Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Morning Coffee Post

The Senate is voting on measures that would call for troops withdrawal in Iraq. Lieberman is expected to vote with the Republicans, and Senate Democrats weren't to interested in talking about how today's vote might affect Lieberman's political future.

Senate Democrats were skittish about discussing the impact of the resolution on Lieberman, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and other vulnerable party incumbents.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, would say only, "We have a good resolution that senators can support." Asked how it might affect Lieberman, he walked away without answering.


Harry Reid at least answered the question.

Asked how the votes could affect the Connecticut race, he said, "People will make a judgment based on a policy that is right for the country. And senators will base their vote on substance, not political calculation."


The Courant also has an article about what the Senate primary means nationally. Much of what it says has already been noted on this and other blogs countless times. It makes me wonder if David Lightman reads CTLP.

In the eyes of national political activists, the Lieberman-Lamont contest is not focusing on policy issues dear to the DLC, such as welfare reform or national service.

It's being most watched for what it says about the party. "This is far more than a local personality clash," said William A. Galston, former Clinton domestic policy adviser and now senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.


The press seems to be taking Lamont campaign more seriously each day. He's no longer seen as a fringe candidate. I also can't help but notice how favorable the coverage has been since the convention. I wonder how long the honeymoon will last.

Source

Lightman, David. "Party Puts Lieberman In A Bind". Hartford Courant. 6/21/06

Lightman, David. "Party's `Soul' Up For Grabs". Hartford Courant. 6/21/06

44 comments:

BRubenstein said...

Joementum will probably vote against the resolutions...fueling more negative publicity that he has earned.

bluecoat said...

not sure what to make of this:Deleted Scenes Add To Drama-
New Information In Fundraising Scandal May Revive Hearings June 21, 2006 By JON LENDER, Courant Staff Writer
but this is pretty clear:

Mayor's Drug Admission Puts Rumors In The Open June 21, 2006 By EDMUND H. MAHONY, Courant Staff Writer

turfgrrl said...

The Democrats debate is actually much bigger than where Lieberman falls:

Mr. Kerry's insistence on pushing ahead with his own plan has left the Democrats divided, and open to renewed Republican accusations that they are indecisive and weak — the same ridicule that Republicans heaped on Mr. Kerry in 2004, when his "I was for it before I was against it" statement about a vote on money for the war became a punch line.

"There are certain Democrats who think that this is over, that we've lost or that there's nothing constructive the president is going to do," said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who, like Mr. Kerry, is considering running for president and who sat in on the meetings where Democrats searched for consensus. "What it really is, in fairness to them, is a frustration that they see no learning curve on the part of this administration. I can understand that frustration. But setting a date is not a plan."

Stepping into an elevator on Capitol Hill late last week, Mr. Kerry was asked whether he was under pressure in the Democrats' meetings to withdraw his proposal. As he insisted he was not, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, standing behind him, raised his eyebrows, then winked.

In an interview, Mr. Dodd, who is also considering a presidential run, said one danger in the November election was in making Democrats look indecisive. "If the argument comes down to, Is it one year or 18 months, I think we're going to confuse people," he said. "I'm not sure what the value is; I think it hurts us rather than helps."

Polls suggest many Americans are eager to see American troops come home from Iraq but are uneasy about leaving too soon. The rival Democratic approaches may reflect that tension, with Mr. Kerry appealing to those who regard the war as a mistake, while the Democratic leaders reflect more caution.

NYTOn Iraq, Kerry Again Leaves Democrats Fuming

bluecoat said...

Kerry has been misconstrued on his position on the war and that's unfortunate - and it's in some part his fault. As for his ride in the elevator with Chris Dodd, it's my understanding that Dodd is one of Kerry's few close friends in the Senate.....

BrassBoy said...

Zero direction, zero consensus, stand for nothing... nothing really to say other than "War is bad and we're not Republicans!"

Your 2006 Democratic party ladies and gentlemen! Let's give them a big hand!!!

Patricia Rice said...

Bruce: Does it really matter how Senator Lieberman votes on the resolution? You have your spin either way to attempt to make him look bad. In your world he will either be a bad Democrat or a flip flopper that caved in to pressure just to get elected. Let's just tell the truth, with you and other LaMont followers....Whatever the Senator does will be wrong.

bluecoat said...

BB: nice try on your "war is good" platform up in the Brass City; you might be surprised that down here in SW CT (with the Twin Towers once in daily eyesight) a lot of folks - Republicans too - aren't real happy with the way the Iraq war has been handled when the focus should have remained solidly on breaking up alQaeda and protecting the homeland....

bluecoat said...

Patricia: Joe has been flip flopping to get elected as long as I have lived in CT...

BrassBoy said...

bluecoat: first of all, stop trying to tug on the heartstrings with the twin towers reference. most people in the greater NYC area can make some connection to it, were affected by it or knew somebody who died on 9/11, including little old me, way up here in the brass city. The twin towers wasn't my point and neither was alQaeda.

The point still remains that no matter what the administration did after 9/11, the honeymoon would wear off and a more objective view of things would begin to take hold. Instead, all I see now is more virulent anti-Bush feelings, just manifested in the form of anti-war rhetoric. Do I think that every decision that has been made thus far has been the right one? No, but name one administration that ever batted 1.000. It's the overall goals, mission and vision that are important.

Now I understand that there are a lot of people, from across the spectrum of ideology and party, who disagree with the current administration's vision. But it would be nice if the Democratic party, instead of just continually reminding us that they are against all things President Bush and against all things war, actually articulated what it is they are for and what their vision is for the country.

Enough is enough. We get it. The Dems don't like the war. So what is it that the Dems do stand for?

TSCowperthwait said...

I hope that both Senators from Connecticut vote against any resolution that requires a specific date for troop withdrawal. Iraq is not in any condition to maintain its own security at this time (or in the near future, say 12 months). Setting a firm date for the withdrawal of X amount of troops is careless. We should continue to train the Iraqi forces and assist them, and when they are ready to take over that is when we leave.

turfgrrl said...

TSCowperthwait ... Agreed, a specific date is pretty useless, and simply political gamesmanship. On the other hand, the default auto pilot we are on now is just as bad.

bluecoat said...

the Twin Towers are the symbolic focus for many of us of our nation's and even our allies fight against alQaeda as that is where they first hit us on our soil in the early '90's and where they hit us again in Sept 11, 2001. Almost every American stood solidly behind Bush on Sept 12, 2001 and the international community did as well as for the first time in history NATO scrambled and deployed aircraft (AWACS to be specific) to guard our terriotorial skies because "an attack on one is an attack on all" and the same thing was true even on Sept 21 when he announced he was going in to Afghanistan.

and your phrase "don't like the war" referring to Iraq is meaningless, period. from there I guess we can debate whether or not it is the President or Dennis Kucinich that brought division to the country on foreign policy...

TSCowperthwait said...

Turfgrrl, I'm really not sure why people think we are on "auto-pilot" in Iraq. Our troops are hard at work training Iraqi forces and, when they are not doing that, they are providing security to the region. How that is being on "auto-pilot" is beyond me.

When the commanders of our military say that the Iraqis can maintain their own security, then we should begin troop withdrawals from the region. But until they are ready, I think it is misguided to bring back the troops. (Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see them home now too, but if we just withdraw without the Iraqis being fully prepared, the situation will be worse in the long run).

bluecoat said...

in response to your comment on the last thread about Schlesinger's troop withdrawal plan I posted this: TSC: understood on that; I meant as far as the voting public and not those who would help out with his campaigns....I don't think he is a very strong candididate....but I also don't think the final answer in Iraq is the military and quite frankly neither do they but their job is once an order is given to salute, say 'aye,aye..' and execute, which they have doen superbly despite Condi's statement that "tactical errors", which meant the military ops, were made....BTW that comment by Rice was actually the last straw that brought the retired ground fighting generals to speak out... but I think it is germnaine to your discussion with turrfy; autopilot is probably a bad choice of words but it's going to take more than the military to get us out of there and the iraqi's have no reason to rush to get trianed up as long as we are there. - Bush's surprise visit pushed the iraqi's a little and our ambassador there has been doing the same since he came on the scene from Afghanistan. the legislative proposals by Murtha and Kerry are intended to push them as well despite the rhetoric that these two decorated warriors - and decorated while Sen John warner (R-VA) chair of the Armed Services Comm was SECNAV under Nixon - are not patriots...

bluecoat said...

and Bush has been a long time getting here:Jun 21, 11:13 AM EDT Europeans Back Bush on Iran, North Korea By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer but most of us who pay attention know that he had been distancing himself from the neo-con ideology more and more to get here; he just won't admit it...

Mr. Reality said...

BrassBoy, It's funny to see the massive response to your 11:20 post. Every time someone poses this type of question that simply asks what the Dems plan is on basically any issue the ultra-liberal Lamont folks do not have an answer. If Democrats had a plan for Iraq it would certainly enhance (or better yet create) their position. I think people like me who try to look at all sides of the Iraq issue are troubled by this because there is no alternative being offered other than Bush's stay the course.

BrassBoy said...

You're right, the phrase "don't like the war" is meaningless. Which is why the constant refrain from anti-war activists and "decorated warriors" about bringing the troops home is meaningless. They offer no alternative plans. All they offer is a dislike of the President and the Iraq war, devoid of any vision, plan or alternative strategy.

bluecoat said...

BB: both kerry and Murtha offered plans but maybe you don't like them or better yet don't want to admit they exist - actually the latter is obvious and that's just fine with me because I understand what legislators can effect and what a commnder in chief can do - and for MR. Reality, I am not a Lamonter and if you opened your eyes you'd see many GOPers, at least in the Senate want change as they even joined with John Warner, that liberal leftie, to vote a non-binding resolution last fall calling for Bush to bring about significant change in Iraq this year - in other words "stay the course" was unacceptable but they recognized that short of cutting the purse strings, which almost noone espouses, they can only apply legislative and public and other pressure.

BRubenstein said...

Bluecoat..The Murtha plan is workable...or baring that..we should just declare victory and leave.

bluecoat said...

As I mentioned yesterday on another post when saddam was captured Rob Simmons said we shouldn'r "screw around" and that Saddam should be tried at the hague. he was absolutley right becuase wht we have with the trial by the "Iraqi people" is a circus with the latestJun 21, 1:29 PM EDT Saddam, 7 Co- Defendants on Hunger Strike By JAMAL HALABY Associated Press Writer and the latest on North Korea is North Korea Says It Wants Direct Talks With U.S. Over Long-Range Missile, but U.S. Rejects Request By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer

bluecoat said...

BR: I didn't say the Murtha plan wasn't workable but the trap the Rovians put these guys in is trying to say what Murtha proposed 2 months ago wouldn't work exactly as portrayed today - and that's right...the Murtha plan is highly misunderstood and as I said yesterday it wasn't made without consulatation with those who currently serve in our Armed Services...or without recognition of the need for the diplomatic and humanitarioan efforts...

bluecoat said...

screwed up there on this postJun 21, 1:29 PM EDT Saddam, 7 Co-Defendants on Hunger Strike By JAMAL HALABY
Associated Press Writer


BR: I think the other problem with Murtha is that he is a 37 year veteran of the marine Corps and he doesn't always speak the language of GENERATION x AND y...

TSCowperthwait said...

Does anyone have a link to both the Kerry and Murtha proposals? I'm tired of reading the media spin on them and want to view them before adding my two cents to this debate about whether they are "workable" or not.

bluecoat said...

TSC: you might be able to find them at their official House and Senate websites, which should Google up pretty easy...I have picked them up from various news media outlets over the course of time....Murtha, a blue collar guy from western PA, retired as a Colonel from the USMC after started as an enelisted man, visits every person, or family thereof, who has served in combat from his district at home or in the hospital, etc. and he is well connected in the Pentagon and has been getting them all the funding they wante over the course of his long carreer in Congress - he's more of a hawk than most any Republican in that vein..

Weicker Liker said...

Has anyone heard from Republican Challenger Miriam Masullo??

Has she dropped off the planet?

TSCowperthwait said...

Thanks, Bluecoat. I already visited those sites. I was under the impression that Murtha had made a new proposal, but I now see that it is still H.J. Res. 73 and nothing new. So how would you (or anyone else) define "earliest practicable date" as used in the resolution? This resolution, which is non-binding of course, is certainly weak on how it would be executed.

I find it difficult to admit, but Senator Clinton is being one of the more level-headed Democrats out there...and Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for booing her.

bluecoat said...

that definition is left to the Commander-in-Chief as it should be - and if you watch what Bush is doing he is moving in that direction but won't admit he is; Murtha never thought for one minute that he'd get his bill passed, he's working the legislature and he's doing it on behalf of the Pentagon and the soldiers et al whose lives are at risk - unfortunatley lives on the battlefield depend on politicians and good politics...our government was established with a civiian leadership of the military...Murtha is a legislator not the commander-inchief..it just ain't blck and white or read all over...

bluecoat said...

I might add that Murtha is brave as hell for what he did and is doing because he has opened himself up to great ridicule by the partisans who don't want the public to know what he is all about - and that's probably why he was given a "Profile in Courage" medal award a few weeks ago...

bluecoat said...

TSC: Hillary is playing to the crowd; she's not principled at all; and she deserves to be booed...

TSCowperthwait said...

Playing to the crowd? She was booed at an event of liberal, anti-war Democrat activists. Playing to the crowd would be John Kerry.

I don't dispute any of the words you said about Murtha. I take him seriously on military issues for what he has done in the past.

bluecoat said...

depends on your definition of who the crowd is; i don't disagree with the facts;

TSCowperthwait said...

And Bluecoat, you just said it, the definition is left to the Commander-in-Chief. So Congress should shut up, let the President and Department of Defense accomplish what we sought out to do, and stop all this bring the troops home rhetoric during election season.

bluecoat said...

TSC:this is not about the election for Murtha or Kerry but it is for Hillary; and i guess we just disagree on the roles of the two branches and what needs to be done in Iraq; to some that means one of us is not a patriot; I'm going to lunch..

bluecoat said...

One more thought TSC; if I were to agree with let the President and Department of Defense accomplish what we sought out to do then i would have to say we've been there too long since it was at least 18 months ago that DoD and Bush declared no WMD's; se how easy it is to twist what people say....I am sure th's not what yopu meant...

TSCowperthwait said...

If it was about the election for Hillary, she would toe the Democrat party-line on this issue and support troop withdrawal. If Hillary served Connecticut, the Dems would be trying to get some other candidate to challenge her because she is out of touch with the party...

TSCowperthwait said...

Nice twist, bluecoat. I see. To clarify - what we sought out to do was rid Iraq of WMDs (and remove Saddam Hussein from power). No WMDs = check. Removed Saddam from power = check. But wait, after we removed Saddam from power we needed to revise our mission to include nation-building (which I'm not a big fan of because it is rarely successful) = mission not completed.

dumbruss said...

The thing that angers me the most about the war is that the Bush administration has not been punished in any way, shape or form for their incompetence.

We go to war with Iraq, which did not have weapons. We do not go to war with North Korea or Iran. We disband the army that had been keeping the peace, and now we have to rebuild that army. We didn't come in with any type of plan of what we were going to do with the country in the first place (except for how we were going to run Iraq's oil fields) or sufficient troops. Lastly, we're likely creating an Islamic state that will mirror Iran in just about every way we would like the country not to.

Because of all of these horrible factors its hard to argue for troop withdrawals because they've screwed the country up so badly. That said you HAVE to start somewhere in terms of getting out of that country, and it should probably be sooner rather than later.

TSCowperthwait said...

dumbruss,

I don't dispute that it would be better to get the troops out sooner rather than later. I simply disagree with the idea of setting dates as to when because, when the military is involved and insurgency is continuing, you never know when you might need to change those dates.

BRubenstein said...

Hillery Clinton ought to be a Republican...her centralism and support of the war, the Patriot Act..flag burning amendment...and slippage in a woman's right to choose is " out of the mainstream of my party"

MikeCT said...

The J-I reports on the furor over Chuck Shumer and the DSCC's potential support of Lieberman if he loses the primary. Here's how to reach the DSCC.

turfgrrl said...

TSCowperthwait ... the auto pilot refers to Bush stating that it will be up to the next president to determine when to remove US troops. That is not a plan, that is passing the buck. I don't think it is up to Congress, or Democrats to come up with a plan, that they can't execute either. They can however pressure, or put the political pressure on Bush to come up with a plan. Or as bluecoat alluded to, adopt one of the many Pentagon plans that exist.

bluecoat said...

It's no lnger just about DoD; State and a few others need to be involved in building the nation; maybe even our allies...but the Biden plan you proffered the other day turrfy doesn't fly but I give him credit for his discussion of it...and the issues around the Sunnis, the Kurds and the Shias..

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat ... The Biden plan, splitting Iraq into federations, is probably the only way Iraq can effectively be managed, with or without other support (NATO, UN, etc).

The other issue about the state of the military, ours not theirs, is that we have national guard troops on extended tours, and active duty being prolonged for certain troops. That is a problem. The military readiness is a major issue, and one that congress, both sides of the aisle, ignores.

Brassett said...

The next Chief Justice will be Barry Schaller, currently a Judge on the Appellate Court.