He couldn't draw that conclusion from my words. He put words in my mouth that he wanted spoken. I'm not disputing anything Batman said; it's just that I didn't say it nor did I intend to say it and I don't think he should be trying to say it for me... while implying that I said it.
You are the slipperiest dude ever, giddyup. You said Lamont was going to shake up his staff such that they would be more moderate. I said not only is Lamont moderate as hell but I defy you to say how he isn't. You said, I'm just talking about his staff. When you infer he isn't moderate and I challenge you to say how - on even one issue - and you say I'm not talking about him, I'm talking about his staff... How am I putting words in your mouth to say you acknowledge he's a moderate? And, if I am, here I am asking you: Do you think Lamont is a moderate? And, if you don't, please provide for me just ONE issue on which he is out of line with the feelings of the constituents he would represent if he won. If you can't do that, please acknowledge that, according to Connecticut voters he is not only a moderate but he is also way more moderate than the radical Joe Lieberman. And please acknowledge that your polite support for Lieberman is borne of the fact that he represents increasingly marginalized Republican positions as do you.
Here is your remark that I'm distancing myself from: I never said word one about Lamont. I only made remarks about his staff. I did not imply that Lamont was or was not a moderate. The entirety of my commenet was about his campaign staff, yet you insist on having it bleed over onto Lamont himself. I never acknowledged that Lamont is or is not a moderate. I never addressed it period. And you call me slippery?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Lieberman is ahead in the polls. If Lieberman wins, will he be welcomed back into the Democratic Party fold? Will be bear a grudge? I don't have any idea....just asking.
Yes. You are hella slippery. It's your main characteristic next to your weirdness. Of course you implied Lamont wasn't a moderate because you think he isn't a moderate. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong by acknowledging that he is one. Or feel free to dodge the question again for whatever weird reason though I really can't imagine why it's such a scary question.
Are you stupid or stubborn or both? I never uttered one word about Lamont himself-- only someone's apprisal of his campaign staff. It was not my intent to utter a single word about Lamont. I'm going to further withold my opinion of Lamont just to piss you off...
Even that recent Q-poll was taken before CT Democrats understood that Lieberman was the GOP candidate. He has endorsements or virtual endorsements from Bush, Rove, Snow, Hannity, Coulter and the state and national GOP. He recently hired a GOP pollster who also polls for GOP candidates in down ballot congressional races that are key to Dem hopes for retaking the House -- Lieberman will pay for polls that will be shared with those GOP candidates, doing grave damage to a Dem House takeover. Further, since the majority of his support in this race is coming from Republicans and the majority of his opponent's support is coming from Democrats, his GOTV machine will be focused on turning out more R's than D's on election day, further aiding the GOP in those crucial down ballot races. Furthermore, and worst of all, he is also running on the basic campaign theme that Democrats are bad for national security -- the exact Cheney/Rove theme that the GOP has been winning by lying about since 9/11 changed everything. LIEBERMAN IS NOT A DEMOCRAT AND HE IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT. HE IS A REPUBLICAN. Will he be welcomed back if he wins? Hell no. Not ever.
Batman, I don't usually start the cheap-shots, but I'm not above delivering them once the gloves are off. You pop-in and start insulting and name-calling. It's tiresome. Civility was gone when you appeared.
As Batman pointed out, Lieberman is essentially running as the GOP candidate. I don't think he wants to, but that's how it's playing out. If Lieberman came out strongly against the host of Bush policies, failures, trampling of the Constitution, demonizing of Democrats regarding national security, apologized forcefully for comments he made about Democrats who had the audacity to disagree with Bush and the nightmare in Iraq, and denounced the RNC, the campaign tactics of Rove, the utterances of Cheney and Bush which are out and out lies... if Lieberman did that, did a real mea culpa, begging forgiveness for turning his back on the judgment of his own party, and he still ended up winning the race as an "independent," then maybe, just maybe people like me could attempt to think about forgiving him. He is harming his own party. Unlike Batman, I still see Lieberman as a Democrat, but he is harming his party, being divisive when unity is needed to regain Congress, and is presenting a distraction that benefits the GOP when it is a crucial time for the political party he claims to love so much, as well as the country that I don't doubt his love for. In my opinion, he's still going to lose, but if he did all that and managed to win, I would be willing to give him another chance. Keep D&D Civil.
