More Bad News for Lamont -- Second Poll Shows Him Way Down

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

Hope this isn't a dupe, but following up on the Q-poll, a second poll shows Lamont way behind Lieberman

In Connecticut's U.S. Senate race, a new American Research Group poll shows Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) leading Ned Lamont (D) by 12 points, 49% to 37%. Alan Schlesinger (R) gets 8% and just 5% are undecided.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/10/20/in_connecticut_another_poll_gives_lieberman_big_lead.html

Bollucks!

[bluestateguy]

1. This strikes me as false

[TheWraith]

16. Does anybody around here get tired of saying that?

Every single poll, none of which has shown Lamont closer than 8 points down to Lieberman, every poll which says this keeps getting called false. When--and I'm pretty sure we have to say when, not if--when Liberman wins the election, are people here going to try and claim that it was all rigged?

Silly question. Of course they are. God forbid that we acknowledge the simple fact that Lamont isn't a miracle candidate and grassroots/netroots aren't a silver bullet.

[Alexander]

36. I TOLD you the 17-point lead was total crap.

Do you care? Of course not. Despite the six polls I showed you which marked it a dead heat, you repeat the LIE that "every single poll" shows Lieberman ahead.

And still, this poll hasn't factored in the second debate.

BTW, nice to see Lieberman below 50%. Lamont might not win but at least he can kick Joe in the nuts the whole way down.

[TheWraith]

54. Who the fuck are you, and why are you talking to me?

First, let's get something straight--whoever you are, you haven't shown me any polls, and I seriously doubt that you could find more than one poll which placed the CT senate race at a dead heat. Virtually every poll since the primary--Quinnipiac, Ipsos, ARG, Zogby, etcetera--has placed Lamont down about ten points to Liberman. That hasn't changed, no matter how much people around here want to deny reality. Now, if you want to argue that 17 points down is a completely different outcome than 12 points down, or that 12 points is somehow a "dead heat," feel free. But you don't get to make shit up to fit your argument.

[TheVirginian]

82. He is confusing you with me.

Because both are names are roughly similar, beginning with the word "The" and the second word connected with no space in between. He showed me six polls that had the race within eight points. One of those polls was a Zogby Interactive poll, which can be dismissed outright as being unreliable; of the other five, none were more recent than mid-September.

I showed him that the last four polls conducted chronologically (five, now, with this ARG poll) show Lieberman with a sizable, outside-the-MoE lead on Lamont. He also claims that the second debate will produce a large shift in numbers. He might have a point--there hasn't really been a lot of attention on this race, so many voters haven't made up their minds yet.

[onenote]

75. why hasnt' the second debate been factored in?

The second debate was on the 19th. The poll was conducted on the 20th.

[Ken Burch]

87. There's no good reason to be bashing the "grassroots/netroots"

If it weren't for them, there'd be no one in the party who stood for anything.

Our leaders never do, they just want power in name.

[Catchawave]

34. MoveOn.org slide?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/melber

[rockymountaindem]

2. How anybody thought Lamont could ever win is beyond me

Conservatives + independents + moderate democrats all voting for the same candidate is a combination that is tough to beat. Now this quixotic quest to dislodge Lieberman is imperiling our potential control of the Senate. Not to pragmatic...

[fooj]

4. Lieberman LOST the primary...

I don't see our potential control of the Senate as being in peril...

[rockymountaindem]

6. So? Lieberman lost the primary...

He also did next to no campaigning and still lost by only a 6 percent margin. If it wasn't obvious to everyone that once voter turnout increased beyond the Democratic base that he could still hold on to his seat, I don't know what to tell you.

And yes, our control of the Senate is in peril, because if we win 51 seats, including Lieberman, then he'll hold the balance of power, whereas before he would have been just another Democrat. Does that make any of us happy?

[demosincebirth]

22. Ahh, we shoot ourselves in the foot, again.

Why do us dems, seem, to always, "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?"

[Capn Sunshine]

55. sometimes a battle is lost to win a war

but keep kvetching, I'm sure you were happy with the way things were, not how they are going to be. We'll just support every sellout in DC ...just because we like things the way they are. No need for change here. Just move along, and don't forget to dedicate the future generations of children in your family to war without end.

[demosincebirth]

66. "Cut our noses off to spite our face" is the motto many of us will

go down in defeat saying.

My main purpose is to work to win control of the House and Senate regardless of who I like and who I don't like. Win and then work from there. Do we recall Florida in '00, when the greenies turned the election for GWB? One guy like Lieberman is better than two republicans when it comes to controlling congress, but I guess you adhere to the other philosophy of voting for the other guy even though it costs a democrat an election.

[CTLawGuy]

62. We wanted someone else

do you have a problem with that?

[Hippo_Tron]

72. So you're saying that we should've just not pissed off big bad Lieberman?

Primaries are part of the democratic process and Lieberman is being a fucking baby by not accepting the results and running as an independent. Hell, he would've won the primary if he had promised to run only as a democrat. Senators have been unseated in primaries for 70 years now and most of the time they accept the results and move on. Lieberman somehow thinks he's special and that the rules of primaries don't apply to him.

[skipos]

10. If Repubs were running a stronger candidate, Lamont WOULD win

I never thought they'd abandon Schlesinger as much as they have.

[rockymountaindem]

12. But that's the thing

Of course the Republicans would abandon their guy, because the alternative (as you point out) would be a Lamont victory, the worst possible outcome for the Republicans. So, they calculatingly remove their already doomed candidate from the race, and settle for the lesser of two evils. In fact, it might not even be the lesser of two evils, but a big coup for the Republicans, if they can convince Lieberman to caucus with them or at least not caucus with the Democrats.

Before this, Lieberman's outbursts were limited to the airwaves and he maintained a solid Dem. voting record on everything except Iraq. This wasn't good enough for the party hard-liners, who have now pushed him out of our camp and have probably alienated Lieberman from feeling any loyalty to our party. Thus the Republicans are playing to win, while the Democrats are setting ourselves up for failure. This is why the Republicans win, and we don't. The Lieberman/Lamont/Schlessinger race is a perfect example of what will happen when well-intentioned left-wing voters let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And to expect the Republicans to not capitalize on our internal problems is naieve in the extreme.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[rockymountaindem]

37. Hardly

I consider myself to be rather left. I'd rather see Lamont win than Lieberman. But, still, I think this whole thing has been self-defeating.

[Alexander]

38. Do you get tired of being a Lieberman apologist?

Holy Joe also didn't support the Dems on Terri Schiavo and contraception for rape victims. He supports Bolton and signed on to the horrible bankruptcy bill.

And despite his boasting about "saving the Groton sub base", he isn't bringing home the federal bacon for Connecticut.

It's not "just the Iraq war", although I'm sure you'd like us all to believe that.

[cmkramer]

39. Are you tired of spouting lefty propaganda?

Was there a Democratic position on Terry Schiavo? Most of them -- including Joe -- couldn't be bothered to actually vote on the bill. Ironically, liberal Democrat Tom Harkin voted to keep her feeding tube in because there was no living will which is exacty the same reason Lieberman used for why if he had been there, he would have voted to keep the feeding tube in too. Incidentally, Lieberman supports right to die laws, Harkin does not.

Where do you get that Lieberman doesn't believe rape victims should have access to the morning after pill? All he said was that hospitals affiliated with religions that do not countenance abortion and/or birth control should not have to perform those procedures. That's already accepted practice. And truth be told, there probably are enough hospitals in Connecticut that do perform the procedures so that it is a "cab ride" away. That's obviously not the truth in too many states though. And, speaking as someone who doesn't drive, I understand that not everyone can afford a cab ride.

[Ken Burch]

41. I hate the phrase "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".

Clinton groupies used it for eight years to silence all dissent will Clinton governed as a Republican and refused to campaign for the return of a Democratic congress.

It's a phrase that basically says "Democratic voters have no right to expect ANYTHING from the people they elect".

[dsc]

44. The airwaves were the problem

As long as he goes on TV and call Democrats traitors for criticising Bush and all the rest of what he did, we couldn't win in the media. Even if we lose this seat, we probably won a few by doing what we did.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Nobody pushed Lieberman out of the party

Ned Lamont ran against him and beat him in a primary. Primaries have been going on for about 70 years now and incumbents sometimes lose them. There was no jihad and Lieberman certainly wasn't pushed out by his party considering that nearly everybody in the senate endorsed him. Hell if he had promised to run only as a democrat he would be the nominee. But Lieberman thinks he's special and above primaries.

[nolabels]

83. The DLC is totally in bed with the creep so why is anybody surprised?

Joe is poster child for the Democratic party being controlled by corporate America. Joe is special, he is a sold out(ex)democrat who models himself after Benedict Arnold

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

[Hippo_Tron]

84. Could you imagine the hysteria if Cegelis had run as an independent?

Or if Paul Hackett had decided to run as an independent. The same people that say that Lieberman shouldn't have been challenged in the primary would be throwing a fit.

I would refuse to support their third party candidacies as well because they lost their primaries, but there are certain people here who seem to think that people like Lieberman are above primaries. Lieberman isn't above primaries any more than Hackett and Cegelis and he should be endorsing Lamont like they are endorsing their primary opponents.

Senator Alan Dixon voted for Clarence Thomas and rightfully lost in the primary because of that, but I still respect him because he graciously conceded and helped Carol Moseley Braun win her election. Alan Dixon actually had class and put his party and his country before himself. Lieberman cares about nobody but himself.

[nolabels]

90. Joe and the state he lives in are sold out in this system of spoils

It's obvious that most of the less populous states have to use the senate as the equalizer. I'm sure there is some of that idea of the 'you can't tell us what to do because this our Senator' stuff going on in the state there. The funny thing about it is that the puppeteers have used Joe for years and no doubt they don't want to give him up. Joe without his seat is nothing. He never really accomplished anything that is noticeable to most considering his length on the job and the job description. What would he write in his memoirs anyway? He seems nothing but an empty suit taking up space in an allocated slot

[Hangingon]

27. Ah! If...

[Awsi Dooger]

45. Plenty of ifs

The other idiotic "if" was Lieberman's announcement to run as an independent. That merely confirmed the biggest knock against him, that he wasn't a real Democrat. The netroots was already furiously supporting Lamont prior to Lieberman's independent bid, but I guarantee Lieberman cost himself more than 4% with that announcement, and he lost the primary 52-48.

This was a worthwhile cause but a combo of factors worked in Lieberman's favor, notably the GOP abandoning its nominee and the partisan makeup of the state with so many moderate independents. Also, I hope this is a lesson that we need to nominate superior candidates who contagiously build support for their cause, winning on their own merit regardless of the opponent. Relying on negativity and opposing a candidate (remember ABB?) is a natural regulator, leading to plenty of frustrating defeats.

[CTLawGuy]

61. We in CT don't need a lecture in choosing our candidates from you

If Joe Lieberman is an egotistical prick who stabs his party in the back its not our fault.

[rep the dems]

67. When Lamont began his campaign he didn't know that Joe was

going to run off and make his own party if he lost. Had it been Lamont vs the republican whose name I can't remember, Lamont would still win.

[Radical Activist]

70. Lieberman is stealing votes from the Democrats

I wonder why that isn't repeated like it is against the Greens. Lamont would be winning of Lieberman wasn't spoiling the election.

[speedoo]

3. Looks like debates did not really hurt LIEberman with rethugs.

I did not see them, but it appears that CT rethugs did not buy Schlesinger's antics at all.

Ned needs a miracle now, I'm afraid.

I just hope the final voting represents a big Dem majority for Ned, and a close overall finish, which would give Senate dems ammo to use in post-election "discussions" with LIEberman.

And I hope somebody in the CT Democratic Party is thinking about recall legislation to use in dealing with LIEberman. (and with Rell)

[nam78_two]

5. It doesn't help that they have a Green there too

The Green is taking Lamont's votes away not Lieberman's:

http://www.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=335&page=press&prid=684


Green Party candidate hopes to wrest anti-war vote from Lamont
2006-08-28

Green Party candidate hopes to wrest anti-war vote from Lamont
Associated Press

August 28, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Many see Democrat Ned Lamont as the anti-war choice in this year's hotly contested U.S. Senate race, but Green Party candidate Ralph Ferrucci says he's the real deal.
Ferrucci, a 34-year-old independent delivery truck driver who qualified last week to appear on the November ballot, said United Nations peacekeepers should immediately replace U.S. troops in Iraq.
Lamont, he said, only wants to pull front-line troops to the periphery.
"He supports a one-year leave date, send troops to Kuwait," Ferrucci said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. "Basically his plan is more redeployment and then bring them home."



Green Party Voters -I respect and support many of your beliefs but please, please, PLEASE don't do this .....

[rockymountaindem]

8. Oh, and that's another thing

I thought having a left-wing antiwar candidate was supposed to bring the Greens closer to us and negate their threat to our "left flank" so to speak. I hope this lays bare their selfish agenda to be spolier candidates. Running Lamont instead of Lieberman was supposed to make the Greens go away, not make them a bigger problem.

[nam78_two]

9. Yeah I didn't even realise there was a Green till I saw the debates/nt

[CTyankee]

14. You are so right. The Greens are so full of themselves I could

spit! One of them is Charlie Pillsbury, a well known lawyer here in New Haven and a scion of the flour company. He is a big Green and has the unique distinction of being the model for "Doonesbury" (Pillsbury was Garry Trudeau's roommate at Yale). Charlie was pissed when Ned's message on the environment was coming out. He seemed to be mad that Ned was stealing the Green's thunder. I thought it was petty and egotistical of Charlie. But it IS human nature to want to protect your own turf. Just sad though...

[rockymountaindem]

15. Point being:

We need to stop fielding candidates who we think will negate the appeal of Greens to disaffected members of the left wing. The Greens will pester us no matter what for their own reasons. Thus we should take them out of account and focus on finding candidates who will win beat the Republican, not the Green.

[CTyankee]

20. Except that the war issue intervened

so things don't get arranged neatly into little boxes. The rap against Joe was not on environmental issues. If anything, Joe has been decent on the environment or enough so to win against Republicans. Remember, 6 years ago Joe ran against a thug who was found to be a child molester (he's now in prison). Joe was also running for VP as well, but that's another issue...

[nam78_two]

21. The anti-war stance was not picked to appeal to Greens

:shrug:

It doen't help that the Greens are fielding a candidate, but at this critical point being pro-environment and anti-war seem to be the minimal requirements for any Dem candidate :shrug:

I don't think Lamont is trailing because of those issues...I think Lieberman is leading because of the incumbent advantage plus the fact that the Republicans have thrown this one.


The Greens aren't helping, but I doubt that ultimately that will be the deciding factor.

[rockymountaindem]

26. I am not saying the Greens will be the deciding factor in this race

but they may be in others, so it is useful to strategize against them. To say that the Greens are only concerned with issues, but appeal to voters with the argument (advanced by Nader) that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Well, here we have on Democrat (Lieberman) who was supposedly too much like a Republican. So, primary voters replaced him on our ticket with someone who was supposed to draw a greater contrast between the two parties (and does, in my opinion, draw that contrast). That still doesn't seem to be enough for the Greens. All I'm saying is that they won't be satisfied, even though in this race we've done what they have advocated for years; run a farther-left Dem. who is not at all like his Republican opponents. All I'm saying is that we need to do away with the fantasy that where our candidate falls on the leftist spectrum may or may not negate the Green factor.

[nam78_two]

28. Hopefully by now

with 4 years of war, the environment the shape its in, almost 600,000+ people dead in all, all but the hard-core Greens will have the sense not to fall for this crap again.

At some point practicality has to kick in :shrug:-I don't understand the mentality behind voting Green at this critical point in history....

[Ken Burch]

42. We don't need to field candidates who tell progressives to fuck off.

It never helps Dems to be anti-left.

[skipos]

11. Green= Getting Republicans Elected Every November

OF COURSE they are running against Lamont. Why wouldn't they?

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Haha I love it

Greens have no real interest in a progressive agenda, only their own egos.

[bluestateguy]

23. Greens are very hard to please

I'll share with you what one of my friends said about the Greens: "Green on the outside, red on in inside".

[femmedem]

43. A former Green candidate for municipal office told me he's voting for Ned.

And I know three other Greens who worked hard on a Green municipal campaign, including myself, who have been calling and/or canvassing for Ned. So my geographically limited sample suggests Ferrucci isn't taking many of Ned's votes away.

[nam78_two]

49. Glad to hear that/nt

[Imagevision]

7. Lieberman already had a pollster plead guilty to fraud for phoney polling

(two months ago)

[TheWraith]

17. You're misrepresenting the incident.

The pollster plead guilty to fraud for creating false data and feeding it to various campaigns, including Lieberman. It wasn't polls for public consumption.

And out of curiousity, do you really think that Quinnipiac, Zogby, Ipsos, ARG, and the others are all secretly forging poll results to make Lieberman look good?

[Totally Committed]

13. What else can be done for him?

I've sent $$$; I've called everyone I know in CT, and asked them to vote on 11/7 -- and to vote for him. Anyone got any ideas?

I'd really love to see him win. Lieberman is a real a**hole, and he'll screw us if he wins... mark my words.

TC

[TheWraith]

19. Not a lot.

Unfortunately, it's a matter of demographics. Lamont already has the people who want to vote against the war. Lamont and the Repub are splitting the fiscal conservatives, Goldwater conservatives, isolationists, libertarians, et al.

However, that leaves a big chunk of moderate Dems, independents, and moderate Republicans, people who don't care enough about the war to vote against it, particularly people who are upper-class enough to want another tax cut. Many of these people care more about Lieberman's experience and senority than they do about his ties to Bush. Unless there's a big shift against the war, or Lieberman makes some kind of horrible gaffe within the next two weeks, it's probably over.

[PassingFair]

50. Not JUST the war.

"Faith" based "initiatives.
Vouchers
Bankruptcy for the middle class
Separation of church and state
Putting Israel's interests before the Us's...
There are MANY reasons for voting AGAINST Joe LIEberman.

[Capn Sunshine]

56. Dig deep and give till it hurts

and you're right Lieberman will screw us if he wins...he'll turn R and take Rummy's job when he resigns in January.

Leaving the seat to be appointed by a republican gov.
THAT"S what you get when you support Lieberman.

[Zhade]

89. Push for an investigation into lieberman's missing $387,000...

...allegedly paid to volunteers over a 12-day time period, not honestly accounted for.

lieberman's spokesperson has already stated they will defy federal election laws and will not open the books.

lieberman may very well have illegally gained enough signatures to run as an independent. The truth of this must be uncovered!

[NaturalHigh]

18. If Lieberman caucuses with the Republicans...

(and I suspect he will), just remember that everyone knew before the primary that he was going to mount an independent run if he lost. The irrational desire to purge him from the party in the name of "ideological purity" is what led to this mess.

[demosincebirth]

24. My sentiments, exactly

[nam78_two]

25. That will certainly be a sad outcome

:(

[martymar64]

29. He purged himself by tacking right

Holy Joe has taken every possible opportunity to undermine the Democratic Party on almost all issues. He hasn't been a Democrat for many years.

[NaturalHigh]

32. So it will be good for him to caucus with the Republicans?

You do know, don't you, that he would at least have been another Democratic vote when selecting committee posts? Now that he got the axe from his own party, that vote will likely go to the Republicans. Had he won the primary, he would have been a slam-dunk point in the D column.

[martymar64]

35. Wrong. He'd cross the aisle like he always has.

Nothing would change. He would still side with the Rethugs on the important issues. I don't think it'll be that close in terms of the Senate makeup. I have a feeling that there will be a nice little buffer for us this time around. Joe can go aheadand leave the party. If he wants committee assignments, he can go get them from his buddies in the Rethug Party.

Nobody respects a traitor, no even the ones he betrayed for. I hope he gets used to being persona non grata.

[PassingFair]

51. He got the "AXE" from the VOTERS of Connecticut!

WTF!

You act like a Spanish Prisoner!
Or an abused WIFE.

"If only I hadn't a sassed him, he wouldn't a hit me!"

WTF!

[NaturalHigh]

79. No, he got the axe in the primary.

His party essentially kicked him out. All the voters of Connecticut haven't spoken yet.

[TankLV]

31. We need to "purge" him now more than ever...

[NaturalHigh]

33. Good luck with that.

It's not going to happen. He is going to win the election, and he will most likely caucus with the Republicans. Lamont's primary win was a major screw-up for the Democrats.

[TankLV]

65. I can't agree with you more.

Never said it would be likely, easy or imminent...

But it would be the JUST ane PROPER thing to do...

[Ken Burch]

40. We were supposed to leave his arrogance unchallenged?

If Lieberman wins, whoever he caucuses with, he'll vote like a Republican. As he would have kept on doing if he'd been unchallenged in the primary.

The Lamont campaign was justified. What was not justified was the ratfucking Ned got from the Democratic Senate Caucus and Harry Reid.

And what's ALSO not justified is coded pro-Lieberman posts like the one I'm responding to. Democrats are obligated to support the WINNER of the Democratic primary.

[madfloridian]

46. Speakng of arrogance? Irrational desire to purge? Oh, my!

Another hole-digger.

There have been a lot of threats from Joe supporters lately.

[NaturalHigh]

58. Whether or not I'm a "Joe Supporter" is irrelevant.

I don't even live in Connecticut. However, I do question the decision to dump an incumbent Democrat with plenty of seniority for a long-shot who is undoubtedly going to lose the general election, especially when there is a good chance that Lieberman will caucus with the Republicans.

[T Town Jake]

52. Exactly right, period. And right now those...

...who mounted that "ideological purity" purge are mighty proud of themselves for doing so.
Come election day, though, I wager they'll get very defensive and snarky whenever any sensible DU'er attempts to get them to take responsibility for their actions. I can already hear that alert button getting worn out on Nov. 7th...

[Ken Burch]

88. Why are you bashing activists IN THE MIDDLE OF A CAMPAIGN?

And the fight agains Lieberman was never about "ideological purity". Lieberman's robotic support of the war is not a trivial point that was outweighed by an otherwise acceptable performance as senator. And it wasn't just about the war. It was about Lieberman's misogynstic position on emergency contraception and his contempt for activists and idealists.

There was no way things would be better if Lieberman had been unchallenged. He'd just be more arrogant and more conservative.

It's not the activists' fault that Lieberman is betraying his party. If he'd been a decent human being and a LOYAL Democrat he'd left ended his race on primary night.

It's Lieberman whose the traitor, not the netroots and the activists.

[CTLawGuy]

63. no, Lieberman led to this mess

Tell me and my CT dem friends why we can't choose who we want to represent us.

We can't use the primary system, we can't vote third party, what are we supposed to do?

I have a feeling we are being strung along by the corrupt party leadership, like the Repugs do the fundies.

[Radical Activist]

71. If you're correct

then getting rid of him now and electing Lamont is the correct course to prevent that from happening. How odd that you would blame others for Lieberman's own actions.

[NaturalHigh]

76. The problem with your thinking is that...

you don't have the votes to get rid of Lieberman in the general election. Winning the primary is not winning the race.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. There was no irrational desire to purge him from the party

HE LOST A PRIMARY. PRIMARIES ARE A PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND THEY HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR 70 YEARS. Why do Lieberman supporters not get this?

[NaturalHigh]

77. You're right...Primaries are PART of the democratic process.

The general election is what sends people to Washington.

[madfloridian]

47. Anyone here who is pulling for Joe to win....is breaking the rules.

He is not the Democrat in the CT race.

[T Town Jake]

53. I don't see anyone "pulling for" him: do you? Facts are being pointed out.

..Bye the bye, there's this thingy called an "alert button" if you think anyone is (pause for the melodramatic dots)....breaking the rules.

That was my one free helpful hint of the day; enjoy.

[CTLawGuy]

64. so, genius, I want your answer on this

we don't like who is representing us: obviously primarying him is not an option according to what you said,

How about voting third party?
Staying home?
Voting Republican?

What are we supposed to do?

[NaturalHigh]

78. You have the right to vote for whomever you wish.

Obviously, you chose to vote for Lamont, and I assume you will vote for him in the general election. Other people in Connecticut (and elsewhere), however, also have the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Perhaps a little common sense in the primary could have kept Lieberman as a Democrat, which he has been, even if his voting record isn't quite as liberal as the ideological purists require.

[CTLawGuy]

80. Iraq

Terri Schaivo, rape victims sent to another hospital, the torture bill, opposition to universal health care, disingenous votes for cloture and then against atrocious judicial nominees, previous support for SS privatization and vouchers, his arrogance to be running against his own party... Joe Lieberman is hardly benign.

[NaturalHigh]

81. You're entitled to your opinion, Darboy.

I would never argue that anyone shouldn't vote his or her conscience. However, I don't see anything to be gained by driving Lieberman to the other side of the aisle, and I'm pretty certain that the current circumstances are going to do just that. It seems to me that the powers that be in the Democratic party should have recognized the difficulty in electing a Democratic opponent against Lieberman in the general election and planned their strategy accordingly.

[Hippo_Tron]

85. As I've said before this isn't about ideological purity for me

And I think that for a lot of other people, that is the same way. I don't want Joe Lieberman in the Senate because he isn't a team player. He's putting his own interests above what is good for his party and what is good for his country. Lieberman decided he would run as an independent half way through the primary and the irony is that he would've won had he pledged to run only as a Democrat.

As I've said in a post above, Senator Alan Dixon voted with the Republicans at least as much as Lieberman does and probably a lot more. But I'd much rather have Alan Dixon in the Senate than Joe Lieberman because when Alan Dixon lost his primary, he put his party and his country over himself and endorsed his primary opponent Carol Moseley-Braun.

Lieberman thinks he's more important than the party and that's why I can't stand him.

[NaturalHigh]

59. Pointing out that he is likely to win...

is hardly breaking the rules.

[Marrak]

48. Fu*k Joe Lieberman (I) leading Ned Lamont (D)

Joe's a comma...he just don't real-a-size it yet...


<>

[Rene]

57. B.S. Polls. I drive all over CT...I see Lamont signs everywhere

very few for Lieberman.

[NoPasaran]

60. I hope everey one of those signs goes to the polls! n/t

[ChiciB1]

68. Well, I DON'T Know What The Truth About Polls In CT Are... BUT

MAYBE even IF The Lie wins, in time it will come back to hit him in the ASS!

My fervent wish is that he won't win, but if so I fervently WISH he will pay a price. I know how very upset I am to think he pulled such a stunt, and that by his OPEN ARROGANCE has basically made himself "A Decider" too!!!

Perhaps the Repukes ARE right about some things... Democrats don't know what's good for them and just don't have a clue!! Letting the Repukes roll CT to the likes of Mr. Lie certainly proves that point! I feel sorry for those Democrats in CT who wanted something else, but instead have TWO HUGE machines working against them. The "behind the scenes" Democrats who are supporting Mr. Lie and won't get out and campaign for the TRUE winner of the Primary.... and then the Repuke Party that has disowned it's own and decided that THEY WILL HAVE THE LAST WORD!!

Pretty DISGUSTING!!!

[behonest]

69. Benedict Lieberman

If the senate is balanced 51 49 with Lieberman as the winner of Connecticut Lieberman would have a strangle hold on the democrats. That old ghoul would be able to keep us in war forever. He's so disloyal that you can count on him siding with Bush over and over again.

Why don't people point this out.