Some honest questions for people who support Lieberman's independent run

[dsc]

1) Are you a little concerned that if he gets to the US Senate with mostly Republican and independent votes he will dance with the ones who brought him? He already is often the first Democrat to split from us on important issues. Just how bad will he be if he feels he doesn't even have to pretend to care what Democrats think?

2) Why do you think left wing losers in primaries aren't going to do exactly what Lieberman is doing now? Left wing candidates often lose primaries. Do you really want to send the message that if one loses a primary he or she should run as a third party candidate? What if McKinney had decided to do this?

3) What if the Republicans decide to run a real candidate, instead of a lying gambling addict? Do we really want to count on Republicans to continue to run either felons or liars?

This is a terrible precedent. People like me have loundly and longly told the likes of Nader to run in Democratic primaries if they wish to change the direction of the party. Lamont did exactly that. He didn't cheat. He won fair and square. Lieberman got on CT voters last nerve and as a result lost his job. Like Alan Dixon before him he should accept the bad result just like all the good ones before.

A final question. Why should I, in the name of party unity, support candidates who I don't agree with after this?

[wtmusic]

1. ex-actly

It IS a terrible precedent, and Joe couldn't have demonstrated his selfishness and lack of party commitment any better than he has.

Half of me thinks he wants to hand Conneticut to the GOP.

[grok]

2. Excellent points all.

But really, no Lieberman supporter is going to have the balls to post here. I doubt he will get many votes on this board anyway.

But I will say this. We have succedded in making him an enemy if he wasn't one already. So now he must be destroyed politically now.

[dolstein]

7. "We have succeed in making him an enemy"

Thanks for revealing your master plan. But seriously, with Congress in play, why would picking a politicla fight with Lieberman be your top priority? I think it's reasonable to conclude that the left-wing is more concerned with purifying the party than building a governing majority.

[Zodiak]

40. I think it is the view of the left

That purifying the party is the path to building a governing majority. Chicken and egg and all that.

Elections have been our problem, and we have not demonstrably been successful with an overwhelmingly conservative field of candidates, as far as Democrats go. It would follow that trying something different might help overcome election fraud. The left side of the netroots has chosen this path and do not consider it self-immolation.

I also suspect that the same people also have made up their minds on this issue to the point that reminding them to "go along and we will win" is not going to work. They did that a couple of times already, at least by their estimation, so it is no longer an issue of trust, but what hasn't worked.

[cool user name]

66. Bravo!!!

Was thinking what you said, but couldn't put it down like you did.

Excellent post.

[Le Taz Hot]

48. He made himself the enemy

by not abiding by the wishes of CT Democrats. It's pretty simple, actually.

[Ken Burch]

49. You will be endorsing Lamont now, though, since the primary occurred

And the progressive candidate won fair and square, won't you?
Or are you admitting that you AREN'T a Democrat?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

87. No. Making him an "Independent."

He chose. Not us.

[eridani]

111. So why didn't us nut-job lefties go after even more conservative Dems?

There are quite a few, as Jomentum supporters constantly point out. Could it be that none of those more conservative Dems were anywhere as visible and public as Joe in constantly attacking other Dems and repeating Rove talking points?

[Name removed]

117. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

140. Lieberman lost and cannot be advocated for.

Take care that any posts you make about the loser lieberman do not cross into advocacy. You will be violating DU rules by advocating for the man who destroyed himself.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

50. You are now in violation of DU policy.

You can't endorse a candidate running against a Democratic candidate in this forum, slim.

[tnlefty]

3. I had to sign a friggin' loyalty oath just to sit on a committee and a

council in my county party. I have never refused to vote for the candidate who won a primary election no matter how much I disliked the winner and I was furious about having to sign the damned piece of paper!

But you were asking this question of folks who were supporting the independent run of LIEberman, sorry.

[Catchawave]

4. My postie/thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Hope this helps

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[fujiyama]

11. I must ask

what positions of Kerry made it "so tough" to vote for him?

And no one is demanding your loyalty. We are however demanding some loyalty from elected officials - or atleast respect for the primary proceess.

[dsc]

12. It isn't just the war

I am way beyond tired of hearing that same dishonest line. Lieberman was wobbly in social security, authored the law which lead to Enron, let Browne through to head FEMA, voted for the bancrupcy bill, as a divorcee told me I am too immoral to marry, and famously told Democrats that we can't criticise President Bush while we are at war after he did exactly that to Bill Clinton.

He also sold us down the river on judges. He was the one and only Democrat representing a blue state who joined the gang of 14. By doing so he single handedly cost me the right to marry for my lifetime. Heck I may never live to see even ENDA thanks to him. In short, I will, even if I live to be 100, die a second or third class citizen in my own country thanks to his behavior. Alito is on the bench now thanks to the gang of 14 who wouldn't have had the numbers without him.

The notion that Lamont sounds like Waters is absurd. Lamont is far from a leftist. He doesn't support single payer health care, he isn't in favor of ending trade agreements, he isn't even for immediate pullout of Iraq but a scheduled one.

[dolstein]

19. As much as you'd like to blame Lieberman for everything that's gone wrong

let me point out the following:

1. Lieberman didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill (he only voted for cloture, and given that he was one of 69 senators who did, his vote was hardly decisive). Quite a few Democrats voted for the bankruptcy bill, but I never hear them being criticized around here.

2. How many Democrats voted to confirm Brown's appointment to head FEMA. Did ANY Democrats oppose his nomination? Blaming Lieberman for Brown's confirmation seems quite a stretch.

3. How many Democrats in the Senate have actually come out in favor of gay marriage? Are you going to work for the defeat of every other Democrat in the Senate (the vast majority) who shares Lieberman's position?

4. You claim that Lieberman "single handedly cost me the right to marry for my lifetime." That strikes be as quite a stretch. After all, there's no scenario I can see under which the Alito nomination could have been defeated. There w wasn't a single Republican in the gang of 14 that believed extraordinary circumstances existed that would justify a filibuster of Alito, which meant the nuclear option would have been involvked if there had been a filibuster. So Alito would have been approved regardless of whether Lieberman supported cloture. And frankly, I think you realize this. But rather than heaping criticsm on the people who deserve it -- Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold and other Democrats on the judiciary committee who did a piss poor job in making a case against Alito -- you pin the blame on Lieberman.

Perhaps it makes you feel better to believe that all of your problems would be solved if only Joe Lieberman were wiped off the face of the earth. But perhaps one day when you are able to reflect on things, you'll realize how wrong you are.

[dsc]

21. some responses

1) Not voting for cloture was the same as voting for that bill. It is particularly aggravating to see our soldiers going bancrupt and having to become indentured servents thanks to him, and yes many others, who haven't served a day in combat or anywhere else, voting for that bill. He had a challenger, most others didn't.

2) Lieberman was chair of the committee whose job it was to decide if he was fit to serve when he was confirmed the first time, he was ranking Dem for the second. Yes, it is his fault, since as part of the committee system his fellow Democrats relied upon his judgement as to Brown's fitness. Given the lies the man told on his resume even a cursory examination would have shown him to be unqualified and Lieberman didn't bother to do that. He, Susan Collins, and Bush are all three responsible for this man heading FEMA.

3) No I am not, nor would I have worked for Lieberman's had this been the only issue. His divorced status does make it worse as does Kerry's but again, had this been the only sin I wouldn't have supported Lamont. I was actually on the fence until Lieberman decided to run as an independent. That was the straw that broke this camel's back.

4) There would have been the votes to filibuster Alito but for the gang of 14. Party discipline could have been enforced if it looked like there could be a win. Yes, many people deserve blame, but Lieberman is the only one currently with a challenger.

[PassingFair]

27. Don't bother with reasoning here, DSC...

He's obviously going for the lowest common denominator.....

His argument seems to be that LIEberman sucks less than
suckier dem politicians...

[MurrayDelph]

41. I get so tired of the cloture/vote issue.

When you have a strictly partisan vote that only requires a simple majority, you
have to use every weapon at your disposal. Lieberman, as usual wants it both ways:
he empties out the weapons cache (empty nothing, he sells it to the enemy) and then
wants credit for yelling "Bang!"

[Lochloosa]

138. Best Post Ever.....thnaks dsc

[inthebrain]

6. Why are people so certain that independants are going to vote for him?

Lieberman is far out of the main stream with 60% of Americans against the war. Those numbers are much higher in the NE. Lieberman has not appeal to independant voters what-so-ever.

THe idea that Lieberman will win over indies is a fucking talking point with no basis in fact.

[dolstein]

8. Your argument is flawed in two respects

First, while a majority may oppose the war, support for Lamont's position on troop withdrawal is smaller. Morevoer, not everyone believes that the war is the only issue, much less the most important issue. So this opposition to the war won't translate into 60% support for Lamont in the general election.

Second, there is a basis in fact for thinking that Lieberman will do well with independents. Lieberman's approval ratings among independents are pretty high -- higher than his support among Democrats.

[inthebrain]

9. Do you have statistics?

[dolstein]

10. Do you have google?

I do. And I found the statistics pretty easily.

Here are the most recent approval ratings I've found for Lieberman, which show higher approval ratings (55% favorable/39% unfavorable) among independents than among Democrats:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=85f79...

Here's a link to a page showing the results for the 2002 gubernatorial election in Connecticut, where moderate Republican governor Rowland defeated his liberal Democratic opponent by a wide margin:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/pages/governor/index.h...

The incumbent Republican governor, who hasn't endorsed the Republican senate nominee, is likely to win by at least as wide a margin.

Here's a link to a page showing the results for the 2004 House races in Connecticut, where moderate Republicans Shays, Johnson and Simmons won despite the fact that Kerry carried the state by ten points.

Now its YOUR turn to present statistics showing that Lamont would do better than Lieberman among independents.

[inthebrain]

13. Your survey USA Poll

is only 600 people of over 200,000 people who voted. That's not even reasonable to be considered an honest random sample.

This poll is also a month old.

It also said that 50% of Democrats supported Lieberman. Their numbers are waaaaaay off.

[dsc]

15. 600 is enough to be considered a random sample

The size of the sample affects the MOE. A sample size of 600 is on the small side of life so the MOE is likely high say +/- 5 instead of the more usual 3. But any size sample can be random. Random only speaks to how a sample is chosen.

[inthebrain]

76. The random sample is not of "reasonable size"

is more my point.

Most of those that conduct these polls dont conform to what ranom sampling is supposed to acheive anyways. When conducting telephone or mailing type polls, you have to account for those that don't respond. So if your original random sample was 800 and 600 responded, you have to account for those that don't respond.

Many pollsters don't do that and it throws off the results. Polling is nothing more than a matter of junk science in politics anyways. I don't understand why anyone trusts them.

Especially when half of Americans don't vote and they use them to declare the "mainstream".

[dsc]

150. They use stratified random samples

which should account for non answerers. To explain. Say a state has 40% Democrats, 40% Republicans, and 20% independents. Then if a pollster wants a sample of 1000, he polls 400 Democrats,400 Republicans, and 200 independents. If they don't have enough Democrats after calling the people they wish to call then they call more people until they get them. In theory this should take care of the non responder problem. It doesn't take care of people lying or people not voting.

[Ken Burch]

51. If you're supporting Lieberman against Lamont, you're violating DU rules.

At least if you're doing it in this forum.

[Zhade]

141. And the loser got more votes from Republicans than Dems every election.

Did you have a cogent point to make?

[rinsd]

45. Flawed logic

If the above were the case than the group most against the war (Democrats) would have whole heartedly backed the anti-war candidate, hence Lamont would have trounced Joe-mentum. Even with a large percentage of people in exit polls citing the war as their most important issue and assuming the generally anti-war nature of the rank and file, Lamont won by 4% and Joementum still got 48%.

The difference in this election is going to be how many Democrats defect to Joe.

[digno dave]

160. Rasmussin 46-41% for Lieberman

The Rasmussin poll that jsut came out had Leiberman ahead 46-41%. Lamont needs to hammer hard at the terrorist and show the voters in connecticut AND THE NATION that he has a pair as big as anybody around. I'm sorry, but him saying things like "america has created too many enemies abroad" won't cut it. You don't get elected telling voters that no one likes their country.

[SaveElmer]

14. All good points...

Except the first...Lieberman votes the Democratic party position in the Senate about 80% of the time...he is far from the first to join Bush...however few do it with such pleasure as Lieberman does!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. Because The Left Is Evil, and The Right Is Good. Haven't you heard? -nt

[MrBenchley]

17. Why should I, in the name of party unity, support.....

LOL! No reason.

Now tell us again why the otehr 48% of Connecticut's Democrats should support Lamont?

[dsc]

18. because he won the primary

That is the deal we make. We run our candidate in the primary and if he or she loses we support the winner. I have, with the exception of Clinton in 96 and Gore in 2000, never voted for the winner in a Presidential primary yet every single time have supported the man who won. (Simon, Tsongas, and Dean in case you are wondering who the losers I voted for were). I have also voted for losers in Congressional and Senatorial primaries. But in each and every case, save a corrupt candidate for state auditor, I have voted for the winner of all those primaries. Lieberman lost despite having incumbancy, a fairly sizable money advantage, and endorsements by nearly every elected Democrat in the land.

[MrBenchley]

20. Yet you claim Lieberman's decision negates that duty....

I too have voted in general elections for Democrats I hadn't supported in the primary. But I've never had to vote for a Democratic candidate whose supporters called me a traitor or worse for preferring one Democrat over another. I wonder how the 48% who supported Lieberman enjoyed that experience.

Seem the problem with a scorched earth campaign, like the one Lamont and his whoopsters ran, is that afterwards things are burnt.

[dsc]

23. Oh please

Lieberman himself, not his supporters, called those supporting Lamont the Taliban wing of our party on a Jihad. Sorry but if you really want to go there I can find many, many, many, many quotes of Lieberman or his attack dog Lanny Davis for each quote you find of anyone who anyone has heard of doing that to Lieberman's supporters.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[cali]

24. I'm really not aware

how groups and prominent bloggers who supported Lamont, conducted themselves. If you know of any virulently, scorched earthh tactics or lies told, on the part of Moveon, or 'kos or others, I'd be interested in seeing it. Yes there were a lot of nasty and untrue comments by posters here, but I fail to see how Lamont can be held responsible for that.

[dolstein]

25. You have over 1000 posts on DU. Are you blind?

The posts critical of Lieberman and his supporters are legion. Kos has trashed Lieberman nonstop for months.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you that Lamont shouldn't be held responsible for what his supporters say, except that Lamont embraced the blogosphere to an extent that no previous candidate has, even going to far as to feature Kos in one of his commercials. The blogger who posted the picture of Lieberman in blackface had been part of Lamont's entourage and previous campaign events.

[dsc]

26. and Lanny Davis?

Or for that matter the thing about the website? They gave as good as they got.

[MrBenchley]

44. The sheer hypocrisy of some of the Lamont posts is astounding....

And you and I both have alerted on a number of anti-Semitic slurs and posts implying Lieberman was gay.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Moochy]

42. how traitorous!

those traitors who called you a traitor... they won't be getting benchleys vote!!! darn traitors.

[Ken Burch]

52. So what will you now be doing:

1)Endorsing Lamont(who won the Democratic nomination fair and square)

2)Endorsing Lieberman and leaving the Democratic party.

Has to be one or the other, Thug Life.

[MrBenchley]

58. I'll be giving Lamont the same cheerful rousing support

that the far left gives the DLC, Kenny. The Unknown Millionaire deserves exactly that.

[Ken Burch]

95. Ned Lamont AINT't unknown anymore.

he beat your guy and peace beat your war. You don't get to call him the friggin Unknown Millionaire now, ThugLife.

And we never OWED the DLC support as an institution.

Admit it, if you're gonna support Lieberman, you don't get to bash the left on disloyalty, fool.

[LincolnMcGrath]

101. Ned Lamont never was an "Unknown"

[Zhade]

143. Yep, yet another lie from benchley the fringie.

NT!

[janx]

119. The DLC is not elected and has never been elected.

Nobody owes them any support.

[MrBenchley]

132. LOL! Not even close to true....

[Ken Burch]

198. LOL! not even close to sane!

nt.

[Bjorn Against]

71. There is just so much hypocrisy in what you just said

Here is what your buddy Lieberman said about Lamont recently...

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Yes, he is accusing Lamont of strenghthening the terrorists by running against him. Your candidate basically accused Lamont of treason, no one in the Lamont campaign has EVER accused you of being a traitor to this country.

[Moochy]

73. Theres a difference between a strongly held opinion

and an opinion one is paid to have... (snicker)

[MrBenchley]

81. No hypocrisy here....

I find it hilarious that the Lamont campaign wanted to punch and gouge when they were on the offense. No slander was too vile, no tactic too underhanded for the Neddites.

And now they're crying like babies the first time Lieberman hits back.

[Moochy]

88. Lieberman should be thinking of his legacy...

Joementum should slink away and get a cushy job, posting DLC talking points on message boards.
Anyone know where he might be able to find such a job?

[Ken Burch]

97. Liebermans' trying to steal a seat that's Democratic

rather than do the decent thing and end his campaign after the primary. Ned Lamont was never trying to take a seat away from the party. Ned and those of us who supported him and helped him to his clear and legitimate victory were defending the best of the party's principles, which include the principle that rank-and-file Dems should have a real say in what the party stands for.

You will do the honorable thing and campaign for the OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE against the conservative independent, won't you?

[MrBenchley]

102. Which seat was that, Pepe?

The seat he had that we didn't have to spend a dime to hold on to?

"were defending the best of the party's principles,"
Was that when Lamont put out the racist caricature? Or was it the constant character assassination? How about the radio commercial implying Lieberman was letting Nazis and skinheads get into the army?

Lamont ran a gutter campaigfn for the nomination. And how he's sniveling because he's getting back what he hadned out.

"You will do the honorable thing and campaign for the OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE"
I've told you three times now, Pepe. I plan to give Lamont the same enthusiastic and rousing support DUers givbe the DLC. Have somebody explain what that means.

Twice.

Very slowly.

[Ken Burch]

109. Lamont wasn't to blame for the caricature, and you know it.

A caricature that was removed within minutes and which had no effect on the campaign.

Lamont beat Lieberman because Connecticut dems are progressive and antiwar. Why can't you accept that?

And excuse me, but referring to Lamont supporters as "the Taliban wing" of the party was character assassaination on a whole group of people who'd done nothing to deserve it.

Give me one good reason why Lieberman should have been given an unchallenged renomination when millions of Connecticut voters clearly wanted a progressive alternative? Why should Joe have been above not only the Democratic Party but democracy itself? He wasn't a god that walked the earth for frick's sake.

And what progressives(none of whom are "far left")feel about the DLC isn't a comparable thing. The DLC isn't a candidate in and of itself. And most progressives DID support the DLC backed Democratic presidential candidates, so you don't have a leg to stand on there.

[LincolnMcGrath]

Does DU allow that type of smear campaign against the only

Democrat running in Ct.?

[MercutioATC]

169. Unfortunately, that is the will of Skinner.

Skinner HAS been known to reevaluate situations at times, however.....

[Ken Burch]

182. Apparently yes, if your avatar

is an inflamed New Jersey.

[ruggerson]

179. He ain't a Democrat anymore Benchley

Ole Elmer Fudd has forfeited that right. I truly can't believe you're defending this idiot.

[Ken Burch]

190. Wait a minute...YOU are complaining about what OTHER PEOPLE

call those who disagree with them?

This from the guy who has lately taken to confusing me with an animated skunk?
This from the guy who describes any disagreement with his positions as "pouting"?

This from the Insult King of DU?

Yeah, right ThugLife.

You're sort of like Don Rickles...but without the comedy.

[SaveElmer]

22. Hey Benchley...

Sorry to disagree with you on this one...

But I do think, if you believe that being part of the Democratic Party is the surest way not only to win elections, but to govern effectively, then I think we do have a duty to support the wishes of the party. I was very disappointed in Lieberman going Indie, I think it shows he puts himself above party which I have a very hard time accepting...and it really does open the door for the disintegration of the party. So while up until July I was supportive of Lieberman's reelection, when he announced his indie bid I know longer could do so.

I accept alot of idealogical difference in the party, because in the end I believe the vast majority, no matter their view are committed to Democratic victory. Joe has shown now that he is not unfortunately.

I agree with you that alot...and I mean alot...of the criticism of Lieberman and his stand on issues is complete bullshit...and I find alot of the opposition to him on the left to be mean-spirited and childish, and it made it very hard to align with them on this primary. And I am worried that the litmus-test Liberals are going to take this example of barely ousting a perceived conservative in a very blue state, and insist that model will work everywhere...which is patently ridiculous..

However, Lamont is the Democratic nominee and I feel bound to support him for the good of the party!

[LynneSin]

30. Actually MrBenchley poses a very valid question

Seriously - you think Lamont is going to win without those 48% democrats that supported Lieberman



We need to find a message that we can reach out to them and pull some of the back to our side. And for people who were devoted Lieberman supporters (who voted for them - if they didn't but just posted about it - we don't really care) they probably feel no incentive to support Lamont since they feel that the Lamont people pretty much 'ousted' them from the party.

If we ignore them we very well may have Joe Lieberman back in DC but this time with no party loyalities. And if we're 1 seat from majority, do you want Lieberman to be the difference between democratic majority and republican rule?

[MrBenchley]

47. Take a look around

The Lamont supporters define the phrase "sore winners."

And now those millions that have to be spent propping up the Unknown Millionaire cannot be spent defeating George Allen, Rick Santorum, or any other actual Republican. ("Huh? Did they change parties?" was the response from one of the whoopsters here the other day when someone suggested they might target the GOP instead of Democrats.) The battle to reclaim the Senate got one seat more difficult, and did so needlessly.

Even if Joe drops out...the Republicans are readying another candidate to face Lamont.

http://tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/11/ct_...

You know, I've never been a tin foil hat kind of guy, but consider this: There's been a lot of McGovern/Lamont comparisons (some favorable, some unfavorable), but few I've seen mentioned the most salient fact of McGovern's nomination--it was the ultimate Republican dirty trick. Nixon's plumbers rigged the primaries so they could face him.

Six months ago this was the safest seat the Democrats had. Today it's a real question as to whether we can hang on to it (and it will take a lot of effort to do so). And there, snuggling with Lamont on victory night, was the appalling mountebank Al Sharpton, whose 2004 presidential campaign was managed by a GOP operative. Six months ago the DSCC had a big cash advantage over its Republican counterpart. Now that margin and more is going to be eaten up trying to hang on to Connecticut.

