Saturday, March 11, 2006

Weekend Open Forum

I'm a little surprised, although I suppose perhaps I shouldn't be, about the sheer amount of anger and irritation directed towards Joe Lieberman. I was expecting at least one or two Democrats to come out and support him... but apparently not. Is Lieberman's support among Democrats strictly offline?

Anyway, the League of Conservation Voters endorsed him.

I apologize for light posting lately, due to my increasingly busy schedule. I've just about made up my mind on some ways to remedy that.

What else is happening this weekend?


tparty said...

Funny how Joe is touting the LCV endorsement this year.

In 2004, when LCV endorsed John Kerry over Joe before the critical New Hampshire primary, Lieberman flak Dan Gerstein (the same guy who recently freaked out about an anti-Joe post at HuffPo) had this to say about the group:

"Senator Lieberman knows the independent-minded voters of New Hampshire will decide who has the best record on the environment and not some interest group," Gerstein said.

Really. You can't have it both ways, Joe.

More on this at LamontBlog.

Anonymous said...

we're surrounded by VT wannabes here....a foreign policy of wishful thinking, no transportation or energy projects ever to be built, let's chase Wal Mart back to the South, and tell businesses in general to get lost, especially if they want to move to Fairfield County.

It's too bad these folks just don't drive up I-91 to the paradise in the green mountains so they can elect a socialist to the senate

turfgrrl said...

Chalk it up to frustration with the scandals, corruption of the GOP. Lieberman, in his typical clueless fashion becomes the lightening rod for people who think that any agreement with the anything that the GOP supports must be "the end of the world."

Then there is Lieberman himself, who has always radiated a smug moralism that comes across at odd moments.

You could interchange his voting record with Dodd's and never know the difference in a blind taste test.

Nevertheless, between January 2003 and December 2004, Lieberman agreed with the president's stated position on 50 votes, while disagreeing on 42, according to VoteTracker.

That put Lieberman in agreement with Bush 54.35 percent of the time, ranking him 32nd among the 48 Senate Democrats.

Dodd, however, voted in favor of the president's position on 91 bills and against him on 77. VoteTracker ranked Dodd, in agreement with Bush 54.17 percent of the time, 35th among his Democratic colleagues.

Meanwhile, Clinton, at 54.22 percent, and Kennedy, at 51.83 percent, ranked 34th and 40th, respectively.

Votes the vote, does he talk the talk?
By Don Michak, Journal Inquirer

Anti-Lieberman groups will just go back to the Honeycomb hideout after the primary, and hopefully regroup with some better placed outrage against the real perpetrators who are running this country into economic ruin.

Max said...

The problem with Lieberman isn't really with the way he votes, but what he says in the media. He's been on Fox News countless times praising the President and denigrating his own party. If he doesn't want to support the Party, and be part of it, he doesn't have to be, the Republicans have an open slot.

turfgrrl said...

The real problem is that Shays, Simmons and Johnson say they are moderate in the media, and vote like they were clones of Tom DeLay. So which is worse, voting against every democratic principal or just trash talking? I think if you roll the video tape on any football game, its what you do on the field, therefor its the votes that count.

Anonymous said...


those of us who would prefer to inconvenience a caribou or two rather than paying $5/gallon in the future to Hugo Chavez or some mad Mullah are very surprised you didn't see some rather painful lapses of lefty voting in the videotape for Shays, Simmons and Johnson.

Actually, all the objective ratings have them at the dead center in Congress. But since anyone to the right of the MA congressional delegation is a Gingrich clone to folks who post here, hell, why let the facts get in the way of a good story

Genghis Conn said...


I remember making a very similar argument a long time ago, but the people out there who really, really despise Joe don't hate him for his voting record. There are more conservative Democrats out there.

They think his statements and pro-war stance make him a traitor to the party, which in some ways is much, much worse for them than if he were an actual Republican. At this point, I'm not sure anything Lieberman can do will convince them otherwise.

I also don't think Lieberman has any idea of how to deal with Democrats who oppose him, except simply to crush them.

Genghis Conn said...

Hey, the Honeycomb Hideout! Ha!

Anonymous said...

Ironically, this is just like how CT Republicans felt about Weicker in 1988. He had successfully avoided a primary (the party conservatives were smarting from losing the 1986 gubenatorial primary) but found the party regulars found little more to fear from Lieberman than what Lowell had already been doing?

What if a credible moderate GOP candidate emerged like a Christie Whitman type....would the Lamonsters climb aboard to take it out on Lieberman?

Genghis Conn said...

I have no idea, anonymous. Probably not.

In other news, the General Assembly is considering a reporters' shield law which would, among other things, cover blogger.

My State Senator, John Kissel, said the following:

During a hearing Friday by the legislature's judiciary committee, lawmakers raised questions about who would be covered and how the law would work. When told by a witness that some Web bloggers would be covered by the bill, Sen. John Kissel responded, "That's a little scary to me. It's a real Wild West out there. ... I think that opens up a whole can of worms."

I'm in favor of such a law, for this reason:

"If reporters can be compelled by courts to reveal sources, there will be a chilling effect on whistle-blowing," said Rep. James Spallone, an Essex Democrat who sponsored the bill. "This is a good government bill."

Source: Keating, Christopher. Need For Journalists' Shield Law Argued." Hartford Courant 11 March, 2006.

Independent1 said...

I'm basically against the shield law. The Nixon tape case said it all: that in a criminal prosecution, no one is above the law. Not the President, not a reporter. Before anyone is sent to jail, both prosecution and defense should have a full shot at all of the information available. The President has Constitutional responsibilities and protections, as do reporters and bloggers and everyone else under the First Amendment. When it comes to a criminal prosecution, the defendant has a right to confront his/her accuser(s), and to gain information and testimony to clear him/herself. If the testimony comes from a reporter, tough.

Anonymous said...

I was at the press conference where LCV endorsed Lieberman.

Tiny turnout. There were a couple of women in Birkenstocks that sounded like they had crushes on Joe. They kept squealing and clapping whenever he said something nice about the enviornment. By God, Joe's got groupies! (Weird. Very, very weird.)

They also had a few state reps there. Terry Backer, George Wilbur among them. Not one of the legislators who are leaders on environmental issues bothered to show up.

Joe called nuclear power "the solution" to global warming. He said that France gets 80% of its power from nukes and that America should too. (At this point, the Birkenstock women got real quiet and the LCV guy from D.C. looked like he'd been slapped.)

He was asked a follow up question about building new nuke plants being more expensive than building clean energy plants. He said taxpayers should pick up the tab so building nukes would be as cheap as building windmills.

I glanced at one of his staffers at that moment. She had her head in her hands and looked ready to cry.

Joe had no talking points on the Lamont questions other than "yeah, I suppose I'll debate him."

Then he got asked about Plan B for rape victims and said that hospitals shouldn't be required to provide it to victims. That's sure to make the Democratic primary voters feel warm and fuzzy about Joe.

TrueBlueCT said...

Joe said what about Plan B and CT's hospitals?

The problem with us online people is that we can tell when we are being sold out! That's what happens when you pay attention...

The V-P nomination went to Joe's head. He is bitter that the Dem Party showed him so little support and respect during the 2004 primaries, and personally, I think he dreams of a McCain/Lieberman unity ticket. How else do you explain his continued pandering to the Right?

Anonymous said...

The Nixon tape case said it all: that in a criminal prosecution, no one is above the law. Not the President, not a reporter. Before anyone is sent to jail, both prosecution and defense should have a full shot at all of the information available. The President has Constitutional responsibilities and protections, as do reporters and bloggers and everyone else under the First Amendment. When it comes to a criminal prosecution, the defendant has a right to confront his/her accuser(s), and to gain information and testimony to clear him/herself. If the testimony comes from a reporter, tough.

Is this a gag? What a perverse argument!

If Woodward and Bernstein and the WaPo hadn't been able to guarantee anonymity, do you imagine that the #2 man in the FBI (Deep Throat) would have taken the risks he did? What you seem to be saying would strip the press of the protections you just said they do/should have.

And nothing in the protection of sources deprives an accused of his day in court facing his accuser. No prosecution can take place on mere hearsay. If someone leaks to a reporter, and the reporter is able to corroborate the information, that is legitimate reportage. If a prosecutor takes that reportage and is able to establish wrong-doing that will satisfy a grand jury / judge, then the accused, if tried, will have his day.


Don Pesci said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Don Pesci said...

On the question of exempting journalists from giving relevant information at trial -- That is the way this should be put -- I notice that Chris Powell of the Journal Inquirer testified at the hearing that the First Amendment right to free speech inheres in the people, not a privileged class of journalists. This being so, journalists should not have privileges not afforded to the people. As citizens, journalists have rights and the obligation to give testimony at trial -- just like anyone else. For a journalist to say these things -- Powell was speaking only for himself -- is highly courageous. The notion that the press will be chilled if it is not afforded special privileges is piffle.

turfgrrl said...

anonymous 7:12,

If you are referring to the Shays vote against drilling in Alaska ...The conservative position is that whatever oil reserves that may be in the ground there, are small and insufficient even if the most wildly optimistic assessment is used. The facts in the ground is that demand for oil is/is about to/has already outstripped supply. You are going to pay $5/gallon whether we drill there or not. I don't see Jeb Bush spending his political capital promoting drilling in the gulf of mexico either. Shays has no clearer understanding of energy issues than he has understanding of why an arab company runs the Bridgeport ports.

turfgrrl said...


Yes the anti-Lieberman forces will never relent, and I can't say that I don't blame them. Lieberman has some hard nanny-state positions to accept. But, the fight against Lieberman is much like our invasion of Iraq, it's easier to pick on him than doggedly work to tip the house back to the democrats. Much like the Bush team thought it was easier to topple Sadam Hussein than go after Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran.

MikeCT said...


Re: Lieberman's floor votes. First, I don't know what was counted or not counted in those tallies and the tracking service in question requires a paid subscription. There are numerous problems with using voting records (described below), including the equal weighting of non-controversial, marginal votes with prominent, nation-changing votes. Breaking out the latter votes, I'm sure the tallies and percentages would have a wider spread.

Anyone who works with state or federal legislatures will tell you that that their most important work does not happen in floor votes. The best legislation - under Republican or Democratic leadership - never gets to the floor because it is never proposed, never endorsed, never makes it to or through a committee, or is watered down in negotiations before any floor vote. The most important power of legislators is their ability to introduce legislation and push to get it through. Another essential power is the use of bully pulpit to champion better legislation and draw public attention to the men behind the curtain. Joe uses his power to push bad ideas and legitimate Republican ideology. He is a "real perpetrator," as you say.

But if you think the Congressional candidates are getting too little attention (and I agree), then start a new conversation about them and say something interesting. It's a heck of a lot more constructive and less condescending than insulting the voters, donors and volunteers that you think should spend their time supporting Murphy, Courtney and Farrell, rather than Lamont (even if it is a false choice).

red october said...

Turffgirl, if you weren't bashing the GOP I'd say you were an old fashioned yankee republican from your policy posts. And Shays has no idea why he votes how he votes deep down - the anti-tundra stuff is just to appease the Darienites - Shays could never espouse an energy policy anymore than Joe can.

Et al, Mark Felt was not a hero. He had legal avenues he could have pursued before going to the Washington Post. He was looking for the top job at the FBI that Nixon denied him and he wanted to topple Nixon not clean up the government. He was part of the darkside of the FBI and eventually prosecuted for violating the law long after Nixon was gone. ronald reagan can come on here and tell us why he pardoned Felt.

Here is the latest from the front page of the Sunday New York Times showing how no one in the CT delegation has yet to adequately explain or acknowledge the problems in the early days of Iraq II

Anonymous said...

Tell you what Turffgirl, if the ANWR oil reserve is so small and insufficient( conservatively 5B bbls @$60/bbl =$300B worth of oil) why don;t we just let some other country use it?

I suppose the same "small and insufficient" argument can be raised against any public policy. Why build a new school, it will make a de minimis impact on the quantity of incoming children. We never catch every drunk on the road, why stop any?

I could try and explain the impact of minor supply increases on marginal costs ( perhaps the temporary loss of 10% of US refinery capacity after Katrina spiking prices $1/gallon is an example) but why bother?
The fact is the "yankee republicans" oppose every energy proposal and seem to think we can run a modern economy on whine power.

The richest example was Blumenthal proposing a state power authority (afer opposing cross-sound cable, NU transmission lines etc etc etc.)

Perhaps we could take all his useless legal briefs and press releases and turn them into biomass energy

red october said...

ooookay there Ryan, but youu forget that the choke point of US oil supply is the number of refineries kept low by big oil on poourpose. And what is your point anywat down there in Texas sprawl.

Anonymous said...

ramius, good luck getting refineries built in a nation full of Dick of the reasons they are all on the Gulf is it is one of the few regions that doesn;t try and run these things across the state line

Genghis Conn said...

Well, that and the fact that that's where all the oil is.

Anonymous said...

GC, what if they tried to convert part of the Groton navy yard to a refinery...I guarantee the decicle level of local protest would be audible inside the DC beltway

red october said...

G.C. ryan doesn't like to lose but he doesn't know that the way to win is to be loogical and collaborative not lounatical. The state of CT has been telling businesses to get lost for years unless they pony up for campaign contributions and outrageous govenment and healthcare costs (Connecticut has the second highest cost in the nation for employer-sponsored health care. It's second only to Alaska.goes the quote from from today's CT)
but he doesn't want to hear that or do anything about it but whine about liberals eventhough it's both sides of the aisle to the left of him doing it.

Anonymous said...

ramius, check your gear. Spellcheck is off and you are sending static to potential allies. Remember, they have orders to sink any vessel they suspect of hostile intentions

CGG said...

GC, since I've moved to CT three years ago I haven't met one Democrat who has anything nice to say about Joe Lieberman. In 2003 at the Connecticut Democratic Caucus nominating convention some of the speakers openly took swipes at him. The buzz on the floor was still more harsh. I've been to a few Fairfield DTC meetings now and the reaction is pretty much the same. I'm a newer resident to the state and I've often wondered how he remains in office with so little support.

I have nothing against Lieberman personally, but he doesn't represent me or my interests. The good news is that he doesn't pretend to. That makes my choice pretty easy should there be a primary.

turfgrrl said...

I think you unintentinally supported my point. Absolutely the msot important work happens in commitee. But as a minority party, the influence is subject to the whims of the majority. So, for all the Lieberman bloviation of nanny-state (I can hardly call them GOP leaning) policies, in the end, he's not a key influencer. Besides, I kind of like the idea that the Senate can have members that reach across the aisle on policy in a gentlemanly fashion.

Much has been posted on this site, about the Lieberman/anyone else campaign, so if I post with the conversation flow. I do understand media strategy and campaign strategy, and will simply reiterate the importance of focusing on races that are true change agents. The policies that are stripping consitutional rights, economic stability and national security come from the GOP, not Lieberman. Replacing him changes nothing.

red october,
I bash parts of the GOp where it deserves bashing. The current GOP leadership is corrupt, inept and wastes more money than the Soviet politburo back in its day. But that should hardly surprise anyone, since many of the neocon cabal are former trotskyites.

anonymous 2:12,
Well Canada took that bait and sold its oil shale rights to China. The point is that energy policy needs to move towards transition as the supplies diminish past a cheap energy price point. The world runs on cheap oil. What do you think will happen to the price of goods once shipping goods from China become increasingly expensive? Why do you think we import most of our oil from the western hemisphere to begin with?

MikeCT said...

You seem to assume that Dems unify in blocking GOP initiatives and vice versa, that Dems are not involved in horse trading and negotiations, and that a minority party has no influence in blocking or supporting legislation (including the filibuster, which Joe won't use without GOP permission, or rallying public opposition, for which Joe scolds the Dems). Lieberman is disliked precisely because he is more than happy to "reach across the aisle" and push for GOP initiatives, whether or not the Republicans are in power. He will strip our "constitutional rights" and weaken our "national security", no matter who is in charge (and particularly if there is a narrow Dem majority). You can remember his positions, I'm sure — they "come from him." And thus, Shays, Johnson, and Sean Hannity will remain his loyal allies, even if few Dems will.

I don't know of any Dem, including Lamont supporters, who doesn't want to change the majority in the Senate, but that won't help with Dems like Joe selling us out. In any case, Connecticut can only benefit with Lamont replacing Lieberman, and Joe is not entitled to an automatic coronation.

turfgrrl said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
turfgrrl said...

You seem to forget that much of Connecticut trends conservative and nanny-state friendly and thus Lieberman actually has wide support because he does in fact represent the majority view on various positions.

You might also want to spend some time watching SchoolHouse Rock to see how a bill becomes a law before you state something as silly as "want to change the majority in the Senate, but that won't help with Dems like Joe selling us out" because Lieberman votes with the Democratic caucus.

TruBluDem said...

GC -- To your question about Joe supporters and why they're not very vocal on this, and other, blogs there are some of us out there. However, it's been my experience that anytime you say something decent about the guy, you get crucified by other bloggers who are so vehemently opposed to Joe that they can't conceive that there might be people out there who still think the guy does a relatively good job. I've been called a Lieberman apologist -- even though I've made it perfectly clear that I do not agree with his stance on the war. I've been called out as a Lieberman staffer -- which I am not. It's a real shame that some of the bloggers on this site just can't seem to tolerate differences of opinion without lowering the discourse to name calling and belittlement. Everyone on this site is entitled to their opinion. Unfortunately, it's gotten to the point where it's not worth it to express your opinion if you're not on the bandwagon, which is really too bad because this is a great site GC. And for those of you who will surely poo-poo this post, let me say again, I'm not a Lieberman staffer, nor am I an apologist. I'm just an ordinary Dem who happens to think that overall, despite the war, Lieberman has done a good job for this state over the last 18 years.

red october said...

turffgrrl, bash away because you are right on; that's why I am defecting and sending off signals too there, mr. anonymous, but do not worry i never get hit.

diver dan said...

captain ramius, the hull is looking good, my boys will take it from here, amny thanks, you and mr. ryan enjoy the fishing in Maine, might even want to stop off at Portalnd for a laabster roll, they've done a bang up job on the revitilization.