Friday, July 28, 2006

The Alito Myth

Of all the outlandish myths that the Lieberman-haters peddle, none is more ludicrous than their charge that Joe Lieberman put Sam Alito on the Supreme Court.

No matter how many times you remind them that: A) Joe Lieberman spoke out against Alito's nomination; B) he voted against it; C) a filibuster was doomed to failure and thus amounted to a meaningless and ultimately destructive gesture; the Lieberman haters keep claiming that Lieberman is responsible for Alito getting confirmed, simply because he did not back the futile filibuster.

Case in point: the hysterical mailing from the National Organization of Women that was reported on in today's Hartford Courant.

In a Lamont mailing, Rosemary Dempsey, president of the Connecticut NOW, said Lieberman's refusal to back a filibuster was "a slap in the face to every woman of this state, no matter her political beliefs, economic status or race."

Beyond explaining why NOW has zero credibility in the mainstream political world, this quote epitomizes the irrationality and disingenuousness of the purge campaign being waged against Joe Lieberman. Compile a very strong record on reproductive rights and on women's rights, vote against the nomination in question, get NARAL's endorsement, and you still get accused of slapping women in the face.

It also underscores the desperate need for some perspective on this particular issue.

Up until this session of Congress, the filibuster was not even considered a fringe option for blocking Supreme Court nominees. With one notable exception, the case of Abe Fortas in 1968, the tactic had never been invoked to block a Supreme Court nomination. According to the official account by the Senate historian, Fortas was not torpedoed because of his ideology, but because of serious ethical issues.

As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, [Senate Minority Leader Everett] Dirksen and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.

That all changed last year with the Roberts and Alito nominations. Some in the Democratic family decided that Bush's high court appointments had to be blocked by any means necessary, and the threat of a filibuster based purely on ideology was openly discussed. This of course prompted the whole showdown over the so-called "nuclear option, with Republicans threatening to change the Senate rules to permanently bar the use of filibuster for Supreme Court nominations if Democrats used the tactic against John Roberts or Alito.

Lieberman and other moderate Democrats then worked with the reasonable elements of the Senate Republican caucus -- the so-called gang of 14 -- to craft an agreement that would protect the right of the minority to filibuster court nominees in the future in extreme circumstances. That was his great sin -- finding a compromise with Republicans that helped Democrats, by preserving the precedent that had been followed for the entire history of the filibuster.

If Lieberman had supported the filibuster, it would not have changed the outcome at all. It would have, though, threatened the agreement he had made, which at the moment was the only thing standing in the way of the nuclear option being triggered and the filibuster being eliminated completely as a check and balance in Supreme Court nominations.

If Lieberman and the other members of the Gang of 14 had broken their word and backed the filibuster, it may have derailed the Alito nomination temporarily. But it would have had disastrous consequences, setting in motion a chain of events that ultimately would have resulted not only in the end of the filibuster as we know it, but in Alito getting on the bench in the end once the Senate rules were changed. Talk about a pyrrhic victory.

These subtleties are of course lost on the Lieberman-haters. By their dipso-facto kind of logic, Republicans are evil, compromise with evil is evil, and thus even a compromise with Republicans that helps Democrats is evil. Moreover, because Joe Lieberman has compromised with Republicans at times in the past, that makes him even more evil than the other Democrats in the Gang of 14 and a deserving a much higher level of blame.

Presto: Joe Lieberman's opposition to Alito is magically transformed (re: twisted) into support for Alito. George Orwell would be proud.

Sadly this is yet another case of scapegoating Joe Lieberman -- not just for George Bush's actions, but for the Democratic Party's impotence. The Democratic Party failed to put up a candidate who could be beat Bush in 2004, which was the best way to stop him from appointing right-wing judges to the court. That was not Joe Lieberman's fault.

In addition, the Senate's Democratic leadership, and the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee, failed to make a compelling case to the American people as to why Alito was so unfit for the Supreme Court that his nomination justified the extreme use of the filibuster. That was the only way that the Democrats could have won the nuclear option showdown, by having the bulk of public opinion on their side. Again, not Joe Lieberman's fault.

Now let me be clear: honest people can disagree over the question of whether the Alito nomination met the extreme circumstances threshold. There is a credible argument he did. My point is that the Senate Democrats did not present a convincing enough case to justify blowing up the institution over this nomination. Moreover, the question became moot when the other members of the Gang of 14 decided that Alito did not meet that test. Once that happened, if Lieberman had broken ranks and supported the filibuster, he would have accomplished nothing, other than momentarily appeasing his critics and weakening the agreement that was preserving the filibuster in the first place.

None of this will persuade or mollify the Lieberman haters, who have already convicted him in spite of the evidence. But for those voters who care about the truth, they need to know that Joe Lieberman did right by Democrats throughout this episode. He opposed Sam Alito AND protected a critical check on presidential power. To say otherwise is a slap in the face of reality.

138 Comments:

Blogger matt said...

First time I've commented on one of Dan's posts, but I couldn't resist:

"If Lieberman and the other members of the Gang of 14 had broken their word and backed the filibuster, it may have derailed the Alito nomination temporarily. But it would have had disastrous consequences, setting in motion a chain of events that ultimately would have resulted not only in the end of the filibuster as we know it, but in Alito getting on the bench in the end once the Senate rules were changed. Talk about a pyrrhic victory."

A pyhrric victory implies that you still got what you wanted in the end, but at great cost. In this case, the Dems still would not have gotten what they wanted if they had filibustered Alito. So such a course of action wouldn't even have led to a pyrrhic victory. More like a Zama-esque defeat.

7/28/2006 2:08 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Thank you Dan for explaining this so very well.

SF

7/28/2006 2:16 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

One other key point:

The filibuster deal also effectively stopped two contested conservative appeals court nominations.

7/28/2006 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/28/2006 2:28 PM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

LieberDem said:
If Lieberman had supported the filibuster, it would not have changed the outcome at all.

"We'll lose anyway, so let's not fight." Wow, I'm all kinds of excited about Democrats now. That kind of leadership and willingness to fight on principle gives me goosebumps. What a leader that Joe Lieberman is- so wise to not fight on principle, ever.

You just don't get it. YOU WON'T SUCCEED IF YOU DON'T TRY. Giving up before the fight begins because you're afraid you'll lose is exactly why the Democratic Party is perceived as weak in the first place.

With a filibuster, more time could have been given to discussing Alito's judicial record, his philosophy, etc, and perhaps some moderate Republicans could have been swayed or perhaps the Republican party could have taken a hit in approval ratings. The Democratic Party could have benefited by keeping the debate open and sending a clear, united, and principled stand against Justice Alito. Win or lose, America would have known where Democrats stood.

You may think that's unrealistic, but we'll never know for sure what would have happened, now will we? All because Joe Lieberman didn't want to try. Joe Lieberman guaranteed failure because he didn't want to try. I can't afford to support that kind of defeatism and risk aversion. The Democratic Party can't afford to support that kind of defeatism and risk aversion. America can't afford to support that kind of defeatism and risk aversion.

At what point do the Republicans go too far? Is there any nominee that Joe Lieberman and you quivering Dems would filibuster? When do the rest of you Dems stand up and say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"?

I wonder if you ever will, and so support for Democrats like you and Joe Lieberman really just supports a campaign of gradual retreat, inch by inch, year by year, nominee by nominee.

LieberDem said:
[Support of a filibuster] would have, though, threatened the agreement he had made, which at the moment was the only thing standing in the way of the nuclear option being triggered and the filibuster being eliminated completely as a check and balance in Supreme Court nominations.

Please explain to me what the f--k good it does to maintain an option that Joe Lieberman doesn't ever want to exercise. What's the f--king point of having the capability to filibuster, if Joe Lieberman doesn't ever want to filibuster?

And while we're on the subject, why are Dems so scared of Republicans using the nuclear option? They're bluffing, you nimrods! Dems like you would be the worst poker players in the world! Republicans know that there might come a time in the future where they will be in the minority, and so they would never follow through on the nuclear threat!

(sniff) (sniff) "Please, Mr. Big Bad Republican, please don't hurt us- please let us keep the filibuster option, as long as we promise never to actually filibuster". How absurd and cowardly. And you think Lamont is weakening the party? You just don't get it.

7/28/2006 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Age of Vichy Dems is coming to a close...

7/28/2006 2:55 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

I'm so tired of seeing rants about how the Awful "Dipso-Facto" Lamont Supporters tell "outlandish, ludicrous myths"; rants that pretty much wind down to an admission that, umm, yes, the anti-Lieberman crowd actually DOES have the facts correct, we just disagree about their significance.

Such a debate on the significance of the FACTS is healthy and cleansing. Vilifying people for simply bringing these facts up is a despicable tactic.

Mr. Gerstein, I challenge you to eschew the hateful rhetoric and the nonstop flood of ad hominems directed at your fellow Democrats and simply present your case - like your colleague Lieberdem has shown is possible to do.

We're not all crazed fools over here on the left. And here's one Democrat with a loooong memory.

7/28/2006 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just got the new "Lieberman" flyer.

Somehow the campaign photographed the wrong end of the mule.

7/28/2006 3:23 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

cfaller:
"'We'll lose anyway, so let's not fight.' Wow, I'm all kinds of excited about Democrats now."

"The Democratic Party can't afford to support that kind of defeatism and risk aversion. America can't afford to support that kind of defeatism and risk aversion."

That sounds to me like you're describing Ned Lamont's approach to national security.

7/28/2006 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well we all know how marvelously Joe Lieberman's approach to "national security" is playing out.

7/28/2006 4:53 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"Mr. Gerstein, I challenge you to eschew the hateful rhetoric and the nonstop flood of ad hominems directed at your fellow Democrats and simply present your case - like your colleague Lieberdem has shown is possible to do."

sundog:

Maybe YOU should lay off the ad-hominems and provide a concrete example, if there is one, of what the heck you are talking about, if there is any complaint you have about Mr. Gerstein's post.

I saw one previous post of your about ad-hominems which contained the silly premise that calling Lieberman a Republican is a debate, rather than and ad-hominem, while calling the multitude of shrieking left-wing bloggers shrill was supposedly an ad-hominem.

7/28/2006 4:55 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Anonymous: Agreed. I think the point there is that we need to once again resume using our military for defense, not offense.

Nobody could argue that there is any reason for us to be in Iraq. Our sons and daughters, and our national treasure, is being wasted for absolutely nothing.

For this, Joe Lieberman must be held to account.

7/28/2006 4:59 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

'Well we all know how marvelously Joe Lieberman's approach to "national security" is playing out.'

Yes, because unlike those who prefer to echo terrorist talking-points, we've read the Brookings Iraq Index.

7/28/2006 5:01 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Feel free to repeat Republican talking points as much as you like. Your trouble now is that only a few people believe that stuff.

Why not cite figures from The Lieberman Ministry of Information? They'd be at least as meaningful.

7/28/2006 5:02 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"Feel free to repeat Republican talking points as much as you like. Your trouble now is that only a few people believe that stuff."

lol. So now the facts are "Republican talking points".

Brookings is a well regarded left of center policy think tank which Ned Lamont supports. There's only a few people who don't believe such unbiased sources.

7/28/2006 5:07 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Concern Troll Balbari

It was AIPAC, the Brookings Institute, Joe Lieberman and his ilk who led us into this mess. The thing you don't understand is that those think-tanks and politicians have

ZERO CREDIBILITY RIGHT NOW

They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. This is why you see voters lining up behind Ned Lamont and others, and Republican fortunes fading fast. The Iraq War is an incredible disaster for this country. It is time to try something else.

7/28/2006 5:13 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

Anti-Semetic Troll L4L:

You left out the trilateral commision.

As for what Brookings was saying before the war...

"A strong case can be made that Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, is so threatening to his people, his neighbors, and U.S. interests that the United States should use military force, unilaterally if necessary, to overthrow him. Proponents of such an approach, however, often underestimate the costs and risks involved. Instead of mounting a U.S. attack on Iraq as part of the current campaign, the Bush administration should take advantage of its success in Afghanistan to pressure allies and regional players to isolate Saddam's regime and to reinforce deterrence in an unambiguous way."


"Absent compelling evidence of significant Iraqi involvement with the al Qaeda network or the events of September 11, the likely costs and risks of a commitment of American military forces to a regime-change campaign in Iraq would outweigh the benefits. A U.S. overthrow campaign would entail a large-scale military operation that the United States would probably have to undertake essentially alone; the increased risk of triggering terrorist attacks against American or allied targets; significant American casualties given the potential for intense urban combat and Iraqi use of chemical and biological agents; and the likely need for a long-term American military presence in Iraq to avoid regional destabilization."

You guys are just like the neocons. They ignored all of the evidence from unbiased sources which said not to invade Iraq; and you are ignoring all of the evidence that says we need to stay just a bit longer, but that many things are improving.

If some of the bloggers had their way, we would have withdrawn a year ago and thrown the country into certain civil war.

Lieberman and alot of other Democrats were wrong about giving Bush the authority to start this war. But unlike most Democrats, Lieberman is showing some backbone now and standing up for the right policy, even when his career might possibly be on the line.

7/28/2006 5:44 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

Almost forgot:
link

7/28/2006 5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone here have some of those "Kiss Buttons"?

They're going for $10 on EBAY!!

7/28/2006 6:21 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I have tin foil--it's on sale at Walmart.

7/28/2006 6:39 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Joe Lieberman Must Be Held Accountable

Hartford Courant Link:
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-letters0727boxjul27,0,2260755.story

"President Clinton made a brash statement while stumping for Sen. Lieberman: “No Democrat is responsible for the mistakes that have been made [in Iraq] since the fall of Saddam” [Page 1, July 25, “Bill Stands By Joe”]. With that remark, he absolved all congressional Democrats of their sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

As the Iraq war continues, unremitting, in its third year, Democrats (and Republicans) have been amazingly complicit in failing to address criminal and impeachable activities of the Bush administration.

Democrats every year since the March 2003 invasion have approved supplemental funding for a quarter-trillion-dollar war that has no firm exit strategy, that consumes lives and money and that has managed to create a breeding ground for terrorism.

Too many Democrats have failed to challenge Bush’s abuse of presidential powers during wartime.

Too many Democrats have tolerated illegal spying on civilians and defended or ignored the torture and indefinite detention of captives in violation of U.S. and international law.

Some senators have spoken up courageously, but Lieberman has been a conspicuous advocate of the Iraq war and an outspoken supporter of the Bush administration.

Not guilty, Mr. Clinton? Since when are inaction and self-promotion at the expense of American lives and basic human rights equal to “not guilty”?

Elizabeth Lindorff
Hampton"

Joe Lieberman is complicit in the Bush War Crimes

7/28/2006 6:58 PM  
Blogger dangerstein said...

Sundog --

I appreciate your interest in civil discourse and your willingness to engae in debate, rather just hurl insults like some of the Lamont supporters who comment on this site. But the fact is, there is no hateful rhetoric or ad hominem attacks in my post.

I am very precise in my language, and while I do bluntly attack the logic of the Lieberman-haters, I in no way attack them personally. That is the primarily the province of the Lieberman-haters, such as the juvenile folks who call Lieberman a war-criminal in this thread.

You will note that I called the myths outlanding and ridiculous, not the people peddling them. You may disagree with that assessment or think it's too tough. But that is a far cry from hateful, especially when compared to the venom that has been directed at Lieberman over the past two years.

If you are seriously concerned about the degradation of our political discourse, I would suggest you look first at folks like Kos, who not too long ago suggested he was not unhappy to see American contract workers in Iraq killed by insurgents.

7/28/2006 8:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First "The Kiss", now "The Hug".. dear god this is getting gross.

7/28/2006 9:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/28/2006 9:40 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Had a long night, but I'm back...

Yeah...Sundog, I think you misread Dan a bit. His tone did not seem as combative as you seem to think it was, and it certainly wasn't an ad hominem, because the firing solution was aimed at the issue position (Lieberman betrayed Democrats with his Alito cloture vote) rather than the messengers. Although he did take some shots at the messengers on the way out, they weren't the primary target.

7/28/2006 10:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan,

Here is an off-topic question...

You have been a long time hired hand of Joe Lieberman.

Can you explain to me how the Lieberman campaign would produce pins with the Clinton "hug" that don't carry the union bug. That seems unthinkable to me. I can't think of an example of ANY campaign by a Democratic candidate doing that in my 30 plus years in politics.

Who are these people running Joe's campaign?

Many people are saying they must be Republicans. I think it is more likely they are just marketing and PR people who have been hired without much political experience.

What do you think?

This is a honest question, and I am sincerely interested in your response.

Thanks.

7/29/2006 4:22 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Where can I get a HUG pin?

7/29/2006 5:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/29/2006 6:20 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Struggling Lieberman Faces Political Abyss

This just in from the Associated Press:

"WEST HARTFORD, Conn. - Anti-war Democrats bailed in droves. Teachers unions left over vouchers. Men are drawn to his challenger, and women aren't all that crazy about the incumbent, either.
ADVERTISEMENT

Once, Sen.
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut seemed on the brink of the vice presidency, a principled moderate in a party that didn't always warm to them. Now, hewing to his support for the war in
Iraq, he confronts a political abyss, abandoned by all groups but the poorer, older and less educated Democrats in his state.

"The last three times I voted for him, but I will never vote for him again," Cheryl Curtiss of West Hartford, Conn., said recently of Lieberman as she waited for primary challenger Ned Lamont to speak at a campaign fundraiser.

"The war is the big piece," said Curtiss, 52. "I don't think it can be minimized. All of our tax dollars are going there. It's killing Americans. It's killing Iraqis. We went there on lies."

Terrific article on why the Graf Lieberman is spiraling earthward in flames.

Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060729/ap_on_el_se/lieberman_s_woes;_ylt=AkgYvCN3uBzVO5tz_lqMtEas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Also, GREAT WORK Lieberman campaign! Handing out NON-UNION hug buttons - what a splendid idea!

7/29/2006 6:40 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

How many unions are on Lamont's buttons?

Oh, I forgot, there aren't many unions backing Lamont at all.

7/29/2006 7:35 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Lamont is for unions? I mean, a guy that partners with Vonage, a notorius outsourcer of Americn jobs, and a guy who holds a whopping amount of Walmart stock--you remember Walmart "low wages are us", ceratinly can't be expected to get much, if any union backing.

Outsourcing and low wages--that's Lamont's bread and butter. It's not the American way, it certainly isn't patriotic, but it is what Cut and Run Lamont likes. Tsk.

7/29/2006 7:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L4L - did you see the article's polling numbers? 56-44 lamont. yowza.

7/29/2006 7:46 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Yes I did. I would not put too much stock in such numbers. The Millionaire Lawyer has rented every van in the state, and has
thousands of zombie Liebertrolls tottering around, working night and day to buy every single vote.

I feel sorry for those poor Lamont people.

7/29/2006 8:01 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

While we are on the subject of fundraising, I would be remiss not to mention that the Lamont people are having a 2 for 1 thing right now.

Why not lend Lamont a hand? Megabucks Lieberman has a ridiculously unfair cash advantage. Throw Lamont a few bucks, and maybe we'll be able to give democracy a try right here in the USA!

http://nedlamont.com/contribute

7/29/2006 8:10 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I don't see a problem with it, Lamont can and will add more of his own money--nothing like trying to buy and election.

The funny thing is, he's having to add in all that money of his won because he's NOT getting support from ALL OF THOSE supporters. No support from so many? Maybe there aren't so many, eh? And then on top of it, he triggers the "millionaire rule" giving Joe all the more power to raise all the more bucks.

Who's advising Lamont? Maybe it's PR people, they certainly appear not to have much political experience. I mean really--Cut and Run? He had to flip flop on that one. Rage Gurnsey Jane? Cost him Barbara Boxer and NARAL. He dumped his Halliburton stock like he dumped his country club 'cause it didn't look too good. Is there no end to his hypocrasy?

BTW, have you yet read KOS point of view on Brownie and FEMA--putting an unqualified man into a position of security? of leadership? Does KOS really give a damn about Conn? I don't think so, otherwise he would have tapped someone who had experience for the job--not someone who only had the bucks so KOS wouldn't have to lay them out himself.

KOS is pulling a Brownie and the Brownie's name is Lamont. Tsk.

