Google Ads


Site Stats

Lieberman Donated to Gordon Smith & Peter King

by: DavidNYC

Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:18 PM EST


What an asshole:

Lieberman, through his Reuniting Our Country PAC, gave Smith's reelection bid $5,000 on Oct. 10, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. ...

The same day he wrote a check to Smith, Lieberman's ROC PAC gave $5,000 to Rep. Peter King, the Long Island Republican. In radio and TV appearances the final days of the campaign, Lieberman also frequently said that a Democratic majority of 60 votes, a filibuster-proof level, would be a bad thing.

I'm sure Lieberman gave as late as he did to try to hide the contributions - he did something similar with his shady petty cash accounts in 2006. Senate fundraising reports take forever to process - believe it or not, they are filed in hardcopy form and scanned in! It's insane (and of course the GOP has blocked the ridiculously obvious reforms that would bring the Senate into the 20th century). It also means that final Senate reports are not publicly available until after the election, which totally defeats the point of campaign finance disclosure laws.

The Peter King donation would have been knowable, but few people were looking since King didn't have competitive race. But for that reason - the closeness of the contest - the donation to El Gordo was the far bigger deal. It was disgusting enough that Joementia vocally supported Susan Collins and Norm Coleman (hell, if Franken loses, we can blame it on Lieberman). But cutting a check? That is truly a crime.

Like I said, what an asshole - not that we didn't know that already.
DavidNYC :: Lieberman Donated to Gordon Smith & Peter King
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Lieberman Donated to Gordon Smith & Peter King | 31 comments
He's with us on everything but the war...
and, you know, everything else.

Incidentally, I believe Joe Lieberman was the first politician I ever really despised. This was back when I was a mere child, before Bush stole the election of course, and when Joe was focusing on his "video games are the devil" schtick rather than his "I'm a 'Democrat' who thinks Democrats are terrorist marxist enemies of America" schtick.

Needless to say, I was delighted when he lost the primary.

Same here
images of Lieberman's smug face decorate my early political awakening.  I never really got involved until Gore's suspect loss in 2000, but even then I was kind of happy that we kept Holy Joe out of power.  Of course, if I had known what kind of vice president Cheney would turn out to be...
[ Parent ]
What really sucks...
... is how we always seem to have to pick between the lesser of two really, really bad evils -- either Cheney or Lieberman???  I would say, however, that Biden is a huge improvement as a VP choice than Lieberman, so this year might just be the exception to the rule.
[ Parent ]
Wow Fuck Lieberman
What a scumbag, that's beyond forgiving.

You know I was for the whole let Lieberman stay on just so we can have 60 seats argument, but fuck him he needs to go.

Donating to Peter Fucking King and Gordon Smith wow.....must make our asshole democratic leadership proud to know they supported him over Lamont.

Did they know this before the vote to kick him out of the chairmanship?

We need to take up the SNL Rahm Skit and make him walk back to Connecticut naked, the Fucking Traitor.

I dunno...
About the "walking home naked" part. Honestly, wouldn't it hurt us more to see Loserman's naked body walking? I think I'd be scarred for life!

But other than that, I'm all for tossing him overboard for donating to Rethuglicans. ;-)

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

[ Parent ]
watch the skit
[ Parent ]
Yes, we need 60 Dems who all think the same and 40 Repubs who all think the same
Wow Fuck Lieberman (0.00 / 0)
What a scumbag, that's beyond forgiving.
You know I was for the whole let Lieberman stay on just so we can have 60 seats argument, but fuck him he needs to go.

Donating to Peter Fucking King and Gordon Smith wow.....must make our asshole democratic leadership proud to know they supported him over Lamont.

Did they know this before the vote to kick him out of the chairmanship?

We need to take up the SNL Rahm Skit and make him walk back to Connecticut naked, the Fucking Traitor.  

by: Conniver @ Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 21:57:57 PM CST

Conniver:

Thanks for revealing the quality of the person I've been debating for the past few days -- dumb, ignorant, and unbelievably childish and immature.

GROW UP!!!!

And, by the way, Lieberman donated FAR MORE to the Democrats.  I know I'm on a Web site with hyperpartisans who can't think their way out of a paper bag, but Lieberman is an INDEPENDENT.

Hellooooo.  Knock, knock.  Anyone home?

