No Labels, Yes Spoilers

I believe Joe F'ckin Lieberman even less than I trusted him 15 years ago when I started this blog, so when the old bastard says his No Labels group isn't going to be a third-party spoiler that throws the election to Trump, I believe him precisely as far as he can throw me.

The third-party No Labels group will stay out of the 2024 U.S. presidential race if polling shows its candidate would play a "spoiler" role by helping to elect either the Democratic or Republican nominee, co-chairman Joe Lieberman said on Sunday.

The group will on Monday release what it calls a "common sense" agenda of policies meant to help unite the country behind a cooperative moderate alternative to the partisanship that characterizes contemporary U.S. politics.

Lieberman, a former U.S. senator and unsuccessful vice presidential candidate, said No Labels hopes to offer a legitimate "third choice" candidate.

"We're not in this to be spoilers," Lieberman told ABC's "This Week" program. He spoke a day before the group was due to release its agenda in New Hampshire, an early primary state.

"If the polling next year shows, after the two parties have chosen their nominees, that in fact we will help elect one or another candidate, we're not going to get involved," he said.

Others involved in No Labels include businessman John Hope Bryant, civil rights leader Benjamin Chavis Jr., Republican former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, and Republican former North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory.

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin was due to speak at Monday's No Labels event in New Hampshire, feeding speculation that he could be weighing a third-party candidacy.

Opinion polls suggest the November 2024 election will again pit Democratic President Joe Biden against Republican former President Donald Trump. Both have disapproval ratings above the 50% mark.

 

Bullshit they won't get involved. I guarantee you their candidate, almost certainly a ticket like Manchin and a blue state GOP governor like Larry Hogan, will stay on the ballot in swing states with the express intent of helping Trump get into office in 2024.

 

Steve M has the right of it:

 

 

There aren't very many swing voters in America these days, but remember, in 2020 Biden came within 44,000 votes of an Electoral College tie, which would have been resolved by the House in Trump's favor. If roughly half of the swing voters who voted for Biden that year would be willing to ditch him for a No Labels-y candidate, then the group could easily throw the election to Trump.

I write this at a moment when No Labels has just released a policy document that -- it kills me to say this -- is not laughable or easily dismissed. I'm not saying that I agree with it. But it's easy to imagine swing voters nodding in agreement.

The document is equal parts reasonableness, neoliberal boilerplate, and GOP-donor-friendly deficit hawkery. (Obviously, there's quite a bit of overlap in the last two categories.) To moderate voters, much of this will be appealing:

On the issue of abortion, No Labels avoids taking a stand on what point in a pregnancy abortion should be allowed, but rather argues that the issue needs to be reframed with “empathy and respect” to reflect the mixed results of public polling.

“Most American do not support a total ban on abortion and most Americans do not support unlimited access to abortion at the later stages of pregnancy,” the document reads....

The group seeks a similar middle ground on transgender debates. The group argues that most Americans support laws that protect transgender people from discrimination, while they also “don’t want sexuality and gender issues taught to young children in elementary schools and do want fairness in women’s sports.”

We should create a path to citizenship for Dreamers ... but we should also stop letting so many undocumented immigrants stay in the country. We should improve math and reading scores and make sure no child goes hungry ... oh, and charter schools are awesome. We should have universal background checks and not allow gun purchases by those under 21 ... but we need to respect an individual right to own firearms.

This will all seem reasonable to many voters, but probably not many Republican voters. For them, absolutism on guns, immigration, abortion, and trans people, to name just four issues, is an ingrained part of personal identity. By contrast, moderate Democratic voters (and voters who lean Democratic when the Republican opponent is Trump) aren't really invested in liberal ideas. So, yes, the No Labels candidate will absolutely appeal to more 2020 Biden voters than 2020 Trump voters.

 

No Labels doesn't have to win a state. They just have to make sure Biden can't get to 270. All they'd need is fewer than 50,000 votes in states like Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and if they flip any of those to Trump, it's over.

And yet, No Labels knows this and is going ahead with it. No, they won't drop out of the race. They will absolutely stay in it as long as they have the money, and they'll have millions on tap for that. And Never Trump Republicans will vote for Trump just like they did in 2020 and 2022.

It's all a ratfucking. Any group that has both Joe F'ckin's in them is bad, bad news.

The Return Of A Couple Of Bad Joes

Our old friend for Connecticut is back to hand the 2024 presidential race over to Donald Trump in order to satisfy his well-heeled masters, and I can't see anything good from this effort to destroy both Joe Biden and the country in the name of corporate cash.

 

Former senator Joe Lieberman knows better than most the impact third-party bids can have on presidential elections. His 2000 Democratic campaign for vice president fell just 537 Florida votes short of victory, in a state where Ralph Nader, the liberal activist and Green Party nominee, won more than 97,000 votes.

But that didn’t stop the Connecticut Democrat turned independent from joining a meeting Thursday in support of plans by the centrist group No Labels to get presidential ballot lines in all 50 states for 2024. The group calls its effort an “insurance policy” against the major parties nominating two “unacceptable” candidates next year.

Asked if President Biden, his former Senate colleague, would be unacceptable, Lieberman said the answer was uncertain.

“No decision has been made on any of that. But we’re putting ourselves in a position,” Lieberman said. “You know, it might be that we will take our common-sense, moderate, independent platform to him and the Republican candidate and see which one of them is willing to commit to it. And that could lead to, in my opinion, a No Labels endorsement.”

Uncertainty over the $70 million No Labels ballot effort has set off major alarm bells in Democratic circles and raised concerns among Republican strategists, who have launched their own research projects to figure out the potential impacts. As Lieberman spoke, the Arizona Democratic Party filed a lawsuit to block No Labels from ballot access in that state on procedural grounds. Matt Bennett of the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way has argued that the plot is “going to reelect Trump,” and Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has accused No Labels of wanting “to play the role of spoiler.”

“The only way you can justify this is if you really believe that it doesn’t really matter if it is Joe Biden or Donald Trump,” said Stuart Stevens, a former presidential campaign strategist for George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney, who now works with the anti-Trump Lincoln Project. “So it is sort of a test. If you live in a world where it doesn’t matter, this is kind of harmless. If you live in a world where it does matter, it is dangerous.”

Splits have also emerged inside the organization. William Galston, a Brookings Institution policy scholar, said this week that he would separate himself from No Labels, which he helped found, over its 2024 planning for a third-party campaign to challenge Biden and Trump.

“I am proud of No Labels’ record of bipartisan legislation, and I know its leaders want what is best for the country. But I cannot support the organization’s preparation for a possible independent presidential candidacy,” he said in a statement. “There is no equivalence between President Biden and a former president who threatens the survival of our constitutional order. And most important, in today’s closely divided politics, any division of the anti-Trump vote would open the door to his reelection.”

No Labels chief executive Nancy Jacobson said Galston had added a lot to the No Labels cause. “We’re sad to see him go,” she said in a statement.

 

Of course, the real problem is that one country wrecking Joe knows another.

Among the group’s advisers is former North Carolina governor Pat McCrory, a Republican who just lost a Senate bid in the face of Trump opposition; former director of national intelligence Dennis Blair; and Benjamin Chavis Jr., a former executive director of the NAACP.

“I just wanted to emphasize on the spoiler question: I would not be involved if I thought in any account that we would do something to spoil the election in favor of Donald Trump,” Chavis said at the meeting, which was attended in person or via Zoom by 16 No Labels staff and supporters, including Blair and McCrory. “That’s just not going to happen.”

Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), who has not declared whether he will run for reelection next year, and former Maryland governor Larry Hogan (R) are also supporters of the effort, and both said they have not ruled out participating in a No Labels presidential ticket, if it happens.

“If enough Americans believe there is an option and the option is a threat to the extreme left and extreme right, it will be the greatest contribution to democracy, I believe,” Manchin said in an interview. When asked whether he would participate in a No Labels ticket, he said, “I don’t rule myself in and I don’t rule myself out.”

 

A Manchin/Hogan ticket won't take a single Trump 2024 vote, but in a contest like 2016 or 2020 where the Electoral College race was decided by only thousands of votes in four or five states, this could absolutely hand the nation back to Trump, and everyone knows it. 

Of course we'd get two evil Joes to try to take down the decent one.

By the way, if you're still unclear about the real motive here in the effort to spoil Biden's re-election, understand that Joe Manchin is now firmly on the GOP side of attacking Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's fraud case against Trump.

 

“It’s just a very, very sad day for America,” said Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the Democrat, referring to Mr. Trump’s indictment in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

“Especially when people are maybe believing that the rule of law or justice is not working the way it’s supposed to and it’s biased — we can’t have that,” Mr. Manchin said. “But on the other hand, no one’s above the law. But no one should be targeted by the law.”