[MercutioATC]

94. The ONLY reason the seat isn't safe for Dems is Lieberman.

Lamont vs. Schlesinger? Show me ONE poll that puts Schlesinger within 30 points of Lamont.

The only reason that this is no longer a safe seat is that there's a third-party spoiler who LOST the primary election that's determined to split the Dem vote.

[LincolnMcGrath]

98. 100% correct

[MrBenchley]

105. You mean the Democrat who held the seat, Lieberman?

That would be the seat we were guaranteed of holding on to without spending a dime. Until the idiots screaming for ideological purity got involved.

What's hilarious is that the people who fucked up that seat for the Democratic party, and made it so much harder to get contorl of the Senate are now DEMANDING party loyalty. I'm sure the 48% who backed Lieberman are gonig to rush to obey. (snicker)

[MercutioATC]

110. DEMOCRATS in CT decided that they wanted different representation.

Are you denying that if Lieberman (who LOST the primary) would obey the wishes of the members of his supposed party, a Democrat (Lamont) would win the general?

[MrBenchley]

114. Lamont was dredged out of obscurity by the left wing blogs

and ran a dirty campaign of character assassination. And he managed to scrape through by 4 points.

[MercutioATC]

124. So vote for Lieberman if you want to see Lamont (and Democrats) lose.

Lamont came from the same place EVERY political rookie comes from...obscurity.

Lamont depicted Lieberman's actions as he saw them. (You DID see Lieberman's "bear" ad, didn't you? That didn't even deal with issues... If there was an attempted "character assassination" in this campaign, I believe it was committed by Lieberman, not Lamont.)

Whether 4 or 40 points, DEMOCRATIC voters in Connecticut chose their candidate. The story isn't that Lamont "scraped through" by four points, it's that Lieberman was publicly supported by nearly every Democratic heavy-hitter in the country and the Democrats of Connecticut still chose different representation.


Lieberman has every right to run as the candidate of a different political party (which is the choice he's made). He can't, however, run as a Democrat. A Democrat believes in the will of the people and Lieberman has actively chosen to thwart the will of the Democratic voters of Connecticut.

[LincolnMcGrath]

125. Notice that there was no answer to your question...

Just a backhanded swipe at the only DEMOCRAT running for the Ct. seat.

[MercutioATC]

128. Yes, I noticed. I didn't expect anything different.

I PM'd a mod about these types of posts and they stated that the rules were in transition. Currently, the decision has been made to not take action unless the poster specifically states that they want the Democratic candidate to lose.

When I posited that openly stating support for the opponent(s) of a Democratic candidate necessarily implied the wish for the Democratic candidate to lose, they said that they personally agreed with me, but they were limited by the direction of the admins.

...they also stated their belief that the standard for rules violations would likely be tightened shortly.

Posters like this will soon have to either shut up or find a new home.

[LincolnMcGrath]

129. There is hope for the future then! Thank You

Hopefully the keyboard Krishnas who openly brag about bending the rules will soon be a thing of the past.

[MrBenchley]

135. I don't expect anything but hypocrisy out of Lamont backers....

And as I said, I plan to give Lamont the same cheerful, energetic backing DUers give the DLC members like Hillary Clinton.

"Posters like this will soon have to either shut up or find a new home."
Or keep pointing out what a fucking disaster for Democrats the far left is.

[MercutioATC]

153. Again, you have my question about what the "far left" really is.

Feel free to answer...

[Zhade]

144. So, are the mods going to weaken the rules because it's lieberman?

Or strengthen them to disallow subtle advocacy via character assassination of the Dem candidate in CT, Lamont?

[MercutioATC]

154. They're allegedly applying the old "Green" rule to Lieberman.

According to the mod I spoke with, this situation was not anticipated.

[Zhade]

157. What is the old green rule?

That he cannot be advocated for, per the rules? Or something else?

[MrBenchley]

134. I wonder how many folks in Connecticut will take you up on that offer....

I suspect the louder you ORDER them to have party loyalty the more likely that is....

"If there was an attempted "character assassination" in this campaign, I believe it was committed by Lieberman, not Lamont."
And you'd be utterly wrong.

[MercutioATC]

155. Democrats in Connecticut have spoken.

Unlike you, I'm not willing to let Connecticut Republicans determine our Senatorial Candidate.

[MrBenchley]

156. And 48% didn't want Lamont

Be sure and "demand" party loyalty from them. Maybe you can call then names too.

[MercutioATC]

165. ...and 52% did. Where I come from, we call that a win.

When have I ever called Lieberman voters names?

[LincolnMcGrath]

167. As if there is a single DUer out there with a WORSE track record on

name calling.

[MercutioATC]

168. That thought DID cross my mind...

As I said in another post, this policy of allowing supportive posts about the opponent of a Democratic candidate is in flux and may change soon (from my discussion with a mod).

If and when that happens, we won't have to worry about this type of behavior.

[Ken Burch]

192. There was no good reason to let Lieberman go unchallenged...

He was wrong on many things, not only the war, but also the attitude he took towards the rest of the party, his place in the Senate and his aniligual subservience to the GOP.

Why should Joe have been encouraged to be arrogant towards HIS party and submissive and obedient to the other one?

(You probably think we should've renominated LBJ, even though he would have done worse than McGovern did as the war declined in popularity...)

[MrBenchley]

46. Not being in Connecticut, I don't have to climb on that pony

But if I were a Democrat who had supported Lieberman (or even didn't think he was Satan incarnate) I'm not so sure I would go out ringing doorbells for Lamont, or putting up his yard sign.

Litmus-test liberals would be a good and descripting phrase for what we see here, except that some of these wowsers are no more liberal than they are mint-flavored. And you might recall that many of those who are Lamont backers were previously beating the drums loudly for....INDEPENDENT Lowell Weicker.

[SaveElmer]

62. Maybe it should be...

Litmus-test "Liberals"...amazing how quotation marks can change the meaning!

You are absolutely right about Weicker...I had forgotten that...and if I were a Lieberman supporter in Connecticut it is possible I would feel differently that is true!

[MrBenchley]

64. I like it....

Litmus-test "Liberals"

Meanwhile, I wonder how Lamont snuggling with Al Sharpton is going to play in the Nutmeg state. As I mentioned below, that dreary clown's 2004 "quest for the presidency' (you're right about those quotation marks) was managed by a Republican operative.

"Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton.
Though Stone and Sharpton have tried to reduce their alliance to a curiosity, suggesting that all they do is talk occasionally, a Voice investigation has documented an extraordinary array of connections. Stone played a pivotal role in putting together Sharpton's pending application for federal matching funds, getting dollars in critical states from family members and political allies at odds with everything Sharpton represents. He's also helped stack the campaign with a half-dozen incongruous top aides who've worked for him in prior campaigns."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0204-09.htm

[SaveElmer]

65. Wow I didn't realize this...

Pretty amazing...not sure if this will get much play in Connecticut, but it certainly casts a different light on Sharpton. Dick Morris is certainly a slime ball who has worked for Republicans, but was not as far as I know a dirty trickster for the Republican Party.

My first impression of Sharpton came from the Tawana Brawley fiasco. I thought his behavior there was reprehensible obviously, and was not someone to be taken seriously. It improved a bit when he ran for Prez, only because his hilarious jabs at Bush were so spot on.

What's really sad is that he appears to be so intelligent, he is articulate, and really has an excellent sense of humor. Had he made better choices he might actually have mode more of a difference. With his previous behavior, and choices like he has apparently made here, he is just pissing all that away.

[MrBenchley]

67. The Reverend Al has a very quick wit and a sharp tongue

But you're right, he often does seem to piss away any bit of good he does.

Funny how the people who are so furiously inspecting every prominent Democrat for the slightest sign of "ideological impurity," never notice this glaring fact about Sharpton, in'nt it?

[Ken Burch]

193. Given that Sharpton got nowhere in 2004, what difference did it make

who ran his campaign?

You aren't really going to blame Reverend Al for Kerry blowing what should have been an easy landslide win, are you ThugLife?

[eridani]

122. He's a mouth, not a real politician

Comparing him with the Jackson campaigns in the 80s makes it clear that Sharpton wasn't the slightest bit interested in doing what all black politicians with national stature have to do--building coalitions. Jackson reached out to Appalachian coal miners and Iowa farmers; Sharpton couldn't be bothered. He tends to get a free ride because of his oratorical skills, which really are remarkable.

[Zhade]

158. He should really stick to speechmaking and writing, IMHO.

That's where his true skills lie.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. How about Senator Lieberman's cozying up to Sean Hannity?

And the numerous Republicans that are endorsing Senator Lieberman. I don't particularly care for some of the company that either of these men keep and that includes Lowell Weicker and Al Sharpton on Mr. Lamont's side. However, in the game of politics, you make alliances with people that are sometimes less than desireable.

[MrBenchley]

80. You sound like the "What about Clinton?" right wingers....

[Ken Burch]

200. Never thought I'd say this, but THANK YOU, Save Elmer...

Don't expect ThugLife to listen to you, though.

Do expect him to insult you.

Bullies are like that.

[Zynx]

29. Because he's the party's nominee.

Lieberman is just a sore loser who is on an ego trip. Lamont's views also come a lot closer to representing the vast majority of Democratic voters in CT and most voters in CT for that matter.

[MrBenchley]

59. But the claim was that there is no such duty

"Lamont's views also come a lot closer to representing the vast majority of Democratic voters in CT"
Four points seems a lot more half-vast.

[Ken Burch]

194. You can't get away with implying that Lamont's clear victory

somehow doesn't count, ThugLife.

Lamont won on the issues and it's time to stop denying reality.

[LittleClarkie]

38. It won't matter for much longer

The other 48% of Connecticut Dems have from now to election day to decide where they stand. But if prominent Dems come out in support of Lamont, including their own Sen. Dodd and Clinton, then I wonder how long that 48% will remain at that level.

It will dwindle, I reckon.

[MrBenchley]

60. Geeze, that's the sort of rhetoric

that's going to win over those other 48%.

[Zhade]

159. What rhetoric? She pointed out simple facts.

"It won't matter for much longer"

The election is upcoming. Fact, not rhetoric.

"The other 48% of Connecticut Dems have from now to election day to decide where they stand."

That's how long they have to choose their candidate. Fact, not rhetoric.

"But if prominent Dems come out in support of Lamont, including their own Sen. Dodd and Clinton, then I wonder how long that 48% will remain at that level."

She wonders how long the percentage will remain lieberman supporters should prominent Dems endorse Lamont. No rhetoric there, just her musing on the question.

"It will dwindle, I reckon."

Her opinion, not rhetoric.

There's nothing in that post to insult or drive away wavering lieberman supporters. Nothing.

[Ken Burch]

54. The primary settled the question.

If you're a Democrat, especially if you're going to lecture the rest of us on party loyalty, you are always obligated to support the Democratic nominee.

Or admit that you're no longer a Democrat.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[mitchtv]

56. Because I've had to vote for the likes of Dianne Feinstein

held my nose, but did it , now it's your turn, I promise that if I move to TN, I'll vote for Harold Ford

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

142. You don't have to. You can even silently support loser lieberman.

You just can't state that support here now.

[LynneSin]

28. If people are supporting Lieberman they shouldn't be doing it here

We support the democratic candidate. Had Ned Lamont lost I would be saying the same thing to anyone who was still supporting him after the primaries

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Which is why Senate Democarats need to take the gloves off

He needs to be stripped of his committee assignments, taking away his ability to effectively bring home pork to CT. This will certainly hurt his campaign.

[Kingofalldems]

32. Weren't you a Lieberman supporter?

Why would you want him stripped of his assignments?

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. I was and I am now supporting the Democratic nominee

I want him stripped of his committee assignements so that he is not reelected.

[Kingofalldems]

37. Interesting, then why aren't you railing at Lieberman for disrupting

the democratic process? Instead you go after the Dem leadership just hours after the election is over.

[Ken Burch]

53. Thank you Freddie!

nt.

[Ken Burch]

199. Thanks again Freddie!

You're taking a good and strong stand here. It's only a matter of time until Benchley starts saying that you're pouting.

[LoZoccolo]

39. Why are you setting up a DU speed trap?

You know that people aren't allowed to advocate Lieberman as an independant candidate; why are you encouraging people you disagree with to break the rules?

[dsc]

43. actually they are allowed to support Lieberman

they can't raise funds or that type of thing but they are allowed to state support.

[LincolnMcGrath]

55. You cannot support J. Lieberman in any way shape or form on DU

[dsc]

151. actually in a post about this race in GD

Skinner said they could support Lieberman but not solicit funds nor troll for supporters. That is what I was referring to. Thus they can say "I support Lieberman" but they can't say "vote for Lieberman" or " Give money to Lieberman"

[Zhade]

77. No, you actually can't advocate support for him in any way.

It's now against the rules, happily.

[MercutioATC]

93. Ummm...no.

DU members are free to post in support of an independent candidate when there is no Democratic candidate in that race. If there's a Democrat running, it's a rule violation to post in support of his/her opponent(s).

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

201. It was probably an attempt at dialogue.

You know, a respectful exchange of views among equals.

The kind of thing The Benchley thinks he's exempt from for some reason.

[Doremus]

63. 4) If it's perfectly acceptable to promote Indy candidates over Dems,

and just peachy when Holy Joe votes with his pals the pugs,

why the heck have a Democratic party at all?

At the very least we should do away with primaries if we aren't going to honor the results. Then we can have a really big tent and split our vote 5 or 6 ways. If we get tired of losing to pugs everytime, then we can all join Joe and go over to the dark side.

[MrBenchley]

68. I will say the words "Bernie Sanders" and you will awaken

wondering who the Democratic candidate for Senate from Vermont is....

[CTLawGuy]

69. if that's wrong

then surely Joe the Republican's independent run is wrong as well?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

75. There isn't one

Democrats are supporting him officially. There isn't a Democratic candidate for Senate in VT.

[MrBenchley]

79. Why not?

I thought we were supposed to have a 50 state strategy?

[dsc]

82. Because we made a deal

We wanted one, and only one, non Republican candidate. This is hardly new. Sanders only had a Democratic opponent in either his first or his first two races. We don't field opponents against him and he caucuses with us. I highly doubt we would have fielded an opponent to Jeffords had he decided to run again.

[MrBenchley]

83. Yeah? When was this?

I don't recall any deal being discussed publicly. But I can point to a shitload of propaganda about how swell the 50 state strategy is.

[dsc]

84. He first won office in 1992

which makes his third term 1996 and his second 1994. I would presume it was one of those years. I can't imagine Jeffords wasn't directly promised no Democratic opponent before his switch if he had chosen to run again. That would be 2001. As for the latest, this was pubicly discussed when Jeffords announced his retirement. Sanders will caucus with Democrats in return for not having a Democratic opponent and endorsing the Democrat running for his Congressional seat. That fits in with a 50 state strategy by giving us a better shot at winning both seats. We are leading prohibitively for the Senate seat and have a very slight lead in the House race.

[MrBenchley]

86. So in other words, the "deal" is your fantasy

and you have no idea whether or not there is one....hokay.

"We are leading prohibitively"
No, an independent who is NOT A DEMOCRAT is leading.

[dsc]

89. Fine I will provide your link and I would like an apology

I will admit I was wrong about him never having a Democratic opponent but those have usually not been endorsed by the party.

Although relations between Sanders and House Democratic leadership have not always been smooth, the Democrats have not actively campaigned against Sanders since his first run for Congress. While Democratic candidates have run against him in every election except 1994 (when Sanders managed to win the Democrats' endorsement), they have received little financial support.

snip

Sanders, who had mentioned on several previous occasions that he would run for the Senate if longtime friend Jim Jeffords were to ever retire, announced that he would run following Jeffords's announcement that he would not seek a fourth term in 2006 on April 21, 2005.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, immediately endorsed Sanders; Schumer's backing was critical, as it means that any Democrat running against Sanders cannot expect to receive any significant financial backing from the national level. Sanders has also been endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Democratic National Committee chairman and former Vermont governor Howard Dean. Dean said in May 2005 that he considered Sanders an ally who voted with House Democrats. Senator Barack Obama has campaigned for Sanders in Vermont.

the above are from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

and from this site

http://bernie.house.gov/biography/committees.asp

Although not a member of any political party, when it is necessary to associate with a caucus for the purposes of committee assignments, Congressman Sanders caucuses with the Democrats. As far as seniority is concerned, the Congressman is considered more senior than every member elected after his freshman Congress, the 101st (1990). Congressman Sanders is currently the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.


So it isn't a fantasy as you dishonestly posted. I would like an apology. Words like "I am sorry I dishonestly implied you were a delusional liar" would suffice.

[MrBenchley]

90. And Schumer is the entire party?

By the way, I sure remember screams of rage about "Schumer doesn't speak for the Democrats" when Chuck endorsed Joe Lieberman.

I still wonder why there's never any questions about why Sanders isn't a Democrat.

[dsc]

91. It wasn't just Schumer as the link you demanded made clear

Schumer doesn't hand out house committee assignments, Pelosi does. Schumer isn't Dean and isn't the chair of the VT Democratic party all of whom are part of this. Again, all in the links you asked for and in many cases quoted by me in the post you read, or apparently didn't read. I am leaving now so feel free to have a last word.

[MrBenchley]

92. And so he got committee assignments based on seniority....

Again, I don't see a deal there....

[Ken Burch]

99. seniority based on his years as a Democratic senator

Having lost the primary and continued his race as an independent, Joseph Lieberman has ceased to be a Democratic Senator.

[MrBenchley]

107. Bernie's an INDEPENDENT, Pepe....

"Joseph Lieberman has ceased to be a Democratic Senator. "
Now he's an independent....Connecticut's largest voting bloc, with support from the GOP, Connecticut's second largest voting bloc. Good job there fucking up a Democratic Senate seat.

[V. Kid]

146. Not true...

...the Party ID numbers in Connecticut are 41% Ind, 30% Democratic and 22% Republican according to here:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ckzmEnp3lpcJ:www.an...

[CTLawGuy]

149. wow, you know nothing

there are 900,000 indies,
600,000 Dems
and 400,000 republicans.

Now I can count and I know that the GOP is the THIRD largest (or SMALLEST) voting block.

[Ken Burch]

163. Bernie wasn't ever a registered Dem and there was no registered Dem

in VT who was electable to the U.S. Senate and you know it, ThugLife.

Bernie hasn't hurt the party. Lieberman has. There's a huge difference between them.

Why do you love this frickin' nightmare in Iraq so much?

[Cassandra]

180. Lieberman is not running under the banner of the Independent...

Party, which has a candidate, John D. Mertens. Joe is running as the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, which I assume has at least one more member (Hadassah). Why would you assume that indies in CT would vote for Lieberman when they have several choices in the general?

[dsc]

147. It is senority with in the party

not senority overall. That is why Dingell isn't chair of the committee for which he is ranking member despite having more senority than the chair of that committee.

[Zhade]

145. Schumer didn't endorse loser lieberman.

He suggested that the DSCC might, if lieberman lost, but did not do so when jihad joe in fact lost.

[Ken Burch]

103. You would have to admit that no Dem could've beaten Bernie, and you know

it. Why are you still pissed about the Sanders thing when you know it DOESN'T hurt the party?

Why should we have nominated a candidate in Vermont who couldn't have been elected?

[LincolnMcGrath]

106. That poster thought Bernie Sander only presided over a

small left leaning district in Vt.

So politics ain't his strong suit, if you get my drift.

[MrBenchley]

112. You mean Bernie polls like Lieberman used to?

That IS rich.

"Why should we have nominated a candidate in Vermont who couldn't have been elected?"
How the fuck do you know a Democrat couldn't be elected, Pepe?

[Ken Burch]

118. Bernie has always polled BETTER than Lieberman, ThugLife.

And how do I know a Dem couldn't have beaten Bernie?

Because everyone in the Vermont Democratic Party said so. Because Howard Dean(who was the only Dem in Vermont who had any popularity) didn't run(and we can assume he would have if it was possible to elect a Dem against Bernie.)

AND BECAUSE SCHUMER ENDORSED BERNIE. Schumer would've backed a crumbling skeleton as a Dem Senate candidate if that pile of bones coulda beat Bernie. Face it, nominating a Dem, especially a non-left Dem like YOU would've insisted on, would have been pointless. It's not the same as Connecticut.

And the latest polls showed HolyWarJoe's support COLLAPSING as an independent. He'll just keep dropping and dropping and dropping. Your guy and your war are toast, Benchley. And you're a minority in the party.

You have two choices:

Stay bitter and spiteful and alone, or join us and work for a REAL Democratic victory this fall. One that matters. But you don't have any power over anybody or anything now, and you got no call to piss on any of the rest of us.

It's a choice between hope and life or arrogance and death. Your call, ThugLife.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LincolnMcGrath]

133. Some background

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[LincolnMcGrath]

116. Again, given the poster's lack of knowledge of Vt politics, why bother?

[Ken Burch]

121. For the sake of those just tuning in, mainly.

I find it better not to let misinformation and delusions go unchallenged, especially coming from the Man From The Gangrenous New Jersey.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hawkeye-X]

189. Dream on, Benclhley. Facts are already confirmed here.

Vermont Democratic Party endorse Sanders for U.S. Senate

Published: Monday, January 23, 2006

The Associated Press

RANDOLPH — The Vermont Democratic Party has endorsed Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., for the U.S. Senate.

The party’s state committee has voted unanimously to support Sanders’ bid for the seat vacated by retiring Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt.

The committee Saturday also endorsed Democratic Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Welch’s run for the U.S. House seat that Sanders has held since 1991.


http://bernie.org/?p=125

[Ken Burch]

100. Vermont's a dead issue. You have no cause to beat that horse anymore.

Electing Bernie is the same as electing a Dem. And whaddya mean "faux socialist"?
Are you implying Bernie's a closet Milton Friedman groupie or sumpin?
Jeez, ThugLife, even YOU can do better than that.

[LincolnMcGrath]

104. That dog won't hunt. Bernie Sanders isn't running against a DEMOCRAT

This hilarious notion is nothing more than the latest attempt to slip one more plug for 3rd Party Joe by the mods.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

113. Look, we've proven and proven and proven that supporting Bernie

Doesn't hurt the party. What's it gonna take to get you to let that one go, ThugLife?

[MrBenchley]

137. You've pouted and pouted when hypocrisy is pointed out

but you haven't proven a thing except that the far left has no more principle than it has honesty.

[Ken Burch]

164. Why are you so determined to see every expression of a point of view

that you happen to disagree with as pouting?

Puzzing attitude, ThugLife.

I always feel quite serene when I respond to your posts.

And now that your complete lack of loyalty to the Democratic Party has been proven, I feel even more serene.

Why don't you try something different, like, Oh, I don't know, actually DEBATING the issues rather than just spewing random abuse? Even you have to have realized that the tone you take here only hurts your position and helps your opponenents. Why stay with tactics that you know very well don't work?

Remember the definition of insanity, ThugLife.

[MercutioATC]

115. So it's only the "far left" who take issue with the war in Iraq?

It's only the "far left" that believe that it's NOT okay for a woman's right to choose to just "drive to another hospital"?

It's only the "far left" that think that Bush's energy bill was something to oppose?


Perhaps your definition of the "far left" differs from mine. I'd call somebody holding those views a centrist Democrat.

[LincolnMcGrath]

120. That is what is killing some of the dead enders clinging to Lieberman.

Lieberman was beaten by a centrist, not a far leftist. As they slowly come to the realization that Ned is a centrist, consequently it very precisely places them to the right of the majority of the democratic party, and likely, most of America.

[Ken Burch]

123. I think Lamont supporters can fairly call themselves "The New Center".

nt.

[MercutioATC]

126. But it's NOT the "new center"...

...it's the traditional center that Democrats have always held.

We've been artificially pushed to the right by politicians like Lieberman. Now, any Democrat who believes in traditional Democratic values is labeled "far left". That's simply not the case.

Joe Lieberman does NOT get to define the center of the Democratic party.

[MrBenchley]

131. It's only the far left that put ideological purity

up as a prime concern.

[MercutioATC]

152. Idealogical purity my ass...

...and the Republican party has been much more intolerant than we.

It's not an issue of idealogical purity, it's an issue of choice. That's the Democratic process.

Most of understand what the Democratic process is...

[MrBenchley]

185. Ideological purity

"Most of understand what the Democratic process is..."
Some of know swift-boating and racist caricatures when it's produced....

[Ken Burch]

197. Nobody swiftboated Lieberman

There were no inaccurate descriptions of his views on the issues, there were no smears about his life story, there was NOTHING WHATSOEVER in common with the Lamont campaign and Karl Rove.

At this point you're just TRYING to get banned, aren't you, ThugLife?

[CTLawGuy]

148. Democrats can give the nomination to whomever they want

once they do, the party needs to unify behind that person.

[Hawkeye-X]

188. HEre's where your facts come wrong

http://bernie.org/?p=125

Vermont Democratic Party endorse Sanders for U.S. Senate

Published: Monday, January 23, 2006

The Associated Press

RANDOLPH — The Vermont Democratic Party has endorsed Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., for the U.S. Senate.

The party’s state committee has voted unanimously to support Sanders’ bid for the seat vacated by retiring Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt.

The committee Saturday also endorsed Democratic Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Welch’s run for the U.S. House seat that Sanders has held since 1991.


Huge difference from CT's Democratic Party endorsing Lamont vs endorsing Lieberman.

[Hawkeye-X]

187. May I point out that Democratic Party has wholeheartedly endorsed Sanders

Even though he is running as a Independent (Democratic Socialist). I am a DSA member, a registered Democrat, and I endorse Sanders wholeheartedly. Sadly, the Democratic Party has rejected Joe I. Lieberman, and therefore does not endorse the Independent run of a sore loser.

Hawkeye-X

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

74. Since he cannot be endorsed here now, after losing, is this thread...

...going to have the effect of giving people a chance to pimp for him?

He is not allowed to be endorsed here, so people should be careful in their posting if they don't want their posts deleted.

[salin]

127. Guess that isn't an issue yet

still see some overt "pimping" for Lieberman over the Democratic Nominee going on in the forum.

[MrBenchley]

139. By the way, speaking of honest questions

"if he gets to the US Senate with mostly Republican and independent votes he will dance with the ones who brought him? ...What if the Republicans decide to run a real candidate, instead of a lying gambling addict?"
Wouldn't it have been a good idea to think about this some months ago?

[skipos]

161. No, it would be a good idea for Lieberman

to support the Democratic nominee, or at least not work to defeat him, like 99% of Democratic primary losers do. You blame Lamont and his supporters for winning the primary, did you blame Kerry and his supporters for winning the 04 primary? Kerry sure wasn't my favorite, nor did I think his chances were as good as other candidates. Would you be defending Lieberman if he ran as an independent against Kerry in 04?

The funny thing is, Lieberman is the one did himself in. If he would pledged to support whoever won the CT primary, I am 99% sure he would have won. But instead, he hedged his bets just like he did in 2000. Do you agree with what he did in 2000 too?

[MrBenchley]

162. Don't know what the Lamonties are pissing and moaning about

They've ben saying for months they wanted Joe out of the party, and so he went just as they wanted.

What I find hilarious is the sudden surprise that he's picking up support from Republicans. What did anyone think would happen when he left?

"You blame Lamont and his supporters for winning the primary, did you blame Kerry and his supporters for winning the 04 primary?"
Jeeze, I don't recall Kerry's campaign putting out a racist caricature of anyone, or of spouting character assassination.

"Do you agree with what he did in 2000 too?"
As it happens, yes I do. So did Al Gore.

[MercutioATC]

166. Lamont's campaign put out a racist caricature?

Patently false.

NOW who's "spouting character assassination"?

[MrBenchley]

170. Yes they did....

And all the spinning in the world won't hide that....

[MercutioATC]

171. That's either a lie or an honest opinion based in ignorance.

A blog that's not in any way affiliated with Lamont's campaign posted that pic, and it was removed shortly after it was posted. You know that.

To state that Lamont's campaign posted that photo is a complete falsehood.

I'm not accusing you of lying. Perhaps you're just ignorant of the facts.

[MrBenchley]

172. No, that's a fact.....

Now I suggest you go spin that somewhere else....

[MercutioATC]

174. Do you dispute that a blog, not the campaign, posted that picture?

Let's take this one step at a time. If you'll restrain yourself from leaping ahead, perhaps we can resolve your issue.

Again...one question:

Do you dispute that a blog, not the campaign, posted that picture?

[MrBenchley]

178. Do you really want to pretend Hamsher didn't direct Ned's campaign ads?

She was put on the podium by the candidate at several functions and allowed to speak for him. She functioned through out the campaign as his attack dog.

Trying to pass this off as the work of an unaffiliated stranger is an insult to the intelligence.

And let's ponit out that she's not just some unsophisitcated boob with access to the internet. She's a Hollywood producer. When she chrurned out that offensive art, it was because she knew full well what her target audience would find amusing.

[MercutioATC]

183. Jane Hamsher is the founder of Firedoglake.

She's also a producer and an author. She's also contributed to Huffington Post.

She was one of the influential bloggers that Lamont tapped during the primary (as was Kos).

Firedoglake is NOT a Lamont campaign site. It's privately owned. Jane Hamsher is the founder of that blog (which existed well before Lamont decided to run for office). Jane Hamsher, as the founder of Firedoglake, decided to post the photoshopped picture you speak of on the blog she founded. When Lamont's campaign was advised that she'd done this, they requested that she remove the photo...which she did.

Your accusation is akin to blaming a campaign if the printer who prints the campaign literature also prints objectionable posters on his/her own. Hamsher did this on her own.

Lamont's campaign did NOT post that picture.

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

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

[LincolnMcGrath]

173. I have no problem calling it a lie.

It is a desperate lie being handed out by the right in their haste to find any talking point that will stick to Lamont.

[MercutioATC]

175. Dude...gotta abide by the rules...

...and allow for other possibilities.

Perhaps MrBenchley is truly ignorant of the specifics.

[LincolnMcGrath]

176. I am abiding by the rules. I never claimed the LIE'S author to be a DUer

The DUer is just repeating it here.

And you'll get no argument from me on your last sentence either.

[Czolgosz]

177. Stop pro-Lieberman Kinky Friedman's out-of-Texas $ from Democrats

Some ill-informed Democrats (lots of them out of state, but unfortunately some of them here at DU) are sending money to Kinky Friedman's campaign because they think it's funny that we have a Jesse Ventura/Arnold Schwarzenegger-type moron fucking up the governor's race here in Texas.

Please help put a stop to that crap, but it's not funny for us down here in Texas.

Kinky is a big supporter of this new Zell Lieberman. On Joe Scarborough's show this week, Kinky praised Lieberman for leaving the Democratic Party, and Kinky suggested liberals were anti-American:

SCARBOROUGH: Hey, Kinky, could the argument be that both parties are extreme, vote for the new independent?

FRIEDMAN: That could certainly be. I think the mood of the country is really, really independent. I mean, I think the winds of change are really blowing right now. And all the—the way I see Lieberman, he's very—he's pro-America, unashamedly, and he's pro-Israel. And these liberals are not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14285602

This bullshit echoes Kinky's support for Bush:

Question: So does this idea of the honorable cowboy have anything to do with why you threw your support behind President Bush in this last election? You did, didn’t you?
Kinky: Yes. I did in this last election, but I didn’t vote for him the first time.
Question: Who did you vote for in 2000?
Kinky: I voted for Gore then. I was conflicted. . .but I was not for Bush that time. Since then, though, we’ve become friends. And that’s what’s changed things.
Question: So it’s your friendship with him that’s changed your mind about having him as president more than his specific political positions?
Kinky: Well, actually, I agree with most of his political positions overseas, his foreign policy. On domestic issues, I’m more in line with the Democrats. I basically think he played a poor hand well after September 11. What he’s been doing in the Near East and in the Middle East, he’s handling that well, I think.

http://www.ruminator.com/content/040501.html (please also bear in mind that Kinky's claim to have voted for Gore in 2000 is a straight-up lie because Kinky's voting records confirm Kinky didn't vote in any elections for at least a decade before his vote for Bush in 2004. http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4517585 ).

Please help us shut this clown down in Texas: next time you hear some Democrat expressing interest in Kinky, please slap them.

[NativeTexan]

181. Kinky MAY BE better than what we have HAD.........

.....since BUSH/PERRY took over the governors mansion and he may be best friends with my hero Willie Nelson....BUT he is STILL a KOOK!!!!

[David Zephyr]

186. Here's What Lieberman Pontificated About Nader's Independent Run

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2...

[dolstein]

191. Nader ran as a spoiler, Lieberman can actually win

It really doesn't surprise me that DU'ers can tell the difference. But it's an important difference. Lieberman running as a third party candidate doesn't increase the chances that a Republican will win the seat. If anything, Lieberman's running as a third party candidate will ensure that no viable Republican candidate gets into the race. If Lieberman had dropped out of the race after the primary, do you really believe the Republicans wouldn't have fielded a better candidate than the one they nominated when they thought they'd have to face Lieberman? Not a chance. Lamont may have eked out a narrow win in the primary, but his appeal across the broader spectrum of Connecticut voters is much more limited. The Republicans would love to run against Ned alone, but with Lieberman running strong among independents and Republicans, they know that don't have a shot.

[David Zephyr]

195. Karl Rove is running your boy's campaign, dolstein.

If Joe Lieberman murdered someone on national television, you'd be sticking up for him here.

Your man lost his ass in his own precinct, dolstein.

HE LOST. HE WAS REJECTED BY THE DEMOCRATS IN HIS OWN STATE.

HE WAS DISGRACED.

He will also lose to Lamont as Rove's involvement with Lieberman continues and with Bush's non-endorsement of the "official" Republican.

Lieberman was more than a traitor to the Democratic Party.

He and Americans like you that support the war in Iraq are responsible for every single civilian death in Iraq including the children.

That is your legacy, dolstein. Dead children in Iraq. It was the war you supported and continued to support so you can own up to the consequences.

Nothing I have written here is "inflammatory". Every word is true.

If you support war, then you are accountable for the errors of that war. You can't sanitize it.

And there is one distinction between Nader and Lieberman that I will grant you: Nader didn't run in a primary and then play "fooled you" after-wards the way Lieberman did.

In fact, the only other politician that pulled what Lieberman did is the sleezy Tom Delay who primaried and then played "fooled ya' down in Houston.

So, Joseph Lieberman has more in common with Tom Delay than Ralph Nader. And by the way, Lieberman, like Delay, was one of the greatest recipient of corrupt Enron cash in all of Congress.

Ned Lamont. What a great name!

[dolstein]

203. No, Al Sharpton's the "Dem" who lets Republicans run his campaign

NT

[Solon]

196. Lieberman can most certainly play the spoiler...

If he dropped out today, the seat is, for all practical purposes, won for the Democratic Party. Instead he is playing the part of the spoiler by attempting to sabotage the Democratic party's chances of retaining that seat by running AGAINST Lamont.

[dolstein]

205. Sorry, but you've got it completely wrong

If Lieberman stays in the race, he guarantees that the seat will be retained by a Democrat -- either a ridigly left-wing Democrat (Lamont) or an independent minded Democrat (Lieberman).

If Lieberman were to drop out of the race today, the Republican Party would find a way to force Schlesinger from the race and would replace him with a well financed candidate who would be capable of running a competitive race against Lamont. Lamont is not especially popular among independents right now, and he is VERY unpopular among Republicans. Indepdents and Republicans combined outnumber Democrats in Connecticut 2 to 1. You do the math.

[Ken Burch]

202. Still dolstein, you have to admit that Lieberman can't claim to be a Dem

anymore.

Even YOU would have to acknowledge that a person loses that privilege when they run AGAINST the official Democratic candidate after losing the primary.

[dolstein]

204. He can't claim to be the Democratic nominee, and he isn't

But let's consider the relevant facts:

--Lieberman is a registered Democrat.
--Lieberman is a member of the Senate Democratic caucus.
--Lieberman has said he will vote for Harry Reid in organizaing the Senate.
--Lieberman, to my knowledge, has never endorsed or campaigned for any Republican candidate.
--Lieberman's voting record doesn't even come close to resembling that of a Republican.

From my perspective, he has every right to call himself a Democrat. Now if you want to try to convince the Senate Democratic caucus to strip him of his membership, go ahead an by my guest. Indeed, I ENCOURAGE you to do so, because (1) your efforts will fail and (2) it will only reinforce claims that Lamont's supporters are extreme.

[Ken Burch]

206. So you're saying that HolyWarJoe should get to annul the primary

and pretend he's still running as Dem?

You're saying there should be NO penalty for this kind of arrogant disloyalty?

Ned Lamont said he'd endorse and campaign for Lieberman if Lieberman were renominated. This, by itself, should have made Lieberman feel obligated to do the same if the result went the opposite way.

And you are basically breaking DU rules here.

[AlienGirl]

207. Locking

This has become a flamewar; Lamont is the Democratic candidate now, and there is no sense re-fighting the primary.