Connecticut voters deserve having Lieberman in the General Election

[Clarkie1]

For a moment, let's put aside whether one prefers Lieberman or Lamont. Personally, I find Lieberman's stance on the Iraq and his statements on dissent extremely troubling. However, I'm not a CT voter and I want to look at this from an objective perspective.

Lieberman was elected, as all senators are, to represent the people of his state irregardless party affiliation. Democrats, Republicans, independents, and I suspect even a few voters registered officially to third parties voted for Lieberman six years ago. He is their senator. The crucial point here is that LIEBERMAN, LIKE ALL INCUMBENT SENATORS, REPRESENTS ALL THE PEOPLE OF HIS STATE.

Therefore, all the citizens of Connecticut deserve a chance to vote up or down on their incumbent senator, not just Democrats. Lieberman said he his loyalties to the people of Connecticut are greater than his loyalties to the Democratic Party. That's what any good senator would say.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it!

[Solon]

1. So he should drop out of the primary and run as an Independent...

That's the only honorable thing to do! Otherwise he is being two-faced and disgusting.

[Clarkie1]

2. No.

Lieberman is a Democrat. If the Democrats in CT reject him, he should run as an independent so that all the people of CT have a chance to vote up or down on their incumbent senator.

In my opinion, that is the right and honorable thing to do for the people he represents.

[Jim Sagle]

3. Hogwash.

[Clarkie1]

4. Care to add anything to that? LOL

:-)

[Jim Sagle]

Jagoff Joe should make up his mind NOW if he's a Dem or not.

He should either stay in the primary and support the winner, or drop out NOW and run as an indie. His present course, although you call it honorable, is anything but. It dishonors the party which enabled his service to the voters of CT.

[Clarkie1]

20. He is running as a Democrat.

If he does not win the Democratic Primary, his greater loyalty is to ALL the people of Connecticut who, through the democratic process, elected him in the first place.

I disagree with you. I don't see how putting all of one's constituents before party loyalty can be anything but honorable.

[Solon]

32. Most people in CT are Democrats, and elected Lieberman...

AS A DEMOCRAT. The Democrats of CT have every right to not nominate him for the party, and to be honest, he should then bow out of the election. Part of the problem is the fact that a LOT can happen between now and the General, having Lieberman on the ticket as a third party could actually cause a Republican victory, that would be a disaster. Lieberman is making a mistake here, and I think too many people are automatically assuming that Lieberman would even caucus with the Dems if he ends up being elected as an Independent. I don't think he will, as far as I know, he has made no promises one way or the other.

[CTyankee]

158. Then why is he dissembling and saying he's running as a

"petitioning Democrat" when there is no such thing? I'll tell you why: he's trying to pull a fast one on less sophisticated folk, making them believe that he CAN run as a petitioning Dem rather than an Independent, which he is!

If he were to truly represent all of the people, he wouldn't stoop to such Rovean tactics.

Really, Clarkie1!

[Jim Sagle]

168. Only if he does it in an honorable WAY and drops out of the primary.

[Raster]

178. NO! You obviously do not understand the primary election system. If holy

joe is defeated during the primary, he is no longer the Democratic Party's nominee for the office of Senator from Connecticut. That is the system that elected holy joe. That is the system that will turn him out on his ear. This BULLSHIT about going back to the citizens of Connecticut as an Independent IF he loses the primary is, well, bullshit. If he wants to run as an Independent, let him declare so now, not game the system for a "just in case."

[longship]

8. Rubbish!

That's what the primary is for. If Lieberman loses that primary he has absolutely ZERO claim on the Demcratic Party nomination. That's the law.

[Clarkie1]

14. I agree with you.

"If Lieberman loses that primary he has absolutely ZERO claim on the Demcratic Party nomination."

That is correct.

[WCGreen]

25. That's not the way we do it in out state....

You can't be in a primary and run as an independent...

You are either a democrat or an independent....

This guy plays all ends against each other, takes every angle...

If the Independents who love Joe want to keep him, then let them resigster as dems and vote in the primary...

Hell, you shouldn't get do overs, even in Homecoming Queen elections...

To paraphrase his hero...

Your either with us...

Or just leave the party....

[Ken Burch]

50. The right and honorable thing for an incumbent Democrat to do is

to end his candidacy if he loses the Democratic primary. It is never right and honorable to say, in effect, that the primary only counts if the incumbent is renominated. And the other issue is the question of loyalty. Over and over again, Lieberman apologists have argued that the Lamont primary challenge, even though Lamont has pledged to support Lieberman if Lieberman is renominated, was an act of disloyalty to the party. Time and again, they have presented themselves as the only LOYAL and authentic Democrats. Now they and Lieberman are saying that they can't be held to any notion of party discipline and party loyalty.

This hypocrisy and arrogance simply can't be left unchallenged. The honor and dignity of the Democratic Party is at stake.

[Ken Burch]

61. It goes without saying that gay people cannot benefit

from a Lieberman independent candidacy. Lieberman can't win as an independent. His support is certain to decline sharply if he actually carries the independent pro-war anti-Democrat and anti-democracy candidacy through. All Lieberman can do in the fall is elect an anti-gay Republican by default.

Why encourage him in something you know has to hurt gay people?

[MarkDevin]

199. "Right and honorable?"

I've lived in Connecticut my whole life. Since his defeat of Lowell Weicker in 1988, I've concluded that Joe Lieberman cares about one thing and one thing only: Joe Lieberman. In 2000, he was running for the vice-presidency of the United States but refused to relinquish his senate seat. If Al Gore had become president, that would have left Lieberman's seat vacant, with a Republican governor to fill it. And I seriously doubt that John Rowland would have picked a Democrat!

Furthermore, that he would name his new party "Connecticut for Lieberman" speaks volumes. Did a certain other Democrat call *his* movement "America for Dean?"

Senator Lieberman has done some good things for the people of Connecticut. I would never take that away from him. After 18 years, though, it's time for some new blood. As such, on August 8th, I'm voting for Ned Lamont. I don't know how good a senator he'd be, but I'm willing to give the man a chance.

[Cha]

231. No, that certain other darling

Democrat called his movement "Dean For America"! And he still is! :)

Welcome to DU, MarkDevin!

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[longship]

5. He needs to beat Ned Lamont, then.

That's the procedure that the Democratic Party has set up to get on the ballot.
Failing that, anything he does to get on the ballot is outside the process as set up by Democratic Party. He would have *no* claim to be running as a Democrat. Furthermore, any association between his candidacy and the Democratic party would be severed. That's the law.

[Clarkie1]

9. He needs to beat Ned Lamont to run as the Democratic nominee.

Irregardless of that, I believe the voters of CT (ALL the voters of Connecticut) deserve a chance to vote yay or nay on their incumbent senator. I do not believe they should be denied that opportunity by any political party.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it!

[longship]

11. He gets his chance in the primary.

There are no re-dos. If he loses the primary, he needs to step-down.

[Clarkie1]

12. No.

If he is not nominated as the Democratic nominee, he should still run in the general election as the incumbent senator to offer all the people of CT, not just Democrats, the opportunity to cast their vote for or against their senator.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

26. You're a Clark Fan?

Clark was loyal to his newly-affiliated party. Clark was a military man who understands loyalty. It's a pity you don't appear to.

DTH

[Clarkie1]

42. I understand loyalty fully.

Since I understand loyalty, I understand there are levels of loyalty.

Party loyalty is important, but loyalty to country is more important. Clark would be the first to say that (in fact, he has).

As the duly elected U.S. senator of the state of Connecticut, Lieberman's loyalty should be first to the best interests of America, then the best interests of his state. It is in the best interest of all the people of Connecticut to have an oppportunity to vote for or against their senator. The Democratic Party did not elect Joe Lieberman. The people of Connecticut elected Joe Lieberman

[DoveTurnedHawk]

47. Outrageous Arrogance

But again, it's typical, classic Lieberman. So he alone knows better than the collective party he has been a member of his entire life? Only he can further the interests of the country? Ned Lamont is incapable of doing that?

The people of Connecticut elected a Democrat. It is pathetic in the extreme that Lieberman thinks he can cling to power by his fingernails by betraying his party.

Clark didn't run as an independent. He ran as a Democrat. And he has been loyal to the Democrats. He would not betray them, just as he never betrayed the military. Because he understands loyalty.

So let me ask you plainly. Who has the best interests of the nation in mind right now? The Democrats, or the Republicans? Or Joe Lieberman.

I look forward to your answer.

DTH

[Ken Burch]

64. General Clark will campaign for Lamont against Lieberman

if Lamont is the Democratic candidate. So will the entire leadership of the national gay rights movement. Why go against your allies and your political hero?

[Clarkie1]

75. This thread is not about Lamont vs. Lieberman.

I'm not "going against" anyone.

I am simply stating my opinion that I do not believe any political party should deny the opportunity of the electorate to elect or re-elect their duly elected senator.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it!

[Ken Burch]

108. Then we shouldn't have parties.

But of course it is effectively about Lamont vs. Lieberman, because Lieberman is using his threat to run as an anti-Democratic conservative independent to force the party to renominate him.

Why defend such bullying and arrogance?

[TheVirginian]

112. Where are such threats and force present?

I know of no one who is threatened by Lieberman's Independent bid, except, of course, Ned Lamont, who cannot win if Joe Lieberman is on the ballot.

[Ken Burch]

115. The Democratic Party of Connecticut is threatened.

And it is wrong for an incumbent Democrat, defeated in the primary, to then work for the defeat of the official Democratic candidate. There would be no way that Lieberman would deserve to be elected under such a scenario. And he certainly would never again have a right to sit as a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus. Even you would have to agree on that.

You can't just repudiate the primary.

[TheVirginian]

120. Self-delete.

.

[TheVirginian]

121. I don't agree with it.

I'm sorry. I know that's not what you want to hear.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[TheVirginian]

131. How kind of you.

Is this the standard response on DU? "I don't agree with you opinion, therefore you must be a Freeper"? Weren't you just trying to lecture me on respect, honor, and morality?

[Ken Burch]

139. Pointing out the cynicism behind your posts

does not take morality and honor out of the discussion. It is legitimate to assume you're a Freeper because your posts serve no other purpose but to try to cause trouble among Democrats.

[TheVirginian]

142. So correcting the truth about primaies and Joe Lieberman

is doing nothing but causing trouble among Democrats? What a sad display.

[Ken Burch]

146. You weren't correcting the truth.

You were doing right wing "spin", and you were providing aid and comfort to an anti-Democratic conservative independent candidacy.

[TheVirginian]

151. Its not right-wing spin.

But whatever it takes to slander my name. Go ahead, have at it.

[Spazito]

173. Actually, General Clark did comment on this issue...

"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."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/14/1651/99433?detail=f

General Clark was live blogging on DKOS today when he posted his comments.


It seems you, as a Clark supporter and Clark himself, are at definite odds. I must say I am surprised you are so supportive of Lieberman given his trashing of the person you espouse to support. Interesting....to say the least.

[Clarkie1]

190. There is nothing Clark said in that statement I disagree with.

I too, will support the winner of the Democratic primary.

I'm not a supporter of Lieberman. I just think that as a matter of principle it makes sense for all the people to be able to vote for or against an incumbent senator. If Clark and I disagree on this, it's not particularly important in the larger picture of things.

Edit: And yes, I still despise the snarky comment Lieberman made during the 04' debate. His party loyalty should be questioned, absolutely. All I'm saying is as the incumbent senator it makes sense for all the people to be able to vote for or against him. There is nothing morally wrong, as some here have suggested, with him running as an independent. It is a slap in the face to the Democratic Party primary system, however, and I would expect he would pay a price for that among Democratic voters.

Unfortunately, we live in a two-party system of government. I wish it were different and everyone ran as an independent, but it's not.

[longship]

33. I do not agree.

If he loses in the primary, that's it. That's why not one single prominent Democrat is going to support him if he loses the primary. They are *all* going to back Lamont because he would then be the Democratic Party nominee for the Senate seat from CT.

Forgive my upcoming profanity...

A Senate seat is *NOT* a fucking entitlement. There are procedures set out by the state parties and the election commissions by which candidates are vetted so that the election is an orderly affair. Incumbency has no fucking special place in that process. If the incumbent loses in the primary he or she has no damned claim to the nomination, and there are no procedures by which an incumbent can call for a re-do.

Joe Lieberman is perverting the rules and laws because of some smarmy claim of entitlement. People don't like that. The CT voters aren't liking it either. He was ahead in all the polls for the primary before he started fucking with the system. But he couldn't leave well enough alone. Now, if he loses the primary it will be his own fucking fault. People are *really* pissed at him for his arrogance.

Joe is perverting the process for his own selfish desires. Up to now, I was willing to let Lieberman be Lieberman. Now, he has put me utterly and completely against him. He deserves nothing but obscurity and derision.

[Clarkie1]

45. To hell with the party rules, and long live the constitution of the U.S.

Forgive my profanity, but some things are more important than party rules.

[longship]

70. Ahem! This *IS* the Democratic Underground.

Not the Independant Candidate Underground.

You can support Boltin' Joe all you want. But the purpose of these forums is to support Democratic Party nominees. If Joe loses the primary, he will not be able to say that he is the Democratic nominee. If he manages to retain his seat, he will be the Independant Senator from CT. He may caucus with the Dems, but he will have no claim as a Democrat in that body.

If Lamont wins the primary, Ned will be the only Democratic Party nominee. If Lamont loses in the general election there will be no Democratic Senator in that seat.

[Clarkie1]

I find nothing to disagree with in your post.

If Lamont wins you won't find me supporting Lieberman.

I'm not supporting Lieberman now, actually. I'm supporting an opinion I hold which is independent of the particulars of the particular candidates.

[CTLawGuy]

170. so you would have been ok with 10 dems running against

George bush in the 2004 GE?

[Ken Burch]

56. So you'd say that Lamont equally had the right to run as an independent

if he lost the primary? If not, you're a hypocrite.

[TheVirginian]

58. Sure. Why wouldn't he?

Except that Lamont won't run as an Independent, because there's no chance he'd win.

[Ken Burch]

133. You can't assume that.

All the polls show Lieberman's support declining sharply. Lamont's position on the war is the position the majority of Connecticut voters hold, not Lieberman's. And there is no reason to think that Lieberman's strength would actually hold up once voters realized he was running AGAINST the official Democratic candidate.
The man isn't that popular. If he were, Lamont's candidacy in the primary would be going nowhere.

Lieberman's supporters have no reason to be smug about their man's level of support.

[TheVirginian]

138. Lamont's support is almost entirely from the left wing.

If he lost the primary then ran as an Independent, there's no chance that he'd get enough votes to mount a serious campaign. Most Democrats would support the Democratic nominee, Joe Lieberman, who would also get most Independent and Republican votes.

[Ken Burch]

143. Most Democrats would support Lamont as the Democratic nominee, too.

There's no way they'd support a conservative independent against their own party's candidate. Connecticut Democrats are antiwar and anti-Bush. There's no way you can seriously argue that only Lieberman represents them.

[TheVirginian]

147. You painted a hypothetical where Lieberman won the primary...

And Lamont ran as an Independent. I'm saying, in that hypothetical, Lamont would have no chance.

[Ken Burch]

152. You argued that Lieberman's alleged electability as an independent

Is justification enough for what he is doing. It's not.

[TheVirginian]

154. No, I didn't.

I'm arguing that since Lieberman represents all of Connecticut, all of Connecticut should get the chance to vote on whether he should remain Senator. His alleged electability is just an argument to shut up those who think he's jeopardizing the seat.

[MarkDevin]

200. That simply isn't true.

I'm a volunteer for the Lamont campaign who has spent a lot of time on the phone with the Democratic voters of Connecticut. I've talked to plenty of non "left-wingers" who say they support Lamont because they think Lieberman is too close to the Bushites and because they find his stance on Iraq depolrable.

So please, don't buy into the Rovian spin that Lamont's supporters are all left-wing "wackos." Because I know for a fact that it's untrue!

[TheVirginian]

208. I said "almost".

I'm sure that Lamont will be able to get some Independents and Republicans to vote for him, but in an election with Lieberman on the ballot, the vast majority will vote for Lieberman.

[Ken Burch]

225. Not a sure thing.

the first poll that suggested a Lieberman independent candidacy had the senator getting 56% in such a race. The second had Lieberman down to 44%. If that trend continues(and there's a good chance it will if Lieberman actually carries through with this)Lieberman's support will collapse.

The people of Connecticut are not likely to appreciate the contempt the senator has shown for democracy and his own party.

And, since independents are allowed to vote in Dem primaries in most states, Lieberman's non-Democratic followers do have the option of voting for him there.

[CTyankee]

161. Do you vote in my state? n/t

[CTyankee]

159. Let me know what state you vote in and I'll tell you what to do

Is that a deal?

[TheVirginian]

6. Good luck.

I sense another 100+ post thread on the horizon with everybody telling you why Joe Lieberman is the worst person in the world, all the meanwhile ignoring everything you said in your original post.

One word of advice: patience.

[Ken Burch]

68. In Democratic Underground you cannot defend the disloyalty

of an incumbent Democrat who loses the primary and still call yourself a Democrat.

Why are you encouraging something that can only help Republicans?

[Clarkie1]

87. Did someone lose a primary already?

My how time flies!

[Ken Burch]

104. Someone announced that he won't accept the results of the primary already

Lieberman lost any moral right to run as a Democrat when he said he'd stay in the race even if the Democratic party defeats him in the primary.

You know Lieberman is hurting gays by doing this. Why defend him? You know his popularity is certain to collapse if he does actually go with the anti-Democrat conservative indepedent candidacy. Why defend it?

[CTyankee]

162. Oh, thank you for your advice! What would we poor, benighted

CT Dems do without your sage wisdom?

My goodness, I had no idea I was thinking so unclearly about the Constitution and how dreadful our party politics are here!

Really, have you thought about taking out billboard space over I95 in Bridgeport with your pearls of wisdom?

[CTLawGuy]

171. assuming he even knows where Bridgeport is...

NT

[CTyankee]

174. Doncha love all the great advice we are getting

here in CT? We sure don't know how to govern ourselves here! It's bad in CT!

I am wondering if some folks from around the country don't have better things to do with their time than lecture us about how we should conduct our politics.

[CTLawGuy]

175. yes

and people who live in VA and IL know for an ironclad fact that Alan Schlesinger could never ever win a three-way race, because the almighty four-month out poll says so.

Maybe President Dean can back them up on the predictive power of months-out polls :eyes:

[MarkDevin]

201. Greetings from a fellow Nutmegger!

I just joined DU and couldn't resist participating in this discussion. I'm not trying to make anybody mad, but I do have strong feelings on the Lieberman-Lamont thing.

[CTyankee]

209. Welcome to DU! Don't worry about making people mad

because they'll get mad anyway, especially about the Lamont-Lieberman race. There are certain subjects that practically incite riots here on DU and they're not just political ones. I had one DUer put me on his ignore list because I would not recant my view on natural childbirth(he and his wife were advocates for it and I admittedly had a bias against it)!

I'm in New Haven. Where in CT are you?

[CTLawGuy]

211. reason # 87

for not hanging out in GD.

"had one DUer put me on his ignore list because I would not recant my view on natural childbirth(he and his wife were advocates for it and I admittedly had a bias against it)! "

[CTyankee]

222. You are making a list ? I didn't realize GD was that bad!

Is there something intrinsically bad about GD or does it just attract people with one track minds and they get started and go right over the edge?

[CTLawGuy]

224. that's where a lot of extremists go

NT

[Hippo_Tron]

7. I think that his actions do the democratic party a great disservice

And in turn I think that he also does the advancement of progressive causes a great disservice. However, if his motives are truly to let the voters of his state decide and he feels that that is more important than party and agenda, then he has every right to run as an Independent. I have every right to question his party loyalty, though.

[Clarkie1]

10. I find nothing in your post to disagree with.

Thank you for responding in a reasoned manner to my opening statement.

:-)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. Nonsense

Lieberman was the DEMOCRATIC Party's 2000 VP nominee. It is an utter disgrace that he responds with such egotistical disloyalty that he even considers an independent bid.

No one likes a fickle, self-promoting opportunist who refuses to honor the will of his own party. Joe Lieberman cares about himself, and this is all about his desperate and pathetic attempt to hold on to power.

I would have respected him if he'd respected the will of Democratic voters in Connecticut. Win or lose, he would have been worthy of support, in my view. As it is, he is scum in my book.

And he has also shown a disturbing propensity to lie, and has cemented his reputation as someone who will only attack Democrats, while giving Republicans a free pass.

DTH

[TheVirginian]

15. How is he not respecting the will of Democratic voters in CT? n/t

[DoveTurnedHawk]

17. By Not Respecting the Result of the Primary

Isn't that obvious?

DTH

[TheVirginian]

19. No, its not. Spell it out for me.

How is he not respecting the result of the primary?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

22. A Dozen Have Spelled It Out for You Already in Your Other Thread

Stop playing games.

DTH

[TheVirginian]

24. I'm not playing games. I want you to explain.

I want you to explain to me how he is not respecting the results of the primary.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. The Magistrate Already Demolished You

I'm not interested in jumping through your hoops to explain why a Democrat who refuses to abide by the results of the Democratic party primary is not respecting the results of the primary.

DTH

[TheVirginian]

30. With all due respect, both I and the Magistrate would disagree with that.

How is Joe Lieberman refusing to abide by the results of the primary? If you can't explain this to me, then why did you say it in the first place?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

35. Don't Take His Politeness for Agreement With Your Position

Or even an acknowledgement that your position, even if it is expressed as well as possible, approaches the merits of the position he took (and which I share).

I've already explained it to you, by the way. The fact that you missed such an obvious point is more evidence that you're playing games.

DTH

[TheVirginian]

38. I don't pretend he agrees with me. He certainly respects my opinion.

But pretend you know what you're talking about. It amuses me.

All you've said is that Joe Lieberman doesn't respect the results of the primary because he refuses to abide by the results of the primary. I'm asking you, what has he done to show that he isn't doing that?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

39. He Has Said He Will Run as an Independent If He Loses the Dem Primary

By definition, that means he is not respecting the results of the Dem primary.

What about this don't you understand?

DTH

[TheVirginian]

40. How does that mean he's not respecting the results of the primary?

That's where the hang-up is.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

43. If He Respected the Results of the Primary, He Would Abide by the Result

Not go for a second bite at the apple.

Again, this is the height of obviousness. What don't you understand?

DTH

[TheVirginian]

44. What would abiding by the result of the primary look like?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

49. Accepting the Democratic Nom if He Wins, or Conceding Nicely if He Loses

What else? Are you always this willfully obtuse?

DTH

[TheVirginian]

53. I'm just confused on one point.

Why does losing the primary mean that he cannot run in the general election?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

57. Because He Is SUPPOSED To Be a DEMOCRAT

And Democrats are SUPPOSED to abide by the results of their own primaries.

No one is saying he is statutorily PROHIBITED from running as an Independent! OBVIOUSLY, he is not prohibited. He is not physically or legally incapable. So it's not that he "cannot run in the general election" it's that he SHOULD not.

If he had even a shred of loyalty, as opposed to such blatant, egotistical opportunism, anyway.

DTH

[TheVirginian]

62. I'm still confused, then.

You say that he should abide by the results of the primary. The primary determines who the Democratic nominee for Senate is. If Ned Lamont wins the primary, then he becomes the Democratic nominee, and Joe Lieberman does not. Where in that sequence is Joe Lieberman not abiding by the results of the primary?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

65. When He Goes for a Second Bite at the Apple

Even trying to offer himself up as a "petitioning Democrat" until people pointed out that would be against CT law.

Either pick one (to run as a Democrat or to run as an independet) or pick the other. Not both. Trying to do both is the mark of a disloyal, opportunistic weasel.

DTH

[TheVirginian]

74. In your opinion.

That's what you meant to say, right? You meant to say, "In my opinion, trying to do both is the mark of a disloyal, opportunistic weasel." Because I think other people would disagree. I think non-Democrats who like Lieberman would appreciate him staying on the November ballot. I think there would be many people in Connecticut who would be upset if the Democrats in their state got to vote on whether Lieberman should continue to be their Senator and they did not.

So what you meant to say was, "Since I support Ned Lamont and want him to win, I think that Joe Lieberman's Independent bid for Senate is the mark of a disloyal, opportunistic weasel, because I recognize the simple truth that Lieberman's bid seriously jeopardizes Ned Lamont's chance of getting elected."

[Ken Burch]

76. Everyone who supports Lieberman had the opportunity

to register as a Democrat and vote in the Democratic primary. That's enough.

[TheVirginian]

80. "That's enough"?

Since when are you the decider of how much democracy people can have?

[Ken Burch]

86. I'm not. But it goes without saying, and always did

That it is illegitimate for a defeated Democratic incumbent to stay in the race as an anti-Democratic independent candidate.

It's Lieberman who is undermining democracy by announcing that, for him, the will of his party doesn't count.

[TheVirginian]

94. The will of his party would have been for Lamont to be the nominee.

If Lieberman is not the Democratic nominee, then he is abiding by the will of his party. Why is this difficult to understand?

[Ken Burch]

101. If Lieberman accepts that will, he is then obligated morally

To do nothing that hurts the Democratic nominee's chances for victory.
Why is THAT difficult to understand? Lieberman can't demand loyalty from Lamont supporters and exempt himself from the same demand.

Why do you so blindly defend the guy, anyway? It's not like he cured cancer or even that he was the only kind of Dem that could ever win in Connecticut.

[TheVirginian]

105. Morally? When did morals get involved in this?

What you meant to say is that you would like it better if Lieberman dropped out of the race and let Lamont go onto the ballot without him jeopardizing his chances.

[Ken Burch]

113. Morals are tied to all of life. Right and wrong are part of all of life.

Why can't you accept that there is a legitimate moral objection to Lieberman working to sabotauge the primary by his threat of an anti-Democratic conservative independent candidacy?

And ending his candidacy if defeated in the primary is, clearly, the only honorable thing to do. If Lamont has promised to do it, Lieberman is duty bound(especially as a man who has always presented himself as a champion of morality)to do the same. Staying in as a conservative independent just to steal the seat from the legitimate Democratic nominee is as wrong as lying to a grand jury about a blow job, something the disloyal incumbent viciously attacked an incumbent Democratic president for if you recall.

[TheVirginian]

117. Because I don't think it has anything to do with morality or honor.

I think this entire spectacle is an amoral event, and any attribution of morality towards this is merely an attempt to add gravity to a situation where none is needed.

[Ken Burch]

122. "this entire spectacle is an amoral event"?

Lamont's brave crusade to end an immoral war that the American people have now turned against is AMORAL?
say what?

[TheVirginian]

127. Spin it how you want.

Its a campaign for office we're talking about. Joe Lieberman's decision to run as an Independent if he loses the primary is amoral.

[Ken Burch]

134. My disagreeing with you is not "spin". You can't reduce all political

commentary and opinion to "spin". Most of it is genuine conviction.

[TheVirginian]

140. I believe your convictions on Iraq are genuine.

And I believe your opposition to Lieberman as a Sentor based on his Iraq War support, among other things, is geniune. However, you go too far by assigning moral value to his decision to run as an Independent.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

85. He Is Not Respecting the Will of the Democratic Primary

That's not an opinion. By saying damn the results, I will run anyway, he is disrespecting the Democratic primary process by definition.

Him being a disloyal, opportunistic weasel is (blindingly) obviously a statement of opinion, although it is one backed up by much evidence and past and present behavior.

DTH

[TheVirginian]

89. Losing the primary doesn't mean he can't run.

Why are you mis-interpreting what a primary election means?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

96. No One Is Saying He Can't Run!

Reread my post #57:

No one is saying he is statutorily PROHIBITED from running as an Independent! OBVIOUSLY, he is not prohibited. He is not physically or legally incapable. So it's not that he "cannot run in the general election" it's that he SHOULD not.

Regardless, however, he is not RESPECTING the results of the DEMOCRATIC primary if he ignores it and runs anyway. That is fundamental DISRESPECT. It's disrespect that he's obviously capable of showing, and obviously it doesn't prohibit him from running. No one is claiming that!

DTH

[TheVirginian]

100. But how is it disrespect?

If the primary means that Ned Lamont will be the Democratic nominee if he wins, and Joe Lieberman will not, then how can Joe Lieberman possibly be disrespecting the results of the primary? Primary voters are not voting on whether Lieberman should remain a Senator, they're voting on their nominee.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

107. So You Don't Understand the Definition of Respect?

"respect: To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem."

If Joe loses the Democratic primary, he obviously will have no choice but to ABIDE by the result. He will indeed be statutorily incapable of carrying the official Democratic banner as a result.

But that is a far cry from respecting the result. If he truly showed deferential regard for the result, he would not try to defeat the Democratic party's standard bearer. That is the OPPOSITE of showing deferential regard and esteem. That is self-promoting opportunism.

So again, he is not respecting the results of the Democratic primary.

Do you want me to define "deferential" as well?

DTH

[TheVirginian]

114. No, but I don't understand why you're making such a jump...

"If he truly showed deferential regard for the result, he would not try to defeat the Democratic party's standard bearer."

The results of the primary mean that Ned Lamont is the nominee. Respecting, or showing differential regard if you will, the results has no bearing on his own candidacy.

You're trying to say that by running in the general election anyyways, Joe Lieberman is, in some way, ignoring, disregarding, or disrespecting the primary results. I'm telling you he's doing none of those things. I'm simply saying that the results of the primary do not extend past chosing the Democratic nominee.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

116. You Really Don't Understand the Definition of Respect, Then

By claiming to be a Democrat and running for the Democratic nomination, only to turn around and refuse to endorse the winner and in fact try to defeat him, is the opposite of respect, which again is defined as deferential regard, which is defined as: "Submission or courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes, or judgment of another."

He is not respecting the primary. He is affirmatively disrespecting it.

DTH

[TheVirginian]

124. He's not disrespecting the primary...

The primary system remains in tact. Its purpose will have been completed, and there will be nothing more to do with it. But Joe Liebermanw will remain a candidate for Senate in a race where only one person will win. While you can spin that as "disrespecting Lamont" or whatever melodramatic terminology you want to apply, its called an election.

I'm confused why you think Lieberman is bound by party, by honor, or by respect, to endorse Ned Lamont if he wins the primary.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

132. Because That Is the Definition of Respect, Which You Sadly Misunderstand

Just like you obviously misunderstand the meaning of loyalty.

DTH

[TheVirginian]

136. So, from here on out, the definition of respect...

Is endorsing an opposing candidate for an office I'm running for if they win an election that determines who will be the nominee of a political party?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

141. If You Respect the Primary, Absolutely

One could perhaps argue that a strained definition of respect might allow for a non-endorsement or a tepid endorsement of a primary opponent, so long as you don't actively contest the primary results or the primary victor. But if you actually proceed to run against your primary opponent? That is fundamental disrespect of the primary.

You obviously still don't understand what respect means, by the way.

DTH

[TheVirginian]

145. I don't think its my misunderstanding of respect, I think....

Its your misunderstanding of the primary that's causing this disagreement between us.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

148. He Is Not Showing Deferential Regard for the Primary Victor

He's choking down the primary result because he has no choice, and then he's doing the opposite of deferring to the primary victor. He's challenging the primary victor.

I understand primaries very well indeed. I'm not sure if you're getting tripped up on "respect" or "deferential regard" however.

DTH

[TheVirginian]

153. Of course he's not. He's campaigning to be Senator.

He's accepting, respecting, and abiding by the primary. He's running for office against the winner of the primary, so of course he's not going to defer to him.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

155. If He's Not Deferring to the Victor, He's Not Respecting the Primary

Of course he's not. He's campaigning to be Senator.
He's accepting, respecting, and abiding by the primary. He's running for office against the winner of the primary, so of course he's not going to defer to him.

By definition, if he's not deferring to the primary victor, he is not respecting the primary. You just lost. Thank you for playing and good night.

DTH

[TheVirginian]

156. That's very specious logic.

Good night.

[Ken Burch]

230. If that political party was the one that nominated and elected you, yes.

It's not respect to say"to hell with the primary. I'm not going away no matter what". That's arrogance and nothing else. It's certainly nothing for an honorable person to defend.

[Ken Burch]

72. Ending his candidacy that night and endorsing Lamont.

Something he has no justification not to do.

[TheVirginian]

77. Sure he does.

He doesn't just represent the Democrats in Connecticut, he represents all of Connecticut.

[CTLawGuy]

172. he's saying "if you don't vote for me

I will create a three way race that potentially makes this seat competitive. If you do vote for me, there'll be a two way race we will win easily." He's telling the voters, if you vote for my opponent, I will make you sorry.

(to which you will say that's not possible, but you don't know it's not possible, and you don't seem to understand that polls change and circumstances change.)

[TheVirginian]

183. And you don't understand that the candidate is unviable.

Tell me, how will a candidate that has no in-state support from his party, has no money, has no chance of raising more money, and is polling under ten percent statewide, will be competitive against a Democratic incumbent Senator in a blue state that has a hundred times as much money and support and has more support among Republicans than the Republican candidate.

You're are not making any sense. You are inventing the truth. This is not a strong argument, and you look more foolish everytime you re-post it.

[CTLawGuy]

186. you can tell this all the way from VA?

I must be mistaken, I mean I'm only from CT, grew up there, lived there 15 years. I surely know less about CT politics than someone who lives 7 hours away :eyes:

[TheVirginian]

207. Yes, I can easily tell this from Virginia.

Why? Because I read polls, I read news reports, and I read local news. I can tell you the top issues in this race, I can tell you the latest polling numbers, I can tell you who has support where, and none of it requires that I live in the state. You certainly have more anecdoctal evidence than I do, but that's largely irrelevent. And since you keep on trying to claim that a three-way race makes it likely that the Republican will win, I would venture to say that I know more about this race than you do.

[CTLawGuy]

210. I didn't say that

I said it had the potential to be competitive, much MORE competitive than a 2-way race.

In news reports you can't be exposed to the culture and values of CT. CT is NOT a one-party state. It is a "liberal" state, but the republicans can win when they have an opportunity.

In 1967 Sen. Thomas Dodd got in some legal and ethical trouble. He decided to not run for reelection in 1970 and the nomination went to a Joseph Duffy. Later, however, he decided to run as an independent. There was a three way race, and Lowell Weicker, the Republican, came out with a victory, with the dem vote split.

I bet you didn't know about that story did you? The republicans can win when they need to. Don't underestimate them.

[TheVirginian]

233. Lowell Weicker >>>> Alan Schlesinger.

And you don't have to tell me that Republicans can win in CT. I know who the three GOP Congressmen are. I know that Jodi Rell is the Governor. But those are strong candidates, with strong resumes, and strong support from the state and national GOP party. Alan Schlesinger is not a strong candidate, with no strong support and no resume. I never said that a Republican can't win in CT; I said Alan Schlesinger can't win the 2006 Senate election.

And I beg to differ with you. In a three-way race, Schlesinger polls at 8% with Lieberman at 54%. Combined with Lamont's 28%, there's only 10% undecided. Compare that to a Lamont-Schlesinger race, where Lamont polls at 34% and Schlesinger polls at 20%, with a whopping 36% undecided. Without a doubt, Schlesinger's best chance is in a two-way race against Lamont, with Lieberman out of the race. Funny how you and him are rooting for the same thing.

[Ken Burch]

237. Weicker was a Liberal Republican. Schlesinger can't get Weicker's

vote. The two have nothing in common, as witnessed by the fact that Lieberman was elected by the earnest efforts of conservative Republicans. Lieberman's defenders should feel eternally embarassed that their man has the support of George F. Will, Sean Hannity
and BOTH Buckley brothers.

[TheVirginian]

239. So thank you for proving my point...

that Schlesinger has no chance.

[MarkDevin]

202. Well, most of us in CT want the troops out of Iraq now.

I'd say that's a big enough reason to give my vote to Ned Lamont. Which I fully intend to do.

[Clarkie1]

16. I think he should respect the will of all the voters of Connecticut.

He was, after all, elected by the people of Connecticut...not just Democrats.

I am not convinced that running as an independent is merely self-serving and egotistical. I find the point of view that all the people of Connecticut should be offered an up or down vote on their incumbent senator quite persuasive.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. We Have a Two-Party System

He claims he is a Democrat. If he can't win the Democratic nomination, when he was the Party's VP nominee 6 years ago, he does not deserve to run.

He is absolutely an egotistical opportunist. This is par for the course for him. Remember 2000? He was our VP nominee, yet he refused to withdraw from the CT Senate race so a Democrat could run for the seat. As a result, even if he'd been installed as VP, the GOP governor of CT would have nominated his replacement in the Senate. That is clay feet.

And by the way, "up or down vote" is GOP-speak.

DTH

[Clarkie1]

29. Uh, Oh! Did I use use GOP-speak?

You still haven't responded to assertion raised in my opening post. Do not all Connecticut voters deserve a chance to vote up or down (I don't give a damn what kind of "speak" you call it) on the senator they elected to represent them?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. No One "Deserves" Anything in Politics

Joe Lieberman does not own that seat. He is manipulating the system for his own selfish, opportunistic and personal ends. He was elected as a Democrat. If Democrats choose someone else, then he should abide by that. Anything else is rank disloyalty and opportunism.

DTH

[Clarkie1]

36. I disagree.

I believe all the people of Connecticut deserve a chance to vote for or against their senator.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

37. Stick Away

It's not an opinion that I respect, nor one that most posters here or, I suspect, CT Democrats respect, either.

DTH

[Clarkie1]

63. That's unfortunate.

Because I respect your opinion.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

67. Not All Opinions Are Worthy of Respect

Although some might think otherwise in the namby-pamby (and false) "all opinions are valid and equal" mindset that passes for debate these days.

DTH

[Clarkie1]

71. That's true. nt

[Ken Burch]

82. A Democratic incumbent's race ends when he loses the primary

That's all their is to say. There is nothing honorable about disregarding a primary defeat and staying in the race anyway.

And if Lieberman feels he is above the party, than he should damn well drop out of the primary NOW and run as an independent NOW. It's not fair and it's not just for Lieberman to try to have it both ways.

And the people defending Lieberman on this would never tolerate Lamont doing the same. Why must party loyalty go only one way?

[TheVirginian]

88. According to what?

Where is it written that the primary is the end of a campaign?

And what makes you think we wouldn't tolerate Lamont doing the same thing?

[Ken Burch]

97. It is written in the standards of basic human decency.

It goes without saying that a partisan officeholder is morally obligated to respect the will of his party and withdraw from the race if his party deselects him.

That person cannot stay in as an opponent of his party's freely and fairly chosen nominee and still claim to be a decent and honorable human being. It is just plain wrong. End of discussion. If it isn't wrong, it means that party means nothing.

And every post that falsely accused Lamont of helping Republicans by daring to deny Lieberman an uncontested renomination proves my point. You can't demand party loyalty from the other side and exempt yourselves from it at the same time.

Why are you so rigidly loyal to such a disloyal, cynical, and arrogant man?

[TheVirginian]

110. I'm not any of those things.

I'm just a curious and bemused observer of a most interesting specticle. People taking a fairly simple practice, selecting a nominee by a vote, and turning it into a judgement of morality and decency and character and staking the very meaning of partisanship upon it.

And I've never accused Lamont of anything, let alone helping Republicans.

[Clarkie1]

189. Oh, please.

"it is written in the standards of basic human decency"

:eyes:

You might not like what he's doing, but there is nothing morally wrong with what he is doing. I find that notion, frankly, laughable.

[CTLawGuy]

212. most states have laws against what Joe is doing

and those states aren't "anti-democracy". They're not trying to deprive all voters of a chance to vote for the incumbent. They're preserving the primary process by preventing its circumvention.

And considering if a CT voter wants him so bad, they can write him in, I don't see what Joe is complaining about. Someone's right to vote for him doesn't mean he has a right to be on the ballot.

[Ken Burch]

73. The voters aren't demanding that he stay in the race as an independent.

This is Lieberman's ego, and nothing else. There's no honorable motivation for this. Why can't you see that?

[TheVirginian]

81. According to the polls, a majority would vote for Lieberman (I). n/t

[Clarkie1]

150. I just think that as a matter of principle

If the people elect a senator, the people deserve a chance to re-elect or throw out that senator. ALL the people, not just a minority.


That's my opinion, and...oh, never mind I'll never convince you probably. :-)

[Ken Burch]

176. You'll never convince ANY loyal and honorable Democrat that

a Democratic incumbent defeated in the primary has the right to carry on a conservative anti-Democratic independent campaign just to hurt the party that freely and fairly repudiated him. Also, it is a really stupid thing to do while you are STILL campaigning for the Democratic nomination. You aren't going to win primary voters over by refusing to accept that losing the primary means you are supposed to end your candidacy.

At the very least, Lieberman should have waited until after he was defeated to speak of such a thing. There is no way that this announcement has gained him support and it has probably cut into whatever support he had. Democrats don't like people who reject the notion of fair play.

[Clarkie1]

188. Then don't vote for him! nt

[Ken Burch]

192. I don't live there, so I can't vote for or against him.

I could respect your position if you were simply anti-party in general, but that's not the view your taking. You are defending one cynical politicians effort to exempt himself from the standards that all other Democratic candidates everywhere in the country are held to.

If you were just saying Lieberman should be on the ballot in the fall no matter what, you should be honest and call for him to withdraw from the primary and declare himself to be a conservative anti-Democratic independent NOW. Where your position degenerates into a defense of the indefensible is when you say it's all right for Lieberman to have it both ways.

[Clarkie1]

196. I'm saying I think the 50% of Connecticut that is registered independent

deserves a chance to express their opinion on their senator...because he is a senator for ALL the people. Democrats should vote against him. If I lived in Connecticut I certainly would vote against him if Lamont wins the primary, and I would vote for Lamont in the primary.

I don't know how to make myself more clear.

By the way, you should take comfort in the fact that only 15-20% of Connecticut is registered Republican. Don't lose any sleep worrying about the Republican winning (he's a very weak candidate anyway).

[CTLawGuy]

214. So you think there should be special election rules for incumbents?

why do incumbents deserve more protection than challengers?

I think they don't. Anything that makes it easier for an incumbent to stay in office is bad policy. That leads to corruption and a disincentive to represent your constituents.

if anything we should be making it harder for incumbents to stay in office.

[Robbien]

18. Lieberman has a history of having his cake and eating it too

He likes to say he is a strong Democrat with a largely progressive record and then works hand-in-glove with the White House to denigrate his own long-suffering and battered party.

Of course he wants two shots at the election. Once for the Democratic Party and then the second shot working against the Democratic Party.

It is what he does.

[Clarkie1]

23. O.K., you are entitled to your opinion.

Do you have any thoughts on my opening post?

[Robbien]

41. Your point was that all voters in Connecticut should have a say

and it has already been previously posted that if that is how Lieberman feels the the answer is he should run as an Independent now. You have already stated Lieberman wants to run as a Democrat and doesn't want to give up on the Democratic primary.

So I said, as usual Lieberman wants it both ways.

You got your answer several times in this thread and you keet saying no he wants to run as a Dem and he wants everyone to have a vote. I am just re-stating your stance, Lieberman wants it both ways.

[Clarkie1]

48. There is nothing wrong with "wanting it both ways."

Of course Lieberman should run as a Demcorat, because he is a Democrat. However, if he loses the primary I think it is right he still offer himself before all the voters of Connecticut because loyalty to the people is more important than Party loyalty.

Edit: I think "wanting it both ways" is a misnomer in this case, but that's the phrase you used.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. Stop Fooling Yourself, It's Loyalty to HIMSELF

You completely ignored the 2000 election decision to run for CT Senate that betrayed his opportunism, by the way.

DTH

[Clarkie1]

55. Whatever his motivations, I believe ALL the voters deserve

the opportunity to re-elect or reject their senator.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

60. Like I Said, Stick Away

People stick to opinions with bankrupt foundations all the time, sadly.

DTH

[Clarkie1]

66. What does this have to do with bankruptcy? nt

[Ken Burch]

90. Even though a fall Lieberman independent candidacy has to hurt gays?

Even though it can only help gay bashers?

Why defend someone who is hurting your own interests?

[Robbien]

78. Oh give it up

Joe is just pissed that Lamont dares to challenge him.

Everyone else in the country wins the vote of their party thereby earning the right to enter the general election.

Joe feels he has the right to be in the general election. He doesn't have to earn it, he just feels he has the right to be in it. He is so special.

[TheVirginian]

Self-delete.

.

[TheVirginian]

83. Actually, in CT, you have to submit 7,500 signatures.

If he submits those, then he legally earns the right to be in the general election. Same as anybody else.

[Clarkie1]

84. NO.

It is not poltical parties that "earn" people the right to enter the general election (at least it wasn't the last time I checked the constitution, hope it hasn't changed).

[Nite Owl]

27. If the rest of the voters in the state

should have a chance to vote for him then they should register as a Democrat. What in effect you are saying is that just because he is an incumbent everyone should have a chance? Those aren't the rules, that isn't logical at all. He says he is a Democrat than only the dems get to vote who represents the party and if he loses he is out. It's called democracy, you lose then you step aside and abide by the will of the voters.

[Clarkie1]

34. Nope, sorry those ARE NOT the rules.!

This is why the framers of the constitution feared political parties.

Yes, I believe all the people should have an opportunity to vote for or against the incumbent the people elected.

[longship]

79. It's not just the rules. It's the LAW!

Go read the MA statutes.

[Clarkie1]

92. I don't have to read the MA statues.

But perhaps you should read the U.S. Constitution (let me know what you find out about the party rules).

Are you seriously suggesting that by running as an independent in the United States of America after failing to secure his party's nomination Lieberman would be breaking the law?

Please, tell me you are not...

[longship]

106. That's "statutes"

These are statues:

[Clarkie1]

130. Oh, you caught me with a typo!

:-)

[dsc]

164. In several states, including mine NC, he would

many states have sore loser laws which expressly prohibit people from running in both a partisan primary and the general election as an independent. Others, such as CT, set deadlines which they think will make it impossible. It isn't an accident the deadline for signatures is exactly one day after the primary.

[CTLawGuy]

215. I guess the CT Lege didn't count on a dedicated spoilsport

like Lieberman showing up.

[Old and In the Way]

46. If Ned loses in the primary, I guess he should consider taking out

papers to run in the GE, too. In fact, every person running for Congress could take this tact. After all, maybe that's what all constituents want? That'll help destroy the 2 party system in pretty quick order. We can have a new 2 Party System...the Incumbant Party and the not-Incumbant Party.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

51. That's the idea!!

:popcorn:

[Clarkie1]

59. No.

I don't think that would be wise polticially. He is not the incumbent senator, and so has no past history of support from the people. The incumbent senator is in a unique postition because at present he is the people's senator. I believe the people...all the people deserve a chance to cast their judgment on their senator.

However, anyone who wants to run as an independent in any race is certainly entitled to. That's part of what it means to be an American.

[KaptBunnyPants]

54. Not if Joe is a Democrat.

If he is a Democrat then he needs to accept the results of the primary, and either run as a Democrat or not at all. If he is not a Democrat he has no place running in our primary. The choice is Lieberman's. The fact that traitor Joe is ready to backstab his party by running a third party campaign is no suprise, his lack of loyalty to his party and country is what got him in a primary in the first place.

[Clarkie1]

69. Before he is a Democrat, he is the Senator from Connecticut.

His loyalty should first be to all the people of Connecticut. There is no reason he should not seek to nomination of the Democratic Party. There is also no reason he should not run in the general election if he fails to secure that nomination. The people of Connecticut do not deserve to have their senator removed from the process by a minority.

[longship]

91. THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT IN THE SENATE!

Nothing in the Constitution says ANYTHING about a sitting Senator having any entitlement to his seat.

This is a democratic republic not a monarchy. We have laws. We have rules.

No candidate can claim that just because he has a seat in the Senate today means that he deserves special consideration tomorrow. His serving in that position is *AT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE*. That's what the Constitution of the United States says.

In case you've forgotten your high school civics lessons:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

And no party rule or any law give incumbency any special privilege. Therefore, the power to remove an incumbent resides solely with the people.

If Joe loses the primary, he should step down.

[Clarkie1]

135. I agree! There is no entitlement!

"The power to remove an incumbent resides solely with the people."

I couldn't agree more!

[autorank]

111. Hi, I like you but I have to say this.

His duty is to retire immediately, drop out of the primary and hide his head in shame for endorsing the insanity that has become our foreign policy in Iraq. The horror of that war is such that we have placed men and women in a reality show of non stop horror that has no end in sight, at least not the type of end that would satisfy anybody who cares about the well being of this country. Short of being officially asked to leave, we're stuck and, as a result, the horror continues.

There were more than enough warnings on the human, fiscal, and relationship costs of the ware. More importantly, there was clarity for those close to the situation about the contentiousness of the various factions in Iraq. They're doing what was expected, what was known would happen.

Joe Lieberman has not served one single person in Connecticut or this country by his happy proxy warrior stance on this war, his strong endorsement of *, and his ongoing propagation of the shifting lies that have become the protean rationale for the war.

It's a disgraceful act for a national government, especially at a time when the ability of the earth to sustain our species is in question over the next 50-100 years (no scientific argument on this, it's a fact).

Given a choice between fighting for the life of human society and culture and a war on a specific set of humans and their culture, Lieberman chose the latter.

He should quit the race right now, resign and find a way to make up for this betrayal, as should all those who served as cheerleaders for the war. I'm not talking about those who voted for the the war resolution as a block. I'm talking about happy warrior Lieberman and the rest of the starched shirt chest thumping pius propagandists for death and destruction.

They are nihilists with impunity, protection by position, with a pathetic record at a time when we need great leadership.

That's what I think.

[Clarkie1]

119. I hear ya.

I respect your opinion, but I am speaking in general terms...imagine all the candiates were generic for a moment.

And, even though it is Lieberman in the race, as a matter of principle I do not think a political party should (or can) deny an incumbent senator the opportunity to face all the people in the general election regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof. Don't you want everyone in CT to have a chance to vote AGAINST their lousy senator?

In the end, it is the people of Connecticut who will decide, and that's the way it has to be.

[autorank]

125. I'm all for the people deciding. I just think that this type of failure

is so spectacular, we can't talk in generic terms. I'm confident the Nutmeggers or whatever CT folks call themselves will make a good choice.

On a broader scale, I reread the Colbert speech and watched some video of it today. As I watched him excoriate the assembled, I realized...these are the biggest failures as leaders in the history of the world. They're running the most powerful and productive country in the world and complete blowing it on the biggest security issues for the United States - survival. They're not the worst people, just the worst leaders because the stakes are so high and they're blowing it. In any event, I'll shut up soon;) but seeing those folks smugly enter the center, I thought Colbert told them exactly what they needed to hear. It was not comedy, it was ridicule and it was very well directed. OK, done. Nite. Interesting thread.

[Ken Burch]

118. General Clark would never accept what you are doing in this thread.

You are dishonoring him by using his picture as your avatar in an anti-Democratic thread. You are also betraying the gay community by supporting a decision that has to hurt gay people, since all it can do is throw the seat to an antigay Republican.

[Clarkie1]

128. Of course he would accept what I'm doing.

Whether or not he agrees or disagrees. I don't believe it is wrong for an incumbent senator to run as an independent if he loses his parties primary because he or she represents all the people of the state.

I am sure General Clark would support anyone's right to run in a general election. That's what America is all about.

And, by the way, the Republican in the race is not going to win. If you think he even has a chance you vastly overestimate party loyalty of the average American voter. This isn't a Nader/Gore spoiler type of race. It's just not developing that way.

[Ken Burch]

137. If "the Republican in the race is not going to win"

You've just destroyed the rationale for renominating Lieberman. You've just admitted that Lieberman was NEVER the only electable Democrat in this race. Thanks for that.

Now you've just got to explain why you're supporting a decision that is the one possible decision that could even theoretically put the seat in play, especially since that decision has to hurt the interests of gay people.

[Clarkie1]

144. I'm not a Lieberman supporter. What gave you that impression? nt

[Ken Burch]

149. Er...every post you've made?

If you're NOT a Lieberman supporter, why the hell are you doing this? You know gay people are going to be hurt if Lieberman goes through with it. Doesn't that at least bother you?

[Clarkie1]

187. How would gay people be hurt?

Lieberman and Lamont both support gay rights, and one of them will be the next senator. If you think the Republican has any realistic chance, you are mistaken.

No, I'm not a Lieberman supporter. I'm just expressing the opinion I expressed in the opening post. I'd say the same thing about any incumbent senator. I don't think it is ideal that a minority determine for all the people of the state whether or not the incumbent remain serving the people of the state.

[Ken Burch]

203. You've gone to an incredibly elaborate effort

to refuse to acknowledge the validity of the posts that oppose your premise in this thread. The question arises, naturally, if you are NOT a Lieberman supporter, why are you going to all this trouble to be an apologist for the least-popular decision of his political career: the decision to reject the results of the primary?

Can you at least understand why people would doubt your claim that you are NOT a Lieberman supporter when you go to these lengths to defend the man's actions on this point? Really, it is silly of you to expect us to take your word for it that you are simply defending Lieberman's decision to reject the primary out of some unusually naive form of idealism.

And there is no reason it is any more unjust for Lieberman to be denied a place on the fall ballot by the Democratic voters in the primary than it was for Lieberman to be GIVEN that place by the same voters in earlier elections. None of his Democratic opponents in past races EVER went on to reject the results of the primary and carry on a campaign devoted solely to stopping Lieberman from being elected as a Democrat. The wish to do that to Ned Lamont, a man who has done nothing to deserve such treachery, is the ONLY reason that Senator Lieberman is now dishonoring himself by announcing that, for him, the primary doesn't count.

This isn't about "giving all the voters a choice". It is about one arrogant man putting himself above democracy.

[TheVirginian]

206. "Above democracy".

Now that's just laughable.

[Ken Burch]

221. No, that's Lieberman

The man believes that the standards which apply to all other Democratic incumbents do not apply to him.
He believes he is not accountable to the party whose past support is the sole reason he HAS a political career.
Lieberman believes he is above democracy.

[TheVirginian]

234. Bullshit.

Where does he believe he's not accountable to the party? If he loses the primary, that means that the party he's belonged to all of his life will have turned his back on him. You think that means nothing to him? Why do you think he's running in the primary in the first place?

And running as an Independent in the general election can, in no way, shape, or form, be construed as being "above democracy". That's just a stupid argument.

[Ken Burch]

235. He's running in the primary because he's been forced to.

At least in the sense that he's been forced to face a strong and worthy challenger in the primary by the fact that a large and growing number of Connecticut Democratic voters and Connecticut voters in general have questioned his apparent belief that an uncontested renomination was his by divine right.

It's delusional to think that the liberal wing of the party, and no one else in Connecticut, is feeling less and less supportive of HolyWarJoe. It's pretty clear that more and independents are rejecting him as well. This is demonstrated by the fact that while the first poll of how Lieberman would fare in a three-way fall campaign had him getting 4 56%, the second, less than a month later, had Lieberman at only 44%. The voters of Connecticut are turning against Lieberman. The notion that a huge number of Connecticut voters feel the Lamont challenge is illegitimate has clearly been discredited.s

And when the campaign ads hit and point out that, even if Lieberman is reelected as a conservative independent, he will no l inonger have any real power or influence in the Senate, the sentimental support the senator still enjoys will collapse.

And yes, If Lieberman DID end up running as an independent for the Senate after the party that elected him in the first place decided he should no longer be a senator, it WOULD mean he is placing himself above democracy...because it would mean he was rejecting the notion of internal party democracy.

Lieberman believes no one has any right to deny him the Democratic nomination, and his arrogant attempt to run as a "petititioning Democrat" was his way of saying that the will of his party does not matter.

The fact is, with his announcement BEFORE the primary that defeat in the primary would not end his reelection campaign, Lieberman was saying that the party does, in fact, mean nothing to him and that he owes that party no loyalty unless it obeys him.

As the prophet Carville would say, "It's the ARROGANCE, Stupid."

And, at the very least, you would have to agree that announcing this BEFORE the primary was probably the most self-destructive choice the man could make. Clearly, it has to drive his support within the party way down.

[TheVirginian]

238. Now you're just making things up.

"At least in the sense that he's been forced to face a strong and worthy challenger in the primary by the fact that a large and growing number of Connecticut Democratic voters and Connecticut voters in general have questioned his apparent belief that an uncontested renomination was his by divine right."

Where in the world did you get the idea that he believed his renomination should be uncontested? This is just silly. There is absolutely nothing to back this up. You just pulled this out of thin air.

"It's delusional to think that the liberal wing of the party, and no one else in Connecticut, is feeling less and less supportive of HolyWarJoe. It's pretty clear that more and independents are rejecting him as well. This is demonstrated by the fact that while the first poll of how Lieberman would fare in a three-way fall campaign had him getting 4 56%, the second, less than a month later, had Lieberman at only 44%. The voters of Connecticut are turning against Lieberman. The notion that a huge number of Connecticut voters feel the Lamont challenge is illegitimate has clearly been discredited."

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=922
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/June%202006/connecticutsenate06162006.htm

These are the two polls you're talking about. Look at the dates. The Quinnipiac poll was conducted on June 6th. The Rasmussen poll was conducted on June 12th. Both polls were conducted before Lieberman announced he would run as an Independent. The difference in the polls is because of different methodologies among the pollsters, not in any action that occured in that six-day period to cause Lieberman to drop six points. Again, you're making things up.

"And when the campaign ads hit and point out that, even if Lieberman is reelected as a conservative independent, he will no l inonger have any real power or influence in the Senate, the sentimental support the senator still enjoys will collapse."

If Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats, then he'll retain his seniority, much like Jim Jeffords.

"And yes, If Lieberman DID end up running as an independent for the Senate after the party that elected him in the first place decided he should no longer be a senator, it WOULD mean he is placing himself above democracy...because it would mean he was rejecting the notion of internal party democracy."

No, it means the exact opposite. It would mean that he supports party democracy by allowing the primary election to determine the Democratic candidate, and then after losing that election, withdraw himself from the Democratic Party for the purpose of the election.

But here's where you made a critical error: its not the PARTY that elected him in the first place. Its the state of Connecticut that elected him. Democratic voters in Connecticut elected him as their nominee back in '88, but he wasn't Senator until he won the votes from an election that featured everybody in the state of Connecticut.

"Lieberman believes no one has any right to deny him the Democratic nomination, and his arrogant attempt to run as a "petititioning Democrat" was his way of saying that the will of his party does not matter. "

As I pointed out above, it means the exact opposite. It means that he's abiding by the results of the primary.

"The fact is, with his announcement BEFORE the primary that defeat in the primary would not end his reelection campaign, Lieberman was saying that the party does, in fact, mean nothing to him and that he owes that party no loyalty unless it obeys him."

Again, you're inventing reality. Lieberman is stating that his loyalty, first and foremost, is to the state of Connecticut. He reads the same polling numbers that we do, and he sees the numbers that say 61% of voters in his state think he should be re-elected. Why, then, if he's not the Democratic nominee, should he deny 61% of his state the ability to do what they democratically wish to do?

What's more sad than Lieberman's decision to run as an Independent is his party's incessant hounding of his loyalty to the voters that put him in office in the first place. Joe Lieberman made his choice clear: he puts his constituents above any political party, and in trusting the voters first, Joe Lieberman is actually respecting democracy more than anybody else. Perhaps most tragic of this entire saga, however, is the propogation of mistruth that follows this debate around, and this is made no more clear than in your post, where you resort to no less than four plain lies to try and make your point.

[CTLawGuy]

217. "giving the voters a choice" is a bullshit argument

the voters can vote for whomever they want. They're not going to be imprisoned for writing Lieberman in if they really want him that bad, or they could take 5 minutes and register as a dem, and then take 5 minutes right after voting to change back.

the only people really deprived of a choice are lazy people who can't spell or write.

[CTLawGuy]

216. so any election where less than 50% turn out

is invalid?

and how is a right to vote for someone the same as the right to be on the ballot?

[The Magistrate]

93. You Say The Voters Of Connecticut Deserve Him, Sir?

What offense have they caused you, that you should say that...?

[Clarkie1]

99. Careful...I did not say they deserved him

I said they deserved the choice..."having him in the general election";-)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

109. Good to See You About, Sir

And congratulations on being reupped as a Moderator!

:toast:

DTH

[The Magistrate]

123. Thank You, Old Friend

It is a pleasure to see you about the place again, and I hope it will not be so rare a pleasure as it has been lately!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

129. Many Thanks

I have been pursuing other endeavors, but I still enjoy popping in now and again for a vigorous row or three. ;-) I am also starting to gear up for the 2006 elections, and elections -- by definition -- tend to put me in a political mood. So here I am.

I look forward to seeing more of you here in the near future!

DTH

[Robbien]

98. And I am saying he has to earn the right to the general election

by getting the majority of votes in his party first. Just the same as everyone else in politics has to do.

All other incumbants have to win their primaries before contining on to the general election. All those other incumbants represent all the people in their districts not just the party people. All those other incumbants do not have the right to enter the general election without passing their primaries.

But Joe feels he is special.

That is my opinion and I am sticking with it.

[Clarkie1]

102. Nope. It's not a right that has to be earned by winning a primary.

I can see the founders of the Constitution turning over in their graves right now at such a suggestion, being that they thought political parties were a danger to democracy.

[TheVirginian]

103. Actually...

In order to qualify for the November ballot, he had to collect 7,500 signatures. Its the same process that every person has to go through, including Diana Urban (R), who just petitioned her way onto the ballot this week.

[izzie]

157. I think it is up to the voters in Conn. Look at Maine.

You are forever hearing some one who wants to get Snowe out usually from the GOP as she is not far right enough. She gets in over and over and Dem. have to be voting for her. Her percent is high. Let Conn do as they want.

[CTLawGuy]

226. right!

and if Snowe ran as an indy against the Repub nominee, would those Democrats still stand behind her, or behind a real dem?

I'd say behind a real dem.

[izzie]

227. Well I never vote for her. But we sure could have another type GOP

and she is sure better than say a Hatch etc.

[sendero]

160. More Obtuse..

.. bullshit to try to justify the unjustifiable.

[calico1]

163. This is the argument Lieberman supporters keep

presenting. He represents "all of the people of CT" so therefore its unfair than only Democrats choose if he is the candidate or not. And soooo unfair to the poor Republicans and Indies who have no say in it. To that I say, if it matters that much to them, they have until noon on August 7 to change their registration. PLENTY OF TIME. Primaries are not a new thing, yet by what I have read here by the Lieberman supporters you would think they were and that this is some evil thing Lamont supporters have cooked up. Primaries have been around forever. Its part of our system of democracy. The way its SUPPOSED to work is that the winner gets to represent the party in the election and the loser is supposed to support the winner, or at least not bash him/her. And I also don't buy the "but this is different because Lieberman is differnt." BS....he is no worse but no better than any other candidate that has participated in the primary. Nor any more worthy. The issue that most bothers a lot of people including me isn't that he run as an Independent. Its that he wants to have it both ways. He wants to participate in the primary and if he wins it you know he is going to claim not only a victory but that the people of CT have spoken and support him! And so will his supporters! But thats only if he wins. If he loses then he and his supporters will claim (as they are now) that the primary is unfair because it does not represent all the voters of CT. He wants it both ways. His supporters want it both ways. THAT is what is unfair. I don't care if Lieberman run for reelection. But he needs to decide if he believes in the primary system or not. If he does and participates in it then he needs to accept the outcome as normally happens in a primary and has for eons. If he does not believe that he should accept the results should he lose, then he needs to not participate in this democratic process and just go ahead and run as an Independent. I am getting tired of people arguing of how different or special this case is. It isn't. It makes no difference what the party makeup is of CT voters. There is ONE primary system, not different ones depending on how many Democrats, Indies, etc are in the state.

[MurrayDelph]

165. "All the citizens of Connecticut deserve a chance to vote up or down"?

If that is truly the case, then Connecticut needs to turn the race into a non-partisan one
(like the Mayor of Los Angeles), where everyone who thinks he/she wants/deserves the job
runs in the primary, and, if no one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the top
two proceed to a run-off.

None of this "I get a second chance because I'm special" shit.

[lojasmo]

166. If Joe wants to run as in indi in the generals...

He should bow out of the democratic primary and allow the democrat to run in the generals. If he wants to run in the democratic primary for the democratic nomination, he should respect the will of the democratic primary voters, and stay out of the generals. As they say..." you can't have your cake, and eat it too."

[Larkspur]

167. Lieberman had no problem with the Dem Primary process in 1988

1994, and 2000, but when faced with a stronger than expected opponent, Lieberman wants to bolt and go Indy. What a coward!!!!

[fishwax]

169. why bother with the primary process? just put all incumbents on the ballot

:shrug:

I don't buy it. If he wants to run as an independent, he has that right. He's decided that he's "bigger" than the democratic party, though he never would have been elected in the first place were it not for the party.

If those voters wanted a voice in whether Joe Lieberman would be on the ballot, they should have registered as democrats rather than as third parties.

[w4rma]

177. Lieberman is a self-centered, egotistical scumbag. That's my opinion

and I'm sticking to it.

[Luminous Animal]

179. Wes Clark speaks on Lieberman's independent run

Via Firedoglake.com
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/14/wes-clark-writes-a-thank-you-note/

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.

Emphasis mine.

[Clarkie1]

198. Yep, it is ironic.

I'm very glad Clark pointed out the hypocrisy of Lieberman, Lieberman deserves to be held accountable for that jackass statement which I still remember. And, I dislike Lieberman for his support of neo-con policy and his anti-dissent statements. However...

I don't think there is anything "morally" wrong with Lieberman running as an independent (eventhough it makes him a poor Democrat, he can argue he is being loyal to his constituents more than his party)...I do think all the independent voters (50% or so of the population, I believe) of Connecticut deserve that choice. In fact, I would like to see Lieberman run and be rejected by all the people of Connecticut, not just the Democratic primary voters. I think that would be the ideal outcome. It can be argued that Lieberman is running as an independent to for selfish reasons, or to give all of his constituents a say in his fate, or both. Either way, I hope he loses and Lamont wins.

[leesa]

180. Duh. If he looses the Primary, they just GAVE him their up or down vote

He should run as an independent if he doesn't think he has enough support among the Dems. Why should he get special treatment?

[Clarkie1]

197. What about the 50% who are registered independent? nt

[monarch]

204. They can register as Democrats up until noon 8/7

They can also switch back immediately after the primary if they so value their "independence." Actually, what the state considers them to be is "unaffiliated." I like to think of that as their being friendless.

[Zhade]

181. Deserve? Wow, you thin CT voters are THAT bad?

I don't think they deserve that kind of punishment!

[Clarkie1]

194. I think the 50% of the populace that is registered independent

ought to be able vote for or against their senator, yes. Along with the 35% that is registered Democrat.

[calico1]

205. As someone else mentioned they have until

noon on Aug 7 to switch party affiliation. So if its that important to them, no one is barring them from particiapting.

[Zhade]

228. I think Jihad Joe should be allowed to run.

I just don't like that he'll take Dem money - YOUR money, remember - and spend it only to turn around and run AGAINST the party that just funded his run!

He's an untrustworthy asshole, but legally he can run.

[AJH032]

182. Interesting Perspective

I totally see where you're coming from, but since Democrats probably outnumber Republicans by so much in Connecticut anyway, the Democratic primary is inclusive of most of Connecticut, so if he's shot down in the primary I find it unlikely that he would win in a state-wide election, especially considering the Republicans will probably vote mostly (more than 50%) for the Republican candidate.

[TheVirginian]

184. A couple of things...

Independent registration in Connecticut is around 50%. Democrats are around 30-35%, and Republicans 15-20%.

And in a one-on-one match-up between Lieberman and the Republican candidate, 60% said they would vote for Lieberman.

[Clarkie1]

193. Well, I'm glad you see where I'm coming from.

I don't like Lieberman's anti-dissident statements and support of neo-con policy, all I was trying to do here is point out that, as I have stated repeatedly, as the senator for ALL the people of Connecticut, it makes sense for ALL the people of Connecticut to pass their judgement on him.

It may be perceived by some as a slap in the face to the Democratic party, but that does not mean it is morally repugnant, as some people have said. If the Democratic Party rejects him, I see nothing morally wrong with him rejecting the party (in a sense) and running as an independent. I understand why people don't like what he's doing, but that's politics, that's all I'm saying. It's not evil. And, I'm done posting on this thread. I've think I've said all that needs to be said, and although it is off-topic, let me just say that I hope Ned Lamont is the next Senator from Connecticut.

I'm done now.

[mmonk]

185. Does that mean you're against primaries?

Are you against incumbents being challenged?

[Clarkie1]

191. No and NO. nt

[MzNov]

195. CT and this country deserve Ned Lamont ! a real Democrat

and progressive. Isn't that what really matters??? Lieberman does not deserve the senate seat. Aren't we trying to get progressives to run this country or did I miss something?? Lieberman is a bush kissing JERK and no democrat ! Let's get it, people.

Nedrenaline!

:bounce:

[Zynx]

213. Okay, he has a right to do so, but he is not a Democrat and is not

entitled to Democrats' support. If he wants to be a Senator for Republicans and Independents, fine. 55 Republicans around the country are.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

218. If we're going to talk about deserve. They deserve having good candidates

in their election. As do any voters anywhere. They don't need lying delusional pieces of shit like Joe Lieberman. If he wants to run as an independent, socialist, libertarian, lumberjack, or whatever the hell that's fine by me. But this has nothing to do with deserving on thing or another. Now I'm sticking to that.

[the seeker]

219. Joe Lieberman is all about...Joe Lieberman

Its unfortunate that Al Gore thought too long and hard about his running mate. Too much analysis. Picking Joe with his Jewish heritage and so-called moderate stance, supposedly made Al look 'balanced'.

Meanwhile, Joe Lieberman, was making double sure that he was in the senate or someplace when he ran for the Senate and vice-president.

Now Joe and his lobbyist wife want to make triple sure that he is still around to kiss Bush's ass whenever a Judas is needed.

I admire Al, but he was hen-pecked and easily fooled back then. In
retrospect, with his global warming and fiestiness, it probably was a good thing for Al - he grew up, became his own man. Too bad that the loss gave us the Idiot from Hell for which the world is now paying dearly.

[sonroadera]

220. Yes

There really is no good reason for any of us to support Lieberman.

[Ken Burch]

223. Ok, you're sticking to it. And reality be damned.

But don't pretend you're not a Lieberman supporter. It's silly and demeans us both.

[Clarkie1]

232. Honestly, I want Lamont to win.

To reiterate my postion just one more time:

1) I believe primary challenges are healthy.

2) I will support (in a limited way as I am not a CT resident), the winnter of the Democratic Primary. All elected Democrats should do the same.

3) My understanding is about 1/2 of the Connecticut electorate is independent, and 15-20% Republican. Looking at things from an objective viewpoint, it makes sense to me that since the individual in question (irregardless of who he is) is senator for ALL the people of Connecticut, all the people, including all those independents, ought to have a chance to cast their judgement on him.

4) Said individual is running in the Democratic Primary. If Democrats reject him, I see no reason why it would be wrong for him to run as an independent (indeed, most of his supporters may in fact be independents).

5) So should he just be running as an independent now? I don't think so, because he is a member of the Democratic Party and the Democratic votgers of CT have not passed their judgement on him yet. When the do, he will either run as the Democratic nominee, or as the (indpendent) incumbent senator.

6) Best case scenario: Lamont wins primary, Lieberman runs as an independent, and ALL the voters of Connecticut cast their mandate for Lamont over the incumbent.

7) I find the argument that Lieberman is making...first loyalty to consituents, then loyalty to party, has merit. Now, he may really just be a selfish S.O.B., but nevertheless the argument has merit and integrity.

O.K., now I'm DEFINITELY done with this thread.

[IndianaGreen]

229. Lieberman should drop from the primary and stop pretending he is a Dem

And Democrats should rally around Ned Lamont and kick the ass of this Bush-kissing puke in November.

[MarkDevin]

236. For the record...

...in my travels around Hartford, Windham and Tolland Counties, I've seen hundreds of Ned Lamont lawn signs. I could count the Lieberman signs I've seen on my fingers and still have enough outstanding digits to flip off the incumbent with both hands.

Also, 51% of Connecticut's Jewish Democrats said in a recent poll that they prefer Lamont to Lieberman. I can just hear the senator moaning, "They give me such tsuris!"