
Why is supporting Joe Lieberman more important than winning back the House?
Joe's base of support lies among Republicans, according to the new Quinnipiac numbers. That means his whole GOTV operation for November will require him to bring Republicans to the polls (assuming no new entrant in the race to replace Schlessinger from the Republican side). This will hurt the three local House races the Democrats are counting on to help them win back the House. And yet, some in the DC Democratic Party are openly supporting Holy Joe, including one who is a senior leader in the DSCC, Mark Pryor. Others are quietly issuing supportive statements for Lamont before taking off like the Road Runner for cover.
This is political malpractice of the highest order. I repeat: why is supporting Joe Lieberman more important than winning back the House? Let's also not forget the effect of Joe's GOP GOTV on the governer's race, where DeStephano needs help against Republican governor Jodi Rell.
The elected official wing of the Party must take away any claim Joe has to being a Democrat, and do so dramatically. Lamont's numbers among Dems in the Quinnipiac poll must and will rise, even as he broadens his support among independents, as in his approach through his WSJ op-ed yesterday (online subscription required). But this effort also requires active Party involvement: there's no room for wiggling any longer.
The goal here should be to strip Joe of any scintilla of Democratic credibility from the mind of the most "low information" voter in CT. That means a full party effort to rebrand him from what he's been able to pretend to be all these years. Eighteen years of branding as a "Democrat" needs to be undone in two and a half months. That takes a coordinated effort, and every wasted day counts. It's doable, but it requires unified commitment and action.
This is a gut check time for the party: are the people with the D's after their names Democrats, or will they allow Cheney's sock puppet to turn what should be a "tsunami" election into an ebb tide? Passive, listless Lamont support must give way to active, aggressive advocacy for the choice of the state's Democrats.
There's no way to sell a "New Direction" for America while remaining in any way associated with Sister Joe. Party insiders can't have it both ways. The decision to make of Joe a smoldering political crater needs to be made and made like yesterday. Lamont has to stay mostly positive, but surrogates need to be brutal. That means us and it means the party establishment. ("Together, we can do better?")
Harry, go ahead and strip him of his seniority. Chuck, go after his donors (Remember what you did to Hackett? Do it now to Joe).
If you make Joe into a martyr, he can't help but unleash his inner a**hole. He simply can't help himself. That will drop his numbers. Then he may have to announce he will caucus with the Republicans, breaking his prior (useless, worthless) promise. At the very least, he will be asked the question, which makes his loyalty (or self-serving lack thereof) a campaign issue and a character issue. Fine.
Then we have a nice clean "New Direction" versus "more of the same" election. This can bring the independents back to Ned, because the more Joe does his insufferable martyr routine, the more people abandon him. The more he campaigns, the more he drives up his own negatives.
Once it's clear to all he's bleeding support in the polls, the hard core conservatives themselves will begin go after Joe because he's not really a "conservative." Tribal dynamics will resurface. Once they see him losing general campaign support, his new friends will leech away. He's only attractive to them as a Trojan Horse candidate anyway, so once he loses his disguise, he will lose popularity and enthusiasm on the right.
In 1992, Bill Clinton effectively rebranded the Democratic Party away from its base by dissing Sister Souljah. Well, maybe the sclerotic base needed it, maybe the times required it, but these are new times. A genuine "New Direction" requires a foil, and Joe is it. It's time to "Sister Souljah" Joe and come home to the majority of Americans who want a real wave of accountability in Washington and against Bush. Joe is the anti-change candidate, and Lamont is the change candidate. It's that simple.
Harry, Chuck, Nancy, Rahm: it's time to get on board, for real. For extra credit, give Sister Joe a wedgie: ask him publicly if he supports the federal judge's ruling that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional. C'mon: you won't believe how fun it is! If he supports the court, his new wingnut friends will abandon him and look for a true authoritarian cultist candidate, instead of mamby pamby faithless Joe. If he comes out against the ruling, you have a true accountability narrative to buttress your "new direction" theme for November. See how easy this is?
Graphic courtesy of annatopia.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
PACH!
ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NSA PROGRAM HITS A SNAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COLBERT!
GREAT POST…really right on
Pach - you hit that one out of the park!
Dim bulbs like Senator Pryor ought to think long and hard about supporting Leaverman. Progressives are in the ascendancy within the Democratic party, and they aren’t likely to forget…
give Sister Joe a wedgie:
And hang him out to dry with it. Great post as always Pach.
Watching the GOP triangulate Lamont-Lieberman-Schlesinger makes me realize that Dems can’t use this strategy successfully this year. Lamont is this year’s bright line — either you are with us or against us. Straddling the line, a la Biden, is unacceptable.
As if we needed more evidence that TradDems are captive of their own corporatist base, as GOPLite: their attempts to triangulate and keep the money in their corner as they give lip service to supporting Lamont.
Any word yet on John Edwards’ appearances today in the Land of Steady Habits?
Mary @ #2 - Yuppers! That’s my town! I’ve been waiting and waiting for Judge Diggs Taylor to render this decision.
No sub required:
Ned in the WSJ
and even the IDIOTORIAL Board at WaPo has figured out — this Administration is really serious about putting more journalists in jail.
WaPo - But but but but but but but but but - - Isn’t Being Your Very Most Devoted Apologists ENOUGH Mr. President?
Absolutely dead on. Thanks for bringing up the selling of Paul Hacket down the river.
Lieberman has been in the Senate for 18 years. He has scratched a lot of backs. To insiders, it makes sense to provide comfort and aid to a friend who you know and like. But at the party level, a “more-than-equal” member is to work for the benefit of the party.
This is why Cheney is supporting Lieberman. Introduce hypocracy into the democratic party and Rove will be able to get the corporate media to expose and feed on it. If this is the result, I can see a President Cheney entourage goose-stepping down Pennsylvania Avenue in January 2009.
Look at the bright side Joe, you will always have Hadassa.
Question
Through his committee work and accompanying classified status, what secrets might Schmoe Loserman be sitting on?
OT -Dee, I’m so excited, I’d like to do the happy dance. It sounds like she ruled against them on data mining, but I don’t think they asked for SJ on datamining, so I have to read the opinion later.
And then the ATT Trolling hit Judge Walton (although I don’t have oodles of faith in the 9th) —
It’s nice to see that there are still some uncorrupted lawyers on the bench. It makes it that much more depressing to see the list of judges this adminsitration has at bat now, and the ones they’ve already cycled the last few years.
I AM ABOUT READY TO EXPLODE.
How dare anyone - outside of the Democratic voters in Connecticut - have any right to say anything about who should be supported for senator from our state.
HEY EVERYONE. We voted. We made our choice. Now get in line behind us or shut the fuck up!
Pachacutec !!!
abso freakin’ lutely outta park Pach
love, love, love your point about Hackett !
earlier Incan Sex God Wisdom fueled my comment #64 in first morning thread
http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....f/#respond
oh yeah, we forgive, but we don’t forget
Those three Democrats running for Congress in Connecticut… How are they being impacted by Joe Lieberman’s second bite at the apple?
I imagine they aren’t very pleased by the situation.
I’m sure they would like to stay out of the whole mess, rather than endorse Ned (and anger Joe-supporters) or endorse Joe and anger us. But, they HAVE to wish that this thing were all over with. And since Ned Lamont can’t be expected to withdraw after winning the nomination, the logical thing is for them to quietly push for Joe to withdraw.
We should email these three Dems and try to get them to pressure the DSCC (including Mark Pryor) to put it’s big foot down and tell Joe, this is over. It’s in their best interests. They may not want to do it publicly, but it sure as hell isn’t going to help them if this goes all the way to November. It’s simple self-preservation.
cosmo @ 6
Harry, Chuck, Nancy, Rahm: it’s time to get on board, for real.
I can only wonder that maybe reality hasn’t quite slapped them hard enough.
Is it possible that they are quietly watching to see what
actually happens wrt Lamont and Short ride ? The winds have changed, but those in the bubbles can’t feel the wind.Control of the House should be foremost on these peoples minds yet they won’t denounce Lieberman even though he is a De Facto republican.2006 will be a watershed year. Maybe they will find themselves in the same spot as Rummy, increasingly irrelevant.
twolf1 — what bright side can hadassah look on?
this is why ned’s so important — he’s exposing the furtive backscratching that goes on
Not sure Gerstein’s worth what RGJoe’s paying him, if he’s gonna claim RGJoe credit for the Homeland Security Department. Is August the best month to trumpet your guy’s “present-at-the-creation” relationship with DHS? Katrina Anniversary incoming!
Joe’s handling of Katrina should be hammered - that was HIS committee, his baby, his “Gang of 14″ pal Collins that he can “reach across the aisle” with etc —- WH told them to suck eggs, it was NOT going to turn over info.
Lieberman said, “Yes George, whatever you say.”
Ask him:
Did Bush FLAT OUT LIE about there being no warning or way to know NO was going to flood?
Did Bush fail to follow his OWN ADMINSITRATIONS National Emergency Plan - a plan that put the PRESIDENT in the center of the decision making responsiblity, while he went off and played air guitar and had cake?
What did YOU DO ABOUT IT JOE?
Pach: you’re assuming that, despite Schumer’s and Clinton’s and Reid’s ”support” of Ned Lamont, that they really want him to win, and Lieberman to lose.
Perhaps their tepid ”endorsements” are nothing but cover, in that they have absolutely no intentions of undertaking the remedies and actions you prescribe?
Perhaps, in the great D.C. world of AIPAC and K Street, it already has been determined by his fellow cash recipients that Joe will be keeping his seat in the Senate, whatever it takes?
Discuss.
roger the lodger @ 20
She’ll always have WATB’s massive ego to spoon with on those cold, lonely CT winter nights.
Mary for now - TPM Muckraker has some juicy bits from the ruling. Might tide you over for now.
Link on Gerstein: http://www.newhavenindependent.....ghts_g.php
Thanks JWR - sheez freakin louise -I didn’t realize Judge Taylor issued an INJUNCTION!
Damn!
Hadassah can always count on big pharma to supply her and HoJo with some happy pills to dispel the nekkid truth come November!
Mary at 26 — yeah, she took the BIG step. This is going to be quite the haggle.
We are another step away from democracy. Both Ned Lamont and Alan Schlessinger have won their respective party primaries. Yet the incumbency machinery in Washington DC has decided that the will of the voters means shit and winning at any cost is what matters.
Taking and holding power is all that matters anymore, using sham elections as just another tool to accomplish that goal. I am really angry at so-called Democrats who sit in Washington choosing sides with their elite buddies over the democratic desires of the American People.
If Lieberman isn’t stopped, and stopped soon, it’s not just Congressional races in Connecticut that will be affected. The confidence that we even have a say in selecting our government will suffer severe damage.
August 17, 2006
Senate Republicans Will Back Lieberman
A source at the National Republican Senatorial Committee confirmed in an interview with The Politicker that the Republican party will not help Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger (R) “or any other potential Republican candidate in Connecticut, and it now favors a Lieberman victory in November.”
Said the source: “We did a poll and there is no way any Republican we put out there can win, so we are just going to leave that one alone.”
Mary.
yeah Mary, even I got the full strength and weight of Her Honor’s ruling - SWEEEET!
gawd, Joe is toxic!
(great post, Pach…)
About an hour ago, Franken’s cohost said, in “breaking news” that the NRCC was supporting Lieberman. Can’t find it on their site, though.
WAH-HOO! PACH!
NAILED it! (& u thot I wuz a hopeless peacenik, eh?!) I’m with ya.
Just so long as folks let Ned be himself, with a nice strong positive image, tough as he desires to be, but classy & squeeky-clean. (He’s got terrific political instincts & people-skills!)
Prediction: Ned will bring it on home.
Joe’s snake-oil-sale will turn rancid in the bottle.
Attention Democratic leaders;
August 17, 2006
Senate Republicans Will Back Lieberman
A source at the National Republican Senatorial Committee confirmed in an interview with The Politicker that the Republican party will not help Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger (R) “or any other potential Republican candidate in Connecticut, and it now favors a Lieberman victory in November.”
