Et Tu, Pelosi?

There are new polls coming out today and tomorrow.  I don't expect movement, but I also don't believe the polls because there is no precedent for a three-way race where the effective third party candidate is also a major party candidate.  Oh wait, as I was writing this the Survey USA poll came out, and it shows no movement although it does show Joe leading in the youth vote 55-29.  That is totally crazy.

Anyway, we'll see in a few days what happens.  What is key to understanding this race, and American politics, is how much power the institutional establishment can bring to bear against someone who truly challenges the system.  It's not just the Republicans who want Joe in the Senate.  It's Bill Clinton, who lied about his support of Ned.  It's Chuck Schumer, who tried to keep Ned from running, and Harry Reid, who's negotiating with Joe on seniority.  It's Fred Wurtheimer, who doesn't care about street money buying votes but wants to regulate blogs.  It's a very big list.

And the latest?  Well, Nancy Pelosi is yet another DC Democrat who stabbed Lamont in the back.  Here's Joe, marching with Republican Congressional candidate Nancy Johnson locked in a tight race with Chris Murphy.

-- Sen. Joe Lieberman, leading in statewide polls in his independent re-election campaign, marched in a Veterans Day parade Sunday alongside a Republican congresswoman whom Democrats are attempting to sweep from office.

Rival Ned Lamont followed behind Lieberman and 12-term Rep. Nancy Johnson, who is locked in a bitter election battle with Democrat Chris Murphy. Democrats have targeted Johnson's seat and must gain 15 in Tuesday's election to regain control of the House.

And what does Pelosi say?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who was in Connecticut on Sunday to campaign for Murphy and fellow Democrats Joe Courtney and Diane Farrell, said she wouldn't criticize Lieberman.

"We all honor our veterans," Pelsoi said. "I have no criticism of Joe Lieberman marching with Nancy Johnson."

At least they spelled her name wrong.  Seriously, this is majorly fucked up.  Almost no institutional DC groups are backing Ned Lamont, even though many of them have nominally endorsed him.  Nancy Pelosi, the head of the Congressional wing of the party, won't give Lamont the kind of backup she'd give to every other Democrat in the country, even against someone who has combined his GOTV machine with Republican Congressional candidates running against the people she's stumping for.

This matters.  Lieberman has been able to call for a withdrawal of troops because almost no Democrats will call him on it.  He's able to buy votes because only one good government group was willing to say anything.  He's able to pretend to environmentalism because the League of Conservation Voters endorsed him even as he voted for the Energy Bill, and he gets the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign and gay bashers in the same cycle.  The head of the Republican Party is constantly praising him, the DC Democrats are quiet or quietly helpful to Joe.

There is no way to crack someone's perception of integrity if all the organs of trust are desperately corrupted and working to sustain it.  Lieberman is now an antiwar bring the troops home leftie gay lover to Democrats, and a knuckle-dragging hawkish bigoted goon to Republicans.  

Amazing.

UPDATE: The Hotline blog has more:

The Lieberman campaign is feeling both feisty and confident. They can start checking names off their list of Democrats who turned on the three term incumbent after his August primary defeat.

The Lieberman people took delight early last week in telling a story of John Kerry’s rebuff by Senate Democratic leaders when he lobbied them to lend some aid to Democrat aristocrat Ned Lamont’s flagging campaign.

...

On Friday, the Lieberman campaign took its delight to the street when it chased the Lamonts and their entourage away from a Hartford campaign stop on the obligatory bus tour. Noting Lamont’s “pimped out” gold bus from Arkansas, the Lieberman blog poked fun at Lamont’s skedaddle back onto the bus after a brief encounter with swarming Lieberman supporters. “F@#$-you” and “you, too” were directed by young ladies to Lamont and suburban matron Lt. Governor candidate Mary Glassman. The Lamont campaign called them “wild-eyed thugs.”

After Tuesday, the retribution tour expects to move to the tony precincts of Capitol Hill. They’ll spend December checking their list more than twice.

Oh that delightful Senate leadership. Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer are just awesome, aren't they?



Display:


Et Tu, Pelosi? (3.00 / 1)

Matt,

The Revenge of the Progressives will come in the form of relentless primary challenges to the Democrats who failed to stand with Lamont in this race.  We have the power to make their lives miserable.


by global yokel on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:06:42 PM EST

not likely (none / 0)

Do you really think these people will fear a primary challenge from progressives? No, the lesson they will learn is that Joe lost the primary only because he ran an extraordinarily incompetent campaign, and that Joe held on to his seat anyway.

They are not going to be running scared from us. They will be laughing at us.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not likely (none / 0)

They only accomplished a win because big money backed him up. this becomes less advantageous with primary challenges across the board.


Dameocrat Blog also Stray Roots Messageboard
by Dameocrat on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 07:38:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not likely (none / 0)

oh yes.  The Club For Growth is a hugely powerful group within the Republican Party even though it loses most of its challenges.  After two primaries, the incumbent rarely returns for a third.

Unfortunately, this is much easier to pull off at the House level than at the Senate level (one campaign every six years).  Wonder why there are only six "moderate" republicans in the House?  The Club for Growth has chased out more than that.


by David Kowalski on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 09:18:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

Yes, supporting Lamont and/or criticizing Lieberman is my only litmus test for progressiveness.  Glad I got that cleared up.


by alkatt on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:10:20 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (3.00 / 2)


  Ummm... one would expect DEMOCRATIC leaders to support DEMOCRATS.
by Master Jack on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:14:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (3.00 / 1)

It is a freaking trend. Where were you when Pelosi said pubicly "Dean does not speak for me" despite the fact their views are probably not that different. Dean is not to the left of Pelosi. Lamont is probaby not to the left of Pelosi. This is not the first time Pelosi has been a little wishy washy in public. Even though, she is not among the worst of the Dems, and she does stand up and say things against the war, you cannot ignore the fact that she has the luxury of a very liberal constituency which would not rise against her if she just spoke her mind. So what does this woman fear? Her daughter likes Bush but thinks Dean is weird?

You know what is beautiful? Pelosi and Clinton try to be appease the right wing(even moreso in the Clintons' case), yet they get bashed mercilessly by the press. And you know what? If they tried a little harder not to abandon the base, maybe blogs will work tirelessly to defend these fools the same way right wing talk show nuts defend their leaders. THat is why I DID NOT WASTE A SINGLE KEYSTROKE to defend Pelosi as she came under fire from the conservatives the last two weeks. I do not have any hatred towards her like I do towards Rahm and Lieberman types. But I have contempt for her cowardice.


by Pravin on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

And this is the crew that is going to fight the Bush/Cheney abuse of power??? Gimme a break!

Cheney has already laid it on the line. We don't care a ** what the people think we will do what we want.

And what will this crew of DC Dems do? Send subpoenas that will not be answered and then what?


by ab initio on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (3.00 / 1)

global yokel is right. I'm working on a post right now called: 'Taking Out the Trash' and Pelosi makes the list.

This is going to be a long struggle but we will win if we keep our nerve and work to hammer these 'Trash Dems' where it hurts:

In the media...

On the 'Net...

At the PACs...

In the pocketbook....

And finally at the polls in 2008.


by Pericles on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:11:10 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

The amazing thing to me, and it's touched on in other comments, is that blogs are still experimenting with how to be the most effective.  We're going to be much better prepared in '08 and not nearly as reliant upon innovation on the fly.  That should make a lot of people really nervous.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:14:51 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (3.00 / 1)

Alkatt,

The shameful behavior of Congressional Democrats in failing to support Lamont is a very big deal.  First, the two campaigns in CT have revealed to anyone with their eyes open that Lieberman is an unprincipled schmuck who puts his self-interest ahead of the interest of the party.  Second, the reluctance of Congressional Democrats to respect the result of the CT primary is an insult to the voters of that state, and sends a clear signal to the party faithful that the Congresscritters are more intersted in sustaining their insular club than they are in encouraging fresh talent.  If we don't hold them responsible via primary challenges, we are going to get more of the same.


by global yokel on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:19:55 PM EST

Corporate $ valued more than dem primary voters (3.00 / 1)

Lieberman's ties to big corporations are worth millions to the party "leadership".  That corporate money and power is worth more to them than the progressive vote.


Children, have you any fish?
by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:12:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's going to take some time... (3.00 / 1)

Hang in there. I'm now on my local Dem Central Committee. I've got plans for reformists taking power WITHIN the committee, after the election. I've touched base with other new, reform-minded CC members elsewhere in Maryland.

After that, this kind of crap will start to abate. Just last week a local (retiring) Dem officeholder sent out a mailer endorsing a local wingnut Republican. This made my blood boil, and I got the other young CC members to put pressure on the chairman to publicly denounce this backstab -- and he did!!  Just two months ago he'd have let it slide...

 But man, it's a huge swamp to drain...

No more Liebermans.


by Master Jack on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:20:24 PM EST

no more liebermans! (none / 0)

Amen to the "no more Liebermans" rallying cry.  Except for the actual Lieberman, who we may have to continue to see on Fox News.  At least he will never have a (D) by his name anymore.


end the occupation of Iraq
by aip on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:29:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no more liebermans! (none / 0)

I wonder if Lieberman will be embraced by Harry Reid and the rest of the non democrats in DC...I would
almost venture a bet that they will welcome him back with open arms....

When Lieberman announced he would run as a Democrat, I wrote to Schumer, Reid and anyone else I could find and begged them to remove him from the Democratic party...did they?  NO!  My only hope is that Ned Lamont is able to pull this off...but after seeing the poll that Chris posted, I am really very depressed over it.  

Time will tell I guess and maybe the newly elected
progressive democrats will put up a battle and we start on the 8th to rid congress of all these jerks.


by momaloney on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

This makes me mad for reasons that have nothing to do with Lamont: I can't believe Pelosi would stab Chris Murphy in the back like that.  What the hell is wrong with her?  It's okay to campaign with the Republican in a tight race?


by antidoto on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:25:43 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

Stabbing in the back? A bit harsh, no? Do you really think that this will hurt his chances in any meaningful way at this point? I.e. do you really think that any voters will say "Hmm, if Pelosi doesn't have a problem with Joe marching with Johnson, then maybe I SHOULD vote for her". I seriously doubt that.


by kovie on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:58:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

Considering there are many people with no identifying interest in either party in CT, I would say yeah. If they are undecided, then if lieberman is marching with Nancy Johnson, it does get votes. And if Pelosi refuses to criticize that, some of these people won't view it as a case of Pelosi being polite, but register it as no one seems to have a problem with Nancy Johnson reducing her negatives. And by not applying any pressure on Lieberman since dems already promised him seniority, Joe feels the need to only help out the repubs and not the dems.


by Pravin on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

I doubt that many independants and undecideds are going to base their vote on what Pelosi does or doesn't say about Lieberman at this point. If anything, they might view her criticisms of him as desperation and disloyalty, and vote for Johnson. The last few days of a campaign are typically won through positive, not negative campaigning. What she SHOULD have done instead was issue positive statements about both Murphy and Lamont, and ignore Lieberman and Johnson.

Alas...


by kovie on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

All these tiny factors add up. If these were isolated mistakes, no one would waste time on Pelosi's latest. No  one is saying this is a fatal mistake by itself.


by Pravin on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:08:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

People make mistakes, even stupid and obvious ones--especially in the heat of battle--and it can't be helped. I'm far more willing to excuse this apparent mistake by Pelosi, or even Kerry's lame attempt at a joke, than I am to excuse, say, Hillary's contemptible swipe at Kerry for makig that joke, or every leading Dems' keeping a conspicuously active distance between themselves and Lamont. Since Pelosi isn't a senator, I can't put her in this category. That's Reid's doing.


by kovie on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the reality (none / 0)

The reality is on Wednesday control of the senate may hinge on Joe Lieberman. If Dems want control, then they can't afford to alienate a vote for a Dem
Senate majority leader, which Lieberman would be if he wins. No matter how distasteful that is to some,
it's pragmatic politics. Humoring Lieberman is worth Democratic control of the Senate if that what it takes. Think what Dem control means: wingnut judges blocked, investigations of the WH, and so on. I'm sure Dems would rather not have to play this game, but those are the cards they've been dealt.
by phillydem on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:34:21 PM EST

Re: the reality (3.00 / 1)

So why didn't they get Joe to drop out, or otherwise make him a pariah?  What have they to lose by supporting Lamont?  It makes Harry's job a lot easier to have Ned on board as compared to Joe.  Why bother with primaries if the powers that be are just gonna ignore them?


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:29:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the reality (none / 0)

you can't just "get" someone to drop out. given that Lieberman decided to run as an Ind, its a difficult position for Dem leaders: if you try to make him into a pariah, he may still win, and then caucus with the GOP, thus costing Dems a crucial vote if the Senate is split evenly.

as Kovie said its probably just "cold, harsh" politics... then again, fielding a bunch of conservative and moderate Democratic candidates around the country is also pretty shrewd.

as for your point about primaries, I'm totally agreed on that. but Lieberman's the culprit here, not Dem leaders. Lieberman cheated the primary system and he'll probably win. it sucks.


by Chris G on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the reality (none / 0)

Yes it's tricky, but they chose to equivocate, which was definitely not the right thing to do.  Playing both sides of the street is a good way to hit by traffic in both directions.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:17:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the reality (none / 0)

looks to me like Matt Stoller's aiming his car right at them.


by Chris G on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the reality (none / 0)

It was a judgement call, as I see it. A poor one, in my opinion, indicative of their still way too cautious approach to politics, but nevertheless the one that they made. Plus, no doubt, Joe made various back room deals and/or threats that convinced them to effectively back him (by not actively backing Lamont).

I'm also inclined to believe that Joe's being in the senate isn't necessarily going to be such a terrible thing for us--assuming we even get the majority. He'll certainly play his spoiler role to maximal effect, but so long as we throw him enough bones, he'll probably vote with us most of the time.

And if he overplays his hand, he will be made to understand that when we increase our seats in '08 (which if you look at who's running is all but assured, barring unforeseen developments), he will be one miserable senator, stripped of all seniority, a pariah in his former party and not particularly welcome in the other one. He's craven and unprincipled, but not stupid. He'll play ball.


by kovie on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:55:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the reality (none / 0)

i honestly think the Karl Rove has conned a lot of Democrats into buying into the "flip-flop" image of themselves, as if short-term strategic compromises are just another sign of weakness. the GOP does it too, they just get away with it because of the way they've branded themselves. Dem leaders have showed a lack of backbone in the past, don't get me wrong, and I fully embrace Howard Dean's leadership in the DNC.

but backbone is insufficient.

we need a strong base of ideas and smart legislation we can bring to the rest of the country, and we need the power to do that. giving Lieberman seniority is a minor, minor compromise in my opinion (and by the way, he'd probably get it if he caucused with the GOP as part of a deal there--how do you think Republican activists feel about their move to ditch Scheslinger?)

so yes, let's be brave, but let's be brave where it matters most--in forming new ideas and policies that change the existing political calculus and achieve real progress for this country.  


by Chris G on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 08:49:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the reality (none / 0)

Democrats HAVE new ideas and policies, in case you haven't noticed, and this whole "Dems don't have a plan" is yet another Rovian lie that lots of people--including some Dems, it appears--seem to have bought into.

And it's not as if our "old" ideas and policies were all that bad. E.g. balancing the budget, genuinely liberating a country without the loss of a single US life, promoting peace rather than war in the mideast, etc. The only "problem" with them was that we failed to defend them strongly enough electorally.

And then Bush & the GOP threw them overboard when they tried to implement their own so-called "plans" (i.e. enriching the rich, despoiling the environment, attacking a country that didn't threaten us, letting a major US city and its citizens drown, etc.). Gotta love those brilliant GOP ideas and policies.

So you're ironically (but perhaps not) validating the very sort of Rovian strategy that you're criticizing--i.e. getting people to doubt Dems, and Dems to doubt themselves, by spreading lies about them. Gotta wonder 'bout that...

Nice try, though--NOT.


by kovie on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 02:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the reality (none / 0)

whoa there, no need to impune my motives. you completely missed the point of that comment. of course I believe we have policies, but I also believe that we've done a pretty bad job of setting the agenda. this is partly because we've been out of power for most of the past 6 years. if we can take control of both the House and the Senate, it will enable Dem leaders to actually propose legislation that represents our core values.

and no, I'm not at all satisfied with the job Dem leaders have done in communicating our policies, and I don't think it's just a language problem. I think we have great ideas, but we haven't organized these ideas in ways that the average voter who doesn't pay much attention can understand. polls indicate that for some reason, many independent voters don't in fact know what we stand for. of course Rove has played a part in this, but he's really been taking advantage of GOP power to set the agenda and skillflly employed wedge issues.

so again, control of both chambers of Congress would really help Dems regain the initiative in this larger ideological battle. that's why I think it was reasonable to take CT off the table in any way possible. in my mind, the ability to set the agenda in the Senate far outweighs the consequences of keeping Lieberman in the fold. its arguable, but i don't think it warrants impuning the motives of others.

and by the way, if you're as progressive as me, you may also be a little ticked off about the way our beliefs have been stigmatized as "elitist" and "out of touch". issues like minimum wage are important and popular, but even when we get those initiatives passed i think we'll still have A LOT of work to do in rebuilding a progressive platform. in my view, what we have now is a hodge podge of issues that make sense but are not associated with an overall progressive identity that other voters respect. like it or not, the word "liberal" as a ton of baggage attached to it right now.


by Chris G on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 05:23:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the reality (none / 0)

It's not control you have to rely on Joe Lieberman for the 51st vote. Anyone who thinks the Republican Party won't sweeten the pot enough to make Lieberman flip has willful blindness.

Ned Lamont BEAT Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary with actual votes from actual Democrats. It shouldn't be too much to ask for his fellow Democrats to recognize the result. General election Lieberman is funded by Republicans, campaigning with Republicans, endorsed by Republicans and acting like a Republican. Catering to Joe Lieberman on the off chance that you need his vote to get 51 is the weakest of weak moves.  


"Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers
by joejoejoe on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:11:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the reality (none / 0)

I agree that it was a mistake to support Lieberman (by not supporting Lamont), but I don't think that his bargaining position after the election will be anywhere as strong that it was before the election. Sure, the GOP will try to woo him, but with what--seniority in a party where he has established none and will forever be mistrusted, and which in any case is on the decline and all but certain to lose whatever thin majority it might still retain this next year in the '08 election?

I doubt that he's this stupid. He's in a much stronger position caucusing with Dems than Repubs, and Reid knows this--and knows that Joe knows this. And Joe also knows that if he flips, CT voters will never forgive him, and his career there is effectively over. So he'll play his little coquettish act to get a plum committee assignment, and then return to the fold--and know that he'll always be on probabtion. If Reid plays this right, it won't be such a liability.


by kovie on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 12:04:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the reality (none / 0)

the sad thing is this. What if lieberman becomes a non factor post electon because either the repubs or dems have more than a one senator majority. Why do i get the feeling that the Dems would still give this bastard seniority? If you give a guy who ignores the primaries seniority what ,kind of long term example does that set for the party? Short term calculation at the risk of long term credibility? Is that really an example of pragmatism or cynicism that they can never capture the CW's idea of the norm.


by Pravin on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 12:46:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Joe Lieberman gives good head (none / 0)

If you think Monica Lewinsky was famous for fellatio just wait until you hear Joe Lieberman on John McCain's '08 run. Lieberman is a cancer on the party and will remain a cancer on the party for the next two years. He'll be on TV every day if McCain gets the nomination on his knees for John McCain. The Republicans will all say "See...even Democrat Joe Lieberman thinks John McCain should be President" even though Lieberman is no longer a Democrat to anyone but the most painfully obtuse.

My quick and dirty course of action REGARDLESS of the # of Dems in the next Senate.

1) Restore Frank Lautenberg's seniority. He's a Democrat and onboard with enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations (fund on risk, not pork). Lieberman supports pork based funding for Homeland Security and is not a Democrat. NO WAY should he be Ranking Member on HSGAC with his bobsy twin Susan Collins.

2) Lautenberg leapfrogs Lieberman on HSGAC.

3) Lieberman is humiliated and goes to caucus with Republicans, maybe even chairing HSGAC in place of Collins who is his BFF.

4) Lieberman becomes irrelevant. Nobody gives a shit today the Jim Jeffords, Richard Shelby, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell all switched parties. Nobody will care after Lieberman switches either.

5) Look at the playing field. Dems have far better targets in the next two classes of Senate races than they had this go 'round. Don't let Lieberman pee in the punchbowl for another 2 years and let the party look weak in '08 and '10. Kick him out on his ass and Dems look stronger with him out of the party than it it.

6) The end. Of Joe Lieberman being shit on the shoe of the Democratic Party.


"Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers
by joejoejoe on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 01:37:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's setting the Senate agenda (none / 0)

I agree it's a shame Lieberman couldn't and wouldn't
accept the judgement of his own party's primary.
But he didn't and the Dems couldn't have "made" him not run as an Indy.

Assuming Dems win narrow control, no matter how odious Lieberman may be to some Dems, it's critical he caucus with the Dems to make Reid majority leader and the ability to set the Senate agenda. If Dems have to massage his ego for two years to keep judges like Wm Hays and Janice Rogers Brown and off of and from moving up in the federal judiciary, it's WORTH it.

I also agree with the other poster who said Lieberman is now neither fish nor fowl. He's not a Dem, but he's not a Republican either. I doubt he'll end up liking the bed he's made for himself
especially if Dems get a larger majority in 2008
and Dems can tell him to take a hike.


by phillydem on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 05:29:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's setting the Senate agenda (3.00 / 1)

He'll probably caucus with the Dems, because he's more likely to get what he wants from them, will never be fully trusted by the GOP, and knows that we're almost certainly going to increase our seats in '08 and will not want to be left out in the cold. However, I also think that he will use the leverage he'll likely have for the next 2 years to cut deals, and sometimes side with the GOP, especially on defense and national security matters.

He'll basically be a Dem-leaning, swing-voting independant, disliked but grudgingly accepted by the Dems because they'll have no choice, and mistrusted but occasionally allied with the right because they'll have no choice. Given his whorish nature, he'll be like a pig in shit for a while--until the reality of what happens in '08 sinks in, and he turns into a pumpkin. I wouldn't at all be surprised if he calls it quits then. He might even consider an independant run for president, to have the thrill of being a spoiler again.

Every age has its Liebermans. I think that in many ways Nixon was the GOP's Lieberman in his day. It just goes to show you to never trust a smart but insecure and megalomaniacal lawyer-politician. What a nasty breed.


by kovie on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 05:48:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Confidence (3.00 / 1)

He's free to caucus with the Dems but not with zero consequences. He's not a Democrat and won with GOP money and the backing of Dick Cheney. How exactly does catering to that kind of person strengthen the Democratic Party? I just think there needs to be some consequences for disrepecting the Democratic primary voters and running with GOP money in CT.

At a minimum Dems should restore good Democrat Frank Lautenberg's seniority and see what happens. If it was up to me I'd vote to strip his seniority and show him to be the liar he is to the people of Connecticut. My guess is Lieberman will cry like a baby and caucus with the GOP if Dems only restore Lautenberg's seniority. Lieberman will call that punative and take the excuse to caucus with the GOP.

All this "we need his vote" is nonsense. Dems are going to get exactly ZERO of their agenda enacted with Bush in office. He will veto everything that doesn't have at least substantial GOP support. Every bit of significant legislation that passed in the next two years is going to have to have about 60% approval. The next two cycles of election in the Senate are highly favorable to Democrats. Dems should have confidence that the future is ours and stop catering to old backroom Joe Lieberman. He is the past, he's wrong in the present, and he wants to invade Iran in the future. That is not the kind of ego that needs massaging, it needs drowning in a tub.

As for blocking court nominees Lieberman is worse than useless. He'll be there for any Supreme Court nominee Bush nominates. Any unified 40 Senators can block Bush's judges. The nuclear option is a bluff. It's the Liebermans of the world that convince people to be happy with 1/3 of a loaf when they are entitled to half. No thanks.


"Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers
by joejoejoe on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 06:07:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confidence (none / 0)

Very good points, especially about the nuclear option, which will be moot if Dems control the senate, and unlikely to be enacted even if not.

However, it's going to tough with some votes, with a few Dems aside from Joe likely to cross the aisle, and few Repubs likely to reciprocate.

Although, who knows, we might be in for some pleasant surprises. Or not...


by kovie on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 09:10:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (3.00 / 1)

So aggravating...

I hope we'll have a new generation of leaders in the House soon enough.


by PsiFighter37 on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:35:58 PM EST

New leaders: (none / 0)

And it looks like you are one of them.


Children, have you any fish?
by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:34:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

Manchurian Candidates, one and all.
Alex Jones, you're up!
by Lasthorseman on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:37:04 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

I can only hope, and assume, that in the case of at least some--but certainly not all or even most--of these Democrats who refuse to criticize Lieberman or enthusiastically endorse Lamont, it basically comes down to cold, harsh politics.

That is, they don't give Lamont much of a chance to win--which, sad to say, is realistic at this point, although one can certainly argue that this lack of support is WHY Lamont's chances aren't very good--and realize that if he doesn't win, Lieberman's vote in the senate will be essential in blocking GOP legislation and nominations if we fail to retake the majority, in breaking ties if it's 50-50, and in passing legislation if we retake the senate.

Even if we win all 7 of the senate races in which we're competitive and lose none, that would still only give us a 2 seat advantage, with fully a third to half of them being not very reliable votes, depending on the type of bill or nomination under consideration--especially with Reid still leading the caucus. Thus Lieberman's vote will be important no matter what happens on Tuesday.

I pray that we do retake the house AND senate this election, but even if we do, while we would control its agenda--which will be VERY important--we would still be FAR from having the sort of control over it that the GOP has had in recent years. That won't happen until '08, when the GOP will have to defend many more seats--many of them shaky--than Dems, and our chances to establish a truly useful majority in the senate will be far greater.

So, I think that it's a mistake to lump Pelosi in with the likes of Hillary or Schumer. It's almost a moot point now, really, as there's nothing we can do about it anymore. The time to vent is AFTER Tuesday, not before.


by kovie on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:53:18 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (3.00 / 2)

Yea, I don't know why there is such a demand for Pelosi for the Speaker, I'd love to see another choice step up and challenger her.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:58:53 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

Yeah, like Jane Harman or Ellen Tauscher ;)


by MyDD Fan on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

Who do you want?


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

I never understood this either. I know Matt has said in the past that Pelosi is pretty good at doing the DC consensus and organizational stuff with her party members and is valuable that way. I question that because I can't believe they cannot find a single person in the party who can do what she does AND presents a more confident picture to the american public. Except for a couple of appearnaces where she corrected a CNN female anchor, she is a TOTAL disaster on camera.It's not just her crazy ass Clockwork Orange wild eyed and botoxed face look . But the way she is unable to present the agenda in a coherent and confident manner. She just projects weakness.


by Pravin on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 12:53:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (3.00 / 1)

and today she came out and said that she's "concerned" the Republicans might steel the vote.

Really Nancy?  Wow!  Do tell!

And if they do....what the HELL do you plan to do about it?!


DAGGER
by goplies on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:04:02 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (3.00 / 1)

It's not all the DC establishment fault.

Ned isn't really running the best campaign.  Where is there micro-targeting?  What was their absentee ballot plan?  

I've been doing some volunteering for Lamont, but I've found a lot of ineptness.  When I ask why these things aren't working or this plan wasn't thought of I get the response "We're Democrats.  We're disorganized."  

I shit you not.  This came from another canvasser!  

So, I'm calling it:  Lieberman wins by 4.  He thinks he has a mandate.  Starts shitting on everyone thinking he can do what he wants because it's Connecticut FOR Lieberman.  Then you get the buyer's remorse "I wish I voted for Ned."  

However, I take solace in this:  People elect the government they deserve.  

I hope to the Gods that I'm wrong.  


by dayspring on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:06:13 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

so calling his campaign inept is your way of helping two days before the election?  I believe Nancy has a job for you.


DAGGER
by goplies on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

And let's save the concern troll accusations or implications for AFTER the election as well, no? There will be PLENTY of time for that then.


by kovie on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:27:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

I'm not name-calling.  Seeing what I saw was vey disheartening and demoralizing for me.

I'm rooting for Lamont, but I'm not one of those faith-based people that think they cane make their own reality.  

Frankly, I don't think Lamont's ground game will surpass Lieberman's.  I think Lieberman/Bloomberg will equal or slightly surpass Lamont's GOTV.  

I just hope ballot-positioning, Repubs going home to Schlessinger and common-sense kick-in in the voting booth.  


by dayspring on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 01:01:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Providence Journal article on Waterbury (none / 0)

I understand your valid frustration with the Lamont campaign in the post primary period. What i do not like is the implication among a growing number of people that Lamont deserves to lose because he didn't run a perfect campaign. I ahve said this before and I will say igt repatedly until election day. If campaign blunders made a candidate worthy of losing, then Lieberman deserves to lose. Lieberman keeps losing his cool but is getting bailed out by the support of two party establishments, fear of the unknown and reliance on the comfort factor a lot of people seem to have with the idea of an 18 year incumbent named Joe. Here is a link everyone must read about people's attitudes  in parts pf CT:
http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributor s/content/projo_20061031_ctricky.32e9ac4 .html

Here are some excerpts

John R. MacArthur: A pre-election tour of Waterbury

As I toured Waterbury the other week, all the contradictions that afflict the former "popular" party -- the ones that have reduced it to a minority in Congress -- were in striking evidence. So too was the decay that has reduced huge sections of urban America from self-confident industrial health to a status you might call "just getting by."

More:

Jarjura is famously pro-Joe, one of a few name Democrats in the state to ignore Lamont's upset win in the Democratic primary and openly support Lieberman's now "independent" candidacy. I asked him why, when Joe was so closely identified with Bush's catastrophic Iraq policy (three people from Waterbury have died in Iraq), and had voted for every important piece of free-trade legislation that came along during the Clinton administration.

The mayor turned vague and talked about how Lieberman "hasn't really drifted too far from his Democratic principles," such as defending Social Security and opposing tax cuts for the wealthy. When I pressed Jarjura on Iraq and trade, he insisted, "you have to look at the total package," not just specific issues.

The total package includes "loyalty to a friend"

More:

Simply put, Jarjura believes that Lieberman, with 18 years in the Senate and lots of friends in the Bush White House, can deliver money to Waterbury faster and in bigger quantities than a freshman senator named Lamont, who owes Jarjura nothing. Indeed, the city is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's denial of $2.75 million for flood-damaged roads

More:

Worse for Lamont, he can't even trust certain elected Democrats who say they're supporting him. "There are some [mayors] that . . . may show up and do a few things [for Lamont] but their heart may not be in it," Jarjura said. "But I'm not going to disclose their names." Surely not.

my most telling encounters took place later that evening, uphill in the countrified reaches of the far North End. Mayor Jarjura had praised his constituents as "independent thinkers and independent doers" but that's not quite how I would describe the people who attended the Waterbury Democrat Town Committee dinner.

and here is a tired old refrain despite the fact that the only plan Lieberman had was a bad plan even in the minds of the Lamont naysayers:

"I don't know what Lamont brings to the table," he said. "He hasn't come up with a good plan to get out of Iraq."

More good stuff in this article


by Pravin on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 01:06:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Providence Journal article on Waterbury (none / 0)

No, I'm saying if Lieberman's campaign is more organized and Lamont's campaign is less so then Lieberman will win.

It really does come down to the nuts and bolts of campaigns that decide a winning candidate.  

And if people are so stupid as to vote for Lieberman and he wins then they get what they deserve.  


by dayspring on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 01:04:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gas Money for Christine Jennings (none / 0)

Do you have ten bucks to help the good people in Sarasota?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/5/ 211415/600

Please help if you can, thanks!


DAGGER
by goplies on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:21:21 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

I'm just wondering what you'd have to say if Lieberman was walking with Murphy rather than Johnson.  You'd be criticizing Murphy for walking with Lieberman and not Ned.  I don't understand the outrage.


by MyDD Fan on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:26:24 PM EST

Lieberman is no Democrat (none / 0)

He is a Zeil Miller.  It was worth it to see him lose the Dem primary.

Lamont spent $15 M.  Hope it was worth it for him.

But at least Lieberman is not anymore a Democrat and
I dont care if he turns Republican.  


by jasmine on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:32:58 PM EST

Re: Lieberman is no Democrat (none / 0)

seriously--you don't care? what if we get up to 50 seats on the US Senate and his vote determines control? you don't care who he votes for? what about all the legislation at stake here?


by Chris G on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman is no Democrat (3.00 / 1)

I don't know about the original poster, but:

(a) yes, I'll take a minority over a majority that includes Joseph Lieberman. Friends like him we don't need. If his future voting record continues to be liberal, which I sincerely doubt, let the Publicans Chafee his ass out of the Senate next time.

(b) if you give Joseph the deciding vote on everything we do, we then have accomplished nothing in the Senate this cycle. He will never vote a progressive agenda forward. He's owned by big pharma and MBNA.

(c) By the way, his latest co-owner is the GOP -- have you noticed who's funding his campaign? Do you really think he's going to vote with us in the future?


by lightyearsfromhome on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:35:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman is no Democrat (3.00 / 1)

(a) then you've prioritized personal vendetta over power in the US Senate, and therefore progressive legislation

(b) that's a red herring. if Lieberman wins, he'll have a vote in the Senate no matter what. legislators build voting majorities with people from the other party all the time, in fact you have to quite often to get things passed. in any case, the issue here is how you deal with his candidacy as a Dem leader.

(c) why do you think the GOP is campaigning for him? because they know he's a wedge issue for us, and they know that Schlesinger doesn't stand a chance.


by Chris G on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:52:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman is no Democrat (none / 0)

Some of us put principles over party. I am a moderate whose ideology is across the spectrum even if I tend to sympathise with liberal causes for the most part.

For me Iraq war is symbolic of many issues - intelligence, basic competence, obsession with the middle east, collateral damage, injuries to many more, opportunity costs to do good domestically. Lieberman will break with the dem party when it comes to voting on important issues of national security. It is a total joke that he gets seniority in a department like Homeland Security - an area he is clueless about.


by Pravin on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 03:00:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman is no Democrat (none / 0)

well then, let me speak as a progressive who

-marched against the Iraq war before it happened

-is sick of being characterized as elitist when my wife and I struggle to make ends meet with a child on the way

-is sick of a government that prioritizes "marriage definition" and tax cuts for the rich over the long-term health of this country

I put results, the common good and long-run progressive change over one Senator's seniority in the Democratic Party.

so don't preach to me about being principled, Pravin. i mean, really--you priortize stripping Lieberman of his seniority over control of the Senate? what's the deep, philosophical principle here? to me the basic question here is whether a declaration of war on Lierberman was going to be a net gain or loss towards our long-term goals and the power to set the agenda. we obviously have a difference of opinion here, but it is NOT, i repeat NOT, a case of puting party over principle. this is about doing whatever we can to get to first base, to get control over the legislative process. i don't see how your position on one Senator's senoirity is any more principled than mine. i suspect this is more about the netroots jockeying for a position of power. that's good, i welcome a force like this to check Dem leadership, its our talk radio. but the returns are only going to make a difference in the long run if we start building real principles, ideas that form the basis for strong policy that Dems can run on. this whole pissing match on Lieberman is simply not worth it, in my opinion. think about how different the national atmopshere would be if we could start proposing smart legislation that shows Americans Democrats know how to lead on national security and middle class interests. that will be progress.


by Chris G on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 08:28:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman is no Democrat (none / 0)

Maybe I should have stated my response better. I did not mean you do not have principles or lesser principles on this. But we differ on how we got about achieving those principles. One of the obstacles democrats have is overcoming the CW people have about the war and how our politicians deal with. The first barrier is broken where people no longer believe that one has to support the war because the troops are there. However there is still a disconnect among voters. When a politican espouses the common sense measures that actually agree with their instinct on the war, they still can't help but agree with the MSM pundits that these politicans are somehow radically troublesome. Or they have a greater burden to show they can fix someone else's mess and the person who created that mess somehow has greater credibility at coming up with new solutions.

THe reason - there has been this narrative that has been expertly framed by the repubs that dems are weak on national security. And people like Lieberman, do more damage as a member of the dem party, than if he was a member of the repub party, by giving bipartisan credibility to that narrative. People always point to this SOB as an example of even one of their own criticises the party's approach to national security. A win by him over Lamont serves to discourage other up and comers since the primary has been rendered useless in areas where the incumbent is lucky if the repubs do not have a strog challenger. Also a Lieberman victory only reinforces that mainstream narrative that Lamont type people are only on the fringe despite the fact that a "mainstream" candidate would not have done any better against Lieberman this cycle.


by Pravin on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 11:52:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman is no Democrat (none / 0)

okay, so these are fair points, definitely drawbacks to keeping Lieberman in the fold. of course, one way to counter the "bipartisan" charge is to talk about bipartisan opposition to the war. also, unfortunately, Lieberman isn't the only Dem who's gone that way on Iraq.

i got attacked by someone else in the thread for saying we needed to work more on our base of ideas, but i will repeat that claim and want to be clear on this: we've currently got a laundry list of very important issues and priorities to bring to the rest of the country. this is good, but i believe we need to start defining ourselves through a common set of principles that brings us, and our positions, together. when someone accuses us of being weak on terrorism, we tell them that we're focused the bottom line: smart, stable security, not chest beating. when someone says we just want to raise taxes, we tell them we're focused on the bottom line: prosperity and opportunity for hard-working families. that's my own message, at least...

but to resonate, progessive ideas need to be backed by legislation that (a) lawmakers have to go on record supporting or opposing and (b) the media will cover. the media hasn't really covered the amendments Dems have proposed, they just don't listen, and so persist in this bullshit that we don't offer alternatives. of course we do, but a lot of people simply won't cover it.

that's why i see control of the Senate to be so crucial. at least we'll get the House. and if Lieberman opposes our ideas, fine, let him go on record opposing laws that will resonate with a majority of Americans.


by Chris G on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 07:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sore Loser Laws (3.00 / 1)

Today, I was reading my copy of Watchmen (great comic by Alan Moore, the same guy who wrote V for Vendetta), and I moping over what looks to be a coming loss in Connecticut, when I remembered something that someone wrote a few months ago. In some states, like Illinois, they have what are called "Sore Loser Laws," which are laws that make it so that if you lose a primary, you can't run for office again that election cycle. Well, regardless of what happens this Tuesday, I think the Netroots should push for these laws, AT LEAST in Connecticut. I mean, it does seem unfair that you can lose an election and just keep trying, wasting time and resources and people's time. I think that starting right after the election, the Netroots should start pushing for State Initiatives to create Sore Loser Laws, all over the place, starting with Connecticut.


by JewishJake on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:41:46 PM EST

Re: Sore Loser Laws (none / 0)

*does not seem fair


by JewishJake on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sore Loser Laws (none / 0)

  I bet that Joe Lieberman would support that law in Connecticut.  I mean he's done duping the voters of Connecticut, what does he care?


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sore Loser Laws (none / 0)

I could be wrong, but I think those laws are restricted to being renominated by the same party for a different office.  I'm pretty sure that preventing people from running as an independent would stir up a lot of trouble.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Youth Vote (none / 0)

On a side note, how in the name of Karl Rove's asshole is Lieberman getting such a massive majority of the Youth vote?! I mean, of all things, I would expect that to be going to Lamont! How did that happen?


by JewishJake on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:09:58 PM EST

$384,000 (none / 0)

Cash buys a lot of beer.


Children, have you any fish?
by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Youth Vote (none / 0)

I've understood that it's extremely hard to poll the youth vote this cycle because the phone numbers are really hard to get .. lots of young people only have cell phones, which aren't in the voting district. Many also are on internet phone, which also doesn't register in the district. Don't know if it's true, but if it is, expect really different numbers in the exit polls.


by dsolomonmetis on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:42:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Youth Vote (none / 0)

HAvent you seen pics of the Lieberyouth. A lot of bratty rich kids probably study there.


by Pravin on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 03:03:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

For God's sake, Matt ... (none / 0)

Will you give it up FOR ONE FREAKING NIGHT?  Pelosi is admitting the obvious; yes it sucks, yes Joe is an asshole, yes Gerstein is a shithead, whatever.  The whiny SOB is going to win, and Lamont and "Swannie" have run a shit campaign.  All that being said -- it's about a day before the election and all you can write is more shit about Schumer and Reid and Emanuel and whoever the hell else?  Can we TABLE IT FOR A LITTLE BIT while something more important happens?  Then on Wednesday you can back in your high chair and cry for your bottle some more. Geezus.


by tuffie on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:10:56 PM EST

Re: For God's sake, Matt ... (none / 0)

Wow, yeah.  The nerve of these people to provide free content to you and not write the content you demand.

Thank goodness you're here to calmly and rationally call people names.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:25:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll clear my comments with you from now on ... (none / 0)

Thanks for the heads-up on that necessity!  


by tuffie on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll clear my comments with you from now on .. (none / 0)

At least you're contributing something valuable.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:01:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For God's sake, Matt ... (none / 0)

Do you seriously think if Pelosi criticised Joe, he would makes his decision to caucus with the repubs based on that? If it ever comes to that point, all he cares about is his seniority on committees. The guy is already bitter. Whatever Pelosi does won't make a difference in what he thinks of the Democratic party. So what is the point in Pelosi kissing his ass even before the elections.


by Pravin on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 03:07:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

Dick Durbin is campaigning for every candidate here in Illinois.

If Lamont is to big an idiot to beat Lieberman.  Don't blame Durbin.

K, Crybaby.


by skeeters on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:23:05 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

When did he campaign for John Laesch? David Gill? Danny Stover?


by grayslady on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 12:13:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (3.00 / 1)

All the progressive Dems and fighting Dems for the House who don't win should take a week's break, then jump right back in.

We know much more now about the congressional wing of the Democratic party.

We know what we value most: the Constitution, the rule of law, international standards of human rights, respect for the rules, games, sports, the level playing field, sticking together, knowing which team you belong to, loyalty, people powered politics, grassroots work, equal opportunity, affirmative action for catch-up so everyone can play. Care for the elderly, sick, disabled, poor, support for soldiers, sailors, and marines, tax support for the commons and public property for te common good. We love the truth, evidence, science, and rousing debate.  

We know to call ourselves progressives

"When they're working, we're working
When they're sleeping, we're working."
  --Labor slogan


by mrobinsong on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:24:19 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

Wish list:
A tough primary for each Congressman and woman who voted for Alito or failed to fillibuster.
Or who voted for the torture bill.
Or who dissed CT Democrats.

A tough primary, then the loser stays in the race as a "Progresssive"
(P).

Everyone here is working to reform the Democratic Party (the vehicle as Dean calls it), but we could be laying the groundwork at the same time for the new Progressive Party (Bullmoose party by Teddy Roosevelt).


by mrobinsong on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:35:52 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

Progressives won a lot of Dem primaries this cycle. We don't need a third party. We just need to continue pushing progressives and fellow travelers forward in future elections. We can do this a lot easier from within the existing system.


by lightyearsfromhome on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

"When they're working, we're working
When they're sleeping, we're working."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive Party%28United_States%2C_1912%29

The United States Progressive Party of 1912 was a political party created by a split in the Republican Party in the presidential election 1912. It was formed by Theodore Roosevelt when he lost the Republican nomination to Taft and pulled his delegates out of the convention. When reporters suggested that he was no longer fit for the office, he retorted that he was "fit as a bull moose" (giving the party its nickname), and he called his own convention and nominated a national ticket with California Governor Hiram Johnson as his vice-presidential running mate. State parties also nominated slates in most northern states.


by mrobinsong on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:39:46 PM EST

Last Sunday 60 Mins puff piece on (none / 0)

Nancy was a wonder of modern 'journalism'.

They were painting Nancy as a tough cookie who is gonna fight.

"wow", thought I, "where has this woman been for hte last 6 years? I haven't seen it."

I wonder about all the fighting dems and non DCCC blessed Dems on Wednesday - are they gonna kiss the rings of the loser 'leaders' and get their place too far down in the trough, OR

are they gonna look for new leaders for this spineless "opposition" party?

only the shadow knows?

rmm.


by seabos84 on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:46:49 PM EST

Re: Et Tu, Pelosi? (none / 0)

The Progressive Party of 1912 lost with Teddy Roosevelt, instead Wilson won the presidency, got us into WWI and opposed women's vote.

Nice progressive platform!!
The platform called for women's suffrage,
recall of judicial decisions, (?)
easier amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
social welfare legislation for women and children,
workers' compensation,
limited injunctions in strikes,
farm relief,
revision of banking to assure an elastic currency,
required health insurance in industry, (!!!)
new inheritance taxes and income taxes,
improvement of inland waterways,
and limitation of naval armaments.


by mrobinsong on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:47:16 PM EST

I'm giving Pelosi a pass on this one. (none / 0)

Matt, I think you've called this wrong.  

From the story, we've learned that Lieberman, Johnson, and Lamont were all three at the same march to honor our veterans.  Honoring veterans isn't something that ought to be politicized, and I applaud all three politicians for doing so.  

Here in Virginia, I've seen parade organizers ask the elected officials to march together at the front of the parade.  Without more information, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Lieberman and Johnson were asked to march together (and Lamont, not being an elected official currently, was not so asked).  

If that was the case, I think Pelosi's statement is reasonable and fair.  She's had lots of other opportunities to criticize Lieberman and didn't, and reporting on those opportunities would have made for a much stronger story than this.


by osterizer on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 08:11:53 AM EST

Re: I'm giving Pelosi a pass on this one. (none / 0)

She's had lots of other opportunities to criticize Lieberman and didn't, and reporting on those opportunities would have made for a much stronger story than this.

When was she last in CT?


by Matt Stoller on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 08:20:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm giving Pelosi a pass on this one. (none / 0)

From what I read, not only was Lamont not invited(which is not a big controversy since he is not an elected official), but Lieberman's campaign tried to stop him from appearing(which brings up the "don't play politics with this march" thing).

I am sure Pelosi had to know about the latter.  


by Pravin on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 11:59:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.