 

At this point Manchin's screaming need for revenge against Joe Biden is going to result in him announcing he will retire from the Senate in 2024 and run as a third party spoiler.

Last Call

I know that eight years of a Gore-Lieberman presidency from 2000-2008 would have been infinitely preferable to Bush-Cheney or even Kerry-Edwards, but what would have happened in 2008 then?  Would Barack Obama have been in the picture?  Would it have been Clinton, Obama, and Lieberman, or would everyone have stepped aside for him?  Would that have put McCain in the White House, or Romney?  Would we have ended up in Iraq anyway, even if Gore had stopped 9/11?

I ask because of this:

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is joining the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank announced Monday.

Lieberman will serve as co-chairman of the American Internationalism Project, alongside former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

"The American Internationalism Project, under the leadership of Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Jon Kyl, is critical to opening a discussion about the challenges facing America in the coming decades — and strategizing about how to meet them," AEI president Arthur C. Brooks said in a statement.

Lieberman, who opted in 2012 not to run for reelection, said there is currently an "urgent need to rebuild bipartisan — indeed non-political — consensus for American diplomatic, economic, and military leadership in the world."

To put this bluntly, the Democratic veep candidate in 2000 is joining the largest conservative think tank in America in 2013.  There would have been problems with Lieberman too, folks.  Yes, they wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad as the first four years of Dubya (or, well, the second four years) but down the road we would of had a Republican President now:  McCain, Romney, Lieberman, or some combination.

.
Also, excuse to use the Joe F'ckin Lieberman tag, who now automatically receives Wingnut Stupidity in all future posts.

State Of Play

The speculation for who the President will nominate for running the State Department after Hillary Clinton's departure and the Pentagon after Leon Panetta leaves has begun in earnest.  WaPo:

President Obama is considering asking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to serve as his next defense secretary, part of an extensive rearrangement of his national security team that will include a permanent replacement for former CIA director David H. Petraeus.

Although Kerry is thought to covet the job of secretary of state, senior administration officials familiar with the transition planning said that nomination will almost certainly go to Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

That of course means Scott Brown will get another crack at the Senate, this time to fill Kerry's seat.  Fun.  Republicans are already talking about sinking both nominations, too.

Rice, one of an inner circle of aides who have been with Obama since his first presidential campaign in 2007, is under particular fire over the Benghazi incident, in which U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

Some Republican lawmakers have suggested that she was part of what they suspect was an initial election-related attempt to portray the attack as a peaceful demonstration that turned violent, rather than what the administration now acknowledges was an organized terrorist assault.

Rice’s description, days after the attack, of a protest gone wrong indicated that she either intentionally misled the country or was ­incompetent, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday. Rice, he said, “would have an in­cred­ibly difficult time” winning Senate confirmation as secretary of state.

Kerry too would face a tough road to the Pentagon.

The idea of Kerry heading up DoD was also questioned by Republicans, who warned the selection of the Vietnam veteran-turned-critic wouldn't be simple either.

"He'll run into a buzz saw of Vietnam vets" if Obama taps Kerry for the pentagon slot, a GOP aide said.

A Senate GOP foreign policy aide predicted that ultimately both could be confirmed, but not without a protracted and ugly confirmation fight for the White House — a difficult way to start off a second term.

Let's be honest here, Republicans are going to make a protracted, bruising fight over anyone the President nominates.  So when I hear nonsense like this:

There has even been speculation in foreign-policy circles that the messy departure of Mr. Petraeus might prod Mr. Obama to consider nominating a Republican, like former Senator Chuck Hagel; a hawkish independent, like Senator Joseph I. Lieberman; or even Jon M. Huntsman Jr., who was Mr. Obama’s envoy to Beijing before running for the Republican presidential nomination. Mr. Huntsman dismissed the rumors of his candidacy as “idle hallway gossip.” 

It makes me want to punch people in the face.  If President Barack Obama nominated Joe F'ckin Lieberman for any cabinet position, I'd sign up for GOP black outreach programs immediately and I'm pretty sure all of you would disown me as a result.  I would hope the President would stand up for himself more then that and I dismiss this beltway idiocy out of hand.

Stick with Rice and Kerry and trust in the party, Mr. President.

Pulling One Snowe-ver On Us

Jon Chait argues this morning that Sen. Olympia Snowe's surprise announcement that she's quitting the 2012 race is really nothing the Dems should be cheering, because all indications are that the real reason behind her bowing out is that Americans Elect and their Sensible Centrist shenanigans are afoot, judging from her outro statement.

This sounds exactly like the kind of rhetoric emanating from Americans Elect, the third-party group that believes that both parties should put aside partisanship and come together to enact an ever-so-slightly more conservative version of Barack Obama's agenda. Moderate retiring senators often deliver lofty, vacuous paeans to bipartisanship on their way to a lucrative lobbying career. But Snowe's statement seems unusually specific ("unique opportunities to build support for that change from outside the United States Senate") about her intent to do something.

I suspect it may not be coincidental that David Boren, the former Democratic senator from Oklahoma and oil industry lickspittle, came out for Americans Elect today. The group is set up so that its presidential and vice-presidential candidates need to come from opposing parties. The process is set up to, at least putatively, allow the voters to choose the ticket. But Americans Elect and its well-heeled funders have maintained tight control over the proceedings to ensure their envisioned ticket pairing establishmentarian insiders can prevail over candidates like , say, Ron Paul who might be able to actually win an open vote.

Snowe and Boren would make for the kind of ticket Americans Elect is looking for. Is that the plan?

Americans Elect is definitely designed to take votes away from one candidate and give a "less than 50% popular vote but 270+ electoral vote" situation, which will faithfully be interpreted by the Village as a "you don't have a mandate so you'd better listen to us" win.  That would be more effective if used against Barack Obama, but I'm not entirely convinced that the Americans Elect ticket would hurt only the President, especially given Romney as the GOP nominee.

On the other hand if you believe that there's going to be a brokered convention leading to a crackpot wingnut non-Romney nominee however, Americans Elect is exactly the vehicle that could give that nominee the win in November.

On the gripping hand, Romney keeps winning the GOP primary voters whose motivation is solely defeating Barack Obama.  It's also very possible that the anti-Obama vote will line up behind Romney, and with Americans Elect in the mix, it could be enough to put Mitt in the White House even with an otherwise depressed GOP base.

And yes, Snowe would have won re-election easily, unlike Arlen Specter or Evan F'ckin Bayh or Joe Lieberman.  She bailed for a reason, and Cohn's argument as to why makes sense.

Take Two On The Jobs Bill

Harry Reid may hold a test vote as early as Friday on legislation that would authorize arguably the most widely approved part of the American Jobs Act:  putting firefighters and teachers laid off across the country by cash-strapped schools and local governments back to work.

"We are going to make sure there is a vote on our bill this week," Reid told a crowd of fire fighters and teachers at a rally on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

The $35 billion legislation would be paid for with a 0.5 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year -- a tiny new marginal bump that Republicans unanimously oppose. Some analyses suggest the legislation would save or create 400,000 jobs.

"The Republicans who work in the Senate suit up every day and come down and play their game in the Senate by following the lead of their leader -- and that is, whatever they do, to make sure they do everything they can to make Barack Obama [lose]," Reid said.

That's the good news.  The bad news?  It might get even fewer votes than the entire bill did as not only will Republicans unanimously oppose it, but more Blue Dogs in the Senate will turn and bite the President's hand once again and pull Reid's pants down.

[Reid will] face some resistance from his own caucus as well. Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) bucked Reid last week and opposed debate on Obama's entire jobs bill and have signaled they'll do the same this time around. They may be joined by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) who took to Twitter during Reid's speech to oppose the legislation.

"Spending on new programs will add to the amount of money the Special Cmte. on debt cuts has to find," Lieberman tweeted. They already have a very hard job."

Yeah, see, this is a problem, guys.  You're supposed to be backing the President on this.  Does Blanche Lincoln ring a bell with you morons or not?

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

When even Orange Julius is backing away from your anti-terrorism legislation, you've lost the battle.

"If they are a U.S. citizen, until they are convicted of some crime, I don't see how you would attempt to take their citizenship away," Boehner said. "That would be pretty difficult under the U.S. Constitution."

Nice try, Joe.   Bigger loser in this:  Sen. Scott Brown (aka Cosmo McTruckNutz) who backed Lieberman's play on this only to get his ass handed to him by everybody involved.

Not even the wingers want to give the government the power to strip your citizenship over who you associate with.

Paying The Oil Bill

TPM's Brian Beutler argues that the Deepwater Horizon disaster may have scuttled the Democrats' energy and climate bill.

In the peculiar world of the United States Senate, the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe has actually intensified existing divisions, drawing offshore drilling foes into growing conflict with oil patch Democrats and industry friendly members, who continue to support exploration, and incentives, for new drilling.

With oil still gushing from the well at a calamitous pace, a mile below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, furious Senators threatened Tuesday to block any climate and energy bill that would lead to more drilling off the U.S. coast.

"If I have to do a filibuster...I will do so," Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) told reporters Tuesday.

And so he may.

Nelson is perhaps the most outspoken of a group of anti-drilling Democrats, that also includes New Jersey Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez. They were none-too-pleased when President Obama greenlighted oil exploration--and, potentially, full scale drilling--along vast swaths of the Outer Continental Shelf in order to shore up support from pro-drilling Democrats. But the BP spill drove them into full revolt.

That wouldn't be a problem at all if other senators, and industry players, viewed the Gulf catastrophe as oil's Waterloo. But if anything, the opposite has happened. The bill's authors see offshore drilling as one of the keys to bringing oil-patch Democrats and Republicans into the fold on climate and energy legislation--and they are unwilling to allow the industry coalition they put together to be fractured by the backlash. At the same time pro-drilling senators have seemingly doubled down.

While I do admit that the disaster is going to make passing any sort of energy bill more difficult, I think in the end what does pass will be better for it.  The oil industry is going to be the big, big loser here.  The pubic will demand that on both sides.  I think even more than financial regulation, offshore drilling regulation will become a huge issue in November when the full extent of the damage is apparent to horrified voters.

Nelson, Lautenberg and Menendez are ahead of the curve.  It's Joe F'ckin Lieberman and his buddies who are on the wrong side of this one.

The problem of course is time.  If there is anything remotely close to a silver lining in this world-class catastrophe, it's the speed of it unfolding will kick even the Senate's collective ass into gear.

A False START

President Lieberman doesn't like our nuke treaty with the Russians, and he's afraid Obama may just have to scrap the whole thing and start over.

Anytime we are working on something with our old Cold War enemy, Russia, cooperatively, it’s a good sign. Anything we can do to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in the world is a positive development. But in my opinion as we reduce the number of nuclear warheads… we have to make darn sure that are nuclear warheads are capable and modern and a lot of them are decades old. So I feel very strongly that I am going to be real hesitant to vote for this treaty unless we have a commitment from the Administration that they are prepared to modernize our nuclear stockpile.

In other words, we can't reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile unless we make more advanced nuclear weapons.  Ergo, President Joe here just can't bring himself to support that Obama guy.

He gets a nice laugh out of it too.  Meanwhile, the questions remains if Obama can find any Republicans at all who will sign off on this treaty, because after all any sort of foreign policy victory for Obama might embolden the guy into thinking he runs the country, and not the Republicans.

And we can't have that.

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

My thoughts on this:

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) appeared on the Daily Show last night to chat with his old friend and roommate Jon Stewart.

Aside from the friendly ribbing and references to incriminating photographs of each other, Weiner took a shot at his healthcare nemesis Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)

"My question to you is this: Is [Lieberman] a dick?" Stewart asked.

"Yes, Jon," Weiner jokingly replied.

...is that Weiner wasn't joking.  Neither was Stewart.  That's what makes it funny, of course.  That and the fact that the Hill doesn't get it.  Or maybe they do and they're slyly playing dumb.  Either way, they are referencing Jon Stewart as a viable source of Congressional news, which is a massive problem in and of itself.  Jon Stewart shouldn't be the media's go to guy on Washington interviews.

Good news is it's pissing off some wingers, so mission accomplished!

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

Evan F'ckin Bayh does not like to be referred to as "Evan F'ckin Bayh" by Dirty F'ckin Hippie bloggers who apparently want him to stop being Joe F'ckin Lieberman.

Who knew?

I'm Afraid You May Have a Toomey, Pennsylvania

If the you believe the lesson of Scott Brown is "There ain't no safe seats for the Dems" then this Rasmussen poll may be worth looking at.

Republican Pat Toomey now leads incumbent Senator Arlen Specter 49% to 40% in Pennsylvania’s race for the U.S. Senate. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters also finds Toomey with a 43% to 35% lead over Democratic challenger Joe Sestak.

A month ago Toomey led Specter by four and Sestak by six. In the state’s Democratic Senate Primary race, Specter now leads Sestak by 21 points.

But here's something I overlooked however out of the Rasmussen camp this week that may be far more interesting from Rasmussen analyst Larry Sabato:

With Tuesday night’s upset by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the GOP gained more than just a 41st vote to disrupt the Obama agenda. As attention turns to the midterm elections in November, the Republican Party has strong momentum. A few months ago, even GOP leaders said that taking over the Senate was a pipe dream, and it is still not probable. But as some independents sour on the Democratic Party, the possibility for a GOP majority can no longer be dismissed out of hand. More likely, next year’s Senate will still have a Democratic majority but be much more closely balanced between Democrats and Republicans.

In fact, it is likely that the Republicans will gain at least 3 to 5 Senate seats in November. Even more startling, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts special election, Republicans would do even better IF the general election were being held today. The Crystal Ball projects that the Democratic majority in the Senate would be reduced to just 52 seats if November’s contests were somehow moved to January. 
 
Luckily for the Democrats, the election is not today. By November the economy may be in much better shape, and some of the current controversies may appear less significant. Contests that would tip to the GOP today could easily wobble back to the Democrats (such as Missouri and Pennsylvania). That is why we still classify them as toss-ups overall.

At the same time, given Tuesday’s Bay State results, the Republican Party will search for, and possibly find, credible challengers for some Democratic senators believed to be safe until now. Imagining themselves as Scott Brown (on the victory stage, not in a Cosmo photo spread), a few “A” list Republicans might take a second look at the Senate and decide to jump in.

Among the senators who could be endangered by a new wave of Republican entries are Evan Bayh (Indiana), Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Patty Murray (Washington), and Russ Feingold (Wisconsin).

Now that's interesting.  Rasmussen believes the Republicans would pick up 7 more seats:

Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Harry Reid (NV)
Mike Castle (DE)
Mike Bennett (CO)
Arlen Specter (PA)

...would all lose, and Obama's old seat and Byron Dorgan's seat in ND would flip to Mark Kirk and John Hoeven respectively.

48 Senate Republicans would put heavy pressure on Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman to flip parties like Specter did last year and give the Republicans 51, is the unsaid message.

I do indeed have to wonder.

Joey Joey Panic

Nobody could have predicted Joe F'ckin Lieberman would bail on Obamacare again, etc.

A victory for Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown in Massachusetts would send a message that voters are "really skeptical about this healthcare bill," Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday.

Lieberman ultimately voted for that legislation, after weeks of negotiations between his camp and the Democrats with whom he caucuses.

But the senator told Fox News' Neil Cavuto Tuesday afternoon that a defeat today of one of the bill's strong supporters -- Democratic candidate Martha Coakley -- would still "be a very loud message from Massachusetts.

"Well, it's pretty clear that, if Scott Brown doesn't win, it's certainly going to be close, and that in itself is newsworthy," Lieberman said. "And I think the message is -- from the voters of Massachusetts -- that people are anxious about the future and they're unhappy about what's happening in Washington."

"They're anxious about the economy, the continued high unemployment," he continued. "They don't like all the partisanship and deal-making here in Washington. And they're really skeptical about this health care bill."

Hey Democrats For Brown, keep telling yourselves the message Democrats like Lieberman will take away from a Brown win is "We need a more progressive health care bill."

[UPDATE 8:24 PM] Polls are closed in Mass, and hey look, Evan F'ckin Bayh is also making noises like he's out even before the race is called.

“ The only we are able to govern successfully in this country is by liberals and progressives making common cause with independents and moderates,” Bayh said. “Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country -- that’s not going to work too well.”

You knucklehead firebaggers get it yet? You think we're going to get a more progressive bill, or Democratic Party, or country, if Brown wins?

Legal Eagles

The legal braintrust at the GOP, that is...I'm not sure who because they're not very smart...have declared that the current holder of Ted Kennedy's seat, Paul Kirk, cannot be the 60th vote on Obamacare after Tuesday and that Scott Brown must immediately be seated Wednesday when he wins.

Democrats in Massachusetts have talked about delaying Brown’s “certification,” should he defeat Democrat Martha Coakley on Tuesday.  Their aim would be to allow Kirk to remain in the Senate and vote the health care bill.

But based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period.  Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate.  “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.

