Why I haven't posted lately.

I've been terribly wrong regarding the Iraq war, Lieberman, among other things, so I recognize that the time has come for now for me to shut-up.

Too bad that smug, know-it-all bigmouths like Bill Kristol, other FOX News opiners, too many newspaper columnists, and other professionals that championeded the war continue to exhibit their gross pretentiousness.

What's worse, they get paid good money to be wrong!

I should have listened to Krugman, Rich, Olbermann...and...Ned Lamont.

I sadly have to agree with Steve Capus re Imus

Mr. Capus is president of MSNBC. He clearly agonized over the decision to terminate Imus on MSNBC and he rendered a fair, well thought out decision. He had to primary weight to NBC employees' views.

Hardball's coverage tonight of the Imus affair is excellent.

The Rutger's coach, who did not seek Imus's ouster, was impressive in her balanced perspective, understanding of Imus's humanity, and eloquent lesson about the impact of Imus's hurtful words. In contrast, the Rev. "Tawana Brawley" continues to showboat and be a demagogue. Imus erred by going on Rev. Sharpton's program.

Colin McEnroe and Bill Maher are right: Keep Imus

Colin McEnroe on WTIC-AM and Bill Maher on tonight's Scarborough Country both support retaining Don Imus. So do I.

Yes, Imus outdid himself in his racist/sexist crack about the Rutgers team.
Gwen Ifill's op-ed in today's Times brings home the depth of harm caused by Imus's stupidity.

Yes, I criticized Imus just recently for the Hispanic mimicking on his program.
Yes, Imus has made antisemitic cracks, as reported in the Forward. As a Jew, I let them slide.

I don't like many things on Imus's program, but outside of NPR and C-SPAN, there is not much in the way of intelligent political discussion and hard-hitting interviews during the early morning hours on TV or the radio.

Without Imus, my long commute each day will become duller.

The guy's apologized already.
He's going to meet with the team.
He's going to be suspended.
What more do more do showboaters like Sharpton and Jackson want?
As Joe Klein pointed out tonight, if you don't like Imus, then don't listen to him.

Email to Imus: How is the imitation of Alberto Gonzalez's speech different from...

...Al D'Amato's imitation on your show of Lance Ito?

Dear Don Imus,

Just as Judge Ito speaks English w/o a Japanese accent, Albeto
Gonzalez speaks w/o a Spanish accent.

At the time, you realized that Sen. D'Amato was crossing a line with
respect to bigoted ethnic stereotyping. Why, then, this week do you
seem to tolerate the ethnic stereotyping by resident impersonator?

I'm no fan of the attorney-general, but why make fun of all
Hispanics?

--
Jay Lapidus

http://jlapidus.tripod.com

Message to David Lightman: Joe doesn't care!

David Lightman, the Courant's Washington bureau chief, writes today in "Senator Failing To Calm Critics":

None of this [bipartisanship] has calmed [Lieberman's] critics. Day after day, the bile trickles out, from bloggers, commentators and others.

The bile from the bloggers is among the factors that propelled me into Lieberman's camp. In addition, such extreme anger is ineffective.

Last year after the election, a source very close to the senator told me personally that Mr. Lieberman "doesn't give a sh*t" about the bloggers and what they say.

He won. They lost. Period.

Why does anyone still listen to Bill Kristol?

Why does anyone continue take that smug know-it-all, William Kristol, seriously. Evrything that he has said about Iraq, including his prediction that Sunnis and Shi'ites would not fight each other, has turned out to be dead wrong.

His latest TIME column about the Democrats, linked above, is yet another collection of his delusions.

What an easy living Kristol has. Imagine getting paid big bucks for TV commentaries, print articles and lectures without having to know what you are talking about!

Forward: 'Lieberman Backers Stay Firm, Despite GOP Buzz'

Hello,

Jay Lapidus has read the article, "Lieberman Backers Stay Firm, Despite GOP Buzz," on Forward.com and thought you might enjoy it. Please click below to access the article:

Lieberman Backers Stay Firm, Despite GOP Buzz (http://www.forward.com/articles/lieberman-backers-stay-1/)

You may access the Forward's homepage at: http://www.forward.com

*Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.

The Forward is a liberal, secular weekly newspaper serving the Jewish community.

I was wrong

I was wrong. Very wrong.

I now regret my support for Joe Lieberman He - and I - have been consistently wrong about the war in Iraq. The NY Times' Frank Rich, among so many others, has been consistently right been week after week.

Last year, I was becoming more uneasy with the junior senator's Iraq stance. Beyond his continued support for the Bush-Cheney administration, however, Lieberman has become uniquely destructive, subtly threatening to end the Democratic Senatorial majority. There have been a number of articles about his shenanigans. The most recent TIME magazine article is linked above. Colin McEnroe, OTOH, believes that "no switch coming any time soon."

Those like Sen. Lieberman who support the Iraq escalation, the so-called "surge," have zero credibility. They've been so wrong before. As Al Franked asked several weeks ago on his AAR radio program, "Why should we listen to them now?"

If you are a CT library card holder, here is the free link via IConn.org to Frank Rich's column in today's NY Times. Does the Senate Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee even have a clue?

(This is a revised post.)

Steny Hoyer was the better choice...

...because of Jack Murtha's old ethics problems. I was disappointed in Hoyer, however, when he led his faction of Democrats last year to support so-called bankruptcy "reform."

Nancy Pelosi lost nothing by endorsing Murtha. I take Hoyer at his word when he said yesterday and today that he understands that Pelosi had endorsed Murtha out of loyalty amd that he, Hoyer, will continue to work well with the next Speaker.

Note how the radio wingnuts have been trying to grasp at whatever they can to minimize their "thumping" by trying to magnify real and imagined differences among Democrats.

Rush, Sean, Laura, et al. have been deemed irrelevant by the majority of American voters.

"Independent Democrat"

From today's Meet the Press

MR. RUSSERT: So you’ll be Senator Joe Lieberman, I/D, Connecticut.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah, we checked with history and actually in the late ‘70s Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia listed himself as an Independent Democrat. You got to go back to the mid-19th century to find the last Independent Democrat.

Joe, do you really want to indentify yourself with Sen. Harry Flood Byrd, Jr., who like his father was a "massive resistance" segregationist? Byrd refused to support Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, the national Democratic Party's positions on civil rights, and all civil rights legislation.

Does Colin McEnroe sound bitter?

He seems to be taking Ned Lamont's loss kind of hard, judging from his column in today's Courant.

Is Colin McEnroe casting aspersions on the sincerity of Sen. Lieberman's religious expression?

You can judge for yourself by clicking above for Colin McEnroe's Courant blog.

If you liked "The Bridge to Nowhere"...

...you'll love the probable next chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee - The King of Pork and Bloviation himself, Robert Byrd.

If the Democrats want to build on their razor-thin majority in 2008, one of their tasks will be to control the senior senator from West Virginia.

[This is a corrected post. See comments.]

Joe, you can't think of a better reason to organize with the Democrats?

Click above for Mark Pazniokas's article in today's Courant, "Still A Democrat, Joe Says, To Preserve Seniority."

Excerpt:

At a noon-time press conference in Hartford, [Lieberman] declined to articulate his role in the Connecticut Democratic Party, nor could he give a philosophical reason for organizing with the Senate Democrats.

Other than keeping his seniority, he was asked, what is the reason to organize with the Democrats?

"Well, I've been a Democrat," he replied.

Any reasons beyond that?

"Seniority is an important factor," he said.

This reminds me of the senator's fumferring last month on the question of whether he favored Democrats' retaking Congress, and his equivocation the month before about the CT Democratic Congressional candidates. After coaching from Dan Gerstein, Lieberman eventually came up with somewhat pro-Democratic answers. Now, he's fumferring again.

Joe, don't you remember your primary campaign, in which you told us that you voted with the Democrats 90% of the time? Isn't that a really good reason for you to caucus with the Democrats? Why didn't you say so?

Elsewhere in the article, Pazniokas writes:

Lieberman said exit polling showed him winning only 25 percent of the Democratic vote; his victory was due to the support of unaffiliated and Republican voters.

That means that between the pre-election polls and the actual vote, Lieberman's share of the Democratic vote declined by 5-12%.

What happened? I suspect that Pres. Bush's and V.P Cheney's words of support in the week or so before the election and their implication that a vote for Lieberman was a vote in support of the administration's Iraq policy turned off a number of Democrats at the last minute. Bush and Cheney, along with Limbaugh and Hannity, certainly made me consider switching to Lamont.

Spazeboy gives a classy ending.

I've criticized various pro-Lamont bloggers for the immaturity of their posts, so I want to give at least one compliment.

Please click above for Spazeboy's thank you message.

Senator Lieberman, don't let rightwing talkers triangulate you!

I heard Joe Lieberman this morning being interviewed by Jerry Kristofer of WELI-AM, New Haven, a local conservative personality. Kristofer insulted Democrats as "cut and run." I did not hear Lieberman on Sean Hannity this afternoon, but I'm wondering if he allowed Hannity to get away with the same, divisive talk.

Senator, if you don't want to be used like a "political football," then don't allow rightwing talkers make you into one. It's up to you to promote the bipartisan tone that you desire. You can start with your interviewers.

If you really want to work with Democratic victors, Mr. President...

...you can start by showing some respect for the Democratic Party. Mr. Bush and other Republicans still persist in referring to the "Democrat Party," an insulting locution.

Nancy Pelosi should demand respect for her party and insist that Pres. Bush and his allies call the Democratic Party by its proper name to set a genuine bipartisan atmosphere.

And Mr. Jepsen, whom to you speak for?

Remember all those Lamontista barbs against Joe Lieberman back in August about his being a "sore loser" and against the democratic process?

Now, the shoe is on the other foot.

From today's Hartford Courant:

"If Ned loses," [George] Jepsen [Ned Lamont's campaign manager] said, "I think that he will have made the point Joe Lieberman doesn't speak for all of Connecticut on the war. He certainly doesn't speak for the Democratic Party. If Joe wins ... he will not be able to declare a broad mandate. ... He will be speaking for the Republicans and a slice of the unaffiliated."

To his credit, Mr. Lamont himself is not uttering such words.

George Jepsen has become irrelevant. He and those like him should not drag the CT Democratic Party into irrelevancy.

James Webb Wins in VA, But...

...not if the partisan US Supreme Court were to get involved.

The 2000 presidential election, which the conservative Republican majority on the Rehnquist court stole from Al Gore without having the integrity to put their names on the decision, damaged my trust in the Supreme Court.

Now Who Are the "Sore Losers"?

As was the case throughout the campaign, Ned Lamont showed more class than did the Lamontista bloggers. For a representative sample, click above for entries on the DailyKos.

Time to move on.

It looks like there will be a Democratic Senate, of which Joe Lieberman will be a proud - and powerful! - member.

MSNBC.COM Has Superb Coverage

On the basis of my interpretations of my interpolations of the exit polls posted on msnbc.com, I am sticking with my prediction that the Democrats will regain control of the Senate.

PA, OH, NJ, MD and RI have already been declared Democratic Senatorial victories by the networks.

The female vote will put the Democratic candidates over the top in VA, MT and MO.

Unfortunately, Harold Ford's lead among women in TN will not be able to overcome Corker's lead among white men. The RNC's racist "Playboy" ad worked.

Speaking of Talkradio...

I caught Jim Vicevich's show yesterday on WTIC-AM.

Nothing's changed. Jim is still bashing John Kerry and interviewing Smearboaters!

Alan Schlesinger would be great on talkradio!

That's what I emailed to the Republican candidate this evening. Schlesinger would be a natural on talkradio or as a TV commentator.

If you agree, please email Alan Schlesinger at mail@schlesinger2006.com

Larry Sabato Predicts a Democratic Senate

Larry Sabato made that prediction on Al Franken's show today, as he did on his website.

I agree.

Unfortunately, my prediction record has been poor. In fact, IRC, it's zero!

Maybe this time, I (and the country!) will hit gold.

Alas, a pessimistic, and perhaps accurate, prediction can be found on the intrade (tm) futures market. People who are putting their money where their mouths are predict that the Republicans will retain control of the Senate.

NYT: "Failed ’04 Presidential Run Hardened Lieberman's Independent Ways"

From The New York Times, Nov. 3:

Senator Lieberman’s rejection by his party in 2004 foreshadowed his stunning loss in August to Ned Lamont, a little-known businessman with an antiwar message. And, some friends and advisers say, that earlier rejection played a role in Mr. Lieberman’s decision to run for re-election on his own party line; it freed him to do and say exactly what he felt.

"I think that was kind of a defining moment," said Edward L. Marcus, a former chairman of the Connecticut Democratic Party who remains a Lieberman friend and supporter. "The whole experience made it clear to him that he was not being rejected by the voters, he was being rejected by a wing of the party that he just could not hope to appease."

Lieberman will win Tuesday. The so-called "progessive" wing of the Democratic Party has cost the party an effective fundraiser.

Ledger: "Lamont bloggers engage in uncivil discourse"

From the Connecticut Jewish Ledger:

On his campaign website, Ned Lamont, the Democratic candidate for Senator, invites visitors to let their voices be heard via the site's various blogs. The campaign asks participants to note the following disclaimer and rules, which, if violated, may result in the deletion of comments or even in the blogger's banishment from the site.

Unfortunately, Ned Lamont's control over his site is not as good as it should be. Posts by the immature on the Lamont site are causing the candidate needless damage.

Joe Lieberman's team is showing more discipline, a quality that was in short supply during the primary.

What George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden Have in Common

Osama bin Laden injected himself into the 2004 presidential election. His attack on Bush probably swayed some voters on the fence to vote for the president.

Dubya on Sean Hannity's TV program injected himself again into the CT senate election by giving words of support for Joe Lieberman. The attacks by Bush, Limbaugh, Hannity and their ilk on Ned Lamont may cause some undecideds to vote for Lamont. Bush is less interested in Lieberman's success than he is in exploiting the senator as a "political football" (Lieberman's words) to bash other Democrats.

Joe Lieberman should repudiate George Bush's cynical exploitation of his name. He is going to be re-elected and he has nothing to lose by disassociating himself from Bush's tactics.

John Kerry, please go away.

Senator Kerry, you screwed up 2004. We don't need you to louse up 2006 with your bad jokes.

Just go away. You had your chance. You blew it. Don't delude yourself into thinking that you will ever become president.

David Broder: "Connecticut Crucible for a War Debate"

David Broder clearly favors Ned Lamont for one reason only: the war in Iraq. Otherwise, the columnist expresses disappointment with the challenger.

...should Lamont repeat his primary win over Lieberman and capture the seat, it would add immeasurably to the momentum of the antiwar forces. He says that he is running in order to end the nightmare of "140,000 of our brave troops stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war."

Lamont himself is not a strong figure or a compelling politician; he looks like a juvenile in a drawing room comedy, and he is competitive mainly because he has sunk much of his fortune into this race. Lieberman is an exhausted veteran, barely able to conceal his irritation at having to fight for a seat he feels that he owns. When challenged on his record, he turns testy.

Their weaknesses were exposed by Schlesinger's good humor. But theirs is the fight that counts -- and it counts a lot.

Broder is wrong, however, when he writes:

The outcome of their [Lamont vs. Lieberman] fight is important nationally for the meaning that will be attached. While other states such as Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio and Virginia will decide whether Republicans or Democrats control the Senate, this Connecticut race constitutes perhaps the nation's clearest test on the Iraq war.

The vote in CT will not be a clear test at all about Iraq. A good portion of Lieberman's supporters oppose his position on the war. Many are voting for the incumbent becauase of his experience and because of the failure of Ned Lamont to demonstrate adequate gravitas and to build on his primary victory.

Sure, the Bushies will point to a Lieberman victory as an endorsement of their failed Iraq policy. It's up to those Lieberman's supporters who are anti-Bush-policy to follow the example of former Senator Bob Kerrey, who made it clear, while endorsing Sen. Lieberman, yesterday that the war in Iraq is a failure.

Helen Ubiñas: "An Old Pro Uses Needle As Rapier"

The insightful Hartford Courant columnist contrasts the political debating skills of Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont. Lamont, because of his debating inexperience, missed opportunities to parry and jab Lieberman.

Forward: "The Lieberman Perplex"

The editorial in today's issue of the Forward tries to be creative by juxtaposing Joe Lieberman with Israel's Avigdor Lieberman.

The closing line:

In the coming weeks, liberals in both America and Israel are likely to find that they can get a great deal done, if only they can learn to get along with a guy named Lieberman.

The Lieberman-Lamont Race Is No Longer Interesting

Barring the unexpected, such as a Schlesinger surge, Joe Lieberman will get re-elected. Ned Lamont had his chance. For an analysis of why he is failing, read Stan Simpson's column in today's Courant.

For that matter, John Kerry had his chance as well. He's a loser who had run an incompetent campaign for president in 2004 and who has delusions about getting the Democratic nomination again in 2008.

Does Sen. Kerry honestly think that he can do the Lamont campaign any good?

The Big Winner of Last Night's Debate is...

...Alan Schlesinger, whose performance may sent his poll numbers into double digits, mostly at Joe Lieberman's expense.

Ned Lamont did not do significant damage to the incumbent, which he could have done by attacking him on the senator's waffling regarding a Democratic Congress. To win, Lamont must peel away more Democratic voters from Lieberman, which so far he has failed to do. Lieberman must hold on to his Democratic voters and prevent defections to an an energized Alan Schlesinger.

Should Schlesinger's poll numbers improve, Lieberman would do well not to directly attack him, which would only increase the Republican's news coverage and significance. Rather, Lieberman should stress to Republicans the "dangers" (real and imagined) of electing Lamont and that Lieberman is in the best position to defeat him.

The "Joe Lieberman for Senate" Sign Goes Back on My Lawn

As reported on the Courant.com website:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary, said Tuesday he hoped Democrats seize control of Congress -- with one caveat.

A Democratic-led Congress, he said, must change its ways.