Finally. A Republican with the stones to tell Joe Lieberman to get off his damn lawn.
Lieberman thought he was going to look "bipartisan" standing in between Ned Lamont and Alan Schlessinger during the debate today but he just looked like a man without a country, crying because everyone was trying to steal his candy. While Joe was praising every Republican in sight (Jodi Rell, John McCain, Susan Collins — funny, no Democrats) Alan Schlessinger reminded him of all the boasting about what a "great liberal" the Lieberman4Lieberman candidate had done during the primary when his job security depended on trying to woo Democrats. When Lieberman tried to nail down the critical senior vote by lying about the fact that he had supported social security privatization, Lamont set the record straight. All Joe could do was whine that Ned was being mean to him, and when he thought he was scoring a master stroke by keeping score of how many times his thin skin got bruised, the audience openly booed him.
I've written about this before, but the debate today underscores the point — why has the GOP been allowed by those who call themselves "true conservatives" to abandon the candidate who supposedly represents their values? And why has the media so slavishly accepted all the narratives coming out of the Lieberman4Lieberman campaign, to the complete exclusion of the guy who legitimately won the GOP nomination?
There is a price to be paid for this journalistic negligence. As Paul Bass says:
"We can remain in the ostrich club" the way Lieberman has for 18 years, Schlesinger said. "You'd never get away with this at Enron, by the way…" Schlesinger's voice rose as the crowd laughed. "Joe, this is why I ran against you. I got to be honest with you. In 2000 you got up there with Al Gore. You stood up and said we ought to put social security in a lockbox…
You're gonna put an IOU from Joe Lieberman in a lock box? I don't want an IOU for Joe Lieberman, even if he's a nice guy! I'd rather have cash." Proposed investing social security trust fund in mortgages for Americans…."
Schlesinger's emergence would work in Lamont's favor. If he can rise to 15 percent of the vote from his current 4 percent standing in the polls, he'd probably swing the election to Lamont.
Alan Schlessinger kicked Lieberman's ass for the GOP vote he so critically needs to win, and Lamont gave him no quarter on the Democratic side (and looked very senatorial in the process). While there are many good things to say about both Lamont and Schlessinger in the debate today, the loser was clearly — Joe Loserman.
Related posts:
- Semi-liveblog Of The Debate To Allow Debate To Begin In The Senate
- George Will Shills for Senatorial Candidate Who Blames Nation’s Economic Problems on “Poor People”
- House Voting Now On The Rule For Health Care Debate
- Lieberman’s Filibuster Threats Run Counter to 2006 Campaign Rhetoric
- GOP Introduces Resolution to Censure Grayson – Debate at 2pm
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Me!
That was fun….
Be nice to see a 527 come in and drop $100k on Schleshinger.
When it rains it pours :
Oct. 16, 2006, 1:26PM
Crawford charged for lying about stocks
By PETE YOST Associated Press Writer
2006 The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Former FDA chief Lester Crawford was charged Monday with lying about his ownership of stock in companies regulated by his agency.
http://www.chron.com/disp/stor…..62669.html
Ned!
Every AARP member in the country should see that news item.
A black day for America and the rule of law when defendinjg your client is now providing material support to terrorist.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..rror_trial
Anyone know who the original prosecutor was in this sad case?
Sorry for the OT post so early in the thread.
Anyone know how the audience was chosen?
I love the fact that they jeered L4L.
klyde @ 6
I admit I haven’t followed this case too closely, but it seemed pretty clear that she crossed the line “aggressive advocate” to “co-conspirator”.
I’m betting that because Schlesinger came on so strong against Joe, the audience for the next debate will be larger than it was for this one.
- Will Alan hit Joe hard again, to win the GOPers back from Joe?
- Will Joe hit back to keep his Dem support, or will he duck and argue that since Alan has no chance the GOPers better vote for him?
- How will Ned stand up to Joe (what issues, what tactics, etc.)?
Lots of storylines to get the CT voters interested, and so lots of new eyes looking at Ned. The next debate will be very, very interesting indeed.
Who was RGJoe talking to in the debate today? NED was talking to Democrats, Alan was talking to GOPers, and RGJoe? RGJoe is talking to [dangerstein] and Hadassah — and I hope they praise his performance to the heavens!
