Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

July 1, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

JOE AND NED....In a post yesterday, commenter gq wonders when I'm going to comment on the Lieberman/Lamont primary race in Connecticut. How about now?

Generally speaking, I have nothing against Lieberman. Even his pro-war stance is OK. We're a big tent, right? His sucking up to George Bush, however, is really offensive and completely gratuitous. That's strike one.

Plus there's this whole snide business about how "Kos and the liberal netroots have never backed a winning candidate." It's not really true, I know, but it would still be nice to see that canard die a clear and well-deserved death. So that's strike two.

And then there's the really lame ads Lieberman has been running. That's strike three. And the fact that he's as much as said he'd ditch the party and run as an independent if he loses. That's strike four. And his vote for cloture during the debate on the bankruptcy bill. That's strike five.

Remind me again. How many strikes before you're out?

Kevin Drum 1:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (158)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The cloture vote on the Alito appointment.

Posted by: Bob G on July 1, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK


KEVIN DRUM: Generally speaking, I have nothing against Lieberman. . . . How many strikes before you're out?

How many before you have something generally against a politician?


Posted by: jayarbee on July 1, 2006 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

??? that is it?

Posted by: gq on July 1, 2006 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK

gq: What were you expecting? A white paper?

I don't really like seeing Democratic senators getting kissed by George Bush at the State of the Union address. I prefer that they act like an opposition, even if they agree with him on individual issues. So I'd like to see Lamont win. Nuff said.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on July 1, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK


KEVIN DRUM: So I'd like to see Lamont win. Nuff said.

Well, until gq twisted your arm for the second time, you hadn't said enough. Now you have...but just barely.


Posted by: jayarbee on July 1, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

He isn't even our disingenuous rat. Nope. No tent is so big it should include the guy waiting to burn it down.

Posted by: Sparko on July 1, 2006 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

One more time...with feeling:

So I'd like to see Lamont win. Nuff said.- KEVIN DRUM

Ba da bing da da booom

Kevin, doing the right thing...it's not that hard

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted by: S Brennan on July 1, 2006 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK

Handing Cheney a big ol' bucket o' love during their "debate" - strikes six and seven.

Telling rape victims they can just go to a different hospital if the one they are taken to won't give them "morning after" contraception - strike eight.

Saying "Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion" - strike nine.

Rolling his eyes when shortstop said "Go Ned!" in the airport - strike ten!

Posted by: craigie on July 1, 2006 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

You mean his vote for cloture on the bankruptcy bill.

Posted by: Evan on July 1, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

Can we give Holy Joe a strike for being Honorary Co-Chairman (along with Sen. Jon Kyle, George Schultz, and James Woolsey) of the Committee on the Present Danger? Here are a few of the names on their roster:

Midge Dector
Frank Gaffney
Ken Adelman
Joseph diGenova
Steve Forbes
Newt Gingrich
Victor Davis Hanson
Jeanne Kirkpatrick
Robert McFarlane
Edwin Meese III
Laurie Mylroie
Daniel Pipes
Danielle Pletka
Norman Podhoretz
Victoria Toensing

Posted by: Andy McLennan on July 1, 2006 at 2:26 AM | PERMALINK

A good friend of mine in Connecticut is doing volunteer phone banking (or whatever it's called) for Lamont. She said the other day that a large number of Dems automatically assume right off the bat that she's calling on behalf on Lieberman, and often say "I hate Lieberman!" or something equivalent and hang up right away. She's only allowed to put them down as 'probable' for Lamont. One way or another I don't see Lieberman winning the primary...

Posted by: ChiSox Fan in LA on July 1, 2006 at 2:45 AM | PERMALINK

What Evan said. What were you looking for Gilbert?

Posted by: john on July 1, 2006 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

"And his vote against cloture during the debate on the bankruptcy bill. That's strike five."

Lieberman voted FOR cloture. THAT'S strike five.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/005154.php

Posted by: Ross Best on July 1, 2006 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK

Don't forget the time he said he wanted to amend the Constitution to keep the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That's when I washed my hands of him.

He is so in love with himself as a "statesman" that he doesn't even remember what he stands for anymore, except of course, religious zealotry.

Posted by: skeptic on July 1, 2006 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

Uh, I think you mean Lieberman's vote FOR cloture on the bankruptcy bill.

Posted by: kaleidescope on July 1, 2006 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

Very surprising for someone as smart as Kevin not realizing what a disaster it would be for the democrats to throw Leiberman over the side in terms of their presidential and majority party prospects. Nationally, he is well liked and well known as a former VP candidate and a strong on defense/war on terror democrat. The message of beating him will reinforce the democrat image of weak on national security and, of course, it will be seen as the far left seizing the party. The republicans no doubt will seize on it at some point late in Bush's term or in McCain's term by naming him to a position such as secy of defense or UN ambassador and thereby endlessly repeating the message that democrats are weak on national security. It is about as foolish a thing as the democrats could do in terms of hurting their short and long term prospects for regaining the presidency and the house and senate. And they will probably compound the problem by nominating Hillary in 08. It is like democrats are about to voluntarily jump off the cliff and the smart ones will even know they are doing it.

And Kevin's reasons are hardly serious. Very strange post.

Posted by: brian on July 1, 2006 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

What about all the work he's done on global warming? He's put a lot of staff effort into hypothetical legislation over the years. One of these days the Republicans are going to remember all he's done for them and pass it all on a voice vote.

Posted by: B on July 1, 2006 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

Very surprising for someone as smart as Kevin not realizing what a disaster it would be for the democrats to throw Leiberman over the side...(snip)

And the concern trolls keep telling us how important it is that we keep him. Strike n+1.

Posted by: jimBOB on July 1, 2006 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK

brian >"...Very strange post."

Yes, yours was

maybe you should quit trying to talk out your ass about stuff you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about just because Rove is paying you to be a troll

"...Democrats are for people, Republicans are for things..." - Oilfieldguy-firedoglake.com

Posted by: daCascadian on July 1, 2006 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK

brian:

Boy oh boy, there's nothing so ... *gratifying* to the heart of a Democrat than to watch his Republican brother agonize so ... *thoughtfully* over the future success of our Party.

It's almost like he was ... I dunno ... sincere or something.

While personally I wouldn't have picked this fight (I like Lieberdude's stance on the environment if precious little else) -- this kinda "conventional wisdom" is precisely what's driving the anti-Lieberman sentiment.

Heh. Kinda like Osama endorsing Kerry when he really means Bush :)

All Lamont needs to do is crack 40% to send just the right message to the national Democrats.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK

He is so in love with himself as a "statesman" that he doesn't even remember what he stands for anymore, except of course, religious zealotry.

Now, now - he also stands for fattening the pockets of the insurance and credit card industries. Be fair.

Posted by: FMguru on July 1, 2006 at 3:09 AM | PERMALINK


Let's not forget his self-serving, chickenshit backup plan in 2000, which should have forecasted strike four.


Posted by: jayarbee on July 1, 2006 at 3:09 AM | PERMALINK

I think gq is lamenting the marginalization of moderates by crazy screaming Dean and his leagues of newly enthused followers. The local precinct used to be an elite fraternity where one could maintain a position by bribing members of ones retirement home to show up with maple nut ice cream.

Posted by: B on July 1, 2006 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK

B:

Yo, man ... pass me a hit o' that.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 3:13 AM | PERMALINK

And his annoying habit of undercutting other Democrats by going on television shortly after they've said something useful and completely disagreeing with them (see "we shouldn't criticize our President in these times of peril").

Posted by: Linkmeister on July 1, 2006 at 3:14 AM | PERMALINK


BRIAN: The republicans no doubt will seize on it at some point late in Bush's term or in McCain's term by naming him to a position such as secy of defense or UN ambassador and thereby endlessly repeating the message that democrats are weak on national security. It is about as foolish a thing as the democrats could do in terms of hurting their short and long term prospects for regaining the presidency and the house and senate.

So what you're saying is that the Democrats could regain power in this country if they just became Republicans? They've already done that--right around the same time the Republicans became fascists.


Posted by: jayarbee on July 1, 2006 at 3:15 AM | PERMALINK

The National Noodge

Sheesh.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 3:16 AM | PERMALINK

So what you're saying is that the Democrats could regain power in this country if they just became Republicans? They've already done that--right around the same time the Republicans became fascists.

So painfully true in every detail.

Posted by: craigie on July 1, 2006 at 3:22 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry guys, I really don't care that much whether democrats or republicans win (other than liberal supreme court justices exercising too much power and a fear that democrats could really screw up national security, but even there, I doubt that a democrat president would not step up when push case to shove on national security).

I just think dumping Leiberman would be a particularly dumb move for the image of democrats. There seems little upside for the democrats, and plenty of potential downside.

Posted by: brian on July 1, 2006 at 3:29 AM | PERMALINK

brian:

The "image of Democrats" in your eyes is a pale clone of Republicans.

People, I think, would prefer an opposition party with teeth.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 3:35 AM | PERMALINK

bob,

I suppose there is something to be said for a sharper distinction between the parties, but as of now, I doubt that is in the best interests of the democrats electing a president. But I still would like to see both parties ditch the political posturing on national security. It seems like there should be much more common ground that there is in the current highly political environment.

Posted by: brian on July 1, 2006 at 3:39 AM | PERMALINK
liberal supreme court justices exercising too much power and a fear that democrats could really screw up national security

Yes, we've got ourselves a bonafide bedwetter,afraid that our country might actually practice the freedom we proclaim, afraid that our liberty, like the air we breathe, does too little to protect us from our unnameable fears.

There is renewable strength in freedom, resilience in the free trade of goods and ideas, and what is fear except something to be overcome?

Posted by: bad Jim on July 1, 2006 at 3:48 AM | PERMALINK

Videogames are strike six. I don't care about any of the other stuff.

I dont like Lame-ont though either, he seems like a wimpy, leftist democrat.

Posted by: Jonesy on July 1, 2006 at 3:48 AM | PERMALINK

brian:

There isn't common ground on national security because many people have profoundly intense disagreements with Bush's entire approach.

It's not a matter of being "for" or "against" national security. Everybody's in favor of national security -- yes, even liberal Democrats.

It's the fact that Bush has fucked up so colossally, on every conceivable level.

That's not something you can just paper over.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 3:53 AM | PERMALINK

Okay, at the risk of being branded a troll, one concern I have with the Lieberman challenge is basically Lyndon Johnson's famous assessment of J. Edgar Hoover: "Better to have him inside pissing out than outside pissing in."

If I were a member of the VWRC, the first thing I'd do after a Lieberman loss would be to offer him a position at The Weekly Standard or some other neocon journal, where he could let loose on Democrats without any of the constraints he's currently under, and just generally be held up as "Oh, this poor martyr, done in by the angry hippies that make up today's Democratic Party, etc."

I'm not saying that just because taking a certain action, i.e., defeating Lieberman in a primary, may have some downsides to it, means you shouldn't do it. Just wanted to warn people that doing this isn't necessarily a cost-free proposition.

Posted by: jd on July 1, 2006 at 4:29 AM | PERMALINK

So to summarize: Lieberman must go, anyone who supports Lieberman to any degree for any reason is intolerable, and anyone such as Kevin who fails to denounce Lieberman with sufficient fervor is suspect at best and should be treated with open scorn and derision.

Sounds like a formula for success to me.

Posted by: otherbob on July 1, 2006 at 5:19 AM | PERMALINK

Videogames are strike six. I don't care about any of the other stuff.

I dont like Lame-ont though either, he seems like a wimpy, leftist democrat.

You know Jonesy, I'm not saying you're a Republican here, but this is the problem that most of them have to face each election. "Well, I like Senator GOP's bloodthirsty attitude, but he seems dedicated to damaging my specific interests... Senator McDemocrat will stand up for me, but probably would never kill a man just to watch him die. Who to choose?"

Posted by: matt w on July 1, 2006 at 5:19 AM | PERMALINK

Otherbob- this is the "far left" trying to keep this primary race from distracting us in November, by putting institutional pressure on the Lieb to just honor the damn primary results.

You can snark, or you can recognize that there is a point to this strategy...

Posted by: matt w on July 1, 2006 at 5:23 AM | PERMALINK


JD: If I were a member of the VWRC, the first thing I'd do after a Lieberman loss would be to offer him a position at The Weekly Standard or some other neocon journal, where he could let loose on Democrats without any of the constraints he's currently under, and just generally be held up as "Oh, this poor martyr, done in by the angry hippies that make up today's Democratic Party, etc."

Yeah, because look at the way Zell Miller's star rose when he left office. Today, all over the country, people are coming to the Republicans in droves out of sympathy for the way the hippies wouldn't listen to ol' Zell.


OTHERBOB: So to summarize: Lieberman must go, anyone who supports Lieberman to any degree for any reason is intolerable, and anyone such as Kevin who fails to denounce Lieberman with sufficient fervor is suspect at best and should be treated with open scorn and derision. Sounds like a formula for success to me.

Well, that and -you- must go, too! That should do it.


Posted by: jayarbee on July 1, 2006 at 5:28 AM | PERMALINK

Absurd post Kevin - you ignore fact that the Kosite attack is ALL about promoting their ideology by questioning the legitimacy of Lieberman's - like all fanatics and ideologues and charlatans thereof they wallow in the sham iconography and culturally resonant shibboleths of belief and passion and true faith and all that sundry shit. The only canard here is your supposed unbiased take on it.

Posted by: saintsimon on July 1, 2006 at 7:10 AM | PERMALINK

otherbob,

Give us a reason to support Lieberman. What has done for Democrats lately?

It seems to me that he is the classic example of someone who has lost touch with his roots. He will fit right in with the Republicans.

Posted by: Ron Byers on July 1, 2006 at 7:27 AM | PERMALINK

You forgot support by Hannity and Coulter. How many strikes can you add for support from the most pustulent and repulsive forces of evil on the planet? When you have the spawn of Satan supporting you, you need to go to soccer metaphors instead of baseball metaphors. Joe Lieberman has 651 yellow cards for the game, and any referee gives him 187 red cards, enough where he should sit out for the rest of his life, as well as his children being banned for politics for seven generations.

Posted by: Aeolus on July 1, 2006 at 7:46 AM | PERMALINK

The big one for me is his adoption of the Republican "values" schtick. Too many Democrats, says Holy Joe, lack "traditional values". Joe is a charlatan.

Posted by: bob h on July 1, 2006 at 8:03 AM | PERMALINK

His opposition to SFAS 123 - the proper recognition of expenses from employee stock options - would be strike 6. He struck out twice!

Posted by: pgl on July 1, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin:

I've asked before, but can't you block cxmmc's IP address??? When I ran my own blog for a short while, the software I used could block the IP address of annoying posters, and it wasn't very sophisticated.

On the topic of DINO Joe (Democrat In Name Only), I wonder now if he wasn't a big reason Gore lost to Bush (I know, I know, Gore didn't really lose), but in Tennessee for example, do you think some of the yokels couldn't countenance voting for a Jew running with a native son? I'm just asking. I don't dislike him for being Jewish. I dislike him for putting Israel's interests over the United States. He needs to change political parties and get it over with.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on July 1, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

For the love of God, send better trolls.

The Democratic Party isn't "dumping" Lieberman. Here in the US we have these things called elections. The Democratic voters of his state get to decide whether Lieberman gets to run as the Democratic nominee for Senate. Period. Only the Texas Republican Party seems to think that they can anoint nominees, sans voters.

As for Republicans and their success with national security- hmmm 3,000 dead American civilians, nearly 3,000 dead American service members, 18,000 plus wounded later and you still claim success? No wonder most of you trolls are unemployed and living with your mommies.

The bottom line is that the tinfoil crowd hearts Lieberman because he is a Republican in everything but name- a sure vote for every crazy thing your girlfriend Bush wants. Voters in our party will decide if that is OK.

Posted by: solar on July 1, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

So, how long until the "Lieberman may be a racist" entry, since that's the norm whenever things get to tight for comfort in the polls?

Posted by: RW on July 1, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

Lets not forget Lieberman in Florida 2000, pledging on air - without authorization - that the Gore campaign would not contest improprly executed votes from military personnel overseas. My recollection is the Gore campaign staff nearly went apoplectic at this unilateral surrender.

Just how long has Lieberman been the Manchurian senator?

Oh, as for jd, above:

If I were a member of the VWRC, the first thing I'd do after a Lieberman loss would be to offer him a position at The Weekly Standard or some other neocon journal, where he could let loose on Democrats without any of the constraints he's currently under, and just generally be held up as "Oh, this poor martyr, done in by the angry hippies that make up today's Democratic Party, etc."

Letting loose on Democrats without any constraints? Poor martyr? Sounds exactly as things are today, except the D's would have one more Democratic Party vote in Congress.

Posted by: Friend of Labor on July 1, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

Stephen Kriz:

No, actually, being an Orthodox Jew helped him in the South -- at least if you believe the account he wrote of the '00 election. I'm inclined to agree with it because culturally it makes sense.

First, they lap up all that Moral Values palaver. Being Orthodox (as opposed to Reform) is a net plus. They see him more as a serious religionist like themselves than as some creepy Northeast alien Jew. Those days are over.

Protestant evangelicals, you've surely noted, are some of the strongest supporters of Israel. This is hardly benign, of course; milliennarians need certain things to "happen" in Jerusalem in order for Christ to return.

Are there hardcore anti-semites down there who'd equate a vote for Lieberman with a vote for the global banking conspiracy that has its boot on their necks? Oh sure. In the north, too. But those kind of whackjobs don't vote Democratic.

Dems lost their Dixiecrats a long time ago.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

I keep seeing posts that consist of large blocks of nothing. Please keep your children away from the computer. If Lieberman represents the Democratic party, then it's time for a new party...don't mean to sound racist or prejudiced, but he seems to put Israel's interests ahead of the US when it comes to middle east policy. Creditors and defense contractors love him too.

Posted by: sparky on July 1, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

If there is no room in today's Democratic Party for a moderate, pro-Iraq-war Democrat, kiss the Demo Party goodbye.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on July 1, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Frequency Kenneth:

Thank you so much for your well-meant and sincere advice. We Democrats always get choked up with delirious gratitude when Republicans offer this to us, bless their hearts.

Now go stick your tongue in an electric socket.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks. I'll have the Peking Duck and an egg roll. And bring some chopsticks, if you could.

Oh and by the way -- your country is a human rights disaster.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

Bob, I tend to disagree. Down here in the South there are pockets of voters who no matter what will not vote for a woman, a black, or a Jew. Many of these folks are blue collar and not evangelical, so otherwise might be persuaded to vote for a Democrat. They are a strange lot, but they are a fact of life here in Dixie.

Posted by: Keith G on July 1, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Keith:

Interesting. Did you hear these folks openly grousing about Lieberman when he ran with Gore -- or was this more like vibes you got?

Also -- did they vote for Clinton in significant numbers?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

Another Democrat circular firing squad!

