What is the political profile of a Democrat that would continue to vote for Lieberman?

[kentuck]

After he rejected the Democratic rules and decided to run as an Independent/Republican? What type of Democrat could still cling to a person such as Lieberman? Do they feel like they have an "investment" in him? Do they all agree with him on the war in Iraq and his "bi-partisan" kissing up with a bunch of radical Republicans hell-bent on destroying our nation? What reason do they have to vote for Joe Lieberman is my question? What type of water are the Democrats in Connecticut drinking?

[msongs]

1. they are really registered republicans? : - )

[wyldwolf]

2. first of all, what "Democratic rules" are you referring to?

Secondly, I believe those supporting him fall into two categories - those who have a loyal personal friendship with him and those who don't like what his primary defeat represents.

[Clark2008]

4. What does the primary defeat represent?

I thought "change" was the campaign theme this year - and getting rid of a many-years incumbent is a HUGE change.

[wyldwolf]

13. it means you're not the Democratic candidate in the general.

What rule was broken?

[kentuck]

5. I think the "winner" of the Democratic primary is the Democratic candidate?

I know that Lieberman is running as an "Independent" but he's pretending that he's the "real" Democratic nominee and that the people that voted him out in the primary were all just a fringe of the Party and should be ignored. He is not the Democratic nominee. He is not with the mainstream. He is in bed with a bunch of radical Republicans.

[Nederland]

7. If he garners a majority on 11/7

...apparently he is in the mainstream--by definition.

[kentuck]

8. I think there a great deal of deceit with his race...

I don't trust him. However, I don't vote in CT. But, if he wins, I think he has accomplished it not in an honest way. If he agrees with the Bush regime, he is not "mainstream".

[wyldwolf]

15. so you're more wise than the CT voter on CT issues?

[kentuck]

17. I didn't say that??

I said I don't trust him and I would not vote for him, just from my observations. However, I do not live in CT. That does not prevent me from having an opinion about it, does it?

[wyldwolf]

19. No, you didn't. But what you did say was...

"I think there a great deal of deceit with his race..." Do you not trust the people of CT to see that or make that judgement for themselves?

[kentuck]

20. No. I think the people of CT are just as naive as the rest of the country..

that fell for the bullshit and lies coming from this Administration. A chicken with a brain the size of a marble has the sense to get out of the rain...

[wyldwolf]

27. ok. All I needed to hear you say.

[Zhade]

42. Surely you must admit that the average DUer is far better informed...

...than the average citizen, especially the apolitical or casually political.

(And what's interesting is the more informed one is, the more liberal they tend to be. As a rule, liberals are smarter than conservatives, because they know more and are better-informed!)

[Zhade]

41. Of course there is - his campaign STILL refuses to obey the law...

...with regards to the $380,000+ he spent in 'petty cash' over a 12-day period (literally thousands what other candidates spent in that time frame).

They refuse to obey federal election law and open the books as required.

He also told people who endorsed him for the primary that he would not run as an independent. He lied.

I could go on, but yes, he's not to be trusted - and should he somehow win, anyone who thinks we're going to STOP trying to hold him accountable is fooling themselves.

[wyldwolf]

14. all of this may be true, but what Democratic rule has been broken?

[Nederland]

3. Simple

A Democrat who believes in principle over party.

A Democrat who agrees with Lieberman on the issues and refuses to put the party first will vote for Lieberman over a party nominee who disagrees with them on the issues. Granted, as we know from the primary the number of people that agree with Lieberman on the issues is less than 1/2 of all Democrats in the state (or more accurately, less than 1/2 of all Democratic primary voters). However, the combination of these people and Republicans willing to abandon their party to elect someone they view as the lesser of two evils will apparently give Joe the seat.

[LTR]

6. A moderate independent

Sadly, Lieberman gets a pass in Connecticut because of the people who live there.

Many New England states seem to be a bit more middle-of-the-road than other parts of the country. That explains why Republicans like Chafee and Snowe tend to be a bit more centrist, and why independent candidates seem to do well.