Alan really believes he can bring the NutmegGOPers home. The Connecticut media will need to treat him a little more seriously after today’s debate, and that will make GOPers more comfortable about a straight-ticket vote. The media also needs to ask Rell and the GOP chairman about Alan’s claims of support — they might deny it, they might weasel, but there’s a story there.
True, Lieberman didn’t look very bipartisan sitting between Ned and Gamboling Man. Mwahaha!
Go NED!
Peterr @ 9
A thought: It really works in Schlesinger’s favor to try to pull as many voters from Joe as he can. He knows he’s not got to win the election, but the better he does, the more likely he’ll be to win some other election in the future. As an added bonus, if he siphons enough GOP votes from Joe so that Lamont wins the election, he can claim that he was the guy who knocked out Al Gore’s running mate. In GOP circles, I’d imagine that’d be a badge of honor.
It will be interesting to see what motivates the Connecticut Republican voters to vote. Will it be maintaining the status quo (Liebermann), voting party affiliation (Schlessinger) or voting for someone who will actually work for their best interests (Lamont).
I really have trouble understanding how it can even be a close race in Connecticut.
TeddySanFran @ 10
They asked Rell point blank at the gov. debate. She gave a weasly answer that was clearly in favor of Lieberman, in my view. Destefano: I hope I never get to be so long in politics, that I give an answer like that. (Blah, Blah) Isupport Lamont.
I get confused – is L4L
a) Losers for Lieberman, or
b) Lieberman for Lunkheads?
I’m pretty sure the next debate includes the entire slate of candidates who made the ballot. Ned just might shine in that kind of venue. While I think the incumbent will be reduced to running from himself.
I’ll repeat that this is a double-edged sword. CT has one Republican running against two Democrats. Hello? CT may be 60% Democrat, but if they split 30-30 and all the Republicans vote Republican …
OfT
The GOP Giving Up on DeWine?
RedState is confirming.
GOP already has conceded that Santorum will lose.
apologies if these issues have already been raised here, but:
1. when joe was running with gore in 2000, i recall he refused to campaign on the sabbath. has he adhered to that rule this time ’round?
2. when will someone in the lamont camp raise the nasty specter of mel sembler, who raised almost a quarter mill for joe last month, and who has this horrifying history with imprisonment and torture of juveniles?
sembler is not simply a republican fixer, he’s really slimey. and, he’s been linked to the forged niger documents that came out of italy when he was ambassador there, chummin’ it up with his old pal michael ledeen.
how does this stuff stay so far under the radar??
I have wondered if some of the reason for republican leaders so strongly supporting Joe was Joe’s potentially becoming the head of the Homeland Security Agency. The department where real departments go to die – i.e. FEMA.
The republicans safety net in case dems win back the Senate would be Joe. Can you imagine Joe authorizing investigations of any of the happenings in HSA? nope, I certainl can’t.
Also Joe will be happy to criticize the dem leadership anywhere, anytime, and that will be the repukes avenue to take down any new dem leaders.
Boy, did this make me happy today!
Having Joe always attack Ned and calling him “negative” was really starting to annoy me. And I think some voters were starting to believe it.
To have Alan Schlesinger come out of nowhere and piss all over Lieberman…man, was THAT wonderful to watch!
Now it’s not “Negative Ned” anymore…it’s “Joe vs. the World”.
I like that a LOT better!
Gotta run; I’m heading out to see about a new PC (finally).
From the Sept . 24 , 2005 Boston Globe :
Last month, he {Crawford} postponed deciding whether the FDA would allow over-the-counter sales of morning-after birth control pills, overruling staff who deemed the sales safe. The agency’s chief of women’s health resigned in protest over the delay.
OT – more on the former FDA head:
Crawford, a veterinarian, abruptly resigned from the FDA job in September 2005 but gave no reason for his decision to step down. He had held the top position for just two months but had been acting head of the regulatory agency for more than a year.
According to the Justice Department’s court papers:
– A government ethics official inquired about Crawford’s ownership of stock in several companies FDA regulates and Crawford replied in a Dec. 28, 2004 e-mail that “Sysco and Kimberly-Clark have in fact been sold.” Actually, the court papers state, Crawford knew that he or his wife held shares in both.
– Even though financial reporting requirements for federal officials say all income must be disclosed, Crawford failed to reveal $8,000 in income from the exercise of Embrex stock options in 2003, and also failed to report $20,000 from the sale of Embrex stock options in 2004.
