Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Inouye Drops Lieberman

After initially backing Sen. Joe Lieberman's Independent re-election bid, Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye -- one of the elder statesmen in that august body -- has pulled his support after the Connecticut Senator made comments Inouye perceived as critical of the Democratic party.

"I told some of my friends after he gave his speech saying the party isn't the party he knew that he doesn't get my support," Inouye told the Honolulu Advertiser.

Inouye was one of a handful of Senators who had stuck with Lieberman despite his defeat at the hands of wealthy businessman Ned Lamont in the state's Aug. 8 primary. Sens. Ken Salazar (Colo.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) are still supporting Lieberman.

By Editors  |  August 29, 2006; 10:28 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democrats, Unions Vital for Lieberman
Next: McGavick Confesses, Will Voters Absolve Him?


What happened to "comments" on the next two Chris Fixes?

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 30, 2006 10:21 AM | Report abuse

The posts starting at 6:02pm signed JEP and continuing through Michael at 6:20pm with the exception of ZofK are what I have been trying to say all along, and yes, "you all", do it much more "gooder" than me.

Posted by: lylepink | August 29, 2006 7:23 PM | Report abuse

When was the last time Iran struck any US city? Never. Iran may hate us, but they can't hit us right now. Lots of people hate us, doesn't mean we go around attacking everyone who does. They may funnel some money for terrorists, but taking down their regime will do little to stop the terrorist threat and wil lliekly only strengthen it.

I'm so sick and tired of this right-wing line that overwhelming force is the only way to deal with this issue and American might will always make right so don't question it. Israel blew it with Hizballah in their most recent war suffering from that same type of hubris, and we're failing in the war on terror because we stil lshow no interest in fighting this war smart. It's not that one side wants to cut and run and one side wants to stand and fight, it's that one side wants to indiscriminantly start killing to make themselves feel better and the other side actually believes in formulatiing a coherant strategy that will actually do us, and the world, some good. Attacking Iran would be disasterous for the US right now. It would strengthen the hand of jihadists, further strain our own resources, and accomplish very little. They are years away from a nuke, have no weapons system that can reach us, their only viable weapon is terrorism and those prospects by Iranians are little at best.

Iran is not al Qa'eda, the limited support they give one another is based on temporary convenience of having the same enemy. They're not going to hand them over nuclear capabilities that al Qa'eda might well turn on them just as easily as turning it on the US, Iran is a much more vulnerable target than we are and al Qa'eda hates Iran as much as they hate us. We need to focus on the real enemy and the real immediate threat to us, the last thing we need is another distractor that's only purpose is to rally support around failing Republicans who don't want us to see that they've been wrong every time before.

Posted by: Michael | August 29, 2006 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"Wow, K, you did it again, in a single sentence you summed up the entire ignorant, arrogant confusion of the Republican base."

If you're referring to kingofzouk, you didn't catch half of his GOP-off-base confusion. Let's examine his other FauxNews-engendered misconceptions (marked with >):

> What part of "We want to kill the Great Satan" don't you get? Is that not threatening enough for you? what will it take - another direct strike on downtown USA?

Again proudly showing his (base voter-typical) belief that Saddam attacked us. They will believe anything the president insinuates. If the president told them, "every morning that the sun comes up a child gets abused", you can bet they would be out waving their pitchforks and rabidly calling for an invasion of the sun. They would be cute in their naivete if they weren't so dangerous to the country's well-being.

> how about 10 airlines going into the sea?

How many of the 19 hijackers were from Iraq? Zero. How many from Iran? Zero. There were 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Again, it's understandable that you are so confused because of the news shows, hate radio and politicians you constantly listen to. They are lying to you. They have been for years now. It's time for you to wake up.

> do you really want to live in 12th century Persia?

No, which is why I don't vote for political parties controlled by medieval fundamentalist wackos who want to replace science and reason with their Bronze Age tribal religious texts.

Posted by: B2O | August 29, 2006 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Why in heaven's name is Lieberman supporter Mark Pryor still listed as vice-chair of the Dem Senate Campaign Committee?

Chuck Schumer & Harry Reid would be well-advised to tell Pryor to drop Lieberman or get his name off the letterhead, and let him find some other way to claim national stature. Are they afraid Pryor and Joe will caucus together and constitute a 'Sanctimonious Blowhard Party?'

Could it be time for Bill Clinton to return to Arkansas and claim Pryor's seat for the Dems?

Posted by: Leesburg | August 29, 2006 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Wow, K, you did it again, in a single sentence you summed up the entire ignorant, arrogant confusion of the Republican base.

"but it seems like most Dems would rather live in slavery than die for liberty."

Just how far do you have to stretch it to make this ridiculous scenario real?

Do you really believe this war in Iraq is protecting us from slavery?

And just whose liberty are our soldiers dying for?

The contractors who get paid ten times as much for driving those oil trucks? Or the Sunni and Shia militias' right to own a grenade launcher???

Thanks again, for showing just how brainwashed "you people" really are.

"but it seems like most Dems would rather live in slavery than die for liberty."