That, and the fact that he's a long-time incumbent certainly helps. While Holy Joe has pissed off the rest of the country, Connecticut voters don't seem bothered by him.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Enough conneticut voters were bothered to not make him the

democratic candidate. If he had an ounce of integrity he'd have conceeded gracefully and thrown his full support to the democratic candidate. He didn't, so he obviously doesn't.

[Zhade]

43. Maybe more than we know; he won't account for that missing money.

He may very well have bought people off to vote for him, and STILL lost.

(Hey, maybe he didn't. But since he refuses to obey federal election law and open the books, one wonders what the hell he's hiding. Vote-buying? Signature-buying? Liberal-voter suppression? Who know, when he keeps a secret as well as the guy who named him "my favorite Democrat"?)

OPEN THE BOOKS, JOE!

[flpoljunkie]

9. Bottom line, Connecticut Dems: A Victory for Lieberman is a Victory for Bush

Is this what you want for your state?

[hijinx87]

10. not that hard to imagine

dems that are stragglers/bitter enders, and still support the war. I am sure there
are still a few out there somewhere. Connecticut voters that don't want to lose
the clout that comes with Lieberman's seniority. and, of course, supporters of
israel that see bush's war on terror as a war against islam, and therefore beneficial.

[last1standing]

11. These are people who put the person before the party.

And there's nothing wrong with that at all. Myself, I will be voting for every Dem I can here in Michigan next week, with the exception of stabenow. While I support the Democratic party, I can't bring myself to vote for someone who supports torture. For those in the party who for some reason actually support Holy Joe's positions over Lamont's, they should make the decision that best suits their beliefs. I may not agree with it, but I respect the process and won't call them names because they vote their consciences.

I think when the dust has settled and the pundits start looking at the real reason for the Dem revolt in CT, they'll find that it wasn't the issues that cause them to rise up against lieberman, it was his belittling attitude toward and direct insults of their beliefs. It's one thing to take a principled stand that doesn't fall in line with your constituents. It's another to negate their views and call them appeasers.

Even if Lamont loses this race, one good thing has already happened that can't be taken away. Holy Joe lost the primary in his state. Because of that, no one will ever take him seriously as a presidential candidate in the future. There will never be a president joe lieberman, and that in itself was worth all the bother.

[hijinx87]

12. I think his incredibly poor showing in 2004 pretty much did him in.

what did he get in NH? 8%? and he skipped iowa to concentrate
on NH? that will put an end to anyone's presidential aspirations.

[MrCoffee]

18. Say what you will about Joe, and there's a lot to be said, but

he had a ton of pull in the Senate, and people in CT realize that he's brought benefits to the state because of it. I doubt he'll have much sway after this race, but no one seems to be talking about that much.

Ned won a very close primary race. Almost (but not quite) half of those registered CT Democrats who voted in the primary voted for Joe. He's their guy. The problem isn't that Ned's primary support is defecting to Joe, it's that Ned hasn't won over Joe's primary support. He just didn't get the job done.

Sure i'll get flamed for talking bad about Ned, but it's the truth. If the Lamont campaign had secured the Joe primary voters, this wouldn't be an issue. Blame it on the M$M, blame it on the DLC, blame it on the Republican'ts, but the simple fact remains that while Ned won the Democratic primary, he didn't win the CT Democratic party.

[kentuck]

21. How would you feel if every Democrat that lost in the primary...?

decided to run in the general election? Would you have any problem with that? Or is Joe an exception?

[MrCoffee]

25. They are perfectly entitled to run...

There's nothing at all that prevents someone who loses a primary from running in the general. Nothing. If he want's to run in the general, he's perfectly entitled to. And if he wins the general, well, that's the will of the CT voters.

My problem isn't with Joe, it's with so-called Democrats who pretend that he's still a member of the party. He is not. The Democratic CT primary voters decided that he was not going to be the nominee, so he left the party. Some Democrats haven't gotten that memo.

IMO, if he wins, he can go back to the Hill and caucus with himself until he grows hair on his palms. When Jeffords switched, what kind of reception did the Republicant's give him? Was he promised his committee chairs? Did he keep his senority? Hell no! Why are we kow-towing to Holy Joe? Fuck him and the INDEPENDENT horse he rode in on.

[kentuck]

29. But if every Democrat did that...

they would split the votes and permit the Repub to win almost everytime. CT is an exception.

[MrCoffee]

30. Where is it written that independents can't run?

The problem with the CT Senate race isn't Joe's indy run, it's the Democratic response to it. If there are no adverse consequences to declaring yourself an independent and splitting the Democratic vote, there's no reason not to do it.

So yes, IF every Democrat did that, it would splinter the party. But that is not a reason for an individual candidate not to run indy, if they lose the primary.

There's no ban against running as an indy candidate. The fact that Harry Reid didn't step up and publicly announce that henceforth the name of Lieberman would be anathema in the Democratic caucus screwed Ned big time.

It's not Joe's fault. It's the Democratic party's fault.

[kentuck]

32. But is Joe running as an Independent or a disenchanted Democrat?

He wants to claim he is "independent" but he wants the Democratic vote...and the Republican vote...and the independent vote...and he's willing to kiss Bush's ass and sell our country down the river to get it, in my opinion.

[MrCoffee]

34. Who gives a crap what he's running as?

He's getting a third of the Democratic vote in CT (as of the last poll I saw, which was Oct. 20). Why is that? Because Democratic voters in CT, for whatever reason, like him. He's brought federal jobs and federal money to CT, which is what Senators do. He's got 18 years of senority. That 1/3rd haven't been given any reason NOT to vote for Joe. They have no reason to think that he'll lose any of his Senatorial rank or status.

He wants every vote he can get. Anyone unprincipled enough (and massively egotistic enough) to run as an indy after losing their party primary doesn't care at all about where the votes come from. Look at Schlesinger. He's polling at 5%. There's no way in hell you can tell me that CT is only 5% Republican't. No way. Has that caused Reid to budge at all on the caucus issue? No.

Without a little party discipline for defectors, there's no motivation at all for incumbents who lose thier primary not to bail out. Again, I don't blame Joe for running indy, he's got absolutely no reason not to.

[Zhade]

45. I hope you concede that for Greens, then.

Otherwise, it's a hypocritical stance to hold.

[MrCoffee]

48. I have no problem with Green candidates running...in fact, i have no problem with

the Natural Law party being on the ballot. That's the way our system works. If you satisfy the legal requirements to run, then go right ahead.


I do have a problem with people automatically assuming that Joe has no right to run after losing the Democratic primary. That's just incorrect.

[Zhade]

51. Fair enough; I agree with you to an extent.

The problem here is that Joedas Iscariot took Dem funds, used Dem volunteers, sucked up Dem resources for the primary, then turned around against the very people that funded and helped him.

Against the rules? No. Shitty treatment of people who threw their backs out to help you? Yes.

He's a fucking scumbag, even if he's entitled to run (that is, assuming his lieberyouth didn't illegally buy enough signatures to place him on the ballot with that missing $380,000+ in 'petty cash').

[MrCoffee]

52. Well, that was his right as the incumbent in the primary.

He showed his true colors when he announced his indy run, and the Democratic leadership played along.

Personally, I think blaming Joe for being a politician is misguided. If he wins, the blame lies squarely on Harry Reid's shoulders for not making Joe an outcast.

[Zhade]

56. Certainly more accurate and productive to blame those like Reid.

The leadership is essentially telling primary voters "your voice doesn't matter to us".

That's infuriating, and likely to cause more disaffection among once-regular Dem voters.

[MrCoffee]

57. I'm definately not pro-Joe,

but I think you can understand now why I don't fault the guy. It's more of the same weak Senate leadership from Reid that turned what should have been a cakewalk for Ned against Schlesinger in to a Leiberman win.

It is infuriating (which is a much nicer word than I'd use), and just another example of Reid completely dropping the ball on a vitally important issue.

[Zhade]

67. Intellectually, I understand. Emotionally, Joe's a pigfucker.

[Mass]

22. Somebody who understands the importance of seniority in the Senate

and who cares about subventions and contracts for the CT naval and military industry.

