Ned Lamont; quit while your behind

[killerbush]

Liberal websites are talking up Ned Lamont like he can beat Joe Lieberman. I'm here to tell you it won't happen. I live in Connecticut, and Lieberman has a lot of support in this state, and I mean A LOT OF SUPPORT. Ned, I like the idea of you running against Lieberman, but face the facts, quit while your behind.:shrug:

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

3. what? Is there a problem with stating an opinion?

[killerbush]

5. Ohh I know

But sometimes saying the truth hurts.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[killerbush]

22. Hey Sammy, get a life

Bush is not my boy. Only a lunatic of the first degree would think that.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[mdmc]

117. wassup dancin bear!

doncha love Joementum!

[Ken Burch]

46. My, what a classy and erudite response.

I don't agree with the guy either, Sammy, but that was a might over the top.

(Besides, at Free Republic, they don't live in their own feces.

They have servants to live in it for them.)

[Ken Burch]

7. So you want Connecticut voters to be forced to vote for Lowell Weicker

If they want a senator that doesn't support the war and the Bush agenda?

You certainly can't ask progressives to vote for Lieberman with a clear conscience.

[killerbush]

8. Weicker is a has been

Lieberman kicked his butt years ago.

[dolstein]

12. It was actually a very close race

I actually think Lieberman would beat Weicker by a comfortable margin (since Weicker no longer has a base of support among Republicans), but let's not rewrite history.

[salin]

168. While I favor Weicker (as a non-republican)

and found him one of the few republicans that I respected on the Hill when I worked around the Hill in the mid/late eighties; and he is (as I have stated before) the only republican I have ever, ever supported in a race against a democrat (back in 1988) - I have to agree that I think Lieberman would beat Wiecker soundly.

Wiecker, as governor, implemented an income tax (to me, a reasonable thing, but to those who have not had to ever pay one on a state level - a thing of great resentment.) From what I have heard from folks in Conneticut over the years is that is doubtful that he would ever make a political comeback in the state. This from folks who also recognize that the tax put the state into financial stability - but that point is less salient (according to them) than the tying of Weicker to the tax in per petuity.

[wyldwolf]

2. LOL!

I agree. Lamont will lose.

But you're gonna catch hell for saying it! (oops! so will I!)

[iconoclastNYC]

161. We doesn't even need to win.

This is a huge message to other DLC operatives that they will not be given a pass anymore. This is a warning shot and the start of soemething greater than just getting rid of Joe.

[Burma Jones]

4. your behind is what?

on fire, small, large, what is his behind?

[Tinksrival]

6. How Rude!

:spank:

[mdmc]

118. like your sig line!

:kick:

[dolstein]

9. But maybe it will help Lieberman in the general election

Personally, I think that Lamont running against Lieberman in the primary may actually lead to even more crossover votes for Lieberman in the general election. The Lamont challenge makes Lieberman to appear much more conservative than he really is (he's actually pretty liberal on most issues), and makes him more attractive to independent and Republican voters. With Lamont running against him and Shays endorsing him, I wouldn't be surprised if Lieberman gets more Republican votes than his Republican opponent (assuming there is a Republican opponent). What DU'ers fail to understand is that the reason why some Republicans want to nominate Lieberman is because they're afraid that if they don't, Lieberman's victory will be so lopsided that it could hurt Republican candidates further down on the ballot.

[killerbush]

13. Lieberman

Already has more Republican support than democratic support

[dolstein]

28. He enjoys strong support among Democrats and Republicans

And he enjoys more suport among Democrats in Connecticut than Lamont does.

From the NY Times:

<<A Feb. 16 poll by Quinnipiac University showed Mr. Lieberman defeating Mr. Lamont by 55 points in a Democratic primary. The poll also found that 63 percent of those questioned approved of the job Mr. Lieberman was doing, with 71 percent of Republicans approving compared with 57 percent of the Democrats.>>

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/nyregion/02lieberman.html

Are you suggesting that someone who enjoys 57% of support among Democrats, and who is running well ahead of his primary opponent, should be denied the nomination simply because his popularity extends across party lines?

[mdmc]

119. then why call for the liberal progressive to exit the race

why?:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

17. Say what?

"What DU'ers fail to understand is that the reason why some Republicans want to nominate Lieberman is because they're afraid that if they don't, Lieberman's victory will be so lopsided that it could hurt Republican candidates further down on the ballot."

How could Lieberman's victory be lopsided if he doesn't win the primary? Or are you saying that the GOP wants Lieberman to be their nominee as well?(Is that legal in Ct?)The logic in the sentence doesn't quite track as written.

[dolstein]

34. The GOP believes Lieberman will win the Democratic nomination

And yes, cross endorsements are allowed in Connecticut. I believe that the first time Lieberman ran for re-election, he did so as the nominee of both the Democratic Party and the party Lowell Weicker formed. Cross-endorsements are pretty common in New York, where I live. I believe that in one mayoral election, Ed Koch was the nominee of both the Democratic and the Republican parties.

I think that it least some Republicans figure than since they can't beat him, they may as well nominate him, and that having Lieberman appear on both the Republican and the Democratic line might help neutralize any impact he might have down the ticket.

In any event, this is all a moot point, as Lieberman has already said that he won't accept the Republican nomination, and most Republican party leaders in Connecticut aren't too keen on nominating a Democrat.

[Ken Burch]

42. Hypothetical then...If Lieberman lost the Democratic primary

But won the GOP primary(even though he has said he wouldn't accept the GOP nomination)can we be sure he wouldn't run as a Republican if the choice was that or retirement?

[dolstein]

72. That's a pretty bizarre hypothetical

I don't think it's possible for Lieberman to even appear on the ballot in a Republican primary without his consent, which he's already indicated will not be forthcoming.

Considering the fact that Lieberman is a life-long Democrat, I would expect Lieberman to retire if he were to lose in the primary. And since he's a mensch, he'd probably endorse and actively campaign for Lamont, at least if Lamont's anti-Lieberman rhetoric doesn't get too nasty during the primary.

[iconoclastNYC]

162. It's called FUSION VOTING - Open Ballot Voting

http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/fusion.html

[More Than A Feeling]

10. Thanks for letting us know how frightened Lieberman is! n/t

[killerbush]

14. Sorry to tell you

Lieberman isn't frightened. He'll campaign like he always does. The people of Connecticut trust him, even though he backs Bush on the war.

[More Than A Feeling]

19. When's the last time a sitting senator

had to make a show of getting the endorsement of every elected Democratic official in the state?

Lieberman is scared.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/24/121520/077

P.S I'll be donating to Ned Lamont in your honor!:-)

[dolstein]

36. Oh please, this is a bunch of crap

If Lieberman hadn't highlighted the support he was getting from Democratic officials and unions, you'd and the other Lieberman bashers would be claiming that such support didn't exist.

[More Than A Feeling]

41. You're probably right, which is why Lieberman did it.

My point is, senators normally don't make a big deal about getting such support, because it is assumed. That Lieberman did do it, shows that he is concerned about Ned Lamont and what "Lieberman bashers" think. If he wasn't, he'd be barely campaigning, since his support is higher among Republicans than it is among Democrats and self-described liberals.

[dolstein]

69. Again, more crap

If Lieberman didn't bother to campaign for the nomination, Lieberman bashers like you would be claiming that he takes primary voters for granted and arrograntly expects to be coronated.

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely nothing Lieberman could do, short of dropping out, or better yet, dropping dead, that would please the hard-core Lieberman bashers like you. Fortunately, people like you are far outnumbered in Connecticut by people who know Lieberman well and actually like the guy.

[Ken Burch]

73. He could finally admit the war was wrong, and stop bashing peace Dems

and progressives. That would help.

[dolstein]

84. He's not "bashing" peace Dems

Seriously, that's not Lieberman's style, and of course, that's one reasons why the fire breathers on the far left despise him. Lieberman's perfectly entitled to express his views on the Iraq war. He's taken a position, it's a principled one, and he's sticking to it even though it isn't especially popular. He's expressed disagreements with other Democrats, but he's done so in his typically polite style. To suggest that he's "bashing" people who oppose the war is pretty rich considering all the nasty things the left has been saying about him (and, truth be told, the left-wing's smear campaign against Lieberman long predated the Iraq war).

[Ken Burch]

135. Lieberman set up a group with Lynne Cheney

for the express purpose of questioning the loyalty and patriotism of antiwar activists.

If that isn't bashing(or, more accurately, McCarthyism)what is?

[dolstein]

142. Please provide a quote of Lieberman "bashing" Democrats

I can point to plenty of examples of DU'ers bashing Lieberman. Clearly, if Lieberman is truly as malicious as you claim, there should be countless examples of Lieberman spewing vitriol and invective at fellow Democrats.

[Ken Burch]

145. Setting up a peacenik-bashing PAC with Lynne Cheney

(BTW, this is documented in the article about Lamont someone else linked to in this thread)is proof enough.

[Douglas Carpenter]

149. here is one link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/?section=cnn_latest

Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut reproached fellow Democrats for criticizing President Bush during a time of war.

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said

[iconoclastNYC]

164. Yeah.

That's a disgusting quote on Liberman. He's picking up Bush's DISSENT = TREASON meme.

[dolstein]

170. Is that the best you can do?

That's not bashing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

176. Accusing the Democratic Party of endangering American Security

can reasonably be called bashing. No wonder Sean Hannity is endorsing him.

