fitz and FDL!!

Ned! Jane!

watch all the ugly insects scurrying around as they tried to protect their own entitlements.

Ah, I love this. Someone turned the lights on in the middle of the night and they all scrambled. We had front row seats.

Go Ned
Wake up Josh

I’m just shocked that Josh is behaving exactly like the other DC insiders. Folks, we had a frickin PRIMARY ELECTION. LIEBERMAN LOST. Now support the damn winner!

/rant off

josh who?

If you find a rotten spot on your apple, sometimes you have to follow it to the core.

That’s right. This all about this frail entity called “representative democracy” being overtly hi-jacked by corporate elites of both parties inside the beltway. Matt Stoller’s piece says it all. We don’t have to agree with Josh or James Carville all the time, but we do have to remember where they came from.

OT, but hilarious: http://www.thepeoplechoose2006…..eo/index/3

From a newish web site that wants your campaign videos. Lots of promise there.

via: http://www.seeingtheforest.com….._new_c.htm

Scroll down to the 18 Aug post.

I’m as disappointed with Josh lately as anyone, but one reminder for the record: many of the posts this weekend (i.e. the source of the atrios spat) were by a guest, “TPM reader DK”.

thank you jane, well said. marshall is the guy who first started me reading blogs and getting involved on line, but he is dead wrong on this one.

Jane said:

I’ve had a fair amount of tolerance for the “what’s all the fuss about” crowd…

No. You. Don’t!

And we sincerely thank you for it!

deleted

these Joe defenders need to take a long hard look at themselves and then the voters in CONNECTICUT.

Those voters spoke up loud and clear– I could hear them, why can’t these folks?

Cara, epu’d on the last thread

Many homeowners are still
waiting for the Grants promised by the Government before they can rebuild
but as of today not one grant has been received here by anyone. The
insurance companies refused to pay damages caused by flooding.. they only
pay for wind damage and the homeowner has to prove wind damage which is
almost an impossibility. Most of the homeowners have had unhappy experiences
with FEMA and most would like to see them run out of town.

Go back and read the whole thing—about how well Mississippi is doing (didn’t Bush imply things were better in Miss. than NO, this morning?)

Jane, did you see that even Donna Brazile is getting on the dump-Joe bandwagon?

Kerry’s putdown of JL yesterday got front page exposure in the Boston Globe.

http://www.boston.com/news/nat…..th_voters/

At least there’s still The Muck, which now has up this clip of the Chimpy presser rant this morning in which he nearly wept, “[N]obody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks!”

So I guess the fact that Joe’s refusal (to this point) to drop out doesn’t bother Josh. Never mind that Joe’s GOTV work will be bringing a bunch of republicans to the CT polls, just when several CT Dems (the kind who won their primary races, of course) are fighting to take a couple of House seats away from the Republicans.

Thanks, Joe!

More confusing is the fact that before Josh talks about Joe, he’s talking about not sucking up to the GOP to pile up those elusive chits. “Give up on Social Security and that undermines progressive reform on every front. It’s not a matter of coalition politics. It’s that every win galvanizes and strengthens progressive reform as a whole.”

Kind of reminds me of Joe giving up on Alito. Giving up on Katrina. Giving up on holding the administration accountable for Iraq, Gitmo, secret renditions, and prisoner abuse in Bahgdad. Giving up on requiring access to Plan B at all hospitals that receive public funding.

So how is it, Josh, that Joe’s giving it up to BushCo is no problem? Maybe someone can explain it to me.

I’m sensing in the complaints about the treatment of Lieberman supporters a similar situation to the complaints about the treatment of pro-war “liberal hawks” a couple of years ago. It was at Kevin Drum’s place, I believe (I used to hang out there), that there were complaints of “are you going to demand that everyone who supported the war come out and publicly say they were wrong before you stop beating up on them?”

My response at the time was that it would be nice, but I didn’t require that they say they were wrong. I only required that they stop saying that really, if you looked at it from the right angle, they were kind of right. Anyone who kept doing that deserved whatever slamming they got.

Same thing here. I’m all for letting bygones be bygones, and having supporters of different candidates unite behind the nominee after the primary, and take advantage or the unprecedented unity on the Democratic side this year. But Lieberman won’t let us. His egotistical independent run is the thing that is screwing up party unity, allowing the GOP to undermine a strong Democratic narrative, and consequently, in the immortal words of Jon Stewart, hurting America.

Why should I pull my punches against anyone who’s on the wrong side of that?

The insiders are a social class unto themselves, and their party is the party of the insiders. So it is an attack on their class when the democratic outsiders mount a primary challenge.

Thank you, Jane. I’ve been thinking this and after reading posts this weekend on the same topic by his so-called “TPM reader DK”*, I’m left with the impression that Josh surrounds himself with like-minded people who don’t get it. Sure, a rebuttal could be made that we’re in an echo chamber here at FDL, too, but we commenters here neither get paid to do this nor are we commenting in a blog where the posting “proprietors” are professional journalists. We know Josh is a journo paid to write about politics, making comparison inappropriate.

There’s a personal component to Josh’s perspective that contributes to a blindspot; I’m not going to comment on it.

But Josh is a professional journalist; he was one before he started blogging. He had access to certain circles before he started blogging. We are seeing what many other journalists may be thinking/feeling, but are not articulating because they don’t blog.

And rather than exploring this schism and suspending judgment, we see him making an ultimate assessment with that wave of the hand. Will this same assessment color any work he generates as a paid journalist?

Is this what we’re up against with all professional journos?

[* - at what point is a poster that contributes content to a blog with frequency merely a reader? it’s a rather disinguenous label IMO after the first post.]

punaise @ 10

I’m as disappointed with Josh lately as anyone, but one reminder for the record: many of the posts this weekend (i.e. the source of the atrios spat) were by a guest, “TPM reader DK”.

Josh will lose all of his readership if he doesn’t ditch that moron, and start supporting the nominee.

If you run a “publication”, the people who post on the front page are the voice of your publication, and that’s that. Of course I suspect the real issue is that Josh is not really opposed to what DK is saying. I really don’t want to bash a blogger on another blog, but this is not about his like or dislike of Lieberman. I don’t give a rat’s ass about which candidate he preferred during the Primary. The issue for me is 100% about supporting the fairly chosen candidate to go into the Generals. However you felt about the Primary is irrelevant now, if you are a Democrat you get behind the nominee, end of story.

No one expects Neocon Joe to act with dignity or honor, he has proven his craven credentials over the last 5 years. But to have bloggers jumping on that bandwagon is just intolerable.

punaise @ 10

I’m as disappointed with Josh lately as anyone, but one reminder for the record: many of the posts this weekend (i.e. the source of the atrios spat) were by a guest, “TPM reader DK”.

Noted, but the one Jane links to above is by Josh Marshall himself.

I’m with Jane – shocked at JM on this one. When it comes to tracking votes, holding congresscritters accountable for making their positions known to their constituents, etc., Josh has done – and still does – great work. The Muckraker is a great branching out of his original blog, which still does good stuff. Why he can’t see that what’s going on here at FDL with regard to Joe is right in line with that is stunning.

Crap! I post something like twice a month and I get EPU’d (and I’m not even quite sure what that means)

OT – but encouraging (can you say “discovery?” I knew you could.)

Federal suit brought against Auglaize County (OH) BOE by dismissed Director. Names Blackwell, seeking declaratory judgment of failure to execute statutory duties.

Linda Huber, who was replaced March 2 by Carolyn Campbell, filed the civil action Wednesday making 11 claims including fraudulent procurement of federal funds, wrongful discharge and sunshine law violations against former and current members of the Elections Board, Auglaize County Prosecuting Attorney Ed Pierce and Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell.

http://www.wapakdailynews.com/…..news02.prt

This is a convoluted tale. The preceding Director (Burklo) was ousted (read “pushed out by Blackwell’s rep”) for the relatively minor transgression noted in the story. (I’m sure our venerated SoS wouldn’t want anyone looking into that whole mainframe access thing from 2004) The Board, not realizing how important it was to cover that up, was shocked at their treatment by SoS rep. The Board remained loyal to Burklo, and tried to put her in another position at the BOE. SoS said no. This woman – Huber seems okay, but the article indicates a focus on the given reason for Burklo’s firing rather than the underlying one, and also says Burklo was keeping inactive names on the voting rolls.

should prove interesting…

Josh has lost the plot. I really like him and some of his posts are so well written. My trip throught the “lefty blogosphere” ircnically began at TPM. But he is still clinging to some conventional wisdom regarding Lieberman that clearly refutes his own values. So, let me try to help Josh out:
1.) Social Security is very important to Josh. He led the fight on the Lefty Blogosphere to get Dems in congress to committ to preserving SS. I will always be grateful to Josh for doing this.
2.) The more Democrats in congress, both houses, the safer SS is.
3.) Leaving aside the fact that Joe Lieberman is at best lukewarm about SS and if reelected will apply his “skills” at working across the aisle to kill it (unintentionally or intentionally, who knows with Joe?), there is no question that Joe’s independent run is going to hurt the Democrats running for congressional seats in CT.
4.) There is no question that continued fixation on Lieberman-Lamont is going to drain attention and money from other congressional and senatorial races.
5.) Therefore, Lieberman’s insistence in remaining in the race is actually putting SS on less firm footing because if the GOP retains control of both houses after the election, they are going to go after SS with a vengeance and Joe will be right there with the silver bipartisan stake.
So, Josh, I have only given you one reason out of many I can think of as to why Lieberman should back out for the good of the party. I’m sure we can think of others, not least of which is mcjoan’s statement that Joe’s famed bipartisanship is akin to capitulation in the current political climate.
What I am most curious about is why Josh refuses to take a stand. Is it an economic thing? Is it impending fatherhood? Does he need money that badly that he has to refuse to have an opinion? The guy is BAD NEWS, Josh. If he had won the primary, we would have held our noses and voted for him. But he can’t do anything for us now, he hurts us and we’ll never be able to trust him. He has to go.

whig @ 20

The insiders are a social class unto themselves, and their party is the party of the insiders. So it is an attack on their class when the democratic outsiders mount a primary challenge.

Yes, and two rounds of ‘W’ being elected have lulled these elites into thinking what we all fear: “the masses are asses”. I wonder if it possible for America to wake up from its complacency and laziness . . .

A source close to British PM Tony Blair says: “We feel badly let down by Bush. We thought we had persuaded him to take the Israel-Palestinian situation seriously, we were wrong. How can anyone have faith in a man of such intellect?”

Rubbish. And such tripe. Bush didn’t let Tony down. Blair let himself down. Ye god’s! I’m far from an intellect, but I already knew George was a dummy from his days as a Texas Governor. And even before that.

Mr. Prime Minister, there is NO excuse for you, except to say you are a dummy of very low intellect too.

There will never ever be peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians are given a homeland to call their own, control over the taxes they collect, and most importantly treated with the same respect and dignity that the American government accords the people of Israel.

Senator Lamont will triumph in autumn.

I don’t think it is fair to put Boxer and Lanny Davis together.
As far as Josh goes, anyone who writes about “emerging orthodoxy” has their shorts on a little too tight to be completely trusted. Is he going for some kind liberal-George-Will effect? “tendency in the liberal blogosphere…” is another phony way to create a straw man to knock down. The problem is not with the blogosphere, but with Lieberman, who has decided that the best thing for the country is for the Republicans of Connecticut to decide which Democrat should represent them in the Senate. Fair enough?…didn’t think so.
peace,
jim

Battered women will pick up a gun and shoot the cop trying to save them. There’s nothing unusual in the reaction to Lamont. People will marry abusive lying assholes, vote for abusive lying assholes and work for abusive lying assholes. An outsider claiming he’s come to their rescue isn’t always believed.

BQ @24

Crap! I post something like twice a month and I get EPU’d (and I’m not even quite sure what that means)

http://www.urbandictionary.com…..PU’d

Linky probably won’t work – WordPress likes to eat apostrophes… c/p linky.

:-)

I’m pretty much with Josh on this: sorry folks.