People have to eat too, you know.

[kentuck]

23. How many work there??

That's a big contractor!

[Mass]

24. A lot in some areas. And a lot of people depend on people who

work there.

Some of these people consider that, as unsavory as Lieberman's position on Iraq is, Lamont has not made the case for them he will be as efficient as Lieberman was to bring subventions and contracts. It was why he only got half of the Democratic votes during the primary and why there are still Democrats and Independants supporting Lieberman.

I hope Lamont will win, but as far as I can see, Lieberman is not that worried. Yesterday afternoon, I saw him and his wife at a highway gas station in Western/Central MA. I am not sure what he was doing there, but clearly, he did not feel as if he needed to campaign in CT.

[Zhade]

46. Never say never. He withdrew the GOTV effort before the primary.

His being elsewhere isn't really evidence of his confidence either way, with that kind of precedent.

Here's my question: with the bullshit that passes as news in this country, how do we show CT voters the true lieberman, and wipe away the nostalgic bliss that passes as 'informed voting' among the average citizen, both in CT and everywhere?

How do we show them that he is wrong, AND has been dishonest, AND breaks federal election laws, if the media doesn't report these truths?

Kinda stumped.

[MrCoffee]

26. The senority issue is my biggest beef with the whole thing...

What kind of reception did Jeffords get from the Republican'ts when he switched? Did he keep his committees, or his senority, or caucus position? Hell no. He was cast out like a traitor. We could learn a thing or two from that.

It seems to be a given that Holy Joe will (if he wins) keep his rank in the Senate. Reason #878 that Harry Reid is a moran. IMO, that should have been the biggest weapon in Ned's arsenal. Reid should have come out immediately and lame ducked Joe. Announce that he's off the committees and no longer welcome in the caucus. Then Ned might have had a chance to win the CT Democrats who voted for Joe in the primary.

[hijinx87]

28. I think that's fair game.

I am sure reid was thinking about the possibility of a very narrowly divided senate,
but did they honestly think that a senator with an ADA rating of 80 would caucus with
the rethugs?

publicly jerking his committee chairmanship would have helped ned immensely.

and that is why reid probably isn't ready for the leadership position.

[cmkramer]

36. Not the same thing

When Jeffords became an Independent, he also announced he would be caucusing with the Democrats. IOW, for all intents and purposes, he became a Democrat. Whatever seniority he had as a Republican he lost, not because of being "punished" but because he was no longer caucusing with Republicans.

Lieberman has said he will be caucusing with Democrats if he wins in November. Same thing will happen with him in the unlikely case that he decides to caucus with Republicans. He'll lose whatever seniority he had as a Democrat not because anyone's punishing him but because he would be caucusing with Republicans.

[MrCoffee]

37. Why is Joe being allowed to caucus with Democrats?

He can say whatever he wants, it doesn't change the fact that Joe left the Democratic party when he announced his indy run. It's Harry Reid's job to set the record straight. IF Reid had come out and said that Joe wouldn't be welcome, there wouldn't be this split in the CT Democratic vote (IMHO). The reason Joe still has Democratic support in CT is because he will still be able to deliver for CT.

Joe's NOT a Democrat. Why are we treating him like one?

[hijinx87]

38. because we need him.

you can hate that fact all you want, but it's still true.

the senate will be narrowly divided next year, regardless of which party
is in control. we need every non-rethug vote we can get.

[MrCoffee]

39. Had he been banned to the Hinterlands, the CT race would be entirely different

If Joe had been stomped into the ground until dead the second after he announced his indy run, there wouldn't be much reason left for CT Democrats to even consider voting for him.

I think that allowing Joe to continue his "I'm still a Democrat" bluster was fatal to the Lamont campaign.

We wouldn't have needed him if we would have set Ned up to win.

[hijinx87]

44. it is up to the people of CT to choose their senators and congressmen.

period. I just don't understand how people can object to what is
essentially an expression of the democratic process.

[MrCoffee]

49. That's EXACTLY my point...

There are some DU'ers who seem to think that Lieberman has no right to run in the general, and that he's responsible for fracturing the Democratic party.

That's flat out incorrect. I'm saying that, if you want to place blame somewhere for what's going wrong with Lamont's campaign, blame the Senate Democratic Leadership for not making it absolutely clear who the Democratic candidate is.

[Zhade]

47. Indeed, and very well-said.

Jihad Joe is basically extorting the Dem leadership, and they're going along with it...just as they've gone along with too many Republican policies these past 6 years.

The questions is, why? The more they cower, the less chance they have for power - so why bow and scrape, when they could be on the right side of history and help lead the American people out of the encroaching darkness?

[MrCoffee]

50. That's the $64,000 question right there...

Why on earth is Reid playing ball with Joe? He's NOT a Democrat anymore. He left the party when he announced his indy run.

Why Reid didn't come right out and smack the hell out of Joe is incomprehensible to me.

[cmkramer]

61. Well,

the thing is there are two parties in Congress: Democratic and Republican, and everyone has to decide which party they are going to caucus with. As long as Joe caucuses with Democrats, he's a Democrat.

[MrCoffee]

63. Not if Harry Reid makes it perfectly clear that he's not welcome

The only reason Joe can run as an "Independent Democrat" is because he's not being forcibly evicted from the Democratic party.

He's trying to have his cake and eat it too, which is entirely the fault of the Senate Democratic leadership for allowing him to get away with it.

And they are letting him get away with it, make no mistake. Joe is NOT the Democratic nominee, and he should not be treated as such should he win.

[onenote]

65. why would they do that?

If Lieberman caucusing with the Democrats give the Democrats control of the SEnate, why in heavens name would Reid want to stop that? I want Lamont to win, but if he doesn't, I want Lieberman caucusing with the Democrats. In 2000, Jim Jeffords ran as a repub and crushed the Democratic Party candidate. He was then welcomed into the Demcratic caucus with open arms. Why would you expect Lieberman to be turned away?

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. I don't understand why everybody seems to think that Lieberman

will caucus with the Democrats, just because he says he will.

He is a turncoat and a liar, and I fully expect him to caucus with the repugs - and they know it, which is why they are supporting him.

Why would we expect any different?

[onenote]

69. we'll see

My bet is that you're wrong. My hope is that Lamont wins and we don't have to find out.

[Dr Fate]

58. Goshy golly- that would have been awfully mean!!!!

That sounds like stuff those meany Republicans do- you must want to become monsters like them.

[MrCoffee]

59. LOL....we certainly wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings

but our own.

[Dr Fate]

64. but-but-the media would have said mean things about Reid had he done that!!!!

You must WANT the media to be mean to us for the first time ever.

You are obviously a troll & DEM basher-the gig is up- I'm hitting alert!!!

[madfloridian]

31. Here's a profile of Dems for Joe...from his website.

Dems for Joe

Check out part of the national list of Dems for Joe, proudly posted at his site. The profile is there at least in part.

http://www.joe2006.com/free_details.asp?id=97#natchapte...

Don Baer, Director Of Communications - Clinton Administration

Mark Brzezinski, Former Director of National Security Council – Clinton Administration

Ash Carter, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense - Clinton Administration

Bill Danvers, Senior Director for the National Security Council - Clinton Administration

Lanny Davis, Special Counsel to the President - Clinton Administration

Stuart Eizenstat, Former Deputy Treasury Secretary – Clinton Administration

Steve Elmendorf, Former Chief of Staff to House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt

Al From, Founder of the Democratic Leadership Council

Bill Galston, Deputy Assistant for Domestic Policy - Clinton Administration

Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General - Clinton Administration

Martin Indyk, Assistant Secretary Of State, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel - Clinton Administration

Max Kampelman, Ambassador to the CSCE - Carter Administration

Jim Kennedy, Former Spokesman for Former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore

Simon Lazarus, Associate Director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff – Carter Administration

Michael Levy, Asst. Sec. of Legislative Affairs for the U.S. Dept. of Treasury – Clinton Administration

Abbe Lowell, Chief Minority Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives

Will Marshall, President and Founder, Progressive Policy Institute

Dana Marshall, Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of Commerce – Clinton Administration

Mack McLarty, Former White House Chief of Staff - Clinton Adminstration


John Nakahata, Chief of Staff to Chairman of the FCC – Clinton Administration

Tom Nides, Special Counsel for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs - Clinton Administration

Leon Panetta, Former White House Chief of Staff – Clinton Administration

Tony Podesta, Clinton Transition Team, Former Counsel to Sen. Ted Kennedy

Bruce Reed, Domestic Policy Advisor - Clinton Administration

Dennis Ross, Special Middle East Coordinator- Clinton Administration

David Rothkopf, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade - Clinton Administration

Richard Swett, Former Ambassador to Denmark - Clinton Administration

Ben Wattenberg, Aide and Speech Writer to President Lyndon B. Johnson

Jim Woolsey, Former Director of the CIA - Clinton Administration

[Larkspur]

33. A Democrat who thinks invading Iraq was part of the war against Al Queda

and who blindly support the Dem Establishment.

[applegrove]

35. The problem is he has been their popular senator for more than a decade.

Some people have a longstanding relationship with that senator. He has been slapped down for his views.. human to human..some dems may think that is enough. If he wasn't going to get support from the Repuke side..he could not win. So this is half the problem.

I hope Lamont wins. Only because it is the right thing. Not because I know Lamont. Like they say..the incumbants have the advantage.

Anyhoo - isn't Lamont pulling closer?

[Zhade]

54. Yes, polls show it is closer.

IIRC, the 12-point-spread poll is from BEFORE the second debate - the Repub is gaining some points, which of course detracts from lieberman. I remember reading (on Kos? Eschaton? My Left Nutmeg?) that it's more like 8 points and shrinking.

So why do people think that a Senator like lieberman who gets more votes from conservatives EVERY TIME HE WINS would support LIBERAL causes? It's shocking he's as 'liberal' as he is, leaving aside the positions he holds (like the war) that are grievously out of touch with both reality and liberality.

[MrCoffee]

55. Remember the primary...it was a very close race between Ned and Joe

It's pretty clear that not all CT Democrats are as liberal as Ned.

[Zhade]

40. Idiot? Uninformed? A reckless hawk who supports illegal wars?

Someone who likes people who refuse to obey federal election law when it comes to almost $400,000 in unaccounted-for petty cash that might have bought votes or signatures on a ballot for an independent run?

The type of person who doesn't mind the environment being gutted by the Cheney Energy Bill (that lieberman voted for)?

The type of person who agrees with condemning Clinton for a blowjob but not b*s* for lying, cheating, and stealing, as well as killing hundreds of thousands of innocents?

Someone who also wants to be thought of as "b*s*' favorite 'democrat'"?

All of the above?

[AtomicKitten]

53. probably just a constituent who supports him - simple as that

It's someone exercising their right to vote and a difference of opinion.

[Zhade]

68. Not to mention a difference in facts.

For example, Petty Cash Junction Joe came back from Iraq with a glowing report - a report full of outright lies and spin.

Some of his constituents bought it. They swallowed untruths, and are acting on them by supporting him, and thus the lies and spin.

[AtomicKitten]

70. and sometimes people just disagree

It's rather broad-brush to assume people are either uninformed or stupid if they don't share one's opinion. Often with the same set of reference data, people will come to different conclusions.

If I didn't live on the other side of the country, I would be a pair of boots on the ground knocking on doors talking to people to try to persuade them to vote for the Democratic candidate.

[Jax]

60. Phony Corporatist?

'centrist' idiot? War monger? DEFINITELY WAR MONGER!!!

They certainly are not Democratic, no matter how much they try and tell themselves they are, they are all about themselves. (they are transparent on these forums too, I call them the 22 per centers, if they ran their phony right wing 'Democratic'(not) ideas against real right wing rethugs that is about how much of the vote I think they would get).

[NaturalHigh]

62. Someone who votes for the candidate of his/her choice...

rather than just towing the party line. It's more common than you might think.