Lieberman Launches A Hail Mary [Archive]

Gerryatrics

08-03-2006, 06:37 PM

Alan Schlesinger is pretty much a non-issue in this race. Nobody cares about him and he has little support in his own party. He polls at 20% in a two way race with Lamont, and about 10% in a three-way race, so yes, I think CT Republicans wont have too much of a problem dumping him and supporting Lieberman. If it comes down to Lieberman and Lamont, who do you think the CT Republicans are going to vote for? In a lesser of two evils debate among Republican voters, the majority are going to swamp over to to Lieberman's side. Even if Lieberman does manage to lose the Democratic Primary, which I still find unlikely, he'll still enjoy support from a large amount of very influential local, state and national Democrats. Not too mention vast support among CT Moderates. Lamont will get absolutely no support from Conservatives, almost no support from Moderates and little support from influential Democrats. All Lamont's support comes from the MoveOn.org/Daily Kos/Huffington Post/etc. Leftists. That's not going to be enough to win the general election.

Extra Stout

08-03-2006, 06:48 PM

If Lieberman can't win his own parties primary then what makes you'll think enough wing-nuts will forgo their own party's nominee to vote for Lieberman? That's dilusional.
Only 5% of Connecticut voters will participate in the primary, mostly the far left. Lieberman will still enjoy broad support from moderates, and the usual advantages of incumbency. He also is helped by a GOP candidate unusually weak even for Connecticut.

Independent's Day (http://www.middletownpress.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16878137&BRD=1645&PAG=461&dept_id=10856&rfi=6)

Scott McLean, chairman of Quinnipiac University's political science department, said Lieberman's decision is a political "insurance policy" that could turn out to be expensive. "It's going to cost him some Democrats and it's going to give ammunition to Lamont," McLean said.
"I'd still have to bet on Lieberman to win a three-way race (in November)," McLean said, adding that he believes it could turn out to be much closer than Lieberman and his allies believe.

Extra Stout

08-03-2006, 06:54 PM

Republicans could do much more damage to the Democratic Party by supporting the Lieberman campaign than by voting for that Schelsinger guy, who is to the left of Lincoln Chafee and is embroiled in a gambling scandal.

Lieberman to the general public is sort of the John McCain of the Democratic Party. The publicity of his primary rejection as the general campaign unfolds will make it easy to paint the Democratic Party as beholden to the unhinged Daily Kos fringe.

All the Democrats have to do in order to win back Congress is not do galactically stupid things like this. But they simply don't seem to be able to help themselves.

Extra Stout

08-03-2006, 06:56 PM

Of course I'm sure that Republican strategists won't make hay of Connecticut lefties rejecting their Jewish senator amidst current world events.

Nbadan

08-03-2006, 07:21 PM

boutons_

08-03-2006, 08:53 PM

August 3, 2006

Anti - War Candidate Extends Lead on Lieberman: Poll

By REUTERS

Filed at 8:52 a.m. ET

BOSTON (Reuters) - A novice anti-war candidate seeking the Connecticut Democratic Party's nomination to run for the U.S. Senate has extended his lead against three-term incumbent and 2000 vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, a poll showed on Thursday.

Ned Lamont, a millionaire businessman and opponent of the U.S. military presence in Iraq, now leads rival Lieberman by 54 percent to 41 percent among those likely to vote in the August 8 primary, the Quinnipiac University poll found.

``The incumbent has just five days to turn this race around, but never count out a veteran with his experience,'' said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz.

The poll found that 65 percent of Lamont supporters said their vote would primarily be against Lieberman, with his support for the war in Iraq their primary objection.

Lieberman has said that he will run as an independent if denied the Democratic nomination. Previous polls have shown him likely to win the November election if he runs as an independent.

The university surveyed 890 likely Connecticut Democratic primary voters from July 24-31. The survey has a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points.

Extra Stout

08-03-2006, 09:11 PM

I guess it could happen if Republicans turn out in huge numbers, but we just don't have the motivating wedge issues in 06 that we had in 04 to help conservative turnout. I don't think enough Republicans will show up just on the premise that we are winning the war in Iraq and thus the war on terra', not that many people watch FAUX News.
Well, there aren't exactly any conservatives in Connecticut. The GOP candidate in 2000 only got 36% against Lieberman. This Schlesinger guy is a liberal. Lieberman doesn't need much Republican support to win, though they will giggle themselves to sleep on Election night with this self-inflicted wound by the far left.

Lieberman is a well-known name and an influential senator, and even without the (D) behind his name, he's going to carry the broad center-left vote and win in November.

Ocotillo

08-03-2006, 09:22 PM

Lieberman is a well-known name and an influential senator, and even without the (D) behind his name, he's going to carry the broad center-left vote and win in November.

Perhaps that is not the benefit it would normally be especially since this year is shaping up as a "throw the bums out" year.

LOL people posting the far left bloggers are going to hurt the Dems in November. How do a bunch of guys on the internet impact the whole state of Connecticut Democratic party? Answer: Not much, the people of the state themselves are the ones making the call on Lieberman.

If anything external is motivating Democrats in CT to vote for Lamont over Lieberman it would be Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, etc... singing the praises of Joe Lieberman.

Extra Stout

08-03-2006, 10:29 PM

Perhaps that is not the benefit it would normally be especially since this year is shaping up as a "throw the bums out" year.

LOL people posting the far left bloggers are going to hurt the Dems in November. How do a bunch of guys on the internet impact the whole state of Connecticut Democratic party? Answer: Not much, the people of the state themselves are the ones making the call on Lieberman.

