Talk Elections

It's the pathetic Lieberman apoligists that made this video be necessary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMhN3mP_w6Q

Too bad he'll win and he deserves it more.

God, jfern, you're just as bad as those idiots from my state who vote solely on abortion.  STOP BEING A SINGLE-ISSUE VOTER!

too bad sean hannity his great pals with joe lieberman. hannity has cost us a good senator in washington.

There's nothing wrong with being a single-issue voter.  It simply depends on how big that single issue is.

he's not really being a single issue voter.

If we assume Lieberman and Lamont are identical on all other issues (which isn't true as I've pointed out, but let's do it anyway), then that means anyone opposed to the war agrees with Lamont more, since it'd mean they agree with Lieberman on everything but the war, and Lamont on everything. Therefore, they should support Lamont simply because they agree with more.

And as I've pointed out, I would've not voted for Lieberman in 2000 either.

Regardless of the Iraq war, do you want a "Democrat" who gives appaluse to a terrible Bush speech and then kisses him. Do you want a "Democrat" who talks about how we need private accounts? Do you want a "Democrat" who almost  costs Democrats control of the Senate by running for re-election to the Senate the same time he runs for VP? Do you want a "Democrat" who constantly bashes on liberals, and is endorsed by Hannity, Coulter and other wingnuts? Do you want a "Democrat" who sharply criticized a President of his own party for lying about a blow job, while didn't criticize a President of the opposite party for lying about everything else. No, there is far more here than just Lieberman's crazy warmongering, even if you wish to dismiss this outrageous war started by no reason by people like Lieberman as a "single issue".

Absolutely!!!!!!  Sean Hannity is an advocate for a better America while his sidekick Alan Colmes and his liberal friends are advocates for the execution of all conservative Republicans. 

Just to throw for Kerosene on the fire, lets throw in a VERY GOOD pro-war talk show host, the incredible RUSH LIMBAUGH.

I do agree with you on one point, Ann Coutler is a bit too radical and spouts off without regard for courtesy.  I do think she is an embarrassment to the Republican party, but as for Sean and Rush and Joe, they are not only not an embarrassment to the Republican party, but they are three of the best Americans in the media and in Washington.

Great video, jfern.


Source?


It says something that people like BushOk are staunch supporters of Lieberman, doesn't it?

Quick, someone remind me when this primary is.

August 8

Thanks, that's a relief. How's Joe's signature collection coming on?

That wasn't a half bad video.  I can't believe he supported the anti-constitution torture support Gonzales.  What a disgrace.  It only hardens my support for Ned Lamont.  If Lieberman pulls off a Connecticut primary win, it won't be that sad of a day for me.  Lieberman is a terrible Democrat, but he isn't a horrible Senator.  However, a Lamont primary win and finally I will see the Democratic backbone I've been looking for since 2000.  I'll be elated.

Since he only needs 7,000 valid signatures he's probably got them in hand by now.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether Lamont or Leiberman wins, but this kind of infighting can really harm the Democratic party.

Thing is it doesnt matter what Lieberman says or does, he's become a symbol for all the grevances that the liberal wing of the democratic party have with the party's leadership and for that reason they will seek to defeat him because he is that symbol, rather than a true conservative dem like Ben Nelson or Mark Pryor... it's odd I'll give it that. 

Ben Nelson represents Nebraska. Mark Pryor represents Arkansas. A "liberal" Democrat would fail miserably in those Republican states, which is why the left supports them; they're better than nothing.

Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, represents a solidly Democratic state. If he weren't so out of touch with his constituents on the war in Iraq, there wouldn't be a strong primary challenge and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Guess that's why Hagel and Graham are always being challenged by hard core conservative republicans... oh wait... it's an interesting contrast between the dysfunctional Democrats and the more practical republicans.

A Senator should be a strong voice for their state, that does not mean being an "ideological fit" look at Hagel, Santorum (at one time), Feingold, Harkin etc... if extreemists in both parties want to erode the independence that has characterised US Senators in the past and replace them with politically tribal automata then it will be a great loss, sadly both parties seem to be heading that way, and sooner or later, come election time, folks will realise they can do better that opting for the candidate from one extreem or the other...

This argument holds no water. Those "more practical" Rhode Island Republicans are about to knock off a moderate Senator in their primary, in favor of some cookie-cutter conservative who will lose by thirty points in November. You also ignore the rightist drive to take out the moderate Arlen Specter in a 2004 primary, which fell just short of succeeding.


