Letters to the Editor

• The Shit is in the Shit!

  [Read the article: Joe Lieberman, from his indie perch]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  And the vain, self-serving creep knows it.

  Of the Senate seats up for election in 2008, 21 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats --

  Retiring is Wayne Allard (R-Co)

  Likely to retire are:

  Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)

  Joe Biden (D-Del)

  Larry Craig (R-Idaho)

  Thad Cochran (R-Miss)

  Chuck Hagel (R-Neb)

  Tim Johnson (D-SD)

  John Warner (R-Va)

  Democrats will keep Delaware, South Dakota, possibly pickup Nebraska, Virginia maybe Alaska (nice Republican scandal going there) and Colorado (plus 4 seats)

  There are 10 Democratic incumbents running -- none looks like a likely loss since their states are swinging more democratic than 2002

  Mark Pryor (Ark)

  Dick Durbin (Ill)

  Tom Harkin (Iowa)

  Mary Landrieu (LA)

  John Kerry (Mass)

  Carl Levin (Mi)

  Max Baucus (Montana)

  Frank Lautenberg (NJ)

  Jack Reed (RI)

  Jay Rockefeller (WV)

  Now look at the Republican incumbents:

  Jeff Sessions (Ala) potentially has a problem -- the Siegelman prosecution is blowing up in the face of the Alabama republican party -- and this is linked to the US attorneys scandal and Gon zales

  Saxby Chambliss (Geo) will have a fight, but will possible survive

  Pat Roberts (Kan) in trouble

  Mitch McConnell (Ky) -- majority reduced

  Susan Collins (Maine) in serious trouble

  Norm Coleman (Minn) - in trouble

  John Sununu (New Hampshire) in trouble

  Pete Domenici (New Mexico) US Attys scandal, in trouble

  Elizabeth Dole North Carolina -- some risk

  Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma) -- at risk

  Gordon Smith of Oregon -- at risk

  Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- reduced majority

  Lamar Alexander (Tenn) -- survives

  John Cornyn (Tex) reduced majority

  Michael Enzi (Wyoming) - reduced majority -- plus two Republican seats in play, b/c Barasso (R) is appointed which makes it more likely that one will go Democratic, even in Wyoming

  So plus 2-5 seats

  So all of this means that the Democrats will in all likelihood pick up between 5 and 9 seats in the Senate. Where does this leave Lieberman -- well he had 2 years to make friends with the Democratic caucus and has blown them. His numbers in Connecticut are falling and the Democratic caucus will have 54-59 seats. Switching to the Republicans now will only mean that his chances of catching any bones in 2009 are nil.

  And the thing is, Republican numbers keep getting worse, as far as the Democrats are concerned Gonzales is the gift that keeps on giving -- scandal after scandal, ditto Rove, ditto Cheney, ditto Bush. It helps even more that Lieberman is seen by the public as a Republican mouthpiece and scares the shit out of them.

  The big thing to note was how defensive Lieberman was about opposing the vote of confidence on Gonzales -- Lieberman is a jerk, but he is not totally dumb. He realizes that his action there screwed him with the Democrats in the Senate and worse, means that he cannot now wriggle off the hook of responsibility for Gonzales, even with a lightweight interviewer like Shapiro - and by the way does anyone think Lieberman would have given the interview to someone who, well, might ask a few hard follow-up questions - Shapiro got the interview because he would soft soap Lieberman on Gonzales and other issues.

  For Connecticut voters -- well you got sold on the idea that Lieberman's seniority would mean that he could "bring home the pork," so here is the bad news, you blew it. No influence for the future.

  Permalink Friday, August 3, 2007 05:00 AM

• Why Shapiro is a lousy interviewer

  [Read the article: Joe Lieberman, from his indie perch]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Let me ask you about another vote -- your vote that puzzled me the most. That was [in June] when you were the only Democrat to oppose a no-confidence against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. This was a vote that had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. And you are both a former Connecticut attorney general and someone who remembers the politicization of the Justice Department under John Mitchell during Watergate.

  Let me reconstruct that. It was earlier in the year. I think I thought that it was essentially a political vote. And the question on Gonzales was ultimately -- he serves at the pleasure of the president. And that there was nothing but political intent to the resolution. Forgive me, I should go back and look that up.

  Did Shapiro listen -- consider the follow-up questions.

  1. Senator, you describe the vote as ""essentially ... political" but, you are in fact a politician, and elected Senator, and the vote was in the Senate, a political body, so I do not really understand your answer. How was this vote any different from any other vote.

  2. Senator, your say that Gonzales "serves at the pleasure of the President" and this vote would not have changed that fact, or the President's unfortunate choices. But it was not about that, it was a vote by the Senate stating whether the Senators voting had confidence that Alberto Gonzales could do the job of Attorney General, competently, honestly, and with political impartiality and truthfulness -- by voting the way you did you expressed confidence in this man as AG, why? Are you now not somehow "tagged" with the things Gonzales does for the next 18 months. Is your judgment in "having confidence" in this man not suspect.

  3. You say you have to "go back and look that up" - do you understand the rage and frustration Patrick Leahy a democrat and Arlen Specter (a Republican) feel when a supposedly prepared AG says he cannot recall the controversial things he has done. If it is wrong for Gonzales not to recall his big action, why is it right for you to have to "look up" what this important vote means only a few weeks later.

  Permalink Friday, August 3, 2007 09:39 AM