Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 22, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Czeslaw Milosz: A Life

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

Trailing Lamont, Lieberman Spins Furiously

Posted on Aug 7, 2006
Lieberman and Lamont
AP /Bob Child

Incumbent U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, right, chats with his Democratic primary challenger, Ned Lamont, before their debate in West Hartford, Conn., July 6. Lieberman currently trails Lamont in the polls by 6 to 13 points.

Down in the polls against challenger Ned Lamont, and with under 24 hours to go before the U.S. Senate primary in Connecticut, Sen. Joe Lieberman tried to distance himself from Bush. You’ll love how he tried to spin his infamous career-killing line, “In matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”

Lamont, in the meantime, accused Lieberman of engaging in Karl Rove-style personal attacks.

  • Check out Truthdig’s interview with Lamont

  • Washington Post:

    EAST HAVEN, Conn., Aug. 6—In a dramatic bid to stave off a potential defeat in Tuesday’s Democratic primary, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) on Sunday rejected charges from rival Ned Lamont that he has been one of the chief cheerleaders for President Bush’s Iraq policy, but he reaffirmed his belief that a hasty withdrawal of U.S. forces would prove disastrous for Iraqis and for the United States.

    With polls showing Lamont leading the three-term incumbent, Lieberman at last moved to confront the issues—opposition to the war and anger with Bush—that have put his political career in jeopardy. The decision came after a lengthy debate within his campaign over whether he could win the primary without directly addressing his position on the war and his relationship with the president.

    Campaigning with renewed intensity 48 hours before the balloting, Lieberman described himself as a proud and loyal Democrat who not only has opposed nearly all of Bush’s domestic agenda but also has repeatedly criticized the administration’s handling of the Iraq conflict.


    New and Improved Comments

    If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

    Join the conversation

    Load Comments

    By karl h. weiss, August 8, 2006 at 6:09 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Lieberman has done everything he could to help the Zionists take this country over and use her sons and daughters to fight and die to help Israel. This man is a traitor to the United States and should be tried for treason. People like him are why Hitler killed so many Jews.

    Report this

    By Mad As Hell, August 7, 2006 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Please re-read what I wrote, and what you wrote.
    I do not deny that Israel has gotten more racist, especially with two twin events: 1) the fundamentalists in Israel getting more and more power, moving her from the wonderful state of the 50’s and 60’s to where she is now.  Sounds kinda like what’s been going on here in the US for the last 25 years.2) the constant refusal of the Palestinians to make ANY kind of peace—they were offered 90% of what they wanted by Ehud Barak-it was the absolute sweetest deal they could ever see—and they rejected it, and started up the intifada.  From the average Israeli’s perspective, when they are training people to walk into a pizza parlor filled with CHILDREN and set off a deadly bomb, and then the asshole’s folks back home DANCE AND CELEBRATE, it is GUARANTEED to make the victims less tolerant and equally vicious.  But all the apologists act as if they are justified—even when they deliberately target kids.  Is it any wonder Israel seeks more and more to isolate itself?  Unlike South African Apartheid, which WANTED Blacks around—as slaves, the Israelis see the Arabs as a threat NOW to their safety. 

    Why else is Israel nearly universally behind the effort to cripple Hezbollah?  Liberals, Socialists are right there with the rightist—on this one!

    But you, while harping on Israel’s faults, slide over their neighbors, saying it’s due to fundamentalst fascism in Islam (and I disagree—I do NOT believe it is essential to Islam, any more than burning people at the stake was fundamental to Christianity—it is the result of power-hungry people seeking to strike terror and obedience into hearts.  You could have a FAR more interesting discussion of what makes religious leaders inevitably turn to murder than with Hondo’s sexual tastes.)

    Then you ask the question:
    “If Israel is “less” racist than its neighbors, can it therefore claim the moral high ground on any issue—-including its anti-Arab policies?”

    Given the alternative, such as the monstrosity ruling Sudan today, the answer must simply be yes.  The deliberate genocide in Darfur, specifically of non-Arabs, both Moslem and ESPECIALLY non-Moslem makes Lebanon look like a birthday party.  To compare the military operation in Lebanon, with all its faults, as being the same as the Sudanese monsters’ actions in Darfur is to be morally bankrupt.

    Criticize Israel? Hey, Mad King George hasn’t quite ended our being a free country yet, though he’s doing his best, so say what you like.  So will I.

    Report this

    By Raven, August 7, 2006 at 8:12 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Since it seems Republicans are actually fonder of Lieberman than Democrats are right now, and since Lieberman (having less Democratic support than Lamont) would be a weaker opponent to the Republican candidate in the fall election:

    What is to stop the same sort of ballot manipulation as occurred in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, or the senatorial election of Chuck Hagel?

    What is to stop Republicans from changing parties (temporarily) in order to help Lieberman win the nomination on Tuesday?

    What is to stop out-of-staters from (temporarily) residing with friends in CT and registering as CT voters in order to vote for Lieberman?

