Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont squared off in a nationally televised (on C-SPAN) debate this evening. I didn’t watch it, but my dad did, and he writes:
IMO ~ being as Objective as I Can be, which I think means, pretty Reasonably so ~ Lieberman slaughtered Lamont. :) / To paraphrase Gen Patton re the Enemy going up against his 8th Army, ‘You know, I actually feel Sorry for that poor sonofabitch, by God I Do.’ :> Ned Lamont is a Pipsqueak. :) His Inexperience showed, Painfully. He did NOT Look (nor sound) Senatorial / Joe Ran Rings around him on Knowledge & Articulation of the Issues, AND on Personality & Style ~ and most importantly, on the rhetoric of Dyed-in-the-Wool Democraticness. / Plus, Lamont has this sort of permanently-Jacklighted-Deer look in his unduly Wide Eyes. :> / Lieberman came off as an Aggressively Good Democrat. Really.
Unsurprisingly, Kos has a different take:
[T]wo things stood out — 1) Joe Lieberman proved that yes, he is a politician, in both the good and bad meanings of the word. The good — he was a polished debator and looked like he had done this a million times before. The bad — he lied, obfuscated, used cute rhetorical twists that did nothing but debase the level of discourse on the debate. Lieberman didn’t even bother thanking Lamont for showing up, a courtesy that just about every political debator extends to their opponent. Rude.
And 2) Ned Lamont proved that no, he is not a politician. He was clearly nervous. I mean, imagine your first debate being against an 18-year Senator and former VP candidate, with not just a statewide audience, but a national one tracked closely by half the blogosphere and just about the entire national political press corps. And given he’s now the leader of a new people-powered army, imagine his desire to good for them, to justify their passions and energy they are spending on his behalf. Gah. I’d choke under that kind of pressure.
But Ned didn’t. He held his own, even against a boorish, rude, and lying opponent. And as a result, the post-debate spin seemed tilted decidedly in his direction. Lieberman may have technically won the debate, but he did so using tactics so ugly that Lamont was the sentimental favorite.
I have no idea who’s right, though I think everyone on this blog knows where I stand as between the two candidates, and that I don’t buy the characterization of Lieberman as “boorish, rude and lying.” Kos is a card-carrying member of the pathological wing of the Democratic Party, which believes that anyone who supports the war in Iraq is an evil, lying Republican or DINO, so you’ll have to forgive me for not taking seriously his opinions of Senator Lieberman, who has more integrity in his left pinky finger than Kos has in his entire body.
|
Categories: Joe Lieberman, Election 2006
|
July 6th, 2006 at 8:37:56 pm
My guess is Lieberman probably won the debate, but I have a hard time buying Joe’s description when he says Lieberman “Joe Ran Rings around him on Knowledge & Articulation of the Issues, AND on Personality & Style”. Lieberman may have been more knowledgeable and articulate, but I remember very well from the 2000 debates that the man was about as drab and boring a debate personality can be–and that’s saying something, considering he was up against Dick Cheney.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:25:56 pm
Kos’ take is a riot. So whiney . . . I didn’t here the debate but I can tell Lieberman won just by how whiney Kos sounds: And, hey, Lamont was clearly nervous (snif!), I mean, imagine YOUR first debate being against an 18-year Senator and former VP candidate (snif!) with not just a statewide audience, but a NATIONAL one (snif!) tracked closely by HALF THE BLOGOSPHERE (snif!) and just about the entire national political press corps and, hey, even Kos HIMSELF would’ve choked under that kind of pressure . . .
Are you kidding me?
Hey jackass, YOUR candidate is the one who waltzed in against a nationally known and far more experienced incumbant because he was SO DAMN SURE he could do a better job than Lieberman, who is drawing ire basically because has the NERVE to still support U.S. troops in Iraq. If Lamont ain’t ready for primetime, then tough sh*t for him. Use some of his bank account to buy some more “post-debate spin” since that seems to be the only place where Lamont makes gains . . .
July 6th, 2006 at 9:26:33 pm
Oops . . . I didn’t H-E-A-R the debate . . .
July 6th, 2006 at 11:39:10 pm
Andrew, you’re right about the 2000 Veep Drabfest :} but trust me, Joe was Not boring this time. He was animated, passionate even (!! :) ~ and, Aggressive. He set forth his own record & philosophy in a very Lively & persuasive manner AND also Went After Lamont constantly & effectively, nailing Ned on HIS blatant inaccuracies & inconsistencies (and Coziness with Greenwich CT Republicans when Lamont served on town boards there, his Only elective-office experience). No, it was not a Boring debate.
It was an Embarrassing one though, for those like me (If Any :) who instinctively Cringe at the Merciless Mayhem wrought by a radically Unequal contest. / I’m thinking that maybe WVIT-Channel 30 should institute a 50 Pointspread Rule, like the CT Highschool Football Highmucketymucks have, for Humanitarian reasons. :) I mean, there comes a point where ya gotta call it a TKO. :>
Joe Mama, you’re exactly right & Kos is, as usual, Precisely Full of Crap. (Well. Except in the part where he effectively, albeit Whinily, concedes my point that Joe Won. :)
(a) Lieberman did not “lie”. Not once. Indeed he repeatedly, and unRefutedly, skewered Lamont on several Prevarications of his Own, including re Joe’s record on Social Security protection.
(b) Saint Joe did not “obfuscate” any more than Lord Ned did; and on those occasions when he Did fudge he did so much more Skillfully than Lamont did in his lame attempts at Obscurantism ~ such talent being a Useful tool for a United States Senator to have in his Toolbox. :]
[c] Lieberman did Not use “cute rhetorical twists”. He got off numerous Fact-based Zingers, yes; but they were neither Cute nor Twisted. They were merely well-Targeted & True. / Ned, for his Rhetorical part, Tried to be Cute, once. For all you Unfortunately non-Connecticut folks this will be a bit Arcane :}, but, when queried about Joe’s TV ad analogizing Little Ned to a Bear Cub (the reference being to Lieberman vs. Lowell Weicker in 1988, folks; but nevermind :), Lamont replied that he found it “somewhat Cute, but unBearable.” This was a bruinishly Manful effort, but it Flopped. ;> Poor Ned was left Dyin’ Out There. :]
(d) Joe Lieberman was neither Rude nor Boorish. He couldn’t be Either if he Tried. Not in his Nature. Tough, yes. Rude, no. / Kos needs to Daily recall that it ain’t Beanbag, here. You Give it, you get it Back. / It’s true Lieberman didn’t Thank Lamont for the Debate. / Neither did Ned thank Joe. Can’t say as I Blame him. :)
July 7th, 2006 at 12:09:31 am
PS ~ there being still a Month to Go before the Primary, I hereby offically Predict that Incumbent Lieberman will now Challenge Challenger Lamont to more televised Debates ~ including at least One on CT’s Biggestfattest Newsstation, the mighty CBS-affiliated WFSB-Channel 3 ~ AND, that Challenger Lamont will Decline, pleading Scheduling conflicts. :]
See, this sort of thing, cumulatively, can actually generate Turnout. / And Turnout is Ned’s Enemy. And, he Knows it. :>
July 7th, 2006 at 5:52:11 am
So it WASN’T a “lie” when Lieberman said he’s always fought Bush’s privatization plan?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004847.php
July 7th, 2006 at 5:52:43 am
** he has always**
July 7th, 2006 at 5:58:02 am
And it ISN’T a lie for Lieberman to say he’s not for an open ended commitment in Iraq even though he recognizes we may have permanent bases in Iraq?
“We may, over the long term, with the consent of the new Iraqi government, establish some permanent bases in Iraq. And wouldn’t that be a dramatic change, where we have an allied government there in Iraq, at the center of the Middle East, where we may have not a permanent police presence, but one or another military base that’s working in cooperation with the government there?” he asked.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/20/sprj.nitop.lieberman/index.html
July 7th, 2006 at 6:11:39 am
non-scientific MSNBC poll: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13724206/
July 7th, 2006 at 6:30:46 am
I watched about 20 minutes of the debate. Lieberman actually gave Lamont some openings but, like John Kerry in the final two debates against Bush, Lamont didn’t stray from his talking points enough to take advantage of them. Sometimes in these debates you need to go off script and ring somebody’s bell. Lamont had the chance when Lieberman said something to the effect that how could voters be sure they weren’t voting for a Republican in disguise when they voted for Lamont. Lamont should have said, “Well, Democrats know they have a Republican in disguise when they vote for you, Joe.” Alas, Lamont wasn’t that quick.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:53:18 am
The weird thing to me is how Liberman is somehow perceived by some to be this man brimming with integrity.
There’s a couple of points that seem to contradict this take on him.
The first is that Lieberman, even as he is emphasizing his Democratic roots, will refuse to let Democratic Party voters decide who their party’s candidate will be. In other words, Mighty Joe will not be satisfied having one bite at the apple. He wants a second bite at the apple AND he wants to call himself a Democrat in the process, even though the Party’s mechanics in the primary are how the PARTY will decide its candidate. That’s some commitment to the Party. But it gets worse…
This leads to a rather interesting possible scenario which may cost the Democratic Party dearly. Here’s how. Suppose Lieberman loses the primary. He will still get a second bite at the apple by running as an “independent” who is actually a Democrat. If the Republicans mount a tough campaign in the three way race– and with Lieberman forcing the Democratic Party voters to split their votes– this may turn over the Senate seat to the Republicans in Conn. this fall. How likely this is I don’t know. But it IS a serious possibility. Why would Joe want to risk this? Why because it’s HIS seat afterall!
Bottom line: Mighty Joe Lieberman, the man brimming with moral integrity and commitment to the Democratic Party, may be putting the whole Party’s attempt to win back the Senate this fall, because he wants to retain his seat.
Just great, huh?
And the real kicker is that this whole process may have an effect on the struggle by Democrats to win back the House as well.
Here’s how it may happen, as described by The Horse’s Mouth, Greg Sargent: “I’m far from an expert in Connecticut politics. But if Lieberman runs as an independent in November, there’s little doubt that he’ll try to paint Lamont as a raving and dangerous lefty. Indeed, as Atrios notes, he’s already doing that now. If I understand this dynamic correctly, any success Lieberman has in portraying the Dem at the top of the ticket as too far to the left will likely complicate efforts by down-ticket Dems — such as these House candidates — to win over moderates, independents and centrists.”
(read the whole entry here: http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/07/post_198.html#003070)
So Mighty Joe Lieberman, in his take no prisoners attempt to retain his seat, may be hurting the whole Democratic Party in its attempt to retake at least one of the chambers of Congress this fall.
Yeah, Joe’ no ordinary politician: he’s just loaded with integrity….
July 7th, 2006 at 6:54:21 am
Oh, well struck Anon (NOT)
Accusing Lieberman of lying about “always fighting Bush’s privatization plan” by citing an article entitled “Lieberman Listening and Learning About Private Accounts” is pretty hungry stuff. And I think we can go ahead and substitute “non-scientific” with “utterly worthless” in that online poll you cited.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:54:38 am
Otherwise, nice hustle :-)
July 7th, 2006 at 6:58:44 am
I love it: Lieberman choosing to run as an independent and get a “second bite at the apple” (GASP!) is now equal to “refusing to let Democratic Party voters decide who their party’s candidate will be.” Priceless.
July 7th, 2006 at 8:58:28 am
All I know about this is:
If I was a Democratic voter forced to choose between Lieberman, and a Kossite candidate like Lamont, I’d go with Lieberman every time. He’s an adult. The Kossites are spoiled, petulant children.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:06:36 am
The Democrats lost the elections due to two major mistakes: Kerry & Lieberman. America was not ready for Lieberman who was just a dull and wimpy on all issues. He was like Kerry’s shadow moving along the waltz lines of Kerry. Why are Democrats even listening to Lieberman? Yet, another reason why the Dems can’t seem to pull it together even when they have a tactical political advantage.
I’ll have to agree with K-Oh-S.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:07:22 am
I hope for your server’s sake, the Kossack’s don’t take notice of your post…they insist upon ideological purity.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:43:20 am
uscroger -
Didn’t Edwards run with Kerry? Not Liberman?
Anon -
As for Liberman hurting the Democratic party, last I checked, it was the Dems pulling up stakes and fleeing from his camp. You saying he should be beholden to the Democratic party after the party leaves him?
July 7th, 2006 at 10:51:32 am
“Didn’t Edwards run with Kerry? Not Liberman?”
Same thing.
Gee, and why were the Dems moving away from Joe?
July 7th, 2006 at 11:07:15 am
Correct again, Joe Mama. :) You’re on a Roll, here :> [you big Hotdog, you :].
And the perfect Companion-piece to Anon’s preposterous assertion ~ that Joe “will refuse to let Democratic Party voters decide who their party’s candidate will be” (which you, JM, and Now I are both so Cruel as to Quote back at him verbatim, hi Anon, & btw Thanks for this Debate :) ~ IS, his followup Knockout Blow, namely that November will see “…Lieberman forcing the Democratic Party voters to split their votes”!
So now, Anon, let me see if I’ve got this all straight, here.
(a) When Lamont Lost his contest for the Democratic Party Endorsement (which automatically Becomes the Nomination if no Challenge Primary is optionally filed for) to Lieberman, by the squeakyclose :> delegate vote of 1,004 to 505 at the Democratic State Convention, this was Not a Bite at the Apple. (A littletiny Grape-nibble, perhaps. Maybe a wee taste of political Plum even. But an actual Bite at the APPLE, ohhh no! not for Lord Neddie it wasn’t, perish the thought & Heaven Forfend :)
Therefore, when
this kumquatthe endorsement-process Landslide Loser exercised his legal Option to file for, and thus Trigger, a Primary against the Winner this Could Not have been a second Chomp at an Apple which was, after all, still mystically unBitten byMister Tangerine Manformer Town Selectman Lamont & his hardy band of 33% of the Grassroots Democratic Delegates. :) HOWEVER,(b) ~ when Joe Lieberman announced HE would keep Open HIS legal Option of running as a Petitioning Candidate in November, by Signature-gathering Now as the law requires for same ~ this WAS his Secondbite at the Magic Apple (of which Hungry Neddie had Snarfed down his one-third slice in May whilst leaving nary a Greenwich Gold Toothmark upon the miraculous Fruit :) AND NOT ONLY THAT, it was ALSO ~
[c] ~ Generalissimo Joe’s Pronunciamento that he “will refuse to let Democratic Party voters decide who their party’s candidate will be” on August 8 [reminds me, I must inform my CT SOTS ex-colleagues that the Primary is Cancelled, they probably Hadn’t Heard :] ANNND ~ more alarmingly Dictatorial still ~
(d) ~ that at the Election, our Supreme Leader Joe
StalinLieberman looks forward to “forcing the Democratic Party voters to split their votes”. (Doubtless Kim Jong Joe is recruiting his goonsquads of Inside-the-Votingbooth Enforcers even as we Tremble, here. :)Anonymous, being a Helpful little fellow I intend to Untangle your Lines for you :) re the Actual Effect of a November Three-way [hm? / why, certainly that’s a Nicely-dressed Threat, what else would I ever proffer? :] but I gotta take a Break here, you’ve got me Laughing so hard I can’t see the Screen :). I’ll Bee Baahhck. ;>
July 7th, 2006 at 11:28:15 am
uscroger -
Well, considering that many of them are making a run for President and the fever left of the likes of Kos, whom they will need to win primaries (or make their primaries easier), villify Liberman for his refusal to go ballistic over the conflict in Iraq, its not that hard to see.
Sadly, and I keep saying it, Liberman is the Democrats best hope for winning the Presidency right now. I mean hell, every passing month, Hillary is trying more and more to sound like Liberman without facing his difficulties. She knows you need to win a general election AS WELL AS a primary election.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:35:06 pm
Kumquat.
LOL!
July 7th, 2006 at 1:14:38 pm
I think Joe Loy makes some good points, and I think it should be noted that Lieberman being on the conservative end of the Democratic side (if not, as some people think actually falling on to the Republican side of things a bit) might just as well pull left leaning GOPer’s in Connecticut as well.
I do understand the concern though of Lieberman running as a “Democrat” even if he doesn’t get the official nomination. Now I have no idea if that is his plan, but I believe that is what Anonymous is referring to. Of course no one has asked whether Lamont is planning to do the same, so who knows if we should be criticizing only Sen. Joe on this one.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:10:20 pm
I do understand the concern though of Lieberman running as a “Democrat” even if he doesn’t get the official nomination.
There’s nothing to understand, because it’s not a valid concern. Lieberman cannot, and therefore will not, run as a “Democrat” unless he is the Democratic nominee. I.e., he won’t be on the Democratic ballot line, and he won’t be listed on the ballot as a “Democrat.” He will be listed either as a “Petitioning Candidate” or under some other newly formed party name of his choosing, but that name cannot be “Democrat” because said name is already taken.
