Lieberman: "they should have thought about that during the primary.."

[madfloridian]

and here we are."

Yes, he really said that on camera. There is a video to prove it. He is in effect saying look what happens when you vote a long time incumbent out. He knew that certain Democrats would still support him, and they are. He knew that the Republicans would step in and vote for him, and they are.

The Video

Lieberman: "they should have thought about that during the primary"

He knew that business people who needed him would step in, and they did. See Dems for Joe. Not hard to find it.

So anyone taking joy in his being ahead in the polls, think again. It is threat to the Democratic Party. Any incumbent with conservative ties who supports Bush's war and policies can do this. In our area of Florida this week we saw similar power plays against party leaders. It is sad and it is threatening. It makes people who care about change get discouraged and drop out.

There should be no joy at DU about this. None.

And again the video..he blamed the Democrats who voted him out. No excuse for this man who attacks his own party.

Lieberman: "they should have thought about that during the primary"

[MadMaddie]

1. What do you think he will do if he wins....he will shit on the Dems

again....the Dems that support him are wrong...(everyone has a choice but this is a bad choice)

[opihimoimoi]

2. He REVEALS his IMMENSE SELFISHNESS and DISDAIN for the DEM

Party.

Its all about JOE and never for the good of the DEM Party Nor the Nation.

He should be avoided like the smegma he is...

[Zhade]

60. In three simple words, he's saying "fuck the voters".

NT!

[krkaufman]

87. Yep, especially the Democratic voters.

He's obviously a political opportunist, since he's not accepting the wishes of his Democratic constituents. I really just don't understand the position of the Democratic leadership, in that they're saying he'll retain his leadership positions if the Dems take control of the Senate.

On principle, he has changed parties and should lose his "right" to the leadership position. If taking this position makes Lieberman fully jump ship to the Republicans, then so be it.

[fuzzyball]

91. And what does that say about our dem leaders?

that they only care about politics?
You tell me!

[krkaufman]

100. It tells me that replacement of Lieberman would only be the first step.

And what does that say about our dem leaders?

About the same thing it does about the voters who've put them in office.

baby steps. It's up to the voters to start putting people in office that represent the people's interests, rather than corpo interests.

[Zhade]

98. It means they, too, don't care about the will of the voters.

Well, fine - then I no longer care about THEM.

[krkaufman]

101. Well, I hope you care enough about them ....

... to vote them out if one of them represents you.

Those in Congress are a reflection of the voters. We get the government we ask for, as an aggregate.

[Zhade]

119. Oh, no worries - I punish those who betray my principles.

For example - will NOT be voting for Harman or Feinstein. Period.

[liberalmuse]

3. I despise this man...

he is the anti-Dem, and has done more to hurt our party than any one person I can think of. I hope he loses big on November 7th.

[madfloridian]

4. Here are a few of the Democrats supporting Lieberman...

There are 50 or more according to this article.

Catch the Magic

"It is a difficult day for the nutroots. Their boy is not doing well. Here is the hard news that you will not likely find in the lefty blogosphere,

"Sen. Joe Lieberman has a 10-point advantage over Democrat Ned Lamont among likely Connecticut voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

The Moose applauds the brave Democrats who are standing with Joe. Roll Call reports,

"Democratic Congressional leaders may be keeping their distance from Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) since he opted to seek re-election as an Independent, but a group of more than 50 former Senators, House Members and Clinton administration officials will proudly announce the creation of "Dems for Joe" today...

"Other founding members include former Sens. David Boren (Okla.), Bob Kerrey (Neb.), John Breaux (La.) and Dennis DeConcini (Ariz.); former Reps. Mel Levine (Calif.) and Leon Panetta (Calif.), who served as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton; former Clinton Agriculture Secretary and former Rep. Mike Espy (Miss.); and former Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey.

"They join a much smaller group of incumbent Democratic Senators who have endorsed Lieberman in the general election. Sens. Tom Carper (Del.), Ken Salazar (Colo), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) all have decided to stick by Lieberman."

This article is from a Democratic site.

[ChiciB1]

7. Whoops... We Must Have Been Writing At The Same Time!

Guess I need to get busy and do some writing or emailing. We all should let them know how we feel!

Going to print out this info and start from there. Thanks for the link and information!

[KoKo]

18. a family member who has lived in Connecticut all her life and voted Repug

all her life is mad as hell at Lieberman. She said to me the other day...I will vote for anyone who is against this WAR and that means Lamont to her. She's not sure how her Wall St. Lawyer hubby will vote but she actually has gone to Lamont rallies with her friends and that means that her Repug friends are going to vote for him, too.

She is from Greenwich...and belongs to the Country Club that Lamont does, so the vote may vary in other parts of Connecticut... But, this is a person who is so even tempered that to hear her anger about Bush and Iraq was a shock to me. Let's hope Lieberman get's a shock on election day since we know the polls have problems these days with so many folks using "caller i.d." and cell phones.

[madfloridian]

21. Thanks for sharing that.

Maybe others will feel that way as Iraq continues to disintegrate.

[smoogatz]

5. It's all about Joe.

Fuck the Democratic party. But we knew that back when he told us we were traitors for criticizing Bush.

