Republican hopes to ride Lieberman's declining wave

[Moloch]

NEW BRITAIN -- Accepting his party's nomination to challenge U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Woodbridge Republican Alan Schlesinger told delegates he has successfully unseated three Democratic incumbents during his political career.

"What do you say we make it an even four?" the former state representative and Derby mayor said.

He acknowledged, however, that it will not be easy.

A Quinnipiac University poll released earlier this month showed Lieberman had slipped in the polls but maintained a 59 percent approval rating among registered voters.

http://www.norwalkadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-nor.senate2bmay21,0,5194807.story?track=rss

Hell no, if anybody is going to ride Lieberman's declining wave, it will be Lamont.

[Mythsaje]

1. Sure.

"Don't like Leiberman? Vote for me--I'll be ten times worse!"

Catchy, don't you think?

[Ms. Clio]

4. It's got Joementum! n/t

[truthisfreedom]

2. like that will change anything.

[AX10]

3. I don't care for Joe, but I'd take him anyday over a Repub.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2638705

I am leary of voting for a third party candidate after the 2000 fiasco.

I am from Connecticut, so I get to decide this one. ;)

[MrBenchley]

5. Good job by the extreme left

Six months ago, the GOP had no chance at this seat, but now thanks to the "Hate Democrats" crowd and the Unknown Millionaire, they've got a shot....

[Robbien]

7. Having a Bush kissing pro-war, pro big oil company Democrat

had everything to do with his falling numbers. It is not wise to blame everyone else but the actual politican who is responsible for not representing the views of people in his community.

[MrBenchley]

21. Be sure and jump around and tell us what a "victory"

the Unknown Millionaire racked up.....

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Tuttle]

12. You should see Derby before making a dumb comment

The fair city of Derby looks like Beruit in 1988: an urban renewal project ran out of money after demolishing every OTHER building on Main Street! There are girders and plumbing hanging in mid-air, along with staircase silhouettes and old crumbling exteriors exposed to onlookers - very arty in a bizarre way! That the mayor of this pile of rubble would announce he's seeking higher office is hysterical!

This parallels Phil Giordano challenging Lieberman in 2000: Benchley - if you don't know who that is, Google Phil!

I'm convinced Holy Joe will split the Reagan Democrat vote with this guy, should Joe go all-Nader on us.

This seat is safely Democrat, whether its Joe or Ned.

Tut-tut

[MrBenchley]

36. Bullshit....

And I know perfectly well who Phil Giordano was...

[Tuttle]

75. thank for your measured response

when, exactly, was your last visit to Derby? I drove through there on Saturday.

Tut-tut

[KamaAina]

109. The ex-mayor has left the "pile of rubble" he made of Derby

and now resides in tony Woodbridge. Knowing this much you would scarcely need to be told that he is a repuke.

I guess it'll be up to a progressive (like myself) to see the potential in a place with its own train station, bus to New Haven, river views all over the place, industrial buildings of the type that scream "high-end conversion" everywhere else in the Northeast (except, surprise, Giordano's Waterbury), and so on.

[wordpix]

111. it's not just Derby, it's all the cities with infrastructure falling apart

thanks to BushCo & their dirty war. And thanks to guys like Lieberman who support the illegal war.

[Mandate My Ass]

13. Good job for DINOs proving that moving to the right is neither practical

nor acceptable to the people they supposedly serve. I hope a few more get the message that if they want to keep their taxpayer-funded perks, they'd better stop embracing the other side of the aisle and answer to the people, their bosses.

Loyalty to party is not one of Joementum's concerns. So why should I vote against my best interests just so a Dem can aid and abet the PTB in turning this country into a third world nightmare rather than a republican? Principles matter.

[MrBenchley]

22. Yeah, that's why the Unknown Millionaire racked up that 33%

"I hope a few more get the message"
I doubt there's very many anymore who don't know what a destructive force the "progressive purists" are...

[Mandate My Ass]

52. Where is Joe's loyalty to Democrats and his constituents?

It's a two-way street. If he earns the votes, he gets them. If he's a boot-licking Bush toady, he doesn't. Seems obvious to me. :shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

55. Joe told Dems to shut up and accept Bush as Commander in Chief

The man that chided President Clinton for his sexual indiscretions has been silent about Bush's war crimes and rape of the Constitution.

[Mandate My Ass]

56. Can the Constitution get EC after a rape?

You damn ideoogical purists are all the same, it's always "Oh the Constitution, whatever will we do without it?" Hasn't Bush already shown us how fun it'll be to live in DictatorTotsville? If it's good enough for Joe(formerly of the safe Senate seat), the rest of us should just line up behind him and snap a jaunty salute. :evilgrin:

[ribrepin]

66. I'm a moderate, but I feel the same as you

Lieberman chided Clinton, but found Democrat support of Bush lacking. How dare that man lecture me for not being significantly supportive of Bush. Lieberman's an asshole and I am hardly a far leftie.

[wordpix]

101. Lieberbush HAS chided * on a few things, er, but I can't remember what

they were

[Ken Burch]

59. You can't really call Ned Lamont's showing a disappointment.

He was only supposed to get 15%. Lamont more than doubled that, at a convention that Lieberman's people had totally rigged and hotwired.

It was like McCarthy's showing against LBJ.

[MrBenchley]

83. Yeah, coming in a distant second is such a triumph....

It's truly a fine spectacle to watch the far left caper like imbeciles in delight.

[Ken Burch]

98. opposing the war(which is the position the majority of the American people

now take) isn't far left.

Lamont is a mainstream progressive, he's not Khmer Rouge. Stop smearing and lying already. There's nobody in Ct. who would only vote for HolyWarJoe.

[wordpix]

102. Ned was a total unknown 2 months ago & now he's got 33%+ Dem delegates

voting for him. That is pretty darn good. I am voting for Lamont who will vote to get us out of the Iraq quagmire and to censure and impeach ChimpCheney, not for the * ass kisser.

[Tuttle]

76. Who is this "Unknown Millionaire"?

Who is this "Unknown Millionaire" you are so afraid of? You keep using that phrase but I'm not sure who you are referring to... do you even live in CT? Which district? Who is your district rep?

Tut-tut

[Tuttle]

77. answering my own questions

now I see from your avatar that you are from the section of CT known as New Jersey, CT: just outside of Bridgeport -- hey! that's near me (NOT)!

Tut-tut

[wordpix]

103. Ned Lamont---and he's no longer "unknown"

[Ken Burch]

124. You keep acting as if Lieberman won a crushing victory. wrong.

It's an embarassment that a candidate few had heard of months ago received 33%. HolyWarJoe should do the dignified thing now and withdraw from the race.

The "destructive force" is Lieberman himself, with his repeated demonstrations that he is more loyal to the Republican president than to his own party.

[still_one]

14. hate democrats?

perhaps it is LIBERMAN WHO IS SPREADING HATE

He helped enable us TO KILL TENS OF THOUSANDS IN IRAQ WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11

He is for prayer in schools

He is for a hospital refusing to give a rape victim the morning after pill

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[UpInArms]

16. you're right, I do think that Lieberman probably heads up the "Hate

Democrats" organization.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Fovea]

49. I think you might rethink the 'hate filled Democrats' meme

it serves the puggies interests far better than
an adult discussion on Ned v. Joe ever would.

Perhaps you might refrain from repeating their talking points for them.

Your ox is gored... we get it.

[MrBenchley]

82. It fits the far left like a golve....

And speaking of serving the "puggies interest" who was that who put the Democrats'safest seat back into play? Oh, yeah....it was the Unknown Millionaire and his pinheaded followers.

[Fovea]

93. Once your posts contained opinions worth reading and considering

Something beyond sophomoric ad hominum.

Sadly, no so much anymore.

[Ken Burch]

118. Delicately said.

But Benchley won't get it.