Lieberman SHOULD be either donating to NO ONE or BOTH SIDES.  Why?  He's an INDEPENDENT.  Got that?

If you were a Republican, would you also kick him out of your caucus?  And how does this vengeful, spiteful behavior square with democracy?  Should both parties make sure the good people of Connecticut have one senator instead of two because he doesn't have the GROUPTHINK "brain" that other partisans have.

Thank God, our president is just a wee bit more mature than Conniver and his friends.

Shalom,
ZWrite

PS -- If you cared about this nation, which you obviously don't, you should support Mary Landrieu for FEMA director.  As a senator, "Brownie" could do more (or less) for New Orleans in four years (or four days) than Senator Landrieu could do in 40 years.

As FEMA director, maybe Landrieu could finally accomplish something -- something she could not accomplish as the 59th Democratic senator, which is evidently so much more important than having only 58 Dems.

[ Parent ]
wow
your just provoking a fight here on a liberal democratic message board.

w/e I'm not going to fight with you anymore. Continue to have your opinion but most people care about here is the liberal cause and are hyper partisan democrats who get pissed off when a member of our caucus backstabs us.

And I am a hyper partisan Democrat and I have no qualms about it. You pick sides in a battle and you make your team win. I understood that to be what this site was about.

The whole purpose of the site from my understanding was to have a place to talk about candidates from the democratic liberal perspective. So when you give money to the enemy it tends to piss myself and most other people here off.

Yes I can't stand Joe Lieberman and everyone else on the board, can't stand him either. And for the group think aspect, all I was saying is it's more difficult to get Democrats to be able to agree on everything because they are more independent, and was saying we need a leader who can whip them into shape and get bills passed so we can move forward an agenda.

I'm done fighting you have your opinion we'll have ours.

[ Parent ]
RE: Liebermann as traitor
You are correct.  The whole point of this website is to advance the Democratic Party, to turn red and purple parts of the country into blue ones and make blue ones even bluer.  

As a member of our senate caucus, Liebermann betrayed his own side by actively and publicly supporting an endangered member of the opposing senatorial caucus.  For that alone, he should be kicked out.  If Gordon Smith had won, and he could very well have, Liebermann would have had a hand in denying his own caucus another member and another voice.

Democratic senatorial caucus meetings should be interesting.  What is Sen. Merekely going to say to Liebermann, knowing that Liebermann did his best to ensure that he would not be there?

This is not even touching on the other major betraying, Liebermann's public support for McCain.  

Yes, Liebermann is officially an independent, but he has his positions in the Senate because he belongs to the Democratic caucus.  His position is far from being an independent.  If he does not want to have to have any obligations to the Democratic caucus, he should voluntarily leave that caucus, and, with it, give up the positions in committees he has due to being in that caucus.

It is not a matter of being too conservative or not publicly supporting President-elect Obama or Sen.-elect Merekely.  

The latter no one would have been surprised had he said nothing one way or another about.  The fact that he had no reason to get involved, yet he did so for the other side, makes that betrayal of his own caucus even more bizarre and far more serious.  

If Liebermann could not bring himself to support Obama that does not mean he had to go public in supporting the Republican McCain!  No one complained about Rep. Gene Taylor not getting out there for Obama.  And he was not the only Democrat in conservative areas not to do campaigning for our next president.  They also did nothing to support the other side!  They never appeared with McCain or cut any ads for him or gave McCain support in any other way!  They were loyal to their side!

The Democrats put up with people far more conservative than Liebermann.  However, they never gave aid and comfort to the enemy as Liebermann has done for far too long.

He should be kicked out.  The Republicans want him.  Let them have him.

As a side note, his views on abortion and gay rights would give the fundies in the GOP some fits, so there is that extra benefit from such an expulsion.

[ Parent ]
here here!
damn right.
[ Parent ]
Simple question for you....
...name a Democratic candidate for federal office in a serious race that Joe Lieberman has publicly endorsed or supported.

This is what makes Lieberman's situation a bit more unique than other similar cases in the past.  Harry Byrd Jr for instance actually ran as an independent in Virginia over a state party rule about endorsing non-Democrats aimed at Dixiecrats such as himself endorsing Nixon.  But besides the issue of endorsing Republicans for President and often not getting along with his state party his concern was with Virginia and did nothing to hurt Democrats in other locales.

The problem concerning Joe and the Democratic caucus has nothing to do with ideology.  I can probably name you ten Democrats in the senate who I'd consider to the right of Joe Lieberman.  Same way Joe's endorsement of Republican's don't always take ideology into consideration.  The more conservative Coleman in Minnesota gets just as much if not more support than the more liberal Smith in Oregon.  Which match's Joe's record of supporting his Democratic colleagues.  He spent just as much time helping Lunsford in Kentucky and Rice in Oklahoma as he spent helping Tom Allen in Maine.

The issue with Joe was never ideology just disloyalty.

Now you do make a valid point about him contributing to the DSCC.  I will actually commend him for that.  And given what I said I'm force to agree with your central thesis that he is an independent and not a Democrat.

Which is why I actually made a rather roundly flamed suggestion on dailykos that the Democrats actually do negotiate with him terms for him remaining as chair.  Since he's not a Democrat but rather a free agent who we may be able to come to terms that may be mutually beneficial for both sides.  Which is not to say I'm cynical about whether that in fact actually happened and the Democrats didn't just capitulate to threats of him walking.

However the reason for the anger against Joe has just cause.  He made certain promises and pledges when he ran for re-election that he promptly threw out the door.  He campaigned not just for McCain but in his rhetoric for the entire Republican Party.  And he went out of his way to help prop up some of the most vulnerable Republicans.

He also criticized the Democrats wanting a filibuster proof senate when he knew first hand the reason it.  Republicans for the last two years have basically prevented almost any legislation from passing with a pretty universally supported filibuster of basically everything.  And there was little sign their strategy would change without substantial Democratic gains.  Without gains any cause he claimed to support was not going to happen and made them just empty rhetoric.

Would the Republicans have tossed out someone such as him?  Hard to know.  There have been Republicans who have endorsed Democratic presidential candidates in liberal states.  There have been Republicans who have endorsed Democrats within their own state.  Guiliani endorsed both Cuomo and Hillary Clinton in New York.  I can't however remember the last prominent Republican officeholder to endorse multiple out of state Democrats in competitive races.

I'd love to find out the answer.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

[ Parent ]
You need to tone down your vitriol
You are free to make supportive comments of Joe Lieberman if you so wish. But insulting the members of this site as "hyperpartisans who can't think their way out of a paper bag" is not acceptable.

Consider this a warning.

[ Parent ]
Loserman = Ass
And it's about time someone give him a good ass-kickin'! F*ck Loserman & f*ck his attempt to rebrand himself as a "Democrat" in time for 2012! Call me when Ned Lamont runs again. As long as he actually has a plan to win this time, I'll personally fly to Connecticut to campaign for him.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)
And I'll be waiting to help y'all.
:)

Finally, a competitive race in my state that I can look forward to!

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
As a sidenote, 2006 history
I once endorsed Lieberman.  I didn't like the Iraq War, but I didn't like the whole "GTFO now!" spiel of the anti-war movement (I was always in the "reasonable timetable" camp) and thought I'd throw my support behind the more moderate candidate.

Though, just weeks before the election, I changed my endorsement to Lamont.  I felt that the government badly needed some new blood running the place, and even if Lamont really was stupid enough to believe in an immediate next-day withdrawal, he'd learn quickly enough that that don't work anyway, and I felt that, even if some tempering were needed, he'd make a fine Senator soon enough.

Well, unfortunately, Lieberman won anyway, but, so far, he's been accting more and more like the Zell Miller Lite.  Well, let him continue; by 2012 we had better had a real Democrat running--either someone other than Lieberman who is a viable candidate, or a reformed Lieberman who will openly admit that the Republican Party's recent actions on the parts of their legislators, executives, and others have been some of the worst politicking in the history of the USA.

Or he might waste his political capital (or illusion thereof?) on a quixotic 2012 presidential run against Obama a windmill.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
By the way, I officially anti-endorse Don Quixote.
Because he is against windmills.

Windmills are a symbol of wind energy, an energy resource of the future.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden vs. Don Quixote and Tina Fey?  LOL.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
It's OK, Glenn...
I still get sh*t from certain progressives who didn't like that I supported Dianne Feinstein in California after she won the primary in 2006. (I wrote in someone else in the primary, then voted for her in the general.) And now, I'll probably get more sh*t this time for supporting Harry Reid in Nevada despite some progressives wanting to "punish him".

Yes, I consider myself a progressive. However, I also consider myself a partisan Democrat. I know we are the party of good ideas and good principles, so that's why I'm here.

Fortunately in the case of Loserman, it's easy for me to reject him as both a progressive AND a Democrat. I don't like that he betrays our principles all the time, and I hate that he repeatedly stabs us in the back as he campaigns for Johnny Mac & gives money to GOP Senate candidates. Huh?! How can Loserman be a "Democrat" while supporting mainly Republicans?

Loserman needs to go, and I'm more than happy to help you make that happen. ;-)  

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

[ Parent ]
I know others who fell for the "more moderate" crap...
... and said they didn't like the way "the Dems" treated Lieberman (forgetting the bit where they considered themselves 'good Democrats', so who exactly are "the Dems") and even went so far as to donate money to Lieberman's campaign in '06.  Unlike you, however they most likely continued to fall for Lieberman's bullshit long after the 2006 election.  I'm sure they see the truth about him now.  Too bad it took so damn long...
[ Parent ]
Oh...
I suspect that a strong Democrat than Ned Lamont would challenge Lieberman in 2012, not to mention that this whole thing probably hasn't endeared him to the Republican party either (do you think that the Republicans will be as willing to mess around in Connecticut during a presidential year? Not unless John McCain miraculously wins the Republican nomination again)

The irony here is that by letting him keep his chairmanship now, he can't really leave the Democratic party in a huff without looking like a complete idiot, and the only way he'd survive in Connecticut is to run as a liberal Republican as opposed to a conservative Democrat. The Joementum will soon fade.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
I hope so...
There must be some Democrat with a spine who can beat Loserman. Anyone got ideas? Which of the House Dems wants a promotion to the Senate?

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)
[ Parent ]
I've heard good things about Chris Murphy
He may be on his way to high influence in the House by 2012, but if not there's a good chance that he'll run for Senate.
[ Parent ]
If Joe wanted to prove he was a real dem...
..he'd be down in Georgia helping Martin.  Georgia is probably one of the few places he'd actually be a net positive.

Of course saying "if Lieberman was a real Democrat" is like saying "if Mike Tyson was a chessmaster" or "if Merlin the Wizard actually was alive and lived in Greenwich Village" or "if Stay Puft the Marshmallow Man actually existed and was on the five dollar bill" or "if there really was a Santa Claus."  An interesting and fun alternate universe to ponder.  But not something I would exactly expect to see anytime soon.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

Ha!
If Loserman were a real Democrat, I'd already have my magic unicorn friend fly me over to my palace in Dubai, where they just legalized marriage equality and my tall, buff, tanned, and handsome Prince Charming awaited my arrival!

Well, one can dream... ;-)

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

[ Parent ]
Just to be fair ...
I'm no fan of Lieberman, and I hope he loses the next time he runs.  But I think it's disingenuous to complain about the $10,000 here that he donated to Republicans, or the $15-$20,000 he donated previously in the cycle, and totally ignore the $230,000 he donated to the DSCC ($200,000 directly and $30,000 from his PAC).  I mean, he gave 8-10 times as much to Democrats than he did to Republicans, yet bloggers want to pretend that he did nothing at all for Democrats this cycle.  In fact, Lieberman did more to elect Democratic Senators this cycle than probably anyone who posts to this blog (including me - I only gave $1,750, which is pretty much dwarfed by Joe's contributions).

Anyone who thinks the fact that he was one of the leading donors to the DSCC this cycle had no impact on the caucus vote is pretty naive.

Frankly
I think at this point it's a matter of pride.  Yes, he gave the Dems a lot of money, but is it really worth dealing with all his incessant bullcrap?  Besides, how many other "Democrats" gave even a penny to Republicans?  Not to mention campaign for them?  
I realize that his contributions to the DSCC probably played a big part in the caucus vote, but just because someone gives you gifts doesn't mean you should let bygones be bygones when they're constantly stabbing you in the back.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.
[ Parent ]
Yes...
And how would Republicans tolerate "one of their own" giving ANY money to any Democratic candidate? I bet it wouldn't be long before Club for Growth had attack ads up in that state! Now I'm not saying we need to be as vindictive as the other side, but I don't get why we're so easily forgiving and forgetting while we're STILL being stabbed in the back.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)
[ Parent ]
You see that's the good and bad part about being a democrat
We allow so much more diversity of opinion in our party then they do. If you deviate from the herd on one issue in the Republican Party, you pretty much get a primary challenge or are threatened to be backbenched by the leadership.

