One last thing before the end of the day. Joe Lieberman's is worth reading. He calls for an escalation surge of U.S. forces in Iraq (no surprise there). Maybe it is just me, but he appears to also be backing an attack on Iran.
Even most alarming of all, he believes that al Qaeda and Iran are working together:
"..a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran.."
"If Iraq descends into full-scalecivil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda andIran."
"..a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region."
Anyone that has studied the geopolitics of Islam (which he should have since he is a Senator) knows that Iran and al Qaeda oppose one another. Iran is led by Shiites, and is providing support to al-Sadr. Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization, which is backing the Sunni insurgents against al-Sadr. This should be common knowledge for any policy-maker in Washington.
If the United States left Iraq, then Iran and Al-Qaeda would fight one another. They would not join together in victory, as Lieberman likes to predict. It's called a civil war!
Joe Lieberman beat all Republicans and the White House to the punch. Following the release of the , the Connecticut Senator that the idea of talking to Iran and Syria should be off the table:
"Iran has exactly the oppositeinterest in Iraq than we have. They do not want us to succeed in Iraqthus we have to reach out to others in the Middle East — othercountries that share our desires."
No matter what the reality is, Lieberman has made it clear that his already established idealism trumps all. And he's been proved wrong before on this -- such as last Sunday on Face the Nation when Republican Chuck Hagel threw down the gauntlet on Lieberman's rejection of diplomacy (watch the ).
Lieberman discounts the idea that all states behave in their own self-interest. However, while the Iranian President may want the United States to get bogged down in Iraq, but he certainly does not want a failed Iraqi state. The flow of refugees into Iran, coupled with the breakdown of commerce between the two countries, would destroy Iran's economy. So no, they don't want a failed Iraqi state -- which is at the heart of the issue, and something that Lieberman discounts.
The Connecticut Senator has every right to his opinion. And as concerned citizens, we have every right to challenge him when he let's idealism control his perception of reality. Neither yesterday nor on Sunday's Face the Nation was Lieberman able to give one shred of evidence as to why Iran would welcome the uncontrollable flow of Iraqis refugees into their country. You know why? No country would. It's common sense. China doesn't want there to be an all-out nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula for that same reason.
Throughout the course of my life, I have learned that there are three kinds of people that you can't argue with:
A person with an anger problem
A person that won't let you finish a sentence
A person that simply makes things up
Mr. Lieberman, numero tres definitely applies to you!
The Democrats will have the wrong Senator in charge of investigating government corruption.
Ever since the November 7th midterm elections, reelected Connecticut Senator has had Harry Reid by the leash. He the Democratic leadership that he had not ruled out switching parties -- which was another way of saying, "give me some chairmanships." If Lieberman were to become a Republican, the Democrats would lose control of the Senate. Under pressure to keep Lieberman in his party, new Majority Leader Harry Reid the turn-coat by naming him as the chairman of two committees: Homeland Security and Government Affairs
The most influential of the two committees is the one on Government Affairs. That committee will be responsible for investigating government corruption. With Lieberman at the helm, don't expect anything major to happen. He has the gavel.
Over in the House, Rep. , the new Democrat in charge of a similar committee, has promised to go after government officials who accepted gifts from lobbyists, Dick Cheney's secret energy order in 2002, Halliburton other Iraq contractors breaking the law. Lieberman has been rather silent about these matters over the last month.
So when it comes to investigating the corruption, you can expect a lot more out of Henry Waxman's House committee than the Senate committee headed by Joe Lieberman. Blog sites such as this one will be watching what Lieberman does in that committee very closely over the next two years.
Lieberman adds the latest chapter to his status-quo mindset.
Every post that I waste writing about the 2008 presidential campaign or this year's Connecticut Senate race is one less ounce of energy that I could be spending on the most competitive House and Senate contests that will ultimately decide the fate of the United States Congress. Under that reasoning, this will probably be the last post I make about the Connecticut Senate race between now and the November vote.
A few days ago, every registered Democrat in Connecticut all the more reason to vote for Ned Lamont -- especially those voters that are hoping for nationwide political change in November:
Lieberman also declined to comment Friday on whether he thinks thenation would be better off with the Democrats in control of the Houseof Representatives. "I haven't thought about that enough to give ananswer," Lieberman told The Courant.
to say whether he would vote Democrat in the Connecticut Governors race:
He was similarly elusive about the race for governor. Is he voting forJohn DeStefano Jr., a Democrat and mayor of the city where Liebermanhas lived since the 1960s?
"I'm, uh, I'm having," he stammered, then laughed and said his decision would remain private.
Again, any Connecticut voter that wants sweeping change in Washington has little reason to support a candidate that seems to be more in favor of the national status-quo of closed government.
Democrats and progressive independents in Connecticut, please realize the choice that is before you.
In a war that has resulted in possibly hundreds of thousands of casualties and half a trillion dollars spent, you need to send the message to Washington that this is no longer acceptable leadership. But how can you do that when you have a senator whose loyalties undermine reality? As long as Joe Lieberman stays in power, you will have one less representative that champions your state's values. If you believe that we need to clean up Washington, then it begins by bringing a new era of leaders in there to fix the problem and hold the White House accountable. Joe Lieberman has proved over the years that he is incapable of challenging the status quo. Washington insiders like him are hurting our country.
During a Congressional fundraiser, the alliance between the White House and Lieberman:
"Senator Lieberman was my opponent in 2000 – Al Gore's running mate,a longtime senator, and one of the most loyal and distinguishedDemocrats of his generation," said Cheney. "Joe is also an unapologeticsupporter of the fight against terror."
The vice president championed the Democratic senator for his"courage to stick" to his convictions, with regards to the war in Iraq.
"He voted to support military action in Iraq when most senators inboth parties did the same – and he's had the courage to stick by thatvote even when things got tough," Cheney explained. "And now, for thatreason alone, the Dean Democrats have purged Joe Lieberman from theDemocratic Party."
We didn't purge him from our party, he purged himself. He lost the primaries and chose to run as an independent.
Again, this is a huge decision that Connecticut voters have. The stakes are high. Joe Lieberman might be a nice guy at heart. But in the end, it comes down to who will clean up Washington and hold Bush accountable. That man is not Joe Lieberman.
Democratic candidate Ned Lamont is gaining ground on Senator Joe Lieberman in the polls. The latest that was released on September 5th gave Lieberman a narrow 46% to 42% advantage. The incumbent Senator might face more political trouble after recently revealed that the Republicans are funneling money to the Lieberman Campaign, which quietly accepted the donation:
TheWhite House funneled millions of dollars through major Republican Partycontributors to Sen. Joseph Lieberman's primary campaign in a failedeffort to ensure the support of the former Democrat for the Bushadministration.
Asenior GOP source said the money was part of Deputy White House Chiefof Staff Karl Rove's strategy to maintain a Republican majority in theSenate in November. The source said Mr. Rove, together with RepublicanNational Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, directed leading pro-Bushcontributors to donate millions of dollars to Mr. Lieberman's campaignfor re-election in Connecticut in an attempt that he would be a"Republican-leaning" senator.
"Joe[Lieberman] took the money but said he would not play ball," the sourcesaid. "That doesn't mean that this was a wasted investment."
The Lieberman Campaign has not responded to these reports. Meanwhile, there is also other buzz regarding the Connecticut Senate race:
Jimmy Carter went on Larry King last night and slammed Joe Lieberman for favoring policies that have put our troops in the line of fire without an exit strategy. "He was one of the originators of public statements that misled theAmerican people into believing that the Iraqi war was justified," the on Larry King Live.
On the campaign trail Wednesday, challenger Ned Lamont said that the United States is now less safe from terrorism because Senators like Joe Lieberman gave the President blind support to go to war in Iraq. "We have sacrificed our daughters and sons and our treasure in a war wedidn't have to fight," . "We have ignored the real threatsand security needs in the war we should be fighting, the one againstthe terrorists. ... Senator Lieberman believes that President Bush has it right in Iraq. I believe that he's dangerously wrong."
Lastly, from up in Rhode Island two days ago, we can gather that compared to the race in Connecticut the Democratic base is much more fired up than the conservative base is as we get closer to November. Unlike progressives in Connecticut, grassroots conservatives in Rhode Island could not rally the support needed to get their guy out on top. However, we need to be cautious. This latest 9/11 fear-pandering scheme on the part of the GOP is showing signs of working, and might rally the conservative base just in time for the November 7th contest.
-----------------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about the Connecticut Senate race: , , , , , , , , , , , .
Now that Joe Lieberman has officially abandoned all of the Connecticut voters that showed up to cast their ballots in the dead of summer, he can venture outside the party for support. Late yesterday, two-time Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp (1976,1996) announced that he will campaign with Mr. Lieberman.
The Senator from Connecticut accepted Kemp's offer, while on anyone that questioned the decision:
"I think if anyone complains about Jack Kemp coming in on my behalf, itjust shows that they're still blinded by the old partisan politics," hesaid.
On the contrary, Ned Lamont supporters would do anything but complain. In fact, this all positive. Getting a pro-war gunslinger like Jack Kemp on his side, who in 1996 accused Bill Clinton of waging a campaign "," only affirms Lieberman's inability to stand up to President Bush and the big donor Republican establishment. If anything, Lieberman's Republican friends are a net plus for Lamont, as many political strategists would agree.
Although Lieberman gained the support of Kemp, he lost the backing of Senator Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii). issued a statement:
"After the primary, Senator Inouye was mostdisappointed and unhappy when Senator Lieberman remarked that theDemocratic Party no longer represented the mainstream of America, andthat the Democratic Party had lost its values," the eight-term Hawaiisenator said in the statement.
Not even Inouye, one of Lieberman's most steadfast supporters, could continue to support the Connecticut Senator's direction.
Here is your Wednesday morning roundup of the other campaign news regarding the Connecticut Senate race:
The latest puts Lieberman ten points ahead of Lamont, 49.4% to 39.4%. However, an that came out a few days ago shows the race much tighter. In that one, Lieberman only holds a 44% to 42% lead over Lamont. We still have more than two months to go.
The Service Employees International Union () has announced that they are endorsing Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race. They argued that . This certainly falsifies the by many in the traditional media that Lieberman has the complete support of unions.
According to the anti-Fox News blog , as Jack Kemp was given uninterrupted time to campaign for Joe Lieberman on Neil Cavuto's show yesterday, Fox News introduced a graphic that said "Grand Old Party for Joe." Now there's something that Fox got right!
The Ned Lamont strategy of trusting the grassroots is paying off for Democratic Congressional candidate Donna Edwards, who is trying to unseat pro-war Democrat Al Wynn. is calling her "Maryland's Ned Lamont."
The Lieberman Campaign released their of this entire election season (and yes, it tops their from a few weeks back). Hey, they can waste their money if they want to. So no complaints as far as I'm concerned.
-------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about the Connecticut Senate Race: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
Now that Congressman Christopher Shays (R-Conn) is bowing to political pressure on Iraq, saying that a , Joe Lieberman is using that as cover to follow a similar strategic path. When responding to Shays' proposal in front of the press, instead of instantly repeating the usual Bush rhetoric about how leaving Iraq would be cutting and running, Lieberman gave an indication that he might switch his view after all. This is spewed out in his attempt to quietly tip-toe to the other side of the fence:
"It seems to me that Chris is saying, maybe we ought to set somegoals for when we want to get out, and I'd like to see what he has inmind before I comment on it," Lieberman said while campaigning in NewHaven.
"As I've said to you over and over again, the sooner weget out of Iraq, the better it's going to be for the Iraqis and us, butif we leave too soon for reasons of American politics, it's going to bedisaster for the Iraqis and for us," he said.
Then the question becomes what constitutes leaving "too soon?" A sentence earlier though, Lieberman admitted that "the sooner we get out of Iraq, the better it's going to be for the Iraqis and for us." By that statement, Lieberman is slowly trying to switch his position, lining him up just perfectly with many Northeastern Republicans who find themselves in hot water as we home in on November.
So if Lieberman is following the lead of Republicans, then one has to ask why Lieberman still continues to have Democratic Senate seniority? For example, Lieberman is the ranking Democrat on the -- meaning that if the Democrats take back majority in the Senate in November, he would become chairman of that committee when the Senate reconvenes in January. Is that fair, especially considering the fact that he is choosing to ignore the will of Connecticut Democrats that showed up to vote on a summer evening earlier this month? Still, according to , a conservative online magazine, Lieberman will likely remain part of the Democratic caucus, mostly because the Connecticut incumbent is good friends with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
Please do your part to help convince the Democrats to strip Lieberman of his Senate seniority. Why should any political party that held a primary recognize a member who violated the will of its voters?
Call radio programs. . . . After three years since the Iraq war began, three years of watching our national security become weakened as a result, we cannot afford to have a rubber stamp for the White House like Joe Lieberman chairing the . It's time we did something about it.
Ned Lamont, Russ Feingold and Howard Dean went out in full force on the Sunday talkshows and confronted Joe Lieberman head-on for using the latest terror threats as a pandering opportunity.
Joe Lieberman acting a lot like Dick Cheney. Let's look at the similarity between the comment Dick Cheney made last week and what former Democrat Joe Lieberman also said.
First, :
"And as I look atwhat happened yesterday, it strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunateand significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party ... I think there's a significant bodyof opinion that wants to go back -- I guess the way I would describe itis sort of the pre-9/11 mind set, in terms of how we deal with theworld we live in."
Now compare that with what said:
"If we just pick up (and leave Iraq) like Ned Lamont wants us to do, itwill be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted toblow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It willstrengthen them and they will strike again."
Other than the simplicity in their statements, the two are feeding into Ken Mehlman's belief that Lamont's victory reflected a defeatist attitude on the part of the Democrats. But just in case they didn't realize it, Connecticut voters, not Ned Lamont, decided the outcome. Either Cheney and Lieberman reject democracy, or they are clearly out of touch with a majority of taxpaying Connecticut voters.
On , Russ Feingold came out and defended Ned Lamont from Lieberman's attack:
This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) responded toLieberman’s remarks. “Joe is showing with that regrettable statementthat he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get it,†Feingold said.
of the race:
"I know how hard this is for Joe, and he is a good person, but thetruth is I lost one of these races and I got behind my party's nomineeand I think that is what you have to do if you want to help thiscountry," Dean, former governor of Vermont, said on NBC's "Meet thePress."
and rebutted Lieberman's Cheney-like tactic of using national security to scare people:
"It surprised me," he said. "It seemed almost orchestrated. It's sortof demeaning to the people of Connecticut. … I thought the senator andthe vice president were both wrong to use that attack (strategy) on thevoters of Connecticut."
Yes, Connecticut voters -- you are exactly who Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman were attacking. They were trying to insult your intelligence. They think you don't understand anything about how to keep this country safe. This November, you can send Lieberman and Cheney the right message by kicking the bums out of Congress.
The Republicans have pretty much backed Lieberman in this race. When RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman was asked to set the record straight on Sunday's Meet the Press, he and would not endorse Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger. Gee, I wonder who Cheney, Mehlman and Rove are rooting for! --------------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about this issue: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
Joe Lieberman is doing a whole lot of good for the Republican Party. Of course, that should not matter to him because he has pretty much abandoned the Democratic Party all together. Political analysts are warning that Lieberman's independent bid for U.S. Senate will boost GOP turnout in Connecticut this November, enabling all of the GOP's U.S. House incumbents to hold onto their seats -- meaning because of Joe Lieberman the Democrats won't take back the House.
explains:
Suddenly the Democrats' nightmare scenario becomes plausible: They area seat or two from gaining a House majority in November, but so manyConnecticut Republicans go to the polls to vote for Joe Lieberman thatthe state's three vulnerable GOP incumbents win re-election.
"Whetherhe wants to or not, Joe's being on the ballot will juice Republicanturnout," said former Democratic Rep. Toby Moffett, who is advising theparty's candidates. "Does he want to go back to Washington as the guywho helped Republicans retain their majority?"
I can't believe Al Gore even picked this guy to be his running mate. Lieberman is nothing but a selfish, power-hungry, Washington-establishment politician with no regard for anyone's future but his own.
Recent Comments