they not file as independent? and does that not mean they have to register as an independent to be able to run as an independent?” so many questions unanswered, but to me, this is an important one.
Being that he is claiming he is a democrat still but if he is registered as an independent. that automatically takes him out of the democratic party right then and there as soon as he filed.
if thats the case, he should 1.) be referred to as his partys name, not as a democrat. 2.) be automatically stripped of all his rank and priveleges in the democratic party and taken off all committees he is a part of.
please someone correct me if i am wrong on this and if i am right, someone should try and get a copy of the paperwork or something.
Thanks in advance
Seven of Six @ 53
Yep, That is what we need. Something big to grab their attention. My little call drifting in isn’t going to do it.
That’s a non-starter. Even Feingold says that Lieberman was elected to his seat and is entitled to his committees. What is not a non-starter is to announce that his seniority will be set at “freshman” if he wins the election.
Wrt to the NSA, I guess that FISA Court just got a whole lot more popular.
blue e thanks for the link.
Judge Taylor:
Bong honey, hole onna that thang a minnit — I’m still a-happy-dancin’ and doan wanna drop it onna flo’!
One of the nice little side benefits of making campaign contributions is that you get on the mailing lists of Schumer, Emanuel, et al, who of course hope to hit you up for more money. What’s nice is the postpaid return envelope they always include. Here’s what one such wending its way right now to my penpal Chuck Schumer says:
Sorry for the long comment, but I do want to make the point that people in the netroots are also DONORS, which means we have ACCESS, even if it’s only a little dab of it. If we all underline the conditions for our maintaining or possibly expanding our donor status, we can move these slugs in the right direction. So, if Chuck Schumer is your penpal too, don’t just toss his mailings — send him a little note and let him pay the postage.
Only a couple of more weeks until Labor Day- then candidates start firing with real ammunition. Most analysts now think that dems have a slightly better than even chance of taking the house- senate a long shot- but not out of the question. Going to be a very active campaign season- and one with major implications.
Hope Dems can seize control- not cause they’re heroic- but because they ain’t goopers.
Yes! What a great post. We need to put Joe in the light, for all Connecticut voters to see what he really is: the no-change/no-accountability candidate. He needs to be stripped of the phony “unity” and “centrist” marketing lies toot sweet.
The DSCC needs a HUGE wake-up call. I imagine a campaign spanning the entire NetRoots that completely SHAMES them into embracing Ned and (metaphorically) strapping Joe to his rape gurney and pushing it out into I-95 traffic.
More Judge Taylor, here on separate branches of govt, as checks and balances, managing to work in not only Clinton v. Jones (be careful what you wish for) but also a Kennedy (Swing is the new black) separate concurrence:
Here are a couple of Senator Mark Pryor reply’s to questions from two separate rural Arkansas meetings yesterday.
hat tip to http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog
I was at a “Brown Bag” Question and Answer lunch today with Sen. Pryor in Jonesboro, Arkansas. I asked him the question, “How can you be a member of the DSCC, with a mission to elect Democrats to Congress, and at the same time support Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont?” The room got very quite. With a smile on his face he said, “Don’t ask me to be consistent.” He then went on the rationalize away the problem by talking about how Joe was such a good guy and the Democrats need moderate voices, blah, blah, blah. He also said that in his view, the Republican party was becoming more conservative and the Democrats, more liberal. That is why he supports Lieberman. What a bunch of hooey!
I was at a breakfast town-hall thing with Pryor at Paragould earlier in the day. He said pretty much the same thing, except he also said that he was backing Lieberman because Lieberman had helped him on the DHS committee procure funding for Arkansas projects. However, he was not the least bit flippant, and was his usual folksy self. I gave him points for actually bringing up tough issues like gay marriage, estate tax, and immigration, and clearly stating his positions and voting record on them.
Give Pryor a break, folks. While I don’t think supporting Lieberman is a good idea, you who are encouraging him to walk away from the Democratic Party have a death wish. If you like ideological purity, join Rod Bryan, Jim Lendall, and all those other perfectly nice guys who are never going to be elected to anything. Pryor knows how to win under the toughest of circumstances, like 2002, when he was the only freakin’ Democrat in the nation to beat an incumbant Republican. We need more Pryors, not fewer.
I would add one other recent response from Sen. Pryor, he claims Senator Lieberman is his mentor in the Senate !!
What powerful (blog) times we live in when Paragould and Jonesboro Arkansas are hitting Pryor with these questions! Reading the AR Times blog over the last week on this issue has been, well, a hoot! Bottom line he has some support, but much more dissent. Our largest newspaper came out in support of Lieberman before the primary.
Thanks Firepups for turning the heat up in Marks kitchen.
