Lieberman critic switches from Democrat party to “CT for Lieberman” party, and takes over the party

Senator Joe Lieberman may have won the election as an independent, but there’s no doubt in anyone’s minds outside of the Nutroots that the guy is a solid Democrat and that he will, of course, caucus with the Dems.

That knowledge, however, has not stopped some of the Democratic party’s more intolerant members from being outraged enough – over the fact that Lieberman strayed from the party line on Iraq and outfoxed the Nutroots in the fall election – to take over the party Lieberman created in his bid to retain his Senate seat. The AP reports:

HARTFORD, Conn. — The party Sen. Joe Lieberman created to mount his independent re-election campaign has been seized by one of his critics, and the secretary of state’s office said Wednesday that it won’t challenge the takeover.

After the senator’s Nov. 7 victory under the Connecticut for Lieberman Party banner, John Orman switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Connecticut for Lieberman and voted himself chairman.

Orman, a political science professor who ran briefly against Lieberman last year, said only critics, bloggers and anyone named Lieberman can join the party, which he said would be a watchdog of the senator’s actions.

Ted Bromley, a lawyer for the secretary of the state’s office, said it won’t take a stance on the legitimacy of Orman’s leadership. He said the issue could be settled by a judge, but only if it’s challenged in court.


Orman had bitterly protested Lieberman’s creation of the party, saying it was a ploy to secure a better position on the ballot. In Connecticut, minor party candidates are listed on the ballot before unaffiliated party candidates.

Orman said he hopes to keep the Connecticut for Lieberman party active and endorse a Senate candidate in 2010.

Oh I sure hope so. I’d so love to see another Nutroots effort at winning Lieberman’s seat in 2010 (assuming he runs again). I enjoyed watching last year’s Nutroots meltown so much that I’d look forward to a repeat.

Hat tip: ST reader Mahwah

Update: ST reader Dana points out that Lieberman won’t actually be up for reelection until 2012 (glad to see his brain’s functioning tonight because mine sure isn’t) but that Chris Dodd will. Either way, I hope the moonbats in CT try their (bad) luck again in 2010 at capturing a Senate seat.

Will the NYT drop the public editor position?

Michael Calderone at the New York Observer reports that the NYT is reconsidering whether they should have a public editor for their newspaper:

The New York Times will soon decide whether it will do away with its public editor.

The two-year term of the current public editor, Byron (Barney) Calame, will conclude in May. There may, or may not, be another.

“Over the next couple of months, as Barney’s term enters the home stretch, I’ll be taking soundings from the staff, talking it over with the masthead, and consulting with Arthur” meaning publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., wrote Bill Keller, The Times’ executive editor, in an e-mail to The Observer.

Mr. Calame is the paper’s second public editor since Mr. Keller announced the job on his first day as executive editor in July 2003.

Mr. Keller wrote in his e-mail that “some of my colleagues believe the greater accessibility afforded by features like ‘Talk to the Newsroom’ has diminished the need for an autonomous ombudsman, or at least has opened the way for a somewhat different definition of the job.”

Mr. Keller added that “the creation of a public editor has helped the paper immensely in a period when the credibility of the media generally has been under assault.” The position at The Times was created in the wake of the Jayson Blair debacle that emerged in 2003.

When reached by phone on Dec. 29, Mr. Calame said he had heard the news. His assistant, Joseph Plambeck, had attended an in-house Q&A on Dec. 15, at which Mr. Keller expressed the idea.

“I have been critical of the newsroom” Mr. Calame said. “I’ve also praised the newsroom, and I think that Bill Keller has been—quite obviously—unhappy with some of the things I’ve written.”

“It seems to me that the high degree of independence that has been given to the public editor at The New York Times makes it a situation that inevitably causes criticism” Mr. Calame said.

He added: “So it is not a surprise to me that The New York Times—that Bill Keller, the executive editor, and Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher—would want to sit down and think about whether they want to have a public editor.”

Lawhawk writes:

That the Times would now consider eliminating the public editor position strikes me as bad timing, though the paper notes that with the creation of new blogs within the paper’s online edition that feedback with readers is better.

The problem is that the paper still refuses to deal with fixing the process of correcting its reporting when it has been shown to be wrong. The paper is arrogant in its refusal to correct the record of this most recent error-filled article, and that doesn’t bode well for the so-called “paper of record.”

Yep, and arrogant for considering the possibility of eliminating the public editor position, as if they didn’t need one.

Creating the public editor position is one of the few things the NYT has gotten right in their response to strong criticisms about the MSM from both the right and left. For their sakes, Pinch and Keller would do well to leave the position in place.

VIDEO: Cindy Sheehan, other far left anti-war protesters, disrupt Dem press conference

Nutroots City LimitsRep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) was nicer than he should have been in the face of the disruption. Of course he probably realizes that crowd, as part of the Nutroots faction, helped get his party elected to the majority, so showing a little ‘respect’ for Sheehan and Co. appeared to be what he chose to do in response. Taking sort of a “don’t bite the hand that feeds” approach.

Here’s the story from Fox News.

Hat tip: ST reader Mwalimu Daudi

Update I: Via BizJournals:

Before the chanting started, Sheehan got a hug from Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Awww. Now why does that not surprise me?

Update II: Check out the reaction at Think condemnation for Mother Sheehan’s actions is being expressed? Think again.

Update III: Here’s a better copy of the video from Ian at Hot Air. I didn’t realize Sheehan walked up to the podium where Emanuel had previously been. She used Emanuel’s podium as her pulpit after she and her crew yelled loud enough to get the Dems to leave it. Unreal.

Also blogging about this: MKH, Ankle Biting Pundits, News Buckit, Red State, The American Mind, Stop The ACLU, Right Voices

Washington Post takes Dems to task for not practicing what they preach

More piling on. I love it. Snippets:

THE NEW Democratic House majority has an ambitious plan for its first 100 hours in power, from increasing the minimum wage to strengthening ethics rules to having the federal government negotiate prescription drug prices. Unfortunately, its plans don’t include getting those provisions passed in the democratic fashion that the Democrats promised to adhere to once in the majority. When Republicans took over in 1995, they at least went through the motions of putting their “Contract With America” proposals through the normal committee process. Democrats under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have decided not to bother with that, nor to let Republicans offer amendments on the floor, nor even to put a GOP alternative up for a vote. This is exactly the kind of high-handed mistreatment that Democrats complained about, justifiably, when they were in the minority.

Democrats offer various rationales for their about-face. They say the streamlined process is necessary because they’ve pledged to accomplish so much in their first 100 legislative hours. But what makes living up to that self-imposed deadline — which will stretch on for weeks, in any event — more important than living up to their promise of procedural fairness? And why, even if that deadline is sacrosanct, couldn’t Republicans at least be offered an opportunity to offer alternatives on the floor?

In the meantime, get ready for the Democratic lobbyists, who I’m sure will pay close attention to House Dems’ ethics reform package – about as much as Dems themselves will, anyway.

Liberal icon Kieth Olbermann’s “special comment” on sacrifices made in Iraq: They’re “meaningless”

See for yourself here.

Rallying around KO? The usual suspects (90% of those blogs are liberal), of course.

Hat tip: Macranger, who has a word or two for KO and his devoted followers.

Related: Johnny Dollar at Olbermann Watch has a recap of last night’s “special comment” from KO and notes several instances of KO hypocrisy. Surprise surprise.

Prior instances of Olby blatantly catering to his far left audience (something he foolishly denies doing):