The news yesterday out of Connecticut was the Chris Dodd is retiring instead of running for re-election.
What is more interesting is that there is one politician in that state even Dodd could beat: his seatmate, Joe Lieberman.
PPP (D) released some more data from its polling in Connecticut (522 RVs, 1/4-5, MoE +/- 4.3%), showing a precipitous drop in Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I) approval rating. It now stands at just 25 percent, with 67 percent disapproving. By comparison, that's lower than even Chris Dodd's showing at 29 percent approval.
Digging deeper, PPP finds that 81 percent of Democrats disapprove of Lieberman. Among Republicans, 39 percent approve and 48 percent disapprove; among indies the split is 32 / 61. Lieberman is up again in 2012
Dodd of course has gotten smacked with his push to allow AIG executives to collect multimillion dollar bonuses even as the Federal treasury was spending billions to clean up the mess they made, and also for the question of whether his Countrywide mortgage may have gotten a preferred rate because he was too cozy with the banks and the mortgage industry. But even with that baggage, Dodd is still more popular in his homestate than Joe of the 'Party of Joe.' And until the health care vote, Lieberman hadn't made a lot of waves. What has clearly made the difference was his waffling and watering down of health care legislation (note also that while he has net unfavorables with everyone, he's the closest to breaking even with Republicans.)
Showing posts with label Joe Lieberman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Lieberman. Show all posts
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Kisses and Hugs
THE KISSER
endorses THE HUGGER
And the media is saying they are shocked! Shocked, I tell ya!
Boy, are they asleep at the switch, or maybe they want to be shocked.
Because the truth is, you could take the difference between Joe Lieberman and John McCain and put it on a butter knife and spread it thin on a cracker. An oyster cracker.
endorses THE HUGGER
And the media is saying they are shocked! Shocked, I tell ya!
Boy, are they asleep at the switch, or maybe they want to be shocked.
Because the truth is, you could take the difference between Joe Lieberman and John McCain and put it on a butter knife and spread it thin on a cracker. An oyster cracker.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Lieberman caught off guard by angry questions from troops.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the 2000 Vice Presidential Candidate, made a surprise visit to Iraq this week. As usual for these unannounced visits (claim that things are overblown all you want-- visits by Americans to other countries are generally announced for weeks in advance), Lieberman mugged for the cameras and painted a rosy picture, saying “what I see here today is progress, significant progress.”
That wasn't the picture a few hours later, when he actually met some of the troops.
McClatchy reports tonight on Spc. David Williams, who collected questions for Lieberman from 30 other troops.
At the top of his note card was the question he got from nearly every one of his fellow soldiers:
“When are we going to get out of here?”
The rest was a laundry list. When would they have upgraded Humvees that could withstand the armor-penetrating weapons that U.S. officials claim are from Iran? When could they have body armor that was better in hot weather?...
Next to him, Spc. Will Hedin, 21, of Chester, Conn., thought about what he was going to say.
“We’re not making any progress,” Hedin said, as he recalled a comrade who was shot by a sniper last week. “It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at. … It’s just more troops, more targets.”
As for the 'troop surge' itself, it appears not to be stanching the violence. The number of unidentified corpses in Baghdad, after falling in April jumped up by seventy percent in May as militias returned to the streets.
In fact, the only real 'surge' is in the number of U.S. troop deaths. April and May were the first two consecutive months since the start of the war in 2003 in which the total number of U.S. troop deaths was over a hundred in both months, and in fact it has broken 100 in four of the past eight months-- as opposed to only reaching that level three times in a calendar month, in the first 3 and a half years of the war.
I find that particularly depressing because I predicted thsi would happen. I'd have much rather been proven wrong, but instead, the Administration's new war policy has simply produced more dead Americans, and apparently (based on the above numbers from the street) no let up in the rate of Iraqis murdering other Iraqis.
That wasn't the picture a few hours later, when he actually met some of the troops.
McClatchy reports tonight on Spc. David Williams, who collected questions for Lieberman from 30 other troops.
At the top of his note card was the question he got from nearly every one of his fellow soldiers:
“When are we going to get out of here?”
The rest was a laundry list. When would they have upgraded Humvees that could withstand the armor-penetrating weapons that U.S. officials claim are from Iran? When could they have body armor that was better in hot weather?...
Next to him, Spc. Will Hedin, 21, of Chester, Conn., thought about what he was going to say.
“We’re not making any progress,” Hedin said, as he recalled a comrade who was shot by a sniper last week. “It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at. … It’s just more troops, more targets.”
As for the 'troop surge' itself, it appears not to be stanching the violence. The number of unidentified corpses in Baghdad, after falling in April jumped up by seventy percent in May as militias returned to the streets.
In fact, the only real 'surge' is in the number of U.S. troop deaths. April and May were the first two consecutive months since the start of the war in 2003 in which the total number of U.S. troop deaths was over a hundred in both months, and in fact it has broken 100 in four of the past eight months-- as opposed to only reaching that level three times in a calendar month, in the first 3 and a half years of the war.
I find that particularly depressing because I predicted thsi would happen. I'd have much rather been proven wrong, but instead, the Administration's new war policy has simply produced more dead Americans, and apparently (based on the above numbers from the street) no let up in the rate of Iraqis murdering other Iraqis.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Lamont Defeats Lieberman in Connecticut
Last night, in a Democratic primary in Connecticut, Ned Lamont, a 'cable guy' who became a millionaire in that business, and who had served as a city councilman and held no other elected office, beat three term incumbent Senator and former Vice Presidential and Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman 52%-48% in a hotly contested Democratic primary. Lieberman has vowed to run as an independent for his seat. I believe it is a mistake to do so-- he ran as a Democrat and Connecticut's Democratic voters made it clear that he does not reflect their values. He should accept that judgement, endorse Ned Lamont, and move on. As Dick Cheney told Lieberman during the Vice Presidential debate six years ago after Lieberman said he had no private sector job experience, "I'm trying to help you get there, Joe." For perhaps the first time in history, advice from Dick Cheney is something Lieberman should take.
I have a number of thoughts on this race. The first is the most obvious-- the country is against the war in Iraq, and Lieberman's support of the Iraq war, including in an interview last year in which he claimed that 'much progress' was being made, despite the obvious fact that we've been hearing that for years now and the 'progress' only seems to be a hardening of Iraqi attitudes towards Americans, cost Joe the nomination. Even other Democrats who voted with the President on the war, notably John Kerry (who himself was burned two years ago by his failure to admit he made a mistake) have now made it clear that they believe they were deceived (as many in the country were) by the hand-picked faulty intelligence that was used to 'sell' the war. And one reason why John Murtha has credibility on the issue is that he was willing to go to the mat supporting the war and the military for a long time, but finally came to the realization that he had like many others been sold a bill of goods. But not Joe. He was for continuing the Iraq war, and that is out of step, not only with Democratic primary voters, but with a clear majority of all voters, according to a new CNN poll out this morning.
Other Democrats, including President Clinton and Christopher Dodd, Lieberman's Senate partner from Connecticut, stumped on his behalf in the closing days of the campaign. And in fact they probably did make a difference, as the polls showed Lieberman down 13% about a week ago and he lost by four. So apparently a visit from Bill Clinton is worth 9 points right now-- I mention that only to draw a contrast to the President; Bush visits only for fundraisers for the party faithful, but he does not go out and campaign with Republicans running for Congress or the Senate right now-- so a visit from Bush is a liability.
Which brings us to Lieberman's own liabilities. If a visit from Bush is a liability, then how about a kiss? Last year while walking down the Senate aisle at the State of the Union address, President Bush pulled Senator Lieberman aside and kissed him. This put into stark perspective Lieberman's status as 'The President's man' who could be counted on to disrupt any attempt to create a Democratic policy alternative on Iraq. "The Kiss" became a major theme in the campaign, with a float showing mockups of 'the kiss' being driven around Connecticut during the campaign. All of which leads me to ask, given that we have the Republican equivalent to Joe Lieberman, John McCain representing us here in the Senate and wanting to run for President (incidentally Lieberman and McCain count each other as among their closest friends in the Senate), whether we could get that guy ('Connecticut Bob') to create a mock-up of 'the hug' that McCain gave Bush two years ago for when McCain runs for President:
Expect now that other Democrats who supported the war (and probably more than a few Republicans) will do everything they can to distance themselves from their former support. Hillary Clinton is going to be at the top of that list, although by now she has been so firmly associated with support for the war that if she changes her stance now it will be a clear 'flip flop.'
If there is one message that the Lamont victory sends it is a very clear and indisputable one: Out Now!
I have a number of thoughts on this race. The first is the most obvious-- the country is against the war in Iraq, and Lieberman's support of the Iraq war, including in an interview last year in which he claimed that 'much progress' was being made, despite the obvious fact that we've been hearing that for years now and the 'progress' only seems to be a hardening of Iraqi attitudes towards Americans, cost Joe the nomination. Even other Democrats who voted with the President on the war, notably John Kerry (who himself was burned two years ago by his failure to admit he made a mistake) have now made it clear that they believe they were deceived (as many in the country were) by the hand-picked faulty intelligence that was used to 'sell' the war. And one reason why John Murtha has credibility on the issue is that he was willing to go to the mat supporting the war and the military for a long time, but finally came to the realization that he had like many others been sold a bill of goods. But not Joe. He was for continuing the Iraq war, and that is out of step, not only with Democratic primary voters, but with a clear majority of all voters, according to a new CNN poll out this morning.
Other Democrats, including President Clinton and Christopher Dodd, Lieberman's Senate partner from Connecticut, stumped on his behalf in the closing days of the campaign. And in fact they probably did make a difference, as the polls showed Lieberman down 13% about a week ago and he lost by four. So apparently a visit from Bill Clinton is worth 9 points right now-- I mention that only to draw a contrast to the President; Bush visits only for fundraisers for the party faithful, but he does not go out and campaign with Republicans running for Congress or the Senate right now-- so a visit from Bush is a liability.
Which brings us to Lieberman's own liabilities. If a visit from Bush is a liability, then how about a kiss? Last year while walking down the Senate aisle at the State of the Union address, President Bush pulled Senator Lieberman aside and kissed him. This put into stark perspective Lieberman's status as 'The President's man' who could be counted on to disrupt any attempt to create a Democratic policy alternative on Iraq. "The Kiss" became a major theme in the campaign, with a float showing mockups of 'the kiss' being driven around Connecticut during the campaign. All of which leads me to ask, given that we have the Republican equivalent to Joe Lieberman, John McCain representing us here in the Senate and wanting to run for President (incidentally Lieberman and McCain count each other as among their closest friends in the Senate), whether we could get that guy ('Connecticut Bob') to create a mock-up of 'the hug' that McCain gave Bush two years ago for when McCain runs for President:
Expect now that other Democrats who supported the war (and probably more than a few Republicans) will do everything they can to distance themselves from their former support. Hillary Clinton is going to be at the top of that list, although by now she has been so firmly associated with support for the war that if she changes her stance now it will be a clear 'flip flop.'
If there is one message that the Lamont victory sends it is a very clear and indisputable one: Out Now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
