Lieberman has been doing the rounds making his Republican fundraisers proud defending President Bush’s plan. Watch this clip of him on MTP today and see how many untruths you can count in Lieberman’s little speech.

I’ve refrained from commenting on Bush’s fabulous speech. For one thing, the rest of the world seems to be doing a really good job shredding the plan apart. For another, the plan isn’t worth commenting on. I obviously think it’s asinine. Most defenders of the plan cite the non-surge provisions of the plan, focusing on oil revenue sharing, the re-prioritization of aid, and similar items. They do all sound good, but it seems like none of them require additional troops going into Iraq. As Sen. Hagel said in the clip above, redeployment would allow us to deal with different threats without bringing in additional troops, especially when our Generals are opposed to the plan.

There were reports that the White House insisted on a surge component to the plan because the ISG specifically didn’t recommend it. I guess this is supposed to show how the President was incorporating a wider set of suggestions or something. Atrios calls it childish. I simply see the President putting politics above all else.

There’s an irony here with Sen. Joe Lieberman defending Bush after his, “let the voters decide”, “it’s not about politics but people” campaign that he’s aligned himself with an administration that puts politics above everything else. Even now, as we’re facing a moment where the wrong choices could have dire consequences, politics are shaping policy. Doing the right thing is only good when the right thing keeps the President politically strong. This, even though he doesn’t face reelection. It seems fitting that Joe Lieberman is the only member of Congress mentioned by name in the speech (2008 foreshadowing? you tell me).

Of course, there’s something to Atrios’s “children” comment. Bush has never had to earn anything on his own, he’s never had to own up to business failures, and he’s generally had things handed to him. He’s so like the archetype of the spoiled, rich prince that it’s almost hard to believe it’s true. He, unfortunately, can’t run from this and I suspect it’s a hard lesson for him to learn. He will be judged harshly by history, and he will have to deal with it.

Over at Belgravia Dispatch, Greg has written a piece on what Rumsfeld’s departure might mean for the next two years. Highly recommend reading the whole thing. He’s optimistic, which makes me a feel a little better. Of course, he also predicted, based on rumblings he was hearing inside the Beltway, that there would be a course change after 2004 (he voted for Bush, silly man). That obviously didn’t happen.

From the piece:

Regardless, what we saw yesterday was American democracy at its finest. We saw the public mount a critically needed intervention, because without it a President well beyond his depth would have likely continued to cast his lot with discredited cocksure ideologues and/or Jacksonian nationalists like Rumsfeld. In Gates, we have an anti-ideologue and a realist. In his role with the Baker-Hamilton commission (a welcome dose of bipartisan sanity in an increasingly moronic Washington, media and blogosphere), he will have had access and been influenced by distinguished peers grappling with what to do next in Iraq in a climate characterized by sober appraisal of the national interest, rather than the agenda-driven hysterical harrumphing afoot in all the usual quarters.

There is a final irony worth noting too, perhaps. With pragmatists and Bush 41 alum like Baker and Gates rising to the fore, the son who marched headstrong into Iraq (like the father wouldn’t after liberating Kuwait) is now being forced to lick his wounds and crawl back towards the protective umbrella of his father’s former advisors. Neo-con exuberances, faith-based adventurism, and utopian aspiration passing for persuasive policy are now necessarily going to be relegated to the back-seat, in favor of essentially needed sobriety and realism (Gates is far closer to Scowcroft, say, than ribald fraudster types spouting off endless inanities at NRO and the Standard). While it is true Cheney is still around (one of his father’s advisors too, but a changed man now no longer respected by his former colleagues in Bush 41), he is a much diminished figure who, to boot, just lost his main ally today.

It is, by far, the most interesting development of this week, that Rumsfeld got the boot after the election night “thumping.” Of course, the move, like everything else this administration does, was timed to shift media attention away from election night losses.

So let’s talk about election night for a bit. Atrios points to an article in the Providence Journal about Chafee’s reaction to his loss. I’ll excerpt the same portion Atrios did:

In his first interview since losing the Republican U.S. Senate seat that has been in his family for three decades, Lincoln D. Chafee yesterday said a lot of people had been coming up to him “and saying, ‘We’re sorry you lost, but glad the Congress switched’ ” from GOP to Democratic Party control.

Asked if deep down, despite his personal disappointment about the outcome of Tuesday’s election, he felt the same way, Chafee looked into the TV cameras and said: “To be honest, yes.”

“When you enact a divisive agenda, don’t talk to the other side, I don’t think that’s good for the country,” Chafee said. At least now, “I think the president is going to have to talk to the Democrats. I think that is going to be good for America.”

If you haven’t been following the race in Rhode Island (and who hasn’t, come on), read the full article. Chafee’s situation was similar to Joe Lieberman’s, in that he was challenged in his party primary. Of course, he was actually attacked on purely ideological grounds for not being “conservative” enough. Lieberman was challenged because he’s a stubborn, arrogant Senator who lost touch with the bulk of his party constituents back home.

That’s what was so interesting about this election cycle. While Ned Lamont lost, his campaign was one of the first big national stories that showed that talking about the war and talking about leaving was the right thing to do. The Democrats fielded strong candidates, among them war veterans (the Fighting Dems), and as the campaign season reached the home stretch, pounded the war message home. The Foley scandal pretty much pushed the rest of the undecideds the Democrats got.

The Lamont campaign showed people we could talk about the war and win elections, and while Lamont didn’t win, his campaign pushed that conversation forward. I wish I had been able to do more this summer to help, but with the wedding and football season back to back, it wasn’t meant to be.

I’m happy he ran, and happy to have supported him. He was a good candidate. A local editorial lays out why his candidacy was important, and this letter from a supports seems to summarize my view.

So, I’ve got a couple of Lieberman predictions that I’d like to set down in print so that if I’m right, I can point out that I wasn’t just pulling a Lieberman and feeling which way the wind is blowing.

First, I think Ned Lamont will pull out a surprising, but very narrow victory on November 7th. I base this on two things. First, my drive to work goes through a very, very Republican section of Bristol. I’ve NEVER in 3 years of working there seen a Democratic candidate on a lawn sign. There are now 2 Ned Lamont lawn signs in Bristol on my way to ESPN which is shocking to me.

Second, every single person I’ve talked to, including some 2004 Bush voters are annoyed by Joe Lieberman. They’re voting for Lamont and that can’t hurt. So, even though Lamont is down 12% in the last ARG poll, I still think there’s a decent chance that this will turn around.

Based on the poll, it’s obviously a long shot. So, let’s say that Lieberman wins, which brings me to the next prediction. If Lieberman wins, he will caucus with whatever party holds the majority in the Senate. If the Republicans hold a majority, he will caucus with them. If the Democrats win a majority, he will caucus with them. I also believe that if the final tally sits at 50-49 Democrats, he will caucus with the Republicans (thus tossing the Senate to the Republicans).

I again realize how wacky this is based on the conventional wisdom, but my suspicion is that he will caucus with whoever gives him the best shot at taking a committee chair. We’ll get some speech about how he’s bringing the parties together. On top of that, I’m guessing Joe’s new donors will want something back for their troubles and cash, and giving the Senate back to Republicans would sure make a nice present.

So, there it is. I really believe that he’s going to flip, and that the only way he’ll caucus with the Dems is if they have the majority without him. Seven seats are tossups according to Cook, so there’s a chance that they can do it without Lieberman.

While I wouldn’t be surprised if you could take any war supporter of this war and line the quotes up, the Nixon quotes do sound like Lieberman.

Update: The Lamont campaign put together this video to highlight the similarities:

(via Atrios)

This election is about improving the state of Iraq, improving the war on terrorism, and basically returning some semblance of debate and discussion to Washington. It’s time to end one party rule, and then work to fix so many things.

Joe Lieberman has indicated that he’s going to caucus with the Democrats if he wins, and a lot of people believe that voting for Joe is in the end the same as voting for a real Democrat. This is a mistake and Joe Lieberman has given yet another example of how he’s more concerned about aligning with the President than he is for a new infusion of ideas and debate. From today’s Hartford Courant:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat and student of politics, blanked when asked if America would be better off with his party regaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

…

“Uh, I haven’t thought about that enough to give an answer,” Lieberman said, as though Democrats’ strong prospects for recapturing the House hadn’t been the fall’s top political story.

Yeah, he’s planning on staying with the Democratic caucus after the election. Right.

Look, it’s really simple. Yes, Joe Lieberman seems like a nice guy, but he’s completely rudderless right now. He’s a loose cannon and more likely to join with Republicans on all of the major issues of the day. We’ve royally screwed up another country and have had little oversight over basic issues like how contracts are being executed in Iraq. All we need to make a substantial improvements in Iraq is a Congress (even one house) that is committed to real oversight and real investigation.

Joe Lieberman isn’t committed to that plan, and he’s not committed to oversight. It might just be that he’s afraid because on most of the issues that require investigation and oversight, Joe Lieberman has sided with the administration. He’s more interested in just staying in Congress than actually doing his job when he’s there. Add to that the sheer dishonesty with which Lieberman and his spokesman Gerstein have run his campaign and the choice is clear.

The only choice this fall for Senator is Ned Lamont. Vote Ned in 2006!

This was Gen. Clark yesterday:

“The truth is, (Lieberman) didn’t control the steering wheel, but he was sort of supporting the elbow of the guy who drove us into the ditch.”

No, he was in the passenger seat telling all of us in the back to shut up.

Vote Ned Lamont in 2006! Consider donating if you can.

Via LamontBlog (unaffiliated with the campaign).

I admit, I took the day off from work and completely tuned out everything to give my brain a rest. I also felt that common sense would prevail in the Senate. After all, they’re far less prone to radical election posturing. A bill authorizing the President to detain people without trial or even charges would fit the definition of radical. It wouldn’t pass in the Senate.

Obviously, I was wrong. The bill passed 65-34. Our horrible Senator, Joseph Lieberman voted for the bill (Dodd voted Nay), along with 11 other Democrats. Despite his moralistic bombast on other issues, Senator Lieberman is apparently pro-torture and against the Bill of Rights.

To put a clear frame on the electoral posturing here, only one Republican, moderate Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), voted against the bill. The remaining 33 votes were Dems and Jeffords (I-VT).

It’s 3AM, and I don’t have the energy to write something deep and meaningful here. So, I’ll direct you to some other people who have done the job for me:

• Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings reacts.
• The NY Times details why this bill is an affront to everything America stands for.

• Glenn Greenwald points out some truly remarkable statements about this bill:

  Jay Rockefeller (who voted for this bill) is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. When he was defending the amendment he introduced to compel the CIA to disclose to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees information about their interrogation activities, he complained that the White House has concealed all information about the interrogation program and that the Intelligence Committee members (including him) therefore know nothing about it. His amendment to compel reports to Congress was defeated with all Republicans (except Chafee) voting against it. He proceeded to vote for the underlying bill anyway, thereby legalizing a program he admits he knows nothing about (and will continue to know nothing about).

  oversight? We don’t need no stinkin’ oversight… Apparently, Congressional oversight emboldens terrorists.

It would not be an overstatement that I’d like to scream into my monitor right now. I would, and it wouldn’t be an overreaction, except that Heidi is sleeping and it is, after all, 3:43AM.

Our Congress, with the help of both parties (goddamn pansy Democrats that didn’t filibuster this to hell), just sold out the most basic of American values. They just enabled the President to define his own laws, to imprison people indefinitely simply by calling them a name, and then prevented any check on this power by either Congress or the judiciary. All in order to boost their own standings in the 2006 election.

Stupid Democrats, for not realizing that people would’ve seen through the bullshit had they stood up from the beginning. Consistency would outweigh demagoguery and the 32 that voted against this bill should’ve been screaming about this from the beginning.

Stupid Republicans for being the craven, corrupt, and cavalier representatives they are. They don’t care about our country, they just care about winning. Orwell had a point:

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others ; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. … We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

If that doesn’t describe the modern Republican party, I’m not sure what does.

Stupid us, for falling for this type of garbage during each election. They use fear to manipulate us, they use a war of choice (”preemption”) to promote the jingoist, and they treat us like idiots. As long as we keep voting for this nonsense, or keep putting inconsequential issues like abortion or marriage amendments above the welfare of our nation, we will suffer the consequences.

America changed on Thursday. So, now the question is, what are you doing to change it back? All we need is one house taken by the Democrats and we can start working our way back to an America that we are proud of.

Olbermann might be the most courageous broadcaster on television after Stephen Colbert, as his criticism of the administration has always been fact based and unflinching. I just watched his editorial commentary about 9/11, the lack of a memorial on Ground Zero, and the administration in general and was floored. It is, by far, the most eloquent commentary I’ve seen from Olbermann.

I’ve excerpted a part below. Olbermann’s overall metaphor doesn’t necessarily work for me, but this section, the meat of this editorial, summarizes the pain and futility of this administration. I’ve written before that I also will never forgive or forget how this president destroyed that moment of unity after 9/11. It wasn’t just our nation but the world that was united, an improbable opportunity to change the world in the ashes of tragedy. It was the first time NATO invoked Article 5 of the treaty declaring our nation under attack. Le Monde ran the headline “We are all Americans now” and nearly every leader of every country expressed their support and sympathy.

In the years since, we have gone from neighbor to pariah, from “Nous sommes tous Américains” to Freedom Fries, and from chasing bin Ladin to chasing phantom WMD. As Olbermann eloquently points out, the President chose to use 9/11 as a wedge issue. It simply became a political tool that was used to badger Democrats into submission and to bolster numbers at the polls. Every time he invokes the memory of those that perished to pursue a domestic political agenda, every photo op, every claim that critics have “forgotten the lessons of 9/11″ cheapens their memory. It reduces them to props in a political game, and it’s despicable.

This is why, when the President speaks of bipartisanship, we should reflect upon the past five years and examine our “bipartisanship” moments on the most important issue of our time. Bipartisanship brought us the war in Iraq because of several deftly timed votes. Bipartisanship brought us zero accountability in government. When the President speaks of bipartisanship, he speaks only of bipartisanship that furthers his political agenda.

As he did today, the President will invoke bipartisanship in the weeks and months to come to stave off electoral losses. I hope all of us, Republicans, Democrats and Independents recognize that for what it is. Many incumbents, including our own Senator here in Connecticut, are joining the President’s chorus, hoping that claims of bipartisanship also absolve them of accountability. We owe it to ourselves and to our nation to vote for accountability. Hopefully, then, we can get the job done, both at Ground Zero and in the hills of Pakistan, wherever bin Ladin might be.

Here’s the section I mentioned. Watch the whole editorial. You won’t be sorry.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is, its symbolism — of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President — and those around him — did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, “bi-partisanship” meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, “validate the strategy of the terrorists.”

They promised protection, and then showed that to them “protection” meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is “lying by implication.”

The impolite phrase, is “impeachable offense.”

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space… and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible — for anything — in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death… after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections… how dare you or those around you… ever “spin” 9/11.

Long time without a post on the Lieberman/Lamont/Schlesinger race here in CT, so here’s a quick update. The campaign has quieted down a bit in recent weeks. Not quite the same press as right before primary, as you might imagine. Since then, Joe Lieberman lied about his campaign website being “hacked,” then finally a few days ago relaunched the web site in this cheesy new design. The site has a blog which tellingly links only to out-of-state blogs. It’s weird, because there are CT blogs that support his candidacy, at least in part. The fine folks at CT Local Politics have a few Lieberman supporters.

It’s indicative of a larger trend. People, including senior political figures in our state have dropped Lieberman. His campaign is dependent on a lot of out-of-state support, including ads and support from a shady Republican-backed outfit. In fact, he has spent more time hanging out with Jodi Rell, our popular Republican governor, than any Democrats in the state. Bipartisan indeed.

I hope he loses big come November. The power of incumbency is very tough to beat, and Joe has deep connections and outstanding favors in all sorts of places. The labor movement is split between the two candidates (Lieberman has an edge there), so traditional sources for volunteers and ground support will be split as well. This is going to be an interesting race as we get closer to November.

This defines the modern political landscape:

I was flipping through the channels briefly this evening and caught Sean Hannity saying that if the Connecticut primary race had been held next Tuesday rather than yesterday, Lieberman probably would have won.

Just think, Joe Lieberman might not then have been blasting his constituents and the Democratic Party as well as Ned Lamont as appeasers of terrorism. Those words are going to be tough for Lieberman to walk back when he realizes he’s ticked off a good number of Dems and Independents who thought Lieberman was more judicious and thoughtful than his knee-jerk outbursts demonstrated.

But Hannity’s comment was actually useful.

Can Lieberman win without FEAR? Can Cheney and Rove win another election without FEAR?

Can Fox News stay in business without FEAR?

The answer is obviously no. And it’s not just limited to terrorism, but to science, religion, environmental policy, name it and the Republicans focus on the traditional tool of the marketer: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Opposition to gay marriage is founded on some non-specific fear of the destruction of, well, something… society? “Values?” I’m not even sure. Opposition to environmental policy is founded on non-specific fears about jobs and the economy. Just talk about vague fears, scare people, and get them in line behind your banner of protection. Unfortunately, it’s false security, and I’m sure we’ll be talking about how our use of military power precipitated a decline of American power in the future.