WBLS (107.5 FM) will salute the Marvin Gaye all this weekend on the 22nd anniversary of his death.
The "Marvin: We Miss You" weekend will feature his music today, then move into a special tomorrow morning, 8-10. Hal Jackson will spotlight Gaye on his "Sunday Classics" tomorrow, noon-4 p.m., and Ashford and Simpson will host a special Gaye-focused "Quiet Storm" tomorrow night.
Gaye, shot to death by his father on April 1, 1984, has remained one of the most influential musicians of modern times.
Danbury mayor and immigration lawyer get personal at immigration forum
(The picture tells the story)
This is a cross posting from Hat City Blog. Since the immigration issue is the hot political topic in the nation, I thought it would be informative for those who are not from Connecticut to see how this issue has affected one city in a non-border state. The video clip will tell you all you need to know in terms of how emotional this topic has become for some residents of Danbury (including the mayor who personally attacked an immigration lawyer who was the guest speaker at this particular forum).
Watch and learn.
Did Mayor Boughton go too far personally attacking immigration lawyer Philip Berns? Did Berns get under Boughton's skin when he commented that Danbury does not care about the immigrant population?
The topic of conversation among many who attended the forum on immigration Wednesday night wasn't the immigration issue, but the sharp verbal exchange between Boughton and Berns. The two people were invited to speak about illegal immigration in Danbury but things quickly degraded and became personal with each taking verbal shots at each other. Things seem to reach a boiling point when Mayor Boughton personally attacked Berns' career as an immigration attorney.
You missed the forum? Upset you missed the fireworks? Heard about the exchange and want to see for you if Boughton or Berns went over the line? Well, don't worry; we have the videoclip so you can judge for yourself.
One thing is certain, this issue has angered people on both sides and if last night is any indication, this topic (and the anti-immigration rhetoric expressed by the radical members of the audience) will not go away any time soon.
Okay, so many of you are bugging me about last night’s JJB dinner that I’m forced to do a quick write-up. Now, I’m going to be really fast about this because I’m knee-deep in a big project at work and I don’t have the time to go into much detail. I’ll update this post throughout the day as I find the time.
UPDATE: I found some time to clean up this post…somewhat.
Now, I didn't think I could bring in my camera or recording device in the place (STUPID MOVE! Everyone had his or her cameras. My father always told me to keep a camera on you at all times, I didn’t listen on this night and I’m paying the price. Anyway, because I didn’t bring my usual stuff, I made it a point to keep an eye on everyone and write down any interesting stuff I witnessed.
I arrived with about 15 minutes left till the start of the show so I walked around the cocktail area trying to get a feel of the vibe (MY GOODNESS, can political people drink. I swear, the booze was going down like water and the event didn’t start yet).
Looking around at the various campaign tables, without question the best tables belong to Dan Malloy and John DeStefano. Not only were their tables at the right location (right next to the escalators), both tables were full of material (very professional job on the flyers and newsletters) and the volunteers for both campaigns were REALLY fired up as they waved their banners passing out buttons to the people passing by (again, smart move being next to the escalators). I made it a point to check out Lieberman’s table and see what he had to and they weren’t many people stopping by his set-up (I stood there for about five minutes talking to a friend while keeping an eye on Joe’s spot just to be sure). On the other hand, Lamont’s table was doing pretty good with most people grabbing Lamont buttons. It was a smart move for Lamont’s team to set up next to Malloy and DeStefano and for the life of me, I can’t understand why Lieberman’s table was located where it was located. All I can say was that his table was almost in the way; it was right in the walking path and in the middle of the cocktail area whereas Lamont, DeStefano, and Malloy’s set-up was out of the way and next to the escalator. In simple terms, everyone who came to the event had no chance but to walk by Mallory, DeStefano, and Lamont’s table and get annoyed with Lieberman’s set-up being right in the way of the walking area.
