2006 Mid-Term Elections

[Galactus]

I don't think it's soley about the war, Lieberman made huge mistake politically when he started talking about supporting Bush for the next three years. Everyone of his liberal creditials flew out the window becuase the democrats entire platform consists of opposing Bush.

Personally I think Lieberman's pretty conservative, I thought that when he was Gore's wingman. Honestly I don't really care whether he wins or loses...in CT they're more likely to vote for the democratic nom reguardless of who that happens to be. Lieberman's problem isn't supporting the war though it's all his support Bush crazy talk.

[Mary]

I don't really understand the "contradiction" that you are pointing to, Chrisfan. I also think you have to put yourself in the mindset of a voter who considers the war in Iraq not just a mistake, but a total fucking atrocity and catastrophe. In that context, it doesn't matter if Lieberman votes with the Democratic Party 99% of the time (besides, if any Connecticut voters are like me, who gives a shit?? I could give two shits about "party loyalty" to the frickin Democrats!! No hypocrisy there...) I suspect you wouldn't vote for a Republican who agreed with the Republicans on 90% of the issues but also happened to be a virulent, outspoken racist. I'm not saying that's the same offense as supporting the war in Iraq, but it's only to demonstarte that sometimes it's not illogical to allow one issue to trump others and to control your voting decisions. Besides - if Lamont can be trusted to vote the same as Lieberman on all the issues you claim Lieberman is a liberal on, why on earth wouldn't people vote for Lamont instead of Lieberman, when Lamont scores all the same points as Lieberman and opposes the war in Iraq?? You lose nothing and gain a HUGE thing, from the perspective of an antiwar Democrat.

As for supporting third parties and increasing our options in a democracy, starting your own completely fabricated party just to salvage your defeat in a mainstream primary hardly qualifies as a meaningful expansion of our democratic options. Lieberman has been in power forever and practically has "MAINSTREAM" stamped across his forehead. Just because he's now running in the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party instead of the Democratic Party doesn't suddenly make him a fresh outsider with new ideas representing additional perspectives outside the two-party system. Calling yourself something else is just a rhetorical game - it's having different ideas which actually matters, and Lieberman has all the same ideas he's always had, and those ideas simply represent a totally predictable mishmash of Democratic and Republican ideas. The Greens and the Libertarians actually bring something different to the table - "Connecticut for Lieberman" does not.

Cheers,
M

[chrisfan]

mary said:

I don't really understand the "contradiction" that you are pointing to, Chrisfan. I also think you have to put yourself in the mindset of a voter who considers the war in Iraq not just a mistake, but a total fucking atrocity and catastrophe. In that context, it doesn't matter if Lieberman votes with the Democratic Party 99% of the time (besides, if any Connecticut voters are like me, who gives a shit?? I could give two shits about "party loyalty" to the frickin Democrats!! No hypocrisy there...) I suspect you wouldn't vote for a Republican who agreed with the Republicans on 90% of the issues but also happened to be a virulent, outspoken racist. I'm not saying that's the same offense as supporting the war in Iraq, but it's only to demonstarte that sometimes it's not illogical to allow one issue to trump others and to control your voting decisions.

Mary, I can't really say that I disagree with any of this. But in contradicts the ideals that people say they want. Why do we hear over and over again things like "Vote the incumbants out" and "Don't support the candidates who buy their way into office" but we don't see it actually getting done? Because it's not that simple. When your choices are the guy who didn't buy his way into office vs the guy who has the same stand on you on the one issue that matters more than any other ... then suddenly the ability to buy your way into office doesn't matter. Is that a bad thing? No. If anything, the bad thing is the idealistic rhetoric that is trumpeted over and over again, but not really meant, in a realistic manner, by anyone.

[Kensterberg]

This is an editorial in today's NY Times (or at least on its web site).

Editorial
Revenge of the Irate Moderates
Published: August 9, 2006
The defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman at the hands of a little-known Connecticut businessman is bound to send a message to politicians of both parties that voters are angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq. The primary upset was not, however, a rebellion against the bipartisanship and centrism that Mr. Lieberman said he represented in the Senate. Instead, Connecticut Democrats were reacting to the way those concepts have been perverted by the Bush White House.

Ned Lamont, a relative political novice, said he ran against Mr. Lieberman because he was offended by the senator’s sunny descriptions of what was happening in Iraq and his denunciation of Democrats who criticized the administration’s handling of the war. Many other people in Connecticut may have felt that sense of frustration, but no one else had the money and moxie to do what Mr. Lamont did. Mr. Lieberman was stunned to find himself on the defensive, and it was only in the last few weeks that the 18-year veteran mounted a desperate campaign to reclaim his party’s support.

Senator Lieberman says he will run as an independent in November, taking on Mr. Lamont and the Republican, Alan Schlesinger. Mr. Schlesinger is a very weak candidate, but Mr. Lieberman should consider the risk of splitting his party if the Republicans are able to convince Mr. Schlesinger to drop out of the race in favor of a stronger nominee.

Mr. Lieberman’s supporters have tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. It’s hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it’s hard to imagine Mr. Lamont, who worked happily with the Republicans in Greenwich politics, leading that kind of revolution.

The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president’s choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration’s contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.

Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person’s right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.

When Mr. Lieberman told The Washington Post, “I haven’t changed. Events around me have changed,” he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting the nation’s basic traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Well, Lieberman is Jewish and according to some sources, they are responsible for all of the wars in the world.

(it's a joke, don't go getting crazy on me.)

[kmc]

Skvor hates Jews!

[kmc]

I think the most telling deal about Lieberman was the way wingos like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson were so intent on seeing him beat Lamont. Face it: if Lieberman was the best thing for the Democrats, Sean Hannity would never have endorsed him.

[rockysigman]

Actually, I've heard some speculation, and it sort of makes some sense, that Hannity's plan in endorsing Lieberman was actually to help Lamont to win the primary.

And it does sort of make sense. There are very few registered Democrats in Hannity's audience, and even fewer who would vote in the primary. He wasn't expecting anyone to vote for Lieberman because of his endorsement. However, Hannity knows full well how much many liberals hate him, and the publicity around his endorsement could have edged a few undecideds towards Lamont.

Hannity, of course, has known for quite a while that Lieberman would run as an independent if he failed to get the Democratic nomination, therefore splitting the Democratic ticket and helping a Republican to get the seat.

This supposed plan would work a whole lot better, of course, if the Connecticut Republican party put up a more viable candidate than the one that they have up now. And of course all of this is just speculation anyway. But I think it's interesting to think about.

[chrisfan]

I agree with the first half of your post Rocky. I think that Hannity was pushing for Lieberman in order to swing things to LaMont. But I don't think the desired outcome is what you've said. I don't think that even Hannity is clueless enough to believe a Republican could get elected to the Senate from Connecticut.

Rather, I think the desire of Republicans is to force Democrats to send in their big hitters to all take firm stands against the war. This race is going to remain on the national stage, and Lamont has no choice now but to keep the tone exactly as it has been thus far - a declaration of where each person stands on the war. Republicans conceded Connecticut a long long long time ago. But having this race go this direction in Connecticut forces the entire Democratic party to take what the Republicans will paint (rightly or wrongly) as a cut and run position on the war. That stand won't hurt them in Connecticut. But Republicans like Hannity are banking on it hurting them across the rest of the country.

[poseidon]

Lieberman's decision to go Independent will cost the Democratic party this senatorial win.

Leiberman is a poor loser and rather than back the winner of the party he has always been aligned to, he is being petty and pathetic.

Theres no way he will win as an Independent and he knows it.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Proves my point that most Senators are not really into it for the ideals, but merely for themselves and their own sense of power.

[kmc]

poseidon said:

Lieberman's decision to go Independent will cost the Democratic party this senatorial win.

Leiberman is a poor loser and rather than back the winner of the party he has always been aligned to, he is being petty and pathetic.

Theres no way he will win as an Independent and he knows it.

Lieberman won't do squat to the Democrats. Chrisfan is right, a Democratic giraffe stands a better chance than the Republican does in CT.

[chrisfan]

Hey man, don't go knockin the giraffes! Even I'd vote for a giraffe over a Republican.

[poseidon]

chrisfan said:

Hey man, don't go knockin the giraffes! Even I'd vote for a giraffe over a Republican.

I thought you were a die-hard Republican Chris ...you did vote for our current President.

[KayJay]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

Well, Lieberman is Jewish and according to some sources, they are responsible for all of the wars in the world.

(it's a joke, don't go getting crazy on me.)

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!