Bye, bye Lieberman!

[Sonic Youth]

I just received a call from my mother in Stamford, Ct. Joe and his wife are moving into an apartment in her building, one floor up and one apt. over. It is to gag.

Maybe she can befriend the upstairs neighbor and throw Friday night parties. After sundown.

Bye bye, huh?

[Damien]

Sonic is right avbout the dynamics of the race:

Right now Shmoe is leading Ned 53 percent to 41.

Before the primary, the lead was 51 to 27 percent. So the Egomaniac's "surge" is an increase of two points in his support, while his lead has been cut literally in half, 24 points to 12.

As Lieberman's Republican ties become more pronounced, the good people of Connecticut will become more and more disenchanted and nauseated by the schmuck.

[Damien]

Conservative talk radio sure is shilling for Lieberman. Like really, really, hard. They seem to have the impression--or are trying to create the impression--that Lieberman was somehow betrayed by the Democratic Party.

Given what a liberal state Connecticut is, the more that right-wing blabbers aretalking up their boy Shmoe, the more it helps Ned. I well imagine a Lamont ad which just repeats talking points from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Cal Thomas. How funny is it that a multi-millionaire from Greenwich is being portrayed as a wooly-eyed member of the lunatic fringe?

[dws1982]

Conservative talk radio sure is shilling for Lieberman. Like really, really, hard. They seem to have the impression--or are trying to create the impression--that Lieberman was somehow betrayed by the Democratic Party.

[Damien]

From the Huffington Post:


LIEBERMAN SHOCKER: "IF DEFEATED IN NOBVEMBER, I WILL REFUSE TO VACATE SEAT"
by Gabriel Rotello

WYOMING - 08.10.2006 - Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman stunned Washington today by announcing that if he loses the general election in November, he will refuse to vacate his seat in the Senate.

"I owe it to the nation," the Senator told reporters while quail hunting with Dick Cheney and a heavily bandaged Karl Rove. "If a gaggle of voters in a small, mostly wooded state think they can polarize our entire political system, they don't know this Joe."


Asked how he could ignore the clear will of Nutmeg State voters if they reject him in November, Lieberman replied, "Voters aren't everybody. In general elections, only the partisan, polarizing types generally go to the polls. I want to provide a voice for the moderate majority who never vote."

The senator also pointed out that neither white-tailed deer nor Canadian geese are eligible to vote in Connecticut, though they constitute a clear majority of the population and, he contends, strongly support his position on Iraq.

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid reacted with characteristic caution to Lieberman's latest bombshell.

"If Ned Lamont wins in November, he should get Lieberman's desk and his locker, absolutely" Reid said. "But I can't force Lieberman to clean out his desk. That has to be his choice."

Observers openly doubted that Republican leaders would enforce the Senate rules at Lieberman's expense.

"The President loves Lieby Baby," said one White House official on condition of anonymity. "There's no way he's going let a bunch of latte-sipping Connecti-commies force him out."

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said there was no precedent for an incumbent senator simply refusing to go when defeated. "I've never heard of it," she commented from her bunker in an undisclosed location, "but come to think of it, why not? Couldn't be worse than the Senate we historically get."

Faced with a potential standoff, insiders speculated that the issue might be ultimately decided by simple brute force in the Senate cloakroom. Lamont, 52, appears to be considerably less jowly than Lieberman, who is a decade older, rarely visits the Senate gym and has a fondness for Danish.

"In a one-on-one, Ned Lamont can take Lieberman down, no question," said one staffer. "But I'm not so sure about Hadassah."

[Damien]

The reason people were so pissed off at the self-serving Shmoe Lieberman remaining in the Senate race is that if he had become Vice-President, then his Senate replacement would have been chosen by the corrupt REEPUBLICAN governor, John Rowland. eaning that a Democratic seat would have been handed over to a Republican because of Lieberman. (And would have most likely tilted the balance of power in the Senate -- so much for Lieberman's claims of his devotion to his party).

If he had removed himself from the race, then the terrific Attorney General Richard Blumenthal would have coasted to victory.

[criddic3]

I voted for Dole in '96. I was just curious to see if you actually see a major difference. I see the point, though, that a candidate hedges his bets by leaving his name in both races, but I also understand that only one person can be elected vice-president or president at a time. If you're already in the position as a popularly elected senator, and you know that winning as the VP candidate isn't a sure thing, I wouldn't blame him for keeping a cushion to fall back on if things don't work out. After all, he campiagned as the VP candidate, not as the senatorial candidate.

It's noble in a sense to symbolically give all to your presidential (or VP) campaign, and leave the other job behind. Actually, it's more noble if you are going for the top spot. Yet, I don't think it is a bad thing not to do so.

I don't agree with Lieberman on all issues. I do admire his willingness to cross party lines when he thinks it will be for a worthwhile cause. He believes that going after Hussein and giving the Iraqi people a shot at freedom was a "Noble" thing. He has repeatedly said he thinks the Bush administration has handled the war in the wrong way, but agrees with the mission. His party tossed him for being able to stick by his vote for war. They might suffer the loss if Lieberman wins, or if a split occurs and the far-behind Schlesinger surprises us all. Politically, the Democrats have a problem. They are not prepared to offer a real alternative (and haven't all these years) to Bush's plans. They are screaming anti-war to get their votes and are pushing out all those voices that see terrorism for what it is.

To make matters worse for them, some are actually saying that the recent thwarted terrorist threats were being used as a stunt to raise poll numbers and help Republicans in the fall elections. I think that is ridiculous. Many times I've heard and read people saying this whenever an alert was sounded or a plot was diverted. But the truth is that this is not make believe. Conspiracy theories are fun to listen to, but 99.9% of them are simply false. People make them up to make themselves seem important, like they know something the rest of us don't.

2008 won't be a happy time for Democrats if they keep making cases like these. And this year, Republicans might hold on to their majorities (albeit, sharply reduced). Unless they come up with something truly new and genuine.

[Mister Tee]

Okay, I, too, have more respect for Dole than I do for Lieberman --in many areas -- but let's not over-romanticize his withdrawal from that Senate seat. He wasn't up for re-election that year (he'd been re-elected in '92), so holding the seat didn't require hedging his bets (same as had been true for Kennedy, Goldwater, McGovern). He decided to leave the Senate (and, more important, his role as Majority Leader) because Daschle was embarrassing him on a daily basis by preventing him from getting his signature legislation through; he decided he was better off getting the brief press-boost from his decision than undergoing steady parliamentary torture.

It didn't take Lieberman long, did it, to jump to full-on-Rove tactics? I want to hear from all those people who told us, come on, he's a good Democrat at heart; he'd never do anything to hurt his party. Nothing except slime the position held by about 80-90% of them.

[Damien]

In today's mail:

After kind words from Dick Cheney and a condolence call from Karl Rove, it took Senator Lieberman (Lieberman-CT) less than 48 hours to adopt the Republican playbook for his go-it-alone re-election campaign.

"It will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again," Joe Lieberman said specifically of Ned's, and your, desire to start bringing our troops home.

He even went as far as calling you "anti-security" before the election.

Sound familiar? Of course it does. The politicizing of terror and fear-mongering peddled by Senator Lieberman and his favorite president for the past five years is part of the problem in Washington, D.C., and it's why the people of Connecticut voted for change on Tuesday.

Joe Lieberman's fear campaign is off to a quick start, and it won't be long until Republican money starts completely funding his campaign. Will you make a donation to make sure we're prepared for for three months of attacks like this?

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/m/i08p4sqmq1x/Xxark0

It's not just his use of Bush-speak as a direct attack on Ned and the Democratic Party, it's that Joe Lieberman and President Bush are so terribly wrong on national security. Their stay the course strategy in Iraq diverts necessary human and financial resources needed to keep us safe, and prosperous, here at home.

Joe Lieberman has provided aid and comfort for a failed foreign policy for too long, and Republicans across the country are already using his last ditch attempt to cling to political power as an election issue this fall.

How much longer will he hurt the Party, and our country?

With your help, it ends this November.

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/m/i08p4sqmq1x/Xxark0

Over the past few months we built a powerful organization that drove record voter turnout on Tuesday. Between now and November we've got to do even more.

Rock the boat,

Tom Swan
Campaign Manager, Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate

[Sonic Youth]

I had him figured for a self-serving jerk when he hedged his bets by running for both V.P. and Senator six years ago.

Does this mean you have more respect for Robert Dole, Presidential candidate in 1996, for retiring from the senate in order to run for the higher office?

Absolutely. And I said so in 2000. I probably said so on this board, too. And I know plenty in Connecticut who took it as a slight that he kept his name on the ballot, but never visited Connecticut or acknowledged this race at all. He just took it as a matter of course, and when he couldn't obtain the VP's office, no prob. He just sauntered back into his senate seat as if it were a handout. Most Connecticut Republicans used that as a talking point in the (barely existant) senate race as evidence that he didn't care about the state unless it was a means to an end. And some Democrats quietly agreed. Dole is looking better every year for doing what he did, although of course it didn't help him much. I didn't vote for Lieberman at all in 2000. I chose Nader for president (how many are willing to admit that anymore?) and left the Senate race blank as my little form of protest.

[Big Magilla]

I don't like Dole and I can't stand his wife, but in this instance, yes, I have more respect for Dole's actions as well as those of John Edwards, the Dems' 2004 Vice Presidential candidate, who could have pulled a Lieberman but showed more class by choosing not to run for the Senate at the same time. When you run for two offices simultaneously it makes it appear, rightly or wrongly, that you don't have the confidence that you can win the higher one so why should the voters support you in that endeavor?

[criddic3]

I had him figured for a self-serving jerk when he hedged his bets by running for both V.P. and Senator six years ago.

Does this mean you have more respect for Robert Dole, Presidential candidate in 1996, for retiring from the senate in order to run for the higher office?

Personally, I don't think it's wrong (and certainly not unprecedented) for a candidate to put his name in two different slots at the same time.

[Damien]

Schlesinger only has 9% but I think that because he had no primary there was no reason for him to be in the media, so nobody's heard of the guy. Even in Connecticut 20-25% of the populace will just pull the lever for the Republicab guy. He was on Hardball last night and for some one who's been given so little respect, he actually came across as articulate and fairly thoughtful. He was saying that if polling indicates that he has 25% support, on election day he'll get another 10-15 percent of voters who will go for him because his name is adjacent to Governor Reil's, and -- with Lieberman playing spoiler, that could n enough to get him over.

As for Shmoe. the alacroty with which both national and state Democrats have embraced Ned, he has to be feeling somewhat deflated, even with his monstous ego. I still maintain that there are few things that turn people off more than a sore loser, and in this loser's case, the oily sanctimoniousness only exacerbates the distaste. Added to this is the rumor that Karl Rove called for offers of support, and only those with a permanent hard-on for the troll will stick with him.

Independents are the largest group in Connecticut, but they are also against the the war, and just because a carer hack politician suddenly declares himself to be an "independent" doesn't mean the real independents are gonna flock to him. In the last polls I saw, only Rhode Island and Massachusetts give Bush a lower approval rating than Connecticut, so Shmoe can spin all he wants but his closeness to the President is toxic.

On the flip side, Lieberman's supposed pal Sean Hannity who had declared he would do anything in his power to help the jerk out, not sayys any Republican would be a fool to vote for him, since in the primary campaign he was emphasizing his liberal cred.

[Sonic Youth]

Anyone who hadn't already caught on to Lieberman's "it's all about me" attitude should certainly have seen the light after that unbelievable "concession" speech -- which essentially amounted to "I'm disappointed the voters were so stupid".

Clearly! More interested in hanging on to power than conceding to the will of the Democrat voters in his state. What, he's supposed to give up an 18 year career because of some dumb primary election?

Alot of that 48% Lieberman got last night was institutional/inertial -- the reason incumbents are so difficult to dislodge. Much of that -- union & interest groups, party backing -- will be gone in a fortnight;

I'm going to continue to disagree until I'm proven wrong.

Yeah, he'll lose the backing, but that doesn't mean he'll lose the votes. There is no chance that he'll throw the race to the Republican candidate, as dws asked. (Although, that he'd risk such a possibility under any circumstances proves his disloyalty to the Democrats if nothing else does.) Schlesinger has a major gambling addiction. He's so toxic, governor Rell asked him to step aside so a more viable candidate could replace him, and - Leiberman-like - he's refused. In a poll I saw, he had only 9 percent of the total in a three way race. Lieberman had about three-quarters of the conservative vote, and when he gets Republican backing that number will grow. Again, even if many Democrats support Lamont, Lieberman needs only a few steadfast Dems and a reasonable number of independents to win this thing. We'll see what happens as the race progresses, but it's far from impossible that the Lieb wins it.

Which leaves Joe with the option of mostly going for GOP support -- which he'd have to do very carefully to avoid losing the remainder of his Dem backing.

Of course he's not going to say "I'm a Republican!" and embrace the right. But he can still get some implicit support as well as their money, simultaneously courting supporters who have been by his side for decades while speaking to Republican voters in "code". His theme will probably be what a universal candidate, building bridges between the parties, standing for the middle ground, etc. He just has to make sure he doesn't say "I'm a uniter, not a divider", though that's essentially what he DID say last night.

[Big Magilla]

It's interesting to note that when Lamont was interviewed by Stephanopalous on his TV show last Sunday he indicated his hero was Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy, it should be remembered, split the Republican vote when he ran as independant against Taft in 1920, handing the election to Woodrow Wilson.

In California we have the opposite problem. The union vote gave the primary win to the wrong guy. Arnold is stomping all over him in the polls.