This only confirms my belief that the Dems, and I assume Reps, are out for their personal gain, namely staying in office, and to hell with the party. It wouldn't happen if the party provided the bulk of their campaign funding, which it obviously doesn't. The point is, money talks, money buys seats, principles are a thing of the past.

His campaign must pull Republican votes to the polls, courtesy of the national GOP on which his ambition has become dependent. That can have a drastically negative effect on the Democratic campaigns in the three Connecticut congressional districts where Republican representatives are at risk. Those three seats comprise 1/5 of the total number of 15 that Democrats need to gain the House.

The GOP in CT represents less than 20% of the electorate.  If the dems can't motivate their base to get out and support Lamont then as the old saying goes "Houston we have a problem". 

CT voter totals (roughly)

Ind: 800,000+

Dem: 700,000+

Rep: 300,000+

The numeric advantage the dems have over the republicans in CT is staggering.  If those dems come out and support Lamont not only does Lamont win I am betting 2 of the 3 GOP representatives lose too.  Or are there fears that the dems will not have the unity to support Lamont like the repugs will have the unity to support Lieberman?  It comes out to GOTV efforts and if the dems can't parlay a HUGE numeric advantage (see breakdown above) in the voter roles into victory don't blame the GOP or Lieberman.  I am from CT and all I have to say is...Connecticut democrats lets see what you are made of...all you need is to get your voters out to the polls!!!!

Part of the equation is how many of those democrats andDem-leaning independents follow Lieberman, lemming-like, to the other column. 'd expect those GOP candidates to do everything they can to align themselves w/ Lieberman (what choice do they haqve?) and Lieberman to join them in attacking the Sharpton-Waters-Lackson-Sheehan-Antisemite Democratic party.

Instead, we've got folks like Biden slobbering all over the Sunday pundit shows telling everybody what a swell guy Joe is.

Joe may have been a good guy once, but no more. The inflation of his ego is also sapping the life out of any message the Democrats want to send this fall. Not that they have a message. My Senate candidate seems to hope no one will notice she's a Democrat and she won't touch the war issue with a ten foot pole.

While my personal inclination is to go after Lieberman hammer and tongs, I actually think the correct position for Lamont to take is to enunciate a liberal, left of center program, as far as energy, education, health care, social security, environment, the judiciary, terri schaivo, tax cuts for the wealthy, religion in politics, stem cell research and of course iraq and force Lieberman to actually define himself IN THIS RACE. Is he for increased spending to improve health care, infrastructure, education or not. As he is forced to be specific I think the present fudging of his positions between right leaning Dems and the Republicans create tension among the amalgam which is his base at present. His support is mutually contradictory and is waiting for enough pressure to be forced apart.

VLaszlo...normally I would like the nuanced issues type campaign.  In fact I was all in favor of it earlier in the primary process.  But that was before the GOP made this into a referendum on Bush.  The voters of CT have a rare opportunity.  The nation and the world is watching this race in terms of approval or disapproval of the policies of George Bush.  The GOP has made it into that...and Joe Lieberman has not distanced himself from Bush.  Blunt force needs to be applied in this race.  Nuance is out the window.  CT can send a message to the country and the world...frame it that way!!!  Liberals and progressives in CT are salivating about being able to send this message...if Joe represents Bush...George must go!!!!

I would like to see former President Clinton endorse the Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont.

If anyone can appeal to the blue collar Democrats that Lamont needs to win this race, it's him.

His failure to do so could hurt Hillary with Democratic primary voters if and when she runs for president.

Libertine. I agree that this race is possibly the key race in the entire 2006 cycle. It has already had reverberations across the entire political spectrum and it has transformed the Democrats (maybe even despite themselves) into a party that actually stands for something. That is why the GOP is frantic to brand the Democrats as equivalent to terrorists. I do not think it will be successful; this war is too far gone. Having marginalized and quarantined the opposition for so long, I think the release will be that much more intense. I know we in opposition feel that way. Now you may be right about really going after Bush/Lieberman; I am not certain; but probably both approaches bring something to the table.

I totally disagree with dinsdale. I think Lieberman is holding more cards here than people want to admit. We have this assymetric problem precisely because there is no credible Republican in the race...so they will vote by a VERY different set of rules than they do normally. Repubs don't care what he does, they're gonna vote for him out of default. That means he can stay 1 inch to the right of Lamont on the campaign trail and sweep up almost every single Republican vote PLUS a good chunk of Dems. I sure hope that numerical advantage is as significant as claimed.

At the moment this guy is 10+ points ahead in the polls and as such he has first dibs on a very valuable vote for SML in his hip pocket. I feel like once he's won the election, he basically isn't accountable to anyone so I don't trust a damn single pledge he makes about how he'll vote.

Look no further than Jim Jeffords for a test case - he was elected as a Republican in November 2000 and flopped in June of 2001. Why then? He felt slighted, he was pissed. He figured it was his last term anyway. And if not, he was 5.5 years away from any voter accountability. (ASIDE: I went to a John Cornyn event in 2002 where Bush spoke, and the 3 bogeymen they mentioned on several occasions were Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Jim Jeffords.... The guy had been a solid Republican legislator for 30 freaking years and in an instant he was on par with Ted Kennedy.)

My point is that Joe has alot of similarities with Jim J. Joe knows if he wins this is probably his last term in the Senate because of the animus that's been created around him, regardless of how it happens in November. He knows that solidly 1/3 to 1/2 of Democrats are already done with him no matter WHAT he does going forward. So tell me again exactly how far you want to push this guy?

You really want Clinton to humiliate him? You really want Reid to immediately revoke all his priviledges?

Oh, and one more thing. You know why Jeffords voted for Daschle instead of Lott? Because he was offered a committee chairmanship (obviously there was more to the story, but still...)So in spite of what Lieberman has SAID about voting for Democratic chairs, i submit to you he has very little to lose and alot to gain if he were to choose....to be 'pushed' into reneging on his pledge in mid 2007.

Sure, he'll SAY all the right things now to keep the maximum Dem votes.... But in 8 months it will be "After some soul searching I have concluded that Senator Reid and I just don't see eye to eye on enough issues....etc" Voters would have to wait till 2012(!) to hold him accountable, if they got to at all.

Oh and one more diabolical thing - he can do all this contingent upon the outcome of the November races. He can play each side to his advantage behind the scenes between now and November, name his price if you will. If the Dems pick up 8 Senate seats? He keeps his mouth shut, keeps him pledge in 2007, is still a good 'independent Democrat'. Dems pick up just 5 or 6? Suddenly his vote becomes reallllly important.

So the remedy for this is for Lamont to run a brilliant campaign, turn that poll deficit into a lead like he did before, and give the fence-sitters a dose of courage....But if he looks like the Senator-presumptive, I just don't see bullying him is the right tactic. I'm sorry to sound like all those spineless Dem leaders, but this situation really has me worried. Imagine Lieberman wins and the Dems triumph with 6 Senate wins, then the heartbreak of Lieberman switching his vote because he was treated so shabbily by his colleagues.

I think it is aboIut a lot more than that.

I believe narrowing it will hand Joe a win.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

On the importance of the Connecticut race: one interesting marker is the fact that the London airline bombing scare came right after Lamont's win. As it becomes more and more likely that the police moved prematurely (under pressure from the US), it is hard not to conclude that some people are clearly rattled by Lamont's win and are scared of public discussion of the reasons for it.

Part of the reason for continuing low voter turnout in this country is a general apathy, a feeling that nothing ever changes. It seems that part of the political class are scared out of their pants that this apathetic indifference might change. Think of it as a fear of the "rule of the mob."

Oh, and one more thing. You know why Jeffords voted for Daschle instead of Lott? Because he was offered a committee chairmanship (obviously there was more to the story, but still...)

I'm sorry to sound like all those spineless Dem leaders, but this situation really has me worried. Imagine Lieberman wins and the Dems triumph with 6 Senate wins, then the heartbreak of Lieberman switching his vote because he was treated so shabbily by his colleagues.

Well, by all means we should pander to Holy Joe then! Or...maybe we should remember that this he is supposed to serve us, and not the other way around.