[dolstein]

177. That's not what he said

NT

[iconoclastNYC]

163. DUers aren't SENATORS

SENATORS are held to higher standards you ninny.

[More Than A Feeling]

82. Can I ask why you feel so strongly about this?

What has Joe Lieberman done to earn your loyalty?

[Ken Burch]

86. You can ask, but I don't think they'll tell.

And I suspect its largely because they think they've been proved right and everyone else has been proved wrong, and that also
they enjoy trying to silence those they disagree with.

[dolstein]

88. I'm a Democrat, that's why I feel strongly about this

As a Democrat, I believe that people should speak out against injustice, and I believe that the smear campaign against Joe Lieberman that is being waged by the left is simply unjust. Lieberman is a decent man and has been a reliable vote on most issues of importance to liberals. He's more hawkish on defense than most in the party, although his views are actually much closer to where the Democratic Party used to be pre-1972. And frankly, I think it's important to have some hawks in the party, because we're supposed to be a big tent party the close association of the Democratic Party with the anti-war movement has been pretty crippling for its credibility on national security matters.

Joe Lieberman has devoted most of his life to the Democratic Party, which is more than can be said for many around here, who threaten to vote third party at the drop of a hat. I think the attacks on him go well beyond the bounds of civil discourse. Perhaps you are new to DU, but these attacks actually predated the Iraq War. Indeed, they predated 9/11. I think many on the left despise him for his religious faith and his willingness to speak openly about issues of morality. Sure, he makes an easy target because of his outspoken support for the war in Iraq, but let's not kid ourselves -- if the Iraq war had never happened, the left would still be attacking Lieberman.

[More Than A Feeling]

97. Would it be fair to say that the larger issue is not Joe Lieberman...

but "the left"?

[sendero]

137. Puhlease...

... unjust my ASS. Lieberman is one of a handful of asshat Senators who praise George Bush at every opportunity. He can go straight to hell.

And while I'm at it, ANYONE who could STILL support this heinous, costly and eventually disastrous WAR is evil or stupid, traits I don't look for in friends much less leaders.

[Douglas Carpenter]

139. talking about a brutal and immoral foreign policy is talking about

issues of morality.

Public honesty rather than Sen. Lieberman's either cynical or delusional comments are also an issue of morality.

But maybe I'm just old fashioned and square.

I can accept that there were those who may have been bamboozled at an earlier stage of the game. But to enthusiastically support Bush's war policy now is immoral.

[skyblue]

141. If he went against the war, we'd be at war anyway.

I don't vote my heart. I vote my strategy. I vote with the knowledge that there are other people who think differently than me. Good Points Dolstein. I know there are Dems who would vote for former tobacco lobbyist Weicker whose excess campaign money probably won't go back into the Dem party. That strikes me as scary. But once again, whether he's for the war or not the war will go on. I love the idea of the big tent party, btw.

[still_one]

37. monday I will get in another 25 buck to lamont

best money I spent

[killerbush]

98. Heaven and Earth

If you want to waste your money on Lamont, then be my guest.

[radio4progressives]

59. Seems like you're asserting that it's pretty much a Slam Dunk

for Joey...

what's the point of even posting it here? Slam Dunk, DU'rs are pretty much out of the mainstream of CT voters, eh?

well then, go ahead and crown your republican boy and leave it be..

[movonne]

77. I believe he also backs bush on the port deal...and if he backs him

in the war then he backs him in torture...they go hand in hand..Is this what the fine people of Conn. want in a Senator???

[JerseygirlCT]

79. Not all of us

The question is really whether Lamont will give us something to really fight for. So far, he's something of a mystery -- just the "not-Joe" candidate.

I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which CT Dems are tired of his Bush-loving, war-hawk stance. At the very least, perhaps a primary scare would remind him which party he's supposed to belong to.

[martymar64]

147. So the people of CT

have no problem with his unmitigated support of the war in Iraq? What about the fact that everytime the Republicans want a Democrat to trash other Democrats, they call on Joementum? Just asking.

[belpejic]

11. Hmmm

Your title actually makes me think that Lamont might get ahead. And let me tell you, nothing would thrill me more. I try to take a balanced look at Joementum, and there are many things to admire, but at the end of the day he needs to go. He might be a social liberal, but when it comes to foreign policy he is a neocon enabler. And neocon foreign policy has been nothing but an unmitigated distaster for our country and for the world. No-one who supports that dogma should be electorally spared.

[belpejic]

15. Furthermore

What does Lamont's behind have anything to do with the issue?

[wyldwolf]

20. it's actually bigger than Lieberman's

Which will slow Lamont down in the race and, when he falls, will serve as padding. Or not. Or whatever. Hell, just trying to make a "behind" joke and failing miserably.

[radio4progressives]

85. Wyldwolf, just because Lieberman enjoys Huge Republican Support,

is not a credibile cause for celebration among real Democrats.

You really ought to relish in your assumptions of victory off the radar screen, and with your Republicans friends who are so obviously desperate to make sure no serious Liberal or Progressive ever wins that seat.

[wyldwolf]

110. what does your point have to do with Lieberman's behind?

Or with me?

[belpejic]

113. Nice try, wyldwolf

I'm a grammar geek. Many apologies to everyone else...

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

21. you have a lot less posts than I do...

Just saying.

[killerbush]

24. I just started

A couple of days ago. i'll take me a while to be where you are.

[wyldwolf]

31. I was talking to Teaser, not to you

He pointed out your low post count. I pointed out his low post count compared to mine. Point? Low post counts are not a determination of who is credible and who isn't.

[Teaser]

47. You don't know my post count coolio.

you only think you do.

[wyldwolf]

51. unless you post under several identities, you post count, coolio...

...is 3649.

[Teaser]

54. wrongo, ODB.

:)

and not for the reason you posted, either.

[wyldwolf]

58. well, then, snoop dog

There is only one way a poster with 3649 posts can secretly have more posts - he/she has posts from another identity. Perhpaps you can show us differently?

[Teaser]

62. I have only ever had a single account here.

:)

[wyldwolf]

63. with 3653 posts and counting

:)

[Ken Burch]

50. It's not the size of the post count, it's what you do with them!

nt.

[wyldwolf]

53. exactly, so why did coolio point out a poster's post count?

The world will never know.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

66. Diddy, Snoop Dogg, enough already!

nt.

[wyldwolf]

68. Yo! Word to your mutha.

[Ken Burch]

71. Stay out of this, Vanilla!

NT.

[Teaser]

43. And I been here WAY longer than you.

Just saying.

[wyldwolf]

55. but you're the one who is making post counts an issue

Just saying. Coolio.

[still_one]

23. I am NOT from connecticut, but I donated to Ned Lamont

and no one will tell me EVER who I can or cannot support

In fact I do NOT even understand the purpose of this thread

I guess this is just another lost cause, but I would rather lose EVERY lost cause that is right, then win one cause that is wrong

[killerbush]

27. What is there not to understand

Lamont is going down in flames, simple as that.

[still_one]

32. Liberman has helped kill 2300 Americans

wounded over 15,000 Americans, and killed over 100000 Iraqiis by helping perpetuate the lie that is Iraq

It is an issue of what is morally right, and liberman is NOT morally right

[dolstein]

74. Actually, Ralph Nader and his supporters are responsible for these deaths

After all, if it weren't for Nader's third party campaign, Al Gore would be president, the 9/11 attack probably would have been stopped, and even if it weren't, Gore would no better than to get bogged down in Iraq.

Next time you might want to be carefully about using slippery logic like that. You never know where it might lead.

[Ken Burch]

87. You're assuming Gore wouldn't have caved to the war party

That's hardly an unchallengable assertion.

Gore lost because he was fixated on sounding as indistinguishable from Dubya as possible.
What that race proved was that centrism doesn't work in presidential campaigns anymore.

Stop blaming Ralph for the party's decision to drive progressives out.
There's a limit to how many times you can betray people and then say they
still owe you unquestioning loyalty.

[dolstein]

89. Did you vote for Gore?

Just curious. It sounds like you didn't. It probably explains a lot. I suppose I'd be feeling a little defensive too if I had helped elect the most right-wing administration this country has ever seen.

[Ken Burch]

90. I live in Alaska, so my vote really didn't matter.

I would have voted for Gore in a swing state, where it would have mattered. I quit the party in 1993, when Clinton stopped being a Democrat and sent the Haitian refugees back to die for no reason. I came back to work for Kucinich when it finally began to look like the party would start disagreeing with Republicans and actually trying to win. I am NOT to blame for Dubya.

Gore caused his own defeat by running to the right. If he'd run as a Democrat he'd have won going away.

[dolstein]

91. Let me get this straight -- you quit the party, think Clinton wasn't a Dem

and on top of all that didn't even bother to vote for Al Gore in 2000. And yet you feel you have the right to kick Joe Lieberman out of the party. Sheesh.

[Ken Burch]

92. I left the party when the party made it clear

that it didn't want progressives to stay in it any longer. I stayed loyal to the principles the party abandoned.
I have returned to the party to try to help it recover and become relevant again.
That gives me as much right to speak as Democrats who set up organizations to attack the patriotism of
antiwar activists(like Lieberman did with Lynne Cheney)have.

And again, since there is no chance whatsoever that a senator to Lieberman's right can be elected in Ct. why are you guys
so obsessed with silencing all dissent?

[dolstein]

96. For someone who feels they were pushed out of the party

you seem to be particularly eager to push other people out. That's rich.

[Ken Burch]

100. Not that many other people. Just Lieberman, and I don't even want

to push HIM out of the party. Just out of a Senate seat he no longer deserves to hold as a Democrat.
And, again, there is no credible candidate to Lieberman's right this year, so your obsession
with imposing unquestioning Democratic loyalty to Holy Joe is a pointless, really.

It doesn't have to be "the lesser of evils", when, other than Lieberman, there is no electable
"evil" in Connecticuit this year.

It's not your place to determine who is and who is not entitled to have a say on this, dolstein.

[dolstein]

103. Actually, the only people who get to decide this

are the Democratic primary voters of Connecticut. These are the same people who have nominated Joe Lieberman three consecutive times, and are poised to nominate him for a fourth term. Are you willing to respect their judgement? I certainly am. If the Democratic primary voters of Connecticut say that Lieberman's a Democrat, that's good enough for me.

[Ken Burch]

104. If YOU respect their judgment, why are you joining with those

who are taunting Lamont and demanding that he get out of the race?

As I've said, there's no electable candidate to Lieberman's right, so there's nothing to lose
by voting for Lamont.

(And OF COURSE I know that Ct. voters are the ones who will decide this race. I just want
them to have a real choice. Those who demand that Lamont withdraw don't want them to have a choice.
Why?)

And I will always resist it when people use McCarthyism against me
because I wasn't always a registered Democrat. Even when I wasn't, I voted
for Democrats 90% of the time. I left for awhile because, under Clinton, there
was no good reason for progressive people to STAY in the party. Some did anyway, largely
out of habit, and I admire their willingness to stay on in a party that unjustly demonized
them and left them out in the cold.

[dolstein]

105. Have you read any of my posts?

I'm not taunting Lamont, and I'm not asking him to get out of the race. When DU'ers launch baseless attacks on Lieberman, I respond in kind, but I have no particular beef with Lamont. If he wants to run, fine. As I said above, I think a challenege to Lieberman from the left will only enhance Lieberman's standing among moderate Democrats, independents and Republicans.

I stand my argument that you are in no position to impose a litmus test on other Democrats, and I find your martyr complex somewhat disturbing.

[Ken Burch]

107. So would you agree that killerbush was wrong to start this thread?

nt

[wyldwolf]

111. no more wrong than anyone who starts any thread that bashes

any Democrat.

Are you proposing a moratorium on threads that bash or criticize and Democrat? Or just Democrats you like?

[Ken Burch]

130. The issue isn't bashing. The issue is demands for withdrawal

If Duckworth has the right to stay in the race, so does Lamont. If a strong progressive frontrunner should not be immune from a conservative challenger in the Illinois 6th primary, than a conservative frontrunner should not be immune from a challenge in the Ct. Senate race.

And let me remind you, there is no electable conservative Republican in the Ct. race, so Ct. progressives have nothing to lose by dumping Lieberman. The demand for Lamont's withdrawal is therefore arrogant and unjustified.

[MrBenchley]

127. Notice it doesn't keep him from clogging a Democratic forum

and bashing Democrats.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

148. Geeze, Ken, YOU announced you were leaving

And it's no lie to point out that the Democrats who come under attack by name are almost always
--running for election/re-election in 2006, and
--coasting toward victory.

Now I suggest you go cry about it to somebody else.

[Ken Burch]

154. The fact that those Democrats that are attacked

may have those two things in common means nothing more than that they have those two things in common.
And you have never offered a plausible explanation as to why progressives would want to help
Republicans. In a science class, they'd say you've shown correlation but not causation.

Also, as you point out, those people are coasting to victory. So why do you even care what is
said about them?

[MrBenchley]

157. I suggest you go sob about it to somebody else

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

167. Go sob about it to somebody else, since it's no lie

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

174. When It comes to you, Benchley, I never sob, I laugh.

Why you think your bullying, loutish tactics help the candidates you support is completely beyond me.
I'm surprised they don't beg you to stop.

The Democratic Party doesn't need what you bring to it.

[MH1]

99. Gore NEVER sounded "indistinguishable" from Dubya.

I used to support the Green party....this nonsense they started in 2000 ended my interest in them.

Speaking of betrayal...lying about others for their own benefit was certainly be a step down that road for the US Green party. And some of were still pulling that shit in 2004 - lying about Kerry - and are STILL doing it.

No, I will NOT get over it. At least not as long as they are still playing that game.