Their isn't any fear of retaliation in the democratic party, we just capitulate all the time. Harry Reid really sucks as majority leader. Chuck Schumer should be the majority leader, now that would scare the hell out of the Republicans and the caucus to get in line with our agenda. With all the new members in the caucus that he recruited and probably some built in East Coast support, I think he could if he challenges Reid take him down quite easily.  

Not to mention have you ever heard Harry Reid speak? I like politics and I fall asleep listening to him. Chuck Schumer on the other hand is great. "The most dangerous place in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a camera" always remember that. (best quote ever)

[ Parent ]
Oh my God, an intelligent and mature poster
Just to be fair ... (0.00 / 0)
"I'm no fan of Lieberman, and I hope he loses the next time he runs.  But I think it's disingenuous to complain about the $10,000 here that he donated to Republicans, or the $15-$20,000 he donated previously in the cycle, and totally ignore the $230,000 he donated to the DSCC ($200,000 directly and $30,000 from his PAC).  I mean, he gave 8-10 times as much to Democrats than he did to Republicans, yet bloggers want to pretend that he did nothing at all for Democrats this cycle.  In fact, Lieberman did more to elect Democratic Senators this cycle than probably anyone who posts to this blog (including me - I only gave $1,750, which is pretty much dwarfed by Joe's contributions).
Anyone who thinks the fact that he was one of the leading donors to the DSCC this cycle had no impact on the caucus vote is pretty naive.  

by: LanceS @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 07:56:02 AM CST "

Lance:

You are way, way, way too mature to be posting on this Web site.

I'm a progressive who wants president-elect Obama to accomplish great things in office, but you're debating with hyperpartisans who can't think their way out of a paper bag and want 60 Dems in the Senate and 255 in the House who think exactly alike.

If they had any influence at all, they would drag Democrats down to the 25 percent approval rating that Bush has thanks to similar thinking by those on The Right who are hyperpartisans and don't care about this nation.

I'm more progressive than Lieberman -- and think his support of the war was beyond dumb -- but I'm glad that there are people like him who don't have a groupthink mentality.

AND HE"S AN INDEPENDENT WHO SHOULD BE DONATING TO BOTH SIDES.  The hyperpartisans on this Web site should be thankful that most of his donations were to Dems.

Shalom,
ZWrite

 

[ Parent ]
No.
He's a member of the DEMOCRATIC Caucus and should be supporting DEMOCRATS.

And Republicans haven't lost power because they demanded cohesiveness in their party.  They lost because they fucked up beyond compare.  When we lose our majorities sometime in the future (it'll happen, hopefully not for a long time), it'll be because our elected Democrats failed to deliver on their explicit and implicit promises and have so blurred the line between.  It'll be because our party is so busy trying to please it's liberal, moderate, and conservative members that it can't get a clear message across.

Our "moderate" members serve to implicate us in the same failures of the Republican Party.  The Iraq War?  Numerous "moderate" Dems vote for it.  Same goes for NAFTA, CAFTA, No Child Left Behind, the Bush Tax Cuts, etc.

So, spare me the bullshit about groupthink.  We need members who share common goals and who aren't undercutting their own party by giving bipartisan cover to the Republicans.

Supporting someone solely because they have "D" after their name while apparently forgetting why you favor the Democrats in the first place is what's hyperpartisan.  It's one thing to vote for a Democrat over a Republican.  It's something else to continue to blindly support that Democrat no matter what he or she does.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
So what did Lieberman do for us this cycle?
So he donated $100k to the DSCC, that's it isn't?

He campaigned for McCain, for Collins, donated to Smith, wrote an op-ed for Coleman, and also donated randomly to King.

He did more shit for the other side than ours!

I'm emailing Klobuchar's office later.  This is absolutely ridiculous.

Lieberman Donated to Gordon Smith & Peter King | 31 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox