How is Lieberman different from not Counting Votes in OHIO??

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

Help me out here....but how is not respecting the will of Connecticut Dems voting for Lamont, different from not counting the votes or respecting the votes in Ohio or Florida?

If the vote was fair, all Dems should back Lamont.

If you do not back a rightly elected person in your party, then you are truely not of that party and should be shunned....

Lieberman should be stripped of all trappings and 'bonus' of being a dem....he is not a dem anymore...anyone supporting Lieberman, is also not a dem,,,,shun them......

[jenmito]

1. At least with Lieberman...

We know what's going on. He's disrespecting the will of the Dem. voters of CT and we can blame him. With the voter fraud in OH it's harder to prove. Have you seen this article yet?:

"Some Senate Democrats are becoming angry with Senator Joe Lieberman's statements on the campaign trail, today's issue of The Hill is reporting.

Democrats are upset with statements Lieberman made about the Iraq war, implying that the stand of many Democrats to bring the troops home from Iraq by a certain date puts national security at risk. Some senior aides have intimated that Lieberman may lose seniority within the caucus over the imbroglio."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Senate_Democrats_grow_angry_at_Joe_0816.html

[electropop]

4. The "ELECTION fraud" (not "voter" fraud) in OH is pretty easy to prove.

Have you read the GAO report, or the Conyers report?

[jenmito]

5. Oops-yes, I mean election fraud...

And yes, I HAVE read the reports as well as watched the panel on C-Span a few weeks ago about how they were ab;e to prove BOTH elections were stolen. I'm just saying that Lieberman is right there, ANNOUNCING that he is not respecting the results of his constituents.

[electropop]

9. Good work Jen!

Keep those facts in your head and occasionally drop one into casual conversation. Liberally (how else?) cite the reports (especially GAO) as backup.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. The anology is not apt

The primary was for the Democratic nomination, not for the right to run in the general election.

[damntexdem]

3. There is one major difference:

Ned Lamont didn't just win, he was called the winner in Connecticut. Yeah, Lieberman aims to undo that; but we should still cherish any honest election outcome we can still experience.

[MessiahRp]

6. The finality of it all

Not counting votes in Ohio made that result final. Lamont and Lieberman were just a primary for that party's nomination and Lieberman, right or wrong, exploited that to continue his Senate reelection campaign as in Independent. After November's election it will be final but a primary is not the final piece of an election process.

The problem I have is that Joe might as well be a Republican since he has all their support and is working with Rove these days on anti-Democratic talking points. The problem is he is legally restricted from switching parties because their primaries are final as well.

Rp

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[blm]

8. The Dem PARTY infrastructure is charged with securing the votes on a state

by state basis.

The Dem PARTY needs to work on securing the machines and countering the GOP tactics in every state on every day from election to election. The candidate has little to do in that regard, and can only trust that the Dem party infrastructure is in place and doing its daily job in the uears before the nominee is known.

The Dem PARTY is doing part of its job by supporting Lamont today.