Lieberman mulling independent run in Conn.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't agree with Senator Lieberman on a lot of things, but I think it's shameful what the Dems (particularly the blogger Lefty ilk) have done to this guy.

To me it's one of the most apparent contradictions of the Democratic Party. They eat up guys like McCain and Hagel, calling them "moderates" and "mavericks". They don't have as many kind words for Sean Hannity's favorite Democrat (aside from Zell Miller).

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1826559

Lieberman Won't Rule Out Independent Bid
Sen. Joe Lieberman Won't Rule Out Independent Bid for 4th Senate Term

By STEPHEN SINGER
The Associated Press

HARTFORD, Conn. - Sen. Joe Lieberman, facing a challenge from within the Democratic Party for renomination, said Monday he has not ruled out seeking a fourth term as an independent.

"I have not foreclosed the option," Lieberman said at a news conference at the Connecticut state Capitol. "If I wanted to run as an independent, I would. I'm running as a Democrat. I've been a Democrat all my life."


Ned Lamont, a Democratic activist and anti-war candidate from Greenwich, is challenging Lieberman for the party's nomination this year. He has been garnering support from some Connecticut Democrats dissatisfied with Lieberman's support of the war in Iraq and his perceived closeness with President Bush's administration.


The party will endorse a candidate at a convention on May 20.


Lieberman said he is not upset with fellow Democrats for opposing the war in Iraq. He, too, has criticized certain operations of the war and the Bush administration's handling of postwar Iraq, he said.


"I feel very strongly the world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power. We have to complete the job in Iraq," Lieberman said.


He asked that Democrats not solely judge him on the war, but also his record on the environment, economic development and his support for civil rights and civil liberties, he said.


Republican Paul Streitz who is seeking his party's nomination to challenge for the Senate seat, said he would gain if Lieberman runs as an independent.


"A Republican would win, obviously," he said. "It would split the Democratic vote."


Lieberman was in Hartford Monday to speak at a conference on global warming, and his critics also were there.


Keith Crane, a member of the Branford Democratic Town Committee, stood outside the conference room, holding a sign that said, "Some of my best friends are neo-cons."


Crane, who said he backs Lamont, will be a delegate at the state Democratic convention.


"I worked my butt off to be a delegate and he says if he doesn't get the nomination, he'll be an independent," he said of Lieberman. "He's not here for the environment. He's here for the political environment."


Howard L. Reiter, chairman of the political science department at the University of Connecticut, said an incumbent senator running without a party is not unprecedented.


Sen. Thomas Dodd was censured by the U.S. Senate in 1967 for financial misconduct and was denied renomination by the Democratic Party, which backed Joseph Duffey. Dodd ran as an independent and lost the general election to Republican Lowell Weicker, who was defeated by Lieberman in 1988.


"That's the precedent, but you have to go back 36 years," Reiter said.


Lieberman, his party's vice presidential nominee in 2000, unsuccessfully sought the presidential nomination four years later.



Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

I think it's shameful what the Dems (particularly the blogger Lefty ilk) have done to this guy.

Don't you know that all that matters is what the voters decide? If Lieberman does his job in the campaign, he'll win the endorsement whether your alleged "Dems" like it or not!

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

...They eat up guys like McCain and Hagel...

Originally Posted by the article

The party will endorse a candidate at a convention on May 20.

Who is THEY, Kevin? Who are these black-hearted villans that secretly run the world with their evil powers over the Democratic process?

WHO ARE THEY?!?!

Who is this "party" your "article" speaks of? I want NAMES!!!

[mburbank]

I'm more intrigued by the blogger Lefty ilk.

While I wouldn't call myself the furthest left mocker, I'm pretty left, and I'm a real bleeding heart type. As far as I know, I don't read any politcial blogs at all.

What are the URL's of some of these blogs ? I'm not denying they exist, I'm just curious about them, and about their alleged impact.

Here's some of the lefty stuff I read. I have a sneaking suspicion I might accidentally be reading Blogs without ever knowng it.

I regularly read Molly Ivins column. If a columnist has her published columns collected online, is she blogging? Or is she just Leftycolumnist ilk which has ben around since there were newspapers.

I read the Nation, particularly David Corn. I'm well aware The Nation is way left, and I even know that Corn has a 'blog'. In the interests of disclosure, I'll say that sometimes in his articles for The nation he states that some of the material has previously appeared in his blog. But, you know, way left or not, the Nation is like, what, a hundred years old, and these ar artciels by one of their columnists, not some paranoid college student hunched over his lap top at 2:00 am.

I ike Seymour Hirsch over at the New Yorker. I don't think that's Blog.

So who are these shadowy lefty bloggers, and how does it happen that I am able to form so many of my very lefty opinions without logging into their illicit sights and exposing myself to the whirlinbg hypno flash animtions? Can't I dislike Lieberman because I find his hawkishness not only oobjectionable, but opportunist? I don't contest his right to be a Democrat, but if I lived in CT. I would certainly never concider voting for him. Can't I think it's brave of Hagel to stick out like a sore thumb? I probably wouldn't vote for him, either, and I certainly wouldn't vote for Mccain after the last year or so.

Should I get a blog? Am I required to? You may be right, Kev, maybe their is a some shadowy lefty blog force out there that actually influences people in significant numbers. I have to say the few times in my life I've spent with more than a dozen or so other lefties made me kind of queasy, like whn I go to comic boook stores and am forced to face the fact that all these people I share a common interest with are weiners. But I still like comic books, and it's not because I am in the thrall of the weiner underground.

[ziggytrix]

the most (in)famous liberal blog on the internets!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

apples and oranges, preech.

Don't be sour that you can't hold an argument without having a man tantrum. Shouldn't you be off publishing your novel on the great Republican strategic initiative???

Max, I'd say places like Daily Kos would count as "blogs", although you're right, the term itself has become rather mushy. Perhaps I should be broader, meaning the greater "internet crusader" community.

For a good example of what I'm referencing (since preechr needs his hand held), you might want to look into the whining that went on over Rep. Emanuel and the DCCC, specifically regarding the latter's poor support for Paul Hackett in Ohio.

" You may be right, Kev, maybe their is a some shadowy lefty blog force out there that actually influences people in significant numbers."

It's not shadowy, and unlike Preechr's theory on the GOP Masons, they are quite loud. They don't make a difference on policy or ideology, but they are quite good at coordination and fundraising (I think it was stateside or whoever that took credit for money raised in the Hackett campaign, dissing the DCCC).

Try, I dunno, www.leftyblogs.com

So you see it's their label, not mine.

Max, I'd read your blog. And David Corn is a jackass.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Who is THEY, Kevin? Who are these black-hearted villans that secretly run the world with their evil powers over the Democratic process?

These are actually pretty easily identifiable folks. They are delegates nominated by the party at the state level to attend and represent their state on behalf of the party. I'll bet you can still find last year's list. These people tend to be party activists, elected officials, and big donors (as well as sentimental nominations).

And since the McGovern-Fraser Commission in the 70's, there have been parameters (at least on the DNC side) regarding how many of these people had to be women, of color, etc.


Now, if you had used people like this as your example in the McCain thread, you may have had a point to make. Otherwise you didn't.

[mburbank]

I just find it interesting that I'm blog illiterate and yet manage to be a ha-yuge lefty.

Is there really, like, a signficant # of people out there who pay attention to lefty blogs? Isn't caring about them at all lending them power?

I used to live in Central Square in Cambridge, and it was one of the last places in America where you could see for real Amercian Communists. It was like going to Sturbridge villahg and tlking to the blacksmith, except no one was paying them.

Vinth used to get ll crazy about influential liberal blogs and web sites I'd never heard of, and I wondered if anyone would if Neil Boortz didn't publiscize them.

Nonetheless, I now feel compelled to fill the whole in my educumation and go chek out some lefty blogs.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Vinth used to get ll crazy about influential liberal blogs and web sites I'd never heard of, and I wondered if anyone would if Neil Boortz didn't publiscize them.

As I said above, they tend to be better at advocacy and fund channeling. Anybody can set up a PayPal account. I wasn't trying to imply that they were the only ones who disliked Lieberman (which is why I said "particularly" those folks). But they tend to make a big stink about him, calling him a DINO and such.

The role of blogs (and blog rings) have become quite prominent in campaigns, particularly since DCCC money can only go so far. They are actually another way for ordinary folks to have more direct control over campaigns, and thus skirt groups like the DCCC, the DNC, and the state party committees.

Nonetheless, I now feel compelled to fill the whole in my educumation and go chek out some lefty blogs.

Don't be such a drama queen.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Is there really, like, a signficant # of people out there who pay attention to lefty blogs? Isn't caring about them at all lending them power?

People who take arguing on the internet VERY seriously.

If we could disseminate some sort of mental virus that shut down people's brains by uploading it to hardcore leftist and hardcore rightwing blogs, well.. I guess the end result would actually be about the same...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That's an incredibly foolish argument.

Ask Trent Lott if the power of message and tactic circulating on the internet is meaningless and merely "internet debate".

Most of the blogs tend to be polemics on the childish side. That never stopped talk radio from being VERY effective, so why would it stop on the internet???

[Preechr]

Rightest talk radio and leftist blogs have become very influential. That's very astute of you, Kevin, to note the parallel. Given your kahlality in our last exchange, I'd have to say you've just become surprising again.

Of course, the right side of the political internet has also begun to leave it's mark, where Air-America is still pretty lame.

The true power of Kevin's "the blogger Lefty ilk" is not in their ability to raise money, as campaign-centric Kevvy would have you believe. It is in their ability to shape the public debate. As I have explained before, politics is not about the money at it's core. It's about power, and blogs like Markos' remain free to see while building the power required to "grass roots" their party so effectively real Democrats like Lieberman and Miller are left in the dust wondering "WTF just happened?"

Max, you may think you get no input from "lefty blogs," but you do. As Kevin has indicated through his words, though not yet come to grips with in his actual understanding, The power of blogging lies in it's control of the media. Nowadays, when the columnists you regularly read sit down to write a column, they are compelled, as they always have been, to check their opinons against the trendiest and edgiest opinions currently floating on the periphery of the human experience. The big difference is that, these days, that can be found easier on certain sites within the internet.

See, Kevin... the short-sighted student of campaigning... will be the first among us to rabidly extoll the benefits and virtues of messaging and other such stuff like that, but he's not so good at picking up on underlying stratgeies of political movements. The real big thing that has happened with the blossoming of political blogging is that the most zealous of either side of the political spectrum can now have their very own shot at shaping the political "messages" we hear.

The columns that you read have been directly influenced by the blogs you have yet to check out. Generally speaking, the information being presented to you as well vetted factual data has at least survived un-addressed within the blog-o-sphere for at least a week before it was used to make whatever point you read in your column.

By watching the blogs, generally speaking, you can see what's coming up in your columns about a month in advance. Blogs are live action focus-grouping of only the most focused groups. Blogs are the new black.

[Preechr]

All the kewl kids are doin it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Our friend Preechr is a douche bag.

Ya see what I did there? Rather than addressing Preechr, I brought him up in passing, like I do my uncle who lives in Los Alamos.

Anyway, I actually think you're a tiny bit right. While the blogs have little effect on actual policy, they have enabled citizens to defy the hurdle of access (which is what talk radio had done as well, but why let a good point get in Preechr's way). Traditional news outlets were expected to present a narrative for the reader/listener/watcher, and to inform them of the goings-on of society (all bias debates aside). Everyone on this board knows how talk radio molded debates, kept hot issues alive, and even influenced elections. Blogs are doing the same thing today, and probably haven't even hit their prime like talk radio already has.

"The real big thing that has happened with the blossoming of political blogging is that the most zealous of either side of the political spectrum can now have their very own shot at shaping the political "messages" we hear."

I think this is a great point. However, your lack of understanding over the role blogs have played, and will increasingly play, in political fundraising is glaring (but once again, has never stopped you before). The ability to share lists, donors, and supporters inexpensively online has enabled the less desirables of the Democratic Party (electorally, it has had more of an impact for Dem. candidates thus far, the Right needs to catch up on that end) to run stronger campaigns, despite the desire perhaps of the DCCC to stifle those folks.

Please proceed with a discussion on the welfare state. I get goosebumps when you do that.....

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

That's an incredibly foolish argument.

YOU'RE an incredibly foolish argument!

Ask Trent Lott if the power of message and tactic circulating on the internet is meaningless and merely "internet debate".

He doesn't return my phone calls.

Most of the blogs tend to be polemics on the childish side. That never stopped talk radio from being VERY effective, so why would it stop on the internet???

Effective at WHAT? Getting people to act like children? Do you think people actually shape their opinions based on blogs? Or do they go to blogs, type their rah-rah-rah in the comments section, and then go out and vote EXACTLY the same way they'd have gone out and voted if they had never heard of the innernets? I don't think blogs are reaching a new audience. If you are looking up blogs on the internet, you are already politically active.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

YOU'RE an incredibly foolish argument!

Touche.

Effective at WHAT? Getting people to act like children? Do you think people actually shape their opinions based on blogs? Or do they go to blogs, type their rah-rah-rah in the comments section, and then go out and vote EXACTLY the same way they'd have gone out and voted if they had never heard of the innernets? I don't think blogs are reaching a new audience. If you are looking up blogs on the internet, you are already politically active.

I think Preechr actually did a good job already of answering your question, but the reason I brought up Trent Lott is that Blogs played a (in)famous role in keeping his racism stuff alive, and not allowing to die down. Traditional media has a pretty short attention span if the issue isn't a "holy shit" story.

Think of blogs as the letters to the editor page in your local paper. They don't necessarily make a good point, true, but they keep the point circulating.

Think talk radio is to Monica Lewinsky, as blogs are to (whatever the Bush administration supposedly did wrong this week).

[mburbank]

Yeah, but, see, much as I hate to admit it, I beloeve there really a a huge number of people out there who were succsesfully lathered up over Bills spooj on Monicas dress. There really was a mass of people who could be whipped into a frenzy over such nonsense (as opposed to the far less trivial thoiugh truly annoying actual crime of perjury).

It's hard for me to believe that there really is a similar mass of people on the left who can be whipped into the same sort of frenzy over warantless wiretapping and Bush having authorized leaking info to Judith Miller. I wish I thought otherwise, but if that was true,Dean would have been the democratic nominee, not Kerry.

Perhaps that's changed in the last few years as more and more people get the internets. I can always cross my fingers.

And Preech, you have absolutely made my day by telling me that I am impacted by lefty blogs without reading them. This means there's is no reason I need to, thank Christ.

[Preechr]

Hahaha!

No problem.