CT-SEN: Lieb Clearly Enabling GOP Now
So which enterprising reporter is going to be the first to ask Joe Lieberman whether he condones or opposes the GOP's extensive and coordinated use of his political plight as a key talking point in the midterm elections?
In the past 24 hours, Lieberman's political travails have emerged as the single most important component of the GOP midterm message. Dick Cheney, Tony Snow and Ken Mehlman have all referred to Lieberman's loss as proof that the Democratic Party as a whole is controlled by the wild-eyed Jane Fonda left. This gives Lieberman the chance to prove he's the real Dem he says he is: He can condemn the GOP's use of him as a prop in the Republicans' midterm effort to damage the Democratic Party as a whole. Will he?
This question is worth dwelling on for a minute, because it gives us a real glimpse into the political soul of Joe Lieberman. The Senator from Connecticut who thinks of himself as a true-blue John Kennedy Democrat and claims to have the party's best interests at heart at every turn has been reduced rather ignominiously to a key GOP talking point. In addition to the remarks yesterday by Cheney, Mehlman and Snow, the Republican National Committee is using (example flagged by Atrios) Lieberman's loss to pump up the idea that Dems are "weak and wrong" and are "Defeat-ocrats." Lieberman has become the central rallying cry -- for Republicans -- and will likely remain so, possibly all the way through November.
Josh Marshall writes that the notion that this will work is absurd. Agreed. But here's an additional key point: It's all but certain that Lieberman believes that the use of him in a coordinated campaign will be effective for the GOP, and will succeed in defining the Dems as weak on security. How do we know this? Easy. Lieberman himself, after all, has said that if he loses, it will send a message to voters that the "anti-security" wing of the Democratic Party is ascendant. And that's exactly what the GOP is saying now.
To put this as plainly as possible, Lieberman himself would almost surely agree that his independent candidacy is helping Republicans and hurting the Democrats. Yet he's continuing with it anyway.
Here are a few questions that might be asked of Lieberman, then. Does he believe his independent bid is hurting Dems and helping the GOP across the board? If so, why is he continuing with it? And finally, now that he needs GOP votes to win a three-way race, will he full-throatedly condemn the Republicans' systematic use of, well, him as a key piece of the GOP's midterm elections strategy to damage the Democratic Party as a whole?
Relatedly, a final question: Is there anyone who now still doubts that Lieberman is enabling the Republicans?
Lieberman has been enabling the Republican Party's destruction of this country for the last six years. Why would he stop now?
August 10, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great analysis. I'm going to use these talking points with my senators, if I may, to encourage them to put pressure on Reid to cut off any support for Joe and to give Lamont more than just tepid support.
August 10, 2006 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment brings to mind David Brooks' column today: The Third Party: McCain-Lieberman. Is that enabling or what.
But my favorite remark by Brooks occurred last Sunday on the Chris Matthews Show (NBC- still waiting for the transcript) when Brooks unburdened himself of the following remark:
"Politicians are a lot more sincere than us journalists. And we are more sincere than those who read us."
What do you think of that?
August 10, 2006 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this isolationist talk...smells funny...this is bigger than the GOP and Lieberman...I think this is AIPAC at work.
Can anyone find out what AIPAC's position is on America staying in the ME??
August 10, 2006 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, no offense, but IMO..it sounds arrogant at best and like journailists are less principled and as corrupt and unethical as politicians, at worst..
August 10, 2006 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn Greenwald had a post recently that said the political world is now divided not between left and right, or between republican or democrat but between neo-con and not neo-con.
The party Brooks was talking about today is the neo-con party. Warmongerers from both sides of the aisle will join together in their belief in armed might, and win elections with support in the 30s for their views.
August 10, 2006 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive me, but I am not able to quite grasp how this is damaging to Dems as a whole vs. the GOP. When the polls showed that people who were opposed to the war split their votes between Lamont and Lieberman.
The folks who were anti-war and anti-Lieberman were ALSO anti-Bush. So, that it was the President and his policies OVERALL which fueled the votes for Lamont...not just that folks were anti-war.
