Kos: CT-Sen: Joementum: Primary Voters are Jihadists

[Totally Committed]

I've largely stayed out of the fray concerning Joe Lieberman. Despite what some around here believe, Joementum's voting record actually isn't all that bad; he's generally in the middle of the Democratic caucus on most measures of liberal to conservative voting records. But what drives me insane about him is how he undermines any unity of opposition to the odious policies of the Bush administration, kneecaps anyone who criticizes Bush, and is so often sanctimonious about being between the dominant positions of the Democrats and Republicans. He equates being in the middle as being moderate. His problem is that it's stupid to plop yourself smack in the middle of a center-left party and a far right party and equate that with being a moderate. The further the Republican party goes to the right, the further Joementum goes to the right of his electorate. And now that he's possibly gone too far to the right to survive a Democratic primary, he's decided that the problem isn't that he's made bad decisions and stopped responsibly representing his constitutents. No, he's decided that Democratic primary voters are Jihadists.

This morning David Broder's WaPo column is on line, and I suggest you all read it. I have some concerns about the Lamont run, mostly related to control of Congress. There are three crucial Congressional races in Connecticut, and if Joementum runs as an independent, he could suck up all the available resources that might otherwise go to Chris Murphy, Diane Farrell and Joe Courtney. And indy run by Joementum could also throw a huge wrench in to any coordinated campaign effort, and certainly cost us our best shot at Christoper Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson. But it is clear that at this point Joe Lieberman is expressing little else but contempt for Democratic primary voters.

"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman said, "but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."

the rest of the Blog:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/17/112051/777

So, what do the rest of you Jihadists think about Joe's assertion? I know what I think, and will jump in after some of you have had your say!

TC

[wyldwolf]

1. he called you crusaders, too.

[Totally Committed]

So, you agree with him, then? (n/t)

TC

[wyldwolf]

5. no, just pointing out that...

...in addition to saying activists were on a jihad, he also said they were on a crusade. That is what he said, right?

[skipos]

3. Hey Wyldwolf

I think you and I often defend moderate dems around DU. But doesn't it bother you that Joe may run as an independent and ignore the will of CT dems? I wouldn't deny him the right to run as an independent, but I think it says a lot about his loyalty to democrats.

[wyldwolf]

4. it bothers me considerably

[skipos]

2. I don't dislike Lieberman as much as others here

though I feel that CT should be able to produce a more progressive senator. I find myself defending Nelson of Nebraska around here because 1. I think he represents that state pretty well and 2. he has very high approval ratings there and 3. DU democrats are not your average democrats.

However, Lieberman is irritating me more and more. Lieberman ignoring the will of the democratic party and running as an independent is pure ego.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Lieberman: "I wasn't thinking about Democratic unity." (independent run)

I took DHinMI's diary suggestion in Kos to read this Sunday's WaPo David Broder column about Lieberman, and here is what I found: Lieberman openly said he will run as an independent!

Antiwar Crucible in Connecticut

By David S. Broder
Sunday, June 18, 2006; Page B07

"I think we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam, and I think we are safer as a result," he continued. "Second, while I have been very critical of the Bush foreign policy before the war and the Rumsfeld-Bush policies in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown, I also made a judgment I would not invoke partisan politics on this war."

<snip>

"My opponent says it broke Democratic unity," Lieberman said. "Well, dammit, I wasn't thinking about Democratic unity. It was a moment to put the national interest above partisan interest."

Sources in Connecticut tell me that momentum in the campaign is mostly with Lamont. Lieberman insists he can win the primary. But he has another option. Connecticut law says that he could run as an independent, but he would have to file 7,500 signatures the day after the primary.

He says he knows of no effort to gather signatures now. But he also says, "I want to put my whole record before the whole voting population of Connecticut" -- clearly implying an independent run if he loses to Lamont in August.

Thus, a possibility John Bailey could not have imagined: A former Democratic vice presidential candidate, a three-term senator, a former state Senate majority leader and state attorney general forced to run as an independent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601561.html

[msongs]

7. ummm, the republicans "toe the line" pretty well there, joe nt