– At the time he was making decisions chairing the government obesity panel, Crawford and his wife owned more than $25,000 in Pepsico shares and over $25,000 in Sysco shares.
I wonder if this is why he quit.
Connecticut Bob @ 21
Hey CT Bob, I just checked your blog, and THIS MADE ME HAPPY!
And afterwards, Joe Lieberman was seen fleeing the debate so fast, his car wasn’t parked long enough in the handicapped spot to get a ticket!
Rock on!
obsessed @ 17
The people with lawn signs that say “Stick with Joe” in CT tend to be Republicans. Someone told me that some Republicans in their town put signs on their lawns during the primary. As if they could vote!
I don’t know why the liberals are so much against Lieberman. He is a liberal when it comes to most of the issues that matter. He may in favor of war and may be he is soft on Bush but only the dumb can agree on all the issues. Its just extending Bush’s policy of “If you are not with us, you are against us”. The liberals look more like the right wing conservatives when they cannot tolerate difference in opinion.
pollster.com
Schlessinger 4%
Lieberman 50%
Lamont 39%
3…..2…..1…..
Oh, praise be — our heater is once again up and running. Yay!
Crawford quit to spend more time with his stock.
Jack
I see the liebertrolls got out of school early today.
From the Sept . 24 , 2005 Boston Globe :
Last month, he {Crawford} postponed deciding whether the FDA would allow over-the-counter sales of morning-after birth control pills, overruling staff who deemed the sales safe. The agency’s chief of women’s health resigned in protest over the delay.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 29
warm and toasty ReddHedds!
Damn, EPU’ed twice in one day.
_____
Catfish Joe had Ned on the ropes with his innocuation technique at the start of the debate, until Ned and Schlesinger triangulated his narrow ass.
IMO, Ned is going to have to defuse the ” help, help, he’s attacking me, he’s attacking me” defense pretty damn quick as it can be very effective for the low-info voter.
However, a continued strong showing by Schlesinger could provide Ned with a political SODDIT (ask Christy) defense.
Joe’s main line of attack is the “I’m so bi-partisan”, which can also be effective and I wish Ned would hammer the dung out of him on that bullshit.
Maybe something like this:
“Fine Mr Lieberman, but if your bi-partisanship is so effective then why have you failed miserably to do X,Y, or Z?
Finally, Ned needs a couple of laugh lines.
I like, “Joe, you ignorant slut” as a nice start, (and perfectly illustrative of Joe’s moral and intellectual character), but Ned may want to go with something slightly less Gibson-like.
Frank Probst @ 8
Bullshit!
OTOH, to argue against the strength of the asskicking that Schlesinger gave Good Ol’ Joe, Schlesinger’s code language around race had to tick off moderate Republicans who were looking at choosing between Joe and a Republican. Alan may have made a solid pitch for the hard core GOPers, but it may have lost him the more thoughtful ones and reinforced the appeal of Short Ride.
Bottom line: Ned’s got to be Ned, loudly and proudly. Stand up for progressive issues, stand up for accountability in DC, and stand up for integrity in politics.
Lijoy Kurian @ 26
Lijoy, we’re spending $280,000,000/day to competely DESTABILIZE the entire ME. Plus, we’re putting our soldiers in harms way. Listen to John Warner and Chuck Hegel on this one.
Lijoy, do you understand what habeus corpus is?
Without it, the Bill of Rights isn’t worth spit. Joe voted against habeus corpus when he voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act two weeks ago.
I haven’t even gotten to spending our tax dollars on torture.
Bustednuckles @ 28
Christy Hardin Smith @ 29
Damn! Now that’s a real mechanic!
(Hey busted, does that counting thing work on cars? Mine squeaks when it turns to the right . . . )
cbear @ 34
Ned’s got a dry humour. He’s not a slap on the knee kind of guy. I think he just needs to reach a comfort level for that to come out. He couldn’t and shouldn’t imitate Schlessinger’s standup routine or Lieberman’s dopey hardy harr harrs, because it wouldn’t come out natural.
I think Ned made all the points (49 out of 50, etc.) that indicate Lieberman’s style of “bipartisanship” is disastrous, but Ned needs to be more forceful summing that up.
OT: Sorry if this was posted earlier. It appears that the Republican Party may be giving up on Mike DeWine in Ohio:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10…..oref=login
Given that they are defending far more Senate seats this time, it seems unlikely that the Democrats will take over the Senate this year. If they pick up three or four, though, that will be a significant win, especially if Ned Lamont is one of those wins.
Where in the hell can I see this debate? I missed it ’cause of work but now I have time to watch it and I would REALLY LIKE TO SEE IT!
Lijoy at 26 — three words: cloture on Alito. Joe Lieberman has been a back-stabber for the Democratic party when it suited his purposes, over and over again. Don’t listen to his rhetoric, look at his actual record. Educate yourself a little more about Lieberman and you’ll see exactly what the problem is — when there is an issue that matters to Democrats and to the party as a whole, Joe Lieberman is the first person to stand up and sell the party out to make himself out to be the “bi-partisan” guy. It’s always about Lieberman’s ego — everything else comes second. Well, I have had enough — and so have a lot of other rank and file Democrats who have seen issues that truly matter to them sacrificed on the alter of Holy Joe’s need to appear to be the “bi-partisan” sell-out guy who really wants to triangulate his way to the Presidency.
Time for the backstabbing turncoat to go — he’s run out of chances with me. Period.
The largest block of non voters in 04′ was single women.
Who was affected by Crawford’s delay of the Morning After Pill ?
Women
Rove associate backing ad attacking Lamont
Thanks Christy at 1:03, sorry I missed that one.
Peterr @ 38
I can’t take credit for Redd’s heater.
As for the squeak, have them check your tie rod ends and strut bushings.*g*
Lijoy Kurian @
26
Dear gott, is it really necessary to go over all this territory again? There is any amount of Dem/Blogosphere support for candidates whose views are more “centrist” even than Joe’s. Even candidates who in fact support the war in Iraq. The problem with Joe is not his positions, it’s his politics. He doesn’t stand with the party when it counts–he is the single most reliable sell-out voice on FAUX News whenever they need a “Democrat” to show that only loony lefties disagree with whatever radical extremist piece of Bush nonsense happens to be on the table. He is currently running as a de facto Republican against the guy who ACTUALLY WON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY. That’s the problem, not his voting record per se. Which by the way is full of double-backs such as voting to kill fillibusters on Bush’s ridiculously bad appointments and then voting against the appointment itself when there’s no chance such a vote will matter.
klyde at 35 — actually, she did. Jeralyn, who knows her, has even said so from a defense attorney standpoint. I’m pretty sure Jeralyn has had a few articles about the case that talk about this issue — take a peek over at TalkLeft and see if you can find them. She had some great inside detail on what happened with the case. The punishment issue has likely been inflated for publicity purposes — but an attorney should never, ever cross that line, especially when there is a question of passing messages back and forth between a client and followers who threaten harm to others. Huge no-no, and she’s not going to get any sympathy from me on that point.
Tim Wayne @ 41
It will be on again on CSPAN at 11pm. See the previous debate thread comments to find out which time zone.
Great link scarecrow!
From scarecrow’s link to CT’s Journal Inquirer
Wonder what Joe said about Commissioner Crawford when that pill story was happening ? Anybody in Conn. got that answer ?
There have been a lot of interesting debates shown on C-SPAN recently. Last night there were two:
I watched the Washington senate debate between Maria Cantwell (D) and her opponent and I was impressed how the Repub sounded very moderate. The public there must be somewhat Liberal and therefore is quite likely to support Cantwell. She didn’t say anything controversial and sounded very senatorial. It was the kind of solid performance by someone with a secure lead in the polls.
Later at night (1:30am) I watched a replay of a ACLU event where their pres. Nadine Strossen ‘debated’ constitutional issues with Justic Scalia. Now, that was fascinating. I could’ve listened to them going round and round for several hours. They nearly brought to the fore a key issue which I think is simmering in the battle between Conservatives and Liberals – do we have rights beyond those mentioned in the first few amendments? Ann Coulter has gone so far as to say we have no right to have children. Scalia didn’t get into that, but seems clearly to believe rights stemming from ‘natural law’ are an illusion or simply not in the Constitution and not applicable. Doesn’t that make clear how the Repubs see it as easy to violate Privacy (for example) with the NSA spying without batting an eye? Either ‘We the People’ have all the Rights and Powers to delegate to the government or else we’re at risk of some megalomaniacal President thinking he has all the Powers. Hmmm, perhaps we’re there. But, Scalia said we should be careful because one day there might be a real Conservative court. That got a rise out of everyone. But, if he and the current government aren’t Conservative, then what would be? Strossen alluded to the idea that the ACLU was in fact conservative and wished there were more of that kind of conservative around. I wonder why she didn’t bring up the 9th or 10th Amendments. As I said, it was fascinating.
