The previous story says it all. Rove wants to help Lieberman. Big surprise. Lieberman going independent is just the last step in a course that he's been on for quite some time. The Dems in D.C. need to realize that it is time to take up sides and declare their loyalty to the DEMOCRATIC nominee for Senate in CT. If they do otherwise, Democratic voters are going to remember. It's time to be "true to your school."

Joe, you want loyalty from Dems, but offer none in return.

Good point about wrapping up the funders quickly. W. Bush did this very well in 2000 - leading to the "inevitable" monicker.

Seeing that any Republican candidate in Connecticut has no chance of victory, it will not be surprising when large amounts of campaign funds are placed in Lieberman's coffers from the right.

Wouldn't it be amazing if Joe were to win in Novermber? Honestly, what would the Democrats do if that were to happen?

I don't think we can stop Joe's Egomentum.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Here's the story on Lamont blogger/nutroots leader and Daily Kos partner, Jerome "MYDD" Armstrong's stock market fraud that the blogofascists refuse to comment on:

SHILL TO HACK

CELEBRATED LIB
STRATEGIST HAS SHADY MARKET PAST

 DIRTY LITTLE SECRET: As an author and political strategist, Jerome Armstrong talks up the empowerment of the little guy though technology -the same little guy the SEC said he was screwing by not disclosing he was a paid tout of dubious stock.    
 
June 18, 2006 -- Jerome Armstrong, the political strategist who followed a famous Internet fundraising effort for Howard Dean in 2004 with a book on "people-powered politics," has a sordid past as a shill for a worthless dot-com stock.
Armstrong, 42, touted a dubious Chinese software company, BluePoint, beginning in 1999, without disclosing that he accepted "below-market" shares in exchange for the glowing reports he posted on a site called Raging Bull, according to a 2003 civil suit that named him as a defendant.

"Armstrong posted over 80 times on the BluePoint message board located on the Raging Bull Web site in the first three weeks [it traded]," reads the complaint, filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

At no point in any of the 80 posts did Armstrong disclose he was paid for the service, the suit alleged. In fact, The Post has uncovered hundreds of Armstrong posts from 1999 to 2003, many supporting now virtually or entirely worthless stocks.

Armstrong denied to The Post that he did anything wrong and said the SEC made a mistake in charging him. "This was a long time ago and I settled the case without admitting or denying guilt, and I paid no fine," said Armstrong, who refused to comment further.

Armstrong signed off on a settlement of the charges on Dec. 16, 2003, barring him from touting securities. In addition, Armstrong agreed never to deny any of the SEC charges. It was not immediately known if his statement to The Post denying guilt would violate the settlement agreement.

Considered an authority on political blogging and 'Net campaigning, Armstrong's MyDD.com is a trendsetter in liberal circles.

A frequent subject of glowing media profiles on the growing role of the Internet in campaigning, Armstrong now directs Internet strategy for 2008 presidential hopeful Mark Warner.

The sharp partisan flair Armstrong shows on his blog was apparently honed in bitter message-board fights, where he was known for his attacks on those questioning the stocks he touted.

Floyd Schneider, a New Jersey mortgage broker and investigator of penny-stock scams, said he was a repeated target of Armstrong's attacks because he criticized the finances and business models of firms Armstrong supported.

"[Armstrong] was among the nastiest and ugliest stock touts from that era," said Schneider. "The stocks he touted were dogs and rigged, so it makes sense that he had a deal with promoters.

Why am I not surprised, I wonder how much DKos and Armstrong are profiteering from the efforts of the sheep they herd on the blogs? We know about the Bush administrations ties to the Carlyle Group and what cons they've been able to pull to profit, I wonder what scheme Kos and Armstrong would be able to get away with should they succeed in planting politicians who have to depend on them to get good press in the blog empire?

Even more tantalizing is a hypothetical scenario put forth by E.J. Dionne: the Senate is divided into 55 Republican and 54 Democrats and Joe Lieberman. Imagine that.

It is true, google for the info if you don't believe me. He was prosecuted for fraud.

It has everything to do with the race and his participation in blogging propaganda to slant a political race. If it's wrong for the right wing to do it, it's wrong for the left wing to do it to for the same reason. Your desire to censor the truth is the same as the Bush desire to censor.

Get real, in dark blue CT? The more support Joe picks up from Republicans the more he loses the little Democratic support he has now.

Mark S has the right take, Joe is done, the only question now is if he can go out with what little dignity he has left before begining his new career as a Lobbyist or Fox News Commentator.

