Ned Lamont seems like a one or two issue guy.  I know what he wants to do on the Iraq War.  But then, after saying his part on it, putting forth a bill to immediatley withdrawal, and it failing, what does he do?  As someone further left than probably Russ Feingold, I doubt he could get a whole lot done without working with a few on the other side.

I think Ned Lamont is a nice guy.  He seems to know what he's talking about on the war, and I agree with him.

I also don't care if he runs in a primary against Joe Lieberman.  I like primaries.  They not only pick the better candidate (a la Webb), they sharpen the nominee for the big show.  But taking negative cheap-shots at each other does not help anybody but the Republican.

The CT GOP obviously feels there's a window of opportunity for them here.  Via the Hartford Courant, we find that they may force the weak GOP challenger, Alan Schlesinger to drop out of the race because of a gambling problem.  If they see that Lieberman is severely weakened by this primary, or if Lamont is the Democratic nominee and Lieberman an independent (along with State Senator Diana Urban, a Republican who is collecting signatures to run as an Indy, too), they may try to find a viable, well-funded candidate to jump in this race at the last minute.

We don't need to lose what otherwise would be the safest of seats over disagreements on one issue.

But personally, I'm happy to let Connecticut Democrats decide this one for themselves.  I'm not going to donate a penny to either candidate; I'd rather save my money for Democrats facing tough races against Republicans.

However, I consider Lieberman's threat to run as an independent--if he loses the primary--a form of political blackmail.  This kind of manuever on Lieberman's part speaks as much to his character as it does to the inflated view that he must have of his own self-importance.  I realize that a degree of egotism is necessary to get into politics in the first place, but Lieberman evidences this to an unhealthy extreme degree. 

An independent candidacy on his part will probably have the same effect that a Perot candidacy did for G.H.W. Bush in '92.  What should be a safely Democratic seat, regardless of who the nominee is, will be put into play by a Lieberman independent run.

I was initially one of the folks who felt obliged to defend Lieberman's independence too--I see this as a virtue in most cases.  However, this was before Lieberman announced his intention to take a two-track approach to the 2006 election.  If Lieberman is able to remove himself from the second track (running as an independent)--I would reconsider this view.  However, until that time it's no go Joe.

As far as Iraq goes, I'm against setting timetables as well.  I see a difference though in Clinton and Lieberman's approach to this stage of the Iraq War.  In Clinton's case I see someone who would welcome an open and honest debate on "where do we go from here?".  In Lieberman's case he still seems to be under the delusion that things are going just fine--and that further discussion of the topic is unnecessary, if not outright unpatriotic. 

History isn't always a guide, but Teddy Roosevelt's independent run sank the GOP in 1912 when it enjoyed a 60-40 favorability rating vis a vis the Democrats.  Taft and Roosevelt split the vote and Woodrow Wilson walked into the White House with 42% of the popular vote.

Chris Shays has thrown his support behind an independent Lieberman run--also, I didn't realize that the GOP is fielding a guy who looks like he can barely break 10% (granted these are Quinnipac numbers).  I suspect the national GOP would be supportive of a Lieberman run as well--or at the very least, not openly hostile to him.  Still, the independent run throws in a lot of variables that don't come into play in a two party race.  If Rasmussen or Zogby had the GOP candidate pulling 30% in a three way scenario, I'd start to worry a little bit. 

Here's the Rasmussen poll:
Election 2006:
Connecticut Senate
Joseph Lieberman (I)  44%
Ned Lamont (D)  29%
Alan Schlesinger (R) 15%

Lieberman is going to win regardless.

How are the numbers trending? 

http://www.themoneymasters.com

p.s.  bush's grandfather and greatgrandfather laundered money for hitler.  That's what it is all about.  Prescott Bush and Geroge Herbert Walker made a fortune and played in the moneymaster's game and they are still playing.  Step apart, say no.  Don't let innocent people keep suffering. 

After Pearl Harbor a lot of the arguments against U.S. engagement in WWII ended in the U.S. 

The justifications for the war were apparent at the beginning--and even more apparent 3 years into the fight.  Public support did not waiver despite the incredibly high costs.

I would argue that Afghanistan is much closer to this WWII example than Iraq (although there are still differences).  Most Americans understand very clearly why we're in Afghanistan and still support the military action.  The same cannot be said of Iraq.

The "Nazi" argument falls under the "slippery slope" fallacy.  e.g. Because a person opposes the Iraq War and is opposed to politicians who support the war, he or she must be against all wars generally and therefore would rather see Nazi's in Europe than support military action under any circumstances.

Weak argument.  I've seen you do much better than this before. 

But this is not one issue or even two.

- the war
- bashing Howard Dean
- privatizing social security
- playing games with judicial nominees
  (he is one of the notorious gang of 14, is he not?)
- playing games with oversight on intelligence
- playing games on calling Rumsfeld et al to account
  for Abu Ghraib, and illegal transfers of prisoners

I could go on and on

the frame of one or two issues is cow manure

and even if it were, that's what primaries are for -- persuade the members of your party Joe, and if you cannot, support the winner.  It ain't your seat by divine right or beit din.

I actually don't hold it against Lieberman that he was a member of the gang of 14 (a group of pragmatist that I largely admire). 

However, if Lieberman was running as a Democrat against a guy like John Warner--I might be sorely tempted to cross party lines.  Lieberman v. Allen is another story.

Lieberman thought it was okay but was upset when others criticized him

that is the kind of thinking which at dailykos we ridicule with IOKIYAR  -  it's okay if you are a Republican

Holy Joe decided that it was okay to criticize a Democrat with whom he disagreed, but refuses to accept the same standard when applied to him

that to me is disqualifying

I am a proud member of the Democratic Party, and I believe it is our party's responsibility to support the will of the Democratic primary voters in Connecticut. I personally look forward to supporting the candidate CT voters elect as the Democratic nominee. Though, as an aside, I must say I find it ironic that Senator Lieberman is now planning a potential run as an independent after he continually questioned my loyalty to the Democratic Party during the 2004 presidential primary.

Exactly right, General.  Rock on!

Candidates should be held to account for their views.  I don't think we should ever accept a candidate without question. (That would be too much like GOP, top-down thinking.)

Lieberman & Lemont will benefit from this primary in honing their messages, sharpening their swords, and thickening their skins.  Remember Webb and Miller both went through this, and the end result was a stronger final candidate and a unified Democratic party (largely due to Miller's vocal support for Webb after the primary).

If Lieberman wins it will come in part from finally paying attention again to his core Democratic constituents.  If Lemont wins it will be because he better represents the people Lieberman has ignored for so long.  Just like in Virginia, Lemont would also have a unified party behind him due to the Miller-like, post-primary support he would garner from Lieberm..........oh wait Lieberman doesn't want to support the democratic process of his party's primary.  Never mind.

(I hope that if Lemont fails to win the primary he has more class than Lieberman, and vocally supports his party's candidate.  Lieberman has already shown his colors.)

Let democracy decide.

(For what it is worth, I'd vote Lamont, but I'd support whoever won the primary.)

The anti-tax-cut, soft-on-defense, big-spending Democrats will take the Democratic Party to the edge and maybe over," Lieberman told Fox News while campaigning at a state-of-the-art job training center in Phoenix

That's right, Joe regularlly goes on Fox and attacks fellow Dems. And these aren't even some of his best anti-Democratic hits.

Fortunately, there's the Internets around these days so it isn't hard to find the root of Clinton's longtime support for Little Man Joe

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman [a founding DLC leader] supports liberalized free trade with the Peoples Republic of China, and voted for the World Trade Organization as well as NAFTA. Like former President Bill Clinton, Lieberman was a leader in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC correctly saw Democratic support of open trade as a river of corporate money to obliging candidates.
- Buffalo News editorial, 11/17/03

So now it all makes sense.

My previous respect for Lieberman was forever shattered the day he announced the possiblity of running as an Independent. Not a classy act Joe.

So, how long before they decide Jim Webb is a "DINO" and go after him too? 

Either the Democratic Party is going to be a big tent with appeal to middle America, or the party can let the fringe left have control and become indistinguishable from the Greens.

They won't stop with Joe Lieberman.  That is why we need to stand with Lieberman and oppose the attacks from the left.  I don't agree with Lieberman on much, and probably agree with Lamont on more things, but that isn't the point.  The intolerant left has made a primary run against Lieberman their cause celebre, they won't stop with Lieberman, good people like Jim Webb and Bob Casey could very well be the next victims of the intolerant left-wing purge mentality, an d we need to stand with Lieberman on those grounds.

If Lieberman cannot make his case to Connecticut Democrats, why should he represent them?

But I'm also willing to work to make sure that doesn't happen.

We had a similar situation in Virginia in the early 1970s with Harry Byrd Jr.  He lost a primary, ran as an independent, and kept his Senate seat - but at what cost to the Democratic Party?  The Democratic Party cannot afford to lose such people, not Byrd, not Lieberman.

Harry F. Byrd Jr. (I) - 53.5%
George C. Rawlings (D) - 31.2%
Ray Garland (R) - 15.3%

If Lamont wins the primary and Lieberman runs as an independent, we could be looking at:

Joe Lieberman (I) - 53.5%
Ned Lamont (D) - 31.2%
Alan Schlesinger (R) - 15.3%

I would much rather see the results look something like:

Joe Lieberman (D) - 84.7%
Alan Schlesinger (R) - 15.3%

We cannot afford to lose Joe Lieberman as a Democrat.

Even Putin has more nads than Joe.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0715-03.htm

NOT!! 

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.  If you're a Webb supporter you are a part of the Netroots revolution whether you are a volunteer, a voter or paid staffer. This is true whether you admit it or like it or not.

Now people are having a voice in democracy, it's much better than when large corporations make the choices for us, but if you like it that way, then go away and curl up with you tail between your legs.

Actually, no.  I am part of the revolution to bring Reagan Democrats, moderate Democrats, rural voters and southerners back home to the Democratic Party and give us a voice in the party again.  The "netroots" is not monolithic.  How two or three blogs like Daily Kos and a few others can proclaim themselves "the" netroots and declare what candidates we all support is just arrogance.

Here are some people I support for U.S. Senate:  Webb (VA), Casey (PA), Byrd (WV), Nelson (NE), Ford (TN), and Lieberman (CT).

I don't personally disagree with some of their endorsements.  I supported Webb from the beginning, and Paul Hackett before he dropped out.  But to claim that "the netroots" endorsed Lamont and Rodriguez is arrogance.  They don't speak for me and they don't speak for all Democrats active on the net.

Ulimately we need a Democrat in this seat to help build a majority in the Senate. If you support bringing accountablility to the White House, then you should support whoever wins this primary fair-and-square.

Just imagine if Orrin Hatch was heading the Senate judiciary committee instead of Specter.  Granted Specter has been mostly talk--but at least he's shedding some light on things such as the NSA program.  I doubt that a Hatch lead judiciary committee would even allow discussion on the topic.

See the DAILY KOS article above.  On 9/28/05, Markos Moulitas Zuniga of DAILY KOS said that he would support Lowell Weicker in an independent Senate bid against Joe Lieberman.  Thus, the Kossacks and Dean Democrats who say that the issue is loyalty to Party and respect for the results of primaries should remember recent political history.  As I remember, Weicker was actually the first choice of many Kossacks, Deaniacs, and MoveOn.Org types.  Also, we all cheered when Jim Jeffords declared himself an independent.  Of course, in doing this, Jeffords equally could be said to be showing a lack of respect for the electoral process, because the voters elected a Republican not an independent or a Democrat.  I supported Jeffords in doing what he did, wanting to see a Democratic-controlled Senate. I would personally also have loved to see Chafee break ranks and declare himself a Democrat or a Jeffords-style independent. As a general rule, I would say that Democratic incumbents should accept the verdict of primary voters.  However, Daily KOS, MYDD, and other blogs have been conducting a holy crusade against Lieberman for years and have been obsessed with driving him out of the Democratic Party.  They wanted to "purge" him.  Now that they have a chance to defeat him in a primary they are saying that supporting primary results is all important, when many were previously more than willing to accept an independent bid by Lowell Weicker.  I would say that Lieberman should do whatever the law allows in defending himself against Markos Moulitas Zuniga's Kossacks bent on "crashing the gates."

I have been very supportive of the Senate bids of moderates such as James Webb, Bob Casey, Harold Ford, Ben Cardin and Ben and Bill Nelson, although these last two seem out of the woods now. I agree with the blogger above that one of the important elements of the Webb campaign is his effort to bring Reagan Democrats back into the Party.  However, I now must wonder when these moderates, like Lieberman, might face the DAILY KOS-driven grand inquisition.  I disagreed with Joe Lieberman over the invasion of Iraq, but agree with him on most other issues.  I will support him to the end.  I will escalate my support of pro-defense Liberals, the New Democrats, the so-called Third Way Democrats and the Blue Dogs.

I agree with Bill Clinton that exacting retribution against Lieberman does not make much political sense.  It is creating a rift within the Democratic Party, both in Connecticut and nationally.  The Lieberman-Lamont race is draining money away from Farrell, Courtney and Murphy.  Also, a three candidate race in November will give Republicans more of a stake in voting.  They will want to come to the aid of endangered Republican members of Congress.  Moreover, they will most certainly be so turned off by the tactics of the leftist Blogosphere (DAILY KOS, MYDD and all the rest) and MoveOn.Org that they will cast a very negative ballot against Lamont.  He is the darling of the left.  The independents that Farrell, Courtney and Murphy need may also be alienated by the tactics of the Deaniacs, Kossacks and MoveOn.Org types in the all out effort to purge Lieberman not only from the Democratic Party but from politics. 

Also, if Iran continues down the path towards a nuclear weapon, would you favor the use of military force in that case?  North Korea?  I'm just trying to get a feel for when and where you'd use the military.

Thanks.

Israel was not rocketed first.  Makes me sick the way the truth is so distorted when it comes to zionist Israel.  Makes the job from the inside even harder for the Israelis who are working for peace and balance.  They are protesting against this UNBELIEVABLE aggression.  They are dealing with an out of control government just like we are.

Iran and North Korea have always been serious threats.  I'd rather we'd have taken one of them out over Saddam.  I truly believe Iran wouldn't be a problem if Saddam was in power.  As brutal and evil as Saddam was, his power kept Iran's at bay.  A year after Saddam is gone, Iran builds nuclear weapons.  They didn't before, because if they did, they would have to deal with Saddam.  That's why Bush 41 kept Hussein in power, to counter the potential threat of Iran.  Neither would have time to attack us because they'd be too afraid of each other.  Bush 43 should've listened to his father.

Right now, we simply can't afford to go to war.  The war in Iraq has left us defenseless, and THAT'S a major reason why I oppose it.  By taking on an unnecessary war, we have wasted our resources and brave soldiers.  War is a delecate art, and we must have both the resources and the support within our own country.  Though I would defend Israel given the chance, and think we should, I doubt we copuld get this country motivated for another war.

Media isn't reporting that two citizens were abducted from Lebanon.  The soldier abduction was in retaliation.  And now WAR!!  They did the same thing in 1967.  A manipulated standoff that gave them pretex to destroy Egypt's airforce.  I'm sorry but this Israel is not a friend.

I'm a Blue Dog Democrat, yes.  I'm a Moderate-Centrist on social issues with a few conservative leanings.  I am rather hawkish on the military.  I'm a hardcore Populist on Economic Issues.  And I'm a proud Democrat, just like you.

Here, let me really do you a favor and piss you off.

Dan Geroe:
Supports the Death Penalty
Has a strong personal opposition to Abortion
Supports banning IDX (Partial Birth Abortion)except for mother's safety
Supports heavy funding for the military
Is a Hawk Democrat and a strong Military Supporter
Is a proud Southerner who's not afraid of his heritage.
Strongly supports the Second Amendment.

Then why am I a Democrat?  Read:
http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2376

My GreatGreatGrandfather was with REL and was allowed to ride out on his horse and keep his sword.

p.s.  I thought the party is kept a minority because we are so bad on relating to the world!!  I'm doing my best to strengthen the party and give people a choice.
 

Let me ask you something:
I'm sure people like Ben Nelson and Harold Ford disagree with you on other things, though they may agree with you on the war.  Would you kick them out over those other things?  Or is the Iraq War your only litmus test?

My litmus test should be obvious by now.  It is sucking up to bush, the most damaging failure of our country.  Enron, war, privacy, and on and on.  Your boy gets kisses.  OMG

That's it for me. I think people are tired of seeing sitting bull.  I give.....

THE WORLD WON'T HELP US TAKE BACK THE MAJORITY.  I read a poll in the Washington Post that even with all the problems in Iraq, the majority of Americans still would rather have Republicans in control of that situation.  Why?  Because, as the poll then reveals next, Americans think Republicans are much better than Democrats with Foreign Affairs.  We have to find a way to gain their trust.  I think we have to be more sympathetic towards military voters, who are overwhelmingly supportive of Republicans.  I've been raised in the 2nd District, which has a huge military influence.  If we could add the military votes to our current coalition, we could truly bring Democrats back into power in this state.

We can't affect the world until we have the power to create policy.  The only way we can get that power is to gain a majority.  If we want to gain a majority, we can't be picky and choosy over "who's a Democrat" and "who can't be one of us."  To be a majority, we have to have the attitude the Republicans had in 1994: EVERYBODY IS WELCOME, EVEN THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH US ON A FEW THINGS. 

This isn't about Lieberman for me.  I personally don't care what happens in Conn.  For me, it symbolizes something bigger- litmus testing all Democrats, which (as Bill said) is a bad idea.  We have a loaded gun this election season.  Do we want to aim it at Republicans, or do we want to aim it at our own guys?

blogs have been conducting a holy crusade against Lieberman for years and have been obsessed with driving him out of the Democratic Party.  They wanted to "purge" him.

It's actually called "accountability" and I'm sure that from someone like Scoop such a concept is not only novel, but an anathema. Voters in Connecticut have every right to express their extreme dissatisfaction with Benedict Joe. He has been attacking Democrats and sticking a knife in their backs for years.

In 2003 your saintly Senator had this to say about Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt:

The anti-tax-cut, soft-on-defense, big-spending Democrats will take the Democratic Party to the edge and maybe over," Lieberman told Fox News while campaigning at a state-of-the-art job training center in Phoenix

I suppose you think we need more Democrats who agree with Fox news? Which is where Lieberman now obviously gets his talking points from.

As far as "moderates" go, I don't think Bob Casey best represents the values of the Demcoratic party. Personally, I am not willing to sacrifie a woman's right to choose just because I think it may benefit "us" as a party or for a single seat or two.

Lieberman deserves what he gets. If he wins the primary fine, but throwing a tantrum and declaring a run as an Independent is traitorous to a party he pretends to love.  Joe Lieberman answers to only one consituency and that's the deep pocket's of the big money lobbyist that keep him in power.

Say it ain't so Benedict Joe!

You never did address my point about Weicker.  If this is merely about the democratic process and loyalty to the Party and primary results, why did the Deaniacs and Kossacks orginally wish to run Weicker, a former Republican and now an independent?  From reading Daily Kos, I gather that some Kossacks have never forgiven Lieberman for defeating Weicker and taking that formerly Republican Senate seat in the first place.  This is loyalty to the Party? 

You also show that you do not acknowledge Bob Casey as a legitimate Democrat.  Like you, I happen to be pro-Choice.  However, I know that many of the Reagan Democrats that left the Party and many of the independents that we need to win over are people of devout religious faith, anti-abortion, anti-Gay marriage, and pro-2nd Amendment. You may not like it, but that is the case.  Even my late grandmother -- an old William Jennings Bryan Democrat and a devout Southern Baptist, might be taken aback at some of the present  Democratic Party's stances on social and cultural issues, although she was able to overlook Senator George McGovern's views.

Take your best shots at me.  Take your best shot at Lieberman.  Yes, he will ultimately be held accountable by the voters.  If you can't take him out in the primary, there is always the general election.  However, don't expect him to surrender without a fight.  The Liberals and the leftist Blogosphere are using bare-knuckled tactics.  You are going to have to expect Lieberman to throw some punches back. 

You do have a problem.  I am a Democrat and have supported every Democratic presidential candidate in the last several decades.  My family's roots in the Democratic Party go back to times well before William Jennings Bryan.  There are many people like me.  They simply don't usually post comments on Blogs.  If you wish to purge people like me, then you are going to have great trouble winning back power in Washington.  I am a Democrat, but am tired of the radical rhetoric of both the Right Wing Republicans and the leftist Blogs.  Democrats not only need to take back power, but have a positive vision for governing the country and protecting U.S. national security interests.

In many cases, I agree with the likes of Russ Feingold and Barney Frank.  I believe that Bush represents a threat to the constitutional system of checks and balances.  I listened to Frank for an hour on C-SPAN the other night and found his speech on the threat that Bush, Cheney and Company pose to the Constituation to be extremely articulate and well reasoned.  While the Deaniacs and Kossacks may frequently wish to purge their "enemies," I do not wish to purge post-Vietnam Liberals, who are very much unlike the Progressives and Liberals of my youth.  I yearn for the Democrats of the golden age:  Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and LBJ.  I have given thousands of dollars during this election cycle to Democratic candidates for the House and Senate, both Liberals and Conservatives.  While I am perfectly willing to share the Democratic Party with modern Liberals, that does not mean that I am prepared to simply hand the Democratic Party over to the political progeny of Henry Wallace, Eugene McCarthy, and George McGovern, at least not without a fight.  Moreover, inasmuch as Liberals wish for dominance, they should expect what is left of other factions of the party to fight back, if necessary. 

I have to say, thought, that it pains me to see a democrat repeating the right-wing talking points regarding those that express their views via blogs. This "inquisition" and "holy crusade" talk is crap. If the Democratic Party is truly a big-tent party, then there is certainly enough room for bloggers too.

#2Go back and read the articles on the Leftist Blogs regarding Lieberman over the past several years and tell me that they are not waging a jihad, or holy war, against the man. 

#3Yes, I agree that it should be a Big Tent Party.  However, when the leftist Blogs act the way they do, you should expect people like Lieberman to "call them on it" and to fight back.