7/29/2006 8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How much Federal Government experience did Joe Lieberman have when he first ran for US senate?

Answer: ZERO

7/29/2006 8:26 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Compare State Attorney General and State Senate Majority Leader to Selectman.

Laughable, simply utterly laughable.

I think making cases before the supreme court is also a little bit higher than arguing taxes to get yourself and your greenwich republican cronies a break.

BUT---if you do want to say that two years as a selectman are important then we're gonna have to bring in that 80% republican voting as important too.

KOS is pulling a BROWNIE and the Brownie's name is Lamont. Tsk.

7/29/2006 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/29/2006 9:13 AM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

Ken Balbari said:
That sounds to me like you're describing Ned Lamont's approach to national security.

Ken, let's have you lay your Iraq War views right out in the open:

1. What military objectives is the US military striving for right now? Understand that implicit in this question is the exclusion of political and economic goals in Iraq. What are we hoping to achieve militarily in Iraq? What is your best guess for how long that will take?

2. Do you believe the US military should have a permanent presence in Iraq? If not, when do you propose the military forces should leave? What is your best guess as to when we will have our military out of Iraq? 2 years? 4 years? 6 years? 10 years?

3. Do you believe withdrawing from Iraq according to a timetable represents "defeatism and risk aversion"? Do you believe CentristDem and others here represent "defeatism and risk aversion"? Hasn't the military achieved everything it can possibly hope to achieve?

If Ken decides to answer these questions honestly, I think this community will realize that Dems like Ken and Joe Lieberman believe the Iraq War will be a success, if only we just commit an undetermined (and thus unlimited) amount of blood, treasure, and time. Anything less represents "defeatism" and "risk aversion".

Such a view is so warped it's hard to comprehend. An open-ended commitment will not guarantee victory, but it will most certainly reduce our capability to defeat future threats, and will distract us from reestablishing the growth and prosperity of the United States.

We've done all we can in Iraq, Ken. You can't force people to adopt a secular democracy at gunpoint. You can't prevent a civil war with a foreign occupation. You can't prevent terrorism with a foreign occupation (ask the Israelis how their 18 year occupation of Lebanon went). We removed Saddam, we verified that Iraq did not have WMDs, we gave the Iraqis a chance to form a democracy. We've done all we can in Iraq, Ken.

I hardly think my view represents giving up the fight before the fight's begun (like Joe Lieberman did with Justice Alito). The fight's been going on for 3 1/2 years, Ken. It's time to bring the boys home.

7/29/2006 9:22 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

But not right away or without a timetable. Cut and Run has been denounced as foolish and dangerous. That's why Lamont flip-flopped and changed his position to say he would consider something other than an immediate withdrawal.

Lamont, a flip-flopper. Tsk.

7/29/2006 9:30 AM  
Blogger LiberalDemocrat said...

I will try this one more time. Several days ago, I made the following posts on this Blog. See below. I never got an answer from a single Lamont Democrat. LieberDem was more than willing to engage in a civil, issue-based discussion with me regarding the topics below. Why not you, dear Lamont supporters? My brother, his family and most of his in-laws live in Hartford. He works for Sikorsy now but has in the past worked for United Technologies and Pratt and Whitney. Why should somebody like my brother or somebody who works at the Electric Boat Company or at the New London Submarine Base support Lamont, as opposed to Lieberman? Lieberman has protected these people's jobs. He has fought the transfer of United Technologies facilities to other states by fighting for U.S. government contracts for United Technologies, Pratt and Whitney and Sikorsky. He has fought hard for the Electric Boat Company and the Sub Base. The right wing Republican Leadership has badly hurt these companies by tranferring defense jobs to places like Texas (DeLay and Company), Illinois (Hastert), and Georgia (a Right Wing Republicans paradise). The Right Wing Republicans from other states would also like to close the base. Lieberman has been able to fight back because he is Connecticut's voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Also, he has been able to work with Democrats and Republicans alike within the Connecticut Congressional delegation. Moreover, as much as the Lamontistas, DAILY KOS and MOVEON.ORG crowd may not like it, when Lieberman calls the Pentagon and White House people don't hang up on him. What kind of an advocate will Lamont be for Connecticut Defense industries in the halls of Congress and the corridors of the Pentagon? Why would anybody listen to him? Please tell me. I would like to know. Lieberman has successfully cultivated support within Congress for all kinds of projects to the benefit of Connecticut. He has known how to use the legislative process quite astutely to do this. Will Lamont be able to fight this rearguard fight on behalf of Connecticut? With regard to other less parochial concerns, I listed a number of issues below on which I wondered if Lamont backers might have views. I never got any answers since I made these posts. I sat back and watched. I have not seen that Lamontistas were willing to discuss issues.

Here is a second chance, Lamont supporters. If you want to discuss any or all of the issues below, I will E-MAIL your posts to my brother, his wife and child, and all of his in-laws in and around Hartford.

My original posts --

***********************************



LiberalDemocrat said ... Well, let's see. Let's say I am a Connecticut voter and am trying to decide between my Senator, Joe Lieberman, and his opponent, Ned Lamont. Let's say that the one small thing that is giving me pause is the accusation that "radicals" and "obstructionists" on the so-called "leftist Blogosphere" are among Lamont's chief supporters. I frankly have to say that I don't understand the rationale behind the Lamont supporters seeking to hijack this Blog. I have to say that the display being put on by Lamont supporters here is unseemly. If Lieberman supporters sought to do on DAILYKOS or MYDD what Lamont supporter are doing here, Markos Moulitas Zuniga and Chris Bowers would rightly call them "trolls," "flame them," and expel them. Lamont is likely going to win this election, if the polls are to be believed. However, I doubt if he would appreciate the impression that his supporters are making here. Maybe you Lamont supporters still have an opportunity to ruin things for your man, no matter how bad a campaign Lieberman is running. With friends like you, does Lamont really need enemies? Instead of being obstructionists, why don't you find an appropriate forum to explain to Connecticut voters calmly and rationally why they should support Ned Lamont and not Joe Lieberman? Is that too much to ask?

7/22/2006 5:30 PM
LiberalDemocrat said...
LiebermanforLieberman -- What should we be doing in Iraq? What is an appropriate exit strategy? Do you support the Kerry Amendment or the Levin Amendment? What should be our strategy vis-a-vis Iran and the seemingly failed negotiations with that country? How about the current three-way conflict pitting Israel against Hizbollah in Lebanon and HAMAS in Gaza? Why don't you contribute to a healthy and interesting debate instead of simply playing the obstructionist here? You say that you are seeking to bring sanity and reality to this Blog. I will take you at your word, despite all evidence to the contrary. Here is your chance to do it. I would love to see a real debate between Lamontistas and LieberDems, instead of a food fight.

7/22/2006 5:39 PM
LiberalDemocrat said...
LiebermanforLieberman -- You evidently oppose NAFTA and CAFTA. Do you oppose all trade agreements? How would you revamp national trade policy? How would you define fair trade as opposed to free trade? Again, how about some clarity? Were Democratic Presidents from FDR to Bill Clinton wrong to support liberal, free trade? Alternatively, did Democratic Presidents of an earlier era mean something else by free trade? Or, perhaps, were circumstances different, justifying free trade? Have Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman given free trade a bad name by defining it differently than did FDR and earlier Democrats?

7/22/2006 5:44 PM
lieberdem said...
Good questions all, liberaldemocrat. I really do want to see more thoughtful discourse in these comment strings.

Please feel free to contact me at any time if you want to hear my answers to any of those questions. I feel I have some particularly good answers to the trade-related questions. I am busy researching a big post for tomorrow night, but would be happy to discuss these topics with you at some point in the near future.

Hopefully, others on this blog will take up the mantle in the meantime.

7/23/2006 12:16 AM
LiberalDemocrat said...
LieberDem -- I know that you are capable of thoughtful discourse. I would love to exchange views on these topics. My criticism was not of you but of the Lamont supporters, and most especially the particularly noxious LiebermanforLieberman, who are seeking to hijack your Blog. It is not enough that Lamont is ahead in the polls. These folks apparently do not want you to be able to express your views at all. They are, in effect, seeking to silence you.

Part of my family lives in Connecticut. My brother has worked for United Technologies and Pratt and Whitney. He now works for Sikorsky. I think that Lieberman has probably been the driving force in protecting United Technologies, Pratt and Whitney and Sikorsky. He has also been the driving force in protecting other defense-related jobs in Connectictut. If Lamont wins, many jobs will probably be lost, not only at these companies, but at places like the Electric Boat Company and The New London Submarine Base. At the very least, United Technologies might find it necessary to relocate many of its jobs to other states to try to protect itself politically. I do not care for the way LiebermanforLieberman and other Lamont supporters are seeking to obstruct civil discourse on these and other issues.

I disagreed with Lieberman on whether or not we should go to war in Iraq. I was in favor of an all-out prosecution of the already existing war in Afghanistan. Thus, I was receptive to any arguments that Lamont supporters might want to put forward. However, if their behavior on this Blog is any indication, they are willing to use the same tactics as the far right in seeking to "get their way." Their mottos seems to be "win at all costs," "slime and slime again," and "obstruct and obstruct some more." The behavior of the Lamont supporters on this Blog may not be reflective of the behavior of Lamontistas in general. However, I am not impressed at all. I doubt that my brother would be happy to know that his twenty-five year career and his fate and that of his family may be in the hands of the Lamontistas, if this is truly their attitude towards politics and political debate.

7/29/2006 9:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Joe - Remember when Ned Lamont flip-flopped on his Iraq position? Me neither.

7/29/2006 9:56 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

When it comes to lies and smearing, the Lieberman campaign has no equal.

I can't speak for other truth-tellers, but that is the reason I am here.

That is the only reason I am here.

Clean campaigning starts at home, folks. If you want to have a "reasoned discourse" on the facts of our situation as a country, please do so. We will keep quiet.

Until then, we will be piping up in support of a sane direction for our country.

Killing all Arabs in the Middle East is not a viable foreign policy.