Obviously, Lieberman is free to continue to verbally describe himself as a “Democrat” — and, given that he will still be a registered Democratic voter, and given that he’s pledging (like James Jeffords) to vote with the Democrats for majority leader and such, verbally calling himself a “Democrat” would be an accurate self-description. But “the concern…of Lieberman running as a ‘Democrat’” is much ado about nothing; no such concern legitimately exists.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:35:14 pm
Brendan, not speaking for David, but when he says “Democrat”, I think he puts the word in quotes the way he might make little quote-y finger gestures if he were speaking in real life.
In other words, of course Lieberman wouldn’t run as a DEMOCRAT, but he may run as a “Democrat” (if you know what I mean…)
I was just musing:
why is it that we always wait to give someone a compliment until there’s a caveat to throw in?
Its a strange human tendency. Applies here because - I am a huge fan of Joe Loy’s contribution to this blog. I dig his sense of humor, knowledge and wisdom, etc.
OF COURSE I bring that up now, cause why?
In this particular case, I think Joe’s anti-anonymous rant failed to parry the main thrust of anonymous’ argument, which is:
That an independent Lieberman candidacy would attempt to rouse populist, centrist feelings by painting Lamont as somewhere left of Mao.
As a result, the Democratic contingent in Connecticut (and the Northeast? Who’s to say?) might be damaged in their effort to attract moderate voters.
As far as I can tell, that argument is still out there. What say you, Lieberman lovers?
July 7th, 2006 at 4:08:39 pm
That an independent Lieberman candidacy would attempt to rouse populist, centrist feelings by painting Lamont as somewhere left of Mao.
As a result, the Democratic contingent in Connecticut (and the Northeast? Who’s to say?) might be damaged in their effort to attract moderate voters.
1) Lamont was recruited by the far left wing of the Democratic Party to oppose and defeat Lieberman. The whole purpose of the Lamont candiacy is to drive the Democratic Party further to the left.
2) What is damaging, (and a Lamont primary victory would be even more damaging) to the Democratic efforts to attract moderates is the increasing drive to the extreme left, as exemplified by the growing influence of the Kossities, the appointment of Dean as party chairman, and the attempts to eliminate or marginalize moderate and conservative voices like Zell Miller and now Joe Lieberman.
When they started attacking Hillary as being too far to the right, you knew the crazies were taking over.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:55:40 pm
Brendan, as well you Know, you are exactly Correct. :) I haven’t yet Sussed Out which way Joe Will Go ~ Newpartyname or Nopartyname (there being distinct Politicotactical Pluses & Minuses to Each option) ~ but Being as How I do have some prettygood Sources [”Hah-HARRRR-harharhar, heehee, Ratted Out!” :] (inside Famblystuff, people, don’t Fret about it :), I can assure you that when I Do find out, you will be the Eighth to Know :}.
Alasdair, thank you Very much. No, Really.
That Said: quit Musing :). As Her Majesty told the royal Scribe complaining of writer’s block, We Are Not A Muse :>. In Ireland we call that Woolgathering. In Scotland of course the Sheep are prized for More than the just the Wool but nevermind about that now, you’ll just say Bah anyways :]. / Oh and fixyerdam’ Craveat wouldyez, it’s come undone & it’s hanging all cookead & it makesyerdam’ collar look kind of Emptory, Per my tastes anyhow. / OKOK so that Last one was a Neckkid Stretch, so Sheepdip me. Bah. [flibbertyGibbetish Grin :]
(Footnote: just FYI, I have Met David. I have Partied with David. David has chauffered me to the Tailor’s to get Both of our Tux Pants let out. David never Makes little quote-y finger gestures when he is speaking In Real Life. :)
* * * * * * *
butseriously Alasdair, my In Cyberlife friend and Partner in Linguistic Crime :), if I ever do Finish & Post my previously-
threatened-promised Further Reply to the esteemed & distinguished gentleperson from Nowhere, Representative Anonymous, I believe it will Address your substantive Questions also. / Until that time, I would Refer the Honourable Gentleman from Edinburgh to the Answers I Gave some Moments Ago. (”Hear hear!” “Rubbish!” “Balderdash!” “ORDER! The House will be in ORDER!!!” :)July 7th, 2006 at 7:54:05 pm
Who was the President that enacted Title IX to give women’s athletic programs more money?
Whose policy toward the Soviet Union was essentially “Live and Let Live?”
Who put price controls on the price of gas?
Which President advocated Affirmative Action?
Who signed the Clean Air Act into law?
Richard M. Nixon
Funny, but most leading Democrats would run away from these issues right now. What is wrong with this picture? No wonder Kos is out there trying to get Democrats who are actually Democrats.
Lieberman isn’t moderate. He is Right of Nixon.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:39:42 pm
Good point, Lojo. Clinton will never have a chance. Lieberman/McCain? Lieberman should do as Sal Miller and get things stirring for a change.
July 8th, 2006 at 12:04:03 am
So, Max, by your standards, the entire Democratic Party is “Right of Nixon.” How does that prove that Lieberman “isn’t moderate”? “Moderate” is an inherently relative term, defined by the extremes of the time and place in question. A “moderate” in Iran would be a raving theocrat in America; a “moderate” in France would be to the left of Nader in America; a “moderate” in 1850 would be a racist bastard in 2006. If your argument is that the entire Democratic Party has grown too conservative, that’s fine, but that’s an argument that relates to an alternate-reality political spectrum, not the one that actually exists right here, right now, in this reality. The argument that is being advanced by Kos & co. isn’t that Lieberman is a conservative by 1968 standards; it’s that he’s a conservative, a DINO, a Republican-in-sheep’s-clothing, etc., by today’s standards, 2006 standards. If the best argument you can make for the proposition that he “isn’t moderate” is that he — and the whole rest of the mainstream Democratic Party — are more conservative than Republicans were in 1968, well, that’s not a very good argument. Bottom line, you’ve done nothing whatsoever to suggest that the Kossacks are right… which is, I suppose, unsurprising, given that they aren’t, in fact, right.
July 8th, 2006 at 1:14:51 am
P.S. I would vote for a Lieberman-McCain ticket in a HEARTBEAT. I don’t care if they call themselves Republicans, Democrats, independents or what… I would so be on that bandwagon.
July 8th, 2006 at 7:49:08 am
MMEsq & BL, everybody & her/his Mother can plausibly locate, and serially Re-locate, themselves to the Left and/or to the Right of RM Nixon.
The Trickydick was politicoPhilosophically mercurial: the quintessentially Slippery little fellow :). Yes’n’ he would Slide on over from one part of the Spectrum to another at the slightest change in the Temperature of the times. / This, among other Related matters, is why the Movement Conservatives never Did trust him. / Liberals, of course, could Never forgive him for his Career-move Hatchetjobs on Alger Hiss and Helen Gahagan Douglas. That Set him forever in Stone for the Left. (Hiss was Guilty btw. Gahagan Douglas was merely Smeared. / I have Spoken. Again. :)
Nixon’s political guiding light was simply: Nixon. / In the Following of whose bright shining beam he was perfectly capable of believing, doing, & saying mutually contradictory things. (Thus, for example, could he query Haldeman ~ verbatim, White House Tape ~ “What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob?” :)
July 8th, 2006 at 10:55:24 am
Brendan-
My point is what is the point of voting for a Democrat who is really a Republican? As Truman once said, if voters have to choose between a Republican and a Democrat who sounds like a Republican, they will choose the Republican. Currently, there is nothing that differentiates the Democrats from the Republicans except the fact that Hillary, Kerry, et al, are arguing that their shades of gray are slightly less offensive than Bush’s shades of gray. Ridiculous.
Here’s the politcal reality:
Our immigration laws are broken
Our pension system is failing
Our healthcare system is in crisis
Russia and China are growing more threatening each day
The deficit is out of control
We must find an alternative to fossil fuels
It would be nice if members of Congress, from either party, would focus on these problems instead of arguing about flag burning, gay marriage, steroids in baseball, taxing pimps and Christian movies getting PG-ratings.
Dammit, if the Republicans won’t address these issues, there’s no fucking excuse for the Democrats not to.
July 8th, 2006 at 12:06:58 pm
As
threatenedPromised :) yesterday ~~ I Have Returned. :> And, with a Two-Parter! (”The Horror! The Horror!”)Part I
“…If the Republicans mount a tough campaign in the three way race– and with Lieberman forcing” [ :) ~ JL / see above :] “the Democratic Party voters to split their votes– this may turn over the Senate seat to the Republicans in Conn. this fall. How likely this is I don’t know. But it IS a serious possibility…”
Then let me Add to your sum of Knowledge, Anonymous. :) Anything is Possible; but such outcome is highly UNlikely, so much so that its possibility is Not significantly Serious.
