Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: More Dirty Politics from the Lamont Left
Sen. Joseph Lieberman is seeking reelection under his own new party.
AP: Some Dems want Lieberman out of party
Critics of Sen. Joe Lieberman’s independent run to keep his job attacked on two fronts Monday, with one group asking an elections official to throw him out of the Democratic Party and a former rival calling on state officials to keep his name off the November ballot.
Staffers for Lieberman, who lost the Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, called both efforts dirty politics. The senator filed as an independent candidate a day after the loss, running under the new Connecticut for Lieberman party.
A group whose members described themselves as peace activists asked Sharon Ferrucci, New Haven’s Democratic registrar of voters, to remove Lieberman from the party, arguing that he cannot be a Democrat while running under another party’s banner.
The request could lead to a hearing in which Lieberman, the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee in 2000, would have to argue that he still adheres to the party’s principles.
“The law is pretty clear he is no longer a member of the Democratic Party in good standing,” said group leader Henry Lowendorf. “There was an open vote and he was voted out. He joined a different party.”
Ferrucci said she would research the request, the first of its kind in her two decades on the job.
What? Throw the Democrat’s Vice Presidential candidate in 2000 out of the party? While he is a sitting Democrat United States Senator?
These Ned Lamont LEFTY NUTTERS in Connecticut are looking like a Jon Lovitz routine.
But, wait there is more…..
John Orman, a Democrat who gave up a challenge to Lieberman last year, argued in complaints filed with the state Monday that Lieberman should be kept off the Nov. 7 ballot.
Orman, a Fairfield University political science professor, accused Lieberman of creating “a fake political party,” adding: “He’s doing anything he can to get his name on the ballot.”
Excuse me, Flap thought voting for candidates for political office was a democratic exercise and if you have complied with Connecticut’s voting laws then…….
What about Ned Lamont? What does he say about these attempts to sabotage the Lieberman campaign?
Lamont distanced himself Monday from the peace activists’ request. He told reporters that Lieberman should not be removed from the Democratic rolls, and that Lieberman has the right under state law to form the new party.
“He’s got the right to run. It’s not what I would have done,” Lamont said.
Right and didn’t Lamont distance himself from Jane Hamsher and this?
“I don’t know anything about the blogs. I’m not responsible for those. I have no comment on them.â€
These dirty tricks continue to emanate from the lefty fringe that is driving Ned Lamont’s candidacy.
Lieberman campaign manager Sherry Brown said the effort was “dirty political tricks at its worst.”
“This kind of ridiculous, partisan game-playing is not going to provide anyone in Connecticut with better jobs, better health care, or better schools,” she said.
Certainly, this will turn off the moderate Democrat voters of Connecticut and explains why Lieberman continues to lead in the latest polls. Has the Democrat party of FDR, Truman, and JFK devolved into disqualifying folks?
A Jon Lovitz routine may be too kind of words.
Stay tuned……
Previous:
Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Kerry Calls Lieberman the New Cheney
Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Lieberman Calls for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s Resignation
The Ryskind Sketchbook: Re-post
Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Lieberman Leads Lamont 53 – 41 Among Likely Connecticut Voters
Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Richie Rich and the Two Anti-Semites
Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Latest Rasmussen Poll Has Lieberman Beating Lamont
Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Karl Rove Called Lieberman On Primary Election Day To Wish Him Well
Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Lieberman Kicks Off Independent Campaign
Technorati Tags: JoeLieberman, NedLamont
21 Comments
Pingback:
Tyler
Hi Flap –
http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/08/gov_murkowskis_career_ends_wit.html
“Alaska Republican Gov. Frank H. Murkowski was decisively beaten in Tuesday’s primary election, placing third to winner Sarah Palin, a former Wasilla mayor, and former state Sen. John Binkley in a contest that ingloriously ended the political career of one of Alaska’s more durable officeholders.
With 56 percent of the vote counted, Murkowski had just 19 percent of the vote to Palin’s 51 percent and Binkley’s 30 percent. Longshot candidates Gerald L. Heikes and Merica Hlatcu split the remainder of the GOP vote.
