Why Ned Lamont Should be Senator and Why Lieberman Shouldn't

[louis c]

I am a strong union guy. President of my local that attends the conventions of the IBEW (Cleveland Sept 11)and my state (Mass) AFL-CIO. I know full well that the Connecticut AFL-CIO has endorsed Lieberman and so has the IBEW in that state. I know Lieberman has been a strong union backer going back to his days in the Connecticut State Senate. However, having said that, here is why no union person or progressive Democrat should even consider voting for Lieberman.

First off, Lamont is a progressive on labor issues, the environment, taxes, education, clean government and on and on. He has courage. Real courage to put his money where his mouth is. He knew early on what a mistake Iraq was and did more than just disagree with LIEberman. He actually looked for a more traditional, state-wide candidate with name recognition to back with his millions. All the no-balls standard candidates refused to take a chance. Ned took the chance. He really believed in a cause, and he was willing to voice that opposition to this ridiculous war and give the people of Connecticut a real choice. Should Lamont win, Connecticut will have a truly representative progressive in Washington serving in the Senate. Those of us from other states will be jealous of them.

Second, Lieberman, and all the other ass-kissing Democrats (and Republicans)should be sent a message, "French-Kissing George W. Bush in public is a political disaster". From the stand-point of unions and progressive issues, Lieberman worked against us by supporting Bush on the only issue that mattered to most Americans (Iraq). You see, as Bush's popularity suffered because of Iraq, he lost political capital in every other area as well. So when Lieberman appeared on Fox News to make it seem like Bush had bi-partisan support on Iraq(54 Republicans and 1 Democrat) he undermined any strategy that could be used on issues like labor, the environment, energy, taxes and so forth. Let's face it, the Democrats have a chance to take control of both branches of Congress this November not because of the bread and butter issues but because the Republican strategy in Iraq and the Middle-East is such a disaster. None of our improved fortunes on all these other fronts are as a result of Lieberman's alliance with George Bush. In fact, the only way we can improve this country on all those issues Lieberman tries to say he champions is by politically crippling George Bush for his mis-handling of Iraq. To use an historical analogy, Johnson was great on all the major issues of his time, Civil Rights, Labor laws, the Great Society, Voting rights, the environment, education, taxes and many more. Head and shoulders above Lieberman by comparison. However, he had one little problem (sarcasm intended) Viet-Nam. You see, lying to get us into a war, or supporting someone who did, does have its political consequences. So, Joe Lieberman, on Tuesday, you will meet your Eugene McCarthy.

[Fierce]

1. What has Lamont done for unions?

I'm curious.

[louis c]

5. Work against George W. Bush

For me, that's the biggest plus in his favor.

Lieberman was an absolute ass-kissing disgrace since 2003. Anyone who can stand against Bush and his policies and win, is a plus for labor.

By the way, where is Lieberman's running mate, Al Gore, in all this? I bet he reads this race the same as I do.

As for Lamont, he has never served a day in an office above city government, but I'll take my chances any day of the week with him over that sniveling, Fox-News Whore, Joe Lieberman. Did you ever notice that Lieberman never got any air-time on Fox to promote his "labor agenda" but got umpteen hours defending President Asshole on Iraq.

I'll take a blank slate over a well known traitor any time.

Lamont for Senator.

[Fierce]

13. Hey, no need to convince me about Lieberman.

I just wondered -- with so many people peeing themselves over Lamont, I didn't know if he'd actually spent some time walking a picket line, or joining a boycott, or flashing his union card.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

12. Unions have no business endorsing NAFTA-CAFTA-ChinaWTO Joe

Union leaders should be ashamed to endorse Lieberman, who drools over every free trade bill, no matter how bereft of labor and environmental protections.

Lieberman promised us in the late 1990s that the solution to our exploding trade deficit with China was giving China permanent Most Favored Nation status and allowing China into the WTO. Since Joe's promise, our trade deficit with China has quadrupled.

Lieberman's been a driving force in tilting the playing field against American workers.

[undeterred]

2. Go Connecticut!

Can't wait to see the look on Joe's face when he realizes that his support for Bush and his illegal war have caught up with him! :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

[louis c]

28. kick

[senseandsensibility]

3. I'm a union member

and I firmly believe the lives of all working people would be much better in every way if Lamont wins. He will be at least as good as Joementum on labor issues, (better on some, I suspect), but will not sell their public schools or social security down the river. Not to mention, Iraq is being fought by working people.

[Oceansaway]

6. TOUCHE s&s !!..n/t

[B Calm]

4. Great post louis c!

[Jane Austin]

7. You talkin' 'bout Joe NAFTA-CAFTA Lieberman?

Does any working person need to know any more than this?

[louis c]

8. You're right

I never thought of that.

One more point in Ned's favor.

[Jazzgirl]

10. Point made.

:-)

[Jazzgirl]

9. Your synopsis is eloquent.

I agree that Lieberman is a *shrub ass-kisser to the maximum degree. Lieberman's support of the war has been disastrous. I don't live in Connecticut but I feel your pain and I'm glad you guys are standing up and showing the enablers what can happen when they support a lost cause.