Mfn: “Swing is the new black”
707!
Democratic Party is fucked. They can’t even get thier shit together even after a legal, no-word-of-theift, primary election. Lieberman and his five Senate cronies want a mulligan. Why should or would a plain, working stiff contribute money the fuckin DSCC. The regional vice chair for the South is supporting in the general election a man who lost in the primary. I think the Dems will come up two votes short in the Senate, and Lieberman will have nothing to do that.
The Democratic Party is a stupid collection of no-brainers.
I can’t be a puke and I can’t be a green, but I sure as hell wish there was somewhere to go.
blue e @ 57
For Pryor to arrogantly answer the question this way tells me that he is not feeling any real pressure from Reid or Schumer. That is disgusting and reflects poorly on all of them.
Let’s not let the DSCC get away with this country-club mockery of the Democratic party!
Paging Dr. Dean!!! Stat!
We also desperately need to unelect Nancy Johnson. What the heck does Lieberman care though? Both he and Johnson like BigPharma.
It also strikes me that Rell is a default “popular” gov. When in fact, it has been pointed out by one of the gov. campaign dems that she has “been in a coma for 6 years, or . . .?” Still some dems think she’s an Ella Grasso. I’d love for the campaigns to strike that ball out of the park. [Rant]
Yoo can bet Abu Gonzales is bouncing around like a BB in a tuna can trying to spin this already.
Mary– Thanks for the great news. Has Redd commented yet?
Way EPU’d:
Susan in Iowa @
65
Heeeeeyyy…Macrackerena!
…And Joey’s still the Bride Of Dikula, apparently.
;>)
rwcole–Glenn has a detailed post up on the ruling.
The reason Joe’s running: Hadassah’s employers have no reason to pay her the big lobbyist buck$ if she doesn’t have a powerful Senator for a spouse!
rwcole @ 78
Christy has yet to speak ex cathedra
WaPo’s (Eggen) lede (NYT & LAT still going with AP):
Federal Judge Orders Halt to NSA Wiretapping
Sha in post 16 notes:
”How dare anyone – outside of the Democratic voters in Connecticut – have any right to say anything about who should be supported for senator from our state.”
Well, of course others do. Senators have tons of roles and duties that affect the entire country, so I think whoever wants to can support whatever senator from whatever state in any way they legally can.
However, only Connecticut voters will ultimately decide the issue. And hopefully send Joe to a lucrative consulting job for big pharma or the insurance companies, and he’ll have to try and be nice to Ned Lamont for his paymasters. heh.
cbl @ 31
Woohoo !! Doing a happy dance. *S* One for the little people. May we impeach now?
Joe D. @ 74
Don’t paint the whole party with the DSCC brush! These people are deeply conflicted and show that they are more loyal to their friends than to their party or the voters. On the other hand, the DNC, run by Dean, is doing the good work to make the party about the people again. We need to put the DSCC in its place and not cede it to the arrogant people like Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar and their corrosive ilk.
*atou at 75
I don’t know if it is arrogance or loyalty.
to Eureka in post 72, I don’t think Pryor should leave the party. He is free to support whomever.
However, he SHOULD leave or be removed from his position in the DSCC. He is basically at odds with the mission of that organization, and working against it essentially.
Yes, MA’AM, Your Honor!!!
More Judge Taylor, in pissed mom voice, saying “Give Us An Inch & We’ll Take A Mile” is not a Legal Principle.
Look cookie boy, Congress, with FISA, gave you so much leeway, I’m not even gonna say if the leeway they gave you was constitutional or not — but damnit, they gave you homeplate on the first date, without you even having to pick up a bat.
In enacting FISA, Congress made numerous concessions to stated executive needs. They include delaying the applications for warrants until after surveillance has begun for several types of exigencies, reducing the probable cause requirement to a less stringent standard, provision of a single court of judicial experts, and extension of the duration of approved wiretaps from thirty days (under Title III) to a ninety day term.
So what do you go and do with that?
[emph added ed]
She then very patiently points out — you can’t have more power than the Constitution grants you when, umm, your position is CREATED BY the Constitution.
[emph added ed]
If the Democratic Party “leaders” break with the party to support an Independent, then there’s something seriously wrong. If the Republican Party “leaders” break with their party (and don’t field a candidate) to support an Independent Democrat, then there’s something seriously wrong.
Apparently there are a few Establishment types currently in power who actually don’t support the democratic process. This is troubling, to say the least.
Along with the electronic voting machines scandal it indicates either a massive change from even a decade ago or it is just the revealing of what has been ‘normal’ in Washington for many decades. Either way this gnosis could enable the American public to really get a Democracy or it could lead the powerful to rebel, take over and establish an ‘out of the closet’ Fascist dictatorship.
It’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Well done *ilson.
For those not intimately familiar with the intricacies of Vatican posturing about
made upbeliefs about papal infallibility, here’s a link to a notoriously unreliable resource, the New Advent Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, about ex cathedraAnd one other thing.. one of the reasons folks may think the Repugs are good for defense etc. is that they do represent a more solid front, and that solid front does help them the closer they get to election days.
I think it would help the party with their image as a dynamic, strong, no-nonsense alternative if they did hand out some repercussions for actions that hurt the thrust of the party, like stripping Joe right now of his seniority.
How will Dems look on national defense if they can’t even herd their own members? Insanity.
Thucydides Jr. @ 86
I don’t think he needs to leave the party. I do think we need a better candidate in the next Senate election!
NYT has a photo of Her Honor and a link to the ruling (pdf).
http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin…..r=homepage
Are you an Anna Diggs Taylor democrat or a Joe Lieberman “Democrat” ?
Are you an Anna Diggs Taylor democrat or a Joe Lieberman “Democrat” ?
Are you an Anna Diggs Taylor democrat or a Joe Lieberman “Democrat” ?
Eureka Springs, AR @ 93
Wes Clark anyone?
All Hail U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor!
Would love to hear from the ABA right about now.
More Judge Taylor:
So, let’s see what kind of violations the Judge Points out.
Ok – spearation of powers doctrine and also —FISA for FIVE YEARS – Half a Decade, Ten Friedmans.
What else? Oh, just little things. Like the CONSTITUTION.
[emph added ed]
Then she mentions again “we tried to be nice to you” in what I like to think of as a kind of ‘you can lead a horse to water but you really ought to put a drunken ass in jail’ analogy.
[emph added]
Ok, I may be the only to think that analogy applies, but I can live with being a loner.
Anna Diggs Taylor for next opening at SCOTUS!
let’s see how long it takes for an Anna Diggs Taylor page to be created on Wikipedia
I wanted to post a post which was on the DNC blog, when someone asked WHY would CT. Dems be disturbed that Joe was also running, and voted 90% with Democrats. this gal said:
That would seem like a question with a simple answer, they don’t want Lieberman representing CT, he hasn’t represented them well for the last 5 years why should he be given the job back with state Democrats voted to fire him last week. This is like having the worst employee you could have to work with get fired and then come back as a contractor with another company on the same jobsite.
I think this explanation fits very well on why we do not want Lieberman to win, any way shape or form. If you are talking to John Larson, who said he would not be upset if Joe won, tell him this one!
twolf1 at 101
Why wonder, I wonder!?!
Get thyself over there & …. ;->
Can we write Judge Taylor a thank you note?
I know we can’t use Spotlight.
Can we right the ABA, and ask them to praise the
couragejudicial wisdom of her decision?I also want to write Judge
the original strict constructionist himselfBork and ask why he hasn’t commented. He andScooterIrving are soaking up all that wingnut welfare at the Hudson Institute, I would think he would be elated that the principles of “strict construction” have finally been upheld, despite hisfuckingsilence.Thanks Mary4now for your comment at 11:05.
Adie @ 100
If only she were 20 years younger. Sigh.
I think the whole Senate needs Liberman to block the impeachment. The whole Senate has a lot of questions to answer….
Mary – You are not alone. *g*
Dr. Bong – Clark would be fantastic.I wonder if he thinks hillary would ask him to be VP? After reading AT blog I have some names old and new) to research on replacing both Senators.
Ok – that’s my quickie – rearrange and post as I read it.
If Glenn Greenwald has something up, it will be detailed and tres good. But how long can you sit on: The US does not have hereditary kings???????
*g*
Especially ones that get more power than the actual hereditary kings were allowed by Merrye Oldengland.
Bob Geiger has a list up of which Senators are supporting Lamont or Lieberman, which are neutral, and which are hiding
For Lamont: 26
Akaka HI
Bayh IN
Biden DE
Boxer CA
Cantwell WA
Clinton NY
Dayton MN retiring
Dodd CT
Durbin IL
Feingold WI
Feinstein CA
Harkin IA
Kennedy MA
Kerry MA
Kohl WI
Lautenberg NJ
Leahy VT
Menendez NJ
Murray WA
Obama IL
Reed RI
Reid NV
Rockefeller WV
Schumer NY
Stabenow MI
Wyden OR
For Lieberman: 6
Carper DE
Inouye HI
Landrieu LA
(Ben) Nelson NE
Pryor AR
Salazar CO
Neutral: 3
Johnson SD
Levin MI
Lincoln AR
Hiding: 8
Baucus MT
Bingaman NM
Byrd WV
Conrad ND
Dorgan ND
Mikulski MD
(Bill) Nelson FL
Sarbanes MD
http://www.democrats.com/node/9778
He also has contact information for the neutral and hiding.
Are you an Anna Diggs Taylor democrat or a Joe Lieberman “Republicrat” ?
Or a Joe Lieberman “Plutocrat” ?
Or a Joe Lieberman “FatCat” ?
Eureka Springs, AR @ 106
Yeah… Blanche isn’t such a hot ticket either, huh?
Mary4now, isn’t this classic impeachment language?
when the Preznit hears of the decision from Detroit, he is likely to say “Anna Diggs Taylor has made her decision, now let her enforce it!” or do I give him too much knowledge of Constitutional history?
Mary, thank you so much for highlighting for us. I’m still dizzy from that phrase about Kings. Ouch!
Long live the judiciary.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 72
What powerful (blog) times we live in when Paragould and Jonesboro Arkansas are hitting Pryor with these questions!
I love it too, it keeps pushing the question from home.
Sha @ 16
You tell ‘em, Sha:
Reading your comment makes me think that letters from CT Dems to these quisling senators are going to have the most impact.
I hope you and your friends can convey your passion to the senate Democrats.
ATTENTION LOOSEHEADPROP — CHECK YOUR MAIL
We now return to your regularly scheduled FDL thread. Thank you.
======
Great job, Pach.
There is more information in the pipeline that has not yet emerged; I know there is strong evidence that the RNC has already been throwing resources behind Lieberman’s run. Folks working on this may not be able to wrap up related research fast enough, can only tell you to keep your eyes peeled.
Joe is for all intents and purposes THE RNC’s horse in this race. The motive is not only the lack of a strong and clean candidate with broad appeal in a blue state, but the seats that Joe currently holds on certain committees. These committees should be among the first to begin investigations into the Bush Administration if Dems retake a Senate majority this November; with Repug-friendly Joe now seated as Ranking Dem, he might automatically become chair — thus in a position to kill the investigations or substantially hamper them.
Keep that in mind when you see donations to Joe’s campaign from certain sectors/industries, particularly telecommunications.
Joe’s utility to the Repugs is not only his tendency to give them aid, but his capacity to abet them as well as his lack of curiosity (See, Michael Brown-FEMA). A Republican candidate from CT will be a junior member and NOT have the power that Joe has, even if a Republican, and Joe is a thoroughly-known entity. Go with the devil you know, in other words…
It is time for all Democratic Party members to go full-on nuclear winter on Joe. It is time for Senator Harry Reid to support and protect Democratic values by yanking Joe’s committee seats so they are not in play by Republicans. Once Joe’s seats are yanked, he has far less value to Republicans who are only in this to save their skins and thwart oversight of our government (i.e., not doing their jobs).
Call Senator Reid and ask him to yank the seats from a candidate who can no longer run as a Dem but who is trading access to those seats for campaign support.
From Crooks & Liars
CHECK THIS LONG BBC video out… It makes a lot of this crazy world make more sense…
By: John Amato @ 3:30 AM – PDT
One Planet One Nation: A BBC documentary you will NOT be seeing in America.
Beeson predicted the government would appeal the ruling and request that the order to halt the program be postponed while the case makes its way through the system. She said the ACLU had not yet decided whether it would oppose such a postponement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..rveillance
Hmm…
Chimpy just made some protecting us from terror remarks before the NSA crew a couple of days ago, right? Would love to be a fly on the wall in Abu’s office when he got the phone call. Do they get advance notice of the decision?
Dr Bong – Blanche (bland) is milk toast without the oleo. She voted for the flag burning amendment. Usually what happens Blanche and Mark cancel each other out and the net result is rubber stamp for the republicans. She is a supporter of a womans right and Mark is not so imo Mark goes first.
I don’t think we have such a thing as classic impeachment language (maybe more’s the pity?) but I do think it is classic warning language.
She’s not fooling around on the PResident not being able to willy nilly break the law. SHe says – ok, let’s keep your little data mining pecadillo secret for right now, but you’ve been TOLD. Screwing around outside the bounds of law is one good way to pick up a little something the penicillen of an Executive Authorization won’t cure.
So, let’s be sure we understand ourselves here. I won’t make you disclose other programs (for now) but IF you are relying on some half-assed that its not really “lawbreaking” if the legal concept that the President is not above the law didn’t penetrate — forget it.
If you are doing something you shouldn’t be and you get drug back — your scalp is on the wall.
That’s my quickie take, at least.
