Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Lieberman Plays to his Strengths

Joe Lieberman is trying to salvage his swiftly sinking campaign as the primary, which he has stated he will remain in, approaches. He's doing so by playing to his stregth: his image as a principled, bipartisan Senator who is above the fray:
Lieberman, speaking to reporters after an address at the Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce, said he is fed up with what he sees as "rigid partisanship" on multiple issues facing the country, not just the war in Iraq.

"Washington has become much too partisan and that partisanship gets in the way of doing the job that you send us to do," Lieberman said. "I feel Mr. Lamont, in Washington, would add to the polarization."

He dismissed a question about whether he is taking a political risk by touting his bipartisanship less than two months before the Aug. 8 primary, as critics claim he is too cozy with President Bush and too supportive of the war.

"I'm telling the truth," he said. "Whether it's risky or not, I don't know." (AP)

Of course it's risky, especially when he's been attacking Lamont for not being partisan enough:
Lamont, a Greenwich businessman who has put more than $1.5 million of his own money into his primary campaign, said he's confused about why Lieberman accuses him of being too partisan, but is running television ads attacking Lamont for being too supportive of Republicans. (AP)

Of all of the accusations Lieberman has made against Lamont, this is the one with the most potential to do damage. Many voters are sick of partisanship.

Of course, one breed of voter who isn't sick of that partisanship is the likely Democratic primary voter. Many hard-core Democrats wish that Lieberman had been more partisan on the issues that matter to them. What he sees as compromise, they see as capitulation.

Still, it's the first smart attack Lieberman has made in this campaign. At least it isn't petulant, vicious or an unbelievable exaggeration or distortion. Lamont will be more partisan than Lieberman. But that's also his strength.

Source

"Lieberman touts bipartisanship, says Lamont would be polarizing." Associated Press 20 June, 2006.

67 comments:

FrankS said...

Well if I'm to judge Washington's efforts to protect this nation since 2000, Lieberman's last election, Washington has failed this country in so many ways and it would seem that partisanship is the least of the problems.

It's individuals within Congress's oversight authority of the FAA and airline security for example, that failed to act to protect this nation. In spite of public warnings, it's own congressional reports and the example of other nations increasing actions to prevent an airplane hijack our elected officials in Washington did little.

Mr. Lieberman would do better to return to his days as a state official, a principled, bipartisan Attorney General who entered the fray.

Patricia Rice said...

Tough talk is easy and popular but when you are a Senator especially in the minority party you need to work with both sides to be effective. With all LaMonts whining, he would do the same thing or he would be treated like some bratty kid and wouldn't be a part of any debate in Washington.

Joe has been criticized by the Republicans for his liberal voting record and they say he is as liberal as Chris Dodd. Should we get rid of Senator Dodd too or is the entire party all about a single issue.

BRubenstein said...

The Mayor Of Bridgeport just admitted to cocaine use while as Mayor and Councilman...he seconded the nomination of Lieberman...what a great ad for Lamont about changing the " business as usual" climate in connecticut...

CT_Defender said...

can we post something about what our fair and wonder Sec of the State did?...Can we say political Bias?

Patricia Rice said...

Nice one Bruce! Let's blame Senator Lieberman for the Mayors cocaine problem. I guess whatever you can say or do to promote LaMont.

Hopewellian_Magi said...

Lieberman is still grasping for straws. His latest attack on Lamont for being a polarizing figure is rubbish. George Bush is the ultimate polarizer and instead of cozying up to him, like LIeberman does, Bush needs to be held accountable and that is what Ned Lamont will do.

Grover Norquist gives the Republican definition of bipartisanship -- "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals - and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship. Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."

You can not broker honest bipartisan deals with Republicans holding Norquist's view and the Republican leadership in Washington holds that view. Lieberman either doesn't understand this or is willing to sellout ordinary citizens of CT for his own political gain under the guise of being bipartisan.

Gio said...

"Bush needs to be held accountable" Ok then, I guess we should just discount the last two elections that Bush won, and let's just ignore the fact that Republicans won both the House and Senate.

Democrats are really just laughable. Here you are in a basically socialist state, losing people, losing jobs, losing Congressmen due to people getting the hell out and moving to Red States...and yet it is all Bush's Fault!!!

And now, well you decide to kick Joe to the curb--well because the guy has principle to stand up for our military and to fight the Islamofascists. Other than that--Joe is as blue Teddy Kennedy.

Ha--what a f'ing riot.

bluecoat said...

Yeah Gio; Bush won the country but he didn't win CT...stop using the troops as your plaything to make your point, every American supports the troops but not everybody - including some of the troops, past and current, including a few who are running for Congress - are happy about the war in Iraq..

Gio said...

Bluecoat-Obviously the Lamont campaign is all about Iraq. Its motto should be "let's cut and run-yesterday". And that is attracting folks such as you. Nothing wrong with that, but some folks (such as me) fully support the troops, this war, and principled politicians who stand with this President. Joe Lieberman is certainly not a politician I would normally support--but his standing up on Iraq is brave, strong and deserves continued and ongoing support.

TSCowperthwait said...

As a Republican who will not vote for either Democrat candidate, I hoped to not get into the debate here concerning who is the better Democrat candidate - Lieberman or Lamont. However, I will say that it is important for our political leaders to be: (1) open-minded (meaning, don't just vote the party line), (2) willing to stir debate, and (3) most importantly, representative of the all people who voted them into office (and not just the majority). This means that the candidate has to have some appeal to liberals, conservatives, and moderates.

I do not agree with Senator Lieberman on many issues, but I think he is more likely to have greater bipartisan support than Ned Lamont. Many argue that President Bush has been polarizing, and it does appear that way to us in the (liberal) Northeast [Note to Bruce: I am not using the word "liberal" in a disparaging way]. However, Ned Lamont has struck me as a "blame" candidate and not a "solution" candidate. He blames Senator Lieberman for Iraq, our energy issues, education failures, etc. However, I have not heard of any comprehensive "solutions" to these problems from him. He might appeal to the more left-leaning members and majority of the Democrat party, but that is where his appeal ends.

It is disheartening to read so many comments over the past few months attacking the President for being polarizing when those same bloggers seek to replace a moderate senator with a political unknown who would be polarizing on the other end of the political spectrum.

TSCowperthwait said...

Bluecaot, you make a very valid point that Connecticut did not vote in favor of President Bush in the last (and previous) election. A conservative Republican would not fly in this state.

I don't question that many of those people who oppose the war in Iraq also support our troops. It is a common misunderstanding made by those who support the decision to go to war and those who oppose it. Did I think we should engage Iraq based on the evidence at the time, yes. Am I disappointed that the evidence was incorrect (and/or misleading), yes. Would I still have engaged Iraq in conflict if I knew for a fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction, etc., probably not. But that is hindsight and we can't continue to think that way and should instead focus on coming up with solutions so that these types of errors are not made again.

bluecoat said...

TSC: I don't consider Bush to be a conservative Republican - Barry Goldwater never would have invaded Iraq in March 2003; Goldwater also talked straight to the people; often his downfall...Bush said we had to go into Iraq for WMD's because that's what the 'average Joe' would understand but he always had his agenda of spreading Democracy by dividing and conquering the Middle east...

bluecoat said...

TSC: remeber that Hans Blix was in Iraq and he could have stayed there...there's lots written on how Bush blundered and on good source is COBRA II by LtGen Trainor (USMC Ret.) and Mark Gordon...it's in line with comments by USMC LtGen Anthony Newbold who was high up in the Pentagon at the time of the invasion and others who have been at war in their careers...

TSCowperthwait said...

Bluecoat, I didn't intend my comment to imply that Bush was a conservative Republican (which I agree he is not). I meant to say that generally that a conservative Republican would not get elected in Connecticut, let alone the Northeast. The point being that in the Northeast we tend to be more liberal than many of the Red States in the south and heartland.

However, I'm curious as to how you know what Bush's real "agenda" was/is in regards to "conquering the Middle East." I don't consider myself the "average Joe" so are you implying that I'm an idiot for believing that Iraq may had WMDs?

bluecoat said...

Gio: there is no such military strategy as "cut and run" and no one has espoused it... but Bill Frist and others have labeled those who would challenge the poor handling of the war with supporting it....and Ned Lamont's candidiacy does not atract me at all; I didn't like Lieberman ten years ago; must be an interesting life to see averything as black and white and red all over....

bluecoat said...

TSC: no I am not implying you are an idiot at all; but what happened in the White House before the invasion did happen - and it is indisputably described in a book by Bob Woodward that cleared the Whitehouse before publication; many the Congress and the press, including the 'liberal' New York Times, have admitted that they didn't ask the tough questions between the vote in the fall to use necessary force and the invasion...

TSCowperthwait said...

One last comment (by me only most likely) on Iraq. I haven't read the books that Blucoat has listed so i can't speak intelligently on what was known or unknown at the time of the decision. I just wish that both parties would stop harping on whether we should be in Iraq and, instead, focus our efforts on what we can do to ease the transition, bring our troops home, and actually develop a peaceful relationship with the Islamic world.

bluecoat said...

Agreed, TSC...it's where do we go from here....

disgruntled_republican said...

bluecoat and TSC...

That exchange was one of the best I have ever seen on CLP about the war. Kudos to you both!

I think TSC's point to what we need to do as a country vs. what we have done is exactly what the focus needs to be. The constant finger pointing is irrelevant and quite frankly irresponsible by the Congress...on both sides of the isle. It is water under the bridge because we are there already; We need Congress to work together amongst themselves and with the President, like him or not, to get our troops home and Iraq safe.

bluecoat said...

agreed DG and thank you; unfortunatley some from the right think that a Congress that works "with the President" is a Congress that agrees with him without question...and without oversight...

cgg said...

I think admitting our mistakes and analyizing them is a good thing. Mistakes are how we learn, and an actual discussion of what went wrong is something we as a nation need to engage in while we're still living with the immediate consequences.

The problem is that I don't see that going on. I see mud slinging, nationalism, and irrational arguments coming from every direction. Take yesterday's non-binding resolution that passed in the house. The "debate" should have been seen as a national embarrassment, but it was a perfect example of how ridiculous most discussion about the war has become.

Weicker Liker said...

Disgruntled....

I was able to attend the President's Dinner last night in Washington, sponsored by the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

About 5,000 donors were in attendance.

The Chairman of the NRSC, Elizabeth Dole, gave some speech. She highlighted the races around the country the NRSC were excited about and were targeting.

No mention of your man Alan Schlesinger at all in her speech.

Mr. Schlesinger has a LONG way to go.

bluecoat said...

an actual discussion of what went wrong is something we as a nation need to engage in has actually happened among the thoughtful in Congress and the military... but unfortunatley the theatre that gets aired the most is the political sniping and psotruing...

disgruntled_republican said...

Thanks for the truely pointless comment Weicker Liker.

Hope you had a good time. I know Mrs Dole is a fabulous speaker. I had the opportunity to meet her when the Presidential Debates were held in Hartford back in 1996.

bluecoat said...

from cgg's Bloomberg link is this paragraph The three Republicans who bucked their party to vote against the resolution were Representatives Jim Leach of Iowa, Ron Paul of Texas and John Duncan of Tennessee, who all voted against the war in 2002. in the simplistic "black and white and read all over" language of the press. but the 2002 vote was not "for the war" but the use of necessary force to disarm... as a last resort...

disgruntled_republican said...

Agreed blucoat.

Cgg-

I read the artciel from your link...the last paragrach reads:

"Representative John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat, said the war was `` unnecessary'' from the beginning. ``We are deeply involved in a misguided conflict,'' Lewis said. ``The American people want us today to bring our children home.''"

This is the type of dialogue we were referring to in our comments. THis is the stuff that needs to be put on the back burner.

I discussion on what went wrong is fine and good...do it after we get out. We can;t stop everything to have that discussion now. Both sides need to work together to get the job done and once it is then go back and look at the places (and I will be the first to admit there are many places) that things went wrong. To do it now puts our guys in the line of fire even longer.

Weicker Liker said...

Disgruntled....

I wouldnt say my comment was pointless.

National Republicans don't have Alan Schlesinger on their radar.

He has a LONG way to go.

cgg said...

DR, I have to disagree. Part of any discussion about how to finish the job/withdraw/etc. has to involve what went wrong. Our mistakes are a big part of the problem. Recognizing them has to be a part of the solution.

turfgrrl said...

I think part of the problem in framing the debate about what to do about Iraq now, is that the goal posts have been moved so many times as to what we are doing there in the first place. What is the objective, other than Bush stating that it is up to some future president to decide what to do? In response to a question in a White House news conference about if there will come a day that when there will be no American forces in Iraq, Mr. Bush answered, "That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."

We have never had a president just let a conflict operate on auto pilot. And it's not just Iraq, but Afghanistan as well.

bluecoat said...

The discussions about what went wrong with our decision making mechanisms and what to do next militarliy as well as diplomatically can be seperate and distinct; and need not be continuously confused; but the discussions can, and should, also be concurrent..

TSCowperthwait said...

Thanks for the kind words, DR.

I have to somewhat agree with Weicker Liker that it should be a concern to CT Republicans that Schlesinger has not gained much ground in his overall appeal. At a time when in-fighting among the Democrat candidates is high, he should be making more headway among the electorate.

BRubenstein said...

How we got into Iraq is as important and relevant as how do we get out.

WE do know some things...we were lied to and misled into this war and the expense for it...over 600 billion..could have been used for social programs...


How we get out will determine how our foreign policy is conducted for a generation...I fear that Howard Dean was right...when we leave, the country will degenerate into a Theocracy leaving us with no better relations in the world then when we started..indeed relations are worse now.We should adhere to the Murtha plan and leave.

disgruntled_republican said...

Sure he does...I have never said he doesn't. First thing he needs is Lamont to win the primary and Joe to run as a U. If that doesn't happen, the ride is over.

I happen to like him. you don't. Im over ot bud, vote for someone else.

BRubenstein said...

Disgruntled..i do agree with you..the exchange by TSC and Bluecoat was really top draw..i find both of them to really know their stuff..just like you.

TSCowperthwait said...

"Today, the Iraqis are handling more and more of their own security," said Representative Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Democrat. "That's what should determine when our troops come home." (from the link posted by cgg)

This article contains at least material error - Representative Weldon is a Republican.

bluecoat said...

Murtha, a warrior himself, who even if he were a Republican would be a right wing war hawk doesn't want "to leave" but wants to pull back and monitor the situation from Kuwait and a few other places...in order to save American lives and to protect American interests...and his strategy is not made without consultation with others who currently serve....

Rear_Admiral said...

Number of Americans killed on 9/11: 3,000+ (in the span of an hour)

Number of Americans killed during WAR in Iraq since March 2003: 2,500+ (in the span of 3 years)

Number of subsequent terrorist strikes in U.S. since 9/11: 0

That's perspective. So argue that Washington has failed, Bush has failed, no WMDs, whatever. Even if we were struck today, you cannot argue with those remarkable and solemn facts.

TSCowperthwait said...

Rear Admiral,

I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are you saying that the deaths of 2,500+ troops over the last three years has been worth it because there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11? Or are you just staing facts that we've lost over 6,000 American lives since 9/11 to terrorism and/or the war against terrorism? If you could please elaborate I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat,

Murtha's position makes sense to a degree. However, the sectarian violence will not end without peacekeeping forces in place, on the ground. The Iraqi army alone will not be enough. I think Joe Biden articulated the "third way" strategy most effectively recently, A decade ago, Bosnia was torn apart by ethnic cleansing and facing its demise as a single country. After much hesitation, the United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords,which kept the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations, even allowing Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of American and other forces, Bosnians have lived a decade in relative peace and are now slowly strengthening their common central government, including disbanding those separate armies last year.

... To seize it, however, America must get beyond the present false choice between "staying the course" and "bringing the troops home now" and choose a third way that would wind down our military presence responsibly while preventing chaos and preserving our key security goals.
.

There are of course huge obstacles in following that path too. Turkey, for one, would not welcome a Kurdish federation on its border. But it worked in the former Yugoslavia, and is more like the road map we should be executing politically instead of the rudderless path we're on.

turfgrrl said...

A better link to Biden's Iraq plan. pdf version here.

TSCowperthwait said...

I'd like to get back to the original post by GC. I'd like to hear from the Lamont supporters why Lieberman's assessment of him is wrong, and how Lamont would not just be another partisan politician.

Rear_Admiral said...

TSC- My point, besides simply stating facts, is that over 3,000 of us were killed in an instant in a terrorist attack that was termed 'an act of war.' Since then we have prosecuted an ongoing three year war against terror on the enemy's turf and still have yet to lose as many soldiers in three years than people in one hour on 9/11. A war, i'm confident to say, we are winning. And we are winning primarily because the enemy's sworn purpose is to destroy our way of life. They do that through acts of violence--none of which have occurred since that day four and a half years ago. How many more of us would have died in attacks in our own cities were we to have not charted the course we are currently on? No one can say with certainty. But, again I say, you cannot argue with these facts.

turfgrrl said...

rear_admiral,

Iraq did not fund,sponsor or otherwise support Al-Qaeda. Iraq was never the enemy's turf.

Rear_Admiral said...

Turffy- if you can back up ANY of what you've just said, please do. And if it is not the enemy's turf then why is the enemy there?

Beyond that, it does not discount any of the point I made above.

TSCowperthwait said...

Thanks, Rear Admiral for clarifying your comments.

I disagree with you in one regard - I do not think that our efforts in Iraq conflict have stopped terrorism. Since 9/11, there have been well over 500 deaths attributable to terrorism on westerners in Bali, Spain, Morrocco, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. These deaths hit our allies from Britain, Spain, and Australia. Those losses hurt me (and should hurt you) just as much as the American lives lost in 9/11 and in Iraq because those countries have stood up with us to fight terrorism and fight for democracy.

TSCowperthwait said...

I also don't believe that there is a link b/w 9/11 and Iraq, but I do believe that Iraq has always allowed terrorist organizations to access their country and that terrorist organizations were in Iraq (like they are in many countries) plotting against western interests prior to the US invasion.

Rear_Admiral said...

TSC- I can appreciate your comments and believe me, the attacks in Europe, and all over the world, do affect me. But let's be frank, anytime it's your own country, your own city, the pain and the loss impacts you a lot harder. And I didn't assert that what we're doing has stopped terrorism--I did assert that there was a direct correlation between what we are doing and the absence of attacks on American soil. I also think that we have far better intelligence and police forces domestically-speaking, and the fact that travel in and out of our country is under greater scrutiny than among European countries. And at the end of the day, the American government exists to protect the rights and way of life of American citizens--and I think that they are doing it.

Weicker Liker said...

Alan Schlesinger tells WNPR that he supports plans to bring back half of the troops in Iraq in the coming year.

Does this smell like a candidate that favors a timetable for our exit from Iraq?

Click on the link and listen to the interview below

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wnpr/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=930479

TSCowperthwait said...

I agree with you, Rear Admiral. The only thing that I would add (much to my chagrin)is that I believe France (and Italy and Israel) has a better domestic intelligence network than us.

TSCowperthwait said...

Weicker Liker, if what you have just reported is correct (and I haven't read the article yet), I am extremely disappointed in Alan Schlesinger's position. A firm timetable is unrealistic and risky. I think that Alan just made a serious campaign blunder.

Hopewellian_Magi said...

TSCowperthwait said...

I'd like to get back to the original post by GC. I'd like to hear from the Lamont supporters why Lieberman's assessment of him is wrong, and how Lamont would not just be another partisan politician.


My response -- Lamont will stand up to defend our Constitutional Rigts from Bush and his corporate robber baron pals. If that is partisan, than Lamont is in good company with the likes of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin, etc..

Grover Norquist said that "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape." That's what Republican leadership from Bush on down believe. Lieberman doesn't get the fact that the Republicans use bipartisanship as a ruse to continue to force their pro-corporate, Christian-fascist agenda down America's throat.

Resistance to Republican "date rape" of America is essential to restore the health of our nation. Lieberman won't defend us, but Lamont will do everything in his power to fight for us. That's why Ned Lamont is a better choice for CT than Lieberman.

TSCowperthwait said...

Hopewellian Magi, thanks for that inspiring display of ignorance. If there are any Lamont supporters (Bruce?) who could seriously explain to me why Lamont won't just be partisan and has cross-appeal among Democrats and Republicans I'd still like to hear from them. I'm not just being a wiseguy (mafiosi use not intended) here. I'd really like to hear and I know that some of you are very passionate about Lamont.

Derby Conservative said...

Hopewellian_magi:

You really are an ignoramus. The robber barons did not exist in the days of the founding fathers that you list…they cam over 100 years later. That said, Virginians like Jefferson and Paine were not big fans of the Constitution. They favored state sovereignty and were concerned that their vision of an agrarian utopia led by gentlemen farmers would be ruined by the more industrial areas of the country like Philadelphia, Boston and New York where bankers and merchants ruled. They were so concerned that they nearly led Virginia and the rest of the South to secede from the young constitutional Republic over the issue of assumption of state debts by the federal government. Also, the four men listed would be horrified to see the size and scope of our government and would probably be disgusted to see the quasi-socialist agenda that Ned Lamont is promoting.

One other question: Is Ned in favor of defending our 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms? I didn’t think so. Hypocrite.

FrankS said...

Rear Admiral

Given that the time between Al-Qaeda's bombing of the World Trade Center and 9/11 was years, the passage of time seems to have little meaning.

turfgrrl said...

Rear Admiral,

A primer can be had here.

bluecoat said...

George W. Bush has said there was no link between the attacks of 911 and Iraq. the theory of aggression - diplomatic and now military - against Saddam was to get rid of WMD's so that they would not fall into the hands of terrorists. Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing - and he should have been turned over for trial at the hague for previous war crimes as even Rob Simmons called that one - but the attack on Iraq didn't prevent any terrorist attacks on our soil or save any American lives from terrorism anymore than Medicare D or CT's CFR did which happened in the same time frame...

GMR said...

Lamont is certainly going to be highly polarizing if he wins, for a bunch of reasons.

His supporters.

If Lamont wins, he's going to win without the help of the national Democratic establishment. Schumer has basically implied that the DSCC would support Lieberman in a three way race. Lamont's financial supporters will not be the traditional Democrat sources: the various PACs and such, but will instead by largely Lamont and anti-war folks around the country.

Lamont would feel little need to coöperate with other Democrats, much less Republicans, when they didn't align themselves to the far-left position on a particular issue.

In the House, there's a Republican from Texas named Ron Paul (he represents the district where King of the Hill is set). He's a "pure" libertarian: he never compromises. He always votes his conscience. He's also never gotten a bill out of committee.

Hopewellian_Magi said...

Derby Conservative, you need to take reading lessons. I did not say that corporate robber barons lived during the time of our Founding Fathers. They are infesting our White House, Congress and Supreme Court of today, all of which are controlled by Republicans.

Paine and Jefferson might be alarmed at the size of our government today, but Jefferson used Federal power to purchase the Louisiana Purchase from France. Jefferson was a genius and would realize that the problems of today are much more complicated than they were in his day, so he could understand why the Federal government grew to the size it is today, although I'm sure that he would point out areas where the government could be cut.

Jefferson would be an outspoken critic of "King" George W. Bush and his flagrant abuse of the law. He would also tongue lash the Democratic leadership for being to timid it attacking King George Bush. Lieberman would probably be horse whipped by Jefferson personally for supporting Bush's pro-torture polcies and foreign adventurism.

Is Ned in favor of defending our 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms? I have not heard Ned Lamont address this question since no one has asked him about it, but I'm sure like most Democrats, he would favor a responsible individual's right to own guns, but he would also support commonsense policies that regulate those weapons. We regulate people's driving habits, so why not guns?

And why would Jefferson support the fascist policies of the Republican and they sycophants in the Democratic Leadership Council hacks?

TSCowperthwait You and Derby Conservative sound like Grover Norquist wannabes, so you guys will never understand why Lamont appeals to us.

Lamont will appeal to moderate Republicans and Independents. Lamont is a successfuly businessman and understands small business' problems and needs. Lieberman sides with corporatists, who have disdain for small businesses. Just look at Walmart and how it drives small businesses out of business.

bluecoat said...

TSC: I have seen that position from Schlesinger before but I admit I can't post a link - it was in the context of using themilitary to patrol the borders on the immigration issue - to me the Senate seat needs someone with some familiarity with foreign policy and I haven't seen it from Sclesinger...there was also an article in today's stamford Adsvocate where lamont answers the "one issue candidate" question but there is no online link that I can find...sorry

Hopewellian_Magi said...

GMR said -- Lamont is certainly going to be highly polarizing if he wins, for a bunch of reasons.

His supporters.

If Lamont wins, he's going to win without the help of the national Democratic establishment. Schumer has basically implied that the DSCC would support Lieberman in a three way race. Lamont's financial supporters will not be the traditional Democrat sources: the various PACs and such, but will instead by largely Lamont and anti-war folks around the country.


The DNC has already said that it will support the winner of the August 8 primary, so when Lamont wins, he will have the support of the DNC. And since many of the Democratic candidates have come out saying they will support the Democratic ticket in November, that means Lieberman will not have the support of the prime Democratic candidates.

bluecoat said...

But Joe hasn't said he would support the winner of the primary...and lamont has challenged him in a radio ad i heard the other day to do just that...

TSCowperthwait said...

"TSCowperthwait You and Derby Conservative sound like Grover Norquist wannabes, so you guys will never understand why Lamont appeals to us." -- Hopewellian Magi

Wow, just from reading a couple of my comments you were able to identify Derby Conservative and me as anti-tax, conservatives with ties to Jack Abramoff who are under investigation for money laundering and other corruption. I have to hand it to you, Hopewellian Magi, your presence on this blog has really helped it. I now know that it is not worth engaging you in any commentary.

TSCowperthwait said...

Bluecoat, thanks for trying to find some links.

bluecoat said...

according to Hopewelian Magi:the fascist policies of the Republican and they sycophants in the Democratic Leadership Council hacks qand yes the DLC is lead by these Bush hacks with Hillary at the center!!!!

BRubenstein said...

TSC..im sure Ned will be interested in the agenda of the folks that got him there..the thousands of small donors...women...labor...minorities..progressives..etc..and if a Rep likes a particular bill or issue that Ned is working on..im sure Ned wouldnt mind working with that Republican in concert.

Patricia Rice said...

Bruce: So are we to believe that Ned would not support any Republican introduced legislation?

Paul Adams said...

Hi, Fellow!I like your blog!
I just came across your blog and wanted to
drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with
the information you have posted here.
I have a job portal
site. It pretty much covers job portal related subjects.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Best regards!