tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post115349688600907570..comments2023-10-18T11:04:13.946-04:00Comments on Connecticut Local Politics: The Lieberman Campaign: What Happened?Genghis Connhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13042849182723767087noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1155051446753953962006-08-08T11:37:00.000-04:002006-08-08T11:37:00.000-04:00Oh, I fully agree with the main post. I was fed u...Oh, I fully agree with the main post. I was fed up with Joe Lieberman the day after his "debate" with Dick Cheney. Some fight <I>that</I> was.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153744394245143942006-07-24T08:33:00.000-04:002006-07-24T08:33:00.000-04:00Sorry I have to call BS,the Lamont campaign has be...Sorry I have to call BS,<BR/><BR/>the Lamont campaign has been the MOST negative attack filled campaign I have ever seen. This guy is blowing millions of his own dollars to attack Liberman and buy a seat in the Senate. its utterly disgraceful. I am sitting here wondering when the hell I am going to hear ANYTHING from the Liberman camp. Every week I get attack ads from Lamont comparing Joe and Bush, every night I see his attack commercials on TV.<BR/><BR/>I have yet to see 1 attacking Lamont, other than a lit drop I got in my mail box a few months ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153588952866353232006-07-22T13:22:00.000-04:002006-07-22T13:22:00.000-04:00"bluecoat's"' defintion of a "reasonable Republica..."bluecoat's"' defintion of a "reasonable Republican"<BR/><BR/> =a pledge at the Omega House<BR/><BR/>"Thank you sir, may I have another"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153551208202107452006-07-22T02:53:00.000-04:002006-07-22T02:53:00.000-04:00The whole point of Joe's Monica statement was to p...<I>The whole point of Joe's Monica statement was to protect Clinton- to innoculate him. You're looking at a game of chess, thinking it's checkers. Joe had NOTHING to gain politically with his mild rebuke- his base was behind Clinton- heck, Joe has known Clinton since 1970, when Bubba helped him run for State Senate.<BR/><BR/>What Joe did was set a boundary- a reasonable outer boundary for how far that impeachment / censure charade should go- for Democrats and moderate Republicans. The talk shifted away from gory details to how Joe took his friend to task- and then the story shifted to Joe saying "but impeachment is not the right way forward." The guy sets the moral high ground, then sets the boundary. Pretty clever, huh? "Air cover" is another word for it.</I><BR/><BR/>At last, somebody explaining the obvious to the oblivious. The ignorance on display here is astonishing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153547147972142602006-07-22T01:45:00.000-04:002006-07-22T01:45:00.000-04:00Vizivizi-Occasionally, when touring the Catskills,...Vizivizi-<BR/><BR/>Occasionally, when touring the Catskills, delivering my borscht-belt material, I'd get to listen in on some of the big party bosses who'd go up there to get out of the heat.<BR/><BR/>The whole point of Joe's Monica statement was to protect Clinton- to innoculate him. You're looking at a game of chess, thinking it's checkers. Joe had NOTHING to gain politically with his mild rebuke- his base was behind Clinton- heck, Joe has known Clinton since 1970, when Bubba helped him run for State Senate.<BR/><BR/>What Joe did was set a boundary- a reasonable outer boundary for how far that impeachment / censure charade should go- for Democrats and moderate Republicans. The talk shifted away from gory details to how Joe took his friend to task- and then the story shifted to Joe saying "but impeachment is not the right way forward." The guy sets the moral high ground, then sets the boundary. Pretty clever, huh? "Air cover" is another word for it.<BR/><BR/>The Clintons drop friends like Tip O'Neill drops shot glasses. Lani Guinier being a prime example. Bill loves Joe- and he knew what Joe was doing for him in 1998 was designed to ultimately help Bill Clinton.<BR/><BR/>The proof is in the pudding. Bubba's eating pizza in Waterbury with Joe.<BR/><BR/>Now was Joe disgusted with what Bill did? Yeah. But he wouldn't have spoken out if he didn't think it would help him out. <BR/><BR/>And Vizi- it's good to know you still stand behind Dick Durbin's obscene, ill-informed statements about Git-mo, which Dick Durbin himself has already taken back, having visited the place. At least we know where you're coming from- <BR/><BR/>Brube, Saddam Hussein and Jack Murtha are in total agreement with you on that last point. I agree with you that we have to get out- it's just a matter of how it's done. If only John Kerry will tell us now what his secret plan was in 2004...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153529512867741852006-07-21T20:51:00.000-04:002006-07-21T20:51:00.000-04:00Before the debate, Joe would have won as an indepe...Before the debate, Joe would have won as an independent because he was a "statesman." But during the debate, he started bragging about bringing home the pork (earmarks). This seriously hurt his "statesman" image. I tend to be open-minded and vote for the candidate. And I believe that his bragging about getting pork is what will ultimately doom his chances in November.<BR/><BR/>Politically, Lamont can't touch those words. But if TRULY independent parties (i.e. no one named Dean) use those words, independent voters will lose faith in Joe and gravitate back toward the party for which they usually vote.<BR/><BR/>Joe shot himself in the foot during the debate.<BR/><BR/>Before the debate I thought Joe would win as an independent. Now I'm fairly certain that Ned will be the one taking the oath in January.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153535396874496402006-07-21T22:29:00.000-04:002006-07-21T22:29:00.000-04:00FatGuyinMiddleSeat at 8:40 PM, July 21, 2006 said....<I>FatGuyinMiddleSeat at 8:40 PM, July 21, 2006 said...</I><BR/><BR/><I>"If Clinton had listened to Joe, we would have peace in Israel-Lebanon-Gaza (more time with Arafat) and he might have finished off Iraq in December 1998."</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, that's a funny one. Is your day job a comedian in the Catskills these days?<BR/><BR/><I>No, Joe never went nuts like Dick Durbin, comparing our troops to the Khmer Rouge, but perhaps that would have satisfied you.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I guess if you want to support an enabler of torturers and war criminals, be my guest. The US operated reeducation sessions for folks like that after WW2 though.<BR/><BR/>Lieberman's biggest failure is that he's forgotten that his primary duty is to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States. He should be defeated for reelection based on that fact alone.VizierVichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17973620789437458294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153528848067807882006-07-21T20:40:00.000-04:002006-07-21T20:40:00.000-04:00But you miss the point. All of that time with Lew...But you miss the point. All of that time with Lewinsky came right out of Arafat's time with Clinton. Had Clinton spent even more time with Arafat, we would be talking peace, instead of all this nonsense.<BR/><BR/>And don't forget, Clinton bombed Iraq the day the House voted on impeachment.<BR/><BR/>If Clinton had listened to Joe, we would have peace in Israel-Lebanon-Gaza (more time with Arafat) and he might have finished off Iraq in December 1998.<BR/><BR/>(If you're taking the above seriously, you need a dose of irony.)<BR/><BR/>The question is: were you voting green in 2000 on both the Senate and Presidential line? If not, you endorsed all of Joe's previous behavior. And you're responsible for all he's done since. And you have to live with all of the blood you spilled.<BR/><BR/>No, Joe never went nuts like Dick Durbin, comparing our troops to the Khmer Rouge, but perhaps that would have satisfied you.<BR/><BR/>And what do you mean by "silence/apology"? Is there not a distinction between them?<BR/><BR/>Without litigating each of your litany of complaints, Joe "lied" no more than John Kerry or Hillary or Bill Clinton lied about the war.<BR/><BR/>My favorite compaint is the "Katrina non-response". Joe is the junior Senator from Connecticut. (If you are unfamiliar with local geography, the Gulf Coast is about 2500 miles away.) What didn't he do that say, Chris Dodd, did? If you can stand to read something that does not comport with your world view, I recommend that you read Douglas Brinkley's book about Katrina- all levels of government failed. Funny, the book skipped the part about Joe Lieberman defunding the levies and devising a plan to put everyone in the Convention Center.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153527276958292242006-07-21T20:14:00.000-04:002006-07-21T20:14:00.000-04:00"One tie-in for all this regarding Joe- his critic..."One tie-in for all this regarding Joe- his criticism of the L'Affaire Lewinsky was on the mark."<BR/><BR/>Then how do you explain Joe's silence/apology for;<BR/><BR/>* Bush lies leading up to the Iraq war<BR/><BR/>* Gitmo<BR/><BR/>* Abu Gharib<BR/><BR/>* Violations of the Geneva Convention<BR/><BR/>* Katrina non-response<BR/><BR/>* Illegal wiretapping<BR/><BR/>I can go on and on. Lieberman who was huffing and puffing over a president lying about his sex life cannot find any outrage over far worse offences by Bush.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153526646557268602006-07-21T20:04:00.000-04:002006-07-21T20:04:00.000-04:00"How else to explain that Joe was the darling of t..."How else to explain that Joe was the darling of the Dems just six years ago"<BR/><BR/>Joe was never the darling of the Dems. He was the darling of DC Media Elite. Gore picked him because he knew Lieberman would be a popular choice with the press. And he was.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153520609380031832006-07-21T18:23:00.000-04:002006-07-21T18:23:00.000-04:00BR - The Iraqi government's response to the Israel...BR - The Iraqi government's response to the Israeli / Hezbollah conflict is not surprising. Hezbollah and the Iraqi government share the same religious and political ideology. <BR/><BR/>This is why Bush '41 did not take out Saddam. His administration could not see any way that deposing Saddam would not result in a radical Shiite regime in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, the neocons infesting the Bush administration are either blindingly incompetent such that they didn't forsee this outcome, or they are perfectly happy with it. <BR/><BR/>Here's the scary part. If we pull out of Iraq, the result will most likely be ascendency of a Shiite regime allied with Iran and aggressive towards Israel. Aggressively supporting Hezbollah in a conflict with Israel would be a great way for the Iraqi government to unite the various Iraqi factions. <BR/><BR/>Up until the invasion of Iraq, the Saddam government (evil though it was) provided an ironically stabilizing force in the region. It was opposed to the radical Shiite (that's "Islamist" in Lieberman-speak) movements because they were a direct threat to Saddam's Ba'thists and their hold on power. <BR/><BR/>Now here's the problem for those of us who'd like to get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. How do we get out without leaving behind an Iraqi government aligned in an unholy alliance with Iran and Syria against Israel?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153521784741490772006-07-21T18:43:00.000-04:002006-07-21T18:43:00.000-04:00Echoing Bluecoat back at BR:Joe voted for and Clin...Echoing Bluecoat back at BR:<BR/><BR/>Joe voted for and Clinton signed the widely-supported Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998.<BR/><BR/>Also, a direct quote from the Joe Lieberman 2000 Debate- that is, the Joe you DID vote for:<BR/><BR/>"...The fact is that we will not enjoy real stability in the Middle East until Saddam Hussein is gone. The Gulf War was a great victory. And incidentally, Al Gore and I were two of the ten Democrats in the Senate who crossed party lines to support President Bush and Secretary Cheney in that war. We're proud we did that. The war did not end with a total victory. Saddam Hussein remained there. As a result, we have had almost ten years now of instability. We have continued to operate almost all of this time military action to enforce a no-fly zone. We have been struggling with Saddam about the inspectors. We're doing everything we can to get the inspectors back in there. But in the end there's not going to be peace until he goes. And that's why I was proud to co-sponsor the Iraq Liberation Act with Senator Trent Lott where I have kept in touch with the Iraqi opposition, broad base. We met with them earlier this year. We are supporting them in their efforts and will continue to support them until the Iraqi people rise up and do what the people of Serbia have done in the last few days, get rid of a despot. We'll welcome you back into the family of nations where you belong."<BR/><BR/>You voted for this guy and Al Gore, BRube. Nothing you can do, even supporting Ned Lamont, can remotely begin to compensate for this grievous mistake. I hope you voted for Nader.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153519151132904112006-07-21T17:59:00.000-04:002006-07-21T17:59:00.000-04:00Factor in that Lieberman has been a spectacularly ...Factor in that Lieberman has been a spectacularly dim-witted politician, no ears to the ground there. My Senator Russ Feingold was actually making some of the same moves in 1998, voted against Clinton in one key vote and the only Dem to do so. Caused a massive shitstorm in Wisconsin. Under the crypto-fascist onslaught, though, Russ has tacked left (or sane). Joe took the other path.<BR/>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153509123681331132006-07-21T15:12:00.000-04:002006-07-21T15:12:00.000-04:00BR: Joe's voting pattern shows that he is by no me...BR: Joe's voting pattern shows that he is by no means a conservative Democrat in the mold of Ben Nelson. The one issue that he arguably stands apart from other Dems is the war.<BR/><BR/>Also, I would like to thank you for bringing up the issue of who wins a three-way race. With the latest poll numbers showing Lamon ahead, I think it's time for this blog to start discussing the implications of a three-way race.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03856834336299603655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153506600573705212006-07-21T14:30:00.000-04:002006-07-21T14:30:00.000-04:00You're forgetting that Joe's vote on the Senate Re...You're forgetting that Joe's vote on the Senate Resolution for the First Gulf War also got a lot of national attention. He was a newby, technically still a freshman. Gov. Weicker had to send in the State Police to guard his home from angry protestors.<BR/><BR/>Brubenstein, when was the middle east more stable? When Clinton convinced the Israelis to exit Gaza and the West Bank, thinking that it would lead to peace? The middle east will be unstable as long as extremists infest Israel's borders with the goal of driving them into the sea. 1948, 1967, 1973 and today. 1995 was illusory, the Wye River was a joke. It's time to get real. Joe gets this, Ned Lamont has been too busy hooking up cable for college kids to understand the history here.<BR/><BR/>One tie-in for all this regarding Joe- his criticism of the L'Affaire Lewinsky was on the mark. After all, Yassir Arafat was only the third most frequent visitor to the West Wing from 1995-1997- right behind Denise Rich and Monica.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153504087833314372006-07-21T13:48:00.000-04:002006-07-21T13:48:00.000-04:00"Dude, like why you dissin my candidate....and say..."Dude, like why you dissin my candidate....and saying I'm running the worst campaign ever.. you are sooo gnarly about this.....maybe after August 8 i'll go back and check out the waves in La Jolla and lose all you losers..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153502836138361322006-07-21T13:27:00.000-04:002006-07-21T13:27:00.000-04:00I think that it does not help that he has been ver...I think that it does not help that he has been very weak on women's issues (in spite of NOW endorsement)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153499210193467962006-07-21T12:26:00.000-04:002006-07-21T12:26:00.000-04:00CC,You're right on one thing: if it had been any o...CC,<BR/><BR/>You're right on one thing: if it had been any of those things, by themselves, he'd be in no trouble. But all of these things which have been causing Dems to grumble for years, together with Iraq, a smart Lamont campaign and a terrible Lieberman campaign, has caused the perfect storm for Lieberman.<BR/><BR/>It's not just Iraq, although admittedly that's a lot of it. There's always been discontent with Lieberman to some degree.Genghis Connhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13042849182723767087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214263.post-1153498461528457962006-07-21T12:14:00.000-04:002006-07-21T12:14:00.000-04:00I disagree with the main post. Joe (like most Dem...I disagree with the main post. Joe (like most Dems) toes the party line on basically every issue (especially the ones that count most save for national security issues) and, with great respect to GC, a senior senator is not discarded by a party for being nice to an opponent at a debate or even for criticizing an impeached President of the same party. To the extent a backlash has been growing against him it is solely due to the war. It's also most reflective of the growing strength of the far left within the Democrat party that is staunchly against the war. How else to explain that Joe was the darling of the Dems just six years ago and now they are ready to throw him out for a man unheard of less than a year ago?CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03856834336299603655noreply@blogger.com