Joe Lieberman is a loose cannon. The only way to rid ourselves of this problem is to throw him overboard. He would be approximately as valuable to the Democratic caucus in the next six years as Jim Trafficant was back in the day. At some point a person is so detrimental to the party as a whole that you have to kick him out.

The precedent was set under Taft's leadership of the GOP in the 50s. If Joe Lieberman is not running as a Democrat (and he's not), then he's not a Democrat.

His support is mutually contradictory and is waiting for enough pressure to be forced apart.

There is also a contradiction in the idea that somehow a race between Lieberman and someone to his left is going to energize Republicans and conservative leaning independents and get them out to the polls in such numbers that Lieberman will have coattails for Republicans to grab onto in other races.

There may be tactical reasons for Republicans to vote for Lieberman, but those are not the sort of reasons that would highly motivate someone who disagrees with Lieberman on most issues to get to the polls and vote for a "Independent Democrat".

I suppose that any Republicans who are still strongly in favor of Bush's war could be motivated to get to the polls to support Lieberman, but those are the sort of dead enders who would turn out anyway and support all Republican candidates.

Fred in Vermont

Alas I fear your delicious irony is lost on all the Joe-haters here, petey.

Just watch, as Joe's numbers stay up, in October Democratic House candidate (CT-4)Diane Farrell will suddenly find it inconvenient to be seen in the same frame with your boy from the Round Hill Country Club, as will the Democratic candidates running against Simmons and Johnson for their House seats in Connecticut.

Your friend Lamont is the best thing that could happen to Chris Shays, Rob Simmons, and Nancy Johnson. You happy now?

In 1972 I saw that happen with tens of Connecticut Democratic candidates for lower offices who wouldn't admit to being on the same ticket as that perceived acid, amnesty and abortion lover from South Dakota. Guess which Democratic candidate that year did not abandon George McGovern? Joe Lieberman.

Thanks for the clarification on the numbers Sam.  Even with the correction of my numbers I still stick by what I said.  The reason is the independents (myself being one) are more liberal as a group then conservative.  If the dems support Lamont and the repugs support Lieberman the indies will decide this contest.  Judging by the results in the '04 presidential race the indies overwhelmingly rejected Bush.  So if this race is about "supporting" the POTUS or not Lamont should win easily...contingent on whether the dems support their primary winner as solidly as the repugs seem to be supporting the incumbent.

That was cute. But let's get real here -- the war that counts hasn't even been fought yet.

There is only one reason really, whether you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent, to vote for Joe - to maintain the status quo.

Right now, how many voters in Connecticut, other than fanatical Republicans and Bush supporters, are really enthusiastic about doing that?

Democrats appear to be better than Republicans, at least as demonstrated by most recent administrations, at anticipating future problems that COULD arise from present actions. This is a great talent to have in governing. But it also has its downside. Mainly, the tendency to focus on what COULD happen tomorrow to the detriment of doing what MUST be done today.

In this instance what Lamont and the Democrats must do is over-come the only real deficit Lamont has against Lieberman, the same deficit that any "change" candidate starts out with; people don't know Lamont and therefore aren't -- yet --ready to trust him.

He's a good candidate. Poised, confident, rather amazingly gaffe-resistant. In terms of domestic issues and blue state values, he's unlikely to be any worse, and promises to be better, than the incumbent. In terms of the one big issue of the day -- the Iraq war -- he promises the one thing people seem to want; change. He is the only person in the race offering a hope of the one thing that matters most now, and will matter even more in the future, in that matter; accountability.

The only question is, does he have the time needed to become known to, make an impression on, and gain the trust of, the broader Connecticut electorate? To over-come Lieberman's natural advantage as the well-known incumbent?

The polls as they stand today demonstrate little more than the value of incumbency -- and Republican opposition to Lamont. That is not the same thing as enthusiasm for Lieberman.

Lieberman's status will erode as the campaign goes on and more and more people -- Democrats and Independents who feel at least some uneasiness with the status quo -- begin to feel more comfortable with Lamont.

Whether it will erode enough by the election day is the question. Doing everything possible to make sure it does is the answer.

Wasting time and sapping energies speculating about the dire consequences IF Lieberman wins does nothing at all, in fact works against, doing what needs to be done to ensure Lamont's (very plausible) victory.

Again I don't disagree workerbee.  But whether it is a vote for change or a vote against Bush we in CT can send a message that what is going on in DC is completely unaccpetable.  I don't see why the 2 reasons aren't essentially one in the same... 

Well, Connecticut gets less money per capita in Federal funding than any other state in the Union.

So what exactly has Joe Lieberman been doing for Connecticut in the last 18 years?

Seems he does a lot for the Republicans... Or at least, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, George W. Bush, Karl Rove etc. think so...

What's he done for the Democrats, besides throw the 2000 election? Oops, that was another Republican service.

But seriously, what has Lieberman done for Connecticut?

Wait, you and Laszlo are both right. Yes, make it a referendum on Bush. Forget all the noise about the treacherous Lieberman switching sides. No one gives much of a shit about that. But exploit the hell out of it every time he ties himself to Bush. The issue is Bush, not treachery to the Democratic party. To us Democrats these may be one and the same thing. To the voters, not so much.

And by the way, this is not exactly the same as getting out the Democratic base vote, though that should still be done. Lamont should be in a good position to mine the votes of Independents and even Republicans who are sick of Bush.

Whatever Lieberman's particular fate, I do think that his presence in the race only helps the Republicans in their other races.

To begin with, Lieberman is going to base his campaign on the notion that the Democrats are ruled by a group of fanatics. Not only will he be convincing the large number of people who vote for him that this has some grain of truth in it, whatever their partisan affiliation, but he will in particular be carrying that message to independents, as an indepedent himself.

I just don't see how this message can fail to damage the prospects of other Democrats.

Lieberman really is out just for his Holiness himself. If he inflicts great damage on the Democratic Party more generally, he's just fine with it as long as his sorry ass continues to be able to park itself in the same seat it has occupied in the Senate for too many long years.

What a complete piece of work.

from www.altara.blogspot.com:

With many top and influential Republicans supporting the re-election of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, running as an independent against Democratic candidate Ned Lamont, it behooves Democratic leaders to wake up and give strong support to Mr. Lamont. Republicans, from the President on down, have abandoned the Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger.

So the Democrats have, in effect, a race against Mr. Lieberman as the Republican candidate. While there has been on site support by John Edwaeds, endorsement by Howard Dean, Russ Feingold and others, and some financial support from Senators Clinton and Kerry, much more needs to be done. We need to have campaign appearances by Democratic big guns, expert consulting, and continuing strong endorsements.

This is a fight against Republicans and the Democrats must play to win. Some may fear the Republican plans use Lamont as evidence of the dangerous leftward drift of the Democratic party, but, really, can they convince anyone that Ned Lamont is a wild-eyed extremist?

Homer Hewitt

I've been asking this question for weeks, and apparently none of his knee-jerk supporters have an answer, beyond the New London submarine base.

Absolutely delighted to hear mention of the like of Adams and Hamilton, of Jefferson and Madison.

Faneuil Hall in Boston has a wonderful portrait of Adams glowering at the visitors.

Adams might have been smiling if he had known about Lieberman way back then.

I would be glad to forget the spread and put my bet on the nose for Lamont if I were a gambling man.

Folks might want to get advice from an expert before they do that. Schlesinger is your man on that subject.

In terms of the one big issue of the day -- the Iraq war --

I shudder when I hear this assertion.

It is a miscalculation and the one issue that if the Democrats focus on it, can cost them the election.

This is the centerpiece and the lynchpin of the GOP strategy, Iraq the proxy for "terrism"..

Americans are truly confused as to the appropriate strategy to disengage here and deal with the broader issue of terrorism.

As such, it stays in Rove's hopper of winning GOP issues.

He merely adds to this confusion the votes from formulaic GOP shit of gay bashing, prolife/stem cell gibberish, guns, fundie Christian ignorance and bigotry and of course the baseline GOP issue of racism, with a salsa chaser now, and voila, the country stays on course to destruction.

I believe the winning Democrat issue is truly "the one big issue".

That is the poll validated conviction that Americans believe the GOP has the country headed in the wrong direction. A question that polls nearly a 70% affirmative response.

This is what Democrats can and must win on.

Rather than become bogged down in issue related debates, Democrats must clearly sieze the issue that the American are screaming at them.

They must convince the Americans that the way to get back "on-track" is to defeat the GOP incumbents across the country. They must break the Congressional majorities.

Americans know this. They need to have it reinforced.

This is why the GOP is desperate to get their candidates to "localize" their races.

Dems cannot fall for that. They must tie all GOP candidates to their most obvious symbol of abject failure, George Bush....

I happen to agree Joe isn't a progressive, but a lot of his support is due to that perception.

I was just, in my own sneaky way, taking that type of 'reasoning' off the table in favor of change. I do believe the possibility of real change will motivate not just connecticut voters, but all voters nationally.

I hope we see record turnout.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

"And CT is the state I live in and I will not give Bush a proxy vote by supporting Lieberman. "

I'd definitely vote Lamont in the general, were I a Nutmegger.

But I would have just as definitely voted Lieberman in the primary for strategic reasons.

The folks who ought to be embarrassed, IMHO, are those CT primary hawk voices in the blogosphere who were the neocons of this particular ill-considered war.

Joe Lieberman is symptomatic of America's ultimate political problem: rightwing extremists introducing and nurturing radical, dangerous ideas (which gain popularity thanks to successful marketing), which are then co-opted by spineless Democrats that are looking for votes, thus giving the ideas a bipartisan, "moderate" sheen.

Lieberman supports the war. Many in politics and the blogosphere would like to claim that the war is a "moderate" idea, but in truth, it's well out of the mainstream. However, vote-seeking pseudoDems give cover to those that have hijacked our foreign policy. This makes it much harder to get rid of those policies.

Until the party deals with those who are enabling the neocons and their ilk, we'll continue giving the voting public that "battered wife syndrome" vibe. The Republicans keep doing horrible stuff, and the Democrats keep taking them back anyway.

It's not that I disagree with many in this thread, it's just that I see a prediction coming true: Lieberman is consuming all the oxygen.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Lamont is a nearly ideal Democratic candidate -- based, at least, on his stated beliefs and his growing polish and clarity. I started to add: "and Lieberman is a..." But that's the point. Lamont is the guy we should give all our attention to.

Deprive Lieberman of the spotlight, of the air, of inclusion in the discussion, of rant -- of our panicky attention. The fight here is twofold: it's against the status quo of Bush and the Republican Congress, and it's against a Democratic Party leadership which hasn't had, for years, wanted to acknowledge that they're responsible to us. But that means we have to behave responsibly and not spend all our time what-iffing, climbing on chairs in the blogosphere and shouting "eek"!

Kudos to Stephen with all the "n's"!

frustrating that the Fundie Tribalist Right depends on clueless country-club republicans to keep their majority, and the Shays and the Chaffee and the Biggerts keep deluding themselves that they're "the Party of Lincoln". Historical blasphemy.

I don't get why you would have voted for Lieberman "strategically"?

We need to expunge from our minds any notion that Joe is getting out of the race. He has no reason to, given the fractured response to him from the national Dems, and he's absolutely shameless about being a turncoat. So he's in this to stay and Lamont supporters need to get over worrying about when Lieberman will drop out and just concentrate on electing Lamont.

It's doable. If Lamont can make this a referendum on Bush, which becomes easier and easier by the day given the latest extensions of "the Kiss", he'll win. We need no message on Lieberman other than that he's Bush's guy.

In 1983, in an election similar in many ways to this one, black folks and liberal Dems uprooted the entrenched Chicago power structure and elected Harold Washington mayor. What was similar was the reaction of the ostensibly Democratic power structure, which by and large switched to the Republican candidate en masse in order to preserve its power. We found, then, that "party loyalty" is a one-way club to be used against dissidents - entrenched power never lets it get in their way when they need to throw it overboard. In order to win, we must get over the outrage over this betrayal and just get out the votes and win.

I believe they are remnants of the Rockefeller Republicans. RINOs, perhaps, but moderates to be sure and liberals when they choose to be.

Rick, I think you've misinterpreted what I've said...I'm not claiming the committee chairmanship was the driving force behind Jeffords' flip. He was motivated by many other larger factors. But Daschle and Reid threw it in as a sweetener. And it worked, so it could work with Lieberman. At this moment, the Republicans are probably devising ways to make Joe feel very very welcome.

I don't disagree with your assessment - Lieberman is a loose cannon etc. Yes of course HE is supposed to serve us not the other way around. But I don't give a damn on how the guy votes on issues at this point. This whole thing comes down to that vote for Senate Majority Leader and Committee Chairmanships.

I appreciate your wanting to be principled and firm and tell Joe if he's not running as a Dem he's not a Dem etc. But...dude...this is politics. I just feel like you're ignoring the potential consequences.

That sonofab!tch may well win this election. And if he does we need him to vote to put Democrats in the chairs. That above all else. No matter what this is THE most important thing right now. Your plan seems to be to have every Democrat in the country sh!t on him for 10 weeks, and embarrass him and snipe at him and demand that Reid strip him of priveledges, and pronounce how 'detrimental he is to the party' etc.

But what if he wins? After all that abuse...why would he feel any obligation at ALL to vote with the Democrats? Imagine your family kicked you out of your house, wrote you out of the will, told you you weren't invited to the family re-union. Then after all that they call and ask 'hey, would you come over and mow the lawn?'

I'm not saying we pander to him. I'm not saying we endorse him or support him. But to out-and-out alienate him and antagonize him and make a sworn enemy of him...just seems like a terrible idea. I'm just suggesting Lamont run and win on the issues, and that Democrats unabashedly support Lamont not because Joe is the devil, but because Ned is the candidate chosen by CT Dems...we can and should do this all without demonizing or embarassing Leiberman. 

"I appreciate your wanting to be principled and firm and tell Joe if he's not running as a Dem he's not a Dem etc. But...dude...this is politics. I just feel like you're ignoring the potential consequences."

Of course the CT Primary Hawks are ignoring the consequences. They're true believers, just like the neocons were in Iraq.

That's why they dragged us into this CT quagmire in the first place. They simply don't care about the consequences.

"I couldn't vote in the primary because I am an indie."

Shame on you. Come join the party. The more, the merrier.

Besides, all being an indie gets you is no say in either primary.

Does it occur to anyone that Rove is throwing bait to progressive Democrats to roil the waters and drive us into a frenzy for conservatives to exhibit as our "dangerous obsession with ending the war"?

Lamont is a cool customer and a smart guy. I think he can take care of himself, and might be better positioned against Lieberman if we don't fire-hose money into his campaign. Contribute yes, support, yes, but spend your dollars wisely. Even if Lieberman were to win, would it really be such a grievous loss, one Senate vote. Think smarter, think hearts and minds, and cool it a little with the zeal. It can really turn off JQVoters.

I'm not an ornithologist, but in the US Senate, I think I'd prefer the person who advocated pursuing the people who attacked this country to the one(s) who advocated going after somebody who had nothing to do with those attacks because we were angry and frustrated because we couldn't find the guy who did.

I like when s/he started a post with "Dear Dinsdale Jerk" and then accused the person of being on Rove's payroll. 

S/He's treading on Mary from RI's turf.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

Oh, I'll defend zeros:

Dear Dinsdale Jerk,

IF YOU AIN'T ON KARL ROVE'S PAYROLL YOU SHOULD BE!

FUCKING HYPOCRITES

I think those comments merit a zero. In fact, I'd kinda lean toward zeroing the all-caps rants no matter what the content.

Voters recognize failure when they see it. And, given enough time, they also recognize incompetence.

Most of the people, women especially, voting in November won't be the kind of political junkies -- left, right and center -- posting here. And they won't be ideologues. The finer political points and supposedly informed speculations being presented by all sides in this forum are beside the point for them. They may not know how to get out of Iraq, but they also know that the administration doesn't have a clue about how to do it either. And that knowledge doesn't make them feel very secure. And that's why "security" won't be a very effective strategy for status quo candidates this time around.

This race will depend entirely on how effectively Lamont campaigns. Can he gain the voters trust and make them feel comfortable voting for change?

The Republicans and Lieberman, of course, are and will be doing everything in their power to paint him as weak and untrustworthy.

If he's up to the task of countering that, he'll win.

I'm not proposing to be the correct-conversation-minder here. However, would you please take care not to restart the flame-wars on this site. Thx. /Tg

I just have a higher tolerance for that stuff. Plus, I think it's better to let everyone see how much of an asshole someone is. 

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

Let me understand, is there a problem with me if I hate the man? He is the one with the policies after all. It doesn't consume me and I don't hate him all the time. Just when I think about him and what he has done to the country. So this is wrong?

Petey I understand you are unhappy with me. I helped create the "quagmire in CT". I know you agree I didn't do anything proscribed by our political system I just did not think strategically the way you do. But you see I do not see things the same as you do (and in your opinion that makes me oh so stupid). You foresaw correctly that Lieberman would run no matter what happened. (Actually i foresaw that too but nevermind.) And that may be bad for the Democratic Party. So why don't you tell Senator Lieberman that he should not do that bercause it might hurt the Democratic Party. After all HE is the one trying first to run as a Democrat and now as a Republican/Independent. Why do you address your frustration at the hundreds of thousands of voters that voted the way they saw the issues? Is it because if you tell Senator Lieberman that he should not endanger the rest of the Democratic Party he might not listen to you or any of the other many people who have told him he should not hurt the Democratic Party? Is it because you see things the way Lieberman does (or close enough) so that he does not bother you on the issues? If not, if it is just because you think it was a bad strategic move to oppose Lieberman and you felt that it was fruitless telling Senator Lieberman to change his positions or get out of the race after he lost, don't you think that it is as fruitless to address your frustrations on the hundreds of thousands in fact millions of Democrats nationwide who supported Lamont (according to the polls some 80% of Democrats nationally were happy with the Lamont victory)...in fact who felt the issues were so important to them that they were willing to risk a "quagmire in CT" to replace Lieberman with someone who represented their views more closely. Now if you like Lieberman, by all means, support him; but if you don't what exactly is the purpose of your rant? What is its strategic purpose? Do you think it helps the Democratic Party? In what way?

I should...I always vote the democratic party as it is, lol.  When I was younger and first registered (pre-Reagan) the repugs weren't as completely wrong on the issues as they have become and back then I did vote for some (Oh, the errors of youth).  But you are right shame on me.  Since '84 I can name the repugs I have voted for on one hand...because since then their policies can't suck enough.  So why not get more involved with the party I support...

It in fact showed for the first time, that running against the war, against a pro-war enabler, despite the risks involved from the "cut and run" charge, which Lieberman didn't hesitate to use and he will use again. That is heady stuff. Shays has observed it well and all of a sudden he is displaying some visible "anti-war" actions (planned hearings?). Yet some people don't see the dynamic; they worry about the "numbers" in opposition rather than the "type and quality". Change is messy, not easy, especially when we are trying to take down as nasty a lot as has ever been seen in this country.

When I read your post it rang a bell. Artappraiser's dressing-down of those of us who consider Sage to be a troll seems to me to resemble Joe's speech to his co-horts, warning them that criticising Bush while we are at war is a perilous thing to do.

You chose a perfect quote. There are plenty of others. Phrases like "your ilk" and such are givaways.

Jan Knaus

Isn't it interesting with all the back and forth that Artappraiser finds only the degrading of Sage's ratings worthy of criticism. Not Sage's rants. Save us from partisans masquerading as even-handed.

Well, if the "strategic interests" of the Democratic Party is to become the Republican Party, then we have an existential conflict in the party. Lieberman is the classic example. Lieberman would rather become a de facto Republican than lose. Many of us have figured out that this is true of most of the incumbent Democrats.

I did enjoy John Kerry comparing Lieberman to Dick Cheney more than once this morning. Whoever put those words in Kerry's mouth today has a future!

Good point. It's also interesting, given all we hear about the crazy, rage-filled left blogosphere driving poor reasonable moderate Holy Joe out of the party, the venom and histrionics seem to come, at least on this site, from the LieberDems. Or I guess now I should say the Connecticuts for Joe, or whatever they call themselves.

On Iraq, Lieberman was a neocon before anybody knew what a neocon was. He has voted and campaigned with Bush since 2002, some would say since Nov. 6, 2000. If there had been no Ned Lamont, he only would have been more of a Bushite after this election than he was before it. It was only after he lost the primary that Lyin' Joe suddenly decided he was a critic of Bush's conduct of the war.

If you think Joe was such a great Democrat, you should go read Colin McEnroe's Salon.com article of a couple of weeks ago. Joe's been double dealing and having it both ways since the Clarence Thomas vote at least.

The election is three months away. No "prophecy" has been fulfilled. If I were Lieberman, I wouldn't be re-ordering my Senate stationary just yet.

Fallout?

Like Chris Shays holding hearings on Iraq? Like forcing the GOP to make idiots out of themselves and continue to disgust the majority of voters in this country? Like giving people the gumption to get out and demand change, as in the Maryland Edwards race?

That type of change is good, and long overdue. I hear your concerns, as you repeat your dour warnings ad naseum, but they don't change the reality of what the voters want, and are empowered to do, thanks to Ned Lamont, and the so-called "Dem-hawks."

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

If you read what I've been saying on this thread, (or what I've ever said on the topic), you'll know that I'm no fan of Joe Lieberman.

I'm getting a little tired of this bit of cover for yourself:

"Look at me. I don't like Lieberman either. But, you're all still a bunch of fucking assholes."

Shall I expect a zero from you on this one, too?

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

"I'm getting a little tired of this bit of cover for yourself: "Look at me. I don't like Lieberman either. But, you're all still a bunch of fucking assholes."

A nice echo of the charges that folks who opposed the Iraq war must hold a brief for Saddam Hussein, no?

-----

But, for whatever it's worth, it's not cover. If I really liked Lieberman, I'd fucking say so. If I really thought folks should vote for him over Lamont in the general, I'd say so.

I don't think most folks who share in the anti-Lieberman ethos are assholes. But I do think that there are many prominent and sophisticated voices in the blogosphere who understood full well the detriments to the Democratic Party posed by denying Lieberman the nomination. And those voices acted as CT Primary Hawks anyway, mostly out of craven and greedy motives.

When people claim to lead, but act as mis-leaders instead, they deserve to be called out.

Thoughtful riposte artappraiser. I care not a whit what the netnuts here think of my comments.

I am a Democrat who disagrees with Joe on how soon we should implement a plan for phased withdrawal, but I still support him because he has done a lot for the people of Ct. for 26 years, because his views are closer to those of the majority of Ct. votrs than Lamont's, and because he has a much better understanding of the foe we face .

To endorse a candidate based upon what they used to do is all well and good if we are going to be living in the past--however, it doesn't work that way--the arrow of time points in only one direction--and that direction is the future.

Lieberman is no longer serving the constituancy that put him in power 18 years ago. Time, and the enticement of weilding more, greater powers from his Senate seat have caused him to abandon his core constituancy. and now I'm afraid his allegience lies four-square with the monied Right.

As has already been stated here, if he were truly the man of the people that he (endlessly) proclaims himself to be, he would have acknowledged his defeat with class, then he would have thrown all his political weight firmly behind Lamont.

Obviously, that's not the case--the Right are counting on Lieberman to win...one need only look at the Republican candidate and the next to nothing support he's getting from the Right. Not so with Joe--he's been contacted numerous times by the Republican's heavy hitters, who offer Joe their support.

Does this seem to you like a man who wants only to serve his Democratic constituancy?

Go to Bridgeport, Waterbury, Norwalk, Groton--besides spending six months teaching at Harding h.S. whet the hell has Lamont done for these places in the last 18 years? A lot less than Joe Lieberman did. Of course, Lieberman is getting Republican support, but if that is all the support he is getting why were 20 unions cheering him today? Why have the Democratic Mayor of Waterbury and the Democratic Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives vocally been sticking with him? If you think all those people are stupid, you are the reason why we have lost six of the last nine Presiential elections in this country.

That poll was right. The next time it comes out, no doubt it will reflect the RECENT numbers.

Lamont won. HE is the democratic candidate for the senate.

I live in Middlesex county where I saw 50 lawn signs for Lamont in my small town, alone.

I saw --0-- for Lieberman.

I doubt you live in Connecticut, and furthermore, I doubt that you voted for Kerrry or Gore, like I did.

You are a troll. Period.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com