Thursday, July 20, 2006

News and a Critique

So there were two big bits of news today. Dan touched on the good news for the Lieberman camp - Bill Clinton is coming to stump for Lieberman next week, just a week before the primary.

The bad news is that the latest poll from Quinnipiac has Lamont leading Lieberman 51-47%. Statistically it's a dead heat, but anyone would be lying if they said that Lamont hasn't had the Ned-mentum for the past month or two (or five).

(Disclaimer: The next several paragraphs contain an unflattering analysis of how Lieberman's campaign has been run)

The reason why is simple - Joe Lieberman's campaign has looked as if it has been in a constant state of panic ever since Lamont's campaign started to look serious. The deer-in-the-headlights look that was on Ned Lamont's face in the debate has been in the collective eyes of the Lieberman campaign for months. Even Lieberman himself has acted like he never saw this coming. Many political observers have noticed it, and so have I.

Ned Lamont has every right to run against Joe Lieberman in the primary, and Democratic voters have every right to support him - just as Lieberman has every right to run as an (Dem-caucusing) indy candidate in November and have Democratic voters support him. Some bloggers try to claim that Lieberman is acting like a man desperate to cling onto power. I don't buy into that one bit. Sorry, but being the junior Senator from a small state in the minority party does not exactly qualify as sitting in Caesar's palace.

Far more likely is that Lieberman simply never saw this coming, and still hasn't gotten over the initial shock of Lamont's entry into the race. The initial surprise is somewhat understandable. He's a three-term Senator with a strong record on nearly all progressive causes who has not faced a serious electoral challenge at home in 18 years. Lieberman realized that most Democrats in his state disagreed with him on the Iraq War, but it probably was hard for Lieberman to imagine that any single issue could fuel a serious intraparty challenge to him.

His campaign staff also seems like they never expected to have to run a real campaign. So at first they seemed to ignore Lamont's challenge, probably expecting it to fade fast. It didn't, and Lieberman's campaign came to realize that Lamont's challenge was serious. And what they did next is mind-boggling: Instead of reminding the voters of Lieberman's strong history on progressive causes, their campaign increasingly focused on disqualifying Lamont.

I can't think of a polite word to describe that strategy. I agree with the general rule that if the incumbent's campaign can make the election about the challenger, that the incumbent will almost certainly win. But that simply was never going to happen and will never happen in this race. Lieberman is one of the most prominent politicians in the state's - and indeed in the nation's - recent history. By contrast, Lamont has no record, and virtually no one had ever heard Ned Lamont's name before this year. Ned Lamont is a vehicle for opposition to Lieberman; the campaign will never be about him.

Every time they have polled the race, Quinnipiac has asked respondents whether their vote was more for their candidate, or against the other candidate. Here are the results from each of the past three polls:
AMONG LIEBERMAN SUPPORTERS
May 2 June 8 July 20
For Lieberman 92% 90% 86%
Against Lamont 4 5 11


AMONG LAMONT SUPPORTERS
May 2 June 8 July 20
For Lamont 20% 19% 33%
Against Lieberman 77 78 63
Consistently, the vast majority of voters voting for Lamont were doing so not because they supported Lamont, but because they were against Lieberman. Consequently, any campaign strategy that was designed to damage Lamont in the eyes of voters has always been and will always be doomed to failure. As the Hotline On Call blog asked this weekend "Are negative ads what really what Lieberman needs right now? Aren't voters looking for a reason to come back to Lieberman?"

They are, and they have plenty of reasons to. Joe Lieberman is hardly out of the mainstream of the Democratic party - one need only look at his voting record to see this - and Lieberman's long history of fighting for progressive causes cannot seriously be questioned. Iraq is admittedly a big thorn in Lieberman's side, but less than a quarter of all voters and just 33% of Democrats said Iraq was the top issue for them in this election.

Lieberman clearly can improve if his campaign just reminds voters of how strong he is on the traditional progressive issues of education, the environment, civil rights, choice, worker's rights, and virtually every other progressive cause that you can think of. Those same Quinnipiac polls still show that a majority of Democrats think he deserves to be re-elected, and the loyalty of his supporters runs deep.

The Quinnipiac polls show, as they always have, that Lieberman would easily dispatch of Lamont in the general election. However, it really should not come to that, and it's never too late to break bad habits. There are plenty of reasons for Democrats to vote for Lieberman. He and the members of his campaign need to remind voters of what they are, or else be willing to accept a good share of the responsibility if Lieberman loses on August 8.

119 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/20/2006 10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't you guys have a thread on all of the great progress in Iraq?

7/20/2006 10:41 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Good idea. It seems like Senator Lieberman has some explaining to do on the Glorious War of Iraqi Liberation.

Even many Republicans are vastly more truthful about the civil war in Iraq than Lieberman:

"Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.) is using his House Government Reform subcommittee on national security to vent criticism of the White House's war strategy and new estimates of the monetary cost of the war. Rep. Gil Gutknecht (Minn.), once a strong supporter of the war, returned from Iraq this week declaring that conditions in Baghdad were far worse "than we'd been led to believe" and urging that troop withdrawals begin immediately....

Said Gutknecht: "Essentially what the White House is saying is 'Stay the course, stay the course.' I don't think that course is politically sustainable."

Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901787.html

Our troops are bogged down in a bloody civil war in Iraq

Inexplicably, our esteemed Senator is more interested in Ned Lamont's stock portfolio

Before I get accused of changing the subject, I'll point out that this "insignificant issue", this pesky little war, is a major driving force behind these Q-Poll results.

Our situation in Iraq is too grave to ignore or lie about.

7/20/2006 11:04 PM  
Blogger Frankie said...

When is Joe going to be on Hannidate again??? I missed the monthly Hannity and Lieberman Dem bashing...

7/20/2006 11:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two points, from an outsider:
1) Lieberman may be liberal in many things, but for a Dem from a moderate NE state (with RINO Chafee as a next-door-neighbor), that's to be expected--he could never have survived this long otherwise. But on the biggest issue of our time (and there's no other way to look at Iraq now, even if it didn't always appear that way), he's on the wrong side, and has been (unapologetically) from the start. And his unequivocal support of this President and all of his bad acts (misrepresentations about the war, NSA wiretaps, signing statements, support of torture), when he was willing to work for the takedown of the President of his own party because of Clinton's 'immorality' and to stand up for the rule of law, makes him a 'bad Democrat'. The political landscape has changed a lot since 9/11, because the Republicans have changed it. To refuse to recognize that reality and pretend that it's ok to play politics as usual is irresponsible in a party leader.

2) While Iraq is *the* big deal, it's not the only reason to oppose Lieberman. The other major reason (perhaps even more significant to all of our lives in the long run), was his unwillingness to stand up to this Administration's appointments to the Supreme Court. Roberts and Alito will be with us for the next 20-30 years, and as the recently-concluded first term under the new Chief Justice has shown, the only thing separating us from a radical shift to the right on the Supreme Court is the vote of the 86-year-old John Paul Stevens. If he was unwilling to stand up to these two appointments, when their judicial records showed such clear opposition to the things he claims to stand for as a Democrat, then he's not doing his supporters or the Party a great deal of good in that seat.

One final point--if he's really a Dem, then he needs to shut up about running as an independent. I don't care who you caucus with--Bernie Sanders would be taking the same kind of heat (and rightly so) if he'd done the same thing. It's one thing to start out as an independent--it's quite another to move there after your Party's voters have rejected you. I hope he comes to his senses on this point at least, or it really does start to smack of 'imperial' politics (and reinforces the cynical beliefs of many about the value of their votes and efforts).

7/21/2006 2:07 AM  
Anonymous Big Bad Blogger Boy said...

I'm shocked that the democracy-haters are so psyched that Bill Blow Job Clinton is coming to CT to campaign for Joe and the House candidates. Holy Joe got up on the Senate floor and made mince-meat out of him, castigated him for being immoral and a liar. Now he is groveling at Bill and Hilliary's feet.

"Help me, Bill, please you've got to save me from the mean Democratic voters. I've fallen and I can't get up..."

What a whimp. We can't possibly let this weakling represent the muscular democratic party. Maybe if he hurries, Holy Joe can do like he did in 2000 and run for two offices at the same time, US Senate and dog catcher.

7/21/2006 2:39 AM  
Anonymous bernarda said...

Can any of the diehard Lieberman supporters explain how Lamont would be less liberal than Joey?

In addition, Lamont is against George Bush's neo-con war which has done more damage to America than anything else.

It seems that state and the U.S. can only gain by the exchange. Lieberman is too ready to make unacceptable compromises with the extreme rightwing.

Furthermore, we have enough xtian holy-rollers in congress, we don't need an old testament bible thumper as well.

7/21/2006 4:28 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I think the only thing that suprised me was the opposition's rapid and succesful application of profound persuasive coercion of innoncents. This is America and it should not be done to our people.

7/21/2006 5:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Total Statewide # on Active Democratic Enrollment
634,611

Total statewide Vote in 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary
131,844
20.8% (Turnout)

Kerry
75,860
58.3%

Edwards
30,844
23.7%

Lieberman
6,705
5.2%

Dean
5,166
4.0%

Kucinich
4,133
3.2%


http://www.sots.ct.gov/ElectionsServices/election_results/2004_Nov_Election/2004PPP.htm

7/21/2006 6:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God, it's amazing how much you Lieberhaters play it fast and loose with the truth. Lieberman had dropped out of the race A MONTH BEFORE the CT primary, and it was a two-man race between Kerry and Edwards at that point. Why would CT voters throw away their vote on someone who was no longer in the race?