Lamont is not an extremist; not in Connecticut, nor in the nation at large. Joe is the one who is out of touch, and it's no crime for Connecticut Dems to want a Senator who, well, represents their feelings on Iraq and the Bush presidency.

Actually, it's much simpler than that. Joe Lieberman goes out of his way to go on national TV and criticize other Democrats. He sucks up to the Bush whenever he can. He's a media whore. He undermines the party whenever he gets the chance.

Neither Ben Nelson or Mark Pryor criticize their party. They make our party stronger. Joe Lieberman makes the party weaker.

I wish people would understand this. It's really not a hard concept.

Dissent in both parties is great for this country.  Without it, we would have a bunch of Senators and Congressmen being robots of their party's leaders.  I welcome the John McCains, the Joe Liebermans, the Chuck Hagels of the country, they actually keep the rest of the country from going insane with two vastly different parties with little or no link between the two in the center of the spectrum.

Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor are able to dissent without undermining their party. They don't go on Fox News every week and kiss the president at the SOTU.

My favorite thing about this race so far was when Lamont said he left his country club because it was a bunch of "rich white guys." He had been a member for 10 years. What exactly was the composition when he joined, working-class black women?

Well, hard concept or not, I sure as hell don't understand why Connecticut Democrats would want to reject an experienced voice in the Senate for a single-issue candidate whose only political job was on the New Haven town counsel.  I also don't understand why these voters would want to send a message to voters across the country that the Democratic Party is controlled by radicals, not pragmatists. 

Look, I believed Iraq was a mistake from the start.  But we're there now, we're stuck until we can hand off control of the country to the new Iraqi government.  Pulling out immediately would be a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention hundreds of American lives.  We will have accomplished nothing.  The best alternative is to develop a short-term timeline to exit Iraq.  I believe Lieberman supports this idea, albeit his idea of a "timeline" may be slightly longer than most Democrats would prefer. 

I truly hope that Connecticut voters don't vote this man out of office.  He is not a crazed "war-monger".  Hell, aside from this ONE issue, he agrees with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party on a variety of things (e.g. pro-abortion, pro-stem cell research, pro-gun control).  This sends a disturbing message to potential Democratic voters and isolates others.  The fact that our party won't tolerate someone who so much as disagrees with liberals on ONE issue signifies that perhaps we are not the all-inclusive big tent that many would consider us to be.

Great post, Virginian.  I agree 100%.

It also seems foolish that Democrats/liberals are wasting so much money on this race-no matter who wins the primary:  a Democrat or Democrat caucusing Independent will be in DC.  (Sorry htmldon) but Allan Schesslinger is not going to win this race no matter what.  All of this money/time that's being given to Lamont would be much better spent on tossups seats that will help the Democrats achieve a majority in the Senate (PA, OH, MO, RI, TN, MT, MD, NJ, MN, etc.).

Because change can be a good thing? Voting out a career politician in favor of an outsider sounds pretty positive to me.


Not this again. (1) a majority of Americans take the "radical" position of opposing the war in Iraq, and (2) the vast majority of Americans simply don't care about this primary race.


To quote BRTD:


It is not going to have a national impact, as many Democrats for Lieberman perversely seem to want.

What is really wrong with Lieberman isn't specifically his support for the war or various other right-wing positions, it is that he is too friendly with the other side.  Republicans are the enemy, and until Democrats get serious about treating them as such, they will not gain power.

From what I have heard of him I much prefer Menendez.  We need to attack, attack, attack.  Leiberman is useless for this purpose, so who needs him?

The Republicans aren't all bad just like the Democrats aren't all good and vice versa.  The Republicans are NOT the enemy.  Rather those who oppose the Almighty God of the Christians are the enemy.

I am a part of the religious right and I am going to bring this out and tell the truth.  CHRISTIANITY is the ONLY religion that will survive.  All of these other religions, such as mormonism, islam, buddhism, hinduism, etc, will all one day be eliminated and The Lord God Jehovah will reign victorius.  I don't mean to preach, but I can't be silent on the truth, either.  No offense, but Republicans seem to have more of the Biblical values than do Democrats.  The Bible is pro-life, the Republicans are pro-life, the Bible is anti-gay-marriage, so are Republicans,.  The Bible supports the death penalty, so do most Republicans.  I could go on and on and on, but I'll let everybody else figure it out.  Thats why I believe the majority of America is trending right rather than left.  Conservatism is our real future.

I'm not saying all Democrats are bad.  There are some Democrats who agree 100% with the Bible, too.  However, it seems that when people tout the first amendment freedom of religion, they mean any religion but Christianity.

I'll get off my soap box, now, but it just irks me why people don't care an inkling about God's Word sometimes and say that one party is horrible.

One last thing, I'd rather eat lunch with Jerry Falwell than Howard Dean.

And up to here, I agree with you.
No. I am NOT your enemy either. Get that. Thank you.
Unless of course you were to take arms or whatever to make that prophecy (I've accidentally snipped it, but what followed next in your post) come true. But in that (hypothetical) case, the US government is your enemy too. Bush is your enemy too. Most of the Christian conservatives in congress are your enemy too. This is because your threatening them, not because they or we are threatening you.

The bible is anti-gay full stop. I seem to recall that the picture on abortion is not quite that black-and-white though. Generally though, of course, my and most people's reply can be summed up as "Aye, so what?" - it's a true fact, but nothing follows. (Or for those who see the Religious Right as the ENEMY - and they certainly exist -, what follows is that the Republicans are not the party to support.)  Non Sequitur.
What they mean is Freedom from Religion.

I do, I just don't see the Bible as containing much of God's Word.

Hope this is enlightening. :)

Well there are two mistakes in that post.  Lamont isn't a single issue candidate.  He wont be the last democrat to fall in line on protecting social security, he wont vote for Bush's crazy energy bills, and he won't increase the power of the presidency.  Further it is Greenwich not New Haven.


Sorry the radicals are the warmongers.  A super majority of Nutmeggers oppose the war and a massive supermajority of our Democrats do. 


BS you've been one of its biggest supporters here red and blue included.


Sorry will never happen and we're not stuck anywhere.


Those were already wasted.  Our future actions have nothing to do with it.


Yeah 10+ years is longer than any Democrat wants.  You, Harry, and some others may be big supporters of the war but in reality you're not democrats anymore than Zell Miller is.


Yes he is and yes we will.



So do our Republicans.


No it shows the difference between the two parties.  That the GOP supports illegal immoral wars of aggression that kill thousands of American troops and handicap tens of thousands of others while killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer $ for no reason.


We should not be a "big tent party" that includes people who still support Iraq.  If you support Iraq go join Bush's party.  Or better yet go sign up and go to Iraq cause you obviously support the war more than you do our country or our party.

Uh, how can he have supported the Iraq War on here from the start when he signed on just a year ago?

Can we all get one thing straight, please? Lamont is not an extremist, not an "outsider", not a "radical" and isn't much of a left-winger either.
Reading through some of the comments I've seen on this race, you'd almost think that Lamont was a John McDonnell (http://www.john4leader.org.uk/about-john.html) and not the upper class (and really rather establishment-ish) paternalistic liberal that he actually is...

First of all, how the hell do you equate "warmonger" by being against an immediate pullout?  Lieberman, as I mentioned before, advocates staying in Iraq until we can hand off the country to the new Iraqi government and its military.  I'm sorry you feel that this is wrong, but let me tell you something.  The country of Iraq was drawn nearly 90 years ago arbitrariliy, with no respect to ethnic and religious lines.  For almost all of its history, it has been ruled by strong, authoritarian leaders, similar to Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia.  Now, when Tito died in 1980, Yugoslavia fell into disarray, eventually tearing itself apart by ethnic faction until it disintegrated into several different republics.  That's exactly what will happen to Iraq if we pull out immediately.  The resulting ethnic conflict in Iraq would spill into the Middle East region, and an authoritarian country with possible nuclear capabilities like Iran may try to gain control of it.  So to avert a crisis like this, we must stay in Iraq, at least until the Iraqi government can take control of its own country. 

I myself would like to bring the troops home as soon as possible, but we have to see this government through.  Otherwise our total effort would have been a waste.  This support to stay still does not make Lieberman a warmonger.

You support the continued bombing of children for no reason other than Bush felt like lieing to the American people about it.


That is exactly what will happen if we pull out now or in 15 years.


It is going to happen.  IT IS HAPPENING.  The difference is that you want our guys to be over there killing children and enflaming tensions.

It already has effective control over any democratic Iraq.

I'm going to stop responding to your constant attacks, Progress.  You haven't been able to back up anything you say, but just persist in calling me a warmonger and telling me that I'm not a "true Democrat".  Come back and debate me when you have some facts, because your arguments thus far are somewhat pathetic.

Fact:  You want our troops to stay in Iraq resulting in them both dieing and killing more innocent Iraqi civilians.

Bill Clinton has endorsed Joe Lieberman.  The report was on Fox News "Special Report with Brit Hume" at 5:30 pm CDT.

The Lamont supporters still aren't scared.

It still remains to be seen whether Connecticut Democrats love Bill Clinton more or hate Joe Lieberman more.

Oh they're gonna hate Bill Clinton now for supporting the "warmonger" Joe Lieberman.

On the same show "Special Report with Brit Hume" on Fox News, they were saying in a 3-party race with Lieberman as Independent that Lieberman would manhandle Lamont and Shlies, 51-27-9.

Of course he would.  He'd have a sizeable chunk of the Democratic and Republican vote and pretty much all of the moderates.  It's pretty much a given that he will win either way.  It just makes this whole primary a waste of time and money.

Rasmussen says 40-40-13.
Anyways, Joe's threats of running as an Indy shouldn't make people vote for him in the primary.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/connecticutSenateJuly.htm

Clinton said he'd support the primary winner, which seems pretty reasonable.

Without using attacks I will try to explain something.  The democratic government will never be able to take control and neither will military or police forces.  All evidence supports that theory.  Iraq's arbitrary lines will cause the nation to collapse.  It just has to happen.  Our troops are too few to ever quell the resistance and so are theirs.  There is just no support to say that "sticking the course" will yield anythin, but more death.

Correct. Iraq is just like the former Yugoslavia, it's not a sustainable nation.

And I'm not one to tell people to change their avatar colors, but I'll definitely have to say so to BushOklahoma after that post awhile back. As if his name wasn't enough.

The reason I don't change my avatar color is while I am a registered Republican, I'm not so hard-core that I hate Democrats.  I have voted for Democrats in the past (i.e. John Kerry) and am planning to vote for a Democrat in November 2006 (Brad Henry).  As my political matrix says I am a social conservative and an fiscally left-of-center.  I consider myself to fall in between John McCain and Bill Frist on the conservative scale.

My posts in the past may have shown otherwise, but I just don't like vast left-wing conspiratists.  The moderate and even slightly liberal Democrats are okay.

I voted for John Kerry in 2004, because at the time I thought like many of the people in this forum, I thought we needed a fresh face to handle the war in Iraq.

Even though he's a staunch liberal, I still kinda like John Kerry, though I won't vote for him again if he runs, and I also like his former running mate, John Edwards.  He's a liberal, but I don't think he's as hard-core as, say, Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton, or Barbara Boxer, etc.

Excuse me?  What are those?


He is no staunch liberal, though Bush did play that card well.  He's intermediate Democrat (in between moderate and liberal), but he isn't that great.  He's basically a staunch panderer.  If you look at his Senate record before the 2004 election, you can see he was definitely not a liberal.

It's good to see you sporting that red avatar.  There is a healthy moderate Democratic contingent here, including Preston Caldwell, Frodo, myself, Dave Hawk, and josh22 (who switched parties recently).  You're probably more conservative than I am on some issues, but it's refreshing to see some moderates from the Sooner State.  Perhaps you'll re-register as a Democrat someday. 

I too hope Henry wins a second term this November.  He and Dave Freudenthal are the best things we have going for us in the Plains states.

Thanks, Senator,

I will actually have a chance to re-register in late August or early September as I will be moving to Northwestern Oklahoma in middle August.  I can't re-register until August 23 at the earliest due to our runoff on August 22, but I will do it in late August or early September.  Definitely before registration closes in early October in advance of the November election.  I have been pondering a switch, formally, to the Democratic party, but I still haven't made up my mind, yet.  I'll let you know, though, as soon as I do.  I like both parties so its a hard decision.  The majority of my family are staunch Republicans, but I'm quietly the rebel of the group as I'm a little to their left on some things.  They think I am a staunch conservative Republican, and I don't want to come out and tell them, because I like talking politics with them.  The good thing is, they don't have to know, as I have the freedom of political affiliation in our Constitution.