I hope Lieberman backstabs the Dems again

While I still have some hope for Lamont to pull this off, it does look like Lieberman is the strong favorite to win. I put this comment months ago right after the euphoria surrounding Lamont's primary win:

Here is my comment dated August 10


I am sorry that I don't share the same enthusiasm for the overall party spirit yet. While I am ecstatic about Lamont's victory and optimistic he can pull it off again, some things need to change. Democratic establishment needs to grow a pair of balls.
First of all, the elections are over. There is no need to preface Lamont's name with the term "the winner of the Democratic primary". It just seems so defensive. I want to see more enthusiasm. They can weasel out of their prior endorsements by saying that they did their job endorsing a long term member but the electorate has shown that there is a need for new blood and that it would be silly to disregard it. And they need to be more assertive about Lieberman. They should remind the press how they helped Lieberman because of party ties and that Lieberman should at least show some gratitude to the help he got from the party establishment in the last few months. They should be reminding the press that it was because of a lot of party help that Lieberman was able to make it close. And they should say that at the very least, Lieberman should not be scapegoating his colleagues for what he terms the divisive nature of the country when he is the one bashing Lamont and his supporters who are part of the country he wants to unite.

They should show more freaking enthusiasm. If you do not crush Lieberman fast enough, he will be a force to reckon with. I want to see some tut tuts from the establishment regarding Lieberman's speech last night and his press appearances since then where he is bashing a big segment of potential voters.

And here is another thing. I have not been the biggest Waters fan in the past. But I am immensely grateful for her hard work for the Lamont campaign and her immensely classy non publicity whoring behavior when Lamont won(Jesse Jackson was in his usual limelight seeking mode while Maxine was nowhere to be seen on the stage during Lamont's greatest moment).
Anyway, when Lieberman was using Waters as an excuse to justify his characterization of Lamont to be associated with extremists, why didn't a single DEmocratic bigwig admonish Lieberman for bashing Waters as an extremist when he consorts with the Hannitys of this world without bashing a single person on the right? Where was the party today defending a DEMOCRAT like Waters when Lieberman was bashing her? You think Rahm would keep quiet if Dean attacked a party member publicly?

All I saw today was many democrats going through the motions because they are scared of looking like party traitors.

I have not been an Edwards fan, but he has done the right thing. Wesley Clark has done the right thing. Elizabeth Edwards continues to be a fighting spirit by calling Liebs on his bullshit even before last night's election. This is the kind of stuff i want to see.

That was my comment two and half months ago and NOTHING HAS CHANGED. as you can tell by this Firedoglake link:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/27/ma th-tutors-needed/

I am not surprised by Obama and the Clintons. According to the link, even Feingold has not campaigned for Lamont(even if he did give him his endorsement on TV talk shows). I am shocked by how stupid Feingold is(UPDATE: OK, maybe I am little too harsh here). He has gone on record as contemplating a 2008 run. How the hell is he going to overcome low polling numbers if he doesn't have a passionate core of supporters to buy him enough time?  I am just perplexed by how DailyKos and other prominent bloggers have been so late to catch up to this story. There was this misplaced optimism about some of our leaders. When Hillary invited Lamont, I knew right away how hollow her gesture was while people were making it seem like a good thing.

Peter Daou worked for Hillary. I see he has been quiet about the Clintons failure to do the right thing in CT. Compromised values? I gave the benefit of doubt to the bloggers who had that meet and greet with Clinton that generated a skeptical post from one of our diary writers. But now, I wonder what has come out of that access? Has a single blogger asked either of the Clintons a tough question about CT since then?

Some of us made a big deal about the big kos convention where politicians paid heed to us. But was it really just a show of pandering to keep us quiet? We make a big deal about the MSM blowing opportunities to ask politicians tough questions. How come Kos, with all his access to some of the Democrats, and affinity to Lamont, has been unable to ask a single guilty democrat a tough question about why they don't support Lamont to a greater extent? (It is possible he did, and somehow I missed it, but Kos's recap of the scorecard doesn't mention any conversations he has had with the mentioned politicians). They dont care about the netroots. If a prominent blogger like Kos doesn't have that access, what hope is there for the rest of the liberal bloggers?

Reading that scorecard, Wes Clark, has emerged as the only true Democratic Party leader. It's ironic that he was initially propped up as this Clinton puppet in the 2004 primaries. What I have seen of Clark is a guy who is willing to speak up for Democrats forcefully without trying to please the people at FOX. Whenever someone tries to insult a liberal, he doesn't take it quietly. He is not even your standard liberal, yet he seems to be unashamed to stand up for liberal values when they are being attacked. He is the only one I am supporting inm 2008 with Feingold and Edwards as my reluctant backup choices.

Lamont's people are to blame too. THey should have initiated more of a reciprocal helping hand with the Murthas and the Feingolds. Maybe they could have helped each other.

If Lieberman gets elected, I sure hope he backstabs this sorry ass party. I want him to reveal his true colors. I want the democratic party to pay for this. Democrats ignored the Nader effect in 2000 and it cost them. But the party got a little bit better for it with the likes of Dean getting more prominence.  Maybe it will take another shock for the party to get rid of the old baggage.

While I am still going to remain independent, I will support the new blood in the Dem party. If Hillary gets nominated in 2008, I am going to volunteer for whatever third party runs against her.
I differ from mainstream democrats on public schools and death penalty. So it's not like I am that desperate for a Democrat to win if they are going to compromise on the values I can find common ground with them on. If I do swallow my pride and vote for a Democratic candidate I do not care for, it is only because of the disastrous job the repubs have done with the environment. See, I don't need the dems to do everything I believe in. I just want some respect. When people wonder why some would vote for Nader in 2000 or just stay home and not vote at all(which is the same as voting for Nader), this is why. If you feel respected, you are willing to work with your leaders and give them some slack on issues that you are not in synch with. I DO NOT FEEL RESPECTED BY THESE PEOPLE. That is what this post sums up to.

I called my cousins in CT and asked them to urge their friends to vote Lamont. Base turnout is the key. Don't even worry about the polls now. As hard as it is to believe, I still have not given up hope.

Tags: Lamont, Lieberman, wussy Democrats (all tags)

Comments

12 Comments

Re: I hope Lieberman backstabs the Dems
You are filled with a lot of rage my friend...
by blueryan 2006-10-27 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope Lieberman backstabs the Dems

True, but do you find the comments offbase?

Politeness hasnt gotten us anything worthwhile in this race.

by Pravin 2006-10-27 05:59PM | 0 recs
Menendez in New Jersey

Did you catch what happened last week in New Jersey when Menendez and Kean were speaking in front of a Jewish audience and it became an issue whether Menendez was supporting Lieberman and Menendez made a statement that sure seemed like he was, even though his official stance has been to support the winner of the primary and official Democratic candidate, Lamont.

Whose fault is that?  I can't blame Menendez; this is the fault of Reid and Schumer and Bill Clinton and other big shot Dems who did not come out right after the primary and make strong criticisms of Lieberman running as an independent.  Lieberman was the Vice Presidential nominee; he has a special obligation  to the Democratic Party; they should have called him on, publicly.  

by Rowena 2006-10-29 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope Lieberman backstabs the Dems

You are filled with a lot of rage my friend...

Is there something wrong with being angry about corruption?  Would it not be best to have more angry people?

Kind of sad to attack Feingold but, hey, that's the way things often go.

Why do you like things the way they are?

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-10-27 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope Lieberman backstabs the Dems

I'm not buying the 'Feingold blows' argument quite yet.

How much cred does Feingold have in CT? Do people there even know who he is? They don't seem to know much, given the poll numbers.

Did Ned ask him to come out after he offered? If not, WTF is the big deal?

by lightyearsfromhome 2006-10-27 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope Lieberman backstabs the Dems

I can only infer from what I read. It is possible that Lamont people never asked him to come over. But as someone who is thinking of running in 2008, he should take the initiative to fire up the base because it is that passionate base he will need to buy him time to build some mainstream support. It would be nice to see some initiative on part of the Feingolds. I am still not down on him which is why I said I will consider him as an alternative to Wes Clark.

My words were only harsh on Feingold only because I expect more from him compared to an Obama.

by Pravin 2006-10-27 07:23PM | 0 recs
Feingold should speak up about the slush fund

Feingold's issue is campaign finance reform but he's sitting on his hands while Lieberman defecates on campaign finance reform with a $387,000 slush fund.  (And that was the primary; there'll be another slush fund for the general.)

Someone posting over at the Lamont Official blog did a graph of other senate campaigns petty cash and it looks like no one else spent more than a thousand.  

There are no campaign finance laws if Lieberman can get away with taking out money in cash.  There are no laws about politicians taking bribes if they can do that.  But no major Dem has said "Boo" about it in a year when they are running against the "culture of corruption."  

by Rowena 2006-10-29 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope Lieberman backstabs the Dems

Lieberboy has already backstabbed ordinary Democrats.

I suspect the DC crowd is sitting on their hands because if Lieber wins it will free them from being accountable in primaries. So what if they're challenged by the grassroots and lose? They can fall back on the lieberman strategy.

by Kobi 2006-10-27 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope Lieberman backstabs the Dems

I included the word "again" in my title to reflect your comment.

by Pravin 2006-10-27 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope Lieberman backstabs the Dems

I'm not sure Lieb has backstabbed his Washington Democrat friends. Yet, that is. I fully expect him to stab them by caucusing with the GOP in a tied Senate.

But he'll already have done other Republicrats like him a big favor by rendering the primary system virtually meaningless. For, if he wins, they will all follow his example if challenged and beaten by grassroots candidates.

And another effect it will have is to discourage people like Lamont from even challenging in the first place since winning a primary against them will mean so little.

by Kobi 2006-10-27 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope Lieberman backstabs the Dems again

I'm not the biggest fan of Lieberman, but I'm not a Lieberman antagonist either.   I've never understood this constant browbeating and villification of Lieberman like he is the Devil Incarnate.   Lieberman deserves some criticism.  On Iraq he seams a little out-of-sync with even other Democrats who voted for the bill authorizating the President to start the Iraq war, but who are now more vocally condemning pre-war intelligence and the administration's incompetence in carrying out the war.  On the other hand, Lieberman's overall record fits in with other center-left Democrats. Lieberman occasionally takes positions that don't match the party orthodoxy, but he certainly has not been a wacky conservative Zell Miller-like Democrat who goes out his way to berate his own party.

In regards to the level of committment that other politicos are giving to Lamont's campaign, there are two factors that hurt Lamont.   One factor is just standard political calucation. If politicians and other potential contributors think someone has a chance, they may provide stronger support.  If polls look weak, they may back away.  The other factor is the unique dynamics of the Lamont-Lieberman race, in that it is between two defacto Democrats.  There are so many competitive races across the nation and the Democrats are trying to regain the Senate.  Accordingly, outside Democrats are not going spend too much political capital in a race that involves two Democrats.     The Bill Clinton's and Russ Feingold's of the world are going to use their time Lieberman try to help candidates like Claire McCaskill in Missouri or Bob Menendez in New Jersey or Sherrod Brown in Ohio.  

Looking forward, Connecticut should probably consider instituting some type of sore loser provision so that candidates that lose in a party primary are eliminated from running in the general election for the same race unless they selected as a replacement, if the party nominee has to drop out for some reason .

by robstephens 2006-10-28 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I hope Lieberman backstabs the Dems again

If you look at our past posts on lieberman, we have laid out plenty of reasons why Lieberman has been harmful to the democrats. And "a little out of synch" is not an accurate term when talking about his war policy. People like Edwards and Kerry who foolishly voted for the possibility of war have realized their ways. So has Murtha. In the words of Michael Ware, Lieberman talked like someone who was out of touch with reality.
Lieberman himself has laid out national security as such a vital issue that he demonized democrats like Dean as unfit because of this single issue alone. Now that this single issue has come back to haunt him, he pleads for a big tent. Now it's just one of many issues to him. That's point number one.

As far as Zell miller comparisons, actually if you have been reading this blog, we pointed out many instances where Lieberman has passed on chances to condemn Republicans for their misdeeds but has taken every opportunity to bash democrats. Just go back and read past diaries and comments. We have done it too many times to do it again now. Lieberman has given a lot of moderates "permission" to buy into the CW that you are on the fringe if you are liberal compared to conservative.

by Pravin 2006-10-28 12:12PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads