Lieberman Launches A Hail Mary

[Nbadan]

It's not about the war, it's about the Presidency stupid!

The Democratic voters of Connecticut –apparently about to reject Senator Joe Lieberman in Tuesday’s primary—are poised to send the national Democratic Party a message. And the media are poised to help the Democrats, and the nation as a whole, to misinterpret it.

It’s all about the war in Iraq, the media will tell us.

But this over-simplification obscures the heart of the matter: that citizens are not only opposing the war but are struggling for a way to deal with America’s present deeper crisis.

A former advisor to Lieberman, quoted in a recent article in The New Republic, explains why rank-and-file Democrats are furious with Lieberman but not with his fellow war-supporter, Senator Biden: “Here’s somebody who voted for the war, continues to say that we should be there, but is absolutely critical of Bush and how he handled it. And so, as a result, he gets a pass. It’s how Lieberman talks about the war that people can’t stand. He comes across as not necessarily being pro-war but being pro-Bush.”

So it’s not ultimately about the war, and we must not allow ourselves or the public to be otherwise persuaded. It’s about this particular president and all the damage his regime is inflicting on America. It’s Lieberman’s being a help and a support for the Bush presidency that’s given rise to this grassroots rage against him.

By rejecting Lieberman, Connecticut’s grassroots Democrats are seeking to send a message to their party about how appalled they are at this Bush presidency, and thus also at any Democrat who does not understand how profound a threat this regime is to all they hold dear.

Link

[Nbadan]

A sign of things to come? Joe Lieberman's website has been taken down.

Joe2006

On the eve of the most important election of his political life Lieberman's website goes down for non-payment. Ouch!

I post because Marion Steinfels is running around proclaiming that someone hacked her site. This isn’t the first time they haven’t paid their bills, it happened when the stupid bear-cub ad ran and Sean Smith bragged all the traffic (from people mocking the ad) crashed their site. Same notice.

But since the Hotline Blog ran with Marion’s story (sort of), I had to post this here because they are undoubtedly peddling the story to other outlets as well. Passing on a different screen shot than the one above, from after they paid their hosting fees.

Ned Lamont

[Nbadan]

Joe and Dubya's Fabulous Wedding - Classic!

[Ocotillo]

Lieberman shows his true colors and bolts the party.

[Nbadan]

Here's the official call..

Lieberman loses, vows independent run
By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer 38 minutes ago

Three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman fell to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont in Connecticut's Democratic primary Tuesday, a race seen as a harbinger of sentiment over the conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 2,500 U.S. troops in
Iraq.
ADVERTISEMENT

Unbowed, Lieberman immediately announced he would enter the fall campaign as an independent. Only six years ago, Lieberman was the Democrats' choice for vice president.

"As I see it, in this campaign we just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead. But, in the second half, our team, Team Connecticut, is going to surge forward to victory in November," Lieberman said after congratulating Lamont.

Lamont, a millionaire with virtually no political experience, ran on his opposition to the Iraq war. "They call Connecticut the land of steady habits," he said. "Tonight we voted for a big change."

Lamont won with 52 percent of the vote, or 144,005, to 48 percent for Lieberman, with 134,026, with 98 percent of precincts reporting.

Lieberman's loss made him only the fourth in bent senator to lose a primary since 1980.

Turnout was projected at twice the norm for a primary.

In Georgia, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the fiery congresswoman known for her conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks and a scuffle this year with a U.S. Capitol police officer, lost a runoff for the Democratic nomination.

Joe Lieberman and Cindy McKinney lost in the same primary, looks like the Demos are getting rid of the nuckle-heads on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Spurminator]

Lieberman shows his true colors and bolts the party.

Interesting how this is seen as a bad thing... Shouldn't the voters get to decide whether Lieberman fits their beliefs better than one of the Party candidates?

[scott]

Out with the old and ineffective, in with the new.

[Nbadan]

Interesting how this is seen as a bad thing... Shouldn't the voters get to decide whether Lieberman fits their beliefs better than one of the Party candidates?

Lieberman was all to happy to take money from Democratic Party fund-raising commitees to pay for his battle with Lamont - almost 2 million dollars. Now that the majority of primary voters have decided to go with his opponent, Lieberman decides to betray his Party, and the loyalty they showed him, by running against their candidate. Lieberman ought to be stripped of any committee membership by the Democrats for the remainder of his term.

[T Park]

yipee.

More George Soros far left socialist wackos.

Joy to the world.

[Spurminator]

Lieberman was all to happy to take money from Democratic Party fund-raising commitees to pay for his battle with Lamont - almost 2 million dollars. Now that the majority of primary voters have decided to go with his opponent, Lieberman decides to betray his Party, and the loyalty they showed him, by running against their candidate. Lieberman ought to be stripped of any committee membership by the Democrats for the remainder of his term.

So Party Loyalty is preferable to options for voters? What if Lieberman wins the election as an Independent? Is he a traitor? Or is he truly the representative of his state?

Did Teddy Roosevelt "betray" the Republican Party in 1912?

[spurster]

It's a free country. Lieberman can switch to Independent if he wants, and we can criticize him or praise him for doing so as we see fit.

Is Lieberman a traitor? No, he's a politician.

[boutons_]

[boutons_]

"So Party Loyalty is preferable to options for voters?"

In today's polarized, radical, party-politicized USA, yes. Congressman vote their parties, not their own minds.

Voters vote their pocketbooks in nearly all cases, not their principles.

=============================

August 4, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist

Centrism Is for Suckers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

If you want to understand the state of America today, a good place to start is with the contrast between the political strategies of conservative business advocacy groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and those of more or less liberal advocacy groups like the Sierra Club.

The chamber recently got into trouble because of ads it ran praising Republican members of Congress who, it said, voted for the Medicare prescription drug program. It turned out that one of the congressmen praised in the ads actually voted against the program, while two others weren't even in Congress when the vote took place.

Oops. But the bigger question is, aren't business groups supposed to favor fiscal responsibility and reducing the size of government? So why is the chamber praising a program that substantially increases the size of government and has no visible means of financial support?

The answer is obvious: the Bush administration hopes to win some votes in the midterm elections from older Americans now receiving drug benefits, and the chamber, like many conservative organizations these days, believes that its interests are best served by helping Republicans win elections. If the administration and its allies in Congress want the chamber's support on an issue, they get it, never mind the details.

If you want an even starker example, consider the fact that the National Federation of Independent Business, the small-business lobby, is supporting the bizarre, hybrid wage-and-tax legislation now before the Senate. This legislation would raise the minimum wage while sharply cutting taxes on very large estates.

From a small-business owner's point of view, this deal makes no sense. Many owners of small businesses believe, rightly or wrongly, that they would be hurt by a rise in the minimum wage. Meanwhile, very few are rich enough to pay estate taxes: the Congressional Budget Office reports that if current law had applied in 2000, only 135 small business estates would have paid any tax at all, which means that small-business owners subject to the estate tax are substantially harder to find than people who have been struck by lightning.

It's possible that the federation's leadership has been misled by Heritage Foundation propaganda. But it's more likely that, like the chamber, the federation believes that its interests are best served by acting as a loyal servant of the Republican electoral effort. And both organizations are probably right.

Now compare this with the behavior of advocacy groups like the Sierra Club, the environmental organization, and Naral, the abortion-rights group, both of which have endorsed Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, for re-election. The Sierra Club's executive director defended the Chafee endorsement by saying, "We choose people, not parties." And it's true that Mr. Chafee has usually voted with environmental groups.

But while this principle might once have made sense, it's just naïve today. Given both the radicalism of the majority party's leadership and the ruthlessness with which it exercises its control of the Senate, Mr. Chafee's personal environmentalism is nearly irrelevant when it comes to actual policy outcomes; the only thing that really matters for the issues the Sierra Club cares about is the "R" after his name.

Put it this way: If the Democrats gain only five rather than six Senate seats this November, Senator James Inhofe, who says that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," will remain in his current position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And if that happens, the Sierra Club may well bear some of the responsibility.

The point is that those who cling to the belief that politics can be conducted in terms of people rather than parties * a group that also includes would-be centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman and many members of the punditocracy * are kidding themselves.

The fact is that in 1994, the year when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party, things fell apart, and the center did not hold.

Now we're living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician's partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship.

