Can Lieberman Survive Iraq?
According to this Time Magazine article, “With bloggers, consituents and many party officials still angry about his support for the war, Connecticut’s moderate Democratic senator is fighting for his political life” Yes this does sound bleak doesn’t it? In fact you would need to get to the bottom of the article to see what Joe is up against:
Lieberman is facing the toughest challenge he’s had since wining his Senate seat in 1988, a Greenwich millionaire cable company executive named Ned Lamont who is tapping into an anger from both local and national Democrats at Lieberman for taking positions at odds with the Democrat orthodoxy. The liberal blogosphere has made defeating Lieberman one of its chief causes of 2006, poring in thousands of dollars to Lamont’s campaign and constantly bashing Lieberman, especially for his fervent support of the Iraq War and standing as the strongest Democratic supporter of President Bush’s policies there. Even celebrity Democratic supporters, like George Soros and Barbra Streisand, have donated to Lamont’s campaign.
“He’s too likely to support the President, particularly on this war,” Lamont told TIME. “It takes away from the Democratic voice.” Polls show Lieberman’s lead over Lamont, once more than 40 points, has shrunk to about 15, and Lamont is gaining more and more support. If he loses the primary, Lieberman is leaving open the possibility of running as an independent, in which case he would be able to rely on the support of moderates in both parties who are still in his camp. But that might alienate Democrats, who are the biggest force in this blue state. Susan Voigt, head of the Democrat committee in Lieberman’s hometown of New Haven, said she would have to reconsider her support of Lieberman if he ran as an independent.
So, let’s recap that: Joe is winning by 15 points in the polls, BUT Soros and Streisand gave money to Ned, the cable guy..hmmm Other than Iraq, what does the cable guy have to say?
Lieberman does have one thing going for him: Lamont is not a particularly charismatic or compelling candidate. As he spoke in New Haven at a book signing for the Democratic activist David Sirota last week, he looked the part of a politician, with his carefully cropped hair, blue tie and a light, folksy manner. But he seemed almost reluctant to answer the policy questions people asked him, at one point being so deferential in suggesting Sirota answer a question that a person in the crowd declared he wanted “the candidate” to respond.
Other than his opposition to Lieberman’s war support, Lamont doesn’t have much of a campaign platform: his stump speech is largely devoid of anything beyond the jobs, health care, and education boilerplate that Democratic candidates always offer. And even on Iraq, his views seem less than defined. Last week, as Lieberman announced he would oppose two different Democratic resolutions in the Senate ” one that called for troop withdrawal by July 2007 and another that called for a gradual withdrawal starting this year ” Lamont told TIME he would have supported the proposal for troop withdrawal by July, while his campaign manager Tom Swan told the Hartford Courant the same evening that Lamont “wouldn’t necessarily vote for” that bill. (The campaign now says Lamont supports a withdrawal by next July)
So the cable guy has about $90 million, but he can’t buy a platform? That is what you get when you have kossacks pulling your strings and the media at your beck and call!
June 27, 2006 - 01:07 PM on June 27th, 2006
More Democrats should be listening to Lieberman. He’s rational, sensible and KNOWS. While I don’t support all of his policies I do believe he understands what we are fighting against and in foreign policy issues the Dems would be well advised to listen to him.
I also believe that if more politicians played like him there would be less hostility and maybe, just maybe, more progress.
Streisand and Soros are fools and you know what they say about fools and their money!!:mrgreen:
June 27, 2006 - 01:19 PM on June 27th, 2006
Lieberman is one of the few Dems who makes sense.
The Dems will fall bigtime next election. Not that the Republicans are so great. But the Democrites leave little choice for the rational voter.
June 27, 2006 - 01:32 PM on June 27th, 2006
Whats Joe LIEberman trying to prove how many times he can stick his foot in his mouth?:razz:
June 27, 2006 - 01:32 PM on June 27th, 2006
I think you are right Robert. Here in Maryland we have Michael Steele for Senate and he is an awesome candidate. We also have Ron Miller who is running against Steny Hoyer and of course our Governor Ehrlich is hugely popular. These Republicans I feel good about but some of the others, well,
Let’s hope that when the fall comes they finally get off their high horse.
June 30, 2006 - 08:37 PM on June 30th, 2006
Honestly BonBon, it’s not their high horse I want them to get off of. It’s another member of the equine genus.
If there were ever a better time for a third party to pop up and knock off a few incumbents, I can’t think of it. Democrats are going off the deep end to pacify a small minority of their liberal fringe while ignoring the bulk of the JFK Democrats and presenting no plan to actually do anything.
The Republicans are spending like drunken sailors on shore leave and refusing to actually take a stand against the idiotic ramblings of Kennedy, Murtha, Pelosi and Reed thereby pissing off their conservative base.
All it would really take would be a well financed party with the ability to stand up and take a solid stand backed by facts to strip away a number of voters from both parties.
Things like:
cut taxes to stimulate growth,
cut spending to keep the deficits down,
hold schools accountable and close or revamp those that aren’t making the grade,
make welfare and other handout programs dependent on increasing education and getting a job,
CLOSE the Border.
Develop an amnesty program for illegals here with very limited parameters (French model works for me, 6 years of honorable active military service) and jail or deport any who refuse to comply. Most will leave voluntarily once they realize that the immigration laws are going to be enforced and they can either leave voluntarily with all of their possessions, or be deported with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
Jail any illegal caught entering the country for 6 months BEFORE deporting them. Illegals in the Maricopa County,AZ jail for conspiring with a coyote to be smuggled into the US have stated that they never expected to be arrested. They simply expected to be deported and be able to try again the next day. Had they known that being caught was going to leave their families without income for no less than 4 months, they would’ve reconsidered their decision to break the law. Border Patrol agents tell stories of catching and deporting the same illegals multiple times a week. It would save a lot of time if we simply threw them into a tent city type holding facility down by the border. More would be caught because the Border patrol wouldn’t have to chase the same invaders on a daily basis, many would decide that the financial hardship of being caught wouldn’t be worth it and stay home, and once deported they might be a little less likely to try again. If all else fails, they’d at least only be out there causing problems for the Border Patrol on a semiannual basis. BTW the laws already allow for detaining illegals for 6 months before deportation, all that Congress would have to do is authorize the money to build and staff the facilities.
I could guarantee that violent crime in Phoenix would go down while these illegals were cooling their heels in a detention facility.
Hmmm, I wonder if we can get at least ONE of the parties to adopt these suggestions and actually act on them. Naaah that might make too much sense.