The End of a Career for Lieberman? [Archive]

Jason McCullough

07-19-2006, 02:44 PM

Jakub, I don't think it's just "the war." On economics, he voted for the bankruptcy bill and is continually in the pocket of the insurance companies. Most importantly, he cares more about sucking up to Republicans than doing his job as a Democrat.

Atrios (Duncan Black) has a better explanation of why he's so awful in the La Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-black18jul18,0,7362225.story?coll=la-opinion-center).

The war is certainly a reason — and given how events continue to devolve in Iraq, a perfectly sufficient one — but those who focus only on that miss the broader opposition to Lieberman and the kind of politics he represents.

For too long he has defined his image by distancing himself from other Democrats, cozying up to right-wing media figures and, at key moments, directing his criticisms at members of his own party instead of at the Republicans in power.

Late last year, after President Bush's job approval ratings hit record lows, Lieberman decided to lash out at the administration's critics, writing in the ultraconservative Wall Street Journal editorial pages that "we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." In this he echoed the most toxic of Republican talking points — that criticizing the conduct of the war is actually damaging to national security.

Lieberman has a long history of providing cover for the worst of Republican actions while enthusiastically serving as his own party's scold. After the Senate acquitted President Clinton on all impeachment charges, Lieberman called for his censure. More recently, he rejected a call by Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) to censure Bush over the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, calling the attempt "divisive."

Lieberman looks happiest when playing a "Fox News Democrat," as he did in a February appearance on Sean Hannity's radio program, during which the two exchanged compliments and expressions of friendship and Hannity offered to campaign for him. The senator seems to enjoy Sunday talk shows more than actually doing his job. New Orleans could have been spared the hacktastic performance of Michael Brown, the unqualified former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had Lieberman not shooed him through the confirmation process in a breezy 42-minute hearing.

Jason McCullough

07-19-2006, 02:46 PM

You probably couldn't hear it over the whooshing sounds of all the wreaths being tossed in his general direction in Democratic circles after he left the GOP...

So? The GOP is loving Leiberman in a complete mirror image of that. By contrast, surprisingly few people called GOP members out for Jeffords "rabid."

There's a strange media/rhetoric gap I can't figure out.

Jake Plane

07-19-2006, 02:49 PM

Running as a Republican - The Campaign is Mulling it. (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/jul/19/ct_sen_will_lieberman_rule_out_accepting_gop_line)

Its from Talking Points Memo but its short on substance. If true it would be an interesting and disasterious end to his political life.

And c'mon this is not true.

Basically a blogger who has a beef with Lieberman came up with a question and decided to send an email to stir the pot.

I may disagree with joe Lieberman on the war, but I recognize that:

* he has been a life long Democrat (he literally risked his life and went down to Mississippi and registered African Americans to vote)
* he was on the Democratic ticket in 2000
* he ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004
* he's running as a Democrat if he loses to Lamont - but as write-in Democrat

What I don't understand:

Where's the blogger outrage on the guys who actually voted for this idiotic war for purely political reasons and then flip-flopped back now that it's gone south. If bloggers want to punish anyone, it should be those idiots.

Flowers

07-19-2006, 02:57 PM

Jake Plane

07-19-2006, 02:58 PM

Jake Plane

07-19-2006, 02:59 PM

Incendiary Lemon

07-19-2006, 03:01 PM

I can address this one off the top of my head.

* choice (he's po-choice)

Voted for Cloture on Alito (the would be climatic battle between Pro Life/Pro Choice that never came to pass.) Suggested Catholic Hospitals not be required to dispense emergency contraceptives to rape vicitims. "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital"

Jake Plane

07-19-2006, 03:06 PM

I can address this [Lieberman being pro-choice] off the top of my head.

Voted for Cloture on Alito (the would be climatic battle between Pro Life/Pro Choice that never came to pass.) Suggested Catholic Hospitals not be required to dispense emergency contraceptives to rape vicitims. "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital"

Lieberman was endorsed by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Why? Because he has one of the BEST records in the U.S. Senate on choice, hands down.

He was the only 04 candidate to come back from campaigning when Republicans were trying to limit choice in '04. Kerry and Edwards stayed on the road.

arctangent

07-19-2006, 03:07 PM

http://jimala.com/jlpray1.jpg

Jake Plane

07-19-2006, 03:07 PM

And by the way, if anyone is interested, this site has been updated. The response?

Well, now campaign spokesperson Marion Steinfels has gotten back to me, and the answer is: He rules it out. Completely.

Steinfels said that Lieberman would "absolutely not" run on the GOP line. She added: "He has said he's always been a Democrat, and he'll always be a Democrat."

Asked if he'd rule out accepting the line, Steinfels said: "Joe Lieberman will never run as a Republican. Never."

Gordon Cameron

07-19-2006, 03:31 PM

Joe Lieberman hates videogames so I hate Joe Lieberman.

I like to pretend I have opinions about war, death, abortion, taxes, segregation, women's suffrage, free speech, the environment, separation of church and state, gun control, the war on drugs, and welfare, but at my heart I am as much a one issue voter as any kneejerk flagwaving dipshit.

Well, if we boil things down to one issue, my personal antipathy for Joe Lieberman comes from his "God Man" posturing during the 2000 election (though I understand his motivation for doing so) and particularly his comment that "the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." I'm not sure precisely what he means when he says I can't necessarily be free from religion, but as an atheist I find the statement ominous and would rather not find out.

Still, a politician's career is a big and many-splendored thing so I must reserve any serious judgment on the Liebmeister simply by pleading ignorance.

claybob

07-19-2006, 03:32 PM

In my perfect world thelieberhoe, hillary, delay, and newt are trapped on a desert isle. Hillary and lieberman get a strap-on.

I should add that this list is by no means exclusive. I am looking at you nathan macias.

Jason McCullough

07-19-2006, 03:50 PM

And Biden is in the pocket of the credit card companies. And Edwards was beholden to the trial lawyers. All of these guys have in-state interest groups.

As for Lieberman's style - I think he's guilty as charged. He is comfortable criticizing Democrats. And while I think he's tone deaf in some cases, I again don't think that's any reason to say he's not a democrat. Lieberman's voting record is more in line with Ted Kennedy than most people realize. And yet voters condemn him and champion neo-con John McCain?!? I just don't get it.

Style is not just style; style can be substance. The cross-party support from people like Leiberman was a major supporting factor for the Iraq war happening. Bush wouldn't have launched it with a 30% poll rating on it, the same way he gave up on Social Security when it polled badly.

On a larger issue, when Leiberman is out there calling Democrats traitors, basically, for opposing the Iraq war, that says a lot more him than just his opinions on the Iraq war. As an analogy, imagine Hillary continually calls everyone who disagrees with her on gun control babykillers. It means he's a fucker who sucks up to the other side and abandons the Democratic party when it's most important.

MikeSofaer

07-19-2006, 03:53 PM

i.e. you disagree with him on Iraq, ergo he is not a Democrat.

invitroman

07-19-2006, 03:54 PM

Jason McCullough

07-19-2006, 04:25 PM

i.e. you disagree with him on Iraq, ergo he is not a Democrat.

I disagree with lots of Democrats about abortion, the bankruptcy bill, the best way to help the middle class, and which MMORPG is the best. They don't call me a traitor for it.

Glenn

07-19-2006, 04:36 PM

...Leiberman is out there calling Democrats traitors, basically, for opposing the Iraq war...
Dear Jason:

If you can find a credibly attributed statement by Joe Lieberman that I would agree meets your description above, I will send the Lamont campaign $50.

Sincerely,
Glenn.

Jason McCullough

07-19-2006, 04:50 PM

The easiest one (http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=249522).

In an article making a space cadet argument for "bipartisan unity" in favor of Bush's dipshit foreign policy:

It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

He says shit like this all the time, using the same coded "you're not a real american/traitor because you oppose us on this" terminology the GOP does. Watch him on Hannity some time sucking up to him.

Jake Plane

07-19-2006, 05:04 PM

I have no stake in your $50 bet but I would say that's not the equivalent of "traitor."

As for your point, the man disagrees with you on the war. You disagree with him. But I would bet you agree with each more often than you guess. As for his choice of language... have you heard Biden talk? Do you think we should oust him?

My beef with the cyber-roots is that they often work themselves into hysterics - and I think their crazy anger toward Lieberman is a pretty good example. Anyone who follows Democratic politics minimally would say he's a true blue Democrat.

If you want to start ousting Democrats on single issues that's your right - be that choice, global warming or war.

But don't pretend they're not Democrats.

The cross-party support from people like Leiberman was a major supporting factor for the Iraq war happening.

No. Lieberman's vote was a given. He's always been a hawk. And more importantly, voted because he thought it was the right thing to do.

So what made the Iraq war happen? It's people like Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and John Kerry - all of whom voted for the war for political reasons - that you really should be angry at. But apparently, they're all possible 08 presidential candidates. So I guess they're "good" Democrats.

Lizard_King

07-19-2006, 05:43 PM

I really think you guys are minimizing Flowers' point about video games. The pandering that senior citizens on the Hill have conducted, to the worst instincts of the most ignorant segments of both political extremes is highly indicative of why Lieberman and his cronies across the hall should be censured by us, regardless of how much of a Democrat he remains.

russellmz00

07-19-2006, 06:04 PM

malphigian

07-19-2006, 06:37 PM

No. Lieberman's vote was a given. He's always been a hawk. And more importantly, voted because he thought it was the right thing to do.

So what made the Iraq war happen? It's people like Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and John Kerry - all of whom voted for the war for political reasons - that you really should be angry at. But apparently, they're all possible 08 presidential candidates. So I guess they're "good" Democrats.

I think you make a good point. I agree that Lieberman is voting what he truly believes. I also agree that makes him better than someone like Senator Clinton, who is clearly *not* holding positions based on what she believes, or to represent the views of her constitutients, but instead has spent all her time in the senate as a wishy-washy half-republican because she thinks she has a chance to be president one day. Being in NY, I'll vote for pretty much anyone against Clinton.

If I was in Connecticut, though, I sure as hell would vote for Lamont too. Lieberman may surely be acting on his principles, but his principles suck.

As an aside, I think most liberal democrats view Clinton in the same light as Lieberman. I'm not sure where you got the idea that that list you gave were considered "good" democrats, but I think the only place you'll find that opinion is in DNC headquarters. I don't think this is necessarily about wanting someone who is in the far political left, but just someone who doesn't fold at the first whiff of a fight.

Jake Plane

07-19-2006, 08:14 PM

I don't think this is necessarily about wanting someone who is in the far political left, but just someone who doesn't fold at the first whiff of a fight.

Again, if your position is that you have a litmus test for what it means to be a democrat and based on that Lieberman fails, then I see your point.

But if you don't want someone who "folds at the first whiff of a fight" and you want someone who voted against the Bush tax cuts, who called for the creation of the Homeland security department (when Bush was fighting against it), who has stood up to Republicans and wavering Democrats on choice, who has championed global warming, who has fought for labor rights, who pushed for expanding health care, who has stood side by side with Kennedy on education... then I'd say you want Joe Lieberman.

Again - I disagree with him on the war.

But I think it's idiotic to apply a litmus test to just him. Hell, if anything, it's counter productive. Punish the weak spined dems who supported the war for POLITICAL reasons. They should be punished.

Jake Plane

07-19-2006, 08:17 PM

i want someone to oppose bush, especially on the war. lieberman's not that man, and i'm willing to chance a new guy in the slot. his criticism of bush's critics, his "five minute crawl to another hospital" remark, and his anti-videogame stance are just extra dislike.

As opposed to someone who spent 16 years in what was possibly a race exclusive members only club?

People - are you READING the New York Times?

What do you really know about Lamont? Punish Lieberman if you disagree on the war, but don't say it's because he's not a democrat or because you "support" Lamont. Lieberman IS a Democrat and Lamont is a complete unknown with a questionable (REPUBLICAN) past.

The cyber roots are WRONG on this. And anyone who spends 10 minutes looking into this race will determine the same.

TylerG

07-19-2006, 08:45 PM

Just when you thought you couldn't get any more millage out of Lieberman-Bush man kiss: http://webpages.charter.net/micah/liebadmerkel.png Regardless thats funny.

Lizard_King

07-19-2006, 08:50 PM

You really consider believing in his own opinion a justification? I mean, I backed the war for what I believed were honest reasons; with the luxury of hindsight I can say I was no less wrong, gullible, or stupid about it for all my good intentions. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Lieberman, with his veteran status in Washington, the access he has to information, and the fact that it's his job to decide these things has no more ability to gauge this correctly than some smartass college kid blinded by his ideology. The correct thing in my view would be to take what he knows now and ensure that his constituency is informed of his error, why it happened, and why it won't happen again. Otherwise, he's not just a sucker; he's a stubborn one. I think depending on the person there is a lot to be said for flip flopping over staying the course (in not admitting the mistakes and lies leading up to the war and how the occupation was conducted, I mean; our continued presence in Iraq we'll leave for a thread with more room for nuance). The latter suggests the sort of pious semifanaticism that has also misled him on so many other issues (need I mention videogames again)?

Mind you, I'm not saying Lamont or any other candidate is necessarily better. I just can't think why Lieberman is good for the Democratic party insenate or the white house, and I can't imagine what would cause the party to nominate yet another zero personality candidate. McCain would demolish him.

malphigian

07-19-2006, 09:16 PM

Again, if your position is that you have a litmus test for what it means to be a democrat and based on that Lieberman fails, then I see your point.

Because you misread my post, my comment about folding in a fight was about Clinton, not Lieberman. Lieberman I just said I disagree with him. I probably should have been more clear and not thrown in the Hillary tangent.

As opposed to someone who spent 16 years in what was possibly a race exclusive members only club?

People - are you READING the New York Times?

What do you really know about Lamont? Punish Lieberman if you disagree on the war, but don't say it's because he's not a democrat or because you "support" Lamont. Lieberman IS a Democrat and Lamont is a complete unknown with a questionable (REPUBLICAN) past.

The cyber roots are WRONG on this. And anyone who spends 10 minutes looking into this race will determine the same.

Having not followed the race that closely, other than a little schadenfraude at seeing a politician I dislike suffer. I took your challenge, and took 10 minutes, and read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/nyregion/19lamont.html
...which didn't leave me with a negitive impression of Lamont. Looking elsewhere, I couldn't come up with any significant dirt other than his father used to work for Nixon (before leaving the party saying there was no place for eastern moderates in the GOP), and the country club thing.

