"One possible model, though, might be Joe Lieberman"
Yup, THAT'S RIGHT!
"Avenues open for ideology and practical politics" by Lisa Wangsness, Globe Staff | February 5, 2010
WASHINGTON - Scott Brown arrived in Washington yesterday for his swearing-in, at any rate, he had few obvious examples to follow in negotiating the tensions between ideology and practical politics, and the demands of partisan leaders against a diverse constituency back home.
One possible model, though, might be Joe Lieberman, said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a moderate Democratic think tank. The Connecticut senator lost his last primary to a liberal but managed to hang on to his seat by running as an independent. Lieberman votes with the Democrats much of the time, but he has proved to be a powerful moderating force in the Senate - most recently keeping a public insurance option out of the Senate health care bill.
“Joe Lieberman is a thorn in everybody’s side,’’ Kessler said. “But some folks would argue he seems to have bedrock principles. And thus far, it has been successful to him in Connecticut and in Washington - with some very close near-death experiences along the way.’’
Yeah, Zionism and Israel first! That's his "bedrock principles."
--more--"
Yeah, about that "election":
Here is why I believe -- after meticulous research and number-crunching -- I believe the 2006 Connecticut Senate race was rigged.
The Primary
In August, Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to Ned LaMont, 52-48%, in a definite repudiation of the war and Bush. In typical Joe fashion, rather than gracefully step aside and respect the voters wishes, Joe serves himself and decides to run as an Independent.
The Funders
So the general campaign began. LaMont poured $10.7m of his own money into the race, but Lieberman still enjoyed a fund-raising advantage as GOP donors funneled cash into Lieberman coffers, among them "Joseph Allbaugh, one of President Bush's four closest political confidantes during his 2000 presidential campaign, and "longtime Bush family friend and former ambassador Melvin Sembler," as well as "the heads of several Texas-based corporations." New York City Mayor, R-Michael Bloomberg also put his money and support behind Lieberman. Campaign finance reports show Lieberman raised $14.8 million, while LaMont raised about $9 million in the same period. Still, Joe accused LaMont of trying to buy the election.
The Polls
After having lost the primary, a poll conducted in early September had Lieberman ahead by 10 points, and nearly six weeks later Lieberman had pulled ahead to a 17-point lead, allegedly gaining among independent voters and men. By election eve, most polls had Joe with a double-digit lead (although Zogby had the race scored as a 4-point difference). Exit polls the day of the election had Lieberman ahead by five percent, 46-41; however, the official count on election night had Lieberman garnering 50% of the vote; LaMont, 40%; Republican nominee Alan Schlesinger, a former state rep and convicted criminal, 10%; and two independent candidates a total of !%.
The first thing that sticks out are the round and even totals; however, that -- in and of itself -- is not sufficient to call into question the results. The weekend after Nov. 7, Lieberman was on "Meet the Press" and host Tim Russert provided detailed exit polls on the senate race. These percentages were used to formulate my analysis, and will be referred to in the next section.
The Analysis
So I start crunching numbers (using the official results as provided by the New York Times). As a baseline, I add the total votes cast for Democrats and Republicans in the House races. Democratic votes totaled 652,033, while Republicans came in with 421,000 exactly. I consider these voters the hardcore base and leaners.
In the Senate race, a total of 1,130,817 votes were cast -- a difference of 57,784 votes when compared to the House races. I consider these votes independent, middle-of-the-road voters. I then subtract the 10,561 votes that went to the independent candidates in the Senate race, leaving me with an unassigned pool of 47,223 votes.
So the number-crunching begins. Final vote totals for the Senate race were: Lieberman -- 562,850 votes; LaMont-- 448,077 votes; Schlesinger-- 109,329 votes. According to Russert, exit polls showed Lieberman with 70% of the Republican vote, Schlesinger with 21% and LaMont at 8%. On the Democratic side, Lieberman allegedly held 33% of Democrats, LaMont allegedly came in at 65% with Schlesinger getting 2%.
Let's do the math (Republican votes) + (Democratic votes) = (Baseline votes):
Lieberman: (294,700) + (215,171) = (509,871)
LaMont: (33,680) + (423,821) = (457,501)
Schlesinger: (88,410) + (13,041) = (101,451)
Now subtract the baseline votes from the total votes cast to see what portion of the 47,223 independents each candidate should receive (Total votes) - (Baseline votes) = (Independent votes candidate receives):
Lieberman: (562,850) - (509,871) = (52,979)
LaMont: (448,077) - (457,501) = (-9,424)
Schlesinger: (109,329) - (101,451) = (7,878)
WTF? How can that be? Do you see the calculations? Lieberman needs an additional 53,000 votes, yet there are only 47,000 to draw from; Schlesinger still requires nearly an additional 8,000 votes; and LaMont needs to GIVE BACK over 9,000 votes? What is wrong with this picture?
Still not convinced (and don't say faulty exit polls; they are using them again 2008)?
Then let me offer one more small, tiny, almost unnoticed figure:
In 2000, Lieberman defeated Republican challenger Phil Giordano, 63-34%. Lieberman totaled 828,902 votes to Giordano's 448,077.
In 2006, Lieberman defeated LaMont, 50-40%. Lieberman totaled 562,850 votes to LaMont's 448,077.
Now what are the chances -- considering all the demographic and political changes that take place in six years -- that both Lieberman's 2000 and 2006 opponent would poll the EXACT SAME NUMBER of VOTES!!? The odds are ASTRONOMICAL, and is the best proof of a steal. Almost as if the 2000 election results were softwared and inserted into the voting machines.
The Fallout
Lieberman has seen his power and influence rise. Joe is in the catbird seat in the Senate, and can blackmail the Democrats if he wishes. Lieberman is most-likely found at the elbow of John McCain these days. That's probably why Joe Lieberman's popularity continues to tank. Nevertheless, Reid says Joe Lieberman will keep Chairmanship in '09.
And here we are, readers.
Yeah, HOW QUICKLY Democrats "forget," huh?
How about EXPELLING JOE NOW that you DON'T NEED HIM anymore, huh?