    Such a temporary voter-relocation across voting district lines within a county did happen here in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, in order to win sequential recall votes against (Democratic) members of the County Council and help the new (Republican) County Executive Scott Walker consolidate his power. Because the recall votes were held on separate days, Republican voters could actually vote on each district’s recall, changing their registration for each time, without voting twice on any day.

    If these methods can work in CT, there’s no reason to think they won’t be used.

    Report this

    By joey, August 7, 2006 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Shouldn’t someone do something? This election is critical. If you know someone in CT. call, fax, email, AIM, myspace, cable them. Does Diebolt have the numbers yet? Is Jimmy Carter in CT? Where is Karl? What kind of machines are they using? This could be the end of anti war or the beginning. Vote Lammont

    Report this

    By Your Life Jacket "was" = NO IRAQ WAR SUPPORT, August 7, 2006 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Dearest Red Voters:

    Another one to throw OVER BOARD.  Lieberman didn’t use LOGIC, therefore had NO LIFE JACKET!

    Bye bye Lieberman, as the ship slowly intakes more and MORE water as the tides turn.  Who will remain with the BUSH supporters on board?

    Oh Westmoreland, Oh General Westmoreland….......come for the call of the sinking!

    Oh the ”  pain ” of supporting BUSH!

    Lovely eve to you all,

    Report this

    By paul kibble, August 7, 2006 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Re Comment #17206 by Mad as Hell:

    Anyone familiar with Islamic fundamentalism knows that its doctrines are racist, misogynistic,obscurantist, and reactionary to the core. What can you expect from a religion whose most benighted adherents are suffering from an acute case of arrested development? (Much like our Christian fundamentalists—-although the latter at least aren’t guilty [so far] of beheading those who don’t share their faith.) While most Western religions evolved after the Middle Ages, key elements in Islam deliberately walled themselves off from the revolutionary intellectual and political changes wrought by modernism, and now everyone—-including its supposed beneficiaries—-must pay the price. 

    But are you seriously suggesting that modern, progresive, democratic Israel’s policies toward the Arabs are supreme products of the Enlightenment heritage of tolerance and mutual respect?  Think again. I have friends in Tel Aviv who quite openly describe these policies as racist. (And, no, they’re not “self-hating Jews.”)

    Virginia Tilley, a South African with first-hand experience of gthe dynamics and consequences of racism, has this to say:

    “[Israel’s racist policies are reflected in its]continual attacks on Palestinian civilians; its casual disdain for the Palestinian civilian lives ‘accidentally’ destroyed in its assassinations and bombings; its deliberate ruin of the Palestinians’ economic and social conditions; its continuing annexation and dismemberment of Palestinian land; its torture of prisoners; its contempt for UN resolutions and international law; and especially, its refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. But the boycott cannot target these practices alone. It must target their ideological source.”

    “The true offence to the international community is the racist motivation for these practices, which violates fundamental values and norms of the post-World War II order. That racial ideology isn’t subtle or obscure. Mr. Olmert himself has repeatedly thumped the public podium about the ‘demographic threat’ facing Israel: the “threat” that too many non-Jews will - the horror - someday become citizens of Israel. It is the ‘demographic threat’ that, in Israeli doctrine, justifies sealing off the West Bank and Gaza Strip as open-air prisons for millions of people whose only real crime is that they are not Jewish. It is the ‘demographic threat,’ not security (Mr. Olmert has clarified), that requires the dreadful Wall to separate Arab and Jewish communities, now juxtaposed in a fragmented landscape, who might otherwise mingle.”

    “‘Demographic threat’ is the most disgustingly racist phrase still openly deployed in international parlance. It has been mysteriously tolerated by a perplexed international community. But it can be tolerated no longer. Zionist fear of the demographic threat launched the expulsion of the indigenous Arab population in 1948 and 1967, created and perpetuates Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, inspires its terrible human rights abuses against Palestinians, spins into regional unrest like the 1982 attack on Lebanon (that gave rise to Hezbollah), and continues to drive Israeli militarism and aggression.”

    “This open official racism and its attendant violence casts Israel into the ranks of pariah states, of which South Africa was the former banner emblem. In both countries, racist nationalist logic tormented and humiliated the native people. It also regularly spilled over to destabilize their surrounding regions (choc-a-block with ‘demographic threats’), leading both regimes to cruel and reckless attacks. Driven by a sense of perennial victimhood, they assumed the moral authority to crush the native hordes that threatened to dilute the organic Afrikaner/Jewish nations and the white/western civilization they believed they so nobly represented.”

    “A humiliated white society in South Africa finally gave that myth up. Israel still clings to it. It has now brought Israel to pulverize Lebanon, trying to eliminate Hezbollah and, perhaps, to clear the way for an attack on Iran. Peace offers from the entire Arab world are cast aside like so much garbage. Yet again, the Middle East is plunged into chaos and turmoil, because a normal existence—peace, full democracy—is anathema to a regime that must see and treat its neighbors as an existential threat in order to justify the rejectionism that preserves its ethnic/racial character and enables its continuing annexations of land.”

    “Why has this outrageously racist doctrine survived so long, rewarded by billions of dollars in US aid every year? We know the reasons. For too many Westerners, Israel’s Jewish character conflates with the Holocaust legacy to make intuitive sense of Israel’s claim to be under continual assault. Deep-seated Judeo-Christian bias against Islam demonizes Israel’s mostly Muslim victims. European racist prejudice against Arabs (brown-skinned natives) casts their material dispossession as less humanly significant. Naïve Christian visions of the ‘Holy Land’ naturalize Jewish governance in biblical landscapes. Idiot Christian evangelistic notions of the Rapture and the End Times posit Jewish governance as essential to the return of the Messiah and the final Millennium (even though, in that repellent narrative, Jews will roast afterwards).”

    These are provocative ideas, but they deserve a fair hearing—-and a thoughtful response. If Israel is “less” racist than its neighbors, can it therefore claim the moral high ground on any issue—-including its anti-Arab policies?

    As for Joe: polls being what they are, I’m not sure his win over Lamont will be the slam dunk our official prognosticators think it will be. Lamont’s edge has shrunk over the past few days, and Lieberman still has supporters out there who remember that he’s voted relaibly with other Dems on most issues. Voters can be sentimental—-good old Joe, he’s had our backs most of the time. But then there’s the Bush-kissing embrace of the Iraq disaster, the sniffy moralism on some domestic issues, etc. Nothing would make me happier than a Lamont win, but it’s far from a sure thing.

    P.S.: Re Comment #17200 by joey abou that 1-10 scale. The election is supposed to be a good predictor about how the Dems will frame policy debates on Iraq in upcoming elections. (I don’t really buy it.) If Lamont wins, 7.5 (in terms of—-at last—formulating something like a coherent antiwar position). If he loses, 1-2. In any case, for once Chris Matthews may be right (as per this paraphrase from today’s MSNBC broadcast): “Tomorrow night everyone from here to Rangoon will be watching the results.” Way overstated, but you get the point.

    Report this

    By J Young, August 7, 2006 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Its a 10.  Its a bellweather as to whether or not democrats are going to put up or shut up.  If Lieberman wins, it paves the way for another Republican victory in November and then we have 2 more years of abject power for Batman and Robin.  Just in time to go to war with Iran…

    Its a 10.

    Report this

    By Rab, August 7, 2006 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I always saw Lieberman as a well balanced politician but am amazed to read the comments of the public and had no idea how deeply Lieberman has hurt the people who voted for him. Guess the public opinion does count after all.

    Report this

    By Mad as Hell, August 7, 2006 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    “All he f***ing cares about is aggrandizing that nasty little racist Sparta in the so-called ‘holy land’; he doesn’t care if the United States is left bankrupt, eternally despised, and in ruins as a result.”

    If you think Israel is racist, then I guess you haven’t been looking at her neighbors—they are more racist, more sexist, and positivelyl medival in their tolerance on of other religions.  Just compare Israel to Saudi Arabia, or Egypt or Libya or Syria! Or Iran!

    Curiously, as for the rest of your statement, I happen to agree.  If I see one more pic of Joe Lieberman kissing up to Mad King George (and getting NOTHING in return) I’m going to throw up!

    Lieberman has managed to give this illegitimate, usurping, undermining, treasonous administration legitimacy by refusing to stand up to him, actually SUPPORTING him, and generally undermining his own party.  Lieberman is a GENUINE “DINO”—Democrat In Name Only.  I hope he gets beaten so badly tomorrow his only recourse is to become a lobbyist!

    Report this

    By john c, August 7, 2006 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    It matters not how many times Lieberman has voted with the Democrats. What matters is the number of times he votes to support Israel, the Iraq War being only one of many issues where his vote supports the agenda of Israel, no matter the consquences to America. I am sure that he blindly supports the current war crimes being committed by Israel in Lebanon, despite the damage it causes to the respect and credibility for America in the world.

    Report this

    By SickOfTheIsraelLobby, August 7, 2006 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Lieberman promotes many policies that are flabbergastingly contrary to liberal core principles and to the interests of the United States of America.

    But of all the harm he does, none poses greater nor more immediate peril to this country than his traitorous subordination of our nation’s interests to Israel’s theocratic, expansionist, ethnic supremacist, genocidal agenda — at gross, possibly even FATAL expense to this nation.

    All he f***ing cares about is aggrandizing that nasty little racist Sparta in the so-called ‘holy land’; he doesn’t care if the United States is left bankrupt, eternally despised, and in ruins as a result.

    People like him are destroying America’s future so fast it’s astounding.

    I f***ing HATE him.

    Report this

    By joey, August 7, 2006 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    on a scale from 1 to 10 just how important is this election?

    Report this

    By Lance, August 7, 2006 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Yeah…opposed “nearly all” of Bush’s domestic agenda…except Alito (didn’t vote for filibuster), federal funding of religous organizations, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, CAFTA…and on and on…

    Want to know how beloved he is to neo-con conservatives - Sean Hannity asked him the other night wat he (Sean) should do to get him reelected.  If Sean Hannity and Fox love you, you must be a neo-con in Dem’s clothing.

    Report this
    Right Top, Site wide - Care2
    Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
    Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

    Like Truthdig on Facebook