Posted by: Havlicek stole the ball on July 1, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Havlicek stole the ball:

Let me guess. Down goes Frazier is the green sock, while you're the orange one.

Aren't these GOP trolls swell? You'd think that, since they represent the interests of the other party, that they'd kind of *want* the Dems to have a circular firing squad.

Instead, they're trying so hard to warn us about it before it's too late!

So ... touchingly selfless, isn't it.

It's enough to renew one's faith in politics.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

GOP TrollWorld: Where contested primaries become circular firing squads :)

You know, reading the wit & wisdom of our trolls about this, all 100% on-message that a strong primary challenge to Lieberman is evidence of a deathly sickness, is actually quite heartening. And it's a little like watching Osama appear to endorse Kerry just before the election, whereupon more careful analysis (Bush's own national security people, it turns out) makes it apparent that he really wants Bush.

Whatever these guys think we shouldn't do -- obviously we should do :)

The GOP lives in terror of the day that we cultivate what they have -- a strongly motivated, active base that drives their agenda -- even while being, to be sure, deeply partisan, ideological and shrill.

My personal view is that Lieberdude's not going to lose the primary. He's going to call in all his corporate special interest chits and outspend Lamont a gazillion to one.

But Lamont is going to get a surprising total -- I'm guessing he'll crack 40% -- and that'll be read as an earthquake in Washington.

BTW, I don't think Lieberman's threat to run as an indy in the general if he loses is anything more than petulance. He'd lose all his seniority and committee positions.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah. That's right.

I remember that one candidate Kos backed who won.

Those were the days.

Posted by: Birkel on July 1, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know my koslore as well as I should. So please tell me: What candidate he backed beat a republican in a general election?

Posted by: American Hawk on July 1, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

And, obtw, I cordially invite you to throw Lieberman under the bus.

That would be delightful.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Birkel on July 1, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

American Hawk,

Today is a day to support the Dem efforts.
Don't disturb them.

Go Lamont, go!

Posted by: Birkel on July 1, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

American Hawk:

And that makes a difference ... how? The past is always an iron predictor of the furture?

The times they are-a changin', my lad.

So many rhetorical fallacies. So little time :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Birkel:

And so much transparent disingenuousness ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

furture = future

Birkel:

Lieberman's not going to lose. There's no way somebody with that much corporate money behind him, who also has a good voting record on issues important to Democrats, and with that much seniority to bring home the bacon -- is going to lose.

What's important here is that Lamont is vastly outspent and still comes close to beating a senior incumbent like Lieberman.

That's really the purpose of all this. To send a message that the Democratic base is becoming stronger and more assertive.

You know ... like yours.

Republicans have hard primary challenges from the right all the time.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah! I know it, rmck1.

Come really close and that will send a message!

Go Lamont, go!

Posted by: Birkel on July 1, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Birkel:

*handing Birkel a cookie and a glass of milk*

It's a nice day. Now go play outside.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

American Hawk:

And that makes a difference ... how? The past is always an iron predictor of the furture?

The times they are-a changin', my lad.

So many rhetorical fallacies. So little time :)

Bob

RMCK: Not what I'm saying. But Drum is asserting that the "Kos never wins" meme is a canard. I acknowledge that he beat some emocrats in primaries. However, most activists don't ultimately care about winning primaries; they want to win the general. So, if it's a canard, I just want to know which Kos-backed democrats beat republicans in general elections. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just puzzled where the straight shooting Kevin Drum is coming from. If there's no such candidate, just say so; maybe Kos will do better in the future.

Posted by: American Hawk on July 1, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

rmck1,

I'm in the office working whether I like it or not. Thanks for the milk and cookie though. They were delicious.

Go Lamont, go!

Posted by: Birkel on July 1, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

American Hawk:

I think you're slightly misreading what Kevin said. The "Kos never wins" meme is a carnard in the primaries -- but it holds true in the general, at least for the moment.

And Kevin would like to see that quashed by Lamont winning Lieberman's seat.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel:

And you're working *so hard*, too -- writing completely childish, thought-free snark posts on a liberal blog.

Hey, if you're going to steal from your boss, you could at least do it for a purpose more noble than self-indulgent distraction.

But then again ... stealing is stealing. Why should I expect nobility to arise out of an ignoble act to begin with?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

You don't know what I do nor for whom I do it.

So take the stealing canard and place it where it would be most painful.

What a maroon.

Posted by: Birkel on July 1, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Very interesting thread. You have folks like me voicing the logical conclusion that beating Leiberman hurts the democrats nationally, Kevin ignoring this most important issue, and most of the rest of you denying reality in some fashion. Other than strengthening the anti-war position/wing of the democrat party, what good could it possibly do to dump Leiberman?

By the way, Leiberman's jewish faith had to help Gore in Florida. I realize Gore did not win Florida, but he would not have come so close without a jewish running mate. If only those old jewish folks in Palm Beach had been able to properly read the ballot, how different history would have been?

Posted by: brian on July 1, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel:

Woah ... it appears I actually struck a nerve.

Go me :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

I see your point, Birkel. When some mouth-breathing, wingnut, christo-fascist enters a GOP race and forces a primary against a so-called moderate Republican, I always root for them....just like you!

Posted by: bobbyp on July 1, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1,

Yes. You must've hit a nerve if I've devolved all the way down to quoting Bugs Bunny.

I see your point.

(Hint: recognize the dismissive sarcasm more quickly)

Posted by: Birkel on July 1, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

bobbyp,

Nice use of the christo-fascist terminology.
Name one.

And quit imagining that I'm a Christer.
Thanks in advance.

(Mouth-breather and wingnut being devoid of meaning, I recognize the impossibility of refutation by logical means.)

Posted by: Birkel on July 1, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

bobbyp:

LOL ! How true!

I always root for the wingnuts, too!

But of course -- at the same time I don't present my wingnut rootery in the guise of some kind of high-minded advice to the GOP, either :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel:

You seem to have a problem accepting the consequences of your own rhetoric.

But then again -- you're sitting at work stealing time from your boss. When do you take lunch, huh?

Have an extra martini for me :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

I don't have a boss, dimwit.

No Bugs Bunny for you!

Posted by: Birkel on July 1, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Weeping Jesus, Kevin. I read you every day and usually appreciate your point of view, even if I don't agree. However, this is a bit beyond the pale.

"Big tent"? He helped allow Alito to come to the floor for a vote. Look how that has turned out in just a few rulings. Alito just supported unchecked presidential power, etc.

He failed, absolutely, the Social Security test when he waffled in support of SocSec, thereby feeding some amount of fuel to the effort to begin the end of the program. In my view, SocSec may be the defining bedrock value of the Democratic Party, and his failure to absolutely stand firm was for me the final straw.

On the war, he doesn't just have a reasoned perspective on why he supports the war, he just parrots the Republican talking points.

He also has not admitted that this presidency has moved into direct conflict with the Constitution and is operating illegally.

There's more, but hey, that's way more than enough.

I don't think the Democratic Big Tent can accomodate people like Lieberman. If it does, it just means that the Party is being co-opted by the Republicans.

Wrong.

Posted by: RCC on July 1, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

"Better to have him inside pissing out than outside pissing in."

If he weren't constantly scolding Democrats for opposing Bush, maybe you'd have a point.

My biggest problem with Lieberman is his overwhelming sense of arrogance and entitlement. The man actually thinks a primary challenge is an affront to democracy akin to attacks by jihadists, in the words of his supporters. Lieberman declares that his views are based on deep conviction but can't believe his opponents also hold deep convictions. He implies that anyone who votes against him is working for partisan interests at the expense of the country. His holier than thou lectures and his refusal to even engage his critics in a fair discussion are his problem, not his position on the war.

Posted by: Mike on July 1, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

A Democrat looking for Republican votes but finding neither liberal nor conservatives that want any part of him. It like Howard Dean said about Dems running as Repugs - doesn't work.

There's always the lobbying field ex- Sen. Leibo.

Posted by: Cheryl on July 1, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

RCC:

I understand and totally appreciate this POV. There are things about the Liebenmensch that just make my skin completely crawl. Being in bed and quiveringly pre-lubed for three of my least favorite corporate interests: insurance, consumer credit and defense contractors. Swapping primetime spit with the sort of simian creature that, it turns out, gave the human race HIV. The National Noodge moralizing. And, of course, his Israelophile buy-in to the neocon foreign policy analysis, pretending to promote the interests of the poor, oppressed Arab masses ("A Marshall Plan for the Mideast!") even while he's sucking circumcized IDF cock hard enough to take the chrome off a tailpipe.

All that being said, I don't think a Lieberman loss would necessarily be an unequivocal victory for the Democrats -- and I don't think there's any shame in admitting that. We'd lose a senator with a ton of seniority who -- despite all his recent egregious legislative sins, still has a damn high ADA rating and 100% with the League of Conservation Voters.

As much has the sound of that raspy baritone of his makes me reach for the Maalox -- I can't bring myself to hate him as much as I did Zell Miller.

I'd welcome a Lamont victory. But I also think a Lieberman squeak-by would be a significant outcome as well in the interest of party-building.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Must have been the kiss of death.

I don't really like seeing Democratic senators getting kissed by George Bush at the State of the Union address. I prefer that they act like an opposition, even if they agree with him on individual issues. So I'd like to see Lamont win. Nuff said.

Liebo looked sort of shock when Bush did this to him, but you know, even Republicans are smart enought not to let Bush campaign for them.

Posted by: Cheryl on July 1, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Mike:

Very good points. The arrogant, entitlement-reeking self-righteousness is probably his single most insufferable quality.

That alone justifies any number of primary challenges.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Cberyl;

No ... shit.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

"Better to have him inside pissing out than outside pissing in."

Since he's inside the tent pissing, what's the fucking difference?

Posted by: bobbyp on July 1, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

bobbyp:

You're on a roll today, bro. ROTFL !

He's not just pissing inside the tent -- he's dug a latrine ditch right next to the boiled potatos.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Compare this with Arlen Spector's primary two years ago. The Bushies strongly supported Spector, even though his conservative challenger was more in agreement their political philosophy. Without Bush's support, Spector would have been defeated in the primary election. However, his challenger might well have lost in the general election.

Conclusions:
1. The Reps are more a "big tent" than the Dems.
2. Karl Rove is smarter than Kevin Drum.

Posted by: ex-liberal on July 1, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel Challenge:

"Nice use of the christo-fascist terminology.
Name one."

Reply: Who is David Duke?

I'll take right wing moonbats for a thousand, Alex.

Posted by: bobbyp on July 1, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

"Even his pro-war stance is OK."

I know you meant that in a party-line sense, Kevin, but morally that stance is reprehensible. Wrong is wrong, and it certainly taints everyone who went along with the deception.

Eventually, this will read as the most shameful chapter in American political history, owrse by far than the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The size of the tent is pretty unimportant compared to the real-world effects of this craven behavior.

Posted by: Kenji on July 1, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal:

You're forgetting several factors in that situation that kind of wrecks the analogy.

First off, the national GOP supported Specter because -- despite the fact that he's not a horrible guy -- he's the consummate gutless wonder. And he was going to be -- this is critical -- chair of the Judiciary Committee.

They did that to make Arlen their kept boy -- to rein in his somewhat libertarian, pro-Constitution instincts.

And remember what happened? After the election, Arlen made a comment to the press about the SC confirmation process -- forgive me for not recalling exactly what he said, but it was along the lines of asserting the perogatives of the Judiciary Committee to not march in lock-step with the activist base. Oh right -- he was defending the right to have a filibuster.

His office got besieged with frothing telegrams. A little talk was had, and Arlen's been bent over with his own, personal jar of Vaseline ever since.

Conversely, everything that we find repellent about Lieberman has been done *at the expense* of the Democratic base. We have no leverage over him; if the national Dems offered him strong support in a primary challenge -- he'd just arrogantly take it completely for granted and do what he wants to do anyway (in the name of having "strong convictions") like he always does.

The GOP had Arlen by the short curlies. The national Dems have no leverage over Lieberman save a slap in the face from the voters.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

telegrams, sheesh -- I meant emails

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Bipartisanship is a good thing - when you've got two Parties who agree on certain basic principles, but disagree on how to implement them.

Bipartisanship is not a good thing when one Party hsa dedicated itself whole-heartedly to the creation of a banana republic, one lorded over by plutocrats who own most everything worth owning, who don't give a shit about the common good (who in fact deny there is such a thing as a common good), whose foreign policy ideas are at once infantile and brutalistic, and who regard the Constitution as a mere list of suggestions that ought not get in the way of establishing an authoritarian state apparatus that controls the flow of information, spies on and interferes with citizens' private lives, and demands that religious principles be the basis of public policy.

The GOP devotes itself to the destruction of American ideals, laws, and institutions. It is a party of traitors, cowards, thieves, charlatans, and sexual predators. The GOP is anti-American.

When Leiberman sucks up to the GOP, he isn't being bipartisan, or statesman-like. He's being a fool; a useful idiot; a tool for those who hate America and want to destroy it.

That's why the Democratic Party would be infinitely better off without him.

Posted by: CaseyL on July 1, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

At this point it isn't about Kos (although I believe he supported Herseth and Obama as they beat Republicans). It's about the 40% of CT primary voters who plan on voting against Leiberman. They aren't all being bribed with web ad money.

BTW, the commenters here don't appear to know much about Lamont. Far left he is not.

Posted by: B on July 1, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, people, the issue isn't whether the Democratic tent is big enough for Holy Joe. Obviously it is, since a lot of Democratic congresscreatures are more conservative than he is. The question is whether Connecticut Democrats want to be represented by him any more. If Holy Joe wants to take the Joementum to South Carolina and run for the Senate, fine, more power to him.

Posted by: SqueakyRat on July 1, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

SqueakyRat:

ROTFL !

I can just see the campaign slogan:

Carpetbagging with Integrity

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 1, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

mike,

an affront to democracy akin to attacks by jihadists, in the words of his supporters.

actually, clueless joe himself used the word to describe nedheads:

"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman said, "but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."

so using the bushian tactic of comparing his political opponents to terrorists - strike 12

how about holy joe introducing a measure to censure clinton after the senate voted not to remove him from office - strike 13

and the whine - strike 14

nedrenaline!

Posted by: benjoya on July 1, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Joe feels he is entitled to be a Senator -- he doesn't care if being a Dem or being an Indy will get it for him...so naturally, being that he doesn't care which party affiliatation gets it for him, he probably doesn't care what state will elect him, either.

Carbetbagging with Integrity -- good one, Bob!!! LOL

Posted by: jcricket on July 1, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

I'm glad Kevin is taking his time on the Lieberman issue. Why should he jump in and howl just because everybody else is. The point of blogging is that you go your own way.

Those of you who sneer "it's about time" or "what took you so long" - get over yourselves. No blogger has to post on any topic until s/he darned well feels like it. I am really tired of this meme of blaming bloggers for not weighing in on every trendy topic of the day.

In my opinion, more people need to hold their fire until they really have something to say.

I get bored with reading the same topic on a bazillion blogs anyway. If Kevin has no comment on Lieberman for 6 months, don't worry, somebody else will have plenty.

Posted by: Leila on July 1, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

For me his most egregious stance is his double/skewed standard on morality: Clinton blow job bad, and deserves a rebuke and lecture on morality on the Senate floor, and causing the death of 2500 Americans and at least 50000 Iraqis in a war based on deliberately false pretenses good, and deserves being felated (or vice versa) by the President.

Posted by: nut on July 1, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Even his pro-war stance is OK.

In what possible sense is his pro-war stance "OK"?

Posted by: Keith Thompson on July 1, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

It's true Kos' picks have not won many general elections thus far (Herseth and I forget his name in Kentucky exceptions) but: 1) it's early in the process; 2) recent primary victories by Tester and Webb up his overall win average and 3) he hasn't stuck to near-sure-shots, but made some long-calls in an overall move to improve the party's prospects down the line.

As many have pointed out, it's not Lieberman's record that's so bad; it's his knack for sucking up to GOP talking points at exactly the moment Dems are starting to score in opposition. And, as many have said, he's infintely more GOP-friendly than any CT senator needs to be (which is why the Arlen Specter analogy doesn't hold up: a Specter primary loss would have made the PA seat difficult for the GOP to hold; Lamont, absent a Lieberman indy run, would have an excellent chance of becoming Sen. Lamont).

An analogy I'm surprised no one ever makes is to the 1978 GOP primary challenge of conservative activist Jeffrey Bell over moderate Pub Clifford Case in NJ. Bell won, and, in the short run, it was a negative for the party: NJ got Sen. Bill Bradley. But two years later, clones of Bell won Senate nominations all across the country, many of whom took office in the Reagan landslide -- shifting the political center of gravity many degrees to the right overnight. That's what many of us have in mind with the Lamont run. Lamont is far more representative of Democrats nationwide -- certainly of the Eastern or Western seaboard -- and would fit far more easily into the party than the odious Lieberman does now.

Also, for the record, I've always felt Lieberman's being Jewish was instrumental in Gore's loss. I don't believe his Orthodoxy was appealing at all to the culturally conservative vote; I think their antipathy to Jews (and blacks and women, as mentioned above) trumped any identification with his sanctimony. This may well have made the difference in WV and MO, very close states. I also think he goosed the Nader vote a bit; I personally know several people who tell me the Lieb selection was what pushed them over the edge on Gore.

Posted by: demtom on July 1, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

WV and MO were not close enough in 2000 for Leiberman to have possibly made any difference. Leiberman had to help in Florida, where Gore did better than expected.

Posted by: brian on July 1, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Bob wrote: the national GOP supported Specter because -- despite the fact that he's not a horrible guy -- he's the consummate gutless wonder. And he was going to be -- this is critical -- chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Those are plausible theories. In fact, the White House made a policy decision to support every Republican incumbent Senator.

Posted by: ex-liberal on July 1, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

And, don't forget Holy Joe's participation in the Clinton impeachment.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on July 1, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

"WV and MO were not close enough in 2000 for Leiberman to have possibly made any difference. Leiberman had to help in Florida, where Gore did better than expected."

MO -- a state Clinton carried twice; where even Dukakis came within a few points -- was decided by under 2.5%, so your remark is nonsense. WV fell by a wider margin, but 2000 marked (with the exception of McGovern '72) the first time since Roosevelt that a Dem made a showing in the state worse than his national margin. My experience with the state (I was born there) is that there's significant anti-Semitism there, and I think it's the logical explanation.

Your assumption that Gore did better than expected in FL is utterly faith-based: Clinton carried the state in '96, and Kerry not that much worse in '04, so I don't see why Lieberman is automatically the reason for Gore's showing there.

Posted by: demtom on July 1, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know my koslore as well as I should. So please tell me: What candidate he backed beat a republican in a general election?

Obama beat Keyes. Kos supported Stephanie Herseth and Ben Chandler in special elections, and both were pickups. That's just from the top of my head, so there are probably more that I'm overlooking.

Posted by: blank on July 1, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Bush beat Gore 51/47 in Missouri, by about 80,000 votes. Leiberman was not a significant factor there or in West Virginia, where Bush won 52/46. Look at 2004 results for further confirmation of both states trending republican in the presidential election.

Posted by: brian on July 2, 2006 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

Just wondering when Kevin Drum is going to make a comment on Palestine-Israel.

Nothing going on there, right?

Posted by: notthere on July 2, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Lieberman's support for the war is not a "big tent" position because it does not include supporting victory: he fails to advocate the deployment of the additional 300,000 to 500,000 troops required toward that end. Ergo his support for "the war" is merely rephrased support for the President, who also does not support victory in Iraq (since achieving it would require begging "Old Europe" for troops and/or bringing back the draft).

Posted by: Forrest on July 2, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

Brian:

The actual margin was this: 50.42-47.08%. I did screw up the math; it's under 3.5%, not under 2.5% (though you of course rounded up to press your advantage). Given that the difference between the '04 exit polls (Kerry by 3% to Bush by 2.4%) was brushed off as "margin of error" stuff, I fail to see how you can claim 3.34% as some insuperable margin.

As far as "trending Republican"...every state "trended" GOP in '04, as Bush went from -0.5 to +2.5 nationally (would you say MO "trended Dem" in the Clinton years?).

Your "Lieberman had nothing to do with it" remains what you choose to believe...which is not to be confused with fact.

Posted by: demtom on July 2, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

You sometimes have a piss-poor way of describing your positions. "Generally speaking, I have nothing against Lieberman..." in the first breath, then you go on and list five things you have against Lieberman. And then you close with a question mark...is that so you can later claim you still have nothing against the man?

Do you have some compulsion to show you're so laid back and above the fray, even when you are evidently not? (Or are you not?)

Libby's Political Dictionary:

Neutralists are people who avoid taking sides, but they are straight-up honest about what they are doing.

Centrists are neutralists who lie about what they are doing. They claim that the middle is a position, not just the avoidance of one.

Moderates are Centrists who tilt a little, so that you can't accuse them of being Centrists.

Triangulators are Centrists who live in the fourth dimension.

Panderers are would-be triangulators who flunked geometry.

Posted by: Libby Sosume on July 2, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

I tend to agree with Kevin -- too many strikes. The guy's out. Lieberman's shown time and again that he's far too willing to be accomondationist, in order, as Josh Marshall says, to be in the mix.

Time to ditch Lieberman.

Posted by: Tony Shifflett on July 2, 2006 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

look it's not about his positions on policy. it's about smokin' joe's willingness to help the republicans any chance he gets. let's say joe crushes lamont in the primary. is that a failure?

fuck no.

how many times have you seen his sorry ass on fox news, since the lamont campaign has become a threat? not fucking at all. and that is a huge win for the democrats, regardless of the general election.

Posted by: danelectro on July 3, 2006 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

Many people have stated here and elsewhere that some in Washington have put the interests of Isreal over America.

If you were someone who thought that was true, would you vote for someone who was Jewish?

How many people out there have this view? Those are the ones who will note vote for Jews, from either party.

Could it be considered anti-semetism to talk about these issues in a critical way?

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on July 3, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Michael:

Well, the way you framed this is indeed crudely anti-semitic, and doesn't deserve civil discussion.

Your unstated premise, of course, is that every Jewish person will vote lockstep for Israel's interests.

Lieberman does -- but Russ Feingold certainly doesn't.

And there are many born-again Prots who "defend" Israel as staunchly as Holy Joe.

So being Jewish in itself has precious little to do with anything.

Maybe you really shouldn't toke and post.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 3, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

yikes. maybe you should toke and post.

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on July 3, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Michael:

I might ... but it's been so damn dry around here lately.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 3, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Good news.

我向大家推荐:要想寻找租车信息请访问 租车 网,各种租车应有尽有。北京 上海租车 厂向广大客户提供上海租车产品及上海租车服务。上海 租车 公司专业生产租车产品,欢迎选择租车。中国 租车 网,打造租车领域专业搜索平台,提供全球租车品牌公司及产品展示。上海 上海租车 公司专业生产上海租车产品,欢迎选择上海租车。北京 上海租车 厂向广大客户提供上海租车产品及上海租车服务。要想寻找汽车租赁信息请访问 汽车租赁 网,各种汽车租赁应有尽有。要想寻找上海租车信息请访问 上海租车 网,各种上海租车应有尽有。北京 上海租车 厂向广大客户提供上海租车产品及上海租车服务。

ju60ly-1 Posted by: mini on July 3, 2006 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

In case the Republicans left any doubt, Lieberman steps up to prove that power corrupts. This is the act of a man more in love with his own power than anything else.

Annoyingly, a lot of DC elites seem to sympathize with Lieberman. I'd say Chuck Schumer needs a primary challenger too.

Posted by: Frank on July 3, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

Normally I don't complain when Kevin goes into fluffy mode; it's his blog, and human does not live by heavy issues alone. So the posts about movies and metaphors are all very cute.

But geez, Kevin, if you really can't bring yourself to acknowledge what's happening with Israel-Palestine this weekend, it seems you could at least update this post to reflect Lieberman's announcement yesterday of his undying loyalty to his own senatorial career ("Democrats of Connecticut, fuck you!")

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK


SHORTSTOP: But geez, Kevin, if you really can't bring yourself to acknowledge what's happening with Israel-Palestine this weekend, it seems you could at least update this post to reflect Lieberman's announcement yesterday of his undying loyalty to his own senatorial career ("Democrats of Connecticut, fuck you!")

But what better way to celebrate Independence Day than to declare oneself an independent Democrat? After all, aren't "independent" and "selfish" sort of synonymous? What he doesn't understand is that "Democrat" and "selfish" are not supposed to be. Which is why he's lying to himself and everyone else when he says he'll run as an independent Democrat if he loses the primary.


Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

mr. jayarbee, my favorite "radical lefty"! Thanks for driving by. You really should consider becoming a regular here...maybe another four or five years will do it.

Which is why he's lying to himself and everyone else when he says he'll run as an independent Democrat if he loses the primary.

Am really looking forward to seeing the Connecticut reaction to this. The take I've gotten from folks I know in that state is that Lieberman is widely viewed as a ho, even by those who vote for him. Really curious to see whether this pisses a lot of people off.

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK


SHORTSTOP: Am really looking forward to seeing the Connecticut reaction to this. The take I've gotten from folks I know in that state is that Lieberman is widely viewed as a ho, even by those who vote for him.

Thing is, it's not so much those good folks you know that he's counting on, but on those others who, like him, are "ho's" (read: Bush lovers). He knows he'll get a lot of Republican support. I'm afraid, I do expect he'll win as an independent if it comes to that.


Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

mjrb: Thing is, it's not so much those good folks you know that he's counting on, but on those others who, like him, are "ho's" (read: Bush lovers). He knows he'll get a lot of Republican support. I'm afraid, I do expect he'll win as an independent if it comes to that.

I expect he will, too. But it would be loads of fun to watch Lamont smack him down in the primary. And I hope Lamont's people totally make hay with this, denouncing Joe for caring only for his own career and for having far greater support among Republicans than Democrats. If they do that right, and Lamont wins the primary, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Lamont could win the general election. Connecticut is true blue now, and its voters have a pretty low threshold for bullshit.

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK


SHORTSTOP: If they do that right, and Lamont wins the primary, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Lamont could win the general election. Connecticut is true blue now, and its voters have a pretty low threshold for bullshit.

I'm hopeful also, ms. shortstop; and I appreciate your optimism...along with your PDS.

I also look forward to seeing the press reaction when both Schumer and Frist campaign for him--not to mention, Hannity and Coulter and Malkin.

Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

I'm hopeful also, ms. shortstop; and I appreciate your optimism...along with your PDS.

My pleasure. Thank you for the PDD; I had money on it.

I also look forward to seeing the press reaction when both Schumer and Frist campaign for him--not to mention, Hannity and Coulter and Malkin.

"Lose Joe Lieberman and you Dems lose your last chance of appealing to moderate voterzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK


"Lose Joe Lieberman and you Dems lose your last chance of appealing to moderate voterzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."

Well, as Kevin says, he has "nothing against Lieberman."


Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

Well, as Kevin says, he has "nothing against Lieberman."

Stop repeating that, please! You're burning my eyes.

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

That's just a figure of speech... Six-figures, actually..:)

Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Bwa! Speaking of burns!

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

It's not the number before them, but the magic in the figures, I heard.

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Really? I always heard it was the magic in the fingers.


Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

No, no, Magic Fingers (TM) are those freaky motel beds of our childhood. "Dad, can I have another quarter?" "No! You and your sister go to sleep now!"

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Hahahah! Hey! Wait a minute! I never told you about my special relationship with my sister! Well, beats messing with Mom, I guess.

Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

Stoppppppppppppppppp.

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Bringing it back to Joe Lieberman (and who doesn't want to talk about him all day long?), his voice sounds like he's standing on a Magic Fingers bed while speaking, doesn't it? That ready-to-burst-into-tears quaver...

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

Okay. Fresh out of quarters anyway.


Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

That's the Republican economy for you.

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

He is a sexy guy, yes. Explains why Bush got fresh that time.


Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

Everyone here talks about that, and I missed it. All I remember, although I've tried to beat it out of my own head with sticks, is the McCain bearhug of Bush.

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, that was hot, too!


Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, thanks. This was a brand-new laptop (mopping coffee furiously).

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

Well, as long as it's not a Mac it should be all right.

Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmmmm. Where's my account book?

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

In a way -- although it's clearly a worthy issue -- I'm kind of glad that Kevin doesn't choose to post on Israel / Palestine. The NYT fora has more than its quota of Israel supporters, and the arguments on that issue there are legendarily vicious, with a cadre of Israel critics who insist they were censored by the moderators for their opinion. You're either an anti-semite, or you're a terrorist supporter. Ugghh.

It may be that Kevin's avoiding a swarm by posters of the tj/karen stripe. A thread dominated by hardcore anti-semites might make people too angry and offended for any rational conversation to proceed.

As for Lieberman's Independence Day (the corny symbology of which is perfect), I'm wondering what happens now with the DNC if LaMont wins the primary. It's one thing for Kos and Jim Dean's Democracy For America to back LaMont -- but would Rahm Emmanuel step up to the plate if he had a choice?

Also -- does Connecticut have an open primary, or is it like NJ, where only registered party members allowed to vote for their own parties?

This petulant little gambit is only going to increase LaMont's chances. It'll both fire up the party faithful (yet another stab in the back) and reassure fence-sitters: "Oh, Joe'll be able to run anyway."

Sadly enough, I see Joementum returning to the senate in either case. Connecticut has a history with independents (Weicker), and say what you will about Joe's South Carolina-esque ideology -- he's an excellent constituent massager with ties to the biggest-monied interests in the state. And -- bless his moralist heart -- no qualms at all about going full-tilt negative in a campaign.

His rep will be quite tarnished, though. The donnybrook provoked between the base groups and the DNC is a fight -- nasty as it's going to be -- that we Democrats need to have.

Best thing that could happen if he returns is that he alienates the DNC so hard he loses his committee positions ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 4, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Found it! Consider the books balanced, mrjb.

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'll bet you squealed with delight, didn't you? Find it on your own, or did you have help?

Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

What? You sound like you think I couldn't find my ass with both hands.

And I do not "squeal." I make small, dignified sounds of approval.

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK


SHORTSTOP: What? You sound like you think I couldn't find my ass with both hands. And I do not "squeal." I make small, dignified sounds of approval.

I wouldn't presume to speculate about how many hands it takes to find your ass. As to those sounds you make when it's found, doesn't that depend on whose hands have been conducting the search?


Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

As to those sounds you make when it's found, doesn't that depend on whose hands have been conducting the search?

This post alone is an argument for unbundling cable. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't watch whatever channel you got this from if you had to pay for it.

But you may be right. Just yesterday, some Republican (I could tell by his pants) "found" my ass on the downtown 6 train. Jerk. I had some very special sounds for him.

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK


Just yesterday, some Republican (I could tell by his pants) "found" my ass on the downtown 6 train. Jerk. I had some very special sounds for him.

After growling at him, I hope you didn't bite him too hard!


Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

God, no. Who knows where he's been?

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Well, before the downtown 6 train, I had been at a laundry in Chinatown where they gave me the wrong pants by mistake.

Posted by: jayarbee on July 4, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

I wish you could see the people next to me, who have given up watching Wimbledon and have frankly turned around in their seats to watch me laugh.

Posted by: shortstop on July 4, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

It is obvious to the meanest intelligence that Lieberman is out to split the democrats in order to help the republicans maintain control over the congress.

Posted by: George S Semsel on July 4, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly