Guess what - I don't care who wins in CT-Sen as long as it's a "D"

[LynneSin]

and when I mean "D", I mean there is a fricking "D" next to their name. Because I'm tired of republicans controlling everything ESPECIALLY the committees.

Long term goal is to clean up the party but it's tough multi-tasking that alongside of stopping the repuke administration, congress & Supreme Court ruining this country.

There - I've said it! Don't like it :shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. You know I'm with you there. (nt)

[BOSSHOG]

2. I agree

Lets have a rip roaring primary in every state and then get our asses behind every "D" in the general election.

[gratuitous]

3. Which is what Lamont and his supporters are saying

Ned Lamont and his supporters have pledged to support the winner of the Democratic primary for the Senate in Connecticut --because they want to keep the seat Democratic. The other candidate has made no such pledge, and indeed is exploring an independent run should he lose the Democratic primary.

Given those facts, which candidate should party-minded Democrats support in the Connecticut primary?

[rinsd]

25. Sorry I just don't believe that.

If Joe-mentum happens to pull off victory, is Lamont going to campaign for him? No.

Are DUer supporters of Lamont going to start attacking Lieberman's GOP opponent and donating money/time to Lieberman? No.

So what is "support"? The concession speech where the candidate asks his supporters to support the nominee?

Still its not a bad campaign tactic since Joe-mentum is too politically tone deaf to say even that much.

[gratuitous]

26. Whether you "believe" it or not

Lamont is on record as saying that he will support the Democratic nominee for the Connecticut Senate seat, and has encouraged his supporters to do the same. Lieberman has not only refused to make such a pledge to support the party nominee -- whoever it is -- but is hedging against the possibility that he might lose the primary, turning the race into a three-way affair, which will greatly increase the chances that the seat will be a Republican pick up should Lieberman not receive his party's nomination. Who should Democratic party loyalists reward with their donations of time, treasure and talent.

And you're awfully sure of what I'll do if Lieberman wins the nomination; tell me, what will I do on September 8? My plans are sort of up in the air for that day, and you seem to know what I'll do a lot better than I will, so I'd appreciate if you could tell me.

[rinsd]

27. But what is support?

Beyond a simple endorsement?

If the Duers who have passionately advocated for Lamont start doing so for Lieberman if Joe-mentum should win, I will eat mt hat.

A simple vote for the nominee is fine with me.

The concept of support here is meaningless beyond that because it isn't going to happen.

How soon people forget Majette vs McKinney, Hackett vs. Brown(though Hackett endorsed Brown recently) or the primaries of 2004.....

[gratuitous]

30. I still don't understand how you know what's going to happen

You state pretty definitively that the Lamont people won't "support" Lieberman should he win the Democratic nomination for the Connecticut Senate seat. I don't know how you know that, and you are doing a poor job explaining how you know that.

[rinsd]

31. Based on past primary battles here, it will be ugly...

How many Deaniacs and Kucinich supporters attacked Kerry leading up to the election?

How many McKinney supporters attacked Majette post primaries?

How many Hackett supporters attacked Brown?

Is not about progressive vs. DLC (see hackett vs, brown), its that people here hold grudges. To deny that is ridiculous.

I don't see the few Lieberman supporters here as suddenly becoming big Lamont endorsers should he win the primary either.

[gratuitous]

33. So what you're saying . . .

And correct me please if I'm wrong, is that when a voter's first choice loses in the primary, that voter/volunteer may not be as four-square behind the party nominee as he was behind his first choice? What will you say next, water is wet?

Of course Lamont supporters won't be happy if Lieberman wins the primary. That's why they're working for Lamont. But come the general election, it's customary for party supporters to work for the nominee, whoever it is. Will Lamont supporters work and campaign as hard for Lieberman as they are now doing for Lamont? Probably not, but Lieberman is supposed to have his own people and electoral apparatus by now, shouldn't he?

Kerry wasn't my first choice for the nomination in 2004, but I worked for him when he ran against Bush. I still don't know how you can so confidently state that Lamont supporters will not do what they have said they will do in the event of a Lieberman victory in the primary.

[Ken Burch]

49. Majette was only elected by racist Republican crossover votes

He was never different than a Republican would have been. That's why his district rejected him after only one term. That, and they realized that the allegations against Cynthia McKinney were racist lies.

[rinsd]

59. Wow you know so much about this issue.

Except for the fact that Denise Majette is a woman.

The crossover numbers usually cited are bullshit since GA doesn't have party registration, though I don't doubt that people crossed over to vote for Majette.

Majette had a liberal voting record in her one term.

She did not run for the House again but instead made a move to run for the Senate. I am hoping she is able to unseat GOper Kathy Cox for the State School Superintendent of GA.

Here's an On the Issues primer for her Senate run it should fill you in. The section I am linking to deals with the war but you can find her positions on basically everything to the right.

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Denise_Majette_War_+_Peace.htm

[lojasmo]

60. I never heard a deaniac attack Kerry after the primary.

I didn't like doing it, but I GOTV, and voted for the guy when the chips were down....and I live in a one of the bluer states.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Which is why we have so many pro-war corporatists running as D

No one is willing to hold Democratic candidates or incumbents accountable to the party's platform and ideals.

[LynneSin]

7. Never said I don't want primaries

in fact I'm hoping this race encourages more primaries. But once the primary is done - if it has a "D" next to the name then that's who I'm supporting.

We're not going to make a difference if we have all three branches of the government controlled by republicans. At least "Corporate Pro-War" Lieberman will support other important issues like Environment, Choice, Labor to name a few. A 70% democrat (which is about Lieberman's ADA rating) is still better than any republican.

But then again, if he isn't he nomination then go Lamont.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Unfortunately....

The primary system is disintegrating. In Washington, parties (including the Democrats) are starting to define "authorized to run under the party banner and thus appear in the primary" very narrowly; the result is an effective return to party caucuses with an only-for-show (and very expensive) primary. And when that fails, an annointed candidate can simply buy-out the competition, as Maria Cantwell has started doing in Washington.

[IndianaGreen]

5. If Lieberman runs as an independent, he won't have a "D" after his name

The only "D" will be the winner of the Connecticut Democratic primary.

[LynneSin]

6. And that's the "D" that I'll support

:D

[MrBenchley]

38. Just like Bernie Sanders actually DOESN'T have a "D"

But what would the far left be without hysteria and hypocrisy?

[Solon]

39. Bernie Sanders is a shoe-in for the Senate seat...

and has the full support of the DNC, this is more than I could say for Lieberman if he ran as an Independent AGAINST a Democrat, I might add, something Bernie is NOT doing.

[MrBenchley]

40. And Bernie's actually NOT a Democrat....unlike Joe, who IS

"and has the full support of the DNC:
Say, who is that pissing and moaning because there are Democrats supporting Lieberman? Oh yeah, it's our far left.....

[Solon]

41. Difference is, Lieberman, if he runs as an Independent, would face...

off AGAINST A DEMOCRAT!!!! Bernie Sanders is doing NO SUCH THING!

[MrBenchley]

42. He'd face the voters of Connecticut....

Who by the way, prefer Joe to the Unknown Millionaire.....

[Solon]

43. We'll see about that...

But then again, Lieberman could also play as the spoiler in a General Election, giving the Repuke, as unlikely a scenario as it is, the seat, wonder what you would say then, that the Democrats deserved to get slapped for rejecting him in the Primary?

[MrBenchley]

44. That Is rich....

Six months ago, Lieberman was a shoo-in to keep the seat Democratic (the one GOP candidate considering a run dropped out.) Today,, thanks to the Unknown Millionasirte and his brain-dead far left supporters, the Republican has a chance. That's not Joe's doing and it's not the rank and file Democrats doing. So stuff your hypocritical faux concern over "spoilers" where the sun don't shine.

[Solon]

45. Its only a danger in a 3 way race, not 2 way, regardless of who...

is the Primary winner, so in this case, yes Lieberman WOULD be a spoiler.

[MrBenchley]

46. IN other words, the far left gave the GOP a chance

and now they want to blame other people for their own stupidity.....

[Solon]

47. No, it was Lieberman's decision to run as an independent, so its on...

him and HIS supporters as to whether they have the courage to support the Primary winner, REGARDLESS OF WHO IT IS!

Be consistant for once.

[Ken Burch]

53. You can't still be saying it was illegitimate for Lamont to even run.

You can't still be saying no one had any right to challenge HolyWarJoe in the primary.

Will you denounce the anti-Democrat pro-WAR AND DEATH conservative independent if he runs against the real Democrat in the fall?

[MrBenchley]

62. Pout louder, Kenny

[Ken Burch]

65. With you, I laugh, not pout...

When WILL you get over this silly idea that everyone who disagrees with you is POUTING, you wacky drunk you?

[Ken Burch]

73. Get Drunker, Benchley

nt.

[Ken Burch]

54. And it is STILL a certainty

that it will be Lieberman's fault if the seat goes GOP in the fall, since he can't win as a Conservative pro-Death anti-Democrat independent.

Now that Lieberman has announced that he won't accept the right of Connecticut Democrats to choose their own nominee, you will agree, if you are a REAL Democrat, that Lieberman has a moral obligation to withdraw from the primary, won't you?

[CTyankee]

63. My, my, let us not be intemperate. I never considered myself

brain-dead as a Lamont supporters. If anything, my brain has been more alive with possibilities since I heard about his run for office.

Your newfound esteem (due of course to the hideous challenge by Ned Lamont) for Alan Schlesinger is quite amusing. Mr. Schlesinger is the former mayor of Derby, CT, a sad little old factory town. He has recently been (ahem) challenged for using an assumed name in one of CT's gambling casinos, prompting the Republican governor, (mother) Jody Rell to suggest to him that he "reconsider" his candidacy. Hardly a comment that would be expected from someone who would benefit by the upcoming Senatorial race.

How awful for you that we brain dead Dems in CT get to exercise democracy in our state. And I really do wonder how you know what the "rank and file Democrats" are thinking? If you live and vote here in CT, would you mind telling me how you know this?

If you don't live and vote here, why do you even comment?

[MrBenchley]

64. The only reason Schlesinger even has a shot is due to the far left

"If you don't live and vote here, why do you even comment?"
Tell it to the mindless asslickers over at Daily Kos....

[Ken Burch]

67. You AREN't a Democrat or a democrat if you still say

that Lamont had no right to challenge Lieberman for the Democratic nomination.
(BTW, Connecticut is antiwar, not prowar, so Lieberman DOESN'T represent them on that...)
(And we're still waiting for you to show your party loyalty by calling on Lieberman NOT to run as a pro-war
anti-Democrat independent if he loses the primary. You're obligated to do so if you are going to claim to be the defender of party loyalty you so loudly insist that you are.)

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CTyankee]

68. I'm not responsible for, nor do I even read, commentary at Daily Kos

What I wonder about is your blanket characterization about CT voters for Ned Lamont, as if you somehow can divine our state of mind. You know, we live here and breathe the political air here. I don't know where you live but I would be the first to say that I cannot psychoanalize the people there. It's just a little more complex than that.

For instance, I have some personal bias since I know the Lamonts from my fundraising days for Planned Parenthood in the state. I am deeply proud that he is doing this. I think it needed to be done. While I recognize it is a real uphill battle, I am not deterred from supporting him. If on primary day, Joe wins the nomination of the party I will pull the lever for him in the general in November (or by absentee ballot as I will be in Italy).

Ned Lamont represents the best of the citizen-politician, the individual who stands up and enters the political fray when he or she feels the party, the state and the country need another voice for a new day, instead of more of the same.

Sorry for the lecture, but it's something I feel very strongly about.

[MrBenchley]

69. And so Kos doesn't exist....

Because of course, the entire Connecticut Senate race is dependent only upon your whim (snicker)....

[CTyankee]

71. Well, the entire CT race may not be dependent on my whim

but it sure as hell ain't dependent on YOURS!

Oh, and I'll take the Almond Joy bar. I don't like Snickers.

[Ken Burch]

52. We've proven that Lamont isn't the UNKNOWN MILLIONAIRE!

He's been known in Connecticut for years. He's a good man. And if Lieberman is preferred to Lamont, he shouldn't even be talking about an anti-Democratic conservative pro-slaughter independent candidacy.

[Ken Burch]

66. If Joe is so sure of that, he shouldn't even be TALKING

about running as an independent if he loses the primary...

By the way, you WILL agree that Lieberman is NO LONGER A DEMOCRAT if he runs as an independent after losing the primary, won't you?

(if not, then YOU aren't a Democrat, AL)

[Ken Burch]

51. Since there were no electable Democrats in Vermont

It doesn't MATTER that the DNC is supporting Bernie. It's nothing like the possible Lieberman betrayal, and you know it. Stop the lies already.

[Ken Burch]

50. NOTHING WHATSOEVER LIKE BERNIE

Unlike Lieberman's right-wing war-and-death loving independent candidacy, Bernie's candidacy doesn't HURT the Democrats.

Your analogy would only be correct if Bernie had been an incumbent Democrat, tnen lost to a Lieberman type in a primary and run as an independent out of spite, as Lieberman's fall independent candidacy will be should it occur.

And there were no electable Democrats around to run for the Vermont Senate seat anyway.

We've proved you're wrong to bash Bernie, over and over. Give it a rest.

[CTLawGuy]

56. the VT dems have, I think, endorsed sanders

and dems may endorse whoever they want.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. It's going to be Lieberman either way, AFAICS.

So it's really not going to matter. If he's elected as an Independent he'll still caucus with the Dems.

[IndianaGreen]

9. The war criminal Lieberman won't be a Dem if he runs as an independent

What would you call a Quisling, a Petain, a traitor?

Hillary may be a war enabler but Lieberman, who is far to Hillary's right, is already a war criminal!:

As early as December 2001 Lieberman signed a letter to President Bush asking him to make Saddam Hussein's Iraq our next stop in the war against terrorism.

Lieberman's Real Problem
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, July 12, 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101204.html

And that letter makes Lieberman as much a war criminal as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz!

[LynneSin]

13. What part of "I'm supporting the Democrat" are you confused about

If Lamont wins - then he's the guy I'm supporting; however, if Lieberman wins then I'm supporting him. Connecticutians will tell me who they prefer as their democratic nominee. As someone who does NOT live in Connecticut, it's best to let them decide.

[IndianaGreen]

15. I was replying to yibbehobba, not to you!

:yoiks:

[LynneSin]

16. whoopsie - my bad

I'm sorry

[IndianaGreen]

17. What's a little misunderstanding among friends?

:grouphug:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. That's completely irrelevant to the point of the OP.

The OP was about control of the senate. My point was that outside the extremely unlikely case of Lieberman not winning, the CT race doesn't matter for the control of the Senate because Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats.

[movonne]

10. Just because they have a "D" after their name doesn't make them

a democrat...Look at Zell Miller and now Lieberman..

[LynneSin]

12. Lieberman isn't even a tenth as bad as Miller

Simply because they agreed on 2-3 issues means you pretty much haven't checked out Lieberman's entire voting record.

[Richardo]

19. I'd even take Zell's (D)

For control of committees, subpoena power and the legislative agenda, headcount matters. Ideology doesn't.

[WhiteTara]

11. Spoken like a true yellow dog democrat!

My kind of person! :patriot: :hi:

[KKKarl is an idiot]

14. I agree

with that approach. But I hope Lieberman is not elected in the primaries.

[Richardo]

18. Testify, Lynne! Let me hear an 'Amen!'

You got it :thumbsup:

[alvarezadams]

22. Sheesh

So if Dubya decides to change into a Dem... or if Jeb runs for potus under a Dem ticket, you'd vote for them?

You're part of the problem, not of the solution.

[mr715]

23. Uhhh no

Hes referring to the caucus. The President doesnt vote for the legislative agenda, the Senate majority caucus does.


49 FAKE D's is better than 48 REAL D's if the majority leader is progressive.

[alvarezadams]

24. Really?

You figure that the "fake d's" will be party loyalists when confronted with non neo-lib or non neo-con legislation?

I don't believe so.

[Totally Committed]

28. Beautiful point...

elegantly made! I couldn't agree more.

It's this sort of capitulation that has gotten us where we are today, imo.

TC

[alvarezadams]

29. Check out...

...what kinda folks support the DLC:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1441

[Totally Committed]

32. Geez, I feel like I need a shower.

I usually don't got to sites like that! Ugh.

TC

[Zhade]

35. It's called "wishful thinking".

Hey, I'd like to believe that conservatives like Lieberman would still be willing to support the party on things like workers' and equal rights, but I'm not THAT naive.

[LynneSin]

37. Why not look at Lieberman's rating when it comes to those issues

Instead of just assuming.

:shrug:

[Zhade]

57. I'm more interested in his actions NOW, not some vague ratings.

He's untrustworthy now, explicitly because of his actions regarding the primary challenge. He is growing angry with those who dare challenge his incumbency, as evidenced by his remarks about a "jihad" and his disinclination to recant the use of the term "terrorize" to describe those who support Lamont.

I am simply unable to trust the man, and so cannot possibly assume he will in any way back the Dems unless it's to HIS advantage. His recent actions spell out why I can't quite clearly.

[LynneSin]

58. I am talking about his actions now

Continues to support the ANWR filibuster
Voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment
Supported the filibuster to stop the repeal of the Estate Tax

I mean, I could go on and this is just this year

[Zhade]

61. You could go on, but you can't convince me he's trustworthy.

His actions regarding the primary - and now this bullshit about Iran being behind the kidnapping of IDF soldiers - prove TO ME that he's not to be trusted.

Seriously, don't waste your time. Your arguments aren't convincing.

[LynneSin]

36. We are the minority - where the hell do you expect that to get us

And stop thinking of just the floor votes. How many really great bills have been introduced by democrats only to be buried in committees. Hell Conyers can't even get a full committee hearing on all this false information, leaked memos and other pertinant information leading up to the war BECAUSE HE IS IN THE MINORITY.

Stop thinking of yourself - it's not about me supporting bad democrats. It's about me giving the power to really great democrats like Conyers, Waxman, Murtha, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy and a host of other really great democrats so they have the power to actually make a difference.

You do understand that whomever has the majority, regardless of how good or bad some of it's members are, CONTROLS THE GOD DAMN FRICKING COMMITTEES

[Zhade]

34. self-delete

nevermind

[Ken Burch]

48. But if Lieberman wins as an anti-Democrat conservative independent

after losing the Democratic primary, there WON'T be a "D" by his name.

And if he demands that the party support the war without question in exchange for his organizing with it after he was elected as a conservative pro-death anti-Democratic independent, then Democrats will not be able to do anything different than Republicans even if that DOES give them control of the Senate.

[McCamy Taylor]

55. I agree. Yellow dog forever.