There was a good article in the Hartford Courant Sunday about Lieberman, and his oblivious self-immolation.
The whole thing is painful 
to watch. At least to me. I still can’t help liking the guy.
But he brought it on himself. And he really has no one to blame but himself. Hubris, certainly. But even more than that the obliviousness that is born of hubris. He turns out to have been as oblivious about what was happening in his own state as he was about what was happening in Iraq.
People on Lieberman’s side talk a lot about him as a man of principle sticking to his beliefs in spite of public opposition. But it’s one thing to stick to your guns when you know you’re going to pay a price, quite another to stick to them when you’re totally out of touch with the consequences.
Set aside the great issues of the day that are implicated in this race. I’m fascinated by it on a personal level — or at the level where personalities and character intersect with the subterranean tides of politics. What happened to this guy? No one seems to have had any grasp of the brittleness of his hold on the support of his constituents. Was it the sting of his rejection in 2004? The possibility of getting the Sec Def nod?
There’s a great 10,000 word magazine article in this story.
Tom DeLay gets his (latest) day in court. That and other news of the day in today’s Daily Muck.
More from Mark Schmitt on why it really may be over for Joe.
Former boss of gay-baiting Ohio GOP emailer says Stricklands must go to court to prove they’re not gay.
A TPMmuckraker exclusive: House Judiciary Democrats do the math, tally over two dozen laws and regs the White House has broken, sometimes repeatedly.
Could a Democrat victory in November bring Watergate-style hearings?
Two TPM Readers on Joe …
TM: Like you, I’ve always liked Joe Lieberman. If he had an honest opinion Iraq differing from most Dems, I’d be more able to accept it – but his ‘buttering-up of Bush’ astounds me. Particularly, as this Congress, almost monthly, seems to willingly concede more and more of its Constitutional powers to the Executive Branch. I’m even more stunned by the willingness of old-style Conservatives to rarely, if ever, question or even discuss the erosion of power in the Legislative Branch. I’m old enough to remember when the prime priorities of Conservatives were decreasing the size and spending of the Federal Government and loudly decrying and battling any attempt by the Feds to introduce any program that, in any way, decreases Personal Privacy and Liberty.
LG: Wonder if youâve read MYDD today â Matt Stoller references Joshâs posting and then brings up all the times this âprincipledâ Democrat has sold out his party and America. From the Clinton Healthcare debacle to the Lewinsky Affair to his undermining of Gore during the election (and not just the Cheney debate, either). Iâm just wondering, then, why Josh finds Joeâs comeuppance so painful to watch. From my vantage point: Iâm cheering the fall of an ongoing thorn in the side of the Democratic Party and one that needed to be pulled out long ago.
TPM Election Central got a copy of the flyer the Lieberman campaign is distributing claiming Lamont is soft on race and civil rights. You’ll want to see this.
See the flyer here in the TPM Document Collection.
Better the devil you know…
If the Bush Administration signs a bill into law, but doesn’t plan to enforce it — isn’t it better that it says so? That’s one of the main points made by a panel of legal experts who’ve posted their thoughts on the controversial “signing statements” issue over at TPMCafe.
A signing statement is just that – a statement that accompanies the President’s signing of a law. It’s a tool that’s long been used by presidents, often in order to instruct agencies on how to execute new laws. But this administration has used it much more widely and aggressively, sometimes in a way that served to effectively veto the legislation, as with John McCain’s supposedly comprehensive anti-torture amendment.
It was that kind of use of the signing statement that provoked the American Bar Association to issue a report condemning this administration’s use of it. The bipartisan panel said it was an unconstitutional usurpation of power. And following closely on the report, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced that he’d be introducing legislation that would allow Congress to sue the President in order to challenge the statements.
But over at TPMCafe, a panel of eight experts, all of whom have served in the Department of Justiceâs Office of Legal Counsel, writes that the ABA got it wrong.
As one would expect, it’s a closely reasoned analysis of the issue, but it boils down to a simple idea — signing statements are just that: statements. “The constitutional problem,” the panel writes, “arises when the President executes, or fails to execute, a statute.”
If the President doesn’t plan to follow the law, you want him saying so. There’s already enough of a problem of this administration arguably breaking certain laws to criticize them for being clear about their intentions.
No more Mr. Nice Guy on Social Security phase out.
Majority Leader Boehner pledges that if Republicans retain control of Congress “weâre going to get serious about” phasing out Social Security.