FIRE THE BOOKER

MEET THE PRESS

This past Tuesday, the Democratic Party made history. In one fell swoop, the party of the people took back control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also did so without losing a single seat that was previously held by a Democrat, which is all but unheard of. And, in recognition of this most momentous occasion, our liberal press, in the form of Meet the Press, has scheduled exactly zero Democrats to appear.

Given the strong majority now enjoyed by the Democrats in the House, perhaps it might have been a good idea to interview someone like Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi or perhaps one of the candidates running for Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer or John Murtha. Think again. Equally frustrating is the fact that the election was viewed in many quarters as a repudiation of the Bush adminstration's running of the war in Iraq. With the fact of a Democratic Majority in the Congress and the anti-Iraq message sent, who does MtP choose to feature? None other than war supporter and minority party Republican John McCain and war supporter and non-Democrat Joe Lieberman.

I can think of no greater example of NOT having one's finger on the pulse of the public than these two bookings. Seriously, were there no Democrats willing to come on a discuss their plan for the direction of the 110th Congress? I understand that the mainstream media has an inexplicable hard-on for McCain (a erection not shared by most hard right Republicans), but what exactly does he truly have to offer in an interview? Aside from announcing his intentions to run for president in '08, having him on is a waste given that he is a member of the minority party and a supporter of a war policy that was widely repudiated by many Americans as they went to the polls last Tuesday. I suppose a case could be made for a Lieberman interview given his somewhat unique position in the Senate. It is not an interview that I would be interested in watching given that it will most likely be a retread of his statements in the past - namely a call for bipartisanship (though he obviously never misses a chance to practice said bipartisanship by jabbing at his mates among the Democrats) as he prances and preens at having snubbed his nose at the Democratic voters in Connecticut who decisively decided that he did not represent their interests any longer.

Overall, this is just a missed chance by our "liberal media" to feature the new majority's plans for America and instead choosing to partisans whose time in the limelight is quickly passing.

A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

BARACK OBAMA


As he continues to consider a run for president in 2008, one of the issues that has kept me from embracing Barack Obama has been his exceptionally close relationship with Democratic turncoat Joe Lieberman. Today he did something of a symbolic gesture (though he could certainly do more) by sending an email to his list of Connecticut supporters showing his support for the actual Democratic candidate for Connecticut, Ned Lamont. From Lamont's campaign website:

Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grassroots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election. He has a vision for his state and country, and his campaign has been about presenting that vision to Connecticut voters.

Ned Lamont and I share a commitment to bringing our troops home safely from Iraq, to achieving energy independence, to helping all our citizens realize the American dream, and to empowering the American people to reclaim their government. Ned Lamont’s campaign is about delivering on these goals in Washington.

The November 7th election is right around the corner. Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign.

http://www.nedlamont.com/downthestretch

We all watched Ned’s improbable primary victory two months ago. His campaign generated a record turnout that saw 30,000 new Democrats vote to change course at home and abroad.

Ned earned the Democratic Senate nomination through his hard work and clear message. And his victory paved the way for an entire crop of Democratic challengers to stand up and fight for the common good. Today the candidacies of Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy are integral to the Democrats’ strategy to regain the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

A majority of Connecticut Democrats supported Ned Lamont in the August primary. I hope they will see this impressive movement through to the end by volunteering their time with Ned in these next two weeks.

As I previously noted, he should definitely be doing more, given his very high profile and presidential aspirations, but this is definitely a positive turn of events for a man who I understands looks at himself as a Lieberman protege of sorts.
Given Lieberman's antics of late (as in calling Lamont a "goddam sonuva bitch" to his face after their debate earlier this week), one might wonder if Lieberman might take exception to his buddy Barack cozying up to the guy who actually won the Democratic primary. regardless, I'm glad that he took this step, and hope that he can be convinced to take that book tour of his through Connecticut sometime in the next 12 days.

TAKE A BREAK

And check out the great links at Discourse.net, He's got a passel of 'em. Here are just a couple.

Clinton (look, he's my hero!) campaigning for Sestak.

Sestak responding to attempts to swift boat him. How Weldon thinks he can even campaign against this guy is an example of Republican stupidity.

Speaking of stupidity, here's a great animation about our (too stupid to be) President and budpaul's favorite, Lieberman.

Finally, a very nice and really good song, America My Daddy Taught To Me.

SO, WHO'S RIGHT?

JOE LIEBERMAN


On Monday, a debate as held in Connecticut featuring the three candidates for Senate, GOP candidate Alan Schlesinger, Democratic nominee Ned Lamont and sore loser and all-around prick Joe Lieberman. Matt Stoller over at MyDD reports:

There is just no question that Alan Schlesinger won this debate, Lamont pretty much held his own, and Lieberman lost. Alan Schlesinger was funny, interesting, and passionate. He made compelling conservative arguments, and punctured the myth that Lieberman was a principled independent. Lamont held his own as a credible candidate, standing up to Joe's attacks. Lieberman was somewhat funny, but he couldn't defend his middle of the road mantra when Alan Schlesinger and Ned Lamont were pointing out that his record doesn't match his rhetoric.

Jane Hamsher at FDL concurs:

Lieberman thought he was going to look "bipartisan" standing in between Ned Lamont and Alan Schlessinger during the debate today but he just looked like a man without a country, crying because everyone was trying to steal his candy. While Joe was praising every Republican in sight (Jodi Rell, John McCain, Susan Collins — funny, no Democrats) Alan Schlessinger reminded him of all the boasting about what a "great liberal" the Lieberman4Lieberman candidate had done during the primary when his job security depended on trying to woo Democrats. When Lieberman tried to nail down the critical senior vote by lying about the fact that he had supported social security privatization, Lamont set the record straight. All Joe could do was whine that Ned was being mean to him, and when he thought he was scoring a master stroke by keeping score of how many times his thin skin got bruised, the audience openly booed him.

After reading these two knowledgable people's analyses I could not wait to head over to Bullmoose because I just knew Marshall Wittman wouldn't let me down. He didn't. The Moose is an unapologetic Lieberman fluffer and I just knew they he would paint a picture of a mighty Joe standing tall over his vanguished foes. And like I said, he didn't disappoint:

This afternoon, Joe Lieberman effectively and persuasively presented the case of the vital center. In contrast,his opponents dutifully delivered their predictable partisan talking points. They both appealed for the partisans on either side of the political spectrum to vote the party line.
But, only Joe showed by detailing specific accomplishments that he has the capacity to get things done for the state. It is striking how shrill the partisans of the left and the right can appear when they are attacking the vital center. Ironically, Negative Ned was clearly relying on the Republican candidate to drive down Joe's vote. He's that desperate.
The central message that Joe delivered was that country should come before party. That is a rather unique and refreshing theme in this most toxic political environment. And the Moose senses that, beyond all the noise and clutter of this election season, voters want to hear constructive cooperation before vituperative confrontation.
In short, Joe came across as the adult. And, when he returns to Washington, he will continue to be a leader of the Coalition of the Adults.

In short, this is my problem with Whitman (aside from the fact that, as evidenced by his first paragraph, Lieberman could be eating a plate of horseshit and Whitman would make it sound as if he were dining on a fine filet); he keeps speaking of Joe as if he is some sort of shining beacon of hope from the center of American politics who is going to lead the partisan heathens to a better place. What I see as the falacy about his constant carping of the "vital center" is that I'm not certain that a center even exists, much less whether it is even remotely vital in this day and age. In my mind, it seems that Whitman views politics like an Oreo cookie, with his "vital center" being the creamy white goodness. These days I view the politics-as-cookie metaphor more like a chocolate chip cookie - either you're the cookie or you're the chip. Everything else is just crumbs. You either support Bush's policies in Iraq or you do not. You either support rubberstamping Bush or you do not. You either support accountability and transparency in government or you do not.

It seems to me that Joe and, by extention Whitman, see themselves as the lone champions of crumbs and I suppose that they're welcome to them; I'm just not certain the crumbs are all that vital during this time in our nation's history.

TRAITOR JOE

JOE LIEBERMAN


As if we needed any further proof that Joe Lieberman has no interest in being a member of the Democratic Party look no further than an interview he did for a local paper in Connecticut. In the piece, he is asked if America would be better of with the Dems regaining control of the House. His response, from the Hartford Courant via TPM Cafe:

"Uh, I haven't thought about that enough to give an answer," Lieberman said, as though Democrats' strong prospects for recapturing the House hadn't been the fall's top political story.

Um, he hasn't thought about it enough? Is he kidding?! Seriously, there are just some questions that you should have automatic answers for - what sex are you? Are you married? Where did you grow up? Do you support your party in its quest to regain control of the House? This shouldn't be something that he needs to give deep thought to - either you support a return to accountability in government or you support the continued rubberstamping of your BFF, Bush.

I think that we all know the answer to this question, but the people who really need to consider the situation are the Connecticut Dems who still support Lieberman.

Joe Lieberman has made his decision on where he stands in regards to the Democratic Party; what will be theirs?

YES, IT MIGHT ACTUALLY KILL HIM

JOE LIEBERMAN

There goes holy Joe again. The man who took great pride in being the voice of morality against President Clinton's indiscretions now cannot find it within himself to question the morality of leaders who enabled a sexual predator. Instead of coming out on the right side of this and standing with his "fellow" Dems on this he once again shows his true colors. And not only will he not dare speak a cross word against the House leadership, but he must once again take a shot a Democrats because they are rightfully outraged that Republican leadership did nothing to stop former congressman Mark Foley.

Joe was on Imus recently and had this to say:

Obviously Foley had to go and he did go. Now to make it into a political question is wrong. Denny Hastert doesn't come to me for advice but if I were him I would tell them get somebody who people in both parties respect in there quickly, immediately.

Um, Joe? This is not a "political question". This is a question of whether House leadership knew (and they most certainly did) that Mark Foley was sexual predator and that they let him continue to hold a position of leadership in the House and that this same leadership felt it more important to protect their own political interests than to protect innocent children.