If anything external is motivating Democrats in CT to vote for Lamont over Lieberman it would be Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, etc... singing the praises of Joe Lieberman.

You folks are being needlessly dense. Lamont is beating Lieberman for the same reason theocrats win GOP primaries in the South. Hardcore partisans vote in primaries. Average voters do not. It is hardcore antiwar left-wingers in Connecticut who are leading the charge. This movement is being spearheaded by the Daily Kos blog community, which with its good friends at the MyDD blog are adept at just this kind of targeted local or state campaign.

Read a little bit. Educate yourselves on the dynamics of this race. The attitude of those watching the race is "maybe Lamont has a chance to give Lieberman a run in November." Lieberman is still the favorite, with or without the party nomination.

And it is not a "throw the bums out" year. It is a "throw the Republican bums out" year.

scott

08-03-2006, 11:07 PM

Lieberman is a pretty good example of "old guard" politics and what is ruining our political system. Hopefully he'll be collecting stamps with Daschel and Delay soon.

BIG IRISH

08-04-2006, 02:36 AM

Lieberman is a pretty good example of "old guard" politics and what is ruining our political system. Hopefully he'll be collecting stamps with Daschel and Delay soon.

Not that it matters I though that Lieberman was the smartest choice
for VP I'd seen since 1945, except for maybe LBJ.

Nbadan

08-04-2006, 05:20 AM

Rasmussen claims that Lamont has made huge gains on Lieberman with Schlesinger factored in

Connecticut Senate: Lieberman Neck and Neck With Lamont
Lamont (D) 40%, Lieberman (I) 40%, Schlesinger (R) 13%
July 23, 2006

Support for Senator Joe Lieberman (D) is plummeting in Connecticut.

Just last month he mustered a fifteen-point lead over Ned Lamont in a projected three-way general election contest (with Lamont as the Democrat and Lieberman as an Independent). Now, Lieberman’s lead has disappeared. In this month’s three-way match-up, Lamont and Lieberman each get 40% of the vote. The Republican, Alan Schlesinger, attracts just 13%.

In April, Lamont could pull only 20% in the three-way, just half what he grabs now.

Lieberman could defeat Republican Alan Schlesinger by some forty percentage points if re-nominated as the Democratic standard-bearer. But Lieberman’s ability to get the nod is increasingly in doubt (see our story on the Democratic primary race).

Senator Lieberman is under fire from fellow Democrats for supporting the unpopular war of an unpopular President—unpopular especially with Democrats. Lamont has exploited that dissatisfaction to the extent that he now ties his primary opponent when voters consider a three-way general election with Lamont as the Democratic nominee.

Overall, Lieberman is viewed favorably by 58% of Connecticut voters. Just 49% say the same about Lamont. But, Lamont is more popular among Democrats (see crosstabs).

Schlesinger, viewed favorably by only 31%, loses badly no matter how the election is sliced. In yet another curve ball thrown into the race, Schlesinger has even been pressured by some to drop out because of questions about his past as a gambler. Conceivably, the GOP could then hand the nomination to Lieberman, and a rumor has been circulating to that effect. Let's just say this is one race that won't be over 'til it's over.

Because of Senator Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq, the Senator and the President are often seen as politically joined at the hip. Among those who "strongly" disapprove of Bush's job performance, Lamont now leads Lieberman by a more than two-to-one margin.

And in this state, a lot of people strongly disapprove of the President: 47% of all voters, 63% of Democrats.

Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/connecticutSenateJuly.htm)

ObiwanGinobili

08-04-2006, 08:04 AM

As a former resident of Connecticut, I have no qualms about saying there is no way in hell Lamont will beat Lieberman in the general election. The campaign Lamont is running is just sick, CT has more than it's share of kool-aid sipping leftists, but the majority of residents will stick with Lieberman.

As a former Connecticut resident myself (born and raised) I have to agree with you. Lieberman has done so much for the state - I really don't see how they could possibly not re-elect him.
Plus Lamont is a real ass.

spurster

08-04-2006, 08:25 AM

Exactly how is voting for Lamont "far left"?

It seems to me that the vote against Lieberman is because of his support for BushCo policies.

Ocotillo

08-04-2006, 02:47 PM

You folks are being needlessly dense. Lamont is beating Lieberman for the same reason theocrats win GOP primaries in the South. Hardcore partisans vote in primaries. Average voters do not. It is hardcore antiwar left-wingers in Connecticut who are leading the charge. This movement is being spearheaded by the Daily Kos blog community, which with its good friends at the MyDD blog are adept at just this kind of targeted local or state campaign.

I do read Kos and MyDD and it is clear they are supporting Lamont and trying to help Lamont but it still comes down to Democrats in CT as to whether Joe stays or goes. He still has to get through the primaries to face all the voters in November. He is the one choosing to run as a Democrat. If Joe had not lost touch with his state and party he would realize his best hope would have been to jump ship and run as a Republican. He would fit the Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, Chris Shays mode of a moderate Republican better than as a centrist Democrat.

If Lamont prevails in the primary he would still be the underdog in the general election because Lieberman is so popular with Republicans.

In this era of rabid partisanship, Democrats are sick of Joe Lieberman going on Fox News and crticizing Democrats not just for their position on the war but his silence in regards to the follies of BushCo. The Dems are sick of Joe buddying up with Sean Hannity on the radio and regurgitating Republican talking points. This is the guy who went on the floor of the Senate and ripped Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair but has been silent about signing statements, NSA wiretapping and torture by this administration.

Dems have a big party and can support diverse views. Harry Reid the Minority Leader in the Senate is pro-life. Bob Casey running in Pennsylvania against Santorum is pro-life. Ben Nelson in Nebraska supports the war. Hillary Clinton supports the war. None of them go onto the Republicans home turf and help rip their own party.

Lieberman has become a typical beltway politician with his own interest at heart and out of touch with his party. Recall this guy ran for Senate as well as VP under Gore which means had he won, a Republican Govenor would have appointed his replacement conceding the seat to the opposition party.

Ocotillo

08-04-2006, 02:50 PM

Exactly how is voting for Lamont "far left"?

That is Republican spin.......

Anything that does not support their candidate or vision is termed "far left" It's called framing.

Nbadan

08-07-2006, 10:22 AM

Not dead just yet:

It looks like Lieberman is getting a small bounce in the latest polls heading into tomarrow's primary...

HARTFORD, Conn. --U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, fighting for his political survival, appears to be cutting into challenger Ned Lamont's lead the day before Connecticut's Democratic primary election, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday.

The poll shows Lamont, a wealthy Greenwich businessman, with a slight lead of 51 percent to 45 percent over Lieberman among likely Democratic voters heading into Tuesday's primary.

Last week's Quinnipiac poll showed Lamont leading 54 percent to 41 percent. Lamont also had a slight lead in Quinnipiac's July 20 poll.

"Obviously we are very thrilled," Lieberman spokeswoman Marion Steinfels said. "People who are making this decision are taking a serious look at Lieberman and Lamont and believe that Joe's the one who has been fighting for them."

Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/08/07/lieberman_shows_signs_cutting_into_lamont_lead_pol l_shows/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News)

Obstructed_View

08-07-2006, 05:54 PM

If Joe loses the primary it'll be a squeaker, but he'll win as an independent. He's the only democrat that doesn't just constantly repeat the same old tired shit that the party throws out there, so he has the respect of people outside the party in spite of his embarassing performance in the run for the white house.

Nbadan

08-08-2006, 02:22 AM

Nbadan

08-08-2006, 03:08 AM

It's not about the war, it's about the Presidency stupid!

The Democratic voters of Connecticut –apparently about to reject Senator Joe Lieberman in Tuesday’s primary—are poised to send the national Democratic Party a message. And the media are poised to help the Democrats, and the nation as a whole, to misinterpret it.

It’s all about the war in Iraq, the media will tell us.

But this over-simplification obscures the heart of the matter: that citizens are not only opposing the war but are struggling for a way to deal with America’s present deeper crisis.

A former advisor to Lieberman, quoted in a recent article in The New Republic, explains why rank-and-file Democrats are furious with Lieberman but not with his fellow war-supporter, Senator Biden: “Here’s somebody who voted for the war, continues to say that we should be there, but is absolutely critical of Bush and how he handled it. And so, as a result, he gets a pass. It’s how Lieberman talks about the war that people can’t stand. He comes across as not necessarily being pro-war but being pro-Bush.”

So it’s not ultimately about the war, and we must not allow ourselves or the public to be otherwise persuaded. It’s about this particular president and all the damage his regime is inflicting on America. It’s Lieberman’s being a help and a support for the Bush presidency that’s given rise to this grassroots rage against him.

By rejecting Lieberman, Connecticut’s grassroots Democrats are seeking to send a message to their party about how appalled they are at this Bush presidency, and thus also at any Democrat who does not understand how profound a threat this regime is to all they hold dear.

Link (http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=279)

Nbadan

08-08-2006, 10:51 AM

A sign of things to come? Joe Lieberman's website has been taken down.

Joe2006 (http://server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page/)

On the eve of the most important election of his political life Lieberman's website goes down for non-payment. Ouch!

I post because Marion Steinfels is running around proclaiming that someone hacked her site. This isn’t the first time they haven’t paid their bills, it happened when the stupid bear-cub ad ran and Sean Smith bragged all the traffic (from people mocking the ad) crashed their site. Same notice.

But since the Hotline Blog ran with Marion’s story (sort of), I had to post this here because they are undoubtedly peddling the story to other outlets as well. Passing on a different screen shot than the one above, from after they paid their hosting fees.

Ned Lamont (http://nedlamont.com/blog/978/desperation)

Nbadan

08-08-2006, 11:13 AM

Joe and Dubya's Fabulous Wedding (http://fabulouswedding.cf.huffingtonpost.com/) - Classic!

Ocotillo

08-08-2006, 10:58 PM

Lieberman shows his true colors and bolts the party.

Nbadan

08-08-2006, 11:46 PM

Here's the official call..

Lieberman loses, vows independent run
By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer 38 minutes ago

Three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman fell to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont in Connecticut's Democratic primary Tuesday, a race seen as a harbinger of sentiment over the conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 2,500 U.S. troops in
Iraq.
ADVERTISEMENT

Unbowed, Lieberman immediately announced he would enter the fall campaign as an independent. Only six years ago, Lieberman was the Democrats' choice for vice president.

"As I see it, in this campaign we just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead. But, in the second half, our team, Team Connecticut, is going to surge forward to victory in November," Lieberman said after congratulating Lamont.

Lamont, a millionaire with virtually no political experience, ran on his opposition to the Iraq war. "They call Connecticut the land of steady habits," he said. "Tonight we voted for a big change."

Lamont won with 52 percent of the vote, or 144,005, to 48 percent for Lieberman, with 134,026, with 98 percent of precincts reporting.

Lieberman's loss made him only the fourth incumbent senator to lose a primary since 1980.

Turnout was projected at twice the norm for a primary.

In Georgia, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the fiery congresswoman known for her conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks and a scuffle this year with a U.S. Capitol police officer, lost a runoff for the Democratic nomination.

Joe Lieberman and Cindy McKinney lost in the same primary, looks like the Demos are getting rid of the nuckle-heads on both sides of the political spectrum.

Spurminator

08-09-2006, 12:11 AM

Lieberman shows his true colors and bolts the party.

Interesting how this is seen as a bad thing... Shouldn't the voters get to decide whether Lieberman fits their beliefs better than one of the Party candidates?

scott

08-09-2006, 12:11 AM

Out with the old and ineffective, in with the new.

Nbadan

08-09-2006, 12:55 AM

Interesting how this is seen as a bad thing... Shouldn't the voters get to decide whether Lieberman fits their beliefs better than one of the Party candidates?

Lieberman was all to happy to take money from Democratic Party fund-raising commitees to pay for his battle with Lamont - almost 2 million dollars. Now that the majority of primary voters have decided to go with his opponent, Lieberman decides to betray his Party, and the loyalty they showed him, by running against their candidate. Lieberman ought to be stripped of any committee membership by the Democrats for the remainder of his term.

T Park

08-09-2006, 01:54 AM

yipee.

More George Soros far left socialist wackos.

Joy to the world.

Spurminator

08-09-2006, 09:45 AM

Lieberman was all to happy to take money from Democratic Party fund-raising commitees to pay for his battle with Lamont - almost 2 million dollars. Now that the majority of primary voters have decided to go with his opponent, Lieberman decides to betray his Party, and the loyalty they showed him, by running against their candidate. Lieberman ought to be stripped of any committee membership by the Democrats for the remainder of his term.

So Party Loyalty is preferable to options for voters? What if Lieberman wins the election as an Independent? Is he a traitor? Or is he truly the representative of his state?

Did Teddy Roosevelt "betray" the Republican Party in 1912?

spurster

08-09-2006, 09:58 AM

It's a free country. Lieberman can switch to Independent if he wants, and we can criticize him or praise him for doing so as we see fit.

Is Lieberman a traitor? No, he's a politician.

boutons_

08-09-2006, 10:45 AM

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/08/09/jd060809.gif

boutons_

08-09-2006, 10:55 AM

"So Party Loyalty is preferable to options for voters?"

In today's polarized, radical, party-politicized USA, yes. Congressman vote their parties, not their own minds.

Voters vote their pocketbooks in nearly all cases, not their principles.

=============================

August 4, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist

Centrism Is for Suckers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

If you want to understand the state of America today, a good place to start is with the contrast between the political strategies of conservative business advocacy groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and those of more or less liberal advocacy groups like the Sierra Club.

The chamber recently got into trouble because of ads it ran praising Republican members of Congress who, it said, voted for the Medicare prescription drug program. It turned out that one of the congressmen praised in the ads actually voted against the program, while two others weren't even in Congress when the vote took place.

Oops. But the bigger question is, aren't business groups supposed to favor fiscal responsibility and reducing the size of government? So why is the chamber praising a program that substantially increases the size of government and has no visible means of financial support?

The answer is obvious: the Bush administration hopes to win some votes in the midterm elections from older Americans now receiving drug benefits, and the chamber, like many conservative organizations these days, believes that its interests are best served by helping Republicans win elections. If the administration and its allies in Congress want the chamber's support on an issue, they get it, never mind the details.

If you want an even starker example, consider the fact that the National Federation of Independent Business, the small-business lobby, is supporting the bizarre, hybrid wage-and-tax legislation now before the Senate. This legislation would raise the minimum wage while sharply cutting taxes on very large estates.

From a small-business owner's point of view, this deal makes no sense. Many owners of small businesses believe, rightly or wrongly, that they would be hurt by a rise in the minimum wage. Meanwhile, very few are rich enough to pay estate taxes: the Congressional Budget Office reports that if current law had applied in 2000, only 135 small business estates would have paid any tax at all, which means that small-business owners subject to the estate tax are substantially harder to find than people who have been struck by lightning.

It's possible that the federation's leadership has been misled by Heritage Foundation propaganda. But it's more likely that, like the chamber, the federation believes that its interests are best served by acting as a loyal servant of the Republican electoral effort. And both organizations are probably right.

Now compare this with the behavior of advocacy groups like the Sierra Club, the environmental organization, and Naral, the abortion-rights group, both of which have endorsed Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, for re-election. The Sierra Club's executive director defended the Chafee endorsement by saying, "We choose people, not parties." And it's true that Mr. Chafee has usually voted with environmental groups.

But while this principle might once have made sense, it's just naïve today. Given both the radicalism of the majority party's leadership and the ruthlessness with which it exercises its control of the Senate, Mr. Chafee's personal environmentalism is nearly irrelevant when it comes to actual policy outcomes; the only thing that really matters for the issues the Sierra Club cares about is the "R" after his name.

Put it this way: If the Democrats gain only five rather than six Senate seats this November, Senator James Inhofe, who says that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," will remain in his current position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And if that happens, the Sierra Club may well bear some of the responsibility.

The point is that those who cling to the belief that politics can be conducted in terms of people rather than parties * a group that also includes would-be centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman and many members of the punditocracy * are kidding themselves.

The fact is that in 1994, the year when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party, things fell apart, and the center did not hold.

Now we're living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician's partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship.

Spurminator

08-09-2006, 11:12 AM

In today's polarized, radical, party-politicized USA, yes. Congressman vote their parties, not their own minds.

Your logic is confusing, unless you believe a polarized, radical, party-politicized USA is a GOOD thing.

If you elect an Independent you weaken partisanship in Congress. The more Independents, the better.

Krugman's strategy is a great way to alienate even more of the voting population. But I would expect no less than a polar view from someone sitting on one of the poles himself.

Fight partisan gamesmanship with more partisan gamesmanship. Fantastic. Soon every national election will be decided by the 100,000 most loyal partisan sheep in the country.

Spurminator

08-09-2006, 11:21 AM

ChumpDumper

08-09-2006, 11:24 AM

All Liberman had to do was flip-flop like most of the other Democrats.

What a doofus.

boutons_

08-09-2006, 11:33 AM

"Krugman's strategy"

It's not HIS strategy, he's describing what he sees as pure party politics and discipline (enforced by Rove/DeLay types) overriding any Congressman's personal values, or the values of the voters.

Where do you get the impression that I or Krugman think the current extreme partisanship and polarization is positive?

The biggest myth is that conscience or principles can overcome the overwhelming influence of SIG money and corporate money at any level. Congressman and people vote their pocketbooks.

Spurminator

08-09-2006, 12:01 PM

The biggest myth is that conscience or principles can overcome the overwhelming influence of SIG money and corporate money at any level. Congressman and people vote their pocketbooks.

Who voted for Durham based on their pocketbooks? Clearly the main issue driving many of the votes in the primary was the War. That's a priciple, right?

boutons_

08-09-2006, 01:08 PM

were there ANY pocketbooks issues in the primary?

Lieberman should have promised all kinds of pork and earmarks, he would have won.

Ocotillo

08-09-2006, 01:44 PM

Also, I'm certainly no Lieberman fan, but I have to wonder how many people accusing him of betraying the Democratic Party would still have voted for an Independent Lamont based on his anti-war platform.

Lamont pledged to support the Demcoratic nominee even if it had been Joe Lieberman. Lieberman not being a "party" man refused to make such a commitment. The race that was just held was a Democratic primary and now that Lieberman has shown his true colors, as I alluded to in an earlier post, he is free to run as an independent. We can discuss until the cows come home as to whether it is the "right" thing to do or not but it is legal and he has to be considered the favorite at this point.

The voters no doubt had that on their mind yesterday when making their votes. Some perhaps were swayed to vote against Lieberman because of his refusal to support the parties nominee (unless it was him). Others took into account the advantages of incumbency and the fact that should the Dems be successful in winning six Senate seats this November, the balance of power could sit on the shoulders of Joe Lieberman as the deciding vote in a divided Senate.

That said, the votes decided they would rather risk losing the seat in the general than be stuck with six more years of DINO Joe hurting the party by schmoozing with the mortal enemies of the Democrats at Fox, etc.....

Ocotillo

08-09-2006, 01:51 PM

Look for the Republicans to kick into high gear and help out Lieberman all they can. Hannity can drop the soft sell and move to full throated support of GOP Joe. Rove (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/09/ct_sen_rove_offering_his_help_to_lieberman_indy_bi d) has already reached out to Lieberman to help. Most of the conventional wisdom at this stage of the horse race has the Dems taking the House and coming close in the Senate. Should the Senate get close, the Reps are going to need Lieberman and so they are going to reach out in a major way.

The people of Connecticut have to understand one thing in November. If you like George Bush and want a Congress that continues to rubber stamp his wishes, vote for Joe Lieberman. If you think GW Bush is on the wrong track and is hurting this country, vote Ned Lamont. It is that simple.

Crookshanks

08-09-2006, 04:03 PM

Win for the wackadoo wing
by Michael Goodwin

Leftward, march! The sucking sound you heard from Connecticut last night was the air going out of the war on terror. At least among many Democrats.
The party's voters have spoken - and they are wrong to try to fire Joe Lieberman after three distinguished terms in the Senate. Now we know what a nutmeg really is. It has something to do with a nutty decision.

Don't buy the baloney that Lieberman lost his primary race because he had lost touch with his home base on a range of issues. Rich upstart Ned Lamont was all about Lieberman's support for the Iraq war and coziness with President Bush. That's what this election was about, period.

So now that the wackadoo wing of the party has a bloody scalp, what are they going to do with it? Wave it at Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon and Afghanistan and Indonesia and Great Britain and Spain and Israel and New York and declare peace? That will work for sure. They better also wear armor and duck.

Lieberman is the first casualty of the war against the war on terror. If last night's results are a window on the party's tilt, then a huge slice of the Democratic party is ready to sit out the war to protect America. God help us if the Republicans also get the wobblies. Let's hope the Connecticut Condition isn't contagious. And let's hope last night's decision is overturned.

Lieberman's decision to stay in the race as an independent is the right one. Given the close margin, all the state's voters deserve a chance to have their say. Perhaps they will fix what the Democrats broke.

That many Americans are disgusted with events in Iraq is understandable. Nothing has gone as planned or promised, a point Lieberman made with some regularity. But wars never go easily, and thus are always unpopular at some point.

Even "good" wars have their bad moments, causing otherwise sensible people to look for the exits.

That is happening across our nation with Iraq, which, given the lousy intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, never was a "good" war. Yet Iraq, in all its hellishness, is important, even vital to regional stability and American security. Unplug America's commitment there, which is what the Lamont crowd is about, and how exactly does that help us? Will the terrorists suddenly stop attacking us and our allies?

And does the price of peace also require us to abandon Israel and the moderate Arab governments who are our allies in fighting the terrorists? Indeed, there was a surreal quality to the television news last night: Stations cutting away from the Israeli-Hezbollah war to update the election results, and vice versa. Too bad no one thought to link them as two parts of one story, which is what they are.

Congressional Democratic leaders recently demanded that Bush begin withdrawing our troops this year, regardless of events in Iraq. They called it a "redeployment." When I said that redeployment was another word for retreat, a top party operative disagreed. He said, earnestly, that Dems favored keeping about 35,000 troops "in the region" as something like a police force. "We could go back into Iraq if we had to," he said.

This is fantasy. And that's what Lamont's victory is based on. That somehow we can pull out of Iraq, tell the terrorists they win - and we and our allies will not suffer any consequences. And if those Islamists misbehave, well, we'll just scoot back over there with our police force and arrest those naughty fellows.

I believe that Islamic terrorists will stop at nothing in their mad quest to rule the globe. As a result, World War III has started, whether we like it or not. It will continue, whether we fight back or not. But if we think we can win by not fighting, then we're not just wrong. We're nuts. As in nutmeg.

Originally published on August 9, 2006

RandomGuy

08-09-2006, 04:14 PM

So.... support for the war on terror=support for the Iraq fiasco?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

(wipes tears from eyes)

That's classic. Iraq is NOT the war on terror, never was. The fact that right-wing extremists keep harping on it should be enough to make reasonable people very leery of accepting this without some very concrete proof.

Anybody thinks that a war against an idea will be won by military force has another thing coming.

The "war" against communism wasn't won my military force, it was won by the fact that it was a bad idea, and people came to realize it for what it was. It seems that those who think invading Iraq will somehow hurt the terrorists really are as clueless about the rest of the world as GW.

boutons_

08-09-2006, 04:18 PM

Goodwin is Crookshanks' type of rabble rouser. Are you aroused, Crooky?

Goodwin is more of a nutcase that the large majority of Americans who think the Iraq war (NOT the war on terror) has been waste, or the voters in CT. Fully half of Americans think the US will lose in Iraq. But Crookshanks and Goodwin rabble think the Iraq war is just fine and dandy.

Why does Goodwin even bother to bloviate about a Democratic primary, except for his own amusement? Hell, there's a chance the Lamont and Lieberman both running could split the Democratic vote and give decent Repug candidate the Senate seat.

And Goodwin is totally dishoneSt, a fucking liar, in implying that Iraq is part of the war on terror, which has been the Repugs' lie from afternoon of WTC attack, if not before.

Ocotillo

08-09-2006, 04:21 PM

So.... support for the war on terror=support for the Iraq fiasco?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

(wipes tears from eyes)

That's classic. Iraq is NOT the war on terror, never was. The fact that right-wing extremists keep harping on it should be enough to make reasonable people very leery of accepting this without some very concrete proof.

Republicans only hope is to keep repeating this ad finitum because the "war on terror" is something almost all Americans agree needs to be waged. The War in Iraq is a debacle and if voters see the two as one in the same, the Reps win, otherwise, the Dems win.

Nbadan

08-10-2006, 12:19 AM

Nice stuff Ocotillo, good to have you back. I still think that Wesley Clark would make a fine President for these troubled times, and he answers the wing-nut talking point about independent-minded Candidates not being tolerated in the 'left-wing' Democratic Party very nicely...

"You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party."

-Wes Clark 08/09/2006

Nbadan

08-10-2006, 03:04 AM

http://www.tbtmradio.com/images/joeass.jpg

The rats are scurrying from ship Lieberman...

The Carpetbagger Report says the Lieberman campaign staff "shake-up" we forecast last week is actually their way of spinning several resignations about to take place.

"Two independent sources have confirmed that some Lieberman aides decided well in advance of yesterday's primary that if the senator abandoned the Democratic Party for an independent campaign, they would resign in protest. Given yesterday's results and Lieberman's announcement, that's exactly what's about to happen."

Update: The AP says Lieberman "fired his campaign manager and spokesman, and asked for the resignations of his campaign staff."

Update II: Longtime Lieberman aide Sherry Brown and his former senate press secretary Dan Gerstein have joined the campaign. In addition, The Hotline notes all remaining staff and consultants have resigned.

Political Newswire (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/09/lieberman_braces_for_defections.html)

rascal

08-10-2006, 11:53 AM

I live in Ct and voted for Lamont.

George Gervin's Afro

08-10-2006, 12:09 PM

The politics of fear..The GOP 2006 platform.... Any bets on terror alerts being raised frequently right up until November? I realize it was probably just a coincedence but running up until the 04 elections terror alerts were raised frequently..but then mysteriously stopped after the election... I know it was just a coincedence..

Nbadan

08-10-2006, 03:52 PM

http://webpages.charter.net/micah/harlots.jpg

Yonivore

08-10-2006, 09:44 PM

I can't wait until November in Connecticut.

rascal

08-11-2006, 06:07 AM

I expect Lieberman to win in Nov. Enough Republicans will push him over the top.

Its going to be more of the same. Thats what you people want isn't it. You like the way things are now then keep voting the same people in because there will be no change with the same people making the decisions.

jochhejaam

08-13-2006, 02:05 PM

Connecticut Senate: Two Days After Primary, Lieberman Ahead by 5

Lieberman 46%, Lamont 41%
August 12, 2006

Senator Joseph Lieberman Senator Joe Lieberman’s decision to run as an Independent sets up a lively campaign season for Connecticut voters. In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in Tuesday’s primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41% (see crosstabs).

A month ago, the candidates were tied at 40% each.

Republican Alan Schlesinger earns just 6% of the vote, down from 13% a month ago.

57% of the state's voters view Lieberman as politically moderate while 51% see Lamont as liberal.

Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.

Overall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.

Thirty-one percent (31%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Lieberman, 18% Very Unfavorable.

For Lamont, the numbers are 19% Very Favorable, 23% Very Unfavorable.

Lieberman still attracts 35% of votes from Democrats. Lamont will have to find a way to trim that number without alienating unaffiliated voters. Lieberman is viewed at least somewhat favorably by 65% of unaffiliated voters compared to 49% for Lamont.

http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm

Nbadan

08-15-2006, 03:28 PM

August 14, 2006
Bush Refuses to Back GOP Candidate

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said this morning that President Bush will not endorse Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger (R) over Sen. Joe Lieberman even though he's the Republican nominee.

Earlier: RNC chief Ken Mehlman also refused to endorse Schlesinger.

Political Wire (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/14/bush_refuses_to_back_gop_candidate.html)

Losers supporting the man they themselves labeled Loserman.

Ocotillo

08-15-2006, 03:33 PM

jochhejaam

08-15-2006, 05:14 PM

Look for Lieberman to totally flip and become a Republican should he win in November. Judas will take the 30 pieces of silver from the Repug donors and stop the charade and become a Republican after the election.
The swing votes for Lieberman will come from the Independents (Moderates) along with almost half of the Dems vote, why would he become a Republican?

Extra Stout

08-15-2006, 05:16 PM

Losers supporting the man they themselves labeled Loserman.
Well, Republicans are open-minded, you see, so they can have a change of heart about somebody. :spin

Please, by all means keep heaving vitriol at him. When Joe represents the deciding vote between Harry Reid and Bill Frist in the Senate, you won't regret it.

rascal

08-16-2006, 08:43 AM

Yes lets just keep all the guys who are running the show there. Keep going down the same road because it is so good.

Unfortunately the money and power machine that is in Wash now will continue to win by influencing the minds of the weak to remain in control.

Nbadan

08-17-2006, 01:01 AM

Maybe this is the real reason Conservatives have been courting Lieberman like a chick in The Club...

The issue of Lieberman’s seniority would arise most dramatically if Lieberman wins re-election and Democrats recapture control of the chamber. That would slot Lieberman to take over as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the panel primarily responsible for investigating the executive branch.

The Hill (http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/081606/news1.html)

In Leiberman's mind, he won the "Democratic" primary in that Lamont's margin of victory came from late registering unaffiliated voters and new voters who put a D after their names just to get red, white and oh, so blue with Ned. The Kos/blogger voters, if you will...as distinct from 'genuine'organization Democrats - like the 60% of unions and a (near?) majority of blacks who voted him. Given Lamont's less-than-3% MOV, it would have taken a much, much higher MOV (say 15%+) for the message to penetrate through his ego and to Joe's brain.

As for Joe's entitlement mentality towards the seat, Joe has tens of millions on tap to blow on ads, endorsements and GOTV, has more media and State DP organizational support than Lamont, and the last poll on the race posted has him up by 5%. Lamont may have the DP Line, but it's still liberal/progressive Democrats, Bush-hating independents, a few bloggers and the anti-war movement against the RNC, the DLC, the M$M and Wall Street.

Gerryatrics

08-18-2006, 01:43 AM

Lieberman leads opponents in new poll (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-08-17T124021Z_01_N17245231_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONNECTICUT-LIEBERMAN.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-politicsNews-2)

BOSTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a three-term Democrat now running as an independent candidate, leads the man who beat him in last week's primary vote by 12 points in a three-way race, a poll released on Thursday shows.

The latest Quinnipiac University poll, conducted between August 10-14, shows Lieberman leads Democrat Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman with little political experience who has played on anti-war sentiment, by 53 percent to 41 percent among likely voters in November's election. The Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger drew 4 percent, the poll shows.

Democratic voters selected Lamont as their candidate on August 8 with 52 percent of the vote after an increasingly bitter race dominated by Lieberman's support for the Iraq war.

Lieberman vowed to stay in the race as an independent candidate in order to face Lamont and Schlesinger in the general election in November.

The survey found that Lieberman polled best among likely Republican voters, leading the others with 75 percent of the vote compared with Lamont's 13 percent and Schlesinger's 10 percent.

"Senator Lieberman's support among Republicans is nothing short of amazing," Douglas Schwartz, the university's polling director said in a statement. "As long as Lieberman maintains this kind of support among Republicans while holding onto a significant number of Democratic votes, the veteran senator will be hard to beat."

Likely voters said by a 53 percent to 40 percent margin that Lieberman, the Democratic Party's vice presidential candidate in 2000 and once a presidential candidate himself, deserves to be re-elected.

Ocotillo

08-18-2006, 07:30 AM

The swing votes for Lieberman will come from the Independents (Moderates) along with almost half of the Dems vote, why would he become a Republican?

His money will come from Republicans. The White House and RNC have refused to endorse the Republican in the race who has ethical problems as well. Lamont will peel off most of the Democratic vote so it will come down to the Independents.

The Reps are going to run a behind the scenes courting of Lieberman. While Lieberman would be on the left of most within the Republican party, he is their best hope in the state, hence their refusal to endorse their own candidate.

If the Democrats have a big niight in November it is conceivable that the Senate could be split in such a way that a victorious Lieberman would hold sway over who controls the Senate.

For that reason, Joe will get lots of Republican money, the right wing noise machine will bang the drum for him and elected Republicans will speak glowingly of him. Meanwhile the Dems have a delicate line to walk.

If they go to hard after him, they risk alienating him even further. The they I refer to are is colleagues in the Senate. Five Dems have endorsed Joe in his independent run and they are generally southern Dems.

Lieberman's campaign manager has said Joe will vote for Harry Reid has Senate Majority Leader but Joe himself has not made that pronouncement public.

I expect this race to evolve to the point whereby Lieberman is so bitter about this challenge that he does desert the party full bore and join the Republicans.

The Democratic party can dump a lot of money in the race courting the independent vote but that is money that could be spent elsewhere instead of what would normally be a safe seat. Add to the mx, there are three moderate Republicans running for re-election to the House in Connecticut that are vulnerable and Lieberman staying on as an independent makes those races more difficult for the Dems.

Once again, Joe Lieberman is screwing the Democratic party.

Ocotillo

08-18-2006, 07:33 AM

BTW, the latest poll has Lieberman's lead down to 5 points. His Democratic support is soft, so as I said earlier, it will come down to the Independents. His message should resonate with them since by their nature, they are less partisan, so it will be a tough fight.

boutons_

08-20-2006, 06:27 PM

Lieberman panders to the anti-war Dems.

Hey, asshole, US politics is ALL ABOUT IRAQ WAR, and you backed the wrong side.

===================

August 20, 2006

Lieberman Calls for Rumsfeld to Resign

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:15 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign and backed an international conference to find a way out of the crisis in Iraq.

Lieberman, who is seeking a fourth term as an independent candidate after losing the Democratic nomination to newcomer Ned Lamont on Aug. 8, also criticized some fellow Democrats. He said several Democrats are trying to impose a "litmus test" on the party.

"I think it's still time for new leadership at the Pentagon," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Lieberman, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said he called for Rumsfeld to step down in 2003.

"With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq," he said Sunday.

Lieberman said the Bush administration should have sent more troops into Iraq "to secure the country."

"We had a naive vision that the Iraqis were going to embrace us and then go on and live happily ever after," he said.

The Lamont campaign issued a statement Sunday criticizing Lieberman for trying to "paint himself as courageous for clinging to the failed 'stay the course' policy in Iraq and not listening to the voters of Connecticut on the need to change course."

"His new found 'criticism' of the war won't convince Connecticut voters after so many years of stubbornly rubber-stamping Bush's failed policies," the statement said.

Lieberman also said the administration must "put severe pressure on the Iraqis to contain sectarian violence."

"There is still hope in Iraq and as long as there is we cannot just pick up and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and would compromise our security in the war on terrorism," he said.

Lieberman said he would support an "international crisis conference on Iraq" with the United States, its allies and Arab countries worrying "that if Iraq collapses and falls into civil war that Iran will surge in and dominate and claim a victory."

He also accused Lamont of distorting his stance on Iraq.

"He made me into a cheerleader for George Bush and everything that's happened," Lieberman said. "And the record shows that, while I believe we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, I've been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004, about the failure to send enough American troops to secure the country, about the absence of adequate plans and preparation to deal with post-Saddam Iraq."

Tom Swan, campaign manager for Lamont, said Sunday the campaign stands by its criticism of Lieberman as too close to President Bush.

"Joe Lieberman spent hundreds of thousand dollars distorting Ned Lamont's positions during the (primary) campaign," he said.

"As bad as things are now -- and they've gotten worse in the last six months -- it would be a disaster if America set a deadline and said we're getting all of our troops out by a given date," Lieberman said. "That's a position Ned Lamont has taken."

Responding to a question about Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who was quoted as saying that Lieberman echoes Republicans, Lieberman said it was "just plain politics by somebody who has ambitions of his own."

"I voted 90 percent of the time with a majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate," he said.

"I'm worried that my party may become what we've accused the Republicans of, a kind of litmus-test party," he said. "If you don't agree with us 100 percent of the time, you don't agree with us. I'm devoted to the Democratic Party."

===================

Sorry, asshole, your pro-phony-war stance was/is a huge mistake.

jochhejaam

08-20-2006, 06:36 PM

Lieberman panders to the anti-war Dems.

Hey, asshole, US politics is ALL ABOUT IRAQ WAR, and you backed the wrong side.

Sorry, asshole, your pro-phony-war stance was/is a huge mistake.

He's ahead by 12% and his stance is a huge mistake? :lol

As an Independent, Lieberman Leads the Field

By Chris Cillizza and Charles Babington
Sunday, August 20, 2006;

After Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman came up short against businessman and Iraq war opponent Ned Lamont in Connecticut's Democratic primary earlier this month, there was considerable speculation that the long-term incumbent's formidable status in the state would crumble now that he is running as an independent.

It is still a long way to Nov. 7, but early evidence is that Lieberman is still standing plenty tall -- and taller than either of his two opponents.

Lieberman holds a 53 percent to 41 percent lead over Lamont among those most likely to vote in November, while Alan Schlesinger, the Republican candidate, gets just 4 percent. The survey was conducted by Quinnipiac University.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900642.html