Call Lieberman- sez not supporting filibuster

I just got off the phone at 12:04 pm with a Washington staffer in Lieberman's office.  She said he was not participating in the filibuster.  

Please call his office now. Update [2006-1-30 12:56:16 by debcoop]:I got through to Chafee's office in Rhode island.The phone number is 401 453 5294. I told her it was a charade to vote no on Alito without either voting for cloture or abstaining. He has opponents. Ask if he think NARAL will be satisfied with this charade of a vote? It Like a cake made of air.

202 224 4041  #1 is to leave a message.  #2 is to speak to a staffer.

an conn. number for Liberman is 860 244 2006

I said that he had another option which was to abstain, and keep the Republicans from 60 votes.

Be polite.  It's not the staffer's decison

I could make this longer but I think this means we have to work harder because I don't see how we gotten to 37 or 8 if Lieberman says he's voting against the filibuster.

•  Lieberman

  had best adjust himself to being primaried out by a well funded Lamont if he tries this. I'll send monthly donations.

  by colleen on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:19:48 AM PDT

  •  Great

    Glad to know that instead of opposing Rick Santorum, you'll spend your money opposing a Democrat who's voting against Alito.

    The math is easy: 44 Dems minus seven members of the Gang (which includes Lieberman) equals a max of 37.

    by Adam B on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:23:15 AM PDT

    •  It's not an either-or.

      And you are doing the party no favors to suggest otherwise.

      by GopherHeel on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:25:24 AM PDT

      •  I'm referring specifically to Colleen.

        She has made clear she won't be supporting the party's nominee in our home state.

        by Adam B on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:32:26 AM PDT

        •  Not the nominee if he loses the primary.

          He is NOT the nominee yet.

          And don't you forget it!

          This is still a democracy.

          by rick on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:50:48 AM PDT

        •  By supporting Lamont,

          she will be supporting a true democrat for the senate seat.  What is your problem?  You have been naysaying any effort by people who want to see true, committed democrats in political positions.  It's not enough to put a D next to your name.  Act like a democrat, support the party or get the hell out.  You see, dear, some of us can do more than one thing at a time.  I can support true democratic candidates who seek to unseat republicans as well as raise funds and awareness about quisling democrats.  It's not that hard.

          by gmb on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:19:27 AM PDT

    •  I'll support Lamont in the primary

      If Lamont loses, then I'll probably ignore this race.

      by pontificator on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:27:26 AM PDT

      •  and that's

        the great thing about the primary system. You choose your first choice first, your second choice in the general.

        I hope Lamont raises funds mainly from inside the state. With his bank account, hopefully he won't need to do much out-of-state fundraising (the kind Lieberman is already doing).

        by thirdparty on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:31:55 AM PDT

    •  Lamont

      will hopefully self-fund to an extent that he won't need to siphon off donations from other candidates.

      What he needs most now are volunteers from Connecticut.

      by thirdparty on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:29:23 AM PDT

    •  Juck Foe

      and his Joe-mentum too.  I'd rather have a Republican in CT at this point than Joe.  He obfuscates, he helps the other party.  At least with a Republican in office, we'd only have to put up with him for 2 years before we elected a real Democrat.  

      By operating within the Democratic Party, all I've seen Joe do in the last 4 years is to sow dissension and to consistently provide bipartisan cover to George W. Bush.  He's probably cost us several seats in the House and Senate by undermining the Democratic solidarity and position.

      I would think by now, even the most DLCish of us would have realized that we cannot defeat the Bush agenda without solidarity and long term tactics, both of which Joe Lieberman does much more to destroy than any Republican could.

      Juck Foe, he's done in my book.

      by dkmin on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:32:09 AM PDT

    •  asdf

      Voting against Alito is a completely hollow gesture if you vote for cloture.

      The filibuster is the only shot we have. When it goes to a full vote, the Republican majority wins.

      Joementum could at least abstain. He owes the Party at least that much respect. He does not have to actively help Frist steamroll over the filibuster.

      by saucy monkey on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:38:54 AM PDT

    •  Don't you *ever* tell me how to spend my money.

      Glad to know that instead of opposing Rick Santorum, you'll spend your money opposing a Democrat who's voting against Alito.

      I think that, to put it kindly, you don't understand a.) what it takes to win elections and b.) that most of us don't regard participation in politics as an extension of the same sort of loyalty some extend towards, say, football teams but, rather, as a serious business in which a responsible citizen stays informed and tries for a decent government. A goal which we've sadly missed reaching for a good long time now and which I, as a private citizen, am adding my small voice to the chorus of those trying to rectify this sad state of affairs.
       I'm an independent voter. I do not vote for or support religious right candidates of either party. I don't support any Blue Dogs or most DLC members. And I am deeply offended when some establishment Dem tries to tell me how to speak, to vote and most particularly how to spend my money. How dare you.

      by colleen on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:42:01 AM PDT

      •  me me me me ME!

        You seem to think that the only good Democrats are those who agree with you all the time, and see no value in getting to a damn majority by whatever it takes.

        I know what it takes to win elections -- money and effort.  The more of it we expend on CT, the less there is for Chafee next door.  

        I have seen through bitter experience what happens when progressive Dems with good messages can't convince the MSM early in the cycle that they're viable alternatives to Republican incumbents.  I'm not going to let future challengers fail just because some incumbents aren't perfect enough for you.

        by Adam B on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:53:23 AM PDT

        •  That's just elitist stereotyping.

          You seem to think that the only good Democrats are those who agree with you all the time

           The only Senate candidate this year I agree with all the time is Bernie Saunders. I simply recognise that some pols are unacceptably bad, no matter what party they belong to.

          by colleen on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:02:50 AM PDT

        •  willful ignorance.

          over a million women in america get abortions every year.  what happens to them when alito gets on the bench?

          how can you launch an offensive with a knife in your back?  he's devisive, he's ineffective and he harms the party message.  democrats need to stand up and fight - and they can't do it with lieberman constantly stabbing us in the back.  it's time for joe to go.

          the gop won't run anyone serious against lieberman because he's an asset to the gop.  lieberman needs to be harmed electorally - through low turnout or a primary challenger or even a general election challenger.

          if you don't get that then honestly, you're just being willfully ignorant.

          by kevin lyda on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:11:41 AM PDT

          •  after Alito gets on the bench

            Still five votes for Roe/Casey, though Stenberg will fall by June 2007.

            If Lieberman is vulnerable, the GOP will surely take advantage of the opportunity.  And I understand the problems with him -- I just don't believe it can be a priority given all our other races in 2006.

            by Adam B on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:13:52 AM PDT

            •  probably wrong

              Roe itself may stand, as Roberts or Kennedy may pay lip service to the idea of stare decisis.

              However, it's pretty clear that the substance of Roe will be rolled back pretty heavily.  Count Alito, Thomas, Scalia as automatic votes for any loony idea out there floated by the GOP establishment.  Count Roberts as a likely vote to roll back the penumbrae.  You're telling me Kennedy is the swing vote on abortion?

              And forget about abortion.  What about voting rights, Bush v. Gore, and the role of the presidency?  

              Alito is pretty crucial.  If he gets on the bench, the SC goes from being conservative to potentially being wingnutty.

              by dkmin on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:17:57 AM PDT

              •  oops

                read too quickly, see that you discuss stenberg.

                nonetheless, i think the more critical matter here (not that abortion isn't important) is the idea that you've now got 5 automatic votes in favor of many radical changes to the interpretation of the Constitution, and at least 3 genuinely revolutionary justices (or i should deevolutionary (or actually, i should say, intelligently designed)).

                by dkmin on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:20:53 AM PDT

        •  Democrats stand for nothing

          if they stand for Lieberman.

          Getting to majority is a pipedream if we stand for nothing.

          We're just a junior version of Republican power-mongering, making them look strong and better at what we're both trying to pull over on the American people.

          by macdust on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:42:17 AM PDT

          •  really?

            The RSCC has pumped millions into supporting Chafee in RI.  The GOP doesn't have this problem.

            by Adam B on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:46:44 AM PDT

            •  Precisely.

              And all the Democrats vote for him. The fact that Chafee is a Republican isn't enough of a deterrent.

              Because the Republicans are the party of power-before-principle.

              And the Democrats are imitators of the party of power-before-principle.

              We will never win that game.

              by macdust on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 11:00:23 AM PDT

    •  The vote against Alito doesn't count.

      It won't stop ALito.

      Only filibuster will stop Alito.

      A vote against Alito is the political equivalent of that standard-issue damage-control, "I wish it were a better bill, but it was the best we could get under the circumstances, so I voted for it."

      I does not matter how Lieberman votes. It only matters whether he allows a vote to occur.

      by macdust on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:37:51 AM PDT

    •  Let's Just Be Clear

      Alito approves of on-the-spot executions of minors who pose no physical threat for small-time crimes (of which they have not been convicted).

      Not doing everything to keep Alito out of the SCOTUS is a good reason to fight Lieberman. But not the only one.

      by NewDirection on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:40:43 AM PDT

      •  a case citation would be nice. NT

        .

        by Adam B on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:47:06 AM PDT

        •  From Kerry's Friday Floor Speech

          "In 1984, for example, Judge Alito wrote a Justice Department memorandum concluding that the use of deadly force against a fleeing unarmed suspect did not violate the fourth amendment. The victim was a 15-year-old African American. He was 5 foot 4. He weighed 100 to 110 pounds. This unarmed eighth grader was attempting to jump a fence with a stolen purse containing $10 when he was shot in the back of the head in order to prevent escape. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found the shooting unconstitutional because deadly force can only be used when there is `probable cause that the suspect poses a threat to the safety of the officers or a danger to the community if left at large.' That is what we teach law enforcement officials.

          "But Judge Alito disagreed. Judge Alito said: No, he believed the shooting was reasonable because `the State is justified in using whatever force is necessary to enforce its laws'--even deadly force. That is his conclusion. That is the standard that is going to go to the Supreme Court if ratified. It is OK to shoot a 15-year-old, 110 pounds, a 5-foot-4-inch kid who is trying to get over a fence with a purse, shoot him in the back of the head.

          "Otherwise, Judge Alito believed that any suspect could evade arrest by making the State choose between killing them or letting them escape. That is the conclusion. Think about that. Judge Alito believed that the State could use whatever force was necessary to enforce its laws regardless of whether the suspect was armed or dangerous. Does the Chair believe that? Do the other Senators believe that? I don't think so. Do mainstream Americans believe that?

          "Lucky for us, we did not have to answer that question. Why? Because in 1985, Justice White rejected Judge Alito's position, and the court held that deadly force is not justified `where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others.' The court stated unequivocally, `a police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.'

          
          

          by NewDirection on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:52:25 AM PDT

          •  ah, the fleeing felon case

            here's the memo.  For what it's worth, Justice O'Connor basically adopted this position in dissent.

            He's wrong.  And his reasoning should be alarming to some here -- it's an originalist "what the fourth amendment meant in 1790 is what it should mean now" case.

            by Adam B on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:59:06 AM PDT

            •  Thanks For The Additional Information

              I wasn't able to find that right away.

              The rightwing trend to promote (their) lawmakers and the idea of the police and the military is very hazardous. Those people and institutions are to be honored as enforcers of the law. But stripping the law of honor will in the long term undermine the respect for those people and institutions, reducing their efficacy no matter how draconian their employment.

              by NewDirection on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 11:33:51 AM PDT

  •  People, please when you call . . .

    give a Connecticut Zip Code: 06880 (is one)

    you can use 06880-this is zip code for Westport.  You are taken seriously if they believe you are a voting constituent.

    I just got off the phone with an Amit. He said Lieberman is leaning against support of filibuster. He went on to say that gang of 14 is meeting around 3-3:30. They are tallying calls which they will give Joementum. So call now and give the zip.