[ChiciB1]

6. I Heard Shays Was Behind His Opponent... What's Up Here???

We need to take some action some way. I already sent some money to Lamont, but is there a list somewhere of "Democrats" in Congress or high levels who are supporting Mr. Lie????

We need to write them or at least get their names out there front and center so ALL will know who they are!

[hang a left]

33. I believe the OP covered that. nt

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Greyhound]

9. And yet the "leaders" of "our party" have steadfastly refused

to punish him. No matter how egregious his statements and threats, they won't say one damn thing.

These are the people that are going to fix the country?

[GreenArrow]

35. "These are the people that are going to fix the country?"

No, these are the people that want you to think that they are going to fix the country.

[Zhade]

62. EXACTLY.

NT!

[otohara]

10. They Did Joe, You Lost

and now you suck even more!

[doctor_garth]

11. shame on the useless people of Connecticut

if they vote for this scummy war monger.

[ChiciB1]

14. How Come Lieberman Has Surged So Far Ahead???

Lamont was only trailing him by a little about 2 weeks ago. WHAT HAPPENED???

[DocSavage]

15. Could it just

be that DU does not represent the voters of CT? There are a lot of Dems out there that are still like Sam Nunn and other hawk democrats. Hell, there are peacnick republicans, why not hawk dems. They, and the Dems that have supported Joe for 25 years are going to stick with him. As my conservative friend points out, I sure did not have a problem with Jim Jefferds from VT switching after he was elected, why am I whinning now.

[madfloridian]

17. Those who stick with him have Joe Loyalty, not worrying about party.

Yet anytime any of us who are just the people of the party sound critical, we are warned at once....that we must be loyal, we have to win in November at all costs.

We must be loyal, the party leaders are excused for supporting Joe over Lamont.

That is very mixed up.

[JerseygirlCT]

75. Well, for one, I don't recall Jeffords claiming to be a

Republican even as he switched his affiliation.

I don't know that there are really lots of conservative Dems in CT -- of the Sam Nunn variety. There are Republicans -- who are overwhelmingly voting Lieberman -- and there are lots of Democrats -- from the blue-collar, "Reagan Dems" of the Naugatuck valley to the liberal Dems around the cities... I think that CT voters as a whole though can be characterized by a pragmatic streak. Steady habits isn't just a catch-phrase, it's fairly well imbued in the character here.

And I think, as I said below, it's a small state. There are a fair number of people who have personal ties to Lieberman or his staff. He's grown into the fabric of the place. I know of a few who don't seem to see the same things I do about him -- they've known and liked him so long that the flaws which seem insurmountable to me just don't appear to them. Or appear less important.

Lamont's got to get known, but in a very short while, he's got to get *respected*, which is going to be very difficult in a few week period. People need to be reassured that he's the real thing, and a steady, secure choice for their future. I do hope he can pull it off, and I'm frightened at the prospect of an "independent" Lieberman holding the country hostage to his ego. But it most definitely won't be easy.

[DocSavage]

82. He ran

as a R, was elected as an R, then switched parties after the Senate commenced a new session. He had Limbaugh and other spitting nickels. But he had only 2 years in the Majority, then the R's gained 4 or 5 seats and controlled the Senate. Jeffords may have been a R for a lot of years, but when it came time for the R's to set the table for chairmenships and such, he looked on from the outside.

My point is that alot of Joe's friends and fellow Senators are going to be real sorry come January if the R's maintain control and Joe caucasus with them. It will have nothing to do with how he represents CT, but it will be a political windfall for the R's if that happens.

[Llewlladdwr]

92. I'm finding this all rather amusing.

Chalk up another 'moral victory' to Markos. Why is anyone still listening to him?

[Hippo_Tron]

106. Being against the Iraq War doesn't make you a peacnik...

And you don't have to be for the Iraq War to be a hawk. The Iraq War was the policy of a bunch of incompetent assholes that run our country and should be opposed by anybody, hawk or dove, with half a brain. Our invasion of Iraq has made the region less stable and has gotten rid of a very important counter-balance to Iran. Plenty of non peacnicks like Jim Webb, Wes Clark, and hell even Dick Armey knew this would happen before we went in and warned us about it. Plenty more knew it too, but weren't willing to speak up.

Ned Lamont isn't a peacenick and Joe Lieberman isn't a hawk dem. Ned Lamont is a Democrat who is smart enough to realize that neocon foreign policy is a complete failure. Joe Lieberman is a neocon.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

23. .

[JerseygirlCT]

30. GOP voters and enough independents

that's what happened. And enough of the hard-core Lieberman supporters in the Dem. party.

And I don't think Lamont's doing enough to get himself out there and explain who he is. Too many other people are doing it, and not in the best way.

[calico1]

34. I agree. He needed to run a different

campaign than he did for the primary. And he hasn't done a good job of it. Also, the local Democrats are not visibly supporting him. If Dodd, Blumenthal and others publicly showed support for him it would help so much. But of course they are too scared of Joe Lieberman and don't want to upset him. :-(

[JerseygirlCT]

74. I think there are honestly a fair amount of personal ties here

complicating things. People who've known Lieberman for decades, and find it difficult to see what he's become.

So while politicians in the state did come out for Lamont, I think they're finding it hard to do much more than that. And this is a small state, with lots of overlapping social and political ties. It's complex.

So I do hope Lamont gets out there and tells his story more. It's got to be about more than Iraq. CT people are going to need more. They want to know he's dependable, steady, not the wild-eyed liberal that others are attempting to portray him as.

[Cascadian]

123. Whatever it is, it stinks.

It smells of Karl Rove whatever the hell it is.


John

[madfloridian]

12. The grassroots are expected to be loyal, party leaders don't have to. be.

That is what puzzles me. This attitude carries over to all levels of the party.

Nearly everyone I know understands that this is a power play. There should be no flip flopping on this issue.

It is a contest to see if promaries count anymore. If primaries don't count, then we lose our voice in the party.

[galloglas]

13. In our two party democratic system, Lieberman has said,

in essence, to ALL citizens,

"You can't vote me out of the Senate! I'll just run as a Republican. I don't care what my Electoral Label says!"

And, I think, "If it looks like apple butter, smells like a cattle pen, and feels like what gets shoveled from out of barn stalls, then... it must be Bull Shit!"


"Vote Lieberman for Hypo-crap of State!"

[progressoid]

16. what a douche.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. This couldn't happen in Florida

The filing deadline to run as an independent is the same as to run in the primary. If a candidate loses the primary in Florida, they are SOL until the next election.

[madfloridian]

27. But in Florida they can just as effectively squash grassroots efforts.

And they do, and they did.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Which grassrotts movement did 'they' squash?

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

32. More on that at a later date.

.

[Totally Committed]

22. This one's for Joe.........

And, I mean that sincerely!

TC

[union_maid]

24. Well, no one can blame Rte.7

We drove through CT this weekend. We took Rte.7 from Danbury all the way up and on into MA. From Danbury up to Canaan, the only yard signs pertaining to that race where for Ned Lamont. Not a single Lieberman sign to spoil the beautiful scenery.

[madfloridian]

25. That must have been a nice sight to see.

Thanks for sharing.

[ChiciB1]

26. So Then... Why Is Lamont 10 to 20 Points Behind Depending On

which poll you look at?? I just don't understand this! I really do think we need to DO SOMETHING, just don't know WHAT!!

I have started writing to the list that was posted, but getting "bounce-backs' from some!

I saw IF you lose in a PRIMARY, you LOSE! That's It! Tout Fini!!

[union_maid]

28. Well, I guess...

Route 7 is just a small piece of CT, although it is a particularly beautiful piece of it. I don't live there. I just drive though a couple of times a year. It looks like there's plenty of affluence there, but maybe of a more liberal bent. You see things like sculpture on lawns here and there. After 911, during that short span of time when we were a united country there was a house - beatiful old colonial - that the owner had painted like an American flag. It was a great job. It looked like one of those wood folk art flags you can find in catalogs. It's gone. The owner seems to have repainted and I couldn't pick out which house it was. I don't know where there's political significance to that or not.

My understanding was always that Joementum sprung more from the Hartford area. But I don't know. I just know that Rte. 7 seems to be standing behind Lamont. :)

[ChiciB1]

43. This Is One Person I Want To See Gone... Sorry... It's Just

my opinion! His arrogance really disturbs me! Mr. Lie's that is!

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. He will be no threat if the Dems can take the Senate.

Keep the Republican corruption scandals a-coming.

[madfloridian]

36. He is a threat to Democratic party policies already.

By ignoring the wishes of the Democratic voters in CT, he is undermining the party whether he wins or not.

Lamont is the Democratic candidate. Joe is not.

Instead of supporting Ned, people come here and yell about his campaign. Lieberman pretty well seems to control the CT media content, at least it appears that way on a search.

[DocSavage]

72. You better

hope we do more than a 1 seat majority. After the way that his fellow D senators have treated him, he may become a (I) and caucus with the R's. With the VP, that makes the R's a majority again.

[madfloridian]

77. That's not even a veiled threat....it is like a pity party for Joe.

No one treated him any way, they just voted someone else in.

Maybe it is good to see this attitude show up so clearly here. It is what we will face as we try to change the party to one that does not support spreading democracy all over the world.

Joe in that video blamed the party for voting its conscience. There is no excuse for that.

[LoZoccolo]

37. No, he's not saying that.

He is in effect saying look what happens when you vote a long time incumbent out.

He's saying look what happens when you vote a long time incumbent out who could win the general election. I don't think people should vote for him, nor do I think he's a net asset to the party, but every poll before the election had him winning both a 3-way and a 2-way race, and had Lamont winning neither. People pretty much had reason to believe that this was not going to work, and a lot of money has been put into the Lamont campaign.

[madfloridian]

38. It was in his own words, my friend.

He is showing CT who is boss, and his centrist friends are helping him.

Any Democrat still supporting him shows that Joe is more important than the processes of the party. Any centrist blogger making fun of the "netroots" who support Lamont are hurting the party.

He has put himself above the party, and he should not be defended for that.

[LoZoccolo]

50. Where? Document or retract.

Where did he say anything about anything but the race he's currently participating in?

How many times do I have to say that manipulative arguments don't really convince people of anything?

[madfloridian]

52. Retract? Is that a threat to me?

I posted the video...Joe said it. You are attacking the messenger.

Joe is wrong, and people defending him are defending the indefensible.

[LoZoccolo]

56. No. Your argument is it's own threat to your credibility, apparently. nt

[madfloridian]

57. The video of Joe speaks for me. Attack my credibility, watch the video.

When you attack my credibility when I have posted the total truth, then you should be ashamed.

[LoZoccolo]

69. I'd invite anybody to watch the video, actually!

It will just show people that you could not answer my question.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. The Dems rejected Lieberman, not vice versa.

I'm hoping Lamont wins, but I care less about it than I do about any of the other races where the person who may beat a Democract won't vote for a Democratic majority.

I think the attitude "No excuse for this man who attacks his own party." is missing a fundamental point: Lieberman offered his loyalty to the Democrats, they rejected it. That leaves him under no obligation to them; he's perfectly free to run against a Democratic candidate.

He hasn't betrayed the Democrats, because they'd already released him from all obligations.

Lamont would undoubtedly have made a better senator, but Lieberman is still less of a problem than any of the Republicans running for the senate, in my view.

[madfloridian]

40. Well, gee, I betcha they won't do that again.

I bet Democrats will think twice before voting out any long-term incumbent.

I don't think I need the sarcasm tag, because quite frankly I think everyone knows that no one rejected anyone, they just voted for someone else.

This tactic has its roots in the centrist policies and the centrist part of the party. I use centrist, not DLC, because I don't get as many verbal assassinations.

It will eventually not work anymore. The good people of the Democratic Party of CT voted their choice, and they are getting screwed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. They're getting exactly what they voted for.

The issue being voted on in the Democratic primary was who the Democratic candidate would be. Ned Lamont won it, and he is indeed the Democratic candidate. Nothing else was at stake - it is a crucial part of democracy that the election itself is between "all those who wish to run", not "the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate, and no-one else".

If the Democrats wish in future to introduce a rule saying that if you run in their primaries and lose, you can't then run as an independent, then fair enough, but complaining that Lieberman has broken such a rule when it doesn't exist is foolish, I think.

The good people of the Democratic party of CT are indeed getting screwed; that's an inevitable consequence of being a minority in a democracy. A minority that isn't getting screwed is called an oligarchy, or similar.

[madfloridian]

42. No way to respond to that, is there?

Joe should be ashamed of himself, so should the DLC people who are supporting him still.

If he wanted to run for something else, ok, fine. But he lost, he can't admit it, and he is thumbing his nose at the Democrats in CT.

And many centrist Dems are chuckling behind the scenes.

This is not the first incumbent to be voted out, it is most certainly not the last. The Iraq war has and will hurt many Democrats. The torture bill will hurt even more.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. "He lost" is missing the point entirely.

One doesn't just lose, one loses *something*. It's a verb that requires an object.

What Lieberman lost was the right to be the Democratic candidate, *not* the right to be the senator. He's never tried to deny that. "He can't admit it" is missing the point. The senatorial election hasn't happened yet, so no-one can have lost it.

[madfloridian]

45. That is outrageous spin. He is attacking the Democrat in the race.

The Democrat who won.

What a shame how this is being spun.

To put it bluntly, Joe is thumbing his nose.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. Is your argument that if you lose a primary then you have an obligation

not to contest the actual election as an independent?

If so, where do you think that obligation springs from, and is it written down anywhere? If not, why not?


P.S. why do you use "The Democrat who won" rather than "The Democrat who won the Primary"?

[The Magistrate]

47. He Should Have Accepted The Verdict Of the Primary, Sir

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. He *did* accept the verdict of the primary.

The verdict of the primary was that Lieberman should not be the Democratic candidate. It *wasn't* that he shouldn't run as an independent, because that wasn't the question being voted on.

"Not accepting the verdict of the Primary" would have been trying to claim that he had the formal endorsement of the Democratic party.

[The Magistrate]

51. What The Man Has Done Is Dis-Honorable, Sir

That he may succeed in it does not alter that. Nor is any good served by attempts to defend it here.

[paulk]

54. since when has politics been an honorable profession?

;-)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. In what way?

My guess is that the reason you feel his conduct was dishonourable was that you believe that losing a primary places you under a moral obligation not to contest the election itself.

Is this the case? If so, why - what is the source of that obligation? If not, for what other reason do you feel Lieberman's conduct was dishonourable?


"Nor is any good served by attempts to defend it here."

Yes and no. I'm certainly aware that I'm not likely to convince anyone that Lieberman's conduct wasn't dishonourable. However, I think one of the major weaknesses of DU is it's tendency to behave as an echo chamber (as this thread demonstrates), and as such expressing a dissenting opinion on a thread like this one will help people remember that there are people who disagree with them, and (I hope, although I doubt many people will agree with me) that they can and do sometimes advance arguments that at the least need to be rebutted and not just dismissed by verbal shorthands, which I do regard as "some good".

[kohodog]

63. He ran for the Senate when he ran for VP

2000 was 50/50 in the Senate. If Joe became VP, Gov. Rowland wpuld have appointed a republican, giving the Senate to the Republicans. Joe is all about Joe, and not about the people, that is for damn sure.

He thumbed his nose at us when he lost the primary, the arrogant prick.

Do you really want to know how I feel?

But this contest is not over. A certain percentage of Republicans will not be able to pull the lever for Joe. Probably at least 15-20% which will leave the race very close.

There is a guy on my block who had a huge hand painted sign in 2004 that read:

God Bless America
God Bless Our Troops
God Bless George Bush
God Damn John Kerry

Today he has a Lieberman sign, so I guess Joe will get all the freaks.

[madfloridian]

49. Not allowing myself to get dragged down into the mud on this...

anymore. I have been reading the spin on this from several blogs and diaries that border on Republican, but call themselves centrist. I try to be sensible, and I can't argue when people present false arguments.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. You can't argue when people present *false* arguments?

Given that clearly you can't argue with someone when they're presenting arguments that you think are true, the implication is that you are incapable of arguing under any circumstances.

I think you need to think that one through again.

[madfloridian]

66. When the facts are not on your side...attack the messenger.

Works every damn time. Except now. Joe said it, Joe owns it, and all the spin ain't gonna work this time.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

68. Please consider which of us has indulged in attacking the messenger.

I have repeatedly put forward a series of arguments (essentially the same argument in various forms) entirely in tune with the facts; I haven't done anything else. You haven't responded to them/it. By all means accuse me of being wrong - at least if you can justify that accusation - but you have no grounds to claim that I have done anything than put my case clearly and logically, and certainly no grounds to accuse me of ad hominem arguments.

Once again: Lieberman running as an independent was not dishonourable. He had no obligation not to run as an independent - losing the primary merely meant that he had no right to run as a Democrat. The only sense in which he's acting as though he "owns" the seat is that he's acting as though the majority of the voters their want him to run, which they do. If anything, not running would be dishonourable, given that the electorate clearly wants him to.

[madfloridian]

70. It is dishonorable. It is a dishonorable to do.

He takes support form Republicans, basks in their hugs, and attacks his fellow Democrats.

If you have trouble with seeing that, then that is your problem.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. They're not "his fellow Democrats", as has been repeatedly pointed out.

He's not running as a Democrat, he's running as an independent. He offered to run as a Democrat and they turned the offer down, as they were perfectly entitled to do.

I don't support Lieberman, but the only legitimate grounds to oppose him is for his policies, not because he's done something "dishonourable" (neither you nor anyone else has *tried* to explain why what he's done was dishonourabl; what principle of honour or obligation he was under he has violated) and on that count, while it is reasonable to oppose him, it is not reasonable to oppose him as strongly as even the least illiberal Republican, and certainly not to the degree most DUers do.

[madfloridian]

79. He is totally selfish, it is all about him.

I know some who lost and kept working for the party. They made it about the Democrats and not about themselves.

50 of the Democrats are helping him still. But Joe IS attacking Lamont constantly.

He even has a page at his site called The Full Lamonty. Isn't that cute?

Things will change in the party eventually. Joe might win, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory. He will lose respect, honor, and dignity.

[DocSavage]

84. Lose respect,

honor and dignity to whom? As of right now, the voters of CT disagree with you. If, Lamont had the true undying support of all of the dems in CT, there would be no question of who would be leading this race. But, he does not. As for "All about him", well, he only casts 1 vote. The voters can easily decide that he is not the person that they want to represent them in DC, do not think that is the case though.

What is wrong with a good 3 way race. The R was put up there so there would be name in the column. If Liberman ran un-apposed, he would be cleaning up. Now it is a race between 2 idiologies, and it seems that the hawk is winning. I personally think that the coast of CT is very hawkish, lots of military bases, defense contractors and such. The workers there are hawks, along with thier families. I think that the message that Lamont is putting out resounds with a very small group of eligible voters. But, if this state is a test of the national message of the DNC, then maybe the message needs to be tweeked alittle.

[madfloridian]

85. You do no favors when you twist facts.

I am backing off arguing as you keep setting one false premise after the other.

Joe is dead wrong. The Democrats who are supporting him are wrong.

That is the bottom line.

[DocSavage]

90. Which facts am I twisting

Is Liberman leading in CT?

Is CT a Blue State?

Is it up to the CT voters as to whom they send to DC?

Other than Liberman loosing the primary, is it wrong to offer the voters a choice?

If Liberman is such a dinasaur, he should be loosing. But he aint. It appears that the voters of CT feel that he best represents thier views.

If the message that Lamont is advancing is so good, he should be winning big. My point is that the message may be wrong. There is a reason that it is not resonating with voters. I do not live in CT, I do not have a dog in this hunt, the same position that I am sure most of the posters on this thread are in.

BTW, what false premise did I advance according to you? Just want to know so I can make sure I do not do that again.

[PassingFair]

89. ;He ran as a democrat and he LOST.

If he wanted to run as an Independent (I),
then he should have done so in the primary.

He is a disgrace.

Other dems have run and lost. They have fallen
back and supported the winner, as they SHOULD
have. I have NO respect for Mr. LIEberman.
He will have a very tarnished place in history.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

93. You're still confusing the primary and the election.

They're to decide two completely different things.

I find very striking the number of people who keep saying "Lieberman LOST", while carefully glossing over *what* he lost. As I pointed out elsewhere, "lost" is a verb that requires an object - you don't just lose, you lose *something*, and what Lieberman lost was *not* the election to the Senate.

Lieberman lost the election to decide who would be the Democratic candidate for the Senate, not the election to decide who would be the Senator.