[Spurminator]

In today's polarized, radical, party-politicized USA, yes. Congressman vote their parties, not their own minds.

Your logic is confusing, unless you believe a polarized, radical, party-politicized USA is a GOOD thing.

If you elect an Independent you weaken partisanship in Congress. The more Independents, the better.

Krugman's strategy is a great way to alienate even more of the voting population. But I would expect no less than a polar view from someone sitting on one of the poles himself.

Fight partisan gamesmanship with more partisan gamesmanship. Fantastic. Soon every national election will be decided by the 100,000 most loyal partisan sheep in the country.

[Spurminator]

Also, I'm certainly no Lieberman fan, but I have to wonder how many people accusing him of betraying the Democratic Party would still have voted for an Independent Lamont based on his anti-war platform.

[ChumpDumper]

All Liberman had to do was flip-flop like most of the other Democrats.

What a doofus.

[boutons_]

"Krugman's strategy"

It's not HIS strategy, he's describing what he sees as pure party politics and discipline (enforced by Rove/DeLay types) overriding any Congressman's personal values, or the values of the voters.

Where do you get the impression that I or Krugman think the current extreme partisanship and polarization is positive?

The biggest myth is that conscience or principles can overcome the overwhelming influence of SIG money and corporate money at any level. Congressman and people vote their pocketbooks.

[Spurminator]

The biggest myth is that conscience or principles can overcome the overwhelming influence of SIG money and corporate money at any level. Congressman and people vote their pocketbooks.

Who voted for Durham based on their pocketbooks? Clearly the main issue driving many of the votes in the primary was the War. That's a priciple, right?

[boutons_]

were there ANY pocketbooks issues in the primary?

Lieberman should have promised all kinds of pork and earmarks, he would have won.

[Ocotillo]

Also, I'm certainly no Lieberman fan, but I have to wonder how many people accusing him of betraying the Democratic Party would still have voted for an Independent Lamont based on his anti-war platform.

Lamont pledged to support the Demcoratic nominee even if it had been Joe Lieberman. Lieberman not being a "party" man refused to make such a commitment. The race that was just held was a Democratic primary and now that Lieberman has shown his true colors, as I alluded to in an earlier post, he is free to run as an independent. We can discuss until the cows come home as to whether it is the "right" thing to do or not but it is legal and he has to be considered the favorite at this point.

The voters no doubt had that on their mind yesterday when making their votes. Some perhaps were swayed to vote against Lieberman because of his refusal to support the parties nominee (unless it was him). Others took into account the advantages of in bency and the fact that should the Dems be successful in winning six Senate seats this November, the balance of power could sit on the shoulders of Joe Lieberman as the deciding vote in a divided Senate.

That said, the votes decided they would rather risk losing the seat in the general than be stuck with six more years of DINO Joe hurting the party by schmoozing with the mortal enemies of the Democrats at Fox, etc.....

[Ocotillo]

Look for the Republicans to kick into high gear and help out Lieberman all they can. Hannity can drop the soft sell and move to full throated support of GOP Joe. Rove has already reached out to Lieberman to help. Most of the conventional wisdom at this stage of the horse race has the Dems taking the House and coming close in the Senate. Should the Senate get close, the Reps are going to need Lieberman and so they are going to reach out in a major way.

The people of Connecticut have to understand one thing in November. If you like George Bush and want a Congress that continues to rubber stamp his wishes, vote for Joe Lieberman. If you think GW Bush is on the wrong track and is hurting this country, vote Ned Lamont. It is that simple.

[Crookshanks]

Win for the wackadoo wing
by Michael Goodwin

Leftward, march! The sucking sound you heard from Connecticut last night was the air going out of the war on terror. At least among many Democrats.
The party's voters have spoken - and they are wrong to try to fire Joe Lieberman after three distinguished terms in the Senate. Now we know what a nutmeg really is. It has something to do with a nutty decision.

Don't buy the baloney that Lieberman lost his primary race because he had lost touch with his home base on a range of issues. Rich upstart Ned Lamont was all about Lieberman's support for the Iraq war and coziness with President Bush. That's what this election was about, period.