Just for the record, I am sick to death of hearing what a “good American” Joe is from the right and the left…

there are lots of good Americans, here, there, in New Orleans, and fighting horrible wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, too.

Peterr sez:

So I guess the fact that Joe’s refusal (to this point) to drop out doesn’t bother Josh.

This is the all-consuming question. Even if Josh and Joe are BFF, on principle Joe not accepting the will of the dem voters in CT is cause enough for disdain. Josh’s position is not making sense to me.

i think the continuing meme that it’s everybody else’s fault (evil bloggers, crazies on the fringe) that joe is in the situation he’s in is a direct result of covering six years of an administration that has never been held accountable for anything. for a president who constatly flaunts his faith, it’s amazing to me that personal responsibility seems to be officially non-existent. i know, i’m just one of those people playing the “blame game”, but i think that more and more americans are realizing that the same tired stay-the-course, status quo mentaltity is not making our lives better.

And I’m with ya on the Josh Marshall thing – I hadn’t checked his site for a while and looked in just in time for his post-primary comments. He’s generally more astute than this…is he so blinded by Joe’s “nice guy” rep that he’s not seeing the reptilian transformation?

First time I’ve seen Marshall completely miss the nuance of a situation (or, if he misses it on the first pass, there’s a follow up). This isn’t a question of treating moderates like the ‘Thugs treat moderates (like traitors). This situation does call for that response, because Joe, by his own actions, has betrayed the party concept. It is only fair that he get no benefit of party membership.

All the crap that they’re giving him gratis, as though he were still a Dem, should be in play for another candidate (not even necessarily Lamont). bottom line, Joe is taking in-kind benefits from real Dem candidates by continuing to avail himself of Dem machinery. So, he’s hurting them monetarily in addition to bringing out the GOP vote to hurt them at the polls. And we can’t forget Steve Gilliard’s characterization of Holy Joe as ‘the Flying Wedge’ of the GOP attack machine (at least I can’t, great sports analogy, and I hate sports analogies)

What shocks me the most is that progressives, and I assume that Mr. Marshall fits that mode, although I don’t know that much about him, are not seething with anger at bush and all of his enablers for their pummeling of our democracy and their profitting from worldwide death and destruction.

lotus @
17

At least there’s still The Muck, which now has up this clip of the Chimpy presser rant this morning in which he nearly wept, “[N]obody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks!”

Wow, that was quite a meltdown. Can we stick a fork in this guy, finally, for crying out loud?

On topic – I agree that Josh has the wrong take on this. I’ll bet he acknowledges it soon…

I had a NARAL telemarketer call me in CT this weekend with a hand out for a donation, and I told her in no uncertain terms just why I would never give NARAL a dime ever again. She said she was just a volunteer, and didn’t blame me. She also said she was hearing that alot the last few weeks….

Peterr @ 18

So I guess the fact that Joe’s refusal (to this point) to drop out doesn’t bother Josh. Never mind that Joe’s GOTV work will be bringing a bunch of republicans to the CT polls, just when several CT Dems (the kind who won their primary races, of course) are fighting to take a couple of House seats away from the Republicans.

Thanks, Joe!

Good reminder, Peterr. I’m still waiting to see relevant polling data that would confirm/refute whether Joe will, in fact, bring out substantial Repub voters. It seems likely that Schlesinger alone would dampen Repub turnout, and the fact that the Repub Gov is still running way ahead provides no further impetus for R turnout. Is Joe the only draw, and how much will Lieberman affect these people?

It seems to me that JL is in a very tight box. The more he says, subliminally, to the Repubs that he’s their guy, the more likely he is to alienate the remaining Dems who are staying with him out of habit, seniority concerns, etc. (The Israeli issue is more tricky, I suspect.)

Kerry’s comments yesterday forced JL to proclaim that he’s a true-blue loyal Dem, which can only undercut JL’s appeal to the Repubs. And Joe is about to be caught having it both ways wrt to Rummy’s resignation, which will further alienate the Dems. IMO, Joe can’t win with mostly Republican votes, not in Connecticut and certainly not in anti-war Connecticut (about 80%?); he can only threaten Lamont by holding tightly to his remaining Dem base.

Here’s hoping that Joe’s trying to be all things and all positions to all people will eventually get him, one way or another.

Bobby St. Chomsky @ 37

What shocks me the most is that progressives, and I assume that Mr. Marshall fits that mode, although I don’t know that much about him, are not seething with anger at bush and all of his enablers for their pummeling of our democracy and their profitting from worldwide death and destruction.

Oh, I seethe, sir… I so seethe.

Bobby St. Chomsky @ 36

What shocks me the most is that progressives, and I assume that Mr. Marshall fits that mode…

he’s a left-leaning centrist, which is fine – big tent and all – he’s just wrong in this case

Say it ain”t so …

But as of late Marshall HAS become increasingly tone deaf…a number of times I have noted that his writing whiffs of an almost patrician… inside the beltway air about it.

Its almost like just under his breath Marshall is muttering … “how dare the CT. rapid rabble declare to know what they deserve… not to mention voted for”….

Must be all that ad income.

Larry

Jane,

Speaking of Joshua Micah Marshall (whose reporting with Laura Rozen was instrumental in uncovering the Italian end of the Niger uranium caper, and whose investigative and reporting skills I think we can all admire) the “good Josh” posted this an hour ago:

I had missed this column from Jon Alter last month in Newsweek.

He says we need a pledge for the 37 senators and 193 members of the House of Representatives who voted to sustain President Bush’s recent veto of the bill that would have loosened the restrictions on promising stem cell research into cures for cancer, diabetes, paralysis and various motion disorders.

The vote’s already happened so we know just where these folks stand on the issue. So Alter proposes a pledge that would ask these worthies to go on record pledging not to accept future treatment with any cures they are now voting to block.

His proposed pledge goes as follows …

“Because of my strong opposition to embryonic-stem-cell research, I hereby pledge that should I, at any point in the future, develop diabetes, cancer, spinal-cord injuries or Parkinson’s, among other diseases, I will refuse any and all treatments derived from such research, at home or abroad, even if it costs me my life. Signed,

The whole article is here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..009492.php

Later in the piece Josh writes:

Just imagine Rep. Jones who votes against allowing stem cell research but isn’t willing to forswear using the fruit of it if and when it’s his life on the line.

So why not? I think it’s a good idea. Who can pick up the ball and run with this?

Did your senator or representative vote against? You can ask them yourself. The phone’s always handy. But a lot of these folks are out there on the campaign trail. So you could ask in person.

This might make an interesting Netroots campaign – any thoughts from other FDL’ers on this?

Gang of 14. Gang of 14. Gang of 14.

I was a Josh Marhsall type once on Lieberman, not even that long ago–where I didn’t get the fuss. I know many such. What worked for me, and I’ve watched work on others, is the Gang of 14. It’s not a well-known argument, it’s been lost in the “anti-Iraq war” fuss, and I’m glad to see Jane pushing it (and why I hope she continues to.)

The “let’s focus on taking back the Senate” crowd can be made to understand that breaking the Gang of 14 is the high-percentage play for holding onto SCOTUS. And SCOTUS is the #1 reason it’s more important to take the Senate than the House. (In fact, in my view, in every other respect we’d rather have the House than the Senate.)

If it were only about the war, I might have found myself in agreement with Marshall up through August 8. Post-August 8, even if you’ve failed to digest the Go14 argument, it’s tough to see how Senate Dems (or anyone else) could fail to see the political consequences of backing a candidate who lost your party’s primary. That’s what I find much more puzzling about Marshall…

(As an aside: if Lieberman wins and is the 51st vote for Reid, how long until Rumsfeld resigns to take one for the team, and Hadassah suddenly gets invitations to join corporate boards? Remember CT’s GOP governor gets to appoint the next Senator if a CT Senator were suddenly to become SecDef. I suppose even if Reid is only Majority Leader for a few weeks, it will still look good on his resume.)

Petro @ 37

lotus @
17

At least there’s still The Muck, which now has up this clip of the Chimpy presser rant this morning in which he nearly wept, “[N]obody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks!”

Wow, that was quite a meltdown. Can we stick a fork in this guy, finally, for crying out loud?

On topic – I agree that Josh has the wrong take on this. I’ll bet he acknowledges it soon…

I hope you’re right! Indeed, Josh may want to take a look at the constituent outrage his friend Senator Boxer continues (deservedly) to endure for her equally inexplicable support of primary loser Leiberman.

Thanks Dr. Bong! no wonder I couldn’t reason that one out…it’s fdl idiosyncratic!

Now I know where to look up all those internet acronyms I’ve been collecting. Ta!

And I’m tired if hearing that even though he’s an idiot, albeit a dangerous idiot, the President is a likable guy. Bull. I mean what’s to like about this lying, smirking, swaggering, arrogant, ego maniac, election stealing, pompous, spoiled rich brat? Who has never done a real day’s work in his life and has brought the world to the brink.

Here’s a handy model for Josh, Kevin Drum and the whole lot of the liberal Iraq hawks. John Edwards has eaten his crow. I ate mine, too:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/03/25/i-fucked-up/

I suspect it’s because he has lots of neoliberal friends who hate the activist blogosphere

now there is a new beast, the neoliberal. Can somebody define that for me?

Dr. Bong @ 30

BQ @24

Crap! I post something like twice a month and I get EPU’d (and I’m not even quite sure what that means)

http://www.urbandictionary.com…..PU’d

Linky probably won’t work – WordPress likes to eat apostrophes… c/p linky.

:-)

How about ” EPU’d ” ?

And speaking of bad craziness:

Bush, in presser meltdown, does the mother of all walkbacks [transcript] : admits 9/11 had “nothing” to do with Iraq.

And, of course, they never said it did.

Petro @ 40

Bobby St. Chomsky @ 37

Oh, I seethe, sir… I so seethe.

you seethe forest for the trees

ot, but SEWEET

bush says Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and he actually says nobdoy ever suggested it

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/

Josh is human–he (we) will have blinds spots from time to time. I had a very heated discussion with my mother-in-law the night Lamont lost. She too defended “good guy Joe”, a noble public servant for so many years. And she refused to hold him accountable for supporting the atrociites of this administration and labeling anyone who didn’t treasonous.

Here is my difficulty with all the “Joe defenders”–maybe I can excuse them before he loses the primary, not that I am inclined to. But now how do you excuse this arrogance, this I know better than all those Connecticut democrats what is best for them. Objectively, what he is doing now, is holding the election hostage and he is serving one master, not the people of Connecticut, but sanctimonious Joey Lieberman. How can people respect him now?

Anyway back to Josh. I’m stuck with my mother-in law and I am disinclined to disregard all Josh’s fine work because I disagree with him on this issue, although I agree, it illustrates that some basic part of him lives in the DC bubble.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 27

There will never ever be peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians are given a homeland to call their own, control over the taxes they collect, and most importantly treated with the same respect and dignity that the American government accords the people of Israel.

Senator Lamont will triumph in autumn.

There will never be peace in the Middle East until the country now known as Israel is no longer an apartheid nation.

A new country for the Palestinians will do nothing to settle the issue wrt who controls Jerusalem, which IS a holy city for three major religions all of whom seem to have a fierce warlike god, for pity’s sake, and which ought not to be under the control of one nation.

Good fences do not make good neighbors, as this situation shows. Only good neighborly behaviour will make good neighbors.

Pachacutec @ 48

Here’s a handy model for Josh, Kevin Drum and the whole lot of the liberal Iraq hawks. John Edwards has eaten his crow. I ate mine, too:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/03/25/i-fucked-up/

But we’re still gonna keep an eye on you Pach. *g*

Josh either sees the light and comes around on this, or stubbornly digs himself deeper at his peril

Except the definition mocks me by not stating: “Term derived from a habitually late commenter who posts as ‘Evil Parallel Universe,’ who claims omniscience, at the political blog firedoglake.com.”

This brings out the male basher in me. JM/TPM-type blogs on Joe-Joe annoy because they are dismissive toward those of us who have a personal stake in this race, many of us being from CT. “Salem witchhunt” type comments from the readers seem sexist. They imply our rhetoric is hysterical and so on and soforth. I call the rhetoric here necessary and great for its spirit and its cheerleading, etc. Also the comments from what’shisname’s “cool, rational” readers are hilariously off the mark because they have no feel or intuition or knowledge of CT peculiarites. FDL rocks, TPM does not.

punaise @ 53

Petro @ 40

Bobby St. Chomsky @ 37

Oh, I seethe, sir… I so seethe.

you seethe forest for the trees

I’ve been punaised!

Titanyum @ 49

I suspect it’s because he has lots of neoliberal friends who hate the activist blogosphere

now there is a new beast, the neoliberal. Can somebody define that for me?

They are neocons, only with a D next to their name. Tony Blair’s New Labour Party is also neoliberal. They are about as conservative economically as Thatcher’s government was, and much, much more Authoritarian. HoJo is probably one of them.

Professor Foland @
44

Gang of 14. Gang of 14. Gang of 14.

The “let’s focus on taking back the Senate” crowd can be made to understand that breaking the Gang of 14 is the high-percentage play for holding onto SCOTUS. And SCOTUS is the #1 reason it’s more important to take the Senate than the House. (In fact, in my view, in every other respect we’d rather have the House than the Senate.)

Amen to that.

lotus @ 18

At least there’s still The Muck, which now has up this clip of the Chimpy presser rant this morning in which he nearly wept, “[N]obody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks!”

Wow, I was watching earlier, but missed this part: Bush “Part of the reason we went into Iraq was, the main reason we went into Iraq was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction, well it turns out he didn’t…” (goes on to quickly claim “he had the capacity to make wmd…”)
So he states loud and clear in this morning’s presser that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and had nothing to do with attacking the U.S. on 9/11, and all I get out of the media round-up later is that we are sending money to Lebanon? So many U.S. citizens still believer that we found wmd and that Hussein/Iraq had something to do with 9/11—this footage needs to be on the evening news and quoted in the headlines of major newspapers. Is this something we can do with “spotlight”?

Prof Foland at 44: — absolutely right about the “gang of 14″ issue. Notice that the Repubs who are so nice to JL never mention this one, but it’s probably critical in their minds, even more than the war. Nah, it’s always about what a “nice guy” or “great American” Joe is. Great Americans wouldn’t enable the first Alito, let alone the next.

Lou Costello @50

about ” EPU’d ” ?

Show-off!

Didn’t Josh say just last week about Joe… f**k him. Yes, that’s what he said.

I back Josh on this one.

Rayne 21: I think the “issue that dare not speak it’s name” is addressed by Larry Johnson, over at HuffPo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..27685.html

how odd, assuming dk is marshall, i have to wonder why he doesn’t allow comments on his so-called blog.

let him open his moldy column to a little corrective commentary and then maybe i’ll consider him a blogger.

but that doesn’t mean i’ll go back to reading him. his site needs a makeover or he risks getting run over.

people, the world is burning down around our ears. the bad guys stole all the big guns.

the ability to be nimble and flexible and open to new ideas just might save us from the murderers’ rampages on our static selves.

OK, that guy in the hat.
Definitely Al-Qaeda.

~

Evil Parallel Universe @ 58

Except the definition mocks me by not stating: “Term derived from a habitually late commenter who posts as ‘Evil Parallel Universe,’ who claims omniscience, at the political blog firedoglake.com.”

I was going to point that out, but I thought you knew that.

Titanyum @ 49

I suspect it’s because he has lots of neoliberal friends who hate the activist blogosphere

now there is a new beast, the neoliberal. Can somebody define that for me?

here’s a decent intro from corpwatch – link. main points taken from the article:

The main points of neo-liberalism include:
1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET.
2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
3. DEREGULATION.
4. PRIVATIZATION.
5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF “THE PUBLIC GOOD” or “COMMUNITY”

Old Sow @ 55

Oklahoma kiddo @ 27

There will never ever be peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians are given a homeland to call their own, control over the taxes they collect, and most importantly treated with the same respect and dignity that the American government accords the people of Israel.

Senator Lamont will triumph in autumn.

There will never be peace in the Middle East until the country now known as Israel is no longer an apartheid nation.

A new country for the Palestinians will do nothing to settle the issue wrt who controls Jerusalem, which IS a holy city for three major religions all of whom seem to have a fierce warlike god, for pity’s sake, and which ought not to be under the control of one nation.

Good fences do not make good neighbors, as this situation shows. Only good neighborly behaviour will make good neighbors.

Yes. I firmly believe it has been, and will ALWAYS, be about ‘respect and projecting genuine dignity’ for one another.

The swiftboating of Ned Lamont has begun.
Cheney’s favorite radio pal Don Imus has
of late been pointing out how much Ned looks
like the tragically the insane suspect in the Jon Benet murder case.
He is so obvious about it, unlike when he
was working against John Kerry and telling everyone he supported Kerry.

Amen! I have been repeatedly shocked at Josh Marshall’s leming support of Lieberman and his continuing snipss at Lamont even after the voters of Connecticut clearly elected Lamont in the primary.

I like Marshall and read him all the time. I am utterly shocked than he takes this position. It’s unbecoming. It’s sad.

scarecrow @ 64

absolutely right about the “gang of 14″ issue. Notice that the Repubs who are so nice to JL never mention this one, but it’s probably critical in their minds, even more than the war. Nah, it’s always about what a “nice guy” or “great American” Joe is. Great Americans wouldn’t enable the first Alito, let alone the next.

Yup, in JoeGo, the Repugs have the camel’s nose under the tent, and surely don’t want to lose that critter.

Having a Repug flying under Dem colors makes Karl “The Weasel” Rove orgasmic.

Petro @ 60

punaise @ 53

Petro @ 40

Bobby St. Chomsky @ 37

Oh, I seethe, sir… I so seethe.

you seethe forest for the trees

Render unto seethers what is seathers’.

I’ve been punaised!

MadDog:

Please do not use the words “Karl Rove” and “orgasmic” in the same sentence.

*gags*

:-)

punaise @ 57

Josh either sees the light and comes around on this, or stubbornly digs himself deeper at his peril

Josh Marshall is beginning to = Ana Marie Cox with glasses and w/o the nice tits. He’s angling for a MSM investigative job, IMHO.

whaleshaman @ 69

how odd, assuming dk is marshall, i have to wonder why he doesn’t allow comments on his so-called blog.

let him open his moldy column to a little corrective commentary and then maybe i’ll consider him a blogger.

but that doesn’t mean i’ll go back to reading him. his site needs a makeover or he risks getting run over.

people, the world is burning down around our ears. the bad guys stole all the big guns.

the ability to be nimble and flexible and open to new ideas just might save us from the murderers’ rampages on our static selves.

Uh, the Josh Marshall link in the post above goes to an item at TPMCafe, which does indeed allow comments. I’ve been trying to get through them (but The Kid keeps climbing up on my lap: “read me this book, daddy.”) and Josh is indeed mixing it up with other commenters, including a few names I recognize from FDL.

Dear Mr. Lieberman,

The democratic party does not have a litmus test, what they had was an election. There is a difference. The progressives in the late 1800’s fought hard to take away the ability of party insiders to ignore the voters and keep giving them the same tired candidates. You do not love the democratic party, you love Leiberman, it is you and your friends who have the litmus tests. Democrats have and respect elections.

The word for today is ‘Imagine’.

‘Imagine what the world would be like with him in power.’

It’s easy…and you don’t even have to try

>:-(

Kurt @ 61 and selise @ 71:
Thank you for your definitions of neoliberal. It seems a neoliberal is worse than a neocon. Making Tony Blair and Joe Lieberman posterboys for that movement says it all.

By merest chance, I was reading a bit of “Crashing the Gate” about the single-issue groups that defined liberalism in the late ’60s and ’70s. The example that the authors use is NARAL, but you can also think of the Sierra Club and so on. NARAL, and the Sierra Club, both endorse Chaffee! Well, he has a pretty good record personally on their single issues, but he is part of a coalition that will do the exact opposite. Is this because of tax laws? They can’t be partisan? But that renders them, not useless, but the big ocean liners that can’t change directions. They’re a product of the era when the Democrats were in control, and their cultural values were on the rise. Neither of those things is true anymore.

So, NARAL sees that Lieberman votes pro-choice. End of story.

Dr. Bong @ 77

MadDog:

Please do not use the words “Karl Rove” and “orgasmic” in the same sentence.

*gags*

:-)

LOL! Only after you mentioned it, did that awful image come to mind.

I’m now gagging right along wit’ ya! *g*

scarecrow — yes, I’d read that bit by Johnson earlier this morning and thought immediately about Josh.

Josh claims to be a “strict-constructionist” Zionist, but like the “strict-constructionist” POTUS we have, both terms strict and construction are highly prone to stretch upon interpretation.

From where I sit, Josh is a Likudnik and doesn’t seem to grok that what Likudniks think is best for American-Israel relations and their respective nations’ political and economic health is not necessarily best them in actuality. Disparity and inequity are eventually disruptive (to say the least) — and Larry Johnson does a fine job of pointing out the ramifications of such skewing.

One of Josh’s responses to a commenter on his blog this morning (I assume it’s Josh). Is he saying, in effect, it’s still OK if Joe wins because he’s a dem? This is incredible status quo and out of date thinking…

On August 21, 2006 – 1:24am joshtpm said:
I guess some Democrats may find this sort or rant appealing to their masochism. But I don’t. I don’t think it even makes much political or historical sense. Historically, American parties don’t function the way parliamentary parties do in the UK and even in Canada. We have a different system. That’s worth learning. As for this bloviating about what it means if Lieberman wins, again, a lot of talk. Lieberman has a lot of advantages you choose to ignore — like the fact that for all intents and purposes the GOP didn’t field a candidate. That means he can pick up all the GOP votes, in addition to conservative Democrats and his own loyalists. That doesn’t mean he can’t be beat. I’m pretty sure he can. But this is the sort of trash talk that definitely requires leaving your brain at the door.

mui @
59

This brings out the male basher in me. JM/TPM-type blogs on Joe-Joe annoy because they are dismissive toward those of us who have a personal stake in this race, many of us being from CT. “Salem witchhunt” type comments from the readers seem sexist. They imply our rhetoric is hysterical and so on and soforth. I call the rhetoric here necessary and great for its spirit and its cheerleading, etc. Also the comments from what’shisname’s “cool, rational” readers are hilariously off the mark because they have no feel or intuition or knowledge of CT peculiarites.

Thanks for saying that Mui so I didn’t have to. The notion that all us little girls should take a Midol and STFU about our pro-choice nonsense and not kick up such a political fuss is extraordinarily patronizing.

You don’t have to agree with it, you don’t have to go along with it. But to tell us all to pipe down for defending our right to have dominion over our own bodies is really, really irritating.

I read Josh’s article and I didn’t think he was saying that we should ignore the CT-Sen race. I think he’s pointing to the mindset that was very evident on the blogs this weekend. I was left with the impression that the Lamont race is the only race that matters and that anyone who thinks we need to widen our coverage to include other important races simply doesn’t understand The Big Picture.

clonecone @ 87

I read Josh’s article and I didn’t think he was saying that we should ignore the CT-Sen race. I think he’s pointing to the mindset that was very evident on the blogs this weekend. I was left with the impression that the Lamont race is the only race that matters and that anyone who thinks we need to widen our coverage to include other important races simply doesn’t understand The Big Picture.

That is what he says is his point. Here’s more from Josh today:

I’m taking it as a given that Ned Lamont is the only person any Democrat should be supporting in CT, period. To pick up on your theme, I was ambivalent before the election. But the primary settled it for me. In a sense I think the whole meta-debate beyond that is one I frankly have a hard time even getting a hold of. I think strawmen are popping up on both sides. If anyone is saying that this is THE key race of the entire cycle, I just can’t see that, since to me the overriding issue is Democratic control one or both Houses. To some degree I feel like we’re getting into the narcissism of small differences with some of this debate — a fight between those who support Lamont and think his is the central fight of the cycle and those who support Lamont and think it’s one of the central fights of the cycle. I mean, what is there to debate?

Whatever.

MUI! JANE!

I’m not sure this is relevant to Josh Marshall’s puzzling take on Lieberman but it may be a contributing factor. A lot of friends of mine in the progressive Jewish community are very torn over this given what just occurred in Israel/Lebanon. As unfathomable as this is to me much of the US community has completely bought the Israeli PR that paints this as totally an Hezbollah aggression and a real threat to Zionism’s very existence. This has given the likud faction an incredibly strong hand for the moment, and Joe Lieberman is a very visible US political figure and a clear champion of that viewpoint. According to what I’m told by folks much more in the know, the Jewish political left has never been more fragmented nor marginal.

BTW this is not good news regarding a whole slate of political concerns, and especially the ultimate resolution of the Israel/Lebanon (and by extension Syrian and Iranian) conflict.

The DSCC site on the CT 2006 race has removed the four pro-Lieberman articles I was complaining about and replaced them with lots of positive Lamont updates.

Did some doggies howl at the DSCC this morning, or does somebody on the DSCC web staff read FDL (and other sites like MyDD which also brought this up)?

http://www.dscc.org/2006races/ct/

And, FWIW I was positively thrilled to see that the Kerry “Cheney” quote was picked up and put into CAPITAL NEWS’ rotation on C-Span. Their website also links to the full story at ABC News.

At one point this morning, C-Span was running first-person horror stories from New Orleans, while Gov. Dean was lambasting the Re-thugs on C-Span2 (taped from Chicago DNC meetings this weekend)

THANK YOU, BRIAN LAMB! Keep up the GREAT WORK!

scarecrow @
16

Kerry’s putdown of JL yesterday got front page exposure in the Boston Globe.

http://www.boston.com/news/nat…..th_voters/

clonecone

. . .I was left with the impression that the Lamont race is the only race that matters and that anyone who thinks we need to widen our coverage to include other important races simply doesn’t understand The Big Picture.

Lots of folks think the Lamont/JL race is very important and worth our attention. All of them also believe other things are important, and we read about them both here and elsewhere. But I haven’t read a single blogger or commenter who holds the absolute view you describe. Not one.

clonecone @ 87

I read Josh’s article and I didn’t think he was saying that we should ignore the CT-Sen race. I think he’s pointing to the mindset that was very evident on the blogs this weekend. I was left with the impression that the Lamont race is the only race that matters and that anyone who thinks we need to widen our coverage to include other important races simply doesn’t understand The Big Picture.

I understand the Big Picture. Lieberman lost the Primary. Yet some Democrats are choosing to ignore that fact, and continue to support the guy that LOST HIS PARTY’S PRIMARY.

Admittedly here at FDL the commenters are overwhelmingly Progressive, and not Centrist or Neoliberal like Hillary and company. And we could sit down and have a nice, thoughtful discussion about the merits (cough) of neoliberalism, or of triangulation, etc. But since the Primary already happened, and a winner was chosen, and the winner was Lamont, it’s time to support him and STFU about Joe. This isn’t about being a big tent party or being ideologically pure. It’s about supporting the winners of elections, period.

Oklahoma kiddo @
47

And I’m tired if hearing that even though he’s an idiot, albeit a dangerous idiot, the President is a likable guy. Bull. I mean what’s to like about this lying, smirking, swaggering, arrogant, ego maniac, election stealing, pompous, spoiled rich brat? Who has never done a real day’s work in his life and has brought the world to the brink.

Dubya has been an ASSHOLE at least since he entered puberty, maybe from birth. Anybody that says he is anything different is either lying or has no sense of smell. There has never been a more snidely creep than he. I have never understood the appelation “likeable” applied to him. He had trouble written all over him before he was even nominated. That he even came close to being actually elected is both astonishing and appalling.

The time for a post like Josh’s was before the primary. (We too made many such posts too–before the primary). Now that the die is cast, the job of thinking Democrats is to support the Democratic nominee in the Connecticut primary as well as other high-profile Democratic nominees. There will be plenty of time to sort out whether or not certain tactics were brilliant or whether they were insane after November 7.

Jenny from the Blog @ 11:35 am (#85) – He was responding to someone who seemed to think that the Democrats are all fracked up because they don’t speak with one voice. In that context, I think JMM’s response was valid.

whaleshaman @ 11:20 am (#69) how odd, assuming dk is marshall, i have to wonder why he doesn’t allow comments on his so-called blog.

You’ve started with an incorrect assumption, and added an incorrect statement to it. JMM often posts the things his readers write to him, and frequently argues with them. As someone’s already pointed out, this article was posted at the TPM Cafe, where comments are welcome if you’re a registered user. [Disclosure: I am not registered there. I don’t register for forums, unless they are for a particular professional or avocational interest.]

clonecone @ 87

I was left with the impression that the Lamont race is the only race that matters and that anyone who thinks we need to widen our coverage to include other important races simply doesn’t understand The Big Picture.

Then why not support another worthy candidate while FDL supports Lamont? There should be enough acreage in the blogosphere to give worthy candidates support. It doesn’t help critizising those who have chosen the Lamont race as being the fulcrum of the battle against neocons.

Whatever Josh might be posting this minute, he’s been the guy that has helped me to frame my arguments against Lieberman.

I feel badly that TPM and FDL are engaging in brand warfare but here, from one minute on google:

http://www.google.com/search?q…..tsmemo.com lieberman

Israel
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..000061.php

on quoting Drudge against Wes Clark – who was Josh’s favorite
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..002417.php

Enron
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..001294.php

War 2004
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..002932.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..002930.php

Social Security
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004936.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..004994.php

2006
Posted the race-baiting flyer for all to see.

“We spent a good deal of time documenting the conflicts of interest that arose in these situations and it offered a wonderful opportunity to lift up the rug and watch all the ugly insects scurrying around as they tried to protect their own entitlements. What arose was a very clear illustration of many of the circumstances that led us into this current mess in the first place.”

Agreed, 100%. And there needs to be more of that “lifting up the rug”. Who is to say there isn’t some of that conflict of interest and protecting entitlements in the case of Marshall too?

Ed*ard Teller – I emailed the DSCC site yesterday – short and sweet that while Lieberman is currently serving as a Democratic Senator, he is NOT a Democratic CANDIDATE, and that they should remove any indication on their site that he is one of *their* candidates, as that can only hurt the actual Democratic Candidate. Think few other folks must have done similarly.

Cujo 359 @96 -

Yes, Josh seems genuinely perplexed and concerned about the way his position is perceived. I would’ve cut and pasted more to give better context but I wasn’t sure how much space I should use here. You’re right.

Jizz-chin Joe is full of yuks today. Check out this brilliant piece of stand-up comedy from the former Democrat and Bush/Cheney/Mehlman bukakke target:

“This is a whole new chapter and it’s all going to be about people power,” Lieberman said in a recent interview.

-GSD

Titanyum @ 82

Kurt @ 61 and selise @ 71:
Thank you for your definitions of neoliberal. It seems a neoliberal is worse than a neocon. Making Tony Blair and Joe Lieberman posterboys for that movement says it all.

i don’t think the neolibs are worse than the neocons. neolibs use primarily economic means and neocons use bombs. (yeah, an over simplification)

but, they are both neoimperialists…. and i reject supremist thinking everywhere i find it (especially when i find it in myself).

Jane Hamsher @ 86

Thanks for saying that Mui so I didn’t have to. The notion that all us little girls should take a Midol and STFU about our pro-choice nonsense and not kick up such a political fuss is extraordinarily patronizing.

You don’t have to agree with it, you don’t have to go along with it. But to tell us all to pipe down for defending our right to have dominion over our own bodies is really, really irritating.

You’re greatly welcome, Jane. I think there is a big difference between not agreeing with FDL and community, and using a kind of argument against us that implies “female hysteria,” or at least encourages those kinds of remarks from the readership.
We all know here the consequences of HoJo’s complicity and duplicity in the case of Alito are pretty serious and potentially deadly, re: South Dakota.

scarecrow @ 92

Lots of folks think the Lamont/JL race is very important and worth our attention.

I agree, it is an extremely important race and worthy of coverage. And I’m not criticizing this blog for it’s coverage. Jane has been clear from the start that she is covering this race and I don’t think Marshall had firedoglake in mind when writing that piece.

Most of my impressions about this weekend came from dailykos and from Armando in particular.

fahrender and OK Kiddo– I’d as soon have a beer with dubya as support Lieberliar. The thought of even shaking hands with either of them skeeves me out completely.

go Ned!

Ack! EPU-ed two threads back, but hopefully this’ll still be on-topic here:

All the writhing, evil tentacles of the Republicants lead back to one central putrid core…the repellent radical rogue Octopussy, Karl Rove.

Take down him and the other dominoes will fall.

Republicans will herald the “bullhorn moment” as a symbol of manliness

Democrats should run the endless loop of My Pet Goat. That’s the real, in-the-moment Bush. That and the amazing, psychedelic skippy-doo tour around the air bases that day. The bullhorn moment was all about choreography.

Who d’you suppose the script choreographer was? Any linguists among us who’d like some fun? Was it Rove? Hughes? Gerson? The man doesn’t have a spontaneous moment in him.

Prairie Sunshine @ 106

a comment from the last thread that might interest you.

As crappy as I think the present day Israeli government is, the people in Israel seem to have a hell of a lot more of a grasp about what democracy and dissent are all about.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/753164.html

-GSD

Regarding Bush’s “bullhorn moment”. I still think Rove yelled out from behind one of the firefighters: “We can’t hear you.”

That prompted the Chimperiffic “I can hear you and Osama Bin Caca will hear from all of us.”

angie,

i don’t want to go there. but i was OT, so
you’re very right:

GO NED! and FEINGOLD! and TESTER! and WEBB!

OT, but pecious – georgia10 has a great post up right now at the top of dailykos. It begins:

Allow me to introduce to you to Staff Sgt. Michael “Chad” Lloyd.  His name is not John Mark Karr. He died recently while on foot patrol in Baghdad.  His flight to the United States won’t be in business class, and reporters won’t scramble to sit next to him. His body’s journey across the Atlantic won’t be traced with flashy graphics or estimated time of arrivals.  Flag-drapped coffins, you see, aren’t as sexy as murder suspect.

Maybe Josh M does equal “Beltway Insider”

See David Sirota’s most excellent post:

“The Beltway’s Fear and Loathing of Democracy” at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..27649.html

Sirota does not mention Josh; but the tango beat smells the same.

space cowboy @
11

thank you jane, well said. marshall is the guy who first started me reading blogs and getting involved on line, but he is dead wrong on this one.

My experience too. Here is the email I sent Josh yesterday:

Josh

I love your sites and I’ve contributed to them. I’m about to leave you though over your position on Lieberman. No hard feelings; it’s just that I can’t support people who weaken the Democratic Party. You’ve become one of those people.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/20/221753/231

This post explains it. I truly hope your click count/number of unique visits per day is going down over this. You’ve become part of the problem. Maybe you always were and it just wasn’t obvious.

If progressive Democrats — not Republican-lite Democrats — don’t get control of the congress soon, I really believe the American Experiment will be over.

Sincerely,

I waver between getting excited about the November elections and despair. Josh Marshall is only one of how many chatterers, but he makes a nice symbol because he’s safe, moderate, middle-of-the-road, unobjectionable, every mother’s good son. So when he makes excuses for the position that doesn’t recoil against Lieberman, he becomes the “good man who says nothing” in the battle against evil.

Joe Lieberman should be anathema to the Democratic Party right now. He should be to the Democratic body as projectile vomit is to the human body. Joe Lieberman is a succubus on the Democratic breast, and Josh Marshall makes excuses for those who tell us to lay back and enjoy it!

Jane Hamsher @ 86

The notion that all us little girls should take a Midol and STFU…

Amen…and pax the vobiscum!!!

Josh is missing the point!

Many are taking the buzz generated by the attention on the CT race (including front page stuff on the NYT, first-up reports on the network news, etc.) to question their own state’s candidates: Are you a Lamont winner or a Lieberman loser?

When you’re starting a forest fire, it ain’t helpful to be pissing on the flames!

ET,

Was just reading that—so well done.

“DSCC: Joe’s No Democrat” http://lamontblog.blogspot.com…..ocrat.html

clonecone — thanks for the clarification. I don’t devour everything on KOS, but it seems DKOS has covered and continues to cover dozens of candidates all over the country. I have not tracked Armando over time, but I assume he, like many others, has become convinced that FDL was right to shine a strong and persistent spotlight, but not all attention, on the Lamont race. I also believe this is a critical moment in that key race, so that it is not possible to focus too much attention on it — and yet other things get covered all over the progressive blogs, including here, because everyone recognizes that there are many things that matter.

Josh is such a smart guy, I wonder if he really doesn’t get the nearly global importance of this race or if he’s being slyly disingenuous.

Peterr @
79

whaleshaman @ 69

the ability to be nimble and flexible and open to new ideas just might save us from the murderers’ rampages on our static selves.

Uh, the Josh Marshall link in the post above goes to an item at TPMCafe, which does indeed allow comments. I’ve been trying to get through them (but The Kid keeps climbing up on my lap: “read me this book, daddy.”) and Josh is indeed mixing it up with other commenters, including a few names I recognize from FDL.

now ya see? i didn’t realize that. i should take my own advice re: nimble. thanks for the heads up.

now i can poke around his mixing-it-up blog, or moldy old column looking for an email address to contact him, register, figure out what rss means [do i get an instant electric jolt there’s an update waiting? i’m nearing 60 and it gets a little harder keeping up with you young ‘uns. it took me months to post my 1st entry on my blog much less upload a photo…groan, i don’t want to dss josh marshall to feel relevent, to respond, to have a voice.]

the first place i read about the true importance of dumping lieberman [it’s the supreme court, stupid!] was here at FDL. now i remember way back when before “choice” was even an inkling in the minds of “nice” girls much less a corporate slogan. and i also recall it was awful.

there doesn’t seem to be any time or room left for compromise, the next “okay, i don’t mind” is over the line and off the cliff.

and you younguns’ll have to reinvent the wheel for yourselves.

ITMT, thanks, peterr, for reading and replying to my comment.

thanks, FDL, for a little stroll with my soapbox, through your agora.

Maybe Josh M. DOES EQUAL “Beltway Insider”

See David Sirota’s remarkable “Beltway’s Fear and Loathing of Democracy” at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..27649.html

No, Sirota does not mention Josh. But the tango has the same beat.

I have to say. I am surprised that people haven’t realized that Josh is a DLC robot. I think he writes some interesting stuff, and the Muckraker site is very good…..BUT….he marches right in line with the DLC crowd, right next to his “good buddy” Al Franken. You can’t rely on these guys when the going gets really rough. The ladies of the lake are ROCK SOLID in their commitment to truth and honesty, no matter who squawks….Josh, as smart as he is……is a chicken when it comes to going against the DLC wishes!
Just my 2 cents.

This is from a TPM reader

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..009484.php
This is now an issue about the basis of the Democratic Party – if Lieberman gets re-elected as a Independent after loosing a Democratic Party primary and the Dems in the Senate welcome him back into their caucus like nothing has happened our Party is dead. The Dems in Washington will have said that the wishes of the States don’t matter and will be ignored when its handy and that there are 2 Parties, the one that lives in the States and the one in Washington and on this and all things Washington rules. Sometimes there are things that are more important than a majority. It doesn’t matter if he’s needed to get the 51 votes or not Lieberman has to be forced out of the Party.

If there is no Party discipline there is no Party – if there aren’t rules and regulations there isn’t a Party.

This whole mess is more important than Lieberman, the Dems in the Senate, and the nutmeg State.

This IS the issue.
If Lieberman wanted to run as an “independent”, he should of run in the primary with the candidate registered as an independent.

There are rules, you either follow the rules and live by the outcome or it truely is anarchy.
We all can’t just make shit up as we go along.

What do you tell the children (ReThug montra during the Clinton years)?
Is it playing the game using the rules or just do what you damn well want to?

Yes this whole male macho thing is aggravating. Here in Oklahoma, tomorrow, we will be going to the polls. The contest that concerns me, as a Democrat, is the one for Lt. Governor. It will be between former Judge and now state Rep. Jari Askins (woman) and Pete Regan. Regan bills himself as a progressive Democrat and seems okay. I voted for Askins in the primary and will do like wise tomorrow morning. But I hear a lot of fellow Democrats saying they will not vote for a woman. So I would have to say if Rep. Askins does not win tomorrow it will because of this individual’s gender. And if that’s the case, we Oklahomans will bring shame unto ourselves and surely should know better. So to any other Oklahomans out there, I would respectfully urge ya’ll to vote Askins!

whaleshaman @ 117

Many thanks for the “young ‘uns”! I’m not at 60 yet, but old enough that it gave me a smile. It makes a good bookend for the “can I help you with that, sir?” at the store the other day.

(And to return the smile: I had to go look up your “ITMT”!)

Redshift @
19

I’m sensing in the complaints about the treatment of Lieberman supporters a similar situation to the complaints about the treatment of pro-war “liberal hawks” a couple of years ago. It was at Kevin Drum’s place, I believe (I used to hang out there), that there were complaints of “are you going to demand that everyone who supported the war come out and publicly say they were wrong before you stop beating up on them?”

My response at the time was that it would be nice, but I didn’t require that they say they were wrong. I only required that they stop saying that really, if you looked at it from the right angle, they were kind of right. Anyone who kept doing that deserved whatever slamming they got.

Maybe you hung around longer than I did? I can’t ever remember Drum admitting us anti-Iraq invasion folks were correct, at least insofar as that we had rational reasons for our opinions, apart from general Bush-loathing.

Drum was the first place political blog I ever commented on, but I eventually tired of the message that even if I had been right about what a colossal fuck-up Iraq would be prior to the invasion, I couldn’t really have known that I was right and it was understandable that my opinions, and similar opinions expressed by anyone else, were understsandably lumped in with those of the so-called “anti-war leftist peacenik brigade” as a result.

Left me with a longstanding aversion to Kevin Drum, it did.

Click on whaleshaman’s name and then scroll down to “Aug. 10.”
Delightful! (and even on topic!)

I’ve posted a few comments on Josh’s thread in disagreement, but I do want to note that there is an argument for the leadership remaining neutral. I think it’s wrong. But there is an argument. Doing something like denying Joe his seniority could well have the effect of losing the seat. Now I would take that risk if I were the leadership.

Part of what this race is about, and most of the reason it is commanding so much attention is that it is expressly about this kind of lily-livered tactical thinking.

whaleshaman at 12:05 pm*

A lot of people have confused TPM reader DK (no relation) and Josh Marshall. Generally, DK has some great weekend posts, but he is way off base on this, as is Josh.

I have tremendous respect for Josh Marshall — he led the charge that dethroned Trent Lott, and helped derail the Bush plan to destroy Social Security.

That said, Josh was a neo-lib acolyte of Ken Pollack, and supported the invasion of Iraq until just before the balloon went up. He deftly segued into an anti-Iraq war trad-lib, without skipping a beat.

Josh is a treasure, but we need to bring our own salt on certain issues.

I got the feeling that someone important had a nice little chat with Josh…told him that having a family is a HUGE responsibility….kids go thru lots and lots of money. So, better behave yourself….you see what can happen to journalists…even big ones, like Dan Rather.

weeder @ 123

Click on whaleshaman’s name and then scroll down to “Aug. 10.”
Delightful! (and even on topic!)

THX ~ That is good!!! http://jellypizza.blogspot.com…..story.html

Has anyone heard anything about CT and a sore loser law, like they have in Ohio? You’d think they’d want one there, after Holy Joe hehe.

weeder @ 123

Click on whaleshaman’s name and then scroll down to “Aug. 10.”
Delightful! (and even on topic!)

Oh that is a thoroughly delightful blog, yes! Thanks for pointing this out.

Kurt @ 128

Has anyone heard anything about CT and a sore loser law, like they have in Ohio? You’d think they’d want one there, after Holy Joe hehe.

Kurt, maybe there should be a new national org: Mothers Against Sore Losers. hehe

Kurt @ 134

Has anyone heard anything about CT and a sore loser law, like they have in Ohio? You’d think they’d want one there, after Holy Joe hehe.

They might enact one now. I heard the CT Sec. of State talking about Lieberman’s run as if he were exploiting a loophole on a radio program Aug 9th.

Peterr @ 107, your link–exactly!

Kurt:

What’s yer e-mail addy, so’s I can slip ya that graph?

:-)

I saw Mr. Marshall on C-SPAN about two years ago and he sat right next to Richard Perle. When given the opportunity to rebut Mr. Perle, Mr. Marshall was silent. Moderates will not protect us from powerful authoritarians, they do not have the courage.

Dr. Bong @ 134

Kurt:

What’s yer e-mail addy, so’s I can slip ya that graph?

:-)

Heya, just click my name, and then click “view my complete profile” on my blog for my email. I get so much spam already I don’t want to spell it out hehe.

xtp @ 136

I saw Mr. Marshall on C-SPAN about two years ago and he sat right next to Richard Perle. When given the opportunity to rebut Mr. Perle, Mr. Marshall was silent. Moderates will not protect us from powerful authoritarians, they do not have the courage.

Not challanging them got us where we are now.
Taking a knife to a gun fight got us where we are now.
Being polite, bipartisan and following the “rules” got us where we are now.

At least Kerry learned something and took the correct weapon and used both barrels!

Shrub was truly kookooforcocopuffs at the presser today. Even for him. Laughing about war, quite a bit…answering serious questions with derisive remarks about the questioner’s clothing…(you’d think he might have learned something after the blind journalist with sunglasses fiasco.)
One of many crazy moments:

“Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that — you know, defeat resentment, is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.”

Or electricity. Elecrticity would help “do hope.” Or running water. I hear water’s great for that. Oh, and not so many dead neighbors. Breathing citzens can do wonders for hope. But a form of government? Sure. Every country should have one, Shrubbie. Not sure it’s the BEST way to do hope, but it’s on the list somewhare, I’m sure. And you’re right about those whacky suiciders. I guess we taught them a thing or two cuz I guess there’s hardly ANY of that going on now that we’ve conquered all that resentment and shit.

GMAFB!

Sadaam is on trial for actions and policies that led to the death of 50,000 Iraquis.

Piker!

The actions and policies of our leadership passed that mark LONG ago.

And yes, anyone who supported that policy deserves a frosty mug of WhipAss for them and all their homeys. I’m buyin’.

The era of STFU and cries of hysteria are over. They just don’t work anymore. They aren’t effective, Josh. We aren’t hysterical and we will never STFU.

OT,

Judge throws out terror charge in Padilla case.

(h/t Americablog)

xtp@140 You are right. And that goes for MOST of the DLC crowd.

-ck- 12:14 pm

“…Josh is a treasure, but we need to bring our own salt on certain issues.”

Therein is the nature of the threat, the one that causes such terror among centrists and Repugs.

We are willing to bring salt to our own as you said; we are willing clean our own house.

What will we do when we get the chance to clean theirs? They can already smell the sodium fumes from the burning salt.

Bring it on, I say, wreak justice. Salt away and clean the pavement like a county road commission truck on a Michigan winter’s morning!

OT–how do the MSM newsreaders manage to look themselves in the mirror amid these hours and hours of porn/titillation masquerading–poorly–as news?

Ah, but they don’t have to…the minions tend to them.

As the media overhypes this whole JonBenet killer/molester story it’s like we’ve come full circle back to the summer of 2001…Chandra Levy. All sex-sells all the time. While ignoring the serious news. Just hype the bread and circuses.

A pox on all of ‘em.

Also, speaking of crazy Lamont supporters. I came late to the volunteer party and only participated for the last 5 days before the primary. I was up in the Northwest Corner — Canaan, North Canaan, Cornwall, Salisbury, Sharon where there really wasn’t much of a contest. (And none of those towns really count as hotbeds of leftist or blogger activism.)

More than 50% of the electorate in those 5 towns voted and Ned walked away with 75% of the vote (net 978 votes, IIRC, out of roughly 1300). Which, okay, not huge numbers, but when you tally up the total margin of victory, it’s close to 10%.

But here’s something that incumbents should consider: Know why the Northwest Corner was so stronly anti-Lieberman? Because, in 18 years, he’d never visited. (Also, Cornwall, I think it was, had written a letter to Lieberman 2 years previously, containing an invitation to speak, and his office had never responded.)

“I see in a lot of liberal blogosphere to go from being against Lieberman… to be against anyone who even raises a question about the emerging orthodoxy about this race”.

Huh?

What’s making me uncomfortable is that I think I see a pattern emerging in rhetoric like: “what’s the fuss?” “don’t spend all your energy on one race” “it wouldn’t be the end of the world if Lieberman won as an independent.”

I’m not suggesting collusion. I don’t think Josh Marshall would engage in that. But I do think someone’s trying to develop this as conventional wisdom, and my guess would be that it’s coming from inside the DLC, to which Josh has strong ties. (Note: I am a longtime Josh Marshall fan and I usually (though not always) find his posts insightful and valuable.)

angie @ 110

fahrender and OK Kiddo– I’d as soon have a beer with dubya as support Lieberliar. The thought of even shaking hands with either of them skeeves me out completely.

go Ned!

You have offered me Hobson’s choice here. I shall respectfully demur and choose hemlock.

Josh is wrong on this point, but he has slowly been coming around to the Lieberman threat. I don’t buy the whole “midol” argument, nor have I heard it advanced.

FDL was right all along about Ned, and is right to keep the spotlight on the CT race. It’s a great way for us to nationalize this election cycle.

Iran tells the UN and Bush to “screw”.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..an_nuclear

-GSD

renska — great work in Ct. A significant piece of the margin of victory.

scarecrow @
40

Peterr @ 18
(The Israeli issue is more tricky, I suspect.)

M Scarecrow et al.,

Absolutely. We are in Canada and do not envy you your situation. How to deal with this one without getting annihilated, either figuratively or (God forbid) literally? We are so close to you, we must wish you well!

OK Kiddo @ 151 — ROTFLMAO– my dad said essentially the same thing when I spoke about this!

Other bloggers…mydd comes to mind…have already laid out in great detail why the Lamont support is not hurting any other races. But in a nutshell, we are capable of multitasking. FDL alone has not only covered many other races with good articles, but has actually invited the candidates in to speak live to us. What the hell else do you want Josh?

The Progressive “wing” of the party is agressively pushing the candidates that we like in the Primaries. We are however willing to support the official winner of said primaries. All we are asking for is that you, and the DLC, and the DSCC, and the DCCC, and other big name Democrats do the same. If that is clamoring for orthodoxy, then so be it. If you are too addle-brained to see that, Mr. Marshall, then feel free to join the cocktail weenie circuit officially, and we can read other blogs for our own personal edification.

City Asked To Un-”Democrat” Joe

by Paul Bass | August 21, 2006 03:01 PM |

Paul Bass Photo
A day after U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman declared himself a “devoted Democrat” on national TV, peace activists in his hometown of New Haven asked the local registrar of voters (Sharon Ferrucci, pictured) Monday afternoon to strip him of his party affiliation because of his third-party reelection bid against party-endorsed Ned Lamont.

snip.

http://www.newhavenindependent…..d_to_u.php

Has anyone heard anything about CT and a sore loser law, like they have in Ohio?

kurt–

I think the law was intended to have that effect. If they had intended to give candidates two shots at the race, they would have set the petition date much later than the day after the primary.

I don’t think the legislature anticipated a case where a candidate would simultaneously run in the primary and gather petitiion signatures.

Still think Lieberman will vote with the Democratic caucus?

Lieberman adds GOP firepower

HARTFORD – Sen. Joe Lieberman has hired a political consultant, Josh Isay, who helped Mayor Bloomberg, a Republican, get elected.
Lieberman also hired GOP pollster Neil Newhouse, who lists popular Republican Gov. Jodi Rell of Connecticut among his clients.

Lieberman, who must appeal to Republicans and unaffiliated voters to beat Democrat Ned Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger in November, touted the new hires as proof of his campaign’s bipartisanship.

Liz Dupont-Diehl, Lamont’s campaign spokeswoman, said the hirings show Lieberman just wants to “hold onto power.”

Lieberman is running as an independent after losing the Democratic nomination to Lamont.

scarecrow @
69

Rayne 21: I think the “issue that dare not speak it’s name” is addressed by Larry Johnson, over at HuffPo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..27685.html

HotFlash @ 150

scarecrow @
40

Peterr @ 18
(The Israeli issue is more tricky, I suspect.)

M Scarecrow et al.,

Absolutely. We are in Canada and do not envy you your situation. How to deal with this one without getting annihilated, either figuratively or (God forbid) literally? We are so close to you, we must wish you well!

Something’s screwed up here – the comment you attribute to me is actually scarecrow’s.

(And in my experience, the “Israeli issue” is always tricky, no matter who is talking to whom.)

Republicans will herald the “bullhorn moment” as a symbol of manliness

I have never understood the supposed power of that moment.

To me, Bush was being his usual space-invading, cheerleading, shallow, asshole self.

You think that grieving fireman invited him to hang around his neck like that?

Bush brought a level of triteness and “audience participation” to that event that I found really inappropriate.

But, the Corporate Media told us it showed Bush’s leadership, so I guess he’s a great leader and not an asshat punk.

Well, lookie here. Now up on the Imus page on the msnbc.com website:

Monday August 21, 2006

Imus: “Do you actually believe that the Bush administration, in a calculated effort actually tries to scare us to divert our attention from like the war in Iraq and so on?”

New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Frank Rich: “I think at times they have, I mean the classic example… there have been a number of… obviously not true every time but there have been a number of examples where it’s just too suspicious…..

The Rich response…and it is…continues at length in the pull quote from this morning’s show.

Will wonders never cease.

…and your little dog, too -
thank you. He is an asshat.

If the group Mothers Against Sore Losers is formed, will it be called MASLTOV?

Human Rights Campaign Endorses Lieberman

I sent an email to the HRC a few weeks ago to suss out their position on Lieberman, mostly to see whether or not their position would change after the primary (I posted that letter here on FDL). Their position hasn’t changed—they are still endorsing that schmuck.

This is shameful, in my mind, and I’m pissed. I will never support the HRC with another penny of my money. I just wish I could get back what I’ve given to them over the years. UGH.

I just wrote a diary on this on DK. Please check it out. Recommend it if you like.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/21/151355/394

Rayne had an excellent comment up @21.

Jane seems a little slow on the uptake on this one. Over at TalkingPointsMemo, Marshall blogrolls only fourteen “TPM approved sites,” two of which are: BullMoose and NewDonkey. (Kausfiles is a third.)

Read this which unbelievably concludes with this:

Marshall’s [Wittmann] political views probably aren’t in line with the majority of TPM readers, though in many respects I’d say that they probably differ in ways that mine also differ from the majority of TPM readers. But Marshall is at the top of my list of those who straddle the line between being political thinkers and political operators. I think the world of him.

Well, maybe it’s a sign that the scholarly Josh Marshall constantly misspells Marshall Wittmann’s last name, an indication in this matter JM’s way off his game.

Moderates will not protect us from powerful authoritarians, they do not have the courage.

There is a universal quality to that remark. Take the example of otherwise moderate Muslims losing confidence in their moderate leaders’ ability to protect their interests and, as a result, tending to sympathize with those who are more radical by comparison who will actually fight for them. BushCo’s worldview for attaining peace is like choosing to swim in quicksand.

Bustednuckles at 159: — great link. So, if you abandong your party and run as something else, the law says you lose the right to be called by that party name. That’s apparently the Ct. Law. But if someone tries to enforce the law, it’s called “dirty tricks.”

The activists Monday insisted they were operating independently of the Lamont campaign. The Lieberman camp, on the other hand, characterized the move as a “purge campaign launched by Ned Lamont’s supporters” that constituted “dirty political tricks at its worst, ranking up there with the outrageous tactics that Katherine Harris and the Republicans used in 2000 in Florida to stop all the votes from being counted.”

And following the law is the same as illegally stripping citizens of their right to vote.

Astonishing dishonest.

Maybe Josh Marshall doesn’t need to look in the mirror *himself*, but he could take a look at his fucking blogroll, where he’s had Mickey Kaus, Marshall Wittmann, and The New Republic for years.

When your friends attack us, Josh, you don’t just get to sit on the sidelines and pretend you don’t know what’s going on. In today’s political climate, there are Democrats, and there are anti-Democrats. Your friends are anti-Democrats. You can stick up for them, but you need to realize that you’re echoing their declaration of war, so don’t be surprised when you get hit by some of the return fire.

It’s worth remembering that this isn’t the first time that Lieberschnitzel put his self-interest ahead of the best interests of the Democratic Party. When he ran for VP in 2000 his Senate seat was also up for election, and he refused to step aside and let another Democrat run. Had he and Gore been victorious, it would have meant that a Republican Governor in CT would have had the opportunity to appoint Lieberman’s replacement.

Schmuck.

karen allen @ 161

If the group Mothers Against Sore Losers is formed, will it be called MASLTOV?

I like the way you think! :)

. . . and your little dog, too @ 164

Republicans will herald the “bullhorn moment” as a symbol of manliness

I have never understood the supposed power of that moment.

To me, Bush was being his usual space-invading, cheerleading, shallow, asshole self.

When my son and I were watching this, my son cried out with shock and terror in his voice — I’ll never forget it — “What’s he doing? There might be people under there!”

I think that is the moment I decided that George W. Bush is an evilness locked in a human body.

Typo fairies?? I’m at your mercy at 171.

JOSH is WRONG and
WASHINGTON is WRONG but
MATT STOLLER is also WRONG as is
THIS THREAD for the most part

Discussion about Washington insiders protecting their own or that old Washington hate the blogosphere, no matter how true, are superfluous.

We are right to be against anyone who supports Lieberman because anyone who supports or defends Lieberman does not get it or has questionable ethics themselves. That is why I was a bit shocked to read this board from the people leading the charge against Lieberman. Has the punditry and propaganda reached you too?

Because its a rather simple case. Lieberman continues not only continues to support the war but stated as recently as yesterday that he would do it again based on what we know today. Hence, Mr. Morality believes it okay for one sovereign nation to invade another preemptively, without provocation and regardless of the danger posed.

That is IMMORAL, DISGUSTING, DESPICABLE, GROSS, CRAVEN and I wish I had a bigger vocabulary.

Thus a better question is how could Josh feel the way he feels. What doesn’t he get. And that should apply to everyone.

TPM APPROVED SITES . . . ye gads. Credentials, please? As one gay baptist preacher on LOGO TV said, I’d rather err on the side of inclusiveness, than err on the side of exclusiveness.

Karen Allen@161, MASLTOV. I think it is an excellant way for to take back the language.

CMike/169, that’s interesting – I hadn’t seen/remembered that line from Josh about Marshall Wittmann. (good call on the blogroll – I can’t understand why more people on the left haven’t noticed that and wondered.)

Wittmann is a conservative asshole and a tool, and on the rare occasions when I read his stuff, I wonder if he’s an alter ego of Karl Rove, designed to fuck with the minds of Democrats, and all too often, people like Josh and other mushy-headed moderates seem to fall for his transparently right-wing bullshit. That Josh thinks “the world” of him makes me think a *lot* less of Josh.

LindaR @ 170

. . . and your little dog, too @ 164

When my son and I were watching this, my son cried out with shock and terror in his voice — I’ll never forget it — “What’s he doing? There might be people under there!”

I think that is the moment I decided that George W. Bush is an evilness locked in a human body.

Very perceptive of your son, I think.

Kurt@134
CT doesn’t have a sore loser law, but the CT Sec of State wants to introduce one, and said some fairly harsh words unto Lieberman to that effect.

If you want to know how Josh really sees the blogosphere and the Democratic party, remember that he added DailyKos *YEARS* after his initial list of sites (which, granted, included Eschaton, Wolcott, and Gadflyer) went up.

Anyone who thinks more highly of the website of Marshall Wittmann than of DailyKos is either conservative, oblivious, or awfully uneasy with actual Democrats and Democratic power.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 28

Ye god’s! I’m far from an intellect, but I already knew George was a dummy from his days as a Texas Governor. And even before that.

Unfortunately for the nation, most people don’t understand that the Texas Governor is actually (at most) the fifth[1] most powerful pol in Texas. They look and say, “Wow — Governor of Texas. He can’t be the goober he appears to be!”

They also don’t understand that Texas is a national laboratory for bad public policy. Taking Texas ideas (like No Child Left Behind, No Tree Left Uncut, and the Filthy Air Initiative) and going national is just terminally stupid.

I know this because when I was in California, I thought that way, too. [Wow. Texas. Big State. Not as cool as California, but big. Gubner must have a lot to do …] I went to grad school in a state near Texas and now live and work in a state bordering Texas. You learn about Texas politics in self-defense…

BC

Footnote
[1] Fifth most powerful, behind (in something like decreasing power order)
(1) Lt Governor (controls the agenda of the State Senate, and hence of the Lege)
(2) Railroad Commissioner (controls the petroleum industry and other mining interests as well as the railroads)
(3) Speaker of the House (controls the State House agenda. Partnered with the Lt Gov, these can be 1 and 2. In opposition to the Lt Gov, Railroad Commissioner may be 1)
(4) Agriculture Commissioner (Definitely fourth, doesn’t carry quite the clout of 1-3)

The Governor has powers of appointment to commissions, preparing parts of the State Budget (those not controlled by elected commissioners, e.g. Agriculture and Railroad) and signing/vetoing legislation. That’s it. At best, fifth.

MS @ 155

Lieberman adds GOP firepower

HARTFORD – Sen. Joe Lieberman has hired a political consultant, Josh Isay, who helped Mayor Bloomberg, a Republican, get elected.

I caught that this morning but from a different, Schumery angle. Reposted in its entirety:

Yikes, maybe Chuckie Schumer is not being as hands-off on this CT race as he is trying to appear. Seems that Joementum’s new media consultant Josh Isay

…not only used to work for Schumer, but was also the senator’s chief of staff — and probably wouldn’t work for Lieberman without first talking to Schumer. Moreover, Isay is business partners with Bill Knapp, who has done media work for the DSCC.

portia.vz @ 26

If he had won the primary, we would have held our noses and voted for him. But he can’t do anything for us now, he hurts us and we’ll never be able to trust him. He has to go.

And that is what so many of them what want to marginalize this netroots movement will not, either wilfully or in ignorance, recognize. We support the process formerly known as democracy!

I hope Josh Marshall is reading this thread.

HotPotatoMash @ 177
Everyone here I think has had their Lieberman moment: that defining point where they’ve figured out that Lieberliar is a right-winger. For some it was Clarence Thomas and censorship. For others it was Alito, social security, etc. etc. The war of course is a big reason as well. It’s those defining moments that inform the current discussion I think.

OT:
have really been enjoying the great comments (and commentORS) today and want to gently remind others that clicking on advertisements on FDL is painless and helps keep this site going. Of course, if you aren’t on a fixed income like me you could even click the DONATE button and send along some cash.

Thank you all for your contributions (and not just the financial ones) to my daily obsession.

I have to admit if I lived CT and Joe won the primary I would NOT be holding my nose and voting for him in the general. I’m done with calculated choices.

So, has anybody point-blank asked the nominee of the Connecticut for Lieberman party who he plans to caucus with? Has he given any kind of straight answer?
Also, will there be a debate between the Senate candidates of the two major parties in CT? Is the nominee of the Party of One expecting to be invited?

(with apologies to Jane Austen and Mr. Bennett from Pride and Prejudice – at least the BBC miniseries; I’m not sure if it’s in the original like this)

The netroots: “Josh, you face an unfortunate decision today. Your Washington friends will never speak to you again if you don’t support Joe Lieberman, and the rest of the liberal blogosphere will never speak to you again if you *DO*.”

I voted here in CA for a progressive schoolteacher/artist running against DiFi and it felt damn empowering.

renska –

First off, WELL DONE!

Secondly, your mention of folks around Cornwall makes me wonder whether you know my friend Francine (du Plessix) Gray?

Jacqrat @ 181

OT:
have really been enjoying the great comments (and commentORS) today . . .

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

;)

li’l dog 164 –

SO well put (yours AND your son’s speeches)!

Stalinist Purge? I’m sorry but I didn’t see that anywhere in Josh’s post. I think he came down pretty decidedly pro-Lamont-as-part-of-the-greater-Dem-takeover in this post.

His issue appears to be that he’s fine with both “Lamont over all others” people and “focus on the card-carrying Republicans first” people unlike “some” in the left blogosphere. The problem is that these “some” are a chimera: they don’t exist (at least, I’ve never seen them).

That’s a bit different, though, from being pro-Lieberman or even on the fence, which judging from Marshall’s “f&%k Lieberman” post a week or 2 ago, I’d say he’s definitely neither.

new thread . . . Show Me the Money, Honey

cleter @ 189

So, has anybody point-blank asked the nominee of the Connecticut for Lieberman party who he plans to caucus with? Has he given any kind of straight answer?
Also, will there be a debate between the Senate candidates of the two major parties in CT? Is the nominee of the Party of One expecting to be invited?

HoJo stated publically that he has told Senator Reid that if elected he will caucus with the Democrats. Of course, given the man’s history of prevarication, I’d take that with a salt dome, not just a grain.

I’m sure the HoJo expects to be invited. In fact, if he continues to poll in contention a Lamont/WTF-is-the-R-nominee-again debate would be a farce that might play into HoJo’s hands.

Today’s most interesting development was the Preznit’s statement that he does not expect to to go to Connecticut to campaign for WTF-is-that-guy-again. I might be inclined to read more into that if the Preznit was getting lots of requests to come to my state/district and campaign with me.

BC

Chris @ 190 — no worries; the scene is in the original.

JimPreston @
29

I don’t think it is fair to put Boxer and Lanny Davis together.

Yes, it IS fair. Boxer sent me a pissant missive about how Joe had stood with her on issue X and issue Y and that’s why she want to CT to stump for him.

When I asked her in a reply to her PAC site, why she thought Ned Lamont would not stand just as strong with her, I got no reply. She’s getting *pelted* by her constituents for supporting Joe, and that’s as it should be.

I think it’s important to call out those who offer no or tepid support, because it’s about what kind of party we want. Boxer and a lot of other Beltway Dems need to get their asses handed to them, because the whole “go along to get along” paradigm is what got us to where we are now.

All the senators who have said “I’m not supporting anybody” are supporting Lieberman, they’re just too chickenshit to come out and say it.

Do we want a “go along to get along” party or do we want one that will go toe-to-toe with the repukes?

I want a party that will fight!

There is considerable overlap between Democrats and progressives but they are definitely not the same thing. Hillary and Schumer will vote “progressive” on some issues although neither is anything like a progressive. I think Josh Marshall and his support of Lieberman before the primary and his defensiveness after the primary make me think he is in the main a Democrat with some progressive tendencies and more closely in line with Establishment Democrats like Hillary and Schumer.

After reading “Reader DK”’s little comment to a fine post by another reader, “MF” about the need to support Ned I sent this email to Josh:

Dear Josh

I find “TPM Reader DK”’s comment about reader MF’s excellent take on Lieberman’ s independent run nothing short of addle-brained an incomprehensible.

“Putting self above party at the expense of party should have consequences. But at what cost? I part ways with those wanting to enforce party discipline even as they admit it might cost Dems a Senate majority. As I have said before, a Democratic Senate with Lieberman in it far surpasses a GOP Senate without Lieberman.”

How does this even make sense? If Lieberman loses the winner will be Ned Lamont, an actual Democrat. Forget Schlesinger, who has no chance and whom the GOP does not even support. I would feel that a Democratic majority would be far safer in his hands than Joe’s, who has already demonstrated a willingness not only to badmouth the party, but to bolt it if it suits his interests. Given that, there is no “cost” in supporting Lamont as far as gaining, or once gained, maintaining a majority goes, but there is a potential one in supporting Lieberman. What if he is offered a post in the administration and the Republican governor of CT replaces him with a Republican, or feeling offended by Dems who supported Lamont and pulls a Jeffords? There goes our majority. DK seems oblivious to this. Not to mention that a Democratic Senate with Lamont in it far surpasses a Democratic Senate with Lieberman and also GOP Senate with Lieberman.”

Failing to immediately and strongly disassociate from Lieberman is the course of action that may have serious costs, including losing seats in the House in critical Connecticut races. Supporting Lamont, the actual Democrat nominated by the voters of his state, is not only the right thing to do, it is the smartest policy.

Josh needs to toss “Reader DK” overboard. Now.

Guitar Playing Bastard @ 193

JimPreston @
29

I don’t think it is fair to put Boxer and Lanny Davis together.

Yes, it IS fair. Boxer sent me a pissant missive about how Joe had stood with her on issue X and issue Y and that’s why she want to CT to stump for him.

When I asked her in a reply to her PAC site, why she thought Ned Lamont would not stand just as strong with her, I got no reply. She’s getting *pelted* by her constituents for supporting Joe, and that’s as it should be. . .

Same happened to me. That PAC site appears to be a one-way press release vehicle, not a mechanism for conversation with your consituents. Her PAC seems to be all politics and little progressive action, if you ask me.

Peterr @
128

Many thanks for the “young ‘uns”! I’m not at 60 yet, but old enough that it gave me a smile. It makes a good bookend for the “can I help you with that, sir?” at the store the other day.

Peterr @
81

(but The Kid keeps climbing up on my lap: “read me this book, daddy.”)

if your kid is under 35, you’re still a baby yourself. now if you’d said your grandkid, well then, you’d be a grey panther too.

happy day! time for my nap.

just kidding. hehheh

Jane -

STFU (Sustain Thoughtful, Ferocious, Unrepentance) about your views.

Is unrepentance even a word?

lotus @ 189

li’l dog 164 –

SO well put (yours AND your son’s speeches)!

I screwed up the blockquoting. :(

The son with the great insight is LindaR’s.

I just opined that I didn’t much think the bullhorn moment showed leadership.

But thanks!

EPU’d from previous thread:

Jane -

STFU (Sustain Thoughtful, Ferocious, Unrepentance) about your views.

Is unrepentance even a word?

Kurt @ 135

Has anyone heard anything about CT and a sore loser law, like they have in Ohio? You’d think they’d want one there, after Holy Joe hehe.

Kurt – I heard a story on the radio the day after primary in CT that the Sec of State was proposing a sore loser law – not sure what’s happened with it but it seemed to fit the anger on the ground at JL’s primary night performance.

. . . and your little dog, too @ 203

lotus @ 189

li’l dog 164 –

SO well put (yours AND your son’s speeches)!

I screwed up the blockquoting. :(

The son with the great insight is LindaR’s.

I just opined that I didn’t much think the bullhorn moment showed leadership.

But thanks!

Well, just add LindaR & Son to my shout-out!

Siun @ 202

Kurt @ 135

Has anyone heard anything about CT and a sore loser law, like they have in Ohio? You’d think they’d want one there, after Holy Joe hehe.

Kurt – I heard a story on the radio the day after primary in CT that the Sec of State was proposing a sore loser law – not sure what’s happened with it but it seemed to fit the anger on the ground at JL’s primary night performance.

Siun and others who responded to my query…that’s great news. Hopefully our resident CT rockstars will keep us all informed on how it goes hehe. Looks like many states may be needing sore loser laws, as we continue doing some Dem party brush clearing :)

Joshie has always been a little cute. Always. Nothing new.

mui @
188

HotPotatoMash @ 177
Everyone here I think has had their Lieberman moment: that defining point where they’ve figured out that Lieberliar is a right-winger. For some it was Clarence Thomas and censorship. For others it was Alito, social security, etc. etc. The war of course is a big reason as well. It’s those defining moments that inform the current discussion I think.

