Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It Wasn't About the War

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:02 AM
Original message
It Wasn't About the War
Link to original: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080906Z.shtml

It Wasn't About the War
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Wednesday 09 July 2006

At 8:52 p.m. on Tuesday night, the report came in that Senator Joseph Lieberman had lost his home precinct in the Connecticut primary. Just after 9:00 p.m., the talking heads on Fox News began telling their viewers that Lieberman was finished. Just after 11:00 p.m., Lieberman stepped to the podium to congratulate Ned Lamont on his victory. Lieberman, with this loss, became only the fourth incumbent Senator in all of American history to be beaten in a primary.

Moments after congratulating Lamont, however, Lieberman announced his intention to abandon the Democratic party and run as an Independent in the general election. He spouted sad lines deploring partisan politics - one wonders how partisan politics are possible within a one-party primary - and sounded for all the world like the Republican-in-sheep's-clothing the Left has been painting him as for several years now.

It was, in the end, a disgusting display.

The noise levels from the media's chattering classes will spike for a few days with this result. The bloggers won the election for Lamont, they'll say. The Loony Left is taking over the Democratic party, they'll say. It was all about the war, they'll say. As ever, the shortest distance between two points, as far as the news media is concerned, will be the dumbest, simplest answer possible.

It wasn't about the war. Not all of it. Iraq, of course, was the central motivating factor. Connecticut is a predominantly Democratic state, and some 80% of Democrats strongly oppose the occupation. The news out of Iraq has been uniformly dismal, and it was impossible to forget the manner in which Lieberman had stapled himself to George W. Bush and his collapsing war plan. This was the Democratic Senator, recall, who warned us all that criticizing Bush was terribly dangerous to the country. He said that only a few months ago.

Columnist Joe Conason weighed in as the polls closed. "The fundamental argument of the propagandists," wrote Conason, "is that opposition to the war in Iraq represents an obsession of the far-left fringe, and that the Democrats will be destroyed by any attempt to extricate our troops from the quicksand. That claim is easily refuted by every reputable survey of public opinion over the past year. Support for the Bush administration's conduct of the war, and for the President himself, has been declining steadily, in fact, since the end of 2004. And every anchorperson, pundit and squawking head seeking to suggest otherwise is either inexcusably ignorant or purposely lying."

There was more to it than Iraq, however. Lieberman's voting record has been, for the most part, right between the Democratic yardsticks over his 18-year tenure. But he has blown it on a number of notable occasions. Lieberman supported the disastrous Bankruptcy Bill, following a pro-corporate voting record that made him Enron's favorite Democrat.

William Greider's seminal article "Enron Democrats" tells the tale. "His most important crusade," wrote Greider of Lieberman, "was protecting the loopy accounting for corporate stock options. Nervous regulators recognized early on that the profusion of stock options had the potential to deceive investors while cheating the tax system - illusions that could drive company stock prices to impossible heights. Yet when employees eventually cashed in the options, the companies claimed them as tax deductions. This two-way mirror is symptomatic of the deceptive bookkeeping that permeated corporate affairs during the boom and the bubble."

"Back in 1993," continued Greider, "when the Financial Accounting Standards Board proposed to stop it, Lieberman went to war. 'I believe that the global pre-eminence of America's vital technological industries could be damaged by the proposal,' he warned. The FASB, he insinuated, was politically motivated or simply didn't grasp the bright promise of the New Economy. Lieberman organized a series of letters warning the accountants' board to stop its meddling. In the Senate, he mobilized a resolution urging the Securities and Exchange Commission to squelch the reform. It passed 88 to 9. The regulators backed off - and stock prices soared on the inflated earnings reports. Whenever FASB tried to reopen the issue, Lieberman jumped them again. He was well rewarded by Silicon Valley and auditing firms."