Palin will face former Gov. Tony Knowles (1994-2002), who had 73 percent of the Democratic vote against state Rep. Eric Croft (26 percent) and Bruce J. Lemke (1 percent).”
[from kos: It’s amazing seeing all the news stories this morning of the crazy, angry jihadists who have purged their Republican Party of Murkowski. Oh wait, no one is writing that… I forgot that booting an incumbent is fine if you are a Republican.]
MORON GEORGE W. BUSH RIGHTY NUTTERS. Ha!
PS – the link you provide for the poll shows that the race is tied, within the margin of error. JOEMENTUM! Whoo hoo!
Best,
Tyler
Flap
Tyler,
The poll shows that Lieberman is leading but within the margin of error – so they could be wrong but then again maybe not. If he was tied then that is what the poll would say.
Joementum is with Lieberman. Ha!
Tyler
Hi Flap –
Why is the democratic purge of a sitting Democrat-in-name-only Senator of so much interest to you? Is it because he is the only senator that provides bipartisan cover for the administration?
What is it about the Murkowski news that does not warrant a mention on your site?
How is it that Lieberman losing points in every single poll constitutes momentum on his part?
People are fed up with this administration and incumbents in general. They have failed the American people.
Best,
Tyler
Flap
Tyler,
The Lieberman-Lamont race is of national importance and the Senate leadership is up for grabs this November.
The Governorship of Alaska is not as important and ol’Flap cannot cover everything.
Joementum has the momentum because he just lost a primary race. The left was hoping for a Lieberman collapse but not so far.
Flap is fed up with some incumbents and with some in the Bush Administration but not all.
Care to list all of the incumbents besides Bush and Lieberman that you disdain?
:o)
Tyler
Hi Flap –
“Joementum has the momentum because he just lost a primary race.” – I don’t understand – how does losing give one momentum?
I don’t think I could possibly list all the incumbents I personally am not fond of. In general, I think members of Congress who don’t represent their constituents deserve to be endangered species. The American public is way out ahead of their representatives on such issues as Iraq, social security, voter fraud/election transparency, the bankruptcy bill, campaign finance reform, energy independence and more.
Lieberman is a unique case, and bizarre. Why does he have such incredible right-wing support, to where the RNC and NRSC don’t even support the Republican candidate in CT? And its not just because there is a lousy GOP candidate. Lieberman has implicit and explicit endorsements from Bush, Cheney, Coulter, Hannity, Scarborough and many others on the right.
Really, is it any wonder that the Democrats don’t feel properly represented by him? Could you imagine a GOP candidate getting endorsements from all your favorites: Moore, Sheehan, McKinney, Streisand, etc.? How would the GOP base respond?
Best,
Tyler
Flap
Tyler,
Senator Lieberman has Joementum because he lost and now he is leading. He has the Joementum going towards victory in November.
I don’t think Bush and Cheney and the RNC are endorsing Lieberman. He is a LIBERAL – except for national security issues. But, the radical left has a litmus test – Iraq. If you do not believe in Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore’s views on the war we will purge you from our party.
Great politics – but a loser for the Democrats. It will drive middle of the road folks out of the party. But, hey, I am a Republican.
And no I cannot imagine a GOP candidate ever getting the endorsement of Babs! How would the GOP base respond?
With hilarity after collecting her money at the door.
Tyler
Hey Flap:
Both Bush and Cheney commented on a Democratic primary race from the White House, with Cheney basically calling Lamont the “Al-Queda candidate” which is absurd. People are tired of fear-mongering, and its not going to work in 2006. Fear Fear Fear. Vote Democratic and Die. Dear lord, that’s ridiculous. The Democrats have been FAR stronger than the GOP on port security and transportation security – that is national security, not Iraq. Iraq does NOT equal national security!
Iraq was NOT a litmus test. If that were so, then many Democrats who still essentially support the war effort would be receiving primary challenges and they are not. As I have said to you in the past, its because Joe is an enabler and apologist who provides BushCo with bipartisan cover. Iraq, yes, along with Social Security, the bankruptcy bill, Alito and other issues. And now he is repeating GOP talking points as the CFL-CT candidate.
And really, how is opposing the Iraq War a losing strategy? 65% of America opposes the war. I think the GOP is scared sh1tless that the Democrats will go head-to-head on the issue. But so far, they largely have avoided it. The GOP likes to pretend that opposition to the war is “lefty fringe” and that is just flat out wrong. 65%, Flap. A hell of a lot more than Bush’s 2004 “mandate”. Ha!
Flap
Tyler,
Comments form Cheney are not an endorsement from the RNC – a big difference. No, the fringe left like Markos “Screw Them” Moulistas have grouped together to take out Lieberman who has a different opinion than them only one issue – the Iraq War.
Face it, Tyler. Ned Lamont is a Richie Rich empty suit who does not know the issues. Did you see the video of him on Kudlow?
But,alas, I don’t live in Connecticut.
I dispute your poll figures on the Iraq War. But, without a doubt a majority of Americans are not happy with the conduct of the war.
But, what plan for the Iraq War would you recommend to President Bush?
Tyler
Flap –
The Connecticut voters chose Lamont in a democratic election, not the blogosphere. Meanwhile, Mehlman, head of the RNC, has specifically declined to endorse the GOP candidate, while rumours fly that Lieberman, if he wins, will caucus with the GOP. So, please, don’t tell me that he doesn’t have support at the highest levels of the Republican party. Because it is painfully clear that he does.
Like I said, Lieberman was taken down because he is an enabler and apologist, Iraq included but not exclusive. Apparently, we differ in our opinions.
How could I recommend any plan to the President? It’s his mess. GOP controls the White House, Senate and House. This is a GOP clusterf*ck, pure and simple.
That said, my advice would be simple: listen to career military men and people with experience. Shinseki, Powell, Bush Sr., Hagel, Biden. Instead those people are marginalized, discounted and forced into retirement. They warned us of the dangers of going in, and they were IGNORED. We went in on the cheap, without the forces to win the peace, and now we are in the middle of a civil war. We have LOST IRAQ. Period. And its due to the decision making of non-military neocons, including Cheney, Bush and Rumsfield.
What’s your plan, Flap? Stay the course? That’s a sound bite, not a strategy. Please, we have 60-year old Marines getting called up because Bush broke our military. Bush merely wants to run out the clock on his presidency and let the next president deal with it. Meanwhile, we are going to lose another 2,000 good soldiers, 75,000 Iraqi citizens and $200 billion. Christ, this war is a TOTAL DISASTER.
And PS – in keeping with your use the “Screw Them” tag (which Markos has addressed head-on), perhaps I’ll make a point of writing George W. “What’s the connection between 9/11 and Iraq? NOTHING, I’m the Decider” Bush, Dick “I shot a man in the face, Go F*ck Yourself, 5 deferments” Cheney, George “Macaca” Allen, Conrad “raghead and little Guatemalan man” Burns and on and on and on.
I’m done for today – gotta get back to work.
Best,
Tyler
Flap
Tyler,
Lots of anger from you today.
Think about a plan to end the Iraq War besides immediate withdrawl or cut and run.
BTW our military is not broken and is doing a fine job in Iraq.
More tomorrow.
Tyler
Hi Flap –
Yeah I am tired of seeing our soldiers die. I am tired of seeing Iraqis die. I am tired of soundbites such as cut and run and stay the course. Those are not strategies, they are soundbites.
Our military is not meant to be doing what they are doing. We have finished our military objectives, and now we are caught in a civil war.
I am not advocating immediate withdrawl. But there is NO path to victory.
What’s Flap’s plan? Do YOU see a path to victory? What is that plan? Who in the GOP has articulated it? Seriously?
Tyler
Flap
Tyler,
Stay the course is a plan. Cut and run of Jack Redeploy the troops to Okinawa Murtha is a plan.
What is the President trying to do?
He is trying to quell sectarian violence between majority Shia militias and the Sunni minority. Once this is accomplished then the political process will again be set in motion for the Iraqis to re-establish their own democratically elected government and govern.
