Sunday, July 30, 2006

LieberDem Addendum

Say that five times fast...

As I indicated in the comments section of Dan's Alito post, Dan expressed many of the thoughts that I have been having over the past couple weeks about the Alito vote. Specifically, I strongly disagreed with the implicit assumption that Joe Lieberman could have somehow stopped Alito from being confirmed.

The sad truth is that there was no way for the Democrats to stop Alito from making it to the Supreme Court in this Congress. Had Democrats filibustered Alito, the Republicans would have sought the nuclear option. Bill Frist wanted to pursue that option during the showdown over appeals court judges in the spring of '05, and had enough of his caucus ready to back the measure to push it through (only 3 GOPers - McCain, Chafee, and Snowe - openly opposed the nuclear option). By mid-May, Frist and Reid had given up the pretense of seeking a compromise, and each leader was committed to lead his caucus down the road that would have ultimately ended with the nuclear option. Frist was, of course, only prevented from going down that path by the May 23 formation of the Gang of 14, of which Lieberman was a member.

And for those who say that the Gang of 14 has done nothing to stop Bush nominees, I refer you to the cases of circuit court nominees Henry Saad (forced to withdraw his nomination due to Gang resistance), William Myers (DOA in the Senate due to Gang resisitance), Terrence Boyle (nomination has been held up indefinitely due to Gang resistance), and William Haynes (ditto). The circuit courts are every bit as important as the Supreme Court, since the vast majority of major federal cases are decided at that level. So the Gang of 14 has hardly been a rubber stamp for Bush nominees, and its preservation has served a very important purpose.

I'd like to use an analogy with military strategy and history. Say that a defending army is faced with the approach of an invading force, setting up a battle over a fort that clearly has great strategic importance for both sides. The defending army realizes quickly that they will almost certainly lose the battle to defend the fort, even if they resist the invading army with all their might.

The defending army is faced with two choices at this point:
  1. Stay and fight to the end, with the final result being the loss of not only the fort, but also much of their ability to fight in the future.
  2. Retreat from the fort to a more strategically favorable position, thereby conceding the battle (and with it control of the fort) to the enemy, but also ensuring that their army retains its ability to continue the war.
Now, many would undoubtedly prefer option 1. It is the option that appeals to bravery, heroism, and other romantic ideals. But the smart military strategist will choose option 2. It might appear unseemly, even cowardly. But it's the strategy which ultimately provides the best chance to win the war. It's the strategy that George Washington took with the British - avoid direct confrontation unless victory seemed likely, even if it meant keeping his army in perpetual retreat for long stretches of time.

It might not sound like a courageous strategy, but it was obviously a smart one. The British eventually began wearing down, and changes in public and international opinion brought an infusion of energy and manpower to the American forces. Washington then began fighting (and winning) battles on his terms, and the tide of the war turned decisively in his favor. Great leaders, both in the military and in the civilian world, have always known that discretion is the better part of valor.

Such was the battle over Sam Alito. The battle was admittedly major, but it was not decisive; it was Wagram, not Waterloo. The four more progressive SCOTUS justices will continue vote to uphold progressive ideals, and Kennedy will be there with them on most major progressive issues as well. Kennedy's has consistently voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, meaning that the replacement of O'Connor with Alito did not spell doom for abortion rights. Throwing all the king's men into the fray over Alito would have ultimately accomplished nothing, and would not have changed the final outcome.

Odds are that there will not be another Supreme Court vacancy until at least after this year's midterms. Given the virtual certainty that the Democrats will gain seats this November, we will be in a much better position to fight nominations six months from now than we were six months ago. The Gang of 14 will become irrelevant after this term, and the GOP will almost certainly lose the votes necessary to invoke the nuclear option. This means that even if Democrats don't re-take control of the Senate, the Democrats will once again be able to use the filibuster freely and the GOP will not be able to do anything about it except curse and pound their fists.

Given those circumstances, Lieberman's decision to not fight to the (sadly inevitable) death on Alito was hardly unreasonable. Avoiding bloody conflicts until victory seems at least possible might not be a very sexy strategy, but history and common sense both show that it works.


Blogger SeedFreak said...

It's a good analogy Matt, thank you for adding it in ;-)

7/30/2006 4:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/30/2006 5:50 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Gilliard on the NYT Endorsement

Steve Gilliard opines on the significance of the NYT endorsement for the Lieberman campaign.


A few choice cuts:

"Lieberman campaigned hard for the Times endorsement, because to lose it is a disaster. It is a clear sign that the pro-Lieberman and anti-blogger arguments failed.

This is most valuable local endorsement available, and Gail Collins didn't just endorse Lamont, she ripped into the Lieberman philosophy of government. She basically called him an appeaser to Bush in a way none of us in left blogoland have said. Not even high commander Kos has been as brutal as that editorial. Collins said, in a few words, every argument we made, and she read, and threw them at the heretic like an indictment."

In other words, those "filth-mouthed bloggers " were pretty lenient on Joe compared to the NYT. Hmmmm....

"The problem is that Lieberman is being held to account for his support of the war and his too close alliance with the GOP. And his friends did him no favors. Hannity? Brooks? Shit, to any thinking person, they're the reason for a Senator Lamont.

The fact is that Lieberman is running into empty crowds and almost no friendly ones. The Lamont people are dogging him all day, every day. His campaign won't discuss Iraq and he's losing supporters every day, while Lamont gains them. Lieberman has tried to shift the focus to his opponent, but it isn't working."

How true. It is time for Joe to pay the piper for his many lies and misdeeds.

7/30/2006 6:17 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Yahoo News on NYT Endorsement

Because the paid-for Lieberman zombies are about to knock the starch out of me for posting the previous "non-MSM" commentary on the endorsement, here is another one that's on Yahoo news:

Isn't this "commentary on commentary" stuff a blast? It's so circular... so redundant...

7/30/2006 6:28 PM  
Blogger Gary Sartori said...

Lieberman for lieberman is such a dunce. Never let it be said that he doesn't allow the truth to stand in the way of smearing someone. Also, I love how he gets off the subject of the poster just to get his 2 cents in. Such is the Lamont supporter.

7/30/2006 6:51 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Mister Sartori - Thank you so much. I am unworthy of your flattery.

7/30/2006 7:05 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Oh, and one small correction for Mister Sartori's post. I am not a Lamont supporter. Rather, I am a Lieberman truth-teller.

And the truth is that I and my ilk are AGAINST JOE LIEBERMAN, but not necessarily for anyone in particular. Joe has screwed over our country and the Democratic party with his selling out and self-aggrandizement. Connecticut has suffered mightily for the cause of Joe Lieberman.

If it were Mickey Mouse running against Lieberman, I'd pull that lever for "the ears". That does not make me a Lamont supporter.

However, you can find Lamont supporters here if you wish:

I hope all of you in Lieberworld have a pleasant and relaxing Sunday evening!

7/30/2006 7:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/30/2006 9:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just got the "Lieberman" flyer.

Somehow, the campaign photographed the wrong end of the mule!

7/30/2006 9:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gotta love the originality of the Lieberman haters...about 50% of their messages are copy/paste jobs.

7/30/2006 10:27 PM  
Anonymous Las Vegas said...

You know, lieberdem is right.....(wild applause!)

7/30/2006 10:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is not just opposition to Joe Lieberman. That's the starting point, but people actually like Ned Lamont. That's why the Hartford Courant yesterday said that he is aquiring a "rock-star aura" as he travels the state.


That kind of popularity doesn't just come from the antipathy that Joe as managed to earn.

7/31/2006 1:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, you have to read the commentary from Joshua Micah Marshall, the moderate, and sometimes DLC-supporting writer of Talking Points Memo. It is so powerful, that I will copy it in its entirety right here:

There was a good article in the Hartford Courant Sunday about Lieberman, and his oblivious self-immolation.

The whole thing is painful to watch. At least to me. I still can't help liking the guy.

But he brought it on himself. And he really has no one else to blame but himself. Hubris, certainly. But even more than that the obliviousness that is born of hubris. He turns out to have been as oblivious about what was happening in his own state as he was about what was happening in Iraq.

People on Lieberman's side talk a lot about him as a man of principle sticking to his beliefs in spite of public opposition. But it's one thing to stick to your guns when you know you're going to pay a price, quite another to stick to them when you're totally out of touch with the consequences.