That article also reminded me that Lieberman was part of that Terry Schiavo travesty. He was also a sanctimonious blowhard on the Lewinsky "scandal" (it sounds so cute calling it that now, no?). And I quote: "The implications for our country are so serious that I feel a responsibility to my constituents in Connecticut, as well as to my conscience, to voice my concerns forthrightly and publicly. " Really? So serious? Where's your conscience with the lies of the last 6 years?

But really, he shares Bush's view that the Global War on Terror needs to be an exercise in nation building via pre-emptive invasion. On top of that, he says things like that quote posted above -- that criticizing the president imperils the nation in a time of war. A view which isn't only unsuitable for the democratic party, it's downright unamerican. These issues alone would be enough for me, the rest of it (schiavo, evil video games, etc) is just icing.

Angie Gallant

07-19-2006, 09:27 PM

Well, if we boil things down to one issue, my personal antipathy for Joe Lieberman comes from his "God Man" posturing during the 2000 election (though I understand his motivation for doing so) and particularly his comment that "the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." I'm not sure precisely what he means when he says I can't necessarily be free from religion, but as an atheist I find the statement ominous and would rather not find out.

This shit gets me too. That was one of the things I really respected about Kerry.... he had the cajones to say that the rights of atheists and agnostics had to be respected. During a televised debate.

Jason McCullough

07-19-2006, 10:10 PM

I think Connecticut actually likes candidates with zero personality. I have no other explanation for why they keep nominating them, on both sides of the aisle.

The thing I find the strangest about Leiberman is he's said he still thinks the Iraq war was a good idea, after everything we now know and that's happened. There's basically zero other Democrats that share that opinion - the rest of the Democratic war supporters either do "sounded good at the time" or "it'll be worse if we leave now." Not "yeah, even including no WMD and the chaos and the Abu Ghirab and the rest of the world flat-lining on approval of us it's a good idea!"

Jake Plane

07-20-2006, 04:38 AM

Having not followed the race that closely, other than a little schadenfraude at seeing a politician I dislike suffer. I took your challenge, and took 10 minutes, and read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/nyregion/19lamont.html
...which didn't leave me with a negitive impression of Lamont. Looking elsewhere, I couldn't come up with any significant dirt other than his father used to work for Nixon (before leaving the party saying there was no place for eastern moderates in the GOP), and the country club thing.

Right... the country club "thing" - For 16 years Lamont belonged to, by his own admission, a race exclusive country club. For 16 years he could have said, "hey, this is wrong." But it was only when he's going to run for Senate that he decided - "hey, this may be a liability." If you're looking for "revealing" actions, I'd say that's a big one.

And my point really was that you should read more than ONE article. I don't even live in Connecticut, but I do follow politics (for example, the new Qpoll that's out this morning has Lamont over Lieberman for the first time).

On the whole, very little has been written about Lamont - and the little that has been written is at odds with what people think about the guy:

* Lamont owns Halliburton stock (can you imagine if Lieberman did? People would be screaming - rightfully so - that he profited from the Iraq war)
* Lamont's voting record is overwhelmingly Republican and
* Lamont has flip flopped on the war himself

So again - if you just flat out dislike Lieberman or want to oust him because of the war, that's your right as a red-blooded American.

But don't say it's because Lieberman is not a Democrat or because you support Lamont. Based on the little that is known of Lamont, he's more of a Democrat than that guy.

But unfortunately, very few Americans closely follow politics anymore. It's just easier to read a blog or watch an advert, form a quick impression (often wrong) and then vote (if at all) based on that.

And hey, as a result, we have Bush - so that system is clearly working well...

Jake Plane

07-20-2006, 05:02 AM

This just in... Bill Clinton is going to Connecticut to campaign for Joe Lieberman. I guess someone here should tell him that Lieberman is not a Democrat.

malphigian

07-20-2006, 07:31 AM

I don't disagree with you Jake -- it's not fair to say Lieberman is "not a democrat", he's strong on many progressive issues (environmental issues, for one), but on a few absolutely critical issues, he sucks.

I follow politics, thanks, just not as closely when I don't have a vote in the area, I'll assume you weren't taking a potshot at me with that last comment.

Halliburton stock -- he has 90 million dollars and wasn't even aware of the 10k in halliburton stock. It would be nice if a guy as rich as him hired investment managers who were careful only to invest in "less evil" companies, but I'm not surprised he hadn't, and it certainly doesn't turn my stomach the way Lieberman has on the Iraq War and Schiavo.

As for "flip flopping" on the Iraq War, far better that than refusing to admit you were wrong in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Finally, on Lamont's voting record, I'm having trouble coming up with the damning votes. You got a link handy?

In the end, I agree with you on the contest here -- Lamont is definitely an unknown. We have a couple scraps of information about him, and beyond that have only what he says he will do. What he says he will do is pretty good though, and what Lieberman has done is pretty lousy. If I was still in CT, I'd vote for Lamont as a anti-Lieberman vote AND because I support Lamont's stated platform.

bigdruid

07-20-2006, 09:13 AM

As for "flip flopping" on the Iraq War, far better that than refusing to admit you were wrong in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

I heavily opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, but let's be honest - there's a difference between authorizing the President to use force to enforce UN Resolutions in Iraq, and authorizing an ongoing, 4+ year occupation. Apparently the distinction was a little too nuanced for the American voters in the last election, but it's there - I don't think it's a "flip-flop" necessarily.

But it's a little disingenuous for Congress to waive the statutes in the War Power resolution, then complain about how the war is being prosecuted. The whole point behind the War Powers act is to give Congress a voice in these types of military actions, and if they are going to circumvent the WPA before fighting even begins, they need to shut their mouths and go along for the ride, because that's what they voted for.

noun

07-20-2006, 10:01 AM

Here (http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0141103) is Lieberman's voting record, if you're curious.

SlyFrog

07-20-2006, 11:35 AM

Remember, if they don't agree with you on absolutely everything your party says they should, they're a fascist.

Jake Plane

07-20-2006, 12:42 PM

In the end, I agree with you on the contest here -- Lamont is definitely an unknown. We have a couple scraps of information about him, and beyond that have only what he says he will do. What he says he will do is pretty good though, and what Lieberman has done is pretty lousy. If I was still in CT, I'd vote for Lamont as a anti-Lieberman vote AND because I support Lamont's stated platform.

This I can agree with - at least the last part.

Dave47

07-20-2006, 01:57 PM

My quick research for the last Lieberman thread indicated that Lamont was 15 points down among likely Democratic primary voters. Has anything changed since then? If not, why does it matter what Liberman may or may not run as if he loses the primary?

I’ve said this before, but Ned Lamont isn’t going anywhere. The best thing that could possibly happen for the Republican Party would be Lamont winning the primary. He’s a ridiculously weak candidate.

Squirrel Killer

07-20-2006, 02:17 PM

My quick research for the last Lieberman thread indicated that Lamont was 15 points down among likely Democratic primary voters. Has anything changed since then?
I saw a headline today that said the race was a dead heat. I didn't look at the details though, so there could be more to the story than just that.

Dave47

07-20-2006, 02:27 PM

I saw a headline today that said the race was a dead heat. I didn't look at the details though, so there could be more to the story than just that.
Wow. I guess a lot can happen when you leave the country and stop following local news. That's a huge jump in something like a five week period.

Bleeding Edge

07-20-2006, 02:28 PM

* Lamont owns Halliburton stock (can you imagine if Lieberman did?

Does this count? (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/20/joe-lieberman-running-against-himself/)

ydejin

07-20-2006, 03:01 PM

I saw a headline today that said the race was a dead heat. I didn't look at the details though, so there could be more to the story than just that.

Here's one Poll: Lamont 51, Lieberman 47 (http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=354?8dpc). No details on why it's happening and while Lamont is up by 4, apparently it's actually a statistical tie. This is from the Quinnipiac University poll.

malphigian

07-20-2006, 07:58 PM

Does this count? (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/20/joe-lieberman-running-against-himself/)

That's amazing, nice work Joe.

Jason McCullough

07-21-2006, 09:44 AM

Interesting set of comments from Josh Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009122.php).

One thing that strikes me is the sheer intensity of views on this race. We've heard a good deal already about the intensity of opposition to Lieberman. But his supporters, or what you might call the anti-anti-Lieberman crowd are really no less intense or in some cases almost unhinged about it. There is this sense that a Lieberman defeat on August 8th would be some sort of apocalyptic event, with Lieberman cast as some martyr, to what I'm really not sure.
Mort Kondracke's column, which I noted below (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009114.php), seems like the quintessence of this sort of attitude, though the volume is turned, well, all the way up to eleven in other quarters. Listen to the opening line of Mort's column: "This is no exaggeration: The soul of the Democratic Party — and possibly the future of civility in American politics — is on the line in the Aug. 8 Senate primary in Connecticut."
That's really heavy billing, isn't it?
Following up on that, I think the Lieberman skeptics are really on to something when they point out that in the Kondrackes and others there is this sense that for a well-liked-in-the-beltway senior pol like Lieberman to face a primary challenge is somehow a genuine threat to the foundations of the system. You'd think he was a life peer, if not an hereditary noble, suddenly yanked out of the House of Lords and forced to run for his seat like they do in the Commons.

One might say that Lieberman has stuck to his views on Iraq notwithstanding the political perils or the unpopularity of the position in his party. And that's certainly true in the sense that he had to know he wasn't winning any points with the broad mass of Dems on this issue. But I don't think he really understood the peril at home. Because if he had, he would have been more prepared for this. And he wasn't.
This impession has been added to in my mind by chats with various folks from the Lieberman world. I think most of Lieberman's advisors, supporters, hangers-on and former employees have watched these last seven or eight weeks with a mix of mortification, surprise and disbelief, as they've seen his campaign make one mistake after another. Going back to that issue of his being out of touch you really get this sense that Lieberman and his team were totally out of the habit of fighting a serious election. To me, it all goes back to the bizarre "bear cub (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_06_11.php#008765)" ad.

More from TNR on the Leiberman as an out of touch national figure (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060731&s=zengerle073106) angle.

"It's not only an ideological thing. It's a temperament thing," says another former adviser, explaining Lieberman's approach to politics in general. "He really does believe that there's a bipartisan sort of consensus. That attitude worked for him politically in Connecticut for the last 30 years, and it worked for him nationally in the 1990s. But now the earth has shifted. One, I don't think the Bush Republicans play that way. And, two, most people in the Democratic Party don't want anything to do with that attitude."

Exacerbating this problem has been Lieberman's staff. "He's got a staff now that's very knowledgeable in their substantive areas," says one Lieberman friend. "But there's not a lot of political smarts there." A number of Lieberman's friends and supporters cite his November 2005 Wall Street Journal op-ed backing Bush's strategy in Iraq and urging Democrats to do the same--which Lamont said triggered his decision to enter the race--as a perfect example of something Lieberman's staff should have prevented from happening. "He needed someone to say to him, 'Senator, I hear you're going to write an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal about Iraq,'" argues one former adviser. "'I know you have your opinions, but the filing deadline for a challenger is six weeks away. Shut the hell up for six weeks.'

Jason McCullough

07-21-2006, 09:58 AM

Puppets! (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/20/lamont-leads-lieberman-in-polls/)

http://static.firedoglake.com/2006/07/b6ef8b94-1e01-47d6-a6f7-3071045139e01.jpg

SlyFrog

07-21-2006, 11:58 AM

More from TNR on the Leiberman as an out of touch national figure (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060731&s=zengerle073106) angle.

That is one of the more disturbing things I read this week. Perhaps I put my own spin on it, but doesn't that basically boil down to, "Joe, you're out of touch in trying to form any sort of partnership or understanding with people who have different, but still moderate, viewpoints than you," and, "Joe, please suppress speaking on issues you believe in and giving information to the public that may get in the way of your political power?"

LesJarvis

07-21-2006, 12:03 PM

That is one of the more disturbing things I read this week. Perhaps I put my own spin on it, but doesn't that basically boil down to, "Joe, you're out of touch in trying to form any sort of partnership or understanding with people who have different, but still moderate, viewpoints than you," and, "Joe, please supress speaking on issues you believe in and giving information to the public that may get in the way of your political power?"

Political expediency > *.

Jason McCullough

07-21-2006, 02:07 PM

SlyFrog

07-21-2006, 03:17 PM

This may come as a surprise, but after 6 years of Bush stomping on the heads of Democrats who try to be "moderate" there are not many looking to compromise anymore.

As to not intentionally pissing off your most reliable supporters, politics isn't a debating society. This isn't news.

Leiberman can do whatever he wants, but the short version of why he's in trouble is that he's out of touch with the concerns of his constituents. Especially his Democratic ones.

And here I would think his constituents should be the American people, or at least the people of Connecticut as a whole, not merely the hard core Democratic party members.

Things will definitely get better in this country the more we divide into special interests and screaming radical political party advocates.

Of course, the "Bush stomping on the heads," bit is in the eye of the beholder.

Jason McCullough

07-21-2006, 03:45 PM

And here I would think his constituents should be the American people, or at least the people of Connecticut as a whole, not merely the hard core Democratic party members.

Leiberman is running for the Democratic nomination on a ballot. Apparently the views of Democrats aren't really a concern for that sort of thing?

SlyFrog

07-21-2006, 06:58 PM

Leiberman is running for the Democratic nomination on a ballot. Apparently the views of Democrats aren't really a concern for that sort of thing?

No, Lieberman is running to represent the state of Connecticut. The views of the people are the primary concern for that sort of thing.

XPav

07-21-2006, 07:25 PM

No, they're trying to win the Democratic Primary, which only Democracts can vote in. Then, the winner gets to see if he can represent Connecticut.

SlyFrog

07-21-2006, 07:59 PM

No, they're trying to win the Democratic Primary, which only Democracts can vote in. Then, the winner gets to see if he can represent Connecticut.

I recognize that. However, the ultimate race he is trying to win is that of representing the state of Connecticut. If the Democractic party is so rigid that it can not accept any differing viewpoints beyond the strict dictates of the party, then I do hope he can win as an independent. It's not as if the guy wants to ban gay marriage, keep flags safe from fire, or stop ripping out embryos or something. If he needs to change his viewpoints to win the radical morons of his party, and then move to the center, as most gutless U.S. political candidates have been doing lately, then kudos to him for not doing it.

The idea that, because Lieberman supports the war in Iraq, god forbid he have a differing viewpoint on one of the hundreds or thousands of issues that makes up a political scheme, should not somehow disqualify him as a card carrying pinko.