7/29/2006 10:09 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Good post, and good for you LiberalDem.M brother lives in Glastonbury and works at Pratt, though he's also worked at Gerber--whoever has the contracts is who he works for, such is the nature of his work. I'm married to a LiberalDem who is a devout air-america listener and who calls in, when his time elapse is up, to CSPAN. Hubs views may be left of mine, but he is avidly opposed to Lamont for several reasons--the CC and Walmart stock being the tip of the hypocrasy, but he is deeply concerned that Lamont's partisonship and pacifism will profoundly hurt Conns military/technologies contracts. Countless jobs will be lost--I dunno, maybe Lamont wants this so everyone can only afford to shop at Wallyword and Lamont can profit off of it.

It's sad--this guy has zero experience, except for his TWO! years as a selectman and he thinks he's got the political accumen and contacts to help Conn.

7/29/2006 10:09 AM  
Blogger Mike M. said...

Your post makes a lot of sense. I think that a lot of Democrats, though (myself included) have a problem with the Gang of 14 compromise in the first place. It presevered the Senate rules, yes, but in practice, won't the majority party ALWAYS claim that the "extreme" threshold hasn't been met? Seems to me that it kept the Senate rules intact but that it practically removed the filibuster option in any event. One could argue that as a minority, the Dems couldn't have achieved much more than that. But it does strike me as more concession that compromise.

That said, it's totally fair to point out that Lieberman isn't responsible for Alito. Bush and the Republican majority are.

7/29/2006 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/29/2006 10:39 AM  
Blogger LiebermanSupporter said...

Anonymous (Hey, Joe) Lamont Supporter --

I doubt that this was the sort of answer for which LiberalDemocrat was hoping.

I will endeavor to state myself what might be Joe's positions on these issues.

Defense Jobs in Connecticut: You are right about Joe's ability to bring home the bacon. He has partly done this because he is pro-defense and partly because he views it as his responsiblity to protect the jobs of these workers, being their Senator. He has worked effectively with Chris Dodd, who has endorsed him, despite being much more Liberal. This is certainly partly the reason that Congressman John Larson and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro co-authored an op-ed piece in the Hartford Courant endorsing Joe Lieberman, despite disagreeing with him on Iraq. I doubt that Maxine Waters, Markos Moulitas Zuniga of DAILY KOS and Howard Dean's brother at DFA will much help in protecting these jobs. Yes, Lieberman's seniority and seat on the Senate Armed Service's Committee are vital to Connecticut.

-- Regarding Iraq, Lieberman would say that Lamont's position is unclear and inconsistent. Lamont stated several positions in the debate alone. At one point he seemed to embrace two different Democratic Senate resolutions on a timetable for withdrawal. Lamont then seemed to side with General Casey, who doesn't agree with the Levin or Kerry Resoluton, and doesn't support a specific timetable at all. Lamont's Website seems to take yet another position. He says he supports providing logistic support and training to Iraqi troops and police. This would require an indefinite U.S. troop presence on the ground in Iraq.

Lieberman believes that we need to think through an exit strategy for Iraq. He believes that a precipitous or poorly-conceived withdrawal might lead to a collapse of the present fragile Iraqi government. He fears that this might lead to a "terrorist state" or the rise of an extremist Shi'ite government aligned with the rabid theocrats in Teheran. Lieberman, of course, is worried about the present level of terrorist attacks and fatalities in Iraq. He supports Generals Abizaid, Sanchez and Casey in seeking a better counterinsurgency strategy and a means of leaving behind a stable government able to withstand subversiion by al-Qaida and Iran. I think that this is a valid fear, whether you supported the invasion of Iraq or not.

-- Lieberman is clearly supportive of Israel in its struggle against HAMAS and Hizbollah, both terrorist organizations. Any Lamont supporter who believes that negotiations with these terrorist groups is possible is mistaken. Simultaneously, Lieberman would appear to want to find ways to bolster the government of Lebanon in Beirut and help it gain full control over Lebanese territory. He wants to find a way to weaken Syria's subversive influence within Lebanon.

-- What about free trade? I think that Lieberman would probaly take the position that many protectionists within the Democratic Party have forgotten the economic havoc left by the Smoot-Hawley Act. He obviously believes that America must be able to compete and that the way to a healthy economy is through increasing trade, not through reducing it. Does that mean that Lieberman is not in favor of cracking down on trade cheaters? No, it does not. He obviously believes that, along with improving U.S. competitiveness, this is part of the solution to our "trade problem." This is much like the positions on international trade taken by FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. Lieberman wants a return to the prosperity of the Clinton years.

-- With regard to Bill Clinton, Lieberman is probably marveling that the Kossacks and Leftist Bloggers, as well as Howard Dean's brother at DFA, are saying so many positive things right now about Bill and Hillary Clinton and insisting that they promise not to support Joe in the general election. The Kossacks and Deaniacs have generally expressed revulsion for the Clintons in the past, blaming them for the loss of the U.S. Congress, the White House and the demise of Liberalism. It seems to me that they can partly blame themselves for the last, given that they are hardly in the political mainstream. They also always conveniently forget that Bill Clinton is the first Democrat to win reelection as President since FDR. Finally, they forget that Bill and Hillary were much more Liberal before, than after, 1994. This is what Hillary's Health Care Task Force and Proposals were all about. This is what the tax increase was all about. This is what "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was all about. This helped lead to the debacle in the 1994 Congressional elections. That is if you ask me, and I supported Clinton before and after 1994. I imagine that Joe Lieberman would agree with all of this.

-- Some Lamont supporters claim that Lieberman is too pro-business. Well, he did receive the AFL-CIO endorsement over Lamont. Moreover, anybody who has driven through Hartford can see how important the Insurance industry is in Connecticut. Just as Joe has protected jobs at United Technologies, Pratt and Whitney, Sikorsky, the Electric Boat Company and the New London Submarine base, he has sought to protect jobs in this key Connecticut industry.

No, I am not LieberDem, nor am I Dan.

7/29/2006 10:52 AM  
Anonymous Davebo said...

Greenwald nails it.

Which is why Joe now refuses to discuss it.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/remember-iraq.html

7/29/2006 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kill Them All is not a foreign policy.

7/29/2006 10:57 AM  
Blogger LiebermanSupporter said...

Mike -- I disagree about the fillibuster on Alito, although I wish we could have found some way of keeping both Alito and Roberts off the Supreme Court. I dislike both intensely and view both as a threat to Constitutional checks and balances. A Democratic fillibuster would simply have triggered what Frist called the Nuclear Option. It would have been over pretty quickly and failed. The existence of the Gang of 14 has at least complicated the political calculus of the Bush Administration and the Republican Right in the Senate. Of coure, you have a right to disagree. Does this make Lieberman the anti-Christ that the Kossacks and Deaniacs make him out to be? I personally don't think so.

7/29/2006 10:58 AM  
Blogger LiebermanSupporter said...

Anonymous -- That was very helpful. When did I say "kill them all?" I see that you are incapable of debate. You do make a wonderful representative for Ned Lamont. I am sure that he would be terribly proud to have you, if he knew of your existence. I guess you Lamont supporters really don't believe in an issues-based debate. Is that true then? I have to leave, but was certainly willing to flesh out my personal views on any of the above issues. I can't speak for Lieberman directly, not working for him and not being able to read his mind.

7/29/2006 11:03 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Please leave the anonymous posters alone

You seem to be mistaking an anti-Lieberman person for a Lamont supporter. I think it's pretty clear that there are no Lamont supporters here. You may find them at:

http://nedlamont.com

And why shouldn't people be anti-Lieberman? Lieberman has a lot of explaining to do - and yet The Glorious War of Iraqi Lieberation is such a bloody disaster that the word "Iraq" does not even exist on the entirety of the Lieberman campaign web site.

7/29/2006 11:21 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Why shouldn't people be Anti-Ned? He has zero experience, he holds stock in Walmart so evidently he's not going to be kean on increasing the minimum wage or wanting Fair Trade, he quit his rich-white-guys-are-us country club only to be politically correct, he waffled and is STILL waffling on Iraq, he has NO discernable policy on Iraq at all, he has no policy on crime and punishment, he's backed by Kos who pulls his strings, he can't get enough money from his own meager support, which means that the support really isn't there, so he has to cough up his own bucks and did so too much and now enables Joe to whip him in funding too, Neddie has no idea of the importance of earmarks, his two years as a selectman were rife with republican support, his time serving with a tax board brought him a bigger return, he dumped his Halliburton stock for appearance, he won't release four other years of stock, ie he's got something to hide, he is incapable of understanding the complexities of military work contracts for the industries in Conn, his campaign manager is a repubublican and he's using republican smear and lie tactics, Rage Gurney Jane is on his side--what an huge embarrasment she's been to Ned to lose Boxer AND NARAL. The hypocracy of a republican trying to look like a liberal is simply nauseating. Ned Lamont is the wrong man to care for the people of Conn.

7/29/2006 12:06 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

And I'll add--Bill, Bill! BILLLLLLLLLLLL!

7/29/2006 12:09 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Can Robo-Clinton Really Save Joe?
What have things come to when Joe Lieberman has to use a recorded message of Bill Clinton to ensure that Connecticut voters won't hang up on him? And why won't Lieberman talk to us about what Clinton calls "the Pink Elephant in the Room" - the Iraq War?

The message on the issues that people really care about has been lost. Fortunately, some enterprising people on the Internets have made an effort to answer a question that many voters must have - Who is Joe Lieberman?

Debunk Joe Lieberman's many twisted lies

Learn how Republicans are financing his campaign

Examine Lieberman's strong support from Supreme Leader Bush and a gaggle of TV and talk radio wackjobs

7/29/2006 12:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New York Times Endorses Lamont

This just in: NYT, July 30 2006:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/nyregion/30lieberman.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=1bb97e944bd182b3&hp&ex=1154232000&partner=homepage


The New York Times, in an editorial published on Sunday, endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with Mr. Bush on national security.

Warped indeed.

7/29/2006 12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/29/2006 1:13 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

To quote Mister Spock, "It is not logical."

7/29/2006 1:16 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

If I only....
http://anti-lamontist.blogspot.com

7/29/2006 1:46 PM  
Blogger pro-joe progressive said...

Well I guess this is it. Stephen Colbert is dead to me. By agreeing to host Ned Lamont and Paul Hackett in the same week, he has effectively become the Daily Kos' microphone in the MSM and allow the Kossacks to spread their rabid misinformation to his national audience. Too bad... It used to be a good show.

