Heh:

The Republicans are all like THEY’LL LET TERRORISTS KILL YOU and the Democrats are all like THEY F***ED UP THE WAR and Republicans are all like THEY’LL LET GAYS RUIN YOUR MARRIAGE and the Democrats are all like THEY’LL LET GAYS ELECTRONICALLY MOLEST YOUR SONS and Republicans are all like THEY EAT PUPPIES and Democrats are like THEY EAT KITTIES, AND DO SO INCOMPETENTLY.

I hear Joe Lieberman eats kitties and puppies.

I just stopped by the Lieberman headquarters in Hartford, which was buzzing with activity, and picked up some Joementum paraphernalia, including a t-shirt. (Woohoo!) Now I just need to get my hands
on some Lamont stuff, so I can deface it. :)

My dad and I went to the Connecticut U.S. Senate debate in Stamford this afternoon, which was pretty interesting. But far cooler was what happened afterward, when we met Joe Lieberman at his post-debate campaign stop in Stratford. We had our picture taken with the senator (above), chatted with him a bit (he praised Notre Dame effusively), strolled up and down the street with his entourage as he pressed the flesh… and I even reconstituted 2004’s “Dogs for Joe” and created an impromptu photo-op by pinning a Lieberman button on a bandanna around the neck of a local store owner’s dog. I did this (with the owner’s permission) before Lieberman even arrived, simply because I thought the dog was cute and I wanted to take a picture — but when the senator got there, he was very excited to meet his new four-legged friend:

Call it “The Kiss, Part Two.” I bet Lieberman enjoyed this one more, and I bet it won’t hurt his political career as much as the first one. And I bet the dog has a better Iraq policy than Bush. :)

Anyway, the senator was kind enough to let me briefly interview him at the conclusion of his stop in Stratford. Here’s an un-garbled version of the interview (in contrast to the occasionally difficult to decipher live audioblog post). I asked him how he plans to continue, if he wins and then caucuses with the Democrats, being a voice for disaffected independents like me — and whether he might consider running on a third-party or “unity” presidential ticket someday. Listen below for his answers!

source file
MP3 File

Stay tuned — I’ll be updating this post shortly with more on my day of Liebermania, including more on the experience of being repeatedly insulted by a group of “liberal,” “tolerant” Lamont supporters for the simple reason that I was wearing a Lieberman button and taking pictures of them. Also, more pictures and videos. Like I said, stay tuned!

UPDATE: I elaborate on my experience with verbal abuse at the hands of Lamontistas in my original post on the subject.

Anyway, my full photo gallery is now online. A few highlights:

Lamont (left) and Schlesinger (right) work the room at the debate.

Joe for Joe (left), a dog for Joe (center), and a little kid picking his nose for Joe (right).

Joe and Joe chat (left); the senator and his “clot” walk down the street (right).

Like I said, more photos here.

My videos of the debate itself were nothing special, but this clip of the candidates fidgeting during the final minute before the cameras rolled is mildly interesting, if only for the behind-the-scenes perspective that you don’t get on TV:

So, how was the debate itself? Frankly, although I believe Lieberman is clearly the best candidate, I didn’t think it was his finest hour. He wasn’t bad — he did fine, in fact — but it was by no means a home run for him, and he struck a few sour notes, like when he kept harping on his “scorecard” of Lamont’s “attacks,” and then reacted to hisses and jeers from the audience by saying, “That’s the Lamont section.” He was right, of course, and moreover, the Lamontistas were blatantly violating the debate’s rules by vocally reacting in that manner… but it was still somewhat undignified for Lieberman to respond in that way, IMHO. I doubt it looked very good on TV.

Meanwhile, Lamont’s performance was unspectacular but solid, and — perhaps more importantly — Schlesinger stole the show with his entertaining bombast and his clearly (and very energetically!) stated case for why Republicans and conservatives should vote for him instead of Joe. I say “more importantly” because the biggest threat to Lieberman isn’t Lamont, who probably isn’t going to gain much more support than he already has; it’s Schlesinger, who can probably eliminate Lieberman’s advantage if he pulls even 15% of the vote (as opposed to the 5% he’s getting now) on November 7. Throughout the debate, he was directly targeting Joe’s conservative voters, painting Lieberman and Lamont as “two liberal Democrats” who agree on everything except Iraq. At one point he said something like, “I know some of you are afraid of Ned Lamont, and I don’t blame you, but Joe Lieberman is not your safe haven.” I think that message will succeed in winning some Republicans and conservative unaffiliateds over. The big question is, how many? (The answer to that question may depend in part on how he came across on TV. In person, his bombast was, as I say, entertaining. On camera, it may have looked more like wild-eyed, Dean Scream-esque craziness. I’m not sure. If so, that’s good news for Joe. But there are two debates still to go. Schlesinger’s performance in those debates, and more broadly, his ability to convince a decent percentage of GOP voters to vote for him instead of defecting to Joe, may decide the election.)

I'm in Stratford, CT, where Lieberman is campaigning. I spoke with him briefly and got my picture taken with him, and I may get a quick audioblog interview with him later.

If I wasn't supporting Lieberman already, these Lamont bozos would have convinced me to. I was called a right-wing Christian idiot, pathetic, told I lack integrity, and told I should enlist in the Army, all because I was wearing a Lieberman button.