So it doesn't matter if the state certifies him at all, according to the GOP.  He won, that's it, he's the Senator...even though the election is not until Tuesday and Brown hasn't won yet.

Then again, the Wingers have Joe F'ckin Lieberman endorsing Scott Brown at this point too, when not even Lieberman is that stupid, apparently.

A spokesman for the senator shot down rumors that Lieberman would weigh in on the closely-watched special election, in which Republican Scott Brown is waging a surprisingly tough battle against state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D).

Conservative bloggers had been floating a rumor that Lieberman, a centrist, independent senator who caucuses with Democrats, would endorse Brown.

Those rumors, the spokesman said, are "not true," and no announcement is planned on the race.

Considering Lieberman's approval numbers in Connecticut are down to around 25% and Lieberman is seen around the state as "The Guy Who Killed The Public Option" I can see why he'd not back Brown here.  Again, it all comes down to Tuesday's vote.

We're On A Moose-sion From God

Moose Lady apparently thought the big guy upstairs wanted her to run for the GOP ticket.  It was really Steve Schmidt, and even he has second thoughts about it, mainly because his choice of Joe F'ckin Lieberman leaked and could have ruined his campaign.  Instead, Johnny Volcano turned to Moose Lady and it did ruin his campaign.

Sarah Palin believed that Sen. John McCain chose her to be his running mate in the 2008 presidential race because of "God's plan," according to a top political strategist in the Arizona Republican's campaign.

In an interview with the CBS news magazine "60 Minutes," Steve Schmidt described Palin as "very calm -- nonplussed" after McCain met with her at his Arizona ranch just before putting her on the Republican ticket. McCain had planned to name Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) as his choice until word leaked, sparking what Schmidt called political blowback over selecting the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee.

Schmidt, McCain's chief campaign adviser, said he asked Palin about her serenity in the face of becoming "one of the most famous people in the world." He quoted her as saying, "It's God's plan." Palin has not ruled out a run for the presidency.

God has a hell of a sense of humor, what with platypi, flesh-eating bacteria, and political campaigns. Is it still God's plan when you lose?

[UPDATE 1:40 PM] Speaking of your standard deific sense of humor, Moose Lady has just signed a mutli-year deal with FOX.

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

I honestly wondered how the news this week that Joe F'ckin Lieberman's approval ratings among Connecticut voters were way down in Bush territory would be interpreted by Lieberman and his staff.

On today's Sunday shows, we find out:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) offered a rare defense of Barack Obama on Sunday -- and an even rarer rebuke of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- after the Arizona Republican accused the president of "leading an extreme left-wing crusade to bankrupt America."

In what was a reversal of the role he played during the presidential campaign -- when he stumped on McCain's behalf and spoke at the Republican convention -- Lieberman said he disagreed with the anti-Obama radio ads McCain is running in his home state.

"You know every now and then John McCain and I disagree sometimes, and that's one of the cases," Lieberman said on CNN's "State of the Union." "So I don't agree with that. I think the president understands the importance of bringing our government back into balance. Look he came in, in a most difficult economic time, inheriting a national debt that had doubled in the preceding eight years. I think you are going to hear from the president in the State of a Union, maybe earlier, about some tough medicine for our economy. We need it and I hope that there will be bipartisan support in Congress for doing that."

So he's back to being behind Barack Obama again as long as Obama delivers "tough medicine for our economy" and acts like a deficit hawk.

Yep, still playing the Concern Troll and running both sides of the fence:  See Democrats, I'm behind Obama!  See Republicans?  I support deficit reduction!

Never mind the fact that Joe's basically signaling Obama's got a fight on his hands on any new spending measures to create jobs.  Nothing's changed, Joe.  When you walk down the middle of the road, you're going to eventually get hit by that oncoming truck.

Oh, and this week's Bobblespeak Translations are up.

Joe Versus The Volcano

And the residents of Connecticut want to toss Joe F'ckin Lieberman in one.

A new poll by Public Policy Polling has the Independent senator losing support in his home state, not just among Democrats but among independents and even Republicans as well.

More than 80 percent (81 percent) of Democrats now say they disapprove of the job Lieberman is doing with only 14 percent approving. Among Republicans, 48 percent disapprove of the senator with just 39 approving. And among independents, 61 percent disapprove of Lieberman's antics with just 32 percent approving.

"It all adds up to a 25% approval rating with 67% of his constituents giving him bad marks," the study concludes. "Barack Obama's approval rating with Connecticut Republicans is higher than Lieberman's with the state's Democrats."

Now that's funny.  As Steve says:

It's tempting to think the Independent senator would at least have made some gains with conservative voters, who might have been pleased to see Lieberman take the lead in killing the public option. But that's the most interesting thing about the poll -- he managed to lose support with every ideological and partisan group.

By negotiating in bad faith, delaying the process needlessly, ignoring his previous commitments, and removing popular provisions from the legislation, Lieberman managed to annoy everyone at the same time.

Nobody likes an asshole.  Well, okay, only 25% of people do, apparently...

Real Manly Ye-Men

You're kidding me, right Joe?

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, (I-Conn) a renowned hawk and one of the foremost champions of the invasion of Iraq, warned on Sunday that the United States faced "danger" unless it pre-emptively acts to curb the rise of terrorism in Yemen.

"Somebody in our government said to me in Sana'a, the capital of Yemen, Iraq was yesterday's war. Afghanistan is today's war. If we don't act preemptively, Yemen will be tomorrow's war," Lieberman said, during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday". "That's the danger we face."

So in your official capacity as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, your suggestion for protecting Americans on airliners is to...what, invade Yemen?  Really?

Honestly?  Is the position of Replacement Cheney actually needing to be filled?

[UPDATE 5:47 PM] And speaking of Lieberdouche, Aimai at NMMNB has a must-read on why Obama has to go over the heads of the Centrists, and ask the House to eat a bowl of crap, and has to sign the Senate health care reform bill into law before this weekend's attack becomes the excuse Joe needs to kill this bill.

Previously, even a day ago, I was opposed to the ping ponging of the bill. I hoped that a conference report might, with the good wind at its back, materially improve the bill and still squeak through the Senate's sixty vote bottleneck. Now I'm sure that Lieberman is going to step up and screw us if he can, when he can. Just imagine his puffed up self hectoring us about how irresponsible it is to spend money on health care when there are terrorists attacking us in our valued cities, like Detroit?

I recommend that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi take what they can get--push the Senate version of the bill through as is and then fix every bit of it they can as it relates to the budget through Reconciliation. Do it fast and without warning. And make the terrorist attack your excuse, if you want. Say "the country has been through enough and we need to get on with things. We believe this bill is very good and we can fix the parts that need fixing through reconciliation in a timely manner." And then just do it. Lieberman will be left with his mouth hanging open and the majority of the bill will be irrevocable. But promise the progressives that they will absolutely be able to get the rest of their initiatives through the reconciliation process and hew to that promise. It will be the best of all possible worlds.

Agreed.  Fast track this thing.  Sign it ASAP, or Lieberman will kill it.  Period.

Joe And Al

More of this, please.



McCain and Malkinvania get in on the act too.

New tag, because he's earned it:  Al Franken Is Good Enough.

Inside Baseball Played By Keystone Kops

From Josh Marshall, a little inside baseball from a Dem Senate staffer chief:

I don't pretend to know Joe Lieberman's motivation, but it's working to perfection if his goal is to divide Party leaders (Obama, Reid, etc.) from the Democratic progressive base. I don't remember seeing this level of outrage from movement progressives before, and I wonder if the only possible way to quell it is to secure Snowe's vote for reform and then remove Lieberman from his chairmanship. I'm not necessarily advocating that, but many people (including many on the Hill) believe that he is playing us for chumps (not waiting for the CBO score of the Medicare buy-in, opposing something he advocated a couple of months ago), and there need to be consequences. It's not an easy decision, though, and I don't envy Reid.

Yeah.

Hey brilliant wunderkind staffer guy?  Two points.

You know how Joe F'ckin Lieberman earned the sobriquet from this blog back when he was openly campaigning for John McCain?  You might have thought that would be the first clue that he might be out to screw you guys over, and that he didn't give a damn about anyone other than Joe F'ckin Lieberman?  This makes me think you've not been paying attention.

Second point.  You didn't think progressives would be pissed when you caved to Joe F'ckin Lieberman on the public option and you let him get away with it?  This makes me know you've not been paying attention.

Hey, Captain Politics, you're getting played like chumps because you are chumps.  Period.  Only this time, it's going to cost a couple hundred thousand lives of people who will die due to being rationed by the free market right out of the ability to afford health care because there's no public option.  All over one guy's petty revenge you still refuse to call him out on.

Douchebags.