| Author | Message | ||
     anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2922 Registered: 6-2002 |
I am sure anon, Winston, notehead, and Foj can get into the same select country club that Neddie belongs to. Fvf: I've heard mention of Lamont being criticized for belonging to some "exclusive" country club but I don't know the details. Perhaps you would enlighten me. However since we have never met I don't know how you can know what country club I could or could not get into. I know that I would feel more at home in a social setting with folks like Joe Lieberman than with folks like Mr. Lamont. And if I lived in Connecticut I would probably vote for Lieberman. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2923 Registered: 6-2002 |
My question: does opposition to the Iraq war mean you have to lose your mind? No. It might mean that you've found your mind. On the other hand support for the war does not mean that you have to lose your mind either. That's why I would probably vote for Lieberman. Additionally what Nohero posted about Lieberman being a "go-to guy for conservatives" is not a bad thing to me. I think members of Congress have to "work across the aisle". | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1314 Registered: 4-2006 |
anon- Ned Lamont : Man of the People http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/ned-lamont-country-club-democrat.html And anon, not casting aspersions about your " country club worthiness" but I think Neddie got in for the 90 mil or so he has. If you are in the same league I and many others here in the area would certainly like to get to know you. Best friends?  | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2928 Registered: 6-2002 |
So the exclusivenes of the country club has to do with net worth and not race or religion. Sorry to disappoint but that would not help me to qualify. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1323 Registered: 4-2006 |
anon- Not sure if Neddie is a WASP, but that too wouldn't hurt, if you read about his "club". Real gist of it is, IMHO the guy is a one trick pony ( "Iraq, Iraq") who idiot progressives will vote for in droves, and after he is elected he will be closer to a republican than Lieberman is, due to his own interests. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3678 Registered: 5-2001  |
Aaaand in another nearby state (Ohio), Bob Ney is gone, gone gone. It takes a lot more than a tomato juice bath to get the stink of Jack Abramoff off ya, doesn't it? I bet Blackwell is crying with relief, now that he won't have to make as much effort to manipulate the vote in the 18th District. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1397 Registered: 2-2004 |
I actually agree with the good Dr and even Notey a little. Why not let the voters of Connecticut decide who they want and why do so many others care if it's Lieberman or Lamont? I just don't get it. Replacing a Dem with a Dem is not newsworthy to me, just like replacing a Repub with a Repub in California (Cunningham) was a non-news story except it burst a very few liberal hearts. This is where I can allow my obvious biased neo-con/libertarian/liberal views not influence my thinking. I simply love the Democratic process. If the voters of Connecticut as a whole think either candidate doesn't represent their views then vote for the other guy whichever one that is. What bothers me and makes me chuckle is in recent years when this happens and Republicans are voted in, you liberal Dems are unable to accept it and spend years whining and crying because you are out of step with the electorate as a whole. If, as Dr., Notey, and I agree we should let the voters of Connecticut decide and then we should all accept the results. I just wish my liberal friends would do the same on a national level. | ||
| Face Citizen Username: Face Post Number: 528 Registered: 5-2001  |
Far too many of the neodems, who are gaining increasing control of the Democratic party, long for the days of whine and roses. They harken back to the protest days of tyhe 1960's and early 70's. They choose to forget that it was guys like Leiberman who actually did the marching with the likes of Martin Luther King. The once grand Democratic party has morphed and is swiftly becoming the anti-war party. Cut and run is not aceptable. Watch as the "fly-over" regions of America move towards the one party big enough to allow for reasonable debate. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1348 Registered: 4-2006 |
Somewhere, someplace, Karl Rove has a big smile. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10375 Registered: 4-1997  |
A strange victory, indeed. A total unknown beats a longstanding Democratic Senator and former VP candidate. This Iraq thing has legs, but who knows if it's a good thing for the party. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 129 Registered: 5-2006  |
The McGovernites are back! Did the Dems just snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November? Russ Feingold in '08 anyone? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3805 Registered: 3-2004  |
Just watch. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1824 Registered: 10-2004  |