How do we know he doesn't want to invade Iraq so that he can set up a little socialist utopia there?

Qenan

07-22-2006, 07:22 AM

SlyFrog

07-22-2006, 07:54 AM

This has nothing to do with the "Democratic party" being so rigid; it has to do with the Democratic voters having strong preferences. The whole point of primaries is to allow them to vote their preferences.

Preferences that just happen to line up on every single outcome, such that any deviation or willingness to work with the other side is cause for removal. But they're not rigid.

Broadly Democratic voters do not vote in primaries. The party elite and hardcores vote in primaries. People who are broadly democratic, in that they may hit many or most of the Democrat planks but may actually think for themselves on some issues and, gasp, deviate from the party, do not generally vote in the primaries.

It's not like I'm the first to come up with this. The fact that American politics with respect to both parties has become a sytem of looking radical to win the nutjob vote in the primaries, and then swinging to the center to win the broader political base in the main election, has been, I recall, widely reported. That's partially why Rove/Bush Co. has been such a shock; though in Bush's first run there were some bones thrown toward "compassionate conservatism" and other cross-aisle measures, they basically said, "Fuck this, we don't care about what greater America thinks, we're going to focus on bringing out the nutjob base en masse to win."

The Democrats are simply trying to mirror that now. I think part of the problem is that they don't have a religious (literally) base that is used to taking magic mushrooms and whipping into a cult frenzy. They just don't have a similar base that is used to drinking the Kool-Aid and working into a frenzied hatred of everything normal and any deviation from the party line. The Democrats are working hard on that, however, and I am hoping that the broad based snarkiness and loathing of anything deviant thought that I'm seeing out of the new base of party faithful can rival the megachurch crowd. Then, if we're lucky, we can have some sort of mega-street battle to decide who rules the remaining 90% of the population that just wants to live and work in peace.

Qenan

07-22-2006, 08:41 AM

Broadly Democratic voters do not vote in primaries. The party elite and hardcores vote in primaries. People who are broadly democratic, in that they may hit many or most of the Democrat planks but may actually think for themselves on some issues and, gasp, deviate from the party, do not generally vote in the primaries.

Well, I am neither a party "elite" nor a "hardcore", but I've voted in most (not all) primaries as a matter of civic duty. I think you are stretching things considerably.

In any case, this amounts to an attack on the primary system rather than the Democrats per se. It isn't as though Republican primaries were representative of the population as a whole.

Honestly, I think this argument is inane. Of course primary outcomes reflect the preferences of those most committed to participate in the primaries. They always have.

Jason McCullough

07-22-2006, 08:45 AM

Broadly Democratic voters do not vote in primaries. The party elite and hardcores vote in primaries. People who are broadly democratic, in that they may hit many or most of the Democrat planks but may actually think for themselves on some issues and, gasp, deviate from the party, do not generally vote in the primaries.

Have you seen Democratic party polling on the Iraq war? It's like 90% opposed, think it's a bad idea, think we should leave, and so on. I'm surprised the rest of the pro-war Democrats aren't getting hell, with those kind of numbers.

The "hardcore extreme elements" agree with the rest of the party on this one.

Jason McCullough

07-22-2006, 08:53 PM

In light of the last few posts, an amusing poll (http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/22/more-bad-news-for-joe/).

Here’s the stunning finding: In the general election, Lieberman and Lamont are tied with 40% with Alan Schlesinger (R) trailing behind with 13%.

There's so many of those crazed democratic extremists that....that....they're 40% of the voters!

Andrew Mayer

07-23-2006, 04:58 PM

I love reading non-Democrats lecturing about what the party they should do, and what a "Good Democrat" is. Very entertaining.

When he started collecting signatures for an independant run he effectively ended his ability to claim himself a "good democrat".

His campaign is floundering because he got lazy and out of touch. He's a victim of the same kind of attitude of entitlement that was so widely decryed by the people here when they saw it in Kerry.

SlyFrog

07-23-2006, 05:18 PM

I love reading non-Democrats lecturing about what the party they should do, and what a "Good Democrat" is. Very entertaining.

Who did that?

Doug Erickson

07-23-2006, 06:50 PM

Since when does Liebermann cosying up to arch-conservative views make him a "moderate"? As far as I can tell, Lamont is the moderate; Liebermann is an arch-conservative apologist, and his "bipartisan handshaking" angle is closer to a handjob for batshit far-conservative interests. Sharing choggle pants with the Bush Administration doesn't make you a "bipartisan" moderate; it makes you a reeking partisan idiot.

There's nothing moderate in the Bush Administration or among the greater Senate Republican consensus. Hell, there's very little that's traditionally conservative. It's all fear-crazed warmongers, Bible-thumping snakehandlers, trickle-down witch doctors, and Daddy Warbucks' finest lobbyists. There's no place for a disciplined economic or political acumen in the party of the extremely wealthy, irresponsible, and kooky.

Andrew Mayer

07-23-2006, 07:42 PM

Who did that?

Are you a registered Democrat?

SlyFrog

07-23-2006, 08:00 PM

Are you a registered Democrat?

Answer my question first.

SlyFrog

07-23-2006, 08:01 PM

Since when does Liebermann cosying up to arch-conservative views make him a "moderate"?

Which arch-conservative viewpoints do you take umbrage with beyond the war in Iraq?

Andrew Mayer

07-23-2006, 08:32 PM

Answer my question first.

Oh, I think you just did that for me.

wildpokerman

07-23-2006, 09:43 PM

I think the problem is that there are several people that tend to vote a certian way but don't register with a party.

I for example vote 90% democrat and consider myself pretty liberal to libratatian. However I've never registered with any party.

In the last election for example it was clear to everyone except the democratic primary voters that John Kerry, nice as he is and as good of a senator as he is, was not the man who could beat George Bush. As awful as Bush was and even with the good run Kerry took at it from the early polls to the day of the election he lost. He was too wooden, too stiff, too liberal in the wrong areas and not liberal enough in the right ones to win.

That's why Lamont will probably beat Liberman by a hair and Liberman will run away with the senate seat because primary voters don't think very far ahead.

Doug Erickson

07-23-2006, 10:27 PM

Ben Sones

07-24-2006, 05:21 AM

I for example vote 90% democrat and consider myself pretty liberal to libratatian.

You're a librarian from Haiti?

SlyFrog

07-24-2006, 07:01 AM

Oh, I think you just did that for me.

You can either answer the question or you made something up you can not support. I think you just answered which of the two it is.

Of course, it won't matter to you, since you apparently feel no shame at being called on making up facts. You'd rather "win" the argument than actually admit you just make up facts about people in your own head that you have no way of supporting.

I won't go into how you couldn't answer the original issues posted in this thread, and therefore decided to simply start making up spurious conditionals on who was allowed to consider the issues.

SlyFrog

07-24-2006, 07:03 AM

You mean besides his regular kowtowing to the Religious Right, his adamant (and paid for) opposition to price controls on prescription drugs, his full-on support of NAFTA, and his desire to privatize Social Security against all conventional reason?

Sure. Without, perhaps, the commentary. More specifics would be nice as well. Would you explain how he kowtows to the Religious Right? Is it the pro-choice stance? The support of gay marriage?

Jake Plane

07-24-2006, 08:11 AM

Aleck

07-24-2006, 08:30 AM

Actually, this has to do with the war, uninformed voters and anger.

Jake, I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "uninformed" -- but I do agree with anger. I think a lot of the anti-Lieberman sentiment is really a protest vote against Lieberman, rather than a pro-Lamont stance. I think Democratic voters take it for granted that Democratic candidates will behave in certain ways, particularly in the northeast (pro-education, pro-life, pro-civil rights, etc.) While Lieberman has been fairly reliable in these areas, his hawkishness on the war (including his stance, to this day, that the war was right), his strongly pro-religious sentiments (including the Schiavo thing but his support for religious groups in general), and his support for the somewhat amorphous Bush arguments about opposition to Bush being a threat to national security have all led many folks to question whether he's the right guy to have representing CT in the Senate.

As a moderate Democrat, I'm with Lieberman on most issues, but his stance on the war is so clearly wrong and his support for Bush so clearly unconscionable (sp?) that I definitely wouldn't be supporting him -- not because I support Lamont, but because I think it's important that Democrats try to find some unity around the most important issues that they'll be facing this fall and in 08.

Just my uninformed $.02...

malphigian

07-24-2006, 09:51 AM

I love reading non-Democrats lecturing about what the party they should do, and what a "Good Democrat" is. Very entertaining.
Who did that?

David Brooks. His description was:
"What's happening to Lieberman can only be described as a liberal inquisition," writes Brooks. "Whether you agree with him or not, he is transparently the most kind-hearted and well-intentioned of men. But over the past few years he has been subjected to a vituperation campaign that only experts in moral manias and mob psychology are really fit to explain."

Now, what David Brooks did is read the most venomous stuff he could from left wing blogs, and use that to paint all Lamont supporters. It's a fun trick, but I suspect many of the people set to vote for Lamont agree with Brooks that Lieberman is a nice guy, they just don't want him representing him anymore.

chumpface

07-24-2006, 09:52 AM

Not One Of Us

07-24-2006, 10:29 AM

He's a libertarian dream candidate, pretty much. Or at least what I thought a libertarian was until somehow they ended up supporting Big Government/Big Brother republicanism.
Buh ?

Jason McCullough

07-24-2006, 10:38 AM

I guess it says how much I can't stand the guy that I'd entirely forgotten about him trying to sell out social security.

Jake Plane

07-24-2006, 10:49 AM

I'm no fan of Lieberman, but frankly, I've become a fan of Lamont. According to his web page, besides the obvious stuff like the Iraq war, he's firmly pro-choice, pro-alternative energy, pro-civil liberties, pro-gay marriage, pro fiscal conservatism, etc.

He's a libertarian dream candidate, pretty much. Or at least what I thought a libertarian was until somehow they ended up supporting Big Government/Big Brother republicanism.

Irony:
Lieberman is pro-choice
Lieberman is pro-alternative energy
Lieberman is pro-civil liberties
Lieberman is pro-fiscal conservatism.

Basically the only thing he's not on your lists is pro-gay marriage, but he is strong proponent of domestic partnerships and ensuring gays have equal protections under law.

And this, Aleck, is what I was referring to. I have no qualms with anyone saying they're not going to vote for Lieberman because of his position on the war. Or that he's too pious for your tastes. Or because you just don't like the fact that he looks like the guy from Alf.

What does bother me is when people imply or assume that he's not a Democrat.

(and I understand that you don't fall into that category)

Jason McCullough

07-24-2006, 11:01 AM

Glenn

07-24-2006, 11:27 AM

The easiest one (http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=249522).

In an article making a space cadet argument for "bipartisan unity" in favor of Bush's dipshit foreign policy:
Sorry about the delay, I was out of town. In response to your link, I do not find it to be sufficiently inflammatory to merit your description. I think a more fitting description of Lieberman's statements would be that he is acting the part of a centrist douchebag that fancies himself a statesman. However, considering that there is no shortage of those in the Democratic party, I don't think that that merits dislodging a stable incumbent with a questionable newcomer.

My offer is still on the table. To whatever extent you can trust a guy on the internet, I assure you it was and is legitimate.

malphigian

07-24-2006, 11:30 AM

Dave Markell

07-24-2006, 11:40 AM

Or at least what I thought a libertarian was until somehow they ended up supporting Big Government/Big Brother republicanism.

Say what??? I'm libertarian, and I can't stand the neo-cons and Bush. The vast majority of self-identified libertarians feel the same way. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Jake Plane

07-24-2006, 11:46 AM

Something that just came to mind - can you name a significant thing he's done or pushed for on any of those isssues? By contrast, on the issues that specifically piss us off (Iraq, social security, etc.) there's big glaring awful things he was a critical supporter of.

Sure.

CHOICE:
Only Senatorial 04 who returned to vote on partial birth. Still don't believe me? Take it up with Planned Parenthood and NARAL. They endorsed him.

ENVIRONMENT:
Lieberman led the fight against drilling in ANWR. And every time it has come up (and it has come up repeatedly), he has taken the lead, time and again. Still don't believe me? Take it up with the Sierra Club. He also supports Kyoto.

CIVIL RIGHTS:
The man risked his life to allow African Americans to vote. He's consistently voted for affirmative action every time it's been on the floor. He also voted against Alito's nomination (his "bad" Alito vote was not to support the filibuster - contrary to hyperbole he did not vote for Alito).

FISCAL CONSERVATISM:
Lieberman voted against every Bush tax cut.

And beyond these things, when he ran for President he called for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts, expanding health care, making serious investments in alternative energies and called for raising the mileage standard to 40mpg, came out against laws that focused on gay sex and sodomy, lashed out against Bush pre-emptive war doctrine, called for fairer trade standards, etc.

Mike O'Malley

07-24-2006, 11:53 AM

He "risked his life to allow African Americans to vote"?

Jake Plane

07-24-2006, 11:57 AM

He "risked his life to allow African Americans to vote"?

Yes. That's right. He organized the students of Yale, chartered a bus, went down to Mississippi with them and protested. He then went door to door and tried to register voters. It's easy for us to look back now and think it's absurd to think that someone would want to stop someone from voting based on their skin color...

But people did. And they killed people who went down there to do just that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Civil_Rights_Workers_Murders

Talisker

07-24-2006, 11:58 AM

He "risked his life to allow African Americans to vote"?
There were instances where the KKK killed activists from the North who worked voter registrations in the deep South in the late 60's. Definitely not a risk-free activity.

Mike O'Malley

07-24-2006, 12:04 PM

Damn....I guess growing up a PA redneck gives you a blind spot for that kind of stuff.

Aleck

07-24-2006, 12:07 PM

Irony:
Lieberman is pro-choice
Lieberman is pro-alternative energy
Lieberman is pro-civil liberties
Lieberman is pro-fiscal conservatism.

Basically the only thing he's not on your lists is pro-gay marriage, but he is strong proponent of domestic partnerships and ensuring gays have equal protections under law.

And this, Aleck, is what I was referring to. I have no qualms with anyone saying they're not going to vote for Lieberman because of his position on the war. Or that he's too pious for your tastes. Or because you just don't like the fact that he looks like the guy from Alf.

What does bother me is when people imply or assume that he's not a Democrat.

(and I understand that you don't fall into that category)

Saying Lieberman isn't a Democrat is definitely going a bit far. The Democratic party is a big tent.

Would it be safe to say that Lieberman is in the conservative wing of the Democratic party? I think so. He seems to be cut from the same cloth as a lot of the New England Republicans, at least in general terms. Of course, both conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans are endangered species in the Northeast...

I think Lieberman's policies have pissed off a lot of folks who find themselves wondering whether he's the right guy to represent them. But to say he's not a Democrat? It's akin to those R's who say Chafee or Snowe aren't Republicans. Lieberman isn't a liberal Democrat, but he's definitely a Democrat.

noun

07-24-2006, 12:07 PM

Something that just came to mind - can you name a significant thing he's done or pushed for on any of those isssues?

EXACTLY. And this is an issue I have with many Democrats, not just Lieberman. They don't go out of their way to campaign for and advance these stances they allegedly support. A quiet Democrat is the same thing as a closet Republican if they don't dissent.

Jake Plane

07-24-2006, 12:16 PM

EXACTLY. And this is an issue I have with many Democrats, not just Lieberman. They don't go out of their way to campaign for and advance these stances they allegedly support. A quiet Democrat is the same thing as a closet Republican if they don't dissent.

See above. Lieberman is certainly a leader on the environment and a more reliable vote on choice than the last two Democratic nominees. I'd say he's gone out of his way to advance these stances.

And lest you forget, many Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts. Why? It was politically popular. They didn't want to vote against 'em and pay a political price. Lieberman didn't. He said it was wrong and unfair and voted against.

On health care, he may not have been Dick Gephardt crazy ($2 trillion health care plan - one so massive it made Dean criticize the scope of it) but he was better than John Edwards and on par with John Kerry.

So... I'd say Lieberman has spoken out on core Democratic issues.

If you don't like him for other reasons - the war, you're a single issue voter (video games), you have some lithmus test he fails to pass or he's just plain pissed you off over the years - then that's your right.

But Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. He's fought for Democratic causes. He was on the Democratic ticket in 2000. He ran for the Democratic nomination.

To say he's not or that he's a "silent" one flies in the face of facts and common sense.

Jake Plane

07-24-2006, 12:21 PM

Saying Lieberman isn't a Democrat is definitely going a bit far. The Democratic party is a big tent.

Would it be safe to say that Lieberman is in the conservative wing of the Democratic party? I think so. He seems to be cut from the same cloth as a lot of the New England Republicans, at least in general terms. Of course, both conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans are endangered species in the Northeast...

I think Lieberman's policies have pissed off a lot of folks who find themselves wondering whether he's the right guy to represent them. But to say he's not a Democrat? It's akin to those R's who say Chafee or Snowe aren't Republicans. Lieberman isn't a liberal Democrat, but he's definitely a Democrat.

Bingo. Lieberman is a centrist. He is a member of the DLC. He is fiscally conservative and a hawk to boot. He's in support of vouchers on an experimental, limited basis. And he's said that one day he hopes there will not be a need for affirmative action (but in the mean time, has voted for it every single time it's come up for debate on the Senate floor).

But none of these things takes away from the fact that he's a fierce environmentalist, a strong advocate for choice, a friend of labor, pro-affirmative action, supports expanding health care, wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts and is against the Bush doctrine of pre-emption.

Or put another way - Joe Lieberman is a true, blue solid-to-the-core Democrat on the vast majority of social issues that most Democrats would say are important to them and a conservative on the economy and foreign policy.

chumpface

07-24-2006, 01:03 PM

Sure.

CHOICE:
Only Senatorial 04 who returned to vote on partial birth. Still don't believe me? Take it up with Planned Parenthood and NARAL. They endorsed him.

ENVIRONMENT:
Lieberman led the fight against drilling in ANWR. And every time it has come up (and it has come up repeatedly), he has taken the lead, time and again. Still don't believe me? Take it up with the Sierra Club. He also supports Kyoto.

CIVIL RIGHTS:
The man risked his life to allow African Americans to vote. He's consistently voted for affirmative action every time it's been on the floor. He also voted against Alito's nomination (his "bad" Alito vote was not to support the filibuster - contrary to hyperbole he did not vote for Alito).

FISCAL CONSERVATISM:
Lieberman voted against every Bush tax cut.

And beyond these things, when he ran for President he called for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts, expanding health care, making serious investments in alternative energies and called for raising the mileage standard to 40mpg, came out against laws that focused on gay sex and sodomy, lashed out against Bush pre-emptive war doctrine, called for fairer trade standards, etc.

This is true, with some key exceptions. However, there is one thing that is central to why I am so soured on Lieberman:

""It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years," the senator said. "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

This sentence sent chills up and down my spine. I won't even mention what he did to Clinton during wartime, as frankly, I'm a big fan of distrusting all politicians, 365 days a year. Add his comments about refusing service to rape victims, his Terri Schiavo position, and his delusional views on the current situation in Iraq, I'm pretty much solidly ready for a change.

The way Lieberman's supporters have defended him (not you, Jake, I think your comments have been quite well-grounded) have also been a cause of worry. They seem to feel that the disquiet over Lieberman are related to either anti-semitism, or, as David Brooks put it, a sort of vendetta against him because he doesn't 100% toe the party line.

This simply isn't true. The point of a primary is for the party to identify the candidate who MOST CLOSELY reflects their beliefs and hopes. Though Lieberman fulfills this to a reasonably large degree, many feel that Lamont fulfills this to a larger degree. Hence, we want to see Lamont win.

chumpface

07-24-2006, 01:12 PM

Say what??? I'm libertarian, and I can't stand the neo-cons and Bush. The vast majority of self-identified libertarians feel the same way. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I am too (card-carrying literally!), or at least I thought I was until many leading GOPers started describing themselves as having libertarian leanings.

the labels these days have become almost meaningless. If you argue against forgeign adventures, you're a liberal. If you argue for warrentless wiretapping you're a conservative. They're no longer political parties. They're sports teams.

Jason McCullough

07-24-2006, 01:44 PM

Fair enough, Jake. I just don't see how any of that outweighs Iraq, Social Security, or that Schiavo mess. He can run as an independent, if he's so concerned with being independent. :)

shift6

07-24-2006, 02:05 PM

I am too (card-carrying literally!), or at least I thought I was until many leading GOPers started describing themselves as having libertarian leanings.

the labels these days have become almost meaningless. If you argue against forgeign adventures, you're a liberal. If you argue for warrentless wiretapping you're a conservative. They're no longer political parties. They're sports teams.
So then it's the right-wing douchebags trying to call themselves libertarian, not the libertarians who are cozying up to the right-wing. Yes?

Jake Plane

07-24-2006, 02:16 PM

Fair enough, Jake. I just don't see how any of that outweighs Iraq, Social Security, or that Schiavo mess. He can run as an independent, if he's so concerned with being independent. :)

Unfortunately, I think he is. And that's where I agree with the opinion of others here.

If Lieberman loses the primary, I think he should bow out. The only rationale I can see for him staying in is that he feels Lamont can't win in the general.

But given that he didn't think Lamont could beat him in the primary, I'm not sure his political acumen carries that much weight.

My guess: Losing the primary will change the political equation for Lieberman quickly and radically. Meaning, he may be forced to drop out... twice.

Dave Markell

07-24-2006, 02:20 PM

So then it's the right-wing trying to call themselves libertarian, not the libertarians who are cozying up to the right-wing. Yes?

Yes. I think they realize, on some level, that they've completely alienated the libertarian segment of the electorate and hope that if they claim to have "leanings" that we'll be dumb enough to ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary and believe them. Dream on, fools.

chumpface

07-24-2006, 03:18 PM

So then it's the right-wing douchebags trying to call themselves libertarian, not the libertarians who are cozying up to the right-wing. Yes?

Hell if I know. I can't speak for others.

Andrew Mayer

07-24-2006, 11:37 PM

You know, if Lieberman has done all these great things, why is he running this wierd campaign of entitlement.

I think, in the end, the strangest thing is how little Lieberman had to do right to make this thing go his way, and how totally he failed to do that.

Jake Plane

07-25-2006, 04:38 AM

You know, if Lieberman has done all these great things, why is he running this wierd campaign of entitlement.

Lieberman is running a standard, "Here's my record, who is this other guy? Let me raise doubts"-incumbent-in-trouble campaign. Not sure what you're referring to when you say "weird campaign of entitlement."

I think, in the end, the strangest thing is how little Lieberman had to do right to make this thing go his way, and how totally he failed to do that.

This I agree with. Lieberman's problems are of his own creation. Here is a politician that prides himself on not being easily defined, on being a different kind of Democrat, on not being a bumpersticker politician.

And yet... he's been easily defined as not a Democrat, as a negative bumper sticker pol.

Compare this to McCain. McCain certainly seeks to define himself as a different kind of Republican, a truth teller, a moderate. In reality, he's a conservative. And even when he's moving even further to the right to capture his party's nomination, he's doing so in a way that's so far protective of this more moderate image.

malphigian

07-31-2006, 07:20 AM

Couple interesting updates on this race:

1. The NY Times has endorsed Lamont (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/opinion/30sun1.html) --
Sums up a lot of my problems with Lieberman pretty well, but it's obviously more about disliking him than it is about liking Lamont. Lamont, as we've said already in this thread, is pretty much an unknown.

2. Lieberman makes an ass out of himself again (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/opinion/30sun1.html):
He[Michael Schiavo] said he decided to target Lieberman after watching him make the rounds of national Sunday talk shows supporting the government's right to intervene in his wife's case.

"Joe Lieberman never met me; he never met Terri," Schiavo said Friday. "Joe Lieberman didn't know anything about us or what Terri wanted, but that didn't stop him from saying on national TV that he and George Bush knew better."

Lieberman's response:
Lieberman on Friday said Schiavo's "tragic story" has no place in the campaign.

"It's time, isn't it, for politicians to let Terry Schiavo rest in peace,"

Pretty hard to fathom that that is his response, I don't think you get the moral high ground on this one, Joe.

Jake Plane

07-31-2006, 07:31 AM

Lieberman was also endorsed by the two major Connecticut papers, the Hartford Courant and Connecticut Post.

Look at the Lieberman record. It spans more than 35 years of elected public service starting in 1970 when he was first elected to the state Senate, continuing in 1982 with his election as state attorney general, one of the first ‘activist’ attorney generals in the nation and then on to three terms in the U.S. Senate. There have been many times when we’ve disagreed with the senator, but his overall record is commendable and the record of a fighter who has been there for Connecticut.

The NYT endorsement will create an earned media problem for Lieberman as the endorsement will be part of the local coverage.

But in the endorsement race, I'd think having the hometown papers and the titular head of the Democratic party, Bill Clinton, may matter more in the end.

And my guess is that Carter Eskew has probably already cut an ad for Lieberman highlighting those endorsements, combatting the earned media with a paid media blitz.

Andrew Mayer

07-31-2006, 08:23 PM

It's going to come down to GOTV in the end.

Clinto and the endorsement of newspaper's that went for Bush in the last election may not have the effect you think.

Lieberman is spewing money at this point, and bringing in out of state endorsements to the tuen of $100,000 a day, but it (hopefully) won't be enough.

Aleck

08-01-2006, 07:02 AM

McCain certainly seeks to define himself as a different kind of Republican, a truth teller, a moderate. In reality, he's a fucking lunatic with a bad temper who's now willing to abandon his "principles" willy nilly in order to get votes conservative.

Fixed that for ya, Jake (sorry -- too many years working on telecom issues have given me a very different view of McCain than what he portrays publicly. If he ever gets elected, I'm moving to the South Pacific because that's the only place he's not likely to attempt to blow up in a fit of pique).

Also of note from Sunday: Lieberman picked up the endorsement of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/29/AR2006072900680.html), largely because they think he builds bridges across party lines. Now, I don't know that I agree that he builds bridges (in large part because I think building bridges means you need to bring some folks from your side of the table with you, and I think he largely just jumps ship, rather than building bridges), but I do find it interesting that Lamont's endorsement by the NYT is all over the place but no one mentions the Washington Post's endorsement of good ol' Joe.

I think, for the record, that running on a "here's my record" stance is pretty useless when your party has been out of power for the last 6 years and hasn't really managed to get a damn thing done. Lieberman's "record" for the last six years, at least in voting for things that actually passed, doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that Democrats (even centrist Democrats, which, for the record, this administration has treated as badly as it has treated moderate Republicans) would be terribly supportive of. Do you disagree? I mean, the issues he's trying to play up (the environment, choice, fiscal conservativism, civil rights) have all taken a HUGE beating during the last six years, and Lieberman's "leadership" doesn't seem to have made the least bit of difference on these issues. On the other hand, Lieberman's stance on Iraq, Schiavo, etc. have made a huge difference in terms of giving Bush a fig leaf of bipartisanship on some critical issues that the Democrats should have been busy shoving down his throat.

Are there issues I'm missing where Lieberman has made a big difference in the last 6 years that aren't negatives for him in the primary?

Jake Plane

08-01-2006, 07:48 AM

First, I find it weird responding to anything Aleck posts. Unlike the rest of you, I actually know Aleck, so it just adds texture to everything (for example, I know for a fact that Aleck is in fact Joe Lieberman).

Agree on McCain - far more conservative than people realize.
Agree on Washington Post being buried. I mean... seriously, the coverage of Lieberman's campaign, love or hate him, has been one sided.

Disagree on the "here's my record" stance. Yes, Democrats are out of power and as a minority party don't control the levers of government. But they can still run on their record (voted against Bush's tax cuts, war, social security plan, proposal to drill into ANWR and voted for port inspections, a minimum wage increase, etc.)

Lastly Joe... I mean Aleck, I think Lieberman made the biggest difference on ANWR. He led the fight and it's been successful each time. He also is responsible for the creation of the department of Homeland Security, which initially Bush fought against. Of course, he can't take full credit for either since the votes and political will were there.

However, the flipside of that also holds true. Lieberman voted against the Bush tax cuts and voted against Alito. The fact that both passed really can't be held against him either. He was on the right side of the issue. But the fact of the matter was the votes and political will of others weren't there.

Aleck

08-01-2006, 10:55 AM

It is pretty damn funny to be discussing with "Jake" online. :)

I didn't realize that Lieberman's role in ANWR was that pivotal. Interesting, esp. since it's probably the biggest (only?) environmental victory over the Administration. On the rest... Well, Democratic leadership has been something of an oxymoron for a bit (not that there's been any effective Republican leadership, either).

I do love that you posted the poll on Qt3 pet peeves right about the same time you responded to my post. Coincidence?

At least we're 100% in the right place on Powderkeg McCain.

Jake Plane

08-01-2006, 11:03 AM

I do love that you posted the poll on Qt3 pet peeves right about the same time you responded to my post. Coincidence?

Entirely, I can assure you. Though... I'm now tempted to call you a name, follow that up with a curse word, start a new thread called "Lieberman: Career Ending?" and then finish all that off with a "FIXED!" posting.

Jake Plane

08-02-2006, 07:04 AM

This just in... Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are going to Connecticut to campaign... for Lamont.

How the hell did Sharpton become a figure in Democratic politics?

Either way, I agree with Andrew Meyer on this. GOTV will determine this race. And while Lieberman has brought in a ground game expert, he did so late in the game. My prediction: he wins over older, less educated and less affluent women. All other categories go to Lamont. Based on that, Lamont wins.

Lizard_King

08-02-2006, 07:31 AM

Lamont was pretty impressive on Colbert. I'd give him a shot if I were in his district, assuming his platform really is the concepts he floated on the show.

arctangent

08-02-2006, 07:43 AM

If all else fails, Joe, make that call to Diebold. Do it today.

Aleck

08-02-2006, 03:13 PM

This just in... Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are going to Connecticut to campaign... for Lamont.

There's got to be a point where this becomes a liability for Lamont, rather than Lieberman. I mean, good God, do people actually listen to Sharpton and Jackson?

Glenn

08-02-2006, 03:17 PM

How the hell did Sharpton become a figure in Democratic politics?
One good speech at the 2004 convention. It's.... a conundrum.

Bob Cherub

08-02-2006, 03:18 PM

How about Jane Hamsher's blog at the Huffington Post doctoring a picture of Lieberman to have blackface.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/on-the-ground-with-lamont_b_26316.html

The pic is gone now cause the news spread to other blog sites, but the comments remain:

BTW, what's with the blatantly racist pic? Is it supposed to show Bubba with his personal tarbaby?
------
Putting Lieberman in blackface is just disgusting.

It is not funny. It makes no reasonable point. It is simply demeaning to Lieberman - and to all of us.

Imagine if the Drudge Report had a photo of Clinton in blackface. Imagine the reaction from some people...

This is beyond the pale.
------
As a Black male, I find this highly offensive and racist.

This is not funny. Not one bit.

I thought "progressives" were supposed to be like.. you know like NOT RACIST and stuff.

Sorry to interrupt any usual Democrats are perfect conversations. Carry on.

Glenn

08-02-2006, 03:25 PM

Dear Bob: Including the comments by progressives who were offended by the picture runs contrary to your intended argument that progressives are closet bigots.

Sincerely,
Glenn

Andrew Mayer

08-02-2006, 05:27 PM

There's got to be a point where this becomes a liability for Lamont, rather than Lieberman. I mean, good God, do people actually listen to Sharpton and Jackson?
Lieberman has been pushing hard to try and get the African-American vote on his side. That was what the Clinton thing was all about.

He's even gone so far as distributing flyers to the churches accusing Lamont of racism (http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/liebermans-shameless-race-baiting.html),and now he's hiring the College Republicans (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/2/14247/70377)to do his ground/dirty work.

Jake Plane

08-02-2006, 06:24 PM

I thought "progressives" were supposed to be like.. you know like NOT RACIST and stuff.

Sorry to interrupt any usual Democrats are perfect conversations. Carry on.

Ignorance crosses all political stripes, though it does seem to spend more time visiting on the right for some reason.

Jake Plane

08-02-2006, 06:34 PM

Lieberman has been pushing hard to try and get the African-American vote on his side. That was what the Clinton thing was all about.

He's even gone so far as distributing flyers to the churches accusing Lamont of racism (http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/liebermans-shameless-race-baiting.html),and now he's hiring the College Republicans (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/2/14247/70377)to do his ground/dirty work.

No one should throw around the racist card lightly. But no one should make accusations of race baiting lightly either.

That flier does not accuse Lamont of being a racist. The front talks about Lieberman's civil rights record and the back quotes Lamont - in his own words - appearing indifferent to the fact that his country club was possibly all white. And worse, seemingly only bothered by it - again by his own admission - when he felt it could become a political liability. Pointing this out does not mean that Lamont is racist. But he does seem blithely indifferent.

Think of it this way: If Lamont were a Republican, I doubt anyone would raise a hue and a cry about this point. It was right to point out Trent Lott's insensitivity using his own words against him. It's right to do so here.

And also for the record, Lieberman is not "hiring" college Republicans to work for him or do his dirty work. It's fair to say they're organizing on his behalf and raising the point of what that means about Lieberman (the company he attracts though not necessarily keeps). But they hyperbole of him organizing them is just absurd.

SlyFrog

08-02-2006, 06:41 PM

And also for the record, Lieberman is not "hiring" college Republicans to work for him or do his dirty work. It's fair to say they're organizing on his behalf and raising the point of what that means about Lieberman (the company he attracts though not necessarily keeps). But they hyperbole of him organizing them is just absurd.

I absolutely agree regarding the race baiting issue. Just idiots throwing around dangerous words again hoping they will stick, when they really do not apply based on the facts.

I was totally in agreement with respect to the College Republicans issue, provided that I did notice that the campaign was paying for their food and lodging. Still a hell of a long way short of hiring them.

But again, he's not in line with the hatred and frothing, so it's time to smear his name.

Jake Plane

08-02-2006, 06:42 PM

This just in... rumor has tomorrow's poll will have a 15 point difference... in Lamont's favor. We'll see if true come tomorrow.

Jake Plane

08-03-2006, 05:14 AM

Rumor was accurate. There's a new Quinnipiac University poll (http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/08/03/new_poll_shows_lieberman_losing_more_ground_to_lam ont?mode=PF) out and the difference is 13 points.

New poll shows Lieberman losing more ground to Lamont

HARTFORD, Conn. --Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, a political novice fueled by deep pockets and voters' outrage over the Iraq war, has extended his lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a new poll released Thursday.

Lamont has support from 54 percent of likely Democrat voters in the new Quinnipiac University poll, while Lieberman has support from 41 percent of voters. A similar poll July 20 showed Lamont with a slight advantage for the first time in the campaign.

"Sen. Lieberman's campaign bus seems to be stuck in reverse," poll director Douglas Schwartz said. "Despite visits from former President Bill Clinton and other big-name Democrats, Lieberman has not been able to stem the tide to Lamont."

Only 5 percent of Democratic primary voters remain undecided and 85 percent of those who've chosen a candidate said their minds are made up, the poll found. Among Lamont's supporters, 65 percent said their vote is mainly against Lieberman... The telephone survey of 890 likely Democratic primary voters was conducted from July 25-31. It has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

arctangent

08-03-2006, 07:09 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/440252p-370892c.html

Embattled Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman - facing a possible primary defeat Tuesday because of his strong backing for the Iraq war - yesterday launched a Hail Mary attack on the Bush administration's handling of the war.

"I supported our war in Iraq but I have always questioned the way it was being executed," Lieberman said.

Jason McCullough

08-03-2006, 09:14 AM

LesJarvis

08-03-2006, 09:40 AM

Could this potentially signal a scenario for the Democrats similar to what Mccain has had to do with the religious right? What I mean is, are they going to get the best results by being heavily against the war in primaries and then swinging back towards the middle for the general election?

Andrew Mayer

08-03-2006, 01:19 PM

The middle?

Despite the corporate media's poor reporting, the polling clearly shows that the majority of the country is heavily against the war.

Bob Cherub

08-03-2006, 01:23 PM

Dear Bob: Including the comments by progressives who were offended by the picture runs contrary to your intended argument that progressives are closet bigots.

Sincerely,
Glenn

Actually, that wasn't my argument. My "argument" if I was going to make one was that progressives can get away with racism, regardless if they are or not.

LesJarvis

08-03-2006, 01:25 PM

The middle?

Despite the corporate media's poor reporting, the polling clearly shows that the majority of the country is heavily against the war.

Yeah, that was phrased poorly. Maybe slightly more towards a middlish area would be more accurate.

Or perhaps it was just kind of a dumb thought. Wouldn't be the first time.

Jason McCullough

08-03-2006, 01:26 PM

Bob, I don't see how "progressive blogger puts up blackface photo of Leiberman, catches uniform hell from other progressives about it, and pulls it" is "getting away with racism."

Jake Plane

08-03-2006, 03:45 PM

Bob, I don't see how "progressive blogger puts up blackface photo of Leiberman, catches uniform hell from other progressives about it, and pulls it" is "getting away with racism."

I wouldn't say he got away with it either in that there was an outcry from the on-line community...

But if a well known Republican blogger put up a photo like that, say during the Republican primaries, there likely would have been a media frenzy.

Just didn't happen here.

Also initially didn't happen when Trent Lott made his remarks. It took Al Gore raising it in an interview with Judy Woodruff to bring it back on the radar.

Lott initially "got away with" his comments. I'd say this blogger did too, in terms of wider press coverage.

Jake Plane

08-03-2006, 03:47 PM

I wonder how badly he has to lose the primary before he gives up on the independt bid?

Somehow I think Leiberman lying about his Iraq position won't help. Either admit you were wrong or stick with it....

I think that's a great question. I think that's THE question actually, since I think it's all but a given that he's going to lose.

My prediction is that he won't run.

Lieberman's world is growing ever smaller and will become even more so come Wednesday of next week. Staff and supporters will publicly say they won't support him if he stays in and he'll play the spoiler role in the eyes of the press.

Matthew Gallant

08-03-2006, 04:09 PM

Jake Plane

08-03-2006, 04:14 PM

If there's no national outcry against this Republican running for congress in North Carolina (http://vernonrobinson.com/media/miller_mariachi.mp3), nobody is going to care what a no-name blogger on a free-for-all blogpit did and then undid.

This guy won his party's primary election.

But my guess would be that Bob would say that that idiot got away with something also.

The question isn't was there or wasn't there an outcry. The question is: Should there have been an outcry.

I'd say in all three instances cited, there should have been.
* Lott deserved what he got.
* I can't imagine under what circumstances the usage of black face for political reasons would be acceptable today
* Ditto the NC race

Glenn

08-03-2006, 04:28 PM

Was anyone here aware of this blogger before Liebermaninphotoshoppedblackfacegate? Maybe the lack of by the major media outlets was due to, I don't know, the fact that no one was reading the blog?

Jake Plane

08-03-2006, 04:42 PM

Was anyone here aware of this blogger before Liebermaninphotoshoppedblackfacegate? Maybe the lack of by the major media outlets was due to, I don't know, the fact that no one was reading the blog?

Fair point. But this just wasn't some random blogger. Apparently, Lamont's campaign linked to the blogger. The blogger traveled with Lamont and raised money for him.

I could easily see a little known Republican blogger aligned with McCain putting up a blackface photo during the GOP primary and suddenly getting tons of media attention.

Jason McCullough

08-03-2006, 04:59 PM

arctangent

08-03-2006, 06:11 PM

Was anyone here aware of this blogger before Liebermaninphotoshoppedblackfacegate? Maybe the lack of by the major media outlets was due to, I don't know, the fact that no one was reading the blog?

You kidding?

http://firedoglake.com/

One of the most widely read progressive blogs.
As for the picture, she has apologized for it (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/02/about-that-graphic/).

Jason McCullough

08-03-2006, 06:33 PM

Widely read my ass, I've only seen her linked a couple times.

arctangent

08-03-2006, 06:41 PM

Widely read my ass, I've only seen her linked a couple times.

Your ass is wrong.

Glenn

08-03-2006, 07:38 PM

You kidding?

http://firedoglake.com/

One of the most widely read progressive blogs.
I stand corrected. That is, in fact, a fairly widely read blog.

Jake Plane

08-03-2006, 07:38 PM

Is media bias like the fallback line for every argument now? :)

I can't imagine more than a one-day flipout, tops, about a blogger no one has ever heard of that was a minor supporter of McCain doing this.

Agreed. But it's more than what was given this woman. All I'm saying is that I think it should have happened on the Republican side and that same standard should be held on the Democratic side.

Mind you: this has nothing to do with Lieberman vs. Lamont. It comes down to whether racial insensitivity should be unfairly weighed against one party or another. And while I'm certainly not pro-Republican, I'm also not for excepting one party from racial insensitivity.

Andrew Mayer

08-03-2006, 09:18 PM

Michelle Malkin went ballistic over this, and I'm guessing her own racist tendencies have muted its effect somewhat.

Anders Hallin

08-04-2006, 01:23 AM

Agreed. But it's more than what was given this woman. All I'm saying is that I think it should have happened on the Republican side and that same standard should be held on the Democratic side.
You might be interested in reading these articles:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607150001
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/journalists-its-time-for-some-articles.html

triggercut

08-04-2006, 01:37 AM

BTW, we are able to distinguish between an amateur blogger and a United States Senator when we compare the hue and cry against each respective one for being racially insensitive, right?

SlyFrog

08-04-2006, 06:10 AM

BTW, we are able to distinguish between an amateur blogger and a United States Senator when we compare the hue and cry against each respective one for being racially insensitive, right?

Of course. For example, look at McKinney (I hope a member of the House is close enough to a Senator).

Andrew Mayer

08-04-2006, 08:45 AM

Looks like it's all over but the shouting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300597.html):

Democratic challenger Ned Lamont, riding strong antiwar sentiment, has surged to a significant lead over embattled Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) heading into Tuesday's Senate primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released here Thursday.

The poll showed Lamont ahead of Lieberman by 54 percent to 41 percent, underscoring the challenger's clear advantage.

Facing a likely defeat, Lieberman has scrapped plans for a massive and costly get-out-the-vote operation on primary day, according to several Democratic sources. Instead, he will shift some of his resources into more television commercials designed to highlight his accomplishments for the state, in hopes of boosting his battered image.

Now Lamont just has to win by a large enough margin that it shuts down Joe's independant bid.

Jason McCullough

08-04-2006, 09:02 AM

BTW, we are able to distinguish between an amateur blogger and a United States Senator when we compare the hue and cry against each respective one for being racially insensitive, right?

Crazy talk! And I still say blogger popularity on the left is defined by whether I subscribe to them or not.

Glenn

08-04-2006, 09:23 AM

In Jason's case, that might actually be a fair metric.

Squirrel Killer

08-04-2006, 10:05 AM

Wow, scrapping GOTV for ads? Yeah, he's going to lose. How does the polling break down with Joe running as an independent in the general?