UPDATE: To be more specific: it all started when I tried to make pleasant, non-confrontational conversation with the blonde lady wearing a black shirt and carrying a huge brown purse in this picture. I didn’t say anything bad about her candidate or antagonize her in any way. But when she learned that I’m from Indiana, she immediately, confidently declared, “Oh, you’re one of those people — a Christian idiot.” When I replied, “No, I’m not,” she shot back, “Yes, you are. You’re a right-wing idiot.” To which I responded, “Actually, I was a Democrat, but I left the party thanks to people like you, who are so abusive to anyone who disagrees with you.” Those aren’t all direct quotes, but the insults are quoted verbatim, and the rest is roughly correct, as best as I can remember. The gist is certainly correct.

Anyway, I figured she was just a lone bitch, and continued photographing the Lamont folks, not expecting to be subject to any further insults. Boy, was I wrong. (Keep in mind: I wasn’t confronting anybody or even making conversation at this point. I was just minding my own business and unobtrusively taking pictures.)

As I walked past this guy, he began lecturing me about how, since I support Lieberman and am under the age of 42, that means I should join the Army. He said I should be “ashamed” of myself for supporting Joe while not enlisting. I smiled and continued to go about my business, but he kept it up, apparently unaware that “anyone who doesn’t join the military shouldn’t support the war” is the worst, most illogical and ridiculous argument in the history of the universe. (Do you support education reform? Well, if you don’t become a teacher, that means you’re a hypocrite! Do you support universal health care? Well, if you’re not willing to go work for the massive bureaucracy that such a program would inevitably spawn, that makes you a chickenhealth-care supporter! Good grief, come up with a real argument and get back to me.)

The same guy got on my case again, a while later, when I tried to take a picture of his kid, who was in a stroller decked out in Lamont balloons and stickers. When he saw me with my camera, he turned the stroller abruptly away from me. It apparently didn’t occur to him to simply ask that I not take a picture of his baby, a request which I of course would have abided by, as a courtesy (notwithstanding that I have every right to take a picture of a guy with a baby standing on a public sidewalk at a public rally). When I saw what he was doing, I said, “If you don’t want me to take a picture of your kid, you can just ask.” This seems honestly not to have occurred to him; I guess he figured all Lieberman supporters are assholes and can’t be trusted to be decent and respectful. Which is, of course, deeply ironic. Anyway, he explained that he doesn’t want anyone taking pictures of his baby except “people with integrity.” That ruled me out, because I was wearing a Lieberman button, and therefore lack integrity.

A woman who appeared to be that guy’s wife, pictured holding the stroller here (I took the picture before it was requested that I not do so, and I’ve now cropped out the baby), then came over and asked me who I was taking pictures for. “My website,” I replied. “I’m a blogger.” She responded with a skeptical look and an unenthusiastic “oh,” then explained that “it’s just a little creepy that you’re taking pictures of volunteers.” When I asked her to clarify why it’s “creepy” that I’m taking pictures of people rallying on a public street, she simply repeated that it’s “a little creepy,” without further explanation. (Nevermind that the Lamont campaign has a guy who follows Lieberman around with a handheld camcorder, basically video-stalking him in hopes of capturing verbal gaffes on film. Don’t believe me? Look at the gentleman holding the video camera, second from the right in this picture. Now look at the guy pointing the camera at Joe in this picture. Yup… same guy. In conversation, he confirmed to me that he’s with the Lamont campaign. Which is fine — I have no problem with him doing that. But how is my taking pictures “creepy,” while that guy is OK? Hypocrisy, anyone?)

And it wasn’t just the bitchy blonde, the creeped-out wife and her logically fallacious husband. I got numerous nasty looks and a couple of mumbled, not-quite-audible statements that were definitely not compliments… and another guy, walking past me, said out of the corner of his mouth, “You’re pathetic.” And all of these confrontations and insults were widely audible, yet no one intervened and suggested that perhaps it would be advantageous to treat the opposition with some respect. As I wrote in comments when someone suggested I was “stereotyp[ing] an entire campaign and candidate and political party because of a few supporters”:

Let me ask you this. At what point WOULD it be appropriate to judge a campaign on the basis of a “few” supporters? I was out there all by myself, wearing a single Lieberman button, taking pictures, but otherwise minding my own business, and I had four or five separate individual Lamont supporters come up and say extremely rude things to me. Several of these exchanges were quite loud, audible to perhaps a dozen or more people nearby, yet not a single Lamont supporter stepped in and said, hey, maybe we should treat this guy with respect. What would it take to prove to you that this is a pattern of behavior? Would I need to get personally insulted by every single protester? I’m thinking I saw plenty to establish a pattern. I’m not saying every single Lamont supporter is a rude asshole — obviously not — but the overall ethic seems to be that, just as it’s okay to smear Joe Lieberman and distort his record beyond all recognition, it’s also okay to smear and insult those who support him, and even those who might disagree that it’s okay to behave in such a manner aren’t speaking up and doing anything to stop others from doing it.

Clearly, the right wing has its idiots too…but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that because the grassroots of the Lamont campaign is largely made up of far-left activists, there is a disproportionate amount of the rudeness that is often sadly typical of radicals on both sides.

