I can’t wait until the Democrats increase their senate majority to a safe number so we can tell the independent non-Democrat Joe Lieberman to take a long walk of a short pier as he continues to service George Bush.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Kudos to the insightful voters of Connecticut.
Not that the cowardly Dems didn’t f*ck things up by not coming out strongly for Lamont (with either public appearances or money). Not that the DC crowd wanted a potentially true progressive in their circle. They had quite enough with Howard Dean.
Yeah, that argument’s just b.s. Lamont lost on his own.
Lamont would have cleaned Lie-berman’s clock had not 70% of the republican voters abandoned their own candidate and voted for Holy Joe.
I’m one D that says control of the Senate is not worth brown-nosing that opportunisitic bastard. Freeze him out and let him switch sides if he dares!
I wonder if the good citizens of Connecticut are experiencing any buyers’ remorse? Have there been any recent polls
Uh, no it’s not b.s. While I agree that Lamont opened the door for Lieberman by not coming out strongly after the primary, the dems as a whole were woefully feeble when it came time to throw any support behind Lamont and none of them put any pressure on Joe to step aside or stand by his positions on Iraq.
Then there’s Schumer. What a laundry list of petty sh*t he has.
And what of Rahm Emanuel?
Lots of petty internal sh*t with the Dems and while no one thing may have been responsible for the Lamont loss, you can bank on them cumulatively having a major impact, possibly a decisive one.
Simply trying to dump it all on Lamont is ridiculous.
Where’s Jimmy Hatlo?
They won the election, got the majority and now they’re bitter. D*mn Joe Lieberman anyway! Trying to be bipartisan? Who does he think he is? Progressives want a hater!
Its not being a “hater” Dug, its that Lieberman(CT4L-CT) was campaigning with criticising Bush’s handling of Katrina in an attempt to portray himself as bipartisan and as critical of the president as he is supportive. Now that he’s in a position to follow through on that criticism, he outright balks at it, giving Bush a pass. Its not that he isnt full of blind frothing venom, its that he’s a dishonest shit. And while that trait is certainly a virtue to people like you on the right who pretend to be independant (much like Joe himself does) its not so much appealing to people with consciences.
Trying to be bipartisan?
The people who actually read the article would understand the issue here is that Lieberman lied. He’s backing out on a claim he made during the campaign that he clearly made only to convince a percentage of Democrats that he’s still worth voting for.
OT (to those who might care)
Robert Anton Wilson, RIP
“The fear of death is the beginning of slavery”
Let’s just say that Matt Stoller and David Sirota are not the most objective or believable people on the subject of Ned Lamont. Schumer and Emanuel worked on a historic campaign that delivered the House and Senate to the Democratic party, the idea that there was a plot to hobble Ned Lamont is the product of overactive imaginations compensating for Ned’s lack of campaign acumen.
“I can’t wait until the Democrats increase their senate majority to a safe number”
So they can kill more earmark/ethics reform bills like they did yesterday?
August, please. When you say Lieberman ‘lied’ , a mean,harsh indictment, and something you can’t at all prove, you brand yourself a hater.
And Rex, Liberman IMO is trying to be bipartisan. You and I would completely disagree about how much, if any, Bush screwed up re Katrina. Going after him now serves no purpose other than to placate the haters.
It seems fairly cut and dried that he misled people according to the article there.
You and I would completely disagree about how much, if any, Bush screwed up re Katrina.
Irrelevant.
What’s at issue here is what Mr. Lieberman promised voters he would do about the Katrina response before the election and how he has changed his tune after the election.
Unless you’re saying it’s OK for a politician to go back on his promises as long as you like the result. That’s different.
Liberman IMO is trying to be bipartisan.
Your opinion is mistaken. He says Bush needs to be held accountable for mistakes made regarding Katrina. Then, when put in a position to hold Bush accountable, he decides not to. That isnt being bipartisan, its being a dishonest shit.
But yes, the fact that we cannot prove that Lieberman knew he was going to do this when he was saying the exact opposite doesnt mean he’s a liar. Much the same way, while campaigning, he was talking about how great Iraq was going and how we would probably be reducing surplus troops soon, that his disconnect with reality doesnt mean that he was “lying” per se, just that he had no intention to think critically about an opinion that, in the face of almost all the evidence, is manifestly false.
You really love to go after people who use the L word though dont you Dug? Alright, heres a thing. I, Rex Mundane, am actually a Potato. A starchy tuberous vegetable. Seriously. And not like a human sized one either, I’m just a regular Potato. And, heres the key, I’m not lying about this. Because if I actually believe that I’m a Potato, even though it is a belief that is diametrically at odds with every piece of evidence available, and one that begs questions about how I’m able to think and type and talk and laugh and love, and I keep espousing this belief as though it were the truth and attack you for daring to contradict me by providing sensible proof that I’m not a Potato as I claim, I’m not, in fact, lying. I’m not lying at all. I’m a Potato, Dugger, and Not lying at all when I say it, and you would have to be a rabid hater to suggest otherwise, calmly and rationally though you may.
Oh wait, heres a better one:
This sentence is false.
Have I just lied?
August, please. When you say Lieberman ‘lied’ , a mean,harsh indictment, and something you can’t at all prove,
He said during the campaign they need to investigate Bush’s handling of Katrina. He’s now saying he doesn’t think they need to investigate Bush’s handling of Katrina. It helps if you read the sentences from left to right; perhaps that’s what stumped you the first time around and caused such confusion for you.
you brand yourself a hater.
Apparently we can’t prove you’re not fourteen years old. Although, that would explain quite a lot.
Somehow seeing the title of this post, I can’t help but command Connecticut voters in my best Invader Zim voice:
Start your rueing!
Lieberman’s campaign lied about having been hacked by Lamont’s nefarious blogofascist drones, and about his not being W’s butt boy. If The Last Honest Man can’t even demand documents from W relating to Katrina, what can we expect him to oppose the Administration on?
Maybe the wholesale slaughter of kittens.
Any substantiation for any of this? Why are Stoller and Sirota unreliable but you aren’t? Because they actually site examples of how the Dems aggressively worked to split the difference with Lamont and Lieberman to cover their asses should either prove victorious? Was it Rahm’s initial desire to push the Iraq war out of the spotlight that won all those seats? Maybe his support, both vocally and monetarily for a batch of losers?
Won the House? Try practically lost it. I’m certainly open to contrary opinions, but attacking the messenger(s) and dismissing a rather large pool of evidence of Rahm’s tunnel vision as a “plot” (oh those conspiracy minded liberals, why can’t they accept that Gore lost…oops, wrong plot) seems like a page torn from the other team’s playbook. Sure Lamont made mistakes, some serious. I’d call his failure to press his primary victory and push Lieberman out of the race (which probably wouldn’t have worked, considering what happened anyway) a biggie. That opened the door for Lieberman to grab Lamont’s anti-war narrative and dishonestly re-frame his campaign. Lamont ran a decent race against an opponent that had a lot of institutional advantages. For a first time candidate going against a deeply entrenched beltway incumbent, he did an incredible job (being wealthy didn’t hurt, either). Christ, the fact that we even remember his name as anything other than a blip on the 2006 radar is proof of that.
Do you guys hate Lieberman because he’s conservative?
He’s not the only, is he?
This is what talking to Frank is like:
http://angryflower.com/pathof.gif
Stoller and Sirota are unreliable because they’re both too close to the situation to provide an honest accounting. It’s the same way that Joe Gibbs could go 0-16 and I would find a way to blame everyone else for the Redskin’s woes.
I’m not saying Schumer and Emanuel are God, but they were in charge of the DCCC and DSCC at a time when the party captured the House and Senate. It’s clear they did something right. Stoller and Sirota like to posit big conspiracy theories that inevitably lead back to Hillary and Bill Clinton sabotaging the Lamont campaign, when in fact the result of Ned Lamont’s campaign lays with Ned Lamont. I would have voted for Lamont, but that doesn’t excuse that his campaign was badly run (the same way I blame John Kerry for the Kerry campaign).
I think I speak for many when I say the reason we don’t like Lieberman isn’t because he’s conservative – there are a lot more conservative Democrats than him who don’t get any of the grief, but it’s because he loves to stab the Democratic party in the back and gives cover to Bush to continue his war.
So, another question: Is he the only Democrat that is not against the war?
This is what watching N G on a couch is like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc_RxJSLMr8
To be clear, I don’t hate Emanuel or Schumer, in fact, I agree with them on a number of policy issues. However, I find their pandering to the false middle and resistance to candidates perceived as “far” left to be troubling, to say the least.
Frankly, their positions at the head of the table certainly deserve some credit, but I’d give a lot more credit to voter disgust with Bush and the GOP. With the right campaign, I think a lot of Repubs would have gone down in flames to a pile of plastic novelty vomit.
As for Sirota and Stoller, they may have a penchant for pissing on the Clintons (Bill for not holding sufficiently to his economic populist roots and Hillary for her poll tested positions on everything), but they were pretty close to the campaign and do site very specific examples of how Lamont got the shaft from the Dems in many ways. I think Sirota argues a very persuasive case, and simply being close to the campaign doesn’t render him blind to it’s failings, nor does it invalidate his many points about the various factors outside the Lamont campaign that contributed to his loss. There’s plenty of blame to spread around, just as there is plenty of credit where the other national races are concerned. I was never under the impression that the factions in the Dmeocratic Party were working against Lamont so much as they were not working for him out of fear of appearing to weak on security or to in line with the “fringe.” I definitely think a similar perception has worked to undermine Dean, though Dean himself has hurt his cause from time to time thanks to a bit of an inarticulate streak.
And as for Dugger and Frank, Lieberman is a self-interested, high profile, back stabbing, liar. He gets special attention because he so routinely offers himself up to conservative media as the sane voice struggling to save the soul of the Democratic Party. He never hesitates to heap scorn on anyone, whether they be citizen or politician, if they have the audacity to stand against the war or his positions on it. You can do a semantic dance about his honesty all you want, arguing, say, that when Lieberman said he was in favor of ending the war as quickly as possible, he meant “but responsibly.” Of course, that means putting words in his mouth, a tactic those on morally shaky ground, or children under 10, often employ in an attempt to leave themselves wiggle room when caught out in a lie. Tack on the Katrina 180 and Lieberman seems to be having a hard time keeping his campaign promises, well, to the voters, anyway.
In my opinion, if you’re close to a campaign, you’re the worst person to comment on it from a clinical point of view (and this includes myself). Read their postmortems, they fault Ned Lamont for nothing – as if he ran the perfect campaign but the entire Democratic establishment decided to draw up a conspiracy against him. It just doesn’t jibe.
Here’s how I see it. As odious as he is, Lieberman is going to caucus with the Dems – so if either he or Lamont wins, the Dems still have that leadership vote. If a Dem is out campaigning for someone, and the choice is Ned Lamont or Jim Webb/Claire McCaskill/Jon Tester, I think it would be idiocy to waste time with Lamont. I don’t see it as any sort of desire to disassociate from the fringe, but plain simple politics – and I think I’m removed enough from the situation to make that assesment rather than someone inside the camp who thinks everyone’s “out to get us” (For instance, nobody can tell me Jerry Jones doesn’t pay off the refs during Redskins-Cowboys games and that the announcers don’t always have a pro-Dallas bias. See what I mean?).
I’m not sure I buy the notion that Lieberman will caucus with the Dems, at least not consistently. He essentially has them by the balls and he knows it. He continues to speak out in support of Bush’s disastrous Iraq “strategies” and now has given him a free pass on Katrina. What can the Dems do to stop him? Kick him out of the party? He’s not a Dem anymore and even if he were, that would tilt the Senate decisively back to the GOP. They seem to be giving him free reign to do as he pleases with the hope that he will side with them on the odd bit of legislation. As for his Connecticut constituency, given that 70% of Republicans voted for him in the last election, I have to wonder if he has any incentive not to jump parties any day now. Seriously, what’s to stop him? Fear of being called out as a liar? He’s openly flouting his position about the war and Katrina without a hint of concern for public opinion. He might continue to side with the Dems since he has so much leverage and it gives him the opportunity to continue to paint himself as a noble centrist to the media. Considering his recent appearances with that other faux centrist media whore, McCain, I have to wonder if he isn’t angling for another shot at V.P. in ‘08. Whatever his plan, I don’t see any reason to consider loyalty to the Dems a guarantee.