This is a referenum on the Bush Administration, his inability to secure the ports, his slackard behavior with Katrina, his support for Dubai, his veto of the stem cells, his I am KING George and his violation of privacy...are ALL issues for people who voted for Lamont. And lets not forget the fiscal irresponsiblity and debt burden Bush has put us in...all THANKS to a COngress which did not hold him accountable!
It is not just a single 'war issue' and allowing the GOP to define it in this manner with Lieberman as an symbol of that is something DEMOCRATS need to CHANGE the message.
The GOP can NOT define what the ISSUE is here!! WE have to do that. Do not buy into this meme's do not even repeat them.
The message is America wants CHANGE they have HAD ENOUGH. There are more EFFECTIVE ways to defend and PROTECT this NATION. Diplomacy is one of them!!!
Lieberman is an EXAMPLE for US standing for MORE than just being anti-war....we are GLOBAL Leaders and we want to RESTORE Americans name in the GLOBAL community.
Remember it is the KISS!!! and all that it represents...this is a democracy not a Moron's MONARCHY!!!
August 10, 2006 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like in 2000, it's the likes of you who are enabling the republicans. Here's some info on why the GOP finds Kos and mydd.com so helpful,
The GOP are making public claims of this to help the Lamont campaign, because it's their only way of getting a republican from CT in that senate seat.
BTW, why is no brave blogger writing about Jerome Armstrong's (mydd.com founder) SEC violation for securities fraud, ripping off investors? A payola scheme similar to the one he and Markos of Daily Kos run in democratic races? Pay for protection.. ie, either cough up huge sums or we'll slander you and your candidacy?
Armstrong can't comment because he signed an agreement admitting his wrongdoing, but Koss attempts to paint Armstrong as only being a poor young grad student who was tempted.. despite the fact that at the time Armstrong was in his 30s.
Here's the url for the SEC charge
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18088.htm
and as an aside, Armstrong's conviction on weapons charges from when he was 29
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2005/mar/armstrong.html
If the GOP felt Markos and Armstrong such a threat to them, they'd crush them easily, instead their blogging helps the GOP fend off what was a increasingly unpopular republican majority.
August 10, 2006 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mary, you are so delightfully full of shit. Why, you've even managed to, in your fevered little brain, connect up Jerome Armstrong to Greg's post on Joe Lieberman enabling the GOP. I'm sure you find that completely rational, and that's why you're so entertaining, although I suppose it's awfully un-PC to laugh at the insane. Truly, though, I hope you continue to post here for years to come. I firmly believe our world needs crackpots.
August 10, 2006 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, Specialist from Tapped had a sex change operation and is now calling himself "Mary." Be on the lookout.
August 10, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not Mary. Is this a glitch..or did they delete Mary's post?
August 10, 2006 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her post(like most of her's) got troll-rated out of existance.
Well, to the existance of anyone not logged in at least.
August 10, 2006 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman's latest quote: "If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes[...]" will hurt the party far more than GOP calling us defeat-ocrats and using Ned's photo. Ned's position on Iraq is the position of the majority of the Democratic leadership. This is the position of the majority of Dems. Now we have a former Democratic leader calling Dems weak on defense because of this position. Way to go Joe. It's all about you.
August 10, 2006 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Specialist is a rightwing troll who will say anything to make Bush look good or dems look bad.
I think Mary is actually insane.
August 10, 2006 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman obviously feels so alienated from the voters who went for Lamont, hates them with such vitriol, feels these Democratic voters from Connecticut are enemies of the country, that he has to run to save the country from these voters and their plans to weaken the country so that Islamic terrorists can destroy the US. The DLC agrees. So if we continue to exercise our democratic rights it becomes very clear that we have to fight the Republicans and the DLC or else capitulate and have the Republicans and a DLC dominated Democratic Party, headed by the likes of Lieberman and his supporters Carper, Salazar, Pryor(?), and Inouye(?) putting into effect Republican or Republican-lite policies . I think that is an issue that has to be faced. The DLC now is an open and active opponent of the majority of the Democratic Party and is actively working for its defeat nationally. Should this be accepted? (In all fairness to Joe he did warn us we had better vote for him. He has been good to his word).
August 10, 2006 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This gives Lieberman the chance to prove he's the real Dem he says he is: He can condemn the GOP's use of him as a prop in the Republicans' midterm effort to damage the Democratic Party as a whole. Will he?
I sure hope not! The longer this little dalliance continues between the Republicans and the independent Senate candidate from Connecticut, the more it hurts both of them.
For the independent candidate, it only validates the turncoat criticisms leveled against him by Lamont supporters, and it will help to steadily peel away his remaining support in the Democratic party.
It won't help him with independents either. Independent voters admire independent spirits, but nobody admires active disloyalty and betrayal. If the man is willing to turn his back on the party that elevated him to his current position, in order to seek personal advancement, how can any Connecticut voters trust him to advance their interests in the future when those interest come into conflict with his personal goals.
As for the Republicans? Every minute they spend talking about Democratic candidates and Independent Democrats is a minute they don't spend talking about themselves. It only underlines how irrelevant they are becoming in 2006. They might as well hold up a sign that says "we are desperate, and have no good ideas of our own." By obsessively joining the national conversation about what is happening on the Democratic side, they implicitly admit that all the interesting things are going on in the Democratic camp.
Voters want change - fast. This goes beyond the issue of whether Lamont represents exactly the kind of change they are looking for, or not. The fact is that the Democratic party is the party where things are happening, where change is occuring. The Republicans are the party that is foolishly standing pat while the country looks to deal a new hand.
So Repubs: keep the envy coming and keep talking up the Democratic story. I love every minute of it. And as for the once-upon-a-time Democratic Senate candidate from Connecticut? I hope he keeps digging his own political grave.
August 10, 2006 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heck no!! This is a great insight. Although, the DLC has always represented corporate interests, and it's members have consistently presented themselves as right of center. This is the way America does business. Yet your point is well taken.
August 10, 2006 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right now they seem to have a scorched-earth tempreament. If they cannot control they will destroy.
August 10, 2006 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like in 2000, it's the likes of you who are enabling the republicans. Here's some info on why the GOP finds Kos and mydd.com so helpful,
The GOP are making public claims of this to help the Lamont campaign, because it's their only way of getting a republican from CT in that senate seat.
BTW, why is no brave blogger writing about Jerome Armstrong's (mydd.com founder) SEC violation for securities fraud, ripping off investors? A payola scheme similar to the one he and Markos of Daily Kos run in democratic races? Pay for protection.. ie, either cough up huge sums or we'll slander you and your candidacy?
Armstrong can't comment because he signed an agreement admitting his wrongdoing, but Koss attempts to paint Armstrong as only being a poor young grad student who was tempted.. despite the fact that at the time Armstrong was in his 30s.
Here's the url for the SEC charge
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18088.htm
and as an aside, Armstrong's conviction on weapons charges from when he was 29
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2005/mar/ armstrong.html
If the GOP felt Markos and Armstrong such a threat to them, they'd crush them easily, instead their blogging helps the GOP fend off what was a increasingly unpopular republican majority.
August 10, 2006 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flash: the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) anounced today that it is changing its name to the RFC: Republican Followership Council.
August 10, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP are making public claims of this to help the Lamont campaign, because it's their only way of getting a republican from CT in that senate seat.
BTW, why is no brave blogger writing about Jerome Armstrong's (mydd.com founder) SEC violation for securities fraud, ripping off investors? A payola scheme similar to the one he and Markos of Daily Kos run in democratic races? Pay for protection.. ie, either cough up huge sums or we'll slander you and your candidacy?
Armstrong can't comment because he signed an agreement admitting his wrongdoing, but Koss attempts to paint Armstrong as only being a poor young grad student who was tempted.. despite the fact that at the time Armstrong was in his 30s.
Here's the url for the SEC charge
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18088.htm
and as an aside, Armstrong's conviction on weapons charges from when he was 29
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2005/mar/ armstrong.html
If the GOP felt Markos and Armstrong such a threat to them, they'd crush them easily, instead their blogging helps the GOP fend off what was a increasingly unpopular republican majority.
August 10, 2006 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loserman thinks that he is beyond democracy as he is entitled to the CT Senate seat. He is obviously not a Democrat as he does not respect the Democratic party voters who elected Ned Lamont to be their nominee. With every Republican and GOP shill supporting Loserman its clear who supports him.
Let him go ahead with his independent candidacy. The voters in CT know a sore loser. And I am certain they don't want a sore loser as their senator. And Loserman will not have the CT Dem party machinery behind him after slapping them in the face. All he will have will be the Rove machinery and loser DC consultants who want his cash.
In fact the Loserman candidacy is very good for the Dem party. It will show who are Democrats and who are masquerading as Dems. And then Dem voters and the base can decide who needs to be challenged in the future. This provides the Dem party an opportunity to get rid of these folks who mislead the Dem voters about who they really are.
Ned Lamont won fair and square in an election. He got more votes. He ran a campaign based on his values and views which also happen to be in sync with the majority of Americans. Other Dems running this fall should listen and pay heed. The voters can see through the Rove falsehoods. They can bandy terrorism and ratchet up the threat levels but the American people want change. And change they will get.
Ned Lamont will be the junior senator from CT this fall.
August 10, 2006 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Washington Post has reported that Lieberman has been avoiding Chris Dowd and his phone calls like the plague and cnn has released this transcript this evening:
Chris Dowd: Hi, this is Chris Dowd, is Joe in?
Unidentified Voice: Uh, no.....I'm not in and I don't know when he'll be back.
CD: You don't know when you'll be back?
UV: Uh, well, no, I mean I don't know when uh, when, uh, Joe, I mean Mr. Lieberman will be back.
Pause
CD: This is you, isn't it Joe?
UV: [unintelligible]
CD: What? I didn't hear what you said, Joe.
UV: I didn't say anything, and even if I did, I'm not me - I mean Mr. Lieberman.
CD: This is pretty sad, Joe, pret-ty, pret-ty damn sad.
UV: Okay, well you know what? I don't have to take this abuse and neither do I. I guess it's pret-ty darn sad when a guy can't count on his buddies anymore AND the voters so I guess maybe I'll just tell Joe what you said, and maybe he'll call you back and maybe I won't and you know what else? Joe's not the bad guy here, Chris, I'm not the bad guy and [unintelligible]
End of transcript
August 10, 2006 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over at the Washington Note, Steve Clemons has a Karl Rove quote from yesterday describing Lieberman as a personal friend. This is Karl Rove...the outer of Valerie Plame (of course that is not considered by "honest Joe" to be as bad as people expressing their unhappiness with Joe's war), maybe the most dishonest man in America,a personal friend of Joe Lieberman described by resident idiot Robert Kagan at WaPo as the last honest man. Boy they sure sling the crap.
August 10, 2006 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
O'Reilly: "If this terror plot had been uncovered on Monday, would Lieberman have won the election? Afterall, Lieberman is tough on terror."
Lowlife.
Anyone who has failed to acknowledge that the war in Iraq was a mistake is soft on terror.
August 10, 2006 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would Joe Lieberman condemn these attacks on Democrats when he is making the same attacks himself?
August 10, 2006 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed.
It's about the status quo people.
Change it.
It's up to all of us.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 10, 2006 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Lieberman should continue to dig his own grave. I had a bit of sympathy for him, now I have none.
I doubt anyone does.
"Entitlements" have a whole 'nuther meaning in politicalese now.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 10, 2006 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that Ned Lamont is the junior Senator from CT this fall. And I was someone who voted Joe Lieberman into the Senate, as a CT voter, years ago. If he stays in the race as an 'I' candidate, there has to be a real concern that he takes votes away from Lamont because it's certain that he won't be taking 'Rs' from the Republican candidate, and in a 3 way race, a plurality is the only thing needed to claim victory in CT. I don't know the political calculus of the race 'D vs R vs I' any more, but Lamont needs to keep every Democratic vote he can, and also pick up as many unaffiliated 'Is' as possible, and a Lieberman candidacy is a threat to that. Incidently, Lieberman running as an 'I' is an interesting situation, considering his reputation as a selfish politician, always thinking about me, myself, and now 'I'.