Why are these debates interesting? The state-wide debate in Washington shows that the public has made up their mind to be moderate to liberal and the other shows a major division between the Liberals and Conservatives on the national stage. Yep, there’s a major debate to settle before we’ll be safe from Bush & Co. Further, the Connecticut debate makes it clear the split in the Dem party is mucking up the issue. Lieberman exemplifies the kind of Establishment Dem who stands firmly in the middle and doesn’t appear to really stand for much except their job. I don’t believe many politicians are more idealistic than Joe. It’s unfortunately there are far too many cynics of any label in our federal government. We need more clarity and it appears Ned Lamont provides a good dose of that. Go Ned!
John at 50 — I linked the Inquirer article up earlier here, and included some links to work that Taylor has done on Perry and his multiple 527s that have been deployed around the country. Perry is a pal of both Rove and DeLay. Nice company Joe is keeping these days, eh?
Bustednuckles @ 46
watch out for Bush struttings as well.
OT – Missouri Supreme Court tossed out state Voter ID law 6-1. Fired Up! Missouri called it the “Jim Talent Protection Act.”
OT – Activists angry at Barton for bill’s holdup
WASHINGTON — Two weeks of relentless rants against him from radio talk show host Don Imus is making Rep. Joe Barton a household name — but not in any way that the Arlington Republican wants.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/new…..l=dfw_news
Here’s who he’s running against…
http://followmetodc.com/index.php/weblog/
Links to Lieberman sponsorship of bill benefitting drug industry, and his/his wife’s ties to same.
Lieberman gains from drug industry
punaise @ 54
I also wondered if it could be a loose right wingnut or two.
There you Crow ….. Here’s Yer ” ATTA BOY “
Peterr @ 58
the axel of evil
Mary, if you’re reading, check your mail. Waxman.
I am in San Francisco and I follow this race more than any other race in the whole country. I’ve been a fan of Lamont since he announced (on that day I donated $20 to his campaign and twice again since that day, each time Lieberman pissed me off).
I am by no means alone. I don’t know if y’all know this, but this race is of great interest to people all over the country. A large number of my friends are following this race very closely!
GO NED!
(and thank you Cujo359 at 49)
There you go Crow….
Yea, like Terry Shaivo, Liberal my ass, he’s a self-serving jerk.
Lijoy Kurian @
26
punaise @ 60
suspension of disbelief
For a good scream or a laugh. :Alan Schlesinger tv spot. He apparently has three of them on youtube.
Also, Jodie Rell at the debate answering TeddieSF’s question on Schless, or sort of: here
I have a feeling Schlesinger will soon get an “offer he can’t refuse” from unca Karl. Maybe trade in a cushy appointment for dropping out of the race?
kristinejoy @ 65
rack and pinnion for John Yoo types.
Excuse my ziggurat.
It’s good to see all these political IED’s blowing up under the republican bus.
Titanyum @ 67
I dunno know. I am beginnning to think it’s personal for Gamboling Man. He really didn’t like being “thrown under the bus.”
Christy Hardin Smith @ 53
Christy — sorry, didn’t mean to duplicate; I was checking through a half dozen or so CT papers to see whether they have anything up yet on the debate — none but the Courant, so far. Then I found the other Lieberman stories and just brought them in. I thought the story sounded familiar.
David Kuo coming up on CNN in the next few minutes.
Fly, little Christian soldier, FLY!
(paraphrasing Jane)
scarecrow at 72 — oh, no problem — that article needs a lot more discussion. Like Sembler and D’Amato and Rove, Perry’s assistance doesn’t come without some expectation of services down the line. You can bet on that.
GrandmaJ @ 20
It’s worse than that. If they appoint him to anything, a Republican governor (most likely, based on current polls) names his replacement. So they’ve got three levels for which pushing Joe is good for them:
If the GOP retains the Senate, even if he caucuses with the Dems officially, he continues to be a backstabber when it matters.
The Dems win the Senate only counting Joe, in which case there probably isn’t enough of a seniority bribe they could offer that would keep him in their camp.
And if he doesn’t go over to the GOP, the figure out an office that feeds his ego sufficiently that he won’t refuse it, and a GOP replacement is appointed.
No matter how you add it up, he’d be bad for the Dems.
cbear @ 73
And tomorrow on Hardball ; )
Hopefully, Schlessinger’s showing will also result in more coverage of him in the media. Hopefully said coverage will help to siphon votes from Vichy Joe.
mui @ 71
Well, if he is smart, then he will demonstrate to Karl that his staying in the race will jettison Lieberman. Then he has Karl over a rack and can make whatever demand he wants.
Titanyum @ 79
Gamboling Man does as Gamboling man is ;)
Christy Hardin Smith @ 74
While I dont believe for a minute that Schlesinger can gain from 4 to 15 points in three weeks under any circumstances, is it poor form to shift some financial resources to him? http://www.schlesinger2006.com/contribute.shtml
Christy Hardin Smith @
74
Boy you know I could’ve happily lived through the rest of my day without thinking of Lieberman servicing Rove.
Thanks, Christy, for that special moment.
Late to the party… Didjall see this? From Kos
Wes Clark stumps for Lamont
I believe Perry is a family friend of the Bushites, too. His company builds homes in my area. I may picket his locations. Strident.
OT Glenn Greenwald had a great post up today about moderate GOP Senators and came to the conclusion there aren’t any. McCain, Warner, and Graham on the torture/kangaroo courts bill, Specter on illegal NSA wiretapping, Warner and Hagel on a new direction in Iraq. It’s always the same. They raise an issue to show how straightshooting they are and then proceed to cave behind the scenes when they agree to a compromise that legitimizes the worse excesses of the criminal enterprise known as the Bush White House.
I could not have said it better. In particular, h e notes Specter the King of Cave apparently had two versions of his habeas corpus amendment to the detainee bill and submitted the stronger one of the two, not to show his cojones but because he knew it would fail (which it did 51-48). In an article in the WaPo, Jeffrey Smith writes that Hagel, Snowe, and Collins would have supported the weaker version granting limited habeas which would have resulted in enough votes for passage of the amendment. Way to go, Arlen, . . . again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01123.html
BTW Lieberman voted for this shameful piece of legislation. A point which Glenn does not raise, however, is the complicity of Harry Reid in the machinations which led to the passage of the bill. While I agree with Greenwald’s overall point, I think that it’s still important to remember that it is not only Republicans who posture and cave.
Jane Hamsher @ 81
uh, can I get out the line of fire? Better you than me, Christy!
Jane — think: hot fudge sundaes, puppies, Senator Lamont, happy stuff.
My husband and I attended the debate today. It was a great take-down for Joe, courtesy of Schlesinger. I loved Joe’s opening of (and I’m paraphrasing) it’s great to be in my hometown of Stamford where my mom and dad and rabbi raised me to know right from wrong…. and I was hoping that either Ned or Alan would remind him of his YES vote on Bush’s Detainee Torture Bill that undoes habeas corpus as well as condoning torture.
Yeah, Joe, you sure do know right from wrong, dontcha?
As far as Ned’s entrance into the ballroom…as soon as he and his wife entered there was this amazing, spontaneous wave of applause getting louder and louder as people stood up. It was most definitely a Jimmy Stewart moment. Just perfect!
MarkH @ 1:09 pm (#52) – Looks like that Scalia – Strossen debate is on CSPAN1 now. Scalia appears to be doing most of the talking (I have the mute on). It might be several minutes before I see his opponent’s name. Ah yes, finally. It’s Strossen.
tfitznc @ 81
Democrats support democrats, not republicans. Theme of the race, y’know.
OT – Weldon Calls FBI search of his daughter’s office “politically motivted.” Uh, Bush’s FBI politically motivated against a Republican? BWAAAAHAHAAHAA!!!
I just watched an extensive interview of Lynne Stewart on Weazl, and she does admit she should have done things differently. However, I learned some interesting things in the interview like, for example, that the prosecution (federal) was allowed to have huge 20′ posters of Osama Bin Laden up on the court room walls during Ms. Stewart’s trial when, in fact, OBL had nothing whatever to do with the Blind Sheik Case. In the Mohammed Saleh trial coming up in Chicago the judge is allowing evidence obtained from Saleh’s trial in Israel. One might quibble whether Mr. Saleh was really tortured, but it is a fact that Mr. Saleh, an American citizen, was denied legal counsel well into his interrogation, and his interrogation will be admissable evidence. The prosecution also tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain an anonymous jury, implying that Mr. Saleh would be a threat to any named jury. All this is a long way of stating that the DOJ is in great need of oversight in these cases involving terrorism and civil liberties. I know there are more prosecutors on this blog than defenders, but I think we should not let our admiration for one legal folk hero blind us to the travesties this administration is willing to commit.
I’ve been mulling over the Clinton quote TRex used in his LateNite post last night and reading about Schles in the debate brought it back:
“Former President Bill Clinton told Iowa’s Democratic Party faithful on Saturday that the actions of “an extreme sliver” of the Republican Party have backfired and “profoundly divided” the country.
(snip)
“You cannot blame the entire Republican party for this reason. The entire government of the United States, the Congress, the White House and increasingly the courts for the last six years has been in the total control not of the Republican party but of the most ideological, the most right wing, the most extreme sliver of the Republican Party.”
Clearly we all know that there is no “thin sliver” of repub accomplices and I think Bill knows it. While he says you cannot blame the entire republican party, I sense his purpose is to get a rational foot in the door. Once you get a reasonable dialogue going that people accept (in small quantities people can embrace very difficult truths) then you have a litmus test to run on all the rest. Lo and behold instead of a sliver, it’s plain to everyone you’ve really got a slab.
Not sure how Schles relates to all this except that he sounds like a credible as opposed to a morally corrupt republican. Hope he gets all the support he deserves.
What’s not to like about true-blue Americans Mr. and Mrs. Lamont?
kristinejoy @ 88
While I dont believe for a minute that Schlesinger can gain from 4 to 15 points in three weeks under any circumstances, is it poor form to shift some financial resources to him? http://www.schlesinger2006.com/contribute.shtml
Democrats support democrats, not republicans. Theme of the race, y’know.
Sorry, I had a scary moment when I asked myself ‘what would Karl Rove do’?
Muzzy …Bill’s not stupid
NED’s closing argument at C&L:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..-debate-1/
Sally @ 83
Sally–
I hope to god you know I was kidding when I used the “strident” word in the last thread. (I meant to clue you to that with the symbol”:)” It’s just a word I never hear describe my gender and is always used to describe yours, especially with strong women such as Clinton and Pelosi.
Irony–but no harm–intended.
This little item is interesting :
VIA TV NEWSER :
Category: Web Ratings
Monday, Oct 16
MSNBC.com Breaks Online Video Record
“MSNBC.com delivered 88 million online video streams in the month of September, the most in the history of the news website,” the company said today. “This is the first record-breaking month for online video streams that was not driven by one major news event, signifying the increasing popularity of online video, online news and MSNBC.com.”
In September, MSNBC.com recorded 26.7 monthly unique viewers, according to Nielsen//NetRatings. CNN.com came in second with 24.6 million, followed by ABCNews.com with 10.6 million, CBSNews.com with 8.7 million, and FOXNews.com with 7.9 million…
Olbermann’s first Special Commentary was Aug. 30 th.
froggermarch (96), I was not at all offended by “strident.” If the shoe fits, and “strident” often fits me, especially these days with regard to the Bush horrors. I try to save my wrath for the thugs in the Black House.
Rodney Dangerfield deserves more respect than Joe Lieberman. Pass it on.
JF @ 89
A “politically motivted” probable cause warrant signed by a judge. LOL
Frank Probst @
8
Well, I’d have to agree with you, in that it is clear that you haven’t followed this case too closely. For example, if you had you might have noticed that her actions were defended by the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. And that all she did was release two statements from her client to the press, and use a translator to talk to here client. While it is alleged that the press releases might have contained coded information of some sort no one has even produced any evidence that they did.
To make the jump (as you do) to “co-conspirator” you’ll first have to establish both intent on her part and the existance of a conspiracy in the first place.
–MarkusQ
David Kuo (Tempting Faith) was just on CNN and comes across as very sincere and believable. He’s, gulp, actually quite likable for a winger (hits self on head with hammer) until one remembers that he was a John Ashcroft/Bill Bennett enabler.
I wonder if they used to bet on who could oil up a calico cat the fastest?
Sorry, I digress, weird sense of humor….Anyway, this is freaking great as the Bush/Evangelical pantytwist seems to be topic A today on Blitzer’s show.
Foley to Kolbe to Kuo…possibly our Tinker to Evans to Chance.
Cozumel @ 1:59 pm (#101)
Apparently, there are still “liberals” in the DoJ who need to be purged.
God dammit, I really wanted to see today’s debate. What’s the point of moving clear across the country from Oregon to New England if I can’t see some frickin’ democracy in action? Hmph. At least I get to read about it here.
The Kiss float returns,a new thread.
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..n/#respond
Jane Hamsher @ 81
Lieberman servicing Rove?
Would the end result be Jomentum or Santorum? I always get the two mixed up.
sorry, sorry, sorry…
On 60 Minutes last night, they tried to make Kuo seem like a naif in taking Bush’s word that he was actually a compassionate conservative. (In Kuo’s defense, he said what was supposed to be a 15 minute pitch to then-Gov Bush on faith based initiatives turned into an engaged conversation of over an hour.)
Kuo does come across as very sincere. The one thing that bothers me, though, is if he thinks RW evangelical Christianity is overemphasizing abortion/gays to the exclusion of concern over the poor, why the hell was he lined up with the Repubs in the first place?
Because of the way politics has corrupted religion, he is urging that evangelicals participate in a “fast” (his word) from politics.
I don’t think it’d be out of line to send some dough to Schlesinger. At this point, his needs are our needs. He’s not gonna win the thing and every vote he gets hurts Holy Joe, not Ned.
Politics and strange bedfellows.
cbear @
106
Santorum
in the Dan Savage sense….
Lieberman is NOT a liberal regarding the issues that matter:
*did not help make affordable healtlh care a reality
*provides the ‘Democratic cover’ for Bush’s disasterous policies in Iraq
*does not want to leave Iraq
*did not work to make Medicare drugs bill safe for consumers (allowed the donut hole that now costs seniors thousands for drug costs after an initial payment)
*disparages other Democrats
*lost the Democratic primary and is now running against the winner of the primary
Lijoy Kurian @ 26
Words of wisdom for the Connecticut for Lieberman candidate, free of charge from Mr. Miyagi:
Man stand on left side of road, good
Man stand on right side of road, good
Man stand in middle of road, get squished
To consistently win, Democrats need to win the rhetorical battle. Joe does not help us with this. He is far too fond of bashing other Dems, at best giving the Rep. bipartisan cover and at worse muddling the message so that “people don’t know what Democrats stand for.” If we are ever to advance a progressive agenda…
Joe must go!
“Finally. A Republican with the stones to tell Joe Lieberman to get off his damn lawn.”
Holy mackerel, that’s funny! Keep up the good work, Jane, Christy, T Rex, etc.
Having spent all this time on Lieberman, why don’t you spend some time and focus on Democrats that can actually win and would help get us a majority? Ned isn’t the great candidate we’d hoped–in fact he’s turning up as a big-time loser. Now how about losing some of the fixation on Lieberman and spend some time on, say, Webb in Virginia or Ford in Tenn? Or beating deWine? Ned is toast, so how about some reality-based help for candidates who are actually strong enough to win? Deal with it. Ned 24×7 is useless AND boring.
I’m a Connecticut Republican and my wife is a Democrat. She and I will both be voting for Sen. Lieberman this year (this will be my first vote for a Democrat in a federal election since I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976). In fact, in my little town (which is majority Republican), I don’t know anyone who’s voting for Schlesinger. All of the Republicans and Independents that I know are voting for Lieberman as are a majority of the registered Democrats.
Truth is, 15% of the registered voters voted in the August primary and slightly over half of them voted for Lamont. In other words, Lamont got the votes of about 8% of the state’s registered voters. He hasn’t increased his support much beyond that. The Independents, in particular, who are close to a majority in the state, really do not give two hoots about whether or not Sen. Lieberman is “stepping on” the Democratic Party message. The Independents are non-partisan, and all Lamont has offered them is a partisan message.
To add icing to the cake, it seems like the only way the Democrats could possibly gain control of the Senate would be with Sen. Lieberman’s vote, which would make him the most powerful person in the Senate. Wouldn’t that be sublime!