As I stood next to Lieberman’s table, I wanted to see how many Lamont buttons I could see on people until I spot one Lieberman button. Seriously, it took a good couple of minutes until I could actually find someone was wearing a Lieberman button. A clear majority of people was wearing Lamont buttons (in fact, to my surprise, it wasn’t even close. In the end, I had to walk around and find someone wearing a Lieberman button).
Everything that Joe passed out had one theme "stick with Joe". From his flyers, to his pine tree branch his campaign gave to everyone at the tables (don’t ask me, no one understood what the tree branch thing was about and everyone joked about it), everything Lieberman gave out had three simple words "stick with Joe".
(Here's a picture of the silly pine tree branch I'm talking about)
Sat down for dinner but since I wasn't there to eat but to observe what I saw, I briefly chatted with the people at my table and proceeded to walk around the place and check out who was there. Again, based on my observations, the Lamont button was the hottest item in the place. Everywhere I turned there was some young person wearing a Lamont button next to their Malloy or DeStefano button. A majority of the people wearing Lieberman stuff where older which was no real big surprise.
After talking to a host of people I knew, I sat back at my table as the event was proceeding. The place was energized and everything was going well until Chris Dodd spoke and brought up Joe Lieberman's name.
This is when the mood changed.
I looked around and observed a number of people booing and believe me, it wasn’t all coming from the Lamont tables (in fact, I didn’t see anyone at Ned’s table boo at all). There was a great deal of Malloy people booing Lieberman as well as people who didn’t have any buttons on at all. I would say the applause to boo ratio was about 70 to 30 (in other words, everyone could clearly hear the people boo Lieberman’s name).
When Joe took to the stage, he received another rather "polite" clap with a very noticeable level of boos mixed in. Joe was forced to pause a couple of times to quiet the crowd but the funny thing was that the crowds weren't necessarily booing him but rather talking over him. You could hear the people moving their silverware around and it basically seemed like they weren’t many people paying attention to his speech (unlike all the other speakers where you could clearly hear them).
When Obama took the stage, I had to stand up to watch the audience's reactions. Obama brought up Joe's name and the place booed him again but unlike the other times, this round of boos where pretty loud. And this point, Obama brought up the fact (which was pretty obvious) that there were a number of people in the crowd who didn’t care too much for Joe. Obama stated that although he didn't agree with every one of Joe's positions, he felt that Joe was a good person. It was ironic that Obama said this because in his very next sentence, Obama went off and bashed the Bush administration over the war. The funny part was when he mocked the Bush administration's claim about the amount of people in Iraq using cell phones being an indicator that the US is doing good things in Iraq. It's funny because it was Lieberman who first made that comment, not the administration.
Overall, Obama's speech was pretty good and it really energized the crowd but it had one more boo moment. At the end of his speech, Obama told the audience to support the Democrats and re-elect Lieberman to the senate. Well, the people in the audience weren’t so psyched about hearing Lieberman’s name and booed Joe again at which point, Obama basically said "good night" and promptly left the stage.
Like I said, I’m really busy so I’m sorry for the quick writing and I’ll update this post in more detail later.
You can check out the video footage of the JJB dinner below (hat tip to spazeboy).
Just made it back home and I read some reports from the other blogs about what happened at the JJB tonight. Well, since I WAS THERE, I'll give you a full report of what really happened. One thing is for certain, Joe Lieberman did not get a warm welcome tonight (and the boos DID NOT ALL COME FROM THE LAMONT TABLES). Personally, I was shocked with the amount of boos Joe received but if anyone says that the boos all came from Lamont's camp, then they're being dishonest (at the least).
I'll give everyone the rundown later. It's late and I'm done for the night.
U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, facing a challenge for the state Democratic Party's endorsement and the potential of a primary election in August, reportedly has ruled out running for re-election as an independent.
But a Connecticut political consultant working for Lieberman said today that the writer for the Internet newsmagazine that published that report may have read too much into the senator's response.
"We don't even talk about that because he has no intention of losing the primary," the consultant, Roy Occhiogrosso, said.
Lieberman's apparent decision was reported in a story posted Wednesday by Salon.com.
"I am a Democrat," the senator was quoted as saying. "I believe in the Democratic Party. I believe in the vision of JFK and, I must say, in the vision of Bill Clinton."
A transcript of the Salon interview provided by Occhiogrosso indicates that Lieberman was responding to a question about whether he ever has days "where you think if you can't be senator you've been, with the kind of style you've approached, you don't want to be a senator?"
"Some people have said to me, 'Why don't you run as an independent? You have broad support across all parties.' Lieberman responded, before adding his comments about belief in the Democratic Party.
Asked if Lieberman was indeed ruling out an independent run should he lose the primary, Occhiogrosso said, "He's been very clear that he is a committed, sensible Democrat." "He's been a Democrat all his life and has every intention of winning the primary."
Questions about whether Lieberman might run as an independent arose two months ago, after he was asked if he would still seek re-election were he to lose a primary. "I intend to be on the ballot in November," he responded, according to the Waterbury Republican-American.
It's simple, JOE LIEBERMAN IS GOING TO RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT. The only question that remains is when will he jump off the Democratic ship. My bet is that he'll take off after the convention when Ned Lamont receives the delegates he needs to challenge Lieberman. Why waste the campaign money trying to attract the people who come out to vote in a primary? Primaries are traditionally low turnout events and you can be sure that only the hard-core Democrats will show up to the polls. Primary Democrats=vote for Lamont. DLC DINOs (not traditionally primary voters)=vote for Lieberman. DLC Democrats will always lose in a primary to the hard-core liberal crowd. Lieberman knows this which is why he's keeping quiet about jumping over to the Independent side where he can gain the Republican votes (which is his only advantage at this point).
Salon published an excellent piece on the Lieberman/Lamont battle and it seems like George Bush's favorite Democrat is taking the Lamont challenge seriously (smart move).
How has Lieberman gone in six years from being the first Jewish vice-presidential nominee to a senator brooding about the possible final curtain of his political career? When Lamont formally declared his candidacy a little more than two weeks ago, he sneered, "I doubt that anybody will call me 'George Bush's favorite Democrat.'" That sobriquet, which bitterly galls Lieberman, is rooted in the senator's early and still unabashed support for the Iraq war.
As a punching bag for left-wing activists, Lieberman somehow ranks up there with Tom DeLay and Dick Cheney. Yet according to the National Journal's 2005 Senate vote rankings, Lieberman's centrist record is on par with that of West Virginia's Robert Byrd, the octogenarian war critic lionized by the blogosphere.
[...]
There is no simple explanation for why Joe-mentum (what Lieberman hoped for in the New Hampshire primary where he finished a dismal fifth) has turned into Joe-mad-at-him. Part of it may be that Lieberman's greatest strength (the self-righteous independence that propelled him onto the 2000 ticket when Al Gore wanted to signal his distaste for Bill Clinton's sexual transgressions) is also his greatest weakness. For some activists, memories of that 2000 campaign die hard, from Lieberman's sputtering debate performance against Cheney to off-message comments about the Florida recount.
George W. Bush and Co. also appear to be working overtime to undermine Lieberman's Democratic credentials. Republicans, apparently without Lieberman's complicity, have floated the senator's name as a possible replacement for Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Then Bush himself, after this year's State of the Union address, grabbed Lieberman in what appeared to be something between a manly embrace and a sloppy kiss. For his part, Lieberman insisted, as he ruled out an independent campaign for the Senate, "I am a Democrat. I believe in the Democratic Party. I believe in the vision of JFK and, I must say, the vision of Bill Clinton."
But what rankles liberals the most is Lieberman's refusal, even now, to give ground on the war. Appearing on "Face the State," a half-hour interview show that aired on Hartford television (WFSB) last Sunday, Lieberman said about Iraq, "I've been there four times now. I can tell you that about two-thirds of Iraq is pretty peaceful. Around the Sunni Triangle, around Baghdad, that's the worst part. And that's getting better."
