• comment on a post Lieberman Now Likely To Keep His Gavel over 5 years ago

    Jane Hamsher said it:

    Where to begin?  Well, let's start in 2000, when Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Democratic candidate for vice president--in response to pressure from the Bush campaign and without checking with his own--conceded hundreds of fraudulent overseas ballots supposedly from military voters that cost Al Gore the election, the notorious "Thanksgiving Stuffing."

    Let's skip lightly over Lieberman's part in the culture wars, his sanctimonious rebuke of President Clinton on the floor of the Senate at the start of the impeachment charade, and his critical role as part of the so-called "Gang of 14" breaking Democratic resistance to putting Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. Let's jump straight to Lieberman's December 6, 2005 speech where he rebuked his party:


    It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

    While Lieberman was quick to denounce Clinton for a private matter he leaped to the defense of Bush as even Republicans realized his strategy in the Iraq War was disastrous. Criticize George W. Bush and his conduct of the war and you're a traitor.

    Lieberman subsequently told the New Haven Register that he opposed legislation that  would have required all publicly funded hospitals to provide Plan B contraception to rape victims, saying "it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital" (for which he earned himself the  sobriquet "Short Ride.")  The 2006 Democratic primary campaign in Connecticut was in some respects a warm-up for Lieberman's negative attacks on Barack Obama, ironic given that Obama endorsed him. Lieberman had been assigned to show the freshman the ropes in the Senate and Obama called him his "mentor." Obama rushed to the state to deliver a ringing endorsement of Lieberman at the annual party dinner. No good deed goes unpunished.

    Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont, was a businessman and an antiwar activist from Greenwich. Supported by the Democratic establishment, Lieberman claimed he would abide by the results of the primary. But when he lost he ran as a member of a new political party, called the "Connecticut for Lieberman Party."

    He blanketed cars in parking lots of African-American churches with flyers suggesting Lamont was racist. (Lamont had resigned from a country club, not because it practiced discrimination but because he felt it was not diverse enough.) Meanwhile, Lieberman stoked racial tensions by telling Jewish groups in Connecticut saying that Lamont had surrounded himself with people like Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Al Sharpton "who are either naïve or are isolationists or, frankly, some more explicitly against Israel."

    Lieberman also declared himself a "non combatant" in the 2006 congressional races and refused to say which party should have the majority. The Bush White House and Karl Rove openly lent him support, winning him a vast majority of Republican votes and the election.

    Lieberman had campaigned as a born-again antiwar advocate, telling Connecticut voters he was confident troop withdrawals from Iraq would begin by the end of the year, and that 50 percent would be home by the end of the following year. Nobody, he assured voters, wanted to bring the troops home more than him. The month after his election, he called for an immediate increase of 15,000-30,000 troops.

    During his campaign, Lieberman said that it was important for him win his Senate race in order to "elect a Democratic President in 2008," and that Lamont and his supporters would "frustrate and defeat our hope of doing that." Undoubtedly, he was a good friend of John McCain for years. And he agreed with McCain about the Iraq War. But underlying his actions was bitterness against the Democrats.

    Lieberman threatened to caucus with the Republicans over and over again to get his way as the decisive marginal vote in a Senate held by the Democrats by only one vote--Joe Lieberman's.  

    But it was with the 2008 presidential election that his bitterness became his rocket fuel.  Lieberman was unbound. In addition to acting as McCain's sidekick and protector, he stumped for Republican senator, campaigning for Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota against their Democratic opponents.

    Lieberman promised Reid privately that he would not attack Obama directly and personally. But when prevailed upon by the McCain operatives, Lieberman could not help himself. He played the paragon of decency even as he gleefully accepted the role of snarling attack dog:

       * He said that "Obama has not always put country first."
        * He thought it was a "good question" to inquire whether Obama is a Marxist.
        * He misleadingly accused Obama of having "voted to cut off funding for our troops."
        * He repeated the claim that "Hamas endorsed Obama" and said it "suggests the difference between these two candidates."
        * He sent out an email for McCain, referring to the "Democrat" Party, the derogatory term of art preferred by the most partisan Republicans.

