Lieberman Today, Lieberman Two Weeks Ago

Lieberman two weeks ago (emphasis mine):
Sharpton and Lieberman were friendly rivals in the 2004 presidential contest, when both mounted short-lived campaigns for the Democratic nomination. Lieberman also was the Democratic Party nominee for vice president in 2000.

Sharpton said Lieberman called him over the weekend to ask for his endorsement, but Sharpton told him he disagrees with him on too many issues.
Lieberman today (emphasis mine):
Lieberman aides said that Mr. Lamont's association with Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson -- both of whom campaigned vigorously for Mr. Lamont -- was a political albatross that helped explain why Mr. Lieberman believed he could win over a majority of voters.

"Primary night was the first time that many Connecticut voters saw Lamont on TV, and he's surrounding himself with two of the more divisive and problematic figures in the Democratic Party," said Dan Gerstein, a veteran Lieberman aide who was appointed communications director for the campaign last week.
Lieberman is a flip-flopper who will do whatever it takes in order to maintain power. Suck up to Sharpton one week, denounce him the next. Anyone who sucks up to power like Lieberman will never hold President Bush accountable for anything. Hat tip to David Sirota.

Update: Oh, and in case you had not yet seen it, more principled consistency from Lieberman supporters:
I was at a "Brown Bag" Question and Answer lunch today with Sen. Pryor in Jonesboro, Arkansas. I asked him the question, "How can you be a member of the DSCC, with a mission to elect Democrats to Congress, and at the same time support Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont?" The room got very quite. With a smile on his face he said, "Don't ask me to be consistent."
The Lieberman camp is truly steady leadership in a time of change.



Display:


Why The Hell Not??? (none / 0)

With a smile on his face he said, "Don't ask me to be consistent."
That's the frikken job description, doofus!

You want to be brilliant, but erractic?

Go play golf.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 06:12:27 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Today, Lieberman Two Weeks Ago (none / 0)

"Don't ask me to be consistent."

If Rove doesn't put that into every GOP ad from now to election day he isn't half the genius he's cracked up to be


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 06:13:21 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Today, Lieberman Two Weeks Ago (none / 0)

The kicker is that he smiled as he renounced his party.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 06:15:34 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Today, Lieberman Two Weeks Ago (3.00 / 1)

So, how popular is Pryor in Arkansas, and when is he up for reelection?

Are there any strong progressives in Arkansas who would be willing to mount a primary challenge?


by justathought on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 06:20:41 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Today, Lieberman Two Weeks Ago (3.00 / 1)

51/39 approval, 63/32 among Democrats.

Reelection in 2008.

Wesley Clark.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 06:32:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Today, Lieberman Two Weeks Ago (none / 0)


by justathought on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 06:21:04 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Today, Lieberman Two Weeks Ago (3.00 / 1)

Pryor is why the Democrats WILL LOSE, and frankly why they DESERVE to lose. If Schumer and Reid can't even get their own Dem Senators in line, we cannot hope to govern as a majority in the House or Senate.

This is the TEST Sen. Schumer and Reid. Either get it right or flunk. Your party is on the line. The future of this country is on the line. Sen. Pryor cannot be allowed; Sen. Landrieu cannot be allowed; and Sen. Levin cannot be allowed to support someone running AGAINST THE ELECTED DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IN CONNECTICUT.

It's unconscionable, and it's a FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 06:23:59 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Today, Lieberman Two Weeks Ago (none / 0)

if Democrats won't stand up for their own nominees... why should voters expect Democrats will stand up for them?

talk about handing Republican candidates a knife.


by irene adler on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 10:10:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Today, Lieberman Two Weeks Ago (none / 0)

Hopefully the 5 Senate Demorats who are backing Lieberscum (so far) will get the same treatment he got in their future primaries.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 07:16:51 PM EST

Is the Democratic Party salvageable? (none / 0)

 Mary Landrieu is supporting Joe Lieberman -- the man who paved the way for Michael Brown to head FEMA without so much as a drivers' license check. The largest city in the state Mary Landrieu theoretically represents, we may recall, was destroyed by Katrina, and the ineptitude of Brown had a lot to do with maximizing the damage.

 And yet Mary Landrieu has affirmed her support of the man who rubber-stamped the nomination of the man most responsible for the post-Katrina recovery fiasco, which continues today. Despite there being a perfectly good Democrat in Connecticut available for her to endorse.

 I see stuff like this, I notice Pryor's disgusting comment about "consistency", and I just wonder if Ralph Nader, as obnoxious as he's become, was right about the Democratic Party deserving to have a stake driven through what remains of its heart. Because there is absolutely no logical reason for Landrieu to support Lieberman. There is no reason for ANY Democratic officeholder to NOT back Ned Lamont, who's a freaking businessman for crying out loud.

 I'm suspecting that this support of Lieberman on the part of certain Democratic figures is a function of loyalty to cronyism and corruption, public service be damned, and a pathological fear of being held accountable, which will begin to happen if some honest Democrats happen to get into enough positions of power. The Lieberman defection has pulled the paneling off the structure, and the rot that lies beneath is apprently far more advanced that we all thought.

 There are Dems who continue to sincerely  believe in the idea of public service -- among them Howard Dean, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Barbara Boxer, Eliot Spitzer, Jim Webb, Ned Lamont, Dennis Kucinich, and maybe Barack Obama, though he's shown every sign of being co-opted into lobbyistland. But their ranks are thin and disappearing fast. Most Democrats have sadly fallen into the William Jefferson wing of the party.

 And that, folks, is no party at all.

 


by Master Jack on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 08:17:00 PM EST

What does Lieberman have on these people (none / 0)

that they would attack the Democratic nominee from out of state?  Unless they do think Lamont is doomed and they want to get in earliest with the mostest.


by Crablaw on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 12:41:12 AM EST

Re: What does Lieberman have on these people (none / 0)

Oh, but Lamont ISN'T doomed! That's the kicker. He could easily win and WOULD win in a landslide if Lieberman wasn't in the race.

He could also beat Lieberman if Holy-Joe were forced to run as a flat-out Republican, without any Democratic support.

Thus, the importance of puting ever more pressure on elected Democrats to renounce Lieberman's candidacy.

The only reason they are doing it is to shut down primary challenges. They don't like the idea of a sitting senator being challenged and beaten by voters from his own party.

They think rightly that it might happen to them someday, thus they would all be a lot more comfortable with a Lieberman win, even if that cost them the Senate (since Joe WILL ultimately switch parties if he's elected with overwhelming Republican support).


by Cugel on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 06:17:41 PM 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.