[IndianaGreen]

112. Once again you are attacking Democrats for daring to hold a primary

Now, who is the one that is an extremist and exhibits totalitarian traits? It sure isn't the Democratic voters in CT that want a choice other than Lieberman on the primary ballot!

You should stop reading that crap that Al From and Will Marshall put out. It is as poisonous as watching Faux News 24/7.

[Ken Burch]

121. Lamont has done nothing to help Republicans, and you know it.

There is no electable Republican candidate in Connecticut, and Lieberman was never the most electable Democrat.

Get over your paranoia already, Benchley. A progressive dovish Democratic party will do better than a party of right-wing War Democrats this fall.

There are no Scoop Jackson lovers anymore.

(other than my friend wyldwolf, of course. But I think they've got him in a wilderness preserve.)

[Ken Burch]

57. It isn't being a "Hate Democrat" to replace a weak, conservative senator

whose power in D.C. was already in permanent decline with an electable REAL Democrat.

No one who backs Lieberman will lower themself to voting for a Republican in the fall. Connecticut's electorate has always been to HolyWarJoe's left.

[Zhade]

84. If Hitler had a "D" after his name, Benchley would defend him.

He's absolutely blinded by party loyalty - never mind that the party's NOT loyal to him. He's insignificant to them.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

95. You act like your opinion matters.

How droll!

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

115. what is this horrible result?

You act as if any Democratic candidate in Ct. is now doomed to a 30 point blowout defeat because Lamont had the temerity to campaign for peace and against Lieberman's sanctimonious conservative arrogance.

As you would so eloquently put it "Bullshit".

It goes without saying that in liberal, dovish Connecticut that Lamont is just as electable as Lieberman, perhaps more so. And it also goes without saying that no conservative Republican has a chance. So what the hell are you freaking out about?

Lamont has vowed to support Lieberman if Lieberman is renominated. With his cowardly refusal to rule out an independent candidacy if he is defeated by Lamont, Lieberman has shown that he has NO party loyalty.

Knowing this, how can you refer to Lamont's campaign, rather than Lieberman's as "Hate Democrats"?

(and you will promise that, no matter what, you would never support Lieberman in an independent candidacy, won't you?)

[bluestateguy]

17. This from someone who favors door to door confiscation of firearms

Pot

Kettle.

[MrBenchley]

20. Yeah, that's the trigger-happy in a nutshell

Always ready to kiss the NRA's ass on behlaf ot he scummiest industry in America...

[rpannier]

19. Ummmm...

So, this is the fault of the left???
How very democratic of you.
From your perspective it's not okay for others to jump into the political ring.
Joe Lieberman has taken stances that anger many in the base of the Democratic Party. Someone has chosen to challenge him on this and now Joe has to defend his positions -- all of them. If he can convince Democratic voters in Connecticut that he's the right man for the Party, then he'll be elected. If he can't then he'll lose.
This is Joe's opportunity to highlight his Democratic credentials.

As to your "Hate Democrats" crowd comment. It's pretty immature and silly to accuse people at this site of hating Democrats. Most people here, myself included, donate either their time, money or both to the Democratic cause. People who are active, either financially or with their time, are entitled to have their say.

[MrBenchley]

26. From my perspective, I want a Democratic Senate and House...

It's the far left that's screaming for ideological purity...

(But only where convenient--John Murtha is one of the most right wing politicans around, but none of you wowsers has the guts to even mention it).

"As to your "Hate Democrats" crowd comment."
It's right on the money.

[The Gunslinger]

45. At least Murtha is making a stand against the war.

What does it matter if the Senate has a majority of Democrats if they are pushing a Republican agenda.

[IndianaGreen]

46. and so are Kerry, Feingold, Edwards, etc.

Meanwhile Lieberman not only wants the war in Iraq to go on forever, but he also wants war against Iran and Syria, and against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.

[MrBenchley]

80. And he's four-square for school prayer, anti-choice, etc....

But the far left is too gutless to say boo....because they're hypocritical buffoons.

[IndianaGreen]

113. Lieberman opposes contraceptives for rape victims

"Lieberman vs. the Day After Pill"

Joe Lieberman supports the approach of the Catholic hospitals when it comes to contraceptives for rape victims (as reported in The New Haven Register, by Gregory B. Hladky on 03/13/2006, via KissJoeGoodbye.Com).

Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so.

"In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1204374

National Organization For Women Endorses Lamont

May 16, 2006

For more information, contact:
Liz Dupont-Diehl, Communications Director

STATEWIDE – The National Organization for Women, the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States, announced today it’s Political Action Committee is endorsing Ned Lamont in the race for the Unites States Senate.

Melody Drnach, NOW’s National Vice President of Action, came to Hartford to announce the endorsement today.

“This endorsement means a great deal to me,” said Lamont. “Public officials need to understand the need to defend complete reproductive freedom. Anything less is a huge step back for women and simply not acceptable.”

At the press conference, NOW displayed maps depicting the “short car ride to another hospital” mentioned by Senator Joseph Lieberman as he explained his support for the right of hospitals to refuse to provide emergency cont4raception to rape victims. “Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for ‘principled reasons’ should not be forced to do so. ‘In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short care ride to get to another hospital,’ Lieberman told the New Haven register (3/13/06).

NOW also displayed information compiled by Connecticut choice voice, a group of nearly 60 Connecticut women who have created a web site, www.connecticutchoicevoice.com, and are urging women to support Lamont.

The National Organization for Women is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States, with 500,000 contributing members and 55 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Since its founding in 1966, NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society; secure abortion, birth control, and reproductive rights for all women; end all forms of violence against women; eradicate racism, sexism, and homophobia; and promote equality and justice in society.

http://nedlamont.com/news/170/national-organization-for-women-endorses-lamont

[Ken Burch]

123. Murtha isn't running AGAINST Lieberman

So bringing him into this debate is a straw man.

We know Murtha is conservative on many issues. That's why we were so impressed that he broke with Bush on the war.

You will agree that Lieberman has been wrong to continue to defend the war, won't you Benchley?

And most war hawks are NRA supporters, so it really doesn't make much sense for you to agree with them on anything.

[Ken Burch]

62. Once again, you have no evidence to support the arguement

That Lieberman is the only Democrat that can win the Connecticut senate seat.

Lamont is just as electable as Lieberman, and probably more so, since no one has any reason to hate his policies and his actions.

[MrBenchley]

81. I got plenty of evidence that following the far left

is a recipe for disaster.....and this shows it in spades.

[ribrepin]

67. I haven't heard Murtha lecture Democrats about how to support Bush

[JerseygirlCT]

27. Don't blame the Democrats sick of Lieberman

That's really, really unfair.

We're to swallow anything? That sounds about on par with Lieberman's comment about ruining the president's credibility by speaking out against the war.

Would we be expected to fall in line with, say, Zell Miller too?

Joe has only himself to blame. He's entirely out of touch with his constituents and entirely unapologetic about it. Do that and there are consequences... if anyone happens to be paying attention.

Don't worry though -- if Joe wins the primary, plenty of Republicans will vote for him. They always do.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[JerseygirlCT]

42. WE made the mess?

We weren't the ones all gung ho about a terribly wrong, expensive and immoral war.

We weren't the literally kissing up to Bush. (This after publicly chastising Clinton over a blow-job. Bush lies to lead us in to war, killing thousands, and Lieberman staunchly and often defends him.)

We weren't the ones defending Catholic hospitals who wish to force rape victims to search around for a hospital that will provide them with full care.

I could go on, but you get the point I'm sure. Joe made the mess. He's being held to account for his bad decisions. To date he's done nothing to explain them, nor to apologize.

You didn't answer my question, though. Would this same *any Democrat must be supported* hold for Zell?

I feel no shame, believe me. If the Democrats of CT prefer Ned Lamont, then he will be the candidate. And he will win the seat.

If Lieberman can prove himself sufficiently to a rather pissed off populace, then he will win the primary and the seat.

And isn't that the way Democracy is supposed to work?

Besides, the Republicans stand no chance.

[Ken Burch]

63. There isn't a mess. Nobody in Connecticut wants

a conservative senator. That's why Lieberman is losing ground and that's why the Republicans have no chance.

You know perfectly well that Lieberman was never the only person who could hold that senate seat. Connecticut does NOT demand a hawkish senator.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Did the Left put a gun to Lieberman's temple and order him to kiss Bush

or to support the war in Iraq, and advocate war against Syria and Iran? Did the Left tell Lieberman to say to rape victims that a hospital could use religion as a pretext to deny them proper care, including drugs to prevent pregnancy?

[MrBenchley]

33. No, the left fucked up a perfectly safe Senate seat

because they're childish prats who demand ideological purity and hate hate hate Democrats.

And now they want to blame sxomebody else for their fuck-up.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Lieberman is so far gone in the direction of GOP

the little sob lives in quiet luxury while thousands are dead and wounded in a war which he has supported wholeheartedly.

[MrBenchley]

37. Bullshit....

[JerseygirlCT]

43. One more time

the seat is still safe.

The GOP nominee is a big fat nobody. Even the GOP knows he hasn't got a snowball's chance.

This is a contest over who the Democratic Senator from CT will be.

[wordpix]

104. no, Lieberman screwed it up by supporting *, his incompetence & lies

[Ken Burch]

119. Could you actually TRY showing some evidence that the "far left"

(not that any of us actually are, but I'll humor you) has fucked up a senate seat?

Can you at least explain why any of us should think that Lieberman was the only Democrat who could possibly win this seat? Especially since Connecticut has repudiated the war and the Bush program and is strongly progressive?

You keep repeating a rant, but you owe this forum an explanation for your rage and paranoia.

[Terran1212]

30. Stand up for democracy -- get called a Republican

Great and flourishing democracy we have in this country.

[MrBenchley]

34. Do everything you can to help the Republicans gain seats in the Senate

and then act like you're the victim...that's the Progressive Purist way!

The "hate Democrats crowd" is way too kind a description.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

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

[IndianaGreen]

50. All we want is to end the war, and bring the troops home at year's end

which is the very same thing advocated by such "radical leftists" icons such as John Murtha, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, John Edwards, John Conyers, etc.

Lieberman is not satisfied with the war in Iraq, he also wants war against Iran and Syria, against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine, wars that even Israeli PM Olmert does not want.

[Ken Burch]

58. OK, Benchley, why don't you actually try giving us a good reason

to think that HolyWarJoe is the Democratic Party's only hope to hold the Connecticut seat?

We're waiting...

And Lamont isn't unknown anymore, so you can retire that slur.

[MrBenchley]

87. Geeze, listening to the far left for election advice

is like listening to Michael Jackson for ways to spice up marital sex.

What a fucking disaster for the Democratic party the far left is.

[Arugula Latte]

92. Why should we support Ho'Joe if he disses us at every opportunity?

Fuck Lieberman. These Repuke enablers need to feel our wrath.

[Ken Burch]

97. What good is it doing the party for Lieberman to cheerlead for the war?

HolyWarJoe didn't gain the party a single vote in 2000.

[Ken Burch]

116. The only Democratic candidacy that was remotely close to "far left"

was McGovern's in 1972. And McGovern would have run a credible race in the fall if only your wing hadn't deserted him as a block. Also, we can assume that Scoop Jackson or Hubert Humphrey would have done just as badly as McGovern, considering that

1)Nixon would have had enough dirty tricks to destroy them;

2)The China trip would have doomed any Democrat;

3)There would have been no way, under the 1972 nominating rules or under any real standard of small-d democracy to deny McGovern the nomination and put a centrist hawk in in his place. Doing so would have required vicious, fascist Daley '68 tactics all over again.

Wellstone proved progressives could win. And you know no non-progressive Democrat had a chance of winning that Minnesota Senate race that year.

Same in all the other cases where progressives were nominated and elected.
A renominated Ed Koch would have to have lost to Giuliani, for example.

[Hawkeye-X]

70. Still bootlicking Lieberman?

Come on, you DLC fools need to stop trying to push Lieberman, or as a matter of fact, any DLC thugs to the people. The people of Connecticut will decide in August. And frankly, if Lamont got 33% of the vote to get into the ballot, when the minimum is 15%, I say, HELL YES, that's a good start. Lamont is no longer the unknown. When was the last time Lieberman ACTUALLY represented the Connecticut's people views?

I suggest you take a one hard look at yourself in the mirror, and say "Is that who I want to be? A Republican-lite?"

Hawkeye-X

[struggle4progress]

68. If JL has 59% approval among registered voters, then his critics ..

.. (such as myself) don't seem to have handed his seat to Rs yet -- so perhaps we can continue to disagree freely and loudly when the Senator veers off to the right, as he often does ...

[CTLawGuy]

71. trust me,

they don't have a shot, that's why this guy is running rather than a Congressperson.

[Zynx]

72. When a major elected Democrat so betrays the party, he must answer

for his actions.

[NewJeffCT]

91. This guy has no chance to beat Lieberman or Lamont

None of the other declared Republicans have a shot, either. The only way the Democrats lose this seat in the Senate is if Lieberman loses the primary and somebody like Chris Shays or Nancy Johnson jumps into the race for the Senate seat. Shays or Johnson would have a 50-50 shot to defeat Lamont. Neither Shays not Johnson will challenge Lieberman, however. Shays has even endorsed Lieberman across party lines.

[wordpix]

105. geez, that's a horrible thought, Sen. Shays or Sen. Nancy Johnson(R-Phrma)

[kysrsoze]

6. I hope this is seen as a sign for the DLC to get their f*ckin' heads right

People will not vote for right leaning dems.

[The Magistrate]

48. That Is Quite An Edifice, Sir

To rear up on someone getting one delegate in three at a Party convention. When someone wins a contest by a margin of two to one, it is generally refered to as a crushing victory. If Mr. Lamont does better than this in the primary among the rank and file voters, it will be quite a surprise.

[IChing]

51. We shall see sir also if the DLC can stand to have one of their past

chairman be challenged in his position of power and
how much money and support the DLC will send to Joe.

[The Magistrate]

54. They Are A Very Minor Element, Sir

Doubtless they dream of being as powerful as their detractors here portray them as, but in the cold light of dawn, they sigh and know better by the first cup of coffee....

[wordpix]

106. a delegate told me many more would have voted for Ned at the convention if

there had been a secret ballot

[CTLawGuy]

73. It is NOT a crushing victory

when you are a 3 term incumbent against an unknown,
and you control the Democratic machine in the state,
you PAID for the convention,
were endorsed by the other senator and every Dem member of congress from the state,
PLUS the state party chairwoman endorsed you,
plus Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton sent letters of support to all the delegates,
and delegates have to think about what might happen to them if they don't support you (such that many Lieberman voters privately said they will vote lamont in the primary),
and you called each delegate 4 times personally,
and you are basically a cash-cow for the ENTIRE state party ticket,

and YET still you lose one-third of the delegates.

[JerseygirlCT]

78. Maybe not quite so much

there is a party machine in CT, (big surprise) and many at the convention feared to vote Lamont because it was not a secret ballot. Apparently, many would have voted differently had their votes not been known.

Now when it goes to the people at large, it will be a secret vote (or we can hope so).

Perhaps you remember when Lieberman was the nearly unknown running against the giant Weicker? Stranger things can happen, and might.

I've not seen one Lieberman lawn sign or bumpersticker around Hartford County. I have seen plenty of Lamont's. Not scientific, but interesting.

And whichever man wins the Dem primary will win in November. I've no doubt about that. If the least Lamont's candidacy does is serve as a wake-up call to a complacent Lieberman, then it will have been worth it.

[MrBenchley]

89. Meanwhile, the safest Democratic seat is now in play

in a state that's about to elect a Republican governor (with the seeming blessings of the far left).

Yeah, it's clear we ought to kick over the DLC to follow the far left lemmings over the cliff....(snicker)

[IndianaGreen]

114. Those dastardly Connecticut Democrats!

How dare they choose to have a contested primary! How outrageous that they chose not to rubber stamp Lieberman as he has rubber stamped Bush's wars!

I guess is because to them the word "democratic" has a real meaning, not just an empty label.

[Ken Burch]

125. The "far left" is not trying to elect a Republican governor.

No one has any idea what you mean by that.

And there is no way that Lamont will be a weaker candidate in the fall than Lieberman.
No one is a passionate Lieberman supporter anymore. And there is no one that would only vote HolyWarJoe or a Republican.

Stop your paranoid ranting already.

[Ken Burch]

128. Connecticut has a Republican governor at the moment anyway.

There was no way a challenge to Lieberman for the Senate seat would affect the governor's race in any case, and there isn't a good DLC candidate for governor that is being sabotauged by the so-called "far left"(which, according to Benchley, appears to include anyone who actually disagrees with Republicans more than they agree with them.)

[Ken Burch]

127. It's not a crushing victory when the incumbent comes out ahead

in a non-secret ballot.

Clearly, a lot of people voted for Lieberman at that convention because they feared the Wrath of Joe.

[CTLawGuy]

129. I figured you wouldnt' be completely ignorant about politics

lets put it this way, for Lamont to get 33% of the people at the convention is like getting 33% of Red Sox fans to root for the Yankees in the World Series.

Joe should have won by at least 85% considering the convention is made up of political insiders.

[cliss]

8. Wow, Holy Joe is in for a fight

He's got Mr. Lamont who's giving him a run for his money, and now a Repub. Two against one....

[brentspeak]

9. I'm not much of a Lieberman fan, but

he's still ten times better than any Republican senator out there, even the moderate ones (Chafee, Snowe, etc.) Some anti-Liebermans make it sound like it was Lieberman himself who launched the Iraq War, supervised the Abu Ghraib torture sessions, and looted the national treasury. Either that, or they insinuate that Lieberman has the power to prevent these things, but is refusing to exercise it.

:freak:


If Lamont can win Lieberman's seat, that would be great.

:D


But if Lamont wins the Dem primary, and then loses to the GOP candidate...

:grr:

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[wordpix]

107. I agree. Maybe Lamont can push Joe into stopping support of these incompe

tent BushCo warmongers. I think Joe is getting teh wool pulled over his eyes. He wants to protect Israel but creating a chaotic quagmire in Iraq and staying there to "win" is not the way to do it.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

38. Yeah, it's the "Hate Democrats" crowd

not even bothering to hide it....

[Ken Burch]

61. Opposing a war lover like Lieberman is LOVING DEMOCRATS

And loving life, hope and the future. If you vote for Lieberman, it means you don't give a shit that our troops and Iraqi civilians are dying for nothing.

Lieberman means nothing to Democratic chances.

[ima_sinnic]

79. oooh, you're so easily impressed by a D after a name

--if the guy thinks, acts, talks, and votes like an R, how is the seat "safe"? it's just like having another R--but worse, because it makes the Ds look like fools for having him around.
You seem awfully "invested" in the cheesy little Judas, what do you stand to gain by keeping him, anyway?
You definitely doth protest too much over the entirely safe state of Connecticut. AS IF any repuke could touch a Dem there.

[kysrsoze]

94. Bingo! That's exactly it. Thank you.

[JerseygirlCT]

44. I'm not willing to go there

But the primary is the Democratic system in action (remember that one? We haven't seen that in many national elections lately).

Let the people of CT decide who they wish to represent them. Where's the problem in that?

[Nutmegger]

65. That's the most sane response I've heard all night

Gives new meaning to "Freedom and Democracy", that's for sure!

[wordpix]

108. thank you! Good response. Let's have a good primary season here in CT

Let's get all the goods on the table and have a REAL debate about who we want to represent us in the future.

[KingFlorez]

15. You see what trouble has come up?

People here are all bent on supporting that Lamont in the primary have caused this. If we lose the seat to a Republican, you know whose fault it is.

[bahrbearian]

18. Whose Fault would it be ?

can you say Losserman.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Blame Holy Joe and his love for Bush and his wars

Holy Joe must be defeated in the August primary because if the Senate goes Democratic, Joe will be a Bush Trojan horse while he chairs a committee.

[Ken Burch]

120. And if the Senate is a dead heat, Lieberman will, in all liklihood

either defect to the GOP or become Bush's next secretary of state. He's of no use to the party in any case.

[IndianaGreen]

122. Lieberman will never vote to impeach Bush and/or Cheney

if the House were to pass Articles of Impeachment.

[Lexingtonian]

28. oh, please....

Not this year, in New England. And not to Lamont. Not gonna happen.

[niallmac]

31. We need all Democrats to agree on a mission statement.

This conundrum comes up so often I think I could just borrow from previous threads to duplicate the comments here.

I hate the idea of spineless quasi religious fascist democrats being MY parties offering e.g.; Lieberman, Hillary et al.
I hate the idea of Nader votes softening up our chances in 2000 so the crime of election fraud was possible for the repuglicans.
Don't cut off your nose to spite your face says one Democrat.
Don't continue to fill the Democratic Party with Republican Lite candidates says another.
I fervently rabidly agree with both arguments.

Bottom line; we Democrats need to retake power in the Congress.

We need a mission statement that we all understand and agree upon.
We need to decide, candidate by candidate our realistic chances for success.
Lamont. Can he win? Is it 100% impossible? Not if there is passion behind his campaign.
If we could all agree that pro war Democrats are not acceptable and that we will fight them
if they refuse to acknowledge our ire and that we will collectively campaign against them like the
damned NRA or the Christian Right or the IPAC then self destruction in the name of principal does not have
to be a given.

Can we organize this damn party? I'm not a traitor or a wild eyed self destructive Dem Mr. Benchley.
I am a soldier ready for a leader.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[VegasWolf]

41. Wrong, your "ratfuckers" are the ones who support Loserman! nt

[CTLawGuy]

74. Lieberman's

for not retiring and respecting our wishes.

[bemildred]

47. Pigs hope to fly too. nt

[leesa]

53. What crap. Oh everyone MUST vote for Lieberman now...who put this

out, the DLC? Booga. Booga.

[Baconfoot]

60. Electing democrats should be a party loyalist"Love Democrat"thing to do.

"Hate" doesn't enter the equation.

I like the strategy though.

Hmmmmmm....

Maybe Lamont supporters should call themselves the "Love Democrats" to reflect the fact that they love Democratic values.

Wait... maybe that's what you want... "Love Democrat" makes us sound like hippies.

Now I see your evil plan.

[Theres-a]

86. Ned! Ned! Ned!

It will be Lamont.If anyone is going to.Fingers crossed.

[LibDemAlways]

96. This idiot will go nowhere. Besides,

why would CT voters want to replace Lieberman with another repuke?

[Renew Deal]

99. If Lamont doesn't win

Then Lieberman should be reelected. Democrats will have their say in the primary.

[goforit]

100. Does anyone remember his fabulous deals he made w/ Anderson?

He's Enron thru and thru.

[wordpix]

110. huh? I don't know if you're talking about Lieb. or Lamont, or what you're

referring to. Link, please

[Trajan]

117. Why would the Republicans be so pleased ?

Joe IS a fucking Republican ....

They LOSE if he loses ...

[Robbins]

126. 2006

The only way the Republicans win that seat Is for Lieberman to lose the primary to Lamont,and run as a Independt In the fall.