Said the source: “We did a poll and there is no way any Republican we put out there can win, so we are just going to leave that one alone.”
Reprinted in it’s entirety due to the short length.
http://politicalwire.com/archi.....erman.html
OT - Mary - Ditto re: the 9th…
Pach! Good on you! Great article, great fervor.
I had to share this quote I came across from Madame Chiang Kai-Shek because it fit the current Neocon admin so well -
‘Every clique is a refuge for incompetence. It fosters corruption and disloyalty, it begets cowardice, and consequently is a burden upon and a drawback to the progress of the country. Its instincts and actions are those of the pack.’
Okay, back to work now…
Sorry Meta, I was typing while you were posting. *g*
Joe’s snake-oil-sale will turn rancid in the bottle.
It’s gonna be a very tricky campaign for him. He’s gonna have to spend a lot of his time speaking in code to the republicans and avoiding the public.
I hope the campaign is working on some Daily Show type ads, with Joe taking contradictory positions. And I hope Spazeboy has some energy left.
“It is so ordered”!
Bustednuckles @ 38
The more the merrier!!
Joe = Sister Sold-ya down the river
Bustednuckles @ 36
Well there you go.
Called Dorgan and Conrad. Said we are keeping track online just who is supporting the democratic primary winner or the loser. What would that say about the national party if they support the loser?? They will call me back. They better, or I will call again.
OT
Glenn has a detailed analysis up on the warrantless wiretap ruling.
punaise @ 42
Bwahahahah you’ve done it again punaise, perfect. Joe = Sister Sold-ya it is. Sister Sold-gya’ll would work too.
A money quote from Glenn’s piece:
EPU’d –
The best post on LieberLiar’s website crap is by emptypockets at The Next Hurrah — Lieberman’s Internets Problem –
Can get some front page luv, to SpotLight LieberLiars website smear of Ned Lamont?
OT-
So does this unconstitutional ruling mean that the preznut broke the law and we can and should finally impeach the fucker?
WA-HOOOO!!!
Mary, I just heard the Detroit word on the car radio driving home from errands — YA - HA!
WHERE’S LHP?! WHERE’S IMM?!
oboyoboyoboyOBOY
Politics Wire — Good news, bad news
lotus - don’t blow a gasket :-)
‘ear! - that’ll take the edge off.
Can we start a letter/fax campaign to Reid to get Loserman off all his committee’s immediately?
*ilson46201 says
August 17th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Ouch. Sliding into the dugout that far is going to leave a serious raspberry.
NSA ruling is fucking great, but it will be appealed, and allowed to continue as it “works up through the system,” which means SCOTUS. Possibly.
And I don’t have the greatest confidence in that crowd.
Nonetheless, a great ruling and awesome press.
*ilson46201 @ 51
Triangulation is killing us. Pro-choice suburban soccer moms are gonna vote for little Ricky.
about Pryor
From the Arkansas Times Blog
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Re: Sen. Lieberman (R-Ct.)
A blog reader files this report from NE Arkansas:
I was at a “Brown Bag” Question and Answer lunch today with Sen. Pryor in Jonesboro, Arkansas. I asked him the question, “How can you be a member of the DSCC, with a mission to elect Democrats to Congress, and at the same time support Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont?” The room got very quite. With a smile on his face he said, “Don’t ask me to be consistent.” He then went on the rationalize away the problem by talking about how Joe was such a good guy and the Democrats need moderate voices, blah, blah, blah. He also said that in his view, the Republican party was becoming more conservative and the Democrats, more liberal. That is why he supports Lieberman. What a bunch of hooey!
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/.....n_rct.aspx
isn’t it true that joe spent much more money on the primary than ned did?
ned has shown he knows how to marshal the firepower of interest groups like fdl, how to squeeze value out of every last nickel: he knows because he’s had to meet a payroll — this subverts hillary’s power: she’s used to throwing money around like a drunken sailor — i suspect big dog sees this clearer than his loving bride does
Ned Lamont is a refreshing candidate and I’d love to see him win but it is more important that Rick Santorum lose. Dems cannot lose sight of the bigger picture.
Holy Crap!!! NSA program unconstitutional!!!
There is still hope.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI.....index.html
wondering aloud ” does someone who is a candiate running as an independant, when they file do they not file as independent? and does that not mean they have to register as an independent to be able to run as an independent?” so many questions unanswered, but to me, this is an important one.
Being that he is claiming he is a democrat still but if he is registered as an independent. that automatically takes him out of the democratic party right then and there as soon as he filed.
if thats the case, he should 1.) be referred to as his partys name, not as a democrat. 2.) be automatically stripped of all his rank and priveleges in the democratic party and taken off all committees he is a part of.
please someone correct me if i am wrong on this and if i am right, someone should try and get a copy of the paperwork or something.
Thanks in advance
Seven of Six @ 53
Yep, That is what we need. Something big to grab their attention. My little call drifting in isn’t going to do it.
That’s a non-starter. Even Feingold says that Lieberman was elected to his seat and is entitled to his committees. What is not a non-starter is to announce that his seniority will be set at “freshman” if he wins the election.
Wrt to the NSA, I guess that FISA Court just got a whole lot more popular.
blue e thanks for the link.
Judge Taylor:
Bong honey, hole onna that thang a minnit — I’m still a-happy-dancin’ and doan wanna drop it onna flo’!
One of the nice little side benefits of making campaign contributions is that you get on the mailing lists of Schumer, Emanuel, et al, who of course hope to hit you up for more money. What’s nice is the postpaid return envelope they always include. Here’s what one such wending its way right now to my penpal Chuck Schumer says:
Sorry for the long comment, but I do want to make the point that people in the netroots are also DONORS, which means we have ACCESS, even if it’s only a little dab of it. If we all underline the conditions for our maintaining or possibly expanding our donor status, we can move these slugs in the right direction. So, if Chuck Schumer is your penpal too, don’t just toss his mailings — send him a little note and let him pay the postage.
Only a couple of more weeks until Labor Day- then candidates start firing with real ammunition. Most analysts now think that dems have a slightly better than even chance of taking the house- senate a long shot- but not out of the question. Going to be a very active campaign season- and one with major implications.
Hope Dems can seize control- not cause they’re heroic- but because they ain’t goopers.
Yes! What a great post. We need to put Joe in the light, for all Connecticut voters to see what he really is: the no-change/no-accountability candidate. He needs to be stripped of the phony “unity” and “centrist” marketing lies toot sweet.
The DSCC needs a HUGE wake-up call. I imagine a campaign spanning the entire NetRoots that completely SHAMES them into embracing Ned and (metaphorically) strapping Joe to his rape gurney and pushing it out into I-95 traffic.
More Judge Taylor, here on separate branches of govt, as checks and balances, managing to work in not only Clinton v. Jones (be careful what you wish for) but also a Kennedy (Swing is the new black) separate concurrence:
Here are a couple of Senator Mark Pryor reply’s to questions from two separate rural Arkansas meetings yesterday.
hat tip to http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog
I was at a “Brown Bag” Question and Answer lunch today with Sen. Pryor in Jonesboro, Arkansas. I asked him the question, “How can you be a member of the DSCC, with a mission to elect Democrats to Congress, and at the same time support Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont?” The room got very quite. With a smile on his face he said, “Don’t ask me to be consistent.” He then went on the rationalize away the problem by talking about how Joe was such a good guy and the Democrats need moderate voices, blah, blah, blah. He also said that in his view, the Republican party was becoming more conservative and the Democrats, more liberal. That is why he supports Lieberman. What a bunch of hooey!
I was at a breakfast town-hall thing with Pryor at Paragould earlier in the day. He said pretty much the same thing, except he also said that he was backing Lieberman because Lieberman had helped him on the DHS committee procure funding for Arkansas projects. However, he was not the least bit flippant, and was his usual folksy self. I gave him points for actually bringing up tough issues like gay marriage, estate tax, and immigration, and clearly stating his positions and voting record on them.
Give Pryor a break, folks. While I don’t think supporting Lieberman is a good idea, you who are encouraging him to walk away from the Democratic Party have a death wish. If you like ideological purity, join Rod Bryan, Jim Lendall, and all those other perfectly nice guys who are never going to be elected to anything. Pryor knows how to win under the toughest of circumstances, like 2002, when he was the only freakin’ Democrat in the nation to beat an incumbant Republican. We need more Pryors, not fewer.
I would add one other recent response from Sen. Pryor, he claims Senator Lieberman is his mentor in the Senate !!
What powerful (blog) times we live in when Paragould and Jonesboro Arkansas are hitting Pryor with these questions! Reading the AR Times blog over the last week on this issue has been, well, a hoot! Bottom line he has some support, but much more dissent. Our largest newspaper came out in support of Lieberman before the primary.
Thanks Firepups for turning the heat up in Marks kitchen.
Mfn: “Swing is the new black”
707!
Democratic Party is fucked. They can’t even get thier shit together even after a legal, no-word-of-theift, primary election. Lieberman and his five Senate cronies want a mulligan. Why should or would a plain, working stiff contribute money the fuckin DSCC. The regional vice chair for the South is supporting in the general election a man who lost in the primary. I think the Dems will come up two votes short in the Senate, and Lieberman will have nothing to do that.
The Democratic Party is a stupid collection of no-brainers.
I can’t be a puke and I can’t be a green, but I sure as hell wish there was somewhere to go.
blue e @ 57
For Pryor to arrogantly answer the question this way tells me that he is not feeling any real pressure from Reid or Schumer. That is disgusting and reflects poorly on all of them.
Let’s not let the DSCC get away with this country-club mockery of the Democratic party!
Paging Dr. Dean!!! Stat!
We also desperately need to unelect Nancy Johnson. What the heck does Lieberman care though? Both he and Johnson like BigPharma.
It also strikes me that Rell is a default “popular” gov. When in fact, it has been pointed out by one of the gov. campaign dems that she has “been in a coma for 6 years, or . . .?” Still some dems think she’s an Ella Grasso. I’d love for the campaigns to strike that ball out of the park. [Rant]
Yoo can bet Abu Gonzales is bouncing around like a BB in a tuna can trying to spin this already.
Mary– Thanks for the great news. Has Redd commented yet?
Way EPU’d:
Susan in Iowa @
65
Heeeeeyyy…Macrackerena!
…And Joey’s still the Bride Of Dikula, apparently.
;>)
rwcole–Glenn has a detailed post up on the ruling.
The reason Joe’s running: Hadassah’s employers have no reason to pay her the big lobbyist buck$ if she doesn’t have a powerful Senator for a spouse!
rwcole @ 78
Christy has yet to speak ex cathedra
WaPo’s (Eggen) lede (NYT & LAT still going with AP):
Federal Judge Orders Halt to NSA Wiretapping
Sha in post 16 notes:
”How dare anyone - outside of the Democratic voters in Connecticut - have any right to say anything about who should be supported for senator from our state.”
Well, of course others do. Senators have tons of roles and duties that affect the entire country, so I think whoever wants to can support whatever senator from whatever state in any way they legally can.
However, only Connecticut voters will ultimately decide the issue. And hopefully send Joe to a lucrative consulting job for big pharma or the insurance companies, and he’ll have to try and be nice to Ned Lamont for his paymasters. heh.
cbl @ 31
Woohoo !! Doing a happy dance. *S* One for the little people. May we impeach now?
Joe D. @ 74
Don’t paint the whole party with the DSCC brush! These people are deeply conflicted and show that they are more loyal to their friends than to their party or the voters. On the other hand, the DNC, run by Dean, is doing the good work to make the party about the people again. We need to put the DSCC in its place and not cede it to the arrogant people like Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar and their corrosive ilk.
*atou at 75
I don’t know if it is arrogance or loyalty.
to Eureka in post 72, I don’t think Pryor should leave the party. He is free to support whomever.
However, he SHOULD leave or be removed from his position in the DSCC. He is basically at odds with the mission of that organization, and working against it essentially.
Yes, MA’AM, Your Honor!!!
More Judge Taylor, in pissed mom voice, saying “Give Us An Inch & We’ll Take A Mile” is not a Legal Principle.
Look cookie boy, Congress, with FISA, gave you so much leeway, I’m not even gonna say if the leeway they gave you was constitutional or not — but damnit, they gave you homeplate on the first date, without you even having to pick up a bat.
In enacting FISA, Congress made numerous concessions to stated executive needs. They include delaying the applications for warrants until after surveillance has begun for several types of exigencies, reducing the probable cause requirement to a less stringent standard, provision of a single court of judicial experts, and extension of the duration of approved wiretaps from thirty days (under Title III) to a ninety day term.
So what do you go and do with that?
[emph added ed]
She then very patiently points out — you can’t have more power than the Constitution grants you when, umm, your position is CREATED BY the Constitution.
[emph added ed]
If the Democratic Party “leaders” break with the party to support an Independent, then there’s something seriously wrong. If the Republican Party “leaders” break with their party (and don’t field a candidate) to support an Independent Democrat, then there’s something seriously wrong.
Apparently there are a few Establishment types currently in power who actually don’t support the democratic process. This is troubling, to say the least.
Along with the electronic voting machines scandal it indicates either a massive change from even a decade ago or it is just the revealing of what has been ‘normal’ in Washington for many decades. Either way this gnosis could enable the American public to really get a Democracy or it could lead the powerful to rebel, take over and establish an ‘out of the closet’ Fascist dictatorship.
It’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Well done *ilson.
For those not intimately familiar with the intricacies of Vatican posturing about
made upbeliefs about papal infallibility, here’s a link to a notoriously unreliable resource, the New Advent Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, about ex cathedraAnd one other thing.. one of the reasons folks may think the Repugs are good for defense etc. is that they do represent a more solid front, and that solid front does help them the closer they get to election days.
I think it would help the party with their image as a dynamic, strong, no-nonsense alternative if they did hand out some repercussions for actions that hurt the thrust of the party, like stripping Joe right now of his seniority.
How will Dems look on national defense if they can’t even herd their own members? Insanity.
Thucydides Jr. @ 86
I don’t think he needs to leave the party. I do think we need a better candidate in the next Senate election!
NYT has a photo of Her Honor and a link to the ruling (pdf).
http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin.....r=homepage
Are you an Anna Diggs Taylor democrat or a Joe Lieberman “Democrat” ?
Are you an Anna Diggs Taylor democrat or a Joe Lieberman “Democrat” ?
Are you an Anna Diggs Taylor democrat or a Joe Lieberman “Democrat” ?
Eureka Springs, AR @ 93
Wes Clark anyone?
All Hail U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor!
Would love to hear from the ABA right about now.
More Judge Taylor:
So, let’s see what kind of violations the Judge Points out.
Ok - spearation of powers doctrine and also —FISA for FIVE YEARS - Half a Decade, Ten Friedmans.
What else? Oh, just little things. Like the CONSTITUTION.
[emph added ed]
Then she mentions again “we tried to be nice to you” in what I like to think of as a kind of ‘you can lead a horse to water but you really ought to put a drunken ass in jail’ analogy.
[emph added]
Ok, I may be the only to think that analogy applies, but I can live with being a loner.
Anna Diggs Taylor for next opening at SCOTUS!
let’s see how long it takes for an Anna Diggs Taylor page to be created on Wikipedia
I wanted to post a post which was on the DNC blog, when someone asked WHY would CT. Dems be disturbed that Joe was also running, and voted 90% with Democrats. this gal said:
That would seem like a question with a simple answer, they don’t want Lieberman representing CT, he hasn’t represented them well for the last 5 years why should he be given the job back with state Democrats voted to fire him last week. This is like having the worst employee you could have to work with get fired and then come back as a contractor with another company on the same jobsite.
I think this explanation fits very well on why we do not want Lieberman to win, any way shape or form. If you are talking to John Larson, who said he would not be upset if Joe won, tell him this one!