Set aside the great issues of the day that are implicated in this race. I'm fascinated by it on a personal level -- or at the level where personalities and character intersect with the subterranean tides of politics. What happened to this guy? No one seems to have had any grasp of the brittleness of his hold on the support of his constituents. Was it the sting of his rejection in 2004? The possibility of getting the Sec Def nod?

There's a great 10,000 word magazine article in this story.

When Josh talks, many serious people listen.

7/31/2006 1:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great article on YahooNews re: Hartford Courant's "endorsement" of Lieberman:

7/31/2006 2:04 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Good points all, LieberDem. The Dems would not have gained anything with an Alito filibuster.

I wonder if any of the Lieberman-haters on this blog will actually address the topic of this post...

7/31/2006 5:56 AM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

Joe's vote to allow Alito has been, and will be, a disaster for this country.

We need people of principle in the Democratic party, with the strength to stand up to those prinicples.

When Clinton stood up to the Republicans and shut down the government, the country respected him for standing up for his principles.

Not so for Joe Lieberman, he did not stand up for woman's right to choose, for containing executive branch excesses, for stopping torture and violations of privacy rights, etc., when he caved in on Alito. And having Lieberman in the Democratic Party only makes us look weaker and unprincipled to the Democrats, Independents and Republicans.

7/31/2006 6:11 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

CTD--I believe you're right.

I feel sorry for the Lamontitas, their minds have been taken from them with the republican tactic of coercive pursuasion. They have no choice to do anything except hold rigidly to the doctrines that that have been fed into them, to think for themselves is a crime and the punsihment is excoriation by their own members.

7/31/2006 6:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/31/2006 6:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

centristdem - The topic of this post is stupid. Everyone knows that Senator Shortride sold out on Alito. What more is there to talk about?

7/31/2006 6:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank goodness for this blog!

I am so tired of Lieberman haters criticizing Joe for standing up for his principals.

I remember Joe being the first and most enthusiastic Democrat to stand up and cheer our President during the 2005 State of the Union, when President Bush had the courage to tell the world that we were going to spread Democracy throughout the Middle East! And when President Bush had the courage to question the basic structure of Social Security, with a willingness to consider letting people invest their own retirement money!

We have all seen how President Bush has been a Uniter, not a Divider. And we need more Democrats like Joe Lieberman to have the courage and principles to unite with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their advisors like Karl Rove.

I just don't understand why some many people seem to hate Joe Lieberman so much?!

7/31/2006 6:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe Lieberman has a Romantic Vision for the Future

7/31/2006 6:49 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

Wow...that was so far from being clever that it hurts.

7/31/2006 6:50 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I guess the answer to my question is no. It's highly amusing how fast the Lieberman-haters run away and try to change the subject when someone makes an argument against them.

It's like Bush - if you can't respond to the question, just go back to your tired old talking points.

7/31/2006 6:51 AM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

It's like Bush - if you can't respond to the question, just go back to your tired old talking points.

centristdem, remember, as Joe Lieberman says, you "undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

7/31/2006 6:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You Lieberpoops of course see no humor in anything. Nice post, anonymous.

7/31/2006 7:00 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Joe on the Glorious War of Iraqi Lieberation

Lieberman broke into politics as a reformist who opposed the war in Vietnam, and he won a state Senate seat in New Haven in 1970 with the help of, among others, Bill Clinton, who was a student volunteer at Yale Law. Lieberman was elected state attorney general in 1982. He challenged and beat maverick Republican Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. in 1988, and went on to make his mark in foreign policy.

So "Short Ride Joey" was ANTI-VIETNAM?

My, my, how times have changed:

Public and private polling told Lieberman in January that Democrats were abandoning him over his efforts to prop up public support for an unpopular war that was paralyzing the Bush administration and jeopardizing the GOP's control of Congress.

But Lieberman persisted.

"I was worried about a repeat of Vietnam," he said Friday during an interview aboard his campaign bus. "Public opinion was moving away from supporting the war for reasons that were understandable, but not complete."

In acts that now seemed infused with hubris and naivete, Lieberman decided he could single-handedly reverse public opinion, first with the op-ed article and then with a speech in which he seemed to warn against dissent, saying "that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

Joe Lieberman has lost his way.

At one time, Joe would have been - and in fact was on the right side of pointless American aggression. Now, not only is Lieberman supporting such wreckless policy, he has actively been trying to reverse public opinion about it.

Now do you understand why Lieberman is in trouble?

7/31/2006 7:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Please, please, PLEASE do not spoil this blog with hateful language about President Bush. Let Lieberman haters be hateful.

Joe Lieberman has been such an effective leager in building the spirit of bipartansanship we've been able to enjoy in Washington. Let's not ruin all this with gratuitous attacks against our President. It is a good thing that George Bush stays "on message." I don't think Joe would criticize him for that.

7/31/2006 7:18 AM  
Anonymous mambypamby said...

yes, please stop the hateful posts about Bush. Joe teaches us that we should be bipartisan and unite with Bush, because Bush is a uniter not a divider.

7/31/2006 7:23 AM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

It is not fair to call Lieberman supporters hateful. Lieberman supporters are "angry" for principled reasons. It is the Lamont supporters who are "hateful."

You see, Lieberman supporters believe in the person of Joe Lieberman, and Lamont supporters only care about issues, like the War and stuff like that. That is why it is principled to attack Lamont's positions on the War, etc. but hateful to not believe in Joe.

7/31/2006 7:28 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Hey baba - why keep telling half-truths about that comment? He scolded both parties, but you completely ignore that fact.

And Lieberman has criticized Bush far more than he has agreed with him, and you all know it. So strawman posts saying "Be like Lieberman, don't criticize Bush" is just an insult to people's intelligence.

In case you'd forgotten...

Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush on stem cell research:

Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush's economic policies:

Here is Lieberman denouncing Bush's stance on affirmative action:

On energy and transportation spending:

On education:

On the handing over of wilderness areas to the oil and gas industry:

On cutting programs that provide jobs for CT residents:

On global warming and the environment

On Medicare

7/31/2006 7:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


there you go again, with long list of links with gratuitous criticisms of our Prsident, George W. Bush.

Didn't you read what Joe wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril"


7/31/2006 7:41 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Oooooo, you're so funny. And apparently illiterate. Read the first three sentences of my last post. Maybe if you only read in small doses, you'll be able to absorb the information.

7/31/2006 7:45 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

And then learn how to spell "President" and "our"

7/31/2006 7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/31/2006 7:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, centristdem, no need for personal attacks. I didn't insult you, I just quoted Joe Lieberman.

I happen to agree with him that "we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

And I simply asked you to stop endangering out country. Is that too much to ask?

7/31/2006 7:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn Lamont and those filth-mouthed bloggers. And those legions of Connecticut Lamont voters - what the hell do they think this is, a democracy?

7/31/2006 7:51 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

You can stop pretending that you're doing anything but making lame attempts to mock Lieberman.

You quoted one line, out of context. That's called "dishonest." You should look it up.

Here's the whole quote:

"It is time that America’s leaders, in the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who agree on our goals in Iraq but disagree on tactics to start trusting each other again so that we can work together again. The distrust is deep and I know it will be difficult to overcome, but history will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust and join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq.

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

It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war.

It is time for Americans and we their leaders to start working together again on the war on terrorism."

7/31/2006 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Wow, I can't argue with that reasoning. Support Lieberman! LAMONT SUPPORTS ARE BAD SPELLERS!

That's the tipping point. Lieberman will definitely win the primary!

7/31/2006 7:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe Lieberman Working With Bush on Terror

7/31/2006 7:55 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

I wasn't trying to give a reason to vote for Lieberman there. I was making a snide comment.

Sorry you can't tell the difference.

7/31/2006 7:55 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

Good analogy in the post. Sadly, the fine points of actually getting progressive policies passed in Congress are lost on the anti-Lieberman crowd.

7/31/2006 7:59 AM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...


Quite fankly, I don't think you have explained the famous Joe quote that "undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

You can quote as many additional words as you'd like, but the fact is that Joe Lieberman has repeatedly characterized Democratic opposition to the war as illigimate, "partisan" and dangerous to the country.

He has not only made this point repeatedly, but he has made it at critical junctions in a way that has aided the Republicans in avoiding any serious debate about the course of the occupation of Iraq.

7/31/2006 7:59 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

I think that the Lieberman advocates had also better remember that this election has turned into a referendum on Joe's war and its consequences.

