Thursday, July 27, 2006

SurveyUSA: Lieberman Gaining Strength

Some encouraging news from of all places Daily Kos. There is a diary up today by Bruin Kid, regarding the latest approval ratings for U.S. Senators from SurveyUSA, which shows that Joe Lieberman's numbers among Democrats generally and even liberals are moving up.

Here's the key passage from Bruin Kid's post (remember this is coming from a Lieberman critic, not a friend):

Last month's ratings showed Lieberman had suffered big drops in support from Democrats and liberals. This month, however, he seems to have recovered. His approvals among both Democrats and liberals are now both back at 50%.

He especially had a HUGE jump of support among liberals. (WTF?) This, BTW, to go from -16% to +7%, is outside the margin of error. So something's up here. And remember, this was way BEFORE Bill Clinton's visit to Connecticut, so that does not explain the jump.


And here's the full results of the survey.

Yes, something is up here. After two years of an unrelentless smear campaign against Joe Lieberman, the truth about his rock-solid Democratic record, his integrity, and the results he's delivered for Connecticut are getting out. I suspect that as more Democrats focus on the facts, and not the distortions coming from the Lieberman-haters, those numbers are only going to continue to rise in these closing days before the primary.

151 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/27/2006 9:35 AM  
Blogger Gary Sartori said...

Yeah, this is great. Maybe people are starting to figure out that the Kos' of the world were smearing the man for nothing. We have to keep up the pressure of these Lhdqsbiberman hater nutjobs.

7/27/2006 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Lieberman smear machine has no equal. If you want civility and "reasoned discourse" on this site you will need to stop lying so much yourselves.

Good Day!

7/27/2006 9:57 AM  
Blogger Susan said...

The Lamont supporters are their own worst enemies.

What's bad is they have done more damage to Lamont than Lieberman ever could.

7/27/2006 10:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so wait, you consider a small rise after a monumental collapse good news?

lieberman has seen his support erode rapidly, his margin in the polls implode and his secure grasp on the office weaken, i wouldn't be too upbeat about a few good numbers.

i don't see the smear campaign you're referring to. we've pointed out the big issues that joe lieberman has sold us out on, the major causes joe lieberman has refused to stand with us on and the moments when we needed him most and he left.

7/27/2006 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

7/27/2006 10:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a registered Democrat and a soldier currently serving in Afghanistan with the 1-102 Infantry Battalion of the Connecticut National Guard. Last week I received some newspaper clippings in the mail that sparked my interest: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has been successfully challenged and forced into a primary that will take place in August.

As some readers may have heard, in January my battalion was issued substandard equipment for our deployment to Afghanistan. Originally, we were issued M-16s rather than M-4 carbines, rifles with shorter barrels and collapsible butt stocks. As a politcally active member of the battalion, I began to get in touch with Representative DeLauro and Representative Simmons, who both responded quickly and enthusiastically. Senator Dodd also responded quickly and gave me prompts on how to further validate my request for weapns.

However, I did not receive a response from Senator Lieberman’s office. I continued to leave messages for both him and his military aide, now senior counselor, Fred Downey, who reprsented Sen. Lieberman at the Battalion’s send off ceremony on Jan. 4. After several messages, I finally received a return phone call. However, I was not met with the same enthusiams expressed by other legislators; I was immediately confronted with an inquisition that seemed to have the purpose of dispelling the belief that the battalion was ill equipped. Rather than listen to our specific concerns, the “benefits” of the M16 were highlighted and teh advantages of the M4 were downplayed.

Lieberman’s office left the impression that they believed we had the equipment we needed, despite the contrasting beliefs of soldiers in my battalion, some who have been on as many as five deployments. The others in Washington were not so quick to abandon us…

Lieberman has never hesitated to voice his support for the war, and recently voted against pulling troops out of Iraq, so where was he when over 500 of his own constituents were being sent overseas to fight on behalf of his great country? It appears the senator was so concerned with climbing the political ladder, he forget what his job is really about: the people…

When my absentee ballot returns to the States next month, Lamont’s name, not Lieberman’s, will bear the check. when August 8 arrives, will you stand for the hypocrisy?

Sincerely,

Colin D. Halloran

The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of the 1-102 Infantry Battalion, CTARNG, the Department of the Army or the members thereof.

always good to see joe sticking up for the people of connecticut.

7/27/2006 10:29 AM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

The July Survey USA Poll Shows
Lieberman with a 50% approval rating among Democrats.
Lieberman's Disapproval rating among Democrats is 46 percent.
Compare that to June 2006
Liebermans approval rating among Democrats were at 46%. His disapproval rating among Democrats were at 50%.

His approval rating among Democrats are equally divided.

7/27/2006 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Leksah said...

Joe will win because of his impressive record.

Kos & kooks misinformation campaign is finally being exposed for its lies.

7/27/2006 10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/27/2006 10:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, Civil War Looms In Iraq

The implications are becoming obvious even to Donald Rumsfeld:

Q Is the country closer to a civil war?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I don't know. You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is -- there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there's very little violence or numbers of incidents. So it's a -- it's a highly concentrated thing. It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I'm not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all.

Transcript, July 25, 2006

Compare this to what Rumsfeld was saying in March:

Q What is the difference in your mind between sectarian violence and civil war?

SEC. RUMSFELD: You know, it's a good question, and we have been trying to look for a way to characterize what are the ingredients of a civil war, and how would you know if there was one, and what would it look like, and what might be its progression, either up to increased violence or down to less violence. And it's a hard thing to do, and people are analyzing that and thinking about it. And I think until I've had a chance to think more about it and -- I will say, I don't think it'll look like the United States' civil war.

Transcript, March 14, 2006

Wow, the truth is really settling in with Rumsfeld.

Meanwhile, the word "Iraq" is not even in the Lieberman campaign's vocabulary!

It is time to hold Lieberman and his warmongerers to account

7/27/2006 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that goody two shoes lamont - running a clean campaign and discussing the war and other issues people actually care about...

who the hell does he think he is?

7/27/2006 12:01 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Anti-Semitism and its strong appearance in far left blogs is getting a smack-down by Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post.

conversation in the diaries has been overwhelmingly anti-Israel--and potentially disastrous for the Democratic party.

"One diarist labeled Israel 'a destabilizing force in the region' and saw 'no difference between Iran's support of Hezbollah and Hamas in the form of finances and even arms and The United States' financial support of Israel.' Before modifying this diary into a more moderate form, the author opened his essay with the declaration, 'Israel is showing the entire world why the Iranian President was absolutely right to suggest that Israel cease being a sovereign state as is.'

"Echoing the themes of moral equivalence and hostility towards the Jewish state, another diarist observed that, 'War is nothing but terrorist attacks. Call it what you will, whatever rhetoric you want to use . . . when it comes down to it, that's all it is. Israel committed terrorism today. And we helped to fund that terrorism.'"


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/07/27/BL2006072700327.html

7/27/2006 12:09 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

The Big Lie about the "smear campaign" from the left is just that; a lie. Disagreement from the left is, and always has been, composed simply of people who do not agree with Joe Lieberman expressing their opinions. Last time I checked, that was still legal in America.

Again, I know it destroys your arguments, and this is why no one will recognize this point, but it simply isn't legitimate to throw comment from reasoned, if impassioned, bloggers like Kos in the same basket with overfrothy commenters.

Anyone calling Kos a nutjob is challenged to quote his wildest, hair-on-fire post on my blog. I will then match it with one from OFFICIAL DLC SPOKESMAN MARSHALL WITTMANN and we shall see who the unhinged blogger is around here.

It's a shame that this campaign has shown that we on the left have our own load of Republican-like thinkers, who think calling people "nutjobs" is legitimate political rhetoric or conveys any sort of debating point. It's a shame and it humbles me; maybe Democrats aren't any better than Republicans after all.

7/27/2006 12:09 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Oh, and by the way, Lieberdem, I'd be VERY interested in what you think about the accusations of anti-Semitism being so freely tossed around. Are you on board with such statements? Do you agree with Wittmann on this score?

Did I miss something? When did a willingness to criticise Israel become synonymous with anti-Semitism?

7/27/2006 12:13 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Lamont and his Bloggers--what a pair! They go everywhere together. Like Salt and Pepper, Max and Moritz, UnderDog and Pauline PureBread.

Man--that really is a BIG ELEPHANT under your tent--the dropping from the bloggers are everywhere and normal people need hipboots to wade through--it's that deep, that entrenched and that much in view and it stinks bigtime.

Lamont and his filthmouth bloggers. If you're not sure maybe you can ask Rage Gurnsey Jane what her opinion on this is.

7/27/2006 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the absence of anything else, high-pitched shrieking is sure to impress...

7/27/2006 12:20 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Ahh, intelligent discourse. That's why I'm a Democrat.

Is this really all you guys have? Playground insults?

7/27/2006 12:21 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

I'm sorry. I just HAVE to point out that seedfreak is, himself, a blogger, posting here, on a blog.

Hello?

Oh, but you're PRO Lieberman. I guess that makes all the difference.

7/27/2006 12:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Trip Down Memory Lane w/Joe

So many memories, but it seems like only yesterday that he was first elected to the Senate. Take a short walk down memory lane and savor everything that our esteemed Senator has accomplished:

YouTube Movie

7/27/2006 12:34 PM  
Blogger matt said...

Sundog,

I refer you to my post entitled "DailyKos attempts a rebuttal" for my views on those who say the Lamont campaign is driven by anti-Semitism. While I think there are probably a few anti-Semites in the Lamont camp, I have always said that the idea that they are driving the Lamont campaign is preposterous.

- Matt

7/27/2006 12:34 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Thank you for your reply. I read it but I guess I missed that part. I shall re-read it.

It would be nice if the campaign would loudly repudiate such views. When Marshall Wittmann raises the point, it is a more significant and dastardly accusation.

Referring to our immediate context here, I think it's time to acknowledge that BOTH camps have their nutty commenters, and move on from that argument.

Have a great day.

7/27/2006 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have also noticed that the screaming harpies here on this site are quite willing to use a DailyKos post as a credible information source.

As long as that post has a PRO-Lieberman viewpoint.

7/27/2006 12:42 PM  
Anonymous Davebo said...

OK, now I get it.

Pointing out that Lieberman claimeed John Dean had "crawled into a spider hole of denial" is obviously a smear tactic.

Pointing out that in the past two weeks Lieberman has claimed the war in Iraq is going just swimmingly is obviously also a "smear job".

Once you realize that this site's authors actually believe this crap, it becomes much easier to understand their undying support for old Joe.

Half a trillion bucks and tens of thousands of dead and maimed Americans? The "Lieberdem's" will happily explain that this is a small price to pay for ensuring that Will and Grace stays out of syndication.

Because really, you've got to have your priorities straight.

7/27/2006 12:51 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I think you're gonna have to bring the point up with Howard Kurtz, who is certainly no blogger and is certainly well regarded. If he's seeing the problem and thinks it needs to be brought to public eyes then the public can assume that there IS a problem.

Lamont and his Bloggers--always a team!

7/27/2006 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/27/2006 12:55 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

If I recall correctly, wasn't it Senator Boxer who spoke at KosVegas--you remember, the tinfoil hat place. And when she looked at Kos/Lamont bloggings she was sooooooooo put off by it, that she changed her support.

Awww.....t's a Kodak Moment.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/932/2112/1600/dk.jpg

In case you need more--
http://www.restockit.com/browseproducts/Aluminum-Foil-Popup-Sheets.html

7/27/2006 1:02 PM  
Blogger tommy said...

I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but oh well…. I’m one of those national Democrats watching this race. It amazes me that some of Mr. Lieberman’s supporters are upset about all us lefties from across the country getting involved in this race. I say that because Mr. Lieberman frequently presents himself as a national Democratic voice on national security and other issues. I voted for Gore/Lieberman in 2000 and I agree that Lieberman’s voting record is solidly Democratic- So what. Democrats in Connecticut have every right to expect Mr. Lieberman to reflect their partisan sentiments on George Bush. Politics, as practiced by Karl Rove, is a nasty business- Just look at what they did to my former Senator Max Cleland. The only person Senator Lieberman helps by being nice to Republicans is Joe Lieberman. If he wants to sit around and sing cum ba ya he should wait until we’re in the majority and then extend his hand in friendship.

7/27/2006 1:08 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Seedfreak, you need to follow my links to see how very, very, very minor a blogger I am.

I can't agree with your reasoning about Kurtz, perhaps because I never assume that what I'm being fed is the truth just because the feeder has a recognizable name. Think for yourself.

And regarding your last post, Lamont is no more responsible for random commenters than Lieberman is for YOU. I sure am getting bored with making this point.

Let me preach for one moment, though I have no right because this isn't my blog.

We have two distinct arguments going in this debate. One is along the lines of "Liberman has betrayed Democrats/No, he hasn't".

This is known as a DEBATE ON THE ISSUES.

The other one is "Lamont's supporters are crazed, insane bloggers/No, we're not".

This is known as an AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT.

As Democrats, we should be above the latter. We should default to the position that people feel what they feel for the reasons they say; not attempt to divine reasons that fit our needs better.

I believe completely that Lieberdem and some others here honestly support Joe Lieberman for the reasons they say they do. Why are the Lieberman supporters so unwilling to grant the same courtesy?

One thing that will definitely enrage people is impugning their motives. Does this (a) contribute to the discussion or (b) detract from it?

The answer is left as an exercise for the studdent. And thanks for the space.

7/27/2006 1:09 PM  
Blogger pro-joe progressive said...

BTW sundog, Marshall Wittmann is not the official DLC spokesperson. Just what compare what he says to that of Ed Kilgore - very, very different. Furthermore, I would assume that even though Lieberman and Wittmann both support the war in Iraq, they have very different foreign policy views. Wittmann, simply put, is a neoconservative. Lieberman strongly opposed the Vietnam War, campaigned for RFK, and supported nuclear arms control. Hmm... That doesn't sound like the history of a person who suscribes to neoconservative philosophy to me.

Also, I do want to speak to the vehement anti-Israel sentiment of bloggers. Clearly, they are out of touch with almost every democratic public official on Israel issues. Keep in mind who the biggest supporters of Israel are in congress - liberals: Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Elliot Engel, Tom Harkin, Mark Dayton, Jerome Nadler, Gary Ackerman, etc.

7/27/2006 1:09 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Thanks for your input, proJoe. My problem is this: Wittmann is probably the most quoted DLC member there is. He's constantly on TV when someone wants a point of view from the DLC. My view is that it's disingenuous to claim he isn't speaking for the DLC.

IMHO, it is simply wearing blinders to complain about Kos with Pink Elephant Wittmann in the room.

Have a great day. Dammit, we're all Democrats here.

7/27/2006 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you think Bill Clinton will help Lieberman as much as he helped Kerry?

Maybe Lieberman needs to campaign with Bush...

7/27/2006 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah - then they could get in a little more "face time"

7/27/2006 1:19 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

SunDog, let the people consider the volume, duration and amount.

It's not good for Lamont. At all. You're trying to make a case that he's not repsonible for the vitriol, but when Kos shows up in his ad telling everyone "C'mon, Let's Go!" It's kinda hard not to make that connection.

If you insist on saying that Lamont isn't responsible I'm gonna have to say. Yeah! He ISN'T responsible. And as such he's not qualified for the job. A senator must be responsible for what he does and all he effects. Lamont has no qualifications.

What are Lamon'ts views on Brown's appointment and handling of FEMA?

Is it okay for someone unqualified to be in a leadership position? Lamont has zero experience in federal government. He has no knowledge of politic science and he certainly doesn't have the connections to make the deals he needs to make for the people of Connecticut.

Kos is pulling a Brownie and the Brownies name is Lamont.

7/27/2006 1:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How much experience in Federal Government did Joe Lieberman have when he first ran for Senator?

7/27/2006 1:39 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

He had at ten years with the State Senate, most of that as their majority leader, and six years as an Attorney General, during which time there were some arguments in front of the Supreme Court. So there's a lot of work back and forth/with the fed government there.

Selectman doesn't even come close.

It's laughable.

7/27/2006 1:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for verifying my point, I appreciate that.

Your premise was based on Federal Government, not State.

7/27/2006 1:46 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/27/2006 1:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Errr, "smear campaign"?

Could you maybe explain why Lieberman's campaign website includes no mention -- not one -- of Iraq?

That tells you all you need to know.

Lieberman lost me when he played the Independent card. Loyal Democrats don't turn their backs on the party like that.

Period.

7/27/2006 2:06 PM  
Anonymous Vote4Joe said...

What? A bounce in Joe's polls and it's not on the front page of Dailykos????? Funny, they had no problem reporting the drop last month. Once again, selective reporting by Mr. Kos. He creates reality on his site and hopes others don't recognize its fictiveness.

7/27/2006 2:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Daily Kos is not your problem. The sooner you accept this, the better off you'll be.

7/27/2006 2:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am beginning to understand where the Lieberworld "it's those dirty bloggers" meme comes from.

The Lieberman campaign operatives are on a sinking ship, with a patron (Joe Lieberman) who's a furious, vindictive fellow. They really cannot tell Joe "Sorry, the voters don't like you".

7/27/2006 2:16 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Yo dude, state coordinates with fed for Federal funding. And the SCOTUS, btw is FED.

You just made my Brownie point. Lamont has zero experience for this job. Kos is out to cause untold harm to the people of Conn by attempting to install a neophyte puppet.

What are Kos' views on Brown and FEMA?

What are Representive Water's views on Brown and FEMA?

I mean really, it was so bad that they took out the F for "effed".

Kos wants toeff the people of Conn? He doesn't care? What's the matter with him? Is he two-faced?

What are Ned's views on Brownie and Fema? I know he doesn't have many views listed on his website about anything, but has he at least condemned the debacle of an inexperienced man in a position to do a job that effects lives? LIVES! If he hasn't spoken out against it that means he's for it--why smack himself down too?

More of Lamont's hypocrasy. Is there no end?

7/27/2006 2:20 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Vote4Joe: "Selective reporting"? Are you laboring under the delusion that DailyKos is a news site?

I'd no more expect to see that news reported there than I'd expect to see the reverse posted here. Kos isn't a disinterested party; I thought you all were pretty clear on that point.

Seedfreak... you were doing so well for about a tenth of a second there. Are you really completely incapable of discussing the issues without slamming Kos?

"Anonymous" is dead right. Your problem is not Kos. Your problem is the voters. Pretending otherwise is not advantageous to your cause.

7/27/2006 2:39 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I think I've read some of Kos bloggers have described themselves as reporters ;-O

I think we've hit a nerve here. No one likes Ned being associated with his Bloggers. Hmmmm. My my, if they're so innocent and good, then why aren't you celebrating the association?

Kos and his Bloggers equals Ned and his Bloggers, thus Kos equals Ned.

It pencils out for me.

7/27/2006 2:49 PM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

People nowadays are getting information from the Net. It would be nice if Kos was fair and balanced.

7/27/2006 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Besides "news" today is really "fake news". Look at that NYT article on Lieberman today. Chock full of lies and disinformation, carrying water for Lieberman mile after mile.

7/27/2006 2:53 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

cmburns: That statement is really, really naive. Please excuse me for being blunt.

Would you expect to get unbiased news of the Lamont campaign here ate Lieberdem? Of course not.

seedfreak: Sorry, I can only go so low in my level of discussion. Bring it back up above the patently stupid level and we can talk.

7/27/2006 2:56 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

I guess they still haven't figured out Lieberman won the debate, huh.

Lieberman by all independent measures is solidly liberal on social issues, and strongly progressive on economic issues. The only two issues where there is any significant break from party orthodoxy are in international affairs and crime.

But, with the unpopularity of the Iraq war, and the Bush administrations abandonment of fiscal restraint, many libertairian leaning Republicans, who tend to also be more isolationist on foreign policy, have started to move toward the Democratic Party. And, while also they have libertine views on social issues--to the extent that they quickly found common cause with Holywood liberals wary of possible restrictions on marketing of violent and sexually explicit media content to children--they are not traditional liberal Democrats.

This is why the libertarian leftists for Lamont don't want to talk about where they really differ with Lieberman. It is also why Lamont does his best to avoid taking any position on crime. His libertarian views there would not fly with the majoity of Connecticut's working and middle class Democrats for whom crime is an important issue.

And even on Iraq, polls show they don't have nearly the advantage they imagine.link

Only 35% of people approve of the way Bush is handling Iraq, according to USA Today/Gallup. An AP/Ipsos poll has it at 38%, and 36% for the Republicans in Congress. But how many approve of how the Democrats are handling it? 32%.