[windbreeze]

122. This is such baloney

Al Gore is NOT president....because Al Gore did NOT convince people like me, that he WANTED to be president...I was never so bored to death with a candidate in my life.....and you know what...this Nader crap repeatedly being brought up, is becoming as sickening as the r's blaming CLINTON for everything that's happened since * has held the job...it's over...it's in the past...it cannot be changed..and it is redundant to claim what would or would NOT have happened IF Gore had been president....because he ISN'T, and therefore no one can possibly know what might or might not have been....It seems to me, there were some other factors involved in Gore's losing the election...other than Nader ie: electronic voting machines tampered with...and Kathyrn Harris purged voter rolls....and a SC decision...(Gore supporters, no offence meant...perhaps the man could convince me now...he just couldn't then)

windbreeze

[Ken Burch]

70. Given that there is no credible or even vaguely electable GOP candidate

why do you even CARE if Lamont stays in the race?

This is a "no risk" contest, just like in New York.

[Ken Burch]

76. If so, there's no reason for you to be demanding that he withdraw

Why did you even start this thread? Why not just have a beer and chill out?
Logically, if you weren't scared that Lamont might surpass expectations you
wouldn't be obsessed with getting him out of the race.

There isn't any situation that would lead to Lieberman being replaced by a more conservative senator,
so the hysterical paranoia that started this thread is completely untethered from reality.

[mdmc]

120. aye. so what?

I still don't get your point. Joementum can't be beat. Joementum is on a roll. I still don't understand why you would like to see the progressive drop out. It makes no sense.

In NYS Hillary Clinton is running vs. two primary opponents, and two republicans. She is going to win in a landslide. Why should these progressives exit the race? Every time they are mentioned, the anti-war movement gets noticed. They are running cause our party has become the gop - lite. Let them run, Hillary and Joementum will still landslide.

[Old and In the Way]

25. Very insightful analysis.

I'm sure this will make people reconsider voting for Lamont in the primaries.

But, what the hell, I just kicked in another $25.00 for Ned.

[wyldwolf]

26. Anyone for a DU betting pool on this race? Money to go charity.

$50. in the pot for Lieberman. Place your bets.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. I'm glad he's running.

I don't expect him to win, but I think that these primary challenges are a healthy thing, and that they send a message to DINOs like Joe.

I'm happy to have sent him a donation.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[killerbush]

33. people in Ct

Have always liked Joe. He tells it like it is, and isn't afraid to back unpopular decisions, like the war in Iraq.

[still_one]

35. how many more deaths are worth it for a war based on a lie?

joe does not "tell it like it is"

when he came back from iraq, he lied about the state of affairs their

The integrity you presume from him does NOT exist

[JerseygirlCT]

81. Blech

He tells it like it is?

You're kidding right? This is the boy who made a career of sitting on fences whenever possible? (Remember Clarence Thomas?)

He's pathologically in need of being liked. So much so that he's thrown his lot in with the nastiest characters we've seen in the US gov't in a very long time.

These aren't unpopular decisions, they're evil decisions.

[martymar64]

150. So you're saying he was right to send us to war?

Tell us how you really feel.

[CatFelyne]

175. Re: people in CT

Um....NO I don't think so. Don't take it upon yourself to speak for the rest of us in the state.

Unfortunately, it seems that Joe lost touch with many of his constituents some time ago. The hardworking average citizen appears to have been forgotten by him. However if you're affluent and comfortable in your McMansion, he seems be one heck of a guy. What more not to like, a Repub in a Dem suit, he votes Dem just enough to keep them happy, but Repub through and through when it counts, especially when it may affect their wallets.


Only reason I would've voted for him would be to keep a Repub out of that seat. No one has generated enough money or interest to be able to do anything about him.
Many of us are struggling to get by, yes even some of us in Fairfield county.
You think we don't know how he is screwing with us in terms of the Iraq war, civil liberties, healthcare, helping the rich get richer---Yes we do.

IMO, many people won't take Lamont seriously until he's got a lot of PR and a few prominent Dems openly supporting him. That needs to happen and soon.

Personally, I'm looking forward to voting in this primary, even if it's absentee since I'm in grad school here in LA. Someone needs to stand up to Lieberman and call him out publicly on his job performance, because it's review time.

(P.S.- I'd love to get Lamont sticker for my car, if someone is able to help me out with that please PM me)

[acmejack]

38. Ah investigation of mr Killerbush's site reveals his name there:

"DLCmajority" What remains to be said?

[wyldwolf]

39. Sooo?

I back DLC Democrats.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

48. Or you and you gang can form a ...

Revolutionary wannabe club?

[Ken Burch]

146. His "proclivities"? now c'mon, acmejack...

He supports the DLC. He isn't into bondage and necrophilia.

There is a slight difference, y'know.

[Teaser]

45. The first step towards a cure is

admitting you have a problem.

Good Luck!

[wyldwolf]

49. if it's an illness, I don't want a cure. But thanks

[Teaser]

60. Ah well, you'll have to hit rock bottom then.

Hope it's fun for you.

[wyldwolf]

64. well, winning usually is fun for me

[Ken Burch]

140. Progressives believe in winning too.

Democrats don't have to be as conservative as possible to win.
Wellstone proved that. Feingold keeps proving it.
And many others prove it every election day.

[MrBenchley]

129. So does most of the country....

[killerbush]

94. Yes I want a DLC majority

It was quite clear during the 70's and early 80's that liberals couldn't run the country. Clinton won in 1992 as a DLC democrat.

[dolstein]

101. Actually, liberals have rarely been in a position to run the country

There were relatively brief periods in the 30s and the 60s when liberals controlled the government. But for much of the New Deal era, the Democratic Party depended on conservative Democrats in the South for their control of Congress and for the electoral votes needed to elect a president. It's no coincidence that the decline of the Democratic Party in the South coincided with the loss of Democratic majorities in Congress and a string of Republican victories in presidential elections.

[mdmc]

121. you have a dlc majority

I still don't see why you oppose a novelty progressive challenge against Joementum. Why is that?

[jonnyblitz]

40. he may not win but THIS CT household has two votes for Lamont

in the primaries.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Crunchy Frog]

112. Project much? n/t

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

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

[BillZBubb]

56. Sure hope Lamont pulls it out!

Sure, he's an underdog against a heavily corporate sponsored, pseudo-liberal incumbent. But, I certainly am happy he's trying and he should not quit. No one should quit when they are doing the right thing.

[Larkspur]

65. I love the smell of fear coming from the Lieberman camp

If Lamont didn't pose a threat to Lieberman, you wouldn't be hearing this kind of dribble. Lieberman would ignore Ned like Casey in PA ignores Penacchio, but we all know that the polls show that Lieberman's support among likely Dem voters is soft and the more Lieberman campaigns the less people like him. That's what frightens the Lieberman folks.

[Nutmegger]

78. Well said Larkspur

:applause:

[More Than A Feeling]

83. Bingo!

That's what I have been trying to tell people in this thread, as well.

[Hawkeye-X]

108. Man.. I just wish they'd REMEMBER what DLC did to Dean in '04.

And not to condemn themselves to repeat the same mistakes.

[MrBenchley]

128. DLC didn't DO anything to Dean....

Dean never finished higher than third in any primary.

[Larkspur]

151. Dean won his home state of Vermont 63% to 33%(Kerry)

This was AFTER Dean stopped campaigning. It was a national grassroots movement that informed Vermont voters that they could still vote for Dean in the Prez primary. And Vermonters gave Dean a big vote of confidence; whereas, CT voters voted for Kerry in the CT primary and put Lieberman in a distant 2nd place.

[MrBenchley]

152. Vermont isn't a major primary

being a teeny-tiny state, and Dean was the favorite son....

[Larkspur]

153. Not the point. Dean won his home state. Lieberman lost his home state

so what does that tell you about CT Dems and Lieberman? CT Dems don't like Lieberman enough to give him a vote of confidence, like VT voters did for Dean.

[MrBenchley]

155. That was exactly the point....

The DLC didn't do a fucking thing to Dean...Dean failed to catch fire with most Democrats.

"CT Dems don't like Lieberman enough to give him a vote of confidence"
Yeah, it shows....(snicker)

"U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman gets a 63 - 25 percent approval, unchanged from January 11. By a 63 - 26 percent margin, including 69 percent of Republicans, Connecticut voters say Sen. Lieberman deserves to be reelected.
Lieberman would defeat former Gov. Lowell Weicker 62 - 21 percent.
In a possible Democratic primary, the incumbent beats businessman Ned Lamont 68 - 13 percent. "

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=875

[Larkspur]

171. But the Rasmussan poll shows Lieberman with only a 11 pt lead on Lamont

with "likely" Dems, those who most likely will vote in a primary. This 11 pt lead is not a comfortable one for an incumbant against a guy with a 3% name recognition rating. The more people see and hear Ned, the more they will like him. The more people see Lieberman, the less they like him.

[Hawkeye-X]

159. Uh.... CT didn't give Lieberman the vote of confidence...

or Lieberman would have won his homestate in '04. Kerry did. So STFU and deal with it, you DLC whore.

(I have a few DLC friends, and you, sir, are not one of them, and even one particular DLC member supported Dean wholeheartedly before leaving DU).

[Hawkeye-X]

158. Wrong. Dean won VT.

And that was after he quit, as noted by others. We still kept the campaign strong! Get your uninformed DLC ass out of my subthread.

[IndianaGreen]

138. I agree with your analysis, Larkspur!

I am amazed at these DLC pukes trying to prevent the voters from casting their votes in a primary. Holy Joe is toast!

[MercutioATC]

67. YES!! Kill the underdog before he causes a ruckus!

Screw that.

You don't happen to have a sock puppet that posts in the Ohio Forum, do you?

[JerseygirlCT]

75. Not so fast

He's got lots of support -- from CT Republicans. He's got to get past the primary first. And who turns out for the primary? Democrats, particularly left-leaning Dems -- the ones who are sick to death of his behavior.

Check this out:

http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-bass0305.artmar05,0,338306.story?coll=hc-headlines-northeast

"No one would have mistaken Ned Lamont for Rick Blaine as he slipped into a squat building by the prop planes at the airfield.

Lamont did have a secret meeting with a potential co-conspirator, though. And he is plotting an insurgent campaign; although, unlike Humphrey Bogart, he's not taking on an evil foreign power. He's stalking the popular U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a decent and likable fellow in desperate need of forced retirement."

[Nutmegger]

80. Looks like you'll be voting for LIEberman when he runs as an independent

Good luck to you.

:popcorn:

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[tkmorris]

106. Got a link for that?

[Douglas Carpenter]

109. Sen. Lieberman is divorced from reality

" Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut reproached fellow Democrats for criticizing President Bush during a time of war.

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said."

link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/?section=cnn_latest

and this interesting comment from Sen. Lieberman while in Baghdad

"Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning:

I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

link:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_27_atrios_archive.html#113328407009752558


Now, I myself have pointed out on numerous occasions that Sen. Lieberman has a moderately liberal voting record on most domestic issues along with his enthusiastic embrace of neoliberal economic ideology.

His comments regarding the Iraq War must reveal that he is either being disingenuous or seriously delusional. The Democratic constituency of Connecticut needs the chance to express their disapproval in the Democratic Primary; win or lose.

Sen. Lieberman's very public position on the Iraq War and those who oppose it and what appears to be an embrace of a slightly modified form of neoconservative ideology is not some insignificant wedge issue. It goes to the very core of the direction of the country. Someday America will have to decide whether it wants to continue down the path of ultra-militarism or whether it wants to maintain the social fabric of our own society and some degree of moral authority in the world. It appears that Sen. Lieberman in spite of his moderate-liberalism on many issues is choosing the wrong side of history.

[dusty64]

114. I would still

support Lamont and feel strongly a DINO needs to be defeated in the primary to send a potent message to the inept leadership. CT is the perfect place, if all else fails you'd get Lowell Weicker as an Indy who would NOT be a * toady.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[Douglas Carpenter]

125. I don't care about bashing Lieberman. I care about having a foreign

policy that is honest, pragmatic and moral.

[dusty64]

134. The intelligence

of your post has DEFINITELY convinced me.... Joe has gotta GO!

[ihelpu2see]

115. But when a republican congressman comes out for Joementum

(Chris Shays) and urges other republicants to vote for Joe. I can not. When Joe introduces Sen. McCain as the next president of the USA, I can not vote Joe. And as I mentioned the majority of Dem's. in my part of CT will also not vote for Joe and would love a primary to tell him so....

[mdmc]

116. Joementum!

As a big fan of Joementum, I don't mind liberal progressives taking him on in the primary. I know that Joementum is financed by the big insurance agencies, and that they will not let their investment be defeated.

Bring the primary...Joementum will win all!

[leesa]

123. So Connecticut goes for immoral cowards, huh?

[riona]

126. we are talking about a primary

in ct. which is in the united states of america, right??

[Walt Starr]

131. WOW, I guess I'll have to donate some money to Lamont

Thanks, otherwise I would have thought Lamont stood no chance, but coming over to DU specifically to post this sort of thing makes me believe that Lamont must be getting close!

[TankLV]

132. Just join up to scold all of us democrats?

Hmmmmm...

I thought all you right-wing dems were scolding us for trying to sabotage the general elections by voting for our principals, and repeatedly told us that the primaries were the way to voice our concerns.

Now you are telling us to fuck off even here.

Hmmmm...

I smell something and it ain't a democrat...

[InsultComicDog]

144. Lieberman is no Democrat

[DinahMoeHum]

133. Sorry, killerbush, the bottom line is: Joe Gotta Go. . .

by any means necessary.

He's an embarrassment to the Democratic Party and his constituents. He's given Bush too many big wet sloppy kisses for the past 5 years. He's a major reason the Democrats are a divided party.

It's time for him to go. He has to be dropped like last Tuesday's fish.

:kick:

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

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

[in_cog_ni_to]

172. More REPUKES in your state support Lieberman than do Dems.

Isn't there something WRONG with that picture? I hope Lieberman loses and loses BIG.

[SaveElmer]

173. Normally I would agree with you...

In general it is better to avoid primary fights where possible, particularly in Red states...however in this case I don't see any problem with this challenge. My guess is no matter who wins the primary will end up being elected.

[The Magistrate]

178. Locking

Flame-Bait, and damned successful flame-bait too....