And as far as Lieberman/Clinton, stop whining about the fact that Clinton likes him better than Lamont and agrees with Lieberman on more issues (they were both founding members of the New Democrat movement). Lieberman criticized him for committing adultery and perjury - so what? He voted against impeachment and never said he should resign.

Is he not allowed to criticize someone who does something wrong simply because they're in the same party? That's the Reagan/Bush mentality of demanding that people goose-step in line with the party.

Y'all are just pissed because you know that Joe will ultimately win this election anyway, and you can't stand his possible indy run because you know that the whole of the CT electorate agrees with his ideas more than Lamont's.

7/21/2006 7:11 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Since Lieberman has decided against doing anything but negative campaigning this election cycle, 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

7/21/2006 7:18 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Is he not allowed to criticize someone who does something wrong simply because they're in the same party? That's the Reagan/Bush mentality of demanding that people goose-step in line with the party.

Also reads as--

Are you not allowed to criticize someone who does something wrong simply because they're in the same party? That's the Lamont/Kos mentality of demanding that people goose-step in line with the party.
=========================

The scarey elephant in the ProExpletive Tent is the amount of airtime that Clinton campainging with Joe is gonna get. The WORLD will see Bill criticize the netroots and with it Lamont who is attached to Kos by an umbillical cord. A huge amount of voters don't do blogs and they don't do hate. Bill will let them know exactly what Ned and his Nuts stand for. The anti-progressive litany made by Bill Clinton will bring more voters to the polls than anything else.

The Lamonistas will be made to look as they are--like the bar patrons in Star Wars. Lawless Animals--Ugly and Awful.

As I said before Ned's worst enemy are his own bloggers. They are inseperable.

7/21/2006 7:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why is everyone dumping on joe? oh yeah, most americans hate his guts for selling us out.

7/21/2006 7:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Y'all are just pissed because you know that Joe will ultimately win this election anyway, and you can't stand his possible indy run because you know that the whole of the CT electorate agrees with his ideas more than Lamont's.

Only a loser has to run as an independent.

Only a cheater runs as an independent.

And Joe did so poorly in 2004 because the voters all across America know a loser when they see one.

"Bill, help me, I've fallen and I can't get up..."

7/21/2006 7:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

name calling is all the lieberdims seem to have left

7/21/2006 8:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This coming from the Lamont side, which has come up with 1000 ways to insult Joe Lieberman and those who dare to support him.

7/21/2006 8:08 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Anonymous: I don't think there are many big Lamont supporters here. Speaking for myself, I am here only to try to bring a little bit of reality to this forum that would otherwise get lost in Lieberworld la-la land.

We are tired of all the Joementum lying and misdeeds, and we are trying to have a real discussion with you people about how Joe Lieberman is destroying our country.

Pro America
Anti Joe

7/21/2006 8:16 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Holy Halliburton - New Britain DTC Endorses Lamont!

It's a unanimous endorsement from New Britain DTC. What does this really say about Lieberman's vaunted "progressive credentials"?

7/21/2006 8:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe Lieberman's voting record shows that he regularly votes against Democratic/progressive causes at the cloture stage. You have not mentioned that.

7/21/2006 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Alito cloture vote was a foregone conclusion - it carried by 13 votes. Since cloture was going to pass anyway, it's hardly a bad thing that he decided to stick by his agreement with the Gang of 14 which SAVED judicial filibusters. On the real vote - his confirmation, which CARRIED BY A NARROWER MARGIN (8 votes) than the cloture vote - Lieberman voted against Alito.

You have not mentioned that.

7/21/2006 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

joe has kept his powder dry. now instead of a fair supreme court, joe has some nice powder. way to go, joe.

7/21/2006 9:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, making a cute comment rather than responding to the argument about the Alito votes being foregone conclusion. Yeah, you're real witty.

7/21/2006 9:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

big bad blogger boy - Right on, bro!

7/21/2006 9:20 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

I guess I would say that fixating on the Alito vote is a distraction unto itself. I think that the point that the "cloture" person is trying to make is that Lieberman often uses cloture to stealthily vote against progressive causes.

Indeed, this is a big part of Lieberman's DINO act

7/21/2006 9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Often? When?

7/21/2006 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you ever heard of "Google"?

7/21/2006 10:22 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

What Happened to the Lieberman Campaign?

Here is a really great article on CLP that discusses how Lieberman's never-ending duplicity has finally gotten the better of him.

A great article that describes why people across Connecticut have had it with our DINO senator.

Link:
http://connecticutlocalpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/07/lieberman-campaign-what-happened.html

7/21/2006 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Big Bad Blogger Boy said...

"Often? When?"

When it counts. The bankruptcy bill and Alito, two of the most important votes in the last 5 years if you're a real democrat. We want senators who will fight against the Alito extremists, not whimps who make lame excuses for supporting them.

Holy Joe could have used his mighty clout to fight Alito tooth and nail, if he was not a fundy extremist right wing tool, that is. Instead, he whimped out and caved, and look what we got now. Not even a damn tee shirt from the battle. Just capitulation. Capitulation Joe has got to go.

7/21/2006 10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He has run a vicious, negative, petty and largely pointless campaign. The campaign has done more to undermine Lieberman's image as a genial statesman than Lamont ever could, and it's cost him."

ain't it the truth

7/21/2006 10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lieberdems: don't worry about joe, he'll have a comfortable retirement off the profits from his halliburton stock

7/21/2006 10:40 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

So will Lamont--but the exception is that Joe isn't being hypocritcal.

With Lamont it's good to be against the war, but it's better to profit from it.

Is he still partnering with Vonage--the outsourcer of American jobs? How much goes into Ned's kitty from that deal? I assume his kids eat well and they don't wear clothes from Walmart's clearance rack either.

7/21/2006 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

iirc lamont's position is only 50 thousand

7/21/2006 10:48 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Lieberpeople - We all know that Lieberman is the war profiteer in this race

You are free to say anything bad about Lamont you want, but everyone here knows that Joe Lieberman's campaign is majorly being funded by defense contractor bucks.

You should probably seek more fertile ground.

7/21/2006 10:51 AM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

AMONG LIEBERMAN SUPPORTERS:
Against Lamont 4 5 11
AMONG LAMONT SUPPORTERS
Against Lieberman 77 78 63


Does this look like a trend to anyone else? In the span of 2 1/2 months, Lieberman supporters who are voting against Lamont grew from 4% to 11%. In that same time, however, Lamont supporters who are voting against Lieberman went down from 77% to 63%. Maybe it's trending towards "somebody better than Joe", rather than "anybody but Joe".

Considering that there's already been a 40% swing in this race in about 4 months (from 65% Lieberman 19% Lamont in April to 47% Lieberman 51% Lamont now), I think the trends matter a lot.

7/21/2006 10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why aren't you attacking the 17 other Democrats who voted for cloture on Alito? Why aren't you denouncing Herb Kohl and Daniel Inouye as right-wing tools, particularly since Lieberman voted AGAINST confirmation - which was the CLOSER AND MORE IMPORTANT VOTE? Oh, right - you're a hypocrite.

AND LIEBERMAN VOTED AGAINST THE BANKRUPTCY BILL - ONE OF ONLY 25 DEMS TO DO SO! Why aren't you denouncing Debbie Stabenow and Robert Byrd, who not only voted for cloture, but also voted FOR THE BILL! Oh, I almost forgot - you're a hypocrite who ignores facts and big gaping holes in your arguments.

The cloture votes on these were NEVER going to be close. Why on earth would Lieberman make a useless symbolic gesture when the outcome of every one of those votes was a foregone conclusion?

7/21/2006 10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

l4l: at this point they need to be seeking HIGHER ground

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

7/21/2006 10:55 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Lamont has Halliburton stock too. Both sides should shut up about it, because both campaigns are being ridiculous hypocrites on the issue.

7/21/2006 10:56 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

On the question of why other crappy Democrats aren't being attacked now, I would first change the thrust of the question.

Lieberman is not being attacked. He has been selected for replacement

Lieberman occupies a position of great power in the Senate. It's a position that he has regularly misused to undermine Democrats on a broad range of concerns.

The Democratic party can become an opposition party by getting rid of Lieberman

This is why there is so much fervor on this.

7/21/2006 11:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What position of great power does he have??

"Being the junior Senator from a small state in the minority party does not exactly qualify as sitting in Caesar's palace"

You guys make it seem like Lieberman has some throne to sit on. He's not in charge of anything.

And as for...
"The Democratic party can become an opposition party by getting rid of Lieberman"

By getting rid of moderates like Lieberman, you're ensuring that we STAY the opposition party. Personally, I'd rather see Dems in the majority.

7/21/2006 11:17 AM  
Anonymous Big Bad Blogger Boy said...

"AND LIEBERMAN VOTED AGAINST THE BANKRUPTCY BILL - ONE OF ONLY 25 DEMS TO DO SO!"

It was a meaningless expression of his spineless duplicity and pandering. He voted to cut off debate...again . After that, nothing else mattered. Why was he not out there twisting arms and knocking heads together to get the 60 votes? Where were his speeches telling the nation how important these fights were. Where was has sanctimony when we could have used it for our side for once.

Joe fancies himself a leader, but all he does is follow orders from the WH while stabbing dems in the back on the most important democratic votes in years.

We want action, not excuses. We want principles, not capitulation. Democrats will never lead until, well, until they start leading. All Joe has done is lead us over a cliff on Iraq, Alito, bankruptcy, the 2000 election.

If we're going to lose, let's go down fighting, not capitulating. This is why people, real peeople, not DLC insiders, have little respect for dems. This is why we have no credibility.

And don't think the others like Biden have not heard from lots of democrats about his vote on the BR bill. They most certainly have. Atrios features a list of everyone of them right on the main page of his blog. They heard holy hell from us. But Joe is the one with a primary in 2 weeks. And so right now, we're talking about him. And he's still not listening. He's hiding. He's hiding from a paper mache parade float of all things.

7/21/2006 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to get the 41 votes, i mean...

7/21/2006 11:25 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

On a related note, I would like the Lieberman people to check out this article:

Take Newt Seriously

Link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/21/121748/366

As extreme as this might seem, it really does look like the country might well be headed in this direction. And the record shows that Lieberman is a strong supporter of this right-wing WWIII/warmongering movement.

In fact, it was recently revealed that Bill Kristol, the incredibly horrible warmongering right-wing wackjob, is a Lieberman campaign contributor

Is this what you really want?

7/21/2006 11:27 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Yeah. Right. Lieberman's a coward. Good luck selling that one.

And only the most ignorant person in the world would think that Lieberman could have had any chance to change the vote on the bankruptcy bill. He's not the leader, the whip, a major committee heads, or on the committee that reviewed the bill. So no one would have listened to him.

All you're doing is making the idiotic claim that Joe Lieberman is somehow responsible for the passage of a bill that won the support of 3/4 of the Senate and that he VOTED AGAINST. Stop insulting people's intelligence.

7/21/2006 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

l4l: two words - holy crap

7/21/2006 11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LIEBERMANFORLIEBERMAN amazing posts today, thx.

7/21/2006 11:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

liebermanforlieberman - you know things are bad when pat buchanan sounds reasonable.

7/21/2006 11:54 AM  
Anonymous big bad blogger boy said...

Shorter CentristDem:

It makes no sense to oppose the GOP juggernaut ever because they are the majority party, so we can't win, ever. It is our therefore our duty to submit, appease, enable and follow.
_______

With your defeatism and utter lack of principle, it's obvious why the dems keep losing elections and look like whimpering spineless whimps.

What possible benefit was there in voting to cut off debate on the BR bill? On Alito? If Holy Joe had stood up, maybe others would have followed.

He sure did find the courage to take dems to task on the senate floor and in the WSJ for criticizing Bush. Where is that gutsy leadership when it serves democratic principles and goals. MIA Utterly MIA

7/21/2006 11:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

amen to that!

7/21/2006 11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/21/2006 12:15 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Um...you didn't even come close to responding to my comment. He said we should do everything we can to become the majority party. When did I ever we should submit or appease?

Morons like you are the reason our party keeps losing. Above all else, I want to see Democrats retake the majority. But you're not really interested in being in the majority. You just want to lie about people who disagree with you.

7/21/2006 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When did I ever we should submit or appease?"

Every time you opened your mouth to make your lame excuses for Joe voting to cut debate. What do you call that, opposition? Dance around it all you like, you're nopt fooling anybody, and neither is Joe.

And now you are calling me 'Moron.' That's funny. Well, fine. Joe had his 18 years and look where we are. You want more of the same. You know what they call that. Insane.

7/21/2006 12:26 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I think it's all just sour grapes from the Lamonistas--they don't have Bill Clinton on their side. Plain and simple--Ned will go down the tubes.

1)He's a Limousine Liberal who has zero experience to serve as a US Senator.

2)He's not a man of the people, he resigned from his exclusive rich-boy country club only because it was clear to him that for his campaign he would need to be seen as politically correct.

3)He won't cough up the tax returns for the past years--it gives the appearance of him hiding a lot of investments.

4)He's attached at the hip to Kos.

5)His bloggers are despised by everyone except themselves because they are out of control.

Ned and his Nuts are crushed by real men, real politicians, real professionals who will do the job right for the people.

7/21/2006 12:27 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I don't want more of the same. I want Democrats in the majority. And we can't do that without moderates. Sorry, but we can't get 51 Senate seats by running all liberal candidates.

