Didn't Hank Johhson get the nod of approval from the mighty KOS himself?

Both races are about getting candidates in office who will protect the image of the party rather than drag it down.

That is the link between the two.

 But the idea that Cynthia McKinney is the putative victim of a national "purge" by those her daddy graphically spelled out as "J-E-W-S" last time she lost, is little more than a reinforcement of her embattled campaign's talking points.

Yet, that is precisely why McKinney lost to Majette. When her father was asked what happened and what the reason was for that lost...it was entirely accurate. The fact that pro-Israel poured money into GA to defeat McKinney is without question, as well as the fact of the Republicans doing cross over voting. Since when is identifying the election population that set out to defeat you a problem?  Doesn't Bush readily acknowledge that he does not have the Black vote and doesn't Clinton acknowledge that it was the black votes that helped him win a majority in key states, as well?  So what is the problem with McKinney's dads statement as to why McKinney lost to Majette?

And McKinney's problem is not Outside Agitators, or Republican cross-over voters, but her lukewarm reputation among the middle- and upper-middle class African-American voters who dominate the politics of the 4th, and don't particularly appreciate her national political antics.

I agree that it is not her problem this time and that she has ticked off her district. At the same time, it was the issue when she lost to Majette.

impishly wonders why those of us worried about the national effort to drive Joe Lieberman out of the Senate and the Democratic Party aren't worried about a "purge" of the fiery Georgian. It's a good point to a very minor extent, but sort of ignores the proportions of the two efforts

How can the 'supposed' ideology of the Democratic issues that are driving the national anti-Lieberman thrust be a 'minor issue'

Isn't it THE issue...if the reason Lieberman is no longer acceptable is because he is pro-war and too bipartisan...then why is the ideology of someone like a McKinney also unacceptable to Democrats. Why in terms of 'national interests' are we opposed to one and not the other?  If this is about party unity.

Yes, I understand that McKinney's antics are what is driving her district to oppose her, but if we view this as building  "national party unity to speak with one voice" why would we as Democrats be opposed to McKinney ideologically?

=== no one could open up a major progressive web site over the last year without reading endless vituperative posts about Lieberman, and during the primary campaign,===

Perhaps if Mr. Lieberman and the DLC had answered many of the substantative comments and questions directed at them from 1998-2004 they might not now be faced with the mean, nasty lefties trying to purge them?

=== and during the primary campaign, endless over-the-top cheerleading for Ned Lamont, complete with links to opportunities to volunteer or give money, and on-the-ground accounts of the Lamont campaign's successes.===

Otherwise known as "campaigning for a candidate one supports", in this case in a "primary election" (although some day I would also like to get a meaningful definition of "over the top").

I am getting tired of asking this Lieberman supporters this, but I'll try one more time: are Senate seats now sinecures? If so, who makes the appointments? Marshall Wittman? If not, can you just accept that what is going on right now in CT is a thing called an "election"? I am sorry for you that your preferred candidate is losing, but the the kisses (not one kiss; dozens) are documented on video. Perhaps you should have talked to your good friend about that in 2002?

sPh

are Senate seats now sinecures?

No they are not.  But a factor to be considered (and is being considered up here) is whether it is in our state's best interest to remove a powerful tenured sitting senator and replace him with a back bencher for the good of the party when other state's powerful senators with similar positions to Lieberman are not being replaced.  Since this is for "the good of the party" are the out of state Lamont supporters going to urge their senators to not only keep their state's best interests in mind but Connecticut's also?

other senators with similar positions to Lieberman

Please. No other Democratic Senator has any thing like Lieberman's public profile. There's a reason Coulter and Hannity endorsed him. If you think the New London submarine base is a fair trade-off for the continuing fiasco that is Iraq, and the poison pill in the Constitution that is Samuel Alito, well...I can't change your mind any more than you can make me understand that kind of moral math.

I didn't know Joe was the only democratic senator who supported Alito.  And I also didn't know that the only reason we have the fiasco in Iraq was because of Lieberman's support of the president's policies on the war.  But I guess I am just being a selfish Nutmeg Stater...my moral math says people need to go after all politicians who support the Iraq War or has given support to any of the president's or RW's agenda.  Is the position I am taking that outrageous?

Those "who don't know Connecticut from Cancun" aren't the ones voting; thus, Lieberman's got nothing to worry about.

Right?

...

Questions about McKinney's race and pro-Israel money aside, here again is the claim that the Lamont campaign in a "purge", because it has attracted support from people outside of CT. I really can't get over how silly a claim this is, especially coming from such a level-headed guy as Kilgore.

First, how is the expression of opinion on the internet, accompanied by monetary donations a "purge"? I sure bet Stalin's officer-class would have loved being purged that way, instead of being purged in, well, an actual purge.

But also, how much money and organizing help is Lieberman accepting from out of state? Do all of those corporate and lobbying donations come from Mom 'n' Pop operations in Hartford and New Haven? No? I didn't think so. And those kids coming in for his ground game from New York and New Jersey? Are they coming from towns I've never heard of called New York, CT and New Jersey, CT? No? I didn't think so. So what's a "purge" for the goose is a "purge" for the gander.

"Is the position I am taking that outrageous?"

Not at all outrageous. But it doesn't make too much sense. You keep raising these points, having them answered, and then, dissatisfied, raising them again. That is OK. I have time and patience. While it is clear you view Lieberman as having done Connecticut invaluable service with the Naval Base at Groton and not being worse (or maybe not much worse) than other Senators, and you like him, you are unhappy with the campaign against him which involves support for Lamont coming from residents of other states as well. I don't think this latter is illegal; in fact it is done ALL THE TIME. Really. You are a self-described political junkie. Look into it. The Minnesota Senate campaign here will have Klobuchar vs. Kennedy each getting sizable amounts of funding from out of state. Norman Coleman in 2002, I believe had quite a bit more out-of-state funding than in-state. The policies that the Connecticut Senators support affect the nation and the world; why in the world wouldn't people get involved. A Minnesotan killed in a war that Lieberman loves is still dead; may his parents support Lamont? Maybe, if they ask you nicely. You point out that Lieberman's support is not the only reason for the fiasco. Bravo. Well-done. You are right. He is not the only cause; not the most culpable. However in the Democratic Party I cannot think of a single member of the party who has played the sort of singular role that Lieberman has: not only vocally and visibly supporting every excess of the Bush disaster team, but impugning the intelligence and integrity of everyone who has more sense and more moral sensitivity than he does. It is not by accident that during 2004, ABL ("anyone but Lieberman") was heard from coast to coast. If you like him, vote for him. If you like Bush, vote for Bush. I cannot vote for or against him; so in the end you and the rest of the Connecticut voters decide and your decisions affect all of us. What more will make you happy? If you want, change the rules of the primaries (all of them) so only in-state support is allowed. Keep out Bill Clinton AND Jesse Jackson (Isn't Clinton an outsider too?). The party leadership (that supports Lieberman) will not buy that in a million years; this way they have more power. Your position is not outrageous. It is not particularly thoughtful.

What is your point? You asked earlier if a position was outrageous. It wasn't. But this is indecipherable.

ok. sorry to butt in.

So McKinney and Yglesias is concerned that Hank Johnson has received donations from Jewish citizens? The shock, the horror!!!

Wonder why Yglesias isn't commenting on the fact that McKinney, since 2001 has received three quarters, if not more of her contributions from Muslim's and Muslim organizations, virtually all of them not from Georgia. Hundreds of thousands of dollars per year from such groups. Last year she received nearly 250,000 from such groups. But perhaps as in Orwell's Animal Farm, some of us are more equal than others?

Perhaps if McKinney spent as much time working for her constituents, instead of using that time to serve the interests of her anti-Israeli lobby then perhaps they wouldn't be so passionate about voting to send her home to Georgia.

The night before the vote on continuing the Voters Rights Act, McKinney was whooping it up big time in NYC with the very fascistic Medea Benjamin, who by the way was cheating on her pretense of the fast she claimed to be participating in about bringing home the troops, she was photographed stuffing her face with pizza, while elsewhere those who had been duped by her on the subject were going without in the interest of bringing about peace. McKinney couldn't get herself to the house of representatives on time to vote.. of course it's not like she really cares about the people back home, they don't fly her around and flatter her.

Not quite, the ones who were vilifying the "looney left" were the republicans, who had a big hand up in getting the message across because of groups like ELF (Earth Liberation Front) who were fanatically going around practicing eco-terrorism in the '80s. Inserting steel into trees so forestry workers, people just working to support their families would find the chainsaws they were using would bounce back and maim them.

This is what caused the American people, to start viewing the environmental movement through a different lens, the ones who had a decade before started having their awareness raised into environmentalism because true environmentalists made thoughtful appeals on how we were all in it together. How a polluted and over taxed environment hurt all of us. Reagan, and James Watt were able to label environmentalists as wackos and tree huggers because of the actions of extremists who were so consumed by hatred and a willingness to hurt innocent people that many average Americans felt betrayed by the environmental movement and withdrew support for them. Just as Americans are speaking out against the war in higher numbers all the time, they didn't approve of the violent tactics, the rationale of butchery against workers.

It was so successful that when the Gingrich blame game started up, they were ahead of the game. Extremely able to whitewash the left as being fruitcakes, and again, the neo-left while in small numbers, were vocal enough to help in the smear.

That is what has changed the image of the left.. not democrats, but the neo-leftist extremists. They have no one but themselves to blame.. and you can't spin it into being the truth, no matter how many grasstop ignoramouses you convince of it.

No one could open up a major progressive web site over the last year without reading endless vituperative posts about Lieberman, and during the primary campaign, endless over-the-top cheerleading for Ned Lamont, complete with links to opportunities to volunteer or give money, and on-the-ground accounts of the Lamont campaign's successes.

I think you visit the wrong websites. There have been plenty of thoughtful posts about Lieberman, regretful posts. So that's a credibility killer for starters.

But the big credibility killer for me is the one which is so gleefully autocratic as to hit on cheer-leading, volunteering, donating, and pleasure in one's candidate's successes. Shocking! Democracy in action! What's your kind of democracy? Is it entirely about lining up behind Ed?

I'm no fan of the DLC, but I've not read one word by them attacking the left, looney or otherwise.

I have read some articles, seen some interviews on tv where some members of the DLC have referenced the actions of the far left, but without the vitriol you have claimed. Also, the DLC, doesn't seem to me so much to the right of center. While there might be some in it I wouldn't agree with, there are some who are basically attempting to get involved with the leadership committee to promote the issues of the base, social justice, civil rights, more support for labor.

I'm a leftist democrat, but the reactionary, knee-jerk, propagandistic, neo-leftist extremes have made using the term leftist extremely distastefull to me and friends all over the country. The lies, the hatemongering. It is appalling. What is equally appalling is the disconnect, the elitist condescension of the neo-left, their desire to exploit issues, while lacking any commitment to the issues or the people who are so dependent on the issues being addressed.

Face it, what you endorse isn't in aid of anything other than fufilling a blind lust for power, no different than that of George W. Bush.

why do we have Amy Klobuchar so brainwashed into DLC Republican-lite centrism that she can't utter a single, solitary, coherent phrase about WAR except to tell us she is TOUGH. Well, TOUGH ain't COURAGE. She's going to be another Norm!

Why you ask...well AIPAC of course!!  And the Kaplans in MN of course! Amy has already stated her unequivocal support for Israel's 'right to defend itself"  Yes, she will be another Norm, but is Kennedy any better? He consistently supported Bush.

Who are the neo-left? No one in particular springs to mind when I read that phrase.

Why, any one to "the left" of Lieberman, which is apparently 54% of the Democrats in Connecticut.

Who knew we were so dang "looney" here?

[sarcasm off]

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

I live in Connecticut, and there were Lamont lawn signs up way before the national blogsophere caught on.

Most folks in the state don't likely read them or care what ridiculous pap they come up with.

I think people are tired of the hysteria. Joe hasn't been in the state much in the last six years. He has turned a blind eye to the cares and woes of the large group of blue collars and poor. We've had to look to our state government for relief and it's led by a Republican. Of course, she was a replacement for a rather corrupt SOB named Rowland, and folks around here have had it up to their necks with politicians that sell out to private interests, or think they are somehow "entitled" to "rule."

It's kinda an eye-opener when a Republican Rep like Chris Shays stands up to the Bush right-wing zealots more often than old Joe has, and no, THAT hasn't escaped Joe's constituents. Obviously.

Nancy Johnson is feeling the heat for her travesty of a medicare plan. Know anyone in the "donut hole?"

You will, soon.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Lieberman Praises Bush, Chides Kerry
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Friday, Oct. 15, 2004
Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman took the unusual step of praising President Bush while chiding John Kerry during a campaign stop in Florida Wednesday.
Lieberman, with just three weeks left before the election, praised Bush strongly for his support of Israel, America’s lone democratic ally in the Mid-East.
"We are dealing with a president who's had a record of strong, consistent support for Israel. You can't say otherwise,” Lieberman told an audience of 600 near Delray Beach, Fla, the Palm Beach Post reported in editions Thursday.
Lieberman also added that any criticism of Bush vis-à-vis Israel would be “unjustified.”
After the speech, the paper said Lieberman spoke to reporters and suggested that “Bush appears to have made inroads with Jewish voters, who voted Democratic by an estimated 4-to-1 margin in 2000.”
But Lieberman indicated Kerry’s support among Jews may be softer, and he chided the Democratic nominee for not coming out more strongly for Israel.
“And I think John Kerry, to reassure people, has to himself be explicit" rather than having surrogates deliver the message, the Post quoted Lieberman as saying.
Lieberman alluded to worries among Jews about Kerry’s position on Israel. Lieberman bluntly revealed that he has asked the Kerry campaign to have John Kerry himself discuss his views on Israel because "only John Kerry can eliminate those doubts."

In my book substance beats process most of the time. What good is it to save a powerful Senate seat for the Democrats if they have to sell their very soul to do it?

What the hell do you know about what I endorse?

I want them both out. They are both bad for the party. The Lieberman-lovers all seem to agree that McKinney is bad for the party but don't seem to realize that Joe is ten times worse. We can take diversity of opinion on Israel and the War - We can't take backstabbers which is wht Lieberman is. He is out for himself and could care less about his party. Look no further than his threat to run as an independent as confirmation of this.

The minute Kobluchar, Brown, McCaskill, Lamont or any other Dem Senate candidate questions Israel's right to defend itself from thugs, you all can kiss Senate Dem control good-bye. Beware the Jew-haters in your midst. If they are not on Rove's payroll, they should be,

Since when it is it new that some races attract national attention and money? When John Lindsay ran as mayor of New York as a Republican against a conservative Democrat he attracted a fair amount of liberal national support and that was 1965.

In reading this thread I a struck that there has been virtually no mention of the failure of most officeholding Democrats to go after Bush. Even Barney Frank defended members of Congress from the charge of being too friendly toward Bush. On issue after issue Lieberman seems to have led the charge in shielding Bush from the criticisms and attacks of fellow Democrats. His choice to run as an independent if he loses the primary cements the notion that he is not a true Democrat, not on policy grouns, but on a willingness to take on the Republicans.

All Lamont has to do to be a better Democratic Senator is not side with Bush against Democrats. Given that Conneticut is the insurance capital of America and Fairfield County is the richest county in America and Norhwestern Conneticut is also very well off I wonder if Lamont after opposing the war won't resemble Chris Dodd, who not only supports Lieberman but is not all that much different than Lieberman overall.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I think you are probably right. But you and many other commentators focus on the past. But the past IS prologue. Kilgore does not dare to treat some of the concerns that flow from Lieberman's continued enthusiastic support of the Iraq occupation. There is already a chorus of neocons (with DLC support) calling for a wider war; calling for attacks on Syria and Iran; Gingrich and others are enthusiastic about World War III. Kilgore doesn't want to raise such questions because it might raise reasonable questions about where he and the other Democratic neocons stand. As for Lieberman there can be no doubt. If one is to extrapolate anything from his past at all, any campaign to whip up a military response to Iran (based on the ususal: threat to Israel, support for terrorism, nuclear weapon WMD's, "democratize" the middle east) will be supported passionately by Lieberman, Kilgore, the DLC, and God help those who disagree this time.

In 1986, Bob Dole was considered conservative, and Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond were outliers on the political spectrum. Now Dole is remembered as a moderate, and Helms and Thurmond would have only their overtly racist histories (and histrionics) to separate them from Santorum, Sessions, Brownback, Bunning, etc.
In 1986, the Senate Republican Caucus included people like Howard Baker, Nancy Kassenbaum, and Jim Jeffords and John Chaffee. The fullmoon creationists had not yet declared war on science with the full and knowing complicity of the country-club types. The term "Unitary Executive", to the extent that it was known at all, was probably considered a whacky notion in the bowels of the Heritage Foundation. Robert Bork was also still a museum piece. The notion of "separation of powers" was respected enough for Ronald Reagan to have to act in secret in his dingbat arms-for-hostages plan, and if the American people (sorry to have to say) weren't so damn stupid, he would have been impeached. If anything, Scalia's "oringalist" pose would have reassured people worried about the architecture of our Constitution, before it was known that it was just code for "anti-choice".
Quite frankly, comparing the political scene of twenty years ago to defend JoMo's passivity/complicity with regard to Alito makes saying "he was the Vice Presidential nominee six years ago!" seem like a rational and compelling argument.

Re: The fullmoon creationists had not yet declared war on science

Creationist know-nothingism has been around a lot longer than just the last few years. Remember the Scopes "Money Trial"? Anyway, what does this have to do with my question of why it is such an outrage not to fillibuster Alito when Scalia (who is at least as far right) sailed right through confirmation with no one suggesting the Dems who voted for him ought be chucked in the trashcan?

You wrote:

those of us worried about the national effort to drive Joe Lieberman out of the Senate and the Democratic Party

Now, why would that be? Why are you so worried? Would it be because if Joe falls it would be a repudiation of the DLC and its failed strategies of triangulation and corporatism which have alienated much of the base and strangled the Democrats for a decade? I know you will point to the fact that Clinton was DLC and he got elected and try to use that fact to prove that the so-called centrist, DLC way is an electoral winner. You would be wrong.

Clinton got elected because we were in a recession and he is an inspiring public speaker, the best of our generation, and a brilliant campaigner and politician. It was personal. The proof is that Clinton had no coattails, and actually lost the House and helped cement the Republican majorities we have now. Democrats across the country yearn for a party that actually represents them. Lieberman and the DLC are not that party.

The DLC had an important role to play 20 years ago, in redefining the party away from the grip of certain special interests which had been demonized by the right. Now we need a party that defines itself as responsive to the interests of our day, the most important of which is ending the debacle in Iraq, a position with which 55% of the country, left, right and center, agrees. The second is ending corporatism and the unholy grip of money and lobbyists, which evidences itself in such things as the bleeding of American jobs and security in the name of globalization via free, but unfair, trade and monstrousities like the energy bill, which Lieberman voted for, and Medicare part D. Not to mention politicins who who stand up for the ideals of the old Democrats, such as the new deal, best exemplified by Social Security, the most popular government program we have and one on which Lieberman was all to willing to waffle and compromise.

You should be worried. Lieberman, and so-called centrism, which is really capitualtion in the face of the wrongly perceived "strengths" of the opposition, are over. Gone. Their, and your, time is past.

Get used to it.

God help this country and God bless the rest of the world. For all we know we are going to be voting on WWIII this November and I am not going to vote for it. If we march over the cliff into total war I don't want the legacy we leave our children to be that no one stood against it.

um...okay... your point isn't that the political landscape hasn't changed since 1986, but that it hasn't changed since 1923.....

You're right and I'm voting the same way. The only thing is that as I read your comment, I immediate thought "What children?" It's hard to imagine what would be left after #III.

Chris Bowers now has Lamont in a very tight race with a probably loss, due to anticipated high voter turnout.

And from Matt Taibbi:

The DLC are the lowest kind of scum; we're talking about people who are paid by the likes of Eli Lilly and Union Carbide to go on television and call suburban moms and college kids who happen to be against the war commies and jihadists. On the ignominious-sellout scale, that's lower than doing PR for a utility that turns your grandmother's heat off at Christmas.

I may be wrong, but I think I understood it: republicans are going to vote for Lieberman if he runs as an independent, as will some indies. Lamont will have a tougher time, and may lose.

My own scenario: even if Lieberman wins the primary (thanks to Diebold's tireless efforts to control our "democracy"), republicans will vote for him. Then, Bush will appoint him to something on the cabinet and the governor can appoint a republican successor.

Jan Knaus

It's more based on speculation than anything else, though. Mainly over who the 22,000 independents who registered Dem in the last several weeks are going to vote for.

It might also be a pre-emptive attack by Diebold to prepare us for the confused head-scratching when the exit polls are dramatically different from the results.

Fool me once, twice, three, four...oh, I give up! We are no more prepared for the next attack on our democracy than we were for the last 2 presidential selections.

The evidence is EVERYWHERE -- how is Joe Kennedy's lawsuit going? Don't hear too much about it. Why IS that?

Jan Knaus

Yes, I found that an odd assumption, too.

I have been thinking of some sort of protest de-registration as a first step. I might go down to the town clerk one day and change my registration from Democrat to either Independent or Green, and then go back a week later and change it back to Democrat. I will have to look into the relevant laws, though, to make sure there are no hurdles or snags.

I have been thinking that some well-organized and well-publicized de-registration actions by groups might have some effect.

Has a nice ring.

Yes, it does have a nice ring...except for the reality that virtually all Democrats runing are pro-Israel...which means pro-war and especially war with Iran...or WWIII.

AIPAC rules Congress it is NOT partisian.

It's more based on speculation than anything else, though. Mainly over who the 22,000 independents who registered Dem in the last several weeks are going to vote for.

Not only is this odd...but it certainly smacks of voter fraud. Especially if this turns out to be the demographic that re-elects ol Joe...it is nothing but GOP hijinks...think purging the rolls in FL, think of the polls closing before WORKERS get a chance to vote due to high turnout..think Diebold and exit polls not matching.

The same Nader, who publically stated that he would seek to have Paul Wellstone defeated because he wanted to destroy the democratic party? ROFLMAO!!!!!

The same Nader who sat cheek and jowl with Katherine Harris at a big republican banquet after he helped elect George W. Bush, who on another occasion showed up in a tuxedo after being chauffered in a limosine paid for by the RNC when he was invited to an RNC fundraiser in December 2004? Who courted republicans for funds and help getting him on the ballot in blue and swing states in '04? I'm shaking in my shoes at Nader's "credibility" and his not having an axe to grind (not!)

The same Nader who courted republicans in 2000 and 2004, who stated that there was no difference between Gore and Bush, and then no difference between Kerry and Bush.. and Don Key seems to believe that Nader is the voice of anything that might be significant?

Y'know, Ned Lamont is a former republican, who had no problem with Bush's tax cuts, Lieberman voted against those tax cuts for the wealthy. Lieberman gets high vote ranking because he is a great democrat. I disagree with him on the Iraq vote and on the bankruptcy bill vote, but he's voted on other issues and even fought to ensure the passage of bills on other democratic issues. If this were a race in my state, I wouldn't throw a Lieberman out for a candidate who believes that his profitting off the deaths of American service men and women and innocent Iraqi civilians was an acceptable thing to do. Nor would I vote out a Lieberman for a candidate who wants to profit from outsourcing American jobs, or who would have outsourced his own workers. That is appalling, and in no way what a democratic "base" would do.

What it does reveal is that the Lamontsters are a sham.

My point is stated very explicitly. I'll try once more. If not fillibustering Alito last year is worthy of excommunication from the Democrat party, why was voting for Scalia in 19086 not worthy of the same? A rightwing judge who is likely to overturn Roe vs Wade (and etc.) is a rightwing judge no matter what the year and what the devil does the "political landscape" (or evolution) have to do with it?

Or it could mean volunteers are not what wins a campaign. (See, for example, Dean.) But rather machinery of one kind or another. Njet?

I'll try again too. Go through some of contemporaneous reports of Scalia's nomination and find me some discussion of the theory of the Unitary Executive.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Supreme Court sometimes rules on laws passed by Congress, so the composition of the Congress, and the governing ethos of the political parties--the political landscape--might, in some people's minds, have some impact on the importance of the composition of the Supreme Court. Maybe you think Roe v Wade is the only issue that matters. Some of us think it's one among many.

If I needed another reason to pray that Lieberman loses (which I didn't), the posts by his apologists and defenders on these boards would have made up my mind for me.