    Lieberman went on to deride Obama in a speech before the Republican National Convention (after promising Reid he would not do so), saying he was an "an eloquent young man" who lacked the experience to be President. Reid's office said that Lieberman's seniority within the Democratic caucus, and his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee might be in jeopardy. Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs went on CNN to declare that Lieberman engaged in "flat out lies." But Lieberman would not let up against Obama.

    http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/10/the-ca se-against-lieberman/

  • http://www.nclrights.org

    I'm sure they could use some $$$ to support the lawyers working on the suit (petition to overturn 8 as it is an illegal revision to the constitution rather than an amendment).

  • comment on a post Keith Takes On Prop 8 over 5 years ago

    Prop 8 Proponents Want Their Day Before State's High Court


    Democratic Legislators Ask Court to Void Prop 8

  • comment on a post Repeal Prop 8: Turning Passion Into Action over 5 years ago

    For now, let's help

    http://lambdalegal.org &

    by donating to help with their petition for writ of mandate (requesting that the Supreme Court bar enforcement of Prop 8, because it's a revision to the constitution taking away fundamental rights from a suspect class of people).

    If the Court rules favorably and says it's a revision, the right-wing haters can't ever try this kind of thing again, because precedent says that they must go through the process for revisions to the constitution (2/3 vote of legislature, among other things--ain't gonna happen!).  

  • might have been depressing the CA vote turnout.

    here are the county-by-county numbers:
    http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/status.ht m

  • comment on a post Tracking Poll Update: Nine Days over 5 years ago

    The California state propositions are the closest races with significant impact (even nationwide, as with Prop 8), and the only ones that the good guys seem like we might lose, so that's where my $ and energy are going.

    No on Prop 8 - all consenting adults should be able to sign a civil marriage contract.

    No on Prop 4 - protect teenagers from having to get an abusive parent's permission for an abortion.

    Yes on Prop 2 - torturing animals is evil.

    etc. etc. etc.

  • comment on a post Winning the post-election narrative over 5 years ago

    A few of my talking points after the blue tsunami will be:

    1) Jobs and middle-class incomes drive the economy.

    2) Reagan's "voodoo economics" trickle-down theory has now been proven wrong twice.  

    3) Deregulation and privatization of public resources don't work.

    4) The American people have had enough divisive rhetoric and culture-war distractions.  

  • comment on a post Obama Had $66 Million in the Bank as of October 15 over 5 years ago

    Nate Silver said a few weeks ago that contributions to the national race from then on would make a nearly insignificant difference.  Close Senate races and the annoyingly close vote to take away civil rights in CA need my $ more, and will get it.  

  • on a comment on Biden: We'll win West Virginia over 5 years ago

    i imagine the culture war seems much less important when your livelihood is at stake and the Republicans are destroying the landscape.

  • comment on a post Open Thread over 5 years ago

    I haven't seen any updates on the "use it or lose it" campaign in months.

    I'm sure some of our Senate candidates would love to get donations from safe Democrats.  

  • comment on a post Missouri! Late Night Open Thread over 5 years ago

    With the possibility of 60 Senate seats within reach, there's no excuse for safe candidates' stinginess with their piles of $$$.

    Here in CA, I wish some safe candidates would kick down to NoOnProp8.com and the No on 4 campaign.

  • feel great about the White House and the House of Representatives, and good about the Senate (60 sure would be nice).

    Abit stressed that Prop 8 (marriage discrimination) and Prop 4 (anti-abortion) have a narrow lead in the polls, thanks to millions of $ in donations from out-of-state extremists.  

    No on 8 needs your help!

  • comment on a post the myth about anti-marriage initiatives in 2004 over 5 years ago

    meanwhile, please donate to protect marriage equality at NoOnProp8.com.

  • how long until some moron GOP media stooge tries to make booing sports fans morally equivalent to yelling "kill him" at a political speech?


Advertise Blogads