if the connecticut voters are against the war, why *should* they vote for a senator who disagrees with them on a key issue?
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
I wasn't a big fan of Lieberman, but I have a huge respect for all politicians who can take a position against party lines. Partisan politics will always limit your ideas and create conflict. The moderates are the ones who keep us together and at peace.
That being said, senators serve far too long for their own good. Special interests run rampant especially with so few representatives relative to your population. Term limits, donations, campaigns need to be reformed heavily in the US.
That being said, senators serve far too long for their own good. Special interests run rampant especially with so few representatives relative to your population. Term limits, donations, campaigns need to be reformed heavily in the US.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
This like or not was a referundum on the Iraq war---Leiberman for Lamont against---Lamont won in CT.----if Iraq goes civil war and the US loses the whole mid-east before 11/06---being a prowar national figure will be the kiss of death for all everywhere---including Hillary----with Bush likely impeached shortly thereafter.
Just call Lieberman ahead of the curve.---and just a wee might behind Delay, Nay, and the Dukster.
Its always the politically stupid that go first.
Just call Lieberman ahead of the curve.---and just a wee might behind Delay, Nay, and the Dukster.
Its always the politically stupid that go first.
Dude, your argument makes no sense. How many Republican senators started as inexperienced political lightweights who only won b/c radicals rallied around them?! Who do you think those abortion amendments and gay-bashing laws were for . . .
Regardless, this race was all about Joe and his choices. Last time I checked, you had to be a CT citizen to vote in the primary. They get to pick him just like NY picks Hillary (unopposed) and FL picks Ben (unopposed). If you are so bent out of shape on this issue why not complain that way right-of-center Republicans are challenging Lincoln Chafee in RI?!
It's not fun to knock people that support Bush and the war. It sux b/c these morons are taking the entire country (and world for that matter) for a ride to hell. Worse yet . . . other people are picking up the tab. It's actually Bush supporters and war supporters that are in the minority. A radicalized minority that still hasn't come to terms with reality . . . most people think they are wrong. And many people are willing to vote this one issue.
I would argue a primary reason Lieberman closed the gap is how he ran AWAY from Bush and has been touting his liberal credentials. But it's hard to run away from your record on hot button issues. Personally, I support changes in SS but apparently CT Democrats thought Joe was too cozy with the Bush ideas. Maybe CT Democrats weren't pleased with Joe voting for the Schiavo debacle. Regardless, if Joe wins in November much of his support would have to come from Republicans (as polling indicates). That may be the best indicator of all as to why he lost on Tuesday.
The latest NBC/WSJ poll indicated that amongst registered voters there's nearly a 2-to-1 margin that say their vote will be a signal of opposition to Bush instead of support. The only reasons the GOP isn't going to crumple is that "1" is rabid supporters and that "1" has deep enough pockets to produce $160m in campaign contributions over 50 visits by the Bush machine.
Good
You can't get any more radical than the Republicans.
If Dems can just get a sliver of radicalism maybe the Country has a shot at survival.
He's a coward and traitor that he vows to run as an independent.
Lieberman would screw the US so badly it would make Bush look like a saint.
Lieberman is jewish, and would whore out the country to Israel even more so than Bush is already doing. All the American tax dollars gone, to Israel. Is that what you want? A leader who would sell your country out?
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
His support of the war is the reason he lost. I know people who normally do not vote, voted in this one to send a message to Joe.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
The other reason, of course, is the near total lack of vision and original thought in the Democratic party.
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,839
- 2,625
- 136
I'm from CT and have followed this race very closely. The vast majority of the "analysis" you're getting on this race is either superficial, dead wrong or both.
First, let's flash back to last year before the Lamont campaign began. Lieberman had nearly a 70% approval rating in the CT, despite his adamant cheerleading for the war (more below), which was way out of step with most of the CT voters. At that time, there was serious discussion in the state GOP of cross-endorsing Lieberman and not even to bother running a sacrificial lamb against him.
Why did Lieberman lose/ Several reasons:
(1) Most importantly, I think, but rarely discussed (except by Chris Matthews last night on local TV) is that Lieberman has essentially abandoned any pretense of representing CT and has again become a so-called national politician. His contempt for local interests has been very disquieting to many, to say the least. During the current campaign, he repeatedly claimed that it was his single-handed efforts that got the sub base at Groton off the base closure list. Lieberman claimed it was his personal relationship with a federal big shot that made the difference. That's total BS, and nearly everyone in CT knew it. The base was saved through a strong bipartisan effort of many politicians, at the local, state and federal level. By claiming credit for himself, Lieberman alienated many of the local politicians, not a good move.
(2) Lieberman's involvement with the Iraq war is not as an occasional cheerleader/supporter for GWB, but rather he has-since the start-been one of the strongest and most strident voices pushing the war. He has a very deep loyalty to Israel, and this voter at least, feels he was motivated by his perception that this war would help Israel first and secondarily, maybe the US too.
(3) The voters of CT (GOP, Dem or independent-and remember more than half the voters here are unaffiliated) are strongly against the Iraq war, and have been so essentially since the beginning. Lieberman's response has been to lecture us. The USA is a republican form of government, and I'm voting to elect a public official that is most in accord with my wishes. I'm not voting to elect a paternalistic leader who will tell me what is best for my country.
(4) Lieberman touted - loudly and often - that he voted 90% of the time in accordance with the Democratic party. This may be true technically (I haven't checked it) but we CT voters are extremely familiar with his voting pattern-he will support GOP/Bush positions in the negotiations and crucial preliminary votes. Only when an issue is lost would Lieberman cast a show vote along party lines. I voted to select an effective representative, not someone going through the motions to build a voting record.
(5) Many pundits claim Lieberman is being punished for straying from the party line and seeking to compromise with Bush and the neocons. This could not be further from the truth. Many of us who voted against Lieberman this time voted for him repeatedly in the past and like the guy. He just doesn't represent our interests and views any more. CT is not a hotbed of radicals, it is a moderate state. For years, CT was considered basically a GOP state and was a leader of the GOP moderate faction of the party.
(6) Ned Lamont-Lieberman's opponent-comes across very well, in my opinion. Despite being vilified by Lieberman as a rich fat cat playing in politics, and despite all the local TV reporters love affair with Lieberman, Lamont comes across as sincere, intelligent and honest. Perhaps more importantly, he does not come across as a fire breathing radical freak. For many of us, this is like a real life Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Lamont stood up very well to Lieberman in the only pre-primary debate Lieberman would allow. That debate was very telling, as Lieberman was far more combative and on the attack than he was in the love-fest VP debates with Cheney in 2000 or in any of the presidential candidate debates Lieberman was in during the 2004 primaries.
But don't count Lieberman out yet, not by a long shot. The GOP candidate for senate is a total joke-he has no money, no name recognition and is involved in a personal gambling/false name/gambling debts judgments scandal. Only the most diehard straight party line voters will pick him-my wild prediction is that the GOP candidate will get 10-15% of the vote. Lieberman has a huge campaign war chest ($10M), is one of the best known politicians in the state and is generally highly respected. Lieberman also has the support of essentially all the Democratic party elite, at least tacitly (most said they wouldn't support him -actively-if he didn't get the nomination. CT voters have a strong history of weak party affiliation (the majority of voters aren't affiliated at all) and voting for third parties (Weicker won as governor as an independent about a decade ago). We vote for the person first and party second.
Unless something drastically changes between now and election day, I'm predicting an extremely close race between Lamont and Lieberman.
This primary result should be common in our system, not the rarity it is. When elected officials do not, or will not, represent the interests and wishes of their constituents, they should be shown the door. One of the major reasons our government is in such sad shape today is because this doesn't happen often enough.
First, let's flash back to last year before the Lamont campaign began. Lieberman had nearly a 70% approval rating in the CT, despite his adamant cheerleading for the war (more below), which was way out of step with most of the CT voters. At that time, there was serious discussion in the state GOP of cross-endorsing Lieberman and not even to bother running a sacrificial lamb against him.
Why did Lieberman lose/ Several reasons:
(1) Most importantly, I think, but rarely discussed (except by Chris Matthews last night on local TV) is that Lieberman has essentially abandoned any pretense of representing CT and has again become a so-called national politician. His contempt for local interests has been very disquieting to many, to say the least. During the current campaign, he repeatedly claimed that it was his single-handed efforts that got the sub base at Groton off the base closure list. Lieberman claimed it was his personal relationship with a federal big shot that made the difference. That's total BS, and nearly everyone in CT knew it. The base was saved through a strong bipartisan effort of many politicians, at the local, state and federal level. By claiming credit for himself, Lieberman alienated many of the local politicians, not a good move.
(2) Lieberman's involvement with the Iraq war is not as an occasional cheerleader/supporter for GWB, but rather he has-since the start-been one of the strongest and most strident voices pushing the war. He has a very deep loyalty to Israel, and this voter at least, feels he was motivated by his perception that this war would help Israel first and secondarily, maybe the US too.
(3) The voters of CT (GOP, Dem or independent-and remember more than half the voters here are unaffiliated) are strongly against the Iraq war, and have been so essentially since the beginning. Lieberman's response has been to lecture us. The USA is a republican form of government, and I'm voting to elect a public official that is most in accord with my wishes. I'm not voting to elect a paternalistic leader who will tell me what is best for my country.
(4) Lieberman touted - loudly and often - that he voted 90% of the time in accordance with the Democratic party. This may be true technically (I haven't checked it) but we CT voters are extremely familiar with his voting pattern-he will support GOP/Bush positions in the negotiations and crucial preliminary votes. Only when an issue is lost would Lieberman cast a show vote along party lines. I voted to select an effective representative, not someone going through the motions to build a voting record.
(5) Many pundits claim Lieberman is being punished for straying from the party line and seeking to compromise with Bush and the neocons. This could not be further from the truth. Many of us who voted against Lieberman this time voted for him repeatedly in the past and like the guy. He just doesn't represent our interests and views any more. CT is not a hotbed of radicals, it is a moderate state. For years, CT was considered basically a GOP state and was a leader of the GOP moderate faction of the party.
(6) Ned Lamont-Lieberman's opponent-comes across very well, in my opinion. Despite being vilified by Lieberman as a rich fat cat playing in politics, and despite all the local TV reporters love affair with Lieberman, Lamont comes across as sincere, intelligent and honest. Perhaps more importantly, he does not come across as a fire breathing radical freak. For many of us, this is like a real life Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Lamont stood up very well to Lieberman in the only pre-primary debate Lieberman would allow. That debate was very telling, as Lieberman was far more combative and on the attack than he was in the love-fest VP debates with Cheney in 2000 or in any of the presidential candidate debates Lieberman was in during the 2004 primaries.
But don't count Lieberman out yet, not by a long shot. The GOP candidate for senate is a total joke-he has no money, no name recognition and is involved in a personal gambling/false name/gambling debts judgments scandal. Only the most diehard straight party line voters will pick him-my wild prediction is that the GOP candidate will get 10-15% of the vote. Lieberman has a huge campaign war chest ($10M), is one of the best known politicians in the state and is generally highly respected. Lieberman also has the support of essentially all the Democratic party elite, at least tacitly (most said they wouldn't support him -actively-if he didn't get the nomination. CT voters have a strong history of weak party affiliation (the majority of voters aren't affiliated at all) and voting for third parties (Weicker won as governor as an independent about a decade ago). We vote for the person first and party second.
Unless something drastically changes between now and election day, I'm predicting an extremely close race between Lamont and Lieberman.
This primary result should be common in our system, not the rarity it is. When elected officials do not, or will not, represent the interests and wishes of their constituents, they should be shown the door. One of the major reasons our government is in such sad shape today is because this doesn't happen often enough.
13Gigatons
Diamond Member
- Apr 19, 2005
- 7,461
- 500
- 126
I've heard Lamonts dad was a card carrying communist, but I don't know for sure.
Also strange that only 6 years ago he was a Dem darling as vp choice
If this is a referendum on the war this doesnt look promising for the democrats when a pro-war stance democrat is barely beat in a primary, voted in by dedicated democrats.
Not to mention he is running as an independent, I love it. Democrat leadership screws lieberman, lieberman screws the democrat leadership.
From what I can tell he could split the democrat vote and may take some republican, but the repuplican candidate should keep his base.
Not to mention he is running as an independent, I love it. Democrat leadership screws lieberman, lieberman screws the democrat leadership.
From what I can tell he could split the democrat vote and may take some republican, but the repuplican candidate should keep his base.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
That seems like a curious and fundamentally flawed piece of analysis. Lieberman is one of the most powerful Democrats in the Senate, and many (possibly most) of the Democrats in Connecticut are relatively centrist themselves. Lamont was fighting a tremendous amount of inertia in that respect, hence the reason it is all but unheard of for an incumbent senator to lose a primary, unless he's under indictment or something similar. This is only the 20th time it's happened since 1960. If this were as simple as a referendum on the war, I have to believe the war would lose by a landslide in Connecticut (just as it has in national polling).
As for how Lieberman reacts to this, your guess is as good as mine, and his reaction will show us a lot about his integrity. I don't think it's fair or accurate, though, to say the Democratic leadership" screwed him - this was a primary, and the Democrats of Connecticut felt he had moved away from their values. I don't see how it's indicative of the posture of the party as a whole, particularly since so many powerful Democrats came out in support of Lieberman. If he wins the general election then starts voting the Republican party line on things (which I doubt), it won't, IMO, be because he feels emotionally wounded by the Democrats.
Eh, not so sure about that one. I'm in the 2 but I'm quite aware of the Democrats near total lack of vision and original thought. I'm just resigned to the preponderence of evidence that its nearly impossible for the Democrats to be worse than Bush/GOP.
Having said that . . . I don't want to see Democrats with large majorities in the House and Senate . . . ever. Given a little time and too much power I'm inclined to believe they would devolve into having visions and original thoughts that are just as bad . . . just different from the Republicans.
I've always believed Gore did not land slide Bush in 2000 because of Lieberman on the ticket.
And, now, as all can see, this war has had its time. Most Americans DO NOT think we should keep our troops there PERIOD!
The war is going to be a HUGE issue in this next election, and even though "we all support our troops", thats NOT supporting this war.
And AMERICANS KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, even though "some" Republicans and ALL right wing talk radio/TV would like to pretend its one issue lumped together.
As far as this BUSH war goes, its dead, over, and Americans are done with it!!!
We were lied to , to get us there, lied to every step of the way, and FINALLY the majority of Americans HAVE FIGURED THAT OUT (and figured out Bush too, for all that matter).
And, now, as all can see, this war has had its time. Most Americans DO NOT think we should keep our troops there PERIOD!
The war is going to be a HUGE issue in this next election, and even though "we all support our troops", thats NOT supporting this war.
And AMERICANS KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, even though "some" Republicans and ALL right wing talk radio/TV would like to pretend its one issue lumped together.
As far as this BUSH war goes, its dead, over, and Americans are done with it!!!
We were lied to , to get us there, lied to every step of the way, and FINALLY the majority of Americans HAVE FIGURED THAT OUT (and figured out Bush too, for all that matter).
Well Faux News is doing their full court press on this issue as was expected, they are claiming how he's a working class guy and that all working class people voted for him and how this is a triumph of the leftist commies who won't stop until America is destroyed.
Propaganda is still alive and well at Faux, they report, they decide.
Propaganda is still alive and well at Faux, they report, they decide.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
I think it definitely says something that Liberman's biggest supporters seem to be Republicans . . .
Thank you Thump, it's great to hear a perspective from a CT voter. I've modified my views of the race, and this one should be very interesting indeed.
Another 'Israel-firster' bites the dust.
One step closer now to putting America back in our control.
One step closer now to putting America back in our control.
Kudos to Joe - he's one of the few democrats who actually thinks independently for himself; he's not just a left wing parrot willing to tow the party line just because it's the party line. We need more people like him. Way too much vitriol in the Democratic party though.
can't wait for the showdown in '08 - it's going to be one of the most hate filled, venom spewing, scum sucking races of all time - thanks to the Democratic party.
Rock the vote, indeed.
can't wait for the showdown in '08 - it's going to be one of the most hate filled, venom spewing, scum sucking races of all time - thanks to the Democratic party.
Rock the vote, indeed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter