(Photo from the WH website, at the signing of the Intel Reform Act, 12/17/04.)
Joe Lieberman in today’s Hartford Courant:
"Sen. Reid left no doubt in my mind that I would retain my seniority and committee assignments within the Senate Democratic Caucus should I be re-elected," Lieberman said Thursday, "and that has been confirmed to me by several other members of the Democratic caucus."
Oh, really? But you won’t name names? Ummm hmmm. Pardon me while I step through the smoke.
From Sen. Reid’s office, in the same article:
"As is customary, the caucus will consider such things as committee assignments only after the elections in November. There’s nothing automatic about anything," said Manley.
And I have it directly from another member of Reid’s staff that this quote is exactly Sen. Reid’s position on the matter — that the caucus makes the decision together, it is not something that is issued by fiat. And this will be voted on by incoming Democrats — not the outgoing caucus — so whatever chits Lieberman thinks he’s piled up (and by Bob Geiger’s count, that would be six definites at the most at this point, in the "feed Joe’s hungry ego" Connecticut for Lieberman party apparatus), they may not be operative come November.
It is time to hit the phones, gang. I’d sure like to know what every Democratic Senator’s position is on Lieberman and his committee positions, wouldn’t you? Especially given his back-stabbing Cheney-esque maneuvers in Connecticut over the past week, and his attempts to portray the position taken by more than 80% of the Connecticut electorate — and more than 60% of all Americans and a decided majority of the Demcoratic party – that the Iraq occupation has been managed badly and that we need a new direction as "aiding the terrorists." (Getting the Mehlman faxes daily, are we?)
Because this is what I’ve been hearing more and more lately from folks in DC:
Privately, some members and their advisers are increasingly concerned that Lieberman is becoming political poison for any Democrat who backs him – someone who is too closely identified with President Bush’s support for the Iraq war and is getting too much Republican support for his re-election. (emphasis mine)
You know why they think supporting Joe Lieberman is political poison? Because he is, and because you guys have been doing a lot of hard work on this issue, so kudos to all of you as well. Wouldn’t you like to know if your Senators plan on rewarding Turncoat Joe?
You can call toll free at 1-888-355-3588 to the Capitol switchboard. You can also find contact information for your Senators here. This isn’t just a question to be asked of sitting Democratic Senators, though — it’s also something we should find out from Democratic Senate candidates. Most politicians are home for the August recess and doing events all over their respective states — this is a fantastic time to drop by a local office or a candidate event and talk with your Senator in person about how important it is to stand up for democracy and the Democratic party.
This is the time to stand up and let your Democratic Senators know exactly how you feel about de facto Republican candidate Turncoat Joe Lieberman and his GOP playbook tactics in Connecticut. And if you get an answer from your Senators on this, please report back here — we’ll keep an eye on this one. Please let your voice be heard!
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
Christy!
Bob Geiger!
I do hope Lamont gets more visible. Lie-berman is sure putting on a full court press, and Lamont needs to come out swinging. The earlier Joe gets on the ropes, the better.
Get Ned in front of the cameras – make Joe do the same, and you’ll see Ned’s numbers rise fast.
“When you enter the ocean you enter the food chain, and not necessarily at the top.” – Cousteau
If Joe were to win the election (not reelection because the last time he ran as a Democrat and this time he’s running for a differnet party), and as some fear the Prez were to offer him Rummy’s job and he took it, as I understand it, the Gov of CT would appoint a new Senator.
Is this true or would there be a byelection?
I can understand if the term is about done, to just appoint someone, but it seems hardly fair if the person has 4 or six years in front of him to get in without earning it from the people.
Dems need to be developing real contingency plans for the possibility that Lieberman goes back to the senate owing his election largely to goopers. It’s an ugly scenario- but Reid had better be prepared for it.
how do these fuckers develop such a sense of entitlement? both LIEberman and lil’ bushie have this affliction. it’s not pretty, especially in adults.
Let the DSCC and it’s chairman, Chuck Schumer and Mark Pryor (D?-ARK) know that Pryor either needs to support the Democratic candidate in CT or resign from his position as vice-chair of the DSCC, whose mission it is supposed to be to elect Democrats to the Senate.
Having a person in a leadership position in the DSCC not support the Dem candidate is outrageous.
i thanked byrd & am glad to thank any other ned-supporter anybody wants me to thank — to me, fdl does best when it deals with each candidate, one at a time — that’s why this particular effort’s exciting
i have more fun dealing with somebody like byrd who’s done something good than dealing with a party committee or trying to get my views across to tin-eared pompous fools like hillary & chuck
why hasn’t josh marshall volunteered to serve in iraq? it nauseates me when folks like him & tom friedman are so quick to demand that american youngsters ought to be killed or maimed for their cherished cause
Actually this is the big one. To keep RGJoe from bleeding Dem resources from Brown, Tester, etc. – gotta hit’em hard and now!
US Senators must believe they will pay a price for playing coy with party loyalty. I can’t believe I was so foolish to think the Dem leadership would have jumped on this without prompting – I thought they’d have purged him by now…
Christy – Peanut is as imagined!
Morris Sheppard @ 6
Schumer’s position is the same as Pryor’s!
For Ned Lamont’s schedule today, click here.
Excellent, Christy. This is just what we needed. I’ve been working the phones too and I really think it’s time to pin some more people down.
Bionic’s comment is very much on my mind. With Joe you just do not know what you are going to get, and that may include a Gov. appointed Senator.
While I think it is time to run against Joe for what he is, as opposed to what he is not (a Democrat) I would like to see a LOT more noise from the incoming caucus about stripping Joe’s seniority.
A lot of the electorate sounds apolitical to me – that’s why it has taken so long for Iraq to be seen as a failure instead of a litmus test for citizenship. For Joe to lose a _practical_ advantage would help Lamont a lot.
Josh Marshall supports the Iraq war? Sure about that?
BTW I heartily endorse those who say that Ned needs to get on Holy Joe’s case and NOW! The way I see it Ned has two jobs – one, introduce himself positively to the rest of CT, and two, expose Joe for the lying, faithless, double dealing, two faced piece of crap he is. His piece in the WSJ does no. one admirably, but he must get on no. two, and fast.
Sorry to say, this is going to get nasty, folks, and Joe started it.
I wandered over to Andrew Sullivan’s place to see if he had any more on the thinness of the London Terra Plot, and found this.
Another conservative doesn’t just disagree with BushCo, but pulls every morsel of credibility out from under them.
Not much of a Sullivan fan, here, but maybe his conservative readers are taking this in.
Surcam @
133
Look, you can believe whatever you want. Don’t try to explain your “opinion” as truth.
Byrd has said his past with the Klan was shameful. For Byrd, as a “son of the South”, to say that out loud, in public is an act of contrition. There tons of modern day Republicans like Trent Lott who think that the old Klan ways were good for America.
People make mistakes, live awful lives and they change and they grow. For a self-described “liberal” to be unwilling to grant a human being the right to absolution after asking for it, repeatedly and with conviction makes me curious as to just how liberal you really are.
-GSD
Go right ahead and use Sean Hannity as your moral guide. Lay into John Kerry for his Vietnam War criticism while you are at it. Trump up the charges that Bill Clinton was a Russian double agent because he visited the USSR in the 60’s as the Hannity’s have suggested. It is your right to be obstinate, unforgiving and uncompassionate, but don’t claim the mantle of “liberalism”.
PS. I never said “don’t talk about it”, I said don’t use Sean Hannity’s framing. I talk about shit day in and day out here and often others don’t agree, so don’t go screaming censorship.
new press release from Ned’s team:
NEWS RELEASE
President Bush Nominates Lieberman for Senate
For Immediate Release
For more information: Liz Dupont-Diehl, Communications Director, 860 989 7893
STATEWIDE – As George Bush & Dick Cheney rush to embrace Democratic primary loser Joseph Lieberman, the campaign of Ned Lamont pointed out the numberous links between the incumbent Senator and Bush’s failed policies.
“He’s the de facto candidate of George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney,” said spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl. “Which is not surprising when you consider how much they sound alike when they defend Bush’s incompetence in Iraq, failed efforts to fight terror, or questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with them over the war in Iraq.”
Lieberman has voted for every single off-budget appropriation for the war — refusing to hold Bush or Rumsfeld accountable for sending our brave troops to war without armor, spending billions of taxpayer funds on no-bid contracts for their friends, or failing to have to have a plan to bring our troops home to the heroes welcome they deserve. He just parrots Bush’s talking points that paint dissent as unpatriotic and defeatist.
He has also supported Bush & Cheney in their efforts to privatize Social Security, appoint judges who threaten a woman’s right to choose, and give billions in subsidies to oil and gas companies while families pay record prices at the pumps.
“It’s no surprise that the National Republican Senate Committee has endorsed Lieberman, and that Dick Cheney has called to support him,” Dupont-Diehl said. “Karl Rove called Joe right after the election and they worked off the same play-book last week with their ridiculous claims that Connecticut voters aided terrorists by voting Joe out of office. After 18 years in the Senate, Joe Lieberman will do anything to hang on to power. This campaign is bringing to light how closely he has supported the Bush administration in its failed war on terror, and how they are mortgaging our children’s future.”
Voters turned out in record numbers a week ago to say no to the failed Republican policies of the last six years and yes to someone who will stand up to George Bush and take this country in a new direction. Unfortunately, for the last six years, Joe Lieberman has simply rubberstamped bad Bush decisions about this country’s future, turned a blind eye to incompetence and no bid contracts, and fought to stay the course in Iraq while our nation becomes less and less safe. His actions over the last week only confirm that he’ll continue his support of these dangerously wrong policies.
###
rwcole at 13 is right, I think — I don’t recall Josh supporting the Iraq War either.
meta @ 9
IIRC Schumer has come out in support of Ned, although weakly. He has not endorsed Joe as Pryor has and claims the DSCC is in support of Ned, as well. Still, not quite enough.
rwcole #13
he wanted us to go into iraq
Thucydides Jr. @ 2
Um, you mean like campaigning with John Edwards yesterday?
Bionic @ 3
This is a VERY important question. My understanding is that the (REpug) governor, would appoint a replacement. This might explain a certain aspect of the RNC strategy, no?
btw- go over to MFI’s site for a lovely pic of the cover of the UK Independent …
http://gorillasguides.blogspot.com/
apparently the Ind. interviewed Labour leadership and they agree that Bush *is* crap.
more evidence of backstabbing, or word twisting. bet Reid isn’t happy……..
Pach at 11 — Can you tell that I have had it with Lieberman’s hypocrisy? Calling Al Sharpton privately to beg for his support and, when Joe doesn’t get it, publicly smearing Sharpton like he was so much dirt under Joe’s shoe. Conason is spot on today. And that’s just one example of many, many others where Joe is a public face that hides a completely different one out of the public’s eye.
And I, for one, have had it. Rove is using him as a pawn to bait and switch the entire Democratic party apparatus, and split the Democratic voters nationwide — on racial, on economic and on political lines. And I have had it with people in DC who only want to see the “poor Joe” wallow in his ego and self-pity routine as real. Wake the fuck up, people — do you want to win or what?!?
Is the Kiss Float still driving around Connecticut, anyone know?
Seems like it would be a good way to remind Connecticles about what’s at stake in the race hehe.
Hagel:
http://www.journalstar.com/art…..864536.txt
via thinkprogress
sorry if previously posted, i have some catching up to do.
Reid and fellow Senate Democrats need tread very carefully around the Lieberman seniority issue.
The likelihood of the Democrats taking the Senate by a single seat majority is increasingly likely, as is (sigh) Lieberman defeating Lamont in the general.
Would you put at risk Democratic control of the Senate for the blogosphere pet candidate? Do you honestly believe all the senior Democrats up for committee leadership positions will do so? Now that’s just naive.
Lamont is going to have to run without meaningful support from the Senate Democratic Caucus. He’s just not going to get it.
[Narrowly escaping an EPU … ] You-all bawling about Ned’s — what? four-day? — break from the campaign just amaze me.
If there’s anything that Ned and Tom Swan have shown us this summer, it’s that they know what they’re doing.
Candidates who don’t pace themselves but run flat-out for eight or ten months are bound to hit the walls (plural intentional). Like any good manager, Ned knew when to step back, recharge, and bring fresh eyes, mind, and body to his task.
Isn’t a campaign mighty like writing and proofreading something? You can work so furiously on your text, get so close to it, that your mind’s eye begins to see what it intends to be there instead of what is. If you don’t step back and let the thing “cool,” then come at later with fresh eyes, you’re bound to make and miss ever more typos.
Worn-out candidates are error-prone. Ned and Tom, knowing they’d need a short break somewhere, scheduled it for the best possible time. If Ned needs and takes another couple of days off somewhere between now and November, I say power to ‘im. He’s doing an excellent job of this and knows how best to keep on keepin’ on. He’ll step back and hit Preview as needed — whether we have sense enough to or not.
/fuss
one way josh can right the wrong is by saying our going into iraq was a mistake, but he won’t — it’s a strong undertow that’s hidden by superficial agonizing
I get Ned’s schedule each day and he’s been doing media appearances and a small selection of events each day. Yesterday, he campaigned with John Edwards, this weekend he’s out in two parts of the state campaigning. This week he also got the SEIU endorsement and just now the campaign issued their new press release -see above. Ned was on the BBC world service yesterday morning, got good footage on Hardball last night, etc … not exactly invisible.
Comment at no. 7. Think you should check the archives at TPM first before you make this assertion. My memory, and I do not really feel like researching this but will do so if you are going to make unsubstantiated comments, is that Josh Marshall flirted with the idea of an Iraq war but ultimately came down against it. Not necessarily the strongest position against the war but certainly not the position you represented him to have taken.
lotus @
29
Lovely lotus – spot on – as always!
Roger at 30 — if you have an issue with Josh, take it up with him — but enough with the Josh bashing today.
RTS #32
about 90% of americans wanted us to go into iraq — he was part of it, which is why he won’t say it was wrong
Christy Hardin Smith @
25
AMEN!
Every Democrat supporting Joe ought to be reminded that Lieberman’s support in the November election comes primarily from GOP voters (the latest CT polls prove this to be true). Joe’s GOTV campaign is going to hurt the Democratic party, not help it. No wonder career Democrats continue to lose elections, jeesh!
Thucydides Jr. says:
August 18th, 2006 at 9:49 am *
I do hope Lamont gets more visible. Lie-berman is sure putting on a full court press, and Lamont needs to come out swinging. The earlier Joe gets on the ropes, the better.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thucydides, everyone supporting Lamont says being critical of his post-primary strategy is wrong and ill considered. To hear them talk Ned as doing EXACTLY what he should be doing, be patient and the noise you’ll hear is Lieberman’s bones being gound beneath the wheels of the Lamont machine. Their protests of criticism seem so quick and touchy I wonder if those quizzing them have hit a nerve? Personally I think Lamont is carrying a knife to a gunfight.
cloud7 @ 37
Decrying Lieberman as a Republican? That dog don’t hunt. A Republican could not be elected Senator in 21st century Connecticut. And yet he’s ahead (and his lead widening) in polls of the electorate. He’s leading significantly among Connecticut Independent voters too.
and your little dog, too — at 15. Wow. Thanks for link to Sullivan. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. How ironic, but it’s possible the “conservatives” will bring this Administration down.
What’s interesting to watch is how slow some Dems are in seeing this is happening, even though the trainwreak is happening right in front of them, and not realizing how toxic Bush — and Joe L — have become. [Great post Christy!!] You don’t want to be standing next to someone who’s not only driving over a cliff but is probably being pushed by his prior enablers.
The message to Harry Reid, et al: get as much distance between Dems and the Bush/Bush enablers as you can.
Come November, Lieberman’s hat will read “I WISH I HAD A JOB TO SHOVE”
Anne Holliday @ 33: Lovely lotus – spot on – as always!
She’s right. As one who has done years of professional writing and editing and proofreading, there is absolutely no substitute for critical distance. (blog posting doesn’t count!)
roger loger at 35:
i’m not sure where you’re getting that 90 percent number, but I think it was more like 60/40 when the IWR was passed in Oct. 2002.
Pilsner party at 39 — are you sure about your math on the “lead widening” assertion? Because that does not add up among every poll that I’ve seen for a statewide-three-way race in CT. Care to share your source on that?
Harkin’s office didn’t know what his position is. I left email and asked for a response. Harkin is in Iowa, but I don’t think he’s coming anywhere near where I am. Someone might take the opportunity to ask him a question at an event.
pilsner at 39:
21st century CT voted for J. Kerry in 2004. That majority can’t be happy with Lieberman’s love affair with GWB. After all, they are two years angrier than they were in ‘04.
“left no doubt in my mind” != “told me”
Christy — totally agree that JL’s hypocrisy slip is not just showing, it’s dragging the floor.
We can probably compile of list of lies/distortions/misdirection/evasions and create a nice Late-nite out of it, or have a covered-dish supper and everyone can bring something to the table. But a main page complilation could be Spotlighted.
It seems inconceivable that Holy Joe will caucus with the Dems; when all is said and done, almost all of his money, support and votes will have come from the GOP. It can’t be for nothin’, CaneToadKarl wouldn’t allow this much support for a “Democrat” unless there was really something in it for King George. Let’s face it Joe Lieberman is really just a protoRepublican.
both Surcam and Pilsner Party are newcomers here today — isn’t it odd such determined anti-racists weren’t here when we were discussing in depth the George Felix Allen MACACA story ? Democrats seem to be the target of these two newbies …
As I’ve mentioned before, the moment Lieberman is certified to be on the ballot as the CFL candidate he ceases being a Democrat. He may think he is, and he may plan on caucusing with them. But he will not be a Democrat.
Other candidates have switched parties, and have been cleanly removed from their former party. Why is it so hard for our politicians to understand that Lieberman has left the party? Just because he’s switching to a made-up party and whining about still being with the Democrats doesn’t make it so. The voters have chosen their candidate.
I don’t hear Jeffords from Vermont whining about and expecting the perks from his former GOP colleagues after he left them to go independent. It disgusts me that the incumbency racket in the Democratic Party is more concerned with cuddling with their buddy Lieberman than doing what’s right for the party and Connecticut voters.
i agree with Lotus @ 29
there is such a thing as too much exposure. Lieberman has to do it. he doesn’t have any other option. can you imagine how connecticut voters felt after the primary? the last thing they wanted to hear was more about politics, at least for a week or so. Lamont ran a grass roots, press the flesh campaign before the primary and it appears that he’s doing the same thing now. and it’s obviously something that Lieberwuss recoils from doing. so, what’s not to like (for Ned and us)?
The sense I get is that Lieberman is not beloved among his peers, and they have no illusions over whose interests he guards. But he’s holding them hostage, since and individual senator can use the rules to seriously fuck over any other senator’s agenda. The members actually have more “I can fuck with you” power this way than the Leader does. So he’s holding them hostage, at least until November.
I agree with lotus@29 also.
Ned’s a smart man. I would venture to say Joe was given the rope that he will hang himslef on.
lina @ 43
I wondered about that too, Lina………..
Christy Hardin Smith @ 44
Rasmussen, August 12: “Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41%.
Quinnipiac poll, August 17: “Lieberman ahead in the race, 53% to 41%”.
Wake the fuck up, people — do you want to win or what?!?
Sometimes, Christy, I’m willing to think that they really d o n ‘ t .
Might smack into too much accountability or somethin’ thetaway, doncha know. Might have to be grownups instead of weenies.
There be monsters [um, us] there . . .
bcinaz @ 49
how about crypto-republican……..
Although off topic, the story associated with this Raw Story headline might merit further exploration when the full story is posted: Cheney receiving suspect Iran briefings; Developing…
Maybe you can ask your wavering Senator how they expect to convince average Americans that Dems will stand up for them, if Senate Dems demonstrate that they won’t even stand up for their own voters.
Karl will eventually make sure this question gets asked publicly, so let’s make sure they think about this while it can still be a private deliberation.
I agree with MillinaryMan and Lotus too.
Pach – I disagree, for the simple fact that any Senator can simply block the actions of the Senator blocking him/her – resulting in a stalemate. Also, if you think about it, why wouldn’t Senators use the tactic now, particularly those in the minority party?
As to why support Lierman? Perhaps they too have forgotten that they serve the people who elected rather than themselves, just like Lierman.
I really want to hear Surcam and Pilsner explain away the 2006 macaca slur from the GOP Senator …
lotus at 29 — thanks for your response to the handwringers. Ned did NOT lose ground in the days after. He gained with party unity meetings and behind the scenes discussions with national dems; with quick follow ups on national shows that were outright homeruns; with quick response to the Cheney/Lieberman mistakes in linking Ned to terror support — which backfired and gave Ned more national appearances to respond, get name recognition and show how good he is. Cheney stopped talking about Ned and the national dems saw this. The national dems may be hedging their bets, as rw suggests, but the point is, they’re not betting against Ned, and that’s a huge change from before the primary. [We will win over rw eventually.]
And besides, Ned can’t twist national Dem arms publically and it would be a mistake to try/do so. He’s winning them over, and as they see more of him, he’ll be fine. Ned’s image and position are going to lift all Dem boats, and it’s the Dem Pres wannabes who see that.
Pilsner at 56 — you can’t compare two different polls, with two compeltely different polling samples as apples and apples. Especially because the latest Q-poll sampled not just registered voters but also likely voters, and Rasmussan did not. The Q-poll trending, thus far, has been for the gap to close between Lieberman and Lamont in the three-way race Chris Bowers did a great comparison piece on this yesterday, FYI. You might want to take a peek at it.
I’m not saying that it isn’t going to be a tough battle for Ned Lamont – because it clearly is, as we’ve been saying all along — but the evidence is not there as yet that the Lieberman lead is widening, especially given that his negative numbers have been rising steadily in every successive poll.
The thing is though, Harry Reid’s spokesman was obviously given a chance by the Courant reporter to deny and contradict Lieberman’s excerpted statement about the support Harry Reid supposedly assured him of yesterday. But Reid’s spokesman didn’t take the opportunity to do so. Instead, he played coy.
So is it really Lieberman who’s blowing smoke here, or is it Harry Reid?
We really need to start naming names, as Bob Geiger has done so well, and holding individuals, rather than unnamed party factions, to account. Harry Reid has the power as Minority Leader to make a real difference here. So far, he seems to be using it mostly to back up Joe, at the expense of Ned, despite his public PR to the contrary.
Pachacutec is absolutely right about the tactics Chuck Schumer used against Paul Hackett’s donors to get him out of that Ohio campaign. Schumer and Reid damn well know how to play this game, but they are not playing for our side right now, as far as I can tell.
Stephen Parrish–don’t know if it’s related to the Raw Story story, but MZM (of Duke Cunningham fame) contracted to provide intelligence briefings to the White House both on Iraq (pre-war), and also on Iran.
puppethead says:
August 18th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Well said, and I’m going to use this post on DiFi and Boxer, in hopes that one more time around the ‘Joe-is-not-your-ally’-bush may make a difference.
*ilson46201 @ 62
I’m not happy to see a former Reaganite — who advocated the “thousand ship navy” no less — as the “Democrat” to oppose Allen.
I believe in a “big tent”, OK. But must we so big that we embrace military meglomaniacal types like Webb and (see adjacent threads) KKK Grand Kleagles?
What, Webb is “reformed” too?
How about some untainted blood?
Pilsner at 68 — so you are unwilling to accept anything but purity from Byrd or Webb, but Lieberman’s Alito cloture vote and his embrace of Bush’s Iraq occupation policies are a-okay with you on pragmatic grounds? Pardon me while I don’t buy your logic.
I sent an e-mail to the DSCC website and aske them why they continue to list LIEberman as a democrat and an independant when is is the de facto repbulican candidate. info@dscc.org send them some love
*ilson46201 @ 50
Cleanup at the end of the Kudos thread might be in order :)
Pachacutec @
53
Just wondering: What agenda do the Senate Dems have between now & November (besides reelection) that Lieberman could interfere with? Seem to me that showing a little courage, bouncing RGJoe from his committee assignments, withholding $$$, honoring the party, etc would do more for Dems.
Pilsner has now attacked George Felix Allens Democratic opponent while sidestepping denouncing the GOP Senator’s macaca slur … smells like a troll to me !
Just off the phone with Matt in Sen. Bill Nelson’s Orlando office who got testy with me and said “it is none of Senator’s Nelson’s business what happens in Conneticut” and again and again I got from Matt and Ty in the DC office “It’s a personal decision and the Sentor is not getting involved. He is focusing on his own reelection campaing.”
You know, the one where he is running againt Katherine Harris. “Nuff said.
Call Matt if you are a Florida Democrat and ask him why won’t Sentor Nelson stand with Ned Lamont the winner of the Democratic Primary. 407-872-7161. Ty up in DC can be reached at 202-224-5274. They both sound like they have alot of time on their hands and would love to talk with you.
My Senator is turning into a laughing stock with his die-hard middle of the road position.
Oh Florida, when will you stop being the laughing stock of this Great Nation??????
Message to the Democratic voters of the Nutmeg State: even though you sent this hack to Washington (JoMo) three times, all is forgiven as long as you don’t do it again.
Raw Story has this this morning:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0818.html
Not to worry, it’s wall to wall ReThuglicans and they could use some radio-active water for when they want some variety in the selection of beverages. Kool-Aid all day everyday gets kinda boring.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 64
I think you’re the one with the methodology problem. You’re looking at the Quinnepec polls before and after the primary and saying they show a “trend down”.
Nothing could be further than the truth. They show a surge of support for Lamont among Democrats from a significant event, the primary itself. Lamont was 51 – 47 among Democrats before the primary, now he’s 63 – 35. You call that a trend when, in fact, it’s a one-time event.
Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D. said yesterday:
“Sen. Lieberman’s support among Republicans is nothing short of amazing. It more than offsets what he has lost among Democrats. As long as Lieberman maintains this kind of support among Republicans, while holding onto a significant number of Democratic votes, the veteran Senator will be hard to beat”.
Excuse me, but is anyone here seriously suggesting Lieberman’s standing among Republicans is trending *down*?
pow wow (@65):
yes, they do know how to play the game and right now it’s a game called “cover your ass and watch which way the wind blows”. it’s not a pretty game but one at which senators, especially, are masters.
like the man said, “politics is like making sausage. you don’t want to see how it’s done.”
these guys are not idealists. and Russ Feingold makes them look, shall we say, reprehensible ?
another Bong special for Senator Pryor (D[INO]- AR):
[snip]
…I understand there were some folks who inquired about your support for Joe Lieberman. One of your responses, I believe, (paraphrasing) “Don’t ask me to be consistent…” or something to that effect was startling to me even if it was made in jest. Now I understand that Senator Lieberman has been a good friend and “mentor” to you during your first term in the Senate, but you should be aware that it is the opinion of many of your constituents, myself included, that supporting a candidate that is being endorsed by the likes of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove is not a recipe for a warm fuzzy reception for you come election time, 2008. By all that I can see, Arkansas is not as red as it used to be… becoming bluer every day.
Additionally, I don’t see how you can, with a clear conscience, continue your support for Senator Lieberman and at the same time, retain your position at the DSCC. Seems like a major conflict of interest there. The sole purpose of the DSCC is to get Democrats elected to the Senate, NOT Independents, Republicans or other parties (read: CT for Lieberman). Speculation that Senator Lieberman might even be considered for the Secretary of Defense, is even more alarming. If he were to win the general election in November and then be appointed as Secretary of Defense, his seat in the Senate would most assuredly be filled by a Republican. Remember: Joe left the party, the party didn’t leave him…
[snip]
… and then a few pleasantries…
Pilsner…. Hmmmmmmmmm – I like beer.
:-)
PS I tipped both Ty and Matt off the Bob Geiger’s website because they didn’t seem to know about it.
I tried to explain the power of the internet but I believe it all fell on deaf ears. Whatever.
Pilsner — no, his GOP support is rock steady — but his Independent support is not. Care to continue?
Redd- A polling of likely voters should be more accurate than a polling of registered voters- it is a smaller universe- containing those registered voters who actually voted recently and who intend to vote in the upcoming election. (At least that’s the normal meaning of “likely voters).
*ilson46201 @ 73
I think it’s wrong to point at something like the macaca slur and suggest it has anything to do with, or somehow justifies, Democrats recruiting one of the mad architects of the Reagan build-up that brought the world to the edge of war, if not annihilation.
Suggesting there’s any connection or relation between the two points … now that’s trolling!
rw at 81 — I know — but the latest Q-poll was the first time that likely voters have been brought into the polling mix that I know of — anyone know of another poll that has done them earlier in CT?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 80
Wait, let me get some popcorn
I think the pressure needs to build temendously towards Reid. I have been very appreciative of him at certain times (Shutting down the Senate, “actions have consequences”), but right now, this smells of back-stabbing. And we’re the ones being stabbed.
WE are the ones fighting this goddamn fight, and he is not supporting us.
I am sick and tired of being back-stabbed by the very people I’m fighting for.
We are educated active members of society at large, and we’re treated like pariah from BOTH parties.
I’m not happy with Schumer or Rahm either, but let’s take on Reid NOW. Joe CANNOT be responsible for leading committees come January, no matter what.
Jesus, talk about demoralizing the troops. I’m fed up with him.
newtonusr —
The tension is about not losing the support of those who assume/think that supporting Israel, no matter what it does and even if its actions seem counter-productive, is in the best interests of Israel and/or the United States. That accounts for why almost everyone, from both parties, kept hiding behind “Israel’s right to defend itself” while being silent on their concerns about whether the Lebanon invasion was a sensible (never mind moral) way to do that. That probably accounts for a lot of the dancing going on. We should not expect an emerging Democratic leader from Connecticut to solve this by himself.
bcinaz @
49
It’s perfectly conceivable. In fact Joe is probably more valuable to Rove as a Democrat. He provides that critical veneer of “bi-partisan” support for every failed Republican policy. Bush can go on television and say that “nobody” predicted the lack of WMDs in Iraq or that criticizing his war policies is “supporting terrorism” and lo and behold, next Sunday there’s Lieberman spouting the same talking points all over the news shows while all the pundits nod in sage agreement.
Why do you think Bush kissed him? He’s the Judas-goat who leads all the other goats to the slaughter pen. They never kill the Judas goat, he’s too valuable.
It’s perfectly possible Lieberman would switch parties because he’s more comfortable as a Republican, but there’s certainly no deal to do so.
The Republicans simply get a guy who will back them whenever they really need it (like on Alito and every trade deal) plus political cover everytime they screw up. Unless his switch in party changed the majority from Democrat to Republican, there’s simply no way Joe could be more valuable to the Republicans as a Republican.
On a lighter note,
Ping gets it right,
“I didn’t room with Babe. I roomed with his
suitcase.” Ping Bodie
My eyes are glued to the Sox/Yankees game.
Let’s take four outta five and head for first…
Who the hell was Ping Bodie?
Jack
Evil Parallel Universe @ 61
They undoubtedley forget they serve the people. The tactic does not typically get used because it’s one of those things like mutually assured destruction: opening the door means everyone fires up their nukes.
I don’t know what people have in their agenda wish list for riders and add-ons to legislation before NOvember, but they have them. Mind you, I don’t think any of their reasons for stupisity are good reasons (see my post yesterday), but these are their reasons, form what I can gather behind the scenes.
OT: Let’s all send Slick Willy some burfday lurve!
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/60bday
:-)
Christy Hardin Smith @ 80
Well, sure if you invite me to continue I will.
Again, Quinnipac:
Lieberman leads 58 – 36 – 3 percent among likely independent voters.
Put that together with the massive registration drive funded by Lamont before the primary – that pulled into the Democratic Party a wave of (former) registered Independents receptive to his message – and you realize that 36 number is pretty close to a natural ceiling for Lamont.
Lamont’s rocketing upward among Democrats and Independents is very likely itself a temporary boost related to the primary, so expect to see his numbers declining significantly in the next few weeks.
pow wow @ 65
Some of that donor attack on Hackett’s funders might have been freelancing, not DSCC directed. That gives us the possible opportunity to go after other party people with good fundraising operations to put their efforts behind making calls for Ned (cough, Hillary, cough!). We may be able to work around Schumer and the DSCC a bit.
The sense I get is that Hillary will be there for whatever the Lamonters want re: fundraising and pushing the networks. I hear, but cannot confirm, that they will beat the bushes actively and not just send one 5k check.
Pilsner Party @ 68
So, Mr. PP, We can follow your line of thinking right into “the dustbin of history”. James Webb is not hiding from his past and he is recognizing the Republican Party for what it has become. We of the liberal or progressive persuasion may not agree with Webb’s detailed political philosophy any more than we do with John Murtha’s but we do feel that they are for the middle class and working class of Americans in a way that most of the Republican Party has long forsaken. All Democrats don’t have to be liberals. Not if we expect, in our lifetime, to regain control of our government.
Well, fahrender (77), they’re sure managing to make me sick with their antics, anyway. Especially because now we can at least still apply a little pressure, pre-election. You can just see how things are going to go down after November when their ‘accountability moment’ has safely passed. Talk about a guaranteed turn-off to anyone thinking of turning-out this November.
Politics as usual won’t solve this country’s huge problems. What a state we’re in.
P.S. Pachacutec @92: GOOD for Hillary, at least.
P.P.S. Hear, Hear, Urban Pirate @85
Pach – If people are telling you that “behind the scenes” it’s bullshit, a canard. Lierman is a wounded duck, if any sitting senator would take his threats of playing hardball seriously they are either morons (which is certainly possible) or lying (and that is the one I am going with).
urban pirate @ 85
I agree completely, What on earth does Reid have to lose by tying a tin can to RGJoe’s ass? D E M O C R A T.
I’d like to be proud of my party on a daily basis; I’m not for a 3rd party and I haven’t given up on Dems. If they’re going to flush RGJoe, do it now, before they embarrass themselves further, and expend very valuable resources in CT. We need that money in Montana, Ohio, etc.
Redd–
Maybe it’s a quibble- but the “LIKELY” voters have been in the mix all along- they ARE registered voters after all. What happens in a poll restricted to likely voters is that registered voters who did not vote in the previous election- or who do not indictate a high likelihood of voting in the next- get thrown OUT- it’s not that a new universe is ADDED- a group is actually SUBTRACTED!
*ilson,
Could you be a dear and check the link for the late night thread? i have been trying to check it all morning with no luck. I even tried using (shudder) internet explorer. I just want to know if it’s something on my end. I keep getting a strange message when I try. This one;
imgout=new Image(14,15); imgin=new Image(14,15); imgout.src=”http://static.firedoglake.com/template/arrowclosed.gif”; imgin.src=”http://static.firedoglake.com/template/arrowopen.gif”;
Thanks in advance.
Busted.
Oh Florida, when will you stop being the laughing stock of this Great Nation??????
When we stop settling for turkeys in our elected offices, Florida Mom, and say ”Thank You, No” to the Jeb Bushes, Mel Martinezes, Bill Nelsons, Katherine Harrises, Tom Feeneys — on and on and on.
I have FRICKIN HAD ENOUGH.
Looking for more Bob Grahams, Lawton Chileses, Janet Renos, and Claude Peppers, I am. Seen any lately?
Gee, Pilsner — you sound an awful lot like a DLC talking point. Interesting. You have a Wittman-esque quality about you.
But I disagree with your thesis on independents. Lamont was directing his campaign at targeted Democratic demographics, not independents. His events were specifically targeted in particular Dem neighborhoods. Once the campaign widens now to include independents and moderate Republicans who are unhappy with the Bush policies — and with Turncoat Joe’s support of them as a de facto rubber stamp that expects no accountability — I think that the Bush coattails may turn out to be quicksand.
The Lamont introduction to those voters is just beginning. And, considering Lamont had a 5% approval rating among Democratic voters in Janruary and just beat Lieberman in the primary vote a scant few months later, I do not see how you can support a static and falling numbers assumption in a portion of the electorate in which Joe’s favoriability numbers have dropped steadily over a number of polls for the last six months.
Pilsner Party @
28
This is correct. There’s absolutely NO advantage in taking away Lieberman’s committee assignments. It just makes zero sense. If he’s defeated in November it won’t matter, will it?
And if he wins the Democrats will need to play nice with Lieberman to get him to vote for Harry Reid as majority leader. Lieberman is likely to switch parties within the next year anyway, so pushing him out the door in a fit of pique is just as stupid as what the Republicans did to Sen. Jeffords! How is “punishing Lieberman” going to help anything? Does anyone imagine he’ll drop out of the race if they take away his toys?
That backfired rather spectacularly when the Republicans forced Jeffords out and lost control of the Senate. The Democrats certainly don’t need that idiocy!
However, the people DO need to pressure Democratic leaders to campaign actively and support Lamont. That they can do, while privately complaining to Joe that “the Devil made me do it Joe! I didn’t want to!” Thus, if Joe wins, they make nice. If he loses, great.
; ^ )
I think it’s telling how when the Republicans have an obvious race problem, and it’s broken into the view of mainstream Americans, and it’s likely to swing elections against Republicans, that the blog mysteriously fills up with trolls and their “but Demoncrats did it too!” rhetoric.
Tiresome, but telling. You guys can keep wishing for a Lieberman win, but he’s hemmorhaging support left and right. He’ll have the Cheney vote locked up, and that’s about it.
fahrender @ 93
Do you have ANY idea who James Webb was, and what he advocated, during the Reagan Administration???
Mea culpa? Why, when we have so much rich talent among progressives? Is winning a majority so critical you’re willing to pay any price?
If that’s you’re standard, why the heck should progressives have trained their (limited) artillery on Lieberman?
As things line up as Washington insiders vs. We The People (which, in retrospect, should be no surprise: it’s why we’ve gotten active, right?), we’ve also got to remember that they’ve had years to perfect their game. Which game being self-preservation, frequently (if not always) at our expense. And we’re surprised they’re still doing it? Uh…
I’m not expecting much from that Chicago meeting today: it’ll probably be more of the same.
Which means, folks, we’re on our own. And if the Democratic Party fails once again, well, maybe it’ll be time to formally kiss it good-bye, or at least give it a decent burial. It would be wonderful if the DLC types (and AIPAC-owned) would just convert or fade away into K Street, but the only way that will happen is by putting all of our efforts into reaching Undecideds — not DC office-holders. imo.
No matter what happens going forward, Joe’s no longer a Democrat
Froomkin’s column was great today. It has a must link to video from Newsday. I tried to link to it but it didn’t work.. Sorry. Somebody needs to start asking joe how he feels about supporting King George and his turning the White House into the White Palace. The race has just started. Also election central at tpm cafe is trying to get confirmation on Joe’s comments.
From Pilsner:
There was no “massive registration drive funded by Lamont.” The independent did that all by themselves. In walking the neighborhoods, we talked to many of them (in split Dem/Indy households) who told us they were grateful to have a reason to change registrations. There is no reason to think this move will not continue, as the Iraq = Bush meltdown continues. By that time that shakes out over the next few weeks, it’s going to be hard to find anyone who will say, “gee, I thought the Bush foreign policy was good from the beginning, and I still do!”
So we’ll see who’s right about what the real “trend” is and what’s driving it. Or to put it another way, exactly which Bush/Liebermal policy successes are going to push folks to flock back in their direction, cause I just don’t see them. Few terror plots? Iraq becoming less violent? Israel feeling confident about its capabilities/intelligence/political leadership/judgment? Competence? Honesty? Lawfulness?
pow wow (#94):
and it’s probably worse than you or i can conceive. hang on tight, pilgrim, and don’t forget to vote.
hmmm, since joe’s lead in the polls is thanks to the support he is receiving from REPUBLICANS, how exactly does it help his case to insist that he will caucus with the DEMOCRATS. i mean, in a way i admire the fact that he seems to be having it both ways, but can he really spend the next two and a half months being all things to all people? one minute he’s blasting dems for aiding terrorists, the next he’s insisting he’s going to be part of their club (even if they haven’t asked him). surely this manic spinning of his positions has to catch up to him soon.
I just got a call from DSCC,wanting money. I asked her opinion of Joe and Ned she really didn’t answer my question, told her I would donate to the candidate of my choice my own self and not give it to a group who may or may not support my choices.
First off, I thoroughly approve of Ned’s taking a vacation after an incredibly grueling primary. Hell, I felt like I needed a vacation after that stretch, and I was just a volunteer. Lamont hasn’t lost momentum; he’s coasting on momentum he already generated, while Lieberman is making lots of flapping noises but not going anywhere. Ned’s posture is that of a warrior in repose: gathering energy, focusing the mind, sharpening weapons for the next round of battle. Lamont and Swan are surely tweaking their rhetoric to better fit the new terrain.
In my opinion, the key to crushing Lieberman’s ridiculous bid is to build populist support in urban areas: Bridgeport, Stamford, and New Haven. If Lamont can start making serious headway in those areas, it’s over.
Pilsner at 102 — I can’t speak for everyone else, but for me it was Lieberman’s two-faced approach on Alito and his strutting around after he cast his cloture vote saying he was voting against Alito that did it for me. That was the last straw in a long line of Lieberman trying to have it both ways in my book. And his sanctimonious speech in December telling critics of the President’s Iraq occupation failures to STFU brought me right to that edge. It’s not any one thing — it’s a lot of things. And the fact that Lieberman now wants to have it both ways — say he’s a Democrat but say screw you to Democratic voters in CT from the primary, and continue running to salve his ego, even though it has ramifications for the down-ticket races in CT? Well, that’s really it, isn’t it?
Good letter, Bong. Time to relax after your labors. ‘Ere.
(oop. um, no, ’round the corner where the former prosecutor isn’t — ‘ere!)
it seems that the Dems need to run on bringing accountability for the bush regime… the disorganization around Joe and not enforcing some accountability for HIM doesn’t bode all that well…
TO THE PHONES!
*ilson46201 @
73
Me too.
Cugel @ 100
Yep. That, and a vast majority of Dems in the Senate saying they Support Ned (including hitting the trail with him), block party $$$, standing up to the GOP on issues where they differ with RGJoe. These are all things a reasonable Dem has a right to expect. Show him the door. If you’re right and he is considering a party swap, or perish the thought is offered the Sec Def spot, exactly what do Dems have to lose by showing some loyalty and backbone for once?
Oh gosh, convertto our side. Yes, preview is a wondrous device. Note to self: use it.
slow day at work today. i rarely get to read the day time posts. this one is “interesting”
Christy you have the patience of a saint. im just saying…
I know a number of visitors to this site are concerned about Lemont’s lack of visibility…and the fact that he hasn’t come out punching.
Keep in mind that the MSM pundits were in Holy Joe’s corner before the primary election. There is no reason to believe this has changed. These guys are up to their old tricks…creating the belief that Joe is not merely a viable candidate but he is also going to win.
Fortunately, it is not the Beltway Pundits that will be doing the voting in November but the citizens of Connecticut.
Having observed Ted Lamont’s performance during the weeks leading up to the primary election I am very confident he will rise to the occasion for the November election.
Let’s banish all those negative vibes!!!!
pete at 117 — I’m working through a massive headache today, man. You have no idea. *g*
moderators — could you please add a “don’t” to my third from last line in 107. Bill Gates won’t let me edit my comment from work.
should read: “. . . cause I just don’t see it . . .”
Pilsner (#102):
Believe me, I lived through all eight agonizing years of the Bonzo era. Webb is the Democratic candidate. So, what are you going to do, vote for Mr, Macaca Breath?
Evil Parallel Universe @ 95
They are doubling down their bets, being cautious (ie, being senators). I trust my source. It doesn’t mean they are not also craven. They are also aware that Joe could possibly win, even if a substantial number or even a majority of them may be rooting against him.
New thread gang — Donita’s Friday mix is up! :)
Christy Hardin Smith @ 119
Take 3 poodles and call me in the morning.
Thank you, I’ll be here all week…
Bustedknuckles — the FDL late night post pix come up for me — the sizing is off and this may be causing a hiccup in some browsers. you are the only person who has spoken up on this issue so I doubt if it is widespread for many others … frankly, the pix werent that important …
Pach – Trust away, but I don’t think its the smart move. Particularly if you are being told it is a way to hedge their bet. They may well be hedging their bets, just not b/c they’re worried about Lierman going “nuclear.”
*ilson, It’s not the pix, I can’t get to the thread. Maybe It’s just me. Thanks though. I really do appreciate you taking the time to check.
fahrender @ 55
The country was divided, not quite evenly divided, as we went to war.
Considering the non-stop propaganda coming out of the White House and the Pentagon, I think that’s pretty amazing.
I think the citizenry tilted toward the war after Colin Powell’s slick sales job at the UN. Powell was, and maybe still is, the most respected politician in the US, so when he said there was no doubt, people believed him.
I personally didn’t see any reason we couldn’t have let the weapons inspectors do their jobs. Even if there had been WMD, they would have found them.
Instead, BushCo thought it was OK to send 130,000 of our people into a theater where they believed a madman had biological and chemical weapons.
I’ll reiterate why I came to see the light on why our limited artillery should be trained on Joe.
Prelude: to me, the political emergency of the day is unitary executive. And that means Supreme Court.
The Gang of 14 compromise utterly prevents Democrats from acting to stop any pro-UE nominee that might come up in the next two years, unless they acheive a majority. So if we want to be able to stop this, we can either take the Senate, or break the Gang of 14.
Defeat Joe, and the Gang of 14 MOU has to be renegotiated. But a Joe defeat means that this time Dems would understand perfectly well that they are signing away their seat if they agree to MOU2.
Winning the Senate is probably a 25-75 proposition right now. Beating Joe is a 50-50 proposition. So it’s a mighty fine insurance policy.
The Lamont candidacy was always risky. The risk was not in LOSING the primary- it was in WINNING it. It was always going to be tougher to beat Lieberman in a general election than in the primary- and the risk was (and is) that Lieberman would end up being back in the senate- but in debt to goopers who put him there. If he wins he will certainly use his leadership vote to guarantee that he holds onto seniority- and he will be in a stronger position to demand his committee assignments than if the primary challenge had never happened and he had been re-elected by the democratic party.
This thing is a long way from over. I just hope it doesn’t sap too much energy from the dems chances of taking back the house and the senate. I’m afraid that this is happening.
little dog @ 129
And I seem to remember lots of news items before the invasion about Bio-Chem suits for the troops that didn’t cut it!
Evil Parallel Universe @
127
This is not someone who sought me out to dump misinfo. This is someone I tapped based on past track record. Having said that, I can only convey what I’m getting, not vouch for it personally. Also, you know where I stand on what should be done and why.
I think Christy’s post is right on the mark in that it continues to apply pressure, increasing the costs of silence and inaction to those running and hiding. This is very necessary to do, and the taking of names the way Bob Geiger is doing is absolutley esssential: it works in applying pressure.
Hi all! Just had a nice phone visit with someone from Art Torres office (CA DNC Rep). No details publishable about the resolution, but we can be assured that Mr. Torres and his folks want to see the Democratic party firmly behind the Democratic candidate in Connecticut.
The fellow I spoke with had heard of FDL but was not very familiar with it – he is checking out the post on Art Torres and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and FDL generally. He was interested in learning about some different views on the various possible ramifications of Senator Lieberman’s continuing campaign.
So – yay democracy!
Stoller’s take on the Lieberman bi-partisan BS
http://mydd.com/
rw at 130 — You’re right, it is a danger. But it is also a fight that had to come to a head sooner or later. Rove has been leveraging Lieberman via his ego for far too long — he needed to be called on it, and publicly, as a warning to others who would do the same, if for no other reason.
I am told that enforcing some party discipline is a much easier task for Dem leadership on issues that really matter, and this challenge to Lieberman has been a big part of that. This race is important on a lot of levels that have nothing ultimately to do with its end-result. I am committed to helping Lamont win, but not at the expense of sacrificing a Dem win elsewhere — but in my mind, this fight had to happen at this point for some very important, long-term policy reasons. And because it simply needed doing.
Florida Mom @ 74
I’d like to say to him, “It’s not just a personal decision because your party is under attack from Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney,” ?
The Pil (what we call that kind of beer here in the GWN)said:
There is room for reasonable debate about deterrence as a defense policy – and I am no fan of Ronnie Raygun – ever since he replaced what had been my governor and started his all out attack on, among other things, my school UC because it was the “madrassa of the enlightenment” – but with the exception of Grenada and “hidden” crap like Iran/Contra he mainly liked to posture macho with the military to back it up and drive the Evil Empire into Bankruptcy as they tried to match your military might. (ReThugs always seem to forget he drove the US into bankruptcy too, but the US was richer to start with)
The current cabal, OTOH prefers to launch a major attack on anyone who looks at them funny (or not) like Afghanistan,Iraq and their current wet dream Iran. Just so everyone else they can’t attack doesn’t get complacent they supply arms to just about anybody that needs some unless they are named say China or North Korea and if your name is India – “do we have a special offer for you – we don’t think you have enough nukes.”
So now everybody is armed to the teeth and agitated. The few friends you had are running away faster the Ken Meltman from the Shlessinger. And now that the Army, Reserves, National Guard and Treasury are so depleted that people would ignore your threats entirely if they didn’t also know that you and your cabal are both insane and desparate.
If someone supported or even was involved with defense policy during the Reagan years this certainly needs to be looked at. Also he should articulate what he feels would be the appropriate policy today. OTOH JoMo has proven that he totally, 100% believes in and supports the foreign and defense policy (one in the same, really) of the Bu$h cabal and therefore may even deserve to stand next to them in the dock at the Hague. Heck, JoMo and the Chimp could even share a cell at Gitmo and work on “The Kiss – the Sequel.”
Did JoMo really support impeachment of Clinton – or did he just decry the moral turpitude but vote with Jeffords in the end?
Deep in EPU territory – took too long to type this…
Okay, the dynamics of the Lieberman thing are akin to one’s brain being in a knot, and being unable to tell where to start to untie it…the problem is that the dynamics have to be different depending on which side of the aisle you are looking at him from.
Who is Joe Lieberman?
First and foremost, he is no longer the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. He lost the right to be that candidate when a majority of Democrats voted for Ned Lamont.
He’s not an Independent candidate, either; there’s already one of those.
He is the Connecticut for Lieberman candidate. If I were Ned Lamont, I might wonder out loud why, if Joe Lieberman is so interested in representing the people of Connecticut, he did not name his party “Lieberman for Connecticut;” “Connecticut for Lieberman” suggests an entitlement to their support for him, not an interest in supporting the people of Connecticut.
Now, from within the Senate itself, how is this anomaly viewed? Every single sitting Senator has had to subject him- or herself to the primary process. Every candidate for the Senate has, as far as I know, accepted the results of the primary vote in his or her state, understanding that the voters of the candidates’ party decide who will best represent them in the Senate. In short, they have played by the rules. Those who have lost a primary race set aside their differences with the winner, put the greater good of the party ahead of their disappointment at losing, and get behind the winner to help elect him or her.
Joe Lieberman has chosen to turn his back on the process, ignore the will of the Democratic voters of his state, and pretend the primary never happened. He wants to ignore Ned Lamont’s victory and pretend it is halftime of a football game. He wants ALL the voters of CT to weigh in, hoping that independents and Republicans will get him over the finish line. If ALL the registered voters do not vote, if the turnout is less than 100% and Joe loses, what will he say? That it isn’t a valid result because some people didn’t vote? By that reasoning, there hasn’t been a valid election in this country, ever.
This may, in fact, be the moment which, when added to all the other moments, reveals once and for all that what has been passed off as principle is in large measure nothing more than self-interest.
Sitting Senators have to take a moment, step back, and look at this objectively. That means taking Joe out of the equation, and substituting a generic incumbent, or even themselves, and see if they still think what this Senator is doing is best for the party, and best for the ultimate goal of being able to put forth and act on an agenda, apply badly needed oversight to an out-of-control administration, and set the country back on the right track. They need to ask whether a Senator who can so easily dismiss the decision of the voters of his own party will also ignore the will of the other Senate Democrats as a body and on the committees that may be able – finally – to have an impact on the future.
Christy Hardin Smith @
136
Right on! The Senate Dems seem OK with kicking the can down the road – let another Senate handle it. Isn’t that how we got here in the first place?
Redd–Your argument about enforcing dem discipline is a very good one- provided that it actually works out that way.
I have always liked the idea of attacking Joe- but thought that this was a bad year to do it.
As long as the winning senator from Connecticut votes for democratic leadership- I will take a breath of relief.
It’s unfortuanate that this thing has become bitter and divisive and risks splitting the party- but that’s water under the bridge now.
*ilson46201 @
50
EPU, but thanks for shining a light on this. Two commenters who’ve made my blood boil today.
Lieberman hires new media consultant, pollster
HARTFORD, Conn. — Sen. Joe Lieberman continued retooling his campaign staff Friday, hiring a nationally known pollster and media consultant to assist in his independent re-election bid.
Lieberman hired Democratic consultant Josh Isay, who has worked for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who lists popular Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell among his clients.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.co…..local-wire
Bustednuckles @ 127
I couldn’t get to it either.
Safari here.
astralplame says:
August 18th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Thanks from another CA voter!
In regard to those who howl about how Lamont isn’t visible enough at the moment, perhaps Lamont and his braintrust deserve the benefit of the doubt. The three months til the election is a long time, and pacing is everything.
“Libleman” reminds me of the prizefighter who swings wildly, with everything he’s got, at the beginning round of a heavyweight fight for fear of his oponents stamina. Libleman will peter out. Slow and steady, a hoary cliche if there ever was one, is indeed what will succeed in the long run, and FDLers continual barrage of activity and activism, along with other progressives, will hopefully prevail.
Interesting that, soon’s CHS mentioned the name “Wittman,” PP mummed right up . . .
Lieberman is not running as a Democrat, he is running against a Democrat and his biggest support is coming from the Republican Party. Will the spineless Democrats just kick this idiot out of the committee assignments right now? I am so sick of these people. He lost. Who the hell ever heard of someone losing the nomination and still running against the winner while trying to say he is a part of the party? This is just an outrage.
Well, steve ex-pat, we’re not the ONLY ones who think so:
Environmentalists withold support from Lieberman
So where’s the outrage from the pro life gang that the RNC is not supporting the pro life Republican candidate? Two can play this game, eh Rove? ; )
http://www.ctfamily.org/Crosshairs.html
The environmentalist story’s headline is better than the content:
A representative from the League of Conservation Voters explained that it hasn’t decided to fund Lieberman’s campaign for re-election so far because “Generally speaking, we only spend money on races where we’re concerned about the outcome,” and that “I don’t think we know what the dynamics of that race are at this point in time.”
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a Republican of Rhode Island, and Democratic Senators Maria Cantwell of Washington and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan all received pledges of funding and endorsements. The League also said it would fund Rep. Christopher Shays, a Republican of Connecticut. So far, it has only provided funding to Cantwell.
Morris Sheppard @
6
Absolutely. The Netroots should prepare to boycott the DSCC unless they all stop supporting Lieberman. Not one dollar to a group that supports non-Democrats
Christy Hardin Smith @
100
I agree with this assessment, Christy. Most non-activist types in CT are just starting to log onto this race. They need a few weeks to get to know Ned. Once that starts happening, it’ll be time to shout “Timberrrr!”
“Who you gonna vote for, Mr. Macaca Breath?” Hilarious!
Our officeholders have health care, cost of living raises & have spent probably the least amount of time actually at work & results to show for it of any congress. Most of us are working our butts off (no matter what some wingnuts prefer to think), with less or no vacation & higher costs of everything. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that they work as hard as we do at their jobs which, in case they have forgotten, is to make american lives better, not make theirs cozier.
Bush Vows to Overturn Wiretapping Ruling
Bush Denounces Surveillance Ruling
Siddown before you read the subhead on WaPo’s, or you might hoit y’seff:
President Says Program Critics ‘Do Not Understand the Nature of the World’
people are misunderestimating Lieberman.
Christy Hardin Smith @
112
Where to begin?
The Republicans in the 1992-1994 Senate minority did not fillibuster Clinton’s judicial nominees. In the majority, they didn’t always approve them – but they did approve Ruth Ginsburg, former GC of the ACLU.
It’s a perfectly solid Democratic position taken by Lieberman, attempting to salvage what’s left of Senate tradition and comity, to vote for closure and bring Bush’s judicial nominees to a vote. Do you want a precedent in place that gives moral authority to Republicans to filibuster when Hillary or Feingold nominates Steven’s replacement, even if the Democrats have recaptured the majority?
This kind of short-term thinking is what gets Democrats tossed out again and again. Daschle’s flirtation with handing out Democratic Party seniority perogatives to Jeffords helped enrage Republicans and bring out the base that threw the Senate back in to Republican hands for at least four years.
I applaud Reid for sticking to tradition and refusing to abide the revokation of priviledges to an elected Democrat.
You may not like it, but Lieberman is an elected Democratic Senator from the State of Connecticut, until January 2007. If he rejoins the Democratic Party after his victory in November, it offers the Democrats the best chance to regain the majority or hold its influence.
Lieberman may have gone too far when he asks Democrats to support the President – all the way to some of the obviously badly handled decisions on reconstruction – rather than simply the country at war. But it’s ridiculous to argue that Lieberman invented the concept of “politics stops at the water’s edge”. Bush was elected to eight years as commander in chief. Democrats in the House and Senate largely backed the decision to depose Saddam. Lieberman, at least, doesn’t speak blankly as if that never happened, as do so many elected Democrats.
It looks like the Democrats will have a rough ride in 2008 if it’s Guiliani or McCain (who outpolls Hillary 45-42 in MASSACHUSETTS for goodness sake)! So it’s not just a question of unifying the country with duck tape for another few months or one more election cycle. It could be 10 more years before a Democrat has a shot.
Here’s the problem IMO.
Should Joe win, should the Dems strip him of seniority and seats, the Repubs are almost assuredly going to maintain their majority if even by one Senator, and THEY will be happy to promise Lieberman seats should he so wish to vote their way !
Pilsner,
Polling about 2008 at this point is a waste of time. It will be a totally different world by then, and likely different candidates from those who are currently mentioned.
It will be a time when the country will decide about direction- more gooper direction or a new start. At this moment, they want a new start- regardless of the polls.
If McCain is actually the candidate, he will have to run on his record- and Bush’s which he has mostly embraced- dem candidate will run as the anti-bush. I like the dems chances in that race.
rwcole @ 1:59
I agree to worry about 2008 right now is moot. If we do not take back the house and more of the Senate, then it does not matter Whom we run, they will be impotent even should a Democrat win. Once we have a couple of years of Democratic majority in the house, more clout in the Senate, and start making some significant changes to issues that matter to the people, the landscape will be more wide open to a Dem President.
No one can argue ” We Need Change ” .
Pilsner Party @ 156
Where to begin, indeed.
Are you really not aware that Clinton went to Judiciary Committee’s top Republican, Orrin Hatch, and asked him for recommendations of nominees Hatch could support?
It was Hatch (R-UT) who suggested Brier and Ginsburg, two candidates he considered to be moderate.
This is basic stuff, and I’m surprised anybody who would speak on the subject wouldn’t know this.
Oh, and BTW, it’s duct tape, not duck tape. You know, for taping ducts together.
little dog: the Democrats are going to shoot the duck. That musta been what the Pils was a thinkin’, but then again, if the duct tape starts walkin’ like a duck and quacks a few times maybe we ought to shoot it, too…..
. . . and your little dog, too @ 161
Um, no it’s not.
http://www.duckproducts.com/
As for your earlier comment, Hatch has a record of significant deference to Presidential perogatives on judicial and administrative appointments. Republican AND Democrat.
Hatch has said again and again, all his comments to Clinton were meant to convey is that he had already done his due diligence on these folks, full stop – not that he brooked their judicial or ideological views, not for even a moment.
That’s not so basic stuff. I mean, it’s like knowing how to spell “duck tape”. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
and oh, by the way, we are gonna get Lamont elected, so all that blather is moot.
WSJ Has an interesting article up comparing the gooper primary race in Rhode Island with the Connecticut race.
In Rhode Island, Chaffee has a primary opponent- a rabid gooper. The gooper probably can’t win in the general election- but goopers are angry as hell at Chaffee for his moderate positioning and hope to take him out. Polling Report.com has a link. Pretty interesting study in the risks of moderation.
“when i hear “duck tape” i reach for my revolver”
-goebbels
PP – regarding the duck/duct controversy… “Duck Tape” is a brand name, duct tape is the product they sell…
Jesus, lotus – are you trying to send my blood pressure through the roof, or what? I know, you warned me, but I can’t believe the reporter could write his story while laughing hysterically.
“Don’t understand the nature of the program?” We understand, just fine, George – we understand that following the law doesn’t impair or impede the program, and we are fully supportive of it when the law is followed.
What set off a little bell for me yesterday was wondering whether – if the ruling would stand up on appeal – the findings rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, and would form the basis for an impeachment.
Have a feeling that’s occurred to them, too.
Time to break out the margaritas, I think – we need some mellow – at least I do!
Well, Pils manages not to speak of himself in the third person, so it can’t be Wittman.
Very DLC talking points though, with the same kind of patronizing tone, so maybe Will Marshall?
Oy, such a headache I have today. Think it’s time to have a little lie down.
Pilsner Party @ 163
From your comment…
…it’s not just a question of unifying the country with duck tape for another few…
You used a small d rather than a capitol D to describe what your link says is a brand name for their duct tape.
Put in another quarter and try again.
Christy- it’s Connecticut for Lieberman, not Lieberman for Connecticut- just wanted to point out that typo.
(holds whole trayful of glasses for Anne’s pitcher!)
Anne – you know what I find so odd is there seems to be no word at all on CNN or msnbc regarding this decision… almost as if it didn’t happen or is not very important…
here lotus, I’ll have one!
Valley Girl @
171
corrected! thanks . . .
OldCoastie says:
August 18th, 2006 at 12:39 pm *
PP – regarding the duck/duct controversy… “Duck Tape” is a brand name, duct tape is the product they sell…
Then there’s the embossed plastic tape: looks like duct tape, but doesn’t act like it (won’t tear, so you have to cut it). We call it ‘quack tape’.
Anne:
Time to break out the margaritas, I think – we need some mellow – at least I do!
‘EAR!
http://www.duct-tape.com/
Nuff said.
When I toss the tape over to a coworker and there’s someone in the way, I always yell, “Duck, tape!”
It’s just the polite thing to do.
Anne, what I most want to know is: these other programs that Abu’s hinted at a time or two — what are THOSE suckers trained on and how?
do we have a trouser trout in here?
707!
Bleeve so, OC.
Wild Billiy was a crazy cat…
And he shook some dust out of his coonskin cap
He said “Try some of this, it’ll show you where it’s at…”
The Boss
break out them margaritas…
Pilsner sez:
“Bush was elected to eight years as commander in chief.”
Bush was selected by the Supreme Court to be President in 2000. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. We don’t elect a commander in chief, and we certainly don’t elect a President for eight years.
The RNC/DLC stank on PP’s talking points reeks.
Ned coming up live on CNN.
I called the Dem Senators on the list of those who hadn’t come out and supported Lamont this week. The most common answer I was given was the Senator is on vacation till Monday, and they didn’t know.
Here ya go, OC. Teddy? Bong, you in? (HAR!)
lotus @ 190
Pssst!
I’m over
‘ERE!
Thanks for the offer, Dr. Bong, but I think I’ll stick to the margaritas…*g*
Lotus – this one is de-lish!
BUS-TED!
Yepper, Anne, you gotta share this recipe —
smmmmoooooove
and
yummmmmmmmmy
Bustednuckles:
Pssst!
Slow leak?
Just poppin in real quick.
Off the cuff observance, maybe the DSCC, DLC, and DNC are taking advantage of the pause after the primary to push their will back on the party.
Perhaps what our blogosphere lacks right now is a focal point in terms of applying pressure.
I say pick Reid or Schumer to focus on, after the message is refined. Then follow up with the threat and promise of no more private donations and work to replace them in 2008, like Lieberman.
Strip Joe of all his committees immediately!
Gotta run!
Hopie would love these ones.
Dr. Bong @ 196
I just plugged it.
siun @ 17,
thanks for posting that press release. it was a real boost to read that clear, simple, direct dismantling of lieberman’s record. Ned’s communications staff do an incredible job. it’s a both a pleasure and a relief to read/hear their stuff.
green with envy TSF at a client’s on friday afternoon, wanting some awhat you got!
isis2 @ 198
second that
Back to the blender, Annie — those folks from upstairs are headed down, and they’re bringin’ popcorn!
Call the DSCC and the DNC and Harry Reid’s office and tell them to herd their ”Senate Cats” into line: Rank and file Democrats are disgusted by Democrats who don’t support Democrats elected by the people in their states. Moreover, Joe Lieberman, with Republican money and votes, is seeking to keep Democrats from taking a majority in the Senate in November. That is unconscionable. But, it is also unconscionable that the so-called ’elephant in the room’ is AIPAC/NORPAC and their constituencies who are using the ”Joe Lieberman is Israel; if you are not pro-Lieberman, you are not pro-Israel” meme in this campaign. It’s the unspoken current running just beneath the surface of the support or lack of support for Lamont. The right-wingers are selling Lieberman as a vote for Israel. Last week Rabbi Marc Gellman just about said it outright in his column in Newsweek, a shocking and outrageously sectarian essay.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14308339/
You have to see this ad posted at TPM to believe it!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..009461.php
But, here’s what’s going on behind closed Senate and Congressional doors via AIPAC:
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh08162006.html
From Raw Story:
lotus @ 149
3 lies for the price of one!
What I get for passing something along before I read it — oop!
NED ON!
Wolf. Blitzer. Is. An. Unmitigated. Ass.
New Jane thread: http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..o-bioiesel
lotus @ 204
I agree with your take – just to see those words & RGJoe in the same phrasing…
Hey PP –
Comity? Hell. Name me one example of Ginsberg suggesting that she, as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court would set the US Constitution aside. No?
Alito: The Unitary Executive.
Drive by …
Anyone notice how the trolls have so much time on their hands? And how OCD they are about Joe and Georgie Allen?
Laughing my ass off about how bent they are
L8r
There’s Frist doing his “Senor Wensas” imitation, a quirky-yet-standard republican tradition to celebrate the evaporation of all our civil rights. Meanwhile,” Jumpin’ Joe” chuckles around his new friends.
rwcole @ 13
yeah, I’m sure about that
josh marshal was a bushwar cheerleader
now josh says he didn’t know the dangers, and he has changed his mind
funny that josh didn’t know the dangers. I used to send him emails outlining the dangers, but all I got in return was repuglican talking points
josh was a cheerleader, no matter what he says now
WHY IRAN “INTELL” SOUNDS LIKE IRAQ “INTELL”
Good catch, Professor Foland, at 66 who says:
>>Stephen Parrish–don’t know if it’s related to the Raw Story story, but MZM (of Duke Cunningham fame) contracted to provide intelligence briefings to the White House both on Iraq (pre-war), and also on Iran.
Where is the rest of it??
Why are the comments from certain posters truncated? Severely?
I’ve been posting tit-for-tat all day with a couple knee-jerk Republican uni-brows over at a (politics non-related) professional forum about Sore Loserman and his idiotic decision to “fight on.” I laid it all out on the line for those Hannitized talking point spouters, but, as you might imageine these guys are stuck in the “No Spin Zone” and they’re behind the Loser 100%. They just can’t understand how such a good man, a “Boy Scout” (puke in mouth), who is willing to “work across the aisle,” could come in for such harsh treatment. I reminded them of the infamous Grover Norquist quote: “Bipartisanship is a lot like date-rape; only one side gets to enjoy it.”
I explained more than once that it works like this: First they have an election, then they declare a Loser. It’s. Just. That. Simple.
One of them rejected the offensiveness of the “Rape Gurney” story with this simple, yet brilliant rejoinder: “Well, it would be just a short ride.” FU pal.
Just keep your hairy Republican neanderthal selves out of our Democratic politics, I sez. Let us handle it ourselves, and if it spells the death knell of the D-Party (which it won’t), what the hel do you guys care anyway?
During the course of our little debate one of them went over and gave Lieberman a $20 donation via the Internet. Tools.
Well, I must’ve gotten that troll wound up for some reason with my comment @37 ;)
However I will say that I have friends that run the gambit from loud, proud born-agains to, well “normal” Democrats (seeing as the country has shifted so far to the right I just can’t say I know any die-hard tye-dyed hippies, lol). The self-described Republicans have been telling me lately “There’s one Democrat that’s not bad, that Joe Lieberman guy is okay” in pretty much those words. People on the right really like him and that’s not going to change much. Ned Lamont really is more of a prograssive and in his latest interviews comes across as a better moderate than Lieberman. I think Independent voters will join Ned’s side if he continues to get his message out.
I agree completely!
All true Democrats should vote against every Democrat who has ever even said anything nice about Joe Lieberman…
You are either with us, or against us!
Thanks for inciting my Irish Temper!! I sent an email to the DSCC and told them to Get Real and support Ned Lamont. I also insisted that they all go to CT and support Ned financially and personally as the PEOPLE need to know that he is a viable Candidate…truly and honestly elected to represent the PEOPLE which they evidently have decided not to do…or may have forgotten that is why they were elected!! Hope something hits them between the eyes and wakes them up!!
PP sez at 157 that
If the ReThuglicans have ten more years to destroy the United States (and the rest of the world) politics as we know them (or think they should be) will be beside the point and that is assuming that there are even elections or a country (or even a human race other than a few survivors rummaging through the rubble).
I pray that the Gingrich endorsement is on tape.