Has anyone ever seen Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman in the same place at the same time?
Let's see if he challenges Chris Mathews to a duel.

Now this item is easily filed under the long list of outrages that lieberman routinely does and which are of courseignored by his adoring press and his small but loud following in the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Perhaps it is worth taking it seriously, since no one could be repeatedly this provocative without trying. We all know the threat that prospects of a Howard Dean candidate in 2004 to this wing caused them to go slightly berserk with a campaign to purge and if not purge at least quarantine the antiwar faction and particularly michael Moore and the leftwing blogs and Dean. Now, Lieberman says the safety of the Republic depends on his slaying this faction now the majority of the Democratic Party. This is classic rhetoric when someone is trying to split a political party, trying to defeat it at the polls, destroy it, and take with him when he and the DLC and TNR, Peretz, Wittman, Kilgore, From, leave as big a chunk of the party as he can. They would like to split it down the middle; but they arewilling to take as much as they can get away with. A classic split maneuver that goes back to the (supposedly-hated) Lenin. If you think he remains loyal to the Democratic Party you are just not listening. This is the McCarthy tradition in all its glory.

wake up. they smear everyone who opposes them. that is their game. Murtha is as conservative a Dem as you can get. He is regularly smeared as part of the radical left. Who should HE get. Maybe a war hero like Cleland or Kerry or Wesley Clark (oh, he IS a war hero. sorry).

I didn't realize we had a Sharpton/Kos wing of the party.

According to the right wing media we do and this is being repeated frequently. Unfortunately only one candidate is associated with that wing of the party and his name is Lamont.

The only question remaining is:
"How low will Holy Joe go?"

Perhaps he needs to read up on the importance of humility?

Lamont needs to thank Hamsher, for this race taking on these extremist characterizations. Kos and Sharpton aare viewed as extremist and Lamont is going to be smeared with their public image just like he has been with Hamshers.

He needs to find some moderates fast, like Dodd, to start rectifying this image

Or he could run that advertisement in which Joe Lieberman accuses him of voting like the Republicans.

Before the Primary, I did some research on Thomas Lamont -- and my stories are posted in the archives of The Next Hurrah. I did three small stories. One was about Thomas Lamont's role in converting Walter Lippmann from Democratic Editorial Writer in Pulitizer's New York World in 1930-31 to star editorial writer and syndicated columnist at the New York Herald Tribune. Useful to know that in his college days, Lippmann had partnered with John Reed at the Harvard publications.

Second story was about the role Thomas Lamont played in the last hours of the Hoover Administration, and the very early hours of the Franklin Roosevelt Administration in crafting the Emergency Banking Act. It is a fun story in lots of ways, all about declaring a bank holiday so as to stop the total crash of our banking and finance system. Essentially I used Raymond Moley's account, published as "After Seven Years" -- which includes reproductions of the notes he took in FDR's bedroom at the Mayflower while FDR counted down the hours before taking office. After FDR retired for the night, Moley went to Treasury, worked on an open line with Tom Lamont, and with the late Hoover Treasury appointees, and FDR's still unconfirmed appointees -- and essentially wrote what would become the Emergency Banking Act, and FDR's executive orders closing down the banking system.

My third little tale was a lucky find in the FDR biographies written by Frank Freidel, one of the early (1950's) scholars dealing with FDR and the New Deal. Essentially what I found was Ned Lamont's 5 times Great Grandfather -- one Dan Lamont, who served as Campaign Manager to Grover Cleveland in his three Presidential Campaigns. In a letter to Jim Farley, the chair of the DNC in 1930, FDR invited him to a December 1930 meeting at Warm Springs, where along with Louis Howe, they planned the 1932 Presidential campaign. FDR told Farley that he considered Dan Lamont the best campaign manager ever -- and he wanted Farley and Howe to model themselves on Dan Lamont. Apparently this Lamont was a very close friend of FDR's father, James Roosevelt, and FDR's father had chaired the committee in NY during the Cleveland campaign. Sometime during Cleveland's second term (remember he won one, lost, and then won a 2nd term on his third try) it was this Dan Lamont who arranged for James Roosevelt to take a very young FDR to Washington for his first visit to the White House and to meet President Cleveland.

Too bad they didn't have video back in the 19th century -- all this is as good as Bill Clinton in the front ranks shaking hands with JFK. And Lieberman is the last of the Roosevelt's??? -- come off it. There is at least 130 years of US Political History here that weaves the Hudson River Roosevelts together with the Lamonts. And I believe there is even a closer relationship with some off shoots of the Oyster Bay Roosevelt clan.

Or he could run that advertisement in which Joe Lieberman accuses him of voting like the Republicans

Interesting. Where did Lamont get a voting record, at what level of politics?

This might backfire though. I think one of the groups that Lamont needs to try to get are the moderate Democrats who did vote for Lieberman. He needs their votes in the general election.

I think that's got it all wrong. As I've noted here before a couple of times, moderate Republicans are all excited about Lamont. Perhaps not every last moderate Republican, but certainly some of 'em.

And then there's the "netroots extremism" thingy. That's getting old. Anyone who checks out the netroots (are you a netroot, am I?), then they know we are as different from one another as snowflakes with the exception of cheering squads on certain popular blogs.

In a political litmus test, I wound up one small square on a graph away from Al Sharpton. I don't have a Tawana Brawley in my past, but aside from that.... Am I an extremist? Not according to the litmus test. I'm just a good old progressive of the somewhat academic type. So that's what Sharpton is too. Ah, but I have a white face. There's something about being liberal and black and independent and articulate (stentorian) and a fighter -- which makes a lot of Americans shudder and say, "uh-oh." Admittedly the guy can be a blowhard, and isn't sleaze-free, but he's also sharp as a tack.

I was a little skeptical about Lamont at the start. But I'm really impressed by him these days, though he is a little to the right of me. The voters questioning him? I thought they voted for him. 52/48? Heavily supported incumbent? Not bad for a newcomer...

I posted a kind of list of Lieberman's good friends today. The man is known by the company he keeps. (Excuse blogwhoring please.) Did not note that Lieberman's other friends and supporters in the Senate and elsewhere are working to get him to give up his campaign. That seems to be the biggest nail in his coffin. The betting is apparently that his campaign will have fizzled by the end of September.

If we spend another nano-second bewailing the other side's feelthy politics -- sheesh, there've been six years of this! -- we'll have no time left over to return the favor. On the other hand, the dirtier they play, the scareder they are. We might want to think about what other, more covert lengths they have yet to go to, particularly involving vote suppression (Salon has the story today on six states where it's really bad) and skewed vote counts.

Lamont's one of the best candidates we've had in a long time. In normal times, he would sail through as a "fiscally responsible centrist" etc. etc. I think quite a few people recognize that and have already voted for him. I doubt they'll be tempted back to Joe's team with all the slime it now represents.

You know you are really moving into Mary From RI territory here, posting the same off topic rant over and over multiple times.

I'm quite willing to call the 'blackface' thing a major mistake. But Lieberman's own history is replete with even more offensive bloopers.

I'm not sure where you're going with this argument that Lamont is associated with 'extremist moderates and nonwhites.'

The Republican machine paints everyone as an extremist. So there's no point in trying to duck the machine, just meet it head on and start duking it out.

As nearly as I can tell, the pursuit of a false and illusory moderation has consistently lead the Democrats to more and greater disasters than anything else.

Standing firm in the middle of the road doesn't work. It only leads to Liebermanism.

If Ned allows the Republicans to define him, then of course he'll be an extremist radical wingnut.

It's up to Lamont to define himself, and to define himself to each constituency. Frankly, I don't think he'll do that by by getting on his knees and unzipping flies.

You know you are really moving into Mary From RI territory here, posting the same off topic rant over and over multiple times

You know you are really moving into the blogofascist territory when you have to rate any posts which are dissenting from your view as zero.

It was posted again because it was rated zero, several times. Which as you know is a form of censure in this forum.

It was not off topic, as the original post, said that Lamont was being painted as being an extremist in the mode of Sharpton/Kos. There is nothing off topic in attributing that perception to Hamsher, as her actions were extremist as well. Perhaps, you need to be certain of what the topic is before accusing others of being off topic.

Why is it that folks like you can't present their opposing view and instead censure posts, with zero ratings,  they do not agree with?

What is clear is that this forum has a lot of folks who cannot take political dissent. AS this was far from a rant. It is simply a  view you oppose and it is ON-topic..

When it comes to Lamont there are a number of posters who want to restrict what can and cannot be said about Lamont. When they oppose the view they give the posts zeros. Dissent is acceptable in political discourse.  It seems though that for many of the Kos followers only incestuous amplification is acceptable. What a joke.

Why can't blogofascist and Kos' kids, handle dissent?

More importantly why can't they handle the  ugly truth about Hamshers' actions?

To get back to the baseball anologies...I think we are taking our eye off the ball when it comes to Lieberman v. Lamont. Their political divide notwithstanding, because one of them is almost assured of being elected it is a win-win for Dems as far as this year's big prize of controlling the Senate goes (Unless someone out there can convince me that Independent Joe will become a Rep.). Come the fall Conn. will be just another of the handful of interesting Senate races, covered closely in Conn. and the NY media but less so in the heartland.

The importance of the Conn. primary result was/is its impact on other candidates of both parties, including those with their eyes on the '08 presidential race. Because of the London terrorist plot the Lamont win barely made two news cycles before sinking from the national headlines, and talking-head pundit debate. But in the candidates' warrooms you can bet they are still talking about it. The obvious question for Dems is just how far can they go in bashing the Iraq policy, without a credible alternative, before they are labeled weak on fighting terrorism. As for the Reps, we are already hearing their drum beat. . . adapt and win, freedom agenda, adapt and win, freedom agenda.....P.S. Has anyone asked Al Gore if he's endorsing Ned?