Feingold in 08 would be excellent | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2311 Registered: 8-2003  |
Oh yeah. Running a pro-war campaign should be a breeze in November.  | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5423 Registered: 5-2001 |
You cavemen keep hammering on the notion that the anti-war people are some kind of wacky fringe minority. Read my post here about the latest polls: 59% of those surveyed don't think the Iraq war is worth it, and an even bigger majority doesn't like the way Bush is handling the war. And what's more, the survey sample is strongly biased towards conservatives. Forget middle America coming back to the conservative camp. The center rejects your positions. It's time to ask yourself: how do you think that Republicans are going to hold onto power this November? The majority of voters plan on voting Democratic. If the election were held today, what would happen? There's every chance of Republicans losing the House and the Senate. What do you think is going to happen between now and November to change that? What is the machinery that is going to turn a minority of votes into a majority of seats? What it looks to me is going to happen is: 1) the Iraq war will stagnate. Not even the rosiest pictures today talk about a quick conclusion or even improvement. So, no one's opinion of the war is going to improve either. 2) unemployment is up, wages are flat, the housing bubble is deflating, interest rates are climbing. Americans are very deep into their home equity loans and other consumer debt. This spells trouble for the economy. 3) Congress is gone for the season, no legislation of any note is going to happen. They may try flag burning again or some other such trivia, but the only people who are buying it are the dead-enders who are going to vote Republican anyway. 4) In the current Israeli/Lebanon war, the administration seems to be talking about the status quo ante. This will hardly be inspiring. And do the red states care anyway? That machinery may well work; I'm not saying it's impossible. I'd just like to know, in all seriousness, how the Republicans imagine they can salvage this thing. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15523 Registered: 10-2001  |
Joe is going to run in November. Bad news for Ned. Good news for America. Thank you Joe. And thanks to you as well Hadassah. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2312 Registered: 8-2003 |
If Lieberman's Joementum keeps up, he'll be in single digits by November. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7674 Registered: 10-2001 |
Joe loses.. Just another reason why libs are morons.. Libs showing the Republicans a thing or two..  LIBS..SO STUPID, REAL AMERICANS LAUGH AT THEM. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2313 Registered: 8-2003 |
now I know how Southerner feels. I love this. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5702 Registered: 10-1999  |
So Senator Lieberman gave a concession speech, which was simultaneously a speech for his new campaign? Bottom line: He lost, in a primary with a record-breaking turnout. He should concede for real, and endorse his primary opponent in the general election. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1407 Registered: 2-2004 |
Dr. Finally! Nohero, In a free country Lieberman can do whatever he wants. I imagine if the party bosses would have tempered themselves that Joe would have done exactly what you suggested. However, a primary isn't the real prize, and it was a pretty close race. Since I don't care about the ultimate outcome I'll just enjoy watching this race from a distance. | ||
| Billy Jack Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 217 Registered: 6-2002  |
I know I said I would have voted for Joe L. if I still lived in CT. I was wrong. His concession speech shows how very deluded he is. If he runs (and I still hope that he might change his mind) he will lose and go down looking foolish. I never liked him much and felt he played dirty and ran to the right to defeat Weicker-- not a good beginning. But I felt he was basically honest and independent and represented much of the Connecticut I grew up in. In the end, I don't think it was his support for the war that did him in but his blind loyalty. Even Republicans see it fit to differ with their President on Iraq -- Joe couldn't. A sad ending. | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 488 Registered: 8-2004 |
I'm still not sure what to make of all this, but I find Joe's sudden "nonpartisan Independent" angle really cynical and disgusting. And I'm a registered Independent. But I'm glad to see McKinney go. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3682 Registered: 5-2001 |
Libs... so popular, and so correct, that they're taking over. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2314 Registered: 8-2003 |
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. The party bosses did everything they could to help Lieberman get the nomination. Lieberman had the mainstream Democratic bigwigs endorsing him and campaigning for him. He had nearly all the endorsements from the regular Democratic constiuencies such as labor. The corporate donors came out for him in force, giving him over $1 million just in the last week of the campaign. Lobbyists from DC came out to disrupt Lamont campaign events. The mainstream pulled out all the stops in the last couple weeks, and they still couldn't get Joe a victory. Which makes Lamont's win even more impressive. With every advantage that comes with incumbency, Lieberman couldn't beat an unknown challenger in the primary. Which brings up the notion of Joe's independent campaign. He is as you say, free to do what he pleases. But what he will accomplish is dividing the Democratic party. And the blame would be Lieberman's not Lamont's. Lamont played by the party's rules - he entered the primary, ran a good campaign, and won the nomination. The Democratic party leaders in DC are apparently livid at Lieberman for launching an independent bid, and you can be sure Lamont will get the party's complete backing. Unfortunately, this will suck resources away from other states that the Democrats would have concentrated on, but what does Lieberman care? It's all about Joe. The country needs Joe in the Senate, and CT needs Joe in the Senate. The country will go to hell in a handbasket if it's a different CT Democrat in the Senate instead of Joe. What a colossal ego. It's time for him to go. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1994 Registered: 7-2004  |
Bush literally gave him the kiss of (career) death at the State of the Union. It's very simple: Joe stupidly aligned himself with Bush, and people hate Bush for very obvious reasons to the smarter portion of this great country. Everything Bush touches turns to ••••...even Leiberman's career. Watch how fast Republican candidates run away from Bush like he's some kind of crazed psychotic criminal madman...oh, wait, they'd be right... | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12355 Registered: 5-2001 |
What happened in Connecticut is, in my nighmares, a preview of what is going to happen to the Democrats in 2008. The far left wing of the policy is going to organize and the Democrats will end up with a presidential nominee and a platform that will be unacceptable to 50 percent, plus one person, of the voters in November. Americans are upset with Iraq and how Bush handled it. However, we are there and we have to find a way to finish the job and get out without leaving the country in civil war. I don't think all that many people in this country want to see a recreation of Vietnam with helicopters lifting the last Americans off the roof of the embassy. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7677 Registered: 10-2001 |
Bobk is correct. The Democratic party is crashing. Lieberman will be re-elected as an independent and as a result he will never again have to pander to the left. Frankly, as a Republican, this is good news.. As I said earlier, libs are morons. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3685 Registered: 5-2001 |
I will bet you $100 right now that Lieberman will not be re-elected as an independent. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1997 Registered: 7-2004 |
Leiberman is finished as politician. Good riddance. Running as an independent represents an act of complete desperation to put career before constituents. That'll learn him to make-out with the worst president in the history of America. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7678 Registered: 10-2001 |
Nope, it's the act of a Senator who knows what he's doing.. He'll get all the Independent vote which is strong in CT. (See Weicher), he'll get at least 40% of the Democratic vote and 60% of the GOP vote.. Howard Dean and the Deaniacs are well on their way to ruin and it started in CT. As I once said before, libs are morons. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10380 Registered: 4-1997 |
That should make him a highly effective Senator for CT. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1999 Registered: 7-2004 |
Leiberman is going to snag 60 percent of the GOP vote away from the GOP candidate? Really? As an independent? Okaaaaay... | ||
| Nuff Sayid Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 470 Registered: 6-2005  |
I like Joe. I'd vote for him. | ||
| Parkbench87 Citizen Username: Parkbench87 Post Number: 5092 Registered: 7-2001  |
I like Ike, but he like Joe L's political career is dead. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5433 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kos nails it (by the way, he picked Lamont to win back when he was 15 points down in the polls):
| ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7679 Registered: 10-2001 |
Libs celebrating the defeat of their 2000 VP nominee... So stupid.. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 860 Registered: 1-2006 |
realclearpolitics analysis of the dems dilemma, worth a read. This is a partial quote, but for those who recall history repeats itself, prepare for farce: Nationally, the images from last night are a disaster for the Democratic Party. Perched behind Lamont during his victory speech were the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, grinning ear to ear, serenaded by the chant of "Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home." For a party that has a profound public relations and substantive problem on national security, these are not exactly the images you want broadcast to the nation. Anti-war Democrats and much of the mainstream media continue to confuse anti-war with anti-lose. The incessant commentary that 2/3rd of the country is against the war completely misreads the American public, as much of the negativity towards the war isn't because we are fighting, but rather a growing feeling that we are not fighting to win or not fighting smart. Democrats went down this road in the late 1960's with Vietnam and they are still carrying the baggage from that leftward turn. Lamont's win is a big step back to that losing formula. During the height of the "progressive" revolt against the war in Vietnam, Americans voted 57% for Nixon and Wallace in 1968, followed by a whopping 60% for Nixon in 1972 against the avowededly anti-war McGovern. These Democratic wipeouts in '68 and '72 occurred while tens of thousands of Americans were dying in Southeast Asia. Today, as much as our media and the left want to make Iraq a Vietnam-like quagmire, casualties are running at a tenth of what they were in Vietnam. The other big difference from Vietnam is 9/11. America was attacked 5 years ago, something many on the Left seem to forget, but the voters have not. The comments that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 are irrelevant as Americans understand, rightly or wrongly, that we are in Iraq because of what happened on September 11. Only conspiracy-minded leftists believe otherwise. Just ask yourself if the U.S. would have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened. The "Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home" chant may win congressional districts in San Francisco and Seattle as well as Democratic primaries in solidly blue states, but it is not a serious policy. Just what does "Bring Them Home" really mean? Bring them home and Ahmadinejad suddenly gives up his pursuit of nukes, Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah domesticate and forego terror? Leftists, pacifists and Pat Buchanan isolationists may be that naïve, but the majority of Americans are not. The civilized world is at a very dangerous moment. There is no question that the Bush administration has made a bucket load of mistakes in fighting this war, but they (and thus America) are fighting. Bring them home is the equivalent of "we quit, we give up." Americans aren't quitters and the majority of Connecticut's citizens aren't quitters, as Lieberman's likely win in November will prove. The Democrats have an insurgency of their own that is rapidly gaining strength, and Lieberman is the first high profile victim. But in the long run the real victim will be the Democratic Party if they continue to purge the few remaining FDR/Truman/Scoop Jackson Democrats from their ranks. John McIntyre is the co-founder of RealClearPolitics. Email: john@realclearpolitics.com | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1410 Registered: 2-2004 |
Billy Jack, When isn't a losing candidate a sad sight. They all are and Lieberman lost last night so of course he looked pathetic. However, this is the first round. DR., Are you trying to tell me the DNC backed a candidate and he lost? Say it ain't so. When was the last time that happened? So, either the DNC once again lost another campaign or they weren't behind him. Either way, I don't care because I don't care who wins a Democratic seat from Connecticut. In just looking at the big picture I think Joe will win the election. Lamont outdueled him in a die hard liberal campaign. Congrats Ned, job well done. Now that the field will be open to all voters I see Joe easily making up the few percentage points. You die hard libs seem to forget that Repubs are smart. I'm sure there are substantial Repub voters in CT who will vote for Joe. The Repubs realize their candidate has no chance to win and unlike you Dems they are smart enough not to waste a trip to the booth. But, I do love how many of you libs can turn a Democratic primary in a deep blue state into some sort of meaning for the entire country. I do love your high expectations because it will make November even more fun. | ||
| Billy Jack Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 218 Registered: 6-2002 |
Comparing Lieberman to Weicker really misses the point, Straw. CT is independent, sure, but Weicker never changed his politics. As the Republican party shifted right and then far right, it had no place for a moderate to liberal Republican. The party gave him no support and he set out on his own. He took risks as a Senator, as a Governor and as a politician. That, to me, is independence. Lieberman is trying to have it both ways. He supports the President and the war to a level that even makes some Republicans uneasy, he seeks the Democratic nod in CT, he loses and he runs an "Independent". When he loses in November, I half expect the guy to show up in Washington in January and just keep working as "Senator". He lost. He should go home. The whole spectacle is the polar opposite of dignified. Voters who aren't disgusted already will have till November to develop nausea about Lieberman. |