Plus, she knows Walton is working on giving them hell on the data mining. *g*
Ned Lamont’s campaign is now asking the question “What kind of change are you looking for?” ….
http://www.nedlamont.com/change
What I wrote was this, but I’m sure many of you smart dogs can add more to this discussion.
meta @ 120
the NSA is always ready to be helpful in whatever way they can …
WaltonWalker – I need to do foxfire and see if I can get edit to work.hey yall, my apologies. FDL writers, i had to correct that graphic. i made a freudian slip and typed “will” instead of “mark” pryor. will pryor is a local dem running against the rubberstamp pete sessions.
the corrected graphic has been uploaded here:
http://img422.imageshack.us/im…..icepd7.jpg
please feel free to switch it out. my apologies for any confusion.
from WaPo via talkleft:
thank you, Your Honor
And of course, one very real item is still floating unanswered.
WHat about all those civil penalties and felonies with prison terms?
J. Donne @ 59:
I think the Dems can multi-task, don’t you. After all, these are 2 separate states. And, IMHO, the Dems made a mistake by going with an anti-choice candidate. Just dumb….but I guess they really don’t like going after the Women Vote….makes them look un-macho and then the pugs could make fun of them.
Mary for now @ 11:31 am (#125) – “Edit comment” works in Firefox as long as you have Javascript enabled for firedoglake.com.
I was a bit disappointed by that part of Judge Taylor’s decision dealing with the data mining program. Hopefully, your interpretation is right, because on the surface it looks like she’s letting them get away with classifying the thing.
*ilson46201 @ 113
I think so.
Instead, I think he’ll say: 9/11 Changed Everything. Now America does have a king.
CNN is reporting the DOJ is going to appeal the Detroit anti-monarchist spying ruling.
No shit, Sherlock!
I feel a Koufax worthy post from Christy coming……..
Mary for now @ 11:33 am (#128) WHat about all those civil penalties and felonies with prison terms?
Is someone in the Bush Administration having sex now?
Cujo359 @ 134
Bolton
From Pa. Ricky Santorum has had a ton of ads on cable TV. One of them bordering on racist. They are designed to present him as a moderate opposed to Bush on many issues. I haven’t seen any from Casey in reply yet.
meta @ 120
The same thing crossed my mind, but made me wonder about them begging the Brits to release the london bombing story so bushco could take credit for foiling the plot all weekend and make the general public assume whatever they’re doing must be working.
bookwoman @ 11:30 am (#123) – That’s a pretty good list. I’d add that maybe they should undo all the damage they’ve done to telecommunications and intellectual property law in the last decade, and maybe start supporting science instead of religion, but I’ll feel lucky if they get halfway through your list.
From the ‘Have a steaming hot cup of STFU’ Dept.
Cheney: Dem victory a threat to security; Soon…
From the usual suspect,
http://rawstory.com/
The good thing about the Q – poll is that it shows the political distribution of the respondents. The fact that Joe is overwhelmingly supported by Republicans ought to be brought to the attention of democrat senators who are not on board with Ned yet. The results of the Q – poll show decisively that Joe is representing the Republican population of Connecticut and has lost the trust of the Democrats. Joe not only bolted FROM the Democrats, but he ran INTO the arms of the Republicans. When somebody commits such treason to the party, he deserves to be ostracized and abandoned.
EPU’d below, still trying to catch up, you guys are on fire today! hehe
Kurt @ 199
*ilson46201 @ 11:39 am (#135) – Is that what sex has become in the 21st century? Kinda sad.
Missed this, from the same page. The Memo is out.
Orrin Hatch: Dem. wins help terrorists
Utah Sen. says GOP loss in November could result in attacks on USA.
Cujo359 @ 140
felonies and civil penalties?
penal is in there somewhere – bow chicka bow wow
meta #120
you’re right
1) bush uses nsa to spy on us, including judges who are working on critical cases
2) weeks ago nsa told bush where her honor was going with this
3) bush told pakistan to arrest somebody, anybody, because pakistan has plenty of folks who are scheming against the dictator there: bush was then going to puff up the arrest
4) pakistan happened to arrest a guy whose brother belonged to a group that was among some 70 groups the british were watching, so the british had no choice but to round them all up a few days later even though they had no chemicals, no tickets & few passports
5) bush announced the arrests & took credit for having nsa spy on us
6) all the screening at airports is bullshit aimed at getting the sheep pointed the right way
mamayaga @ 68
Call the DSCC too at (202) 224-2447 and ask why Pryor (”Southern Vice Chair”) hasn’t been shown the door if he won’t support the Democrat in CT Senate race.
Hatch and Cheney. Bwwahahaaaaa.
