US midterm elections/initiatives (no spam)

[fable]

For those who are unaware, the US had what are called its midterm elections yesterday. This means that they occurred at the midpoint of presidential terms, two years in. There were many national issues that recent polls have shown to be of great importance to voters--Iraq, the economy, corruption, security--and on all of these, the vast undecided midground of those citizens who chose to vote (roughly 60%) put the Democrats ahead of the Republicans. This translated last night into a significant majority for the Dems in one of the two federal legislative houses, the House of Representatives, where they hadn't held a majority since 1994. The Senate, which was supposed to stay Republican, is surprisingly still not decided, hanging on a pair of very closely contested seats.

I am frankly disappointed, since I was hoping the Republicans could hold on to both houses of Congress. They've simply agreed to literally everything the Neo-Con White House has demanded of them, even sacrificing many powers inherently given by the law of the land to the legislative branch. Some have also tacked on a ton of what are called riders to bills, providing major industries with all sorts of free benefits and exemptions from taxes, lawsuits, etc. (As an example, the Homeland Security bill included an unrelated provision to retroactively eliminate liability in drug companies who employed unsafe vaccines that caused permanent damage to tens of thousands of people, and which have been dragging through the courts for decades.) And then there were all the corruption scandals in the last couple of years, which have been exclusively Republican. In one instance, a House member who accepted bribes left Congress but kept his seat to draw his monthly paycheck, which was shown (by disclosure laws) to be applied to his legal costs. None of this looked good.

This is also being seen as a rejection of Bush's handling of both Iraq and the economy. The former is a lost cause, with hundreds of US soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians being killed every month, and no end in sight. My hopes had been that the Republicans would frankly hold onto power for another two years, because nobody is going to be able to do anything about the economy in that time; and in 2008, the Republicans can now claim the Democrats were just as guilty as they were of mishandling it. Foreign policy is not under Congressional control, either, and so much power has been ceded to the executive branch that it would be an uphill battle to regain some of it in only a little time. I had also hoped that with voter anger at the Republicans at such a fever pitch (1/3 of the white evangelicals, according to one widely accepted poll, voted Democrat yesterday) would translate over time into anger at the entire two party, winner take all system within a few years. As it is, the pressure has been let out of the cooker. Nobody's won. We've all lost, in that sense. The status quo has been maintained, and the two big pigs will simply switch positions in front of the trows.

What can the Dems do in Congress, now that they have some of the power they've wanted? They won't be able to change foreign policy. That incredibly bloated monstrosity of waste and control issues, Homeland Security, will remain untouched. The one power the House leadership does possess is the ability to launch investigations of White House employees whose actions have been regarded with far more than suspicion in many quarters. Connections between Cheney and oil firms he ran, that somehow received uncontested control of Iraqi oil fields after the invasion--and are themselves under investigation for fraud. (Cheney has already stated publically that if subpoened to appear before Congress, he will not show.) White House officials who are known to have lied to Congress under oath about what they knew regarding the Hussain regime, before the US launched the invasion. War profiteering, and their links to a huge number of Bush administration officials. If the Dems got their crap together on this, we could finally discover the truth of these allegations, one way or the other.

Equally significant and more hopeful were several "ballot initiatives," as they are called, in specific states. A gay marriage ban ws rejected in extremely conservative Arizona, and South Dakota voted comfortably 55/45 against the most draconian anti-abortion legislation that has appeared before any state for approval. (It even rejected abortions in instances of proven rape and incest.) What makes this still more significant is that, had it gone through, it would certainly have been challenged in the federal Supreme Court, newly stacked by two recent Bush appointees. And they could have then potentially overturned the classic pro-abortion Roe vs Wade decision.

Missouri also backed an initiative permitting stem cell research, and Missouri is usually viewed as relatively conservative outside its two biggest cities. Five states approved increases in the minimum wage, which has lagged terribly behind inflation under Republican-dominated state legislatures.

Pennsylvania voters approved the state borrowing 20 million dollars so 33,000 Gulf War veterans could collect one-time payments of up to $525. A token sum, but considering how badly the veterans were treated by the federal government since then, it's at least something.

Your thoughts?

[Dowaco]

The Democrats gained control of the House running on a unsubstantial platform based on the slogan "You hate Bush, I hate Bush, my opponent supports Bush". Now that the Dems are in charge what can we expect from the congress?
More of the same I'm afraid. They have no plan on how to get us out of Iraq so their best bet is to do nothing and wait for the 2008 presidential election to bash Bush again and hope to get control the executive branch as well.
Politics at this level is nothing more than grabbing power for power's sake and everything they do is aimed at helping themselves retain power rather than helping the country.

I have a new respect for Joe Lieberman, who stuck to his position rather than cave-in to the party line. Good for you Connecticut.

H. Clinton won in New York without having to take a stand on anything even though she supports the war.

How do I feel after the mid term elections? About like I usually do when talking politics, depressed about the corruption and waste in government and the shallowness and gullibility of the American public.

[Xandax]

The Democrats gained control of the House running on a unsubstantial platform based on the slogan "You hate Bush, I hate Bush, my opponent supports Bush". Now that the Dems are in charge what can we expect from the congress?
<snip>

Well isn't that pretty much Bush "peoples argumentation as well?
Either you are with us, or you are against us? Often with some "you are unpatriotic" type argument afterwards?

I can't see how you can question such a thoughtprocess from one part, and not mention it for the other?

Bush has cause many issues for the USA, and it is a common method of thinking that to get rid of a problem, you band together across various differences. Now it isn't Bush which were up for election, but I have no doubt that the current political climate he has created has a huge influence on this election.

More of the same I'm afraid. They have no plan on how to get us out of Iraq so their best bet is to do nothing and wait for the 2008 presidential election to bash Bush again and hope to get control the executive branch as well.
Politics at this level is nothing more than grabbing power for power's sake and everything they do is aimed at helping themselves retain power rather than helping the country.

Again, to me that seems no different then the Bush side of things. Maybe people seem to be tired of the simply the status quo and want a change, then even if the actual result is minimal, the change in itself is there. At least that is how it appears from the reports I've had access through via european medias.
I just saw a report that the US stock market had gone up in anticipation of a democratic victory, because the invenstors had more confidence in the democrats to halt/slow down the huge deficit on spending that the Bush government has undertaking. That alone causes impact for a non-US person like me. Similar the European market reacts by moving negative, because of this (less spending, means less import, meaning less EU goods in the US bla bla bla).

I think, as a non US person, it is good to shake things up.

[fable]

The Democrats gained control of the House running on a unsubstantial platform based on the slogan "You hate Bush, I hate Bush, my opponent supports Bush".

Um, no. Bush was definitely a part of the message, but even the Republican pollsters and party strategists admit that the issues which were being pushed by Democratic candidates, and which worked, were broader than that: the economy, corruption, and Iraq. (Corruption was actually #1.) Not Bush, but the effects of Bush policies, and of equal importance, the extraordinary depth of Republican corruption in Congress. (Which I'm surprised you haven't touched upon, seeing as you supposedly detest political corruption.) There was a major exit poll taken on election night, approved by both parties, that demonstrated this. Hell, even Robert Novak, the arch-conservative commentator, has been repeatedly stating that the Republican White House is completely out of touch with what the public want. Quite a few new members of Congress are populists, and ran their campaign on facts showing that incumbents were in the pockets of drug, oil, and defense contractors.

Now that the Dems are in charge what can we expect from the congress? More of the same I'm afraid. They have no plan on how to get us out of Iraq so their best bet is to do nothing and wait for the 2008 presidential election to bash Bush again and hope to get control the executive branch as well.

The problem with the Dems isn't that they lack plans, IMO; it's that they have too many plans going in too many directions, because there's no unified vision among conservatives, moderates, and liberals that form the elected base. Representative Mutha, for example, has been out front calling for quick withdrawal from Iraq. But Chase, just elected Senator in Pennsylvania, favors a very slow, timed pullout. On the other hand, the Republicans have been unified behind the "stay the course" rhetoric from the White House--at least, until it appeared associating with Bush in this election was akin to putting your arms deep in poison ivy. I don't doubt that some of the Republican voices raised on Capitol Hill in favor of a timed withdrawal to start immediately were honest and heartfelt, but they paid the price for towing the partyline and agreeing to stay the course for far too long. It was what I called elsewhere on this forum a devil's bargain, in which the moderates and conservatives that make up the Republican party agreed to everything the Neo-Cons demanded of them, in exchange for winning elections. Only now, they're not winning.

I do question, though, whether the Democrats in Congress possess the same instinct for dirt and sleaze that the Republicans have had under Carl Rove's tutelage. I think they'll truly try to play nice with the minority party, as they've done repeatedly over their loser years out of power, and that will be their downfall. But I could very easily be wrong about this.

Politics at this level is nothing more than grabbing power for power's sake and everything they do is aimed at helping themselves retain power rather than helping the country.

Nonsense. When an Iraqi air force veteran and war hero comes back with both her legs amputated and wants to enter Congress to stop the Iraq war, do you think she has in mind grabbing power? Do you think a senator who has lost two brothers who also served politically to assassinations, is primarily interested in power? Or that someone who jumped from lifetime service in the Republican party (even serving as a Secretary under Reagan) to the Democrats out of fury over Iraq, is trying to enter the Senate simply to grab power for himself? Of course some Congressional members are all about power, and quite a few have a power element in their personality; but you state it as a sweeping condemnation. Perhaps you say this because it's only Republicans that have been caught with dozens of hands in the till; I wonder if you would have said the same thing when it was only Democrats caught that way, back in the 1970s?

I have a new respect for Joe Lieberman, who stuck to his position rather than cave-in to the party line. Good for you Connecticut.

Lieberman was recorded in numerous debates and interviews swinging around repeatedly on the issues of the Iraqi war pullout, his friendship with Bush, and curiously enough, his previous votes, which he periodically appeared to forget. I've repeatedly asked you in the past not to mis-portray actual facts, whatever your opinions may be. This is the last time I'll do that, before handing out infractions.

And then, this last staement of yours completely contradicts the one I just quoted, above it. Either "politics at this level is nothing more than grabbing power for power's sake," and Lieberman is the same, or "Lieberman....stuck to his position" as you claim, and politics can certainly be, at that level, more than just about "grabbing power for power's sake." When you try to have it both ways, you come across like a spin doctor who's lost in spin, themselves.

[dragon wench]

Just in from NYT:

"Breaking News 12:53 PM ET: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Intends to Resign, Republican Officials Told the A.P."


I wonder how this will impact things....
In my view, the Democrats just "lost" their biggest "ally"

[fable]

Just in from NYT:

"Breaking News 12:53 PM ET: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Intends to Resign, Republican Officials Told the A.P."


I wonder how this will impact things....
In my view, the Democrats just "lost" their biggest "ally"

I have to agree with you, there, and I'm sure the White House has effectively told him to go. Rumsfeld is being sacrificed, because Bush is, above everything, all about survival. And one can't argue with that. I wonder just how far he'll buck his PNAC and neo-con credentials? Will he still "stay the course?" Times appear to be growing more interesting.

[Dowaco]

Lieberman's stance on the Iraq war and his support of it are well documented. Infract me if you wish. I pointed out that Lieberman's case was refreshing because politics is usually about winning at all costs for the sake of the party you are in and saying whatever gets you elected whether you believe it or not. I still feel that way and its not spin. Exceptions can appear in any institution as Fable pointed out by referring to a paraplegic candidate that he believes is sincere while also observing that there is an element of power grubbing in congress. I just think the later is more representative of politicians and I dare say I am in the majority in thinking that. Check out this Harris poll.
Harris Interactive | The Harris Poll - Fewer Americans Than Europeans Have Trust in the Media – Press, Radio and TV

Back to Lieberman:
From the Wall Street Journal: OpinionJournal before the Democratic primary in CT.
OpinionJournal - Featured Article

"Yes, Mr. Lieberman sometimes sounds a bit treacly. He certainly is preachy, and advertises his sense of his own righteousness. But he has also been brave, and bravery is a rare trait in politicians, especially in states that are really true-blue or, for that matter, really true-red. The blogosphere Democrats, whose victory Mr. Lamont's will be if Mr. Lamont wins, have made Iraq the litmus test for incumbents. There are many reasonable, and even correct, reproofs that one may have for the conduct of the war. They are, to be sure, all retrospective. But one fault cannot be attributed to the U.S., and that is that we are on the wrong side. We are at war in a just cause, to protect the vulnerable masses of the country from the helter-skelter ideological and religious mass-murderers in their midst. Our enemies are not progressive peasants as was imagined three and four decades ago."
.

"Finally, the contest in Connecticut tomorrow is about two views of the world. Mr. Lamont's view is that there are very few antagonists whom we cannot mollify or conciliate. Let's call this process by its correct name: appeasement. The Greenwich entrepreneur might call it "incentivization." Mr. Lieberman's view is that there are actually enemies who, intoxicated by millennial delusions, are not open to rational and reciprocal arbitration. Why should they be? After all, they inhabit a universe of inevitability, rather like Nazis and communists, but with a religious overgloss. Such armed doctrines, in Mr. Lieberman's view, need to be confronted and overwhelmed."
----------------------------
From Nov 8
JTA NEWS

"Ousted by his party in a stunning primary defeat in August, Sen. Joseph Lieberman ran as an independent Tuesday and defeated Democratic challenger Ned Lamont in one of the nation’s most closely watched U.S. Senate races, bucking a rising tide of dissatisfaction with the Bush administration over the war in Iraq.

Lieberman, who supported the war, won by a comfortable 11-point margin. The third candidate, Republican Alan Schlesinger, failed to attract much support."
---------------------
From the Seattle Times
The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Lieberman comeback avenges his defeat in primary

"His pro-war views won praise from Bush and endorsements and fundraising help from Republican New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg."
----------------
Quote from a CT voter in the Boston Globe
After hard-fought Senate race, Lieberman comes out on top - The Boston Globe

"We shouldn't have been there in the first place," Drayton-Rogers said, though she noted that Lamont had not captured her Senate vote. "I find Lieberman very credible, very principled, and he stuck with what he believed."
-----------------
Reuters
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlein ... DATE-2.XML

"HARTFORD, Conn., Nov 7 (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman won re-election to a fourth term on Tuesday, rebounding as an independent after his support for the Iraq war cost him the backing of the Democratic Party."

All bold is mine.

Sorry for posting my thoughts, it is clear you really don't want them since they differ from yours.

[Vicsun]

The media are ripping Rumsfeld; Bush is turning on Rove and Cheney. I'm so incredibly giddy. This is like Christmas.

[fable]

Lieberman's stance on the Iraq war and his support of it are well documented. Infract me if you wish.

As I wrote you after you PM'd me, we are each entitled to our opinions. But if you state an opinion as though it were a fact, and that "fact" is factually incorrect, you're giving many people (who are not American citizens) a deliberately skewed idea of what's going on over any question. Call it your opinion? Not a problem. Call it a fact, and actually print facts? No problem, again. Present the opposite of the facts, and call it a fact? I've asked you repeatedly in these forums not to do that before in serious SYM threads, because it goes over the line.

The comments you proceed to print have nothing to do with your own remark, above:

I have a new respect for Joe Lieberman, who stuck to his position rather than cave-in to the party line. Good for you Connecticut.

I could supply many examples rebutting words of praise for the integrity of Lieberman, from many sources. So what? Your own words above were about his staying the course on issues, not how they felt about him.

The record on Lieberman's own self-contradictions and contradictions between words and actions are very expressive. For example: on 9/13, Lieberman told the Connecticut media that he supported legislation demanding Bush report to Congress on the growing chaos that is Iraq; or as Lieberman himself put it at the time, "Why not more information?" Yet he voted against a bill "To require reports on the efforts of the President to stabilize Iraq and relieve the burden on members of the Armed Forces of the United States deployed in Iraq.” That bill died by a vote of one in the Senate (Senate rollcall vote #392).

Or again: when Lieberman was accused by his opponents with skipping important votes on Iraq, he responded that he did nothing of the sort, and it was "running a negative campaign." But Lieberman missed 33 out of 63 votes on Iraq since 2003. Back in 1988, he accused his then-opponent, the incumbent, of doing just this, and said in a speech that "Connecticut needs a senator who is there.” Joe wasn't.

Or again: Lieberman on November 1st told the Stanford Advocate that "if re-elected to a fourth term, he would be poised to help quell the violence in Iraq and stabilize that country. I’ll be in a position to work to put together a consensus to improve what we’re doing and put pressure on the Iraqis.” But a week before, on 10/26, in an interview with the NY Times, Lieberman stated the opposite, that he couldn't do anything about it, because it wasn't his task: "A senator can only do so much. This is ultimately policy set by the commander in chief and his military.’’ But when several top-ranking generals in that same military spoke out in favor of a change in Iraqi war policy, Lieberman gave a speech stating that they were "playing politics with war." (LA Times, 11/1). So Lieberman would help, then couldn't help because the military needed to do it, then the military couldn't, because Lieberman said doing said was playing politics over the matter. That's a double backwards somersault, all in a week's time. Impressive.

Or again: On October 26th, Lieberman stated he was holding an event to “discuss post-Hurricane Katrina FEMA reforms” which he felt were sorely needed. Yet directly following Hurrican Katrina, Lieberman on Fox News publically defended FEMA's deputy director, Michael Brown. Before that, he had led the committee that rubberstamped Bush's request for Brown's appointment, and said that it was his duty to do so, when offered nominations by Bush.

Or again: In one of the August 2006 debates, Lieberman stated, "I have opposed George Bush on most of the major policy initiatives of his administration [such as] privatizing Social Security." (Debate transcript) But in 2005, the New York Times reported Lieberman as stating of Bush's Social Security privatization initiative, "If we can figure out a way to help people through private accounts or something else, great.”

Or again: In a widely reported speech in August, Lieberman stated, "The Bush Administration is sincerely committed to winning the war on terror. But it was wrong for some on the right to imply that some Democrats don’t care if the terrorists succeed, or that debating the merits of the President’s war policies emboldens our enemies. That kind of attack on the motives of a large group of Americans demeans the freedom we are all fighting for and weakens us as a nation." Yet Lieberman has repeatedly done just this, claiming his opponents were making it easier for terrorists. In the most famous of these instances, the senator stated to CNN (also in August) that the request for some kind of exit strategy would supply "a tremendous victory to the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England." Nice flipflop there, Senator Joe.

And so it goes. Make no mistake: when he shows up, and isn't required to vote on anything that Bush has a strong opinion over, Lieberman reveals in the past IMO a good grasp of facts, a sharp intellect, and an ability to improvise solutions, so I'll also state that IMO they aren't solutions I like: more government, more oversight into our lives. But he is also petulant, arrogant, and frankly, a walking dog for the Bush adminstration. His conduct in this year's election has been all over the place, saying one thing only to turn around and say the opposite (as shown above), or saying one thing only to have his actions speak the opposite of his words (as again, shown above). How others who haven't studied Lieberman's campaign may react, I can't say. Some love it, and you quote them; I could quote others just as strongly against that. So what? I live a short ways over, and I've been fascinated by his mind and conduct, so I've kept him in my sights for some time, now. If he has integrity (and he think he did, at one point), he certainly set it to one side for this election. I've got plenty of other examples, if they're needed. Joe Lieberman is a fascinating study, if a sad one.

[fable]

Midterm update: It appears that the Dems took the Montana senate seat. Bluntly put, this pitted a bigot (the Republican incumbent, noted for his anti-black remarks in Washington and the noose he kept in his office--I'm not joking) against a sexist (who has repeatedly stated that women would never get wounded in Iraq if they were doing what they should be, staying at home). Meanwhile, in Virginia, the Dems appear to be edging out. They may achieve just enough to legally forestall any attempt at a challenge, and they might not. If the latter, matters could drag on for weeks, and so they should, to get a fair and accurate vote count. Likely the count will go in any case until next week.

If both races are declared for the Dems, that leaves them with 51/49 in the Senate. But as I stated before, this only means they win complete control of committees and bills. They still lose on votes, since 1 of those 51 votes comes from a senator who has been a tow-the-line Bush type since almost 2000.

What does all this mean? That Bush, who formerly boasted he never used the veto, will now be pulling it out. Other than that, not much.

On the other hand, 9 state legislatures changed hands to Dems last night. That could have devastating effects on state policies--good or bad, your choice. Many state legislatures, even Republican ones, have been anti-Bush because of the way the federal government has confiscated the rights to award state entitlement grants and then throttled them down to next to nothing. This was one of the reasons Louisiana was so badly prepared for Hurricane Katrina, though there were others.

More on initiatives. Rhode Island restored voting rights to felons that have done their time. (Some states disenfranchise former felons forever.) Arizona proved its current far right mentality with yes votes on English as the state's official language, and no posting of bail permitted for immigrants. However, they also voted in favor of banning smoke in restaurants and bars, raised the minimum wage, and rejected an anti-same sex marriage ban. Not that this changes anything on the ground, but it does indicate that voters in the state were not willing to go further on the issue. Interesting.

EDIT: Rumors from within Senator Allen's close circle state that he will concede Virginia tomorrow. The lead between he and his Democratic opponent has opened up to more than 7000--not huge numbers in such a populous state, but enough to make the very little voting left to cast negligible. The only two times in recent years where there has been any challenge to the state vote in Virginia was when the vote was hundreds apart, not 7000+.

[VonDondu]

I view the mid-term elections as a referendum on the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policies. That's because Congress has done everything Bush has asked them to do, and very little else, for last six years. It's heartening to see that a majority of voters (however slim it might be) have rebuked Bush.

I hesitate to predict what will happen next. Democrats, in contrast to Republicans, have a way of disagreeing with each other and stabbing each other in the back. Republicans stay unified because their goal is to have as much collective power as possible. You might say that Democrats disagree with each other because they don't believe in a consistent set of values, while Republicans, despite their apparent disregard for any sort of values at all, are authoritarian and therefore conformist by nature. The dynamics tend to get pretty ugly.

I'd like to see Bush held accountable for his manifold violations of constitutional and federal law, but it's hard to see what will come of it. I'd also like to see some congressional oversight over any of his future actions. But I think the most likely outcome at this point is gridlock, which might not be so bad. A "do nothing" government isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if it prevents a bunch of immoral, incompetent morons from causing any more harm to this country. They won't solve many problems, but maybe our problems will reach a point where everything takes its natural course and whatever happens, happens. Considering that it will be almost impossible to do anything that will improve the situation in Iraq, for example, maybe it doesn't matter if this particular Congress doesn't do anything at all. Bush is not going to withdraw the troops while he is still in office, and the next President probably won't do so, either. So a lot of things are still just as much in the air as they were before.

[Lady Dragonfly]

NBC reported that Democrat Jim Webb apparently won Virginia. There was a talk earlier about possible recounts etc.

Now Dems will control Senate 51/49.
"The presumed Democratic majority counts on the support of two independent senators who have declared that they will caucus with the Democrats."

About Joe Lieberman, one of the "independent" senators:

According to the exit polls he got the majority of the Republican, conservative votes: of the people who supports Bush and approve of his policies.

Connecticut - Senate - Exit Polls - MSNBC.com

[fable]

About Joe Lieberman, one of the "independent" senators:

According to the exit polls he got the majority of the Republican, conservative votes: of the people who supports Bush and approve of his policies.

Connecticut - Senate - Exit Polls - MSNBC.com

Too bad, because the Republican in the race, Alan Schlesinger, was a true conservative. That's to say, he hates the radical over-spend policies of the current administration, favors a balanced budget, wants monetary reforms enacted, opposes affirmative action for immigrants, and desires mandatory parental notification before a minor could have an abortion. He was actually much closer to the true Republican party than Lieberman, who seems closer to a neo-con.

[Lady Dragonfly]

He was actually much closer to the true Republican party than Lieberman, who seems closer to a neo-con.

He is not "closer to a neo-con", he is a neo-con.

The hawkish Joe is to the right(!!!) of hawkish Chris Shays, a Republican, when it comes to the war in Iraq.
Shays talks about setting a timetable to withdraw the troops from Iraq; Lieberman, Bush's "favorite Democrat", adheres to the stay-the-course position.

Do you remember Zell Miller?

"In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him."

[VonDondu]

There has been some controversy in the Democratic party about Lieberman when it comes to his seniority. He ran against the official Democratic candidate who won the Democratic primary instead of supporting him, so some Democrats say that Lieberman is not a Democrat anymore. Before the election, there was some talk of excluding him from committees and so forth. However, since it is clear that Democrats will need Lieberman's cooperation to ensure that they have a majority vote, I figure Lieberman won't be penalized for running against Lamont.

Judging by the number of votes that Lieberman and the Republican candidate received, it looks like a sizable number of Democrats voted for Lieberman, so maybe they think he actually represents them in Congress. Whatever you might say about Lieberman, he has a constituency, and that needs to be respected.

[fable]

There has been some controversy in the Democratic party about Lieberman when it comes to his senority. He ran against the official Democratic candidate who won the Democratic party instead of supporting him, so some Democrats say that Lieberman is not a Democrat anymore. There was talk of excluding him from committees and so forth before the election. However, since it is clear that Democrats will need Lieberman's cooperation to ensure that they have a majority vote, I figure Lieberman won't be penalized for running against Lamont.

As I wrote in another thread (and more briefly above) about a week ago:

"...For the Dems to at least have a token win in the Senate, they can't take 50 seats. They need 52. That's because with a 50/50 split, the President of the Senate casts the deciding vote, and that person is the Vice President, Dic! Cheney. If they have 51 and (as most people expect) Connecticut elects the now-Independent Lieberman, he will continue to vote Republican on almost all issues--but he will register upon entering Congress as a Democrat. This is because, in our black/white system, the only choices an Independent has upon entering Congress is to sign up for committee work as either a Democrat, or a Republican.

"And if there's even a majority of 1 in any party in the House of Representatives (with its 435 members), then that party chairs all committees and all votes, and has the majority on all committees. Lieberman has already stated that if he's told what to do by the Democrats should he win the Senate, then he would switch his Congressional registration from Democrat to Republican, and swing all committees to the Republicans.

"So, 52 members.

"And that's not even counting the need to keep a party that goes from liberal to moderate to ultra-conservative together."

In other words, there is no way the Senate Dems are going to penalize an "Independent" Lieberman, because then he can simply notify the President pro Tempore of the Senate that he wishes to switch his committee allegience from Democratic to Republican. This would make the Senate 50/50, and in that case, the party to which the President pro Tempore of the Senate (Cheney) belongs is considered the outright winner. It gains control of all committees, which it chairs, decides on all committee agendas and schedules all votes. It's that winner-take-all mentality I rail about, here.

So what are the Dems' choices? They lose the vote thanks to Lieberman, but keep the committees and agendas; or they watch Lieberman walk to the Republicans, losing the vote, the committees, and the agendas.

Judging by the number of votes Lieberman and the Republican candidate received, it looks like a sizable number of Democrats voted for Lieberman, so maybe they think he actually represents them in Congress. Whatever you might say about Lieberman, he has a constituency, and that needs to be respected.

I haven't seen a breakdown of Lieberman's vote in Connecticut, but I seem to recall his margin of victory being pretty much the same as that for the more liberal Republican, Lowell Weicker, in the Senate back in the 1970s and early 1980s. The Republican candidate, Schlesinger, got a remarkably low vote, so it looks like much of Lieberman's support came from the Republican voters, not the Dems.

It's always been a state that can go either way, but Schlesinger is far closer to the traditional conservative side of the Connecticut vote, than Lieberman. Remember, the Republican base and nearly all Republican funding packs poured money into Lieberman's coffers, not Schlesinger, and as I wrote above, Schlesinger did not receive any federal endorsement. I suspect this is a case of Republican strategists playing one very cannily, while the Dems misplayed their hand. Lamont initially capitalized on the Iraqi war to win the Deomcratic primary decisively, but then he stopped pushing that point under the advice of a pair of high-powered Washington Democratic poll analysts. (In their defense, they probably wanted to make himi appear a more rounded, less "one note" candidate. But it was that one note which really made a difference in Connecticut, where the economy is in pretty good shape, and Lieberman definitely hasn't been on the take or going after young page boys.) It was only in the last 6 weeks or so (commencing with the televised debates, which were fascinating) that Lamont started hammering away again at Iraq, and his ratings began rising--but it was too little, too late. And Schlesinger could have been a formidable candidate, IMO, if only the Republicans had truly backed him.

EDIT: Just checked on the campaign money raised for the Connecticut senatorial race this year--it's all public, thanks to disclosure laws. My point about Lieberman's and Schlesinger's war chests? Get this: Schlesinger raised only slightly more than $200,000. The average cost of winning a senatorial race this year was nearly $8 million. And Lieberman? $16,822, 226. This pretty well illustrates how badly Schlesinger was abandoned by a Republican party that he'd been part of for many years. $200,000! I had no idea it was that small. I hope they promised him a shot at something bigger in the future. He has it coming.

[Galuf the Dwarf]

I haven't seen a breakdown of Lieberman's vote in Connecticut, but I seem to recall his margin of victory being pretty much the same as that for the more liberal Republican, Lowell Weicker, in the Senate back in the 1970s and early 1980s. The Republican candidate, Schlesinger, got a remarkably low vote, so it looks like much of Lieberman's support came from the Republican voters, not the Dems.

It's always been a state that can go either way, but Schlesinger is far closer to the traditional conservative side of the Connecticut vote, than Lieberman. Remember, the Republican base and nearly all Republican funding packs poured money into Lieberman's coffers, not Schlesinger, and as I wrote above, Schlesinger did not receive any federal endorsement. I suspect this is a case of Republican strategists playing one very cannily, while the Dems misplayed their hand. Lamont initially capitalized on the Iraqi war to win the Deomcratic primary decisively, but then he stopped pushing that point under the advice of a pair of high-powered Washington Democratic poll analysts. (In their defense, they probably wanted to make himi appear a more rounded, less "one note" candidate. But it was that one note which really made a difference in Connecticut, where the economy is in pretty good shape, and Lieberman definitely hasn't been on the take or going after young page boys.) It was only in the last 6 weeks or so (commencing with the televised debates, which were fascinating) that Lamont started hammering away again at Iraq, and his ratings began rising--but it was too little, too late. And Schlesinger could have been a formidable candidate, IMO, if only the Republicans had truly backed him.

EDIT: Just checked on the campaign money raised for the Connecticut senatorial race this year--it's all public, thanks to disclosure laws. My point about Lieberman's and Schlesinger's war chests? Get this: Schlesinger raised only slightly more than $200,000. The average cost of winning a senatorial race this year was nearly $8 million. And Lieberman? $16,822, 226. This pretty well illustrates how badly Schlesinger was abandoned by a Republican party that he'd been part of for many years. $200,000! I had no idea it was that small. I hope they promised him a shot at something bigger in the future. He has it coming.

Well, fable, I happen to be from Connecticut, so let me see if I can help you folks with this...

According to the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election%2C_2006"]Wikipedia article[/url] on my beloved state's senate race, Lieberman got 50% of the votes, while Ned Lamont got 40% and Schlesinger got a measley 10%.

If you ask me, these factors played into Schlesinger's loss.
1) His somewhat-recent scandals involving gambling debts and card counting (sure, not exactly illegal, but not every casino's the most lenient about it either) under an alias.
2) His proposals against afirmative action & amnesty for immigrants.


Hope that helps.

[fable]

If you ask me, these factors played into Schlesinger's loss.
1) His somewhat-recent scandals involving gambling debts and card counting (sure, not exactly illegal, but not every casino's the most lenient about it either) under an alias.
2) His proposals against afirmative action & amnesty for immigrants.

Yeah, but if the party that nominates you abandons you, and you raise $200,000 for your campaign and the winner, who gets all the money you would have expected, gets almost $17,000,000 to spend on his campaign--well, you can do the math. Gambling debts are easily explained away (Schlesinger's still solvent), and taking a stand against affirmative action and amnesty for immigrants is expected in a party that has made the first part of its national platform in several elections, while the second has been embraced by almost every current Republican who wishes to be re/elected.

What you can't get over, IMHO, is having a little over 1% of the advertising money that the winner possesses. Your opponent doesn't have to paint you as a dog. He can afford to ignore you as a puppy in an animal shelter.

[Lady Dragonfly]

If you ask me, these factors played into Schlesinger's loss.
1) His somewhat-recent scandals involving gambling debts and card counting (sure, not exactly illegal, but not every casino's the most lenient about it either) under an alias.
2) His proposals against afirmative action & amnesty for immigrants.

1)This gambling debt scandal seems very benign and insignificant compare to the other recent political scandals in your fair state:

2003 -- Mayor Ganim (D) was convicted of corruption and sentenced to 9 years in prison;
2003 -- Mayor Giordano (R) was convicted of pedophilia and sentenced to 37 years in prison (sex with 8 and 10-years old girls);
2004 -- Governor Rowland (R) was convicted of corruption and sentenced to 10 months in prison;
Summer 2006 -- Mayor Fabrizi (D) admitted alcohol abuse and "occasional" use of cocain while in office. Refused to resign.

I fancy the hardened voters in Connecticut would've disregarded such a minor indiscretion as a gambling debt.

2) You mean the voters preferred Lieberman's position on affirmative action which changed several times since 1995. He was against it in 1995, for in 2000, against in 2003, for in 2004.
The voters also preferred Lieberman's position on immigration: he voted in favor of chain immigration in 1996; co-sponsored the bill to reward illegal aliens with in-state tuition and amnesty in 2005-2006; co-sponsored the massive guestworker-amnesty bill in 2005-2006; voted against border fence in 2006; voted against amendment to fund additional immigration investigators in 2006.

As you know, Lieberman serves as Co-Chair of the Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force.
No wonder he received the endorsement of several Latino religious leaders from across Connecticut.

Edit: Joe's 2006 fundraising disclosure
Joe Lieberman: Campaign Finance/Money - Contributions - Senate 2006

[fable]

Just read this well-researched article about Lamont's defeat and Lieberman's victory. It's caused me to reconsider some of my own points on this issue.