"He should have run as an independent in the primary" is not a sensible argument. In the primary, Lieberman was *offering* to run as a Democrat. The Democratic voters decided not to accept that offer, as they were perfectly entitled to do, and so he was freed of all obligation towards them. I'd have even less sympathy for him than I do currently if he *hadn't* made that offer, and had simply left the Democratic party unilaterally.

Not to mention the impossibility of running as an independent in a Democratic primary...

[PassingFair]

107. You are painfully unaware of tacit

agreements in the political sphere.

Or you are painfully obtuse.

Either way, Lieberman should have collected his remaining
marbles and gone home after losing the democratic primary.

It is expected.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

117. Technically, you're right.

I am indeed unaware of any tacit agreement stating that running in a primary places one under an obligation not to run as an independent if one loses, which I assume it what you're implying?

I've repeatedly asked people if they believe such an obligation exists, and if so why, but so far no-one has answered.

[druidity33]

94. excuse me...

but i'll oppose someone as strongly as i want to , thank you very much! (regardless of whether you think it's reasonable or not)


:)

[Zhade]

99. He's calling himself an "independent Democrat".

He's a liar, and a fraud, and his political career must be destroyed.

[madfloridian]

58. Ha Ha Ha.... see what happened when I used the D word.

I used the word DLC instead of Centrist, and here we are.

I thought so.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. I'm confused.

Do you think we'd be somewhere different if you'd said "centrist" instead of "DLC"? If so, where, and why?

[sendero]

115. If we lose the seat, we lose the seat...

.. we didn't HAVE the seat anyway, Joe was just like a Rubber-Stamp Republican on EVERY ISSUE THAT MATTERED.

Voting him out was the right thing to do, regardless of the outcome. At least he will no longer be able to come of Fox and give the "Democratic" point of view.


Fuck that sorry son of a bitch.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

116. I think you're making some unwarranted assumptions about Fox News.

Given that they classed *Foley* as a Democrat, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they omit the word "petitioning" and present Lieberman as one, especially if he's caucassing with them.

[sendero]

122. Perhaps so..

.... but I'm certainly not going to base my decisions on what lies the MSM might tell.

[JerseygirlCT]

78. Is that really the way you see it working?

Then loyalty isn't worth much, is it? If he doesn't care for the way the system works, screw it! He'll take his beans and go home.

I think Joe broke his loyalty to Democratic ideals. And I think he began doing that years ago. He broke loyalty for me with his statements in the NYT last year (about not speaking up against the president). He continued to do that with his votes on Alito, and with his statements about the state's Catholic hospitals.

I think he broke first, and the state's Dems felt released from any obligation to HIM at primary time.

And then, much like the president he seems to so admire, he sullenly and stubbornly did what's best for HIM, not what's best for the state or the country. And whined when not everyone hailed the decision.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

95. This *is* the way the system works.

It's Lieberman's *opponents* who are sulking about the way that works. The person the most Democratic voters want to become candidate becomes candidate, and the person the most voters want to become senator becomes senator. That's not "taking his beans and going home", it's participating in the democratic system the way it's meant to work.

Your accusation about doing "what's best for HIM, not what's best for the state or the country" lacks merit given the degree of support he enjoys in Connecticut - clearly most of the electorate there disagrees with you.

As to "betraying Democratic ideals", he certainly is not serving (and so far as I know never was serving) the ideals of the DU wing of the Democratic party, but moderates have just as much right to call themselves Democrats as we do, and, indeed, arguably more historical justification. We have no more right to declare what "Democratic ideals" are than any other Democrats, and a lot of them agree with Lieberman.

[flyarm]

111. he lost me when he kissed the murderer in the white house ..spoke

volumns to me!!..as was his support for this illegal war of murder!

he is a prick of the worst kind..i can not even stomach to look at the prick!

fly

[ChiciB1]

80. You ARE Joking Aren't You????

And even IF it were a fact the Dems left him, does that give him the right to DECIDE he can run as an INDEPENDENT DEMOCRAT??? That's a slap in the face to each Democrat who voted for Lamont!!

Not only that, the real zinger is that IF he wins, and I WISH WE COULD FIND SOME WAY TO HELP LAMONT, he will still retain his position on any and all committees! At the very least, he actually is running as a "new" party candidate!! Independent Democrat!!

That might not be a bad idea for a THIRD Party, but after he runs as an Independent, he says he will be a Democrat!

As I said before, THIS IS ONE race I really feel strongly about! I'll never forget what Mr. Lie has done! And to me IT IS A BIG DEAL!!

[flyarm]

112. me too ..a real big deal!! i cannot stomach that jerk! n/t

[martymar64]

105. It also frees the party from giving him any seniority in committees.

If he wins as an I as opposed to a D, the party has every right to revoke anything the party has given to Lieberman's benefit, including seniority status in committee assignments. If he doesn't like it, then he can go to the new minority party, the R's, for sympathy.

[Zhade]

59. People, please see the link in my sig.

lieberman must not just be stopped, at this point his political career must be DESTROYED.

[madfloridian]

64. Shays Republican, CT, says Lieberman is a national treasure...

I guess he means for Republicans. He is supporting Lieberman, very thankful for him. Lieberman is helping Republicans GOTV in CT, and he is hurting his own party.

And Shays hugs him. You betcha, Shays, he's a national treasure for you guys.

[flyarm]

113. yeah a dictorial nation!!..not my nation..he is a treasonous bastard! n/t

[kohodog]

65. Joe is a Democrat no more.

He is relishing his new found "non-partisanism." By that I mean he really has become a Republican. His talking points are republican. He's against universal healthcare, for privatizing S.S., votefd against Habeous corpus and loves W.

He is beginning to lie like Bush and Cheney, saying he never said things that he absolutely said. It will be a sad day in CT if he pulls it out.


From KOS:

CLAIM: "There were some things Vice President Cheney said about Saddam having nuclear weapons, I never bought that." - Joe Lieberman, Fox Channel 61, 10/8/06 (2:05 in Part 2 of the interview)
FACT: "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States of America." - Joe Lieberman, Fox News, 8/4/02

FACT: "We have reason to believe is developing nuclear weapons." - Joe Lieberman, AP, 10/2/02

FACT: "What's most frightening, said Lieberman, is that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, and is rapidly developing nuclear capability." - Hartford Courant, 1/15/02

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/9/19559/4369

[AzDar]

67. What part of "get-the-fuck-out" does he not understand? He is

NOT A DEM, just a spiteful, egomaniacal jerk.
GO NED!!!

[lovuian]

73. At least we KNOW who you support and thats George

Conneticut delusional voters...

[cui bono]

76. Lamont can still win this...

David Sirota has a good piece on this race:

Over the last week, there has been much navel gazing about the Lamont-Lieberman race, with some saying that polls showing Lamont behind somehow mean things aren't going well. Obviously, we'd all like the polls to look as good as possible, but if history is any guide, Lamont is in a terrific position to win this thing.

This ain't theory - this is historical fact. And you know who provides us with that historical fact? None other than Joe Lieberman.

Take a look at this New York Times story from October 13, 1988. It came out at almost exactly the same time in the general election Connecticut Senate campaign as we stand at today:

NY Times October 13, 1988

Weicker Ahead In Polls

During the debate, Mr. Lieberman's staff also circulated a list of the attendance records of all United States Senators that placed Mr. Weicker in the bottom 20 percent for each of the last four years, with attendance records ranging from 91 percent to 86 percent.

Mr. Weicker and his supporters, however, portrayed the issue as desperate rhetoric coming from a candidate who is trailing by 14 percentage points in each of the two most recent statewide polls. "He is coming unglued," said Mr. Weicker's campaign manager, J.S. Malcynsky of New Britain.

<snip>

Connecticut radio host Colin McEnroe reinforces this very reality on his Hartford Courant blog today, noting that Lieberman is in an ever more precarious position. Put these two things together, and you get two key points.

First and foremost, with every credible poll showing this race within 10 points, we're in an even better position to win than Lieberman was - and that's especially incredible since Ned is a businessman who has spent the last 18 years not as a career politician throwing himself in front of cameras, but instead building his company from scratch. The fact that a career politician like Lieberman could label that "no experience" shows just how out of touch Lieberman is - but the fact that a guy like Ned who hasn't been a career politician is so close to an 18-year political careerist with all the advantages of incumbency shows just how winnable this race really is.

<snip>

Second, while Lieberman's atrocious record on the war may be widely known, his awful attendance records are only now starting to seep out there in Connecticut. Ned released some brilliant radio ads that have really hit this issue hard, showing that Lieberman has attended California fundraisers rather than show up to vote, showing that Lieberman skipped half of all votes on Iraq, and generally showing that Lieberman has an awful attendance record.

<snip>

For those like me who have worked on successful challenger races, you know what I'm talking about - you can tell that Lieberman is running scared and that we're in a great position. For those who haven't worked on successful challenger races, I urge you - stay in the fight, and let history remind you of what great shape we're really in. Though we're in the final sprint here, this race is still a marathon, and everyday we get closer to victory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/how-close-we-really-are_b_31223.html

[kohodog]

81. Yes, and the drum I keep beating...

Is that there is no way Schlessinger will garner less than 15-20% of the vote. I've seen as many Schlessinger signs (and I'm all over the state for work) as Joe signs. I don't think many CT republicans will vote for Ned, but Joe will not be their vote when they go into the booth. At least a fair percentage won't vote for him. If they do, the current media spin about politics being "local" is total bs, and the dems will take over both houses in a landslide. Politics are local, and republicans in CT are not likely to unanamously support Joe.

[JerseygirlCT]

83. Really? I haven't seen one

And I've heard Schlesinger is not only a mediocre candidate, but pretty much a jerk of a person -- with a reputation to match in his profession.

Do you think that the pull of party designation will work for 15-20%? Obviously that helps us, but I'm not getting too many hopes up. And most of the Republicans I know or know of in the greater Hartford area would be pretty comfortable with Joe Lieberman.

I hope you're right -- I'm just not seeing it I guess.

[kohodog]

88. I live on the shoreline and travel around the state

Actually I don't see many Lamont, Lieberman or Schlessinger signs. Lots of local candidate signs, but Lieberman seems to have poisoned the water. I would say I see in fairly close numbers:
1) Lamont
2) Lieberman
3) Schlessinger

And frankly, there are many houses with four or five signs, but none for Senate. I think Lieberman has caused problems. That being said, the freeper types and some moderates will vote for Joe, but many staunch Republicans will vote for Schlessinger or smiply not vote for a Senate candidate.

This may be speculation, but as a liberal I don't think I could vote for any Republican given what's at stake. I would hold my nose (as I have) and vote for a conservative or center/right dem.

[Hepburn]

86. Gawd.........

......I just HATE that asshole Lieberman!

:puke:

[depakid]

96. Seniority stripped

Any majority leader who won't do that needs to be replaced- or voted out next time around.

Simple as that.

[madfloridian]

97. The leadership of the party could have stopped this.

But they did not. This week alone, Lieberman has crossed them on the Foley deal, disagreeing with the leadership, and further he was hitting Howard Dean at his campaign site at the same time he was attacking Lamont.

And a guy who disagrees with leadership over something as serious as the Foley case, a guy who slaps the chairman in his face....is so powerful he will win as an independent (can you say Republican/Independent) and keep his party seniority.

Maybe it is best that it happened. We can see the power one man holds over the party leadership; they are actually fearful about it.

Maybe it is best it happened. Maybe we are seeing the true face of the party, and that might be a very good thing for us to know.

[paulk]

102. don't turn this into an attack on the Democratic Party leadership

Lieberman has always held the trump card. Polls have always shown that he would win in a three way race. For the party leadership, control of the Senate is what this election is about. That's what the "true face of the party" is and has always been.

[madfloridian]

103. So you are also saying the CT Dem voters don't matter.

That is exactly what you are saying. You are implying Joe is above the voters, that it is all about him.

As I said, this is good this happened. It does show things as they really are.

[paulk]

104. whatever....

:eyes:

[Thrill]

108. Why doesn't he just switch to Republican?

I mean why not?

[cmkramer]

118. Well mainly

because he's in disagreement with 99.9% of what they stand for?

[Thrill]

109. This is the biggest difference between the Dems and Repukes

you won't see them supporting someone like this if he switched parties. Dems aren't ruthless enough. It drives me nuts

[LeftishBrit]

110. An outsider's point here: the Republicans WERE ruthless

Within-party politics often get pretty raucous in the UK, and I thought I'd seen everything! Many aspects of this story are indeed all too familiar to me. Politicians here certainly sometimes fall out with their parties and/or get dumped by them; and seriously ambitious politicians are generally even less willing to accept threats, let alone defeat, from their own party than from the opposition. Party disputes have sometimes resulted in people switching parties or standing as independent candidates. So far, so familiar.

The one thing that I've *never* seen before is that a party would abandon their already-selected candidate, in favour of one of the candidates of another party, without requiring that the other candidate switch parties first. The most bizarre aspect of the situation seems to me that the Republicans have essentially dumped their candidate for a Democrat. Why would they do this? Is it that they really want Lieberman, or that they fear Lamont so much that they want to stop him at any cost even to their own party, or do they really dislike their own candidate?

[xchrom]

114. they fear lamont that much.

lamont would represent a kind of sea change that could threaten corporate intrests on two fronts:

the first is health care and further moves to nationalize health care.

second is social security: this is important as corporations see the money that goes to social security as a gold mine -- and they want it.

[enough already]

120. What an arrogant prick

I hate his guts.

[madfloridian]

121. This is just plain nasty and divisive. From a blogger today...

http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/2006/10/spend-it-all-ned.html

Too ugly to post any of it.

And here is where he is linked from a Democratic think tank, which sanctions his bull****. Pardon the pun.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252975&subid=900094&kaid=86

:puke:

[madfloridian]

124. Ah, sadly, Bob Geiger is probably right...

and there is little any of the Democratic leaders can do about Lieberman, so I guess he truly honestly has us by the who know whats.

He will get to keep his seniority according to this post by Bob Geiger, and he can let the Republicans give him most of his support. Sad situation where many of the Democrats are supporting him still.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2879474

Here is a post about the Democrats who are supporting him.

Hug a "nutrooter" today because Lieberman is leading

"The Moose applauds the brave Democrats who are standing with Joe. Roll Call reports,

"Democratic Congressional leaders may be keeping their distance from Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) since he opted to seek re-election as an Independent, but a group of more than 50 former Senators, House Members and Clinton administration officials will proudly announce the creation of "Dems for Joe" today...

"Other founding members include former Sens. David Boren (Okla.), Bob Kerrey (Neb.), John Breaux (La.) and Dennis DeConcini (Ariz.); former Reps. Mel Levine (Calif.) and Leon Panetta (Calif.), who served as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton; former Clinton Agriculture Secretary and former Rep. Mike Espy (Miss.); and former Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey.

"They join a much smaller group of incumbent Democratic Senators who have endorsed Lieberman in the general election. Sens. Tom Carper (Del.), Ken Salazar (Colo), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) all have decided to stick by Lieberman."

[madfloridian]

125. Missed the debate today.

But from what I read in the debate thread at Kos...sounds like Lieberman got a surprise from the Republican in the race.

LOL, I hear Joe said he expected to be attacked by Lamont, but not by the Republican.

Gee, Joe, do you think you gave yourself away there?

:rofl: