The Hartford Courant’s website is reporting that Senator Joseph Lieberman is poised to announce that he won’t run for re-election in 2012. Lieberman will announce his 2012 plans Wednesday in his hometown of Stamford, at an event where he will be surrounded by longtime supporters, adding to speculation that he will speak of the end of his political career in the place where he grew up. The decision not to wait is being linked to the announcement by Susan Bysiewicz, a popular Democrat who has served as Connecticut’s secretary of state and was ruled off the ballot last year for state attorney general by a technicality, that she will run for Lieberman’s seat.
The Courant speculates that the reason Lieberman is not waiting until later in the election cycle to pull out is because he wants to make his statement “while there’s still speculation that he could still win if he chose to run.” Maybe. But the only reason Lieberman is bailing now is because he knows he has no chance to win in 2012.
I wrote last month that indications that Linda McMahon was going to make another try for the Senate in 2012 made a repeat of Lieberman’s 2006 win as an independent virtually impossible because he would need the GOP to more or less not show up the way they did in that race. In response, some readers contended that if Connecticut Democrats nominated an unpopular hard-core left-winger, Lieberman could still squeak through. But given that the Democratic field is already shaping up as one populated by highly electable candidates like Bysiewicz and Rep. Joseph Courtney, who has also indicated interest, this is an extremely unlikely scenario. Sam Stein at the Huffington Post reports that Patty Murray, the new chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has told Lieberman that her group might back him in a primary if he returned to the Democrats. But that seems like an empty promise, since even more Democrats are angry with Lieberman today than they were when he lost his party’s primary in 2006. With party activists in both parties dead set against Lieberman, he has no chance to win either party’s nomination, and if faced with two strong opponents rather than just one, which now seems to be a given, he has no chance to win.
Lieberman has had a remarkable run in elected office. He started out as a stereotypical liberal Democrat when he first ran for the State Senate from New Haven (the young Bill Clinton was a campaign volunteer). Lieberman later became state attorney general and then turned conventional wisdom on its head by running to the right of liberal Republican Lowell Weicker in 1988. Once in office, he became enormously popular, striking a balance between conventionally liberal economic stands while also articulating centrist stands on foreign policy and social issues. Lieberman came within a few hanging chads of becoming vice president in 2000, but the moral tone and foreign policy stands that helped win him that nomination would ultimately alienate him from fellow Democrats. His principled support for the Iraq war was the turning point for him, and it ultimately ensured that he would be the last of the Scoop Jackson Democrats in the U.S. Senate. While he wasn’t always right on all the issues, his is a voice that would, come 2013, be greatly missed.
This will change as the subpeonas are served. Chicago news reporting that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, spoke with Governor Rod Blagojevich on “multiple occasions” about the Senate succession that Blagojevich had wanted to sell to the highest bidder — and that Emanuel will likely be on the FBI wiretaps. Good times! I wonder if the Chief of Staff of the Pretend President threatened Blago with the steak knives.
“George W. Bush was completely blindsided by an attack on American soil” –Abe Greenwald.
Sort of the definition of incompetence, right? Only one president lost 3,000 American lives in a terrorist attack on US soil, and he was a Republican. History will consider that significant, even if you don’t.
Jimmy Carter kept us safe. George W. Bush did not. (And I admit that had I, RonReagan, responded less spinelessly to the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon, we would not have shown weakness in the face of terrorism and fueled the rise of Hezbollah.)
Guess what!?
Obama has grown more popular since the Blago news broke! I guess integrity and transparency pay. Imagine how much they’ll love him when it is confirmed that Rahm turned Blago into the feds.
Rasmussen:
Friday, December 12, 2008
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Index shows that 43% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way Barack Obama is handling the role of President-elect while just 15% Strongly Disapprove. Those figures give Obama a +28 rating in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Index matching his highest ratings to date
I suppose its no wonder that Obama’s fans wax poetic at the popularity he has achieved by not yet doing anything. It is an example, I suppose, of “the hope that breeds eternal”, and calls to mind a similar burst of anticipatory rapture (per Ernest Thayer):
Then from 5,000 throats and more there rose a lusty yell;
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;
It knocked upon the mountain and recoiled upon the flat,
For Casey, mighty Casey, was advancing to the bat.
There was ease in Casey’s manner as he stepped into his place;
There was pride in Casey’s bearing and a smile on Casey’s face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt ’twas Casey at the bat.
Immaterialist says: “I suppose its no wonder that Obama’s fans wax poetic at the popularity he has achieved by not yet doing anything”
Not yet doing anything?
He has shown himself to be engaged in the nation’s pressing issues. He has hit the ground running with a transition team that is unparalleled in modern history. He has shown himself to be able to recruit and assemble national security and economic teams that have won broad acclaim. He has shown himself to be the even-tempered, competent, inspirational centrist that American hoped he would be, and that the wingnuts fatuously argued that he could never be.
Of course, Abe Greenwald and others here will tell you that Obama has accomplished so little: He has not yet closed GITMO or ended the Iraq War. No matter that he is not actually president yet, it must be proof that Obama is all talk.
If you all weren’t such a disaster for America, we would laugh at you.
#2,3,5 may be right, who knows? But this is all warm-up in the batting cage. I’d prefer to hold judgement until the man has faced a pitch or two in the real game.
As far as the 2000-2008 comparison goes, remember that Bush lost the popular vote, and there was Florida.
Love him or hate him, Obama won a convincing majority, and doesn’t seem to have done anything breathtakingly stupid, yet. Blago cursing him on tape hasn’t hurt, either.
“As far as the 2000-2008 comparison goes, remember that Bush lost the popular vote, and there was Florida.”
Why do so many people hold this against Bush? The existence and ultimate electoral power of the Electoral College is not Bush’s fault.
Since the beginning, so many people have never taken Bush seriously as president because of the perception that he “stole” the 2000 election. Instead, they focus all of their negative energies into vilifying. I’m not fan of many of Bush’s policies; the man has made some monumental mistakes since 2000, but so much of what gets pushed on his shoulders is unfair. Besides, had Gore been the president during the September 11, 2001, attacks, he would undoubtedly have more concerned about the adverse environmental effects of the burning jet fuel and the dust cloud that replaced the Twin Towers after their collapse, than he would have been about striking back and defending the country.
And–let’s be honest here–Obama’s win this election was more of a referendum against Bush than it was against the Republican party or conservatism in general. There has been very little of Bush’s policies over the last few years that have been conservative. Hope and Change are powerful words, whether substance exists behind them or not, when the average voter has been force fed Bush-hatred by the MSM for the last eight years.
Obama knew this during the election, which is why, at every turn, he did his best to link McCain to Bush and convince his lovestruck fans that one is no better than the other. McCain was right about at least one thing: Obama ran his campaign against Bush, not McCain.
It’s all water under the bridge now, though. I am not a fan of Obama (nor was I of Bush or McCain, for that matter), but at this point all I can do is hope he does not screw things up any more than they already are.
I’m not saying Bush stole the election–in fact I think he would have won had there been a recount–but the popular vote loss and the Florida shenanigants didn’t improve the atmosphere during the transition. That’s all.
I prayed for Bush. I will pray for Obama.
“George W. Bush was completely blindsided by an attack on American soil and the onset of a multi-theater, asymmetric war. Business as usual?”
What Abe doesn’t get is that Bush is despised BECAUSE he was blindsided – it’s not like the White House wasn’t WARNED about credible attacks via jetliner…
Amd there was the invasion of Iraq – which had NO connection to 9/11 – and No WMDs…
you guys REALLY think Americans are THAT stupid!
There are literally thousands of possible Democratic candidates that could have defeated McCain. If Obama, who isn’t even African-American in the American sense of the term, ie. descended from slaves, had been white, he would still be just another small time politician. Over and over, he used the term “fundamental change” as a feature of his administration, but was never asked to describe what these fundamentals might be, not that he would have been able to do so. And now, post-election, his appointees are overwhelmingly either left-overs from the previous administration or Democrat re-treads from the Clinton era. Don’t look for anything noteworthy from this guy.
Obama is a crook through and through. No wonder the media love him. McCain would have made for boring news – no scandals or corruption there. The democrats are polluted with corruption and the media need scandals and headlines. This is just the tip of the iceberg and no amount of positive propaganda is going to help him for very long.
With regard to Obama’s continued popularity, I forecast that Obama will respond to problems with half-measures. He has displayed this tendency throughout his career: split the difference; give all sides a little of what they want. This works for legislators, not executives (that’s why senators are rarely considered as prime presidential material. This was a problem for McCain as well as Obama.) When it comes to issues of war and peace, the president’s foremost responsibility, half-measures are inadequate, if not disastrous. The test will come soon with regard to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It’s hard to imagine an Obama administration taking tough, decisive action to eliminate this risk.
Its not like the White House wasn’t warned about credible attqcks via jetliner??
How many warnings did Slick Willie have? How many terrorist attacks did we have during the 8 years he was in the White House and nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was done. Do you actually, in your little mind, think that if 9/11 had happened on Clinton’s watch that he would have been as hated as GW Bush has been? No because the media and Democrats like you would never have blamed Bill Clinton.
Stupid is as stupid does I guess. And by the WMD have been found and you know it.
Colorado
I’d say that two thirds of the respondents in the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll are in for a rude awakening. As are the 73 percent who think it’s likely Obama will put the economy back on track, the 70 percent who think it’s likely he’ll pull most of the troops out of Iraq in 16 months and the 61 percent who say he’ll reduce taxes for the middle class (and, btw, these results seem more than a little off). The Dem pollster has it about right, I think, when he ‘cautions that these “sky-high” expectations “should be viewed as hopes rather than true expectations.”‘ He’s wrong, however, when he adds ‘”I think the judgment of President Obama will be based on less than his performance on the issues and more on his character and his style of leadership.”‘I doubt sincerely that in the face of a failure to perform, the public will merely shrug and say “well, he tried and failed but, gosh, what great leadership style.”
Just as during the election, the fawning media are trying mightily to avoid tarnishing the halo over the messiah’s angelic countenance. How many more self-serving pressers will we have to endure where Obama waxes exhaustively about how the whole point of his campaign was to change business as usual in governance. Might not someone somewhere ask why then he spent 25 years swimming most happily in the cesspool that is Chicago and Illinois politics without speaking out about the corruption that defines them? Why he employed Chicago Way tactics to advance himself and his political ambitions and embraced the corrupted when it suited? Why he labored to elect and re-elect Hot Rod and so many others in his mold? Might someone ask why he didn’t speak out about what was going on with the Senate appointment when his transition team knew full well about Blago’s pay-to-play ambitions?
Recognizing corruption is hardly impressive when one chooses not only to ignore it, but to use it to advantage. Obama would have us believe that he could spend 20 years in close association with the Rev. Wright and not know what the man thinks or believes. He would have us believe that he didn’t know anything about Bill Ayers’ past. And he would have us believe that he could swim in the muck but somehow remain above it. I guess he REALLY thinks Americans are THAT stupid!
Might not someone somewhere ask why then did Obama spend 25 years swimming most happily in the cesspool that is Chicago and Illinois politics without speaking out about the corruption that defines them?
You know that is DAMN good question? Liberals, what is your answer to this well thought out question?
You won’t have an answer that makes sense without sounding like an idiot.
“What Abe doesn’t get is that Bush is despised BECAUSE he was blindsided – it’s not like the White House wasn’t WARNED about credible attacks via jetliner…”
Then why isn’t Clinton despised for the same reason? The bulk of the 9/11 attacks were planned well before Bush was sworn in. Not to mention that, for the better part of the 1990s, Osama bin Laden has made perfectly clear his willingness and ability to cause destruction to America and her interests. He is nothing if not honest about his intentions. Clinton had multiple opportunities to take OBL out, but wouldn’t commit. When he finally decided to make a move, after the embassy bombings in 1998 (iirc), his response was late and the target missed.
Again, I disagree with quite a lot of what Bush has done; however, a lot of what he is blamed for is completely–or at least partially–unfair. Hollywood and the media have done a fabulous job demonizing the guy. I wonder how Hollywood and the media will respond to Obama once they finally realize Obama wasn’t born on Krypton after all.
“How many warnings did Slick Willie have? How many terrorist attacks did we have during the 8 years he was in the White House and nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was done. ”
How many? We had ONE in America – the culprits were aprehended and jailed. There were two other major attacks – one in Saudi Arabia and one in Africa – both Muslim nations who refused to cooperate with the Americans investigating the attacks – a third, the Cole, was attacked JUST as clinton was leaving office – and Bush did NOTHING. So – we had ONE attack on American soil within weeks of Clinton taking office – obviously the fault of the outgoing Bush administration, two attacks in Muslim nations that refused to aid our investigations – and one as Clinton was leaving office – for which the new Bush administration did nothing. When Clinton did react – by attacking the Sudan and iraq, he was accused of wagging the dog by Monica hungry Republicans. Of course there’s also the Republican lies such as the Sudan willing to turn over bin Laden to the US – a juicy lie long ago debunked.
When they write the history of terrorism against America, it will be told that the Republicans held the congress for the years leading up to 9/11 – and did nothing – and Republicans held the congress and the White House in the years After 9/11 – and invaded Iraq while allowing bin laden to go free…
you should hang your heads in shame…
““What Abe doesn’t get is that Bush is despised BECAUSE he was blindsided – it’s not like the White House wasn’t WARNED about credible attacks via jetliner…”
Then why isn’t Clinton despised for the same reason? The bulk of the 9/11 attacks were planned well before Bush was sworn in.”
Perhaps – but the attack occured MONTHS after he took office – and there was that bit about the WH receiving credible information about oncoming attacks. Also, don’t forget, the 1993 WTC attack occured within WEEKS of Clinton taking office – and NO ONE blamed the Bush I administration.
“Not to mention that, for the better part of the 1990s, Osama bin Laden has made perfectly clear his willingness and ability to cause destruction to America and her interests. He is nothing if not honest about his intentions.”
For the better part of the 1990s – certainly from 1994 on – Republicans chaired the military and intelligence committees – read the Contract on America of 1993 – not ONE word on terrorism or OBL…
“Clinton had multiple opportunities to take OBL out, but wouldn’t commit.” If Geroge Bush couldn’t catch OBL with tens of thousands of troops on the ground in Afghanistan and iraq – why do you suppose Clinton – who had no support from “Dog Wagging” Republicans to go after OBL – would do any better? Many of Clinton’s “multiple opportunites” are revisionist lies created by Republicans to deivert blame from a Republican Congress and WH that were in power on 9/11…
“When he finally decided to make a move, after the embassy bombings in 1998 (iirc), his response was late and the target missed…”
When Bush decided to make a move – not only did he fail to capture or kill bin laden – he invaded a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11… At least Clinton didn’t have the blood of thousands of American troops on his hands — all so iraqis could burn effigies of Bush now that they’re “liberated…”
“When Bush decided to make a move – not only did he fail to capture or kill bin laden – he invaded a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11… At least Clinton didn’t have the blood of thousands of American troops on his hands — all so iraqis could burn effigies of Bush now that they’re “liberated…”
Some might argue, though, that had Clinton been effective against bin Laden and his networks at the time those networks were burgeoning, 9/11 might never have occurred, in which case the blood of thousands of innocent civilians is at least partly on Clinton’s hands. Media reporters, after all, were conducting personal interviews with bin Laden throughout the 90s. The same nonsense had happened during the late Bush 41 administration and the early part of Clinton’s first term when the US and UN were desperately trying to locate Mohammad Aidid in Somalia at the same time Aidid was being interviewed by various media outlets.
How difficult could it possibly have been for the Clinton administration to send a Tomahawk up bin Laden’s rear end? Sure, one of bin Laden’s followers would certainly have stepped up to take his place, but that is a cycle that will likely never end. Ever. At least bin Laden would have been gone.
Again, Bush is not completely to blame for all of this. He certainly owns his share and does indeed have plenty of blood on his hands, but to place all of the blame squarely on him is ridiculous. Not to mention that I seem to remember a wide majority of Congress voted in favor of invading Iraq, not just Republican warhawks. That’s right, though… they were all for the war before they were against it. Everyone who voted for the war, right or wrong, needs to show a backbone and own up to it instead of spinelessly riding the political tides of popular opinion and blaming Bush.
It’s no wonder this country is about as polarized as it has ever been.
Again, Bush is not completely to blame for all of this. ”
Bush is not to blame for any of it. But that’s not what we’re talking about. Bush is to be blamed for his response to 9/11 – not the invasion of Afghanistan – they were, after all, protecting Al Qaeda – but the invasion of iraq – and that’s why Bush is so unpopular. Throw in the mix his guitar playing while New Orleans drowned – etc, etc, etc – and it illustartes why Abe is just wrong…
Surrendocrat Review,
regurgitated DNC canards don’t work around here, little man. Not a single talking point you made was accurate.
President Bush is the only American president since Theodore Roosevelt to fight back against jihadist scum. There was never any “intelligence” presented to him that could’ve prevented 911 (terrorists could use planes in an attack–no $hit, Sherlock,) Iraq is the only success story in the muslim world thanks to his integrity. He is only unpopular because of his relentless vilification by the Leftstream Media. The President is not responsible for disaster preparation or relief, but he was the one who forced Louisiana to accept assistance when local authorities sat back and watched New Orleans flood due to their own callous corruption.
Did I mention that even by troll standards you’re especially moronic?
As for Bill Clinton, Americans were murdered repeatedly by jihadis with complete impunity under his watch, and he absolutely refused to kill Bin Loser when he had the chance.
Excellent, thanks!
Hi there! I like your page
If you are looking for Paid Surveys this is the place for u.
Start advancing your paychecks on http://tinyurl.com/9eeaop