Jake Plane

08-04-2006, 02:20 PM

Wow, scrapping GOTV for ads? Yeah, he's going to lose. How does the polling break down with Joe running as an independent in the general?

That's the big question. Before this recent round of polling, Lieberman was still head and shoulders the winner.

But he was also 45 points ahead of Lamont at one point.

If (okay, when) Lieberman loses on Tuesday, those numbers are going to tumble.

Andrew Mayer

08-04-2006, 07:31 PM

Now I'm reading rumors that the "no GOTV" is intentional misinformation. But either way I don't think Lamont is going to slow down until the lection is over.

Jake Plane

08-05-2006, 02:18 PM

Well, first of all, what was reported was that GOTV had been curtailed, not eliminated.

But that said, it's not intentional misinformation. Or I can't imagine it is. It only makes the Lieberman campaign look more desperate.

My guess: tomorrow's papers have some reference to the field guy Lieberman hired returning to DC.

AndrewM

08-05-2006, 09:14 PM

I think all this excitement means I've gotta vote in this primary. It will be my first EVAR.

Jake Plane

08-06-2006, 04:27 AM

malphigian

08-06-2006, 07:34 AM

Latest -

The New York Times endorsement of Lamont certainly got a lot of play. Less so is the fact that every major paper in Connecticut (that I'm aware of) has endorsed Joe Lieberman, including Lamont's hometown paper. With the exception of the New Haven Register.

That's the second time you've brought this up, and there's good reason people aren't making a big deal out of these endorsements. 2004 election endorsements (http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_endorsements.htm):
Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, 76,133)-- Bush
The Hartford Courant (187,394) -- Bush
New Haven Register (92,022) -- Bush

So great, 3 papers who endorsed Bush in the last presidental election support Lieberman in the democratic primary. If anything, that's a mark in Lamont's favor.

Dave47

08-06-2006, 04:57 PM

So great, 3 papers who endorsed Bush in the last presidental election support Lieberman in the democratic primary. If anything, that's a mark in Lamont's favor.
You're missing Jake’s point. It's not just right-leaning papers that have endorsed Lieberman. The papers that endorsed Kerry in 2004 have also endorsed Lieberman.

malphigian

08-06-2006, 05:19 PM

You're missing Jake’s point. It's not just right-leaning papers that have endorsed Lieberman. The papers that endorsed Kerry in 2004 have also endorsed Lieberman.

Hmm, I really am. The only papers I saw him mention where the three I listed above, who all endorsed Bush in 2004. Must have missed the others he mentioned.

The site I linked mentioned only 2 CT papers who endorsed Kerry in 2004:
The Day (New London, 39,553)
The Stamford Advocate (27,350)
Both are exceedingly small circulation, I'd be willing to bet far more people in CT read the NY times that those two combined. But you're right that they both endorsed Lieberman. Apologies to Jake for missing that point.

Anyway, my point stands on the three biggest papers in CT. They obviously have a right wing editorial staff, so it's not really a surprise they like Lieberman over Lamont.

Jake Plane

08-06-2006, 07:25 PM

New Q poll coming out tomorrow... Rumor is that there's a movement toward Lieberman, but who knows.

Huzurdaddi

08-06-2006, 09:25 PM

No kidding there will be some movement towards Lieberman. "this week" did a total hatchet job on Lamont. His answers were cut off time and time again. And Howard Dean's little brother James did a horrible job on Meet the Press missing opening after opening, I'll have to watch it again to see if Tim Russert influenced James, it could just be that James is not a debater.

Oh and since everyone is saying what a wonderful progressive Lieberman is, I thought I would check his record. I went to ProgressivePunch.org ( which does not seem to like Lieberman ) and took their rankings and then cross referenced those rankings with the rankings of the states they represent from the 2004 elections. Guess what happened? Lieberman was dead last of all Democrats ( followed by Thomas Carper, no one was close to these jokers ). Lieberman a progressive, what a freaking joke.

Jake Plane

08-06-2006, 09:45 PM

Lieberman a progressive, what a freaking joke.

* Lieberman voted against every Bush tax cut, every time they came up.
* He voted against Social Security privatization.
* He led the Senate Democrats in the fight to protect the Arctic Refuge.
* He has voted for affirmative action every time it has been on the floor.
* He is one of the most pro-choice and pro-environment Senators in the U.S. Senate, endorsed by NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the LCV and the Sierra Club.
* He voted against Alito
* He has proposed expanding health care along the same lines Dean did.
* He and Ted Kennedy see eye-to-eye on education with the sole exception of Lieberman's support of vouchers, a position that he shares with other Democrats such as Biden and Moniyhan.

Lieberman is a progressive. If you don't like him for other reasons, that's fine. But to say the man, who according to National Journal is one of the most socially progressive sitting US Senators alive today, is not progressive is simply misinformed at best, purposely distortive at worst.

Jason McCullough

08-06-2006, 09:53 PM

Monyihan's kind of dead. :)

Huzurdaddi

08-06-2006, 09:56 PM

is not progressive is simply misinformed at best, purposely distortive at worst.

Whatever, pal. He does not rank highly in terms of senators. I have seen his ranking between #16 among democrats to #39. And, using the rankings from the 2004 election, he comes from the 7th most liberal state in the union.

There is no need for Connecticut to send a Zell Miller impersonator as their representative to the senate.

Jake Plane

08-06-2006, 10:02 PM

Whatever, pal. He does not rank highly in terms of senators. I have seen his ranking between #16 among democrats to #39. And, using the rankings from the 2004 election, he comes from the 7th most liberal state in the union.

There is no need for Connecticut to send a Zell Miller impersonator as their representative to the senate.

My cite is National Journal, one of Washington DC's premier political publications. What's yours?

And more importantly, how do you reconcile equating Lieberman as a Zell Miller like figure given all of the points I cited. Feel free to refute each if you don't think they are indicative of how progressive he is. But at least address the substance.

Again, if you don't like his position on the war, fine. If you think he was wrong on the Schiavo case, fine. But anyone who claims Lieberman is not a Democrat or not progressive is wrong. The man is pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-environment, pro-civil rights, anti-Bush tax cut, anti-privatization, anti-Alito and anti-pre-emption doctrine.

Jake Plane

08-06-2006, 10:02 PM

Monyihan's kind of dead. :)

Or... is he?

Incendiary Lemon

08-06-2006, 10:11 PM

* Lieberman voted against every Bush tax cut, every time they came up.
* He voted against Social Security privatization.
* He led the Senate Democrats in the fight to protect the Arctic Refuge.
* He has voted for affirmative action every time it has been on the floor.
* He is one of the most pro-choice and pro-environment Senators in the U.S. Senate, endorsed by NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the LCV and the Sierra Club.
* He voted against Alito
* He has proposed expanding health care along the same lines Dean did.
* He and Ted Kennedy see eye-to-eye on education with the sole exception of Lieberman's support of vouchers, a position that he shares with other Democrats such as Biden and Moniyhan.

The * goes on the other end.

Unicorn McGriddle

08-06-2006, 10:14 PM

OH DAMN

Jake Plane

08-06-2006, 10:16 PM

Zell Miller voted for the Bush tax cuts. Lieberman voted against them.
Zell Miller spoke at the Republican convention on Bush's behalf. Lieberman ran against Bush twice.
Zell Miller is pro-life. Lieberman is pro-choice.
Zell Miller voted to drill in ANWR. Lieberman led the fight by Democrats to protect the Arctic Refuge.
Zell Miller has a 0% rating by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. Lieberman proposed expanding health care coverage to most of the nation.
Zell Miller started as a segregationist. Lieberman organized students to travel down to Mississippi to register African Americans to vote.

Jake Plane

08-06-2006, 10:17 PM

The * goes on the other end.

Feel free to elaborate. ON EACH. AND compare to other Democrats. I have no idea why people who don't like Lieberman just can't say: I don't like Lieberman but I fully admit that he's a Democrat and he's a progressive Senator. He just annoys me on X Y and Z.

Andrew Mayer

08-06-2006, 11:08 PM

Everything you listed was undone when Lieberman decided it was his duty to give cover time and time again to the Republicans so they could claim bipartisanship.

Jake Plane

08-07-2006, 02:42 AM

Oh puh-lease.

Again, if you are anti-war, think the guy is santicimonious as all get out, hate the fact that he speaks out on video games, dislike what he did Schiavo or still pissed that he criticized Clinton during impeachment, then that's a totally legitimate position to stake out.

But don't fool yourselves or respond with hyperbole when presented with the facts.

Lieberman is likely going down on Tuesday. But make no mistake - so too is a Democrat and a social progressive.

AndrewM

08-07-2006, 05:42 AM

Again, if you are anti-war, think the guy is santicimonious as all get out, hate the fact that he speaks out on video games, dislike what he did Schiavo or still pissed that he criticized Clinton during impeachment, then that's a totally legitimate position to stake out.

That's a good list of legit things to criticize him about. I think he annoys people for matters of style more than substance.

I'm still annoyed at Lieberman for being oddly passive in his vice presidential debate with Cheney. I thought that he was just kind of a passive guy until I saw him debating Lamont. He was quite feisty there! Why couldn't he have brought that kind of fire to a debate against a person of the opposite party for a high office? Aggravating. But yeah, he's certainly no Zell Miller.

malphigian

08-07-2006, 06:35 AM

That's a good list of legit things to criticize him about. I think he annoys people for matters of style more than substance.

I think we arrived at that list earlier in this very thread actually.

Jake has made the point several times that on many key issues, he is a tried and true democrat.

I thought this Salon article, written by someone who has covered CT politics for years, gave a good picture on why people dislike Lieberman:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/07/31/lieberman_times/

Excerpt:
Yet Lieberman's reputation in Connecticut is not purely that of an out-of-step conservative. It's much more complicated, and frustrating, than that. He's a serial raiser and dasher and re-raiser of hopes.

Gays trust him because he's voted with them on a lot of big issues, but they don't trust him because he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Once he even collaborated with Sen. Jesse Helms on a measure that would have stripped federal funding from public schools that counseled suicidal gay teens that their lifestyle was OK.

Women trust him because he's a reliable vote for abortion rights and don't trust him because he went off the reservation for the only significant vote (cloture) on the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. During the recent debate over requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraception for rape victims, Lieberman emitted a shockingly callous, and now famous, sound bite. He said it's never more than "a short car ride" in crowded Connecticut to a more accommodating hospital.
...
On the apocalyptic evangelist's "700 Club," Lieberman complained about moral relativism, said there was too little religion in public life, and said he was pleased that people of faith were taking their principles into the political arena.

Jake Plane

08-07-2006, 07:48 AM

As rumored, the latest and final poll shows the race closing. 51-45. The one before had the race at 54-41, I believe. That much of a close is significant in politics.

As Meyer said much earlier: the ground game will determine this race.

Andrew Mayer

08-07-2006, 08:41 AM

Oh puh-lease.

...

Lieberman is likely going down on Tuesday. But make no mistake - so too is a Democrat and a social progressive.

Michael Brown and Alito hearings. Debate with Cheney. Etc.

He's a progressive when it serves him, but not when it counts.

Jake Plane

08-07-2006, 09:57 AM

He voted against Alito. His debate against Cheney followed Gore's too-negative performance. It's in that context that Lieberman's pussycat performance happened.

And again, more importantly, see the list that has been put forward many times here. If you want to claim he's not a Democrat or a progressive, at least address the facts.

And while at it, be sure to explain why Bill Clinton, John Kerry, the DSCC, the Teamsters, LCV, HRC, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and Civil Rights leader John Lewis all endorsed.

Andrew, Joe Lieberman is both a Democrat and a progressive. He's also a guy who has pissed you off on several issues apparently. But turning a blind eye to the facts doesn't mean the facts go away.

I'm not even from Connecticut, nor can I vote in this race. It just bothers me that some on the left seem to give them man zero credit and are determined to embrace a distorted image and ignore a broader record.

Andrew Mayer

08-07-2006, 12:45 PM

He voted against Alito.

...

Andrew, Joe Lieberman is both a Democrat and a progressive. He's also a guy who has pissed you off on several issues apparently. But turning a blind eye to the facts doesn't mean the facts go away.

I'm not even from Connecticut, nor can I vote in this race. It just bothers me that some on the left seem to give them man zero credit and are determined to embrace a distorted image and ignore a broader record.

Taking the easy way out and not voting for cloture is a perfect example of the kind of BS that is, I hope, going to get him thrown out of office.

As someone smarter than me pointed out if the other side doesn't give you anything it isn't bi-partisanship, it's capitulation.

JeffL

08-07-2006, 01:49 PM

It is really fascinating to see someone who has been a pretty solid Democrat and previously admired by his party, selected as the VP candidate, etc. be so visciously hated now. I can only presume it is because of his refusal to condemn the war in Iraq? As others have pointed out, his voting record and stands on issues sound like the kind of guy that I would have thought Democrats would be pushing.

Jason McCullough

08-07-2006, 01:52 PM

Think of it more as the Democratic party moving out from under him over the years. Iraq is just the final very-large straw.

Enidigm

08-07-2006, 01:54 PM

It is really fascinating to see someone who has been a pretty solid Democrat and previously admired by his party, selected as the VP candidate, etc. be so visciously hated now. I can only presume it is because of his refusal to condemn the war in Iraq? As others have pointed out, his voting record and stands on issues sound like the kind of guy that I would have thought Democrats would be pushing.

... and happily snuggling up to such right-wing figures like Sean Hannity as if they were respectable. Don't underestimate the counter-reaction of breaking bread with figures that demonize liberal values. If he has a pragmatic approach to fufilling his political agenda he needs to perhaps be more open with his constituency about it.

Jake Plane

08-07-2006, 02:09 PM

So you're not going to address the fact that he is both a Democrat and a progressive and the facts support each? Again, I don't care if you love Lieberman or hate Lieberman. But if you're going to make the case against the man, at least be factually accurate. What's so hard with acknowledging the obvious: Lieberman is a Democratic Senator, has a progressive record and you still don't like him. Why the need to paint the world in absolutes?

*sigh*

As for Alito:

First and foremost, Lieberman voted against Alito.
Secondly, Lieberman voted against Alito.
Third, Lieberman voted against Alito.

What you think merits being "thrown out of office" for was a procedural vote. And let's put that vote in context. It was while Republicans were talking about using the nuclear option. Lieberman and McCain found a way to stop that. But in cobbling that agreement together, they had to vote against the filibuster. So Lieberman voted against the filibuster to protect the right of the minority party (hint: it's Democrats) not to get railroaded by the majority party.

And most importantly - THE FILIBUSTER WOULD HAVE FAILED.

This is really why you want to oust Lieberman? Do you really understand the context of what happened on the Hill? I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone who truly followed all three of the Supreme Court nominations would consider this as cardinal a sin as you apparently do.

By the way, I presume you feel that all other 6 Democrats who voted this way should also be tossed:

* Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
* E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska
* Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
* Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
* Mark Pryor, Arkansas
* Ken Salazar, Colorado

Again, anytime you want to address Lieberman's record of voting for progressive causes, standing up to Bush and the endorsements he has received from progressives, feel free to do so.

And again Andrew, the only thing that bothers me about your "case" against Lieberman is that it's just not true. Stop arguing that he's not a Democrat or he's not progressive enough for you and say you just don't like him, or you are a single issue voter, or you are pro-Lamont. The facts are not on your side when you try to essentially claim that he's a Republican in Democratic clothing.

Andrew Mayer

08-07-2006, 02:14 PM

When you stop trying to pretend that he hasn't provided a great deal of cover for the Republicans I'll consider.

Yes, he's tricksy in his way, using procedure to provide him with cover on the ground. But his lazy moralizing, losing triangulation strategies, and spirited "process" attacks on his fellow Democrats, from Clinton during the Monica days, to his "We undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril. " BS is more than enough for me to recognize that he is the kind of "Democrat" that has kept the party out of power for the last decad.

Jake Plane

08-07-2006, 02:15 PM

... and happily snuggling up to such right-wing figures like Sean Hannity as if they were respectable. Don't underestimate the counter-reaction of breaking bread with figures that demonize liberal values. If he has a pragmatic approach to fufilling his political agenda he needs to perhaps be more open with his constituency about it.

Now this, I can agree with. Lieberman is a Democrat. And a progressive. But he has no qualms about hanging out with or talking to Republicans. He also says nice things about them. And in this polarized environment, that alone can rub people the wrong way.

If above else, you would rather have a hardline partisan warrior, Lieberman is definitely not your man and you have a legitimate reason to vote against the man.

Jake Plane

08-07-2006, 02:23 PM

When you stop trying to pretend that he hasn't provided a great deal of cover for the Republicans I'll consider.

Happy to! Hell, I did so in the previous post before I had even read your post.

Joe Lieberman has provided cover for Republicans. He did so on Schiavo. He has done so on violence in the media. He did so during the impeachment process. And he has done so on the war. Democrats who disagree with him on these issues, in particular the hard core partisans, have a right to be angry about all of these things.

I can easily recognize all of those things. Why? Because those are the facts.

Now then Andrew, can you do the same? Can you look at Joe Lieberman's record and finally recognize that he is a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-labor, pro-civil rights Democrat who supports expanding health care along the same lines as Kerry and investing in education along the same lines as Ted Kennedy. AND who voted against the Bush tax cuts each and every time they came up, led the fight against Republican efforts to drill into the Arctic refuge, voted against Alito, was against Bush's social security privatization plan and is against the doctrine of pre-emption?

And if you can acknowledge those facts, will you please stop saying/implying/insinuating that the man is not a Democrat and not progressive?

I really do not understand why this is such an issue for you. You CAN acknoweldge that Lieberman is a Democrat and a progressive and that you still don't like him and that the tactics he has employed carry more weight than the sum of his record. That would be a factually accurate response.

SlyFrog

08-07-2006, 02:40 PM

Happy to! Hell, I did so in the previous post before I had even read your post.

Joe Lieberman has provided cover for Republicans. He did so on Schiavo. He has done so on violence in the media. He did so during the impeachment process. And he has done so on the war. Democrats who disagree with him on these issues, in particular the hard core partisans, have a right to be angry about all of these things.

What exactly do you all think "providing cover" means. Because so far as I can tell from your use (not yours in particular, but the now couple of uses I've seen), it means any particular issue where you happen to agree with the opposing political party. Or perhaps even whenever you simply do not agree completely with your own.

I tried to suggest this earlier, and so I imagine I'm beating my head into the wall of close-mindedness, but does "providing cover" possibly equate to "has his own ideas that do not exactly follow party lines?"

malphigian

08-07-2006, 02:45 PM

It is really fascinating to see someone who has been a pretty solid Democrat and previously admired by his party, selected as the VP candidate, etc. be so visciously hated now. I can only presume it is because of his refusal to condemn the war in Iraq?

Can we stop talking in circles in this thread?

Read Jake's post above, I think it adequately covers both sides of the issue. Lieberman has been a good democrat on many issues important to democrats. But on several key issues, he has done things which have rightfully upset a lot of democrats.

It's not JUST the Iraq War, it's the entire Bush foreign policy, it's his support for Bush's wonderful idea that it is morally wrong to criticize the government in a time of War. It's also, to a lesser extent, his insufferable moralizing on Lewinsky, "someone think of the children!" and the media, Schiavo, and the need for religion in politics.

If above else, you would rather have a hardline partisan warrior, Lieberman is definitely not your man and you have a legitimate reason to vote against the man.

Harry Reid is more conservative on most issues than Lieberman, but he's actually tried to fight Bush on the key issues mentioned above. I'm not so sure it's about "hardline partisan", but it's definitely about wanting a warrior.

Jake Plane

08-07-2006, 02:45 PM

What exactly do you all think "providing cover" means. Because so far as I can tell from your use (not yours in particular, but the now couple of uses I've seen), it means any particular issue where you happen to agree with the opposing political party. Or perhaps even whenever you simply do not agree completely with your own.

I'm speaking broadly, primarily to see if I can get Mayer (who I probably agree with more than he realizes) to just admit the obvious - Lieberman is a Democrat and a progressive.

But in answer to your question, I think providing political cover means when a major issue is being discussed, that issue for the most part has broken down along party lines, but there are some cross overs, and those cross overs are pointed to as an example of bi-partisanship, to score points or to advance legislation.

Andrew Mayer

08-07-2006, 02:47 PM

And if you can acknowledge those facts, will you please stop saying/implying/insinuating that the man is not a Democrat and not progressive?

I really do not understand why this is such an issue for you. You CAN acknoweldge that Lieberman is a Democrat and a progressive and that you still don't like him and that the tactics he has employed carry more weight than the sum of his record. That would be a factually accurate response.

He stopped being a Democrat to me the moment he started collecting signatures for an independant run.

As for the rest. Okay, he's got a record of supporting progressive causes. So why is that I still feel like he's a perfect example of the kind of person that has allowed the Republicans to take over the government, and has helped to keep them there once in power?

And it's MAYER.

Jake Plane

08-07-2006, 02:53 PM

He stopped being a Democrat to me the moment he started collecting signatures for an independant run.

As for the rest. Okay, he's got a record of supporting progressive causes. So why is that I still feel like he's a perfect example of the kind of person that has allowed the Republicans to take over the government, and has helped to keep them there once in power?

And it's MAYER.

Apologies. Jake Plane is obviously not my real name, but feel free to butcher it beyond belief.

I think you feel that way because you don't like those tactics. But for every Lieberman, there's also a Landrieu or a Nelson. It's much harder to be a pure partisan in the Senate. The House - not only is not a problem, it's basically the rule.

That said... that may explain why the Senate gets more done and is seen as the Senior chamber, one the cools the partisan whackiness of the House.

For the sake of the thread, I'd be happy to discuss Lieberman's Democratic credentials further via PM.

Though, I suspect that in 24 hours, the topic will be pretty exhausted.

Talisker

08-07-2006, 03:00 PM

And it's MAYER.
Yeah, don't want people getting Mayer confused with me -- unlike Mayer, I'm opposed to the war, concerned about the environment, furious about the deficit, and really really REALLY hate GWB, Rove, Rumsfeld, and the whole Mellon-Scaife funded right-wing propoganda machine.

Er, wait.

SlyFrog

08-07-2006, 03:21 PM

But in answer to your question, I think providing political cover means when a major issue is being discussed, that issue for the most part has broken down along party lines, but there are some cross overs, and those cross overs are pointed to as an example of bi-partisanship, to score points or to advance legislation.

So it is not necessarily an intentional act by the particular congressman (that is, he or she is not doing it to benefit the other party), it is simply a case where points are scored because of the act?

TylerG

08-07-2006, 03:57 PM

Glenn Greenwald does a good job (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-neoconservative-extremists-love.html#links) of explaining what is happening. Basically back when the world was a relatively peaceful place domestic policy was dominant. Supporting progressive domestic policies made you a Democrat while supporting conservative domestic policies made you a Republican. Now that the world seems to be hurling toward a clash of civilizations foreign policy is dominant and the political parties are realigning according to where they stand on these issues.

In the 90s Lieberman's progressive domestic policies made him a Democrat. In the 00s Lieberman's neocon foreign policies make him a Republican.

Jake Plane

08-07-2006, 04:25 PM

In the 90s Lieberman's progressive domestic policies made him a Democrat. In the 00s Lieberman's neocon foreign policies make him a Republican.

I understand the argument, I just don't agree with it. If the entire Democrat party were to suddenly stop being pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-labor, pro-civil rights and suddenly supported Bush's tax cuts, his desire to ban gay marriage in our constitution, his ban on stem cells, etc.

BUT - remained against the war, I would NOT call them Democrats.

Again, I get the argument. I simply don't agree with it and don't think many would who look beyond the soundbite premise.

magnet

08-07-2006, 04:28 PM

By the way, I presume you feel that all other 6 Democrats who voted this way should also be tossed:

* Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
* E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska
* Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
* Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
* Mark Pryor, Arkansas
* Ken Salazar, Colorado

Democratic politicans from WV, NE, LA, AK, and CO have pragmatic reasons to avoid antagonizing conservatives.

Democratic voters from Connecticut deserve better.

Andrew Mayer

08-07-2006, 04:42 PM

Again, I get the argument. I simply don't agree with it and don't think many would who look beyond the soundbite premise.

Okay. Then let's change the part so it IS true. The DLCs slouching to the center strategy has brought nothing but defeat for anyone not named Bill Clinton.

russellmz00

08-07-2006, 04:48 PM

unless lamont intends to vote himself a multi million dollar taxcut while declaring we must redeploy troops in iraq to women's vaginas to protect the rich fertile national source of future americans, the main reasons to vote for lieberman are:

-great friends with lots of republicans i find repugnant
-pro-war position
-scolds democrats trying to unite/fight against the republicans

unless you can show me lamont = tax cuts for the rich, pollution in the streets, 'life begins at conception' patrols checking in on pregnant women, and leaving troops to die in iraq, while complaining about how the people who freaking voted for him suck and are wrong, i can't say i'll be sorry to see lieberman go.

lieberman's damn auto-telephoning for votes has interrupted me twice in the past three days.

plus, he recently undermined our president's credibility in a time of war! the shame of it. lamont isn't perfect but at least he seems eager to take on the president, whether it's an election year or not, whether bush has one, two, ten years left as c-in-c.

Huzurdaddi

08-07-2006, 05:04 PM

As I said in my initial post the point is that Lieberman is the democratic senator who is the farthest to the right given the views of those he represents. And guess what? Given that he's going to get the boot. Good for the voters of Connecticut the system actually worked for a change.

As for the rest of us who do not live in Connecticut all I can say is "thank god he'll be out of the public eye." His public persona was Zell Miller lite. He seemed to take great pleasure bashing Democrats at every turn and giving cover to the Republicans.

arctangent

08-07-2006, 05:16 PM

russellmz00

08-07-2006, 06:33 PM

Aleck

08-07-2006, 06:50 PM

Thing is, though, if/when Lieberman loses the Democratic primary, he'll run as an independent, likely picking a large number of Republican votes. If he can pick up enough, and enough Democrats vote for him, he could be back in the Senate, and pissed as hell at the Democratic party. That can't be good.

I haven't reviewed the polling numbers lately, but isn't it more likely that the seat goes Republican in a three way than an angry Lieberman ends up back in the Senate as an Independent? (Eww... Gross impage of Lieberman, Lamont, and generic Republican in a three way).

For the record, I think Jake's right on most of what he's positing. I think that Joe's a Democrat, a progressive on many social issues, and a conservative Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. That conservatism has put him more in line with the views of Republicans than Democrats on some of the most important issues facing the Congress in the last half dozen years.

I believe it's safe to point out that Joe is running on his record -- but also that Lamont is running on Joe's record, since that record clearly cuts both ways. What worries me about Lamont is that we really don't know where he lands on a lot of issues, but what we do know is that a lot of people are pissed at Lieberman over his conservative views on a couple issues (Iraq, foreign policy generally, Schiavo, vouchers, etc.)

Apologies. Jake Plane is obviously not my real name, but feel free to butcher it beyond belief.

I dub thee "Moist and Delicious Spanky."

arctangent

08-07-2006, 07:24 PM

I haven't reviewed the polling numbers lately, but isn't it more likely that the seat goes Republican in a three way than an angry Lieberman ends up back in the Senate as an Independent?

There's this poll from July 20th (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=940)

In possible general election matchups:

Lieberman defeats Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger 68 - 15 percent;

Lamont beats Schlesinger 45 - 22 percent, with 24 percent undecided;

Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51 percent, to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger.

Republicans in CT love their Lieberguy, it seems.

Andrew Mayer

08-07-2006, 07:55 PM

Jake Plane

08-07-2006, 08:19 PM

SlyFrog

08-07-2006, 08:24 PM

Jake Plane

08-07-2006, 08:31 PM

Okay. Then let's change the part so it IS true. The DLCs slouching to the center strategy has brought nothing but defeat for anyone not named Bill Clinton.

I think I just have problems with your absolutes...

But that aside, saying "barring the winners" everyone else is a loser ain't exactly fair.

Clinton definitely won twice on a centrist campaign. But in support of your point, it's important for people to remember that he did so in the general. During the Democratic primaries, he ran to the LEFT of Tsongas.

And it's during the primaries that Democrats want to see a more partisan message. Clinton satisified that itch.

However, to temper your point: a more partisan message alone isn't a cure all. Witness Dean. I don't think any of the criticism heaped on Lieberman applied to Dean during the primaries. If anything, he was the darling of the left and certainly the blogosphere. And yet... he lost. And lost badly.

And that sniveling Kerry? Well, yes, he lost. And yes, he ran as a centrist. But it was another squeeker (we're talking electoral math). And he certainly did better than Dukakis or Mondale (let's remember - the DLC gained prominence because both of those base vote campaigns got soundly whipped by the Republicans. SOUNDLY).

