« Now it's official | Main | Adventures in dog-sitting »

Questions about Lieberman

First of all, let me say that I don't really have a dog in the Lamont/Lieberman race. I watched most of the debate, and I preferred Lieberman's views of foreign policy, but was appalled by his comments regarding earmarks (and by the way, isn't that sentence emblematic of the whole race? Lieberman defines the entire contest. Lieberman is Lieberman, while poor Ned Lamont is merely the not-Lieberman.) In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I have a case of beer riding on Lieberman, but beyond that, I don't really care.

It is a fantastic spectator sport, however. I'm completely bemused that so many Democrats, with the (realistic) hope of winning at least one house of Congress clearly in sight, are spending so much energy and effort to defeat one of their own in a safe seat in a blue state.

That just fascinates me. I mean, after all, Joe Lieberman might not be Barbara Boxer, but he's not exactly Zell Miller either. Much of the campaign against him has been to tie him to Bush's policies. That's understandable, as far as it goes, but Lieberman is hardly the biggest pro-Bush Democrat in the Senate.

Just to pick one example, let me ask a question. Is there one, single, substantive issue on which Lieberman sided with Bush that (say) Hillary Clinton didn't also side with Bush? Senator Clinton, it should be noted, is also up for reelection this year, but has not come under similar attack from Democratic activists? Why is that?


"I should say that I have a case of beer riding on Lieberman"

Yep you do and you are about to lose it :)

" Is there one, single, substantive issue on which Lieberman sided with Bush that (say) Hillary Clinton didn't also side with Bush?"

Have you ever seen in Sean Hannity telling Hillary: Tell me what I can do for you senator to get you re-elected? Have you ever seen Bill Kristol giving the largest donation he ever gave to Hillary's campaign? Have you ever seen Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly endorsing Hillary?
These are just few examples of what makes Lieberman soooooooo different than Hillary, despite the fact that they both support the (disastrous) war in Iraq. Hillary is a democrat. Lieberman is not.

Leiberman seems to delight in being the John McCain of the Democratic party, which is fine by me. I would have him over Boxer and those other idiots.

Then again, I would have Ted Kennedy be president before a traitor like Bush.

So in other words, you can't actually cite any substantive issue on which Lieberman was more supportive of Bush than HRC, but it's simply because Sean Hannity likes him?

"So in other words, you can't actually cite any substantive issue on which Lieberman was more supportive of Bush than HRC, but it's simply because Sean Hannity likes him?"

Of course and I can. As an example, Lieberman has strongly criticized other democrats for not supporting the Bush administration at a time of war. Hillary would NEVER do anything like that. Lieberman maintains up to this day that going into Iraq was the right decision and it was done properly. Hillary still agrees with the original decision to invade Iraq, but has criticized the Bush administration for the (incompetent) way they handled the war. There is a clear-cut difference between Hillary and Lieberman.

P.S. Dont take me wrong, I do not like Hillary and I will not vote for her in the democratic primary in 2008. But she is a democrat in contrast to Lieberman who in reality is some sort of "neorepublican".

Actually Lieberman has voted with the Democrats and against Bush in the same exact ratio that Hillary Clinton has. They have supported the exact SAME positions.

Moreover, like Lieberman, Hillary Clinton has never opposed the invasion of Iraq, never been critical of the ongoing war on terrorism...and that's to her credit as well.

There are those who claim, Lieberman can win as an Independent, but Connecticut is an ideologically moderate state (NOT "AlGore moderate," more like Bill Clinton moderate), with a Republican Governor (Jodi Rell) and it's more likely that a Lieberman candidacy would siphon off enough votes from Lamont to swing the race to the Republican.

Would a spurned Joe Lieberman, risk handing over a Democratic Senate seat to the GOP, by running as an Independent?

I suppose we'll see, but the scorched earth policy the MoveOn.org moonbats are employing may make it next to impossible for him to do anything else.

And I'm no Lieberman fan, unlike many others around here.

Yes, I do appreciate his common sense viewpoint and support for the Military war on Terrorism (WoT), but his pathetic 2000 apologia to Maxine Waters & Co, his Mea Culpa for ever having derided affirmative action as "discriminatory" (He DID and it IS) soured me forever on Lieberman, who I've come to see as a feckless, dupe (OK, a politician, same thing) who'd do anything, no matter how degrading (even licking the boots of that shriveled up, old hag Maxine Waters) for a chance at the White House.

His abandoning most of his earlier principled stands in 2000 to run with that adle-brained, stiff, Al Gore, was just sickening.

I've never looked at Liberman the same way since, and I've never respected COnnecticut voters for re-electing him to his Senate seat (as insurance against his ultimate 2000 loss) from that state.

Last poll from Rasmussen: Lamont 51% Lieberman 41%

The same polls show that Lieberman would win an open three way race between Lieberman, Ned Lamont and Alan Schlesinger.
July 20, 2006 - Lamont Inches Ahead Of Lieberman In Dem Primary, Quinnipiac University Connecticut Poll Finds; Incumbent Still Leads In 3-Way November Matchup

Anti-war Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont has surged to a razor-thin 51 - 47 percent lead over incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman among likely Democratic primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 55 - 40 percent lead for Sen. Lieberman among likely Democratic primary voters in a June 8 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

In possible general election matchups:
Lieberman defeats Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger 68 - 15 percent;
Lamont beats Schlesinger 45 - 22 percent, with 24 percent undecided;
Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51 percent, to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger.

"Lamont has turned what looked like a blowout into a very close Democratic primary race," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D.

"Lamont is up, while Lieberman's Democratic support is dropping. More Democrats have a favorable opinion of Lamont, who was largely unknown last month, and see him as an acceptable alternative to Lieberman. But Lieberman's strength among Republicans and independents gives him the lead in a three-way matchup in November."

The good news is that Liberamn wouldn't risk throwing the race, if he ran as an Independent, but in that three way race, he leads BOTH Lamont and Schlesinger by a good margin.

The poll you quote is old. The very last poll that I quote (Rasmussen 7/22/06) shows that in a 3 way race Lamont and Lieberman are tied. The numbers are:
Lamont 40%, Lieberman 40%, Schlessinger 13%.

The way things are going it seems that:
1. Lieberman will be defeated.
2. Barry will lose a case of beers.

Not to nit pick, but July 20, 2006 is NOT "old," BW and Rasmussen is the least reliable of all the polls.

Weren't they the only ones who had Kerry/Edwards ahead by three points right up through Election Day 2004?

I think they are.

Saying that, the Rasmussen outcome would be very a welcome one to me for a number of reasons, the first is that it would bode poorly for Hillary and other Democrats trying to appear "moderate" (and in Hillary's case, unlike Bill's it's ALL appearance) to woo mainstream voters.

Secondly, despite current polls, a REAL three way race between Lieberman (who admittedly DOES poll well among Connecticut Republicans), Lamont and Schlesinger would almost certainly trend very differently.

Few Conn Republicans would vote for an Independent Lieberman over a Republican challenger, making the race far closer between Lamont and Schlesinger.

So, a Lieberman third Party run has the potential to hurt the Democrats.

And THIRDLY, it's said that such a Lieberman purge at the hands of the hard-Left may very well alienate a lot of Jewish-American voters.

The vast majority of Orthodox Jews are already Conservative, but even if a Lieberman ouster alienates some moderate Jewish voters that's bad for the Democrats and VERY BAD for the hard-Left and, in my view, ANYthing VERY BAD for the hard-Left (the Gore's, the Moore's, the Sheehan's, the MoveOn.org radicals, etc) is VERY GOOD for America right now.

So I'm pulling for ya winning that case of beer.

Sorry, somehow my info got deleted...that above post was, of course mine.

Weren't they the only ones who had Kerry/Edwards ahead by three points right up through Election Day 2004?

NO. That was Zogby. Rasmussen is a republican.

Was it Zogby?

I believe you're right. My error. Thanks for the clarification on that.

Like I said, I'm pulling for you, even though I greatly respect Liberman's stand on the WoT. I don't like much else about him, especially his surrendering all his principled stands in order to run with Gore.

The northeast is one of the few (SF being one of the others) areas in the nation where the hard-Left (the Moore, Sheehan, Gore, Soros crowd) has the potential to make some real inroads and influence regional politics.

In the rest of the nation, and even in the suburban communities even around NY (Westchester, Orange & Putnam Counties, LI, suburban NJ) they are a polarizing force that actually harms the Democrats.

I'd have thought that after the humiliating defeats of Carter ('80), Mondale ('84), Dukakis ('88), Gore (2000) and Kerry ('06) and with the Dems only TWO wins over the past nearly three decades coming with a candidate who was able and willing to run to the Right of his opponents (Clinton ran Right of Bush Sr & Dole) that the Dems would've wised up and purged the hard-Left from that Party.

Apparently it will take an even more devastating defeat.

I certainly hope that it doesn't come on the heals of a Democratic administration that re-introduces Carter-styled Liberalism and a Certeresque economy (Stagflation)...and I don't believe it will take that.

2006 will be an interesting election.

I was very interested in the recent (June 6th) election for Duke Cunningham's old seat in CA.

An "open border," high tax, more social spending Liberal Democrat lost handily to Brian Bilbray.

There is really no "national referendum," at stake in '06, so each race will come down to the individual candidates involved and the local issues, so it will be interesting to see how it winds up tracking.

In 2008 I hold out hopes that the hard-Left continues to "run against G W Bush," who won't be running.

A campaign against "the Bush policies" against say a Guiliani would ONLY serve to make those folks look even more out of touch with reality and bolster Guiliani, by focusing on his primary strength - strong on terrorism, tough on crime and a fiscal conservative to boot.

As I said earlier, Rudy woulldn't be my second, third or even TENTH choice for President. Hell, I don't like him much at all.

The ONLY thing that makes a Guiliani palatable, at all, is that by comparison to the hard-Left (the Moore's, the Sheehan's, the Soros' and Gore's) he looks flat out stellar...and that really takes some doing on their parts.

I DON'T think, I KNOW that the Moore's, Sheehan's, Soros' and Gores...America's hard-Left, is bad for this country...really bad.

I'd go so far as to say, almost as bad as electing al Qaeda would be, perhaps even worse. I kid you not.

After all a lot of fat chicks in America would look a lot better in burquas (joking ladies), I don't drink or smoke (not joking), I like the idea (and have long advocated) public executions, the more grisly the better, as they're more instructive and fear-inspiring (no children under....say age ten allowed), I'm completely ambivalent about gays, and I don't think they stone you for that unless you really act, you know, super gay out in public, (just my take on that, judging by the fact that they haven't stoned Michael Jackson whose been over there) and I'm down on porn and was, for many, many years prone to random acts of senseless violence (in my defense, I repossessed cars and thus took a lot the actions of outraged people as "grounds for self-defense").

In fact, before 9/11, I greatly admired a lot of the aspects of Arabic culture, not say, the stoning to death of adulterers, but I'm certainly good with the lopping off of the hands of thieves and the "offending appendages" of rapists and child-molesters. To me, THAT'S really being "TOUGH on crime!"

You've gotta admit, it sure makes our lethal injection look pretty lame, by comparison.

You know, if it weren't for the fact that I don't much like Arabs (of course, I don't like many ethnic groups all that much, so I try to take people individually), and my having no use for organized religion, I probably could live in the Mid-East!

I mean, I'm sure it would be a challenge, but probably not nearly as much of a challenge as living within the confines of an America dominated by its hard-Left would be.

Psssst. We don't like Hillary either, contrary to popular belief.

OK, I've heard that Jill, but Hillary is VERY Liberal.

Far more Liberal than her husband.

The likes of Moore, Sheehan, Soros, the MoveOn folks are out-and-out radicals.

The last "Liberal" to get elected was Jimmy Carter, some 30 years ago, this November and his single term was an unmitigated disaster.

Today's far-Left (of which Carter and Gore are a part) is far to the Left of where Carter himself was between 1976 and 1980.

I'll say two words in Carter's defense - Hamilton Jordan...OK and another two - Billy Carter.

I'll say one thing about that star-crossed administration, they gave me my Liberals the way I like'm - INCOMPETENT.

After "Jimmy," there hasn't been a Liberal elected since!

There JMK, pulling the Lush Limbaugh party line no matter what the voting record, facts, or God Almighty Himself says in fire.

Oh yes, no matter WHAT her record, Hillary is very, very, very, very, very, very, very LIBERAL, because LIBERAL means BAD.

Such a child.

Yes, "Liberal" IS bad, in so far, as Liberalism supports greater government regulation of commerce and industry, social prograqms that mire people in dependancy and oppose the fend-for-yourself individualism that America's Founders all espoused.

Even Alexander Hamilton, one of the most federalist (pro-centralized government) of America's Founders vehemently opposed disaster assistance to a town in MAssachusetts ravaged by floods...me too, I'm with Alex on that one.

But I'm closer to the State's Rights anti-federalists (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams) on the extremely limited role that a federal government should be given.

There's a Goebels like LIE going around, that the likes of Limbaugh & Hannity have "created Conservatives."

That's a pernicious LIE and a slander on the overwhelmingly tarditionalist and individualistic American people, who were disproportionately Conservative throughout the 19th Century, were disproportionately Conservative throughout the 20th Century and remain disproportionately Conservative today.

European Socialists and American Liberals/"progressives" are cut from exactly the same cloth. They all support a form of slavery to the State (egalitarianism), that would turn Americanism on it's head.

Americanism is based on Liberty (which is "freedom FROM government"), and a system that makes government subservient to the INDIVIDUAL (yes, critics would say "the strongest/richest individuals), but even if that's true, it's the principle America was Founded upon...and one that seeks to free the poor from the slavery/dependancy to the State.

You have a really good point about Hillary. The only people who know about Hillary's terrible record are peace activists in New York. Thanks for spreading the word. I will try to also as '08 comes upon us.

I can't believe she's even being considered at this point. I would vote for Lieberman over Hillary as my senator any day.(yes, I know they are not in the same contest and that Hillary isn't even in a contest this year) I know it's tough when you're in the minority party, but Hillary really hasn't done very much to help out her recent home-state of New York.

Time for me to retire, all this Hillary talk is making me naucious (kidding)

I also agree with Jill about Hillary. She is as right wing as Lieberman is. But there is one good thing about her. She is married to a very smart man.

Actually, the ONLY issue Hillary and the far-Left disagree on is the WoT...she supports it and dolts like Michael Moore claim "There is no terrorist threat."

Same with Lieberman, at this point, BW.

He once held some moderate/centrist positions, like opposing race/gender preferences, supporting the punishment approach instead of "theraputic approach" to violent crime," not so much now.

Not since he jettisoned most of those principled stands to run with Gore.

I guess the one principle he couldn't cough up was his support for Israel and U.S. interests (oil & Israel) in the Mid-East.

What a nation of pansies. There was a terrorist act by a few lunatics. We aren't at "war". There are rare occurances. We aren't in great danger. Absolutely nothing that happened warranted killing 2,500+ soldiers and bankrupting our country -- it was just opportunism and theft by Bush & Co.

If America scares this easy, and you people are so quick and happy to give up your rights and the constitution, we will fall to corrupt psychopaths like Bush far more quickly than the Roman Empire.

(1) 9/11 was an act of war by every rogue Arab/Muslim state that sponsored, supported &/or harbored pan-Islamic terrorists.

The "Bush Doctrine" passed 99 -1 by the Senate, amde that very clear.

Those rogue states included (1) Afghanistan for refusing to hand over the al Qaeda members within their borders when we demanded them to, (2) Saddam's Iraq for both harboring al Qaeda (the Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq) and sponsoring other international terror groups. The trigger for the invasion, of course, was Saddam's Iraq's refusal to comply with UN Resolution 1441, (3) Syria, (4) Iran, (5) the Sudan and (6) Libya (was on that initial list, but has, since the invasion of Iraq, begun cooperating with the West.

The Patriot Act HAS NOT expanded ANY police powers, in fact, to date, it merely allows domestic law enforcement from the FBI to local police departments to (1) use the SAME techniques routinely used to snare drug dealers and pedophiles (roving wire-taps for cell phones, internet tracking, no-knock warrants, etc) and (2) share information with international intelligence like the CIA.

This IS the early stages of what will most likely be at least a twenty year war against global Islamo-fascism...and there will eventually BE expanded police powers within the U.S. directed at dealing with some of the terrorist cells existing here.

For your own good, Barely, put down the Michael Moore books...you're gonna hurt yourself.

The whole Democratic party is a joke at this point. Total joke.

Well dr jeff, it's the far-Left (the Moore's, Sheehan's, Soros', Gore's, the AAR crowd, etc) who are somewhat of a joke, at this point, BUT they've hijacked the Democratic Party, a Party that's become increasingly beholden to various, competing special interests since 1964.

The Democrats SHOULd really be an economically Libertarian Party, with a a similar "hands-off" approach to social issues.

Instead, the Democrats have increasingly foreited the political center, by advocating MORE government and LARGER government, leaving the Republicans in the position of having to do little work to apprear far more in tune with working people - lower taxes, tough on crime, etc.

Sadly, the real "joke" is on us, for having our two-Party system handicapped like this.

Only ONE Liberal has occupied the White House over the last THIRTY YEARS! Just ONE, and he took office in the wake of one of the most notorious politicaol scandals of the 20th Century.

Since then Republicans have won five elections, the Democrats two...and in those TWO Democratic wins, a centrist Democrat (Bill Clinton) was able to deftly run to the Right of two "Moderate" (read Liberal) Republicans, so the record over the last three decades is actually Conservatives and Centrists 7 and Liberals 0.

P.S. Good looking blog, bookmarked it.

Jeff wrote:
"The whole Democratic party is a joke at this point. Total joke."

This comment was written alone with nothing to support it. That's because there is nothing there to type. This country is in ruins because of the extreme right wing. Hardly any legislation from Democrats has become law because the Repulicans control every branch of government. Don't blame the Dems for your problems.

You know what's a real laugh riot Reason?

The fact that there are absolutely no facts to support the contention that "This country is in ruins."

The current economy, AGAIN, 2.2% Inflation, 4.7% Unemployment, 4.7% Annual GDP Growth (5.6% the previous quarter) and Low Interet rates is the best economy we've had post-WW II (an era of relative peace & plenty).

Our current National Debt is several hundred Billion dollars lower than expected and at 2.2% of GDP, about HALF what it was under Reagan (4%).

The current Congress and current admionistration cleaned up the messes (Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson, etc) that flourished under the previous administration and put Sarabannes-Oxley in place to keep them from recurring and better still NO Tech BUBBLE SCAM!

Remember the days when political hacks like Terry McAuliffe made millions off Global Crossings stock, getting out just before it collapsed and, when questioned about his timing, laughted that he should've stayed in a few more weeks and made even more money, then laughed about the plight of low-end (read "poorer") and less well-informed investors who got soaked?

No, we've taken for granted an incredible economy, just as we now all take for granted that lower across the board tax rates actually result in INCREASED tax revenues. Remember when the idea that lower across the board tax rates, RAISING tax revenues was considered, counter-intuitive?

Now it's basic tax policy.

The Democrats COULD really make some inroads, with voters, but they'd have to, FIRST, embrace the growing anti-immigration fervor that's gripped a lot of the working, middle class of late - DON'T fight it, join it and style a plan around "punising employers of illegal immigrants," then make it a felony to use fake ID. Those two things would compel tens of millions of illegals to self-deport, because no jobs = no reason to come here.

AND SECOND, go even further than the GOP on cuting government!

That's right, you can't out-do Rudy or the other Republicans at raising revenues (they're the kings of that..."the kings of tax cuts"), and you can't win by trying to make government more efficient and effective - Rudy's the undisputed king of that, based on his Mayorality in NYC. You CAN'T possibly win on that issue.

No, the Dems have to take up the mantle the GOP has left there for them as a golden gift - The Dems can become "The Party of SMALLER government!" Yes, by looking to CUT tax rates below the levels to which they raise revenues - that's UNDER 22% across the board...or better yet, get on board the ONLY tax system that WOULD actually "TAX the RICH"- the NRST or "Fair Tax" http://www.fairtax.org/
that kind of consumption based tax system would eradicate punishing productivity/earned income and instead tax SPENDING/CONSUMPTION.

Not everyone WORKS, or depends on INCOME for wealth (fewer and fewer people I know do)...but EVERYONE consumes.

Those few simple things - punishing employers who hire illegal/undocumented workers, felonizing the use of fake IDs, and championing SMALLER government and a complete overhaul of the tax system away from punishing producitivity/earned income and toward taxing consumption.

That and staying the course on the WAR on Terrorism ( a war we engaed in ten years too late) would best the current GOP agenda.

Gutting the Patriot Act, seeking to "negotiate" with the terrorists, raising tax rates and continuing to support a "compassionate" (read "open") border policy are the path toward political ruin....but sadly, I'm betting that's far more likely the path today's Dems will choose.

Oh, and GW Bush and the current administration are far from "the extremne right," or even "the RIGHT."

Tom Tancredo and "the Great Pat Buuchanan" are both Right-wing.

G W Bush?

No, not at all.

In fact, if Right-wing = COWBELL, the antithesis to G W Bush would be....MORE COWBELL.

Only a dolt would say, "the entithetis of G W Bush is Michael Moore, George Soros, Al Gore, etc" because Moore & Co, being dysfunctional and insane, cannot be the rational antithesis of anything.

lmobzwvqh epmbn omfshkci gnak swtcnu ndlueabc cyjgqf

lmobzwvqh epmbn omfshkci gnak swtcnu ndlueabc cyjgqf

stxonuapz iscwmhore byprzxkd kmydzrts xogfzw zhptnb zeml http://www.qoacjixv.xtqka.com

Cool site. Thank you.
http://chance.jncmvm.com/ chance

Post a comment