Connecticut (Lamont voters excluded), you stupid motherfuckers!

[BurtWorm]

What is wrong with your eyes and brains that they could't catch up to Lieberman's game until now, when it's too fuggin' late!

The sad state of affairs, so to speak, is analyzed at Down with Tyranny:

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/05/buyers-remorse-in-connecticut-big-time.html

Many Connecticut voters are seething that Joe Lieberman lied to them, blatantly, when he conducted his "independent" camapign for Senate last year (having been defeated by Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary). Even with the tacit support of Bush, Cheney and Rove dog-whistling Republicans all over the state that Lieberman was their man, Lieberman still needed low-info Democrats to vote for him. By lying to the public about his affinity to Democratic positions-- especially on Iraq-- and with the help of Bill Clinton, the nonchalance of Chuck Schumer and the DSCC, and the active support from a small handful of reactionary Democratic colleagues, Lieberman pulled it off. Connecticut, one of only 6 states where Bush's disapproval rating is greater than 70%, elected Bush and Cheney's most loyal supporter.

And they're stuck with him... for six years. And there is no recall. Yesterday two newspapers in Connecticut that had each endorsed his re-election effort had some heavy second thoughts. The Connecticut Post castigated local Democrats for abandoning their party to work for Lieberman and, in effect, assisting in bringing control of the Senate back to the GOP. "Surprising no one, Sen. Joe Lieberman has announced he will campaign and raise money for his good friend Sen. Susan Collins, of Maine. Collins is a Republican, and if she wins next year, it could go a long way toward putting her party back in control of the Senate. Elections have consequences. Congress is this year finally holding hearings and trying to get answers from a White House that rules by executive fiat. President Bush will be gone after next year's election, but investigators will be sorting through the wreckage of his presidency for years. Restoring to power a party dedicated to looking the other way is bad for the country."

The Post writer, Hugh Bailey, is mortified at the grab for one party rule the Bush Regime pulled with the politicization of the Department of Justice and "the rest of the federal bureaucracy." He's is appalled by Lieberman's self-centered, career-long "it's-all-about-me" attitude, his proto-Republican stance and by his assistance to the GOP's efforts to regain power by re-electing the quintessential rubber stamp Collins over progressive Democrat Tom Allen.

We'll never know what kind of senator Ned Lamont would have made, but we can be sure he wouldn't have spent time and money campaigning for Republicans. Elections have consequences, and all local Democrats who stuck with Lieberman and turned against their own party should be reminded of what their support has brought them-- no oversight, no meaningful investigations from his committee and active support for Republicans.

[katsy]

1. k/r

[wildbilln864]

2. And another K&R! #4 n/t

[Stephanie]

3. KR5

nuff said. whiny MF.

[libnnc]

4. Where are the Lieberman apologists now?

Where? I know they lurk here on the boards.

Defend this lousy muthafucker NOW.

Waiting...

[Blue_Tires]

6. ((crickets))

[DWilliamsamh]

45. Sound of water lapping against the lake shore (n/t)

[ejbr]

56. I think they are too FUCKIN' dumb to understand your question. n/t

[Coexist]

64. I concur.

[ozymandius]

72. Probably tossed their sock puppets awhile back

so they can work for Susan Collins and other apologists for this tyrannical regime.

[JanusAscending]

81. There is no sufficient defense of him or themselves!!

That's probably why you won't hear from too many of them. Shit, I stopped going to my Dem. Town Comm. meetings because they backed Lieberman, because "he was a pretty religous guy"!!! (that was from a school teacher here in Thomaston) Give me a freakin' break!! How stupid is stupid ??? My God!! Well they got what they asked for , and deserve, but what about the ripple effect across the whole nation???? Does this show us how important 1 vote can be?? or one little "blue state"???? If nothing else, it should teach us a good lesson in Civics, and that even one person can make all the difference in the outcome.

[mzmolly]

5. Good grief.

Ned Lamont would have made a great Senator.

[farmboxer]

7. Lieberman is lower than low!

He makes me sick like Bush!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[ClintonTyree]

52. Not in my book it isn't.........

wish away, and I'll be wishing right along with you. LIEberman deserves the bad karma if anyone does. Unfortunately the lords of karma, god or whatever supreme power that is supposedly pulling the strings of the world is asleep at the wheel. There's been no response to a world on the brink of destruction.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[txaslftist]

61. Nothing new there.

Remember the USS Liberty? If you do, you are in a very distinct minority.

