A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

Donate to CT Dems

Ads on My Left Nutmeg

Contact Info

To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

Update: The Media Act As If Joe's Said This All Along

by: tparty

Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 22:04:46 PM EST

A few updates and other takes on the Lieberman Party moves of earlier today: Chris Bowers writes about Lieberman as the impediment to Democratic focus and unity on Iraq legislation, while Digby makes a good counterargument: that Reid may wanted Joe out of all caucus meetings on Iraq, not vice versa. Meanwhile David Sirota argues that Democrats would be better off if Joe switched, and others point out (as others have previously) that the Senate wouldn't automatically tilt if that situation came to be.

But you know what? It almost certainly won't. Lieberman is bluffing. He is guaranteed nothing if he follows through except a whole lot of pain. More below the fold:

tparty :: Update: The Media Act As If Joe's Said This All Along

The mere threat of tipping the Senate into chaos is the last card he has to play... and he's been playing it hard today. In fact, he may have realized he pushed it too hard, as Z. Byron Wolf of ABC News quoted a Lieberman Party spokesperson (maybe a spokesmoose?) walking this whole thing back, while participating in some run-of-the-mill mass amnesia in the process:

A Lieberman staffer told ABC today, "Lieberman's words speak for themselves. It is a very remote possibility. Senator Lieberman has no desire to change parties. He has no desire to change parties." (repetition theirs).
Not making a "Sherman statement" (as Al Gore would say in also not closing the door on his unlikely 2008 Presidential run) is not a new tactic for Lieberman. He told Time Russert on "Meet the Press" back in November after the mid-term election that he wouldn't rule out changing parties as Vermont Republican Jim Jeffords had done in 2001 when he became an Independent, temporarily giving Democrats control of the Senate.

Ah yes, it's not like Lieberman has ever made a "Sherman statement" on this. He's never said anything like "I'll die a Democrat". And his campaign has certainly never said anything like "Joe Lieberman has repeatedly said that if re-elected to the Senate, he will absolutely caucus with the Democrats." (Repeatedly.) It's not like saying he might switch parties is a "new tactic" or anything. He was saying it all campaign long? Right?

Greg Sargent has more:

No, the reason we keep highlighting Lieberman's hints about switching here at Election Central is simple: Because Lieberman said over and over before Election Day 2006 that he would caucus with Dems. Oddly, this fact is always missing from reporting on this -- and that's where the ABC thing falls down on the job, too. ABC makes it sound like Lieberman's main "tactic" in the recent past has been to not rule out a switch. But as recently as the fall of 2006 -- before Election Day -- Lieberman repeatedly assured voters that he would vote with the Dems.
This info is rarely included in stories about Lieberman. But really -- shouldn't this basic fact be in every single report you read or watch about this?

Yes, of course it should. Of course his breaking of a key campaign promise should be the lede of any story about Lieberman's party-switching flirtations.

You can "Spotlight" this post to local reporters to help make sure that it is. (More on The Spotlight Project here.)

Tags: (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Update: The Media Act As If Joe's Said This All Along | 7 comments

frustrating (4.00 / 2)

We were trying to tell people that Joe was a liar and had no integrity and then didn't believe us then.

Frustrating b/c had Lieberman said these things back in October, we'd be toasting Senator Lamont today.

Joe Lieberman and George Bush believe that our govt should cut and run on capturing Osama Bin Laden so that Bush and the neocons could invade Iraq. Despite no Wmds and no links to 9/11, Lieberman supports that decision.

by: bigdavefromqueens @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:56:33 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Didn't believe or didn't care (0.00 / 0)

Those looking for fairness in politics are barking up the wrong tree. Sad but true.

by: Scarce @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 13:00:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We should call Joe's bluff (4.00 / 2)

I have been a little ambivalent about the funding issue when it comes to the troops in Iraq, thinking a commander-in-chief is best suited to end the war in Iraq rather than Congress once Congress gave the said chief permission for war. But if our senator wants to dangle this little carrot (cut-off funding) as a prelude for him to officially become a republican, we should take it. All who are tired of this Iraq War should take Joe at his word and fully support the end of the War so that he would no longer be a Democrat.

"Constitutional crisis" be damned. I think the two biggest crises here would be Joe's and the Democratic establishment. The Democratic establishment's crisis is whether to actually listen (or not) to their constituents' ever-louder calls for troop withdrawal from Iraq without suffering any political backlash from the rest of the country. Grant it, this is truly a treacherous, but bold move to take. It would require a lot of maneuvering and politicking (read: get enough Republicans in Congress to support troop withdrawal) and a lot of good spin, or counter-spin to minimize any possible political damage.

Lieberman's crisis is if the Democratic establishment calls his bluff and leaves him behind. With his last weapon gone, he becomes just another partisan Republican--and an irrelevant one.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

by: connecticutyankee @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 05:07:05 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Spotlighted (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for providing the incentive for me to finally learn what the hell that "Spotlight" button does. Took me a few minutes to figure out how to use it, but well worth it - man what a great tool that is.

Considering how many people are listed with each publication and network on the Spotlight Project's website, it might be helpful for bloggers to suggest specific journalists, editors or producers to target. There must have been 40 people just at the NY Times. I tried to blast them all, but it only lets you pick 10 at a time apparently.

So I selected a variety of people I hoped would be interested including Keith Olbermann and good old Jenifer Medina.

by: CTPatriot @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 05:47:58 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Thanks! (0.00 / 0)

You're right, the list of reporters is kind of unwieldy... Next time I'll try to specify a few names.

by: tparty @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 14:38:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lieberman is holding the Democratic Party hostage (0.00 / 0)

Repubs hardly need to lose sleep over being in the Senate minority so long as Joe Lieberman is around and caucusing with the Democrats. Democratic Party leadership has bowed to Lieberman's every wish out of fear he will caucus with the Repubs. Party leadership has changed the make up of senate panels, stopped talking about Iraq during caucus meetings (since it makes Joe uncomfortable) and has generally done whatever Mighty Joe Lieberman dictated. Joe Lieberman is holding the Democratic Party hostage and progressives would be better off if they showed "Mighty Joe" the exit. "Get the hell out of here!" I say, "and don't let the door hit you on the way out!".

Sure, without Joe progressives would lose the control of the senate, but what is the use in having chamber control when you cant do anything about the war (the most important issue in the country). Though the Senate's failure to accomplish so much as a Non Binding Resolution on the war is not 100% Lieberman's fault, he does demand that his senate colleagues continue to push good soldiers into the meat grinder that Iraq has become. At least the house voted!!! When nothing gets done in a democratic controlled chamber, it makes the party appear weak, hurts every candidate with a little "D" next to their name, and weakens party chances of taking back the Whitehouse. At least when the Repubs had control we could blame them… (Granted we still do, but it's kinda lame when you're in power.)

The thing is, national Democrats brought this on themselves when they sided with a power hungry politician over the wishes of the local Democrats. When Connecticut Democrats voted Ned Lamont their nominee over Joe Lieberman, CT Dems were chastised by national Democrats as being disloyal and doing a great disservice to Democrats nationwide. The move was framed as a would-be disaster for the party, putting the potential Dem takeover of the Senate in jeopardy. Many national Democrats refused to campaign for Democratic nominee Lamont, out of loyalty to Lieberman. In the end, Joe Lieberman won reelection; due to some 30% of Connecticut Dems who remained loyal to their long time senator in part because national dem's gave them permission to do so (and also because 90% of Repubs backed Lieberman over their own embarrassing candidate).

Since winning reelection Joe Lieberman has been busy repaying that National Democratic loyalty by holding his Senate seat over Progressive Democrat's heads
Connecticut Democrats had it right when they nominated Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman. Hey, National Dems, maybe next time you should remember to show some loyalty to your own party's wishes.

by: mr B @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 13:03:12 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Too little, too late (0.00 / 0)

The national Democratic leadership didn't understand that CT was the start of a change that will have a dramatic effect on them. They thought that they could ignore the will of the "bloggers" and the little people. They treated us at the bottom like "pledge" (frat term, a pledge is lower that the whale crap at the bottom of the marianus trench - and thanks to ctkeiths brother, I know what that is :-) ).

In response the "progressive" movement is starting to understand that you can't win this war on ideas alone, you have to be able to show that you have the muscle to win by taking back what is yours (in this case, the Democratic party). That begins with being able to unseat Democrats that have lost their way through the primary process.

The problem is that the guy with the most money has the greatest voice (and unless you did something really really shamful, being in Congress is a pass to continue to be in Congress because you have a money raising machine where you trade your votes on corporate favors for campaign cash). So, the process of making change will start when we progressives start to put our money where our mouth is. And there are a lot of us, so that shouldn't be too hard or expensive.

Thus the start of electrealdemocrats.com (opening soon at a website near you). Where we will ask people to pledge $5/week to be saved to donate to progressive Democrats who choose to run against Blue Dog and DLC Democrats in the four weeks before the primary.

And how will it work? People come to electrealdemocrats and pledge to save $5/week for all of 2007 to donate at a later time to progressive Dems around the country. electrealdemocrats has a goal of 100,000 pledgers by the first primaries.

Then let's say that a progressive Democrat (say Joe Smith) wants to run against Rep. Ben Chandler (KY-06) [a Blue Dog Dem]. Joe Smith files and starts to build his organization. He makes clear his pro-family, pro-middle-class agenda. He starts to raise money and build his name recognition in a primary challenge. As he is doing this we post a page with his position on electrealdemocrats and people that are interested in taking the party back can get familiar with him. Chandler raised $1.04 million in the 2006 cycle, so he isn't going to be very afraid of a guy who is raising 10% of that, he's going to build his warchest for the general and ignore the gnat. Then, about 4 weeks before the election electrealdemocrats asks the people who have pledged to start to donate some of the $250 they saved to Smith's campaign. In a perfect world the 100,000 would all donate $10 giving the Smith campaign a windfall $1 million to use in the last four weeks to hammer Chandler about his constant GOP positions and how he is part of the problem.

If all works out, electrealdemocrats will have an effect on over 25 races in the 2008 cycle. If all works out real well, we will be able to eliminate 25 Blue Dog and DLC Democrats and replace them with progressive Democrats. In the general we will most likely focus on doing the same to GOP members in marginal districts (in support of Dr. Dean 50 State strategy).

See, the lesson to be learned from the dump Joe Lieberman campaign is that we have the power to effect change and that power is by activism. In the begining we were a joke. Before Lamont jumped in I was called about timetogojoe.com and every reporter basically asked why I was tilting at a windmill. Well, when you get enough people pushing at the base of the windmill, you can tip it over.

The Democratic leadership thinks we learned that it is futile to run against an incumbant because Joe is still in the Senate. What we learned is that you can run and knock an incumbent out, and that we have the power to do so. 2008 will be the election cycle that we leverage that power, and leverage small donations into a network of change. It's the time that we will "buy" our Congress back (since that seems to be the only thing that they understand).

We have only just begun to fight.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

by: Met00 @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 18:45:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]