My source for your attack on Greg:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/08/ct_sen_lamont_wins#comment-152630

Or is it okay for you to do to those you identify with the "neo-left" (I have yet to understand what that is supposed to mean)

Anyone who disagrees with her:-)

The Clintons, who commendably showed their personal loyalty to Joe in the primary, can take the lead in raising money for the Lamont candidacy.

It's hard for me to see what personal loyalty the Clintons would have toward Lieberman.

His unctuous comments during the Lewinsky affair first brought Joe to my attention and I have been rooting for his downfall ever since. Joe was always giving moral cover for the despicable acts of the right wing.

I would think that the Clintons are as happy as I am to see him brought down.

I really don't understand what Lieberman stands for. Take this selection from his interview with Matt Lauer this morning:

LIEBERMAN: Well, I think it's time for somebody to break through the dominance of both parties by the margins of the parties, which happens in primaries. I think it's time for somebody to break through and say, Hey, let's cut out the partisan nonsense.

Yes, I'm a proud Democrat, but I'm more devoted to my state and my country than I am to my party. And the parties today are getting in the way of our government doing for our people what they need their government to do.

So in the end, Matt -- the great thing about America is that the people will have the last word.

Questions: 1) how can you be a "proud Democrat" and hold a desire to "cut out the partisan nonsense?" I assume he's talking about political civility, which is one of those quaint concepts that is about as irrelevant today as "bipartisanship."

2) Lieberman says he is more devoted to his state and country than his party, which is certainly what a public official ought to be. By this logic he ought to respect the wishes of the Democratic voters (are they proud?) of Conn. who decided to choose someone else to represent them nationally, not to mention the more general notion of giving the people the last say. Instead, they're preventing Lieberman from governing, who apparently alone knows what the government ought to be doing for people.

I think the take-away message from Joe Lieberman can be condensed to: "there are things more important to me than belonging to a political party, and for me that is political power."

If this isn't what he is suggesting, then I have no idea what his independent candidacy represents.

Well, Joe thinks he knows best. It's the epitome of the "we know what's good for you, now take your medicine" nanny-state attitude that liberals are often criticized for. One can support economic justice and the general health and welfare issues that are the bedrock of liberal values without running counter to people's populist impulses.

If this isn't what he is suggesting, then I have no idea what his independent candidacy represents.

How about Zionism?

I keep rolling this thing around in my head and the message from Connecticut seems to be one of a stern warning for all incumbents that aren't listening and don't really or falsely represent their constituents. The post election announcement of JL pretty much says the voters had him figured out. In fairness he is likely in an emotional turmoil. After all, he feels he gave his best for a long time to Connecticut voters and is deeply hurt by this. He may yet come to understand that he, not the voters, changed over the years.

I don't think voter savvy is an across the board condition. While people may recognize their views are all but dismissed by the Washington power establishment, that won't always be translated into what has occurred here.

Politicians are nothing if not cynical and opportunistic, and most will see the hand writing on the wall written in big bold letters by Connecticut voters. Politicians' campaign words and actions are sure to be finely honed because of this. That leaves voters with the singular recourse of critically scrutinizing the voting record of incumbents. There has been an awful lot of legislation that has affected, negatively, the pocketbooks of voters. Much of it was supported from both sides of the aisle. Our legislators have voted with their wallets in mind way too often and we need to identify those incumbents and give them the boot. Congress is first and foremost about money. Our money. All other issues are used to distract us from seeing what the other hand is doing.

Around 1950 just shy of half of federal revenue was derived from businesses. That number is now in the mid-teens (and still shrinking). This change is largely about congress and the relationship between the legislative and electoral processes. JL changed over the years and the above circumstance is a fundamental part of the how and why he changed.

Beyond all else, voters need to understand this stuff before they step into the voting booth next November. And be careful, the Ned Lamonts of the world are first and foremost businessmen, just as judges Roberts and Alito represented corporate America before they lied their way onto the SC. Anybody see a pattern here?

thepeoplechoose

It's time for Al Gore to fly to Connecticut and deliver the coup de grace to all of this. If no other senior Democrats are willing to talk to Joe and tell him, "It's all over," then who better than Al Gore, his former up-ticket running mate, to bring this to an end, just as Barry Goldwater had to tell Nixon it was all over.

We wouldn't have to donate any money to Lamont if the party could just get its act together and tell Lieberman we don't take this lightly. That donor money could be put to better use in three important Connecticut Congressional races. Instead, it may be pissed away in a battle against Lieberman, who now plays overtly the role of Republican-surrogate.

There is no longer any question about what so many of us have said all along. Joe Lieberman's narcissism is hurting us. Please, don't tell me anymore about his "principles." A guy who milks the primary process in hopes of getting Democratic money and support, and then turns and runs AGAINST the party and its candidate when he loses, even after having all the benefits the party could offer, has no principles, and gets no sympathy from me.

Mary,

Does George Bush's fraud regarding the sale of Harkon stock while his father was president bother you too? Actually, that one was a two-fer, he not only engaged in insider trading, he also failed to report the sale for over a year.

Just wondering....

This is honest and fair criticism?

It looks to me like raving lunatic hyperbole.

How are Lieberman's views on Israel markedly different from those of any number of other Senators and members of the House? Answer: they're not. By your lights that means we must have a huge number of Zionists in the Congress.

I am not suggesting that his views are markedly different, simply questioning whether Zionist political ideology views account for his position. It is a valid and legitimate query.

Oh, that's right. I almost forgot. He's Jewish.

It is my understanding that Zionist is a political ideology  movement not a religion, so being Jewish should not be the issue. Lots of non-Jewish people support the Zionist agenda, which is why the 1948 resolution passed over the vehment objections of most of the Arab nations in the ME.

I guess in your view that makes me a wicked Zionist, too?

HUH? Where did you get the perception that Zionism is wicked? I think you are going off on a tangent that really has little to do with the substance of what I posted. I get the clear sense you find it objectionable but I am unclear why. I do not see why when one person is questioning Liebermans political position and I query  that he  perhaps supports the Zionist political agenda, it should elicit this judgemental response on your part.

I don't know how to interpret your comment other than as an example of anti-Semitism.

Most of the time when I've seen people hurl the Z word around here I've taken their posts as counter-productive expressions of deep frustration and resentment borne of what they see as lopsided US support for Israel's policies and the high costs they believe that support has entailed for US interests--not as evidence of anti-Semitism or being anti-Israel in the sense of wishing it would be annihilated by its neighbors.

.

WTF???  Hurl the Z word...is it an epithet? It is my understanding that being Jewish and Zionist are not at all the same thing. Is this a misinterpretation or what?

I have made no statement that can be construed as wishing for the annhilation of Israel...why are you have such an extreme reactionand taking such umbrage about questioning the basis of Lieberman's political views. ?

 Not this time, though

 Would you have this position if he were NOT jewish....'

Is questioning whether someone is Zionist only anti-semitic if the person is Jewish???

For the record. I am NOT anti-semitic AND it is my understanding that Zionism is NOT synonymous with being Jewish.

Here is my understanding:

The time has come, it seems, to lay down precisely and clearly a realistic formal definition of this term. Definitions on the order of "the link between the people of Israel, the Torah of Israel and the Land of Israel" will not help us understand why, for example, we consider the Neturai Karta anti-Zionists, even though they would wholeheartedly subscribe to the above formula, nor why Zionists who do not at all believe in the Torah of Israel and certainly do not follow its commandments are considered Zionists.

Trivial definitions such as "the belief in the Jewish people's existence in Eretz Israel" or "the struggle for the State of Israel's existence" do not provide any inkling of why Zionism was condemned in the United Nations by a country such as Sweden. A Swede is permitted to love his people and country and a Jew is forbidden to love his country?!

A definition such as "the right of the Jewish people to all of Eretz Israel" would place someone like Ben-Gurion outside the bounds of Zionism, for he was prepared to relinquish those parts of Eretz Israel taken in the Six-Day War.

The definition advanced by the Zionist left -"the national liberation movement of the Jewish people" -is altogether muddied. I do not know from whom the Jewish people is to be liberated. From the Americans? The British? And what about Israel itself? Are we not liberated?

Others maintain that a Zionist is someone who comes to settle in Eretz Israel. If so, what about all those who were born here: are they not Zionists? Confusion arises from each of these definitions...

I will here try to propose formal and precise definitions of this concept. Up until the establishment of the State of Israel a Zionist was defined as "a person... who wants to establish a Jewish State in Eretz Israel.' ,

The key word in this definition is State. Underlying the Zionist outlook was the ambition to establish a State. Zionism needed full sovereignty more than any other national movement because it demanded the right of unlimited immigration and unlimited settlement, and these could be realized only under full sovereignty.

Obviously there were differences over the tactics to adopt to achieve the goal. Some made no bones about it, others wanted to keep quiet until a Jewish majority was created in Eretz Israel. Some thought in terms of a bi-national State, others about partition and still others about all of Eretz Israel.

There were socialist, religious, bourgeois and nationalistic Zionists. Each had his own dream and ideology, but common to them all as Zionists was the final goal of the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Israel.

Once the State was established it could be said that Zionism was "over" for it had accomplished its mission. The mountain climber ceases to be a mountain climber once he reaches the summit. And so the definition had to be changed.

The desire to establish a Jewish State in Eretz Israel could no longer define the Zionist, for the State had already been established. The post-1948 definition is therefore the following: A Zionist is a person who accepts the principle that the State of Israel belongs not only to its citizens, but also to the entire Jewish people.

That is the definition and what is most important in it is, in my view, the last point, that the Zionist regards the State of Israel as belonging to the Jewish people as a whole.

Zionism is not a total ideology. If someone says he is a Zionist, he has still said very little about himself. He still has to clarify his position on his relationship to society, on the problem of the territories, on the questions of religion and State, on the problem of social inequalities and other things. Zionism cannot substitute for an ideology, such as socialism, liberalism, or religiosity…

With both Lieberman and Cynthia McKinney going down on the same night, I think we have to be a bit cautious in drawing too many conclusions about the direction this is pointing to.

Overall, I'd have to say that the only one making the Lieberman race about where the party is headed is Joe Lieberman. And he just got voted out for being out of touch. Probably not the best guy to be framing this question.

yes, many thanks!

Some people are determined to be offended, no matter what.

The state of righteous anger can be sought out by various pretexts, it allows a person to assume the moral highground and to direct the conversation as they will.

What was it that was said about the Bourbons of the Restoration? They remembered everything and learned nothing.

It's a funny old world, ennit?

Personally, I've never had a sense that whiterosebuddy was in any way anti-semitic, or that he'd passed any moral judgement on zionism.

So I'm surprised that he or she is attacked so aggressively.

First, I appreciate and accept the clarifications of your intent. I suspect you are right in attributing the misunderstanding to a "cultural gap".

While we are on this topic, I would like to elaborate a little on why the remark struck me the way it did, on the off chance this may have value for others interested in avoiding giving similar offense in their experiences.

There is nothing to my knowledge that is especially distinct about Lieberman's policy views on support for Israel. This caused me to wonder why, in his case, the suggestion was made that his real agenda might be zionism. I could think of no factor accounting for the suggestion other than the fact that he is Jewish.

Why so?

Zionism is, if not the mother of all loaded terms for American Jews, then at least a close aunt.

And why is that?

As used in political arguments in this country in the kinds of contexts I identified in my earlier post, it often carries with it a subtext suggesting that a person's ultimate loyalties are to Israel and not to the United States. I believe this is evident to any disinterested reader of any number of threads here which have exploded with venom on both sides on this issue.

The analogy with Catholics is relevant here. One of the barriers to the election of the first Catholic president was the perception that a Catholic president might feel obliged to follow a public policy position dictated by the Vatican, even if doing so might conflict with that individual's judgment as to what was in the best interests of the United States.

In his September 12, 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, John F. Kennedy sought to dispel these sources of opposition to his candidacy: which closes as follows:

"...If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I'd tried my best and was fairly judged.

But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add, with the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can, "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution -- so help me God."

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/johnfkennedyhoustonministerialspeech.html

Lieberman took that same oath as Kennedy did when sworn in to serve as a senator.

Obviously there are significant differences between the situations Catholics and Jews have faced when running for public office in the United States. The relevant similarity here is that both Catholics and Jews have been vulnerable to charges that they may place the interests of, in the one case, the Vatican, in the other case, Israel, over those of the United States--that they could not be trusted to adhere to their oath of office in this regard. This has been the case for individuals whose actions and words provide no indication of disloyalty. They in effect lose the benefit of the doubt that is accorded to Protestants in this country, simply because they are not Protestant.

(American Muslims at this time receive far less benefit of the doubt as to their loyalty to the United States than adherents of any of these other faiths, simply because of their religious faith. That, too, is wrong and unjustified and must be opposed.)

All of this occurs within the context of an established history of anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish bigotry in our country.

So when it is suggested by someone strongly opposed to zionism, that a Jewish public official has a zionist agenda, such a statement can carry very different overtones depending upon whether the person hearing it is Jewish or not Jewish.

I think it is simply true that American Jews are suspected of placing Israel's interests over those of our country in situations where non-Jews who hold essentially identical views on US policy towards Israel are not.

Most all of us have our crosses to bear, so to speak. I believe decent people everywhere want to contribute what they can to doing away with bigotry, in all its forms.

Again, I appreciate your efforts to explain your intentions and am pleased to move on as between us.