Whoa -- you ran a Republican for VP? All kidding aside, if he wins, I think all will be forgiven without any bowing or scraping, which Deckard feels will be required. I deduce this because Demos will want his vote on party line fights. I don't know that. That is just my gut hunch coupled with sheer pragmatism. However, do you think he will forgive the Democratic Party for "dumping" him or become a Republican? Afterall, historically he has a 90% party line voting record. And remember, he is Jewish. Did he feel compelled to vote favorably to that camp on Mideast issues?
Yes, at least bowing and scraping. Even that may not be enough from where I sit. I don't find what Lieberman is doing amusing. I think he is betraying the political party he has been a member of for decades, out of ego, not for some altruistic reason. You can say he's being "punished," somehow for his stand on Iraq, but that is not my problem with him at all. Just as Green Party candidate Ralph Nadir contributed mightily to Gore's defeat in 2000, which directly led to the nightmare we are in today, so is Lieberman contributing to making Democratic victory in the Fall, which is certainly important to me, and far more important for the country, more difficult, and singlehandedly creating a classic wedge issue for Rove to use running up to the elections. August 19, 2006 G.O.P. Deserts One of Its Own for Lieberman By ANNE E. KORNBLUT Facing Senator Joseph I. Lieberman’s independent candidacy, Republican officials at the state and national level have made the extraordinary decision to abandon their official candidate, and some are actively working to help Mr. Lieberman win in November. Despite Mr. Lieberman’s position that he will continue to caucus with Democrats if re-elected, all three Republican Congressional candidates in Connecticut have praised Mr. Lieberman and have not endorsed the party’s nominee, Alan Schlesinger. An independent group with Republican ties is raising money for Mr. Lieberman, who has been a strong supporter of President Bush on the Iraq war. Senator John McCain of Arizona, while saying he would support the Republican nominee, is not planning to campaign for him, and even allowed two of his aides to consult with the Lieberman camp before the Aug. 8 Democratic primary. And Newt Gingrich, the Republican who once served as House speaker, has endorsed Mr. Lieberman’s candidacy. While some Republicans are quietly rooting for his Democratic opponent, Ned Lamont, because they feel he would be such a polarizing liberal target, many leading Republicans say it would serve the party better to have a centrist like Mr. Lieberman remain in office, particularly after being spurned by his own party. But one thing is clear: there is little to no talk of bolstering Mr. Schlesinger, 48, the Republican nominee, a little-known former mayor of Derby who has registered polling numbers so low they are breaking records. Little known throughout the state, Mr. Schlesinger received attention this summer following reports in The Hartford Courant that he had gambled under a fake name and once had gambling debts. He has dismissed the accounts as irrelevant. Mr. Schlesinger has reacted bitterly to the rejection by his own party, dismissing calls for him to leave the race. He maintains he can win by conveying his conservative platform to voters. “Washington and the media have attempted to hijack this election and turn it into a referendum on the future of the national Democratic Party,” Mr. Schlesinger said in an interview on Friday. “Their interest is not in electing a Republican in Connecticut, or anyone in particular in Connecticut.” Republican doubts about Mr. Schlesinger were crystallized when the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, pointedly refused on Monday to say the White House would endorse him. Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee — whose job is to champion Republican candidates everywhere — pledged to “stay out of this one.” All the major national Republican groups are withholding their fund-raising and organizational support for Mr. Schlesinger, creating a vacuum for Mr. Lieberman, as the centrist in the race, to fill. “The right thing for people who believe the world is deeply dangerous is to re-elect Lieberman,” Mr. Gingrich said. That is especially true, he said, because “the Republican Party’s own candidate does not have any possibility of winning.” Initially, in the days after Mr. Lamont’s victory, Republican officials had feelers out for a stronger Republican candidate than Mr. Schlesinger, according to strategists with close ties to the party and the White House. One strategist said the fear was that a hard-fought race between Mr. Lamont and Mr. Lieberman would spur Democratic turnout, which in turn, he said, could harm vulnerable Republicans in the state, like Representatives Christopher Shays and Rob Simmons. While Republicans were always pessimistic about finding a replacement who could win the Senate race outright — Connecticut is a largely Democratic state — the hope had been to find someone who could excite Republican voters enough to offset a feared surge of Democratic votes in November. But in the days since the primary, concerns about a Democratic surge have subsided; Mr. Lieberman appears to be creating enthusiasm, even among Republicans, helped in part by the lack of institutional fervor for his Republican rival. Senator McCain, who was one of the few who has said he would support the Republican nominee in the race, has no intention of campaigning with Mr. Schlesinger, his advisers said. His nominal support for the party candidate has more to do with wanting to avoid alienating conservatives, one adviser said, than with actually supporting Mr. Schlesinger. As Mr. Schlesinger’s popularity has waned from a minuscule 9 percent in July to an almost-invisible 4 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, the question for Republicans has shifted to whether to embrace Mr. Lieberman. Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, said that from a political perspective, having Mr. Lamont triumph in Connecticut would be “good for Republicans because that’s not mainstream America.” “So from that perspective, a Lamont victory shows the extreme nature of the Democratic Party,” said Mr. Coleman, who is not making a formal endorsement in the race. “On the other hand, Joe Lieberman is a good senator. And from America’s perspective, it would be a good thing for Joe Lieberman to be back in the Senate.” Others cited Mr. Lieberman’s support of Mr. Bush’s foreign policy. “For me, it’s an uncomplicated decision,” said William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and a neoconservative who is helping Mr. Lieberman through an independent group called Vets for Freedom, which is helping to raise funds and providing strategic advice for the senator. “Partisan Republicans may be ambivalent; they see a partisan advantage to Lamont,” he said. But, he said, “Foreign policy hawks and Bush doctrine believers and prowar types, we want Lieberman to win.” The Lieberman campaign has largely downplayed the Republican support, aware that the Lamont campaign will try to use it to alienate Democrats and independents. “Part of the problem here is that everyone outside of Connecticut wants to glom onto this race, wants to put their own spin on it and wants to use it for their own advantages,” said Dan Gerstein, a Lieberman adviser. “We are not interested in being anyone’s political football.” Republican officials said they had hoped to drive him out, but worried that pressuring him further would only antagonize him and possibly create sympathy for his candidacy, drawing attention away from Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Lamont. On Friday, Gov. M. Jodi Rell distanced herself from Mr. Schlesinger, saying only that he was the “endorsed candidate of the Republican Party,” but that she had not spoken with Mr. Schlesinger and had no plans to campaign with him. Last month, Mrs. Rell called for Mr. Schlesinger to drop out of the race, but Friday she told reporters that “he has given every indication that he intends to stay there.” According to polling experts at the Quinnipiac survey, Mr. Schlesinger’s current poll numbers are lower than that of any other major party candidate in the history of the poll. The same August survey showed Mr. Lieberman leading with the support of 49 percent of those surveyed compared with 38 percent for Mr. Lamont. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. “Based on the public polling, this isn’t a competitive race at this time, so we’re going to use our resources elsewhere,” said Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is in charge of recruiting and electing Republican candidates to the Senate. The White House took an even more passive approach this past week. Mr. Snow, the press secretary, said the administration had been advised by the state party in Connecticut not to make an endorsement, and insisted this was not unusual. Mr. Snow said the administration had taken a similar course in past races where candidates “didn’t meet the expectations of the local parties,” although he could not immediately think of any. Later, the White House issued a statement citing a number of examples dating to 1970. “I read Tony’s comments and it immediately jumped out at me what he was doing,” Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary, said about the strikingly noncommittal remarks made by Mr. Snow. “It would be far better for Republicans if Joe Lieberman won than Lamont,” Mr. Fleischer continued. “There are enough liberals for Republicans to point to — from Russ Feingold to Hillary Clinton to Nancy Pelosi — that we don’t need another one to make our case. But what kind of message would it send if a strong defense, pro-Iraq senator won in this environment? It would prove you can be for what George W. Bush is doing in Iraq and still win, even in the Northeast.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/n...&en=cf0c403c75a866b9&ei=5094&partner=homepage Lieberman is hurting "his own" party. You may not care, thumbs, but I sure as hell do. If you're happy with Bush's leadership in Washington, and the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress, then by all means... make whatever excuses for Lieberman that you care to use. I think the man has tossed his integrity in the dumpster, and flushed decades of hard work on his behalf by the Democratic Party, the party who made him the first Jewish vice-presidential candidate in US history. Now he finds that party in his state somehow lacking in judgement because they have decided to go with someone else. Not on a whim, but because of his stand on issues important to the members of "his party," in his own state. Keep D&D Civil.
Deckard, I kid Batman Jones a little because we know a little about each other. He knows I support Democratic as well as Republican candidates. That does not mean I don't care or that I find the Connecticut struggle "amusing." Indeed, I believe Connecticut is a microcosm of what is happening within the Democratic Party. Because of Republican political mistakes, the Democratic Party is poised to take advantage of the pendulum shift in American politics. However, Democrats may very well let majority control slip through their fingers by allowing Republicans to isolate and label Democrats as the party of the Far Left. Extremism, left or right, generally doesn't fly in the U.S. of A. Thankfully, most Americans are afraid of the fringes. As you may have deduced, I have as great a fear of the Far Left as the Far Right or of Pacifism versus Expansionism. I would like to see the return of liberal and conservative wings in both major parties because unity and moderation result. As I see it, "true" Democrats and "true" Republicans view their opposite numbers as great evils unleashed upon the world. IMO, that type of thinking is harmful to our country and our future....and that disturbs me greatly. Whereas I have been unhappy with Bush's strategies and results, I am sympathetic to his motivation. I absolutely do not believe John Kerry or Al Gore before him could have done better. In fact, both Kerry and Gore scared the ---- out of me and a lot of other moderate political and apolitical Americans. Of the six major P/VP candidates since 2000, I believe Lieberman was the best of the lot as far as running the country goes. And, yes, if I were a Connecticutian, I definitely would choose Lieberman over Lamont. As for Schlesinger, he is getting something like 4% of polled voters. There's little wonder why Republicans aren't wasting any effort on his candidacy. Let's do lunch next time I'm in Austin. Email me if that's a plan (thumbs@email.com). And, Batman, I'll be in Houston toward the end of the month. Email me with your play times and location.
Lieberman And Right-Wing Host Agree: We're In World War III' This morning, Joe Lieberman appeared on the talk radio show of ultra-conservative host Glenn Beck. I've just transcribed the audio, and it turns out that Lieberman said some extraordinary things -- he sucked up to Beck, agreed with virtually everything he said, and claimed he was "proud" of the conservative host. He agreed with Beck that we're in the middle of World War III. He agreed with Beck when he said that if we pull out of Iraq, the "entire Middle East will be on fire." And he agreed with Beck when he said that the real reason we invaded Iraq wasn't over WMD but because we wanted to "pop the head of the snake in Iran." You need to be a member to listen -- but we've supplied some excerpts after the jump. You won't want to miss this one. Here are some excerpts from the interview: And: And: And finally: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/...l_right_wing_radio_host_were_in_world_war_iii BTW the American Research Group, Inc. now has Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont in a statistical tie in the race for United States Senate in Connecticut according to the latest survey. Among likely voters in November, 44% say they would vote for Lieberman, 42% say they would vote for Lamont, 3% say they would vote for Alan Schlesinger, and 11% are undecided. http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/
Glenn Beck the nutjob used to be on the morning segment of my local right wing station owned by Clear Channel. I heard this guy had a new job on CNN?
