Open Thread

Stewart kicked the crap out of Lieberman tonight. Brilliant. Hopefully, we'll have video soon. Samantha Bee's report was excellent, too.

Lieberman's made himself in to a national joke. Read More......

Dick hearts Joe -- and claims his loss emboldens "Al Qaeda types"

Of course Cheney loves Lieberman -- ever since Joe was such a wimp in their 2000 debate. But if the media needs any reason to know how insane the Bush team is, the fact that Cheney suggests that Al Qaeda is emboldened by Lieberman's loss is all the evidence they need:

Mr. Cheney offered warm praise for Mr. Lieberman, who was his opponent for vice president in 2000, though he said he did not want his remarks to be construed as an endorsement of Mr. Lieberman.

He cast Mr. Lieberman’s loss in ominous terms, suggesting that it would hearten American terrorist enemies. Terrorists, he said, are “betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.

Terrorists have benefitted immensely from the Bush/Cheney regime. Bush/Cheney have bogged us down in an unwinnable war. They've made us look weak to the world. They've created a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq. They've undermined American values -- and destroyed our stature in the world. It's laughable to think that Joe Lieberman's loss is even registering with the terrorists.

How can the media just not burst in to laughter when they hear these outrageous claims from Cheney? The media and the voters can't fall for this same spin from the Bush team this year, too. Read More......

Opposition to Iraq war at 60%: highest level yet

The GOP and their pal, Joe Lieberman, can run on their support for the Iraq war. They can keep their "stay the course" strategy. The American people aren't there -- in higher numbers than ever:

Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday.

News like this is another reason why: Three more soldiers were killed today. Read More......

Howard Dean: Joe Lieberman is wrong to run as an independent

Good statement from Dean:

Dear Fellow Democrat,

Ned Lamont -- that's the name of the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate from Connecticut. He defeated Senator Joe Lieberman yesterday in a hard-fought primary election.

There's been a lot said about this race and what it means for our party, so I wanted to get a few things straight.

One big issue in this race was the war in Iraq. Like the vast majority of Americans, Ned Lamont believes that "staying the course" will only drive America and Iraq deeper into disaster.

Lamont's courage and conviction on Iraq will make him a good Senator. But his positions on all the important issues -- on Iraq, but also balancing the budget, getting every American health insurance, and solving the energy crisis -- will make him a great Senator. These are not just the values of the Democratic Party, they are mainstream American values, and they are Ned Lamont's values.

After his loss, Joe Lieberman announced his intention to run as an independent. That's the wrong thing to do.

Ned Lamont won fair and square. We have a process, and those who participate in it should respect the outcome. Joe Lieberman should respect the Democratic voters' decision. He has to do what all of us who have lost an election have done: support the winner.

Our party is united on a new direction for our country. Joe Lieberman has been nominated for Senate by Democratic voters three times, and has served admirably for 18 years. But this moment in our country's history demands that we be unified.

This race wasn't about ideology. Ned Lamont succeeded because of participation politics -- he talked plainly and honestly with the people of Connecticut, and his campaign engaged in the kind of neighbor-to-neighbor organizing that has reinvigorated our party across the country.

Over a quarter-million people voted in the Democratic primary in Connecticut yesterday. Among those taking part in that exceptionally high voter turnout were tens of thousands of people who are new to our party. Voters included Republicans and Independents joining the Democratic Party and others registering for the first time and choosing to be Democrats.

That bodes well for our chances not just in Connecticut but everywhere that people like you have been working to build this party from the ground up.

We've got to be unified through November.

Thank you,
Howard

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Chairman, Democratic National Committee

Read More......

Veteran Democratic strategist says Lamont should challenge Lieberman and Bush to a debate

I had an email exchange today with a veteran Democratic strategist who offered some free advice to Ned Lamont that I just had to share. I don't share private communications, but was told I could quote this one paragraph:

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos is reporting that Rove called Joe Lieberman and said Bush is willing to do anything he can to support him. Lamont needs to jump all over this. He ought to call on Joe to bring Bush to Connecticut. He ought to challenge Bush and Joe to a three-way debate. He ought to ask Joe to bring Rummy and Cheney and Condi as well -- Ned can offer to take them to the homes of moms and dads whose boys died because of their incompetence; to hospitals where better, braver men than Bush and Joe are recovering from horrific wounds because of the dishonesty and ineptitude of Bush and Co. He ought to be on Bush like white on rice, like stink on shit, like ugly on an ape.

Ned? Read More......

GOP party chair Ken Mehlman refuses to endorse Republican Senate candidate

Oh man, the head of the entire Republican party is now refusing to endorse the Republican candidate for US Senate in Connecticut. Chris Matthews asked Mehlman REPEATEDLY, and each time Mehlman refused to endorse the Republican candidate. Clearly it's because George Bush has now endorsed Joe Lieberman, and Lieberman is therefore the Republcan party's candidate in Connecticut. This is absolutely stunning. Just whose side is Joe Lieberman on?

Video from PoliticsTV:

MATTHEWS: Do you want Republicans in Connecticut to vote for the Republican candidate or do you want them to vote for Joe Lieberman, which one?

MEHLMAN: I'm letting Republicans in Connecticut make that decision.

Read More......

GOP Senator Rick Santorum signs, then un-signs, statement supporting rights of transgender and gay Americans

Apparently, Rick Santorum was for gay and transgender civil rights before he was against it.

Two weeks ago, Senator Rick Santorum's staff met with gay activists - following that meeting, Santorum had his photo taken with the activists.



Within a few days of that meeting, Santorum signed a statement promising not to discriminate in his hiring practices based on the sexual orientation or gender identity of the job applicant. The Senator's openly gay press secretary confirmed to GenderPAC, the group asking for signatures, that the signature was real and that Santorum was on board. Here is the signature that was faxed from the US Senate.


(Click image to see larger copy)

After Santorum's signature on the statement became public, Santorum's office first said nothing, then reportedly denied the signature was real, and today sent GenderPAC a letter "rescinding" the signature (and here we though the good Senator believed people should take responsibility for their actions).

What was Santorum possibly thinking? Clearly he's worried about his re-election and trying to suck up to moderate Republicans and Democrats who think/know that the good Senator is the religous right's darling in the Senate. But is the man stupid? Does he really think anyone in the middle is going to believe that Rick Santorum has gone suddenly pro-gay and pro-transgender? And did no one in Santorum's office expect the obvious radical right backlash that would, inevitably, force Santorum to flip flop, like he just did?

This is the Republicans' number 3 guy in the Senate, and they wonder why they're having problems.

Here is GenderPAC's statement.

Press Release -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Taneika Taylor
Gender Public Advocacy Coalition (GenderPAC)
www.gpac.org

GPAC Regrets Rescinding of Support for Diversity Statement

WASHINGTON (August 9, 2006) - Less than a week after becoming the 170th Member of Congress to affirm that his office does not discriminate in its employment practices based on an individual’s "sexual orientation or gender identity and expression," Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) today rescinded his signature on the Diversity Statement.
"Every person deserves the opportunity to pursue their career and succeed - regardless of whether they are gay, transgender, or fit expectations for masculinity or femininity," said Riki Wilchins, Executive Director of the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition (GenderPAC.) "We were surprised but pleased when Senator Santorum affirmed that his office does not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. We are disappointed by the Senator's new decision, and hope he will reconsider in the future."

The Diversity Statement is a joint project initiated in 2003 by GenderPAC and the Human Rights Campaign that has received bipartisan support on Capitol Hill from members of the House and Senate.

Sen. Santorum's signature came after a meeting the week of July 24th with Adrian Shanker - a volunteer field trainer with GenderPAC's youth program and student at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, PA - and three of his classmates. Shanker had previously lobbied his school administration successfully to add "gender identity and expression" to its own non-discrimination policies.

They also met with Legislative Aide Anna Mitchell. After the meeting, the Senator posed for a picture with the four students. A copy of the Senator's statement was faxed to GenderPAC at 7pm the evening of August 1. The signature was confirmed the following morning by senior aide, Robert Traynham.

At 4:45pm today, August 9th, the Senator again faxed GenderPAC a new statement that read in part, "To be clear, my office has not adopted the proposed 'diversity statement' nor the agenda of your organization...My name should no longer be reported as having adopted the 'diversity statement.'"

"I am very frustrated with my senator's flip-flopped message to his constituents," said Shanker. "Pennsylvanians deserve representatives that have a strong record in supporting equality for all. This latest move doesn't come close."

Currently 24 Senators, 145 Representatives - 19 Republicans and 148 Democrats - have endorsed the statement. For a complete up-to-date listing of congressional signatories by state, please visit www.gpac.org/congress.

Read More......

Open thread

So, if the media and their GOP handlers are correct that bloggers are to the far-left of the Democratic party, and we all opposed Joe Lieberman because we supposedly hate conservative Democrats who support the war on terror, then why is it that we really like Harry Reid (a pro-life, white guy, who supports the flag burning amendment), but we aren't shedding a lot of tears over last night's defeat of Cynthia McKinney (a black woman and flaming liberal who was highly critical of George Bush)?

And why is it that other Democrats who were supporters of the war in Iraq, and have significant progressive constituencies, and who are up for re-election this year, aren't facing serious criticism from us, and aren't facing serious primary challengers?

If we're all flaming liberals who hate anyone who supported the war in Iraq, then why is Lieberman the only guy we're upset with?

Or maybe: the Republicans are lying; the media, as usual, fell for their lies hook, line and sinker; and Joe Lieberman lost because he was George Bush's love child and the American people have had it with this administration; their incompetence; and anyone who blindly enables it.

Just a thought. Read More......

Ned Lamont, Saddam Hussein, and Cynthia McKinney

Work with me here a minute.

I think I've figured out a piece to the GOP and media freak out over Lieberman losing his primary. It's the Iraq war all over again.

The Republicans have learned that lying pays, and they need to lie mightily about Joe Lieberman's defeat before it bites them in the ass. For example, Bush tells us that Saddam has WMD, so we need to invade Iraq. Now, Bush knew no such thing, he was just lying in order to get his way. Then when the public found out Saddam didn't have any WMD, Bush and company continued to lie about Saddam and Iraq, claiming that they did in fact find WMD just a few weeks ago (they didn't), and now claiming, still, that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda (he didn't). As a result, Bush has yet to be held responsible for the debacle he's made of our foreign policy and our national security, not to mention the war on terror (when does that start, anyway?).

Lesson learned? If you want to divert the American people from something that could cause you pain, just lie about it. The second half of this lesson is that the media will gladly repeat as truth any lie the GOP feeds it.

Now back to Lamont. Let's think for a moment as to how dangerous it is for the GOP that Joe Lieberman, the closest thing you can get to a Republican, someone with clear and strong ties to George Bush, and someone who staked his reputation on repeated claims that the war in Iraq was going real swell, got destroyed in the polls?

Why would that be bad news for the GOP? Because Lieberman is the opening salvo in the fall elections, and it ain't lookin' pretty for the GOP if people who seem:

1. Republican;
2. Close to Bush; and
3. All too willing to embrace Iraq as a success story...

...are getting obliterated at the polls. If the voters gave a decisive "no" to Republican-lite, just imagine what they're going to do when they get to chomp on the real thing this fall at the polling booth.

And that, my friends, is why the GOP is pulling out all stops in order to paint the Lieberman loss as some sign that Democrats all want to have Osama's children. The Republicans need to do anything they can to switch the topic away from the real lesson of the Lieberman defeat: Republicans and their surrogates are toast this fall.

And finally a word about my favorite wackjob Cynthia McKinney. She lost her run off last night, and not because she wasn't liberal enough. The woman is a veritable loon of leftyness, and yet she went down in flames. But, you might ask, how could that be so? The GOP told us that Democrats only vote for crazy far-lefties, so shouldn't McKinney have won resoundingly?

No. And that's why you don't hear the Republicans crowing about McKinney's loss. It ruins their narrative. You see, McKinney went down in flames partly because she's a nut, and the new Democratic party isn't really in the mood for nuts. But second, she went down because she's an incumbent, and because of the fact the Republicans have so made a mess of Washington and the world, incumbents are going to be under intense scrutiny this fall. Which brings us back to Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont.

The Republicans don't want scrutiny. Whether it's the ever-growing disaster in Iraq, Joe Lieberman's bizarre embrace of an incompetent president and his failed presidency, or the defeat of a liberal woman which proves that Dems don't necessarily always embrace the far-left and which proves that incumbents are in danger. None of those facts serve the Republicans well at all in the coming fall elections. So they simply lie about it and hope to change the story. And the media eats it up.

Deja vu, anyone?

PS Has anyone else noticed the irony of a political party run by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, whose top issues are Terri Schiavo and bashing gays, telling Democrats that THEY'RE too extreme? That would be a bit like Ken Mehlman calling me a... oh, never mind. Read More......

Karl Rove tells Lieberman that Bush wants to help him with his campaign

George Bush's favorite Democrat gets the kiss from the capo.

More from ThinkProgress:

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos reports, “According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President’s political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: ‘The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do.’”

This is your Senator.

This is your Senator on the Republican payroll.

Any questions? Read More......

One-year after Katrina, welcome to George Bush's America

Photographer for 'Times-Pic' Arrested As He Begs Cops to Kill Him. Read More......

Religious right not happy with Rick Santorum's new embrace of transgender and gay rights

I expect to hear the Santorum folks start denying that they ever did any such thing (oh, but they did). It was foolish of Santorum to think that after having spent a lifetime sucking up to the crazies in his own party, he could now suddenly become a staunch advocate of transgender rights. I don't buy it, the anti-gay right doesn't buy it. But Santorum was probably hoping the moderate middle would. Get ready for some major back-tracking. Read More......

Open thread

Lots of news still waiting to report, but figured you guys would want to chat a bit. Read More......

Reid and Schumer: Lieberman lost because he was too close to Bush; Joe's loss "bodes well" for Dems in November

Their statement:

“The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken and chosen Ned Lamont as their nominee. Both we and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) fully support Mr. Lamont’s candidacy. Congratulations to Ned on his victory and on a race well run.

“Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction.”

Read More......

Lieberman attacks Democratic party as full of "extremists" again today on Good Morning America

Lieberman this morning on Good Morning America.

So I worry that this victory yesterday by Ned Lamont -- which was a narrow victory -- will send a message across our state and our country that the Democratic Party has taken -- has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America and that they are going to make this not Bill Clinton's Democratic Party anymore. And remember, Bill Clinton was a mainstream Democrat who was elected twice and governed with great success.

Interesting rhetoric, since Bill Clinton is now supporting Ned Lamont. But hey, this is from the guy who says Iraq is going great.

The next three months are going to be filled with the vile rantings of this Karl Rove clone who never saw a Democrat he didn't bash. Lieberman's message to America? The Democratic party has been taken over by extremists who don't remember September 11 and who are soft on national security. This is the message he's going to spreading to America from now until the election. It's George Bush's message, it's Karl Rove's message. And it is THE message that is going to define the fall elections unless the Democrats find a way to shut him up.

It's funny how Lieberman's desire for finding common ground and making nice only applies to Republicans. When he was running against Dick Cheney for the VP slot, Lieberman was a pussy cat, couldn't have been nicer to Cheney during the debates. But when he runs against a Democrat for the Senate seat, Lieberman is suddenly vicious as hell, and more than willing to smear the entire Democratic party on his road to defeat.

Joe Lieberman has become the Zell Miller of the Democratic party. A spiteful, hateful man who lost his way and became a Republican, yet never had the courage to just admit it.

The only thing taken over by extremism is Joe Lieberman. Read More......

Lamont's victory was not limited to the elites

Interesting analysis from Hotline's blog:

Lamont's victories were not, however, totally limited to the state's elite. He scored victories in the two old-line Dem cities that are also home to tony colleges (New Haven, Yale and Middletown, Wesleyan Univ.) while also picking up a stunning win, as noted by Kevin Rennie, in the heavily-minority and low-income Bridgeport. Lieberman could've closed the gap down a bit from 4 pts had he done better in Hartford, but as the capital city returns finally rolled in for Lamont, it was clear who the night belonged to.

A closer look at two neighboring towns reveals the split. Sitting on the MA border halfway between Hartford and Springfield, MA, Enfield and Suffield are divided by only the Connecticut River. Both are essentially bedroom suburbs, but Enfield has a far higher middle-class and working-class population. Suffield, with its traditional clapboard houses and prep school on the town green, is more upper crust. The results reflect the pattern in the 167 other towns in CT: Lieberman eked out a two-point victory in Enfield, while losing by 20 in Suffield.

Read More......

Lamont victory coverage in the morning papers

• Wash Post: Lamont Relied On Net Roots -- And Grass Roots
• Wash Post: Lieberman Defeated in Democratic Primary
• NYT: Lamont Defeats Lieberman in Primary
• NYT: Lamont victory speech
• NYT: Lieberman concession "but I'm a sore loser" speech
• NYT editorial: Revenge of the Irate Moderates ("The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates.")
• NYT op ed: The Lieberman Lesson. (It's not a bad piece, though it still plays the "they're really liberal" card.)
• Boston Globe: Lamont defeats Lieberman
• Boston Globe: Antiwar challengers across US get a vote of confidence (Polls show that Democrats are more motivated to vote this year, noted Stu Rothenberg, an independent political analyst, a factor which could negate the Republicans' historically stronger get-out-the-vote efforts.
  `From the numbers I've seen, they are generally more energized than the Republicans about the war, but not just about the war. They've had six years to build up their distaste" for the Bush administration on matters ranging from civil liberties to foreign policy, Rothenberg said.
  ``They'll want to send a message about the war, about George W. Bush. And it's not a friendly message," he said.)
• LA Times: Lieberman Is Defeated in Primary

Read More......

Lamont's Victory Speech

Video on Politics TV. Read More......

A wee bit of Paris blogging...

(Click the photo to see a large version.)

This is the Hotel de Ville, or city hall one might call it. I love this building. It's immense, right downtown (if Paris has a downtown) by the Seine, on the right bank, near Notre Dame and Chatelet. I just love the way it's lit up at night. Read More......

Open Thread

Winning is so much more fun....let's make a habit of it. Read More......

Arch-conservative beats "moderate" GOP congressman

Surely, the traditional media will be moaning about how conservative the GOP has become...how there's no room for moderates in the Republican Party:

The contest, which has drawn national attention, represented an ideological clash between Schwarz, a moderate, and Walberg, who was one of the most conservative state lawmakers during his 16 years in the state House.

The incumbent, Schwarz, wasn't all that moderate, but. he did vote against the anti-gay constitutional amendment. He was off the reservation so he had to be destroyed. That's what Republicans do.

The media accepts that in the Republican Party. But beating Joe Lieberman, oh, that's just wrong. Read More......

McKinney lost her primary

By a 59% - 41% margin. Read More......