When We Lost Lieberman?

Digby spotlights this nonsense from Fox Dem Bob Beckel:

Fox political analyst Bob Beckel mourned last night that Sen. Joe Lieberman’s endorsement of John McCain is “the price…us Democrats pay for MoveOn.org and others who drove Joe Lieberman out of the party,” said Beckel. “They campaigned against him actively and raised money against him and he was beaten in the Democratic primary. … Now we’re paying the price and all I can say is ‘a pox on their house."

The pox of course is on the Fox Dem house, and its leading practictioner of mendacity and petty vindictiveness, via Kagro, Joe Lieberman:

Lieberman: "I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008. This man [Ned Lamont] and his supporters will frustrate and defeat our hopes of doing that."

Of course Lieberman was not telling the truth. And we knew he was not. But Beckel's theory is, in many ways, more condemning of Lieberman than we are. Beckel is saying Lieberman is endorsing McCain for President out of spite. Beckel also seems to share Lieberman's delusion that Lieberman's endorsement actually matters. As Lieberman himself said, no Democrat wanted his endorsement. It is unclear whether anyone except McCain even asked for it. No poxes there Mr. Beckel.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Live Blogging Joe Nacchio Oral Arguments >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Lieberman Screwed Himself (4.00 / 1) (#4)
    by BDB on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 02:58:58 PM EST
    He ran a terrible primary campaign.  He tried to make up for it in the General Election by making a bunch of promises to reassure Connecticut voters that, other than the Iraq war, he was still a Democrat.  The problem is that he hasn't followed through on any of those promises.  Where are his oversight hearings on Katrina and other government failures?  Where is his support for his Democratic colleagues.

    Lieberman is so upset at having lost the primary, he's essentially ditched the Democratic party.  The only reason he claims otherwise is to hold onto his place in the majority with all the perks.  

    His problem is that if 2008 goes well for the Dems, then they won't need his vote for Majority Leader any more.  If he'd kept some of his promises and held oversight hearings and sided with Dems on non-Iraq issues, he might be okay.  But he hasn't and that's going to put the Democratic leadership under pressure to jettison him after the election.  

    He's set it up so he needs the Republicans to do well for him to stay relevant.  If the Dems sweep, he's useless.  His positions are out of touch with the voters in his State and he won't be able to bring home local victories.  

    Two points re Lieberman: (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    1.  The Democrats are better off without him, and will doubtless be happy to see the north end of him heading south.
    2.  The Democratic candidates who declined his endorsement deserve kudos for their good judgment.  And, this applies even to those for whom any endorsement from anyone would have been welcome.

    Ok, make it three points.
    3.  Watching Lieberman implode will continue to provide a source of pleasure and amusement, I suspect, for at least a year or two to come.

    Proof please (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 02:44:16 PM EST
    Of course Lieberman was not telling the truth. And we knew he was not.

    And how do you know that??

    Beckel hit the point dead solid perfect.

    The anti-war Left defeated him in the primary and he proved that were in the minority in the general election.

    Success is getting what you want. Happiness us wanting what you get.

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 03:14:42 PM EST
    He was NOT telling the truth about wanting a Democratic President because he just endorsed a GOP candidate for President.

    Unless of course you accept, as you seem to, Beckel's formulation that Lieberman is acting out of petty spite.

    But the bottom line is who actually cares who Lieberman endorses, or actually cares about anything Lieberman says.

    The most irrelevant person in DC is named Joe Lieberman.


    maybe (none / 0) (#8)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:26:14 PM EST
    He moved to distance himself from the Democratic party after many of those same democrats treat him like a pariah. Could be that he had every intention of voting Dem in 2008 and subsequent events have led him further to the right. If this is the case he did not lie and your assessment (as well as Beckel's) is wrong.

    The most irrelevant person in D.C.? Really? More irrelevant than any low level congressperson from either party. Harldy.

    Good hyperbole...

    Big Tent? What big tent. Your own moniker is a lie...


    The Big Tent (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:30:57 PM EST
    Does not include Republicans. Are you surprised.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:57:18 PM EST
    Uh, the quote is about 17 months old. (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:21:49 PM EST
    Prove that he was lying, then.

    BTW - Have you ever heard of changing your mind?

    Ad neither you, Beckel or yours truly know why he changed it.

    Of course he probably didn't consider these "petty."

    On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

    "Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).

    "Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot" (by "greenskeeper," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

    Link to WSJ article by Lanny Davis.

    And these are some of the nicer examples.

    As for caring about what he says, smart people don't run off help when they are engaged in a fight.


    You're saying (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:26:39 PM EST
    Lieberman abandoned the Dem Party because of 3 comments, 2 of them, snark, on Daily Kos?

    Oh boy.


    No. (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 04:54:31 PM EST
    I am saying he looked around and saw people such as you who write such things as:

    Of course Lieberman was not telling the truth. And we knew he was not

    when you have absolutely no proof that he was not telling the truth 17 months ago but still call him a liar. He then said:

    Why should I associate with such people?

    So he left. You got what you deserve.


    you certain mccain asked for it? (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 02:48:49 PM EST
    be sort of like george washington asking for benedict arnold's endoresement, in that 1796 horserace.

    one strike against al gore; he gave lieberman his ego, by letting him think he actually mattered. up until then, maybe five people in the country, outside of his district, could have told you who he was. he was just that much of a nonentity.

    hopefully, after nov. 2008, he'll slide back into the obscurity he so richly deserves.

    Gore (none / 0) (#5)
    by BDB on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    Lieberman symbolized the problem with Gore's campaign.  He was so eager to distance himself from Clinton that he couldn't see that he didn't need to.  Only the rightwing (which was never going to vote Gore) and the MSM thought Clinton's personal mistakes would somehow taint Gore.  Most of the public didn't even hold them that much against Clinton.  I swear Clinton could've beaten W even after the impeachment.  

    Bob Shrum, worst campaign advisor EVER.  How does a sitting Vice President run a campaign about fighting the powerful on behalf of the people? He is the powerful.  Idiot.


    His "district" is the state of CT. (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:24:33 PM EST
    You know.... two Senators per state.. House Reps.. one per district.

    No need to thank me. Glad to help out.


    figured that out all by yourself jim? (none / 0) (#15)
    by cpinva on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 10:43:37 PM EST
    probably not, i suspect you had help. his district isn't the entire state of CT, only a part of it.

    geez, do your damn homework, will you?


    Huh??? (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:02:17 AM EST
    I didn't realize Senators were elected from a district in the state.

    Down here they run state wide. Did out in Colorado too.

    Maybe CT is different??

    I don't think so.

    (Heavy sarcasm alert.)


    I hope (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jgarza on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    Come 2012 ugh that seems like so long away, we have popular Dem president who will go campaign against him.

    Rabbit Stew (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:26:53 PM EST
    The receipt begins:

    First you catch the rabbit.

    Lieberman (none / 0) (#17)
    by BC on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:23:07 AM EST
    Let's look at the bright side - most likely Lieberman won't be at the Democratic National Convention in August, will he?  So, he gets to endorse (most likely) a losing Republican candidate, he pisses off his party in the Senate, and in the next Congress he can caucus with the Connecticut for Lieberman party.  Win-win-win, I say.

    McCain's support for the war is why you lost him (none / 0) (#18)
    by Saul on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    Liberman will support anyone who is a strong supporter of terroism and the continuation of the Iraq war, and McCain is a great supporter of both now that he is running for President.    Liberman is a just a lap dog for Israel.  He is told who to support and what issue he must vote on by the AIPAC.   Its all for Isarel who are parnoid about their security and Liberman is Isarel's man on point in DC.