Why Joe Lieberman must be defeated

[Rob]

Great video, jfern.

his sidekick Alan Colmes and his liberal friends are advocates for the execution of all conservative Republicans.

Source?

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

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

[Rob]

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.

[Rob]

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.

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.

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...

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.

[Rob]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

To quote BRTD:

"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."

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