JG

[louis c]

11. Don't forget the Dubai Ports deal

When even the most right-wing Republicans abandoned President nit-wit, there was Joe, rushing to his defense. What an asshole. I hope he loses by twenty points.

[Oceansaway]

14. only 20 ?....hahaha

i hope it shames that butt-licker into exile....he makes me gag !!

[bleever]

15. Thank you.

By ignoring the wishes of his constituency
And supplying his complicity
He's leant a false legitimacy
To the enormous illegality
And insanity
Of this travesty.


He may be a good man. But he made a bad choice, and choices, as you say, have consequences.

[louis c]

16. Let's open the season with a win

Send a message, Connecticut.

Bush is a disaster.

[louis c]

22. kick in the morning

[philly_bob]

17. What if Lamont wins Tuesday and loses in November?

We had a house guest from Connecticut this week. He started out with strong anti-Leiberman anti-Bush vote-for-Lamont views. But then we had a breakfast with another couple, and they argued for a reluctant but strategic vote for Leiberman, based on (1) Lamont might win on Tuesday but lose in November, (2) Nothing is more important than gaining control of one of the chambers of Congress, (3) Leiberman's seniority in the senate and sensible stands on domestic issues are useful, (4) Leiberman's credibility on foreign affairs is already destroyed.

I expressed a cautious I-can-see-both-sides, and noted Paul Krugman's recent column about how "Centrism is for Suckers."

Outcome: as of Sunday morning, my CT pal is considering "holding my nose and voting for Leiberman."

I don't vote in CT, but if I did, I'd be waiting for Leiberman to admit in public that he had made a mistake in advocating neocon positions on the Middle East.

[louis c]

18. The God Damn Republican has 13 points in the General

We have nothing to lose.

Defeat Lieberman in the Primary, then the general will still be Lamont vs. Lieberman. The Republican is mush. The Connecticut Repukes have to move to Lieberman or he's a goner. I wish the Repuke were stronger, then Lamont would wipe the floor with Lieberman in the General.

For Christ's sake, we all have to grow some balls. How can anyone nuance a vote for Bush's favorite Democrat from the fifth bluest state in the union?

[Nutmegger]

19. There is going to be a Dem win.

The Repuke candidate, Schlesinger, has little recognition at this point and is involved in his own mini-"scandal"; members of his own party have asked him to step down.

Either Lamont or LIEberman will be the victor in November.

A Repuke win isn't going to happen, period.

[philly_bob]

23. Didn't know Schlesinger's weakness. Will tell my CT friend...

over breakfast today.

Incidentally, note the reasonable tone of the three replies to my post on this controversial subject.

[calico1]

24. I honestly don't think Lieberman can

pull off a win in November if he loses in the primary. He will have loser "stink" all over him for one thing. He's already got some on him. Also the Democratic party machine will get behind Lamont. Lieberman will be a third party candidate having to raise his own money, which will be much harder for him. People like to vote for a winner. Once the primary is over, if Lamont wins, he gets a lot more exposure, more people get to know him. Lieberman will be running a desperate campaign and will reach out to Republicans which will further anger Democrats. That's the other thing....most loyal Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate, not for the guy who left the party. The overwhelming majority of CT voters do NOT approve of Lieberman running as a 3rd party candidate. With Lieberman still Senator the polls put him and Lamont even in November. Imagine how much that will change if Lamont wins. Tell your friends to go ahead and vote for Lamont. I don't think it is a wasted vote at all.

[KaptBunnyPants]

21. The only reason Lamont could possibly lose in the general

is because Lieberman refused to respect the will of Democratic voters in the Primary. Voting for Lieberman out of fear of his attempted sabotage of his own Party seems like extortion to me. Your friend would be wise to simply vote for the person he believes would be a better senator; if he supports the Iraq war, Lieberman's inexplicably close relationship to Bush, he refusal to filibuster Alito, his initial willingness to consider Republican style social security "reform", government interference in the Schiavo incident, the constant moralizing from blaming Marilyn Manson for Columbine to calls for bans of Doom and Mortal Kombat, and all that other stuff that differentiates Lamont from Lieberman, he should support Lieberman. But if, as is the case in over 90% of Democrats, he opposes the current administration and Republican agenda, he ought to vote for someone who shares that view instead.

This is a real test for the Party - are we the same cowards who abandoned Dean when the media announced he was unelectable, or are we willing to treat America with enough respect to vote for the candidate who actually reflects the will of the electorate? If we keep letting people like Cokie Roberts, Bill Orielly, Hannity, ect... dictate what is mainstream, I won't have much hope for November.

[IronLionZion]

25. The Democratic wave is unstoppable

the progressive takeover will be swift and sweet and national. This will be a very blue year.

These things come in cycles and the radical right wing lunacy is coming to a sudden end.

[midnight]

20. Lamont's win is a huge deal.

How is he doing? Maybe we could all move to Connecticut.

[louis c]

26. kick in the evening

[louis c]

27. kick again for importance