Joe, this is about accountability, something this Congress is not at all familiar with, if we are to go by the fact that they never actually hold anyone accountable for anything. And I know that the concept of accountability is pretty foreign to you given that voters in your state held you accountable for you unwavering support of Bush's folly in Iraq, yet you completely ignored them and chose to run anyway. Accountability means something in every level of life - personal, professional, political. Even a small child understands that if he breaks a vase, there will be consequences. He understands that he will be held accountable. Why is accountability such a difficult concept to grasp by those in the highest seats of power in this government?

KNEEL BEFORE JOEMENTUM

MARSHALL BULLMOOSE WHITMAN


The Bullshit Moose is at it again. And this time, it's pretty sickening. Based on a recent poll that shows Joe Lieberman up by 10 on Ned Lamont, the Moose has decided that it's time to genuflect before the beauty that is Joementum and kiss his ring. He had this to say:

Some Democrats who have shunned Joe or endorsed his opponent should have some second thoughts. Joe will return to the Senate next year as likely the most powerful Senator. Those donkeys who desire to be President of the United States should consider this - Joe better represents the electorate than over-hyped McGovernites with modems.

Can someone please go knock on this assclown's door and ask him why Joementum won't even mention Iraq anymore? Why it's next to impossible to actually have a position on the issue? Why he is against releasing the full NIE? Why Joe claimed to be for working towards ending the war before being against working to end the war? Why Joe claims that it doesn't matter what the National Intelligence Estimate says since will not change his wrongheaded position on Iraq?
And why is the moose harping on one poll. The one he refers to is from Quinnipiac and it does in fact show Lieberman leading 49-39. I wanted to check back and see if Quinnipiac might have been an outlier in the past and sure enough, there's have some of the largest margins seen in any recent polls. Going back to August 18, Quinnipiac had Lieberman up 53-41; go back to before the primary on July 18th (three weeks before the primary) and the lead was 51-27. Three weeks before a primary that Lamont won and Quinnipiac had Joe up by 24%?! And we're supposed to take this seriously.
Besides, how come the Moose isn't crowing about Joe's enormous leads in some other recent polls, like a Zogby Interactive that has Joe leading 46-44, or an ARG poll showing Joe with a 47-45 lead, or a Rasmussen poll that has Joe leading 45-43? All three of these polls were taken within the last few weeks and all show Joe with a statistically insignificant "lead" yet Moosey uses the outlier as proof that Joementum is back and it's better than ever!
You know, I just don't get the Moose. I used to dig reading him sometimes. His was a witty and fun little read each day. But now he's just so far gone with his support of Lieberman that it's a shame where he's at now. Maybe he should pull his moose head out of his moose ass and realize that Joementum shouldn't be the guy to blow all your credibility on.

REACHAROUNDS

MARSHALL "BULLMOOSE" WHITMAN


The Bullmoose was at it again, felating his favorite former Democratic senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, while also expending a little tongue action on his Republican of choice, John McCain. Why all the icky manlove? Well, Bullmoose decided to pen a little piece entitled "Courage" in which he "applauds politicians who sail against the wind", in this case, McCain and Lieberman. He gives Joe a few strokes for standing against the tide of the crazy lefty bloggers (and a majority of the American population) who called Joe on his support of Bush's insane Iraq policies. He then pumped on McCain's chubby a bit by siting his fight against the Bush torture push.
Here's the rub, so to speak. Joe has not mentioned Iraq, nor has he even come close to commenting on Iraq over the last few weeks. He's mum, won't say a word. He gave a freaking foreign policy speech earlier in the week and the word "Iraq" did not depart his mouth the entire time. Then there's McCain, who's principles are so strong that he folded like a tent this past Thursday on the torture issue. Like always, McCain pushed the "Maverick" narrative only so long as it didn't actually obstruct Bush's plans.
After finishing this disgusting display, Bullmoose wipes the spittle from his mouth with these final words: "Joe Lieberman and John McCain serve as role models for all politicians. There is far too much pandering and timidity in American politics. We need leaders with gumption and guts. Like John and Joe." Yes, leaders who so principled that they are afraid to talk about Iraq and leaders with such gumption that they won't stand up to Bush's call to torture, torture early and torture often. With leaders like that, who needs enemies?

IT'S THE ADVERTISING, STUPID!

JOE LIEBERMAN


I know, I know, it's bad form to beat up on Lieberman two posts in a row. I just wanted to make a quick note on something - campaign ads.
I've enjoyed the hell out of Ned Lamont's two recent ads, Yanks/Sox and Turncoat. I think that they're both fresh, smart, cool, non-wonky (no citing obscure legislation in tiny print) and just plain fun. If you haven't seen them, I highly recommend doing so. Both the links above go to YouTube, so go check them out.
Then, we come to Joe Lieberman's latest ad, Blackboard. Shorter me: LAME! Wow, just so lame. It basically had the same tired feel that I get from most campaign ads. This thing was the exact opposite of Lamont's. I guess that you should go and see just to see what I'm talking about but it's just a dumb premise. Voiceover starts with just a chalkboard with "Democrats" written on one side and "Republicans" on the other and then there's a line in between them. Then Joe enters the scene and proceeds to erase the line and blather on about what a great guy he is because he's always reaches across party lines. The tag at the end is "... I approve this message because it's about people, not politics." How he actually said that with a staight face is beyond me. And if Joe was being completely honest in the commercial, he probably should have also erased the word "Democrat" as well and put a big circle and a smiley face and hearts and flowers around "Republican". But then, that would probably not fit into the 30-second spot.

One other note - won't be much blogging today from me as my agenda is packed. Aside from regular work stuff and an inordinate amount of driving, I'm also meeting with an official at a local university about enrolling in graduate school. I've been out of school for almost ten years so it's all quite daunting at this point, but hopefully by the end of the day I'll have a better idea of where I stand. I'll blog all about it later. Thanks for coming by.

WAAAAGGGHHHHH!!!! NED'S PICKING ON ME AGAIN!!!

JOE LIEBERMAN


Joe Lieberman does not like the taste of his own medicine. Back when he first ran for the Senate back in 1988, he faced incumbent Lowell Weicker. Joe used a line of attack against Weicker that called him on his lack of votes while in the Senate. Basically, Joe was calling Lowell on not doing his job, and it obviously had an effect because Joe won the seat that year.
Now, fast forward eighteen years. Democratic candidate Ned Lamont is calling out Joe for missing many votes during his last few years in the Senate. After all, Joe did take an awful lot of time out of his Senate schedule to campaign for vice president as well as president over the last seven years. And let's not forget the any number of fundraisers that Joe's attended through the years.
Joe's response: he's fightin' mad, dagnabit! So Joe went digging through the records of when Ned was an unpaid city councilman and he missed six votes. So, to Joe, it's basically the same thing to miss votes on a city council as it is to miss votes in the United States Senate, a position that pays a $160,000 a year salary. Did I mention that the city council position is unpaid and Ned was simultaneously running a full-time business, whereas in Joe's position, it's his job to vote, having no other outside interests to deal with? Yeah, that's about the same.
I may be stretching an analogy a bit here, but isn't that sort of like finding out that your wife kissed a boy on the lips back when she was nine as compared to finding out that your wife banged another guy at her bachelorette party? Maybe it's a reach, but it's no worse than what Joe's trying to pull.

(Hat tip David Sirota via Daily Kos.)

KEYSTONE CAMPAIGNING

JOE LIEBERMAN


Joe Lieberman has had something of a busy week, or rather his surrogates have been out digging holes for the erstwhile Connecticut for Lieberman candidate for the Senate.
Earlier this week, former president Jimmy Carter called out Lieberman for implying that those who are against Bush's policies in Iraq were supporting the terrorists. Carter: "He’s joined in with the Republican spokespersons by saying that Democrats who disagree are really supporting terrorism. So for all these reasons I’ve lost my confidence in Joe Lieberman and don’t wish to see him re-elected."
Naturally, the Lieberman camp attempts to deny it, in the form of spokesperson Tammy Sun, who said, "[I]t is entirely false to suggest that Joe Lieberman in any way equated dissent about the war with supporting terrorists."
But of course, anyone with half a brain and a google search engine can easily find at least one instance where Lieberman has said just that: "If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

Not wanting to be outdone, the total trainwreck and Lieberman communications director known as Dan Gerstein, who has set out to attack Ned Lamont because ... he volunteers to teach part time at inner city schools? From Gerstein: "The reality is Ned Lamont has trouble with the truth. Ned Lamont has loudly and widely trumpeted his credentials as an educator and in doing so has unequivocally given people the impression that he is currently a teacher in the Bridgeport public schools. Since Mr. Lamont is touting this credential, there are legitimate questions," Gerstein said.
Actually, from the very beginning, Lamont has been completely upfront on this. He has never once claimed to being a teacher in the Bridgeport public schools. This just a pointless attack that, like Sun's stupidity, is easily verifiable and shot down. Lamont has always contended that he volunteered part time to help with a business class. Honestly, and this is just my opinion, volunteering sounds better to me anyway. Why would the Leiberman camp make an issue of this? All it really stands to do is highlight that Lamont volunteered at an inner city school. He volunteered, as in he didn't have to do it. But he chose to help his community by volunteering his time for a good cause. When's the last time Lieberman volunteered for anything? From what I understand, many people in Connecticut feel that Lieberman has barely spent any amount of time in the state the past six or so years, which is probably why he's in this electoral pickle he finds himself in anyway.
I sort of wonder if there's ever been a major campaign run by such absolute imbeciles. I can see what they're trying to do here to Lamont - they're attempting to define him as someone who is untruthful and associates with others who are untruthful. It's just that these guys are so inept at developing a narrative on Lamont that they seem to be tripping over themselves to say the next dumb thing that hurts their candidate. Not that Lieberman needs any help when it comes to saying dumb things, or course.

I'm sure that if some reporter actually calls the Joe Camp on these outright lies and misrepresentations, he'll spin it that the evil bloggers are being mean to him, just like they were when they shut down his website and cost him a primary victory. Remember, in the event of being called on one lie, say an even bigger lie. It distracts the sheeple.

DAMN THE PARTY!

JOE LIEBERMAN


Man, it seems like I can't go a day without slapping Joe around for something. Yesteday, Fox News was doing a piece on the negative impact on the Democratic Party that Lieberman is having because of his decision to continue running for Senate after being defeated in the primary by Ned Lamont.
Specifically, Joe will most likely have an adverse affect on the three Dem candidates who are running against weakened incumbent Republicans. Fox was able to ask Joe directly if his independent run will help the GOP candidates. Joe's arrogant response to this?

"Well, they should have thought of that before they had the primary."

To which I respond, "Whaaaa?" So Joe is basically taking revenge on the Democratic voters in his state because they didn't vote for him in the primary? Is he also seeking retribution against the party itself because most national Democrats respected the vote of the people in their selection of Lamont as the Democratic candidate in the primary? Or is it even worse than that - is he angry that he was even forced to participate in a primary process? Perhaps Lieberman believes that an incumbent like himself shouldn't ever have to answer to his constiuents. Am I the only one who thinks that his statement is basically the equivalent of a small child throwing a tantrum we they don't get their favorite toy?
A statement like what Lieberman said yesterday should be the final straw with Democratic leadership. In no uncertain terms, Minority Leader Harry Reid should state that Joe Lieberman is no longer welcome in the Democratic Party, meaning no seniority and no committee assignments. His actions have demonstrated that he wants nothing more than to sabotage the party at every available opportunity. Statements like yesterday's comment clearly illustrates that Joe is about Joe. His arrogance and petulance have earned him a one-way ticket out of the party.

READING CHENEY'S PLAYBOOK?

JOE LIEBERMAN


Wow. This one has got to be seen to be believed.
A few weeks ago, Dick Cheney committed two errors. The first was that he commented on a northeast state's party primary, namely the Connecticut Democratic primary. People in his position have no business offering comment on a local matter. Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but I just thought that it was improper to say anything. The second offense? What was said in that comment, namely that al Qaida types were really digging that Ned Lamont defeated incumbent Joe Lieberman based mostly on Joe's wrongheaded support for Bush's costly and poorly executed war in Iraq. The inference was that a vote for Ned was a vote for al Qaida. But, then we all know that Dick has no shame or morals or a soul for that matter, so this sort of statement shouldn't have been that shocking. [Original quote via Think Progress.]
On August 20, John Kerry was on This Week, where he accused Joe of "adopting the rhetoric of Dick Cheney," on the issue of Iraq. I think Senator Kerry hit the nail on the head with that one. Why? Take a gander at this photo:

While I will readily admit that I have no concrete proof that this guy is in fact employed by Joe Lieberman, Jane Hamsher over at Firedoglake seemed to have a firm grasp on the subject when she wrote "Now, I can’t say for sure if Lieberman is paying this guy to make this sick and truly despicable joke. But, in my experience, nearly all the people who show up on behalf of Lieberman not named Lieberman are collecting a paycheck for it." [Quick shoutout for one of the commenters at Ned Lamont's blog, ShermanDem, who wrote this about the above photo: "I’m confused. Why is a Shepard from last year’s Christmas Pageant touting Lamont a big deal? I just want to know if the Pageant organizers know the costume is missing? Where is his shepard’s crook? Seriously, who the hell is he supposed to be? A retro Islamo-fascist?" I thought the same thing when I first saw the photo, but he wrote it way funnier than I thought it so he gets the mention.]

It's truly frightening how wholeheartedly Joe Lieberman has embraced the Republican Party election playbook. He's gone from the Vice Presidential nominee for his party in 2000 to this year's version of Zell Miller (anyone wanna bet that he'll be speaking at the GOP Convention in '08?). And the irony of it all is he would most likely be Vice President right now if he had shown this much drive and tenacity when debating Cheney or during the Battle for Florida during the 36 day recount and legal battle.

DIGGING A DEEPER HOLE ... TO THE GOP?

JOE LIEBERMAN


I made mention of this in the FIVE WORST PEOPLE OF THE WEEK below, but I just thought it deserved a fuller rundown by me. (Thanks to New Haven Independent via ConnecticutBLOG.)

Lieberman -- who after losing an Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont has launched a third-party bid to hold onto his seat in the Nov. 7 general election -- was asked whether he still endorses Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy, three Democrats looking to unseat endangered Republican incumbents Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson.
...
The comment was significant because analysts from both major parties believe that Lieberman's campaign could help the three Republicans keep their jobs in the face of tough challenges. Lieberman's strongest support -- 75 percent in the most recent Quinnipiac poll -- comes from Republicans. If he succeeds in drawing more Republican voters to the polls to support his candidacy, that could help the Republican Congressional candidates. Those three races are considered among the 10 most competitive Congressional races in the country; both parties consider the races key to deciding which party controls the House in 2007. National Republican strategists and donors have come forward to help Lieberman's campaign; party leaders have abandoned the nominal Republican in the Senate race, Alan Schlesinger. Prominent Republicans like Shays and former Republican House leader Newt Gingrich have endorsed Lieberman.

Look, Lieberman's gotta know that he's flat out hurting Dems at this point, doesn't he? Seriously, is he that dumb and blind or is there something else to it? Is he doing this because he's trying to be the stern father figure who's teaching naughty children a lesson? Sort of like, "If I have to tear down the Democratic Party to its foundations in order to fix it, then that's what I'll do. 'Let justice be done though the heavens fall!'" Is that his game?
Actually, I think it's a third option. Basically, I believe that he's made up his mind to join the Republican Party or at least caucus with them as an independent (or CTfL member) much like Jim Jeffords (I-VT) did with the Democrats when he left the GOP in June 2001. With this being the case, it would serve no purpose to support any Democratic efforts to retake Congress, including supporting the aforementioned Farrell, Courtney and Murphy. One other thing he said makes me firmly believe that caucasing with the GOP is exactly what Joe intends to do:

Lieberman laughed Friday when asked if he was endorsing the three Republican Congressional candidates instead. He subsequently said they hadn't asked for his endorsement.

Logically, the next question the reporter should have asked was that if the three Republican Congressional candidates asked for your endorsement, then would you give it? If he refused to answer, then my next three calls would be to the three GOP candidates (Shays, Simmons and Johnson) to ask them if they intended to ask Joe for his endorsement? Given that Joe's strongest support comes from Republicans (75% in the most recent Q-Poll), one would assume that the three GOP candidates would benefit from a pat on the back from ole Joe.
Given this scenario, the only way that I can see him dropping out the race is if there is a significant drop in his Democratic support in the next few polls, a trend that may already be underway according to Rassmussen and ARG. "Playing Switzerland" by not endorsing the three Dem candidates for the House could assist in lowering Joe's unfavorables among Dem voters. And if those "miracles" continue to happen in Iraq over the next 70+ days, I would suspect that his support for Bush's policies in the region will certainly have a negative impact. To be continued. ...

SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL?

JOE LIEBERMAN


Shorter Joe Lieberman to Glenn Beck: You're my hero!

...Sigh... Joe... I'm almost speechless. I... I just don't get what you're doing here. After your primary DEFEAT to Ned Lamont you've criss-crossed your state (which really isn't that big of a deal; c'mon it's Connecticut, not Montana) lamenting how "your opponent" unfairly painted you during the leadup to the primary. To paraphrase, "Waaaaagh, Ned keeps saying I'm Bush's lapdog. And just because I agree with him on the most important issue this election season does not make it so!" Okay, so you're trying to position yourself as a strong liberal, and your voting record, of which you continually inform us, is somewhere around 90%, which means that you're super awesome and all Dems should love you and not "your opponent." Except the latest ARG poll has Lamont with a 65% to 30% lead over you with Democrats.Then you go and pull a stunt like appearing on one of the most dreadful rightwing talk shows currently being broadcast through our smoggy air, The Glenn Beck Show. "But wait!" my faithful readers might exclaim, "maybe he's going on Beck's show to debate him and really put his liberal chops on display." To which I would be forced to reply, "Uh, no."
See, Joe spent the balance of his time with Beck looking strangely like a demented bobblehead doll, nodding up and down, regardless of what was actually said. For some excerpts, I gratefully acknowledge Election Central over at TPM Campaign for compiling them:

BECK: I am so afraid that we are going to see Lebanon fall into the hands totally of Hezbollah...that you're gonna start to see Iran come into Iraq. The entire Middle East is gonna be on fire. And we are going to find ourselves like Ray Nagin found himself with buses in a parking lot.LIEBERMAN: Yeah. BECK:Why is it there aren't more politicians saying, Guys, this is World War III. We are in deep trouble.LIEBERMAN: Yeah, I mean, I don't know the answer to that ...Everything you just said about the Middle East is right....If we walk away [from Iraq], then the Iranians will as sure as I'm talking to you surge into Iraq, certainly take over the south and all the oil that's there....We'll have 200-dollar barrel oil, we'll be paying six or seven bucks a gallon. And that'll just be the tip of it. I mean, there'll be instability and war throughout the Middle East. We've got to wake up to this....
BECK: I've been saying this before we even went into Iraq, that we're trying to change the face of the Middle East. The weapons of mass destruction was a nice side benefit. We were trying to go and pop the head of the snake in Iran. That's what we were trying to do. And I don't think anybody had the courage or could actually come out and say that with world politics the way they are.LIEBERMAN: Well, you're right. And I think if I fault the administration foranything before the war -- 'cause I think we did the right thing in going in to overthrow Saddam -- it's that they oversold the WMD part of the argument....
BECK: I have said before we went in that we are sitting at 1939, right before World War II, that some were engaged in this but most of the world was in denial in 1939. I think this Hezbollah peace treaty is our Chamberlain moment and 1941 is right around the corner.LIEBERMAN: Well, there are very, very severe echoes of all that. I agree...
BECK: I really truly believe the West is over if we do not win this conflict.LIEBERMAN: Yeah, yeah, I agree. And it's gonna be a long one...
LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Glenn. We are proud of you, friend. Keep on going.

I just don't get what he's trying to accomplish here, particularly with that last statement. Look, Lieberman is already polling strong with Republicans, as I again refer you to the aforementioned ARG poll. Lieberman leads Lamont 57% to 18%, which already shows that he's got a strong GOP base to pull votes from. So why the blatant pandering by showing up on Beck? The only thing an appearance like that will do is hurt him among Dems and, more importantly, among independents. Joe currently holds a 10 point lead over Lamont among these independent voters (48% to 38%), but I would expect that lead to evaporate if Joe keeps showing up on shows like Beck's and then spends the better part of 20 minutes fellating the him.
And what the hell is this "we are proud of you" crap? Personally, I'd just as soon spit on the guy than shake his hand. Beck after all is the amoeba who has referred to Katrina victims as "scumbags" and Cindy Sheehan as "one big prostitute." Oh, and he "hates" 9-11 families. Showing up on Beck plays directly into the Lamont campaign's hands. Examples of this scumbag's rhetoric can be found here and here, and of course, you can catch him every night on CNN Headline News! Thanks, CNN!
From the standpoint that I am a big Joe basher, this stuff is gold, but for a guy who's hanging on by a thread in an egotistical effort to hold onto his seat in the Senate, the move just makes no sense. Welcome to Joementum 2006.

MOVING ON ... DOWN?

JOE LIEBERMAN


I'm not sure about anyone else, but I know that I was a little disheartened a couple of days after Ned Lamont's victory over incumbent Joe Lieberman as early polling by Quinnipiac showed that Lieberman held a solid double digit lead over Lamont and Republican nominee Alan Schlesinger. I thought that all the hard work that the Lamont people had done would surely be for naught as Lieberman would be able to hold onto most of his supporters from the primary and snag quite a few Republican votes away from the hapless Schlesinger. The numbers showed Lieberman up 53% to Lamont's 41%, a sizable margin for an inexperienced politician like Lamont to overcome.
Based on some recent polling however, I suppose my somewhat defeatist attitude* might have been a little premature.
*A quick note on that defeatist attitude of mine. Please forgive me - I'm a New Orleans Saints fan. As such, we are raised to expect the worst to happen at the most inopportune time. History has borne this out more often than not. It's terrible way to go through life, I know, but being a Saints fan means that one must become a student of the law, as in Murphy's Law. Seriously, I don't know how many sports fans read this blog, so I won't dwell too long on it, but the Saints were able to sign a guy by the name of Reggie Bush this past offseason. They guy is amazing. He's electric. He's being touted as one of the best players to enter the league in years. And all that I can do when I'm watching a Saints game is wonder if he's going to break his leg on the very next play. Sick, I know, but that's how Saints fans operate. But I digress... .
So anyway, two polls released today have pepped me up, one from Rasmussen and one from ARG. The Rasmussen poll has Lieberman with only a two-point lead, 45% to 43% (which demonstrates a net gain for Lamont of 3 points over a two-week period). Not a whole lot of movement, but ARG's poll seems to back up the spread as Lieberman leads Lamont 44% to 42%.
It seems that as Lieberman positions himself in an effort to gain support from the Right, while still claiming that he's a super duper Liberal, more and more Democrats are being turned off by him. If the numbers continue to to trend in this direction perhaps it's not such a pipe dream to hope that Lieberman might actually come to his senses and drop out (thereby clearing the way to get that juicy Secretary of Defense position I keep hearing about...). Right after the primary, I thought that Joe might go on until mid-September before packing it in, and maybe that prognostication isn't that far off. Maybe things will work out for the best and Joe Lieberman will drop out and Reggie Bush won't break his leg. All I ask for is your forgiveness if I sometimes expect the worst. Being a Saints fan will do that to you.

MOVIN' ON UP

JOE LIEBERMAN

You just can't keep a good man down, and though his latest offenses aren't enough to warrant his third trip to the top slot (it's gonna be tough to beat Hugh Hewitt's condescension), a couple of points he made today on Face the Nation sort of stuck in my craw. Via Reuters:

"I've been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004 about the failure to send enough American troops to secure the country," [Lieberman]said.
But he said there would be all-out civil war and a "disaster we pay for a generation" if Washington sets a deadline for a troop withdrawal from Iraq, a call that helped his Democrat rival Ned Lamont win the primary vote.
"The position that my opponent and others take to set a deadline by which we will get out is the surest way to get to a civil war, which would be dangerous for our troops, a disaster for Iraq, the Middle East and for the United States of America."
He said the president and Congress may need to consider a troop withdrawal in the event of "all-out" civil war in Iraq.

So, he was critical "particularly in 2003 and 2004" when he just happened to be running for president. If he was such a critic of Bush's policies in Iraq, why not make mention of all the times you questioned his policies in '05 and '06, huh?
"There would be all-out civil war and a 'disaster we pay for a generation' if Washington sets a deadline for troop withdrawal," except we already have a civil war going on (and the mainstream media, no longer sidetracked by the Israeli/Hezbollah fracas, has finally started to focus in on this fact) and the disaster is already going to cost future generations, if for no other reason than what this war monetarily costs on a daily basis (currently estimated at $195 million a day according to the Democrats.org website), though Bush seems blissfully unaware of this cost as he continues his tax cuts on top of tax cuts, of course.
As for the final statement, about the president and Congress needing to consider a troop withdrawal in the event of "all-out civil war in Iraq," well, I think it's about time we consider it since that's what is going on! Yet, we cannot consider it because to do so would be to question the authority of the president at our own peril or some other such nonsense.
Perhaps we should come to Lieberman from time to time in the future and ask him if he feels Iraq has crossed over into "civil war" territory. Dems are often accused to jamming their heads in the sand as they refuse to make the tough choices in this "post-9/11" world, but I'm starting to think of Lieberman as the head ostrich, blissfully unaware of what a disaster Iraq has become. Maybe he has a "pre-Iraq civil war" mindset.

UPDATED TOP TEN:
1. Hugh Hewitt
2. JOE LIEBERMAN (+2)
3. John McCain (-1)
4. Orrin Hatch (-1)
5. George Felix Allen Jr.
6. Redstate.com
7. Dick Cheney
8. Rick Santorum
9. Carl Romanelli
10 Katherine Harris

BACK ON TOP:

JOE LIEBERMAN

C'mon, you knew it wouldn't be long before Sore Loserman made his way back up top. Why this time? I've got only one question for you - can you smell the hypocrisy? Because if you can, then it probably means that you're standing a little to close to Joeyboy. "Hypocrisy, you say? Where would such a charge come from?" Actually Joseph must be having a special on hypocrisy today, namely two for the price of one. First offense: Joe doesn't like the Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have supported the WINNER of the Democratic Primary in Connecticut earlier this month, Ned Lamont. He hates their freedom to choose whom they wish to support so much that Dan Gerstein, the Lieberman Campaign's communications director referred to Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson as "two of the more divisive and problematic figures in the Democratic Party." Where's the hypocrisy? How about this (via Joe Conason over at Salon.com) -

Not so long ago, he liked to talk about his warm conversation with Jackson on the day that he became a major party's first Jewish vice presidential nominee, his eyes moist and his voice emotional as he recalled Jackson saying "something that went to my heart" about breaking down barriers for everyone. Not so long ago, he called Sharpton his "dear friend" and "brother" during the Democratic presidential primary debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and Fox News.

So, when you're with Joe, you're a dear friend and brother and someone you can share emotional moments with, but when you're against Joe, you're divisive and problematic. Everybody got that?

Offense #2: Apparently the Lieberman camp took issue with Mr. Lamont's hiring of a Mr. Tom D'Amore, a former GOP operative turned Independent. Mr. D'Amore was hired to coordinate campaign strategy for the Lamont campaign back in March of this year, and judging by the results, I'd say it was a good hire. Hypocrisy check? Lieberman just hired a pollster by the name of Neil Newhouse, who has certainly does his share of working for the GOP; in fact, his company "polls for more GOP candidates than any other firm" (via The Hill by way of TPM Cafe), including such party luminaries as Gov. Jeb Bush, Gov. Mitt Romney, Senator Rick Santorum and Senator Pat Roberts.

So, Lamont hires someone who formerly worked for Republicans (and is now a registered Independent [with a capital "I", not a fake small "i" like Joe sort of has] and that's cause for alarm and handwringing by The Joe. But, Joe hires a guy who currently works for Republicans and that's a-okay in his book.

Ah, smell the hypocrisy! Joe, make the earth a better place and drop off of it.

UPDATED TOP TEN LIST:

1. Joe Lieberman - see, I knew he'd get back up top.

2. Redstate.com - yep, they made a big move up - more coming soon....

3. Rick "I Love My Dog/I Hate My Dog" Santorum

4. Carl Romanelli - perhaps some clothes shopping and campaign photos are in order to get you out of the classy grey suit, green shirt and white tie. Just a thought.

5. Katherine Harris - latest news: trees did not fall on airplane hanger, but one should fall on her campaign to put her out of misery.

6. George Felix Allen Jr. - Anyone up for a steaming bowl of "MACACA!"

7. Judge Anna "Rule of Law" Diggs Taylor

8. Tramm Howard - all's quiet on the "Blacks don't swim well" front.

9. Cheney - he's out campaigning hard up in the northwest. If I've got the stomach, I may give him some dap later on and move him up some spots.

Let's get this party started, boys and girls. We'll start with the Big Three:



Mr. Macaca himself, George Felix Allen Jr.
Whether it's the fact that he called an opponent's videographer what is most like a derogatory slur, the fact that he gives backhanded and qualified apologies or the fact that the explanation for the faux pas keeps changing by the hour, this tool is awarded the top slot this afternoon (unless someone else comes along).






Tricky Dick Cheney:
and it's for something that's actually been bugging me over the last few days. When Ned Lamont secured the Democratic nomination for Senate in Connecticut a couple of weeks ago, I thought in passing the back of my head, "Huh, I wonder what those tools in the White House think of that," and then immediately figured that I'd never know since it would be totally inappropriate for a Republican administration to comment on a Democratic Primary. Oops, my bad. Silly me, what was I thinking.


(Soon to be former) Senator Joe Lieberman (cfl-CT)
Alright, this guy's on the list until he drops out of his one-man party ego trip.
Let it go, Joe!