The Beat

As Conn. Goes in '06, So Goes The Nation in '08?

posted by John Nichols on 08/12/2006 @ 3:49pm

At the beginning of what is shaping up as America's summer of discontent, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" for a discussion about his opposition to the war in Iraq and the prospect that he might seek the presidency in 2008 as the candidate of Democrats who want their party to propose a dramatic departure from Bush administration foreign and domestic policies.

The program's host, Tim Russert, asked Feingold: "When will you decide whether you're running?"

"I'm going to look at this, Tim, after the elections in 2006," replied the maverick senator from Wisconsin. "I need to look at what happens in the congressional races -- how are the ideas I've been presenting resonating with the American people -- and decide whether this is something that makes sense or whether it's better for me to remain in the United States Senate."

On August 8, months before the point in November when all the 2006 results will be known, Feingold has gotten a strong and positive signal about how the ideas he's been presenting are resonating.

Anti-war challenger Ned Lamont's Connecticut Democratic primary win over pro-war incumbent U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman Tuesday was a clear victory for the activist wing of the Democratic Party that -- if liberal Internet blogs are to be believed -- sees Feingold as perhaps its most attractive contender for the party's presidential nomination in 2008.

On the morning after the Connecticut results came in, Feingold notes, a former staffer told him, "Hey, if you were looking for an excuse to not run for president, Russ, you didn't get it last night."

Feingold, whose Progressive Patriots Fund political action committee dispatched a check for $5000 to the Lamont campaign on Wednesday, describes the primary win by the anti-war challenger as "an affirmation of something much larger than Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont."

The message to Democratic leaders who are still uncertain about whether to aggressively oppose the war, said Feingold, was beyond debate: "You are simply not listening if you don't know that the American people have had it with this mistake and want it to end."

Feingold's not just jumping on the Lamont bandwagon.

The Wisconsin Democrat was the first member of the party's Senate caucus to speak favorably about the primary challenge by anti-war businessman Lamont to Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat who has been the party's most high-profile supporter of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration foreign policies that Feingold has so vehemently opposed.

Back in June, when he spoke to Russert, Feingold pointedly refused to endorse Lieberman for re-election, splitting with most other Senate Democrats and most of the party's Washington establishment. While he did not endorse officially endorse the challenger, the Wisconsin senator said, "I think Ned Lamont's positions on the issues are much closer to mine on the critical issues."

Now that Lamont has defeated Lieberman, Feingold has an indication that his ideas are resonating with Democratic voters -- and candidates.

In fact, Lamont cites Feingold as an inspiration and says he would side with the senator on many matters, including a controversial move to censure President Bush for authorizing the controversial warrantless wiretapping program from which most Democratic senators have distanced themselves.

For his part, Feingold says that Lieberman's "extreme support of this ... obviously mistaken (Iraq war) policy that has hurt so many Americans has put him in political jeopardy."

The Wisconsinite also argues that the Lamont victory sends a signal that Democrats can oppose the war and still be seen as friends and supporters of the troops, a theme Lamont echoed in his victory speech Tuesday night when he said: "We have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in a bloody civil war in Iraq and I say its time to bring them home to a hero's welcome."

It is not difficult to imagine Feingold borrowing that line from Lamont as he heads out on the presidential campaign trail, just as the Connecticut candidate borrowed themes from the Wisconsin senator. The Connecticut results are only a piece of the puzzle for Feingold, who has taken steps to build the organization needed to mount a presidential run and has traveled frequently to Iowa, New Hampshire and other early caucus and primary states in recent months.

But it's a significant piece. Lamont's win appears to indicate that the Wisconsin senator's unapologetic progressive positions -- a "Bring the Troops Home" stance on the war, strong support for civil liberties at home, opposition to Bush administration trade and economic policies -- have far more appeal among grass-roots Democrats than they do with the party's Washington elites.

Feingold has long complained that congressional Democrats who fail to support calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq are out of touch not just with their own party but with the country.

"Those who vote against bringing the troops home don't get it. They're not out there enough. They're not listening to the people. Frankly, they're not even looking at the polls," says the senator.

"I have been all over Wisconsin, all 72 counties, to 12 different states. I can tell you, the one thing I'm sure of [is that] the American people have had it with this intervention. They do want a timetable for bringing home the troops."

That message would likely be at the heart of a Feingold presidential campaign, along with the senator's suggestion that Democrats need to be bolder in their opposition to Republican policies.

"We lost in 2000, we lost in 2002, we lost in 2004," says Feingold. "Why don't we try something different, like listening to the American people?"

Connecticut voters echoed that theme on Tuesday. But in so doing, they may have complicated things for Feingold. The one thing that could trip up the Wisconsin senator's leap onto the national stage could be the fact that a number of other Democratic presidential prospects also seem to be getting the message from Connecticut.

Massachusetts U.S. Sen. John Kerry, who frustrated many Democrats with his tepid stance on the war as the party's 2004 presidential nominee, this year co-sponsored Feingold's call for a withdrawal timeline. Though Kerry and Feingold are working together on the Senate floor, there is a strong sense among political observers that the Massachusetts senator is trying to occupy the political high ground that Feingold previously had pretty much had to himself.

Former North Carolina U.S. Sen. John Edwards, the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee and an all-but-announced 2008 contender, has publicly apologized for voting in 2002 to authorize Bush to attack Iraq. Edwards as well, has been taking Feingold-like stands on a host of issues. This coming week, he will campaign in Connecticut with Lamont.

Even New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presumed Democratic front-runner in 2008, has begun to back off her pro-war position, which until recently was only slightly less strident than Lieberman's.

Clinton did not vote for the June Senate resolution that Feingold and Kerry proposed to establish a withdrawal timeline, but she did back a milder resolution sponsored by Michigan Democrat Carl Levin and Rhode Island Democrat Jack Reed that prodded the Bush administration to begin taking steps to draw down the troop presence in Iraq.

Last week, as the Connecticut primary approached, Clinton engaged in uncharacteristically aggressive questioning of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during a Senate hearing.

Though she and most other top Democrats backed Lieberman in the primary, Clinton distanced herself from the incumbent in July after he announced that if he lost the Democratic nomination he would campaign in November as an independent.

Clinton said she would back the winner of the primary, in a move that effectively shut down talk that Washington Democrats might stick with Lieberman even if he was rejected by the Democratic voters of Connecticut. On the Wednesday after the primary, she made good on her pledge by warmly endorsing Lamont, as did most other Democratic party leaders.

Like many of her other recent moves, Clinton's declaration of party loyalty was an indication that she and other Washington Democrats are increasingly aware -- and perhaps even respectful -- of the anti-war ferment at the party's grassroots. With an anti-war Democratic primary challenger of her own, labor activist Jonathan Tasini, Clinton does not want to end up in Lieberman's position. Nor does she want to cede too much political ground to Feingold.

After all, while Clinton is the clear leader in most early polls, a New Republic cover of some months ago pictured the New York senator as a sword-swinging Goliath. Feingold was also pictured ... as slingshot-wielding David.

Now that Connecticut Democrats have rejected a Democratic senator who backed the war in much the same language that Clinton has, the anti-war David of the Democratic Party is surely standing a little taller -- and feeling a little more confident as he considers a presidential run.

Comments (127)

  1. I sincerely hope you ( and the Democratic party ) are assessing this win acurately John. But it was just one little primary in a very blue state. That's not many tea leaves to read the future from.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/12/2006 @ 4:46pm

  2. While the Connecticut Senate race gets all the attention, we shouldn't forget that their is a little Senate race going on in Rhode Island and the results may speak louder than Connecticut's race.

    Also, Pennsylvania's Senate race will bear equal attention -- a real belwether state.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/12/2006 @ 5:15pm

  3. This commenter, "Freiheit", is wrong on at least two points:

    You forgot to mention the narrow margin of victory, 52% to 48%

    "narrow margin of victory"? Why, in 2004, nearly every pundit in America [mediamatters.org] was falling all over themselves to say that a 51% to 49% victory was a "mandate".

    So what does that make 52% to 48%? A rout? An *ss-kicking?

    ... and the disappointing eligible voter turnout of 43% in Conn last week.

    I believe the previous record for a Democratic primary in Connecticut was 25%. The turnout on Aug 8th was about 80% higher than that, a new record for Connecticut.

    So, it seems that he knows not whereof he speaks, and his "Bwa-ha-ha-ing" might be a bit premature.

    But then, he is a Republican, isn't he.

    Posted by justathought at 08/12/2006 @ 5:17pm

  4. "Senate race going on in Rhode Island and the results may speak louder than Connecticut's race. "..Louder? One libe beats another?

    .. The repubs should have let Link go long ago...in fact, the repubs should give up on NE and view it as viable for them as the South is for Democrats...lost cause...maybe Rudy, but I dont see a red state in the NE area..

    Rhode Island and Link Chaffee...lost cause whether he wins or loses.

    My real hope is that Ned wins the CT primary and the dems experience an epileptic left twitch and run the dem party off the cliff as in the glorious McGovern years..

    Go Russ Go...you are my man, I will even send him money..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/12/2006 @ 5:30pm

  5. correction,

    should read "general and not primary"..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/12/2006 @ 5:32pm

  6. Ha, so paparazzi get a pic of Hillary getting smooched on by hsuB at an event and it's all over for her? It'll never happen. However I'd like to see newer polls as to where Feingold stands now as a prospective prez. Even repub prez prospects, polling looks a lot more centrist to left leaning than neocons would like to admit. And if it's moving ever more that way every day... 2008 may be very surprising to the fanatical right. Seeing their heads POP off per the pressure of reality squeezing in may become commonplace by the end of 2007.

