Democrats, unite!

[© tweed]

Pledge your allegiance to the following:

I hereby pledge to respect the decision made by Connecticut Democrats this August and will support the winner of the Democratic primary in the Senatorial General Election.

[7,052,770]

I pledge to support Joe Lieberman in the general election whether or not he wins the primary because I am an adamant Democrat and want the party to be succesful.

[© tweed]

I pledge to support Joe Lieberman in the general election whether or not he wins the primary because I am an adamant Democrat and want the party to be succesful.

If your a Democrat, you should allow the Democratic primary voters to choose who is best served to represent them in the senate through the Democratic process and support the winner in the general election.

[7,052,770]

I pledge to support Joe Lieberman in the general election whether or not he wins the primary because I am an adamant Democrat and want the party to be succesful.

If your a Democrat, you should allow the Democratic primary voters to choose who is best served to represent them in the senate through the Democratic process and support the winner in the general election.

If you're a Democrat, you should realize how crushing a Lamont victory would be to the Democratic Party nationwide and hope a sensible candidate wins, and that if such a disaster as a Lieberman loss occurs, that we mitigate it somewhat with an ultimate Lieberman victory.

[© tweed]

I pledge to support Joe Lieberman in the general election whether or not he wins the primary because I am an adamant Democrat and want the party to be succesful.

If your a Democrat, you should allow the Democratic primary voters to choose who is best served to represent them in the senate through the Democratic process and support the winner in the general election.

If you're a Democrat, you should realize how crushing a Lamont victory would be to the Democratic Party nationwide and hope a sensible candidate wins, and that if such a disaster as a Lieberman loss occurs, that we mitigate it somewhat with an ultimate Lieberman victory.

You're correct.  The average Ohio voter will make their decision in 2008 based upon who wins the Lamont/Lieberman Connecticut Senate primary.

[7,052,770]

I pledge to support Joe Lieberman in the general election whether or not he wins the primary because I am an adamant Democrat and want the party to be succesful.

If your a Democrat, you should allow the Democratic primary voters to choose who is best served to represent them in the senate through the Democratic process and support the winner in the general election.

If you're a Democrat, you should realize how crushing a Lamont victory would be to the Democratic Party nationwide and hope a sensible candidate wins, and that if such a disaster as a Lieberman loss occurs, that we mitigate it somewhat with an ultimate Lieberman victory.

You're correct.  The average Ohio voter will make their decision in 2008 based upon who wins the Lamont/Lieberman Connecticut Senate primary.

it will have an impact

[© tweed]

I pledge to support Joe Lieberman in the general election whether or not he wins the primary because I am an adamant Democrat and want the party to be succesful.

If your a Democrat, you should allow the Democratic primary voters to choose who is best served to represent them in the senate through the Democratic process and support the winner in the general election.

If you're a Democrat, you should realize how crushing a Lamont victory would be to the Democratic Party nationwide and hope a sensible candidate wins, and that if such a disaster as a Lieberman loss occurs, that we mitigate it somewhat with an ultimate Lieberman victory.

You're correct.  The average Ohio voter will make their decision in 2008 based upon who wins the Lamont/Lieberman Connecticut Senate primary.

it will have an impact

Doubtful.  Joe Blow Voter doesn't care.  You're scare tactics won't stop me from doing what's in my heart.

[riceowl]

I pledge to support Joe Lieberman in the general election whether or not he wins the primary because I am an adamant Democrat and want the party to be succesful.

If your a Democrat, you should allow the Democratic primary voters to choose who is best served to represent them in the senate through the Democratic process and support the winner in the general election.

So, IOW, if you're a Democrat, you should always follow in lock-step with your party?  Interesting notion.

[7,052,770]

I pledge to support Joe Lieberman in the general election whether or not he wins the primary because I am an adamant Democrat and want the party to be succesful.

If your a Democrat, you should allow the Democratic primary voters to choose who is best served to represent them in the senate through the Democratic process and support the winner in the general election.

So, IOW, if you're a Democrat, you should always follow in lock-step with your party?  Interesting notion.

I probably agree with the more progressive views of Lamont, but since Lamont is running a stupid single issue campaign and can't even nail down his own position on the war, I have an immense dislike for him.  I'm all for challenging incumbents in primaries.  I currently support Case in Hawaii, though I will support whoever wins THAT primary in November.  But Lamont is doing this all the wrong way, and we will look like spiteful idiots if we take Joe down like this.  If Lamont ran a straight campaign from the left on all issues, and didn't try to just hang Lieberman solely on the war, and maybe acknowledged the fact that Lieberman agreed with Democrats 90% of the time BUT that he thought his own positions on the issues were better, and had single positions rather than seven different positions on the one issue he's campaigning on (see the debate), then maybe I'd even think about supporting Lamont.  But not like this.  Lamont has done this all wrong, and it's a dangerous message to send to the country to vote for a guy running like Lamont.

[© tweed]

If Lamont ran his campaign the way you'd like him to, he'd be lucky to break 30% in the primary.

[7,052,770]

If Lamont ran his campaign the way you'd like him to, he'd be lucky to break 30% in the primary.

at least he'd run honorably and not be hurting Democrats nationwide.

[© tweed]

If Lamont ran his campaign the way you'd like him to, he'd be lucky to break 30% in the primary.

at least he'd run honorably and not be hurting Democrats nationwide.

He's hurting nobody but Likud Joe.

[7,052,770]

If Lamont ran his campaign the way you'd like him to, he'd be lucky to break 30% in the primary.

at least he'd run honorably and not be hurting Democrats nationwide.

He's hurting nobody but Likud Joe.

Just watch and see if how we drop in MD, VA, TN, MO, and OH if Lamont wins August 8.

[© tweed]

If Lamont ran his campaign the way you'd like him to, he'd be lucky to break 30% in the primary.

at least he'd run honorably and not be hurting Democrats nationwide.

He's hurting nobody but Likud Joe.

Just watch and see if how we drop in MD, VA, TN, MO, and OH if Lamont wins August 8.

You're far overestimating the emotional investment the American voter places in the Joe Lieberman 2006 candidacy.  You have no evidence to back up your claim that Lamont is hurting Democrats nationwide.

[Jake]

This thread wins the "Gay Thread of the Day" title.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"Gee, I'm really pissed at Bush and the Republicans and like Cardin/Webb/McCaskill/Brown/etc. but some guy in another state won a primary and beat the more moderate incumbent, because of that all Democrats are now completely tainted and I can't vote for any Democrat. I'm voting for the corrupt Bush rubber stamp."

Note: This was never a concern among Republicans over Specter. Everyone agreed that the only seat at risk there if Toomey won was Pennsylvania, and it'd have absolutely no effect on anything else.

[Rob]

I will choke back my vomit and support the neocon if he should win the Democratic primary. In that case, though, I'll be glad that I don't live in Connecticut and thus won't actually have to vote for him.

"Gee, I'm really pissed at Bush and the Republicans and like Cardin/Webb/McCaskill/Brown/etc. but some guy in another state won a primary and beat the more moderate incumbent, because of that all Democrats are now completely tainted and I can't vote for any Democrat. I'm voting for the corrupt Bush rubber stamp."

Yeah, this is a ridiculous argument. No offense, Harry, but your theory of a party meltdown after a Lamont victory is waaaaaayyyy over the top- especially since you've predicted a Democratic presidential loss in '08 *because of a Lamont win*, which is just, well, wrong.

[7,052,770]

"Gee, I'm really pissed at Bush and the Republicans and like Cardin/Webb/McCaskill/Brown/etc. but some guy in another state won a primary and beat the more moderate incumbent, because of that all Democrats are now completely tainted and I can't vote for any Democrat. I'm voting for the corrupt Bush rubber stamp."

We're going after the undecideds, not those that have probably already decided to vote Democratic.  Those undecideds are going to see this race and think "wow, this party isn't the big tent party I thought it was.  Any party that would vote out a mainstream popular senator because of a single issue and put in a loser in his place that doesn't even have a clear position on that issue is NOT the party for me."  Those are the people who will be deciding this election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lamont is running on a single issue--the war--but has had seven different positions on it, and trying to make that one issue define Democrats, being blatantly misleading because Joe votes with the Dems 90% of the time.
Toomey didn't run on a single issue, he ran a broad conservative campaign that was truthful when it pointed out that Specter is not a mainstream Republican.  These campaigns are hardly comparable.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"Gee, I'm really pissed at Bush and the Republicans and like Cardin/Webb/McCaskill/Brown/etc. but some guy in another state won a primary and beat the more moderate incumbent, because of that all Democrats are now completely tainted and I can't vote for any Democrat. I'm voting for the corrupt Bush rubber stamp."

We're going after the undecideds, not those that have probably already decided to vote Democratic.  Those undecideds are going to see this race and think "wow, this party isn't the big tent party I thought it was.  Any party that would vote out a mainstream popular senator because of a single issue and put in a loser in his place that doesn't even have a clear position on that issue is NOT the party for me."  Those are the people who will be deciding this election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lamont is running on a single issue--the war--but has had seven different positions on it, and trying to make that one issue define Democrats, being blatantly misleading because Joe votes with the Dems 90% of the time.
Toomey didn't run on a single issue, he ran a broad conservative campaign that was truthful when it pointed out that Specter is not a mainstream Republican.  These campaigns are hardly comparable.

These arguments are basically contradictory. Look at how unpopular the war is! If a Democratic senator loses because of his support for the war, that's not going to turn off anyone against the war, which based on current polls is basically everyone who isn't already in the GOP's back pocket.

[Sam Spade]

This thread wins the "Gay Thread of the Day" title.

^^^^^^^^^^

A Lamont win only has effects per Connecticut only most likely, in that it will weaken the party in other races by creating internal division.

The chances of it having larger-scale national implications are fairly low, to almost miniscule.  Everyone's out on summer vacation right now and no one is paying any attention to anything, frankly.

[MarkWarner08]

Pledge your allegiance to the following:

I hereby pledge to respect the decision made by Connecticut Democrats this August and will support the winner of the Democratic primary in the Senatorial General Election.

Joe Lieberman has been the right Senator for Connecticut on every single issue I care about except for Iraq.  His views add to the diversity of opinion that makes the Democratic party what is today. 

While I completely respect the right of Ned Lamont to run a primary challenge and I believe it is helpful to the Democratic process to keep incumbents from being complacent, I don't believe that  Chafee or Lieberman should be "primaried" because they aren't toeing the line of the extreme wings of their parties.

I will only agree to this  pledge if Lieberman runs on the Republican ticket or openly attacks any of our three US House challengers.

If I lived in Connecticut, I would reluctantly pull the lever for Joe Lieberman because I believe that one issue doesn't erase the thirty some years of integrity, honor and conviction that Joe Lieberman  has brought to public service.

[GOP = Terrorists]

At one time I would have voted Lieberman while holding my nose if he won the primary.  But if Lieberman wins the primary (which he won't) I'd probably vote for Dana Urban who is a Republican but isn't nearly as Pro-Bush/Pro-War as Lieberman is in the general.

I support giving the people of Connecticut the option of choosing an anti-Iraq candidate I'm sorry that some of you don't.  But then again you're not from Connecticut so it really doesn't matter who you support. =)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wouldn't have voted for Lieberman in 2000 either, so my opposition to him is not only due to the war (and it's not because of him running for VP and Senate at the same time, I didn't care about that)

[opebo]

Just watch and see if how we drop in MD, VA, TN, MO, and OH if Lamont wins August 8.

The average voter in TN, MO, and OH is probably not even aware of the existence of Joe Leiberman, and barely aware of the existence of CT - they'd probably get its location wrong on a map.  MD and VA are slightly closer, and are less dullard states, but I still doubt it will make any difference to them.

[MasterJedi]

Yeah, Lieberman is so Pro-Bush when the only thing he agrees with the Republicans on is Defense and Iraq. Everything else is Dem.