7/29/2006 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/29/2006 4:07 PM  
Blogger LiebermanDemocrat said...

LiebermanforLieberman -- May we assume you are a nihilist? Perhaps an anarchosyndicalist? Even if you are simply anti-Lieberman, you could at least formulate cogent arguments in favor of your position. Is that too much too expect? Wait, if you are anti-Lieberman, that makes you a de facto Lamont supporter. I guess you simply find it easier to obstruct than to formualate positive positions. Would that take too much thought?

P.S. I guess anonymous (Mr. Lord Lieberman) simply wants to remind us of one of the many reasons we dislike Dean so much.

A big Clinton hug to you,

LiebermanSupporter

7/29/2006 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A slap in the face of reality" - this is the Lieberdems.

7/29/2006 4:17 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Why Are Connecticut Voters Opposed to Lieberman?

"He is not being opposed because he doesn’t reflect the views of his Democratic constituents 100 percent of the time. He is being opposed because he leads causes many of them find repugnant.”

Like the Glorious War of Iraqi Lieberation, as just one example.

Link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/29/ap/politics/mainD8J5MCNO0.shtml

7/29/2006 4:40 PM  
Blogger LiebermanDemocrat said...

Anonymous -- Here is a slap in the face of your warped reality. Lieberman is a dreaded Liberal. What a shock ...

Courtes of PROJECTVOTESMART

Civil Rights


2005 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 85 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 82 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the League of United Latin American Citizens 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 40 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 91 percent in 2003.

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the League of United Latin American Citizens 88 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 94 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 60 percent in 2001-2002.

2001 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 91 percent in 2001.

2001 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 2001.

2001 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the League of United Latin American Citizens 91 percent in 2001.

2000 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the League of United Latin American Citizens 50 percent in 2000.

2000 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 100 percent in 2000.

1999-2000 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 1999-2000.

1999-2000 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 88 percent in 1999-2000.

7/29/2006 4:41 PM  
Blogger LiebermanDemocrat said...

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (CT)


Another shock! Lieberman is pro-Labor!!!!! Go figure ...

Courtesy of Project Vote Smart

2005 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 83 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 86 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 85 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 67 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 80 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Postal Workers Union 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 67 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 83 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Int 38 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 On the votes that the National Association for the Self-Employed considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 67 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Transportation Communications Union 100 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 85 percent in 2003. Those who supported or provided other assistance in connection with a UAW organizing drive are given an extra 10% bonus.

2003 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2003.

2003 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 83 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 33 percent of the time.

2003 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Workplace Fairness 20 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2003.

2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 88 percent in 2002.

2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2002.

2002 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Transportation Communications Union 100 percent in 2002.

2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 86 percent in 2002.

2002 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 43 percent of the time.

2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 92 percent in 2002.

2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 75 percent in 2002.

2002 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 80 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Pennsylvania State Nurses Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 73 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Postal Workers Union 90 percent in 2001-2002.

2001 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 92 percent in 2001.

2001 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Transportation Communications Union 100 percent in 2001.

2001 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 72 percent of the time.

2001 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 87 percent in 2001.

2001 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 87 percent of the time.

2001 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 86 percent in 2001.

2001 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Food & Commercial Workers 100 percent in 2001.

2001 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2001.

2001 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Benefits Council 0 percent in 2001.

2000 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 83 percent in 2000.

2000 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 80 percent in 2000.

2000 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 91 percent in 2000.

2000 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 90 percent in 2000.

2000 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 2000.

2000 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 29 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

1999-2000 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the International Association of Fire Fighters 100 percent in 1999-2000.

1999 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Transportation Communications Union 100 percent in 1999.

1999 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 1999.

1999 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

7/29/2006 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fortunately, it's only a "short ride" for Joe back to Connecticut from DC in January.

7/29/2006 4:47 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

To The Creator Of Laundry Lists

It is widely the consensus view in the mainstream media (e.g. today's NYT) that Joe's Glorious War is probably going to turn out to be his undoing.

He may have done other good things, but Joe's support of the war seems to be eclipsing everything else.

I may be wrong, but this does indeed appear to be the direction things are going. Killing Arabs for the hell of it is just not something a lot of people seem to want to support.

And Joe's reticence on the Iraq topic tells all.

7/29/2006 4:53 PM  
Blogger LiebermanDemocrat said...

Shock! Lieberman received the same rating as Boxer, an 88, in 2003-2004, the most recent period for which the Human Rights Campaign gave such a rating. Lieberman is pro-Gay Rights! Go figure ...

7/29/2006 4:57 PM  
Blogger LiebermanSupporter and a Good Democrat said...

LiebermanforLieberman -- You never did come to Lamont's defense when I pointed out the following above:

"Lamont's position is unclear and inconsistent. Lamont stated several positions in the debate alone. At one point he seemed to embrace two different Democratic Senate resolutions on a timetable for withdrawal. Lamont then seemed to side with General Casey, who doesn't agree with the Levin or Kerry Resoluton, and doesn't support a specific timetable at all. Lamont's Website seems to take yet another position. He says he supports providing logistic and training to Iraqi troops and police. This would require an indefinite U.S. troop presence on the ground in Iraq."

Moreover, you have never told what exit strategy you support. However, how silly of me! You only oppose and obstruct. You never feel it necessary to take a position and defend it. It so much easier that way, isn't it?

By the way, weren't the anti-Lieberman and pro-Lamont posters such as yourself saying that there were so many other issues on which to oppose Lieberman other than Iraq. I guess you didn't really mean that? Oh, isn't doing good for Connecticut and the country the whole point?

7/29/2006 5:08 PM  
Blogger LiebermanSupporter and a Good Democrat said...

Anonymous - That is very helpful. Such a cogent argument and it took so much thought!

7/29/2006 5:10 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I like LiebermanDemocrat and LiebermanSupporter--you two are aces!

Lie4Lie, is well, not.

There are some clear points made on this discussion board that the Lamonistas don't argue--they just don't even reply.

Walmart Stock

The racist country club thing

Rage Gurnsey Jane losing both Boxer and NARAL for Ned. What a MOO!

Four years of taxes unrevealed.

A multimultimillionaire gives $5300 in donations? He IS a separate entity from his family trust fund which is overseen by trustees--and not him. CHEAPO!

KOS's nefarious partner.

Lamont's partnership with VONAGE--the outsourcer of American Jobs.

7/29/2006 5:46 PM  
Blogger LiberalDemocrat said...

Enough!

I am beginning to get the picture. I waited several days and posted my issues again above. LieberDem is capable of saying what Lieberman stands for. He and other Lieberman supporters have said how Lieberman could protect jobs at United Technologies, Pratt and Whitney, Sikorsky, the Electric Boat Company and the New London Subarmine Base. They also gave me an idea of what Lieberman stands for on a whole host of issues of concern to me. I never got the sense that the anti-Lieberman folks, who I assume are Lamont supporters as well, had any coherent positions on any of these topics.

I would have a couple of suggestions:

On Iraq, both Lieberman and Lamont have big problems. Lieberman helped get us into this mess. I count that against him. However, Lieberman at least realizes that the U.S. needs an exit strategy. Even if we didn't think through whether getting into Iraq made any sense at all and I don't think that it did, Lieberman at least understands that we need to think through how we exit Iraq in such a way as to minimize the damage to our national security interests. Lamont doesn't seem to know what he believes about Iraq, except that he thinks he can get by with saying that he oppposes it, he opposes Lieberman and he can rely upon his supporters on the left to babble about the so-called "Kiss" and the so-called "Pink Elephant." It seems to me that Lamont has a lot of "Pink Elephants" in his living room, bedroom and closet. Everytime it occurs to me that the Left Wing Kossacks might be instrumental in electing a U.S. Senator, I can think of one.

On Lebanon, I think that Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorists. However, while it had every right to hit back and hit back extremely hard, it should have been more discreet in its targeing, have sought to limit damage to infrastructure in both Lebanon and Gaza and also conducted its ground and air operations in such a way as to avoid weakening the government in Beirut and alienating the Sunnis, Druze and Christians. We are not in a position to tell Israel what to do, because they wouldn't listen. Moreover, Israel is family for better and worse. It is a pro-Western democracy and I think that we should support it even if it is making some of the same mistakes that we made in Iraq. However, we should be telling it behind the scenes that a massive and indefinite air campaign is not going to get rid of Hizballah. They should think through their counterinsurgency and counterterrorism tactics and avoid doing the sorts of things we did in the beginning stages of the Iraq war. Nobody should understand Low Intensity Conflict better than the Israelis. Unfortunately, the Israelis seem to have forgotten much of what they knew.

We really are going to replay the 1968-1972 battle between Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, Ed Muskie and the Cold War Liberals on the one hand and the Eugene McCarthy-George McGovern Democrats on the other. I am sorry that Humphrey and the Cold War Liberals lost that battle. It caused endless damage to the Democratic Party and, more importantly, to the country and freedom-loving peoples around the globe. This time around, it would appear that Ned Lamont, the Kossacks and Deaniacs are going to win the first round on primary day. I hope not. We'll see. If so, then it is on to election day in November. If the left succeeds in this purge, it will keep trying to apply its litmus tests of purity. For example, even if Webb wins in Virginia and Casey wins in Pennsylvania, the left will go gunning for them. Bill and Hillary Clinton doubtlessly know that if the left succeeds in knocking off Lieberman, they are going after Hillary, for all of their silly and hypocritical criticism of Lieberman for denouncing Clinton for his dalliance with Monica. Let the batle lines form. Everyone to their battle stations ... The fight for the what is left of the heart and soul of the party of FDR, Truman, and JFK is on and it is going to be bloody.

Oh, I will tell my brother, his family and his in-laws in Hartford, Connecticut, that the Lamont supporters had absolutely nothing constructive to say. Thank you so much, dear Lamont supporters.

7/29/2006 5:55 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

A Word About Fundraising

To all of the many people at this site who are fed up with the lies, duplicity, and faults of the Millionaire Lawyer, I would like to point out that the Lamont people are having a 2 for 1 thing right now.

Please give Lamont as much cash as you can. The Lieberman slime machine is a force to be reckoned with, and the Lamont people need all the help they can get.

Thank you.

http://nedlamont.com/contribute

7/29/2006 5:56 PM  
Blogger dangerstein said...

I don't know whether the Hug button has a union bug or not, so I can't really answer your question at the moment. But I will try to find out.

7/29/2006 6:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/29/2006 6:14 PM  
Blogger FedUpWithLiebermanforLieberman said...

LiebermanforLieberman -- You can't come up with cogent arguments for Lamont, but are more than capable of providing him with free advertising and of doing hyperlinks. Nice talents! Too bad argumentation is not one of your skills! It would have taken you a long way in life. By the way, I thought that you said before that you and the anonymous posters were anti-Lieberman and not pro-Lamont. I guess you did not mean it. You just are not up to defending your man!!!!! Oh, you provide a wonderful argument against Lamont if you are reflective of his base of support ...

Lord Anonymous -- You really do need to see a doctor. Thanks for reminding us of how wacked out some Lamont supporters are. By the way, is there any reason why you frequently follow LiebermanforLieberman? Is that you LiebermanforLieberman?

7/29/2006 6:22 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Smart and Moderate. Joe Lieberman? Nope.

Here is the text of the NYT endorsement that may very well make Edward Lamont Connecticut's next US Senator:

"There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.

If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.

Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent's grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman's legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut."

A heartfelt thank-you to the NYT for telling it like it is. For once...

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/opinion/30sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Exercise:
Compare/contrast with the Lieberman Daily (Courant) Joementum endorsement

7/29/2006 6:24 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

fedupwith - Thank you for the compliment, but I'm afraid I can't take credit for the "Lord Lieberman.. " banner. Kudos to whomever came up with that, it does pack a wallop.

7/29/2006 6:36 PM  
Blogger FedUpWithLiebermanforLieberman said...

LiebermanforLieberman -- You are so welcome. Again, you ever you, which is no compliment.

7/29/2006 6:40 PM  
Blogger JFKDemocrat said...

By the way, nobody responded to my posts of yesterday. The Lamont supporters like to talk about Pink Elephants. Lets talk about Pink Elephants. Unfortunately for Ned Lamont and his supporters, most of them are in his living room, bedroom, closet, basement, etc.

One of my posts from yesterday --

You had better hope that endorsements don't matter. If I were a candidate, I think I would rather have Lieberman's endorsements than those of Lamont. Let's see. Who has endorsed Lamont and campaigned aggressively with him?

Could one of the people who campaigned with Lamont be Maxine Waters? Isn't she the one who falsely blamed the CIA for the crack cocaine epidemic in Black inner city slums, basing her comment on a San Jose Mercury News article that the newspaper later retracted? Isn't she the same Maxine Waters who, upon learning that the San Jose Mercury News wouldn't stand behind its own article, said that "It doesn't matter whether the CIA delivered the kilo of cocaine themselves or turned their back ... to let somebody else do it ...?" Isn't she the same Maxine Waters who has traveled to Cuba to express her support for Fidel Castro? Is she the same Maxine Waters who defended the 1992 LA riots and the lethal violence that took place? Is this the same Maxine Waters who was one of only 11 to vote against a resolution supporting U.S. troops in the field after the commencement of hostilities in Iraq?

Is this the wing of the Democratic Party with which Lamont really wants to associate himself? Are these the sorts of people with whom Lamont wants to associate his campaign? Whatever you think of Lieberman, do you really want to place domestic governance and foreign policy in the hands of leftists of this ilk? I guess you do!


I am still waiting for Lamont to distance himself from the infamous "screw them" statement by Kos, his biggest backer, about the deaths of the U.S. contractors in Fallujah.

Mr. Lamont -- You asked Markos Moulitas Zuniga to appear in a campaign commercial with you, you have accepted over a quarter million dollars from the denizens of Daily Kos and the leftist Blogosphere, and you are using the Leftist Bloggers as your troops on the ground and on the INTERNET. Will you not at long last say that you at least disagree with the following statement by Kos about the dead U.S. contractors?

Markos Moulitas Zuniga: "That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them." That's right. Kos said "Screw them" in commenting on the deaths of his fellow Americans.

Mr. Lamont, to paraphrase Joseph Welch in the Army-McCarthy Hearings: At long last, do neither you nor Kos have any sense of shame or decency?

No wonder Peter Beinart draws a straight line from Henry Wallace, Gene McCarthy and George McGovern to today's Deaniacs, Kosssacks and MoveOn.Org. I disagreed with Lieberman over the invasion of Iraq, but I certainly know which side to support in this Lieberman-Lamont Primary.

A post for today --

Pink Elephant 1
When is Lamont going to repudiate the McCarthyism and Rovian tactics and the extremism of Markos Moulitas Zuniga, or Kos?

Pink Elephant 2
Why would Lamont want the support of an extreme, leftwing Democrat like Maxine Waters.

Pink Elephant 3
Lamont, Kos, the Kossacks and Howard Dean's brother over at DFA say that Iraq is a mortal sin in the case of Lieberman. Why is it that Lamont was supporting Lieberman well after the latter announced his support for the invasion of Iraq.

Pink Elephant 4
Lamont has no real coherent stance on Iraq. The most charitable thing that you can say about Lamont is that he has several positions on Iraq.

Pink Elephant 5
Lamont, Markos Moulitas Zuniga (the inimitable Kos), the Kossacks, and Howard Dean and the other Deaniacs say that one of the most important issues is party loyalty. Are these the same people that first went to Lowell Weicker, a former Republican and indpendent, and pleaded with him to run against Lieberman. Kos said that Weicker was an independent he could support. Gosh! I guess it isn't really about party loyalty at all. Imagine that!!!!!!

Pink Elephant 6
The ever consistent Lamontistas, including the Kossacks and Deaniacs, just can't forgive Lieberman, for his criticism of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. Really! Imagine ... These are the same people who reviled the Clintons and blame them for most of the ills of world. If you don't believe me go read DAILYKOS and MYDD. The leftist bloggers hate Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 2008, they plan to declare Hillary "Enemy #1." I guess they are just funnin' with us. Or, are they simply base admirers of the Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh school of politics, simply regretting that they did not beat Rove and Limbaugh to the punch? I think the latter ...

I think that we could just keep going, but I am sure that the Lamont suporters would like to give some more incoherent babblings and some more hyperlinks.

7/29/2006 7:06 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

There are no Lamont supporters here

Only Lieberman truth-tellers, such as myself.

You can find many Lamont supporters here:

http://nedlamont.com

7/29/2006 7:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone here have some "Kiss BUTTONS"?

They're going for $8 on EBAY!!!

7/29/2006 7:18 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Brainstorming At KosVegas.
http://hotair.cachefly.net/hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/helmets.jpg

7/29/2006 7:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/29/2006 7:38 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

My my, well well!

Stop the presses! This just in!
Malloy, Lieberman endorsed by Hartford Courant


Malloy, Lieberman endorsed by Hartford Courant

(WTNH, July 20, 2006 10:00 PM) _ A pair of democrats picked up the endorsement of the Hartford Courant.

The newspaper is giving its support to Senator Joe Lieberman and Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy.

Lieberman is locked in a neck and neck race with Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont for the Senate seat.

Malloy is up against New Haven Mayor John DeStefano to be the Democratic choice for governor on the November ballot.


http://www.wtnh.com/global/story.asp?s=5215108

7/29/2006 8:02 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Sorry Ned, that's a big grey elephant under Joe's tent.

7/29/2006 8:03 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I guess they don't consider Ned a democrat.

That republican vote thing, hmmm, mighta had something to do with it.

Hmmm, well, maybe it's Ned's lack of experience, afterall, the courant cares so much about their readers, they're not going to endorse someone who can't do the job.

7/29/2006 8:07 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

I think it's fitting that Lieberman is getting some endorsements from some of the smaller players in the local media establishment.

I would be surprised to see anything else.

7/29/2006 8:10 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I guess they don't want Kos pulling a Brownie in Conn--the brownie is Lamont, and well, it's better having someone who knows the job and the contacts to get things done if there's a situation.

Obviously, Ned with no experience at all wasn't their choice for the people.

7/29/2006 8:11 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

The courant is the oldest newspaper in the country--they HAVE seen plenty and have reported it all.

http://www.courant.com/about/custom/thc/thc-history,0,1855918.htmlstory?coll=hc-utility-thc

Do they know that the Lamonistas are dissing them?

7/29/2006 8:19 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Here's the full text==

For Experience, Mr. Lieberman
4:00 PM EDT, July 29, 2006
The Hartford Courant

In an era of exceptionally corrosive politics, Connecticut has the antacid.

We endorse U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary for his skill in bridging the partisan abyss in Washington -- a valuable asset.


This veteran of Capitol wars is adept among Democrats when it comes to working across the aisle on threats facing America, from greenhouse gases to intelligence failures.

The Courant doesn't always make recommendations in primaries. But this unusual primary challenge of a U.S. senator has drawn national attention. And it's a defining moment: Will Democrats roust a foreign policy hawk who is a peacekeeper in Congress out of their nest?

Mr. Lieberman is in the fight of his political career for strongly backing the Iraq war. Yet he gets high grades from Democratic-leaning interest groups -- environmentalists, labor unions, advocates for gay and women's rights. From his seat on the Armed Services Committee, he helped save the Groton sub base and its thousands of jobs. He brought home a lot more bacon than Connecticut had any reason to expect from the 2005 federal transportation bill. But he is excoriated in left-of-center weblogs primarily for supporting President Bush's war.

His challenger, Ned Lamont, is a smart, knowledgeable, engaging candidate with a fresh face, superb campaign ads and a passionate antiwar fan club of bloggers and boomers. But Mr. Lamont has limited political experience, serving as a Greenwich selectman and finance board member some years ago.

His entrepreneurship is nothing to scoff at: He's a cable TV millionaire. And his patrician pull toward public service -- he's the great-grandson of J.P. Morgan's banking partner -- is admirable.

Seniority often matters, however. Mr. Lieberman has gained considerable influence in his 18 years in the Senate. His specialty is working with Republican moderates -- and sometimes conservatives -- to craft bills that can pass the most divided, least civil Congress in memory.

As head of the Governmental Affairs Committee in 2002, he wrote the Senate's version of the homeland security bill. With Republican Sen. John McCain and the 9/11 families, he forced President Bush to accept a bipartisan commission to investigate the intelligence failures leading to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The commission's riveting report sold more than a million copies, and some of its most important recommendations were embraced. The list goes on.

Mr. Lieberman's rectitude, though it strikes some as self-righteous, is principled. He led the charge to tone down sex and violence in video games for more than a decade. His denunciation of President Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct helped make him Al Gore's choice as running mate in 2000.

As a champion of conservation and a protector of Long Island Sound and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, he disappointed many when he alone among Northeast Senate Democrats voted for the 2005 energy bill that did nothing to curb the nation's oil addiction or protect the environment.

But he voted with Democrats 90 percent of the time last year on key votes. It's the 10 percent, though, that could cost him the Democratic primary.

He is now called a renegade by many in his party for standing with President Bush on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We have not often agreed with Mr. Lieberman on the conduct of the war but admire his sticking to his beliefs in the face of withering criticism. Not enough members of Congress have such character.

He was not alone among Democrats in giving Mr. Bush authority in 2002 to attack Iraq: 81 House and 28 other Senate Democrats joined him. But Mr. Lieberman crossed the party line last November when he argued in the conservative Wall Street Journal that "our troops must stay" -- although few Democrats in Congress would disagree that they must, for now -- and later scolded that "in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." Partly for this regrettable phrase that he contends was taken out of context, antiwar partisans would remove him from office.

Mr. Lieberman's history of enthusiasm for military interventions overseas is an anomaly in a man famous for mediating among warring factions in Washington. But to dismiss this moderate -- a vanishing breed in a Congress sundered by extremism on both sides -- for dissenting on a single issue would be a terrible waste. And a mistake.

It would show an intolerance unworthy of any political party.

7/29/2006 8:23 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

The Lieberman Daily is owned and operated by the same people that own and operate Joe Lieberman. Why would they endorse anyone else? They also endorsed the Kissin' Cousin in both 2000 and 2004, IIRC.

7/29/2006 8:23 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Lamont just doesn't have the experience. And THAT is what it comes down to. No experience.

When the Hartford Courant issues a statement of that authority, others will heed their words.

7/29/2006 8:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L4L - that is correct, the Courant endorsed Bush in 2000/2004.

7/29/2006 8:29 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

The interesting thing about the Lieberman Daily endorsement is how the NYT endorsement seems to refute it, almost point by point!

It almost reads like the Courant endorsement was written as some kind of rebuttal to the NYT one. I don't think it actually was, but it is a very interesting coincidence.

7/29/2006 8:41 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

The Times is in New York and the Hartford Courant is where?

7/29/2006 8:45 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Is the Lieberman campaign really that unaware of east coast geography?

Maybe so, since "short ride Joey" hasn't even been to Connecticut much in the past six years, at least before last month.

Anyway, Hartford is a city in Connecticut, while the New York times is published in one of America's largest cities - New York, NY.

New York is a "short ride" from Hartford, and vice-versa.

7/29/2006 8:48 PM  
Anonymous Democrat said...

The New York Times endorsed Lamont. The endorsement of the New York Times will have a major impact in the race. It looks more and more that Lamont will win the democratic primary and, likely, the general election in November. I think he would end up being a much more effective senator than Lieberman.

7/29/2006 8:51 PM  
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

If the Courant endorsed Bush in 2000, then they opposed Lieberman in that year. Not much of a Lieberman Daily.

7/29/2006 8:51 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

The NYT is very poignant. Connecticut residents have a real chance to have much better representation.

As one of the DTC chairs said of Joe Lieberman just a few weeks ago:

"Joe Lieberman does't care about his constituents."

And that folks, is the simple fact of the matter.

And that's why we're here.

7/29/2006 8:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/29/2006 10:11 PM  
Blogger Susan said...

Well, the NYT never had much credibility with me after it participated in the witchhunt of Bill Clinton.

I'll side with Bill Clinton, who supports Lieberman, than I will the NYT, which shouldn't even have a dog in this fight.

7/29/2006 10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/30/2006 2:09 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

cfaller96 said...

Ken, let's have you lay your Iraq War views right out in the open:

1. What military objectives is the US military striving for right now? Understand that implicit in this question is the exclusion of political and economic goals in Iraq. What are we hoping to achieve militarily in Iraq?


Stability.

What is your best guess for how long that will take?

Years. The Brookings policy brief I quoted, from before the war, giving reasons not to invade, cited "the likely need for a long-term American military presence in Iraq to avoid regional destabilization." Well, they were right.

2. Do you believe the US military should have a permanent presence in Iraq?

No permanent presence. For most of Iraq it would increase stability if we would promise not to build any bases. I think only the Kurds would want us to have a permanent presence.

If not, when do you propose the military forces should leave? What is your best guess as to when we will have our military out of Iraq? 2 years? 4 years? 6 years? 10 years?

I think we'll some gradual reductions before too long, but still will need a significant number of troops there. Look at Bosnia-Herzegovina. After the Dayton accords in late 1995, there were as many as 54,000 troops there. By the end of 2002, 7 years later, troop levels had been reduced to 12,000. Bosnia has 1/5 the population of Iraq, and an even smaller fraction of the territory. Iraq has almost twice the population of Bosnia and Serbia combined, and near 3 times the territory.

Or look at Kosovo, with 1/10th the population and 1/40th the territory of Iraq. There were about 50,000 mostly NATO troops there in mid 1999 at the end of the Kosovo War. By 2004 the number was around 18,000.

There are currently 145,000 "coalition" troops in Iraq. I would say that having that down to 40,000 in three years might be optimistic. Iraqi security forces can take over alot of responsibilties, but it is all going to take time. And one big difference from the above two is that nearly all of those are U.S. troops.

3. Do you believe withdrawing from Iraq according to a timetable represents "defeatism and risk aversion"? Do you believe CentristDem and others here represent "defeatism and risk aversion"?

Yup. But I'll try not to use the word "peril". :) Remember when Republicans wanted a 6 month or 1 year deadline for troops to be out of Bosnia?

Hasn't the military achieved everything it can possibly hope to achieve?

Not yet.

If Ken decides to answer these questions honestly, I think this community will realize that Dems like Ken and Joe Lieberman believe the Iraq War will be a success, if only we just commit an undetermined (and thus unlimited) amount of blood, treasure, and time. Anything less represents "defeatism" and "risk aversion".

Nothing is going to change the fact that it was a monumentally stupid mistake in the first place. But pulling out before you're sure there's a stable government and economy, with capable security forces, is a recipe for a much larger disaster than anything we've seen there yet.

Such a view is so warped it's hard to comprehend. An open-ended commitment will not guarantee victory, but it will most certainly reduce our capability to defeat future threats, and will distract us from reestablishing the growth and prosperity of the United States.

It's almost hard for me to comprehend a much more serious and immediate threat in the near future. If Iraq falls into civil war it could destabilize the entire middle east.

We've done all we can in Iraq, Ken. You can't force people to adopt a secular democracy at gunpoint. You can't prevent a civil war with a foreign occupation.

Weren't you paying attention during the Clinton years?

Some recomended Sunday evening viewing on c-span link

7/30/2006 2:11 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

"Is the Lieberman campaign really that unaware of east coast geography?"

No, I just wanted YOU, Lie4Lie to remember where it is.

You're like an amoeba--you react to stimuli, LOLROF.

7/30/2006 4:08 AM  
Blogger pro-joe progressive said...

I'm glad about the Joe endotsement, but I find it unfortunate that the Courant and the Times are endorsing a estate tax-cutting, healthcare mandate-destroying, regressive tax-raising candidate for governor. John Destefano for governor - www.destefanoforct.com

7/30/2006 4:11 AM  
Blogger TwoMoreLiebermanEndorsements said...

Washington Post Endorsement of Joe Lieberman

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/29/AR2006072900680.html

Exerpts --
"Throughout his Senate career, Mr. Lieberman has been faithful to the fundamental values that most Democrats associate with their party: care for the environment; dedication to a progressive tax code and other ways to help the poor and middle classes; and support for Israel and other democracies around the world. But he's managed to hold on to those values while also working with Republicans to move legislation forward: with Susan Collins (R-Maine), for example, on homeland security; or with John McCain (R-Ariz.) on climate change."

"This is a talent and temperament that is helpful to the Democrats in the minority but will be needed even more if there's a change in power in one or both houses of Congress or, in 2008, in the White House. Then, more than ever, the Democratic Party, if it hopes to accomplish anything, will need people such as Mr. Lieberman who bring some civility to an increasingly uncivil capital -- who can accept the idea that opponents may disagree in good faith and who can then work to find areas of agreement and assemble working majorities of 60 senators. His ability to do so is a strength ..."


Connecticut Post endorsement of Lieberman (Bridgeport)

Exerpts
The Connecticut Post is endorsing Lieberman in its July 30 edition:
"Democrats like to pride themselves on being the political party of the "Big Tent" under which a diversity of views co-exist in the interest of larger social welfare goals. Is there not room now under that tent for Connecticut's junior senator?

"We trust that's not the case and, therefore, the Connecticut Post endorses Joseph I. Lieberman to be the Democratic Party's candidate for U.S. Senate. 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 moving 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 in the areas of defense contracts, the environment, education, health care, civil rights, and transportation."

7/30/2006 5:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/30/2006 7:28 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

More Trouble for Lamont! Hedge Funds under investigation by Congress, Conn AG testifies.

Lamont has multi-million dollar investments in hedge funds, a controversial financial vehicle that is under congressional scrutiny.

He has between $3 million and $15 million in hedge funds run by Goldman Sachs Asset Management, which is now the world's largest hedge fund manager with more than $21 billion in assets, according to a survey released last month by Institutional Investor's Alpha magazine. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal testified last month at a congressional hearing, urging further regulation of these funds.

Hedge funds "are a regulatory black hole — lacking even minimal disclosure and accountability required of mutual funds and other similar institutions," he said.


http://www.connpost.com/peterurban/ci_4085522

7/30/2006 7:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought that Joe's implosion is entirely the fault of those dirty bloggers, and that nobody reads the newspapers. What happened to that Lieberworld yarn?

7/30/2006 7:54 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

We've never said dirty bloggers--there is always the hope that some of you bathe.

Filth-Mouthed Bloggers most certainly, get it right!

7/30/2006 8:05 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Hey, as Lamont quite the white-guys-are-us country club, and next dumped his Halliburton stock to be politically correct, can we assume that he'll now cough up the other four years of taxes?

I mean really, with this hedge fund situation, I'm sure he wants to be politcally correct there too.

So how about it Neddie? Let's see those taxes--or is there some very damaging info in them? Every day that passes that we don't see what's there is one more day the suspicion and likelihood of improper and egregiously damaging facts grows.

BTW, has he dumped that Walmart stock? That really must P'off the unions bigtimee. Lamont can't be for a minumum wage if he's making a killing off the sweat of underpaid American workers. If I recall, didn't Walmart have a problem with advertizing their wares as American Made? They import soooooooo much, and it comes from sweatshops with child labor. Lamont is profiting from the backs of children too.

Tsk. Nedophilia! Has he no shame?!?!?! Profiting from child sweatshop labor.

What hypocrasy!

7/30/2006 8:12 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Connecticut voters seem to be a lot more concerned about the war than Ned Lamont's stock portfolio.

And with good reason.

7/30/2006 8:24 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

TPM Cafe predicts Lieberman will prevail in Primary!

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/jul/27/in_the_heat_of_the_summer_predictions

Joe Lieberman will prevail in the Conn. primary, and will be re-elected in the fall. However, he will be even harder for Democrats to cope with in the future and President Clinton's intervention will not be forgotten soon by the "Democratic wing" of the Democratic Party that determines the outcome in Presidential primaries.

7/30/2006 8:25 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Ned Lamont has insisted that this isn't a one issue campaign. Lie4Lie, are you now stating that your man is lying?

Sadly, for Ned, it is more than a one issue campiagn and one of the biggest issues is experience. It appears that the people don't want a Brownie when they need experienced leadership.

7/30/2006 8:32 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

The Millionaire Lawyer Speaks On Being a DINO

"I felt all along I would have a challenger," Lieberman quipped. "But I was hoping God would send me a poor one." The senator, however, has raised $7 .2 million for his campaign.

This is rich. And so is Joe.

7/30/2006 8:35 AM  
Anonymous Democrat said...

The TPM prediction was a joke. It makes fun of things and "predicts" exactly the opposite of what they really think will happen. Among the predictions (together with prediciting a "victory" for Lieberman) was
"FIFA will change the rules of international "soccer" to increase scoring."

Anyone who knows and follows soccer knows that this will never happen. Unfortunately for Lieberman, the last Rasmussen poll shows a 10 point lead for Lamont (51-41). The endorsement of the New York Times will make things even worse for him. I think that Lamont will win easily the primary.

7/30/2006 8:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lieberman is the ultimate concern troll.

7/30/2006 8:40 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

It's far closer to the people that being a multi-MULTI-Millionaire, like his friends at the rich-white-guys-are-us country club.

I gotta ask---Neddie didn't feel a need to quit there before he decided to campaign?

The disparity didn't bother him before?

He never noticed a difference between those he ate with or those people who served him and cleaned the toilets? Is he color blind and only needed to see more clearly to be seen as concerned.

Is there no end to Neddie's hypocrasy?

7/30/2006 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that goodie two shoes lamont - running a clean campaign, and talking about issues people actually care about.

Just who the hell does he think he is?

7/30/2006 8:44 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Yo, mock democrat,

Does this look like a joke?

2. The Israelis will find, like Tony Blair has discovered, that taking President Bush's advice and following his lead is a terrible blunder. Like the American situation in Iraq, the best path out of trouble in Lebanon will be withdrawal, and yet that road will not be taken.
3. The American public is rapidly moving toward an anti-globalism attitude, and politicians on both sides of the aisle will compete to offer ruses and real programs to get ahead of the crowd forming behind this attitude. Nothing good is likely to come from this Congress, and we can only hope that November produces a different group.
4. Karl Rove's fall strategy faces only one serious risk: reality. There's a decent chance that inescapable events in the economy and the Middle East will attract enough anti-Republican votes to move the meter in the Senate and House significantly. However, the issue will be determined in October and not earlier. The efforts of the Washington wing of the Democratic Party matter little to the outcome.
5. Mrs. Clinton will run a great campaign for the Presidency if she chooses to compete. She will be charming, organized, well-prepared, and effective. All those who say she can't win the general will change their tune. Nevertheless, she will have to move left to prevail in the primaries, because Democrats are heading in that direction (see point 3 above).
6. My book coming out this fall called "In China's Shadow" is really a must-have and bulk discounts are available.
7. FIFA will change the rules of international "soccer" to increase scoring.


You gotta read the whole article.

You're man is floundering as the tide goes out.

Looks like Ned Lamont is becoming his own Dean Scream.

7/30/2006 8:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lieberman just seems to look like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. Lamont on the other hand is well rounded.

7/30/2006 8:54 AM  
Blogger pro-joe progressive said...

Yeah, it definitely was not a joke.

7/30/2006 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Said the humorless Liebertroll......

7/30/2006 9:02 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Did anyone just watch McLaughlin Group?

They predict he'll be in his seat for six more years.

Bad tidings are stacking up against Ned bigtime. You can only expect that in this jump-on-the-bandwagon political world, that Ned will be doing more than floundering as the tide goes out on him. He'll sink to the bottom.

7/30/2006 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good Luck with that.

7/30/2006 9:12 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Lieberman Getting Even More Radioactive

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-gt-democrats3jul30,0,7339140.story?coll=green-news-local-headlines

Also, LiebermanForLieberman has been getting reports that Senators Biden and Salazar have both sneaked into Connecticut aboard aircraft to appear at another one of those Lieberman "secret" cameras-only campaign events.

Incumbancy protection racket indeed.

7/30/2006 9:17 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Maybe as a consolation prize Lamont can get you a job at his CC protecting the raquets--tennis raquets.

Going from Surf to Serf only changes You to Qui!

7/30/2006 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Democrat said...

Well, number 1 and number 7 sounded like jokes. But even if the person who wrote that was serious, his judgement is very poor.
Two things can not happen at this time:
1. FIFA will never change the rules of soccer (has not happened for at least 70 years so far).
2. Lieberman can not win the democratic primary. Lamont is leading by 10 points in the last poll, and Lamont voters are certainly more committed to show up and vote on primary day. Lieberman will have a chance as an independent in November with the support of independents and republicans. However, if Lamont wins with a wide margin in the primary, then Lieberman will be probably pressured by the leadership of the democratic party to withdraw his independent candidacy. Thats reality. He has a chance, but things are very difficult for him.

7/30/2006 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/30/2006 10:25 AM  
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

However, if Lamont wins with a wide margin in the primary, then Lieberman will be probably pressured by the leadership of the democratic party to withdraw his independent candidacy.

For what possible reason might they do that? Joe isn't a spoiler; the Republican Schlesigner's ratings are so low that there's no chance the seat will go to him. Either way, the seat remains Democratic. The party leaders, to the extent that they supported anybody, supported Joe, so it seems that their support of Lamont -- should he be nominated -- will be pro forma.

And what kind of pressure could they apply? Why would Joe drop out of a race he can probably win? The polls show Joe easily winning a three-way race. There's a Rasmussen outlier that shows the two neck-and-neck, but even if that's true, why would he drop out of a race where he has an even chance? Again, he won't be a spoiler.

7/30/2006 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/30/2006 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Nan said...

"That was his great sin -- finding a compromise with Republicans that helped Democrats, by preserving the precedent that had been followed for the entire history of the filibuster."

How did it help Democrats?

The Gang of 14 deal said Democrats can have the filibuster as long as they don't use it. In effect they eliminated filibuster for Democrats and "preserved" it for the GOP to use against a Democratic nominee in the future.

The Gang of 14 deal has allowed the GOP to get all their extremist nominees approved.

7/30/2006 12:41 PM  
Blogger matt said...

Had to briefly respond to that last comment:

The Gang of 14 deal said Democrats can have the filibuster as long as they don't use it. In effect they eliminated filibuster for Democrats and "preserved" it for the GOP to use against a Democratic nominee in the future.

The Gang of 14 deal has allowed the GOP to get all their extremist nominees approved.


That's simply not true. The Gang of 14 stopped Henry Saad and William Myers from reaching the floor. Saad withdrew his nomination, and Myers's is dead in the Senate.

The Gang of 14 is also holding up the nominations of Terrence Boyle and Jim Haynes to the Fourth Circuit. The Gang has essentially come out against both, it's consequently unlikely that either will make it to the floor. And the circuit courts are actually every bit as important as the Supreme Court, since the vast majority of major federal cases are decided at the circuit level.

So the Gang of 14 has hardly been a rubber stamp, and they have stopped Bush judicial nominees.

7/30/2006 1:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You sir are a liar.

The blocking of judicial nominees had a tried and true history.

You repeat teh GOP lies. Typical.

7/31/2006 9:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And what kind of pressure could they apply? Why would Joe drop out of a race he can probably win? The polls show Joe easily winning a three-way race. There's a Rasmussen outlier that shows the two neck-and-neck, but even if that's true, why would he drop out of a race where he has an even chance? Again, he won't be a spoiler."

He'll be pressured out because the Democratic VOTERS (you know, the people who actually make up the Democratic Party) will have shown that they don't support him (again this is assuming Lamont wins by a large margin).

Any Democratic politician who doesn't show respect for the Democratic Party (i.e. its voters) will be damaging themselves and the party.

If Lieberman wants to be considered for any future role in a Democratic White House after 2008 (and I'm sure his power-hungry self does) he will need to drop out if Lamont wins the primary big.

Finally, is there really any question that Lieberman's three-way general election poll numbers will drop significantly if he loses the primary big? There shouldn't be. Have you looked at the trends in ALL of the polls (not just Rasmussen). It doesn't get much worse for an incumbent.

8/01/2006 9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, don't use it or you will loose it. Just never use it, and then you can feel good about having it, even though you never use it.

In related news... I have a million dollars. I'm not going to ever spend it or else I won't have it any more. I buried it in a peat bog. Yay! A million dollars!!!

8/01/2006 11:04 AM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home