"First off, Joe is a Democrat," Gerstein continued, "so it is silly to say that he is using this issue to partisan advantage.

Of course not ya idiot! He's using it for personal advantage! That's even worse! And he's no Democrat! He LOST! He's the "anti-democrat!"

[insert swearword of your choice], arrogant, delusional jerks these Lieberman folks are. I hope they lose BIG TIME, and I'll do all I can to ensue it.

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

Thank you sincerely, I've been checking into your info via google, and been happy to find corroboration.

You'd think Connecticut papers would be so thorough. Do me a favor, send an e-mail to Colin McEnroe at Mcadu98@aol.com, he might let the good folks of Connecticut know, and he is a popular radio host here.

Thanks.

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

You may not in fact be aware but the right wing slimeballs are going after Murtha's war record not just his views and positions

Yes, unfortunately this is true and I find it to be despicable. I could not disagree more with how Murtha is being characterized by the right and the all to willing right-leaning press and media. These are difficult times for people with honesty, integrity and the courage of their convictions. These are the same tactics they used to smear Kerry's war record. I think all of this is awful. I admire both Kerry and Murtha for their war records as well as the positions they are willing to fight for politically.

They are also ascribing to him defeatist views that he never expressed. How does one respond to a dishonest smear?

Well frankly, you call it a lie and them a liar. Since when did calling a lie a lie become uncivil discourse?

Is the correct approach to try to avoid it appearing as you recommend with people who are above reproach and cannot be reduced by attack to something else. I don't think so.

Lamont is not in the same league as Murtha, this is not a comparable situation at all when dealing with character issues. Murtha is a known entity and has lots of folks who can speak up for his character, in the GOP as well as the Dem party, not to mention his long-standing record of being a Hawk.  Lamont does not have any of this. He is an unknown who is quickly painted as having the views of those he 'associates with'. Two completely different situations.

I think of it as someone you like (and have had a longstanding relationship) showing up at  your door with a stranger. You allow the stranger in and give him the benefit of the doubt based on his association with someone whose views you know and respect. The exact opposite is occuring with Lamont. He is showing up as 'the stranger' with folks whose views many do not respect and find extremist...ergo he is not being accepted and respect based on the views of those he is associated with.

I am not recommending that Lamont avoid being seen with folks. He can be seen with folks who have a wide spectrum of views. I am recommending that  he needs to BALANCE out the types he is associated with. He needs to appear with moderates as well.

Which was why I suggested that he campaign with Dodd, even Clinton neither of whom are associated with 'extemist' views. Rangel, Conyers, Lewis are all people who have a better 'image' than Waters, Sharpton and Jackson. Folks may not like the former groups views, but they are respected. The latter group seldom is.

One last thing I need to say is that I am not against Lamont. I want him to win. I simply see weaknesses in the current approach and tactics of some of his most ardent supporters. I hope that by experessing how his actions can be percieved that actions will be taken to modify and minize the unwanted aspects of those approaches.

In short, I am hoping the feedback is helpful.

I rated it a 0 because you posted the same thing twice in the same thread, which is trolling.

I didn't down rate it the first time because it was a legit topic, but your continuing to repost it is abusive trolling in it's worst form. You brought it up, people commented and engaged you in conversation, you made your point. Now your just trying to be a bully and a jerk.

It was one tasteless photo posted by a blogger who should have known better, not a pattern by the Lamont campaign.

You sound like Condi Rice saying 'it's just 16 words'. When folks continue to do things along the same lines it is called a pattern. The pattern here is Kos, Sharpton, Jackson, Waters and the minstrel image. All have an extremist image.

If you want to talk about racist appeals lets get into the repeated efforts of Joe and his staff to tie Lamont to the "Maxine Waters and Al Sharpton democrats"

This is not analogous. That you think it is underscores why you think it was one 'tasteless'  photo as opposed to racist image.

It was a racist image, but the point was it happened one time and it was a mistake because she wasn't trying to be racist with it isn't a pattern, Lamont is not George Allen. Why are you so obsessed with this nonsense?

And come on, when Joe's people repeatedly bring up Waters and Sharpton in front of white audiences they know exactly what they are doing. They aren't just talking about the war, they don;t say Nancy Pelosi Democrats, or Russ Fiengold Democrats.

Shouldn't be a zero. I see how it could have been taken that way, but I know what you were saying here... 

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

Thanks

Also, currently posts with a 0 rating are hidden only from people who aren't logged in, not from users

They are also hidden from anyone who is not a TU or who does not have a high enough "karma rating" aa well.