August 10, 2006 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mary's (zero-d out) post:
Rated 0.0526 by 19 users.
Mary, I just LOVE how you're making great strides in becoming a part of our online community here.
Really -- you've outdone yourself.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
August 11, 2006 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
So here is my question:
My theory is that Unity08 all along has been a stalking horse for a McCain-Lieberman run in 08, a Hail Mary pass by the GOP establishment (which the Broders of the world identify with) because Bush has so damaged the brand name.
The question: let's just say Lieberman is not the junior senator from CT at the end of 06, is he then out of the picture?
You can begin to understand why he has been acting so angry and upset....
August 11, 2006 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone who's interested it seems fairly clear Mary has crossed the line from simple trolling into legally actionable libel:
This SEC charge from 2003 refers to Jerome Armstrong as being 39. Thus he was born around 1964.
This "weapons charges from when he was 29" refers to "Jerome Armstrong,a/k/a 'Jamal Armstead'"
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2005/mar/ armstrong.html
But is from 2005. Hence this individual was born around 1976. Or over a decade later.
Moreover even in the link Mary cites Jamal Armstead is described as a Philadelphia based career criminal in 2005. Several years after Jerome Armstrong become one of the most prominent left-wing bloggers. If Mary really believes these two individuals could be one and the same that speaks volumes about her powers of reasoning.
August 11, 2006 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
A very interesting point, existenz.
Seems to me that Lieberman has boxed himself into a corner by denouncing Lamont as a "one-issue" candidate while at the same time proclaiming throughout the primary campaign that he votes with Democrats 90% of the time.
But now he has to appeal to GOP and (perhaps) Independent voters by focusing on the one issue where he disagrees with Democrats.
You can't have it both ways, Joe.
August 11, 2006 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which just goes to show how insidiously clever Jerome is. Why aren't liberal bloggers writing about this??!!! Damn you, Kos!
August 11, 2006 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just wonder what it is that edog9 sees in Mary's post, that all the rest of us seem to be missing :)
August 11, 2006 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree, acf. Lieberman will draw some GOP votes because the Republicans know they haven't much hope of taking the seat. I think that moderate Republicans can live with his self-professed record of voting with the Dems 90% of the time.
But his strategy of aligning himself with Bush on Iraq will cost him votes from Democrats who didn't vote on Tuesday, and probably some who voted for him but will stay loyal to the party.
But we don't yet know how the I's will vote (we have closed primaries in CT, remember.) My best guess is that a slim majority of them will vote for Lamont. And I doubt very much that Lamont will lose voters who supported him on Tuesday.
Still, I expect a close race in November; and a very ugly one too.
August 11, 2006 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just can't bring myself to suggest she be banned from here. I just find her posts so funny. I know it's distracting, but, I get such a kick.
Earlier this week, she said I was a hate-mongering racist! Priceless.
It's our own little train wreck. I can't not look. I am so weak...
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
August 11, 2006 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, but haven't some of the big gun DLC members already come out in support of Lamont...Schumer, Clinton, Pelosi etc
August 11, 2006 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone see this?
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/11/headline-news-lamont/
A CNN anchor (Chuck Roberts, I think)asked the rhetorical question,
"Is Ned Lamont the AlQaida candidate?"
Why are they pandering to such an unpopular administration, known for its lies and distortions? Why are they fomenting hysterical reactions based on false premises, when they could foment away with actual true things the Cheney administration is doing?
Can anyone answer that? I expect it on Fox, and I know that most of CNN has gone south, but REALLY? How can he get away with sh*t like this when he is supposed to be REPORTING NEWS?!!!!!!
Jan Knaus
August 12, 2006 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink