MyDD :: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert

Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert

by Matt Stoller, Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:57:37 PM EST

What other proof does anyone need that Lieberman is part of the problem in Washington?

Tags: Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman, CT-Sen, Connecticut (all tags)

Permalink :: 20 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

I wish you tube had been around when I akked Steny Hoyer about the war & the lessons of Donna Edwards challange tonight at Eric Massa's fundraiser. The bottom line is that some of us want change, others don't.

by howardpark on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 10:03:40 PM EST

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

What did Hoyer say?

by Matt Stoller on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 11:07:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (3.00 / 0)

I want Lamont to win, but I find the notion that the race is to be nationalized by making three out of the top four frontpage posts here a bit dubious. Right now, Mark Foley is the national story, and the nationalization of that scandal does have real implications for Democrats gaining control of Congress. Lamont won the Democratic primary. At this point, I view this race as one of a weak Democrat that has appeal for Republicans against a strong partisan progressive Democrat. It's similar to a lot of mayoral races that happen nowadays, where, because of the weakness of the Republican party, the to-the-right Democrat/Independent wins their vote. Such is the electoral landscape in situations where the Republican party is too weak to compete-- like the CT Senate race.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 10:09:28 PM EST

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

Jerome, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the race if you could make a comment like that. As I have written before, it's easy for us all to sit back and comfort ourselves and say, yeah, Lieberman will just be a bad Democrat, but he won't switch. The mounting evidence suggest the contrary - and very strongly.

But even if you don't think he will switch should be be reelected, consider that reality for a moment: a guy who calls himself a Democrat, who gets media credibility as a Democrat, who is reelected on all Republican money, and who occupies the chairmanship of the committee charged with performing oversight of the Bush administration. If you accept that this election is about whether Congress should hold the Bush administration better accountable for its actions, then you accept that if Lieberman is reelected under these pretenses, that he will be in a position to wholly undermine the entire national election because he will be occupying the very spot in the Senate where he can effectively thwart the very specific mandate of the election. I mean, all you have to do is look at Lieberman's reaction to the Hastert scandal to understand what a problem this could be for us. Imagine next year a major scandal about the Bush administration, and then imagine the same guy who attacks critics of the sex predator scandal being in the key position to halt all investigation of that White House scandal...it boggles the mind.

Again, I realize that its really comforting for all of us to tell ourselves, yeah, he'll just be a Democrat, even as more and more evidence racks up that he will switch. But bottom line: if you care about the progressive agenda, and not just whether the majority in Congress is called D or R, then you understand why this race is the most important in the entire country.

by David Sirota on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 11:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

if you care about the progressive agenda, and not just whether the majority in Congress is called D or R, then you understand why this race is the most important in the entire country.

Indeed.

Having Joe Lieberman represent the views of Connecticut makes as much sense as having Al Sharpton represent Mississippi.

I have no knowledge of how Jim Hightower came to have political power in Texas but he obviously did not represent the views of more than a small minority even before the obscenity of George W. Bush beating Ann Richards.

Best, Terry

by terryhallinan on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 01:01:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

Well, we can agree to disagree... or you can say I don't care about the progressive agenda. I hope Lamont wins, but it's not the entire focus of 2006.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 08:25:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

Of course I'm not questioning your commitment to the progressive agenda - I'm just trying to highlight how this race isn't just any old race for a lot of reasons, but primarily because Lieberman isn't just a bad Democrat. He's way worse.

Now, lets be clear: I totally agree with you that this race isn't the only one in the cycle. There are hugely important races elsewhere as well. All I'm saying is that it ranks up there as one of the most important.

by David Sirota on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 09:03:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

David, thank you for saying this. I personally believe that this IS the most important senate race. Why? Well let's go back to the week following August 8, when we learned that a handful of Democratic senators were refusing to support the duly elected Democratic primary nominee, and many others had to be pummeled with emails and phone calls to get them to openly state that they would support the Democratic primary victor, Ned Lamont. Have we so quickly forgotten our outrage? First and foremost, this race is about two things: 1)will we be able to select our own leaders, and 2)will the lobbyists forever control those we elect?

Lamont is a superb candidate. I've always felt that one sector where we Democrats could really gain ground was with small businesspeople. The idea that Republicans help business is simply not true. They help large corporations only. Lamont could truly be the beginning of reaching out to small business owners. That would be REAL bipartisanship, not the phony bipartisanship that Lieberman talks about. When has Lieberman ever criticised a Republican for being too partisan?

That being said, there are two things I would like to see Lamont do right now, and both of them involve digging deep into his wallet because the DSCC has clearly left him hanging out to dry. The first is that Lamont needs to hire the people that coached John Kerry in the last presidential debates. Kerry was superb in all three debates. He stopped being garrulous and became a hard-hitting, no-nonsense politician. Lamont MUST win the debates if he hopes to win the senate seat. Secondly, Lamont needs to blanket the area with ads. Most voters are lazy, and they are still going to be swayed by television ads. If that weren't the case, Ned's events would be attended by 20,000 people interested in hearing about Ned's positions, not by 200 people. Obama's predecessor, Peter Fitzgerald, basically bought the senate seat with $9 million of his own money. I'm sorry to say it, but, in today's environment, if Ned wants to win he's going to have to pull out the checkbook and pull out all the stops.

by grayslady on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 10:07:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

If Lieberman wins this, just watch the smugness quotient goes up. It's becaue of the Lmont primary victory that Hillary was forced to make nice to some small extent with the netroots and adopt a strong tone with Rumsfeld in those hearings during Lamont's increasing poll numbers. I doubt it was a coincidence.

If Lamont wins, it will not change politics overnight, but it will definitely change the national narrative a little bit. At that point, they cannot deny that the anti war movement is just a bunch of fringe leftists. Incumbents wont take their constituents for granted to the same extent as before. If someone like Lieberman can be toppled with all of his powerful friends and incumbency factor, that will send a damn strong message.

by Pravin on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 01:41:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

You are right on, I don't disagree with any of that statement. What I doubt is that a Lamont victory in the general is the only possible beneficiary outcome of this national election.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 08:39:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

Other than the usual typos and grammar mistakes due to some hasty typing, I need to correct the following:
"they cannot deny that the anti war movement is just a bunch of fringe leftists"

I obviously meant the opposite of that.

by Pravin on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 03:32:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think your analysis is correct but... (none / 0)

...philosophers have merely interpreted history. The point, however, is to change it.

How the hell can Lamont win?

On the natural, Lieberman is in the catbird seat, which is why he did what he did. He gets a fair chunk of the Democratic vote, a bunch of Republicans, and a shitload of the large Independent faction. If you're Holy Joe, why NOT run?

I think the Foley scandal may offer a crack of light. Holy Joe, with an innate gift for finding the one pile of dog crap to step in on the entire lawn, has chosen to embrace the GOP perhaps once too often and at a particularly inopportune time.

Lamont needs almost all the Democrats, the anti-war Republicans and anti-perversion Republicans (e.g. soccer mom Republicans), and at least a decent share of the Independents.

It's a tall order, but it could be done. All it takes, as usual, is cash. Maybe Ned would like to set up a challenge grant to the Netroots?

Everybody's broke, but we all have lots of extra shit--books, computers, whatever. Has anybody ever done an eBay garage sale? We donate stuff for the cost of shipping, let the bidders pay whatever, and the proceeds go to the campaign.

Back in the day (her I go again), we raised $30K that way with real garages. And Ralph Nader only earned a total of $5K that year in salary, or at least so the lying fuck claims. It's a lot more work than it sounds like, but it's a painless way to give after you're all tapped out with giving.

by stevehigh on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 06:30:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think your analysis is correct but... (none / 0)

stevehigh posted on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 06:30:19 AM EST:
"...
On the natural, Lieberman is in the catbird seat, which is why he did what he did. He gets a fair chunk of the Democratic vote, a bunch of Republicans, and a shitload of the large Independent faction. If you're Holy Joe, why NOT run?"

Joe is running because being Senator is all he knows at this point. However, your observation about the split in the vote is mistaken. CT independents break on the war and domestic policies exactly the same at CT Democrats. Any difference in response to Lamont stems from non-affiliated voters' not really following the campaigns until after the summer vacation season and Labor Day.

We have seen erosion in Lieberman's position, just as he experienced in the primary season running up to the primary election. Lieberman has two debates he will be participating in and they will likely devastate his candidacy. How does Joe continue to sell his nostrums when the electorate gets a chance to actually see Lamont? He doesn't and his candidacy falls apart.

Lieberman now confronts a nasty little problem - his reliance on Republican voters. Where does he turn when Republican turnout starts to get depressed because of the Republican Congressional sex scandal? Remember, CT non-affiliated break the same as CT Democrats on the issues and concern for the Constitution and distaste for Dubya. Those groups get energized to throw the bums out because of the scandals. No amount of Republican money can actually buy votes for Joe at this point. His Republican money backers might as well recognize that they're contributing to Joe's retirement fund.

by VizierVic on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:43:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think your analysis is correct but... (none / 0)

That's god to hear, about the two debates. Will the Republican be included? This does come down to winning over independent voters in CT.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 08:29:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

Why couldn't posts 2 + 3 on this subject have been added as comments to the already front page thread about Lamont and Lieberman?

- As to your point, I suspect you are preaching to the choir. An effective insight would be one that will make the folks who don't already know this pay attention.

by PghArch on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 10:54:42 PM EST

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

Why isn't Lamont on this like STINK ON SHIT???

He should have this cut into one of his ads asking the question of whether Lieberman can be trusted to support the Democrats in Congress or whether he will, like he always does, give a FREE PASS to the Republicans no matter what they do!

That would be a heck of a lot more effective than the ads Lamont is showing NOW!!!

by JackBourassa on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 11:00:19 PM EST

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

What is especially maddening to me (as someone who wishes bipartisanship was a good idea) is how easily Lieberman could have used this.

"This is another example of the excess partisanship on Capitol Hill. It's shameful that Dennis Hastert and the Republican leadership were more interested in their partisan majority than the safety of Hill pages. Some things are just wrong, and this is one of them."

Done and done. Wins with Dems? Check. Digs at partisanship? Check. Allows Joe to uphold his "moral center" (or whatever) position? Check.

Nope. Not Joementum. He decides to give up his moral superiority in the name of protecting Hastert. Do any other Independents think the Hastert cover-up shouldn't be criticized? Come on. Joe, don't be scared of that "R." Embrace it.

by jhupp on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 11:28:06 PM EST

I agree with Lieberman (none / 0)

Lieberman is saying that partisan frenzy is stupid.

But what he is not saying, is that this is a GOP frenzy -

The GOP has a clear list of people that they call to do marketing for their party -

They call Newt Gingrich , for example.
His job (and he is, no doubt, paid) is to
say that the Democrats are worse.

They are going all over the media, trying to get their face in the public eye -

This is a frenzy on behalf of the GOP to cover up for failure. They have been in a frenzy for years.

Joe Lieberman should be more clear.

When democrats say congress, we don't mean "congress" between small boys and older men.

I think its important that Lamont put together
a list of all the things the republicans have been doing and go on the attack -a senator stands up for the rights and interests of his or her own state.

Ned Lamont, if he is aggressive in removing things like pedophiles, people destroying the constitution, torture camps, war mongers, and evangelical hysterics - will rise to higher stature than any of Joe's committee appointments -

America is hungry for change. A revolution promises that those who are willing to give all will be at the head of those who were willing to stand with them.

Pull out the stops. Lieberman is just meandering - he would have seriously kept the VICE in vice president.

.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven

by heyAnita on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 08:54:05 AM EST

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

I don't know if Lanny Davis advises Joe. Or Joe makes the consensus, but whatever group that is responsible for the Lieber-uber-mind can not do a better job in writing Lamont's copy.

These guys are so wrong about this scandal and everything its unbelievable. And the think was you knew they were gonna be wrong from the moment Larry Davis opened his mouth on Larry King and said we don't want to "politicize" Foley. Joe is now standing up for Hastert who has been hiding and condoning this scandal for at least 3 years!

Joe Lieberman supports republican pedophiles over democrats. Three new pages came forward, and it was obvious to anyone who's been watching Foley was both a long time wreckless predator and there would be a bottomless and easily discoverable pit of evidence showing so. And now Joe has himself on video none-the-less showing the world and the state of connecticut just how bad his judgement really is.

The Lamont team needs to bury Joe with Mark Foley. Just show how much money is coming from big republican donors and how much Joe is now inhock to the same guys protecting the pedophile all because he doesn't have the character to admit he was wrong and should have stepped down when he lost the primary. The ad campaign should literally show that "Joe has no character".

by smacfarl on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 12:09:21 PM EST

Re: Video of Lieberman Backing Hastert (none / 0)

a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 a8 a9 a10 a11 a12 a13 a14 a15 a16 a17 a18 a19 a20 a21 a22 a23 a24 a25 a26 a27 a28 a29 a30 a31 a32 a33 a34 a35 a36 a37 a38 a39 a40 a41 a42 a43 a44 a45 a46 a47 a48 a49 a50 a51 a52 a53 a54 a55 a56 a57 a58 a59 a60 a61 a62 a63 a64 a65 a66 a67 a68 a69 a70 a71 a72 a73 a74 a75 a76 a77 a78 a79 a80 a81 a82 a83 a84 a85 a86 a87 a88 a89 a90 a91 a92 a93 a94 a95

by estebban on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 05:15:14 AM EST

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.