Gore cuts both ways - started as a centrist. Ended his campaign with "the people not the powerful" - a populist message.

Personally, I think more than a liberal anti-war message a populist message would resonate in today's economic and political climate.

Point of all of this - It's not readily evident that a centrist can't win. I can see scenarios for Warner, Hillary, Bayh, Vilsack and Kerry easier than I can see scenarios for Feingold or hell, even Sharpton or Kucinich.

Andrew Mayer

08-07-2006, 08:54 PM

Point of all of this - It's not readily evident that a centrist can't win. I can see scenarios for Warner, Hillary, Bayh, Vilsack and Kerry easier than I can see scenarios for Feingold or hell, even Sharpton or Kucinich.

A centrist can win if they stand for something. What the last decade has proven is that when a voter is faced with "Republican Lite" they'll end up voting for the real thing.

The blogs are actually pretty "centrist" in policy, just not in attitude. And somehow the Dems have managed to become the party of fiscal responisibility...

magnet

08-07-2006, 09:22 PM

However, to temper your point: a more partisan message alone isn't a cure all. Witness Dean. I don't think any of the criticism heaped on Lieberman applied to Dean during the primaries. If anything, he was the darling of the left and certainly the blogosphere. And yet... he lost. And lost badly.

He beat Lieberman.

Ed Solomon

08-07-2006, 09:42 PM

Lieberman's web site (http://www.joe2006.com/) went down.

They're trying to blame Lamont, saying he hacked it, but it looks like they didn't pay the bill:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/lieberman_website.jpg
Wow, Exeter, Harvard, cable-mogul and now hacker extraordinaire. If Lamont runs away to Tibet and learns how to cloud men's minds, we are all seriously fucked.

Jake Plane

08-08-2006, 06:17 AM

[Dean] beat Lieberman.

And lost to John Kerry. Badly. The point of this sub-thread wasn't who fared better, Dean or Lieberman. It was who fared better: a liberal or a centrist. Dean lost - badly - to a more centrist candidate, Kerry.

Squirrel Killer

08-08-2006, 07:46 AM

If Lieberman does mangage to win, what's the over/under on the amount of time for election fraud charges to start appearing?

Oh wait... (http://nedlamont.com/blog/978/desperation)
What is to stop the same sort of ballot manipulation as occurred in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, or the senatorial election of Chuck Hagel?
Guess I'll take the under. :)

Bob Cherub

08-08-2006, 10:15 AM

I love how the media is acting like a Lamont victory is some world changing event. IT'S GONNA BE A POLITICAL SHOCKWAVE.

Yes, it is so unusual when a liberal state elects the more liberal of two candidates. SHOCKWAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Squirrel Killer

08-08-2006, 10:20 AM

Lieberman's web site (http://www.joe2006.com/) went down.

They're trying to blame Lamont, saying he hacked it, but it looks like they didn't pay the bill:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/lieberman_website.jpg
Why hasn't Firefox appended "http://" to the url?

http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/1469/lamontzl1.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;)

malphigian

08-08-2006, 10:22 AM

Why hasn't Firefox appended "http://" to the url?

I saw the same message when I went to www.joe2006.com right now, it actually does a forward to this:
http://server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page/

So I'm guessing the person who took the shot wrote the url back in for effect afterwards.

Squirrel Killer

08-08-2006, 10:29 AM

I saw the same message when I went to www.joe2006.com right now, it actually does a forward to this:
http://server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page/

So I'm guessing the person who took the shot wrote the url back in for effect afterwards.
That's odd, this is what was I getting:
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/1355/joementumkt1.gif (http://imageshack.us)
No redirect to that myhostcamp.com page at all. A refresh sends me to it, but it's not the same message. It says, "This account is under construction. Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you."

malphigian

08-08-2006, 10:36 AM

Those are both cpanel default pages at any rate (the same server management software), I'm sure it's going to be changing a lot as their web host flails around.

Jason McCullough

08-08-2006, 10:55 AM

Election day!

The fucker is completely impersonating George Bush now (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/lieberman-says-connecticut-voters-who.html).

Lieberman said that this race is about whether the Democratic Party “will accept a diversity of opinion” on national security. He defined himself as a Democrat in the mold of John F. Kennedy, Harry S Truman and Bill Clinton – that is, one with “a real socially progressive record, and strong on national security.”

He said a victory for Lamont will send a message to the country: “In the Democratic Party, there’s no room for strong-on-security Dems.” He said that would be disastrous for the Democrats. “You can’t win in this country,” he said, “unless you assure people" that you aren’t going to compromise on national security. He said he has backed the war on terror because he never forgets about the “radical Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and want to do it again.”

Vote for me, or you love terrorism!

malphigian

08-08-2006, 11:00 AM

I saw that same quote last night Jason, but I didn't post it here because it was so hard to source. The source appears to be a national review blog paraphrasing what they heard Lieberman say at a stop in CT the other day.

In any case, if that is an accurate characterization of what he said, I'd like to suggest that he can go fuck himself.

Jason McCullough

08-08-2006, 11:17 AM

Ok, transcription from politics tv video link:

"I do fear that the message that will be taken if I don't win this tomorrow is that in the Democratic Party there's no room for strong on security Democrats. That's the wrong message, I don't think it's true, but that's a message that voters here will send around the country."

Surprise! National Review chopped the second sentence from the quote to make Democrats look bad!

It's still a pigfucker quote though. "Sure, I don't actually think voting for my opponent is a vote for mandatory gay camps, but I'm concerned that voters across the country will think Democrats want that."

Jason McCullough

08-08-2006, 11:21 AM

A couple of actual Fox screen captures (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/124621/2122):

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/FOXcrawl1.jpg
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/FOXcrawl2.jpg

MikeSofaer

08-08-2006, 11:23 AM

Makes me wish I had a TV. I could watch it and imagine your reactions to what I see. Endless amusement.

Andrew Mayer

08-08-2006, 11:43 AM

I'm assuming the lessons of 9/11 are (in order):

Eternal Fear
Eternal War

Sounds like good old American values to me!

Jake Plane

08-08-2006, 01:54 PM

This just in...

* Not only is the Lieberman website down, Lieberman staffers have lost email.
* Press buzz is that turnout is high in liberal precincts in Connecticut - incredibly high.

Though, I will say that press buzz has been wrong before.

arctangent

08-08-2006, 02:21 PM

Lieberman's site, joe2006.com (http://joe2006.com) is down. Joe claims it's a DOS attack.

Another site on the same server, though, is up:

meetned.com (http://meetned.com/). This is actually another Lieberman site. It's slow, but it's working.

08/08/06 17:02:18 dns joe2006.com
Canonical name: joe2006.com
Addresses:
69.56.129.130

08/08/06 17:09:09 dns MeetNed.com
Canonical name: MeetNed.com
Addresses:
69.56.129.130

Draw your own conclusion.

More from Kos. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/153827/3493)

Squirrel Killer

08-08-2006, 02:30 PM

Lieberman, who can't take the heat, makes ridiculous comparison of self to Max Cleland

The "ridiculous" camparisons (http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/08/liebermans-last-stand.html)?

...Sadly, my opponent has done his best to distort my record, spending at least $4 million of his own money to mislead people into thinking that I am someone I am not. Not unlike what happened to Max Cleland four years ago.

...

I have been to the front lines four times. I have been to Walter Reed and visited the brave men and women who have suffered awful injuries and sacrificed for their country the way Max Cleland did. I have visited with the families who have been devastated by the death of a son or daughter, a husband or a wife.

...

The point I was trying to make was about how we disagree. My concern was, and remains, that if opponents or supporters of the war go beyond disagreeing to exploiting the war for partisan political purposes, much like Republicans did to Max Cleland on homeland security, we could lose more than an election. We could put our mission in Iraq, the lives of thousands of American soldiers carrying it out, and our national security at risk. That is what I care about....
Wow. Real ridiculous comparison there Buzzflash.

Jake Plane

08-08-2006, 02:44 PM

First half of that speech, which I read, was indeed a stretch. Second half, which is what was picked up mostly by the press, was what he should have been doing all along, emphasizing his Democratic credentials.

Jake Plane

08-08-2006, 02:52 PM

This just in...

* Senior turnout in Waterbury is low as is the number of absentee ballots turned in. Waterbury apparently was supposed to be a high Lieberman area. Keep in mind that Waterbury was where the Lieberman campaign brought Bill Clinton two weeks ago.

Jason McCullough

08-08-2006, 04:52 PM

I think Leiberman comparing the attacks on him (he's just like Bush, he's not a Democrat, he's a warmonger) are a little uncomparable to the attacks on Cleland (he wants to have Osama's baby).

Squirrel Killer

08-08-2006, 05:20 PM

I think Leiberman comparing the attacks on him (he's just like Bush, he's not a Democrat, he's a warmonger) are a little uncomparable to the attacks on Cleland (he wants to have Osama's baby).
Oh yeah, "morphed ads". Where's that rolling eyes emoticon?

russellmz00

08-08-2006, 05:38 PM

That's odd, this is what was I getting:
{image}
No redirect to that myhostcamp.com page at all. A refresh sends me to it, but it's not the same message. It says, "This account is under construction. Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/08/lieberman.website/
Various messages have appeared since Monday night in place of the Lieberman Web site, including "There is no Web site configured at this address" and "This account has been suspended. Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible."

A CNN researcher briefly accessed the original Lieberman Web site late Monday.

The Lieberman campaign said Tuesday in a statement: "... The the suspension of displaying the Web site www.joe2006.com was not due to to an overdue account. Friends of Joe Lieberman is completely paid in full. The screen that showed yesterday is a default image from the server. In order to isolate where the denial of service attack was coming into the site, we disabled it as rapidly as possible. Once we were able to isolate all the site files for study, we were able to add an appropriate one-page maintenance message."

Where's that rolling eyes emoticon?

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/rolleyes.gif

Jake Plane

08-08-2006, 05:52 PM

This just in...

With less than 10% of the precincts reporting, Ned Lamont is leading.

Lamont, Ned Dem - 56.65%
Lieberman, Joe Dem - 43.35%

Enidigm

08-08-2006, 06:03 PM

It wouldn't suprise me if Lamont won.

Despite everything you've said, Jake, regarding the credentials of Lieberman as a true-blue Democrat being true, he's stood on the (for CT) wrong side of an issue that is well about to become the defining issue of this generation, like Vietnam was 40 years ago. And like Vietnam, a whole generation is watching America throw lives and it's whole economy into a war that it's looking increasingly like we lack the capacity - either militarily, politically, or intellectually (whichever you choose) - to win. And like Vietnam, it's left to the scaremongers that raise the spectre of "international" _____-ism that keep the war drums beating.

Lieberman chose to stand with both feet firmly planted on one side - and it may turn out to be the wrong side - of history. Now he has to pay the piper.

TylerG

08-08-2006, 06:19 PM

It's looking increasingly likely that the whole hacking thing might turn out to be cheap hosting.

malphigian

08-08-2006, 06:29 PM

It's looking increasingly likely that the whole hacking thing might turn out to be cheap hosting.

Well, it's a simple fact he was on a shared server with 70 odd other sites. You can check that from the list that was posted and a few tracerts and pings.

That is totally inadequate for hosting a high traffic site of any sort, and never costs more than $30/month. Daily Kos's site is crawling right now, and, as they mention, they pay thousands a month in hosting costs.

You think myhostcamp analyzed the logs so quickly and figured out that it wasn't a legitimate traffic spike, but was a bunch of zombie boxes and the like?

Hell no, what's most likely is said cheap web host is trying to cover this high profile outage by making up some bullshit the Lieberman campaign is all too happy to scoop up.

I don't really blame the Lieberman campaign as a whole for this, as I suspect Joe himself has about a Ted Stevens level understanding of the internet, but someone in there is trying to pin their own incompetance on someone else.

Jake Plane

08-08-2006, 06:31 PM

Despite everything you've said, Jake, regarding the credentials of Lieberman as a true-blue Democrat being true, he's stood on the (for CT) wrong side of an issue that is well about to become the defining issue of this generation, like Vietnam was 40 years ago. And like Vietnam, a whole generation is watching America throw lives and it's whole economy into a war that it's looking increasingly like we lack the capacity - either militarily, politically, or intellectually (whichever you choose) - to win. And like Vietnam, it's left to the scaremongers that raise the spectre of "international" _____-ism that keep the war drums beating.

Lieberman chose to stand with both feet firmly planted on one side - and it may turn out to be the wrong side - of history. Now he has to pay the piper.

I have never disagreed with that. I've only taken issue with those who try to claim the man is not a Democrat or a progressive.

I see nothing wrong with voting against the man on the war. What has bothered me is when people felt the need to go further, to imply that he was a Republican in Democrat's clothing, that he was not progressive.

My guess is that after this evening is over that same language will be used in the blogosphere, by pundits and by some on these boards. It's just not accurate. You can take issue with Lieberman on many issues; you can say he's given political cover to Republicans; but you can't factually claim that he's not a Democrat or a progressive with the record that he has and the positions that he holds.

arctangent

08-08-2006, 06:33 PM

Most likely myhostcamp shut them down for exceeding their alloted bandwidth or for using too much processor time.

Updated at 09:29 PM - Aug. 08, 2006 Precincts Reporting: 373 of 757 - 49%

Joe Lieberman 64,056 48%
Ned Lamont 69,466 52%

http://web.wtnh.com/2006voteprimary/race200.html

malphigian

08-08-2006, 06:39 PM

Ooh, I was checking what the web hosting nerds had to say about the hosting thing:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=537769&highlight=myhostcamp

Which led to this from wonkette (http://wonkette.com/politics/top/breaking-last-post-partially-inoperative-lieberman-campaign-dumber-than-previously-thought-192948.php):
2Dog Media, LLC has not hosted the joe2006.com website for over 3 months. When the site was hosted with us, it was on a dedicated server with unlimited bandwidth and daily server back-ups. The Lieberman Campaign was paying much more than $7 a month for this service. The campaign manager, Sean Smith, came on board and decided he would rather work with a friend of his that he had worked with in the past. Since then, our company has not been in charge of the hosting services.
(the rest of the "2 dog" post is pretty funny, but only because it's so obvious the kid who wrote it doesn't have a lawyer).

EDIT: this link (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2006/by_state/CT_Page_0808.html?SITE=CTHARELN&SECTION=POLITICS) seems nice for results:
423 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 56.55%
Name Party Votes Pct
Lamont, Ned Dem 79,580 52.17
Lieberman, Joe (i) Dem 72,964 47.83