GOP Gave Joe (Lieberman) A Boost

[sabra]

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-joemoney0319.artmar19,0,1424810.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

GOP Gave Joe A Boost

WASHINGTON -- It's no secret that Joe Lieberman got strong support from Republicans last year, and that he has made strong overtures this year to Senate Republicans as he pursues a new, more bipartisan legislative path.

But new data show the extent of the help he got from big GOP donors in the last weeks of his 2006 campaign, as they poured more than $1.5 million into his final pre-election push - with subtle but unmistakable help from the White House.

The information was compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Its data are the first detailed look at the sources and amounts of GOP money that went into the Lieberman campaign.

...

In the general election, in which Lieberman ran as an "independent Democrat," his take from Republicans soared 80 percent. He collected more money from Republicans than from Democrats. And of major donors - giving $200 and more - Republicans exceeded Democrats.

[NoodleBoy]

1. a new, more bipartisan legislative path--

does that mean he's going to work with Democrats now?

[Atman]

2. Can't be true, it's us stupid CT Dems who rejected him in the primary!

I just thought I'd get a head start on the "Blame CT Dems First" crowd. You know the ones, they post here every time Joe pokes his head up, blaming the democrats of CT for not electing Lamont, despite the fact that Joe was removed by the democrats in the primary, only to be re-installed by the GOP machine.

.

[blm]

8. Bill Clinton had more to do with pushing some Dems back to Lieberman in that election

than anyone else.

Bill and his LarryKingLive declaration that Lieberman in race was an 'unmitigated blessing' for Conn. Democrats.

Fock you, Bill.

[MGKrebs]

24. The obligatory Clinton slam.

[blm]

25. No - it's the 'Wish Bill Clinton was more loyal to the Democrats than to Poppy Bush' lament.

Wouldn't the country be better off, MGKrebs?

[MGKrebs]

28. I'm not buying that blm. If loyalty to Dems were the issue,

we would be criticizing Lamont for challenging an incumbent Senator in the first place.

JAKE TAPPER: Joe Lieberman said that this was basically liberals in the party purging moderates such as him and you out of the party, and that there needs to be a voice for more moderate national security voices.

CLINTON: Well, if I were Joe and I were running as an independent that’s what I’d say, too. But that’s not quite right. That is, there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction. And his position was the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/15/clinton-lieberman/

[blm]

31. Don't buy it. Don't read the BCCi report. And don't read Webb's CIA drugrunning report, either.

And do read Clinton's book with no questions about why he chose to protect Poppy Bush on so many serious matters. That way you can stay perfectlty at peace with your support for Clinton.

I know I supported him too blindly for far too long, so I am never surprised that others do the same.

http://consortiumnews.com/2007/022307.html

[MGKrebs]

29. I found the quote you refer to.

I hadn't seen it before.

KING: Are you supporting Lamont?

CLINTON: I am but, you know, my -- I don't have the same view of this as some people do. My view is Connecticut is an unmitigated blessing for the Democrats because Lieberman has said if he wins he's going to vote with us to organize the Senate.

Sounds like he supported Lamont but was hapy that Liberman was promising to vote with Dems anyway. In other words, we couldn't lose either way.

[blm]

30. Bill was wrong - there should have been no 'but' about it - there should've been total enthusiasm

for Lamont - ONLY Lamont.

Bill treated the race as if there was no difference. And he also FAILED to get his butt to Connecticut to do for Lamont what he enthusiastically did for Joe during the primaries.

[PassingFair]

32. "we couldn't lose either way" ?! You think Lieberman was a WIN/WIN?

And he was CORRECT HOW?

"Sounds like he supported Lamont but was hapy that Liberman was promising to vote with Dems anyway. In other words, we couldn't lose either way."

I understand what blm is saying.

What is YOUR point?

[MGKrebs]

35. Bill Clinton's point was that either candidate was going to vote with the Dems.

THAT was the blessing.
Only repeating part of Clinton's comment is misleading.

It's just for the record. Misinformation shouldn't go unchallenged. You can still dislike Bill Clinton, but please be aware that he stated on Larry King that he supported Lamont and was happy that either candidate was going to vote with the Dems.

[PassingFair]

36. Except that LIEberman

VOTES with the PUKES when civil liberties
or foreign lives are on the line.

THAT is the point.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. No one should ever blame the Democrats in CT for what took place

If any blame should be placed it should be on Lieberman himself for not respecting the will of the Democrats he had previously been elected to represent. It was widely know then that Lieberman's campaign was being funded by the Rs. All this does is show the extent they went to to keep him in office.

[JanusAscending]

20. You said it brother !!!

We nutmeggers are getting tired of the blame game!! DC:applause:

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Politically, Lieberman reminds of me Woody Allen's take on being bisexual:

you have twice the chance of having a date on Saturday night. Lieberman is really consummate politician, playing both sides against each other while enjoying the benefits of each side.

[hang a left]

22. He is a neo con. There is enough of them to form there own

party. Wish he would just come out of the closet.

[UTUSN]

4. K&R #1 n/t

[TlalocW]

5. God, just kick him out

I don't care if the Senate is then evenly split. It's essentially evenly split now. It's obvious what side Joe's toast is buttered so take away his chairmanships and give them to a real democrat instead of this simpering brown-noser of the president.

TlalocW

[liberalmike27]

6. Lieberman Sucks

I've hated him since Gore picked him. That is, perhaps, Gore's worst decision ever. I don't know what strings made him pick such an awful running mate. Any number of other people would've resulted in us being in power.

[Greeby]

7. Why does that not suprise me

:eyes:

This adds to that myth that we have a Senate majority. We do not. Lieberworm only caucuses with Democrats because in the end, he looks out for No.1, and he doesn't want to give up that committee chairmanship

[Arugula Latte]

10. Where are the DU Lieberman apologists now?

:eyes:

[Dr Fate]

15. They all claim they never supported him. Plus, Hillary has ALWAYS been against the war.

Next thing you know, the DLC will claim they led the filibuster against Alito.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Karma in 2008... Lieberman will wish he had not run in 2006.

[anitar1]

18. I hope you are right. this pompous fool needs to be

destroyed, imho. I loathe him with all my heart.A true Bush sucker.

[LiberalFighter]

19. Patience patience He will get his waterloo

[rec_report]

12. K&R n/t

[beth9999]

13. Of course he got support from the Repugs...

... he got logistical help from them, they put up a "loser" candidate so as to not draw votes away from him, and they helped him rig the election to steal it from Lamont, who rightfully won it.

[wicket]

16. Tombstoned already?

:eyes:

[LeftishBrit]

14. Not surprised

He's always had a Republican streak... I believe that when he first got elected in 1988, he was in many ways to the right of his Republican opponent, and was backed by the 'National Review' which is not exactly a left-wing paper.

And in 2006 the Republicans abandoned their own candidate for him, while blaming the Democrats for abandoning theirs!

I hope you can get a proper majority in 2008 so that he's less important. It's great that the Democrats got the senate when no one thought it possible, but it will be better when the majority is more than one seat.

[mac56]

17. Is there a single person on God's green earth who's surprised by this?!

Show of hands, please...


(crickets chirping....)

[xxqqqzme]

21. and I just ate lunch

"...Nearly every week, he(lieberman) and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., host informal, private breakfasts with senators from both parties. At a recent breakfast, Lieberman asked participants for ideas about how to promote bipartisanship.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., suggested changing committee seating. In Lieberman's Homeland Security Committee, as with other committees, Democrats sit on one side and Republicans on the other. Starting last week, party members alternated seats."...

Yea that oughtta do it!

[superconnected]

23. Everyone feign surpise - Lieberman is on the GOP dole.

like we couldn't friggen tell.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ryanmuegge]

27. GOP voters supporting a self-absorbed Nazi who is completely beholden to corporate interests?

No, come on!

[Cha]

33. NO! joe lieman didn't run as an

"Independent Democrat"..he fucking ran as an Independent lieman..and that's a fact.

[Wilms]

34. K & R n/t

[Zhade]

37. Well, yeah - see my sigline.

I had it up before the election, and some asshole idiots here STILL defended him.