So now that the wackadoo wing of the party has a bloody scalp, what are they going to do with it? Wave it at Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon and Afghanistan and Indonesia and Great Britain and Spain and Israel and New York and declare peace? That will work for sure. They better also wear armor and duck.

Lieberman is the first casualty of the war against the war on terror. If last night's results are a window on the party's tilt, then a huge slice of the Democratic party is ready to sit out the war to protect America. God help us if the Republicans also get the wobblies. Let's hope the Connecticut Condition isn't contagious. And let's hope last night's decision is overturned.

Lieberman's decision to stay in the race as an independent is the right one. Given the close margin, all the state's voters deserve a chance to have their say. Perhaps they will fix what the Democrats broke.

That many Americans are disgusted with events in Iraq is understandable. Nothing has gone as planned or promised, a point Lieberman made with some regularity. But wars never go easily, and thus are always unpopular at some point.

Even "good" wars have their bad moments, causing otherwise sensible people to look for the exits.

That is happening across our nation with Iraq, which, given the lousy intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, never was a "good" war. Yet Iraq, in all its ishness, is important, even vital to regional stability and American security. Unplug America's commitment there, which is what the Lamont crowd is about, and how exactly does that help us? Will the terrorists suddenly stop attacking us and our allies?

And does the price of peace also require us to abandon Israel and the moderate Arab governments who are our allies in fighting the terrorists? Indeed, there was a surreal quality to the television news last night: Stations cutting away from the Israeli-Hezbollah war to update the election results, and vice versa. Too bad no one thought to link them as two parts of one story, which is what they are.

Congressional Democratic leaders recently demanded that Bush begin withdrawing our troops this year, regardless of events in Iraq. They called it a "redeployment." When I said that redeployment was another word for retreat, a top party operative disagreed. He said, earnestly, that Dems favored keeping about 35,000 troops "in the region" as something like a police force. "We could go back into Iraq if we had to," he said.

This is fantasy. And that's what Lamont's victory is based on. That somehow we can pull out of Iraq, tell the terrorists they win - and we and our allies will not suffer any consequences. And if those Islamists misbehave, well, we'll just scoot back over there with our police force and arrest those naughty fellows.

I believe that Islamic terrorists will stop at nothing in their mad quest to rule the globe. As a result, World War III has started, whether we like it or not. It will continue, whether we fight back or not. But if we think we can win by not fighting, then we're not just wrong. We're nuts. As in nutmeg.

Originally published on August 9, 2006

[RandomGuy]

So.... support for the war on terror=support for the Iraq fiasco?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

(wipes tears from eyes)

That's classic. Iraq is NOT the war on terror, never was. The fact that right-wing extremists keep harping on it should be enough to make reasonable people very leery of accepting this without some very concrete proof.

Anybody thinks that a war against an idea will be won by military force has another thing coming.

The "war" against communism wasn't won my military force, it was won by the fact that it was a bad idea, and people came to realize it for what it was. It seems that those who think invading Iraq will somehow hurt the terrorists really are as clueless about the rest of the world as GW.

[boutons_]

Goodwin is Crookshanks' type of rabble rouser. Are you aroused, Crooky?

Goodwin is more of a nutcase that the large majority of Americans who think the Iraq war (NOT the war on terror) has been waste, or the voters in CT. Fully half of Americans think the US will lose in Iraq. But Crookshanks and Goodwin rabble think the Iraq war is just fine and dandy.

Why does Goodwin even bother to bloviate about a Democratic primary, except for his own amusement? , there's a chance the Lamont and Lieberman both running could split the Democratic vote and give decent Repug candidate the Senate seat.

And Goodwin is totally dishoneSt, a ing liar, in implying that Iraq is part of the war on terror, which has been the Repugs' lie from afternoon of WTC attack, if not before.

[Ocotillo]

So.... support for the war on terror=support for the Iraq fiasco?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

(wipes tears from eyes)

That's classic. Iraq is NOT the war on terror, never was. The fact that right-wing extremists keep harping on it should be enough to make reasonable people very leery of accepting this without some very concrete proof.

Republicans only hope is to keep repeating this ad finitum because the "war on terror" is something almost all Americans agree needs to be waged. The War in Iraq is a debacle and if voters see the two as one in the same, the Reps win, otherwise, the Dems win.