Considering the sorry state of our affairs in Iraq, what a ridiculous statement this is! Do you really believe your own words?

If so, you need therapy.

Or just stop reading Ann Coulter.

Slavery... do you actually think any of you neocon wannabe's even have an inkling of what the word means?



Posted by: Anonymous | August 29, 2006 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"another direct strike on downtown USA?"

Maybe one downtown, maybe even a dozen downtowns, but KofZ, don't give these rogues more power than they are due...they can not destroy us the way we feared during the nuclear age threat, and people like you want to ascribe that same destructive power to a bunch of terrorists with box knives and dirty bombs.

They do NOT have a thousand nukes pointed at the U.S. You talk like they hav toe power to attack every town in Kentucky.

Yes, there is no doubt, terrorists can cause us great harm, but not on a scale sufficient to cause us all to spend our lives in quivering, nuclear fear, waiting in spineless trepidation for some terrible event.

Churchill was plagued by people like the KofZ, because in a time of real nationwide danger, they created whimpering weakness in their fellow citizens.

In response to these KofZ types, Churchill wrote, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

And we also have to watch out for fearmongers like KofZ, the neocon Republicans and Karl Rove, who depend on our fear to promote their war-for-profit their agenda.

Does anyone know who sold those cluster bomblets to Israel?

Wasn't Carlyle, was it?


Posted by: Anonymous | August 29, 2006 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Is there anything in your book that is worth dying for? that is an old question but it seems like most Dems would rather live in slavery than die for liberty. all the soldiers from WWII and before would be heartbroken at your lack of a moral center and your addiction to comfort and cowardice. exactly what are your values - low gas prices?
We killed a lot of Germans in Dresden and Hamburg, a lot of Japs in Hiroshima and Tokyo. We wanted to win the war and end it. discuss what happened to you and your kind since then.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 29, 2006 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Hey KofZ, read your Bible a bit more carefully, I think you might find the simplest version of that "Great Satan" right here in your own confused perspective;

From your 2:54 post..."I presume by worst you are referring to the absolute number of civillian deaths? How did this become the measure of success or failure? how about GNP..."

Thanks for such a clear picture of what is really wrong with our foriegn diplomacy, you could not have stated it better if you had wanted to...

Sorry, KofZ, but in my Book, the absolute number of civilian deaths is NO DOUBT the real measure of any war, not all the vain and bloody glory of battle, or any of that abundant black booty, can make up for all the innocent blood.


Posted by: Anonymous | August 29, 2006 5:02 PM | Report abuse

What part of "We want to kill the Great Satan" don't you get? Is that not threatening enough for you? what will it take - another direct strike on downtown USA? how about 10 airlines going into the sea? Maybe we can talk it out - they are so misunderstood. It is probably because of their bad childhood. After all america is a force for evil throughout the world and deserves to be viciously attacked by random murderers since america is so free, so happy and so at liberty. do you really want to live in 12th century Persia? woman will not fare well nor will your precious rights be respected. this blog would be the first thing to go. you all need to get real and remember those lessons from the kindergarten playground. and I don't mean the name calling.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 29, 2006 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Are you willing to bet your life on that timetable? Just where does your expertise originate? did drindl teach you this, because in that case, it must be so. she knows everything. HA ha.
As far as I know Paris never killed anyone and her lifetime of leachery is much shorter so far. But I do think she has the moral compass to be a Kennedy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 29, 2006 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I also agree with you most of the time Drindl, however our opinions may be slightly different, for the most they are pretty well in line. The main thing I am concerned about is the senseless loss of life for money, yes MONEY, there is no other way to explain this, in my opinion. Iraq was and is no threat to us, that also goes for Iran. The reasons for this war are being "shot" down by no other than GW himself. Re: Press conference about a week ago.

Posted by: lylepink | August 29, 2006 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Iran a threat to the US? Maybe ten years from now assuming everything goes right for them and nothing can be done in any form of nonmilitary intervention on our part- just like Iraq was. Hardly just fine, but by no means worthy of getting us involved in another costly and potentially counterproductive war. Yet another false dichotomy from a conservative, shocking...

Posted by: Michael | August 29, 2006 3:56 PM | Report abuse

'I like Paris Hilton more then Ted Kennedy' -- you always prove my points.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 29, 2006 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I like Paris Hilton more then Ted Kennedy, in case you were wondering.
some of you have been watching too many movies. you think the President would manipulate the stock market by using the US military to attack another country? Incedible control over such a vast enterprise and despite being so dumb, according to you. another reason you all are in the minority. time to adjust the tin foil hat again. what false information - that Iraq was a threat to the US? I suppose you think Iran is just fine too?

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 29, 2006 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I usually agree with most of what you say lyle, but i'm afraid I think it's about oil too. How could it not be? How is that all our 'enemies' are oil states? How is it that our alleged prez and VP are oil men.

Sure Iraq has been an easy way to funnel off unaccountable billions of dollars to campaign contributers, but oil is right up there. Exxon Mobil made its biggest profit EVER this year. that's no coincidence.

Posted by: Drindl | August 29, 2006 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Just goes to show what I mean Zathras. Nelson can and will retain his seat if he runs again. I make no bones about my dislike for GW and the war is the main reason. The cost in loss of innocent lives, not to mention wounded, based on false information given to the people of this country and the other countries as well. How anyone could support a pack of lies to kill people is beyond me. This war is and has always been about money, not Oil as some would have you believe. Look at where the majority of the money is going. Surely not to GW's enemies. I do my best to state facts and if you or anyone can show me where I am wrong it will be appreciated.

Posted by: lylepink | August 29, 2006 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I know that you folks from other states are bored with the Connecticut race, but bear with us and give us our day in the sun. We're a small state and not a whole lot of anything else happens here (except an occasional NCAA basketball championship...).

I think what disappointed CT democrats and will continue to disappoint all CT voters is Lieberman's attitude, not his positions. We've disagreed with his positions in the past, but still had a certain degree of respect for him. After they way he handled the primary, some really truly ugly colors started to show. It became all too apparent that Joe was not for the Democrats, nor was Joe for the people of Connecticut. Joe is all about Joe, and its unfortunately quite pathetic. The only reason he has a chance now is because the Republican party in CT chose such an abysmal candidate. Its beginning to look like it was all a Rovian plan... hmmm....

Posted by: JOYfromCT | August 29, 2006 3:12 PM | Report abuse

JEP, yes you're sure right about the press. But I think it's a combination of things... laziness among them, and the fact that news divisions must now make a profit. For a long time they were independent and supported by the entertainment portion of the network -- now they have to make money. And unfortunately, a lot of Americans like to read garbage.

I worked for TIME magazine years ago, when PEOPLE was introduced. It was a huge success, and over the years I watched the editorial staff of TIME get defunded and the quality of coverage plummet, while PEOPLE kept getting all the resources.This all happened after the Corporate/Conservative Revolution, which changed things permanently in this country,more so than people realize. Now we live in a celebrity culture where people know more about Paris Hilton than they do their elected representatives voting patterns. It suits republicans very well for people to remain ignorant and focused on nonsense.

But it's also lapdog lazinss on the press' part... they want access to the politicians, they want the good cocktail weenies. And the republicans have all the best ones now. Not to mention that they own all the media outlets...all of them.

All I can say is, you're gonna see a lot of 'terror' in the next few weeks, and a lot if scary talk about Iran.

Posted by: Drindl | August 29, 2006 3:11 PM | Report abuse

If Lieberman has any hope of winning, he's going to have to, in no uncertain terms, vow to remain a Democrat and caucus with Dems for the entire term, and probably also vow to decline a cabinet position in any Republican administration. He'll likely be put on the spot in a debate and have to answer, and because of his reputation for being so honorable (whether it's true or not) he will be stuck with that decision or he will forever be remembered for being a self-centered opportunist when and if he does switch. He won't be able to use the classic "I didn't realize how much the party has changed/the party left me" afterwards, since it was confirmed where the party stood on him when the voters rejected him in the primary.

Posted by: Michael | August 29, 2006 3:07 PM | Report abuse


Those numbers equate exactly what I was saying, so long as they are put into the context of historical progression. Just look at Ned's unaffilated support from earlier Qpolls and the like, it has been on a constant increase. Besides the point that those voter registration figures are as of 2005, and in the last year tens of thousands of new Democrats have been declared in CT (29,000 in the primary season, without the predicted 'exodus' of Republicans who switched to Dems before the 2-month prior deadline). There has been no comparable boom in Republican registration. Mr. Lamont's positions are far mor viable to the unaffiliated, traditionally left-leaning majority which your polls lends only 36% support (by far the lowest of the current round of polls), and that number is ceratin to increase. In fact, Lamont needs only a 10% higher unaffilated rating, along with slightly improved Democratic support, to win (albeit by a small margin). Let Lieberman have 83% republican support, assuming Schlesigner gets 0% (which he won't). Might I also add that given the current registration stats, where Dems nearly outnumber Repugs 2-to-1, a 1% increase for Lamont in Dem support woud roughly equate to if Lieberman gained 2% Repug support. I'll take those odds, since Lamont stands to gain AT LEAST 15% more Democratic support in the weeks to come, based on heightened Republican/administration support for Joe.

Ned Lamont has been crisscrossing the state, attending every local event and house party possible, and establishing himself as a candidate in contact wth the people; Lieberman's campaign has been characterized by neocon mud-slinging and this laughable Osama character appearing at local malls. Like I said, I am on the ground here in CT, and let me tell you the mood everywhere is that the status quo is broken. Again, Joe has peaked, reached his ceiling of support, and it can only go down from here.

Posted by: bluestatepride | August 29, 2006 3:05 PM | Report abuse

PS: I also liked Moynihan. I don't have to agree with all of someone issues to like and respect them. I am not full of hate, bile and phlegm like so many around here.
Drindl as usual with her negative and insulting comments adds ugliness to all her posts. Get a life.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 29, 2006 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I presume by worst you are referring to the absolute number of civillian deaths? How did this become the measure of success or failure? how about GNP, employment, new building, savings, tvs sold, refugees, newspapers started, oil produced, etc. you decry how simple the consumers of news are with the emphaisis on sensational crimes but then you simplify a very complex international situation just the same way. There are reports that the Baghdad operation has resulted in a 30-40% decrease in murders this month. does that satisfy your yardstick? how about some of those other measures? how about the rest of the country? how about the effect on the region? Or does all that fail the 30 second sound bite rule? Is is called ratings, it is not some grand conspiracy. you have the actors all wrong. the press is overwhelmingly on the Dems side -and they still lose. the truth does come out.

take a look:

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 29, 2006 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Tina proves that she's just as clownish on every subject as she is about condi. Lieberman like FDR? Lamont, who tends to work very well with republicans in CT, like McGovern? Only in your dreams and Rove's talking points, Tina.

Lieberman was created and funded by William F. Buckley. Let no one forget that.That's why the crazy wingers like zouk love him so much. Do you honestly think they wouuld praise someone they think is 'liberal'? I'm rolling on the floor here, I'm lol. Give me a break with your hypocrisy.

And RMill, didn't Lieberman eviscerate Sanders recently--actually it was his man Gerstein i think, who said about Lamont, ' the only proof of his independence he can show is that he is slightly to the right of socialist Bernie Sanders on fiscal policy?'"

I don't think they'll be bonding anytime soon.

Posted by: Drindl | August 29, 2006 2:54 PM | Report abuse

The 12:22pm post signed JEP is a prime example of what controlling the media means. The month of July was the worst since the war in Iraq started. The month of August is well on its way to being even worse than July. Sometime ago I jokingly said something like I would put away my crystal ball so as not to take advantage of some of the younger folks. All I'm asking is to look at facts reported in our Liberal Media. This is a good place to offer our opinions and Chris is doing a good job by bringing this to us.

Posted by: lylepink | August 29, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Feel the Joementum!

Posted by: Greg in LA | August 29, 2006 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm so impressed that Tina made a post without mentioning Condi that I'm only going to make a couple of teensy, tiny little negative comments about it rather that taking it apart piece by piece like I'd normally do.

I'd rather have someone who is SMART on National Security than STRONG on National Security. Why is wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in a war against a guy who was never a threat to begin with instead of, I dunno, capturing Osama, securing our ports, etc. etc. etc. being STRONG on National Security instead of just plain STUPID on National Security?

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 29, 2006 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Who will offer Joe the chairmanship he wants? If the Dems win and then deny him and he can alter the balance - he will pull a Jeffords. Only this time the press won't call it bravery, they will call it self-serving. but the Dems winning the Senate is an extreme long shot, so it looks like poor old Joe is going to be left out in the cold -- no chairmanship under D or R rule. too bad, he is a Dem and very liberal, but for the most part honest and respectable.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 29, 2006 2:30 PM | Report abuse


"I believe that Sen. Lieberman has reached his ceiling of support, and will have a very hard time gaining any more traction from this point on."

From what basis are you making such a statement?

I have posted these numbers before but for reference:

State of CT
Voter Registration
Oct 2005

Rep 427,903 active
Dem 653,055 active
Minor 4,029 active
Unaffiliated 867,761
TOTAL active voters 1,952,648

1 : 1.5 : 0.01 : 2

Rasmussen states Lieberman is picking up 35% of Dem vote and viewed favorably by 69% of unaffiliated voters and Lamont 49% of unaffiliated voters.

Assuming Lamont is getting a full 63% of Dems taking out (undecideds), the rest of his 41% is made up of approximately:

17% of Republicans and 36% of unaffiliated or minor party voters

Lieberman is 30% of Dems, 53% of Reps and 55% of unaffiliateds

Schliesinger is 0% Dem, 25% of Reps, 1% of unaffiliateds and

Undecideds are 7% of Dems, 5% of Rep and 8% unaffiliated

Lamont needs to be much more concerned with his attraction of unaffilated voters than Lieberman needs to be of attracting more Repubilcans.

Posted by: RMill | August 14, 2006 12:34 PM

The chances for Lieberman to attract a larger share of Republican voters is actually probable as voters see Schliesinger has no chance. Like Zathras said in reference to Sen Nelson NEB, 1/2 a friend is better than none.

Also, the unaffiliated voters are the key and these numbers are breaking about even right now.

Posted by: RMill | August 29, 2006 2:08 PM | Report abuse


You're nuts. There is no one in Nebraska other than Nelson who could keep this seat in Democratic hands. 1/2 a friend is better than no friend at all.

Posted by: Zathras | August 29, 2006 1:46 PM | Report abuse

from the 1:29 post;
"Lamont who is taking the "bring the troops home now" view. and its pack has helped raise the ire of the anti-war/Cindy Sheehan group and they went to work to promote Lamont. The Daily Kos guy was also in Lamont's ads."

From her use of terms like "pack", it is obvious "Tina" still thinks these groups/individuals represent some kind of a lunatic fringe.

When and if she ever realizes these are mainstream people with mainstream issues, these are her fellow AMERICANS, and not her imaginary polar adversaries in some WING-NUT-CONTRIVED "fight for America's Soul", she may be able to speak with some sort of authority.

For now, her prejudice is transparent, and that alone denies her any credibility.


Posted by: Anonymous | August 29, 2006 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only one who's astonished by the fact that 'Tina' wrote a post without mentioning Condi even once? My jaw's still on the floor.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 29, 2006 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Larry, give 2000 a rest. We elect our presidents with electoral college votes, not who got the most votes.

On the issue of Lieberman, he is an example of what does any political party stand for?
Do the Democrats have room for a FDR/Truman type who is strong on national security or some guy like Lamont who is taking the "bring the troops home now" view. and its pack has helped raise the ire of the anti-war/Cindy Sheehan group and they went to work to promote Lamont. The Daily Kos guy was also in Lamont's ads.

Likewise, the Republicans need to find out what their party stands for. Is Chaffee welcome with his liberal views and will the voters of Rhode Island accept some guy who wrote in the name "GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH" for the 2004 race? And why would a guy tell the media how he voted against the President of his own nation and the leader of the Republican party?

Each election is a time to shake up Congress and see how the voters want their nation to be lead by the members they sent to Congress. Will they work with the President or sabotage him like a mob?

The 1994 election sent 73 new Republicans, (some elected to the seats of Retired Republicans) for a 52 seat pickup. It was a HUGE WAVE by the people to say they did not support how the Democrats were in control of the federal government or their issues like national healthcare.

There might be unrest today with the DEMS, but if they get control of the House, be prepared for GRIDLOCK. The Senate will stay in the hands of the Republicans who will block the Dems agenda. The voters will scream and complain about the gridlock, but they are really complaining about the fact they can't get rid of Bush.

2006 is more of a fight for what the Dems stand for and will pave the way for who will be their FACE on the 2008 ticket. That is a fact of the political world and both sides are looking at who will be their leaders into 2008. The McGovern wing of the Dems or the FDR wing----which will be in the Senate from Connecticut? The voters will decide and the Dems will have to accept the results of the voters. Likewise, the voters in Rhode Island will decide who represents them in the Senate.

Posted by: Tina | August 29, 2006 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, don't think that Lieberman has more than a solid chance in CT. The Quinnipiac poll which generated so much momentum for Lieberman by showing a 12-point lead has been since invalidated by two new polls showing a two-point lead, in both cases. Besides the new polls, anyone who consistently follows the Q-poll knows that Mr. Lamont has been gaining signifcant traction in this very poll each and every time it comes out; right before the primary, Lamont brought in 29% of the three-way race vote. That number ballooned to 39-41% one week later, and has continued to increase; it is clear where the 'momentum' lies, and news like Sen. Inouye's switch only help to bouy my sense of optimism.

I believe that Sen. Lieberman has reached his ceiling of support, and will have a very hard time gaining any more traction from this point on. GOP candidate Alan Schlesinger will not recieve the 0% that Lieberman would hope for, and therefore every vote in his direction is help for Lamont. Lieberman showed 75% of Republican support in the q-poll; how much higher could that number go, considering Schlesinger's at least minimal Republican support and Lamont's (somewhat amazing) 13% of the Republican vote? Among unaffiliated's, Lieberman held an advantage at 57%; again, with his lurch to the right, Joe can only hope to hang on to this number, while it will very likely begin to plummet. Lamont enjoys 63% Democratic support, which will without doubt rise dramatically. Mr. Lamont only needs very miniscule gains to win compared to the gains that he had made thusfar, and as a resident of Connecticut (Old Saybrook, to be exact, where Lamont took 59% in the primary), I believe I see a positive trend continuing.

Outside of a mall in West Hartford yesterday, a man in a VERY crude Osama Bin Laden outfit stood with a sign proclaiming "support Ned Lamont: we do!". See the blog section at to see pictures. This sort of tactic is absolutely lidicrous, considering that CT has among the most informed and educated electorates in the country, especially wealthy West Hartford. This sort of underhanded campaign technique will certainly backfire, even if this idiot is not directly supported by Lieberman's campaign. Besides that fact that he looked more like the manger owner from a nativity scene...

I agree, the Incumbent is hell-bent on retaining his power and will do anything necessary to achieve that purpose; however, I have great faith in the CT electorate to have picked up on this fact. Lieberman's support will continue to plummet, by leaps and bounds, as indicated today by Sen. Inouye's flight from the pro-Lieberman camp.

Posted by: bluestatepride | August 29, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Andy R

I agree that the Sanders defection is highly unlikely but...

I have been watching politics from the inside for too long to make such definitive statements.

1) There is a reason Sanders is not a declared Democrat
2) There has not, at least in recent memory, been two independents as members of the US Senate
3) They are both New Englanders
4) Given the chance to band together to decide the fate of control of the US Senate, forge a third party movement or just get concessions that are important to them personally and to their state or region may be too much to pass up.

These factors create an unprecedented dynamic that could have far reaching ramifications on political power in the country. If you can't be President of the United States, what else do US Senators sit around waiting for?

That said, it is highly unlikely that Sanders defects. How likely is it that Lieberman wins? 50/50 at this point? What are the chances the Dems pick up 6 or 7 seats? At this point 4-5 is more likely. How likely is it that Joe L gets pissed enough to defect, jeopardizing his future in CT?

An unlikely culmination of events but politics is funny that way especially in a year like this. But what is the point of continually bringing up Lieberman if we can't have some healthy and fun hypotheticals.

Posted by: RMill | August 29, 2006 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris: You did point out in your piece one of my strongest disagreements for Senator Nelson. I have stated many times he is another Dino the party has to get rid of. The other two you mentioned are not so bad, although I have the feeling they will come around sometime soon. Not Nelson. Some early posts are quite correct, in they want to "throw the bums out", although not in those exact words.

Posted by: lylepink | August 29, 2006 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Chris -- still waiting for your correction on the AFL-CIO primary endorsement of RGJoe. Time for a blogger ethics panel?

Posted by: TeddySanFran | August 29, 2006 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Yes we do celebrate a popular vote victory like the one Gore won over Bush by 600000 votes. Did the american people get their choice that time?

Posted by: Larry | August 29, 2006 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Murphy - I think what Drindl is upset by - as am I - is quite simply that Joe agreed to run in a primary election to decide HIS party's nominee and then refused to abide by the results of that election. If Joe had decided to run as an I from the start, then I could have respected that. But denouncing your party and essentially running as the de facto REPUBLICAN candidate after you lose your party's nomination - with record primary numbers, incidentally - is just pitiful and not deserving of any respect.

Posted by: Colin | August 29, 2006 12:51 PM | Report abuse


I agree with you in part. Dem leadership doesn't have to endorse Lieberman, but if they're smart they won't go out of their way to tick him off. Of course, that's a very big IF for this party. Life has a way of making funny things happen.

Drindl, "...vicious opponent who will do anything to stay in power, whether the people like it or not"?? Yes, so vicious that he's pressing for a popular vote (gasp), and most of his constituents DO like it. If you weren't such the political minority, you'd celebrate a popular vote election.

Posted by: murphy | August 29, 2006 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Fresh comments from a paranoid conspiracy theorist..
So, Lamont's victory over Lieberman is old news, huh?

Then why are "they" so desperate?

Subject: CNN Breaking News timeline

8-28-2006 3:49PM "Boulder, Colorado, D.A. drops charges against John Mark
Karr in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, according to Karr's attorney"

8-29-2006 9:09AM" -- The FBI says fugitive polygamist Mormon sect leader Warren
Steed Jeffs has been arrested in Las Vegas, The Associated Press reports."

.....Karr is exposed as a nut, so Jeffs gets popped?

Is this all just an astronomically impossible coincidence, or is there a concerted effort to keep the public off the scent of the neocon Republicans' political failures..?? Which begs the question (at least in my mind,) does the media want to put off exposing those failures just long enough to rake in the 2006 election advertising bonanza coming so very soon?

Doesn't it seem coincidental they trot this new "front-page" story out just
as their last one falls apart?

Here's some Fun with Fiction, again, just for your consideration, and remember, you can't revise the chronology, no matter how hard you try to revise the history...

First, immediately (the day) after the most historic inner-party political
upset in the twenty-first century threatened to pervasively expose the
rising tidal wave of voter rage against the neoconservatives and their Bush
War(s), a British class-D wannabe al-quieda cell gets prematurely busted,
much to the frustration of the agents in the process of investigating that case.

Just as the credibility of that story fades from our fickle, wounded
psyche's, immediately (the next day) the Karr fiasco fills the news with trash, and for the next few days, dominates the media as events in Iraq and Afganistan escalate.

Then, just as the Karr scenario falls precipitously into the black hole of incredibility, another big-name fugutive suddenly (the very next day) gets popped, stirring the media into one more sensationalist, scandal-hungry feeding frenzy.

It is as if the media has been reduced to fighting over sensationalistic scraps being tossed to them in a profane game of high-stakes chess.(Old Turdblossom, maybe?)

Our 4th Estate has turned their precious public responsibility over to our
most base element, perverting the daily and weekly news cycles in order to
hide the real story, just long enough to profit from it.

Just how many of these sensationalism ducks do they have lined up in a row?

How many wild twisted scenarios have been contrived to keep the public pre-occupied with perverts and polygamists, instead of covering the political fallout from the escalating violence in Iraq, Afganistan, and elsewhere???

How long will this media rollercoaster twist and turn before it slows down?

You'd think "his wierdness" Michael Jackson would be back in the news in these dire times, to help deflect the truth about our military and diplomatic failures, the truth that is currently being kept from us BY the very media we depend on to shed light on this darkness..

With all these new freakshows our meaningless media have produced to
parade before us, who needs real news? Who wants to hear about dead American soldiers, growing civilian casualties and escalating sectarian violence, when we've got these crazy freaks to entertain ourselves with.

And to think, this all started with Lieberman's loss to Lamont...

If the sheer desperation of the neocons isn't obvious, you are wearing blinders. And anyone who actually believes I'm just a paranoid conspiracy-theorist is simply naive.


Posted by: Anonymous | August 29, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Interesting Hypotheticals, but Sanders is caucasing with the Democrats, period. Also, If Lieberman does change his stance and caucus with the GOP then he has 6 years left in the senate because the Connecticut voters will vote him out of office in a heartbeat. The other thing is that whatever the republicans can offer the Democrats can offer too. Why eliminate your chances of reelection and gain nothing in return?

Posted by: Andy R | August 29, 2006 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The NRSC's latest attack ad on Laffey -- -- is worth seeing.

Posted by: mark | August 29, 2006 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I think it is too soon to make any assumptions about where Lieberman ends up should he win. He has stated publically that he will caucus with Dems. GOP has already made serious overtures. The deciding factors will be:

1) Who will control the Senate come January
2) How Joe L is treated in his independent run by Dem leadership.

The scary part is if it comes down to his vote as the deciding factor for control.

Say Dems hold all their seats and win PA, OH, MT, RI, MO, NV, TN and VA (a stretch at this point but not out of the realm of possibility). +8 seats gives Dems control no matter what happens in CT. With Sanders VT caucusing with Dems (unlikely to change). 51 D 47 R 2 I

Joe sticks with Dems.

Take one seat out of the mix (NV, TN, VA the likely candidates) and 50 D 48 R 2 I. Do Liberman and Sanders bond as the Senate I's and force concessions (unlikely but possible- Sanders has been consistant in caucusing with Dems in the House)?

Take two of the three out of the mix - 49 D 49 R 2 I. Suddenly Joe L is the tiebreaker. How was he treated during the campaign by the Dem leadership?

Take all three out of the mix and 52 R 46 D 2 I, it doesn't matter. But does Joe L want his chairmanship? How was he treated by National Dems? Could make it tougher in two years than it needs to be.

Posted by: RMill | August 29, 2006 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't view the Lieberman primary loss and subsequent L vs. L race as a contest for the soul of the Dem party, but a BIG repudiation of Bush. Simply put, Lieberman's too close to Bush for comfort. Too much kissy face and policy hugging.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 29, 2006 12:06 PM | Report abuse

You guys are missing a beauty next door in "Little Rhody" You've got a whack-job shoot from the hip male-coulter Mayor taking on the "fog" of the missing Linc Chaffee, and it's as close as it can get. The Democratic hope is that the Mayor beats the Linc, and then goes up against the odds-on favorite clone of Sylvester the Cat, (thufferin thuchotash)to give Dems a walk in, and thereby gain a 6 year seat.

Posted by: LSterling | August 29, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

J. Donne, what Lieberman does is not "reach across the aisle." The technical term is "reach-around."

Posted by: mark | August 29, 2006 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Mike | August 29, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Mark-"Drop to his knees" is more appropriate. Before Dick Cheney no less.

Posted by: J. Donne | August 29, 2006 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Two polls released in the post-foot-in-mouth Allen incident show the damage:

Survey USA
August 21
Webb (D) 45%
Allen (R)* 48%
Parker (I) 2%

August 16
Webb (D) 42%
Allen (R)* 47%

Posted by: RMill | August 29, 2006 11:51 AM | Report abuse

What makes the Lamont/Lieberman race so fascinating is Joe Lieberman. Is he a scoundrel, a career politician willing to make a fool of himself in order to keep his job? Or is he a principled centrist, willing to reach accross the aisle in a misguided partisan world? The voters of Connecticut will decide. Personally, I think he's a slug.

Posted by: J. Donne | August 29, 2006 11:46 AM | Report abuse

RMill, I think the indications are there that Lieberman will caucus with the repubs no matter what. When the real campaigning starts, right after Labor Day, Rove is going to start pushing hard for some kind of macho posturing about Iran... how dangerous they are, why we have to confront them, etc. Unless I miss my guess, Lieberman will be totally on with that.

And here Chris, to help you get started on the VA race--really hot now! From Dana Milbank:

'Sorry, but will Sen. George Allen please stop apologizing?

Since calling an Indian American man a type of monkey earlier this month, the Virginia Republican has apologized in two speeches, on Sean Hannity's radio show, in a phone call to the young man himself, in at least seven media interviews and in several statements from his campaign showing varying levels of contrition.'

Posted by: Drindl | August 29, 2006 11:43 AM | Report abuse

C'mon, Chris: enough on CT for a while. Meanwhile, the VA Senate race is turning into something really fascinating and it's in your paper's primary distribution area and you've been silent about it for ages. Give us a piece on Webb vs. Allen already. Are you ready to call this a top tier race yet? If not, why not and where is your threshold?

Posted by: Jackson Landers | August 29, 2006 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Lamont's victory was indicative of the disaffection of the CT democrats (a decided minority in the state- let alone the country) and you do not want to count on Lamont to be the poster boy for the Dem wave in November.

I understand the need to want that but it is too much to ask for one race. Much like the Busby-Bilbray race in CA-50 earlier this summer, there are hints that the wave is building and spin artists on both sides are using these early races to get their talking points across.

What Democrats need for November is a cohesive national strategy and message that nationalizes the election as a referendum on Bush and Republican domination of congress and the state governorships. Coordinated planning in all 50 states (ala Dean DNC plan) where governors, candidates for statewide office and congressional members and candidates all work together from the same playbook and turnout Dem voters and make major inroads to unaffiiated voters that did not take part in the primaries of either party.

Unless that happens, we will be outflanked once again by Rove and others and squander the opportunity to make the rumblings we have been hearing all year into a perfect storm for November.

Posted by: RMIll | August 29, 2006 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I disagree in part: this is interesting news worth reporting, in that it indicates that Dem party leaders are -- in their labored, ponderous, turning-the-Queen-Mary way -- increasingly willing to publicly repudiate Lieberman for acting contrary to the party's interests.

However, I agree that there's a lot more going on in the rest of the country that needs more Fix coverage. How about MN-06, Wetterling v. Bachmann? The travails of Chris Chocola (R-IN), who got $0 in ad buys from the NRCC?

Posted by: mark | August 29, 2006 11:35 AM | Report abuse

While the news of Inouye's withdrawal of support for Lieberman may not be the top political item of the day, I'd be very disappointed if it were not reported.

It appears to me as if Lieberman has maxed out on potential voters and can only lose, not gain, support. The Inouye move seems to support this observation, however I damn well want to stay tuned to see what actually happens. Keep 'em coming on the L vs. L race, Chris!

And yes, the L-L race DOES potentially have an impact on the make up of the Senate. Presuming that a victorious Lieberman would automatically caucus with his Democratic collegues, virtually all of whom supported his opponent, is hardly a sure bet. He could be the spoiler like Jeffords.

Posted by: Henly, Texas | August 29, 2006 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Bluestatepride--I was kind of agreeing with you. But I think it's wrong to get overconfident. All kinds of scary things are possible before the election... we're dealing with a vicious opponent that will do anything to stay in power, whether 'the people' like it or not.

Posted by: Drindl | August 29, 2006 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I disagree that the Connecticut race is a race for the soul of the party. It is a race that shows the large anti-incumbent push going on in the US as a whole. Lieberman just happens to be a household name so the media eats it up. The loss of incumbents in Minnesota, and Alaska are just as telling.

Posted by: Andy R | August 29, 2006 11:21 AM | Report abuse

This is the start of the friction I have been warning against.

These kind of squabbles will grow as the race intensifies and can lead to the exact situation I outlined, where the Dems push too hard, Lieberman wins as an I and then decides to caucus with R's in the end. Unless Reid and Schumer come to some understanding quickly, it could jeopardize the potential Democrat take over of the Senate.

Posted by: RMill | August 29, 2006 11:21 AM | Report abuse

you're all dead wrong. The Leiberman-Lamont race is the most compelling and foreshadowing race of this election year; the lower Lieberman's polls and list of endorsements go, the more telling it is of the nation's view in general of the status quo, and of the Republican majority. Ned Lamont is indicative of the 'sea change' that is about to take place in American politics; you'll all be biting your tongues over the supposed 'insignificance' of this race when the balance of power in Washington swings left.

Posted by: Bluestatepride | August 29, 2006 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I agree--too much focus on this race. However, it IS a race for the soul of the party in a sense -- do we want clean candidates, who stand for what their party constitutents believe in,, or do we want sold-out lobbyists, and wild-eyed warmongers who count among their fans ann coulter, rush limbaugh and dick cheney?

But agan, Chris I suggest looking at California... some interesting stuff going on there, too..

'The Democratic-controlled Legislature is on the verge of sending Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill that would create a state-run universal health care system, testing him on an issue that voters rate as one of their top concerns in this election year.

On a largely party-line 43-30 vote, the Assembly approved a bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would eliminate private medical insurance plans and establish a statewide health insurance system that would provide coverage to all Californians. The state Senate has already approved the plan once and is expected this week to approve changes that the Assembly made to the bill.

Schwarzenegger has said he opposes a single-payer plan like the one Kuehl's bill would create, but the governor has not offered his own alternatives for fixing the state's health care system. As many as 7 million people are uninsured in the state, and spiraling costs have put pressure on business and consumers.'

This is very popular in California; even supported by business--could be a template for a national system.

Posted by: Drindl | August 29, 2006 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Agree with Zathras--

Chris, its time to move on.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 29, 2006 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Can I get a "So What".

Do any voters really care if some other random senator supports your candidate or not? Maybe there is a large Hawaiian contingent in Connecticut, but I doubt it. Would you leave Hawaii to go to Hartford? If you said yes, call your doctor cause your having a stroke.

Posted by: Andy R | August 29, 2006 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Is it too much to ask that the obsession here over the Lieberman-Lamont race be dropped? It has no bearing whatsoever on the future makeup of the Senate. There are many races (many of which are away from the East Coast--gasp!) that are very very interesting and which deserve more play time here. All it does is attract the trolls and extremists from both sides.

It's a big country. Connecticut is just a very, very small part of it. Let's see what's going on elsewhere.

Posted by: Zathras | August 29, 2006 10:45 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company