The icing on the cake was Jane “Jolson” Hamsher showing up as a sock puppet in the thread. I guess she doesn’t have much to do now that Lamont told her they no longer need or want her services.

Left by Anonymous on August 7th, 2006 at 8:51 am

This really bothers you?

Pretty standard fare against an incumbent. And valid too- look at Rick Santorum who is home schooling his kids in Virginia but asking a school board in PA to pick up the tab for the distance learning.

Obviously, being a Senator requires a balance of being in Washington to work and being at home to keep in touch with your consitituents.

Is this the best that the right has against Ned Lamont?

Left by Preston on August 7th, 2006 at 9:52 am

Most senators make it home regularly - I’ll even hand it to the two morons representing Missouri that they visit the constituents back here. Lieberman has fled Connecticut - he has lost touch with his constituents. He deserves to lose, and I’m hoping he gets what he deserves.

Left by Dan on August 7th, 2006 at 11:00 am

Sure, it’s a non-partisan concern. Strom Thurmond was known for his attentive constituent services and Alphonse D’Amato was proud to be known as ‘Senator Pothole’.

Being a Senator isn’t simply about bring the people’s voice to Washington- it’s also about making the Federal government available to the people at home. It’s a smart, non-partisan attack that Lamont is making against Lieberman. (And it wouldn’t surprise me if Lieberman is vulnerable to it.)

Left by Preston on August 7th, 2006 at 11:59 am

Dan wrote: He deserves to lose, and I’m hoping he gets what he deserves.

And I hope Sen. Lieberman loses the Democratic primary, too. Because then Dems will get what they deserve: one less Democratic seat after the actual election.

The only thing that would piss the Nutroots off more than a Lieberman victory in the Primary is a Lieberman win as an Independant.

Left by Robbie on August 7th, 2006 at 12:12 pm

Preston asked: This really bothers you?

No. It doesn’t bother me at all. You’ve mistaken my amusement for concern.

Is this the best that the right has against Ned Lamont?

Nah, of course not. We also have Ned blasting Wal-Mart, all the while owning a significant amount of Wal-Mart stock:

“Connecticut millionaire businessman Ned Lamont, who sharply criticized the employment practices of Wal-Mart this week in his campaign to unseat Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democrat primary, owns stock in the company, Senate records reveal…”

Ned does realize that it’s those same employment practices employed by Wal-Mart that have resulted in some nice dividends on his investment? He does understand this, despite his hypocrisy? Right?

There’s also Ned lying about his knowledge of Blogs and how they contribute to his campaign. And for failing to distance himself from Jane Hamsher after she repeatedly used racial and sexual attacks against Ned’s rival.

There’s also the fact that Ned is a single issue candidate (war=bad, terrorist=good).

There’s also Ned’s membership at the Round Hill Club — a club with a not-so-diverse history of membership. And how Ned only decided to leave the club when he realized that his membership in a racially exclusive country club might be a political anchor (he didn’t leave the club because it was the right thing to do…he left because it was politically savy of him to do so).

So, Preston, there is plenty for us Wingnuts to complain about RE: Ned Lamont. Especially the fact that his only real qualification seems to be that he’s not Joe Lieberman.

Left by Robbie on August 7th, 2006 at 12:25 pm

Because then Dems will get what they deserve: one less Democratic seat after the actual election.

Not likely. Republicans would peel away from him once they start believing that an actual Republican could have a shot at winning. And even idiotic Washington Democrats might wake up to the notion that they are members of the Democratic Party not the cult of Lieberman. (More accurately, the cult of incumbency protection.)

No one likes a loser. If Lieberman can’t win the party he’ll drop out in 2 weeks or face a second trouncing. He better pull it off tomorrow.

(Incidentally, it’s amazing to me that he isn’t winning this election. How long has it been since an incumbent Senator was successfully challenged from within his own party? It is simply evidence of how alienated Lieberman is from his base that he couldn’t do anything to placate the folks at home.)

Left by Preston on August 7th, 2006 at 12:48 pm

What is the difference between the Lieberman that Al Gore and the whole dang Democrat Party chose and the Lieberman that the far left hates so much today? I notice even Bill Clinton supports him today. What is it with the far left that they are so full of hate that they would cast out one of their own just because of ?

Left by dianne on August 7th, 2006 at 2:15 pm

Dianne, do you think that the base of the Republican party is filled with hate for running strong challenges against Specter and Chafee?

Yes, the Democratic establishment supports Joe Lieberman- but they don’t get to vote. The people of Connecticut will decide if Lieberman has represented them well.

Left by Preston on August 7th, 2006 at 2:53 pm

read more | add new comment | source | full article | [IMG delicious] | [IMG technorati]

Left by austinsnews.net | Calibrating for hype on August 7th, 2006 at 9:24 pm

The “base” of the republican party trying to oust Specter? Please give me a reliable reference to that allegation. I doubt it.

Note I was not referring to the real base of the Democrat Party in my comments on Lieberman. I referred to the far left of the Democrat Party and in my humble opinion, there’s a world of difference. The far left agenda is manufactured by MoveOn.Org and those that support them. MoveOn.Org is on record against Lieberman.

Left by dianne on August 8th, 2006 at 8:25 am

Arlen Specter 528,553 51%
Pat Toomey 511,865 49%
link

Given that Toomey was challenging Specter from the right it’s fair to say that he had the support of the GOP base. Of course, incumbents like George Bush came to Specter’s rescue just as incumbents have come to the rescue of Joe Lieberman.

You’re likely to see today that indeed the real base of the Democratic party: working people, African Americans, women… are likely to abandon Joe Lieberman. As they should. Anyone that supported that dreadful payoff to the credit card companies and anyone who insinuates that taking a stand against the President is a traitor does not deserve re-election

Left by Preston on August 8th, 2006 at 9:39 am

Incidentally, the folks at the Corner and Club for Growth were solidly behind Toomey.

Left by Preston on August 8th, 2006 at 9:49 am

…”dreadful payoff to the credit card companies” … I assume you mean the bankruptcy law amendment? I only find one thing wrong with that change in law and that relates to medical expenses. Other than that, why should we pay for people to bail out of excessive credit card charges over and over and over again???? But then, I’m not in congress, which, incidentally, I consider one of the worst congresses of all times, both sides included.

As far as calling the President a traitor, that’s a very serious charge my friend and fitting for the far left who thinks nothing of calling the President a traitor yet defends the NY Times for their traitorous leaks.

And, let’s get this straight. I am an Independent. I have no love for many republicans and less for democrats.

Left by dianne on August 8th, 2006 at 10:42 am

Strike the second paragraph. I missread your comment. Sorry.

Left by dianne on August 8th, 2006 at 10:46 am

Well, yes, the fact that most bankruptcies are the result of astronomical health care costs or the inability to work due to a medical reason makes this a particularly immoral law.

Add to that the fact that Republicans fought attempts to exempt active military who face even more difficult economic challenges. About 16,000 active military go bankrupt each year. Remember: support the troops!

As well as the fact that credit card companies were given priority over minors receiving child support payments from their fathers. Disgusting.

Republicans also fought attempts to allow senior citizens keep their homes when they go bankrupt. From 1991 to 2002 the numbers of elderly filed for bankruptcy tripled. Do you suppose that this was from a sudden profligacy amongst the aged or perhaps the spiraling cost of health care?

Republicans defeated a proposal to inform consumers about how long it would take to pay back their debt if they only pay the minimum payment. This measure surely didn’t please their big-money contributors. Clearly, as is true in the abortion debate, Republicans are not interested in reducing the incidences they simply want to punish those unfortunate enough to need help.

But just so you remember whose side supporters of this bill are on: Republicans also rejected an amendment that would have kept corporations from abusing bankruptcy laws. Bankruptcy: Good enough for Enron- just not your granny.

Left by Preston on August 8th, 2006 at 2:58 pm

Well, the primary is over and it looks like the hate mongering extremists defeated the sensible moderate. The end of the world is nigh. I’m talking about Joe Schwarz -MI (R).

Left by Preston on August 9th, 2006 at 7:37 am

And it looks like unbridled hate (which manifested itself in actual physical assaults on others) was defeated in Georgia.

Left by Robbie on August 9th, 2006 at 7:41 am

I can’t figure the upside for the KOS-Kids. Lieberman was already voting 90% Democratic issues. I imagine there were a few times when he might have gone either way on an issue but because he wanted to remain true to his party he voted Democratic. If he wins, he will have no compunction to continue doing so.

If Lamont wins, it may well force Hillary to go left of center in which case they have guaranteed her loss in a presidential race.

Next we will see these idiots eating their young.

Left by bernie on August 9th, 2006 at 6:10 pm

Bernie, if you seriously want to know the upside:
Joe Lieberman chooses to affiliate himself with the Democratic Party but his rhetoric undermines people he purports to consider allies. Any Senator can vote his conscience but he crosses the line when he elevates himself over his party as justification for that vote.

We will no longer have a Senator who supports vile legislation like the bankruptcy bill or a Senator who lectures to his constituents how it is necessary for the Federal Government to become involved with the life and death decisions of the family of Terri Schiavo. We will no longer have a Senator who believes that unprovoked pre-emptive war is good for our country or one who believes that the war in Iraq is going just fine, thank you.

The upside is that it was a Democratic primary and every six years we get to decide who represents us and we betray the principles of this country’s founding when we assent to unrepresentative rule simply because of some principle of entitlement.

Left by Preston on August 10th, 2006 at 5:48 am

“We will no longer have a senator who supports vile legislation like the bankruptcy bill”

Preston - out of curiosity I looked up the voting records for that vile legislation you referred to and curiously, I note Lieberman voted against it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

Am I looking at the wrong bankruptcy bill or what “vile legislation”" are you referring to?

Left by dianne on August 10th, 2006 at 8:31 am

Dianne:

I thought I had written already about the cynical way that Lieberman had voted against cloture- the only opportunity that the Democrats had to stop the bill- and then for the final bill itself.

Lieberman was alone in this level of cynicism.

Left by Preston on August 10th, 2006 at 12:41 pm

Damn, I messed it up: Lieberman voted against cloture (ie for the bankruptcy bill in the critical vote) then he voted against the bankruptcy bill in the final- irrelevant vote (but at the point when the ’scorecards’ are tallied.

In that way he was able to please both his banking donors and the liberal watchdogs (at least the ones not watching too closely).

Left by Preston on August 10th, 2006 at 12:45 pm

Preston - 40 democrats voted FOR the bankruptcy bill. Only 25 voted against it and Lieberman was one of them. Now, what does that say? The fact that Lieberman voted for cloture was probably due to the fact that the majority of the Democrats had already decided to vote for it and he knew it (speculating). I mean, that sorta makes sense.

The bigger question is, why did so many democrats support it? I don’t have time to check all the votes on the amendments to the bill (are they available on line)? I’d be interested to see how that went down. I happen to agree with you on “most” of the points you made above concerning what’s wrong with the bill and am curious why anyone (republican or democrat) would support a bill that penalized people for medical expenses, for example. Surely, someone must have offered an amendment to exempt medical expenses?

Left by dianne on August 11th, 2006 at 7:50 am

Dianne- from the link you posted 25 Dem senators voted against it, 18 for it and one did not vote.

However, many of the Democrats voted against cloture (against the bill) but switched their votes to support the bill in the final tally. This is the opposite of what Lieberman did but could be construed as cynical as well (they wanted to be able to show the banking donors something…) But at least the opponents of the bankruptcy bill had their vote at the crucial moment: the cloture vote.

Also, many Democrats voted for amendments that would have eased the worst impacts of this bill that I listed earlier. However Republicans were unified and defeated each of the amendments.

Why did so many vote for it? Banking money and Republican control of Congress and the White House.

For example, in 1991 18 Senators voted for an amendment to a bill that would have limited the interest rate charged by credit cards to 14% yet in 2005 voted against an amendment that would have limited the interest rate to 30%. Strange? Not if you consider the money they’d received from banks in the interim.

But the other factor is Republican control in my opinion. It’s easier to vote against the big donors when you know that your side will prevail. But to be on the losing side and to vote against the money seems tougher. Once Republican control of government assured the passage of the bill, many Democrats fell in line- the jerks.

Left by Preston on August 11th, 2006 at 11:21 am