Why this is so, is set forth in Comment #20 hereto, the part beginning with the Newspaper Blockquote, et seq. / Being as How I do Love to take duplicative Bytes from The MacBrendan’s Bandwith Apple :), following is the selfquotational Core :> of said argument BUT by all means Read The Whole Thing :), especially the hereinbelow-omitted Relevant Rant regarding 1970, a Very Good Year btw :), and also my Statistical Illustrations of the Probable Outcomes ~
So No, Anon: Lieberman’s decision to Go as a Petitioning Candidate if he loses the primary is precisely what Almost Ensures (”almost” = “anything is Possible” ) that The People’s Senate Seat WILL, come January, remain occupied by a Registered Democrat, who will vote with the Democratic Caucus on Organization of the Senate. Said Democrat will be either Senator Lieberman ~ re-elected as either the Democratic Party Nominee or as a Petitioning Candidate ~ OR, Senator Lamont (D), having (improbably) eked out a November plurality (eek! :) over Close-second Joe (PC).
The Probablities of a Senator Schlesinger {R} emerging from the latter Threeway, while not altogether Invisible, are close to Vanishingly small ~ in SHARP contrast to his very decent Chances running against Ned Lamont Alone. (Of course the hapless Alan’s Worst nightmare, is the very one from which the poor man is Most likely to Awaken Screaming on the black night of August 8: going Head to Head against Democratic Nominee Joe Lieberman :).
* * * * * * * * * * *
NOW then, Anon, as Regards yer man Greg Sargent at The Horse’s Mouth. :) [btw it was me sainted Mother’s pious Custom frequently to advise me that I was the Horse’s Other End :> so you may feel Free to Agree with that good woman, no Offense taken :]
Quoth the Equine Oracle, in substance, “I’m far from an expert in Connecticut politics. But if Lieberman runs as an independent in November…any success Lieberman has in portraying the Dem at the top of the ticket as too far to the left will likely complicate efforts by down-ticket Dems â€â€? such as these House candidates â€â€? to win over moderates, independents and centrists.â€?
Actually the Dems at the Top of the Ticket (which is, Indeed, found at the Far Left :) in November will be the winners of the Primaries for Governor and Lieutenant Governor in August. But I Quibble. (”No Kidding.” :)
Look, neither am I an Expert in CT Politics, but I Will modestly purport to be Not TOO Far From it. :) That humble brag Said :) ~
First, Lieberman likely will not feel much Need to Portray Lamont as too far to the Left; yer man’s Selfportrait will do that job quite nicely for the General Electorate. (In the Primary campaign Joe has devoted Vastly more effort to Presenting himself as a good Progressive, than to any parenthetical Pinkbaiting of Ned. :> He’s attacked Lamont, sure ~ it ain’t Beanbag ~ but Not notably on That. Much more on Lack of Experience & Qualifications & Knowledge & Seniority & Clout; Inconsistency; Inaccuracy; and ~ this one, I Grant you, rather Demagoguishly ~ on Wealth. (’Greenwich Multimillionaire trying to Buy the Election.’ YEAH yeah; so What? )
Secondly ~ in Any event, ever since state-constutional Abolition of the Evil Party Lever :), by a Very Narrow vote of The People [!! :] in 1986, the Downballot Effect ~ whether re Coattails or Cement Shoes :> ~ has been radically & continuously on the Decline in CT. For a long time now many Underticket candidates (both parties) have been winning Landslides while their Ballot-top Leaders have been going Down in Flames. IOW CT voters have become Huge on Ticketsplitting. This is how it happens that since 1986 (coincidentally :) we have elected neither a Democratic Governor nor a Republican Legislature (either chamber) and only Two Republicans, One Time (1990, SOTS & Treasurer), to any Statewide office Other than Gov/LG (which are Voted On as a Unit). / So: I’m very Skeptical that strong Dem efforts to oust US Reps Simmons, Shays & Johnson (themselves having Handily Survived numerous Dem Ticket-top Sweeps in Presidential years, btw) would be measureably Weakened simply by a D Poor Performance for US Senator.
July 8th, 2006 at 12:22:19 pm
Part II
There IS, however, in all Objectivity :> THIS unheralded (and likely to Remain so :) Danger-to-Downballot-candidates ~ related, but still Not the Same Thing ~ of a Lieberman petitioning candidacy: THE DROPOFF.
That being, what the Returns will Reveal as the Astonishing :) tendency of many Go-Joe Liebermaniacs to vote for Saint Joe, way down there in the Lower reaches of vertical Column 2 with No Underticket Whatsoever to his Right (so to Speak:) on his horizontal Row ~ and THEN, having Done what they came there to do, immediately PULL THE CURTAINLEVER BACK TO “OPEN” [thus Registering the Vote] AND CONTENTEDLY DEPART THE POLLING PLACE without voting for Anybody for Anything beyond that Column 2.
(Some of these Skedaddle types will first ~ OR second ~ vote for Gov/LG in Column 1; but many others for Senator Only, especially since when they Go Looking for Joe First, they will Find him Down There with NO GOV/LG CANDIDATES in the blank ballotspot to his Left [as it Were :], whereupon they will Plump for him, fuggedabout the Rest of the bozoes :> & leave.)
No Way, you Say? :> Well, that is Exactly what happened in 1990 when Lowell Weicker ran ~ and Won ~ as a petitioning candidate for Governor. / He (and his LG runningmate) invented & used a New Party Name, “A Connecticut Party”, which appeared on the ballot.
Whether Joe will follow his good friend Weicker’s :) example with a New party name (no, it doesn’t require him to Disaffiliate personally from the Dimmycrats), or will go with No part name (ballot designation = “Petitioning Candidate”), is not yet known. (See Brendan’s pertinent comment above.)
Either way, in a Threeway the abovedescribed Big Dropoff will occur. IOW the total votes cast for each office Downballot from Column 2 ~ and MAYBE even Upballot in Column 1, Gov-&-LG ~ will be Drastically lower than the total cast for US Senator.
BUT: who, IF ANYONE, will be most Hurt by the Joe-generated Dropoff? THAT is tough to Figure.
The 1990 Weicker-for-Governor dropoff whacked the Downballot Dems ~ IMO causing the defeat of the well-liked incumbent Dem SOTS, much to the Befuddlement of the Conventionally Wise :) who hadn’t, and still Haven’t, thought of the Dropoff Effect :) ~ BECAUSE, the 1990 Weickerlikers WERE for the Most part Democrats, and Dem-oriented Unaffiliateds. Thus the very substantial Chunk of them who voted for Weicker for Gov Only, & Nobody Else for Nothin’, were (mostly) otherwise-Likely votes Lost to the Downballot Dems. [No, no, these weren’t Energized First-time Voters who, absent Weicker, would have simply Stayed Home as Usual. / OK, so Six of them Were. :]
Evidence of the Weickerites’ DemOrientatedness :) ~ the Dem Nominee for Gov, the wellknown & popular Congressman Bruce Morrison, came in a Distant third with Barely 20% of the vote. Whereas the Repub, the eminent & distinguished John G. “Jailhouse Rock” Rowland of Future Felonious Fame :), held his Base & finished a Close Second to the victorious Weicker. IOW, Weicker devastated the normal DemGov Vote while scarcely scratching the Republicans.
But JOE ~ well. That’s Different. Predictably HIS November support in a 3-way will have a different Profile, probably drawn from U’s, R’s, and D’s Numerically in That order BUT still in 3 Roughly Equivalent proportions. If So, then So will be the Dropoff Chunk which Goes Joe and then Goes on out the Door. :>
SO. This time the Dropoff’s Effect (though not its Size) might be more-or-less Nil. A Wash. / OTOH: it could, if it Does have a net impact, hurt the Downballot Republicans. :)
July 8th, 2006 at 2:09:53 pm
Max, your point is interesting, but — even if entirely true — totally irrelevant to the question of whether Lieberman “isn’t a moderate,” which was the assertion that you started from.
July 8th, 2006 at 5:43:33 pm
It is relevant from the standpoint that there are no “liberals” in government anymore. None in the sense of being in a position of power. If the Democratic Party is essentially a Party of “Republican-lite” and Lieberman is right of that, he can’t be considered a moderate. He is a DINO.
As for your support of the theoretical Lieberman-McCain ticket, if political pandering has your panties in a wad, how can you possibly support McCain after he went from railing against the radical Christian Right in 2000 to doing photo-ops with guys like Falwell this year. What makes this all the more sickening is that McCain is all chummy now with the same people who called voters in South Carolina during the primary campaign and accused his wife of being a drug addict and questioning the lineage of his daughter. THAT is political pandering.