Such an optimistic, glass-half-full view of Iraq is not shared by most Democrats in Lieberman's home state. This partially explains one of the oddest survey results of the 2006 campaign season: According to a mid-February Quinnipiac University poll, Lieberman has a higher approval rating among Connecticut Republicans (71 percent) than Democrats (57 percent). Still, most Democratic senators with overall 63 percent approval and no serious Republican opponent would be tempted to prematurely break out the election-night champagne.
Instead, Lieberman is facing his most daunting political challenge since he upended maverick Republican Sen. Lowell Weicker in 1988. Lamont -- a Greenwich cable-television entrepreneur who is the well-born great-grandson of J.P. Morgan's business partner -- impetuously entered the race when he could not find an elected official to take on Lieberman over the war. As Lamont, who may invest as much as $500,000 of his own money in the contest, put it to me modestly, "I wasn't my own first choice."
[...]
Normally, none of this would be enough to give a little-known candidate like Lamont much hope in a state where registered Democrats declared by a 61-30 percent margin in the Quinnipiac poll that Lieberman deserves to be reelected. But Connecticut, once dominated by a formidable Democratic organization, has scant history of contested primaries. In fact, until recently a challenger had to win 15 percent of the vote at the state party convention to even be allowed on the primary ballot. Both the Lieberman and Lamont campaigns anticipate a low-turnout primary at the height of the August vacation season in which intensity of support may matter more than statewide polling numbers.
Even though Lamont plans to get on the ballot through petitions, the state party convention at the end of May could turn the national spotlight on the Lieberman primary challenge. Although the endorsement vote at the convention is largely symbolic, Lamont could conceivably win the backing of one-third of the 1,608 delegates -- a seismic rumble that would transform a contest in which the conventional wisdom is still that the incumbent will win in a walk. That is why Lieberman is now spending his spare hours phoning local Democratic chairmen and -women, while his challenger has appeared before two dozen town committees.
"I'm going to towns that haven't seen a senator in decades," Lamont boasted. When I asked whether this was also an implicit criticism of Connecticut's popular Democratic senior senator, Christopher Dodd, Lamont refused to back down. "It's a criticism of the system," he replied. "These guys haven't been challenged in years."
There is an element of truth to Lamont's jibe. Lieberman did not even really campaign for reelection here in 2000, since he was simultaneously running for vice president. When the senator appeared on "Face the State" last weekend, host Al Terzi pointedly noted that it had been 11 months since Lieberman had last appeared on the program. A small moment, but emblematic of the feeling that Lieberman, like many veteran senators, has taken his home-state constituency for granted.
Until now, Connecticut Democrats have accepted Lieberman's hawkish views and independent gestures as part of the whole package. Clyde McKee, a political science professor at Trinity College in Hartford, expressed the traditional view of Lieberman when he said, "I think that Democrats who don't like his positions would say that he has integrity." But if Democrats get the feeling that Lieberman no longer even bothers to hear them out, their tolerance for his deviance from liberal orthodoxy could rapidly erode.
That is what Lieberman is now running hard to prevent -- even scorning the political gospel that an incumbent senator should ignore his primary opponent. "We decided to engage this guy early because the senator takes this race seriously," said Sean Smith, Lieberman's campaign manager. As a Lieberman fundraising e-mail that went out Tuesday put it, "This campaign is sure to be a tough one; my opponent has not been shy about misrepresenting my record, and has made it clear that to try to build himself up he has no problem trying to tear me down." Also this week Lieberman, who had about $4 million in campaign funds at the beginning of the year, has just begun a statewide radio buy with a soft-spoken commercial stressing his environmental record.
The New Haven Independent has a full run-down of last night's debate between Mayors John DeStefano and Dan Malloy.
Discussing a bill that would legalize millions of undocumented immigrant workers, the two candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination told a Latino audience at a debate Wednesday night that they are on the immigrants' side. "The federal government discriminates against these folks after allowing them to arrive," said New Haven Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. (pictured) as he faced off against Dannel Malloy. A new difference emerged between the candidates: their stances on the No Child Left Behind Act and standardized testing.
The debate, hosted by the Progreso Latino Fund at the North Haven Holiday Inn, offered an unprecedented chance for a crowd of 200 Latino leaders to grill gubernatorial candidates on their vision for Latinos.
"We've created a class of victims," said DeStefano of the country's 11 million undocumented workers. "I think that governors have the responsibility to lobby for a sane immigration system."
"Sane" means a "reasonable and appropriate number immigrating to the U.S.," he later elaborated.
DeStefano and Malloy both stood behind the Kennedy/McCain bill in the U.S. Senate that would offer illegal immigrants legal status on a few conditions: if they first pay a fine of $2,000, back taxes, undergo a background check, learn English and work for six years before being granted permanent residency. That bill is at odds with a far stricter version passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, which has led to huge pro-immigrant demonstrations in cities across the country.
[...]
The two did show a clear difference on two issues -- health care, and a law much bemoaned by liberals and educators: President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumental is leading a suit against the federal government charging the NCLB, which requires schools to meet testing standards and close achievement gaps, is an unfunded mandate — a demand not backed up with sufficient cash to carry out the task. Liberals, educators, and 117 Connecticut towns who joined the suit, agree.
So does DeStefano. "I've got concerns about No Child Left Behind that requires this, this much testing. There is not a teacher that I talk to that doesn't tell you they are overwhelmed" by all the testing. "I think the lawsuit is nice, you know, but I don't think it does it." DeStefano said he would "invest in our kids" by supporting pre-K, full-day Kindergardten and low class sizes in grades 1, 2 and 3.
Malloy took a more centrist stance: "I think the testing is a non-funded mandate but I break with my colleagues here... I think that testing is appropriate." He said the rigorous testing requirements "empowered" minorities. "It's important for the parents of every black, Latino and Caucasian kid to know where their child fits in in the school system."
[...]
The two ended by answering a question about how they differ from each other on Latino issues. DeStefano said he'd successfully hired 500 Latinos into the city of New Haven workforce. He mentioned the recent success procuring community benefits for the Hill neighborhood, which has a sizeable Latino population, in the tumultous Yale-New Haven cancer center project. He said he has "shared values" with Latinos in fair pay, education and medical benefits.
Malloy chose to tout popularity over issues. He boasted his support from a statewide Latino group, Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez, and Alderman Jorge Perez, who endorsed Malloy after DeStefano shunned his reelection to New Haven Board of Alderman presidency. "The most important thing is, I can win," said Malloy. He made brief mention of a few policies, including a new housing policy released Wednesday.
Whitney Houston has spiralled into a world of squalor and degradation on deadly crack — as the shocking pictures in today's Sun newspaper reveal.
It shows the disgusting mess in the singer’s bathroom after a drug binge.
Drug paraphernalia including a crack-smoking pipe, rolling papers, cocaine-caked spoons and cigarette ends are strewn across the surface tops.
But Whitney, 42, no longer cares.
She was one of the biggest female artists of her generation — with a string of ’80s and ’90s hit singles like I Wanna Dance With Somebody and more than 100million albums sold.
Now she is a paranoid wreck hopelessly hooked on crack.
[...]
She is haggard, with dark circles under her eyes and a deranged look on her face.
She regularly disappears for days and weeks at a time — holed up in seedy crack dens in dangerous parts of town.
And she has blown much of her multi-million pound showbiz fortune on her habit.
Now family and friends fear the addiction will end in her death unless she can beat it.
The bathroom photo was taken by Whitney’s sister-in-law Tina Brown at the five-bedroom mansion the star shares with her drug-abusing hubby Bobby Brown in Atlanta, Georgia.
Tina, sister of Bobby, is herself a self-confessed former addict who once regularly took crack with mum-of-one Whitney.
She is now clean. But she said: “The truth needs to come out. Whitney won’t stay off the drugs. It’s every single day. It’s so ugly. Everyone is so scared she is going to overdose.”
Morale of the story: crack kills. Someone should get her some help before it's too late.
Adam Goodman is at least the 6th person to leave the campaign in recent months.
Another key adviser in U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris' campaign for the U.S. Senate announced his resignation Monday -- two days after Harris accused him of leaking information to the press and then made a series of confusing statements about his status.
Adam Goodman, a longtime Harris confidante and media consultant, released a three-sentence statement that his firm was "ending our relationship with the Katherine Harris for U.S. Senate campaign."
[...]
The move surprised no one, given Harris' comments during the weekend. Campaigning at a gun show in Orlando on Saturday, Harris accused Goodman of feeding embarrassing information to the press.
When asked whether Goodman was still with the campaign, Harris all but confirmed his resignation: "He is, is, uh . . . heh . . . no comment."
In the first quarter of 2006, MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann beat CNN's Paula Zahn Now in the 25-54 demographic. "This marks MSNBC's first quarterly primetime victory over CNN in the demo in almost five years (2Q01 MSNBC Investigates beat CNN at 8 p.m. ET)," MSNBC's press release said today.
Countdown averaged 164,000 total viewers in the quarter, up 41% from Q1 2005. Zahn averaged 158,000 demo viewers (down 33 percent), according to MSNBC. Bill O'Reilly averaged 450,000 in the demo (down 24 percent).
Olbermann also beat Headline News star Nancy Grace in the demo. According to program ranker data, Grace averaged 154,000 demo viewers...
Senior Shiite politicians said today that the American ambassador has told Shiite officials to inform the Iraqi prime minister that President Bush does not want him to remain the country's leader in the next government.
It is the first time the Americans have directly intervened in the furious debate over the country's top job, the politicians said, and it is inflaming tensions between the Americans and some Shiite leaders.
The ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the head of the main Shiite political bloc at a meeting last Saturday to pass a "personal message from President Bush" on to the prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who the Shiites insist should stay in his post for four more years, said Redha Jowad Taki, a Shiite politician and member of Parliament who was at the meeting.
Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on the issue of the candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.
[...]
Tensions between Shiite leaders and the American government, which had been rising for months, have boiled over following an assault Sunday night by American and Iraqi forces on a Shiite mosque in northern Baghdad. Shiite leaders say at least 17 civilians were killed in the battle, mostly political party members, while American commanders say the soldiers had fought insurgents.
The reported pressure from the American government over Mr. Jaafari's nomination is another sign of the White House's acute impatience over the deadlocked talks to form a four-year government. The nomination has become one of the most contentious issues in those talks, with the main Kurdish, Sunni Arab and secular blocs calling for the Shiites to replace Mr. Jaafari. American officials say the chronic delay in installing a government has created a power vacuum where lawlessness is thriving and a low-level civil conflict is raging.
Shiite leaders on Monday suspended their participation in the government negotiations, saying they were enraged by the mosque assault.
Meanwhile, Joe wants you to believe that things are going well in Iraq.
The Federal Election Commission decided Monday that the nation's new campaign finance law will not apply to most political activity on the Internet.
In a 6-0 vote, the commission decided to regulate only paid political ads placed on another person's Web site.
The decision means that bloggers and online publications will not be covered by provisions of the new election law. Internet bloggers and individuals will therefore be able to use the Internet to attack or support federal candidates without running afoul of campaign spending and contribution limits.
"It's a win, win, win," Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub said, adding that the rule would satisfy concerns of campaigns, individuals and the Internet community about whether the campaign finance law applies to Internet political activity.
Does it seem to you that Joe Lieberman is a bit nervous and irritable these days? Lieberman is a three-term U.S. senator who has long been one of Connecticut’s most popular Democrats. He was his party’s vice presidential candidate in 2000, and is one of the most recognizable members of Congress.
Under normal circumstances, Lieberman should be confidently cruising toward a fourth term.
The problem for Lieberman is that this election year is anything but normal.
For the first time since he won election to the U.S. Senate in 1988, Lieberman is facing a Democratic primary challenger.
Ned Lamont is a successful Greenwich businessman with enough personal resources to kick-start his primary bid. He is also more articulate and personable than the feeble election opponents Lieberman has faced in two previous re-election frolics.
Lamont also has a politically potent issue in the Iraq war and Lieberman’s steadfast support for Republican President Bush’s war policies.
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has been growing increasingly unhappy with Lieberman in recent years on issues ranging from foreign policy to his conservative criticism of the entertainment industry.
But all of that pales in comparison to liberal anger over Iraq. Lamont calls Lieberman "Bush’s favorite Democrat," a tag that is probably very close to the truth.
This year is also unusual because it’s the first time Connecticut has really faced the possibility of a serious statewide primary contest being decided in August.
The state switched from a September to an August primary several of years ago, but there haven’t been any major primary battles until now. No one is sure how it’s going to play out, or even if voters will be paying any attention to politics in the middle of vacation season.
Primaries traditionally draw low voter turnouts. The lower the turnout, the more likely it is that the contest will be decided by a swing of a few thousand votes. Politicians hate that kind of uncertainty.
Liberal activists are exactly the kind of Democrats who tend to turn out for primaries, particularly when they’re fired up about something like the war in Iraq.
You can bet Lieberman is aware of the low-turnout factor and that many liberal Democrats are extermely unhappy with his close relationship with the Bush administration. Given the events of the last week, I can see why one would conclude that Joe is showing signs of nervousness.
There is also no doubt he’s causing Joe some "agita."
After Lamont announced earlier this month, Lieberman’s campaign manager accused the challenger of making personal attacks on Lieberman’s character and integrity — which Lamont hadn’t done. Last week, Lieberman got into a spat with Hartford-area radio talk show host Colin McEnroe over Lieberman’s support for Bush and his warnings to Democrats about undermining the president during a war.
The more irritated Lieberman gets with this situation, the more delighted his liberal critics become, and the more serious a challenger Lamont appears.
I wouldn't quite say Lamont appears to look like a serious challenger, he is a serious challenger.
There are so many clips to pull from Senator Joe Lieberman's interview on Face the State, I don't know where to begin. Lets start with a good ol' fashion Lieberman flip-flop.
Now, although Lieberman called the Bush administration illegal wiretaping program "outside the law" (feeling the heat from Lamont), in the next breath he calls Senator Feingold's censure motion "unproductive."
Is this the same Lieberman who had no problem with dropping the censure hammer on Clinton?
Let's me see here:
President gets a BJ from a interm=censure the bastard.
President blatantly breaks the law by wiretapping Americans without a court order=skip the censure, he's my buddy and Senator Feingold is being unproductive.
But for flip-flopping Joe, the concept of accountability via censure - "appropriate" in 1999 - is "unproductive" in 2006:
"My own opinion, and it seems to be shared by most Democratic senators, is that it would be an unproductive use of our time," Lieberman said. "Again, it's looking backward. It would be divisive. The best thing we could do about this program is to bring it under the law and I'd prefer to spend my time and the Senate's time figuring out how we can adopt a law that allows the administration to continue this program but force them to go to court to get a warrant before they do."
In 1999, Joe thought censure would help if it "united Senators across party lines."
In 2006, Joe thinks censure is inherently "divisive."
In 1999, Joe thought it was his responsibility to "speak to the common values the President has violated."
In 2006, Joe thinks it is his responsibility to "bring [the illegal program] under the law."
April Fool's Day lost it's humor 22 years ago when Marvin Gaye was tragically murdered by his own father.