    I told my friend, Amit, they Lieberman is inviting a very well financed primary.

    by nyceve on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:47:23 AM PDT

•  and tell him

  you are considering supporting Ned Lamont.

  by thirdparty on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:19:53 AM PDT

  •  just got through

    Told the staffer that I am a long time supporter of liberman but if he votes for closer I will have to support Lamont in the primary!

    by npbeachfun on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:33:37 AM PDT

•  Support Ned Lamont

  Defeating Joe Lieberman in this year's primary is my #1 goal.  The Dems are never going to have a prayer until they purge the deadwood from the party.

  by asskicking annie on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:20:32 AM PDT

•  Wow!

  "All circuits are busy."

  Heh.  

  I'll keep trying.

  by Radiowalla on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:23:36 AM PDT

•  I'm on the phone with a staffer right now . . .

  She says they have no statement on it.

  When I asked she actually put me on hold for 5 minutes to discuss this with other staffers, then told me that no decision had been made.

  Call now!  Especially if you are from Ct.  

  by dbratl on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:25:37 AM PDT

•  Just spoke Lievberman's hartford office 12:23 est.

  The staffer that I spoke to claimed Lieberman had not made up his mind yet.  Maybe Hartford hasn't heard the news.

  by ProgressForGoodGov on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:25:53 AM PDT

  •  I just got off the phone with them too

    I think maybe they were just floating a trial balloon before to see how it would play in Greenwich?  

    by dbratl on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:26:52 AM PDT

•  WAIT...

  Call back and ask for clarification...

  Is Senator Lieberman not participating in the filibuster, OR is Senator Lieberman not participating in the cloture vote. Clarification on this is vital.

  by mph2005 on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:35:05 AM PDT

•  Just spoke to an inside DC Staffer . . .

  Here's the deal . . .

  1.  Lieberman is voting against Alito

  2.  The gang of 14 is meeting this afternoon.  The Republicans in the "gang" are going to push very hard and vocally that the Alito nomination does not constitute "extraordinary circumstances" and they will move to end the filibuster.

  3.  Joe is going to go to the meeting as are the other members, but his mind is not made up yet.

  4.  I asked if he would consider simply not voting for cloture, noting that our obvious preference would be for him to vote against, but that everyone would understand the courage it would take to simply  not vote.  The staffer said that Joe would indeed consider that option

  5.  Don't get your hopes up, "the gang" is definitely going to meet this afternoon and the Republican's in "the gang" are going to stage full court press to kill the filibuster. Still, at this late time, Joe Lieberman is keeping his options open and if Joe is, that means other gange members are too.

  Right now, our key line of attack are Gang members.  We should try to persuade them to simply not vote on the cloture resolution.  

  by dbratl on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:46:27 AM PDT

  •  it's simple...

    if he votes for cloture, a vote against alito is a slap in the face.  i'm not a ct voter but i am the dems abroad chair in ireland.  ct voters can do what they want but every ct voter in ireland will know who ned lamont is, they'll know how lieberman voted on alito and they'll know everything they need to know to vote in the primary.  ct will be my example state for every voter registration training event - everyone will know ct's rules and every effort will be made to make sure ct voters are registered and looked after.

    i will hardly be the only person in dems abroad doing such work.

    and i know several people who work in university libraries and i.t. departments in the states.  i'll do my best to encourage them to reach out to out of state students from ct to encourage them to vote as well.

    in my mind either lieberman votes no on cloture or he leaves office.  and i'll do everything i can to make that a reality.

    by kevin lyda on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:04:41 AM PDT

•  I'm confused

  What exactly does he gain by voting for Alito? He is (or could be)in a safe seat. Does he not care anymore? I listen to these Senators siting case after case where Alito is NOT in the "mainstream" and I can't understand any Democrat or moderate voting for this man.

  by tabbycat in tenn on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 09:56:13 AM PDT

•  IF LIEBERMAN VOTES FOR CLOTURE

  Lamont's campaign fund will go up almost overnight. When that happens, hopefully Mr.Lamont will make that information available to the public at every opportunity.

  by MO Blue on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:07:13 AM PDT