Iran plays a role here as well since they are stirring up the Shia majority to attack the Sunnis. Iran has an interest in destabilizing the Iraqi government – so they can have a pathway to the sea through southern Iraq to threaten the Saudis and the other Persian gulf states.
This entire war is turning into a referendum on whether Iran achieves hegemony over the Middle East.
More later
Tyler
The president is trying to run out the clock on his term so he doesn’t look like a weak flip-flopping cut-and-runner himself. Period. He has no plan. And its going to cost a LOT of American lives. I’m so fed up with the apologists. Do you really think the same incredibly incompetent people that got us into Iraq can get us out? Ha!
Reconcile this:
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said that Iraq is in a “very defined civil war†and that the Middle East is “the most unstable we’ve seen since 1948.†He also reiterated that the United States needs to begin withdrawing troops within the next six months because staying the course just continues to “kill Americans and put Americans in the middle of a civil war that we have less and less control and influence over every day.â€
Reconcile this:
“Are we going to put our troops in the middle of a civil war?” Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees, asked on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “This will be a slaughter of immense proportions,” he said. “The American people will not put up with it. The leadership in Congress will not put up with it.”
Reconcile this:
The surge in Baghdad’s sectarian violence in recent weeks means Iraq is closer to civil war, according to two of the Pentagon’s most senior generals. Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, and General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified today before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Reconcile this:
”I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war,” General John Abizaid testified earlier this month before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Reconcile this:
Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed with fellow Republican Sen. John McCain’s criticism Tuesday of the conduct of the Iraq war by President Bush. “I think we undersold how hard the war would be,†Graham said.
Reconcile this:
According to the Iraqi government, 3,438 civilians were killed in July, making it the bloodiest month since the 2003 invasion. The president was asked Monday whether the failure of the U.S.-backed “unity” government to stem the orgy of sectarian carnage disappoints him, and he said no, it didn’t.
Reconcile this:
Republican Sen. John McCain, a staunch defender of the Iraq war, on Tuesday faulted the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing the conflict would be “some kind of day at the beach.” The potential 2008 presidential candidate, who a day earlier had rejected calls for withdrawing U.S. forces, said the administration had failed to make clear the challenges facing the military. “I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required,” McCain said. “Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I’m just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be.”
So there you go, Flap. Good luck with quelling sectarian violence. You go to war with the MORONS in the administration you have, not the ones you want.
Best,
Tyler
Flap
Tyler,
You are good at setting up strawmen arguments and the refuting them yourself.
I ask you again: What is YOUR plan? Not John McCain’s, NOT Chuck Hagel’s. If you could recommend a course of action to the President, what would YOU recommend?
I told you a portion of mine.
And you said good luck with quelling sectarian violence…..so what would YOU do?
Tyler
Flap –
I gave my plan – listen to the people that know what they are talking about. Those people have been ignored or shunned. What the hell do I know about military engagements, other than I know a complete and utter DISASTER when I see one?
“That said, my advice would be simple: listen to career military men and people with experience. Shinseki, Powell, Bush Sr., Hagel, Biden. Instead those people are marginalized, discounted and forced into retirement. They warned us of the dangers of going in, and they were IGNORED. We went in on the cheap, without the forces to win the peace, and now we are in the middle of a civil war. We have LOST IRAQ. Period. And its due to the decision making of non-military neocons, including Cheney, Bush and Rumsfield.”
Flap
Tyler,
Sorry Tyler this is not much of a plan – listen to people that know what they are talking about. Who has been ignored and shunned? You can hear dissenters every day in the press.
And what disaster are you talking about?
This is a WAR, you know. People die in a war. It is a shame, but, they do die.
Of the folks you listed please provide links that say they have been forced into retirement. Biden and Hagel are in the Senate. Are you saying that Powell, Bush, Sr. and Shineski were forced into retirement? Please provide links and why they were forced out. Flap does not believe it.
Over to you……
Tyler
Shock-and-Awe, we’ll be greeted with flowers and chocolates isn’t much of a plan either.
This was an unnecessary war with no connection to 9/11. Where’s the 6’2 guy in the white robes living on the Pakistan/Afghan border? Still no Osama.
And I am not talking about dissenters – I am talking about qualified people with military experience IN THE GOVERNMENT who were swept aside, because Bush and Cheney were hell-bent on going into Iraq from 9/11 on, and perhaps before they even took office.
So I’m done – I can’t argue with someone that believes this is a GOOD AND NECESSARY WAR. That’s ridiculous, and 65% of Americans now agree with me. We have incompetents with no military experience at the top of government who have created another Vietnam. And now I depart, leaving you with your Worst President Ever.
Bye Flap. I may stop by another day sometime.
http://www.answers.com/topic/eric-shinseki
Shinseki actually wasn’t officially forced into retirement, but its very telling how his warnings went totally unheeded, and how he was treated. He was following the Powell Doctrine, which was ignored by Rummy, who went in on the cheap.
“In April 2002, 14 months before Shinseki was due to retire, The Washington Post reported, quoting “Pentagon officials”, that his replacement had already been selected. “In another unusual move, Rumsfeld has tapped Army Gen. John Keane, the No. 2 officer in the Army, to succeed the current chief of that service, Gen. Eric Shinseki, whose term runs out next year. Selecting a successor for the current chief so far in advance is highly unusual.” [3] The disclosure of a successor was seen by some as somehow undercutting Shinseki’s authority within the Army.”
On February 25, 2003, four months before the end of his term as Chief of Staff of the Army, Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he thought an occupying force of several hundred thousand men would be needed to stablize postwar Iraq. He was pressed to provide a range by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). Below is the exchange:
SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army’s force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?
GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders’ exact requirements. But I think —
SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?
GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what’s been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.
Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, called Shinseki’s estimate “far off the mark”[6] and “wildly off the mark”. Wolfowitz said it would be “hard to believe” more troops would be required for post-war Iraq than to remove Saddam Hussein from power. [7]
Contrary to some claims, Shinseki was not immediately fired for his remarks. His official term as Chief of the Army ended four months later and he retired as scheduled. However, the tension between the civilians in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Shinseki were apparent. No senior civilians attended Shinseki’s retirement ceremony. Some Army officers, such as Major General Batiste (ret.) who called for Rumsfeld’s regisnation, saw this as an intentional slight and sign of disrespect directed toward Shinseki by the civilian leadership [8].
Shinseki has been cited by numerous retired Army officers as a prime example of Secertary Rumsfeld’s disregard for military advice and abrasive treatment of senior officers. Newsweek magazine reports “RIC WAS RIGHT” caps were on display at Shinseki’s recent 40th annual reunion of the West Point class of 1965 [11]. Retired generals such as John Batiste who called for Rumsfeld’s resignation have cited the treatment of Shinseki.
Flap
Tyler,
You disappoint me. No real argument and no plan. This is the problem with the Bush Derangement Syndrome Left – of which you are a part.
You hear the same refrains over and over. No real solutions. No real recommendations except for get out – cut and run. No appreciation of foreign affairs or a knowledge of history.
Tyler, answer me this. Why did Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait? Why did Saddam Hussein gas the Kurds? Why did Saddam Hussein fail to comply with numerous United Nations resolutions prior to the March 2003 invasion?
Over to you.
Tyler
Flap –
Why did George H.W. Bush write the following? Why didn’t his son listen to him? Stop lecturing. Don’t blame me for not having a plan. If W. listened to his dad, we wouldn’t be in this clusterf*ck.
In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn’t go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:
“Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible … We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq …there was no viable “exit strategy” we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”
Tyler
You know, I read this book recently that espouses Rule Number Six (there’s only the one rule): Don’t Take Yourself So F*cking Seriously.
And I realized I need to revisit Rule Number Six and so do you.
Anyway, we’re never going to agree because you agree with this war and I don’t. I didn’t agree with it to begin with. I always thought we went in because Bush/Cheney wanted to, and “stovepiped” the intelligence to do so.
And so if we have this fundamental disagreement, where I think the war is a complete mess, and you think its going swimmingly, then we’ll never meet, we’ll just argue. We have no common ground to have a discussion.
So you’ve gotten me worked up, and now I have to invoke Rule Number Six, and get back to work.
Have a great day,
Tyler