“Lieberman’s tone and message has shocked a lot of people,” said a second senior Democratic aide who has discussed the issue with other Senate Democrats. “He’s way off message for us and right in line with the White House.”
“I think the first step is if the Lieberman thing turns into a side show and hurts our message and ability to take back the Senate..."
http://hill1.thehill.com/thehill/opencms/TheHill/News/Frontpage/081606/news1.html

I'd think if this national party had a solid message that was resonating with the american people, as they claim, they'd be secure enough to allow one person to commit political suicide by going against it.

The Republicans have Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, John McCain and Olympia Snow, but the leaders of the "big tent" of the Democrat Party can't have anyone step off the reservation.

The Republicans have Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, John McCain and Olympia Snow, but the leaders of the "big tent" of the Democrat Party can't have anyone step off the reservation.

"step off the reservation" my ass.

Lieberman has not simply *stepped off the reservation*.

He is staying put inside the reservation, but he is setting fire to the tents.

To have a Democratic aide murmur -- “Lieberman’s tone and message has shocked a lot of people” -- is about the mildest criticism imaginable.

If I were a Democratic Party leader, i'd have something FAR harsher to say about the pro-war, pro-Israeli genocide, "I love GWBush", sheep-in-wolf's-clothing Joe Lieberman.

Poll after poll show that a majority of the American people are fed up with Bush's phony assed, ill-conceived, insanely expensive, based-on-lies-about-WMDs fiasco in Iraq........and Lieberman would do well to wake up and realize it and leave the Dark Side of the Conserva-Fascist warmongers and begin moving toward the light.

He is staying put inside the reservation, but he is setting fire to the tents.

I sure hope so. I hope Joe does everything in his power to screw the Democrats. I might even contribute to his campaign.

Brooks, as much as I disagree with you on almost every political issues, I gotta say I love the avatar!

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to die!"

Poll after poll show that a majority of the American people are fed up with Bush's .... and Lieberman would do well to wake up and realize it ....Fine, then Lamont will win easily.
But then why do the Dems sound so worried?

I gotta say I love the avatar!Thanks.
It's part of the ongoing "Brooks' favorite movies" series of avatars.
No one recognized my last one (The Long Kiss Goodnight).

Thanks.
It's part of the ongoing "Brooks' favorite movies" series of avatars.
No one recognized my last one (The Long Kiss Goodnight).
I recognized both avatars right off the bat, so there.

Oh, and to get the thread back on track, forget Lieberman.

Oh, and to get the thread back on track, forget Lieberman.They'd sure like to.
Here's my Senate dream scenario this November:
49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, 2 Independents, and Cheney breaks the tie.
And the Dems can all thank George Soros and Ned Lamont for losing the majority.

Jesus, until the last few weeks, I thought the guy had died.

Yes,Yes, I can see how someone straying from the party line is a danger. They better act quick to quell the political dynamo that is Lieberman. :lolhit:

Lieberman is an idiot who's only gotten dumber as time has passed. Now in a grasping at straws attempt to appeal to consevatives he sparks off against the democratic main view, and hoping agains hope that someone will save his losing ass. It's over Joe, go home.

As for the democrats in general. Maybe if they spent half as much time worrying about doing things right instead of their image, they wouldn't have to work so hard to take back the senate.

The republicans of late have done a god awful job of just about everything. Of course I can't think of many that honestly deserve to be there from either party. Oh well I guess you'll have that in a republic/democracy/whatever the hell we've evolved into. :rolleyes:

1. ...Now in a grasping at straws attempt to appeal to consevatives he sparks off against the democratic main view,
2. and hoping agains hope that someone will save his losing ass. It's over Joe, go home.1. I don't think he has changed his message.

2. In a three way race, Rasmussen has him up 46%, 40% 13%.
His favorable rating is 58% compared to Lamont's 46%.
I can't find any polls that have him losing a threeway race. Even a liberal Conneticut blog has him winning.
Why do you think he should drop out?

1. I don't think he has changed his message.

2. In a three way race, Rasmussen has him up 46%, 40% 13%.
His favorable rating is 58% compared to Lamont's 46%.
I can't find any polls that have him losing a threeway race. Even a liberal Conneticut blog has him winning.
Why do you think he should drop out?

1. So Lieberman's always been for the war and such. If that's the case then how has he gained so much pull before this. Seems they would've pulled the plug on him a long time ago.

2. Poll numbers can be twisted almost as much as the bible or the constitution. I wouldn't put to much faith in those. I live in a pretty heavy democrat state. Most when you mention Lieberman laugh, don't know who he is, or have to think for a moment. (Until the recent news, I'm sure most know now). I have a hard time imagining Lieberman as a winner though. Although he wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't able to would he. All right, I don't live up there and don't follow it enough to warrant my earlier harshness.

Fine, then Lamont will win easily. If he was the incumbent I'm sure he would.

BOSTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), a three-term Democrat now running as an independent candidate, leads the man who beat him in last week's primary vote by 12 points in a three-way race, a poll released on Thursday shows.

The latest Quinnipiac University poll, conducted between August 10-14, shows Lieberman leads Democrat Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman with little political experience who has played on anti-war sentiment, by 53 percent to 41 percent among likely voters in November's election. The Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger drew 4 percent, the poll shows.

Democratic voters selected Lamont as their candidate on August 8 with 52 percent of the vote after an increasingly bitter race dominated by Lieberman's support for the Iraq war.

Lieberman vowed to stay in the race as an independent candidate in order to face Lamont and Schlesinger in the general election in November.

The survey found that Lieberman polled best among likely Republican voters, leading the others with 75 percent of the vote compared with Lamont's 13 percent and Schlesinger's 10 percent.

"Senator Lieberman's support among Republicans is nothing short of amazing," Douglas Schwartz, the university's polling director said in a statement. "As long as Lieberman maintains this kind of support among Republicans while holding onto a significant number of Democratic votes, the veteran senator will be hard to beat."

Likely voters said by a 53 percent to 40 percent margin that Lieberman, the Democratic Party's vice presidential candidate in 2000 and once a presidential candidate himself, deserves to be re-elected.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/pl_nm/connecticut_lieberman_dc

Thanks.
It's part of the ongoing "Brooks' favorite movies" series of avatars.
No one recognized my last one (The Long Kiss Goodnight).

You kidding me? I recognized that right away, thats one of my favorite movies!

"Senator Lieberman's support among Republicans is nothing short of amazing," Douglas Schwartz, the university's polling director said

ROTFL.

Yeah.......it's really "amazing".

[/sarcasm]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other polls show the race much closer.

It IS --at least-- illustrating to watch an incumbent in a solidly Democrat state forced to run as hard as he can.

Could this maybe wake Lieberman up, and get him to move away from the ReichWing.......?!?

Nah.

Free, suppose he is a Democrat who actually believes what he says publicly. Can you imagine?
If your definition of a Democrat waking up means he compromises himself to get elected, you probably have that with many other Democrats already.

What is more enlightening, Freethinker is how the people who vote in Democrat Primaies do not represent what Democrats really think. They are the most activist part of the party and vote more liberal than other Democrats. Ned Lamont winning is the worst thing that can happen to the Democrat Party. It will expose the Democrats as hard core leftists soft on national defense. I kind of hope he does win.

Joe can't win the primary but he's going to win the general ... Yeah, Ok, sure ... whatever you say ... ROTFLMAO

You better check the trend lines in that poll ... looks great for Lamont and kinda dismal for Zell ... er ... I mean Joe.

Free, suppose he is a Democrat who actually believes what he says publicly. Can you imagine?

IF he "believes in" the war against Iraq as he claims to publicly, then NO, I cannot imagine it.

I cannot imagine any human being --Democrat or otherwise-- with an ounce of reason or humanity in them supporting the phony trumped-up "war" against the sovereign nation of Iraq.

A nation that had not threatened the US, that had not killed a single US citizen, and that posed no threat whatsoever to the continued existence of this nation.

Ned Lamont winning is the worst thing that can happen to the Democrat Party. It will expose the Democrats as hard core leftists soft on national defense.

If simply being opposed to the murderous, insanely expensive, ill-advised, ill-conceived clusterfuck in Iraq is your idea of being a -- ""hard core leftist soft on national defense"", -- you're a bigger fool than I thought.

I cannot imagine any human being --Democrat or otherwise-- with an ounce of reason or humanity in them supporting the phony trumped-up "war" against the sovereign nation of Iraq.
A nation that had not threatened the US, that had not killed a single US citizen, and that posed no threat whatsoever to the continued existence of this nation.What you're overlooking is...uhh, what was this thread about again?

You better check the trend lines in that poll ... looks great for Lamont and kinda dismal for Zell ... er ... I mean Joe.What is the insult of "Zell" supposed to mean? Someone who doesn't march in lockstep with their party?
How about using the names Snow, Chafee, Specter or McCain?
The difference is that the Republican party accepts more diversity of opinion.

Joe can't win the primary but he's going to win the general ... Yeah, Ok, sure ... whatever you say ... ROTFLMAO

You better check the trend lines in that poll ... looks great for Lamont and kinda dismal for Zell ... er ... I mean Joe.

Let's see. The poll numbers for Lieberman are improving and he distancing himself further from Lamont but that looks so good for Ned that Lungdop is laughing his ass off.

Hey, Dop, you had better go retrieve that ass you laughed off you might need it to kiss goodbye when Joe wins the general election.

Let's see. The poll numbers for Lieberman are improving and he distancing himself further from Lamont but that looks so good for Ned that Lungdop is laughing his ass off.

Hey, Dop, you had better go retrieve that ass you laughed off you might need it to kiss goodbye when Joe wins the general election.

Why did you not include the trend line like I suggested? I suspect you don't know what that means? Am I right? It's OK -- you can admit to it.

Double ROTFLMAO

It's official -- senate republicans openly back Lieberman.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/17/senate_republicans_will_back_lieberman.html
http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/08/nrsc-takes-lieberman.html

Good ridance.

Lieberman may win or lose, but the fact that it's this close means that the voters are entitled to choose who they want outside of the primary system.

It's called democracy and only one party is whining about it.

The Republicans have Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, John McCain and Olympia Snow, but the leaders of the "big tent" of the Democrat Party can't have anyone step off the reservation.

What do you mean? I've heard many Republicans criticize McCain for being to far to the left.

I would vote for Lieberman any day.

It's called democracy and only one party is whining about it.If Arlen Specter lost in a primary (as he very nearly did last time around) and then chose to run as an independent I think you'd hear more than whining from some Republicans. Rush Limbaugh, for one, would likely be apoplectic with rage.

If Arlen Specter lost in a primary and then chose to run as an independent I think you'd hear more than whining from some Republicans.Well my speculation is no more valid than yours so I really can't answer. I think in other years the Dems would be more open to all this, but the party is under the temporary influence of Howard Dean and he's nuts and nasty.

"The latest Quinnipiac University poll, conducted between August 10-14, shows Lieberman leads Democrat Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman with little political experience who has played on anti-war sentiment, by 53 percent to 41 percent among likely voters in November's election"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/pl_nm/connecticut_lieberman_dc

Well my speculation is no more valid than yours so I really can't answer.Rush still curses Ross Perot for 1992.I think in other years the Dems would be more open to all this, but the party is under the temporary influence of Howard Dean and he's nuts and nasty.I think if the Democrat Party is truly Hillary's machine Howard will be out by early 2008. He will have served his purpose (shoring up the left) and a centrist will take his place.

Of course the Dems are upset. Liebs was beaten because he supports the Iraq war & french kissed Bush and now he's crying like a baby about it & trying to spoil the game by running as an independant.

The issue is he likes the senate life & doesn't want to give it up. Thats the only issue I can see. His official reason was about people with radical views wanting to hijack the party. Interestingly only about 20% of Americans share his views on Iraq. The other 80% are apparently too radical for his liking.

He'll either split the vote & lose the seat to the GOP or he'll drop out & the other Dem will win.

What is the insult of "Zell" supposed to mean?

It is to denote a scumbag uber-RightWing fascist.

The difference is that the Republican party accepts more diversity of opinion.

HAAAAAAAAAAAaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa !!!!

THAT just might be the most hilarious bit of nonsense i have EVER read on these boards!!!!!

Lieberman was beaten because he supports the Iraq war & french kissed Bush and now he's crying like a baby about it & trying to spoil the game by running as an independent.


EXACTLY so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The most dead-on accurate assessment of the situation that I have heard.

From anyone.

Rush still curses Ross Perot for 1992.
Perot was a spoiler who had absolutely no chance of winning. Lieberman's in a much different situation.

Of course the Dems are upset. Liebs was beaten because he supports the Iraq war & french kissed Bush and now he's crying like a baby about it & trying to spoil the game by running as an independant. But if the majority of Connecticut voters want him as their next senator and he can win why shouldn't he run?
And I haven't heard him cry, I hear the rest of his party crying.

1. It is to denote a scumbag uber-RightWing fascist.
2. THAT just might be the most hilarious bit of nonsense i have EVER read on these boards!!!!!1. That's your opinion, but the fact is that all Lieberman and Miller have in common is that they dared disagree with the puppetmasters. For actually being real freethinkers you deride them.

2. You have certain kneejerk beliefs (reichwing media, etc.) that you automatically vomit out at the right time, and your proof is pretty much "it's true because it's true".
The truth is that there is more diverse opinion allowed among members of the Republican congress than is allowed by the Dems.

I'd think that supposed progressive freethinking (with a small F) people would prefer candidates to run outside the primary system which by design creates extremist candidates.
In reality, we probably prefer our extremists.

But if the majority of Connecticut voters want him as their next senator and he can win why shouldn't he run?
And I haven't heard him cry, I hear the rest of his party crying.

If he can win then he should run, but he'll most likely split the vote.

Why did you not include the trend line like I suggested? I suspect you don't know what that means? Am I right? It's OK -- you can admit to it.

I didn't include the trend lines because I haven't seen any. Perhaps you could post them.

If he can win then he should run, but he'll most likely split the vote.He'll split the vote in the sense that any two candidates will split the vote, but it won't cause the other party to win.

He'll split the vote in the sense that any two candidates will split the vote, but it won't cause the other party to win.

Sure it will.

Lets say Lieberman would have won 60 / 40

With 2 democratic nominees - they each get 30% the other GOP guy 40% - he wins.

I see what you mean but I think in this specific race, the Republican is only polling at around 13%, last I heard.

If he only has 13% support then Lieberman could still win.

I think the latest poll has the Republican even lower. George Bush isn't even vocally supporting the Republican candidate in Connecticut. His run was only a token run before Lieberman entered the race as an independent and is now even less. Lieberman has an excellent chance of defeating Lamont.

Lieberman will probably get the republican vote, which could tip the scales for him.

Assuming Lieberman gets back into office, what's the gain? Given the mood of the country, one would expect the democrats to make significant strides in the upcoming elections. In this part of the country, one really bright spot is that Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney will be out of work come January. She'll most likely be replaced by another democrat, the one who beat her soundly in the latest runoff.

Assuming Lieberman gets back into office, what's the gain?

Gain?

Well, it can only enhance the success of the U.S at selling all manner of clusterbombs, airplanes and guided missiles to foreign nations that they can then use to bomb neighboring countries into submission, killing thousands and leaving hundreds of thousands homeless in the process.

YAY!!!, Joe Lieberman.........warmonger supreme!!!

(BTW.....as comforting as it is to believe that SOME small pockets of sanity (such as Connecticut) remain in the US, it now seems likely that, sadly, Lieberman will win the Senate seat there.)

Perot was a spoiler who had absolutely no chance of winning.That, as you say, is democracy.

My point was that Rush is still fuming over it. He and many other Republicans would go rockerless if someone like Specter ran as an independent after losing a primary. You seem to think this only happens to Democrats. Not so.

True. Perot had a right to run under our system, that's Democracy. But the Republicans who are upset about his running are mad their candidate lost. In Lieberman's case, the Democrats who are upset about his running want to remove a candidate who may actually win. May actually be the people's choice.
Though both sides are being somewhat anti-democracy, there is a huge difference.


The evil side of me will now split hairs. If you're not in the mood, don't read it. I don't know if I even agree with this, I just think it's an interesting debating point:
Democracy, or rule of the people, really takes place at the point when an elected official is speaking for the majority who elected him, when he is in office
Whining about the candidacy of someone who can't possibly win, is not anti-democracy in the strictest sense since he was never going to speak for the people.
Whining about the candidacy of someone who could win, who could speak for a majority who elect him, may result in democracy not taking place.

The evil side of me will now split hairs. If you're not in the mood, don't read it. I don't know if I even agree with this, I just think it's an interesting debating point:
Democracy, or rule of the people, really takes place at the point when an elected official is speaking for the majority who elected him, when he is in office
Whining about the candidacy of someone who can't possibly win, is not anti-democracy in the strictest sense since he was never going to speak for the people.
Whining about the candidacy of someone who could win, who could speak for a majority who elect him, may result in democracy not taking place. I'd be more inclined to agree with you were it not for the fact that political races are sometimes wildly unpredictable. I once volunteered for a 3rd party candidate (Jesse Ventura) who was given no chance whatsoever of winning by the press and pundits even days before the election. A scandal here and a couple of gaffes there (all at the right time, of course) could have vaulted Perot into office in 1992. Stranger things have happened.

I once volunteered for a 3rd party candidate (Jesse Ventura) who was given no chance whatsoever of winning by the press and pundits even days before the election. Yeah but the difference is that Jesse Ventura had you.

Well, it was worth a shot. I just thought the premise was interesting.

Yeah but the difference is that Jesse Ventura had you.

And he won anyway. It shows that in politics all things are possible. :rolleyes:

Lieberman calls for Rumsfeld to quit ...

http://tinyurl.com/nba43

Way to go Joe - now you've lost the republican vote too.

I live in Ga. I was following the Mckinney thing closley.

She will be replaced by Hank Johnson. He is a heck of alot better than her.

At least when she was in office, she made the Democrats look bad. Now her dist. will get some decent reprensation.

Assuming Lieberman gets back into office, what's the gain? Given the mood of the country, one would expect the democrats to make significant strides in the upcoming elections. In this part of the country, one really bright spot is that Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney will be out of work come January. She'll most likely be replaced by another democrat, the one who beat her soundly in the latest runoff.

Dem groups are trying to get Lieberman thrown off the ballot.
Here's to democracy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082101427.html

Are you surprised that the Democrats are anti-Democratic? This is the same party that tried to change election law in Florida, attempted to keep the votes of overseas military men and women from being counted, slashes the tires of Republican get out the vote workers, likens Republicans to Hitler while calling for an end to divisivness.

The only thing I fear more than a repeat of the Bush presidency is a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat run country.

Dem groups are trying to get Lieberman thrown off the ballot.
Here's to democracy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082101427.html

That is false.

If you follow the link and read the news article, you will find that out. (the title of article ITSELF is erroneously worded)

No **Democratic group** is trying to get Lieberman taken off the ballot. The article bears that out.

No **Democratic groups** (plural) are trying to get Lieberman taken off the ballot.

ONE individual, John Orman, a Democratic rival of Lieberman's, has filed a complaint saying he should be kept off the ballot. No affiliation with ANY group -on the part of Orman- is cited.

The one group that the article does talk about has requested that Lieberman be removed from the Democratic Party. The article says nothing about the group in question having done anything whatsoever in regards to removing Lieberman from the ballot.