‘They are a little bit scared of the bloggers’

August 14, 2006

So, Joe Lieberman has bucked his party and is running as an independent. Will he be punished in any way by his Dem Senate colleagues? Other than watching most of them endorse the winner of the Dem primary, not so much.

Even as Sen. Joe Lieberman presses ahead with an Independent candidacy and many of his one-time Senate allies shift their support to his political rival, key Democrats aren’t anticipating outward signs of friction between the Connecticut lawmaker and his colleagues when Congress reconvenes next month.

In fact, Democratic Senate aides and operatives said they expect the Caucus will welcome Lieberman warmly and treat him similarly in the weeks ahead as it did before his disappointing primary loss last week to businessman Ned Lamont. Senate Democrats understand that Lieberman is looking to ensure his political survival by running as an Independent, just as Senate leaders — and other key Democrats — are focusing on shoring up party strength and unity by backing his Democratic opponent.

No loss in seniority, no changes in committee assignments, and certainly no limits on caucus meetings.

As far as the party leadership is concerned, some of this is personal — Lieberman has friends in the caucus — and some of it is practical. Roll Call quoted one Senate aid saying, “Democrats will need him to caucus with us.” Depending on some close pre-election fights and the midterm results, Lieberman’s support “could be the one vote” that tips the scales for the minority.

If Senate Dems are giving Lieberman a wink and a nod on the Hill, why bother to endorse Lamont and offer the Dem nominee public support? Because a lot of them are afraid … of blogs.

From the Roll Call report:

Another well-placed Democratic source said, “Publicly they have to support Lamont,” adding that if they didn’t they would be crucified by the liberal wing of the party and most notably the growing number of bloggers, which, as this source said, represent “the Democratic version of the Christian right.”

“They are a little bit scared of the bloggers,” the operative said of the party leadership.

I’m not one for blog triumphalism, but it’s interesting to hear a well-placed Democratic source acknowledge that to a reporter. Blogs have reached a point in which the leadership is “scared” of the netroots? Who knew?

heh – since they don’t appear to be concerned too much about the bought-and-paid-for corporate media, I’d say that that’s a good testament to the blogs – someone’s gotta keep these guys honest and let them know that their actions have political consequences. The 21st century version of the so-called MSM surely hasn’t done that job.

  • “the Democratic version of the Christian right.”

    Yes but in our version thinking is not only allowed by encouraged. And we don’t have imaginary friends.

  • The south is going Republican. The Pacific coast is Democratic. The Midwest and the West are up for grabs. My hope and expectation is that the northeast will become a Democratic stronghold.

    Liebermann’s loss has endangered this.

    If I were a moderate Republican, or thinking of running for public office in the northeast, I would have second thoughts about joining a Democratic party that demanded ideologic purity.

    That is why I think that Liebermann’s loss is a blow for the Democratic party.

  • And the opportunity, finally, to have to avoid triumphalism is nice and welcome, but the “Democratic version of the Christian Right” is just ignorant slander.

    First, I am beyond certain that I can find a blog for every conceivable point on the left-right spectrum. “The bloggers” are not monolithic (the Christian Right may want to make the same argument; they are welcome to, but fighting their battles is not my problem).

    Second, it is sad and scary that Democratic leaders are lamenting “having” to support the duly elected Democratic candidate from a good Democratic state. Connecticut is hardly known as a hotbed of fringe elements; Lamont is an independently wealthy product of the capitalist establishment. This is not like David Duke running as a Dem.

    Third, it is actually disappointing — particularly given the alleged “personal friendships” that no one ever showed much displeasure when Lieberman was the one out of the mainstream, undermining his own colleagues and even joining in Cheney’s suggestion that perhaps they are traitors for dissenting from the War President. The blogs, if any of these commenters bothered to read them before shooting off at the mouth, have supported candidates at many varying levels of progressiveness. What the center-to-left blogs have been virtually unanimous on is free speech and the right (or the obligation) to dissent, to have a vibrant two (or more) party system actually demonstrate two (or more) schools of thought.

    It would also be sad if only the netroots cared. At this point, there is a bigger issue than why people supported Lamont in the first place. Now there is a Democratic candidate. If the party doesn’t support him vigorously and without reservation, one has to wonder what it means to be a “Democratic” candidate. And that should bother a constituency far beyond the blogs.

  • I would prefer that Lieberman be stripped of all privileges….but that is probably asking too much of the somewhat newly emboldened DC Democrats.

    The ground is shifting, and you can’t expect their timidity to be eliminated immediately with the results of the CT primary. It’s not necessary to humiliate Lieberman, however satisfying that might be to some.

    The focus should be relentlessly be on Lieberman’s political worldview. Keep the pressure on that, not the man himself.

    The blogs would come off best this way, acting in service of a reasonable political ideal, not pure attack politics.

  • At least someone is holding them accountable. Funny how the blogs went from nothing to a minor bother to an extremist fanatical commie liberal hate fest to apparently changing the behavior of elected officials.

    If you are reading this and you are a Senate Democrat please please please makeis clear to the Senator From CT that policy positions have consequences.

    It is amazing that the voters are unable to remove a sitting Senator from office because they don’t feel he represents their interests anymore. If you cannot remove someone from power through the ballot box and because of policy positions then what do you have to do to get fired in this town? Corruption seems to do it but nobody has actually been frog marched from the Capital. They all seemed to leave on their own accord.

    Maybe it is time to reming both sides of the aisle that they serve the public and not vice versa.

  • Sorry to double up so soon, but NeilS posted while I was writing. NeilS, I think you have bought into a pernicous — but wholly invalid — spin on the Lieberman race. The idea that this was an “ideological purge” requiring absolute purity on far-left positions is jsut not sustainablee by the facts.

    First, that argument is seriously underinclusive. How do you account for the fact that in most national polls, Hillary is leading for the nomination? Where are the strong challenges to all of the other Senators who voted to authorize the war? Where is the blog-bashing of Kerry? or even farther to the center, Bayh?

    Second, that argument ignores other salient facts about Lieberman. How to harmonize the opposition to Joe with what I pointed out in the paragraph above is that it is not about policy positions, per se, it is about providing Democratic cover for the worst excesses of the Rethug administration. Lieberman sold out his own caucus when he alleged that acting like an opposition party and actually presenting contrary arguments was somehow inappropriate because Bush had unilatererally declared a war that has no end. By Lieberman’s logic, the Dems should essentially close shop — opposing the President in a time of (endless) war is unpatriotic.

    That is why Lieberman was purged and no one else is under any sort of serious challenge. And this was not isolated behavior on Joe’s part: he went after Lamont harder in their debate than he went after Cheney. He was virtually alone among Senate Democrats in villifying Clinton. He has long shown himself to be margin as a team player. So why should the rest of the team have to support him? How is it a purge if they don’t?

    What am I missing here? This argument simply doesn’t hold up.

  • “Lieberman’s support “could be the one vote” that tips the scales for the minority”…

    Ummmmm, can anyone tell me the last time that he ‘tipped the scales’ for the Democrats? I didn’t think so…

    Spineless B*&tards, almost the whole lot of them. We REALLY need to do some housecleaning in the Democratic Party.

  • The south is going Republican. The Pacific coast is Democratic. The Midwest and the West are up for grabs. My hope and expectation is that the northeast will become a Democratic stronghold. -NeilS

    Let’s fairly draw the lines and see how Republican the south really is before we throw democracy under a bus which is exactly what you’re doing every time you complain that Lieberman’s loss was bad.

    Lieberman didn’t lose because of “the blogs.” He lost because of the votes, and every one of the people in office still supporting him because they are “friends” shouldn’t be suprised when they find themselves with a serious challenge in the next primary.

    You want to talk about what’s damaging the Democratic party, NeilS, then why don’t you talk about beltway insiders who don’t have enough spine to stand up to Republicans or the infotainment “media” but are quite content to ignore voters.

    What you see as a defeat for the Democratic party I see as a triumph because the people of the party took it back in Connecticut and, like it or not, the people are the party.

  • As much as I’d like to see Boltin’ Joe stripped of all committee seats and seniority, there’s no hurry to do it now. If having the D after his name is the difference in retaking the Senate majority, so be it. The worst case would be an R after his name that keeps control with the repubs. This is something I would not put past him.
    Of course, the best case is that he just goes away.

  • This argument simply doesn’t hold up

    That’s because it’s an argument only used by Republicans and Sore Loserman supporters. It isn’t supposed to add up – it’s just a Rove/Fox news talking point that’s supposed to be repeated ad infinitum until it creates its own “reality”. Anything to distort and take credibility away from any criticism of Bush and those who support his policies.

  • So liberal bloggers are just like the “Christian right”? Wow … just … um … yeah.

    I guess it just goes to show how out of touch the corporate media (and most of the American public) are when it comes to the blogosphere.

    While there are definitely “radical” elements of Left Blogistan, the fact is a vast majority aren’t all that radical. It just appears so because so many bloggers are sick and damn tired of the gutless leaders of the minority party — and those reps who would rather not piss off the majority then stand firm for what they believe — that those bloggers are starting to make waves.

    Whether it’s through their posts or (more importantly) fundraising, some of the big ones are starting to get noticed. And, of course, the establishment can’t have a bunch of outsiders gaining traction in their nice little world, so they have to label them as “radical” or even the “Taliban wing” lest the get too powerful.

    And THAT’S why the comparison fails — the GOP let the religious right into the establishment, while lefty blogs only occasionaly get the ear of those in power.

  • If I were a moderate Republican, or thinking of running for public office in the northeast, I would have second thoughts about joining a Democratic party that demanded ideologic purity.

    That is why I think that Liebermann’s loss is a blow for the Democratic party.

    Let’s see … the Democratic Party doesn’t have a unified position on the Iraq war, but everyone is pretty much in agreement that Bush’s policy is an abject failure. Everyone except Joe Lieberman. If you consider roughly 60 percent of Americans — a mandate by most standards — think the Iraq war is a mistake and the U.S. should begin withdrawing troops, it’s pretty clear the writing is on the wall.

    I’m not demanding “ideological purity” from Democrats. I am demanding they have a firm grasp on reality. Oh, and that they act like an opposition party.

  • Dear Zeitgeist et al.,

    Liebermann lost in Conn because of his closeness to Bush and his support for the war in Iraq.

    Hillary is on top because of name recognition and because any national candidate has to appear to be centrist.

    I still contend that Liebermann’s loss will slow the Democrat’s eventual control of the northeast. Furthermore, I am a centrist Democrat and I want to encourage political compromise and more moderate positions in general.

    I do not think that the country has been well served by the polarization that we have seen over the past 6 years. It works for Karl Rove and George Bush, but not for me.

    Doubtful — We need principled leaders like Paul Wellstone who stood up for what he believed and yet knew how to compromise and work with others. I miss him sorely.

  • I’d venture to say that the vast, vast number of voters in the CT Dem primary have never read a lefty political blog as most Americans are not political dweebs like us. 🙂 The reason the Dem pols are scared of them is because 1) they are easilly frightened and sensitive to any public criticism; 2) blogs are responsible for some fund raising and campaign volunteers (but probably significantly less than say, unions); and 3) the MSM, also very sensitive to criticism and wary of the challenge of new media as their readership goes down, has covered some of this criticism, albeit meagerly and sporadically.

    No, the reason Loserman lost in CT is that the majority of voters there were so sickened by his happy support of the war PLUS his publically cozing up to probably the most hated pResident ever. If there is any lesson for Dem pols there, it’s that. Stay away from Bush. Be spineless perhaps, but not an active appeaser and facilitator.

    As to Loserman losing his Dem privileges–not before we have an opportunity to take over the Senate. Cynical, yes, but I want war crimes trials for this sAdministration above all else.

  • I don’t care much about what to do with Lieberman in the short run, stripping him of titles and things. But I can’t wait for the following ad:

    [Picture of Joe Lieberman] + [Picture of Karl Rove, followed by picture of Dick Cheney, followed by Picture of George Bush] = More failure of accountability, more lack of oversight, more failed foreign and domestic policy, more budget deficits, more political acrimony. Had enough? Vote Lamont.

  • As much as I’d like to see Lieberman stripped of all his Democrat seniority and “privileges”, like representing Democrats on committees, such a move might be best considered after November. If he loses, then no problem. If he wins the seat as an Independent, then the party really should replace him as their representative on committee-work.

    The Daily Kos gives this list of committees he serves on.

    And should he be “punished” this way for abandoning the party? Well, it’s more like consequences if the Democrats really want to get a handle on the government again.

    Something’s really wrong with the Democrats in Washington — they seem awfully caught up in business as usual while the country goes down the toilet. They look like sell-outs, wimps, and fools. It’s about time America had some courageous decent legislators in Washington who are willing to call a spade a spade and act on it. And that means ousting Lieberman because he abandoned them in his own self-interest and cannot possibly represent the party now.

  • Furthermore, I am a centrist Democrat and I want to encourage political compromise and more moderate positions in general. -NeilS

    “Compromise” with the Bush administration is capitulation. Lieberman never compromised, he simply said “yes, master,” and then went on FOX News to bash Democrats. Center isn’t center when you’re pulled to the right of it. It’s laughable to even think that the Decider and his ilk would consider true compromise.

    I do not think that the country has been well served by the polarization that we have seen over the past 6 years. It works for Karl Rove and George Bush, but not for me. -NeilS

    Yet here you are arguing that we should “compromise” with it.

    Lieberman gave them the impression of bipartisanship, which is why they like him. He caved and agreed to their wacky thinking and then they can sell that bullshit packaged as bipartisan to a country that, thankfully, isn’t buying it anymore.

    Doubtful — We need principled leaders like Paul Wellstone who stood up for what he believed and yet knew how to compromise and work with others. I miss him sorely. -NeilS

    Can you tell me why Lamont isn’t a centrist? What makes Lamont so far out that you’ll argue against him even though he won the primary? Even Lieberman tried to paint him to far to the right by telling people he voted 80% of the time with Republican selectmen. Maybe you should stop believing everything Cheney says and research it before painting your ominous predictions of a bleak Democratic future.

    I would’ve swallowed my pride and supported Lieberman had he won. Too bad most Lieberman supporters (starting with Lieberman himself) can’t show the same maturity.

  • I’m still confused about this netroots and bloggers identity business. Unlike the mainstream media, where big business can and does affect political leanings, there’s nothing inherently partisan about blogs. Anyone can start one and its success depends upon whether other people identify with it. So the success of left-leaning blogs seems to reflect not the blogs, but the number of people who are harboring similar thoughts and feelings outside of the blogs. In other words, the public — or at least, politcally-aware members of the public and quite probably, voters.

  • I don’t often read Robert Novak because he is…

    … what’s the word, oh yah…

    … evil.

    But his commentary today was quite interesting. He called Mary Matlin (and by extension, Cheney and all that ilk) hypocrits for crying crocodile tears for Joe Lieberman. Novak than made a case that Joe was and still is actually very liberal. In fact, not at all the ‘moderate’ that NeilS seems to think he is.

    All of which may be true. But when it comes to his defeat last tuesday, Zeitgeist gets it right: “Lieberman was the one out of the mainstream, undermining his own colleagues and even joining in Cheney’s suggestion that perhaps they are traitors for dissenting from the War President.” That was his sin in my mind. And his support for Iraq was the reason a primary opponent of substance stood up to him. I believe the liberal/progressive blogisphere got Lamont the attention he needed to take off. By his own efforts Lamont got to thirteen points ahead before the primary, and only Lieberman’s three times denying Boy George II before the cock crowed got him back within five points.

    Let the Democratic Establishment be afraid of us. We are not like conservative talk radio. We actually argue points and positions and hone our ability to state our policy plans. But we can take a potential primary rival and make him/her seem plausable enough to start getting attention, which sometimes is all one needs to win.

    And yes, the MSM hates us because they are no longer the gate keepers into politics.

  • Here’s your polarization: More than 60 percent of the country doesn’t approve of the Bush presidency. If you’re a member of the opposition party, you run against an unpopular president, not embrace him. Lieberman just doesn’t get it.

    I’m on the liberal end of the spectrum, but even I’d like to see more “bipartisanship” and cooperation between the two parties. But for the next two years, I believe there can be none. George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are busy trying to remake the country to their liking. Democrats and any sensible Republicans should be doing absolutely everything to stop them. There is too much at stake. Aiding and abetting criminals makes you a criminal.

  • I think the last time a single vote was critical was a few months ago when Congress almost ammended the constitution (something about flag burning). Lieberman sided with the majority of the minority. Clinton did not.

    Lieberman should be extended at least some of the courtesies given to Jeffords/Sanders. That’s how Dems treat Indies. I know people want to see Lieberman ostracized, but it’s not good for the Democrats long term (whether Lieberman wins and sits the Sentate or loses and hits the pundit circuit, less bitterness is better) and not good for the short term either. That’s just the politics of doing what is in your best interest. Mudslingers get dirty and there are better targets out there.

    CT is a correction, not a vendetta.

  • The first post-primary poll shows Lieberman the winner in November, and unless that changes, expect the Democrats to straddle the fence, paying lip service to Lamont’s candidacy, while cozying up to Lieberman in the Senate.

    It all comes down to November. Does America vote for change, or the establishment? My bet is on the latter. They’re all too comfortable, Republicans, Democrats, MSM and corporatists, with the tax cuts and giveaways that Bush has given them, and they’ll fight like hell to retain them, and continue to paint progressives as a pack of rabid, wild dogs, or that new insult, the Democratic version of the Christian right.

  • Time marches on (leaving dinosaurs in the dust).

    In 1932 FDR changed politics forever by using the radio to address the American people directly. Almost overnight the orators of old (“cross of gold” tent-meeting types) were seen as corny and laughable (not to mention rural and bigoted).

    In 1960 John Kennedy trounced his opponent by dominating the then-new medium, black-and-white TeeVee; by contrast Nixon looked surly, unshaven, paranoid … ridiculed by Herblock cartoons as a used car salesman and later boasting almost comically “I am not a crook”.

    In 2004 Howard Dean surprised everybody by his use of the latest medium, the internet, for raising massive amounts of string-free money (for a Democrat) and, maybe more important, raising consciousness through locally arranged neighborhood “meetups”, many conducted through the internet.

    The conservatives may still have their heavily funded think-tanks. Trouble is fundamentalists (to whom they’ve sold their souls) don’t read or even think. They just show up to clap and shout as long as the enthusiasm lasts, then they “back slide” back into the apolitical mumbo-jumbo which makes them harmless once again.

    In contrast, the progressives are defined by thinking. Thinking may often be their Achilles heal, in fact, keeping them from lining up behind the party. But the internet/blog is a medium made for progressives. You don’t a good radio voice or a TeeVee “presence”. It’s a chance to fully vent our thoughts and dreams while approaching the electoral showdown. If I were rich and mean enough to be a Republican, I’d be scared shitless. We’ve only just begun.

    The litmus test for party choice should be this question, which implies all others: “Do you work for a living”? There, you’ve just read, here in this blog, something which would have taken me great effort to communicate to the political world any time prior to this, and it didn’t cost me a dime or more than a few minutes.

  • ***The first post-primary poll shows Lieberman the winner in November***
    ——————————————-hark.

    One should remember that in the opening multitude of pre-primary polls, Lieberman was the sure winner—by a rather large percentage. If I’m reading these initial post-primary polls correctly, they’re still playing to Lamont’s “not-too-familiar-to-the-voters” image. They’re also giving undue credence to the Lamont/Terror connection—which will blow up in their collectives faces before election day rolls around.

    As time progresses toward the day of decision, I think a fair number of Schlesinger supporters will view Lieberman as a “Judas”—and a good percentage of these voters will have no wish to parley their vote for an individual who plays the “30-pieces-of-silver” game in exchange for keeping his job.

    Folks in Connecticut—even the Republicans—are fairly-well educated people. They’ll look at Lieberman, and think: “This guy sold out his own. He tossed the will of the People into the trashcan. He made himself more important than the voters. how do I know he isn’t going to do the same thing to ME?”

    THAT is the foundation for defeating Joe Lieberman—expose him for the self-serving political prostitute that he is. And as for myself? If having someone the likes of Joe Lieberman making decisions that affect my family and friends in the Senate is the price I am asked to pay, in exchange for a Democratic-Party majority, then that majority is something that I find to be unacceptably distasteful. In honor and recognition of the 115 Ohioans who have died in Iraq to-date, and for each and every Ohioan who has gotten “screwed over” on the multitude of other pro-Bush decisions made by the man, I will not play the “compromise” game….

  • Blogs are democracy, pure and simple. Blogs are the digitized voice of the people. And like democracy, it is not always pretty nor is the dialogue always civil. But blogs are the people speaking AND holding their elected leaders accountable. If politicians are afraid of the blogs it’s because they don’t want the voting public to hold their feet to the fire. Throw out the extreme voices in blog discourse and you get mainstream public thought on the issues of the day.

    Our elected leaders should not get on the bandwagon with Bush Jr.who feels that the only time he is accountable to the public is on election day and the rest of the time accountability is that sense of duty to the lobbyist wth the envelopes in his pocket. If Washington took into account the opinions posted on blogs, they might get a better sense of the will of the voters that put them into public office, pay their salaries and provide the tax dollars thy spend.

    As for the ideological puriy issue, is their any party less ideologically pure than the Dems? The Repubs constantly tell us that Dems have no platform, no plan, no nothing. So what does Joe have to be pure to? The Repubs are the party that marches in lockstep while Dems vote all over the place. Ned Lamont won because he offers a change to a situation the majority finds intolerable. The fact that Dems leaders are still civil to a member whose loyalty is to the opposition means that the purity issue is out-and-out BS.

  • Jeez, who leaked this, Lieberman staffers? With an assist from the wusses in Salazar and Inouye’s offices who don’t understand what makes a political party work, what century they’re in, or who the president is?

    “Roll Call quoted one Senate aid[e] saying, “Democrats will need him to caucus with us.” Depending on some close pre-election fights and the midterm results, Lieberman’s support “could be the one vote” that tips the scales for the minority.”

    What the hell do you think LAMONT is? He just *WON* the Democratic primary, you dumbfucks. He’s trying to caucus with you. He’s *trying* to get *your* legislative priorities enacted. He’s *TRYING* to oppose the president’s policies.

    But that’s not good enough for some Senate Democrats. Nooooo, they’d rather keep getting stabbed in the back by their own “friend” because god forbid someone – anyone – enforce any kind of party loyalty or discipline.

    You know why Senate Democrats *LOSE*? Because they *LIKE* to lose, and they *TRY* to lose, because they’d rather lose than face the uncomfortable truth about their “friends” like Joe Lieberman.

  • With the exponential growth of blogging, I think by election time they will be a LOT scared of the bloggers.

    Not all voters blog, but all the political bloggers vote.

    Our leaders need to realize that the train is leaving the station, and that the heady days of easily misinformed electorates are coming to an end. The media monopoly on information is sinking like the 9th ward, and the people are finally seeing en masse what a bunch of shills the Dem leadership have been historically.

    They need to smell the coffee NOW and remove Lieberman’s committee assignments. Lieberman is actively smearing/attacking the guy they’re supposed to be supporting, so why on earth should they support Lieberman by letting him keep any of his committee assignments? Could he keep them if he joined the Republican party?

    I think that’s the question to ask them.

  • “With the exponential growth of blogging, I think by election time they will be a LOT scared of the bloggers.”

    a computer and an online connection coupled with postings of people with names like crab nebula and racerx does not exactly scare either party.

    people with actual sir names with reputations, with voting records, and who publish regularly in their local communities are scary. blogging is a past-time for those whom do not have the stones or reputations to post their opinions as themselves.

    Mike Nunez

  • Aw, Mike. I love my secret identity. And who do you think the criminals were more scared of–Superman or Clark Kent?

  • Man, you’re so right Mike. So bold of you to use your real name on the internets. I’m in awe of your bravery! But aren’t you worried people will find out things about you that you don’t want them to know?

    Like that you died two years ago?

    http://www.mikenunez.com/

    Or that you’re a kick-ass bass player?

    http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=29155403

    Or that your Mom drives a pimped out Mazda with a killer sound system?

    http://www.caller2.com/specials/lowriders/low57.html

    Seriously, kudos for using your real name. You’re a beacon of honesty and putting your esteemed reputation on the line.

    Whoever you are.

  • Iraq is a catastrophic foreign policy debacle. Bush idiocy, his inestimable incompetence, has alienated us from our allies and generated hatred among Muslims across the world. He has weakened our military, forcing our troops into an extended occupation in the midst of a growing civil war for which they have neither appetite nor training. He has created a recruiting boon for al-Qaida. He has sorely weakened our foreign policy influence, as demonstrated graphically in the current conflict in Lebanon. He has cost nearly 2,700 American lives, over 20,000 Americans wounded — and an estimated 150,000 Iraqi deaths. He has compromised our budget priorities, spending about $400 billion on this ill advised war already — with the estimated cost likely to exceed $1 trillion. The budget is a statement of our moral choices — and this is a deeply immoral choice. You cannot resurrect a proverbial dead conservative elephant by beating it. Hell, can we cut and run from this Bush idiocy?

  • This goddamned putz is now actively attacking Democrats and Democratic nominees all over the place, and the sleazeballs in the Senate still want to be in the same room with his stinking, rotting carcass?

    As David Sirota reports:

    Connecticut’s Manchester Journal Inquirer reports that Sen. Joe Lieberman today unleashed a vicious attack on Vermont Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders – a longtime progressive hero and the leading candidate to keep Vermont’s U.S. Senate seat out of GOP hands. According to the newspaper, the Lieberman campaign sent out an official email attacking, among others, Sanders and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of DailyKos.

    RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman is refusing to endorse the actual GOP nominee in Connecticut, and is instead heaping praise on Lieberman.
    Same thing for the White House, which is also refusing to endorse the actual GOP nominee in Connecticut. Lieberman has been telephoned with a supportive call from Karl Rove, GOP candidates accross the country are rallying to endorse him, and a Swift Boat Vets-ish front-group run by neocon leader William Kristol and Bush Iraq War spokesman Dan Senor is beginning to air ads on behalf of Lieberman. Meanwhile, Lieberman is parroting Vice President Cheney’s talking points overtly implying that Connecticut voters are Al Qaeda sympathizers, and now attacking leading U.S. Senate candidates necessary to win back the Senate for Democrats.

    …consider this new MSNBC story about GOP donors rallying to fund Lieberman’s general election campaign:

    “Quite willing to speak was Bruce Bialosky, a leading Republican donor in California, who said he will raise more than $10,000 for Lieberman….On Tuesday night, once Lamont had defeated Lieberman, Bialosky sent an e-mail to the 2,000 people on his political list ‘expressing my despair over Lieberman’s loss in the primary’ and making it clear he’d raise money for
    Lieberman’s independent bid. ‘I’ve never seen such a tremendous esponse’ from his list, Bialosky said…A Republican campaign fund-raiser based in Washington, who spoke on condition that he not be identified by name, said, ‘There’s a definite sense among a significant number of the Republicans who I deal with that Joe Lieberman is a man of principle and a man we should support.’ This fund-raiser said he’ll contribute money to Lieberman’s campaign and raise money for him.”

    This comes on top of the fact that, according to MSNBC, “a number of corporate PACs, such as the National Beer Wholesalers’ PAC, have already given Lieberman the maximum amount permitted.”

    My favorite in the MSNBC story is the one supportive Democratic fundraiser, Mitchell Berger, who said he’s supporting Lieberman because ““He did a fundraiser for the Florida Democratic Party two years ago and raised a million dollars.” Berger didn’t mention that Lieberman also
    headed down to Florida just weeks before the 2004 election, stood before Jewish audiences, attacked Sen. John Kerry (D) and praised President Bush (R) on Israel issues – landing a big story in the Palm Beach Post just before the vote. Wow, what a loyal Democrat, huh?

    I love what Sirota suggests we bloggers call Holy Joe:

    From now on, I am going to be referring to Joe Lieberman as De Facto GOP Nominee Joe Lieberman and I urge everyone else covering this race – bloggers, reporters, columnists – to do so in the interest not of partisanship, but out of respect for objective accuracy. Over the last few
    days, it’s very clear that is what Lieberman is.

  • people with actual sir [sic] names with reputations, with voting records, and who publish regularly in their local communities are scary. blogging is a past-time for those whom do not have the stones or reputations to post their opinions as themselves.
    –Comment by Mike Nunez

    There is something to be said about blogging using a “real” name. But you miss a few things:

    1. The posibility of retribution — I almost got fired for my site, simply because one asshat found about it and then shared some of my posts with a few executives. Apparently, they’re all Republicans, and didn’t like the fact I thought for myself.

    2. ID theft — this may not seem like that big a threat, but trust me. It is.

    3. The fact it really doesn’t matter — Writers throughout the centuries have used “pen names” for a variety of reasons. Not sure why bloggers are any different.

    There are more reasons, but these are the top three I can think of off the top of my head.

  • One thing I appreciate about all the folks posting anonymously here: I know they’re speaking their minds honestly (even if their identity remains a mystery).

    It’s a testiment to the shape America has been beaten into that we no longer feel assured that our views will be tolerated without fear of retribution. One cannot be too paranoid when fascism is knocking at our doors.

    Having said that, those who support the current administration and the direction it has taken our country in, have nothing to fear in either case. I.e.: even if we succeed in taking back our great country, the fascists know we are bound by our own tenets to let them be. To put them all on a rocket and send them to the far reaches of the solar system would be “politically incorrect”. 😉

    • Comments are closed.