Our national blind spot toward Israel is an embarrassment.

[BurtWorm]

62. A higher percentage of Jews voted for Lamont than for Lieberman.

"Jews" as a group get a totally undeserved rap for being Likudbots. Most Jews, I feel very confident im saying, are more critical of Israel (because they're better informed on Israel) than Americans as a whole (who tend not to give a shit about anything overseas).

[Truth2Tell]

67. True, but

The power lobbies and the organized interests out in front of the "pro-Israel" cause still tend to be "Likudbots".

I think this is bound to change as the American Jews more critcal of Isreal build alternative institutions of power.. but it's moving slowly... and the neocon/Likudbots still weild much power in the U.S. congress - over Rs and Ds alike.

[LeftishBrit]

86. Actually, Lieberman owes his original election to quite an extent to anti-Castro Cuban-Americans...

who thought that his Republican opponent was too liberal on Cuba.

But of course 'the Jews control everything'.

Funny, I never thought that Blair was Jewish - and he crawls up Bush's arse even higher than Lieberman.

[Truth2Tell]

107. It's really amazing

how one can't even point out - even in the most understated and contextual way - the power of the right wing of the Jewish American lobby in U.S. politics, without having it thrown back as "the Jews control everything". Talk about keeping the third rail hot.

[LeftishBrit]

110. Perhaps because singling out an ethnic group for criticism, especially a small one

and implying that this group has some sort of disproportionate power over others is ALWAYS, INVARIABLY evil. No nuances or excuses are relevant here. It's ALWAYS evil!

The one exception is when the power is institutionalized and official. Even then one should attack racial segregation and race-based laws, not the race itself.

Siblings of my great-grandparents were murdered in Eastern Europe by people who'd become convinced that Jews as a group are disloyal and too powerful. It's not a harmless attitude.

And yes, it's not just Jews, and I feel just as strongly when Moslems or black people or Europeans or 'immigrants' are attacked for having some sinister power.

My government has been toadying up to your government for the last four years - would you therefore feel it justified for me to imply that Americans, and even those of American origin, in Britain have some sort of sinister power or that their loyalty as individuals should be suspected?

Why not just say that the RIGHT WING has become too powerful? It has.

And re these assumptions about right-wing Jewish influence: I went back to the Iraq War vote in the Senate, and then checked the backgrounds of the 23 senators who voted against the war. 5 of them were Jewish. Proportionately, this would mean that 22 senators would have to be Jewish - and I am quite sure there were not that many. So Jewish politicians voted *disproportionately* against the war. Jews and Jewish politicians are NOT right-wing or pro-war as a group. *Some* Jewish politicians are right-wing, as are some Irish-, Italian-, African-, Anglo-Americans, etc.

[Truth2Tell]

112. Who singled out an ethinc group?

I was mentioning (not even singling out) a coalition of interests groups representing one portion of the views of an ethnic group - not even the majority views I might add.

"My government has been toadying up to your government for the last four years -would you therefore feel it justified for me to imply that Americans, and even those of American origin, in Britain have some sort of sinister power or that their loyalty as individuals should be suspected?"

Of course not. But then, no one has said any such thing about anyone else here - or even implied it - so yours is a pretty silly point.

I think it's OK to mention some of the elements of the RIGHT WING, as you describe it - by that I mean the coalition of interests in American politics pressing for a more bellicose foreign policy. And the Lukudnik, neocon faction of the Israel lobby - which happens to be the most established and powerful of the factions - has indeed established disproportionate power.

And yes, they pass your litmus test for powers that kind be criticized: "the power is institutionalized and official" Indeed.

[bluestateguy]

9. Bipartisanship is overrated

There is a reason why we are supposed to have two parties, so that they can stand for different things and offer different things to the American people. The two parties would have crisp, clear differences on issues and policies. Then the American people sort it all out at election time. Ideally, that's how it would work.

But when the two parties decide to get all touchy feely and nice and cuddly with this bipartisanship and cooperation nonsense, voters become alienated and confused. Sure, bipartisanship may make wishy-washy independents feel all good inside, and the corporate media likes bipartisanship a lot too, but over the long-run voters start to sense that the two parties are not all that different from one another.

[hfojvt]

10. but partisanship just keeps things from getting done

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/19


PS - note to Connecticut voters. I tried to warn you! I tried to warn you!

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/39

[Swamp Rat]

11. I tried

:shrug:

[frylock]

66. one of your best pieces..

bravo!

[Seabiscuit]

12. The grotesque stupidity of the media and electorate is a wonder to behold...

even when local media admits its mistakes, but blames it on the voters, which the led like stupified lemings, down the path to destruction.

Lieberman's a symptom, not a cause.

[tavalon]

13. Why will we never know?

Lets make sure every Democrat who voted for Lieberman in 2006 rues their decision and Lamont can run again in 2012 and he will win. We just need to keep this in front of the Connecticut voters.

[bigscott]

14. I live in CT

I voted for Lamont - i was heartbroken when he lost - but more than that I was angered that in a supposedly well educated state many "democrats" bought this assholes line. He is a liar, and enabler and the biggest motherfucker in the Senate. We know we cannot recall him - but we NEED to make him irrelevant in 2008. Gain a couple more seats and then tell this douche bag to fuck off.

[Donnachaidh]

33. WHY can't you recall him?

And even if you can't -- it would send a HUGE message if someone in Connecticut put the call out anyway! Is anyone even talking about this in Connecticut?

[SarahB]

54. If I'm not mistaken, if recalled, our governor would appoint the successor.

Our governor is republican.

[NewJeffCT]

68. Recall does not apply to national seats like the Senate/House of Reps

I believe it's only a statewide initiative - governor, mayor, etc.

[Autumn Colors]

15. I voted for Lamont

I think there were a lot of CT republicans who voted for Lieberman (so THEY got exactly what they wanted).

[mindfulNJ]

17. Exactly!

When are you people going to stop blaming us CT Democrats for Lieberman? It was the REPUBS who got him elected here!

[calico1]

22. A lot of Republicans voted for him but

he could not have won without the support of the low info Democrats. You know, the ones who thought he was such a good man, the ones who didn't want to change because he had been in office so long, etc. I voted for Lamont and I don't want to hear anyone who voted for Lieberman to be complaining to me. Makes me sick.

[formercia]

16. They're in the same class as

the stupid fuckers that voted for Nader. Sometimes I think Social Hygene isn't such a bad idea.:sarcasm:

On edit, I put in the sarcasm thingie. Don't want to give people the idea that i'm serious.


But, then some people don't have the common sense to not procreate.

[90-percent]

18. lamont

wife and i voted, donated and yard signed.

Repubs supported Lieberman MORE THAN THEIR OWN CANDIDATE.

It still sucks and I hope CT learned something. I hope the whole electorate learned something.

-85% Jimmy

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[flyarm]

43. i would say you gnawed on your own hand and others hands who cared more about nation than

that little mother fucker you voted for...

that fucker is not a dem and has gone to the dark side and fucked this nation every way he could and can!!

its all about him and to hell with the american people and what we want!!

so who's hand did you gnaw on ??

i would suggest all of ours!!

fly

[Flirtus]

44. It's replies like this that give Tennessee a bad image

[DWilliamsamh]

47. I would say it's the other way around

Those who voted for Nader wanted a more progressive government and voted for Nader on that basis. While I can understand the motivation, what you all were too stupid and or obstinate to understand apparently was that every vote you cast for Nader was one more vote for the Idiot in Chief GWB, and against Al Gore. How does you choice look to you now, oh dim witted ones?

[tabasco]

50. Sure, and gullible republican voters wanted smaller government.

The problem is the gullibility.

[SarahB]

19. CT Democrats wanted Lamont.

He was the one who won the primary. I suppose there are some Democrats who voted for him, but SoreLieberman won due to Republicans and Independents. Our people spoke. In the primary. Once upon a time, primaries actually meant something.

[WI_DEM]

29. yes, but you also have to recall that Lieberman got 48% in the primary

and got about a third of the Democratic vote in the general election, too. So while a majority of Dem. voters in the primary voted against Joe, a sizable minority still supported the bastard.

[Atman]

20. We've been down this road before, but if you'll please excuse this CT dem...

When you're lied to and hoodwinked by a smoov con-man, are you a stupid motherfucker? Or are you the victim of a con, a scam?

I signed on with Lamont, voted for Lamont, etc, but your little disclaimer notwithstanding, why do you need to go on the attack at voters who actually believed the lying pos Lieberman? He was once a good Senator, and you have to take the "celebrity" effect into account. After all, like it or not, human nature is still human nature. People wanted to believe him because he genuinely comes across as a nice, kindly old guy. It's not the CT voters' "fault" that they were conned. Direct your ire where it will do some good. It's not like the "stupid motherfuckers" can take back their votes.

.

[BurtWorm]

25. You're right that the stupid motherfuckers can't take back their votes,

which is why they should have been more careful with them in the first place. Did they not know where Lieberman stood on the war and affection for the Bush admin? Did they not know it was diametrically opposed to where 70% of CT is on both of those fronts? Did Lieberman really mislead them into believing he was going to stop behaving predictably like a rubberstamper for all things Bushian on the matter of Iraq?

But of course my ire is directly focused on fuckhead Lieberman--where it's been for the last four years at the very least. But I can't let voters from one of the best-educated states in the country off the hook for making one great big motherfucker of a mistake that isn't just affecting them. It's affecting all of us--and the whole world--because they didn't take their vote seriously enough. Shame on those now undergoing "buyer's remorse." They were fairly warned and they were just too pigheaded to pay attention.

[mmonk]

21. Ct ended up being a swing state for the republicans

and bush and Cheney. I think Chris Dodd was also happy he could help bring about the republican victory, am I not correct?

[JanusAscending]

85. SAY WHAT????

or in other words, SHOW ME THE sarcasm sign, or I'll show you the door!! You are jerking our chain, right??

[lonestarnot]

23. K & fucking R

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

24. And let us not forget the dem politicians who

supported LIEberman after the primary - both the national and state ones. Our jacka** dem leader James Amann for one

[hayu_lol]

26. Hey guys, save a few brickbats for the state of Maryland...

for keeping Steny Hoyer in office.

Doesn't matter who actually voted for Lieberman--CT gets the same black eye that Florida/Greens got for giving us Bush. And Maryland for Steny Hoyer--the next Zell Miller.

[formercia]

28. We will get to MD soon enough.

What really counts this time around is the primaries. It won't do any good to have another Democratic majority if we elect candidates in the primaries who are going to be Gunga Dins for Junior. We need to identify the graduates of the Arlen Specter School of Political Duplicity and out them at the most opportune time and kick them back under the rock they crawled out from.

[Donnachaidh]

34. they wouldn't have had him to support if the voters had voted AGAINST him.

Chicken and egg argument.

[hvn_nbr_2]

27. Stupid is as stupid does.

The stupidity of those having second thoughts now is exceeded only by the stupidity of those who aren't yet having second thoughts.

[MaryRN]

30. I voted for Lamont...

and worked 24/7 to try to get voters to understand what they were doing if they cast their vote for Lieman.

From the very start, I warned not only the Lamont campaign but every, single person I'd encounter that Holy Joe was NOT who they thought AND that the RNC was in bed with him from the very beginning.

Please don't lump us altogether in the same boat. There truly ARE some of us who are absolutely devastated that this quizzling remained in office and appears to be staying. There is no insult too low for him. Not a week goes by where his staff doesn't have to listen to elaborate and detailed rants from me.

[BurtWorm]

31. Believe me, this is not against Lamont voters, who I know are in agony.

Because I am in agony, and I don't even live in Connecticut. I tried to make clear that it's not you but the rest of the electorate in your state that owes the nation and the world an apology for falling asleep at the switch at the worst possible moment.

[madrchsod]

32. hugh-there already is a one party rule.

joe is`t the problem it`s the "party" that is the problem. those who do not follow the "party" line are marginalized.

[LoZoccolo]

35. Lamont supporters /helped/ Lieberman get elected!

What happens when you push your opponent as "a Republican"? Republicans start voting for him!

They should have pushed him as the 90% Democrat he was, pushing more Republicans to Schlesinger and taking away votes from Lieberman, while emphasizing Lamont's stance as different within the 10% where Lieberman agreed with the Republicans. Then we might have seen Lamont win.

I don't have time to look it up now, but the three-way poll numbers gave a lot more to Schlesinger, before the primary and the "Lieberman is a Republican" rhetoric.

Sorry "blogosphere" and "netroots", this is what happens when amateurs bring checkers to a chess game! Hope it felt good to rage and rage and not think about what you were doing, because that's all it turned out it was good for.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

36. You could sort of see this was going to happen waaay before election day.

I had the feeling this was going to be the result.

[BurtWorm]

37. Bullshit

http://www.baltimoregroupblog.com/2006/07/25/ct-sen-rasmussen-breakdown/



This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 25th, 2006 at 2:23 pm. (The primary was August 8.)

[Hippo_Tron]

39. So Lieberman's Republican support was all because the blogosphere painted him as a Republican...

And nothing to do with the fact that the White House and the Connecticut Republican Party supported Lieberman over Schlesinger.
:eyes:

The netroots may have helped Lamont's campaign get off the ground, but you give them far too much credit for shaping the outcome of that election.

[gaspee]

42. The republicans voted for lieberman

Because he's an unapologetic war hawk.

[KamaAina]

48. "the three-way poll numbers gave a lot more to Schlesinger"

before the primary and the "Lieberman is a Republican" rhetoric.

Oh yes, and before his running up gambling debts under an assumed name made headlines.

Then again, why is it that CT repukes keep nominating weaklings like that to run against Traitor Joe in the first place? Remember who ran against him in 2000? Now-disgraced ex-Waterbury mayor "Pedo" Phil Giordano!

[SarahB]

88. No, it's more like people

who kept professing how we should stay with the status quo and the uninformed who think it's easier to not think and follow that advice.

Now we're left with a majority who continually have to bend over to this guy. Some people actively followed our conscience and worked to attempt to make changes. Lieberman may have had a 90% Democratic record. Unfortunately where he faltered was with crucial issues of foreign policy affecting the mortality and morbidity of thousands, if not millions looking at it globally, of people. Some of us don't think that's a minor thing.

[npincus]

38. Buyer's remorse-- too bad.

[gaspee]

41. k+r

[Norquist Nemesis]

46. The Senate should go ahead and call his bluff

When it comes down to it, HE will lose more than anyone.

[9thkvius]

49. I almost want to feel sorry for the Lieberman supporters...

but I can't. I just can't. Either through willful ignorance, blind loyalty to an incumbent, or just plain ol' stupidity, you bought yourselves a real lemon, and now ALL of us are paying for it. Just like the faulty justifications for the Iraq war itself (which of course Lieberman himself supports blindly through some sort of cognitive dissonance to reality), all the evidence was there, and all you had to do is look for it. And yet you didn't. Lamont tried to tell you. People from around the country tried to tell you. The fact that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Malkin, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of the gang all cheerleaded for Lieberman's reelection wasn't enough of a clue for you. Now we are stuck with a guy who may as well be a Republican. What good is he doing? Like I mentioned in another post, I have yet to read about Lieberman's committee in the Senate doing any real investigations since he took it over. I see stuff about Waxman's equivalent committee in the House all the time. Lieberman apparently wants to stay with us just so he can keep his seniority and cling to his apparently meaningless committee chairmanship.

[memory]

51. totally unfathomable

I put this in the category of things I will never understand along with most of the Democrats here in Oklahoma voting against their own interests to elect people like Inhofe and Coburn.

I think it almost a kind of hypnotism, in that you can wave one or two things in front of some people and that is all they can focus on and vote about.

I have literally stood on street corners holding signs trying to get people to wake up, which of course has no effect other than making me feel a little better by flashing peace signs at people flipping me off.

I had felt recently that things were at least shifting slowly to a place where there would be a kind of mass awakening and apathy would be replaced with outrage in ENOUGH people to truly effect change.

Now, I just don't know if that is even possible.

Not giving up here....just really discouraged:(

[Deep13]

53. No goddam kidding!

This his how he repays the party for nominating him to be the nation's first Jewish VP? I'm guessing he is no longer on Al Gore's speed dial.

[BlooInBloo]

55. Fucking fuckwipe Connecticut electorate.

[mhatrw]

57. Kick! n/t

[The Wizard]

58. Holy Joe

is a disgrace to his religion and should have his foreskin reattached by the renowned penis surgeon, Dick Cheney, but only after Cheney's had a few drinks to steady his nerves.

[Initech]

59. Cant say I feel sorry for them, they knew he was a lying asshole.

And if they *DO* manage a recall, I hope it escalates to where it becomes a national media circus like California's did.

[KingFlorez]

63. It's time to move on

Lamont lost, Lieberman won, so it's time to let it go. And it's not like he's raising money for all Republicans, he's only raising money for one that's not an extremist.

[Skidmore]

65. Can they recall him?

[Aanya]

69. Lieberman is a sorry excuse

I've been saying for a long while now, that Lieberman has a massive hard on, over Al Gore not supporting his run for the Presidency in early 04. Gore insulted him, and so did all the rest of us. He'll show us all! If we just piss him off a little bit more, he's taking his ball and moving to the GOP! That'll fix us! Liebermann needs a serious ailment that requires immediate retirement! Nothing fatal, I want him around to think about what he did!

[BlooInBloo]

70. Goddamn shitforbrrainsfuckmop Connecticut electorate.

(It feels better to say it 3-5 times/day)

[BurtWorm]

83. I know how you feel!

;)

[bluerum]

71. Same thing that got MA to vote Romney for governor. It's called head

up orifice syndrome.

[cosmicdot]

73. Politicians endorsing Lieberman in 2006

and, some are seeking the Democratic nomination for president (or might want to be the VP on the ticket) ...

* Former President Bill Clinton, who campaigned for Lieberman in Waterbury on July 24
* U.S. Senator Chris Dodd
* U.S. Senator and Minority Leader Harry Reid
* CA Senator Barbara Boxer, who campaigned for Lieberman on July 24
(elections indeed have consequences)
* DE Senator Joe Biden, HA Senator Daniel Inouye, CO Senator Ken Salazar, who campaigned for Lieberman on July 31
* NY Senator Hillary Clinton
* IL Senator Barack Obama
* IN Senator Evan Bayh
* NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg
* DE Senator Tom Carper
* CA Senator Diane Feinstein
* OR Senator Mark Pryor
* OR Senator Ron Wyden
* NE Senator Ben Nelson
* CT Representative Rosa DeLauro
* CT Representative John Larson
* CT Lt. Governor Kevin Sullivan
* CT Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz
* CT State Comptroller Nancy Wyman
* CT State Treasurer Denise Nappier
* Former Democratic Party Chair John Olson
* All of Connecticut's State Democratic Legislators
* All Democratic CT candidates for U.S. Congress
* Both Democratic CT candidates for Governor
* Republican Congressman Christopher Shays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Endorsements_for_Joe_Lieberman_in_the_2006_Connecticut_Senate_Race

[ecstatic]

74. They were probably scared Lamont wouldn't have the votes. A common theme

For some reason, every major f*ck up in this party can be traced back to some irrational fear of "not having the votes."

[skyblue]

77. Well lets see best president "Teddy Roosevelt" and the "started from scratch" didn't fly so well

so sure that he couldn't win. dislike Lieberman for sure, but hope for a candidate other than Lamont in the future. Lamont doesn't have what it takes to win. Oh, I forgot the "I'm Jimmy Stewart" commercial. Sorry, no.

[Cha]

75. Yeah, ya Dipshits..

Why didn't ya just go for gusto and take a chance on moi?~~!

[Morgana LaFey]

76. Why no recall?? nt

[BlooInBloo]

79. Because of the jackass fuckwipe Connecticut electorate.

[LeftishBrit]

87. What about the jackass fuckwipe electorates who voted in 49 Republican senators?

And no, I'm not being smug; we haven't done too well here in Britain since 1979.

But it doesn't seem to me to be just Connecticut.

[BlooInBloo]

89. Criticism is only worthwhile when you *expected* better in the first place.

[Morgana LaFey]

109. Okay, now we know who to blame, can we find out what they did?

Specifically, what they did to make a recall impossible???????

I'd be ever so appreciative. But ONLY if it's not too much trouble.

[supermodel]

78. so true

You are so right. When Lamont was leading in the primary I thought that this was the chance to can his ass. I was appalled on election night when the dumb ass citizens there elected this republican wannabe back it. SUckers.

[IndianaGreen]

80. "Lieberman still needed low-info Democrats to vote for him".

What is a "low-info" Democrat? Someone that is intellectually lazy, or someone that doesn't want to deal with reality?

[BurtWorm]

82. Yes.

;)

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[LeftishBrit]

91. Huh?

'the Jews we have to fear are the ones that are Jewish first, and Americans somewhere down the list'

That is a scary remark! You sound like Norman Tebbit talking about British Asians. If you think that Jews in particular should have their loyalty questioned if they support policies that you don't, then sorry, but it IS anti-semitic. If you have the same distrust of the loyalty of Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc, then it is frighteningly xenophobic.

And I can't believe I'm defending Republicans, but frankly I'm worried about your implying that Republicans in general are placing their party over their country. Yes, I don't agree with Republicans or Tories, but once one starts suspecting those who have a different political viewpoint from one's own of 'disloyalty', then one is on the road to a mirror-image of McCarthyism, or Bushite accusations of being 'anti-American' if you don't support the war.

People should only be accused of disloyalty if they engage in clearly disloyal actions - selling state secrets; enabling terrorism; and yes, outing a CIA agent for political reasons could count.

[BurtWorm]

95. I agree with everything you say re: xenophobia.

However, I don't know how close-up a view you've gotten of American Republicans in the 1990s and 2000s. I actually think it's fair to say they put party over country, and even naive to believe they don't. If you doubt this, pay close attention to the scandals around the US attorneys: It's all about rigging the system to get and keep Republicans in office and Democrats--especially ethnic ones--out of the polling booths, despite the fact that Repubs are and always will be a minority in the electorate.

[LeftishBrit]

102. I agree that people like Bush and his brother and Cheney certainly did...

I was treating the comment as referring to ordinary Republican voters. Yes, certainly Jeb Bush's and Katherine Harris' subversion of democracy was putting party before country. I wouldn't say the same of all Bush-voters however. I would call them idiots, but that's another matter.

Re Lieberman, I realized in 1988 - from 3000 miles away - that he wasn't much of a Dem, and nothing he's done since has convinced me otherwise.

[BurtWorm]

105. I lived in CT in 1988 and I had the chance to vote for Lieberman then

and voted for Lowell Weicker, the Republican, instead--the only time I've ever voted for a Republican (knowingly) in my 47 years. I believe what turned me off then was "tough talk" on the death penalty. Since then I've been turned off by his smug sanctimony and tendency to bring god into everything.

You could be right about most rank and file Republicans. I think the fact that so many are extreme right-wingers who loathe democracy as much as they do Democrats suggests that a shockingly large percentage would gladly sell the country out to the next foreign power to come along if it meant they could disenfranchise all Democrats and liberals. They truly hate us for our freedom.

[BurtWorm]

92. Lamont's ads never got any better either. But I think the main cause of the loss.

was the failure of the Big Dems to get solidly behind Lamont. The same big Dems are fucking up the supplemental vote now.

As to your remarks about "the Jew thing," I don't buy them. Lieberman and his posse tried to make a vote against him anti-Semitic. I think the best response to that vile nonsense is not to play the ball back. I always get nauseated when I find people hitting it back anyway.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

94. Your post is an anti-Semitic piece of trash

The whole dual-loyalty thing is very Protocols.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[LeftishBrit]

99. Don't you see the difference between opposing the actions/policies of another COUNTRY

and accusing citizens of your own country of dual loyalty on the grounds of their ethnicity?

How would you like it if I said that people of American descent in Britain should be treated as more suspect than other people? And the US government has a LOT more influence on the British government (especially in the last 4 years) than Israel does over America or any other country!

I think we can all agree that Stalin was a very bad man and a serious danger to his own country and to others. Did that justify McCarthy accusing American left-wingers/ liberals of being disloyal?

There are some Islamic terrorists and some hostile Moslem-led countries in the world. Does that justify treating British and American Moslems as potentially disloyal unless proven otherwise?

I'm getting sick of this idea that if anyone objects to suspecting Jews in America (or Britain, etc.) of dual loyalty, then they are 'stopping anyone from criticizing Israel'. What has one to do with the other? Most American Jews have never even lived in Israel; many have never even been there.

Actually I'm not *getting* sick of it - I've *always* been sick of it - but I hadn't expected to find this undemocratic, illiberal, racist attitude on a liberal board.

(I am highly critical of Israel; but then I'm highly critical of everywhere - I don't believe in making exceptions for or against a country. Except that I criticize my own government the most, as I'm one of their bosses.)

And Israel is not the reason why America is in free-fall. Bush is the reason why America is in free-fall.

[ooglymoogly]

98. correction I meant Israelis first. If memory serves. Lieberman, like many others

has duel citizenship.

[LeftishBrit]

100. No, he doesn't

I've checked that, as it seemed unlikely that he could have run for VP if he had dual citizenship. And he doesn't.

This is apparently based on a confusion between 'right of return' and dual citizenship. The Israeli government permits all Jews to get Israeli citizenship if they wish to. This generally means that they would need to renounce their other country's citizenship. Most people don't and don't want to. It's a right to what might be called fast-track refugee status if needed, rather than dual citizenship. In any case, it's an Israeli law, and has nothing to do with the choice of individual Jews.

I know this, as I have both the right of return as the daughter of a Jewish mother, AND dual British/Canadian citizenship, and I know they are very different things.

[BurtWorm]

103. I doubt that he does.

Do you have something to back that up?

[jgraz]

84. Can we please kick this shitstain out of the Democratic Caucus?

It disgusts me to think that this subhuman holds a committee chair. Make him crawl to the rethugs if he wants some power.

[ooglymoogly]

93. exactly, we are a majority in fantacy only

Lie-berman is a repuke through and through. Better to kick the mofuck out and let the chips fall where they may....but then Reid might lose his Pope like status. At this stage we do not have control of the Senate. That fantasy is just a hot air balloon that gives thugman more power that he would not have if he were just kicked out to slither over to the repuke snakes nest where a snake amongst snakes would have no power. Then at least we could deal from a base of honesty and reality that could not be blackmailed. I suspect the way this treasonous war is going, come September there might just be a few of the more moderate pugs swimming the other way to become democrats, a life raft to save their skins from an angry electorate. Pretending to be a Democrat allows Lie-berman an unlimited license to blackmail power away from democrats which is exactly what he is doing...but of course all bets are off if * mihops us into complete submission and declares marshal law and suspends elections for which he has extensively laid the foundations for.

[drbtg1]

96. Hello? Can anyone say Alan Schlesinger?!?!?

Probably not. He was the Republican opponent in the CT Senate election. If you're one of the few who did hear about him, you probably know he was best known for gambling at the giant CT casinos under a false name.

And how much support did Schlesinger get from the national Republican party? None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. They could have probably fielded a strong candidate and taken the seat outright while Dems and Indys split for Lieberman and Lamont. Instead, they didn't and Lieberman, while getting only 33% of Dems, got an incredible 70% of Republicans. That's why Lieberman won. Not because of the Dems or Lieberman's campaign. It was because of the Republican campaign for Lieberman and against their own candidate.

That should always be remembered when trashing CT. It wasn't all about what was happening in CT.

[LeftishBrit]

Excellent point

It was hysterical to watch the Republicans getting all pious about the Dems 'purging and abandoning' their candidate, when they were purging and abandoning their own candidate far more effectively.

[LeftishBrit]

101. deleted (dupe)

[BurtWorm]

104. Thirty three percent of CT Democrats voted for the loser of the primary.

For the candidate most like Bush on the question of Iraq. It's not just Republicans in CT who fucked the rest of us over. Not by a long shot. They were voting to keep the Democrats shy of a majority in the Senate--in their self-interest, in other words. What the hell did one-third of the states' *Democrats* think they were doing?!

[drbtg1]

106. Assorted reasons

Whether it be them thinking they were voting pro-Israel, pro-experience, or pro-conditioned reflex. It's all assorted levels of ignorance (Not all Dems hang at DU, after all. Some are still in a fog with Joanne Nesti gone.).

However, what the Republicans did was far worse. They sold out their own to buy a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Or maybe in Droopy Dog's clothing.

[BurtWorm]

108. They did not sell out their own.

They got exactly what they bargained for.

[Freddie Stubbs]

111. Bill Clinton did not support Lieberman in the general election

[BlooInBloo]

113. Son of a fucking Lieberman - what a shitfucking jackass electorate Connecticut has...

Aaah. It really *does* make the day look a little brighter.