I live in CT, and the battle for Lieberman's spot in the Senate has basically come down to the Iraq War.

(my source)

So why are the Democrats turning on one of their own?? Let's take a look...

quote:

For more than a decade, Lieberman has stood as one of the most prominent representatives of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Democratic Party, a leading advocate of a robust and muscular foreign policy and a proponent of values-based politics in a party often seen as struggling to find its voice in the culture wars. His instincts for collegiality and bipartisanship, once regarded as virtues, are now seen as virtual disqualifications by his critics here and nationally.

They don't want to co-operate? They don' want bipartisanship anymore? Sounds like they just want to argue, doesn't matter why...

quote:

He has warned fellow Democrats that hyper-partisanship on foreign policy issues damages American interests. In recent days, he has noted that he has given the same warnings to Republicans and emphasized that he has not been a blind supporter of Bush on Iraq.

Makes sense to me, but then I'm not opposed to the war, so I can see why it makes sense to me.

quote:

Last November, returning from a trip to Iraq, Lieberman wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece that many of his opponents regarded as an effort to prop up a failing policy and to discourage those in his party from pushing for an exit strategy.

"I wasn't thinking as a Democrat," Lieberman said in the interview. "I was thinking as an American senator who went to Iraq and saw some progress and wanted to report it to the American people because I feel so deeply that the way this ends will have serious consequences for the future of this country."

Democrats got mad because he went to Iraq and came back with something good to report? Holy cow, this is blatant...

quote:

Some Democrats still resent his 1998 Senate floor speech criticizing President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

How dare he criticize the Most Powerful Man in the World getting favors performed for him in the Oval Office!!!!


Rumors are hot that if he loses, he'll run as an Independent, and even though I can't find the source now, I believe there was a poll that said if he ran as an independent, he'd beat Ned Lamont.

Which tells me, the Democrats could lose a seat by trying to replace the guy who might just win the seat regardless.

Good post Chunk. As usual we can always rely on the Chunk to put things in perspective.

Funny thing is that there are not many who support the war blindly. Sure there are some Republicans that blindly tow the party line, but many (just like myself) have issues and questions with how the war in Iraq is being handled.

It is sad that Lieberman would be targeted like this when he HAS raised questions about Iraq. I think the extremists in the party are trying to find someone to make an example out of.

Funny that a lot of Dems were also clamouring about war with Iraq back in 1998-2000 BEFORE Bush got into office.

The political pendulum swings left and right depending on who is in office, (and that goes for both parties) so it would be a shame to see someone like Lieberman end up targeted.

Joe Lieberman is what Democrats SHOULD aspire to..

If the Democrats ever wised up to this, they would definitely have a chance in the 2006/2008 elections.

To lose such a man as Joe Lieberman , would be a blow to all parties and to the American people. I vote independantly of party, I vote my heart.When will the democrats wake up and find someone to follow who does not live, breath, ans sleep hate and revenge !!!!!

No kidding. Lieberman is one of few Democrats who actively tries to reach across party lines to work with the Republicans on a variety of issues. Most Democrats now hate the Republicans so much that they refuse to work with them at all, refusing any compromise. But then they turn around and say that the Republicans aren't willing to work with them.

Well, Joe lost the battle, but not the war yet.

While I watched Ned make his winning speech last night, he was bragging of bringing the soldiers home. Last I knew, Senators don't really have a choice on that matter, especially one man. The guy was making claims that he can't possibly fulfill. And, he was also sounding like he was running for President. I believe, even at one point, he made the connection by saying "First the Senate..." and then never finished his statement...

The guy has no clue.

Voting for Ned was simply a "No" vote for Lieberman... I could have run and won that race...

Sad, sad, sad... hopefully Joe can win as an Independent (he filed his papers today) and the Dems can lose yet another seat in the Senate.

By and large, the majority of Joe Lieberman's actions have been in the best interests of the country rather than playing partisian politics and doing what is best for Democrats..

And that is why the Libercrats are descending on him like a pack of wolves..

Libercrats should stop doing what is best for Libercrats and start doing what is best for the country.

Until they wise up to that one simple fact, they will never get elected..

quote:

Originally posted by SODsniper:
Until they wise up to that one simple fact, they will never get elected..

Although Lamont just did...

(or at least improved his chances of doing so... I realize it was just a primary...)

Yea, that's what I meant.

Lamont didn't get elected to anything. Basically, he won the vote that allowed him to TRY and get elected...


It's a lost cause, though... The libercrats will never win back the House and Senate. Not until they change their ways considerably..

quote:

Originally posted by SODsniper:
Lamont didn't get elected to anything. Basically, he won the vote that allowed him to TRY and get elected...

It's a lost cause, though... The libercrats will never win back the House and Senate. Not until they change their ways considerably..

This is where I disagree with you. Voters had the choice: someone who doesn't believe the bias and makes informed decisions, or some looney who wants to end the "illegal war" yesterday. Voters picked the looney...

If Joe can't pull of the Independent upset, then indeed the looneys are gaining ground...


EDIT: similar to the last presidential campaign... you had Bush or you had a flip-flopping looney. The vote was pretty freakin' close... that means there is a large segment of American population that is voting for loonies... that is enough to raise concern, in my book.

Even if the vote is more "against someone" than for someone else, it's still dangerous. I felt that if Kerry had won, it was just because people didn't want Bush (had nothing to do with Kerry). It seems common here in CT that Joe lost because people didn't like Joe anymore, and nothing to do with Ned being a better candidate. But, either way, a looney just won a primary, just like a flip-flopping looney won the Presidential Primary back in '04 AND THEN came within one state of winning the whole thing...

I am concerned, personally...

Interesting article here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/

It personifies exactly why I don't have much fear of Libercrats being able to take the House or Senate, much less the presidency...

quote:

Originally posted by SODsniper:
Interesting article here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/

It personifies exactly why I don't have much fear of Libercrats being able to take the House or Senate, much less the presidency...

Although that was an interesting read, I have some doubts about it.

The problem I see with America is that there is a strong contingent of Europhiles here. I'm not saying everything about Europe is bad, but there are just some things about Europe that I would not want to see in America, just like there are some things I see in Europe that I can only wish America had.

Anyway, I see America heading down the road to Europe in the future, and it is not the positive aspects of Europe either.

Well, in some more uplifting news...

Why aren't major media outlets reporting on this? Doesn't it say something about "America" when an incumbent Democratic senator can lose his Democratic primary, declare as an independent, and still beat the whacko the Democratic party nominated? I would think this would be huge news, even bigger than Lamont beating Lieberman in the first place...

Anyways...

Source (local news)

quote:

Sen. Joe Lieberman may have lost his party's nomination during the August primary, but he continues to hold support among Republicans and unaffiliated voters in his independent bid for re-election.

A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday indicates Lieberman leads in a three-way race for the U.S. Senate.

"As long as Lieberman maintains this kind of support among Republicans, while holding onto a significant number of Democratic votes, the veteran Senator will be hard to beat," Quinnipiac University poll director Douglas Schwartz said.

Lieberman leads Democratic candidate Ned Lamont among registered voters 49 percent to 38 percent. Republican Alan Schlesinger gets support from 4 percent of poll respondents.

quote:

"Connecticut voters are taking a bipartisan path, with most Republicans backing a Democratic Senator and large numbers of Democrats backing a Republican governor," Schwartz said."

EDIT: Someone needs to let The Daily Show know about this... I saw their episode after Joe lost, and they ragged him endlessly about "not knowing when to quit". If/when Joe wins, I'd like to see what they say then... I know, it's a Comedy Show and I shouldn't care, but it bothered me...

Yea, the Dems stand to really gain a lot of egg on their faces when Lieberman actually beats Lamont.

In my opinion, the Dem/Lieberman fight illustrates exactly what is wrong with the Democratic party.

Lieberman is all about working for the better of the country despite politics..

The Dems are all about working against the country to further politics..

He is antigun.... I wouldnt ever vote for him.

Now any democrats or republicans who are pro gun I might consider.

It's difficult for me to vote for any Democrat or Republican...they're special interest tools. They always make tons of promises that they never deliver. And they never make decisions that might jeopardize their popularity with certain groups. Don't want to lose that vote! Neither are parties of the common man. All are wealthy and live privliged lives, unlike most of the American population. That's not very representative if you ask me.