Wednesday, August 09, 2006

An Open Letter to Ken Mehlman, Love, Connecticut Democrats

Ken Mehlman in Ohio this morning:

But like the proud history of so many Democrats before him, Joe Lieberman believed in a strong national defense.

And for that, he was purged from his Party.


I have three major problems with this:

1. First of all, mind your own business. You don't see Democrats moaning and complaining about what conservatives are attempting to do to Chafee in his primary in Rhode Island. They are attempting to take out a respected thorn in their side and replace him with someone whose backers want to shrink the government until democracy can be strangled in a bathtub, or eliminate the Department of Education, or whatever the Club for Growth is up to these days. Ken, before you start giving unsolicited lectures on Democratic primaries, you might want to spend a moment getting your own house in order.

2. Words have meanings. When talking about governments, purging has a very specific meaning. No one here was persecuted, no one sent to the firing squad, no one was forcibly resettled, and no one will be sent to a gulag (although the rest of Sean Smith's career may feel like one). And no one got an ice axe in the head.

Instead, we had an election. And one guy lost.

Ken, as the head of a political party, you might recognize elections as events that we have every year to decide who gets to represent us in office. Yesterday, we decided. So sorry. You would not recognize a purge, because we live in America.

3. I understand its your job to make the other side look bad so your side wins elections, but do you have to imply that we don't love our country at the same time? No one thinks we should have a weak national defense. In fact, most Americans would disagree that your party, this president, and your war are giving us a strong national defense. When looking at Connecticut, you would be wise to bet the over.

One last thing...

Joe Lieberman is a well-liked ... Senator


In America, we have this mechanism for determining whether a politician is well liked called "elections"... Oh, never mind.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

You can't compare Lieberman and Chafee. Lieberman is a true liberal except for one issue!!! Chafee constantly goes against his party. If it were a conservative getting targeted for his opposition against the war who has a 90% voting record with conservatives...this would be a big deal and you can bet your bottom dollar that Democrats would be talking about it!!!

The True Gentleman said...

Wow, Gabe, you took the RNC Chairman's statement hard - that is quite a defensive post you have made. Interestingly, I thought that Mr. Mehlman's statement was right on.

The True Gentleman said...

And need I remind you (and Mr. Lamont because he made the same mistake last night), the results of last night's primary victory is not indicative of this State's opinion of Senator Lieberman or Mr. Lamont. I would think that if a race were held today in Connecticut, in which ALL registered voters were eligible, Senator Lieberman would handily defeat Mr. Lamont. So tread lightly on what you actually won last night...

Genghis Conn said...

I don't know. Lieberman made a royal mess of his campaign this summer. He's perfectly capable of that level of incompetence again.

I also have to think that national trends, which from the look of things are anti-incumbent, will help Lamont make a race of it.

The True Gentleman said...

GC, my point is that America and/or the State of Connecticut did not speak last night -- only Democrats (and I believe it was only just more than half of 43% of registered Democrats)...

Anonymous said...

Connecticut Democrats are trying unite a party while Joe Lieberman is trying to unite a country. It is something to see how so many Democrats only loved Joe Lieberman when he carried the party banner. Without a D in front of his name, so-called friends are throwing him under the bus. This will destroy the Connecticut Democratic party and will turn the elections over to the Republicans. This Democrat supports Joe!

Anonymous said...

As long as Ned keeps Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in the fold, the race is his to lose...

cgg said...

Excellent post Gabe. It's interesting how quickly the Republicans are pouncing on this.

Anonymous said...

Purge, jihad, insurgents, inquisition.

Sure is a lot of harsh language flying around from those crazy leftists.

-Ozymandias

disgruntled_republican said...

As did I TG....

Keep in mind Gabe, this is no longer a primary. It is now an election open to all registered voters so if the Chairman of the Republican Nation Committee wants to weigh in, he every right to at this point because at last look, he does have a horse in this race. Additionally, You may be surprised to know that Mr. Lieberman has a wide range of support from the voters in Connecticut and may have added some that are, well to be frank, scared shitless about sending someone like Ned Lamont to Washington. I'll get into that more at a later date.

In regards to this post, I find it odd you would put it up moments after putting one up about Lamont's Campaign setting up a website to send Joe letters. How is Ned different from anyone else talking about this rce at this point?

And since you question whether or not Joe is a well liked Senator...of 45ish percent of eligible D's, only 144,336 liked Ned more than Joe...doesn;t seem like a mandate to me.

Anonymous said...

Joe and W had a mandate--which led to this mess.

disgruntled_republican said...

Wrong Anon-

There was NO mandate. W thought there was, he was wrong (and yes I said it when he said those ill advised words). Jow has never claimed a mandate.

Anonymous said...

Bush "the Decider" and Lieberman "the Divider." Joe ran his campaign like Bush ran FEMA.

A new party emerges- "Liberman for Lieberman" not Lieberman for Copnnecticut.

Lets retire Joe so he can go work for Faux News, with his buddies.

Anonymous said...

You get a second shot to kill the giant...let's see what you can do...tough guy.

BRubenstein said...

DG and ATG..i do agree that the Senate race is now on and its a different dynamic..however...Mehlman is serving up that old snakeoil that somehow the democrats that voted for Lamont are implied traitors who would have America crippled and defenseless...However, we believe that the Bush policies have done the very thing that Melhman preaches...Bush's policies have hurt this country's defenses in many ways...

disgruntled_republican said...

Bruce-

So did Clinton's

Anonymous said...

Go Joe Go!!!!

Anonymous said...

This blogger is happy Joe is sticking around. Currently he is the laughingstock of DC. When we are done, he'll be an utter pariah.

Arrogance begets humiliation.

Anonymous said...

Lieberman should re-create "A Connecticut Party." How deliciously ironic would that be?

GMR said...

And no one got an ice axe in the head.

Did Chuck Schumer mention Daggers?

Chafee, and Arlen Specter for that matter, have always been considered to be on the liberal fringe of the Republican party. Their voting records are certainly more liberal than Lieberman's is conservative. Furthermore, neither one of these guys was ever considered for the Veep slot on the national ticket. Look at their ACU ratings. Lieberman is in single digits. Chafee is at 40%. This means that Chafee votes against Republicans 60% of the time and Lieberman votes against Democrats about 6% of the time.

I'm not really sure why Republicans feel the need to rally around Lieberman. Except for the war, the votes of his and Lamont's will probably be about the same. Lamont wouldn't have joined the Gang of 14 most likely, so would have voted for the Alito filibuster (well, you don't vote for a filibuster, you vote against cloture or something, but you get my drift). But Lieberman joined the gang of 14 to prevent the "nuclear option" from being exercised. It would have been, as well, since there is nothing in the constitution that demands a 60 vote supermajority for SC Justices.

BRubenstein said...

DG..I concur that Clinton made foreign policy mistakes...however it was Bush that utilized the misleading and erronous intelligence reports and facts that were the reason for the Iraq War..hence..WMD...nuclear weapons building..aluminium tubes..etc.

Having said that..its entirely appropriate for Mehlman to weigh in on the race now...i just didnt like the implied traitor comments...the truth is that both parties and their members are patriotic and want the best for the country, but see the way to do that differently.

Anonymous said...

the difference between Joe and Ned was/is the war. And Joe will now toe the "Get them out soon" line without leaving the place in shambles, which will go over fine with moderates and would have won Joe the primary.

The True Gentleman said...

BR, I understand where you are coming from and I know that you know that I have always come to the defense of Dems (liberals, moderates, or conservatives) who are accused of being un-American or traitorious simply because they oppose the war. I did not take from Mr. Mehlman's statement that position, but I can understand how someone could interpret it that way.

bluecoat said...

With over half of the Republicans in the United States Senate either openly, or not so openly, sincerely more concerned than ever about Bush's screwups in Iraq and the Middle East in general, this served Mehlman's purposes to say Joe is somehow strong on national security by backing Bush 100%.

Anonymous said...

Despite his liberal voting record, Republicans like Joe because he is both a Neo-con, and a Bush enabler.

Will Lieberman's propensity for backing up Bush really get R's to vote for borrow-and-spend Joe? I doubt it. Not in a year where no one wants to embrace Iraq, and Bush.

BRubenstein said...

Thank you True Gentleman

BRubenstein said...

DG and TTG...what would be the prospects of AS now....is he feeling even more pressure to resign?..is there anyone in the wings to take over? Whats the scuttlebutt about Rove and the white House support for Joementum?
Do you both see any significant support for Joe from Republicans?

Lastly..i think Weicker heading "independants for lamont" isnt helpful to lamont..but will be helpful to a quality republican candidate..

Anonymous said...

Why is a gay man allowed to be the Republican party Chair yet not allowed to admit he's gay?

Anonymous said...

Lowell Weicker needs to stay out of Politics so should Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Left Said Ned,Swan and The Crane Brothers should be all proud of what they have done and this just show that all the Lamont Supporters are just a bunch of left wing, anti american, anti war idiots.

See you in November...Left wingers and lets see how you all take it when your boy(Lamont) is still a private citizen.

Anonymous said...

Silly peeps....

Schlesinger stays in as he is a non-entity. No push for a replacement. He bows out 2-4 weeks ahead of the general election, on the advice of very high officials, cause he is a good Republican, and good Republicans vote Joe.

bluecoat said...

I hate ignorance; from a Democratic Party candidate for Congress who served in Iraq and lost her legs while doing so, here is her positions onHomeland Security and Iraq wiht an excerpt that says specifically this The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists.

Anonymous said...

ROY O is now 0 for 7...what does he have to do to bring home a winner?

The True Gentleman said...

BR, I am already working on some of your questions and I think it might take more than one day to get the answers (sorry). I can say that I am hearing a decent amount of support for Joe Lieberman as an independent candidate, but I don't know how strong that support is right now and whether it truly translates into election day support. I'll keep you all posted as I find out more...

bluecoat said...

TG: the CT GOP needs to dump AS if they can and find a smart articulate and sincere candidate who can get the backing of McCain, Hagel, Lugar, Graham and that group - all of whom are unhappy with Bush's Middle East and national security adventures in one form or another. There is a hug difference between bush and two dozen GOP US Senators - CT could add one and make the country better. Will they do that? hell if I know.

Anonymous said...

Roy O is really 0 for 7? That doesn't seem right, does anybody have a run down of the races he has run here?

Pug said...

...if the Chairman of the Republican Nation Committee wants to weigh in, he every right to at this point because at last look, he does have a horse in this race

His horse is supposed to be Schlesinger, the nominee of the Republican Party, no? Did he mention the Republican candidate?

I guess Lamont starts down in the polls to Lieberman, as if that's something new. As Lieberman becomes more Republicanish, he starts losing votes. If he stands for "stay the course", and he does, he's toast.

Charles Gaba said...

True Gentleman--

Lieberman may very well end up winning in November, but your points about "only a small percentage" voting for Lamont are utterly disingenuous.

In 2000, George W. Bush "won" the White House with 47.9% of the votes. Not only did his opponent receive a half million more votes, but that 47.9% million was actually only 24.6% of all U.S. voters (since there was only a 51% turnout). For that matter, since there were actually another 84 million U.S. citizens not registered/eligible to vote that year (too young, etc.), that actually means that in reality, only 17.4% of the country actually voted for George W. Bush to become President of the United States.

The other 82.6% of us have had to suffer as a result.

Granted, he did a bit better in 2004--over 50% of those who voted--but that was still only 21% of the population.

The same numbers games can be played with any candidate. The bottom line is that those who show up to vote are the ones who actually decide elections, whether it's 5% or 50% of those who could do so. It's hypocritical of you to talk about a "tiny percentage" voting for Lamont when you broke your own state's record for voter turnout in a primary (as far as I know).

Having said all of this, your point that Lieberman may do better when non-Democrats are allowed to vote for him than in the primary is obviously a valid argument, but don't try confusing the issue with numbrs games.

Anonymous said...

ROY O is 0 for 5 with not 1 winner

1..lost curry 1994
2. lost curry 2002
3. lost sullivan 2004
4 lost lieberman 2006
5 lost malloy 2006

The True Gentleman said...

Charles Gaba, if you are going to quote me, at least quote me and don't make something up - no where on this thread did I ever say that "only a small percentage" voted for Lamont -- so your comments calling me disingenuous are off base.

Billy said...

I love it when Liberals and other crazy leftists say things like "if a senator is well liked we have elections blah blah blah" and yet they write open letters telling Joe not to run. As though only 1 Democrat has a right to run.

Whats the matter? Afraid that the real Connecticut will pick Joe over Ole Bug Eyes Lamont?