On which party would do a better job on Iraq, A Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll has the Democrats with a 2 point edge 38%-36%. An LA Times poll shows a 4 point edge, 36%-32%. Yes the Democrats are narrowly leading on most, but those numbers, 36%. 38%, 32%--those look like Bush's approval ratings.

So why is the Democratic party's credibility so low on Iraq? Near the end of a recent thread, I saw where one poster was very upset that Senator Lieberman had mentioned some progress being made in Iraq. And this poster took this as some kind of betrayal of Democratic Party values. Is this the party we really want to present to voters?

How in the world could anyone support withdrawing in 6 months time if they believe no progress is being made? It seems that this is a person who would support withdrawal only if that is conditioned on defeat.

But of course progress is being made in many areas. Many more Iraqi security forces have been trained. An elected government has been formed. Many insurgents have been captured, or otherwise disposed of. Many parts of the country, such as most of Khurdistan, are without violence and making good progress socially and economically. For a realistic comprehensive assesment of progress in Iraq, see the Brookings Iraq Index (you will need a pdf viewer).

It shows, over the last year, a significant downtrend in US troop fatalities, US troops wounded in action, Iraq military and police fatalities, non-Iraqi civillian and contractor fatalities, kidnappings of foreign nationals, and attacks on oil and gas pipelines and personnel. Nearly 100,000 security forces have been trained in the last year.

But to some on the left, mentioning these facts is supposed to be "echoing white house talking points". I guess we're only supposed to mention the recent increase in terrorist bombings, or the resulting increase in recent months in Iraqi civillian casualties.

I'm a Democrat who opposed the Iraq invasion, and who was appalled by the ideologically blind manner in which the neocons got us into that mess. I'm equally appalled now by the ideologically blind manner in which Lamont and the libertarian left want to get us out.

We face many challenges ahead in the Middle East. It seems likely at this point that we will also need to support Israel in confronting Hammas and Hezbollah, that we will need to confront Syria for it's involvement in Lebanon, and that we will need to confront Iran over it's nuclear program as well as it's support for terrrorism. I would hope that these problems could be solved diplomatically. But they won't be solved diplomatically if we aren't also willing to fight, if needed.

And this is why I believe Joe Lieberman will win; because he's a true fighting Democrat.

He understands the need to fight terror. Cut and run Lamont won't.

He understands the need to fight crime, and not allow dangerous criminals to be released on technicalities. Cut and run Lamont doen't think crime is an important issue to Connecticut voters.

He understands the need to fight for labelling laws which help parents protect their children from harmful media content. Cut and run Lamont will be brought off by Media industry lobbyists.

He understands the need to fight for the poor and disadvantaged, to help create opportunites for children in district with failing schols; cut and run Lamont is more concerned about "school voucher" talking points than addressing the needs of real people.

Senator Lieberman has fought for minority rights for over 4 decades, from marching in Mississippi for voting rights and working as the Connecticut coordinator of Bobby Kennedy's presidential campaign in the 60's, to being a leader in the Senate in supporting gender pay equality, the Employment non-descrimination act, and expanding hate crimes legislation to cover crimes based on gender or sexual orientation.

Ned Lamont proclaims his support for Equal Rights link, but his very libertarian solution solution is for "government to get out of the way" of private indiduals and organizations (like his country club). Joe Lieberman takes the traditional liberal position that, when it comes to discrimination, government needs to get in the way of it, and be pro-active.

Joe Lieberman, a real fighting Democrat, will stay and fight for Connecticut even if he loses the primary. Cut and run Lamont will withdraw if he loses. And that will be a good thing for the Democratic Party.

But if Lamont wins, we will still end up with Lieberman fighting for us in the Senate. But we will nonetheless have a badly damaged party image in the eyes of most voters.

7/27/2006 3:03 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

SunDog, Lamont's bloggers are HUGE problem. You can ignore it all you want, but that doesn't change it.

When YOU are ready to discuss this then maybe we can, but while you remain in denial stage I think it's out of the question.

PS--we don't troll here, YOU do.

7/27/2006 3:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Lieberdems are the trolls here. They are shrill, insane, and downright paranoid. And don't quote me the Wikipedia. This is a public forum, and Lieberman supporters have every right to cavort here.

Thing is, there just aren't very many of them.

7/27/2006 3:09 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Ken, thank you for your post. It clarifies things wonderfully, really.

But of course progress is being made in many areas. Many more Iraqi security forces have been trained. An elected government has been formed. Many insurgents have been captured, or otherwise disposed of. Many parts of the country, such as most of Khurdistan, are without violence and making good progress socially and economically. For a realistic comprehensive assesment of progress in Iraq, see the Brookings Iraq Index (you will need a pdf viewer).

That's that, then. If you agree with Ken and George Bush that we are making great progress in Iraq, then Joe's your man.

I feel like I'm living in an insane asylum. Would you people please make up your minds whether Joe IS or IS NOT completely on Bush's side when it comes to the war, and then make sure the memo gets around? I'm so confused.

By the way, I wanted to make this clear: I have never posted at DailyKos, don't know anyone from there, and quite often disagree with him. Anyone who is determined enough can find in my blog where I blasted him only about a week ago.

I know it makes things easier to think about if you simplify them ala George Bush, but that turns out to be a mistake.

7/27/2006 3:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Concern troll Balbari - how nice of you to appear this afternoon!

7/27/2006 3:13 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Seedfreak, I hate to point this out, but this isn't your blog. One word from Lieberdem and I'll shut up, but you'll forgive me if your opinions are rather unimportant to me.

You need to look up the definition of "trolling". It does not mean "posting things that you don't have the facts or intelligence to counter".

7/27/2006 3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/27/2006 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the media issue, we do not subscribe to *any* magazines, newspapers or television. Many of these "media outlets" have become so ridiculously biased as to be a cruel joke.

Sure there are a few good progressive mags that remain, but we steadfastly avoid anything like the New York Times. Blogs are a better source of information, because they tend to be less biased, not more. You do have to use multiple blogs, but the information is there and they're a better source for what's really going on in the world.

7/27/2006 3:24 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"Again, I know it destroys your arguments, and this is why no one will recognize this point, but it simply isn't legitimate to throw comment from reasoned, if impassioned, bloggers like Kos in the same basket with overfrothy commenters."

Sundog:

Kos himself is one of the most unreasonable, overthrothy commentators I've ever read. Their are plenty of posters over there who I like to read, and whose opinions I respect even when I disagree on some points. Kos isn't one of them. His "opinion" normally amounts to the opinion that anyone who disagrees with him on an issue is a coward, is unprincipled, or is getting paid off. You will rarely see him actually discuss policy. He will generally claim this is because he's more interested in being an activist, rather than a policy wonk. Fine. I gather he doesn't really take himself all that seriously. But I wonder why you do? I'm sure he knows that alot of what he says is nonsense. But as long as he has an opportunity to attack someone he doesn't like, that's what he's going to do.

7/27/2006 3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder how Lieberworld would feel about Kos if he were pro-Lieberman?

I'll bet they'd all have a pretty different reading.

7/27/2006 3:27 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

" Concern troll Balbari - how nice of you to appear this afternoon!"

'You need to look up the definition of "trolling". It does not mean "posting things that you don't have the facts or intelligence to counter".'

Thanks for sticking up for me there Sundog! :)

7/27/2006 3:30 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Hi Ken,

You are absolutely right on many of your points. Are you surprised to hear me say that?

Here's the thing: Yes, Kos is abrasive, biased and prejudiced. But that's simply not enough to deserve the amazing level of abuse leveled at him and other bloggers. He's not Satan, for goodness sake.

In the end, he's just stating his opinion. How are any of us different?

7/27/2006 3:31 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

LOL, good one, Ken.

7/27/2006 3:32 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"That's that, then. If you agree with Ken and George Bush that we are making great progress in Iraq, then Joe's your man."

No, those aren't my facts, or George Bush's facts. Those are the facts as collected by the nonpartisan Brookings Policy institute, you know the oorganization Ned Lamont donated $10,000 to last year. You seem to miss my point that just as Bush's problem was ignoring and distorting the intelligence on Iraq, becasue he wanted so badly to invade, many on the libertine left are likelwise doing their best to ignore and distort, the intelligence and advice, of nonpartisan independent fact finders and policy organizations--because they want out.

Improvement in the situation there only makes it more likely that we might get out in the next year. Why disparage that?

7/27/2006 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think accountability is also a primary issue. Joe stood up and saluted for this war, and has been a huge cheerleader and enabler as well.

Someone has to be held to account for this disaster. As one of its biggest proponents, Joe has a lot of explaining to do.

However, "Iraq" does not even seem to be in the campaign's vocabulary at the moment.

7/27/2006 3:41 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

The "libertine left". Have you told Wittmann that one yet? He'll love it. Right down his alley.

Passing right by yet another ad hominem from the Joe camp, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

May I just point out that the Libertine Left you speak of that thinks the war is a mistake now constitutes a majority of the American people?

You are free to think the war is going well; you are free to think Joe has the right approach. But attempting to marginalize well over half the people in the United States as libertine crazies is just not a reasonable position.

7/27/2006 3:43 PM  
Blogger HumphreyLiberal said...

Sundog -- Joe Lieberman's primary problem is not the bloggers. I agree with you there. It is, however, one of his problems and a potential problem for Democrats nationally.

Ordinarily, I would say that Ned Lamont should not have to answer for leftist bloggers. However, Ned Lamont courted Markos Moulitas Zuniga (KOS), won the support of DAILY KOS and the Leftist Blogosphere, has received at least $250,000 from the Leftist Blogs and KOS appeared in one of his campaign commercials. The Leftist Blogs are among the biggest cheer leaders for Lamont and he has enthusiastically accepted their support. Thus, I think that he should be held accountable for this association, just as Lieberman should be held accountable for his own actions, statements and positions. Unfortunately, the leftist blogs have largely been operating under the radar screen and voters in Connecticut, not to mention voters elsewhere, are not seeing their extremist views.

Above, the soldier serving in Iraq says that he holds Lieberman responsible for the substandard quality of some of the equipment provided to him and his comrades. I think that lack of proper Body Armor and appropriately armored troop carriers is shameful, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. He makes a telling point and it is up to Joe Lieberman and his supporters to say whether it is a valid point or not. Given recent polls, the odds are pretty good that Lieberman will lose his seat. That is accountability. It is electoral democracy. It is the American way.

However, should Ned Lamont, about whom we know little other than that he is the darling of the Leftist Blogs, not have to answer for his own actions and associations? I would like for some reporter to ask Ned Lamont if he is willing to vouch for some of Markos Moulitas Zuniga's statments. For example, what about Kos' chilling statement about the killings of the contractors in Fallujah? Here is what Kos said. "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." He actually said: "Screw them." Is Lamont wiliing to stand behind these words? Why did Lamont ask Kos to appear on a campaign commercial and publicly support him? Why has Lamont accepted the fanatical support of DAILY KOS and the Leftist Blogs? Why has he accepted their money?

Kos has also run front page articles highlighting UK parliament member George Galloway's critique of the Iraq War and Middle Eastern politics. This is the same Galloway who supported Saddam Hussein, now supports the Iraqi insurgents, and also supports HAMAS. It is the same Galloway who suggested that the assassination of Tony Blair would be morally justifiable. Why is Lamont associating himself with Markos Moulitas Zuniga and DAILY KOS? Why are reporters not asking him about this? If Lieberman has cozied up to Bush and I personally think that Lieberman should have been more confrontational with the Bush Administration, does this give Lamont the moral right to cozy up to extremists of this sort?

I would love to see Democrats start denouncing by name Republicans for accepting support from extremist Right Wing Blogs, of which there are obviously many. Why should Democratic politicians be allowed to associate with equally repugnant Blogs at the other end of the spectrum?

Even if you don't think this is a problem, the national media and opposition researchers are starting to pay attention. The association of any number of Democrats with Leftist Blogs like DAILY KOS is going to begin to be a problem in general election campaigns, and not just in primaries like the one between Lieberman and Lamont.

7/27/2006 3:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that just in, from the "Office of Lieberman Wishful Thinking"

7/27/2006 3:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with that whole tirade is the portrayal of DailyKos as a "leftist blog".

It is no such thing. It is a *centrist democrat blog*, because it accomodates democrats from across the spectrum, just like the Democratic Party itself USED TO.

7/27/2006 3:49 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Humphreyliberal, here's the problem. Certainly it is absolutely fair to hold Lamont accountable for Kos's direct words about the race, for the reason you state. Not for every word he's ever written.

I just shake my head at some of this sometimes. Extremist views? WHAT extremist views? Show me one that isn't supported by a sizeable part of the American public in polls. Being antiwar is an extremist view? Checked any polls lately?

About Galloway: Oh, please. Are we going to hang everything Kos has ever blogged about around Lamont's neck? Be reasonable.

And for your final point, if you are suggesting that there is ANY sort of parity between criticism of Lieberman on lefty blogs and the downright barbaric stuff that goes on on the right, that's just so delusional that I don't know how to respond.

7/27/2006 3:55 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Yo anon--

Daily Kos
Daily weblog with political analysis on US current events from a liberal perspective.
www.dailykos.com/ - 47k - Jul 25, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages
Login - Diaries - Next 12 - Search
More results from www.dailykos.com »

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Daily+Kos&btnG=Google+Search
===================

You guys are funnier than the WKRP Turkey Day rerun. As God is my witness I thought turkeys could fly.

Neither does Lamont and his Bloggers.

7/27/2006 4:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/27/2006 4:02 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Yeah, you asked for that one, anonymous. Of course DK is a lefty blog.

Shame on you for letting a piker like seedfreak nail you...

7/27/2006 4:03 PM  
Blogger Puzzling Over Spectacle in Connecticut said...

Some Lamontistas here have misportrayed where Lieberman stands in the Senate on the ideological spectrum.

National Journal Ratings for 2005
Lieberman Liberal 65.7 Conservative 34.3
Robert Byrd 65.5 34.5
Max Baucus 60.7 39.3
Ken Salazar 60.2 39.8
Mark Pryor 59.8 40.2
Mary Landrieu 58.3 41.7
Ben Nelson 49.7 50.3

Some Lamontistas on this Blog have complained that Lieberman is just as conservative as, or in their words no better than, Lincoln Chafee. His numbers are -- Liberal 59.2 Conservative 40.8

My take on this is Ben Nelson and several other Democratic Senators are more conservative than Lieberman. With Chafee's numbers, maybe he should have switched parties.

7/27/2006 4:10 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Sundog,

I would just point out that many people have tried to hang everything Alberto Gonzales and John Roberts have ever said or done around Lieberman's neck. And all he did was vote to confirm them - not ask them to come campaign for him.

I'm not saying I think that it's fair game to hang Kos completely around Lamont's neck. I'm just saying I think that mentality has to cut both ways. I don't know that you've ever made statements like that, I'm just pointing out that I don't think that humphrey's statements are any more unfair than that stuff which was hurled at Lieberman.

7/27/2006 4:13 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"Here's the thing: Yes, Kos is abrasive, biased and prejudiced. But that's simply not enough to deserve the amazing level of abuse leveled at him and other bloggers. He's not Satan, for goodness sake."

Well I agree. I think he certainly means well, and at times does great deal of good as well. He has certainly created a successful community, and I wish moderates were half as good at organizing. I think I do have some differences in my political philosophy. But his overall tone makes it unproductive generally to even discuss such differences over there with him. He doesn't author that much of the content there though. He generally writes a few lines and quotes from other bloggers, and provides alot of links, some more interesting than others.

As for his political thinking, I know he was a Republican once who voted against Bill Clinton (I believe in 1992). He's apparently a bit younger than I am, and isn't old enought to remember the nightmare of the Reagan years, or what happened when Democrats tried to win only by "energizing the base". And I think his scapegoating of the DLC completly ignores the histroy of that group, of which Clinton and Gore were both founding members, who wouldn't have won in 1992 without it. I also don't think he really understands Connecticut. There were alot of these folks associated with the Howard Dean, who has some libertarian tendencies himself, and many of them worked for his campaign. But the real story for me is not the actions of this pro-Dean bloggers, it's been the actions of the party chairman himself, who still seems to have some resentments over the presidential campaign in which Lieberman was one of his biggest critics.

It's especially interesting to see an organization founded by Dean, and headed by his brother, being one of the key movers behind this campaign. It does seem a bit unseemly for me for the party chairman to be up to his neck in this to such a degree.

And, while I think Lamont has done a better job than Dean did of not echoing too much the tone of his more extreme supporters, I still think, looking carefully at the few positions he has taken, he strikes me as though he thinks he's running to be the Senator from Vermont, rather than the Senator from Connecticut.

7/27/2006 4:14 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Chafee is obviously a liberal at heart. But his family is the most prominent GOP family in Rhode Island history. So he's not switching parties.

7/27/2006 4:14 PM  
Blogger matt said...

I just wanted to say that I'm really, really happy to see the discourse going on in the comments section here today. Particular shoutouts go to Ken and Sundog, and major honorary mention to humphreyliberal for his one post.

It's turned into a really well-reasoned and logical debate, with both sides making good points. That's good for democracy, and it makes me smile to see it.

Thanks,
Matt

7/27/2006 4:19 PM  
Blogger Puzzling Over Spectacle in Connecticut said...

SunDog -- Would you not attack a Republican if he solicited support from a Right Wing Blog that supported the Grand Wizard of the KKK or extremist views from the other end of the political spectrum. (Note: The two examples that I cited from DAILY KOS are just as horrible.) Wouldn't you especially do so if that Republican took $250,000 from Rightist Blogs that frequently expressed extremist views and asked a Rightist Blogger to appear on his campaign commercials? I think that you would ... I hope that you would. It isn't just that a few eccentric articles have appeared on DAILY KOS. Many extremist views appear there.

Why is it so hard for you to denounce DAILY KOS and simultaneously say that you oppose Joe Lieberman. I would think that this would be a more defensible position on your part. If that was where you were coming from, then we would have much more to discuss. I also opposed the invasion of Iraq and feel that it was a collosal error. My difference with Lieberman is my belief that it is possible to be a pro-Defense Liberal, a pro-democratic internationalist and anti-jihadist and still to have opposed invading Iraq. I think that invading and occupyng Iraq actually undermined the War on Terror. However, given Lamont's backing by the denizens of DAILY KOS and the leftist Blogosphere, I have trouble supporting Lamont and his campaign.

Oh, I am a Humphrey Liberal and I am also puzzling over the spectacle in Connecticut.

7/27/2006 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There He Goes Again

Who could possibly argue that John Bolton is the wrong man for Ambassador to the UN?

Well, apparently it's "Principles Lieberman", sitting on the fence, biding his time, trying to figure out how to exploit the situation for maximum personal gain:

"So far no Republicans except Voinovich have said they will vote against Bolton and several Democrats are considering supporting him.

“Senator Lieberman remains undecided about Mr. Bolton’s nomination,'’ said spokesman Matt Gobush. “As a general rule, he believes the president should have the latitude to choose his own Cabinet, except in the most extraordinary cases. The senator is studying the issues raised by the committee to determine whether this is one of those cases.'’

Lieberman voted for Bolton at his previous confirmation hearing in 2001.”

Ouch.

7/27/2006 4:29 PM  
Blogger Puzzling Over Spectacle in Connecticut said...

CentristDem -- I agree. I think that Harry Reid might have converted Lincoln Chafee, as happened with Jeffords, but Chafee cannot turn his back on what he believes to be his father's legacy. I regret that the legacy of the Lincoln-Roosevelt-Rockefeller faction of the Republican Party has largely faded. Unfortunately, the far right wing of the Republican Party and the left wing of the Democratic Party are "carpet bombing" the center of the political spectrum. Bush's extremism is making it hard for the remaining moderate and liberal Republicans to survive. The tactics of the Kossacks and Deaniacs, I am afraid, are making the survival of moderate Democrats and pro-defense Liberal Democrats problematic. I am not looking forward to the day when only the two polar extremes are remaining and using employing the same tactics that they are using today. I find Rove repugnant. I fear that there are now Roves on the left.

7/27/2006 4:33 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Has anyone noticed the presence of more real debate over the past day or so, ever since a certain someone stopped making posts?

Although that last Anon post looked suspiciously similar to the work of our "old friend"...

7/27/2006 4:38 PM  
Blogger Puzzling Over Spectacle in Connecticut said...

I noticed that the Lamontistas did not address my points in any coherent manner. If they had, I would have debated their other points. As it is, I have to go. The spectacle in Connecticut really is rather unseemly. It is not going to help the Democratic Party or lay the groundwork for more civil discourse in American politics. I don't understand why Lamontistas will not denounce extremist positions that DAILY KOS frequently takes. I am more than willing to say where I disagree with Lieberman.

7/27/2006 4:38 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

'The "libertine left". Have you told Wittmann that one yet? He'll love it. Right down his alley.'

"May I just point out that the Libertine Left you speak of that thinks the war is a mistake now constitutes a majority of the American people?"

Actually I was talking mostly about the libertarian left. But I can't take credit for that one; I got it from Kos. That's how he describes himself. As for "libertine" I believe that would generally refer to social issues, it wouldn't have anything to do with the war.

A libertine viewpoint would for example would be to not want to put any restrictions at all on the freedom of individuals, or even of children, to make choices; even ones that might be harmful to themselves. A traditional liberal would balance freedom with reponsibility and the needs of the community. Thus a traditional liberal might support, for example, requiring labels which help parents make choices about what media content their children may view, or putting drug dealers behind bars--things which Ned Lamont seems to oppose.

And there are many traditional Liberals who think the war is a mistake. I thought it was a mistake from the beginning. The question now is what we do going forward. I don't think a partisan ideological approach will succeed there. I think we have to be willing do what we can to make the best policy there; not make our policy based on politics.

7/27/2006 4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Arrgh, it's me Sundog, posting from home and forgot my Blogger pw...

Centristdem - Fair enough, sir.

Puzzling: Are you honestly comparing support from Kos to support from the KKK? I'm afraid I have no answer to something that off-the-wall. I would very much like to see this Kos post that in your eyes is comparable to KKK propaganda.

Thank you very much, Lieberdem. I hoped while hereto show that Lamont supporters are not all crazed loudmouths. I very much hope I've made that case. If not, it is my own shortcoming, not Ned Lamont's.

I just wish the debate was about ISSUES. That would be so much more productive, and so much less divisive. This is not about blogs; it's about issues.

7/27/2006 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, I give up. These guys really do sound just like republicans.

7/27/2006 5:05 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Because they're talking about issues???

7/27/2006 5:07 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Excuse me, but I have not gone anywhere.

I am simply allowing some of the Lamont supporters to try to reason with you Lieberdems.

7/27/2006 5:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We'll discuss this later - but I am still astonished at the number of people that are shocked and horrified at the "unseemly" behavior of Kossacks, whom Lamont has no control over, and yet seem incapable of recognizing the incredible stream of negativity coming from Lieberman's actual campaign.

Not counting Lieberdem himself - he seems to get this.

We'll chat later. Thanks, those of you who cose to have a stimulating, low-impact discussion, for the stimulating, low-impact discussion.

Sundog

7/27/2006 5:23 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Who Better?

Who better to be the voice of the soul of the party than someone whose:

Great-grandfather, Thomas Lamont, was one of Woodrow Wilson's negotiators on the Treaty of Versailles. (compare contrast to Condi's hand to forehead tick and timely shoe shopping expeditions).

Great-uncle, Corliss was a leading figure in the ACLU and a founder of the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee that successfully sued the CIA on domestic spying. (NSA spying program and the useless Torture Czar today)

Father, Ted, helped administer the Marshall Plan after World War II and served in HUD. (hello, Katrina mismanagement)

And did you know that Lamont volunteers as a public school teacher?

Who is Ned Lamont? Probably our next Senator.

7/27/2006 5:29 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Ok, that was pretty good. Not on-topic, but at least positive in tone.

7/27/2006 5:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since when has L4L ever been on topic?

7/27/2006 5:33 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"He makes a telling point and it is up to Joe Lieberman and his supporters to say whether it is a valid point or not."

Humpheryliberal says of a troll's cut and paste of a letter to the editor. And I know that's what it is because he's posted already on another thread.

But very well, I'll answer Mr Halloran even though he isn't here to see it.

Dear Mr. Halloran,

The M-16 has been stadard infantry rifle of the US for nearly 4 decades. It is not substandard equipment. If you really want an M-4, maybe you should try to get into special forces. And, if you happen to be issued an M9 as a sidearm, please don't contact your Senator complaining that you really wanted a 1911. Dude, you're in the army. Did you miss the part about following orders in basic training?

sincerely,
Ken

7/27/2006 5:35 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Excuse me, but I am the troll here

At least according to my detractors.

7/27/2006 5:36 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

POSIC,

We're looking at a war of balance between ideological yin and yangs--they are equal to each other in extremism. And that is so throughout all aspects of human society.

Art: Maplethorpe or Whistler
Fashion: Anglomania at the Met
Medicine: Drug Cocktail or Homeopathy
Food: Big Mac or Nouveau Cuisine
Politics: Neocon or Liberal
Bucks: Less Haves or More Have Nots
Social: Citizen or Alian
Etcetera or the End of All
================================

Our political disconnect as a nation only further destroys its growth as a society. Without compromise there is no meaningful accomplishment because there is no continuity of economy and society, and as such there is no incentive for elevation of humanity. We quarrel left and right and ignore elder care, competent education, social uplift, broken families, mental health, affordable housing, increased wages, solar power, drug addiction, better public transportation and an endless list of so much more that are needed for the betterment of all.

The disconnect is broad, vocal and interfering. It moved the eyes and pens of journalism away from the genuine pain of the world to focus on who has accused whom of doing what. It is circuses without bread, there is no sustenance and it is the greatest waste of our society. It destroys our impetus to grow.

7/27/2006 5:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/27/2006 5:40 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"Great-grandfather, Thomas Lamont, was one of Woodrow Wilson's negotiators on the Treaty of Versailles."

Yeah, that worked out well.....

7/27/2006 5:41 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

"Yeah, that worked out well....."

That is brilliant :)...

7/27/2006 5:51 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Since there seems to be some interest from the usually-dyslexic Lieberdems, here is a link to the article from which my last post was sourced:

Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060727/cm_thenation/20060814nichols

7/27/2006 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(I will NOT say "while your grandfather was busting dirtclods in Iowa...")

Sundog

7/27/2006 6:00 PM  
Blogger Jimbo said...

anonymous said - "Okay, I give up. These guys really do sound just like republicans."

Accusations like this are being thrown about by the far left Ned Nuts in an attempt to seize ideological control of the party. If you don't agree with their wacked out ideology then you must be a Republican. If you don't support gay marriage you must be a Republican. If you bow down and kiss the world's ass then you must be a Republican. Do you get the point? The danger I see in this whole election is the far left's attempt to brainwash people into believing they are "real" Democrats and anyone who dares to disagree isn't. Sorry but we don't need to go back to the McGovern years.

7/27/2006 6:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a registered Democrat and a soldier currently serving in Afghanistan with the 1-102 Infantry Battalion of the Connecticut National Guard. Last week I received some newspaper clippings in the mail that sparked my interest: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has been successfully challenged and forced into a primary that will take place in August.

As some readers may have heard, in January my battalion was issued substandard equipment for our deployment to Afghanistan. Originally, we were issued M-16s rather than M-4 carbines, rifles with shorter barrels and collapsible butt stocks. As a politcally active member of the battalion, I began to get in touch with Representative DeLauro and Representative Simmons, who both responded quickly and enthusiastically. Senator Dodd also responded quickly and gave me prompts on how to further validate my request for weapns.

However, I did not receive a response from Senator Lieberman’s office. I continued to leave messages for both him and his military aide, now senior counselor, Fred Downey, who reprsented Sen. Lieberman at the Battalion’s send off ceremony on Jan. 4. After several messages, I finally received a return phone call. However, I was not met with the same enthusiams expressed by other legislators; I was immediately confronted with an inquisition that seemed to have the purpose of dispelling the belief that the battalion was ill equipped. Rather than listen to our specific concerns, the “benefits” of the M16 were highlighted and teh advantages of the M4 were downplayed.

Lieberman’s office left the impression that they believed we had the equipment we needed, despite the contrasting beliefs of soldiers in my battalion, some who have been on as many as five deployments. The others in Washington were not so quick to abandon us…

Lieberman has never hesitated to voice his support for the war, and recently voted against pulling troops out of Iraq, so where was he when over 500 of his own constituents were being sent overseas to fight on behalf of his great country? It appears the senator was so concerned with climbing the political ladder, he forget what his job is really about: the people…

When my absentee ballot returns to the States next month, Lamont’s name, not Lieberman’s, will bear the check. when August 8 arrives, will you stand for the hypocrisy?

Sincerely,

Colin D. Halloran

The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of the 1-102 Infantry Battalion, CTARNG, the Department of the Army or the members thereof

7/27/2006 7:38 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

On Bolton:

Yes Lieberman voted to confirm him in 2001 for his position as Undersecretary of State.

On the UN ambassador nomination, however, after "studying the issues", Lieberman not only opposed Bolton, he joined the filibuster to prevent a vote. Only 3 Democrats, Pryor (AK), Nelson (NE), and Landrieu (LA) voted for cloture. Remember, the Democrats won on that one, which is why Bush made a recess appointment instead.

7/27/2006 7:39 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

anon:

Apparently you missed my answer to that silly letter you've been spamming us with. It appears 9 posts above yours.

7/27/2006 7:42 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

Dan, it has now been two days and you have neither acknowledged the fact that your post below is 100% inaccurate and dishonest regarding emergency contraception nor have you posted a correction. How long do you intend to keep the lying post on your blog? Why in the world would you leave something on your site that you know is a lie if you are interested in "well-reasoned and logical debate"? I have been nothing but respectful in my comments, but your attempt to just ignore this is an insult to the same rape victims that you claim to hold in such high regard.

7/27/2006 7:45 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Concern troll Balbari:

I happen to fine that letter from one of our troops to be very poignant and interesting. And also very highly relevant to our current conundrums.

Please refrain from calling it "spam".

7/27/2006 7:53 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

L4L:

When you cut and paste something three times, it's spam. I read it the first time.

I responded, pointing out that the M-16 is the standard issue for all U.S. infantry units, it's not substandard equipment.

"The M16A2 semiautomatic rifle is the standard by which all military rifles of the future will be judged."

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m16.htm

For an infantryman, complaining that you've been issued an M-16 is like complaining that you have to wear a uniform.

7/27/2006 8:44 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Go ahead and blame me, but I have not posted that letter so much as once today.

It's okay, Lieberman people always seem to need scapegoats.

I'm glad to serve.

Thank God there are so many like-minded people on this site. Without them, you LieberDems would be insufferable.

7/27/2006 9:17 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Whoops, just missed the ball on that one.

Here we have Exhibit A, from Concern Troll Balbari

What Lieberman and his people do is to treat constituents - and even our troops - like petulant children. The letter in question from Halloran (or whatever his name is) is posing a problem to the Senator's office. Asking for help.

In effect, the response is to once more "kill the messenger". That soldier is saying "Hey, you've issued us a hammer, but what we really need is a screwdriver". Apparently, the "collapsable butt stock" is a feature they need. Of course, Joe Lieberman knows much better than you or I do what's best for us, so he says "Go to hell, we issue hammers. You can't have screwdriver".

Worse than that, the request from Halloran seems to have set off some kind of "How dare you ask for something like that?" inquisition.

In what way is this behavior supporting our troops?

How does the Office of Joe Lieberman know so much better than soldiers in the field what equipment they actually need?

This is a case study in what's wrong with Joe Lieberman.

7/27/2006 9:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/27/2006 10:33 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

It's not a lie. He never says the courts have ruled those specific laws to be unconstitutional, just that similar laws have been ruled unconstitutional in the past.

Don't hold LieberDem responsible for the fact that you leap to conclusions.

7/28/2006 6:32 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

"The courts have ruled repeatedly that the government can't force religious institutions to do things that go against their religious beliefs, as that would violate the First Amendment. I strongly disagree with any religious doctrine that prohibits the use of EC, but the government simply does not have the Constitutional right to force them to reject even that ridiculous belief. And from a purely practical standpoint, de-funding hospitals which will not give out EC for religious reasons could have a catastrophic effect on emergency care and health care in general across the country, since so many hospitals are run by religious institutions.

Right or wrong, that's the reality of constitutional law on the matter. I'll grant that the courts have not, to my knowledge, ruled on these EC laws in particular, but the legal history of the broader issue of government directives being forced upon religious institutions is pretty long."

Tell me how that's 100% inaccurate, oh brilliant constitutional scholar y.g. brown.

7/28/2006 6:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Courant Gets It! Lieberman Dodging Iraq

Lieberman is dodging the subject of Iraq, as well as others in this election year. Joe has scaled back on public acknowledgment of his pro-Bush agenda:

"But he's also been capable of giving Democratic leadership fits with his public pronouncements, and that's changed this year. He has not been as free with his praise for Bush policies and volunteers little about his views on Iraq."

De-emphasizing Iraq:

"Since January, when it became apparent that Lieberman was likely to face a primary challenge over his support for the war in Iraq, the senator has mentioned Iraq in 11 press releases, op-ed articles or other public statements archived by his office. About half of them expressed support for or confidence in the war effort or the troops.

In the same period of 2005, his office put out 26 statements mentioning Iraq; again, about half supported the war or the troops.

When he has spoken about Iraq this year, his statements have tended to be more measured and reserved than they were last year."

Link to Courant Article:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-joe0728.artjul28,0,7283800.story?page=1&coll=hc-big-headlines-breaking

7/28/2006 6:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L4L said "What Lieberman and his people do is to treat constituents - and even our troops - like petulant children."

You have just hit the nail on the head. I guess lucidity can come from strange places.

7/28/2006 7:08 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

Even I don't deny that Lieberman's campaign does that. I think Lieberman is personally an honest, caring person. But his campaign and office staff just seem to not get it at all (thus the shittiest ad campaign of this election cycle).

It honestly kinda reminds me of the Gore '00 team. They just never figured out how to handle anything until October.

7/28/2006 7:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't buy into the "Lieberman is actully a nice guy" meme either. During the debate, he was arrogant, sanctimonious, hot-headed and rude. Interrupting Lamont every which way and being just plain petty and mean. Campaign chatter from Lieberman since has repeatedly shown that he takes a condescending and dim view of voters.

While people here claim that Lieberman technically "won the debate"; and he may have, his image as a "reasoned statesman" went out the window that night.

7/28/2006 7:26 AM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Good morning Jimbo,

I don't think your remarks about being painted as Republicans fully hit the mark, though certainly you have some points. But I agree with anonymous to some extent. Here's what very much depresses me, after spending some time here:

I am really unable to distinguish between the extreme abuse hurled at the left by Republicans, and the extreme abuse hurled at us by the wilder-talking in our own party. Same lame talking points, same dishonest rhetorical tricks, same wildeyed flaming, same lack of coherent arguments. Two sides of exactly the same coin. Now THAT'S depressing.

In short, exactly the same thing people acuse Kossacks and the like of doing. But the Lieberman side seems blissfully unaware that it's doing anything of the kind. Either that, or it just doesn't matter because those "nutroots" people deserve whatever we get.

This experience has taught me something, and it's something I am very unhappy to learn. Some of you - NOT all by any means - pretty much ARE indistinguishable from Republicans, at least as far as some of your arguments go.

I'm sorry: defending the war in Iraq as a success is a Republican talking point. That's just the way it is.

Two points to leave you with today. #1: I am unprepared to listen to any more arguments about the "crazed nutroots" as long as the amazing negativity on the Lieberman side is not acknowleged, and #2, I want to see actual examples of the nuttiest rhetoric you can find from a well-known blogger about Lieberman. Let's see how it stacks up. Post it in a comment on my blog so we don't clutter this one with yet more meta-junk.

Just my 2 cents. I have to get actual work done today so I won't post much today.

7/28/2006 7:34 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I think you're assuming that more than a couple thousand people in CT and more than 10-20 thousand people nationalwide saw that debate. I think that Lieberman's demeanor in that debate is forgotten by pretty much everyone who did not see the debate and is not reading anti-Lieberman blogs. The press only mentioned it briefly in their debate coverage, and not at all since.

7/28/2006 7:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The myth that Joe Lieberman is a well-liked nice guy is just that - a myth.

7/28/2006 7:40 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

To elaborate on the niceness of Joe Lieberman I have helpfully hijacked the following MLN post. Yes, it is commentary in nature, but I think that it makes the overall point about how nice Joe Lieberman is in a useful way:

imajoebob on "Lieberman Niceness":
[START OF POST]
It's taken me a while to realize, and it hurts for me to say, that Joe Lieberman is not a nice guy. This is especially upsetting because I am naturally a "Pollyanna" who believes most everyone is naturally a good person. Like almost everyone else, I wanted to and did believe that Joe was a sweet guy who held only a few, but very important political views different than mine. But the more I read, the more I have to admit that Joe is actually a small-minded, bigoted, nasty little man.

How else can you describe someone who helps establish an "Academic" group whose primary purpose is to cow and threaten university professors who are critical of American foreign policy? A nice guy does not threaten your reputation and livelyhood because of political differences.

How do you describe someone who finds extra-marital (consensul) sex to be so immoral that it demands condemnation from the Senate floor, while starting a war for ideological - not national security reasons kills 2,500 Americans, more than 20,000 civilians and is deemed is not only justified, but questioning it is immoral?

What do you say about someone who purports to support gay rights, but opposes gay marriage? Who votes to ban funding for organizations that refer suicidal teenagers who are sexually confused if they use a pro-gay rights group to save the child's life?

A nice guy doesn't say it's unfair to attack someone for their wealth, and then does exactly that. All the while his wife is a Big Pharma lobbyist, he creates bills to give them massive tax benefits and tort protection, and takes home maximum allowable political contributions from them. But don't fret. He "discloses" this by listing his wife's income as "more than $1."

A nice guy doesn't say he's a Democrat, and then vote to enable every major item on the Republican political agenda, from tax cuts to the rich to censoring free speech to activist anti-american values judges. And he doesn't publicly stab his fellow Democrats in the back because he has a "difference of opinion," while giving Republicans political cover for their craven fealty to narrow-minded, manipulative masters. And then give aid and comfort to the Ralph Reeds, Sean Hannitys, and Ann Coulters of this world.

A nice guy doesn't think he knows better than I which video games my kids should play, which songs they should listen to, and what TV shows should be available on my set. A nice guy respects my ability to decide for myself and my kids. He doesn't stick his nose where it doesn't belong, and then patronize me for telling him to keep out of my business.

And finally, a nice guy doesn't support fascist ideals, whether it's a simple as ejecting people from his public rallies because he don't like what they said about him (that's part of the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive self defense"), or as dastardly as labelling people as dangerous and unpatriotic for simply disagreeing with his particular point of view and practicing their First Amendment right to say so.

Joe, you lost me at "Hello," because I can't trust a word you say after that.
[END OF POST]

All of these seem like valid points to me

7/28/2006 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/28/2006 8:03 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Groton DTC Passes Sore Loser "Lieberman Resolution"

Score another point for Democracy in Connecticut. The Groton DTC passes a sore Lieberman resolution. This one is not as stirring as the others that came before it. But it's great that the people of Groton are standing up for democracy:

"It is the sentiment of the GDTC that all Democratic candidates should respect the process and support the winners of the Democratic primaries."

Do miss the fiery language though.

Link:
http://homepage.mac.com/johnwirzbicki/iblog/CTBlue/C1885336264/E20060727222333/index.html

7/28/2006 8:22 AM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

CentristDem, that is ridiculous. Here's what I wrote below, since you are now feigning ignorance and pretending that you haven't seen these comments before.

You write, "And you know what? That is what is required by the Constitution. The courts have ruled repeatedly that the government can't force religious institutions to do things that go against their religious beliefs, as that would violate the First Amendment." This is 100% wrong. Many states require that hospitals offer EC if they receive public funds, including Washington, California, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, New Jersey and Massachusetts. For example, MA's Republican Governor Mitt Romney recently backed down in the face of enormous public pressure and did not exempt Catholic hospitals from this requirement in his state.

Senator Lieberman could be a leader on this issue. He could stand proudly in favor of women's rights. He has chosen not to do so. Instead, he has chosen to make rather grotesque public statements on the subject... statements which you delicately call "very poorly chosen" while calling the outrage of those who listen to him "insulting to rape victims." You should correct your post, as this portion is just flat wrong on the facts. If you agree with Senator Lieberman that women should not have the right to safe, effective contraception in all publicly funded hospitals then defend that position.

These laws have been on the books for years and have survived court challenges. Your argument is akin to claiming that statutes which prohibit jaywalking may be unconstitutional because legislatures do not overrule the constitution. Some of these state laws have been on the books since as early as 2001 (NY state law requiring all hospital to inform patients about EC) and 2003 (NYC law requiring that hospitals within the city provide EC to rape victims). No lawsuit has even succeeded in overturning any of these laws. It is 100% factually false to claim that such laws are unconstitutional.

I don't care how many Christian Coalition funded "think tanks" came up with a cockamamie theory that such practices are unconstitutional. Seven states have laws on this, all of which have survived court challeneges. Some of these laws have been on the books for five years or more. You're "entitled" to whatever views you want to hold. You can believe that laws against bigamy are unconstitutional if you want. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.

If Mr. Gerstein refuses to correct his post, which states definitiely that such deference to Catholic hospitals receiving public funds, "is what is required by the Constitution" and that "the government simply does not have the Constitutional right to force them to reject even that ridiculous belief," then it is perfectly clear that lies are one of the tools being usd by Lieberman supporters to defend his stance. This is not a subject open to debate. Not a single law of this nature has ever been overturned, they have been on the books for five years, and to claim otherwise is to argue for the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

The fact that you will "grant" the cold hard fact that these laws have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been ruled unconstitutional by anyone, anywhere, for any reason is touching. CORRECT THE POST. You are lying about the status of the law. Though it may have been an inadvertent mistake initially, you are doing it intentionally at this point. You are parroting hard-core, Republican, Christian Coalition talking points. Every day that you post remains uncorrected is another day in which your credibility slips.

It is so disgusting to see a the former staffers and the supporters of a sitting Democratic Senator parroting Pat Robertson's talking points. Have you no shame at all?

7/28/2006 8:36 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Who is Joe Lieberman?

Joe Lieberman is a Republican

Link:
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/4/2000/503

"Who is Joe Lieberman?
by Dr. Manning Marable
September 1, 2000

The major political surprise of this summer was Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore’s selection of Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman, a socially conservative Orthodox Jew, had first become widely known nationally as the most prominent Senate Democrat to denounce President Clinton’s misconduct in the Monica Lewinsky scandal...

The surprising selection of Lieberman by Gore raises three unavoidable questions, from the vantagepoint of African-American politics: (1) Who is Joe Lieberman?; (2) Why did Al Gore choose him? and (3) What does it mean for black people?

Who is Lieberman? ...

Throughout his twelve years in the U.S. Senate, Lieberman positioned himself on the extreme conservative wing of the Democratic Party. He chairs the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the “centrist” group of elected officials (including Clinton and Gore) who have aggressively pushed their party toward more conservative public policy positions.

On a wide variety of issues, Lieberman is clearly to the right of both Clinton and Gore. On gay rights, for example, in 1994 Lieberman supported an amendment offered by reactionary Republican Senator Jesse Helms, which cut off federal funds to any school district that used educational materials that in any way “supported homosexuality.”

Lieberman has a long record of hostility toward affirmative action that even his liberal apologists in the Democratic Party cannot hide. Back in 1995, when Lieberman took over the DLC, he declared, “You can’t defend policies that are based on group preferences as opposed to individual opportunities, which is what America has always been about.” Lieberman embraced California’s Proposition 209 in 1996, which outlawed affirmative action programs in that state. When President Clinton, after months of hesitation, finally put forward the formulation that affirmative action programs ought to be “mended, not ended,” Lieberman led the opposition within the Democratic Party. The DLC’s Progressive Policy Institute issued a report criticizing Clinton’s position, and called for abolishing it for government hiring and contracting, and making it voluntary in private business.

On issues of higher education, Lieberman has again played a conservative role. He was the only Democrat to vote against liberal historian Sheldon Hackney, the President of the University of Pennsylvania, to become head of the National Endowment for the Humanities. He claimed that Hackney was too liberal on campus issues of “political correctness.” Lieberman then became co-founder of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a five-year-old group that rejects “racial preferences,” opposes “political correctness,” and defends “Western civilization...”

Lieberman’s most recent conflicts, prior to his nomination as vice presidential candidate, have been over public schools. He has consistently promoted voucher schemes to divert funds from public education, claiming that vouchers would “give poor kids and their families a lifeline out of failing schools.”

Given this remarkably conservative record, for a Democrat, why did Gore select him as his running mate? I think there were several factors at work. Gore felt he had to distance himself from Clinton’s sex scandal and impeachment fiasco. What better way to separate himself than by embracing Clinton’s chief Democratic critic? Second, the selection of a Jewish candidate gave Gore the image of being independent-minded, or as one Democratic pollster put it, “much more strong-willed than most people realize.” Lieberman’s selection was calculated to help the Democratic ticket in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and possibly Florida, and should assist Hillary Clinton to win a New York Senate seat. But the primary reason Gore selected Lieberman is because they basically agree on nearly all important issues. Both men are centrist, “New Democrats.” Gore’s 2000 party platform soundly rejected liberal positions on literally every major issue—including capital punishment, health care, military spending, and assistance for the poor. Under the so-called “party of the people,” the Gore-Lieberman ticket supports globalization, the death penalty, limited expansion of health coverage, and the allocation of federal resources for debt reduction rather than to rebuild inner cities or reduce black infant mortality.

Where does all this leave African Americans? I looked at the staged New York Times photograph of Senator Lieberman standing before the meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus at the recent Democratic National Convention. Standing on either side of Lieberman are Labor Secretary Alexis M. Herman and Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Only hours before, Herman and Waters had engaged in a spirited public disagreement over the selection of Lieberman. In the photo, Herman looks relieved, and Waters appears sad. Perhaps Maxine reflects the grim realization of other black Democrats, who are now forced to campaign for candidates and a party platform they privately oppose. All they are left with is to frighten black voters to the polls with the spectre of a Republican victory.

They don’t realize the obvious: the Republicans have already won. By accepting Lieberman onto the ticket, as Nation writer David Corn states, Gore “has accepted—or surrendered to—the Bush terms of battle.” Bush, Cheney, Gore and Lieberman, in the end, only reflect variations of the same bankrupt political philosophy."

Love, LiebermanForLieberman.

7/28/2006 8:38 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

L4L - did you even bother to notice that there was a good back and forth debate while you were gone?

Seriously, the discussions between Sundog and Ken (with one or two interjections of my own) were reasonable, thoughtful, and fair. Why don't you take a cue from that and make posts that acknowledge that there are two sides to the argument, both of which have merits, and then explain without name-calling why your position should be preferred? Why instead copy and paste excerpts of or links to articles with points that favor your side of the argument along with an even more one-sided analysis of them?

I just don't get why you're so dead set on not participating in a rational discussion of the issues rather than a name-calling fest. If you can't, then maybe you and seedfreak should just go off into a room alone together and have it out.

7/28/2006 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Benedict Lieberman indeed.

7/28/2006 8:43 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Thus far,my posts have been of an informational nature today.
There really has not been much name-calling - yet.

I did follow the "back and forth debate". For the most part it's pretty clear the Lieberdems didn't fare too well. But then the facts are simply not on their side.

7/28/2006 8:48 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

In case you missed it, even DailyKos has said that Lieberman is not a Republican:

http://www.dailykos.net/archives/003636.html


True, that was three years ago. But Lieberman's vote ratings have not gotten any less progressive since then, if you look at the posts on this blog:
http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/truth-about-liebermans-voting-record.html
http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/real-clear-record-on-abortiongay.html


His record is slightly to right of the median for the Democratic caucus, in line with accepted progressives like Daniel Inouye and Maria Cantwell. And that is WITH Iraq War votes included; take those away, and his record is comparably progressive to Carl Levin and Chris Dodd.

No point in continuing to spread the myth that Lieberman is the Republican. Any objective overview of his voting record proves that he is in the Democratic mainstream

7/28/2006 8:52 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Well, I'm glad you cut down on the name-calling. But notice that there was no name-calling at all in the debate yesterday.

Of course you think the LieberDems came off worse - you disagree with them. But I think both sides came out of it looking good. Both showed that there were facts "on their side," and acknowledged as much. It was refreshing.

7/28/2006 8:56 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Atrios on Lieberman:

"One of the enduring mysteries of our times is why people who have shown either no leadership, or even absolutely disastrous judgment, on foreign policy issues are still given credit for being important foreign policy voices. One can find many partial explanations for this phenomenon, but even those can't explain the odd case of Joe Lieberman.

The war in Iraq is the issue of our time. Where's Lieberman on the issue? What does he think we should do about it? On his campaign website he offers no information."

Link:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_07_23_atrios_archive.html#115402628001706800

Does Lieberman have anything to say about Iraq beyond "No Comment"?

7/28/2006 10:06 AM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

CentristDem said:
No point in continuing to spread the myth that Lieberman is the Republican. Any objective overview of his voting record proves that he is in the Democratic mainstream.

Fair point, but it overlooks two things:

1. Joe Lieberman in recent years has a voting record similar to Lincoln Chafee (and other Northeast moderate Republicans). Why would you want to remove Lincoln Chafee (and other Republican moderates) but keep Joe Lieberman?

2. If Joe Lieberman is such a "mainstream" Democrat and isn't that close to Republicans on their views, then why run as an independent? If he's such a "mainstream" Democrat, why would Connecticut Republicans vote for him? What could a "mainstream" Democrat like Joe Lieberman gain from competing against a Republican for Republican voters?

7/28/2006 10:12 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I would argue that Lieberman's record is closer to Chris Dodd's than even Linc Chafee's - and Chafee is the most liberal GOPer in Washington.

And if that's not enough reason to work for Lieberman and against Chafee, then remember the most important element of all - Chafee will vote for GOP control of the Senate by caucusing the the GOP, and Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats.

As for why he chose to run as an independent (which I don't think he should), the answer is simple - his appeal and support among unaffiliated voters is stronger than with EITHER party. And unaffiliated voters are the largest bloc in CT. Lieberman might be a bit to the right of the (relative) handful of CT Dems who show up on primary day, but it's certainly not to the right of the states hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated voters.

7/28/2006 10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/28/2006 10:49 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"I think that Lieberman's demeanor in that debate is forgotten by pretty much everyone who did not see the debate and is not reading anti-Lieberman blogs. The press only mentioned it briefly in their debate coverage, and not at all since."

It's still available for viewing on the internet. And there was nothing wrong with Lieberman's demeanor. He was calm, respectful, and focused on the issues.

7/28/2006 11:53 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"1. Joe Lieberman in recent years has a voting record similar to Lincoln Chafee"

More similar to Ted Kennedy than Lincoln Chafee.

"2. If Joe Lieberman is such a "mainstream" Democrat and isn't that close to Republicans on their views, then why run as an independent?"

Because mainstream Democrats can win in Connecticut. Independent voters in Connecticut aren't very colse to Republicans either. But they're reluctant to vote for Democrats who are weak on crime and national security.

7/28/2006 11:56 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

y.g. brown:

Are you saying the earliest of the 7 laws requiring Catholic hospitals to provide EC is from 2003? And yet you claim this precedent has been there for years? Do you realize how long it can take for these issues to reach the Supreme Court? Has it even reached an appeals court? And if so, how many districts have ruled on it?

Moreover, if a court rules something, does that mean you or I can't disagree with the court? For example, Ned Lamont seems to think that it is illegal for the President to allow unwarranted domestic wiretapping for national security purposes. Yet the highest court to rule on this, the FISA review court, has held it to be a constitutional right of the president to authorize such wiretaps. I think that court was wrong. Am I not allowed to say I think that is unconstitutional?

7/28/2006 12:11 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Ooooh. Nice touch, Ken.

7/28/2006 12:16 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

Ken... good grief. Dan has claimed that these laws ARE unconstitutional. Not that they "may" be, or that someday a court "could" declare this. Not that he "thinks" such a thing. He is lying about the law in order to provide cover for Lieberman, and he is parroting Jerry Falwell talking points to do so. You and Dan are "allowed" to say whatever the hell you want, obviously. He has chosen to lie. The fact that he is "allowed" to do so doesn't change the fact that his post is 100% wrong on the law and that he is intentionally misleadering the readers of this blog in an effort to weasel Senator Lieberman's position out of the tender, loving arms of the Christian Coalition.

The earliest law mandating that Catholic hospitals go against their religious beliefs and treat EC on the basis of its health merits rather than how the Pope feels about it is from 2001. You see, I said that twice before and you (like Centrist) are pretending to be illiterate rather than addressing the issue. Five years and counting. No court has ever ruled that such laws are unconstitutional. The President's wiretapping policies have come to light only in the last six months, and a court case is pending against it. If you truly see no difference here then that is your problem.

7/28/2006 12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/28/2006 1:38 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

First off, Dan didn't write that - Matt did. Not sure how you kept missing that.

Second, it's ridiculous to accuse someone who is making a sound legal argument of lying just because you disagree with him! You still seem to have completely missed the point on this. LieberDem acknowledged that the courts had not yet ruled on these laws, but only said that courts had in the past ruled in favor of religious institutions in similar cases. Higher education comes to mind - many religious universities have received federal financial aid funds and other grant funding in the past despite federal laws which conflict universities' policies. Villanova, for instance, forbids its students from working for pro-choice organizations. That policy was challenged in court, and the school prevailed because the court ruled that Villanova did not qualify as a state actor. I don't have time to explain the legal definition of a state actor, but courts have repeatedly ruled that religious-run institutions are almost never considered state actors.

He never said these laws have been specifically ruled unconstitutional, and his broader argument is not only not a lie, it's the generally-accepted legal precedent. Sorry.

7/28/2006 2:33 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

Centrist, I missed the fact that Dan wrote it because despite approximately seven different comments on this the author has refused to correct his post. Second, there is nothing remotely "sound" about this legal argument. There has not been any ruling in favor of a religious institution in a similar case. In similar cases, Catholic hospital consistently lose. There is no more a "generally-accepted legal precedent" in favor of Catholic hospitals on this issue than there is a "generally-accepted legal precedent" that laws against murder are unconstitutional. It is a fiction. It is a lie. If you have anything remotely factual to support this claim, post it.

7/28/2006 4:40 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I'm sorry, but do you just not read? I GAVE you one above - the case against Villanova University - A CATHOLIC SCHOOL.

Read or at least pretend to read before you make your inane comments.

7/29/2006 5:43 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Oh, and one more thing - no matter how you spin it, it was not a lie. You just don't like facing up to the fact that there is considerable legal evidence on his side. I took a class on law and education, and can remember several cases that relate to this, but I don't have the book in front of me at the moment - sorry. The Villanova case sticks out because a friend of mine went there for law school.

In any case, it's not a lie. And you frankly sound like an immature clot for screaming that it is.

7/29/2006 5:56 AM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

Oooooooooooooooooooooh... you took a class! Do me a favor, guy. Find that case about Villanova and link it. This isn't education, this isn't about people who volunteer to enroll in a university, and the one case that you mention and hold up as "considerable legal precedent" has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with the subject at hand. If you want to lie, go right ahead. That won't stop me from calling you a liar who parrots the Christian Coalition. But no... you're a "Centrist Dem."

You're an embarrassment. But you're an embarrassment who took a class, so color me impressed.

7/29/2006 3:40 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

And you are an arrogant prick who obviously lacks the intelligence to even attempt a civilized debate, so he just calls whoever disagrees with him a "liar" - as if anyone actually respects your opinion enough to listen to you.

But go ahead. There's a reason there hasn't been one other soul on this blog backing you up. And it's because no one likes arrogant pricks with nothing constructive to say.

7/29/2006 9:23 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Oh, and by the way. I went to law school, have a J.D., and worked as a constitutional law professor for two years - so my class on law and education was just some isolated incident of me "volunteering to enroll in a university," whatever that means.

And if you think that the Villanova case has "nothing to do with the case at hand," then you obviously lack the understanding of constitutional law necessary to make claims you pathetically put forward. So go crawl back to Kos and hope he has respect for the legal opinions of people who obviously know nothing about law.

7/29/2006 9:29 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

Lemme get this straight. I post 5-7 polite, factual posts on this subject that you and the author ignore entirely or selective read. You call me, at different times, "oh brilliant constitutional scholar," "inane," and "immature clot" for having the audacity to say that this line of Lieberman spin is a lie originally pushed by the Christian Coalition. Now you stoop to calling me an "arrogant prick" twice and still refuse to post the one case that you claim washes away seven different state laws and the complete lack of any case law finding such laws to be unconstitutional. But again... you went to law school, you have a J.D., and you worked as a professor. I guess you think that posting your pseudononymous resume is more important than facts and legal precedent.

People who read this blog will see these posts, they will see your little meltdown and profane tantrums, they will see that the bizarre ideas being presented by you, Lieberdem, and Lieberman himself are completely divorced from reality, and they will understand why the New York Times and Hartford Courant have endorsed Ned Lamont.

Again, you should be ashamed for standing with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on this issue.

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

And you should be ashamed for failing to explain how linking to one case overrides 200 years of jurisprudence on the relationship between religious institutions and the government.

And if you mock someone and call them a liar but don't expect them to have an equally negative response, then your people skills are even more divorced from reality than your sense of legal history.

7/30/2006 1:19 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

Yes... seven different state laws, one article about a a GOP Governor of MA who was too afraid of reality to even try a ridiculous stunt like aruging that these laws are unconstitutional, one case, and the fact that there has never, ever, ever, ever been a single example in the history of mankind where a law mandating that publicly funded hospitals also provide EC was found unconstitutional versus your unlinked, irrelevant example about speech limitations and what constitutes a public sphere. Bollocks. You can rationalize your childishness all that you want, but you have provide absolutely no facts of any kind to support the ridiculous notion that EC laws like that proposed in CT are unconstitional. Lieberdem is apparently a blog when the only way to defend Joe Lieberman's "pro-choice" views is to use Christian Coalition soundbites.

No wonder the CT state chairs of both NARAL and Planned Parenthood support Ned Lamont. It'd be a cold day in hell when you'd see Lamont supporters citing chapter and verse from the James Dobson hornbook on Constitutional Law.

Next up: Why Joe Lieberman thinks that laws permitting the teaching of evolution in public schools are unconstitutional.

7/30/2006 3:18 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

You again cite the fact that the laws haven't been overturned as somehow proof that they won't be. They are all young laws, having been on the books less than 5 years. Laws mandating segregation are still on the books in Alabama after over a century, because they were never specifically overturned by a federal court. Does that mean they are still constitutional?

Laws on the books don't decide legal precedent. Court cases do. So one CA Supreme Court decision that was never reviewed by a federal court and a handful of laws that have been on the books for less than 5 years don't overturn 200 years of the federal legal precedent that the government cannot force religious institutions to do things that go against their religious beliefs. The most relevant precedents are in higher education, since the laws relating to hospitals are very new in judicial terms.

I agree with the laws, and strongly disagree with James Dobson's opinion on them. But my opinion doesn't change the judicial precedent on the meaning of the free exercise clause, and neither does yours. Sorry that you can't seem to understand that.

Read this first, then maybe you will at least start to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/05.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=483&invol=327

7/30/2006 3:38 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

You just won't stop digging, huh? The case that you cite is one that is a complete 180 from the issue at hand. LieberDem is forwarding the preposterous idea that a state's refusal to carve out a special exception for religious organizations that receive public funding is unconstitutional. Your Supreme Court case says that if the government wishes to carve out such an exception they are allowed to do so without violating the Establishment Clause. It doesn't say, nor could it ever say, that such exceptions are REQUIRED under the Constitution. It's asinine.

The reason that there are so few cases on this subject is that it is such a clear, obvious point that the Liberty Universities, the Focus on the Families, the Pat Robertsons, and the rest of the theocrats aren't willing to waste their money funding legal challenges aginst them any more than they would fight jaywalking laws. There is a New Jersey Supreme Court case which mandates that Catholic Hospitals provide first-trimester abortions. Not EC... ABORTIONS.

You keep citing "legal precedent" but you have provided none to support your/Ralph Reed's theory. That's because there is none.

7/30/2006 6:20 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

You haven't cited a single federal case to back up your arguments, and federal cases are all that matter on abortion law and on first amendnent issues. The legal precedent on the matter was laid out in the first link. And maybe you're illiterate in general and not just in law, but you apparently missed the whole "I agree that EC should be required" part of my argument when you called me Ralph Reed. But your arrogance won't let you see that there is a difference between what IS the legal precedent and what you THINK the legal precedent should be.

Until you stop preaching from on high and acknowledge that there is not one federal case to back up your argument, you're not worth talking to.

7/30/2006 9:24 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

So now you agree that EC should be required but you also believe that such laws are unconstitutional based on your truly meritless interpretation of legal history. In short, in your world (which involves a truly creepy reading of the Constitution), you want to violate the Constitution.

You're a liar, and a bad one at that.

7/31/2006 9:04 AM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home