#123 – Good list. I agree with Cujo re: communications and Intellectual property. I might add the need to enforce anti-monopoly laws…AND the misconception of the anti-abortion Repugs. They’ve been in charge of everything for years now and I surely don’t see any steps toward anti-aboriton laws being taken. Why isn’t their base screaming? (I mean, thank God they’re not, but…)
Mary4now – Thanks so much for your insight on the Diggs Taylor decision. I’m so HAPPY!!!!
roger @ 145,
Exactly. And they did the same before the ‘04 election, correct? Which is why they are the anti-national security party.
WarandPiece
It seems to me that Lamont’s best strategy is to try to push some of the Republicans away from Joe. That 4% number is way too low: there are more one-issue pro-lifers in the state than that.
Let’s suppose that the Lamont campaign brings up the NARAL endorsement and points out why he is more deserving of it than Joe. This could accomplish two things: attact some of Lieberman’s pro-choice supporters to Lamont, and repel some of Lieberman’s pro-life supporters to what’s his face, the guy with the gambling problem.
Now, there’s a risk in this: many people are in the “mushy pro-choice” camp: they feel uncomfortable with abortion, don’t oppose some restrictions, but feel strongly that the option of legal abortion must be available. They might be attracted to Lieberman’s waffling on the issue (though not, I think, to Lieberman’s suggestion that it’s OK to deny the morning-after pill to a rape victim).
5) bush announced the arrests & took credit for having nsa spy on us
Actually, it’s been publicly announced that the warrantless spying had nothing to do with the British arrests. Glenn Greenwald had a good post on it a few days ago. All of the evidence was collected through legal means.
Mark B. in Austin TX at 153,
People all over the country have heard the Fox News version, or read the Opinion Journal or NewsMax version, which is that the NSA warrantless spying is what saved the day. It’s hard to dissuade them with the facts.
Anna and Fitz,
Let’s get our country back…
“History gives us hope because it shows how quickly some things can change.” Monte Irvin
Jack
NSA ruling thread
Cujo – she is letting them walk, but she’s given them, IMO, a very short chain. It could be, as with prior efforts, futile; but if it is – I would hate to be back in front of her.
She’s made it real clear that the President can’t violate the law. As best I understand and can tell, some of the Fourth Amendment issues are not as implicated by the telecom efforts, if they are as described. However, First Amendment and statutory matters are still an issue. The statutes provide limits on what the President and telecoms can do, and also provide ways the AG can operate legally.
She’s seems to me to be pretty much saying: We don’t really know enough to know what you are doing (although Walker wasn’t so sure), you might, conceivably, be acting legally if you are abiding by the statutes, so I’m going to give you this opening for now – but remember; I’ve told you that if you are breaking the law, that is NOT authorized by inherent powers. Which means – no good faith reliance on an OLC opinion that says you have a get out of jail free card.
IMO fwiw
Pade @ 136
I’m guessing Casey doesn’t have unlimited funds and Sanitorium does.
I agree with Joe Buck that the 4 per cent number is too low; but it’s not just abortion that will cause goopers to vote gooperly–it’s immigration, guns and taxes. Those are the issues that will become clear winners for Shlesinger…not enough to make a go for the seat, certainly, but enough–I’ve got to believe 10 to 20 percent–to win it for Ned.
The bigger effect, though, will be on turnout. Do Republicans who have never voted for Joe in their life feeel strongly enough about him to actually show up at the polls in enough numbers to overcome the Dems who DID vote for Joe in the primary but are now repulsed by his Better Red than Politically Dead tour?
Menothinkso.
This correcton has probably already been made, but viewing Lamont’s Op-ed (or most editorials at WSJ) does not require a subscription.
They don’t charge for the (mostly) worthless parts, just the newsgathering. Funny, it’s the opposite of the NYT…
fdl types have no idea how much power they wield — it’s dawning on me that to keep bugging the boobs in washington’s a waste of time & energy — fdl types need to think & work like ned instead — ned owns a business so he only does what helps his bottom line — look at how well he did with little money & without the folks in washington, many of whom are jealous of his ability to tap the likes of fdl’s enthusiasm — ned needed a vacation because he works harder than the boobs in washington
fdl is much more concentrated & effective than, say, arianna’s site, which is too sprawled out & filled with confused ego-trippers — when i started coming here, i was amazed by the ‘get it done now’ attitude
i know less than 99% of you where to focus the effort but i do know from having tried to contact hillary & schumer many times that they & their ilk are top-down types who aren’t worth pursuing — fdl is already teaching them a lesson by helping ned
a bigger area where fdl underestimates its strength is that the very act of taking ned from the bottom to the top without much outside help has started to undo the lines of force that operate within the establishment — big dog understands this — hillary doesn’t because hillary’s authoritarian: she gets her power just from hanging on to big dog — big dog gets his power from attitude
fdl has attitude
mark b #153
what bush takes credit for is that he had the foresight to broaden nsa’s domestic spying — he used the british arrests, based on british domestic spying, as justifying nsa’s spying on us — he insinuated that he had helped the british too
it was all designed to make us enjoy being sheep
Mary – I think she went a little further. I read the opinion and took out of it – writ large – that neither the president NOR any law is above the constitution, and that is the starting point.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 161
EPU, I believe you have just been EPU’d.
Hi, EPU–
Always good to catch you down here in our favorite spot.
I still say a case can be made for “froggermarched” *mumblemumble*
What say we take it upstairs and see how the other half lives?
Wikipedia’s entry on Taylor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Diggs_Taylor
from waaay up thread @ 57
Pryor:
I’m gonna get to that bold bidness in a sec – but first
would be interesting to track the ‘genealogy ‘of the Consultants now working with the 6 Weasels supporting Joe – would bet a week’s wages there’s a connection there somewhere – maybe as simple as they all got their start in the same firm, Children of the Shrum – but would love to know the pedigree of the political hacks pulling the levers behind the curtain
“the Democrats need moderate voices“,
translation – we’re afraid of the Mighty Rove and what he might say about us – so afraid, we’ll turn on the Party and it’s chances for a Congressional Majority come January – ” ‘cuse us now while we crawl back under the bed and continue quivering”
Take my word for it: the number of people who took Bill Clinton’s ‘Sister Souljah Moment’ to heart were the number of D.C.’s pundits in 1992.
Bill Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and every other democrat in the country who endorsed Joe Lieberman did so knowing full well that he intended to stab the party in the back. It didn’t matter to any of them, though, did it? Leastwise, not one of them withdrew their support after he announced he would betray the party. Clinton and Boxer, of course, campaigned for the pissant.
I understand the need to believe the GOP can be crushed into powder. The alternative is too grim to contemplate. Of course, things have ways of working out in the long haul, in ways none can foresee.
But it’s not going to happen through the democratic party as currently constituted. That organization is broken, and no amount of wishing will ever make it otherwise. Democrats like Landrieu, Pryor, Clinton, and Feinstein belong in the GOP. Or would, if that party would have them. Their breed of cat has been, and will forever be, an anchor around the necks of real progressivism. When the chips are down, they will always veer as radically right as the GOP happens to be at that given moment. They are more trouble than they are worth. A true-blue democratic party, by whatever name it might call itself, will emerge only after it jettisons dinosaurs like them and reconstitutes itself.
Would someone – or many people – explain exactly what “trianguation” is and how it is effects both the PA and the CT races?
TIA
I heard Hannity even say, “WHY would any Republican, vote for a man who touts he voted with Democrats 90% of the time?”
What the hell is wrong with CT Repubs, that they somehow missed that? that is what we have to start harping to Republicans. You want a man who voted 90% against YOU???
phoebes @
170
Triangulation describes Bill Clinton’s tactic of running against the both the Republicans and Democrats, after the 1994 election debacle. Clinton triangulated himself into the middle, between the extremes of each party.
Hence, a triangulator is someone who tries to stake out the middle by distancing themselves both sides.
How it plays out in PA, I’m not quite sure — but in CT, Lieberman is posing as centerist, against that GOP loving radical leftie Ned Lamont. In PA, Casey is a conservative Dem, which may be his undoing. Triangulation only works when the voters are displeased with the extremes, and right now people are sick of GOP extremism and Democratic triangulated mush.
Make your own Colbert “On Notice” Board: http://www.shipbrook.com/onnotice/
froggermarch @
159
Actually, as a CT GOP lifer, I’d say Joe’s support among Republicans in CT is very strong; Schlesinger is another surrender candidate– the CTGOP has long known it can’t keep Republicans in the party where’s Joe’s involved, so they usually run absolute jokes (the latest is a scandal-ridden degenerate gambler) in Senatorial races.
I campaigned against Joe twice and voted for him once. Most other CTGOPs I know will admit to having voted for Lieberman. Schlesinger’s a throwaway candidate, and most CT Republicans know it. The real choice is Lamont or Lieberman– the better of two evils from that point of view. And that’s the battle Lamont’s got to fight. If I were advising him, I’d say getting the CTGOP to pull Schlesinger and replace him with a better candidate may be the only way to go– 20-30% of CT voters are registered Republicans, but only 4% are sticking with the party? Joe’s got the GOP on his side, I’d say.
And I’m not sure DeStefano (note spelling) is in a close enough race at this point to be much of an issue in the Senatorial races. A lot of John’s future will ride on how well the Democrats can pin Rowland’s scandals to the squeaky clean, popular Rell.
As for the GOP issues to splinter GOP from Joe, I don’t think you know Connecticut that well. It’s a very very odd state. I have lived here all my life and have been off-and-on politically active. The Nutmeg Republicans are more Giuliani/Rockefeller Republicans than Reaganites. The Consevrative Revolution didn’t ever happen here. To wit, the last few GOP officeholders in CT have been social liberals: Rowland, Lowell Weicker (in the Senate) was Joe Lieberman’s opposite number– a Republican so liberal, he was basically a Democrat. I cannot think of a single honest-to-God Conservative Republican in statewide or national office in my life. They ran ultra-conservative Tom Scott for Senate a couple years back, he lost badly, but I think he was the last time they tried the conservative thing.
Ned’s got problems. If he runs ads to highlight Lieberman’s liberal votes, trying to drive GOPers away, he hurts his own campaign narrative. He obviously can’t attack Schlesinger. It comes down to a tapdance routine to maintain his Democrat leftists and fish for moderate and Independent voters (about 50% of CT’s voters). If Joe didn’t save the Sub base, Lamont would be a shoo-in.
Just a few thoughts about zany Connecticut politics.
I recommend calling the DCCC as well as the DSCC to pressure Joe to drop out of the race.
My reasoning is that DCCC has a lot to lose in the House in November with Joe in the race. Joe’s strategy is to bring as many Republicans to the polls to vote for him in a state where the R candidate has absolutely no traction. This is *very* bad for the three CT House seats we would be likely to pick up without Joe in the race. With Joe in the race we may miss picking up House majority.
Call the DCCC and any members of the DCCC who you might be able to persuade. We need to have these organizations make the name of Lieberman poison to Democrats, so that *everyone* is very clear that Joe is effectively a Republican Bush-enabler and a traitor to the Democrats at this point.
Keep calling Harry Reid to oust Lieberman for all committee seats so everyone’s clear that he will have no seniority if he returns, call the DSCC to put pressure on Lieberman to drop out, and call the DCCC to poison Lieberman’s well.
We need him out of the race ASAP.
One more thing. On the numbers, let’s pretend Abraham Lincoln is revived from Beyond the Grave and gets 100% of CT’s GOP vote, and zero Democrat votes. That moves about 20% out.
If Lieberman and Lamont Split the Democratic party in the same fashion as they did in the primary, 48-52, Joe has only to get– what? 55% of the teeming millions of independent voters (remember, 50% of CT voters aren’t party registered.)
That’s where Lieberman’s strength is, so Lamont would have to solidify the far left (done) and try to get each and every rank-and-file Democrat to absolutely believe Joe is a Traitor to the Party and lock-step vote for Lamont. I thin k he’s working on this now.
Then, with a 20-30 race between the most ideal GOP candidate and Lamont, Lieberman would be forced to dominate independents to win.
I need to point out that I am just toying with numbers here, and am not some kind of wonk or anything.
Sonoma @ 169
I imagine that’s what they thought in Germany and the Soviet Union too. Things did indeed work out, unless you were one of the 30,000,000 people killed, or the unknown number of people who lived in prison or abject poverty because of government actions.
It CAN happen here.
Sister Souljoe!
I’ll be interested to see how Lamont’s joint appearance with John Edwards today goes — From what I can tell from the 2004 Primary, Edwards strength seems to be among working class democrats, the ones most likely to have supported Lieberman in the primary. It is a block of votes that must be moved to Ned.
I haven’t seen anything specific yet, but Weicker did say before the primary that he planned on a committee of Independents for Lamont this fall. Assuming Weicker still has some sort of CT following, this could also be very very useful, particularly if he can organize person to person — phone calling and all — to his former supporters.
Because where Lamont needs to pick up votes is among Independents and moderate Republicans perhaps, we need to keep the inside Senate Democratic Caucus stuff in the background. Remember, Joe is campaigning against partisanship, and he must have polling or focus group data telling him this is an attractive position. To position Lamont as someone hell bent on party discipline may not be the position that helps most. What probably will work is identifying those areas where Joe and Bush were linked at the hip — and make clear that he disagrees and will be most vocal about such policy disagreements.
Has anyone noticed that the DSCC blog has barely had a mention of the CT-SEN general election race. You would think that they would be fully behind the DEM candidate, they have been posting support and negative material about all other close SEN contests this fall. Someone should contact them and ask what is up.
http://www.fromtheroots.org/
And where is Murtha, for God’s sake? Ned is fighting Murtha’s fight.