Joe Lieberman

The new definition of a "serious" Democratic senate candidate

The DC Conventional wisdom has deemed CT Congressman Chris Murphy the one "serious candidate" the Democrats are fielding for an open U.S. Senate seat.

Well, this seems to be akin what what the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "defining deviancy downward". Maybe the MSM is now defining "serious" on a curve when it comes to Congressman Murphy, the Eddie Haskell of the House.

After all, getting "Bieber Fever" is exactly what one associates with the attributes of statesmanship  

Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has contracted, but quickly kicked, a case of Bieber fever. During a recent interview with Rolling Stone, singer Justin Bieber, a native of Ontario, came out in favor of health-care reform. "Canada's the best country in the world. We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills," he told the magazine. On Thursday afternoon, Murphy read the quote online and tweeted his approval, posting a link to Bieber's comments. Moments later, Murphy recanted. "Oh wait . . . just heard what Biebs said about abortion," the congressman tweeted, referring to the immaculately coiffed 16-year-old's pro-life stance. "Ugh. #bieberfevercured."

I leave it to Congressman Murphy to justify why he was so quick to attack the child of a single mother for a pro-life attitude.  But maybe the problem here is that this is an example of someone who is simply too shallow and immature to be trusted with the responsibility of being a U.S. Senator. Obviously Congressman Murphy was greatly taken by Justin Bieber's tremendous expertise is the realm of health care finance.

Are we to assume perhaps Chris Murphy will next be taking advice on the issue of nuclear nonproliferation from Miley Cyrus?

The country is facing fiscal ruin, the Chinese are gaining on our economy, the Islamic world is a tinderbox. And a U.S. Senate candidate has "Bieber Fever". What is wrong with this picture?

Frankly, whatever your opinion of Joe Lieberman's record in the Senate you have to admit that Chris Murphy isn't in the same area code as Lieberman when it comes to his stature and abilities.  In 13 years of holding elective office Murphy can cite only one accomplishment, a state stem cell bill the Democratic legislature would have passed with or without him. 

Mind you this isn't the first time Murphy has made a shallow, immature statement on his Twitter feed. Last fall he cited a New York Times story about the number of people arrested wearing Yankee caps, and Murphy chimed in that he was "not surprised"; implying, of course, that Yankee fans were all street criminals.  Thoughtful and responsible. NOT

Murphy has pulled a big scam on the credulous CT media.  If one superimposes the template of Chris Murphy as being the spoiled child of a rich Hartford lawyer, --who legacied his son into his "Little Ivy" alma mater--hmmm..... suddenly this snide superficial attitude comes into clearer focus.

Unfortunately, the CT press gets a fever over any breathing Democrat whether they are a pop star or not.   

 Justin Bieber's views on health care won praise.

Separated at birth?

 

==Update===

After calling Yankee fans criminals, Chris Murphy's campaign is running web ads on the Yankee fan site, River Ave. Blues.  I mean--- this is a new dimension of shameless!

Joe Lieberman's long goodbye

Tomorrow, a man true to himself calls it a day in elective politics. Joe Lieberman will announce his retirement at the end of this term.

Lieberman is an interesting case for many reasons. In 2006, when the Democratic Party adopted advocacy of military defeat as a campaign platform, Lieberman stood athwart history and said NO.  After his rejection by his party's voters Lieberman took his case to the entire electorate, and won a fairly convincing victory.

We don;t know what the corruptive effect on the Democratic Senate caucus the election of Ned Lamont would have caused. I do know that at a point when the George W. Bush adminstration seemed to have the communication skills of a stump and the fighting skills of Punch Out's Glass Joe. Lieberman carried the cause of seeing Iraq through loudly and proudly.

Now the ride is over. Supposedly Lieberman wanted to run again but found no path. The problem here is the voters may reward a candidate for breaking with one party for one reason, but will not reward zig zagging across the political landscape.   Lieberman's position on health care reform and "climate change" made him unsalable to a Republican primary electorate.

Now the successors are on the way. The persistant and fumbling Susan Bysiewicz has already announced, and the Eddie Haskell of the House, Chris Murphy, is almost sure to follow.  On the Republican side Linda McMahon may have never stopped running. Whether she can run a more focused campaign than one that veered into Vietnam during an economic crisis, and used Hermes clad muffies as spokespeople--well, remain to be seen. Tom Foley, who emerged well liked from the gubernatorial run, and old reliable Rob Simmons are giving the race some thought it is said.

Connecticut 2012 may be a wild ride. But when we're done we will probably miss the adult in the room leaving the stage tomorrow.

   

 

Be pragmatic tomorrow- Remove a radical from CT 5

Ultra liberal Chris Murphy is trying the Big Con for CT voters. We can call him on it. And we need to do it now.

Chris Murphy's closing argument in his flagging bid for re-election is that he represents the "pragmatic center" of American politics. This is a place he visits only after Labor Day on even numbered years.

I call B.S. on this. Let's count the ways Murphy is far to the Left in American politics--even beyond the usual Nancy Pelosi foot soldier.

Terrorism

Chris Murphy thinks our efforts to keep Americans safe should be micromanaged by lawyers and run in a fashion so as to not to offend foreign press.

Murphy is one of the most vocal opponents of the use of warrantless wiretaps to obtain information to thwart terrorist threats. We do not know the precise manner this past week effort to blow up Jewish houses of worship with mail bombs was foiled, but do we want to hamstring the people who keep us safe? Murphy evidently does.

Worse still, he favored letting the telecom firms that assisted the War on Terror face ruinous lawsuits from lefty lawyers 

Erick Erickson at Red State has more on this point.

Murphy is also one of the firmest opponents of keeping the detention facility at Gitmo open. What he suggests we do with the jihadists we do not know.

Health Care

Chris Murphy has a problem with the health care bill. He doesn;t think it went far enough. He is a strong supporter of the public option. And why?  Because last year he told the Meriden Record Journal  "I'm haven't given up on private insurance" while claiming the public sector could provide the same service better.  

There are tens of thousands of private insurance jobs in CT. What a joy to know our Congressman isn't ready "yet" to have the federal government put them all out of business.   Murphy went to some tony college in the UK for awhile; perhaps he became enamored of the NHS and socialized medicine while over there.

Netroots

If you are an ally of Kos, you are not a Blue Dog, a New Democrat, or a fiscal conservative. You have decided to ally yourself with folks who think the Democratic Party has not yet moved far enough to the Left. 

Chris Murphy was a lead speaker at Kos' Netroots Nation convention. He wants to be the "tip of the spear" advancing the liberal agenda through Congress.

He told MSMBC that after he and his colleagues got past the voters in November they would return with "steel in their spine" ready to cast more tough votes against the wishes of their constituents.

So Murphy is following the playbook. talking left outside the district, talking right inside the district, and planning to do whatever he pleases if he is returned to office.

That, by the way, will be to abandon his work as a House member and start his 2012 senate campaign against Joe Lieberman.  Of course, CT observers have noticed that if Murphy loses tomorrow, he's probably all done for 2012.

Conclusion

There are plenty of Democrats who are going to lose. Many are well meaning and misguided. But as for a toxic cocktail of ambition, ideology and insincerity there are none more deserving of defeat than Connecticut's Chris Murphy. 

If you agree go to www.samforcongress.com 

  

Cap And Tax… Kerry, Lieberman, Graham Style.

John ‘Swiftboat’ Kerry. The man who perjured himself in front of Congress to sell out his brothers in arms? That John Kerry? Anything Kerry’s involved with can’t help but be just terrific for the country, right?

Then there’s Joe Lieberman. I really admire Lieberman’s unwavering support of the war against terrorism and his steadfast support of the State of Israel. So much so that I could almost forget how far left Joe Lieberman really is… almost. Only a liberal could have put forth a bill like this.

Then we come to the final member of the triumvirate, who did not have much input with the language of the bill but who has since identified himself with it, Lindsey Graham. Now, Graham may not have had any say in this legislation, but it points out exactly why Graham should go the way of Bob Bennett.


From Left: Graham, Lieberman, Kerry.

This ‘new’ climate legislation is being called dead on arrival this year by some of the leadership on both sides. It still looks as though the intrepid trio will attempt to move it forward anyhow. The bill itself is a job and economy killer as all such legislation is. It will put considerable burdens on 2,700 manufacturing and power generators by requiring a 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The economy is still staggering under the cumulative effects of two years of severe recession. Any impediment to business and commerce will be magnified.

Additional requirements, burdens and taxes will be placed on offshore oil and gas drilling operations. It does, however, strip the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions, which would be an excellent idea if it weren’t couched in this larger bill. This bill is certain to be strongly resisted by Republicans, but there are many of the left’s extreme environmental wing nuts who aren’t a bit happy with the bill’s provisions, such as billions of dollars for ‘clean coal’ and offshore drilling and exploration. There are also provisions for nuclear power. These last items are of course sops for Republican support, which is likely to be scarce.

It is an ill-conceived piece of legislation at an even more inopportune time and, fortunately for us, looks unlikely to see the light of day.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

A Tale Of Two Republican Parties.

On one side we have the party Conservatives. On the other we have the RINOs. You’ll notice there is no middle category here. I think that all but the densest, tunnel-visioned and hide-bound ‘old guard’ Republicans have figured out that the Patriot Movement (what they and the lame-stream press love to call ‘the Tea Baggers’) is no flash in the pan, and has just grown stronger despite the worst the leftist press and the Democrat spin machine (and some Republicans) could do to denigrate it and drive wedges into it. Their breathless characterization of a third party fell flatter than last week’s beltway champagne.

It is, by any measure, the new voice of the Republican party and, in point of fact, is not being controlled by the Party but is pulling the party along behind it. The new Conservative Republican party has a bright future, with a highly motivated and self-aware membership made up of solid conservative patriots who are determined that the principles of freedom that make this country great will be upheld.

President Reagan unknowingly describes the aims of the Patriot Movement:

We have come very close to losing our country. We might yet. The forces of freedom have been marshaled to stop the march to totalitarianism none too soon. We have some really promising rising stars in the party. Wholesome, grounded Conservatives like Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan, who single-handedly carved President Obama’s arguments to shreds at the health care summit. We have Michael Pence, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Michelle Bachmann and others.

Then we have the RINOs. There is really no room for these people in our party going forward, their names are familiar to us all and the damage they have caused well known. Several are facing primary challenges as we speak, others will retire rather than face the just retribution of their constituents. Those who are not up for election this cycle such as Lindsey Graham (amnesty, green jobs, carbon tax) will be voted out next time around. John McCain faces a strong challenge in Arizona and none to soon. After all the damaging and totally wrong-headed stuff he has signed off on you’d think he’d learn. Now he’s out to try and regulate the vitamin and food supplement industry so that the government can destroy more private business. Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are two more that need to go.

The Democrat party is not the party of my grandparents, or my parents for that matter. It is a party of committed ideologues run by Leftists, Progressives, Marxists, Communists (name your poison), whose only goal is to fundamentally change this country into that of a socio-Marxist state. There are some principled people left in the party, albeit isolated and powerless. The very nature of the party mission does not permit dissent nor foster independent thinking or opinions. Those who do not march in lockstep with the leadership are treated as outcasts, in some instances given the treatment that resulted in Senator Joseph Lieberman leaving the party.

This is the face of the enemy. We have to win. There is no option.

This is why a new, vital Conservative Republican party is being forged.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

 

CT; The Mystery of the Vocal Senator and the Silent Senator

In a few days Robert Downey Jr. will star in a new movie version of "Sherlock Holmes". This week in CT we have been treated to a new mystery.

One senator, Joe Lieberman, has been out front and center on the debate over health care...attracting almost as much attention...and venom...as wayward golf legend Tiger Woods

The other senator just weeks ago pledged to make it his mission to pass health care reform as a tribute to his late friend. But in recent weeks, Chris Dodd has gone into radio silence on the whole issue.

At first I thought Harry Reid had put a gag order on Dodd, lest unpleasant banking stories step on socialized medicine talking points. But now I realize this form of omerta is probably the result of Dodd's pollster's

Today I wandered into a copy of a poll Whit Ayres took in CT on November 8-10 for a national business advocacy group. The results indicate that this very blue state has little enthusiasm for health care reform    

Connecticut voters overall, and independents in particular, think that health care reform will raise their taxes, increase the deficit, cause their health care costs to go up, expand government control over health care, and harm health care for seniors

 The specifics bear this out.

  • 66% of CT voters believe health care reform will cause taxes to go up
  • 69% of CT voters believe health care reform will increase the deficit
  • a majority of CT voters, inclusing 68% of independents and 62% of seniors believe the proposed Medicare cuts will harm health care for seniors
  •  a majority of CT voters believe the reforms will raise their health care costs

The "public option" didn't save the troubled bill. Although overall support was split; the intensity of opposition was far greater than the intensity of support, with 36% of the voters "strongly opposing" it.  44% of independents "strongly opposed" the public option.

Finally, despite all the screaming and bleating from the lefties across the nation, the poll showed Joe Lieberman clearly the more popular of CT's two senators  Lieberman had a 52% to 29% favorable rating, while Dodd was negative by a 41% to 47% rating; which included a shocking  59% negative rating from independents.

So this polls explains why Joe Lieberman is comfortable standing alone on health care, and why Chris Dodd is on radio silence. The relentless advocacy of health care reform didn;t save Dodd's political fortunes, and the issue isn't looking to do much damage to Lieberman's standing.

Explains why one dog is barking, and one isn't. now doesn't it?  

Why don't moderates go for a "cup of Joe" more often?

I've often wondered why some politicians feel so compelled to play the game within the standard two party system?

One thing I believe will be accelerating for the near future is the disintermediation of political direction from centralized authority to individuals and candidates.  This is a product both of technology, and the decline of traditional media and traditional party "leadership" to impose discipline. As we've seen, some in the DC GOP establishment seem quite offended that party members reach their own conclusions.

The wired world is a world where party members are far more likely to figure out "the score" on an officeholder, and it will be far more difficult to "talk the talk" in one's home state when one hasn't "walked the walk" in DC.

The first victim of this phenomena was CT Senator Joe Lieberman in 2006. No matter how often he had supported Democrats on other issues; the rank and file CT Democratic party saw his support for the Iraq War as a dealbreaker and he lost his primary.

Lieberman is still in the Senate because he took the advice of his mentor John Droney and ran a 3rd party race; correctly perceiving that in such a "blue state" the Republicans would not seriously contest the general election. But given that Lieberman won by 10 points, it's not clear to me even a full bore Republican effort would have been successful, and the greater risk was throwing the election to squishy Ned Lamont.

Joe Lieberman is not the first or last politician whose views, while palatable to voters in general, have moved where their party will not travel.  Oddly, the Lieberman lesson was lost on two other Senators in risk of losing Democratic primaries---Arlen Specter and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Arlen Specter thrived for decades under the rubric of being "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". or, at least moderate. The stimulus vote ripped this meme to shreds and left him easy pickens to any credible Republican who filed for a primary, in this case,Pat Toomey saw his opportunity and took it.       

Arlen Specter thought he had greener pastures as a Democrat, but now he had decades of votes in favor of Republican bills and nominees to defend. Not the least being the AUMF vote on Iraq. So unless the Democrats muscled all the serious challengers out of the way, Specter was facing serious trouble.

Delaware County Congressman Joe Sestak wasn't dissuaded (hard to browbeat those career military men) and the primary between him and Specter is already on the ugly side.

I think Specter is going to lose this primary. His prior support for George W. Bush is going to be toxic. A disproportionate number of Democratic primary voters are in metro Pittsburgh, where Specter ran weakly in both the 2004 primary and general. Sestak is an unknown there now; that won't last. Maybe the huge black vote in Philadelphia turns out for Specter in a '10 primary;he garned little of it against a weak general election opponent in '04. And Specter's support among moderates in the SEPA suburbs and the "T" is likely to erode if he tries a slash and burn against Sestak; who is a Philly suburbanite and not some raving lefty.

The only way for Specter to win a Democratic primary is to tack his policies far to the left. So if he wins, then he hands Pat Toomey the issue of whether Pennsylvania is well served by a political chameleon. Not that a Republican is a sure thing in 2010 PA, but against a self-serving DC insider, well, it starts looking a lot better. And Toomey will be the "nice guy" in the race having avoided the intermural blood match.

What if Arlen had run independent?  I think he had enough residual strength among voters who don't vote in either primary to win, plus suburban/small city PA is a bigger chunk of that electorate.than the urban dominated Democrats or the rural dominated GOP. Plus, the fear of letting a vocal conservative like Toomey in the Senate would have put a damper on Democratic funding and recruitment. Could Specter have navigated the path of being an "Obama Republican"?  Not sure he'd be worse off now for having tried; and he could grab the mantle of being too concerned about policy to worry about party politics.

So, we find a party switch didn't work out so well for a Republican who was too liberal. So how is staying in her party working for a somewhat conservative Democrat? Not so well.

Kirsten Gillibrand's misfortune was to be appointed to the Senate as an upstate ticket balancer to liberal Harlem Democrat Governor David Paterson.Paterson's standing has crashed and dragged Gillibrand with it.

Gillibrand was a pro-Second Amendment; anti-bailout; border security Blue Dog. At least she was when representing a Republican leaning upstate district. Since joining the Upper Chamber she's been reeducated to modify her views to appease liberal downstate Democrats.

And she shouldn't have bothered. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, a liberal from Manhattan's "silk Stocking" district, has all but announced her primary bid and tied with her in the polls. And don't think anyone who has the Citicorp HQ in her district won't be able to raise cash at will.

Gillibrand's strength and weakness is she is viewed as "the upstate senator".  Upstate NY thinks--correctly--it is the forgotten child in NY State politics.  But it cast about 45% of the vote in an off-year general election. An upstate Democrat is well positioned to win a two way statewide race given the inevitable Democratic pluralities out of the City.

But an upstate candidate is poorly positioned to win a contested nomination. Over 50% of Democratic primary votes are cast in the City, and another 20% in the suburbs. There are very few parts of the City (the 9th CD; the 13th CD; some legislative districts in Queens) where a Democrat of Gillibrand's background is going to be well received.  As long as Maloney can frame this race as the NYC liberal against the less reliable girl from Albany, she is going to win this primary...since Gillibrand will need a virtually unanimous vote upstate to offset NYC.  And , barring sudden interest by a serious Republican--Maloney wins the general election.    

Let's assume the Republicans run someone akin to a John Spencer or a Howard Mills.  And let's assume Gillibrand did a Lieberman. I doubt the Republican could garner 20% of the statewide vote under this scenario; since I think Gillibrand pulls from their regional upstate base.

Now let's assume Upstate Democrats stuck with Gillibrand. Under these circumstances she'd just need to cobble together enough soft Republicans and independents in the suburbs and outer boroughs to win. (Hmm, Bloomberg and Giuliani endorsements?) . I think there's an easier path for her to get 42% in a general election than 50% in a Democratic primary. Especially since there already is a centrist 3rd Party (the Independence Party) which is guaranteed a ballot spot for the '10 NYS general election. 

I think that centrists of both parties are going to have to come to grips with the reality that if they want to stay in office, they will have to do it themselves. It's better to stay in office with the "cup of Joe" then to be tossed out trying to be the partisan your record proves you are not. 

Perhaps MA State Treasurer Tim Cahill, planning a independent candidacy against embattled Obama clone Gov. Deval Patrick, is the start of a trend?   

 We've been told that Republicans don't make moderates feel very welcome. How welcome are the Democrats under Obama, Reid and Pelosi?...especially if you are a moderate from a blue state? 

Go with Joe or choose the ice floe

First, a big shout out to my buds @ The New York Times. While the "Paper of Record" chose not to use my name or the name of RedState's Moe Lane we were both quoted verbatim as the authoriative voice on what ought to be done about the "Cap & Tr8-ors"

Thanks for giving this a wider audience

 "I don't think one can minimize why this was a truly hideous vote for those eight folks," a commentator on the conservative blog the "Next Right" wrote. "Here we had a chance to derail the Obama socialism train and restore the Republican party to policy relevance, and these guys bailed out so they could get a nice mention in the NY Times."

Guess it still feels like John Mellencamp sang in "Small Town" "hey, look at who's in the big town"

I digress

Here's the choice for the Cap &Tr8-ors

081112_lieberman_grim.jpg117.jpg

former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Lieberman has come out against Obama's "public option" health care scheme.

“If we create a public option, the public is going to end up paying for it,” Lieberman said following an hour-long confab with public-health experts at the Ashmun Street community center of the Monterey Homes public housing complex. “That’s a cost we can’t take on"

I've disagreed with Joe frequently, but on this one he is clearly part of the "reality-based community".  Evidently "Countrywide Kent" Conrad is also not sipping the public option kool aid either.

So, here's the deal for Rep. Bono Mack, Castle, Kirk, Lance, LoBiondo, Reichert and Smith (I omitted McHugh on purpose; he's already been bought).

 You can go with Joe Lieberman and publicly break with the central element of Obamacare.  

Or you can get sent to the ice floe.

Choose Wisely. (if you you choose poorly, this will do you more good than Pac $$ and endorsements)

Infighting We Can Believe In

The price of power.

Kos:

But there's also disdain for the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies. But in a city known for tone-deafness, there clearly isn't a more tone-deaf group than the Senate Dems.

I'm done with Reid as Senate leader.

A Kos commenter:

I hope Reid is as forgiving

when we all support his primary challenger.

Stoller:

I sort of get tired of making this point, but Democratic leaders are often not on our side, they often don't agree with us, and it's foolish to consider them as teammates.  They aren't.

Sirota:

With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head.  In fact, with their votes, they have aggressively worked to start and continue the war, pass the bailout and destroy our constitutional rights to privacy. So, are we really surprised that they have rewarded Joe Lieberman with a chairmanship that he can use to investigate the president he said poses a danger to America?

Jane Hamsher, on the phone with Howard Dean:

JANE HAMSHER: With all due respect, Governor Dean, we were all just told to go screw ourselves.  That our concern for Barack Obama and that our concern about the war and everything else that we fought so hard for within the Democratic Party is meaningless.

And Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet.

McCain-Lieberman '08

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't mind Joe Lieberman that much, and feel myself getting a little excited with his name being floated so prominently at the 11th hour. I wouldn't want him picking SCOTUS nominees, but he'd be a game-changing pick to prevent the ascendancy of the Goracle of Obama.

To me, the VP process isn't about Joe Lieberman or whomever McCain selects. It's about McCain. Showing that he isn't afraid to roll the dice and throw long isn't a bad thing. As far as my vote goes, McCain's willingness to be bold would convert me from anti-Obama to an enthusiastically pro-McCain voter.

True, this wouldn't help with the base. But I have to ask: How could the base possibly be any more demoralized than it is now? McCain is not by nature a base-pleasing candidate, and he has shown no inclination of changing. Why not at least do something that would spark some organic interest and excitement in a McCain-led ticket -- even if it were more trans-partisan and anti-Obama than conservative?

The fact is it's probably not going to be possible to get conservative energy that is distinctly pro-McCain, but it is possible to get enthusiastic about the idea of beating Obama. Anything that would get McCain to a stable lead would do more to get conservatives excited than having an "acceptable" VP and the one of two days of accolades from elites that goes with it.

As I've said above, this is not an endorsement of Lieberman for president, though his judgment on foreign policy, 75% of the President's job, is impeccable. Nor is this a choice any conservative should want in an election we "should" win -- such as one that would come after a two-term Democratic administration.

But McCain is the underdog in this race. History favors an Obama victory, and he will probably have a 10-15 point lead after tonight. In that context, I like the idea of McCain rolling the dice, particularly if the alternatives -- KBH and Meg Whitman -- are just as demoralizing to the base and share none of the symbolic upside of Lieberman.

Syndicate content