Mui,

I think that’s my point. There are plenty of reasons not to like Lieberman. But those should all be irrelevant. the iraq war is no longer defensible (which is not saying there is not an argument for staying longer).

yet Lieberman and others continue to justify the war and state they would do it again. by not making this reprehensible position, basically the murder of hundreds of thousands innocents, the only topic is giving in to lieberman and the right – and this is true even if Lamont is the next mother theresa.

it is crazy to watch the news punditry analyze the election as if the Lieberman/Bush position is legitimate. the electorate is then free to think its okay to look at other issues and that maybe Lieberman is just wrong on one thing but good on the rest. and that is terrible.

as i’ve stated, his position goes beyond the pale and is grotesque and illegal. any pundit, office holder or voter who votes for a person holding such views should be lambasted and ridiculed to no end. and not for political gain. because it is right to stand up for what is right.

i know its hard for liberal/progressives to think like and act like the gop – but its the right thing to do here morally and politically.

2006 should be about only 1 thing. iraq.

All these people who “love” Joe were cheerleading with Joe for nine months before the invasion of Iraq. As Rich pointed out in his Op Ed piece in the NYT yesterday, these people are still trying to justify their mistake in supporting Bush’s war.

Here is one of my posts at slothropia.com:

To Talking Point Memo: Yeah But…
Joshua Micah Marshall quibbles with one of his readers who advocates consequences for Lieberman in the name of party discipline.

“Sorry but with your and Atrios’ blog battle over Joe Momentum the real issue is being missed. This is now an issue about the basis of the Democratic Party – if Lieberman gets re-elected as a Independent after loosing a Democratic Party primary and the Dems in the Senate welcome him back into their caucus like nothing has happened our Party is dead.”

Joshua replied:

“Putting self above party at the expense of party should have consequences. But at what cost? I part ways with those wanting to enforce party discipline even as they admit it might cost Dems a Senate majority. As I have said before, a Democratic Senate with Lieberman in it far surpasses a GOP Senate without Lieberman.”

Yeah, but Lieberman is running with Republican money and support. He is making Bush’s case for him and using GOP talking points. If he gets back to the Senate, who’s he gonna dance with? The ones that brung him, that’s who. I don’t
want a GOP Senate with Lieberman.

Excuse me? When Lieberman started trashing Lamont supporters as traitors, Josh said, in writing, on his blog, “F**k Him”! And Josh doesn’t use the F-word for anyone, not even for Cheney. You ARE misrepresenting Josh, confusing him with DK, and quoting him out of context. All he’s saying right now is that we shouldn’t obsess about Lieberman to the detriment of other races. I think he’s wrong, but it is a respectable argument to make. Josh’s bigger failing lately is accepting the CW about Israel-Lebanon, instead of realizing (as Billmon and War Nerd have) what an unadulterated act of stupidity the failed adventure in Lebanon was.

I hear Josh’s comments differently. I personally think that Lieberperson needs to go, and independent of Lieberman, I like Ned Lamont a lot. He’s the kind of straight progressive that we need in the Senate.

But when Josh warns about a sort of Liberal Orthodoxy, I think he’s speaking wisely. The neoconservative bloc hasn’t gone away. It’s still a formidable force. Liberal orthodoxy attracts hard core liberals and chases off moderates. We need moderate people, no matter what party they come from. I hear Josh calling for tolerance and diversity. This is no time for “Yippies” or Act Up tactics.

It’s a good call…

As several others have pointed out Josh did loudly and forcefully dump Lie-berman.

I like Josh’s insights, and I appreciate a centrist progressive voice. Heck, I even read Bullmoose.

But that is not me, even though I think I have much to learn from them. I am a left progressive, and do think that there is something to party discipline, esp. AFTER the Dems take either of the legislative houses.

If anyone, and I mean anyone thinks that moving aggressive, progressive, nation changing ideas forward is not gonna take discipline, loyalty, and a closer communication between the governed and the government, then they’re wrong. There are gonna be casualties. Some Repub moderates are leaving their party because they have not been allowed a place at the increasingly Radical right table. We’re not radical but NeoCon-enabling Dems who are too far right might think about leaving, or changing their tune.

Now, I’m no Murat, and I have no wish to see a radical left anymore than a radical right. But Lieberman supported and will continue to support (just watch his backtracking if gets elected) the main thrust of this administration’s policies, and those who support him are indirectly supporting those policies as well. There must be some cost for going against the party, and Josh seems to see this as a purge. I see it as part of a simple cooperation and team-building strategy.

Joe wants to run as an indy, fine. He’s left the party and all that entails. End of story, end of seniority. I don’t see that as threatening a Dem majority. He’s already gone, and either he will do what he says anyway, i.e. caucus with the Dems, or he will be a liar and go with the Repubs, which honestly won’t be much of a change from the last 6 years, will it?

Those in the DLC who want to support a non -Dem candidate, fine, but leave the DLC or get fired from it. How long would a corporate officer last if he acted against the interests of the corporation, profit or non?

I don’t see that as setting up a guillotine, but I do see it as a start to getting the Dems solidly behind change and the hard fights that will come, whether we take the Senate and/or House or no. It ain’t gonna be easy either way, and solidarity is important, not loose all-about-me candidates.

Mickey @
217

I hear Josh’s comments differently. I personally think that Lieberperson needs to go, and independent of Lieberman, I like Ned Lamont a lot. He’s the kind of straight progressive that we need in the Senate.

But when Josh warns about a sort of Liberal Orthodoxy, I think he’s speaking wisely. The neoconservative bloc hasn’t gone away. It’s still a formidable force. Liberal orthodoxy attracts hard core liberals and chases off moderates. We need moderate people, no matter what party they come from. I hear Josh calling for tolerance and diversity. This is no time for “Yippies” or Act Up tactics.

It’s a good call…

MICKEY,

By making this statement you have already lost the battle. Why do liberals need to conform when on our worst day we more tolerant than the right by a factor of infinity. If anything, 2006 presents a unique opportunity for liberals to act like conservatives and just repeat ad nauseum one word: I R A Q.

Hell, over the last 2 years who haven’t the right gone after? you’d have to be pretty think skinned to vote republican if you are black, hispanic, french, gay, arab, muslim, secular, atheist, agnostic, environmentalist or poor for starters. the kkk may be more inclusive.

that’s why the are moving even farther right. they will win by a combination of getting the base out and cheating.

My 2 cents: Lieberman’s sin is being disloyal and disingenuous to democrats, not supposedly being “conservative.” That’s why Ben Nelson and some other democratic senators aren’t facing a revolt of the Netroots like Lieberman did. And Lieberman’s so-called “conservatism” is no more legitimate than Bush’s, unless fascism is conservatism. Of course it isn’t. But there is nothing wrong with Josh Marshall that can’t be explained by the dynamics of a watershed election year. Lots of turbulence, backflows, eddies, and occasional waterfalls, but this is all to the good. Congratulations to all the Netroots people from Jane to Christy to Pach to Matt for furthering the cause. After Ned is elected to the Senate, let’s maintain a Big Tent for loyal Dems of all persuasions. We don’t want to be a bunch of lousy ideologues like the RepubliCONs when we take back Congress.

Lotus and Scarecrow –

Thanks for the props but Lamont really wasn’t a hard sell in that neck of the woods. The phone banking was intermittently valuable, and visibility was fun (got to meet Annie Lamont and 2 of the kids, and also to shake Danny Glover’s hand) but primary day the pro-Malloy contingent in Salisbury initially gave me the hairy eyeball. They were so convinced that Lamont was going to get such a huge victory they really felt my presence there was pointless.

Lotus — I don’t know your friend, but maybe I’ll run into her. I’m heading back up to CT for the remainder of August and September to do more Lamont work. (Would really love to meet other Lamonters in the area as we’re summer folk and don’t have deep roots in the community. Also, as you probably know, it’s very rural up there. I was very jealous of all the tales of meeting up at bars for celebratory drinks after long days of phone banking and canvassing. Basically I was mixing my own margaritas.)

Josh is a DLC Democrat, always has been. He’s walking a fine line, knowing that his views are far more conservative than those of his readers, he tries to focus our common goals for the sake of his blog/income, but lately he’s been forced to show his true self. To remain relevant he has to comment on Leiberman. He made a few strong comments and is now slipping back into his comfort zone. Its all about the blog and his income. He’s done some great work, but I have no respect for him anymore.

I knew Josh Marshall and his wife as acquaintances in college, and considered them both fine people.

Marshall’s point seems to be aimed at a peculiar form of “tertiary boycott” of those who haven’t gone hard-core anti-Lieberman, a boycott that has not occurred. That’s why Marshall did not engage in examples, there were not to engage. So it’s not really a capitulation as a semi-red-herring, semi-ad infinitum “fanciful speculation.”

My own view – Marshall is working like a fiend and had an off night. I think he’s worried about something that’s not actually happening, but is responding to a certain harshness in tone that he gets hit with. Marshall is fine in my book, Jane and Christy have said things I disagree with and I still love FDL. Maybe people built him up too high so that if he said something that missed the bulls-eye once, it’s cataclysmic.

Marshall is a person. So is his wife. So is their dog. His site says they are expecting a kid sometime. Everybody, give the fellow some air.

At least there’s still The Muck, which now has up this clip of the Chimpy presser rant this morning in which he nearly wept, “[N]obody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks!”

Aaaah Darn! I missed the, “And we’re not going to give checkers back no matter what anyone says!”

I have been surprised at Josh Marshall’s take on Lieberman. To me, Lieberman is a Repug in Dem’s clothing and he has appeared that way consistently from his absurd stand on Clinton’s impeachment to his obsequiousness in the Cheney debate to his incredible unconscionable take on rape victims and their access to abortion in Conn. It’s time for Dems to act like Dems and Lieberman is not a Dem worthy of the title. Lamont is the person for the job. This Orwellian world we’ve been living in has got to stop. Furthermore, impeach Bush; he’s a dangerous and destructive influence on the world. Enough is enough.

Josh Marshall’s only concern is for his MSM career. He is so worried about gilding his writing lilly that usually ends up sounding like a low budget version of CNN.

One thing I like about blogs is they are willing to stick their necks out and take on the establishment. You won’t find this guy so much as getting his hands dirty if it’s going to affect his career.

He’s a prissy pants with his finger to the wind. He’ll fit in well at the cocktail parties. Perfect MSM material.

I’m ditching Josh. I’m tired of the unqualified support of AIPAC there.

Tasini

HotPotatoMash @ 213
I understand the war provides a huge imperative. And Lieberman’s statments regarding Iran provide even more imperative for me. But a Lieberman who is fighting a one-issue candidate is much less stricken than a Lieberman who is fighting a prochoice, antiwar, pro-universal healthcare etc. etc. coalition. He has to defend his horrible record on all fronts. And for me quite frankly, HoJo’s behavior during the Alito debacle was the straw that broke the camel’s back (You see I am a “constituent.”) I think you should see this as whatever lights a fire under our asses will lead to the greater good here which is ending the war.

mui @
188

HotPotatoMash @ 177
Everyone here I think has had their Lieberman moment: that defining point where they’ve figured out that Lieberliar is a right-winger. For some it was Clarence Thomas and censorship. For others it was Alito, social security, etc. etc. The war of course is a big reason as well. It’s those defining moments that inform the current discussion I think.

For me, it was the sloppy blow-job he gave to Dick Cheney during the 2000 VP Debates. That’s when I started looking into this schmuck and suspected something was wrong with him. Since then I now believe he is a RW plant (perhaps unwitting due to his self-absorbed narcissism) to destroy the “D” in Democratic via the DLC virus. After all, William F. Buckley supported him when he first ran for Senate!

I will gladly loose 3 house seats and chance him winning as an Independent Republican to send a message to Holy Joe and Fucktards like him – “shape up or be shipped out”! As a Senator, he does more damage than any Repuglican. Fuck Joe Lieberman.