Is it any more misleading than stating:
"Oh and not to mention the fact that this is completely incorrect. Go check fec.gov if you don't believe me, look up George Soros. You won't find a single contribution to Ned Lamont - guess that kind of negates your entire point there. "


I think you are correct that if Schlesinger steps aside (which he says he won't), and Orchulli enters the race for the Republicans, Lieberman will have a tough road ahead of him. But in my opinion, that would still look like a three way split, with the winner only edging out his two opponents.

It's always entertaining to read the perspectives from the Far-Right contingent of . It's not necessarily accurate, but usually good for at least a laugh or two.

One thing I've noticed that with all the kvetching over the Democrats supposedly taking out one of their own moderates (guessed they must have overlooked Senator Bill Nelson in Florida), everybody's kind of missed on the GOP eating their own in Michigan. Lieberman and Cynthia McKinney weren't the only incumbents going down to defeat in primaries last Tuesday.

It's the darndest thing. He was a guy named Joe too.

Joe Schwarz had many admirers. And still, the conservative Republican primary voters of Michigan's 7th Congressional District dumped him Tuesday after his first term in Congress. His opponent, Tim Walberg, said Schwarz was too liberal.

Schwarz's endorsements from politicians with decent conservative credentials -- President George W. Bush and U.S. Sen. John McCain to name two -- didn't help.

Nor did Schwarz's credentials -- as a surgeon, Vietnam vet, Battle Creek mayor and long-time state senator.

"It seems pretty clear that the extreme right wing was highly motivated and turned out," said Phil Power, founder and president of the Center for Michigan, a moderate think tank in Ann Arbor. Schwarz spoke at the group's March conference on the state's economy. "Moderates had a real opportunity to re-elect a guy of great stature and credentials, but they didn't turn out."

"I look at this election as probably a victory for right-to-life, anti-abortion, anti-embryonic stem cell groups but it's a net loss for the Republican Party because it just pushes the party farther to the right," Schwarz told the Associated Press.

Schwarz defeated

For all the hand-wringing and finger-wagging of conservatives that the Democratic Party is pushing its moderates out of the door, the Republicans have been waging their own ideological liquidation of it's centrists.

Which should mean good news for whatever political party can appeal to those voters who aren't interested in belonging to a Democratic Party in hock to George Soros and operated by MoveOn.org or a Republican Party jointly owned by the Christian Coalition and Corporate America.

I typically side with Democrats on most issues, but what has really confused me is the Democratic Party's apparent insult felt by Lieberman's decision to run as an independent. I don't care that he lost the primary--it was a primary to decide the Democratic nominee. The loser is in no way exempted from ever running again for that seat; I think what Lieberman is doing is good for a democratic society.

I think the Democrats fear Lieberman because they know he'll probably win in the general election. I don't think it will change anything, since Lieberman doesn't seem like the type to hold a grudge and he understands party politics. His voting record speaks for itself and he sides with the more Democratic causes. Most Democrats were supporting Lieberman but switched their endorsements to Lamont upon his win. Conservative pundits call this "abandoning Lieberman" which is hardly an accurate representation of reality. The Democratic senators generally side with the Democrat voters; in Connecticut, since the Democrats chose Lamont, the other senators would logically have to endorse him.

(*aside: I don't know how to feel agreeing with ConservPat )

So how does the race for CT Senator shape up after Lamont's Dem primary victory?

Rasmussen Reports



Well it looks like Lieberman made the right decision.

Against my better judgement I'm going to try this one more time, but I really don't even know why I'm wasting the key strokes.

Check this item at TPM cafe:


That comes directly from one of his senior advisers speaking on his behalf. Notice that he still lays claim to being a Democrat. There's the problem. You see the Democrats held a primary and Lieberman lost - that's the way politics goes and that is Democracy. But instead of accepting the decision of the voters in the party he claims to call his own he decides to repackage himself as an Independent. That's what we call sour grapes.

And as has been said by a few here it obviously isn't illegal for him to do what he did, but it is hypocritical to the extreme for him to say that he is still a Democrat while at the same time completely rejecting the desires of voters in his party.

So take that to chew on, I really have no stomach for debating it any further because it seems to be an exercise in fultility.

Well, I wouldn't want to distract you from the wisdom at TPM cafe, but I thought it might be interesting to debate my points on debate question 2, listed here and here and here.

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?



From MSNBC, we see that:


I guess we could pretend that Soros has nothing to do with this, or that big-money backers and infrastructure has Dems moving away from their base (Lieberman got the black and Jewish vote, for example). But the fact remains that Republicans have much more individual support and contributions than do their Democratic counterparts. And McCain-Feingold has handed the power to 527's on both sides, which tends to helps the Democrats more due to their benefactors and inferior ground game vs. Republicans.

Most importantly, as in the case with Lieberman and Harmon, it means that tough-on-defense Democrats at best are losing influence, and at worst must tow the party line or face the wrath of Soros, Huffington and the leftists in the party. Which, as I've argued, is bad for our national security no matter who wins the election.

Like I said I posted against my better judgement, but I suppose I have to respond now. The truth is that I really no longer care if people have these wild misconceptions about the Democratic party, I'm focused on winning and I'm doing the work towards that goal and as Sun Tzu says:



Actually, the people that are truely anti-war all the way around are in the vast minority - why don't you ask Quarkhead about that - see if he thinks pacifists are strong and vocal in the party. You must not get that confused with people who are anti-Iraq war which includes almost 2/3rds of the country. These same people supported what we did in Afghanistan, and just really wished we finished the job instead of launching into this distraction that has put us in more peril as opposed to making us safer - but that has been debated so much here I'm tired of talking about it. Beating my head against a brick wall would be more effective.

The truth is that Democrats are for being effective on dealing with the problem of terrorism as opposed to fear mongering and living out imperialistic dreams like the current bunch of Republicans we have in the White House.

Which party hasn't implemented any of the recommendations from the 9/11 commission? Which party suppressed the investigation in the first place? Which party hasn't done anything to actually do things like start securing our ports, etc? Which party is utterly ineffective at international diplomacy?

The answer to all of those questions is the party that controls all 3 branches of our government - the republican party. I could talk to you about how John Kerry (remember him?) suggested that the right approach was to treat terrorism more as a matter of law enforcement (which incidentally landed the people behind the first WTC bombing in jail and is exactly what the British have successfully been doing) but the usual suspects won't listen and will respond with the same predictable points so I'm not going to bother. I could also talk to you about the various pieces of proposed legislation and plans Democrats have for security that won't ever see the light of day while Republicans control congress but that'll be ignored too so I won't bother with that either.

Now as far as the NSA stuff, I really don't know who Jane Harman is, nor do I care. What I do know is that this is an illegal program - weighed in upon by nearly every legal expert and constitutional scholar in the country - and I'm going to support anyone who is against it because that is the right call. It is a violation of our constitutional rights and part of a larger trend of the executive branch grabbing all the power it can and hoping no one notices.

And you really have to be kidding with this whole Soros thing. I know that he is the right wing's boogieman and all. People like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity toss him out to scare the troops. The real truth is that he is one man trying to build a progressive infrastructure for Democrats. The GOP has been building this infrastructure for 30+ years and they have 100's of George Soros' and 1000's of foundations and think tanks too. Soros and his few co-conspirators have scarcely made a dent.


Nope don't think that is true either, unless concerns like affordable health care, making sure people have a fair wage, trying to get people cheaper drugs, trying to expand education and trying to make sure we don't completely mortgage our future by going into debt aren't concerns of the working class.

Oh and then of course there is this:



Why don't we just take this head on to show how meaningless these numbers are. Go check out the race profile at open secrets.

Lieberman raised $8,904,642 and Lamont raised $4,116,131 - Lieberman took in almost 2 times as much. Think that means he is naturally going to have more donors? Hmmm.

Lieberman raised $7,284,449 from individuals and $1,443,050 from PACs and contributed none of his own money. Lamont on the other hand raised $1,607,371 from individuals, $3,784 from PACs and contributed $2,501,500 of his own money.

Now what does that mean? Well if you put the race in context, Lieberman was a sitting Senator so he has name recognition and a fundraising advantage. In fact i don't think the primary was even in serious contention until maybe mid to late 2005? So he was going to naturally draw most of the democratic donations. Lamont started the race with his own cash because he saw a grassroots desire for another candidate - and he won it by raising money from individuals and a pretty impressive run at that considering he had no name recognition till this year and he was a dark horse candidate.

Regardless of Soros' boogieman status he is capped at donating $2100 to a specific federal candidate per year just like anyone else and as DTOM pointed out he donated a whole $1000 to Lamont - big freakin deal. I must have missed that tiny insignificant donation when I rushed through the data. Well insignificant unless you are the media and then it makes you "financed by George Soros" when in reality that money might have bought a fraction of an ad buy or some bumper stickers - surely that turned the race - go george!

Both men were financed by individuals for the most part, and that much is true of almost any Democrat - just go surf around open secrets a bit. In general Republican candidates that are established and in office are more heavily funded by PACs and big donors, that is a pretty established fact. The Republican party is primarily characterized by fundraisers like this and this. You should note that the Democrats don't have a "ranger" or "pioneer" designation like Bush does.


I'm sorry but that doesn't fly, the republicans make far larger use of 527's than democrats do - the most famous and the only reason people even know what a 527 is - the swift boat veterans.

Tough on defense Democrats aren't losing influence. "Wrong on the Iraq War" Democrats are. Joe Lieberman cozied up too long with George Bush and it cost him big-time. As well it should when a majority of voters conclude the incumbent is serving his agenda and not theirs.

I find it laughable that the same GOP that trots its moderates out at its national conventions and ignores them the rest of the time clucks its tongue at the Connecticut voters who "purged" Lieberman as their representative.

from Tony Snow, the White House official who speaks for the president, came this analysis of the Connecticut result: "It's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they're going to come after you."

This statement is rooted in a lie -- or, to be polite, fiction. As Adam Nagourney noted in The New York Times on Thursday: "In fact, the vast majority of Democratic Party leaders supported Mr. Lieberman in the primary and did not endorse Mr. Lamont until after the results were in." On Time.com, Perry Bacon Jr. noted that Lieberman had the support of "almost the entire Democratic establishment."

And if being against the Iraq War makes you "extreme left," then the administration has succeeded in pushing 60 percent of Americans into that camp. That's the proportion opposed to the war in the new CNN poll.

E.J. Dionne

How quickly the Republicans forget the parade of big-time Democrats that stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Jivin' Joe. Despite his personal charisma and prominent standing in the party, an embrace from Bill Clinton for Lieberman didn't resound as much as a kiss from Bush. That may have been the worst kiss since Michael kissed Fredo in Godfather II.

Clinton also criticized Lieberman for some of his remarks after losing last week.

Lieberman has characterized his loss -- and the need for his subsequent independent run -- as liberals in the party purging those with the Lieberman-Clinton position of progressiveness in domestic politics and strong national security credentials.

"Well, if I were Joe and I was running as an independent, that's what I'd say, too," Clinton said.

"But that's not quite right. That is, there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was, 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.'"

"His position is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position, which was, 'Does it matter if they have weapons? None of this matters. … This is a big, important priority, and 9/11 gives us the way of attacking and deposing Saddam.'"

Clinton said that a vote for Lamont was not, as Lieberman had implied, a vote against the country's security.
Clinton's remarks

The same day Lieberman went down, a far-Left Democrat, Cynthia McKinney likewise got the boot in Georgia just as moderate Republican Joe Schwarz who enjoyed White House support was turned out by a right-wing challenger fueled by out-of-state money. Apparently, there's no grand lessons to be learned from those defeats.

Well, maybe there's this. With less than 75 days to go, it's apparently not the best of time for some incumbents.

Lieberman leads opponents in new poll



The voice of Conneticut voters will be heard in November and its that voice that Lieberman is relying on.

They will be heard of course but I hope you see the humor in what you just posted. Lieberman still considers himself a Democrat, he is very forceful about that. I already provided you the quotes directly from his campaign.

But now has effectively been endorsed by the NRSC (they will not endorse or support the Republican candidate in the race) and this poll shows popularity amongst Republiccan voters. Gee, he sure sounds like a Democrat to me

And even better, I actually don't really care if he is re-elected or not, I just think that it was an incredibly sour grapes move. But I will get a kick out of Republicans putting him back in office (if they succeed) because if you look at his voting record on sites which assess such things he receives a score of 0 from almost every conservative group out there.

The Democrats have already said they will likely strip him of committee assignments if he wins and then what good will he be? If he doesn't have any power to actually do anything his lobbyist friends sure won't be very happy. He certainly won't matter on the Iraq war because that isn't going to turn based on his opinion.

But all that aside I still don't think he is going to win, and we'll have to revisit that in Nov. I will say that I find this poll to be largely meaningless because if you recall Lamont started from 0, was 40 points behind at one point and beat a 3 term sitting Senator. So if you are taking this poll as predictive evidence that he'll win you may find yourself a little surprised in Nov.

Its not sour grapes Cube Jockey. Sour grapes would be if he continued to run for Senator with no shot at actually winning. As i contended well before these polls came out, Lieberman still have strong support from moderates and independents and as I also predicted, Republicans would prefer Lieberman over Lamont. Its not about thinking Lieberman is conservative or not that liberal. Because he is liberal. Its just picking the lesser of two evils. Many people in the 2004 election hated both candidates...but some chose Kerry over Bush and vice-versa for the same reason.

Why would the Democrats strip him of committee assignments? The only issue that Lieberman differed with Dems on was/is Iraq (which is curious being a lot of Dems voted for the war). If Lieberman is on an energy panel...what does that have to do with his feelings on Iraq? He still votes Democrat 90% of the time! What does it matter if he is a Democrat in name? Its just semantics.

Furthermore, this poll is a lot more significant because the polls for the primary delt with only Democrats and Lieberman and Lamont were vying for the nomination. The likelihood that Conn. Repubs will touch Lamont with a 10 foot stick is little at best. And if Lieberman does win the election, I can bet that all those money supporters and lobbyist will come crawling back. Losing the primary could be the best thing that ever happened to Lieberman because now he can play hardball with lobbyists who did not support him. I mean, who else are they going to go to?

You have a very strange definition of sour grapes and I'll leave it at that.


I've already answered that, several times in this thread - no one seems to want to listen. It is because he refuses to respect the process in CT. But it has been suggested by senior leadership.


You can think it is significant all you want, but it is really way too far out from the actual election to be meaningful and as I have already said Ned came from 40 points behind before.

I understand that you've said this several times in this thread CJ, and I know how frustrating repeating yourself is, but I don't buy what you've been repeating. The Democrats aren't going to strip Lieb of his poisitions because he "didn't respect the process". You talk about sour grapes, the Democratic Party is going to strip Joe of his positions because he prevented their boy Lamont from becoming a Senator, thereby adding one more anti-war liberal into Congress, plain and simple. Joe Lieberman hasn't disrespected any process, because [as I have repeated several times in this thread] included in this process is the ability to run as an independent provided you receive 60,000 signatures from citizens. Joe did that. That's what's getting the Democratic Party angry. Joe didn't do what THEY wanted him to do, which is accept defeat and ride away into the sunset [and when I say sunset, I mean obscurity]. And the worst part is, not only didn't he do that, but now he stands a good chance at winning the election as an Indy. So the Democrats can cry foul and claim that he disrespected the process all they want, but the truth is that the reason why they're upset is because the process' result didn't suit them.


The Republicans of CT aren't trying to get Joe back in office because they think he's a conservative, their reasoning is simple. The Democratic Party has been loud and clear "we want Lieberman out", so naturally, the Republican Party would want just the opposite. So to them, they'd rather elect a hawkish Democrat who will be stripped of all of his comittee positions, leaving him toothless, than an anti-war liberal who has the support of the Party. It's an easy decision to make.

CP

Sour Grapes



Lieberman is not in denial. He is not a sore loser because he didn't really lose anything. He has a strong chance to win the election convincingly this November. He would be foolish not to go for it.



No people are listening CJ, just don't agree with what's coming out. Statements like "refuses to respect the process in CT" is unfounded. He is not the Democratic candidate but he still votes with the Democrats 90% of the time. What difference does it make.



That was with Democrats CJ. Lieberman and Lamont were arguing over who is more liberal. Lamont won and the Repubs wont sway that way. But if you're calling huge Republican support for Lamont in November then by all means. I will literally (figuratively) drive to San Francisco and shake your hand if you're right on that.

I will say this one more time and that's it, I'm done with this topic.

First, Leder - you have precisely proven my point by defining sour grapes for us. Lieberman lost the Democratic primary yet he has decided he doesn't want to accept that and he is running as an Independent Democrat. That's be the very definition of sour grapes.

Now to CP, Leder and everyone else. The problem isn't necessarily that Lieberman is running as an independent. The problem is that he still claims membership as a Democrat, he has called himself an Independent Democrat, his campaign has repeated the same - you'll find all that and more upthread. The problem here is that the Democrats selected their candidate, and it wasn't Lieberman and he couldn't accept that. So he decided to strike out on his own but he isn't simply an "Independent" he still feels he is a Democrat. I can't and won't explain it any more clearly than that, if you don't buy it then fine we'll have to agree to disagree because as I said I'm done with this topic.

This has been quite an interesting topic to read through.....

I am a little baffled by some people's issue with Lieberman running in the general election. The goal of a candidate running for public office is to convince a majority of the electorate that he or she is the best person for the job. Maybe it is because I'm not a fan of the primary system, or hold an allegiance to any political party, but I see Lieberman's run in the general as only strengthening the democratic system. I simply cannot understand such a strict adherence to party labels, falling in lockstep to entities that are primarily beholden to special interests in the first place. I am starting to think that some Democrats simply feel offended that Lieberman views himself as a Democrat and feels that a sizable number of his constituents would re-elect him. It shows more than ever that belonging to a party means more of toting the party line than being true to the needs and wishes of those that elect you.

Well this would be true, if Lieberman had won and the democrats still did nothing but bash on him. I mean really though, say a person is a die hard bush supporter, would be pretty hard for them to follow if say Cheney started to hang out with some anti gun liberals and wanting to bring such a policy to the neo con platform or current administration.

Lieberman made some mistakes, and now he is acting in a way I think you might find in a child really. He aligned himself with certain images and labels and thoughts, they did not pay off in votes, so now he is going to go on, not being able to run as a republican or a democrat, simply because he cannot really obtain any true support in either party simply by being flip flop. The reality of it though is him running will be more detrimental to any democrats that run vs. republicans that do, so basically he I am sure knows this and does not care, so you can draw your own conclusions on that one. He was another stay the course voice, it did not pay off, now he wants to take everyone down with him, someone call a whambulance.

The two parties have been polarized, and of course I don’t think its healthy for America, but a great many things are not and they still exist, global warming, Iraq… I could go on.

1. Will the war in Iraq be the overwhelming issue in these elections?
No, I don’t think so since neither party has a better plan. Staying home and not voting will be options along with voting for neither party... both major parties fail to represent the majority. I hope the left will be destroyed by support for immigration aminsity.

2. Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-war party? Is it moving leftward in other ways?
Yes, the Joe defeat in the primaries were directed by Move On and George S.... I understand that M. Moore even threatened H. C. based on assumed power of the anti-war money.

3. Is the mood of the nation becoming more anti-war and/or more liberal?
I think the mood of the majority is that congress, including members of either party simply doesn’t reflect their values. I don’t think America is “more anti-war” or less anti-war... some of the folks desire Bush to kick butt in Iraq and finish it and others desire to quit... the anti war is still a very much minority in the high twenty percents and will be proven so when it becomes necessary to deal with Iran or N. Korea. America will spin on a dime when there is a reason and N. Korea or Iran will joyfully provide the reason ... the reason ... reasonable people will choose to follow... as they did in the Iraq decision to go to war. The majority desire lower gas prices... NO the nation desires lower gas prices and the majority desires a decisive “kick butt” victory in Iraq or fire the guy who doesn’t cause it to happen. It, Iraq, is kind of like the Israel - Lebanon war... both enemies needed their butts kicked and neither leader had the will to do it to the end against internal and external complaints. America is a warring nation and will always rally to war if the leader doesn’t listen to the press or liberals and just produces the product of the enemy in a state of kicked butt.

Depending on your answers to these questions:

4. Which party, which candidates, and which political philosophies will benefit from the changes you see happening?
Politics are local but everything is up to events happening between now and the election... Anti War will not benefit from this election and if it does it will be rewarded with defeat after events prove it to be wrong in dealing with radicals... Divided our nation will fail and I think the folks, or a majority of the folks will demand the extermination of Islam in the next decade... this could be speeded by a selection of an anti war liberal congress... that will reward the nation with certain reasons that the choice was wrong. Like Israel and Lebanon the withdraw (indicating an early withdraw from Iraq) will cause the destruction of Lebanon and Iraq if they, or we have to go back in.... because we are warring nations and we like kick butt leadership when we are not understood... talking nukes, because reason doesn’t work with world popularity nor political parties these days.... just wipe them out and be done with it.

Well, that's certainly a interesting point of view. I'm sure the families of the 2602 Americans killed in Iraq feel their loved ones "kicked butt" before coming back in a flag-draped box.

Regarding your view about America being a warring nation that desires Bush to kick butt in Iraq because we desire a decisive kick butt victory in Iraq because our enemies need their butts kicked and we have to produce a product of the enemy in a state of kicked butt and we like kick butt leadership when we are not understood, please tell me what this has to do with the Lieberman versus Lamont results?



I knew you didn't mean that apology.

Oh, and regarding the novel idea of "the extermination of Islam," might I suggest you consider this quote by Epictetus?

All religions must be tolerated... for every man must get to heaven in his own way.

The US Military is an all volunteer force and many military famlies are very proud of the sacrifices their families have taken for freedom. The true shame would be to leave before the job or mission is accomplished... that would make their sacrifices for NOTHING.

Lamont wants to pull out and build a wall around America and then fill the wall to the brim with social programs... Lieberman, on the other hand is a hawk on national defense and has a clear view of the mindset of the Middle East... given the opportunity he also would spend on social programs.

The problem is these two folks have opposite view towards the need for war. Bush sees the need for war but isn't willing to let the dog off the leash to kick some butt that would put an end to the madness. We are fighting Iran in Iraq right now and Bush has his attack dog still on the leash... Israel is fighting Iran in Lebanon and our deal to cause a cease fire to end the madness made all the death and destruction for nothing... How would an anti-war congress deal with Iran? Bring the dog home and put it in the cage and wait and talk. America is not angry because of the deaths of American soldiers, America is angry because it seems there is no plan to win... The plan to win includes warring with Iran but no one has the guts necessary to say it out loud.


I knew you didn't mean that apology.
Yes, I meant the apology... I'm not being mean saying the anti-war liberals will cause things to get worse if elected... I'm saying the majority will not allow a president to send soldiers to the Mid East again if we leave with our tails between our legs in defeat by Iran.... And, we are fighting Iran. We will not go to the aid of Israel when Iran attacks in earnest even if Israel is pushed into the sea... Our choice will be nukes because we have proven to be too nice to the enemy by not trying 100% off leash butt kicking... The liberals, the media nor the UN won't put up with fighting war as war was meant to be fought... to totally defeat the enemy or to such an extent they beg you to put the dog back on the leash... This does not bread terrorist it puts cameras around their neck and turns them passive.

I agree, but the religion that says it is OK to kill all Jews or Americans don't have the right to do so without considering they will get their butts kicked... to leave without do that will make them stronger and make us weaker, lacking the will to commit soldiers to the Mid East to fight a politicaly correct war.. because if you can't let the dog off the leash then don't bother just nuke them or be prepared to witness the death of Israel and your friends and family after Israel.

Just a quick update to this thread.

Reuters




Later Joseph Lieberman was only to have said this on the matter.

don't hear a lot from the dems on this anymore. Seems like Joe is going to crush lamont come election.
Must be bitter grapes for some in the Democrat party.