Is this fair, given his legislative record? Well, it most certainly. The Iraq War has been such a disaster for this country that it more than offsets anything positive Lieberman has done. In other words, as the NYT suggests, his legislative record is irrelevant given that he's a leading facilitator and enabler of the war.

Joe is being held to account. It's not pretty either.

7/31/2006 8:04 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

The "additional words" were the main point of the speech. He was trying to get BOTH parties to stop sniping at each other and actually work on getting things done. That was the whole point. To pretend that one quote was a salient one in his speech is just flat-out wrong.

But that's alright - I know that you can't help but ignore any fact that hurts your dishonest arguments.

7/31/2006 8:04 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Again, this is wrong. Joe is the sniper, and he shoots at democrats and often hits them.

This is why the Anti-Joe movement is a NATIONAL MOVEMENT.

7/31/2006 8:07 AM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

fine points of actually getting progressive policies passed in Congress are lost on the anti-Lieberman crowd

Modeeration, please educate me. I must have missed something over the past few years. Was there some bipartisan spirit by Republicans Delay, Frist, Rove, et al, that I missed. Hmmm, no wonder NY Times called Lieberman's bipartisanship "wierd." They must have also missed all Joe's success at getting progressive policies passed in Congress, just like me.

Please enlighten us about all of Joe's bipartisan success.

7/31/2006 8:09 AM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...


Are you kidding?

Do you think it excuses Joe's saying that Democrat's free speech is DANGEROUS for our country, because he also made the following mild statement about Republicans.

"It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war."

Are you sincerely arguing that this mild criticism of Republican's is a valid excuse for his arguing that Democrat dissent is dangerous to our country and that Democrats who criticize the war are "partisan" and not acting out of principle.

What are you smokin?

7/31/2006 8:17 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

Wow, you're really great at setting up and knocking down straw men, but not so great with reality. Did I argue that Joe had pushed through bipartisan legislation in the past few years? No. Because NO Democrat has had a progressive bill passed during the past few years because the Frist/Hastert Congress hasn't let them.

That was the whole point of LieberDem's argument. Whether you like it or not, it's impossible to push progressive legislation through Congress now. The appropriate course of action is not to waste our trump cards when they won't make a difference; save them for when we have more Senate and House seats next year, and our trump cards can make a difference.

7/31/2006 8:20 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Hahaha...that's hilarious. You say the statement about the Democrats is more important than the other statements. Why? Because you say so! It's brilliant!

You still refuse to acknowledge that neither statement was a major point in the speech. It was part of a build-up to the main conclusion:

"It is time for Americans and we their leaders to start working together again on the war on terrorism."

I'm not smoking anything. You just have a tough time coping with reality.

7/31/2006 8:23 AM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Hi guys,

You might find my blog interesting this morning.

Have a great day, every single one of you.


7/31/2006 8:31 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Reality - I guess this is where things have come off the tracks with Lieberworld.

Iraq is showing "great signs of progress", despite the fact that our troops are sitting ducks in a bloody civil war that gets bloodier each and every day.

Thank God for all this progress, Joe. At least now those Sunni gunmen have cell phones so they can centralize their command and control, and they can watch DirecTV at night when they're not plinking Shiites or our soldiers.

7/31/2006 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


SO you say that "t's impossible to push progressive legislation through Congress now". OK, so what should be done now that Dems are in opposition? Capitulate like Lieberman, or stand up for principle like other Blue State Democrates?

BTW, you may have noticed that Dems have been successful stopping some of the more egregious actions of the Republicans, like destroying Social Security (no thanks to capitulating Dems like Lieberman).

7/31/2006 8:47 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

This coming from the person who called stem cell research "frivolous." L4L only cares about saving lives if it helps his political arguments. It's disgusting and unforgivable.

7/31/2006 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wah heee Ha Ha Ha.

You guys are hilarious. Joe writes in the Wall Street Journal that "we undermine our president's credibility at our nation's peril" and this is not important because he had other more important things to say and also said some other mild stuff about the President's supporters.

Ah, what a slippery slope to fascism. Ha ha ha!

7/31/2006 8:52 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

Don't know if you got the memo - but Lieberman has ALWAYS opposed SocSec privatization. So you can stop lying now.

And you missed the whole point of both LieberDem's post and my comment - Dems are in the minority now, but we might be in the majority next year. Even if we aren't, we're certain to have several more seats in both houses. That will make it impossible for the GOP to invoke the nuclear option.

If we had filibustered Alito and triggered the end of judicial filibusters, the Democrats would have no way of stopping the confirmation of judges next year if we remain in the minority, because the filibuster option would be gone. So if Stevens died at that point, we would have NO way of stopping Bush's nomination.

As it stands now, the decision to not filibuster Alito means that we will still have the filibuster option open to us next year, when it can actually make a difference.

7/31/2006 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


If you want Democrats to win elections, they should stand up for what they believe (which happens to consistent with the views of the majority of Americans on most issues). If people want a Republican, they would vote for Replicans, not wishy-washy capitulators such as Joe "Republican-Light" Lieberman.

7/31/2006 9:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dont even see how we'll stop the next nominee. What are we gonna do, fillibuster till after the '08 election? At best we may be able to force a moderate conservative. That will give conservatives a five vote majority for the next couple decades. Our only hope really is that Stevens doesnt retire and waits till after '08. But then we have to win in '08 too, and as weak as this party is, and by the looks of our candidates, I dont have alot of confidence in that.

Lieberman was correct though. There was no way to stop Alito. Filibustering would have backfired on the Democrats and just would have lead eventually to the nuke option, which means there'd be no leverage for the next nominee if there is one. The real reason Alito sailed through was the pathetic performance of the democrats on the committee (Kennedy, Biden, ....) They tried to play typical liberal cards of race and class, and this isnt the 70s anymore, so they didnt work. The democratic party is a bunch of dinosaurs.

7/31/2006 9:51 AM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

Anonomoyous is an arrogant bastard-by claiming that Liberal views in sync with majority of the Americans
That is untrue-
Voters side with Liberals when it comes to
Minimum Wage Increase,Universal Health Care, Abortion Rights, and Stem Cell Research,Gun Control,Environmental Protection and Energy Independence and Balanced Budgets.

Voters side with Conservatives on
Terrorism,Death Penalty, Flag Burning,Gay Marraige,Immigration Security,

7/31/2006 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thanks for the intelligent post. I think I said "If you want Democrats to win elections, they should stand up for what they believe (which happens to consistent with the views of the majority of Americans on MOST issues)"

You could add "invading Iraq was wrong decision"

7/31/2006 11:20 AM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

You could add "invading Iraq was wrong decision"

To respond to that statement let me just say public opposition to the Iraq Invasion has more to do with current events than ideology.

They are hearing bad news occuring in the MidEast- US troops getting killed by insurgents. Increased conflict between Isreal and Hezbollah. The new Iraqi Government has not been completely formed. Once the new Iraqi Government which involves Sunni Participation and the Iraqi military and police force in created. Public opinion on Iraq may change.

7/31/2006 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Well, no, actually, if you check your facts, you will see that Americans thought that invading Iraq was the wrong decision for many months BEFORE the current Israel-Hezbollah fiasco.

Google should be able to quickly help you get your facts straight.

7/31/2006 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You and Joe Lieberman are probably right about the temporary setbacks in Iraq. You say, "The new Iraqi Government has not been completely formed. Once the new Iraqi Government which involves Sunni Participation and the Iraqi military and police force in created. Public opinion on Iraq may change."

I think that is a very likely scenario. I look forward to vacationing in the land of Ancient Mesopatamia some time soon! Things are definitely looking up! The cup is one hundredth full!

7/31/2006 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They say that all of that radiation left over from our depleted uranium munitions can be very therapeutic.

It's probably some kind of neoconservative fountain of youth!

7/31/2006 2:53 PM  
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

Well, no, actually, if you check your facts, you will see that Americans thought that invading Iraq was the wrong decision for many months BEFORE the current Israel-Hezbollah fiasco.

The polls go up and down, but here's a recent one, in which sentiment is almost equally divided. It seems that "right thing" is making a comeback.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. July 21-25, 2006. N=1,127 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). RV = registered voters

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

Did the right thing 47%

Should have stayed out 48%

Unsure 5%

7/31/2006 6:02 PM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home