In fairness, the guy with the camcorder was personable and pleasant, and while others were grumbling and mumbling in my direction, one guy remarked on what a nice day it was as he walked by. Also, the gentlemen who initially said I should enlist, and that I should be “ashamed” and that I “lack integrity” — all because I was wearing a Lieberman button — eventually calmed down a bit, once he recognized that I was actually a nice guy who was willing to engage in respectful dialogue, and we had a reasonably pleasant discussion. But there’s the rub: why would he assume, until it’s proven otherwise, that members of the opposition aren’t nice guys who are willing to engage in respectful dialogue? I certainly didn’t assume that about the Lamont folks, until a number of them clearly demonstrated it. But this guy automatically assumed the worst about me, launching into a campaign of verbal abuse on the simple basis of a button on my lapel.

Judging by what I saw today, I’d say that’s a sadly typical commentary on the mindset of some — not all, but too many — Lamont supporters.

Oh, and the reason I called this post the “party of tolerance” isn’t because I’m stereotyping Democrats; as I said above, radical Republicans/conservatives have their share of idiots and assholes too. But I find this sort of behavior especially galling when it comes from liberals, who supposedly hold “tolerance” as such a sacred virtue. I can’t stand hypocrisy.

My dad and I will be going to Stamford today for the U.S. Senate debate between Lieberman and Lamont (and, uh, Schlesinger). We may also go see Joe campaign in Stratford afterward. Not sure how much liveblogging will be possible, but I’ll do what I can.

P.S. The debate, which starts at 1pm EDT, will be webcasted live on NBC30.com.

…and so badl-ee!

Mcjoan, linking to my post criticizing her post, says Lieberman’s words are being defended by “a few die-hard Lieberman Democrats (an oxymoron if I ever heard one).” This is a clear reference to me personally, since it’s followed immediately by the link to my post… which is odd because I’m not a Democrat anymore, and the reason I left the party is precisely because of oxymorons like mcjoan!

What’s even more odd is that, in the very next paragraph, mcjoan says my criticism of her post is “good, old-fashioned right wing Republican misleading.” Wait, so am I an oxymoronic Democrat or a deceptive Republican? Inquiring minds want to know! (Actually, I’m a “mindless crypto-neocon zionist petro-military-industrial complex apologist” and a “redneck reactionary” … but, shh, don’t tell anyone!)

Of course, in reality, I’m a moderate, sensible centrist, a hawkish yet progressive independent with no allegiance to either party, and what bothers me about mcjoan’s original post isn’t its politics (she’s entitled to her opinions; this is America, and we all have the right to be wrong), but simply that it’s a lie. If she wants to criticize Lieberman for buying the faulty pre-war intelligence on Iraq “hook, line and sinker” — just like, you know, pretty much everyone else in the world, both pro-war and anti-war, did — that’s fine, she can go ahead and criticize him for that (and be quickly and rightly debunked). But to claim that Lieberman “lied” when that’s plainly not the case is just despicable.

It’s telling that, in her original post, she didn’t address any of the nuance she is now seeking to explain away; she thought her readers simply wouldn’t notice the obvious, crucial distinction between “developing” and “having,” so she didn’t mention it at all. Now that the distinction has been pointed out, she seeks to dismiss it as “gibberish,” even though it’s plainly not.

Her argument about the “context” of Lieberman’s words is interesting, but by no means self-evidently correct. That said, if she’d made that argument in the original post, and called Lieberman’s original statement “misleading” instead of a “lie,” it would have been a more respectable post, and I probably never would have blogged about it. What speaks volumes is that she didn’t address the glaring weakness in her own argument until somebody pointed it out (and got linked by a national blog for doing so). She was perfectly content to distort the truth until someone pointed out her distortion. Now she switches from distortion to deflection. Color me decidedly unimpressed.

P.S. This is the first time I’ve been linked on the front page of Daily Kos, and I must say, the link is producing a surprisingly feeble amount of traffic… just 23 hits in the 45 minutes since it appeared. That’s roughly one hit every two minutes. A link from InstaPundit or Michelle Malkin will bring in 10 or 20 times that, sometimes more! I guess the Kos Kidz would rather stay in their comfortable little world, reading their compatriots’ characterizations of the opposition’s arguments rather than bothering to go to the original source.

[CLARIFICATION: The above paragraph gets criticized here. I defend it, sorta, and clarify it, sorta, here.]

UPDATE: Now this is hilarious… and pathetic. In comments on mcjoan’s latest post, “RonK Seattle” writes: “Sorry, this only weakens your case.” He elaborates:

These are all assessments on which reasonable people could disagree, given the environment of incomplete and equivocal intelligence and inference on the subject, and there’s nothing contradictory (or weaselly) about Lieberman’s current description of his 2002/2003 position.

In response to which, a commenter hilariously named “Big Tent Democrat” — oh, the delicious irony! — threatens to “troll rate” RonK Seattle (a method of community feedback which can result in the banishment of an unwanted user from Kos’s site) and says: “Sorry, this only proves you are a Lieberman lackey.”

Nevermind that RonK Seattle’s diary page makes it clear that he’s solidly liberal — just like Lieberman’s voting record makes it clear that he is solidly liberal. He dissents on one issue, so he must be disappeared! Ladies and gentlemen, this is the attitude of Howard Dean’s beloved “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” in a nutshell: If you dare disagree with the party line, you will be smeared, ostracized, banished, and “troll-rated”!

RonK Seattle isn’t alone, by the way. Citizen Earth, under the caveat, “I’m not [a] Joe fan, but…” (a necessary assertion of one’s bona fides to prevent banishment by the “Big Tent” mob), writes:

in fairness, but the quotes you cite are pretty clear: he didn’t agree with Cheney that Sadaam possessed nukes. He did agree that a nuclear program was active and ongoing, which like the biological and chemical claims, turned out to be false. But there is a difference and I don’t feel that’s accurate to dismiss the difference as “parsing”.

A lonely voice of reason in Kosworld! But alas, both RonK and Citizen Earth, and anyone else who might dare agree with them, must deal with inforet’s wrath.

Troll rate all stealth pro-Liarman comments

As far as I am concerned anyone who tries to defend Lieberman IS a republican and a neo-con, whether they can admit it to themselves or not.

Read that again: “anyone who tries to defend Lieberman IS a republican and a neo-con.” In the world of inforet, “Big Tent Democrat” and a bunch of others over in Kosworld, reasonable people CANNOT disagree. All disagreement with the party line will be punished! All dissenters are trolls! You’re either with us or against us! Dissent is treason!

This is what the Left in this country has come to. How they look themselves in the mirror while being such bald-faced hypocrites, I have no idea.

UPDATE 2: InstaPundit accuses me of “customary insouciance.” I must admit, I had to look it up. :)

UPDATE 3: Another voice of reason surfaces… only to be dismissed by “Big Tent Democrat” as yet another Lieberman (er, excuse me… Liarman) “lackey.”

It’s almost as if they don’t know how to make arguments, and can only respond via name-calling!

CORRECTION: In comments, Big Tent Democrat writes:

I did not threaten to troll rate RonK. I point out that RonK has been trollrating me. I never have trollrated anyone. I am not a trusted user at daily kos.

I honestly misunderstood the subject line “Troll rating coming.” My mistake, and my apologies.

That said, Big Tent Democrat’s whole attitude — that anyone who defends Lieberman on the merits is nothing but a “lackey” — is still well worthy of criticsm, and except for the reference to troll-rating, I stand by what I wrote.

CORRECTION #2: Well, now Big Tent Democrat has managed to thoroughly shame me by sounding entirely reasonable in comments:

There is disagreement on Lieberman obviously. But consider where you agree. I assum[e] Ford, Webb, Tester, Casey are candidates we all can support.

I urge kossacks to not think of Ed Kilgore [of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, which traditionally supports centrists like Lieberman] as enemies, but rather colleagues in an intellectual debate.

As I just wrote to him via e-mail:

Just saw your comment about Kilgore, among other things. Needless to say, I whole-heartedly agree.

Perhaps I’ve misjudged you. You and RonK obviously have a history, and it seems your comments to him about being a “Lieberman lackey” aren’t necessarily representative of your views toward Joementum supporters generally.

I guess I should have saved my fire for inforet, whose comment really was an excellent example of the “with us or against us” attitude I was decrying.

Go, Connecticut! Infuriate the Blogosphere: Agree with Ned, Re-Elect Joe. :)

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman leads Ned Lamont by 8 percentage points in the Senate race, although a majority of voters agree with Lamont on the war in Iraq and the need for change in Washington, a Courant/University of Connecticut poll says.

Lieberman leads Lamont among likely voters 48-40 percent, with 8 percent undecided and roughly 15 percent of both candidates’ supporters saying they still could change their minds before Nov. 7.

The poll by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that 60 percent of voters believe going to war was wrong, and a slim majority favors a deadline for withdrawal, issues Lamont used to defeat Lieberman in the Democratic primary.

But Lieberman, who stayed in the race as a petitioning candidate, enjoys a 57 percent approval rating and has managed to capture 67 percent of the Republican vote, while keeping 35 percent of Democrats in his camp. Unaffiliated voters prefer him over Lamont 45-37 percent.

With the GOP leadership tacitly backing Lieberman, Republican Alan Schlesinger is favored by only 4 percent of voters. Also in the race are Ralph Ferrucci of the Green Party and Timothy Knibbs of the Concerned Citizens party.

“Lieberman has managed to do exactly what he set out to do after his primary loss. His goal was to finesse the party issue by appealing to independents and Republicans without completely alienating Democratic voters,” said Monika L. McDermott, the research director at the center. “He’s pulled it off so far.”

…The poll strongly suggests that the war is not enough for Lamont to win the general election, since Lieberman is supported by nearly one-third of anti-war voters and 70 percent of those who supported the invasion.

“The Iraq war should be Lamont’s area of strength, given its unpopularity in Connecticut, Lieberman’s staunch support of it and its importance relative to other issues,” McDermott said. “The problem for his campaign, however, is that convincing general-election voters to turn on Lieberman because of Iraq is much harder than convincing Democratic primary voters.”

…Richard Foley, the campaign manager for Schlesinger, said his candidate will outperform the polls - all of which show Schlesinger mired in single digits.

“It’s not going to happen that way,” Foley said. “I am not questioning anybody’s methodology or anybody’s sanity, but I will tell you there is almost no situation I envision where Alan Schlesinger gets less than 15 or 20 percent. That is the minimum vote.”

Schlesinger’s profile will rise as the result of three televised debates, beginning Monday; he also is expected to benefit from being on the top line of the ballot next to Gov. M. Jodi Rell, while Lieberman will be no higher than the 5th line…

Actually Joe’s highest ballot position is on the 6th line. He’ll be on the 7th in many towns, the 8th or 9th in some. (All of which Are, I suppose, No Higher than the 5th line, so The Courant is correct. :)

Foley is also correct. / Dick, not Mark. :> Mark’s the Republican ex-Congressman from Florida. He’s very Incorrect. In fact he’s more Radioactive than little Kim Jong the Ill’s little bomb. ;} Dick is the Republican ex-Chairman and ex-Con from Connecticut. He’s right about his boy Alan. / Right, at least, in that Schlesinger will, more or less “automatically”, do better AT the Polls than he’s doing IN the polls. How much better could determine the outcome. IF Foley’s 15-to-20-point “minimum” proves true, Lamont will win.

Connecticut is Odd. (Of course, we Like us that way. :) Not only do 35% of Democrats support Saint Joe, but also ~ 15% of Republicans favor Lord Ned!

Read the whole thing.

Daily Kos diarist “mcjoan,” in a front-page post, says Joe Lieberman was lying when he said this past Sunday, “There were some things Vice President Cheney said about Saddam having nuclear weapons, I never bought that.”

In an attempt to prove that Lieberman was lying, mcjoan quotes three 2002 statements from Lieberman:
• “Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States of America.”
• “We have reason to believe [Iraq] is developing nuclear weapons.”
• “What’s most frightening, said Lieberman, is that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, and is rapidly developing nuclear capability.”

All of these quotes indicate that Lieberman “bought” the claims that Saddam was “developing” nuclear weapons — something which he is not denying. What he’s denying is that he “bought” the claims about Saddam “having” nuclear weapons.

Am I just grasping at rhetorical straws here, Clinton-style, splitting hairs over the what the definition of “is” is? Absolutely not. The difference between “developing” and “having” is crucial, and Lieberman knows it — and so should any Kos contributor worth his or her salt.

Lieberman is undoubtedly referring to Cheney’s March 16, 2003 appearance on Meet the Press, in which the vice president (in)famously said of Saddam: “we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” In the invasion’s aftermath, that quote has been widely discussed and jumped on by the Left precisely because of the difference between “developing” and “having.” (For example, CreatePeace! describes Cheney’s “claim” as “Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact.”) And yet now mcjoan is flatly ignoring that difference in a feeble attempt to prove that an honest man is dishonest.

It couldn’t be more obvious that when Lieberman says he never “bought” the “things Vice President Cheney said” about Saddam “having” nukes, the Meet the Press statement (and perhaps others like it, if they exist) is what he’s referring to — not the more commonplace claims that Saddam was “developing” nukes, which Lieberman (along with the Bush Administration, the vast majority of Congress, the world intelligence community at large, and our U.N. allies and adversaries alike) believed were true. As such, mcjoan’s supposedly contradictory quotes do not prove that “Joe told another whopper” or that his philosophy is “say whatever you have to say now, regardless of what you’ve said…in the past.” That’s just complete and utter b.s.

This prominent Kos contributor is lying, in an attempt to prove that Lieberman is lying. It’s shameful and it’s disgusting.

This is precisely the sort of tactic that makes me so incredibly hostile to the entire anti-Lieberman movement. As I’ve said repeatedly, if Connecticut voters feel so strongly about Lieberman’s stance on the war that they want to vote against him on that basis alone, I have no problem with that, even though I disagree. But instead of running an honest campaign on the issue(s), Lamont and his allies — and before anyone tries to distance Kos from Ned, let’s recall that they appeared in a campaign ad together — have consistently smeared Lieberman’s character and distorted his record, painting him as a liar, a power-hungry scoundrel, a friend of Bush, a DINO, a traitor to his party, a conservative in liberal’s clothing, and so forth, even though none of these things are factually correct. (And I’m talking before the primary, before Lieberman bolted the party, as well as after. These lies are a big part of the reason Lieberman lost the primary and thus wound up running as an independent in the first place.)

I realize that distortion and deception is par for the course in politics, but to see such tactics used by one Democrat (and his vast array of far-left allies) against another, more moderate Democrat is what made August’s primary defeat feel a bit like a purge. And yes, I know “purge” is an exaggeration, but my point is, when I saw that Democrats and liberals were willing to resort to such vile tactics against the alleged traitors in their midst — “traitors” like me, generally progressive individuals who believe in a muscular foreign policy and who put our conscience and our country ahead of any party line — that’s when I knew the party of LBJ and JFK no longer had room for BLL.

[NOTE: An earlier version of this post claimed it was “Kos himself” who lied about Lieberman. This is not correct, and I’ve now edited the post to reflect that “mcjoanâ€? is the blogger in question, not Kos. I apologize for the error. Nevertheless, this is a post on Kos’s front page, not some sort of obscure diary, so it’s well worth the scrutiny I’m giving it.]

UPDATE: Welcome, InstaPundit readers! Man, Glenn sure likes it when I talk smack about my former party. Heh. :) Anyway, feel free to have a look around. Some of you might remember me as the Katrina guy, though I also do a lot of blogging about politics, sports — especially, this time of year, college football — and a variety of other topics. The front page right now is actually more political/newsy than usual.

UPDATE 2: Mcjoan has responded. My response to her response is here.

August 12: Four days after Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary, a poll shows the newly independent Lieberman leading 46% to 41% in the general election. A Daily Kos diarist asserts — “implausibly,” I said at the time — that “we have to considerâ€? 41% to be Lamont’s “floorâ€? and 46% to be Lieberman’s “ceiling.â€? In other words, things could only get better for Lamont, and worse for Lieberman.

October 8: Almost two months later, and less than a month before Election Day, a poll shows Lieberman leading 53% to 33%. For those keeping score at home, Joe is seven points above his “ceiling” and Ned is eight points below his “floor.” According to Political Wire, “Most legit polls that insiders and serious observers look to find Lamont stuck at no better than 10 points behind the three term incumbent. … [The polls] agree on one thing: Lieberman has a lead that is moving from comfortable to commanding.” But they’re not losing hope in Kos Kountry! Another diarist declares, “Lamont Is Within Scoring Distance.” LOL!

(Hat tip: Pajamas Media, via InstaPundit.)

Yeah, yeah, I know — the only “poll” that counts is the one on November 7. That’s why I’m calling it “premature gloating.” Lamont still has time to catch up, especially with two debates later this month. Lieberman needs to keep the Joementum going, not rest on his laurels. GO JOE!

Still, it’s not looking good for Ned… which is good news for Connecticut’s Democratic House candidates, who could ride Lieberman’s coattails to victory, in a manner of speaking:

Another intriguing question, politically significant but unnoted in the press so far as I know, is whether Joe’s voters will ~ as Weicker’s for Governor did in 1990 ~ execute a massive Dropoff after voting for [Lieberman]. IOW: will a Big chunk of them, much bigger than the normal Downballot attrition rate, Find Joe ~ the Last Name Listed in vertical Column 2, US Senator ~ and plunk down his Pointer…as their First act inside the voting booth … AND THEN LEAVE? :>

If they DO ~ in large numbers, as happened with Weicker in ‘90 ~ the downballot effect will be to Help Democrats (!!! :), notably those in Column 3 (next after US Senator) running strong challenges for the US House in our 3 Republican-held CDs.

The big Weicker ‘90 Dropoff (from Column 1, not 2, perhaps an important difference) helped downballot Republicans, including one who unexpectedly Upset the incumbent 2-term Secretary of the State, because Weicker’s voters were about two-thirds Democrats & Dem-oriented unaffiliateds ~ which is why Hapless Dem Bruce “20%” Morrison, see Above, got so Slaughtered for Governor that year. I.e. a whole lot of “normally Democratic” Weicker Likers voted for Gov-&-LG and skipped the Underticket (since Weicker had none). // Win or lose, Lieberman’s big bloc of 2006 voters will be the mirror image: predominantly (though by no means Exclusively) Republicans and Republican-oriented unaffiliateds. Sooo, to the extent that these presumptive Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson supporters may just Vote Joe and then Skedaddle…well. You see the point.

That analysis, in case you couldn’t tell from the excessive capitalization and parenthesization :), is from my dad. And as a former 30-year elections officer in Connecticut, he knows of what he speaks. The phenomenon he describes — you might call it the Reverse Coattail Effect — will happen; the only question is, to what extent will it happen? That’s hard to guess, but if any of the Congressional races are close and the Democratic candidate wins, you can bet I’ll be crowing that it’s all thanks to Joementum. :)

If Joe Lieberman wins as an independent, will he keep his seniority? There are conflicting signals:

Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, does not want to wrestle with these questions in public before the Nov. 7 election.

“The caucus won’t make any decisions until after the elections in November,� said Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley.

While that response implies that Lieberman’s status is to be decided by the entire caucus, senior Democratic aides say questions of seniority are largely decided by Reid.

Lieberman said he would keep his senior position in the caucus, even though he lost Connecticut’s Democratic primary, and is running against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, whom the Senate Democratic leadership has endorsed.

“That’s what I’ve been told,� said Lieberman in an interview Friday, before Congress recessed for the election. “Caucuses like to keep as many members as they can, not discourage membership,� implying that leaders risk his defection to the GOP if they strip him of seniority.

They’re quacking about this in Kosland, of course. But really, it makes perfect sense. Why the hell should Lieberman show any loyalty to the Democrats if they reward his 18 years of loyal service and consistent liberal voting record by stripping him of seniority? At that point, I personally would have no problem with him jumping ship. Kos & co. will portray it as a pure power grab, but that’s self-evidently wrong: if Lieberman were interested in power above principle, he would have either cynically abandoned his support for the war in 2003 like Kerry, Edwards, etc., thus possibly becoming serious presidential contender and certainly preventing the Lamont rebellion from happening in the first place; or else he would have jumped ship long ago, currying favor with the Republicans and joining their majority or maybe even the Bush Administration itself. Anyway, it simply isn’t necessary to cry “power grab” in order to explain a hypothetical Lieberman defection in the event the Democrats revoke his seniority. Such a move could be perfectly well explained by the fact that the Democrats would at that point be totally and completely saying “screw you” to Lieberman (not to mention “screw the voters of Connecticut,” who duly re-elected him in this scenario), and Lieberman would very naturally not want to respond by saying “oh well, aw shucks guys, okay, I’ll just get in the back of the line then… thanks for noticing me.” Why the hell should anyone expect him to do that? It’s ridiculous! At some point, when your former friends and allies show an endless willingness to kick you in the face over and over again, you’re not going to stand there and take it anymore.

What it really comes down to this. The Kos Kidz think all it’ll take to convince Lieberman to switch is a better offer from the GOP, regardless of the Dems’ actions:

Were the GOP to offer to honor his seniority to jump ship, what are the chances of his refusing that offer? Slim to none in my book. And it’s not an unlikely scenario at all should he be returned to the Senate and the Democrats make enough gains to approach a tied Senate.

No, it’s not unlikely, indeed I’d say it’s nearly 100% certain if the Democrats win 50 or 51 seats… REGARDLESS of whether the Dems revoke Lieberman’s seniority. That is to say, if Republicans need Lieberman, they will try to lure him over, even if the Democrats aren’t revoking his seniority. Just like the Dems did with Jeffords, the Republicans will offer him plum committee assignments, a seniority bonus, a really nice office, some bling :) … whatever it takes. And here’s the rub: Lieberman will turn them down, UNLESS the Democrats give him a very, very good reason to do otherwise. In other words, if faced with the choice of having somewhat less power on the Democratic side — but not being totally screwed over — versus having somewhat more power on the Republican side, Lieberman will do what he’s always done, and follow his principles: he’ll stay with the Dems. But if his Democratic “friends” spit in his face and say “yeah, you’ve been here for 18 years; so what? get in the back of the line, buddy,” then — and only then — will Lieberman give serious consideration to caucusing with GOP (regardless of the majority/minority situation). And at that point, he’ll be completely within his rights to do so, as far as I’m concerned. He’ll still vote as he always has, as an independent-minded progressive (which would make him a very odd member of the GOP caucus), but in terms of caucusing, it’s ridiculous to expect him to stay on the Democratic team if the Democratic leadership is going to send the unabashed message that “you’re not welcome here anymore.” At that point, Lieberman could very reasonably say, “I tried to be an ‘independent Democrat,’ like I promised, but it turns out the Democrats aren’t interested in independent-minded people anymore. They told me to take a hike. So now I’m just an independent, not affiliated with either major party. But, for purposes of caucusing, I had to pick a side, so I decided to caucus with the only party that was willing to respect my independence, which sadly, turns out to be the Republicans.”

Really, though, I don’t think it will come to this. Frank Lautenberg is offering Harry Reid a very attractive “out”:

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)…views Lieberman’s independent status as an opportunity to press Democratic leaders to restore seniority he lost four years ago.

If Lautenberg retrieves seniority accrued during 18 years of Senate service before retiring in 2000, he could leapfrog Lieberman to lead the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee or the Environment and Public Works Committee [if the Democrats take back the Senate majority].

Lieberman has served 18 years in the upper chamber. Lautenberg has served a total of 22 years, but he has only four years of recognized seniority because he retired from Congress for two years in 2000.

Liberals don’t want Lieberman to be the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, because they plan to use that committee to vigorously investigate the Bush Administration if they take back the Senate. In point of fact, Lieberman would probably be a great man for the job, as he would certainly be willing to vigorously investigate where it’s actually justified, but not where it’s a mere political charade. Liberals, however, want a partisan witch hunt, not a fair-minded investigation (and mind you, that’s not a Dem-only insult; the same would true if the roles were reversed), so they don’t want Lieberman. Well, Lautenberg is the perfect answer to that dilemma. He can prevent the “Chairman Lieberman Nightmare Scenario” without forcing the Democratic leadership to metaphorically spit in Joe’s face and virtually push him into the Republican caucus. So that’s what I think will happen, if Lieberman is re-elected and the Dems take back the Senate: Lieberman keeps his seniority, but Lautenberg gets his old seniority back and is chosen to lead the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

Are you freakin’ kidding me? Billy Boy Frist should be voted out of office for such a ridiculous shenanigan. Talk about playing politics with security! [UPDATE: Er, Frist is retiring, so I suppose there’s no need to vote him out of office. Oops. “Oh… nevermind.”]

On the bright side, here’s an interview with one member of Congress who doesn’t suck.

I’m watching C-SPAN 2 now. The Senate is now voting on the Byrd Amendment, which would establish a 5-year “sunset provision,” meaning the Detainee Treatment & Trials law would have to renewed in five years or else it would expire. This is in keeping with Lojo’s comment, and it seems eminently sensible to me. Senator Warner’s statement of opposition on the Senate floor was utterly unconvincing; Senator Byrd’s statement made perfect sense. (After Warner made an almost incoherent argument suggesting that the Byrd Amendment would somehow allow terrorists to go free, Byrd responded with characteristic yet entirely appropriate bluster, “This amendment will not set any terrorists free!”)

I can’t imagine why anyone — whether pro or con on the broader issue — would oppose this amendment, except for baldly partisan reasons. I assume it will fail.

UPDATE: It failed, 52-47. Idiots. But now Byrd moved to reconsider and then table. Not sure what the significance of that is.

UPDATE 2: The overall bill passed, 65-34. Lieberman was among the 12 Dems voting in favor. That’s not necessarily a strike against him, as I’m still not sure how I feel about the overall bill… but I do think it should have been debated quite a bit more, and I also think the sunset provision should obviously have been added. (Lieberman voted “yea” on that.)

With less than six weeks until the election, Lieberman leads Lamont by 10%, and Schlesinger is showing no signs of life. Et tu, Winston Sm1th?

P.S. Other polls show the race slightly closer, but with an essentially flat trendline since mid-August.

P.P.S. Asked by Pajamas Media “if he could forgive once close friends Chris Dodd, Al Gore and Teddy Kennedy, for endorsing his opponent Ned Lamont,” Lieberman responded, “I can forgive … but I probably won’t forget.” Audio of the full interview promised soon.

P.P.P.S. Quote of the day: “I think he’s very concerned that we’re within striking distance of winning this.” –Alan Schlesinger, polling at 5%. LOL!

The polls have closed, or are about to, in various states holding primaries today, most notably Rhode Island, where moderate Republican incumbent Lincoln Chafee is facing a stiff challenge from conservative opponent Stephen Laffey. With 59% of the precincts reporting, Chafee leads, 54% to 46%. (Page loads slowly, but does eventually load. It seems to be updated fairly frequently.)

Earlier today, Dane (a.k.a. dcl) asked me via e-mail whether, if Chafee loses, the Republicans will “be called out for the same malfeasance and with the same vim and vigor with which [I] assailed the Democrats” after Lamont defeated Lieberman in Connecticut. I figure others might ask the same question in the event Laffey makes a comeback, so here is my (admittedly now probably irrelevant) answer to Dane:

I hope Chafee survives, because I think it’s good for both parties to have moderates, but it’s a different situation than with Lieberman. There is much more of a legitimate case to be made that Chafee is a RINO than there ever was that Lieberman is a DINO. If you look at Chafee’s record, it’s basically 50% conservative, 50% liberal. Look at the interest-group ratings etc. Whereas Lieberman, objectively, is actually very solidly liberal in his voting record, between 75% and 90% according to any liberal interest group you can find, and in the single-digits from conservative organizations (whereas Chafee gets at least moderately good marks from lots of liberal groups). What happened with Lieberman is, he disagreed with the Left on the war, and unlike most Dems such as John Hypocrite Kerry, he refused to change his opinion just because the political winds changed. He stuck with his opinion as a matter of conscience, and the Left couldn’t stand that, so they started smearing him, calling him names, and distorting his record. Defaming Lieberman became a national sport. In the process, the Left managed to find a handful of other issues where they legitimately disagreed with him (if he’d been a senator for 18 years without ever having a few votes where some people disagree with him, that’d be a little weird), and they used those issues, along with their false, unsupportable charges of DINOism, to claim that this campaign was about “more than just Iraq.” But at its core, it was about Iraq. It started with Iraq, and it never would have happened but for Iraq. What pissed me off is, they weren’t honest about that. As I’ve said on the blog multiple times, if someone is antiwar, and they feel strongly enough about it that they are willing to vote out an otherwise loyal and respectable progressive Democrat because of the war alone, that’s fine, I respect that position even though I disagree. What I don’t respect is people calling Lieberman a DINO and a closet Republican and a fascist and a Bush-lover and all this other crap, when it’s demonstrably false and it’s nothing more than a Rovian swift-boating of a good man because he disagrees with them on an issue of conscience! It was the viciousness of it that made it feel to me like a purge, rather than a simple local decision by Connecticut Democrats.

Finally, in asking whether the Republicans will be “called out” on my blog “with the same vim and vigor with which [I] assailed the Democrats not one month ago,” you fail to understand my position. I was a Democrat… a moderate Democrat in the Lieberman mold, a liberal on social issues, moderate progressive on fiscal issues, and hawk on foreign policy. Therefore when Lieberman was rejected in a flurry of nasty ad hominem attacks, I felt personally affronted, because virtually every word they said about Lieberman could just as easily apply to me. As I said on my blog, if there’s no room in the party for Lieberman, there’s no room for me either. That’s honestly how I felt. Whereas, if Chafee is rejected by the Republicans, there is nothing for me to be personally upset about, because I’m not a Republican. Find a moderate Republican in the Chafee mold and ask him how he feels if Chafee loses… don’t ask me. I’m not relevant.

The Democratic establishment, it should be noted, is rooting against Chafee, since the chances of Dems taking back that Senate seat are considered to be much higher if Laffey wins. But I stand by my position that I’d rather not see a moderate voted out of office for being moderate. Having moderates in both parties is a good thing. However, I certainly don’t feel as passionately about it as I did (and still do) about the Lieberman-Lamont race.

The Republicans are staging another conservative-vs.-moderate battle in Arizona, where retiring incumbent House member Jim Kolbe endorsed moderate Steve Huffman, but conservative Randy Graf “appears to have an edge,” according to the New York Times’s blog. Of course, it being just 7pm in Arizona, there are no actual results from that race yet.

UPDATE: Chafee wins. Laffey has conceded.