    Gallup Poll. June 1-4, 2006. N=447 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide who are registered to vote. MoE ± 5.

    "Next, I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2008, or if you would support someone else. . . ." Names rotated

    Hillary Rodham Clinton 36

    Al Gore 16

    John Edwards 12

    John Kerry 11

    Wesley Clark 4

    Joe Biden 4

    Russ Feingold 3

    Rudy Giuliani 29

    John McCain 24

    Newt Gingrich 8

    Mitt Romney 6

    Bill Frist 6

    George Allen 5

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2006 @ 5:37pm

  7. FRIEDHEAT is sick with fear of democracy now that he's seen Lieberman get sent to Long Beach. It's affecting his reasoning.

    Check that. He's never displayed any reasoning ability. Just put him in the ignore list.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/12/2006 @ 5:43pm

  8. This was a more refreshing article, though, than the usual voter fraud accusations and 'what's wrong with americans?' posts that follow every election that doesn't go your way.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/12/2006 @ 4:57pm

    Oh,

    Do you mean posts like

    This was a Demoncrat primary in a blue state known for its ultra liberal extremism tendencies which Lamont and his cohorts brought out in droves!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/12/2006 @ 5:33pm

    or

    My real hope is that Ned wins the CT primary and the dems experience an epileptic left twitch and run the dem party off the cliff as in the glorious McGovern years..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/12/2006 @ 5:30pm?

    Goodness, but people are touchy about a li'l ol' election that has virtually no bearing on their lives.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/12/2006 @ 5:59pm

  9. As for the subject of the post, good grief! Speculation about speculation about speculation. A year from now will still be six months before the '08 primary season. Can we wait until then?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/12/2006 @ 6:00pm

  10. RIO B, fanatics will indeed be fanatics, and may even pound their chests harder, scream louder-- throw their shit further, as we're now witnessing with Cheney/Sore Loserman/neocon talking heads. However, reasonable people aren't fanatics like repub necons would like everyone to believe. As polls and election after election start showing a swing to the left, it's the repub far right that will appear to be the fanatical party. When more reasonable people are motivated to go to the polls-- the fanatics lose. The hsuB culture just looks real bad to the character of the USA, like an irritating acne pimple that needs popping eventually, we have to time it just right; wait for it to show it's big white ugly head-- then POPPING it, try not to make too big a scar.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2006 @ 6:17pm

  11. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/12/2006 @ 5:41pm: Nichols knows that the real outcome will be that the Blue states will turn a deeper Blue and the Red's a steadfast Cimson

    Hey, it's the scared little boy.

    Hi, scared little boy!

    Did you know that there are only three states (Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming)in which Dear Leader's approval is at 50 percent or higher? Hell, there are only 4 states (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Texas) in which Dear Leader's approval rating exceeds his disapproval rating.

    So, let's see. The Cimson states (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and maybe Texas) will become even more Cimson. And the rest will become more blue. Sounds like a winning strategy for the whackjob fringe. Go for it!

    Praise the Lord!

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/12/2006 @ 6:38pm

  12. But hey-- I was saying this a ways back when Sore Loserman was the dem VP candidate...

    "Rove now has a mole deep within the Democratic party helping him out, and the mole's name is Joe Lieberman." Jane Hamsher, 08.12.2006, Karl Rove and Joe Lieberman: BFFs

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/karl-rove-and-joe- lieberm_b_27100.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2006 @ 7:59pm

  13. I wish you'd realize that someone can disagree with you, yet still be a good american.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/12/2006 @ 7:54pm

    Would you mind telling this to the leaders of your own party? And some of your comrades on this site?

    Posted by liveeasy at 08/12/2006 @ 8:20pm

  14. Sure, if you will do the same.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/12/2006 @ 8:42pm

    we've tried telling this to the leaders of your own party and some of your comrades on this site

    But they don't listen

    Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 8:47pm

  15. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/12/2006 @ 8:53pm: The folks who cry unamerican the loudest are often the most unamerican. That's my opinion. Just like the one's who claim the loudest God is on my side are often the furthest from God.

    I couldn't agree more.

    Now, which party cries "Unamerican" the loudest?

    And which side screams "god" the loudest?

    Like Hezbollah, for example.

    Frei, I don't think that Hezbollah calls people unamerican...

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/12/2006 @ 8:59pm

  16. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/12/2006 @ 8:59pm: Frei, I don't think that Hezbollah calls people unamerican...

    And if they did, they would probably mean it as a compliment.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/12/2006 @ 8:59pm

  17. Speaking of God, I am sure you realize, Frei, that Dear Leader hears voices in his head and thinks it is God telling him to blow stuff up.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/12/2006 @ 9:04pm

  18. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/12/2006 @ 9:06pm: What, you're saying it's God and not really Cheney's voice?!

    Nope. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying he thinks it's God.

    That's why I wrote "and thinks it is God". It's called English.

    But, you have avoided the real question. Which party cries "Unamerican" the loudest? And which screams "god" the loudest?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/12/2006 @ 9:28pm

  19. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/12/2006 @ 9:08pm: See the problem is, a democrat calling someone unamerican is a compliment too.

    Gee, Frei, it sounds like you are calling Democrats unamerican.

    Strange thing given that you just wrote "I wish you'd realize that someone can disagree with you, yet still be a good american.".

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/12/2006 @ 9:30pm

  20. Is holding mutually contradictory views a requirement for membership in the Dear Leader Society?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/12/2006 @ 9:31pm

  21. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/12/2006 @ 9:08pm

    Only if the definition of an American has been redefined to mean: delusional neocon shit tossing chimps masquerading as rational end of days well meaning Samaritans only wanting the best for the poor and defenseless by introducing them to war or starving them to death in order to teach them self reliance...

    Of course the only ones that believe that this is the definition are the very same delusional neocon shit tossing chimps-- not that hard to understand.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2006 @ 9:36pm

  22. Oh and let's check out that national stage on this issue....

    [Sound of crickets]

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/12/2006 @ 5:01pm | ignore this person

    Frei, somethimes you make good points and other times, it's like you're not even trying. You can't possibly be serious about this 'nobody cares what happened in connecticut schtick.

    Just to provide some clarity, here's a REALLY small sampling of stories in the MSM of the past couple of days. And there have been many, many...MANY more. This story created some darn loud crickets!!!

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/11/lieberman.senate/index.html

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14028807/

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/10/politics/main1882456.shtml

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/09/opinion/main1879371.shtml

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWRkZDZjMjE5ZTIxZTc5ZDczYTMwZGJmYTU 4MTFkN2Q=

    Posted by Lillian at 08/12/2006 @ 10:45pm

  23. The folks who cry unamerican the loudest are often the most unamerican. That's my opinion. Just like the one's who claim the loudest God is on my side are often the furthest from God.

    Like Hezbollah, for example.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/12/2006 @ 8:53pm | ignore this person

    Funny...when you said that I was thinking Leave Liberty.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/12/2006 @ 10:45pm

  24. You forgot to mention the narrow margin of victory, 52% to 48% and the disappointing eligible voter turnout of 43% in Conn last week. And that's in a VERY blue state indeed.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/12/2006 @ 4:57pm

    Actually, FREIHEIT, this raises a very interesting point. The sample size of 43% of Democratic voters is humongous as far as the science of statistics is concerned. We can say with extremely high confidence that a small majority of Connecticut Democrats support Lamont. Even without consulting my Probability and Statistics textbook, I can venture that the confidence leve is above 99%

    Can we extrapolate that to the national Democratic party and the public in general?

    No!

    So while we can disregard the "disappointing" level of turnout for Connecticut, we really cannot say much else.

    The bottom line: Wait until the general midterm election in November before drawing firm conclusions!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/12/2006 @ 11:05pm

  25. Which, of course, is exactly what the cogent Feingold is doing!!!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/12/2006 @ 11:06pm

  26. But, you have avoided the real question. Which party cries "Unamerican" the loudest? And which screams "god" the loudest?

    Posted by ORWELL2005 08/12/2006 @ 9:28pm

    In an english accent:

    "Game, set and match for ORWELL, who advances to the championship semifinals. And a round of applause, please, for FREIHEIT. Let's thank him for playing..."

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/12/2006 @ 11:13pm

  27. please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2008, or if you would support someone else. . . ." Names rotated

    Hillary Rodham Clinton 36

    Al Gore 16

    John Edwards 12

    John Kerry 11

    Wesley Clark 4

    Joe Biden 4

    Russ Feingold 3

    ...

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/12/2006 @ 5:37pm

    Disappointed that you didn't list Brian Schweitzer, Democratic governor of Montana.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/12/2006 @ 11:14pm

  28. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/12/2006 @ 11:14pm

    The rest on that list:

    Mark Warner 2

    Tom Daschle -

    Tom Vilsack -

    Someone else 3

    None (vol.) 2

    Unsure 5

    If Brian Schweitzer is part of the 'someone else' or the 'unsure', that's 5 points all together higher than for Feingold!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2006 @ 12:13am

  29. Now, now, HSUBFOOLS, be fair. If Schweitzer takes all of the "someone else" votes, he is tied with Feingold and ready to fight him for those 5 percent still unsure. Feingold could still come away successful...at beating Schweitzer.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/13/2006 @ 12:20am

  30. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 10,100,000 for lieberman loses. (0.17 seconds)

    http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1094.shtml

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HH11Aa02.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1840359,00.html

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/09/D8JCLT281.html

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/03/what_happens_ after_lieberman_loses.html

    http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/08/lieberman-loses-in- campaign-dominated-by-blogs/

    http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/americaabroad/2006/ jul/26/if_lieberman_loses

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/8/231553/1239

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2006 @ 04:57am

  31. FREIHEIT sorta of raised this (and I did on another thread, stumping DARLADOON)...and I haven't seen any counter-argument to it....

    48% of Conn. Dems voted for Lieberman.

    Yet we're told that "Lieberman is pro-war and the majority of people are anti-war and that's why Lamont won".

    Okay...So 48% of Conn Dens...are "pro-war"? How does that help Mr Nichols friend, Russ Feingold?

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2006 @ 07:48am

  32. And remember...we're JUST talking about Democrats here.

    Anybody care to do the math on how Feingold wins...

    by having half of Democrats (Lamont's), but losing the other half of Dems and (likely) 95% of Republicans?

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2006 @ 07:57am

  33. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/12/2006 @ 6:38pm |

    Did you know that there are only three states (Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming)in which Dear Leader's approval is at 50 percent or higher?

    Orwell

    Just read where at the Mensa meeting that's taking place in Orlando today Wyoming was the only state not represented. Thanks for your post it goes a long way explaining why.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/13/2006 @ 09:52am

  34. By the way I understand that while the two guys from Utah and the one from Idaho are in Orlando the average I.Q. Has been lowered by six points in their respective states.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/13/2006 @ 09:53am

  35. I know, I know ! That last was uncalled for.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/13/2006 @ 09:54am

  36. Okay...So 48% of Conn Dens...are "pro-war"? How does that help Mr Nichols friend, Russ Feingold?

    Mask you're smarter than that. You're just trying to blow smoke up our collective asses as usual. 48% of Conn Dems are not "pro-war" and you damn well know it. Conn voters, like voters everywhere, normally vote overwhelmingly for an incumbent. If that weren't true we wouldn't have a 98% "recidivism" rate for Congress.

    The fact that Lieberman was the only third or forth incumbent since 1980 to lose in a primary is infinitely more meaningfull than that 48% number. That's what's sticking in your craw, now give it up.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/13/2006 @ 10:09am

  37. Personally I think everyone is making too much of Lamont's win. Dems for reading in this a quantum leap in the country's thinking and Repubs for jumping through their asses trying to downplay the significance.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/13/2006 @ 10:17am

  38. Two things:

    First, FREHEIT wrote:

    You forgot to mention the narrow margin of victory, 52% to 48% and the disappointing eligible voter turnout of 43% in Conn last week. And that's in a VERY blue state indeed.

    Somehow, FREHEIT and his kind forgot to mention a similar margin of victory in '04 with Bush and Kerry. Double standard, no?

    Second, Lieberman was not taken to task for being strong on national security, but for his unflinching support for Bush on the Iraq war and his refusal to criticize any of Bush & Co.'s numerous post-war-planning mistakes pertaining to it. The Iraq war had nothing to do with protecting America, since Iraq wasn't a threat to this country, so attacking those attacking Lieberman on national-security grounds has no merit. (Yes, there are terrorists operating in Iraq now, but they weren't operating there before the war; the pathetically weakly-guarded borders once war broke out is what allowed terrorists to slip in with the giddy prospect of attacking some U.S. soldiers.) Also, it was Lieberman and Democrats who came up with the idea of a Homeland Security department, which Bush initially balked at; it was only later that they grudgingly supported the idea. And even then Lieberman's to be criticized, because he refused to chasten Bush for not initially supporting it, which allowed Bush to take credit for the department like it was his idea in the first place, which it certainly wasn't.

    Posted by TexasDemocrat at 08/13/2006 @ 11:35am

  39. Oh, and for years I've been preaching about the dangers of DU -- depleted uranium -- and how it affected our troops and Iraqis during and after the first Gulf War. Well, now it's happening again:

    http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/is-an-armament-sickening-us-soldier s/20060812123809990008?ncid=NWS00010000000001

    Seems Republicans are true Americans for being strong on national security supposedly, yet not so strong on caring about the welfare of our troops while their armchair warmongering selves turn a willing blind eye to this kind of thing.

    How American and moral. NOT!

    Posted by TexasDemocrat at 08/13/2006 @ 11:38am

  40. Looks like Joe just needed a make-over. Blue just wasn't doing it for him. http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/Connecticut Senate.htm

    Posted by Sliver at 08/13/2006 @ 12:09pm

  41. It is invegoring for us web heads liberals to see the Democratic party gain strength. I personally see Feingold and Kerry as potential leaders, without forgetting to mention Al Gore for President in 2008, I am comfortable with either one of them leading this nation. I believe too that any individual who wants to be the leader of this nation ought to be judged on its merits of bringing prosperity, joy, and peace to the populous. Making sure that though we live in a free enterprise, the patrimony of the American people is not property of the corporations. The leader of this country must remember when dealing with corporations that our constitution states: "We the people . . .," instead of "we the corporations."

    Posted by Edmundo Cav at 08/13/2006 @ 12:10pm

  42. Posted by TEXASDEMOCRAT 08/13/2006 @ 11:38am

    I'm waiting to see LuvLying jump in and say that he now eats DU and that it's perfectly harmless and that our sick soldiers are aiding the enemy by faking their illness. Yep, a vote for Sore Loserman is a vote to continue poisoning the planet with DU via the pro-perpetual war continuum with it's toxic far right GOP/MIC blood bond.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2006 @ 12:22pm

  43. The anti-Iraq occupation is a pretty sustained sentiment that will not go away, unlike the Sore Loserman sentiment.

    Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Aug. 10-11, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

    Date_______Approve_Disapprove_Unsure

    8/10-11/06______34_______62 _____4

    5/11-12/06______32_______62 _____6

    8/2-4/05________34_______61_____5

    5/13-14/04______35_______57_____8

    5/1-2/03________69_______26_____5

    "Please tell me which political party -- the Republicans or the Democrats -- you trust to do a better job handling each of the following. What about the situation in Iraq? Which party do you trust to do a better job handling this issue?" Parties rotated

    Date______Republicans___Democrats___Both___Neither___Unsure

    8/10-11/06______39________45_________1_______7_______8

    10/24-25/02_____43________28_________7_______7_______15

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2006 @ 12:48pm

  44. And another thing: Let's differenciate between "anti-war" and "anti-Iraq-War-2", the latter being what Lamont is and Liberman isn't. The odious "anti-war" thing is just a myopic label used by desperate hard-right-wingers to silence those who rightly question the illegal, unnecessary war going over in Iraq right now. After all, I didn't read of any Democrats, excepting Dennis Kuchinich, throwing stones at military intervention in Afghanistan. So let's not let the armchair warmongers get away with this "anti-war" thing. It's as IQ-insulting as Bush's "Is our children learning?".

    Posted by TexasDemocrat at 08/13/2006 @ 12:52pm

  45. And what about the no contradiction with being 'more' anti-terrorist then the neocon by being anti-Iraq occupation per its being a distraction on fighting the 'real' terrorist-- and it's 'creating' more 'TERRORISTS', and making us less safe; not having the funding to support Homeland Security, 9/11 Com. not implemented fully, straining our economy, army and infrastructure, etc!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2006 @ 1:28pm

  46. meant 'than', not-- then...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2006 @ 1:29pm

  47. Conn voters, like voters everywhere, normally vote overwhelmingly for an incumbent.

    Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/13/2006 @ 10:09am | ignore this person

    So win Lieberman runs as an Independent this fall.....????

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2006 @ 2:37pm

  48. So win Lieberman runs

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2006 @ 2:37pm | ignore this person

    typo..."when".....hmmm....maybe not???

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2006 @ 2:37pm

  49. So win Lieberman runs

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2006 @ 2:37pm | ignore this person

    typo..."when".....hmmm....maybe not???

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2006 @ 2:37pm | ignore this person

    Er, I think that's Sore Loserman's problem-- he put 'win' before his 'run'. Thus did not consider what he should be running 'from'-- his enthusiastically stay-the-course over-the-top coital(sp?) submissive behavior of hsuB's failed occupation of Iraq policy.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2006 @ 3:32pm

  50. When Sore Loserman aligned himself with a lie and a chronic idiot liar-- he sealed his fate:

    From the President's Radio Address, August 12, 2006: This plot is further evidence that the terrorists we face are sophisticated, and constantly changing their tactics... We're dealing with a new enemy that uses new means of attack and new methods to communicate.

    From the New York Times, Aug. 12, 2006: In 1995, a plot to bomb 12 American jumbo jets over the Pacific with a liquid explosive was discovered when the bomb makers accidentally set fire to their laboratory in Manila.

    From the New York Times editorial, Aug. 12, 2006 : The most frightening thing about the foiled plot to use liquid explosives to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic is that both the government and the aviation industry have been aware of the liquid bomb threat for years but have done little to prepare for it.

    From the Associated Press: As the British terror plot was unfolding, the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology....Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks, and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short. ''They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using,'' Sabo said.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2006 @ 3:52pm

  51. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2006 @ 3:32pm | ignore this person

    Still doesnt refute RED NECKERSON's contention...

    Conn voters, like voters everywhere, normally vote overwhelmingly for an incumbent.

    Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/13/2006 @ 10:09am | ignore this person

    Ergo....?

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2006 @ 4:29pm

  52. Seems the hsuB admin is pretty acute at moving the priority of terrorism up the list of concerns at the drop of a hat. A couple of months ago, terrorism scored in the single digits and was last on a list of 10 as a concern with the US public. This month we now have it in the double digits, up to 3rd priority after Iraq- 1, and the economy- 2. Predicatively, repubs see it as the 1st concern, where dems see it 6th and indies see it 4th-- and closer to the dems. As long as dems are able to frame the debate as a repub failure to win the war on terrorism and in fact making it worse-- the more repubs bring it up the more dems will benefit. Face it-- the repubs have failure after failure clinging to them like flies on shit. Let them stir it up, keep pointing out all the flies to the people-- not to mention the stench and keep watching the repub poll numbers tumble.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2006 @ 4:47pm

  53. Posted by MASK 08/13/2006 @ 4:29pm

    Er, he lost..., and to other dem incumbents, donors-- he's a pariah. If that's the underlying point-- that this is no longer normal voter behavior, then yes, we're in agreement.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2006 @ 4:54pm

  54. Conn voters, like voters everywhere, normally vote overwhelmingly for an incumbent. Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/13/2006 @ 10:09am | ignore this person

    Ergo....?

    The operative word here is "normally".

    As I've already said the fact that they didn't vote for the incumbent this time would indicate there's something else in the mix.

    It is a mistake to "hang your hat" on the 48% of Dems who didn't vote for Lamont and it does not, as you maintain, mean that they are pro-war but that, as I would maintain, they are simply voting for the incumbent as is the normal voting pattern.

    These 48% will NOT vote en bloc for a prowar candidate although some may. Therefore we don't know what will happen in a three way race between Lieberman, Lamont and ol' whozit and we sure as hell don't know how any of that is going to reflect on Feingold's chances because....

    "Anybody care to do the math on how Feingold wins... by having half of Democrats (Lamont's) but losing the other half of Dems and (likely) 95% of Republicans?"

    ...because having half the Democrats ( Lamont's ) is a false proposition. Not only is your contention that Feingold gets only half the democratic vote wrong as shown by the argument above but it is illogical because you are extrapolating the mood of the Dems as a party nationwide in an election 2 years from now from a relatively small sampling i.e. that of the Conn Dems in a primary last week. That is more fool hardy than brave.

    Finally I feel that your "( likely ) 95% of the Republicans" may be way too optimistic ( if the conversations I've had with my conservative friends, many of whom have become independants lately, are any indication ).

    Ergo your prediction is flawed since at least one and possibly two of its propositions are flawed and when the proposition is wrong the conclusion is in error.

    Q.E.D.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/13/2006 @ 8:28pm

  55. The conclusion by the way being implied i.e. Feingold can't win.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/13/2006 @ 8:30pm

  56. Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/13/2006 @ 8:30pm

    Red, if Z says Feingold can't win, that is a very good sign for Feingold.

    Z's predictions are typically the inverse of reality. It's the up-is-down mantra of the whackjob universe.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/13/2006 @ 8:47pm

  57. The conclusion by the way being implied i.e. Feingold can't win.

    Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/13/2006 @ 8:30pm | ignore this person

    'Can't'? Way too definitive for someone that does not really even know what's going to happen tomorrow, 08/14/06, 12 noon, much less events going into 2008..., lots of variables between here and there.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2006 @ 10:19pm

  58. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2006 @ 10:19pm

    I believe you misunderstoon RN's post. He was clarifying the point of his previous post, which paraphrased Mask.

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/13/2006 @ 10:27pm

  59. opps...hit submit by accident...continuing....

    "Not only is your contention that Feingold gets only half the democratic vote wrong as shown by the argument above but it is illogical because you are extrapolating the mood of the Dems as a party nationwide in an election 2 years from now from a relatively small sampling"

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/13/2006 @ 10:28pm

  60. RED...HSUB....

    WHY did 48% of Democrats in CT vote for Lieberman?

    or...perhaps more pointedly...why did they NOT vote for Lamont?

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 06:52am

  61. ORWELL...

    Where did I say "Feinold CAN'T win"?

    I merely asked why 48% of CT residents voting the OTHER way are irrelevant to Mr Nichols friend.

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 06:53am

  62. LL,

    Your links just ain't happening.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 07:41am

  63. Posted by MASK 08/14/2006 @ 06:52am

    The question has been answered repeatedly, but we'll slow it down even more for you: most people given a choice between a sitting senator and a new guy with little or no experience will instinctively vote for the sitting senator out of habit. That this did not happen is the surprising part, not that Lamont "only" got 52%.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 07:45am

  64. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/14/2006 @ 03:26am:

    Feingold is more of a realist than I have given him credit for. Today in his interview on This Week on ABC, Feingold admits to George Stephanopoulos that John McCain would win easily if he runs, and especially if it was against him (Feingold).

    I can't wait to see the leftists try and make Feingold's words mean something else.

    Yeah, I saw the interview, LL. Actually, that isn't what he said. Or at least, the part that George S. excerpted to read on the air isn't the same as your paraphrase.

    What George S. excerpted was Feingold saying that if the GOP nominated a "straight shooter" he would win easily. The quote didn't have McCain's name in it!!!

    George S. construed that to be a reference to McCain, and asked Feingold to "square his comments" with a different Feingold remark in which Feingold asserted that americans were ready for change on Iraq. It was a slick little interviewer's trick, which fooled our buddy LL.

    When Feingold answered the question, he gushed about McCain but stopped short of saying McCain would win in '08.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/14/2006 @ 08:18am

  65. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/14/2006 @ 07:45am | ignore this person

    Fine, TJ....but then you've got to admit that Lieberman isn't LOATHED (as he is on the Blogs or here at "The Nation") by the people of Connecticut.

    It also means admitting that being "pro-war" (the main charge against Lieberman) is NOT a "deal breaker" with atleast 48% of Democrats in his home-state....or admitting that CT isn't as "Blue" as everyone says.

    Both have implications AGAINST Russ Feingold, that Mr Nichols seems to be ignoring.

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 08:52am

  66. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/14/2006 @ 08:18am | ignore this person

    Why is a "pure progressive" like Feingold..."gushing about McCain"?

    Senatorial comraderie?

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 08:53am

  67. Yep! There goes the Democratics, er, Nation in '08. There's other's you know. Here's a list of Democrats who are still in the Senate and voted for the October 11, 2002, joint congressional resolution authorizing war. Leiberman them also!

    Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND)Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lincoln (D-AR) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Schumer (D-NY)

    Posted by woodyee at 08/14/2006 @ 09:53am

  68. Woodyee,

    When the Reps "Lieberman" Chafee then we can talk about the rest of the ambitious agenda that you propose.

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/14/2006 @ 10:00am

  69. FREEDOMPLEASE - Oh, how I wish they'd 'Leiberman' Chafee!!!

    Posted by woodyee at 08/14/2006 @ 10:12am

  70. Woodyee,

    And we finally agree on something.....however, you think that RI would choose the less RINO replacement, whereas I think given the choice between a true Dem and a true non incumbent Rep, the general election results would put Dems another seat closer to the Chairperson & agenda setting of the US Senate.

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/14/2006 @ 10:17am

  71. Posted by MASK 08/14/2006 @ 08:52am

    Yet, I assume, you are still picking Lamont to win? Have you changed your mind (again)? 'Twould seem that a Lamont win with the CT GOP voters in the mix would most definitely indicate that CT is as blue as an October sky.

    What neither of us can predict with anything beyond the stereotypical talking head/writing finger claptrap is how much the primary has soured people on Lieberman. I know that if Lieberman had been my guy in the primary, he would still be my guy in the general--I'm stubborn that way and I have no party loyalty. However, some voters will place party over the individual and switch from Joe to Ned. We'll see.

    In the meantime, there has got to be something more pressing to write about. Surely there are Sept. primaries as ripe and juicy as CT, regardless of how fascinating Joe and Ned are.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 10:29am

  72. FREEDOMPLEASE - I agree. They WOULD put in the Democrat. It's the principle that matters. See, this will be important years from now. Stuff like this is what gave us Reagan and Bush 2. The Dems, I think, have finally realized this but I think that once people really get a look at them, they'll reject them.

    Posted by woodyee at 08/14/2006 @ 10:35am

  73. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/14/2006 @ 10:29am | ignore this person

    Absolutely....Ned and Joe split the undecideds (more tending towards Lamont; while more Repubs in CT go Lieberman as Schlesinger left hanging in the wind)....but Lamont wins the seat.

    MY point was on Mr Nichols' latest "rah-rah!" for Russ Feingold and how Lieberman winning 48% of the DEMOCRATS doesn't necessary bode well for a Feingold nomination in two years.

    Everybody keeps talking about "re-taking the Party", "changing the soul of the Party", "Lamont-style Revolution in the Party"...

    while ignoring that almost HALF "the Party", still went with Lieberman! Call it "incumbency love" or whatever...the Revolution STILL isn't here, folks!

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 10:59am

  74. MASK -

    I think it is incorrect for you to assume that Lieberman's vote in the primary provides the floor for Democrats voting for him in the general. People like to associate themselves with a winner, or at least the winner of the primary for their registered party. Lamont is now pereceived as a winner; Liberman as a loser, and a sore one that that. This will hurt him in the general election. Thus, I think Liberman's 48% is the ceiling.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 12:16pm

  75. while ignoring that almost HALF "the Party", still went with Lieberman! Call it "incumbency love" or whatever...the Revolution STILL isn't here, folks!

    Posted by MASK 08/14/2006 @ 10:59am

    hmmmmm . . . sounds a bit like one of your "moral victories" you make fun of on the left (Cunningham's district, Hackett, etc.)

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 12:39pm

  76. Posted by HMAN23 08/14/2006 @ 12:16am | ignore this person

    HMAN, as I noted...I think Lamont will win.

    But SOMETHING made 48% of CT Dems vote for him, and "incumbency love" either works or it doesn't.

    If that's the reason, despite "vast unpopularity", he still came with 10K votes of Lamont....then it should work SOMEWHAT to his favor in the General Election. Especially, given that the non-aligned vote still hasn't had THEIR say yet (nor the Republicans, and it's starting to look more and more like Alan Schlesinger is being hung out to dry by the GOP and the White House).

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 12:40pm

  77. Posted by HMAN23 08/14/2006 @ 12:39am | ignore this person

    Given the "Lamontians" only victory has been in a Democratic Primary....while the claim of "moral victory" was made in the GENERAL ELECTIONS involving Francine Busby and Paul Hackett...not sure the analogy holds.

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 12:41pm

  78. Posted by MASK 08/14/2006 @ 12:41am: Given the "Lamontians" only victory has been in a Democratic Primary

    Given that the "Lamontians" only race has been the Democratic Primary, it is hard to see how the "Lamontians" could have more victories.

    And given that you repeatedly assured us all that Holy Joe would clean the "Lamontians"'s clock, it is hard to see why anyone would take your prognostications seriously.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/14/2006 @ 12:56pm

  79. not sure the analogy holds.

    Posted by MASK 08/14/2006 @ 12:41am

    I think it is clear as day (whether general or primary). Go back to the Busby threads. Similar 4 point spread. You allowed no "moral victories" for the "But [insert reason here]" crowd. Now here you are giving your own "But ..." reasons on Liberman's electoral loss. So moral victories can only be won by Republicans - at the Democratic primary level. Just want to be clear on your stance here.

    Another thing - a change does not have to take the form of electoral landslides in each election (see 1994). Yes, the "revolution" is not here yet and we'll see what November brings. But Lamont's victory is a positive step in the direction of change. If Lamont had lost, I bet you and others would claim that the "revolution" was dead in the water. I don't think you can extrapolate Lamont's victory to all other races, but it certainly should give many Democrats running pause, as it provides evidence that Democrats will vote the war issue.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 12:56pm

  80. But Lamont's victory is a positive step in the direction of change.

    Posted by HMAN23 08/14/2006 @ 12:56am | ignore this person

    NOW who's sounding like a "moral victory" person, HMAN?

    Let's go back and look at the "moral victory" claims-

    1. Paul Hackett, in a GENERAL election, couldn't defeat a dingbat like Jean Schmidt. He loses and it's proclaimed a "moral victory" because of "how Republican that district is"...which means it never HAD a serious Democrat running in it for the last 20 years.

    2. Francine Busby in a GENERAL election, couldn't beat a LOBBYIST, in a district where the LAST Repub was in the slammer for bribery! Called a "moral victory" because of "how Republican that district is"....in this case, "culture of corruption" barely garnered a tie (Oh, but it's going to "SWEEP Dems in in November!").

    3. Marci Winograd gets STOMPED by Jane Harman in a DEM PRIMARY. Called a "moral victory" because...well...because there even WAS a challenger to Harman.

    Now, Lieberman loses to Lamont 48-52%. No...no "moral victory". It just means Lieberman didn't have 10,000 extra votes among DEMOCRATS that he needed to walk to re-election in November.

    If Lamont wins in November....that's a victory. (I think he will) And Lieberman can't call it anything but a defeat, because he lost Non-aligned voters, even Republicans AND some of the HALF of Democrats who supported him last week.

    But if Lamont loses?....watch for claims of "moral victory", because...."It sent a message!"

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 1:19pm

  81. Lieberman is immensly popular in Conn.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/14/2006 @ 1:17pm | ignore this person

    FRANK, if he's "immensly popular"....I assume that includes NOT ONLY the 48% of Dems who voted for him, but a LOT of Non-aligned, Independent voters, maybe some Republicans too, right?

    Okay....so how does that translate for Lieberman in the Fall?

    And given his "immense popularity" in the state, why should he let just a political party primary stop him from running? Shouldn't he give the people of CT, where he's "immensly popular" a shot voting for him in a General Election?

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 1:21pm

  82. Mask, you take some liberties with your descriptive narrative. Sure, the apologists and "moral victory" victory folks point to the GOP-leanings of the districts, just like you and others point to CT as a bastion of independent voters (but hey, at least you don't refer to CT as "a blue state known for its ultra liberal extremism tendencies!" as do the neo-con apologists). And I like how you put in the close vote percentage for CT (obviously indicating you think that means something) but not CA (meaning you don't think it mattered). Shouldn't your narative on Lieberman/Lamont had something about Lieberman being a three-term incumbent, and 2000 nominee for VP, yet he still lost a primary to a man whose only other political experience was a selectman? But I guess it wouldn't help your point to cast it in that way.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 1:53pm

  83. Frank -

    Someone should ask Tony Snow if removing our troops and bases from Saudi Arabia in 2003 "emboldened" the "terrorists."

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 1:56pm

  84. "I think that it is a despicable attemt to throw Schlessinger overboard while backing a democrat just to mute Lamont's successful message. If I know Conn. politics, Lieberman will fail miserably and Lamont's star will rise rapidly as did Barack Obama's. This is the new face of the democrat party and you have to admit, it is a refreshing one...Posted by FRANKGRITS "

    Schlessingers corruption problems gives him no chance to win in a heavily Dem state. While you probably know more about Conn. politics than I do, I find it very hard to believe that Lamont can win the general election. Just a feeling on my part, I leave open the possibility that I am wrong.

    As for your statement "He does so at his own peril." (with regards to Lieberman running as an independent), please explain... What exactly does he have to lose?

    If he doesn't run... he is 100% guaranteed not to keep his seat. If he does run... he has a 50/50 chance of keeping his seat. I do not see any reason he would choose NOT to run.

    Posted by John B at 08/14/2006 @ 1:59pm

  85. (with regards to Lieberman running as an independent), please explain... What exactly does he have to lose?

    Posted by JOHN B 08/14/2006 @ 1:59pm

    Most politicians care about how they are remembered. Call it "legacy" or something else. If Lieberman loses in November, he will be remembered as a desperate loser driven by his own self-interest. His dignity will take a huge hit. More tangibly, perhaps he lessens his chance for a Cabinet appointment in 2009.

    I think a 50/50 shot is too generous anyway. Joe has an uphill battle.

    Which is why I think he cuts a deal with Hillary to step out of the general election.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 2:07pm

  86. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/14/2006 @ 2:05pm

    Agreed. But I would love to see the question at least asked. It's hard for me to square that with claiming a withdrawl from Iraq will somehow "provide comfort" to Al Qaeda.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 2:17pm

  87. Posted by HMAN23 08/14/2006 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person

    I think it can get played BOTH ways, HMAN.

    "Lieberman, once a heartbeat away from the 'legitimate' President, now thrown out by his own Party for leaving the Party's ideals"...

    or "Lieberman, once supported as the Dem's choice for Veep, now thrown out by a Party which has gone Hard Left, especially in its Internet supporters".

    Just depends on where you are. The point though remains, Lieberman got 48% of the DEMOCRATS of Conn, losing by 10K to Lamont. Now, you can argue that we can assume that 48% of CT Dems will "turn around" and support Lamont, simply because he's the nominee from the Party.

    OR...you can argue that 48% of CT Dems LIKE Joe Lieberman, and will continue to support him as an Independent, regardless of party affiliation (i.e. "Independent Democrat").

    One opinion rests on CT Dems being Party loyalists, over sticking to their support of Lieberman...which is odd, because the same people are telling us that "Connecticutans showed last Tuesday that they are NOT 'Party loyalists', by voting in Lamont!"

    or that CT Dems "don't like a sore loser", ergo will support Lamont over Liebeman in the General....which is odd, because these are many of the same people who are STILL fighting Florida-2000 and Ohio-2004.

    Or ...the REAL answer....that all those non-aligned voters, who didn't get to vote in last Tuesday's primary....will support Lamont over Lieberman....which is NOT odd, given the un-popularity of the war.

    But...the point remains...Lieberman won 48% of CT Dems, which means that in a "Purple-ish" State like CT, it's still CLOSE, despite the claims of "Revolution".

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 2:33pm

  88. HMAN... I think his concerns for his "legacy/image" are exactly WHY he is running. He doesn't want to go out to a "one-idea" opponent (which is how I think he views Lamont).

    Frank... It would be suicide for the Dems as a party if the national dems did not line up with Lamont. Also, the only poll (Rasmussen) I have seen since the primary has Lieberman up on Lamont in the general election.

    Posted by John B at 08/14/2006 @ 2:38pm

  89. Posted by MASK 08/14/2006 @ 2:33pm

    which is odd, because the same people are telling us that "Connecticutans showed last Tuesday that they are NOT 'Party loyalists', by voting in Lamont!"

    No, Lamont ran as a Democrat. The voters showed they are not "Lieberman loyalists." Big difference.

    or that CT Dems "don't like a sore loser", ergo will support Lamont over Liebeman in the General....which is odd, because these are many of the same people who are STILL fighting Florida-2000 and Ohio-2004.

    The Florida/Ohio types probably already voted for Lamont, no? The moderates in CT, who likely do not buy into the Florida/Ohio fraud stories are the ones I am saying will be turned off by Joe's move.

    Or ...the REAL answer....that all those non-aligned voters, who didn't get to vote in last Tuesday's primary....will support Lamont over Lieberman....which is NOT odd, given the un-popularity of the war.

    Likely true.

    But...the point remains...Lieberman won 48% of CT Dems, which means that in a "Purple-ish" State like CT, it's still CLOSE, despite the claims of "Revolution".

    Again, I never said it WILL be a landslide. A change nationally does not have to come in the form of massive landslides around the country. All of your categories will chip away at Lieberman's votes. Even you predict a Lamont victory, so what is your beef?

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 2:43pm

  90. HMAN... I think his concerns for his "legacy/image" are exactly WHY he is running. He doesn't want to go out to a "one-idea" opponent (which is how I think he views Lamont).

    Posted by JOHN B 08/14/2006 @ 2:38pm

    I agree, for now. Keep an eye on the polls. If Lieberman slips behind, my point on legacy comes into play. That's when he drops out.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 2:45pm

  91. John B,

    Lieberman is Zell Millering himself. He'll run for a while, maybe until election day. Lamont will be the Junior Senator of CT when Lieberman is making his last stand talking about spit balls in the GOP Convention in 2008.

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/14/2006 @ 2:45pm

  92. HMAN, I think he would have to fall behind by 8-10 points before he would drop out... and ONLY if it was a month or less out. Lamont will have to define himself by more than "Iraq -bad, Bush-bad" if he expects to have a shot at winning. Just my opinion.

    As for the article itself... Feingold would be a huge mistake and a step backwards for the dems. Hillary would stand a better chance in a general election. I would personally prefer to see Clark or Richardson (up until last week I would also have said Lieberman), but I don't think the Dems are willing to go with a moderate. Dems who would have a zero chance of my vote right now would be Feingold, Gore & Kerry. I don't really like Hillary, but it would come down to who the reps put up against her. Anyone else would be fair game.

    For the reps, I would like to see McCain or Rudy, but I am not sure the far right will let that happen.

    Posted by John B at 08/14/2006 @ 2:57pm

  93. Posted by JOHN B 08/14/2006 @ 2:57pm

    I have my preferences for the Dems, but I am also a realist. I am a Russ Feingold fan and he may have my vote come 2008. But, IMO he cannot win in 2008. You won't see much evidence 'round here, but I think the Dems ARE willing to go for a moderate - probably why Hillary leads. And I WILL vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, even if I do not vote for her in the primary.

    Mask - any thoughts? According to your "bigger tent" outlook, the GOP should allow for Rudy/McCain, no?

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 3:07pm

  94. I think the GOP would allow for McCain/Rudy, IF the moderate Reps become more vocal. But if they continue to remain relatively quiet compared to the far right, then forget about it.

    I believe both parties share the same problem. The extreme edges are without question the most vocal right now and that is furthering the divide in the country.

    Hillary is certainly more of a moderate than Feingold, Kerry and Gore, but I think her biggest problem is perception of her personality. (just or not, I think this may outweigh her intelligence)

    Posted by John B at 08/14/2006 @ 3:37pm

  95. Posted by HMAN23 08/14/2006 @ 2:43pm | ignore this person Posted by HMAN23 08/14/2006 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person

    First, my "beef" is with grandiose claims of "massive change in the Party" (to the benefit of Russ Feingold, according to His Booster At 'The Nation')....which you yourself said was NOT a "revolution", but "incrementalism."

    Second....THE scariest thing for Democrats...would be if the GOP wised up, told the Religious Right to "hush up and vote", and pushed out their moderates like Guiliani and McCain (I know, I know...Rudy and Maverick John are "Nazi right-wingers" to some here...talking the REST of the country's opinion...okay?)(Not aimed at you, HMAN, but other readers).

    If the GOP runs with a pro-choicer "Hero of 9/11" and "Maverick John" as back-up...that's the ball-game.

    Not only does it split Dems with "security moms...who are also pro-choice"...but it removes the "reform" issue, as the MS Media has made McCain the poster boy for it (whether deserved or not).

    I don't think it will happen though....Fundamentalist Right (though battered) are just as strident as the Fundamentalist Left (whose full of beans with Lamont, etc). They'll never accept a "baby-killer", anymore than the FLs will accept somebody now who "supported Bush's war".

    Though, if the Repubs are as "devious" as claimed by their opponents....the question becomes "Would you put it past them?"

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 3:40pm

  96. By the way, off topic....

    Where are the NEW articles by the folks here at TN? Some "progressive holiday" I wasn't aware of?

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 3:50pm

  97. "I don't think it will happen though....Fundamentalist Right (though battered) are just as strident as the Fundamentalist Left (whose full of beans with Lamont, etc). They'll never accept a "baby-killer", anymore than the FLs will accept somebody now who "supported Bush's war". "

    I agree 100%, which is why we need a strong third party, because the two majors are taking the country down the proverbial creek without a paddle... AND they are punching holes in the boat as they go.

    Posted by John B at 08/14/2006 @ 3:56pm

  98. Hillary is certainly more of a moderate than Feingold, Kerry and Gore, but I think her biggest problem is perception of her personality. (just or not, I think this may outweigh her intelligence)

    Posted by JOHN B 08/14/2006 @ 3:37pm

    I agree with this. For many, she is not liberal enough, for others she is almost equal with Castro. However, to the ones in the middle, her perception problem is her biggest obstacle. In my estimation (for what its worth, ha-ha), I have always thought her negative popularity numbers were way too high to win a general election. Which is why it would not surprise me if she did not end up running in 2008. But, who knows?

    Posted by MASK 08/14/2006 @ 3:40pm

    From what I gather, Rudy may be doing ok in straw polls now, but he has too many skeletons in the closet to make a legitimate run. He would be a risky bet for the GOP. McCain certainly looks like a strong possibility now. Don't count out Mit Romney (from my home state). I am not a fan, but I could see how he could come across very well on a national level. The recent happenings with the death in the Big Dig only reinforce his persona as a crisis manager (dovetailing his work w/ the Olympics in Salt Lake).

    The GOP's biggest problem besides Bush is that the religious right has been led to believe that they were responsible for Bush's re-election in '04. Personally, I question that conclusion and think it was exaggerated by the media. However, given that this IS out there, I doubt they swallow a pill in '08 for party unity.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 4:10pm

  99. Posted by JOHN B 08/14/2006 @ 3:56pm | ignore this person

    Might as well just give up on that fantasy, JOHN...and work on starting to date "Number 6" from "Battlestar: Galactica".

    Both ideological sides of the spectrum have gotten burned with "third party candidates"....for the Right, it was Ross Perot in 1992, 1996. For the Left, it was both John Anderson (1980, to a lesser extent) and Ralph Nader (2000, to a larger extent).

    And now both are gun-shy. Reforms rode the coattails of Jesse "The Body", but nothing else. Greens still haven't won a SINGLE Congressional seat, and Bernie Sanders just switched from "Independent" (i.e. socialist) to Democrat to win his Senate seat.

    The Party bosses (including "maverick" Howard Dean) certainly don't want it to happen (on their side, of course) and so will likely stomp ANY independent (from Lieberman to Romanelli in Penn.) before they take off like Perot or Nader did.

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 4:13pm

  100. I think those Dems and Reps that are more moderate/centrist should jump ship to the Libertarian party (just as an example) and thus create the third party we need.

    Second, as an article just posted on this site suggests, we have got to stop politicians from re-districting their states... otherwise we end up with "solid-Rep" or "solid-Dem" districts and end up with the same morons time and again going to DC.

    Posted by John B at 08/14/2006 @ 4:17pm

  101. Posted by HMAN23 08/14/2006 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person

    I think a good beating in 2006/2008/maybe 2010 is what will "shape up" the Republicans and put the Religious Righties in the same position the "Pure Progressives" were in 1992....i.e. behaving themselves in order to win back power.

    Really can't see how the GOP runs another "pure conservative" (like Bush) and certainly no "neo-con" or with neo-con influences.

    Plus at this point, after 6-8 years of offense, they've pretty much played out their talking points and playbook. Can't rail against "Big Government", when you've spent like liberal Democrats on pork. Can't rail on "cuts in defense spending". Can't run on social issues, when you've WON two slots on the Supreme Court and YOUR GUY is Chief Justice (again, thanks Russ Feingold for "keeping your powder dry" until Alito!).

    And if the Dems get REALLY stupid, and win back power and start in with "Let's put Bush in Leavenworth for Ohio-2004" and the same ol' "massive tax hikes to pay for massive new programs"....the centrist GOP can come back with "Well, they had their shot at deficit control and governing, and look what they did with it!"

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 4:19pm

  102. Mask,

    1) Battlestar Galactica???? As in the series from the 70's??? What the @#$@! are you talking about????

    2) As for the rest of your post, I agree that on the national level it is very unlikely. It must begin at the local and state level in order to generate any movement nationally. Otherwise, they are doomed to failure.

    3)Perot certainly handed the election to Clinton as did Nader to Bush. I say a prayer of thanks for Nader every time I think about the fact that we could have potentially had a... "President Gore"

    Posted by John B at 08/14/2006 @ 4:23pm

  103. Posted by JOHN B 08/14/2006 @ 4:23pm | ignore this person

    1. Tricia Helfer of the NEW "BG" (www.imdb.com)...trying to offer a more "up-to-date" reference on "fantasy women", to analogize to the fantasy of "an emerging third party".

    2. Aside from Ventura (Reform), nothing happening. For all the TALK from the "Greens", they've yet to win a Congressional seat (a few, very few state seats). Not likely to either as Greens get abandoned by liberals who think they are now "re-taking the Democratic Party".

    3. We disagree on that one. Gore is panderer, but wouldn't have gotten much done with a GOP Congress. And we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Although no doubt, as Bush proved his incompetence with "Katrina" (the hurricane), Gore would have USED IT politically to push his environmental policy....

    AFTER 2004 that is....even Gore wouldn't risk a bad economy under his watch, even if it meant Greenland actually becoming green!

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 4:54pm

  104. Mask...

    did not know there was a "new BG"...

    The greens will continue to flounder because they are to polarizing. I think it would have to be the Libertarian platform that could steal away the moderates of both parties. But to this point, they are unorganized.

    I'll give you the fact that Gore wouldn't have gone into Iraq. That would have been the one positive of having him. However, would he have gone into Afghanistan? (I know it is impossible to be "sure" what he "would have done", thus this is purely a speculative question)

    Posted by John B at 08/14/2006 @ 5:01pm

  105. Posted by JOHN B 08/14/2006 @ 5:01pm | ignore this person

    Libertarians have to win something too, JOHN B....and they never have.

    If you want what you want...do with the Left is doing, try to take over the major Party that leans your way.

    On Gore...hard to say about Afghanistan. Likely not. For all the "We supported Afghanistan, not Iraq" talk....there was a LOT of "The British lost there, the Russians lost there, WE'll lose there" on the Left which might have deterred Gore from doing it.

    Also consider THIS irony....right now...the "legitimate" Vice-President would be the front-runner (with Party support) for 2008....Joe Liebeman!

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2006 @ 5:03pm

  106. I think it would have to be the Libertarian platform that could steal away the moderates of both parties. But to this point, they are unorganized.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/14/2006 @ 5:01pm

    I think this is very inetersting food for thought. I have also thought that a libertarian platform could form the basis for bringing in Demcrats and Rebuplican alike. Certainly, there is room here for agreement with some in both camps on keeping the government out of the bedroom and certain aspects of people's private lives (abortion, gay marriage, Terry Shiavo-like situations). You'd probably find common ground on issues like the "War on Drugs" and 4th Amendment Rights.

    You'd have to work out compromises on the 2nd Amendment. The Democrats would have to soften the tone on banning most or all weapons, and the Rebuplicans would have to come down on reasonable restrictions being soem sort of slippery slope (generally speaking).

    On foreign policy, it's tricky, and I am not sure what this party would look like. Perhaps you'd get more agreement than some may think. I suspect it could not be an isolationist party, but it certainly would not be in the neo-con mold of spreading democracy through force. Maybe this would have to be some area that people from both camps move to the middle. Bush's misadventures and missteps certainly have caused a rift amongst Republicans.

    Where would this new party stand on issues like free trade agreements? And the biggie - domestic social programs? On social programs, I think a lot of Democrats realize that there are certain problems with the ones in place, but are not willing to toss them out. I suspect they are more inclined to try and fix them as compared to Republican libertarians.

    I don't know. Perhaps we can brainstrorm and come up with a third-party for the 21st Century. Or maybe after discussing it, it will turn out to be a lost cause.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 5:26pm

  107. On Gore...hard to say about Afghanistan. Likely not. For all the "We supported Afghanistan, not Iraq" talk....there was a LOT of "The British lost there, the Russians lost there, WE'll lose there" on the Left which might have deterred Gore from doing it.

    Posted by MASK 08/14/2006 @ 5:03pm

    I disagree on Afghanistan. From what I remember, the anti-Afghanistan voices were much smaller in numbers than the anti-Iraq ones. Iraq no, but Afghanistan yes.

    And perhaps Afghanistan would have been a moot point. We will never know, but there is ammo for the notion that 9/11 would have been stopped/averted had Gore won. Perhaps it would have happened anyway, but the evidence there suggests Bush did jack-shit on Al Qaeda for his first nine months - after being told AQ was the single most important security issue by the outgoing Clinton administration, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice wanted briefings on primarily one subject - Iraq.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 5:34pm

  108. Where did I say "Feinold CAN'T win"?

    Posted by MASK 08/14/2006 @ 06:53am

    I didn't say that Mask. What I said was the IMPLIED conclusion is that Feingold can't win. And that is exactly what your question implies. IF you accept the proposition as stated it can mean nothing else. Let's have a look at your original question again....

    "FREIHEIT sorta of raised this (and I did on another thread, stumping DARLADOON)...and I haven't seen any counter-argument to it....

    48% of Conn. Dems voted for Lieberman".

    and...

    "Anybody care to do the math on how Feingold wins... by having half of Democrats (Lamont's), but losing the other half of Dems and (likely) 95% of Republicans"?

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2006 @ 07:57am |

    Now before you say that another implication that can be fairly drawn is that it would be difficult for Feingold to win rather than impossible let's have another go at the original question:

    As of the 2000 election there were 69.607% of the eligible voters ( age 18 or over ) that were registered. Assume the proportions are the same in 2008 and assume a 55% turnout ( high ). 0.55 x 69.607 = 38.284 % so 19.143 % of all eligible voters would be a slight majority .

    Registered Democrats = 30.882% of all eligible voters x .55 x .52 = 8.832%

    Registered Republicans = 23.039% of all eligible voters x .55 x .05 = 0.634 %

    Registered as independents or with minor party = 15.686% of all eligible voters x .55 x 1 = 8.627%

    8.832% + 0.634% + 8.627% = 18.093% less than the 19.143% for a minimal majority.

    So accepting your propostion even if ALL independents and minor party voters went for Feingold he still couldn't win. So your IMPLICATION is that Feingold can't win. Which is what I said you implied.

    This has been a lot of fun but basically meaningless since I didn't accept your original proposition from the beginning. But I ain't gonna let it drop 'till you do even if it bores everyone else to tears. Just admit you're implying Feingold can't win a general election based on the conn vote.

    Go on you'll feel better.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/14/2006 @ 5:38pm

  109. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/14/2006 @ 7:15pm: I don't recall our being at war in Saudi Arabia, but perhaps I missed something?

    Oh, come now, scared little evangelical tax cheat. You have missed much more than something.

    Perhaps you don't recall that one of the evil Osama's stated goals was to force the US military out of Saudi Arabia. So, when Dear Leader decided to pull the US military out of Saudi Arabia, Osama got what he wanted.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/14/2006 @ 8:58pm

  110. HMAN... pretty much my thoughts as well, IF the Libertarian party could get organized.

    As for foreign policy, I think it would take a few things...

    1) The UN would have to be cleaned up and slimmed down so as to provide an entity that could be counted on to do what it was intended.

    2) Then it would be fairly isolationist. I agree that it cannot be complete given the globalized economy and access to information, however, I would think it would be more of a ..."we only get involved when requested by the UN" type of situation. Again, the UN would have to be much cleaner than it is now.

    3) The main area I see a problem arising is in the size of the government. A true Libertarian would want the minimum government control over our lives. Out of the bedroom, out of personal issues and social systems would need to be re-vamped so that they work and do not run up the nations debt. The IRS would be predominantly eliminated... with the implementation of a flat tax. You make ten times as much as me, you pay ten times as much as me. The only exception would be exempting lower income families from income taxation. (We would have to crunch the numbers to come up with the actual numbers, but for arguments sake say 20-25k per adult, 5k per kid... everything over that amount gets hit with 25% tax.

    4) I do not think gun control would be to much of an issue. Have mandatory 2 month wait on all gun purchases. I am a gun owner and go to the range every month or so. Rarely do I meet a gun owner that just "had to have a gun right now". Most would agree to a longer mandatory wait. THe problem is with illegal gun sales. You have as much chance of stopping this as you do stopping drug running. It is unfortunate, but inevitable. The only thing I can think of off hand is to make the punishment so friggin harsh that it will discourage most from getting into the business. Let everyone know up front what the penalty is, that way no one can bitch about it being "too hard on the poor criminals"

    Just a few random thoughts

    Posted by John B at 08/14/2006 @ 11:26pm

  111. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/14/2006 @ 7:15pm

    Maybe not war in Saudi Arabia, but we have been fighting the "War on Terror" since at least the 1970's, right? And during that "war" Osama bin Laden made public statements that America would be hit with attacks. He gave reasons. Reason #1 was that the U.S. stationed soldiers and military bases in the Muslim holy lands in Saudi Arabia (probably what you are missing Liberty; it was not that he "hated us for our freedom"). Al Qaeda made several terrorist attacks against U.S. interests during the 1990's and, of course, 9/11.

    Then in 2003, the Bush administration (quietly) packed up all of our troops and closed the bases in Saudi Arabia.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 11:37pm

  112. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/14/2006 @ 8:58pm

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/14/2006 @ 9:02pm

    Just so I'm not jumping the gun here or missed it already being brought up, but does anyone not find it curious that the hsuB admin has a kinda hands off OBL way about them and there's not been a thwarted OBL attempt to hit us-- whereas England's had 4, and then there's Spain and I'm sure a few others-- but not us. As quick as the hsuB admin are to heap unwarranted praise, much less warranted praise on itself for smallest of accomplishments per all the failures, no thwarted attempts announced and/or celebrated. I've had a ongoing sneaky suspicion hsuB made a deal with the devil. (Well ok, and yet another one.)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2006 @ 02:42am

  113. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2006 @ 02:42am

    And of course I meant here in the US of A.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2006 @ 02:46am

  114. The criminal racist homophobic antienvironment republican rule is coming to an end....

    Posted by rmjlattanzi at 08/15/2006 @ 08:44am

  115. Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/14/2006 @ 5:38pm | ignore this person

    RED, I accept your numbers, but not their use.

    48% of CT Dems voted against Lamont and "Lamontism", which is also "Feingoldism". The old phenom of "Reagan Democrats" is still out there and Russ would find it hard to win over those guys with a Hard Left move either.

    Would Feingold win some of the "Lieberman Dems"?...sure. But, if the GOP candidate isn't a total Sam Brownback Fundy Drooler, he (or she) too would cut into the independents and (unless a total "Chaffee/Spector" Repub) hold most of the Repubs.

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2006 @ 10:29am

  116. Posted by JOHN B 08/14/2006 @ 11:26pm | ignore this person

    Interestingly, the failures of the GOP have actually started a lot of liberals SOUNDING like libertarians.

    To attack the Repubs massive spending and bloating of the Government, they have to criticize "Big Government" and "out of control spending", nearly as much as the tax cuts. To criticize the privacy issues under the Patriot Act/NSA Spygate thing, they have to go after the Federal Government obtaining data on people....an idea that could also apply to MEDICAL records under a Universal Health Care plan (necessary to avoid fraud and abuse) and GUN records (necessary for more gun control laws).

    How long that will last once Democrats get back into power though....is dubious.

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2006 @ 10:33am

  117. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/15/2006 @ 11:54am | ignore this person

    I'm sorry, FRANK....saying "Lamontism is Feingoldism" ...is an "insult"?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2006 @ 12:25pm

  118. Posted by MASK 08/15/2006 @ 10:33am

    Since incompetence covers just about everything the hsuB admin do, why would criticism be based on the policy? Not all the hsuB policies are inherently wrong in and of himself--they're just administered unbelievably badly. Of course everyone is against terrorists, but the hsuB admin have botched it so bad by ‘lying us into' an Iraq war and occupation, that it's also reflected in the lack of homeland security projects implementation-- five years later. Tax cuts at the right time, work to stimulate the economy, not create debt for our grandkids, lower economic standards for the average citizen and set attainment of higher education without piling debt on debt for only the very well off. There's nothing wrong with working with the pharm co's in order to make them more efficient and less costly, yet it's become the opposite-- same for the environment, energy, health, disaster relief, etc. Everyone wants success in all aspects of gov, we all just have to come to the realization that ‘success' as a concept-- is the antithesis to the hsuB administration. So simply saying that whatever the hsuB admin did, we can do better-- is a very honest contention without ever even discussing who is more antiterrorist or more American. Want details on how badly the hsuB admin botched everything, we'll need to get a dem congress '06 -- for any kind of access to an honest investigation and return to their responsibility of oversight. One big reason why gov will work better--is oversight. A repub congress has repeatedly proven time and again that it just can't/won't do it. Thus their lower poll numbers than hsuB. That the congressional dems have better poll numbers than the repubs in congress and hsuB-- is very telling.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2006 @ 1:00pm

  119. Posted by MASK 08/15/2006 @ 10:33am

    You're making things up again. If the political picture is as you suggest, then play a little MASKian game and flip the parties in your tale. See if the GOP has any easier a time rationalizing their actions. In any case, your condensation of political issues has filtered out a good bit of fact and reality.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/15/2006 @ 1:33pm

  120. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/15/2006 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person

    What am I "making up", TJ?...the critiques of "out-of-control spending" and "making huge power grabs and expanding the scope of the Federal Government" against the Bush Admin and the GOP Congress? You aren't listening or reading enough.

    The knee-jerk opposition to the Repubs and their break from conservatism (in both spending, size of Governement, and even "use of force") has put the Dems, even Left in a position where....WHEN (note: not "if") they return to power, they'll be forced AT THE LEAST to reduce the deficit and to refrain from encroaching on people's personal lives (even when it comes to health care or guns)....at the risk of being shown "video from 2005, Senator, where you said...." (or more often, mocked on the blogs by conservative-types).

    AND given that the Dems have promised NO new taxes, merely repeals of Bush's cuts, they can't keep the spending promises AND the "no more out of control spending" promise too.

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2006 @ 1:49pm

  121. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2006 @ 1:00pm

    Meant: themselves -- not himself... (oh duh)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2006 @ 2:33pm

  122. KSAM,

    Ultimately I think the public at large trusts the dems more than the repubs to do a better job-- or at least to do ‘the' job. Thus, if the goal requires sacrifice for fixing something the repubs broke, an accumulation of successes may have already occurred by the time it's needed to ask for sacrifice from us citizens, (‘success', a very new concept for the public to attach to the gov after the continuous failures of the hsuB admin), that I doubt that people would find the request as anything other than the responsible thing to do. And for which if the repubs were to play that very same card now after all their onerous failures, would be viewed as more of a plea not to hurt them for all the crap they've made our nation.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2006 @ 3:33pm

  123. Meant: ...made of our nation.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2006 @ 3:35pm

  124. Okay, I've finally figured it out...just read the article and reply. I need to learn to "ignore" the rest...even those I might agree with on the issues.

    The problem I have with all this Lamont hoopla is how illustrative it is of the Democratic Party's willingness to ride the prevailing winds. They head for cover, however, if there is even a hint of stormy seas. I don't consider Feingold "o captain, my captain" as he basically makes such fair-weather politics explicit. If he is anti-war and believes (as I do and have since well before 2000, 9/11, and all the oft cited excuses for this totalitarian insanity), that our country is, indeed, on both the wrong and a tragically disastrous course, then, by god, he (and the ostensible opposition party) should grow a backbone and step up.

    To hell with polls, middle American stupidity, corporate sponsorship, and WAR CHESTS. WRONG IS WRONG AND IT STARTS WITH A "W!" I long since burned my party card and gave up on "politics as usual." See, the Dems get feed from the same corporate/lobby hog trough as the Repubs. They don't really care if they win or lose as long as they get paid to RUN. What we need is a real party of opposition (if not a revolution)!

    Personally, I don't care who gets the Democratic nomination to be 2nd place in 2008. Hell, until there is true accountability and verifiable results, I will have a skeptical and jaundiced view of our electoral "process."

    I just wish more Democrats actually had consciences instead of pollsters and fund-raisers to tell them what and how to think and vote. I, for one, don't need the results of the primary in CT to know that this Administration is corrupt to the core, has embroiled us in a disastrous and horrific war of choice and opportunity in order to profit from the suffering of our troops, their families, and their victims.

    I needn't even mention the domestic policy abuses, torture scandals, and illegal detentions. Do we really need to wait until we can actually smell the smoke rising from the ovens to face the facts of the atrocities committed and being committed in our names?

    Don't get me wrong, I DO NOT and WOULD NEVER blame the troops or even their commanders...I blame the top dog, the head banana, our very own J. Fred Muggs, the COMMANDER-IN-THIEF himself, George W. Bush, and, of course, his corporate puppet-master$!

    Power to the People, Revolution Now is Better than Slavery Then! ~cyclops~

    Posted by cyclops at 08/16/2006 @ 12:05pm

  125. The folks who cry unamerican the loudest are often the most unamerican. That's my opinion. Just like the one's who claim the loudest God is on my side are often the furthest from God.

    Like Hezbollah, for example.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/12/2006 @ 8:53pm

    Like Liberty, for example.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/16/2006 @ 1:40pm

  126. Tell everyone on every blog.

    Freedom of the press is under attack - literally!

    One of America's TOP investigative journalists was attacked by Homeland Security Goons:

    Cops Arrest AFP Journalist Christopher Bollyn Kurt Nimmo

    August 16, 2006

    "I was harassed, beaten, and shocked with a Tazer-like gun in my front yard before my wife and children, and then abused for 6 hours by the ADL-trained local police," explains American Free Press journalist and Republic Broadcast Network talk show host Christopher Bollyn on the RBN website. "I have every reason to believe it is because of my journalistic investigation into 9/11. I have been threatened before in my career as a journalist, but this is the first time I have been intentionally beaten and abused--by the cops…. I intend to seek asylum in Norway or Switzerland. I can read the writing on the wall."

    Indeed, the writing is on the wall. In the neocon "you're either with us or with the terrorists" political climate in America today, those who tell the truth are increasingly coming under the gun--or as in Bollyn's case, under a Tazer. It is a short step from accusations of treason and appeasement of terrorists, who work for the government--or are simply retarded patsies set-up to take a fall--and the sort of violence practiced by the Nazis and their goons after Hitler pulled off his Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich, or the Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich. Bush has come a long way in realizing his Ermächtigungsgesetz, or Enabling Act, and it won't be long now before minor complaints are dealt with in severe fashion, as they always are under fascist dictatorships.

    "And the administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue fifth column movements," Senator Lindsey Graham told AG Gonzales earlier this year. "And let me tell folks who are watching what a fifth column movement is. It is a movement known to every war where American citizens will sympathize with the enemy and collaborate with the enemy. And it's happened in every war…. and I don't think you need a warrant to do that."

    According to the Manichean dictum of the neocons--you're with us in the forever war against the Muslims, or you're with the terrorists--revealing certain facts, as Bollyn has done over the years, may result in, for now, arrest and abuse. However, next month or next year, certainly after the next staged terror attack, it will result in far harsher, even fatal retaliation, as it invariably does in fascist countries.

    http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25819&l=i&size=1&hd=0

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=91920

    GOT FASCISM?

    GOT FASCISM?

    GOT FASCISM?

    Posted by plunger at 08/17/2006 @ 04:31am

  127. Loserman (using the nickname Republicans gave him in 2000), is now trying to tell everyone in Connecticut, "If Victory in Iraq keeps getting worse and worse, its because of Democrats telling the truth about what a disaster it is."

    The fallback as we all know, is to blame Democrat "defeatism" (acknowleding the truth). As they have done in Vietnam. Why was Vietnam a disaster? Because liberals kept telling the truth. If liberals had gone along with the lies then the war against Vietnam would have accomplished a whole lot. So, if Iraq gets worse, its because liberals wouldnt believe it was getting better.

    Why wont the media tell the good things happening in Iraq. All they want to show is the blown up bodies, the explosions, the torture, people getting holes drilled in them, bodies getting dumped in the streets, Donald Rumsfelds ugly face, the "rebuilding" scandals. Why dont they show the dog house mission the re-painting brigade just successfully completed in Baghdad?

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/17/2006 @ 11:05am

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» Editor's Cut

Around the Nation | The week we went Rouge. Plus, Moyers on Afghanistan.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Posted at 10:37 ET

» The Beat

Health Care Bill Advances, as Harry Reid Trumps Sarah Palin | The death panelist-in-chief rallied her followers to "KILL THE BILL." But 60 senators decided to follow the real leader.
John Nichols
31 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
136 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
207 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
66 Comments