We're gonna have to deal with Lieberman and I'm ok with that....

[LynneSin]

....as long as he doesn't get the Judiciary Chair, which is the one place he could do some real damage to us. I know back when we had the Senate majority in 2002, Patrick Leahy and the judiciary committee did their damndest to keep activist judges off the bench. None of the members were a part of the "Gang of 14" group.

I really wanted Ned Lamont to win but it is what it is. I think Lamont probably helped Connecticut pick up a couple of those house seats we've won and we should be greatful for that. But the only way that Lieberman could feasibly do damage is if he gets on that Senate Judiciary committee. I want our Judiciary Committee to hold Bush accountable for every activist judge that he (bush) tries to force on the bench and they will if Leahy gets the committee he wants.

[Jacobin]

1. I'd like to make him ambassador to Iraq

But I'm sure we'll have to deal with his treasonous sniveling self promotion until maybe finally CT will give him the heave ho.

[LynneSin]

2. As long as the Connecticut governor seat is in Repuke hands

I'd rather just deal with him in congress. Control of those committees are so worth the weight of dealing with Lieberman

[Jacobin]

6. Maybe we could give him a little gold crown and name

an ice cream booth on the mall after him or something. Unfortunately, I think his taste in power and prestige runs to having the US conquer the rest of the middle east for westerners. I'm not thinking he should get that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Lieberman doesn't even serve on the Judiicary Committee

He will likely become Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee if Democrats can get 51 Senators.

[LynneSin]

4. I know, but we will gain some seats

and I do remember Zell Miller once demanding a seat on Judiciary. My point is as long as Lieberman isn't on Judiciary then I don't care what the dems do as long as we keep him siding with us!

[cmkramer]

32. Demanding is not getting

I know he wanted it, but Daschle kept him off.

[madfloridian]

5. We are being forced to be ok with it. Lamont was the winner.

We don't have a choice. Joe made it about him, he took the needed votes from Ned....and then won by getting Republican support.

I am not really that forgiving. I think Lamont has more meaning still to many of us...because he WON.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/565

"There are so many levels to this. He may yet pull it out, but since so many Republicans and Clinton advisors are supporting Lieberman...it is doubtful.

Lamont showed the power of the blogosphere and the people....Lieberman shows us that the old way is still in control for a while at least. "

And in case you don't know who supported Joe:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/562

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Lamont spent over $10 of his own money

I hope that he get his monies' worth being the 'winner.'

Does anyone think that the 'winner' will run for reelection in six years?

[madfloridian]

9. You really don't get it at all, do you?

You honestly think what Joe did is fine, and that Lamont is in the wrong.

It is a mindset I can not grasp.

[LynneSin]

21. Perhaps you should worry about Florida

I mean, Nelson isn't exactly the role model for progressive democratic values.

Connecticut made their choice, perhaps not the choice that you, a Floridian, or myself, a Delawarean would have made.

[madfloridian]

28. I despise Nelson. But I voted for him.

Because it was the right thing to do for my party.

Would you like to rephrase your statement which makes me sound like I am a no good person? Which makes it sound like this is none of my business?

What Lieberman did affects every one of us. I don't mind one bit if you talk about Nelson. I never take up for him.

But why have primaries if our candidates just ignore them? That would mean Carville's smoke-filled rooms.

I did the right thing, I voted for Democrats. Joe was wrong, he did not honor the party. Yet he is being defended here and those of us who are upset are insulted.

Sorry you feel it is none of my business. I think it is.

[madfloridian]

29. Oh, and CT Democratics DID make a choice, not honored.

And that is my point. You think it is ok, I don't. Joe does the wrong thing, and it is ok here because he is Joe.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. The voters of CT seemed to think that it was ok.

[madfloridian]

39. Republican voters thought it was great.

.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. There are more Democrats than there are Republicans in CT

It was the independent voters (who are actually the largest group of voters in CT) who tipped the scales.

[madfloridian]

42. So you thought what Joe did was ok?

I consider being a Democrat more important than that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. No, but apperently a majority of CT voters were ok with it

And that matters a lot more than what two Floridians think.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Both Lamont and Lieberman were wrong

Lamont should not have run in the primary, and Lieberman should not have run as an independent after losing the primary.

The voters, however, have made their choice. They must really like Lieberman.

[LeftishBrit]

38. I actually think neither was wrong in that sense

I think that anyone (within the rules) has a right to run in the primary, and if I'd been a citizen of Connecticut, I'd certainly have supported Lamont strongly. But I also think Lieberman had a right to run as an independent (especially under the circumstances where a weak Republican was running - it would have been definitely unethical to run JUST to spite his party and get a Republican in). I wouldn't have voted for him in a million years. But the right to run as an independent is one of the bulwarks against tyrannical party leadership. It wasn't used for this purpose here, but I don't see a way of denying the right to Lieberman without denying the right to British left-wing Labourite Ken Livingstone (who defied his right-moving national Labour Party to stand as an Independent for Mayor of London against their wishes), and others in a similar category.

The people who were wrong IMO were the Republican leadership, who attempted to interfere with the choice of another party, and who abandoned their own candidate in the process. I suspect that they will get their deserts, when the (sort-of) Democrat, for whom they dumped their own already-selected candidate, sees where the wind is blowing and sells his Republican supporters down the river.

I also think that at least the whole episode makes it less likely that Lieberman will end up as a presidential candidate or leader in the Democratic party, and that is what's most important from the point of view of the world at large.

And there were *two* Independent senators elected this year - and I suspect that Sanders' election will be long remembered as a remarkable breakthrough, when Lieberman is remembered, if at all, only as a footnote to the fraudulent election of 2000 ("now, who WAS Gore's running mate? ... oh yes...")

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. I have half that mindset, let me try and explain it to you.

I don't think "Lamont is in the wrong" - I think he ran a good, legitimate campaign, and I'd have liked to have seen him win. But in terms of political honour, (as opposed to in terms of advancing the political agenda I'd like to see advanced) I don't think Lieberman did anything wrong.

He lost a primary, *and he accepted the result of that*. The primary was not to determine who was going to be the next Senator, it was to determine who was going to receive the Democratic endorsement. It went to Lamont, and Lieberman campaigned without it.

I can see two grounds on which Lieberman could be held to have done something immoral, but I don't think either of them hold water: firstly if you believe that running in a primary places a candidate under some form of obligation to withdraw from the subsequent election if they lose, and secondly if you believe that a politician's primary loyalty should be to their party.

I don't believe either of those. I think that a primary is there to do exactly what it says on the tin, nothing more, and I think that a politician's loyalties should be to their voters (who made their desire clear), not to their party.

Lieberman didn't "steal" the election in any sense; he won it because that was the will of the majority voters of Connecticut, who are the people he and Lamont were both responsible to.

I don't agree with Lieberman about as much as I agree with most of the other elected Democrats, or with Lamont, so I'd have preferred to see him lose, but I have far less animus towards him than I do to any Republican, and the degree to which he's become a target-of-choice for DU "Two Minutes Hate"s strikes me as irrational.

[Nederland]

12. True, we are being forced to be OK with it

The bottom line is that the people of Connecticut have spoken and they said they want Joe to be their Senator. We just have to deal with that reality. I think the real problem here is that the Left is pissed off that Joe proved decisively that he could win without them. The Left wants to believe that it is indispensible. It's not.

[madfloridian]

14. The Republicans of CT have spoken. Democrats spoke in August.

I am very upset that you have no clue about the difference. He ignored the Democratic voters and went for the Republicans.

Are you saying you are ok with that?

[Nederland]

37. The difference between what? (nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. You are forgetting about the independents

They are the largest voting block in the state.

[madfloridian]

8. Howie Klein at FDL says it better than I ever could.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/11/08/what-happened-last-night/

"The biggest success last night went to a man who won't be going to the U.S. Senate. Ned Lamont is the one who spoke, before anyone, for everyone who had had enough. There weren't many Democrats willing to just say no about Iraq before Ned came along and said it, loudly, clearly, unapologetically. Because of the issues Ned raised, the floodgates of support opened as Americans rushed to embrace people who would stand up to Bush and stand up to his rubber stamp Congress."

And there's this interesting demographic:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/581

72% of those who support Bush were Lieberman supporters

77% who strongly approve of the Iraq War support Joe Lieberman

72% of those say send more troops

[fujiyama]

10. Lamont did surprisingly well

considering Lieberman was such an entrenched incumbent. It was an uphill battle all along.

But now, unfortunately truth is we need him to caucus with us and will have to deal with Lieberman and he will extract various concessions from Reid.

[madfloridian]

13. So it will just keep happening....

and the primaries are gone.

No, I am not ok with that.

[beaconess]

11. He won't get Judiciary chair - he's not even on the Committee

[Wiley50]

15. Losing the party primary, then being a traitor, he is you know

If you are of the Dem party, when you lose the primary then refuse
to graciously step aside for the party's choice
Then beating the party's nominee by soliciting support from the enemy party
is as low as a politician can go.
Joementum is filth in my book

The repuke candidate could never have won against Lamont
on his own if Joe had done the right thing and stepped aside
What Joe did was unethical, lowlife and plain wrong
any loyal party member knows this to be true

All of this being so, we have no choice but
dance with this devil.
But it sucks to have to fight a war
with a TRAITOR YOU CAN'T TRUST OR DEPEND ON
AS ONE OF YOUR OFFICERS.

A TRAITOR IN OUR RANKS

[LynneSin]

18. I'd rather put up with Joe then put up with Trent Lott Majority leader

There is so much more we can gain by working with him in our ranks than to turn him and the majority over to the republicans.

As I watch Testor and Webb fight to win their seats, then how can I give up that fight so easily buy turning Joe over to the Republicans. Hell we might as well just give Montana and Virginia back to Burns & Allen

That doesn't mean myself or anyone here at DU should give Joe any slack. Perhaps the scare of almost losing his seat my move Joe back towards the left. But our Supreme Court and judicial benches are at grave risk and I will not sacrifice the Judicial Committee just to appease a few democratic purists.

[madfloridian]

31. You are letting Joe blackmail us into acceptance of what he did.

I was just told by you to MMOB, but you see...what Joe did is as much my business as anyones.

Joe is gettting oh so much leverage here at DU, isn't he? He wields great power over our party now.

He must be proud.

[PassingFair]

25. No ethical politician does what joe did, wiley. I'm with YOU.

I remember the "centrists" THREATENING Dean, Hackett, and
numerous other populist candidates against indy runs if
they failed their dem primaries....and RIGHTLY SO.

They ALL stepped back after the primaries, AS IS CUSTOMARY and ETHICAL.

If you are going to run as an indy, then RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT.

LIEberman is going to vote as he pleases anyway.

How much ASS are you people willing to suck to keep him from
"turning", anyway?

A Delicate Suction to the Crack?

Half a Cheek?

Full Buttock?

[Wiley50]

16. If This Traitor Gets To Keep His Seniority, I"M Triple Pissed Off

But I guess He'll blackmail the leadership
by threatening to vote with the Repukes
and maybe even get a party chair

They say Politics is a Dirty Business

I now have proof

[LynneSin]

19. If he sides with the republican and we lose the majority

And allow Bush to fill the benches with radical right-wing extremists I will be even ten trillion times more pissed.

The Judiciary committee is worth it. John Paul Stevens isn't getting any younger and we need him through 2009

[NJ Democrats]

17. I agree

I am perfectly fine with Lieberman and I have been the whole time. I don't not believe he's the devil, a Republican or anything of that nature, I think is is a Dem, who oppposes us one 1 issue. He'll be chair of the The United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs btw.

[Wiley50]

20. Forgive my disagreement, But I think his Chair is BULLSHIT!

Homeland Security?

Yeah. Right

Governmental Affairs

Great. Let him go after anyone having an affair

can see it now

Devil with the blue dress.............

[LynneSin]

22. When the democrats got the majority in 2002 the Gov't Affairs committee...

...investigated the California Energy Crisis. The investigation exposed the fraud going on by the energy companies exploiting the loopholes in the California Deregulation bill (written by repukes but passed into law under a democrat). From that investigation cause the implosion of Enron and exposed how they were cooking the books royally and trying to use California to get back some of their loss.

The chair of that committee was Joe Lieberman.

Yeah, that's a joke committee......NOT!

[Wiley50]

23. I Agree We Have No Choice But To Bend Over And Take It

But, That Will NEVER make it RIGHT

You know as well as I do Lamont would never have lost to that WEAK repuke Candidate

And we'd have a REAL DEM on our side

The Trent Lott logic is bogus

[Odin2005]

24. If we want control of the Senate we must bite out tounges and deal with him.

I hate Loserman but I hate a Puke-controlled Senate even more, he is the lesser evil.

[PassingFair]

26. Don't bite your tongue.

You're going to need it for
ass licking.

[cadmium]

27. Got to watch for him when

he starts flexing his muscle as a swing voter. He and McCain can be power brokers with their moderate images.

[madfloridian]

30. This makes me sad.

Some of you may not realize it, but this scenario almost happened in another race in which an incumbent had a close primary.

It makes me sad that those of us who feel strongly that this will establish a pattern that will destroy our primary system....are demonized more than Joe is for what he did.

I feel intensely about this. What Joe does hurts my state as well. Why my DINO Bill Nelson votes for, like the bankruptcy bill, hurts all of you also. I would oppose him in a primary if I could, but the party makes sure no one ever runs against him. So I call him and gripe all the time.

Yet I was just told to MYOB. Joe is my business.

[Zodiak]

35. I'm with you Floridian

We must work hard to make Joe irrelevent in 2008 by taking another Senate seat.

The way I see it is that Joe must work with us or risk that irrelevency in a short two years. CT Republicans bought themselves two years of having a mole in the party and no more. Perhaps they thought that enabling Joe to have all that personal power in the Senate would help CT get some pork and earmarks. But it won't last unless Joe plays nicely with the Democrats for the next two years.

Let the authoritarians, top-downers, and party strategists kiss his butt and pretend that Joe is in the driver's seat. Principled Democrats will not bow to Joe and no amount of rhetoric (save Joe cleaning up his act) is going that change that. He will fall in line or become irrelevent in two years.

And on big issues, Joe is only 30% Democrat. Not 95%, not 75%, and certainly not on every issue but the war.