Lieberman votes with the Dems and stands up to the GOP 99 out of 100 times, same as Russ Feingold - who was much harsher on Clinton than Lieberman EVER was, btw. But you people are too simpleminded to look past Iraq. It's pathetic.

7/21/2006 12:31 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

This is an oft-used but hollow argument.

What if the whatever-it-is percent of the time Lieberman decides not to support the progressive position absolutely kills us?

Look, this country is in the middle of losing a war. The generals and all the experts are saying that Iraq makes Viet Nam look like some kind of Sunday picnic. It's a tremendous mess, and the most Lieberman can do is lie about it, although he usually ignores it.

Much worse, it appears that Lieberman has sided with the right wing, and collectively they're trying to create a much bigger war.

Is anyone else here old enough to remember "Lost in Space"?

Lieberman is Doctor Zachary Smith

7/21/2006 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yea, sure, he only cheats on his wife once a month, too, right.

"you people are too simpleminded..."

And that is exactly why Joe is now set to be the 1 incumbant in 100 who gets challenged and loses. The voters are sick of him and of his pompous sanctimony. Thanks for driving that point home so effectively.

Good day!

7/21/2006 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6. He's winning, Joe's losing.

Joe must be an awfully weak candidate for that to happen.

7/21/2006 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The voters are sick of him and of his pompous sanctimony. Thanks for driving that point home so effectively."

Yeah, because the Lieberhaters don't ever insult Joe Lieberman and his supporters.

Both sides are name-callers. Don't pretend you have the high ground.

And Joe is leading Ned 2-1 among CT voters. How does that strike you?

7/21/2006 12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it strikes me as temporary.

7/21/2006 12:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why is joe so angry? he acts like he owns that senate seat.

7/21/2006 12:56 PM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

SeedFreak said:
Ned and his Nuts are crushed by real men, real politicians, real professionals who will do the job right for the people.

Then why has Joe Lieberman lost so much ground in the polls? Does incompetent campaign management from an 18 year incumbent imply skill and expertise at governing, or does it imply the opposite?

And while I'm asking questions, why does Joe think it's a good thing for the Democratic Party and the State of Connecticut for him to run as an independent?

7/21/2006 12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It strikes me as proof that he's a servant of the republican party and the republican voters know that, just like the democratic voters do.

Once Joe is tagged a loser, people will jump off of him like fleas off of a dead dog.

I have to go now...

7/21/2006 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lost in Space - that's Joe alright......

7/21/2006 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

isn't it great that lieberman is running his campaign himself?

7/21/2006 1:11 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I though Ned's campaign was being run by a republican---that must be where the brainwashing comes from.

7/21/2006 1:20 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Can't you come up with anything better than that?

7/21/2006 1:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't you ever respond to the posts? You must be just like George Bush - not able to respond to the facts on the topic at hand, so you just lie about something else instead.

7/21/2006 1:29 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

How Low Can Joe Go?

According to the Lamont campaign, Lieberman has been repeating the widely disproven lie about Lamont having Halliburton stock.

In the pulpits of black churches.

I don't think I have ever seen a more deceitful, hateful, vicious, or inept campaign, ever.

7/21/2006 1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

UN - B - FRIGGIN - LEEVABLE

7/21/2006 1:44 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Lamont doesn't have any Halliburton stock? Hmmm--I guess he found religion and dumped it.

7/21/2006 1:50 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

cheap Cheap CHEAP tighwad. Oh--truly a kind and caring man of the people.

Hasn't he ever heard of tithing? I guess he's does pittance.

-- In what may be the most embarrassing revelation on the return, Lamont personally only claimed to give $5,385 in charitable contributions. The Lamont campaign emphasized that there is a separate Lamont family trust which, last year, doled out $213,750. Rennie states the campaign worked very hard at obscuring the $5,385 figure and bootstrapping Ned Lamont onto the amount the trust gave. The campaign manager had an angry tone, directing it at the press.

7/21/2006 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i wonder if these people would defend adolf hitler too - good germans and all

7/21/2006 1:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L4L -

"Can't you ever respond to the posts? You must be just like George Bush - not able to respond to the facts on the topic at hand, so you just lie about something else instead."

Guess that's right.

7/21/2006 2:01 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Comparing Lieberman to Hitler - that will get you far.

7/21/2006 2:02 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Excuse me, I did not write that post. Please direct your wrath elsewhere

7/21/2006 2:03 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I never said you did write that post, actually...I didn't think you had.

7/21/2006 2:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That was a Liberman propper-upper, but nice try.

7/21/2006 2:06 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I may not agree with your posts, but you certainly don't strike me as the type to call Lieberman a Nazi and people who support him Nazi sympathizers.

However, I do agree with the anon who says you should respond to the topic of the post for once.

7/21/2006 2:06 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

How was that a Lieberman person writing that?

7/21/2006 2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ned didn't give enough to charity, is that the charge?

Well, at least he didn't try to gut social security and siphon off social security funds for more tax cuts for the wealthy.

Remember what a staunch supporter of social security opportunistic Joe was, holding out until it was clear Bush's plan was dead before he would join with every other democratic senator in opposing the privitization. That bold leadership even made Josh Marshall wretch.

Joe has been a proponent of gutting social security going WAY way back.

He's too much of a coward to own up to that now. His seat is at stake for godsake.

7/21/2006 2:12 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Joe Sez: "Those are probably my (Republican) voters"

Sen. Lieberman at the Thomaston Town Clerk's office recently, speaking about registered Republicans who were too late to switch party affiliations.

Another zinger from Lanny Davis in the same article:

"He's not depressed, he's not sad, he's not down--he is furious."

Link:
http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20060731&s=zengerle073106

The entitlement on display by Joe is just shocking. Imagine, someone mounting an effective primary challenge for his seat. What is this, a democracy??

7/21/2006 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, he's always opposed SS privatization. He's never done or said anything to indicate otherwise.

7/21/2006 2:13 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I do like democracy. Although you all will be whining about it if Lamont manages to win the primary before getting crushed in November.

7/21/2006 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He's not depressed, he's not sad, he's not down--he is furious."

You know, doesn't the angry center-right scare the crap out of you. They are plain nutty and so so angry and full of hate. How could anyone hate Ned Lamont? He's a gentleman, respectful of Senator Lieberman, donates his time to charity, plays by the rules, including party rules, and he jsut looks like a very nice guy.

7/21/2006 2:17 PM  
Anonymous MikeB said...

Good analysis and conducing to the conclusion that Joe doesn't have a chance in the primary, too late to change course. If you think those numbers will hold up for the general, you're as delusional as Joe is.
.

7/21/2006 2:18 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

" Actually, he's always opposed SS privatization. He's never done or said anything to indicate otherwise."

This is another lie.

"Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., is undecided about the concept of using payroll taxes to fund private Social Security accounts, bringing to three the known number of Senate Democrats who have yet to publicly rule out the idea."

Link:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004847.php

7/21/2006 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes. Because being undecided about something and supporting it are the same thing. It never was going to pass, and he has always opposed it when it has been brought up - unless you're forgetting the two previous efforts to privatize it.

7/21/2006 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe Lieberman:As the public debate over privatizing Social Security has intensified, I have been thinking about my own personal journey down the path of privatization. I began with fascination, which led to exploration, then apprehension, and ultimately rejection.

At the outset I was attracted by privatization proposals that seemed to promise taxpayers more control over their Social Security, higher returns on their contributions, and more income for their retirement.

But ultimately I turned away from privatization because
Al Gore would not let him on the ticket if he was going to continue with his wicked paln.

So, you don't seem to know your own candidate!

7/21/2006 2:23 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I haven't ruled out the possibility of trading in my new car for a 1978 Pinto. Does that mean I support doing it?

7/21/2006 2:25 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Hello? Is this thing on?

Being "undecided" on SS privatization is not OPPOSING ir.

It's like when it took him half a day earlier this week to think about whether he should run as a Republican.

It's not something he should have to reflect upon

Where are those damn "principles" anyway?

7/21/2006 2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What kind of democrat would be for privitization before he was against it, and then went back to being for it again after losing the 2000 election?

That's easy. A Lieberman "democrat"

7/21/2006 2:26 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

When you make 200Mil a year and you give only $5300 to charities it's not just simply despicable--it's much more than embarassing.

It's revealing.

7/21/2006 2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, because those last two lines are what he actually said.

He has voted against it every time it has come up. So why don't you just grow up and admit you're wrong?

7/21/2006 2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really? Then why did he feel compelled to write an article disavowing what he was for before he was against it and was for it again?

7/21/2006 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He didn't have to "reflect" on it and you know it. So the person at TPM couldn't get ahold of someone who could speak for the campaign. That's not Lieberman's fault. He never was seriously considering it, as is obvious from the fact that he has ALWAYS SAID HE'LL CAUCUS AS A DEMOCRAT.

All you can do is lie, lie, lie. Ah well, everyone has a skill.

7/21/2006 2:28 PM  
Anonymous MikeB said...

President Clinton has been mentioned in the foregoing. Funny thing, but Clinton isn't helping Joe either, even as he comes to campaign for him. The mere association of the names Clinton - Lieberman reflects poorly on the latter. Like this:

Clinton, stabbed in the back by Holy Joe at the most critical time, magnanimously tries to help the feckless Lieberman as he battles to save his political career.
.

7/21/2006 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no single domestic policy more important to democrats and the vast majority of voters that social security.

Where does Joe stand on it? He was against it before he was for it, and then he couldn't make up his mind.

7/21/2006 2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can anyone possibly respect Bill Clinton? It's laughable - Lieberman stabs him in the back on a national stage, and now Clinton is going to campaign for him?

Lieberman must have the goods on him!

7/21/2006 2:34 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Sanity triumphs over senseless rage at last. Thank you.

7/21/2006 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, help me...the voters are so mean to me...you're the only one who can save me...please, Bill. I'm sorry I kicked you in the teeth and stabbed you in the back...honest I am...i promise I will support Hilliary...cross my heart, Bill.

Do Something! I'm going to lose my seatr, Bill!

7/21/2006 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/21/2006 2:40 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

How is Lamont going to legistlate help for the poor if he isn't aware of them or support their causes?

How is Lamont going to sincerely help minorities if he only becomes aware of their membership scarecity at his club when he realizes that being politically correct is an issue in a campaign? He never noticed the faces of those he dines with compared to the faces of those who served him?

7/21/2006 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan Gerstein (Blog Owner)
Age: 39
Gender: male
Astrological Sign: Taurus
Zodiac Year: Sheep

Hahaha! How fitting.

7/21/2006 3:08 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Look, I don't think there are many Lamont supporters here.

But it is true that Lamont has a history of being involved with the poor minorities in his community.

His devotion to that cause is clear and well-documented.

He was a very well-liked teacher in inner city schools

Lieberman has hardly been in Connecticut the past six years, much less an inner city school.

7/21/2006 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just funning, Dan. Nothing personal.

7/21/2006 3:19 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Teachers can't even link to Lamont's blogs because of the filthy vile content. They would be hauled down to the admins office in a hot second if they did.

Lamot's miserly ways are now documented. He must come to terms and explain his actions--or lack of actions--to the public.

Why did he only quit his club when it was because he needed to be politically correct for his campaign? It didn't bother him before? What the hell is the matter with him? He has no idea of the suffereing of people around him and he shows he has done so little to end that?

Cripes. He's the wrong man to be a senator. Benevolence and charity aren't part of his make-up.

7/21/2006 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

seedfreek: yagotta be kidding

7/21/2006 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, what will the insurance companies and big pharma do without Joe? We could be thrown into recession...

7/21/2006 3:48 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

This just in, from our Department of Fascist SOB's

Rush Limbaugh has endorsed Joe Lieberman in our senate race.

This high profile endorsement could not come at a better time

7/21/2006 3:52 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

What would Campus TeleVideo do without their partner Vonage? Hire more Americans?

7/21/2006 3:53 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

As I think I have said, I am not really up on a lot of Lamont details.

But I do know this:

Joe "NAFTA/CAFTA" Lieberman is by far the leading job exporter in this race

7/21/2006 3:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just last week, Joe once again proclaimed that we are making progress in Iraq, things are going well. Stay the course, as he has been saying for years now.

This just out today:

"Iraq as a political project is finished," a top government official told Reuters -- anonymously because the coalition of Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki remains committed in public to a U.S.-sponsored constitution preserving Iraq's unity.

"The parties have moved to Plan B," the official said, saying Sunni, ethnic Kurdish and majority Shi'ite blocs were looking at ways to divide power and resources and to solve the conundrum of Baghdad's mixed population of seven million.

"There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into east and west," said the official, who has long been a proponent of the present government's objectives. "We are extremely worried."

7/21/2006 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Baghdad Joe!

7/21/2006 4:21 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

We've definitely turned a corner in Iraq.

Have another mushroom, Senator

7/21/2006 7:32 PM  
Blogger 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  
Blogger 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  
Blogger 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  
Blogger matt 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  
Blogger 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.


I disagree with Lieberman on a number of issues. However, I am also a pro-defense Liberal and have always respected the traditions of Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ. I fear that many of the Lamontistas have far greater admiration for the traditions of Gene McCarhy and George McCarthy. The behavior I am seeing from them on this Blog and on DAILY KOS and similar Blogs rather reminds me of the old SDS and the other radical anti-Vietnam protest groups. Even though I felt that Vietnam, like Iraq, was a strategic blunder, I have always regretted the damage that the McGovernites and the New Left did to the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. If the Lamont insurgency is simply part of some gambit on the part of the New Left to complete what it did way back then, then I want absolutely no part of it at all. Too bad for the Lamontistas. I was against the Iraq invasion, but thus far I can't see why we should turn the Democratic Party over to these rabble rousers and obstructionists.

7/23/2006 7:06 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Nicely put, LibDem

7/23/2006 11:27 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home