It wasn't just the war. It was a long, slow slide that eventually tipped Lieberman's applecart. It was a process of insinuation into the cash-and-carry culture of Washington, DC. It was a series of astonishingly bad votes on incredibly important issues. It was, above all, political cowardice; Lieberman attached himself to Bush while Bush was riding high, and was unable to extract himself as Bush's popularity collapsed.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out from here. Big-time Democrats like Senators Lautenberg, Clinton, Obama and Feingold have signaled their intention to support the Democratic nominee from Connecticut. If the GOP pulls the same kind of trick we see in Pennsylvania - funneling cash to the third-party candidate to undercut the Democratic candidate - it will come to light, and Lieberman will be hard-pressed to defend himself.

This was historic. Opposition to the war was the main issue in this primary, and it was proven to be a winning issue. The effect upon the upcoming midterms will be dynamic. Several Democratic hopefuls will have to do some tall stepping to get around their own Lieberman-like positions on Iraq if they hope to have a shot at the Oval Office in 2008. The media will, of course, blast them for flip-flopping, thus undercutting their nascent campaigns. In short, the deck has been shuffled by Ned Lamont.

Do not think this was all about the war, however. Joseph Lieberman has been constructing this petard for some time now, out of a variety of disparate pieces. On Tuesday night, he was hoist with it. Time will tell what it will all mean for the rest of us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. You are absolutely correct ...
but Americans want sound bites, not facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. "Americans want sound bites, not facts."
So true. If it doesn't happen on American Idol or America's Got Talent, they aren't interested.

Great article, Will!

K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. Good job Will.
Well done.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. great analysis
He had been falling down for a long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
5. Right you are. But, had to look this one up:

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mntleo2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
34. Soooo, What Does A Petard DO?????
I am just wondering...Does not look very "handy".

Cat In Seattle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mntleo2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
35. Aha! Websters "Splains It All!
I especially loved the term "to break wind..." :eyes:


pe·tard ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-tärd)
n.
A small bell-shaped bomb used to breach a gate or wall.
A loud firecracker.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Word History: The French used pétard, “a loud discharge of intestinal gas,” for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. “To be hoist by one's own petard,” a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means “to blow oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices.” The French noun pet, “fart,” developed regularly from the Latin noun pditum, from the Indo-European root *pezd-, “fart.”


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


petard

n : a explosive device used to break down a gate or wall
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4_TN_TITANS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
6. Thanks, Will.......
Not accepting that he's strayed far from representing his constituents on big issues, and abandoning the party completely simply says it all....

Buh bye Joe!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrueFunkSoldier Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. I didn't know what...
a petard was, either.

Great write-up. Nicely done. I hope that Dems vote buy into the media hype that Lamont can't win and that he is part of the Loony Left. So by extension, at least 60% of Americans are members of the Loony Left because we disagree with this president. It's just sickening. I even had to school my roommate who calls herself a liberal but is succumbing to the MSM propaganda and Repug talking points.

Don't believe the hype, America!! Connecticut voters didn't! I hope Americans won't either!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exlrrp Donating Member (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
7. Too dam overdue!!
I have been wondering for years if some Democrats were in the pay of the Republican party and no one made me suspect trhat more than Lieberman.
Do we have a party thats an opposition party or a go-along party? Lieberman represents the latter. I want the former.
Kick ALL the halfass Democrats out and start with Hilary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
9. Do you think 'the kiss' symbolized Lieberman's
selling of his soul? Are the Pukes trying out a different strategy: instead of getting the Dems to become traitors (a la Zell Miller), why not procure a Mole/Infiltrator?

Lieberman is no more a Democrat than Cheney is...IMHO. He cares nothing of the People....all he cares about is his EGO and retaining POWER. He's just another man suffering from Napoleon Complex....just like Rummy (5"6') and Cheney (5"8').
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
10. I agree and I think that Lieberman staying in gives us the chance
to talk about all of the other things that Lieberman/Bush and the GOP are and were wrong about:
- Terri Schiavo
- privatizing (aka "Piratizing") Social Security
- vouchers
- abandoning the hunt for bin Laden (in favor of failed nation building in Iraq)

I would love to see Michael Schiavo interviewed today or any time between now and November and arrogant Joe Lieberman is making that all the more likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
11. Oh please...it was completely about the war
If Joe hadn't been so supportive of it, none of this would have happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
connecticut yankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #11
28. Not for me it wasn't!
I've never liked Joe, and have never voted for him (except for Vice President, because I had no choice).

He was put in the Senate by the Republicans and has always been supported by them and has always favored them.

He's much too conservative for me. I welcomed the opportunity to get rid of him.

And there are many other Connecticut Dems who feel as I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
12. great article - recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
13. It was about Politicians forgetting who they really work for - The People
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
14. For me it started with his pious Senate speech
"But the truth is that after much reflection, my feelings of disappointment and anger have not dissipated, except now these feelings have gone beyond my personal dismay to a larger, graver sense of loss for our country, a reckoning of the damage that the president's conduct has done to the proud legacy of his presidency and, ultimately, an accounting of the impact of his actions on our democracy and its moral foundations.

The implications for our country are so serious that I feel a responsibility to my constituents in Connecticut, as well as to my conscience, to voice my concerns forthrightly and publicly. And I can think of no more appropriate place to do that than on this great Senate floor."


In light of his continued support for the War in which we lose a small battalion a month of killed or seriously wounded soldiers, this drivel is even more revolting. Anyone who thinks lying about a blow job is morally worse than 100,000 dead should not be in the US Senate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Felinity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. That was about Clinton, right? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #20
39. Right - Bill Clinton nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. Amen to that, TomC! (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
15. joementia has been
hoisted on his very own "petard". I'm guessing he's blaming it on everybody but himself and whinging full blast.

You're right, it's going to feel even better to beat him in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GalleryGod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
16. Ask Mom & Dad, Will. Tom Swann is the 2nd Coming of Gene Pokorny.
Thus endeth the lesson.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
17. Just because they aren't capable of complex though and analysis

Doesn't mean we all are.....

Just because they have no deep ethical guiding principles....doesn't mean we all don't.

They can't stand us because we challenge them. They don't have the integrity or the depth to understand our motives.

They desperately need to marginalize us because they fear us. They fear truth.

They are cowards.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
18. Thanks for saying something that needed to be said, WilliamPitt
Edited on Wed Aug-09-06 09:03 AM by Lasher
And thanks for saying it well. Here's something I posted in another DU thread:

He's not the only Democrat who has supported Junior's invasion of Iraq. And if you look at his overall voting record, there's others who have done a worse job of supporting values that are shared by most Democrats. The thing that really irks me is, he has enthusiastically sold out fellow party members to get attention for himself.

But there's more to it than Lieberman's endorsement of the Iraq war. He has consistently supported Republican talking points. This has made him quite popular on the Sunday talk shows, but apparently most of his constituents have finally had enough.


Mr. Lieberman isn't the only nationally known Democrat who still supports the Iraq war. But he ... has joined the Bush administration by insisting on an upbeat picture of ... Iraq that is increasingly delusional. Moreover, Mr. Lieberman has supported the attempt to label questions about ... Iraq and criticism of the administration's policies ... as unpatriotic. How else is one to interpret his warning, late last year, that "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"?

And it's not just Iraq. A letter sent by Hillary Clinton ... credited Mr. Lieberman with defending Social Security "tooth and nail." Well, ... that's not what happened. In fact, Mr. Lieberman repeatedly supported the administration's scare tactics. "Every year we wait to come up with a solution ...," he declared in March 2005, "costs our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren $600 billion more."

This claim echoed a Bush administration talking point... But the talking point was simply false... There's more. Mr. Lieberman supported Congressional intervention in the Terri Schiavo affair... And ... Mr. Lieberman showed far more outrage over Bill Clinton's personal life than he has ever shown over Mr. Bush's catastrophic failures as commander in chief. ...

Mr. Lieberman, who is often described as a "centrist," is or was very much at odds not just with the Democratic base but with public opinion as a whole. ... Mr. Lieberman's defenders would have you believe that his increasingly unpopular positions reflect his principles. But ... the common theme in Mr. Lieberman's positions seems to be this: In each case he has taken the stand that is most likely to get him on TV.

You see, the talking-head circuit loves centrists. But a centrist, as defined inside the Beltway, doesn't mean someone whose views are actually in the center... Instead, a Democrat is considered centrist to the extent that he does what Mr. Lieberman does: lends his support to Republican talking points...

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/05/paul_krugman_ta.html


Edit for housekeeping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mntleo2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
19. For Me It Is All About Being A Republicrat
I do not know about anyone else but the war epitomizes for me the national Democrat's propensity to be more Republican than adhering to the traditional Democratic principals, wouldn't you say?

Many prominent Dems voted for years for things that have hurt We The People and did not get it as to why the country so divided now. They might see more uniting if they took the side of the Little Guy, rather than siding with the theocratic corportocracy. They voted for the war, the bankruptcy bill, Welfare Deformed, NAFTA, The Communications Act, tax breaks for the rich, they stood up and applauded Bush at his SOTU speeches, they think things like gay marriage and flag burning are "important" when our kids are dying in Iraq, children are going without basic needs, health care is going out the roof in cots, the world is burning both in war and in global warming, and people here are lining up at the soup kitchens.

On Kos I had a diary that sank like a rock, but I made up my own dream "agenda" for the Dems that I wish would be on their front burner. It was in response to Governor Richardson's response to Bush's Saturday morning speech. I am no professional wonk, but sheesh I AM a citizen and I do watch what is going on. Here it is and add to it if you want to because well, I think it is time to stand up and tell the Dems we need more than some damn flag burning amendment, we have some serious problems, here:

Here is the link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/29/22115/6005

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaraMN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
22. Great information, except for one thing:
It's not Wednesday, July 9th.
:rofl:

Nice job, nonetheless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
23. it was all about the war
Edited on Wed Aug-09-06 09:11 AM by Snivi Yllom
Let's not kid ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. you are right---I live in CT & it was all about the war. Dems here had no
major problem with Lieberman otherwise.

The only other issue was that Lieberman hadn't bothered to visit us since he went "national." No one had seen him and he couldn't bother sending even surrogates to help out local candidates for the State Legislature in Repug districts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. BTW, I think Lieberman is going to win
Prediction: the independents in CT and general dissatisfaction with both parties will lead to a win for Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #31
41. prediction: the support for Lieberman that came from Democrats
will dry up as the rank and file support evaporates, leaving Joe with nothing but indies and repubs to divide the opposition vote if he remains in. I don't think the repub can win on his own either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
40. I agree. Conn. had a chance to react to the other things
they didn't carry as much momentum as the war and occupation, along with Lieberman's strident defense of it and Bush's role.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Felinity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
24. Great breakdown of the topic
But here's my bottom line:

It's the BushFactor, Stupid.

The Republicans will spin this till we're all dizzy, but they are shaking in their shoes. If this is what happens to a three term Democrat who got too close to Bush and his agenda, what are the voters going to do to them?

Anyone have a spare petard? I hear it's a seller's market at the RNC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
26. Yes, yes it'll come to light that Joe is getting $$ from Republicans, and
yes, he'll be put into a defensive position on the subject. But that doesn't mean that as soon as this fact is exposed he'll throw up his hands and withdraw. Rightwing support of Joe is no secret and when the money trail is displayed for all to see, there isn't exactly going to be a gasp of surprise emanating from the public. It'll be more like an emanating "duhhhhhh!"

Right now, to me, it looks likes Joe will take this money without apology and throw the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
27. Lieberman voted against the Bankruptcy Bill....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupinBushcountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. I had to correct someone else
on this and I am no Lieberman fan What they saw was a vote for CLOTURE and yes he did vote against the BB.


Roll Call Vote #29: Motion to invoke cloture On Senate Bill 256 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005)

Lieberman (D-CT): Yea

Motion passes 69-31
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

But he did vote against the bill itself.

NAYs ---25 Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

Here is a list who voted for it:


Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)

Will I agree with your article but you do need to correct the bankruptcy info.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. In process
Also, everyone on TV yesterday was saying "Only the fourth incumbent Senator to be defeated." Turns out it is actually four since 1980.

Changes coming posthaste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. sometimes the Cloture vote is more important
Edited on Wed Aug-09-06 01:22 PM by LSK
Now I dont know. I missed the debate.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupinBushcountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. The cloture vote
Edited on Wed Aug-09-06 02:11 PM by fedupinBushcountry
Cloture


The cloture rule?Rule 22?is the only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking a filibuster. A filibuster is an attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter. Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm


14 Dems voted for cloture on that bill. The motion was brought up by McConnell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirtyDawg Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
29. While the loss may have been...
...about the war, Lieberman's decision to run again as an Independent is strictly about the money. If he's no longer in the US Senate, he's off the AIPAC payroll and who knows just how much that'll cost him. All one needs to do is read the stuff on 'Consortium News' of the deceit and skulduggery between bushco and Israel, along with the neocon's mid-east compulsion to know that our only chance is to get some folks into Congress that won't take that AIPAC money - money that we've given them in the first place only to have it come back in the form of bribes and contributions to pols so they will vote for more money to give to Israel...so they can buy more...well, you get it.

It'll be testy...Lamont will have to walk a fine line in calling spades, spades in this general election - after all if you even remotely appear to be critical of Israel, or supportive of a more even-handed approach to the mid-east, you get the yiddish version of 'swift-boating', and then you're labeled 'anti-semitic' with your only remaining course of action is to check yourself into the Betty Ford Clinic. Again I say the only way politicians can be honest about Israel and the mid-east is to not take their money and to pray that Israelis come out in protest of their own government's policies so that we'll have a side we can take that they can't ridicule and scoff at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeahMira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #29
46. Not about AIPAC money, for sure!
I doubt AIPAC has to pay Lieberman very much for his support! He would support their point of view for free.

There are plenty of Jewish people, though, who are seriously troubled by the course of events in Israel. Mr. Lamont can talk with them and listen to what they have to say. The Jewish Peace Lobby, for instance, would be glad to have more people know where they stand and what their proposals for peace are all about.

I doubt the Israelis will protest their government's policies because they are looking at the suicide bombers and attacks on their border villages and, like the U.S. after 9/11, they are frightened.

Somehow, the Israelis and American Jews have to be convinced that Palestinians are not out to exterminate them from the face of the earth, and Palestinians have to be convinced that Israelis don't intend to exterminate them either. Difficult with so much apparent evidence to the contrary and so many bad memories. Difficult, but not impossible... in time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chat_noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
30. a picture is worth....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
32. I'm waiting to see the Republican Party moved some of its
powerful people over to an independent party, which they'll hijack along with DINOs. It will be christened as a new non-partisan party but will morph into a new version of the ugly Republican Party we know now.

Just speculating. Everything old is new again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhollis Donating Member (88 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
33. Why I voted for Ned Lamont

I went to the CT polls yesterday and voted happily for Ned Lamont.


I was happy because Joe Leiberman had all ready pretty much made up my mind for me. About a month ago he had announced that he was going to start a petition to run as an independent "just in case" he lost to Lamont in the primary. This is clearly a man who places himself and his own desire for a job in Washington, DC before the desires and will of his constituency.


I read Bill Clinton's biography. It was a bit long. He tended to ramble. But the clear lessons he learned when he lost his second race (as an incumbant) for governor of Arkansas ought to be a lesson to anyone who aspires to public office. Mr. Clinton found out what happens when he goes against the general consensus of his constituents. What he did was raise fees that were an odius burden to most of his state. He lost his next election for Governor on those issues.


Joe Leiberman ought to have read Clinton's book. He strayed too far from the base of his constituents. He failed to "dance with them what brung him." And because of that, he was disinvited to the dance.


But before he even lost the election he announced his candidacy as an independant. It was at that time that the entire Democratic Party apparatus ought to have distanced itself from him. He is all ready spoiling to be a spoiler and cause a Republican to win his Senate seat.


And this is all due to the fact that he places himself above those who would vote for him. Please note: I did not vote against him due to his position on the war in Iraq. I'll grant him the possibility that he has been duped (as has much of the country) by the Administration. I am happy to have a moderate who will vote on both sides of the aisle with the understanding of support from his or her constituents. The one reason why I voted for Lamont is Lieberman's announcement of his independent candidacy, which happened well before the primary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
43. Wrong as usual, Pitt.
Get over to Counterpunch and read Cockburn and St. Clair's piece on the defeat. They've nailed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. The Sweetness of Lieberman’s Defeat
Here's the link to Counterpunch, where you will find the Cockburn/St Clair article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/

I read the article, which conveyed a sentiment similar to that of yours. That is to say, the Connecticut primary wasn't all about the war. It is quite clear that the war in Iraq was an important issue, and the only relevant one to some people, but there was more to it than that.

Some might conclude from reading just the title of your article, however, that you meant to infer that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with Lieberman's downfall. If I may be so bold, and since you are editing your article anyway, I suggest that you consider a slightly different title, such as It Wasn't All About the War.

Lasher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mntleo2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-09-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Hoo Boy Counterpunch?
Do we REALLY need to assault our eyes and minds with those people's writings? Everytime I read Cockburn (and "Cock" is a good first syllable there) I want to strangle the guy. Not just because I disagree with him, which I usually do, but because he is such an arrogant prick.

And how do you know Will is wrong? Do you think Cockburn or yourself speak for the majority of Dems against Lieberman??? Will certainly spoke for ME as a Democrat. I have a lot more issues with Lieberman than just the war (speaking of arrogant pricks ...) :eyes:

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
48. .."It's NOT just because Joe supported the war...."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1822201

SoCalDem Fri Aug-04-06 03:18 PM
Original message

It's NOT just because Joe supported the war.. Candidates pay attention !

I keep seeing articles written about poor Joe Lieberman getting hell from democrats because of his support of the war, and how this senator or that will support him or not if he goes independent..

IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT IRAQ !!

It's about JOE !...and it's about others like him (Zell Miller comes to mind) who claim to be democrats, and at every possible opportunity they are in the Rose Garden, elbowing their way into a picture standing next to *², grinning like a loon. These Rove-ian adventures cost our party a LOT. Our credibility is shot, every time a "commentator", "editorialist", "pundit" says.... "the bill has BI-partisan support" or ..."Even Joe Lieberman agrees with Bush on...."... ..."democRATs voted for this too..."

It's one thing to work together, and it's another entirely to cozy up to and to provide cover for the vilest republicans out there.

In a perfect world, democrats would get equal airtime and there would be plenty of time to show the nuance of this vote or that one, but we do not live in a perfect world.

Lieberman (and a few others) get themselves elected and then spend most of their time ingratiating themselves to republican powerbrokers.

The 90% voting record that he's so proud of is another anomaly too, because 90% of the things that democrats believe in, routinely get voted DOWN..so there is no danger to Lieberman (and the others) who bravely vote FOR something that they know will be defeated..

The 10% is the dangerous percentage.. When he votes WITH the republicans, that legislation actually gets passed..

It's like getting an A+ on a take-home practice exam that is "not for credit" versus an F on the final exam..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC