« Ensign: Liberals want to weaken defense | Main | Hillary's latest extrapolation fallacy »

May 09, 2008


Brendan, don't be disheartened by the fact that Paul Krugman is making the same point you are. Maybe this is one of the rare occasions when he makes sense.

I'd say it's about an 85% probability that if the Democrats have a 6- or 7-vote advantage, they're not going to let him chair HSGAC anymore. It's just not worth it.

What happens to Joe Lieberman

I don't know. Is he planning to give the Zell Miller speech at the RNC this year?

As Glenn Greenwald points out, Lieberman has voted with the Republicans on a lot more than just the war:

...things like warrantless eavesdropping, the abolition of habeas corpus, telecom amnesty, the corrupt politicization of the Justice Department, chronic lying under oath, and the legalization of torture

Add to that, that there are actual Democrats who'd like his perks and committee chairmanships. I think he only keeps his seniority if he has really close friendships within the Democratic party.

Right, but to Lieberman, those -- and the war in Iraq -- are all part of the war on terror. His overall voting record in the 110th is actually not far from the middle of the Democratic Party. And of course he does have a lot of friends in the caucus.

Whether he gives a Zell Miller speech may tip things one way or the other.

Brendan, I wonder if anyone at the conference spent time talking about McCain's finances. I'm not an expert on the subject but I understand there's an element of McCain wanting to have it both ways -- to go both outside the public financing system but still be able to count on that system for funds.

As far as fundraising goes, the higher ceiling on party giving means that McCain will be able to stay relatively even.

While he was restricted to $2,300 contributions in the primary, the reality of the general is that the joint committee through the RNC raises at the $25,000 level. While the Repubs are hurting for a grass roots donor base like Obama's, they are not hurting for $25,000 donors. That will allow them to stay in line. I imagine they'll be outspent, but by 20-30%, not by 100-200% as they were in the primary.

Right, but to Lieberman, those -- and the war in Iraq -- are all part of the war on terror.

The question is whether they are the same thing to the Democratic Senators who'll be making the decision to keep him or toss him.

If Lieberman spends the next 3 months campaigning for John McCain and other down-ticket Republicans, then he'll lose support of actual Democrats regardless of what Lieberman thinks, personally.

You have got to strip him of his seniority and committee assignments.

A. He's not a democrat

B. He's supporting Republicans.

C. He's serving his last term in the senate.

The people of CT are dumb, but they aren't idiots. They'll toss him at the first opportunity.

Permit me to sum up the Democrats' position on Lieberman:

1. Lieberman has publicly dissented from the other Democrats about the war on terror and about John McCain.

2. He must be crushed!

Just a note to that last comment: Obama's fundraising advantage is directly correlated with the fundamentals you reference. If the fundamentals somehow fall apart for the Dems, so too would the fundraising. So, it's not really the fundraising plus the fundamentals, it's just the fundamentals.

The caveat: McCain is an exceptionally poor fundraiser, exceptionally in the traditional sense still responsible for most Republican dollars. This could threaten to give Obama an added fundraising advantage.

The comments to this entry are closed.