Democrats & Liberals Archives

A DINO leaves Connecticut

Joe Lieberman is no Democrat. He is a DINO; a Democrat In Name Only. He never represented the party and his actions last week proved that fact.

His loss last week was huge political news. Here you have a nationally known Democrat that has been the Republican party's mascot for whenever the Republicans wanted to show bi-partisan support; they would pull out Lieberman. Ever since Zell Miller left to attend fencing school, Joe Lieberman has been the Democrat on the leash that the Republicans would pull out whenever they needed the photo-op or a sound bite. And ole Joe was more than willing to accommodate.

The Democrats should learn a valuable lesson with this debacle. This Lieberman showed his true colors with this loss. Many democrats had been saying, since 2000, that he wasn’t their man; he just wasn’t listening to them. So when Joe announced he would run as an independent, he showed his true colors. He isn’t and hasn’t been a democrat for many, many years.

If Joe were a true Democrat, he would have accepted his loss as the will of the people and fought for the party to retain a Democratic Senator seat for Connecticut. But no, his first instinct was not to his representative party. I’m sure many of those in the Democrat party that came out to stump for him in the weeks prior to the election aren’t too happy with his announcement of departure. But, many party loyalists, myself included, say good riddance; you are not a Democrat and do not represent my views. But Joe, I feel has other ambitions.

In politics, you win or lose; that’s basically it. And if you want a future in upcoming elections, you need to play nice with your chosen party. Which is why so many people, like McCain for example, who blasted the current President during the 2000 primaries and abruptly did a turn around to support and campaign for Bush. Yup, McCain supported Bush publicly regardless to whether or not Bush’s campaign push-polled something about McCain fathering a black child out of wedlock. It didn’t matter to McCain, he wanted to run for President at a later date and understood how the game is played.

I suspect Joe does too. My guess is he’s playing for Republican side, not the Democrat side.

For that sole action, of abandoning his party, proved to me and every other Democrat that Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat, was never a Democrat and will never be a Democrat.

With Bill Clinton, who recently campaigned FOR Lieberman a short few weeks ago, announced, in an interview (link) , that Lieberman didn’t represent the Democrats and has been at odds with the party for some time. That should be news. And Clinton’s apparent turnaround can be easily explained by examining the same turnaround that McCain had in 2000; Bill’s about-face was for his wife’s aspirations, not his. Clinton understands the game.

So goodbye Joe, we all knew you were a DINO and announcing your ‘independence’ proved it. I suspect, however, as the Republicans look to regain the White House in 2008, you might announce something else, like you’re now a Republican and will run for the 2008 Presidential election as a Republican.

Good luck with all that.

Posted by john trevisani at August 17, 2006 7:34 AM
Comment #176033


Don’t be too quick to dis Lieberman. It looks like he is going to win. A Quinnipiac poll just came out showing him ahead 53-41. (Note, however: the same poll showed Lamont beating him 54-41 a couple of weeks ago.)

He is getting most of his support from independents and Republicans now, so if he wins let’s hope he stays a DINO and caucuses with the Dems.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 17, 2006 8:18 AM
Comment #176035

i’ve just read that report blurb also. It really doesn’t matter to me. He’s a DINO. It’s not a surprise at all that Republicans support Joe; he doesn’t represent Democratic issue; he supports Repubican issues.

What i did find interesting was the lack of White House support for the ACTUAL Republican Alan Schlesinger candidate. It looks like the White House prefers Lieberman over Schlesinger. (link)

Posted by: john trevisani at August 17, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #176037

Yeah, it’s funny. Schlesinger is apparently a real dud, there was some scandal involving gambling debts. Ironically, if the Republicans had a decent candidate then Lamont probably be winning.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 17, 2006 8:33 AM
Comment #176038

I guess you’re okay with him running as an independent candidate - since he’s not a democrat.

You’ll change your tune in November, but these posts won’t help your cause any. They sure do help Republicans though.

Posted by: G.K. at August 17, 2006 8:39 AM
Comment #176042

Ann Coulter:

This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. Oh yes, this was also the same Joe Lieberman who was the Democrats’ own vice presidential candidate six years ago.

Posted by: JimmyRay at August 17, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #176044

i didn’t support Lieberman as the VP candidate in 2000.

IMO, he was put on the ticket to attract Republicans after the Lewinsky fiasco. Gore distanced himself from Clinton by not having him campaign for him and putting Lieberman on the ticket. In fact, one of the big issues in 2000 was Lieberman’s family values crap.

BTW: citing Ann Coulter as a source doesn’t sway me a bit.

Posted by: John Trevisani at August 17, 2006 8:51 AM
Comment #176047

If he is to run as an independent, he would have to switch parties now. That would mean that the current makeup of the Senate would include Joe as an Independent rather than a Democrat.

Posted by: John Trevisani at August 17, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #176048

John, why are you so upset because Joe is running as a Indy? Is it because he is ahead in the polls now instead of the Party’s chosen boy?
If you were running and lost in the primary, but this thought you were the best person for the job, would you tuck your tail between your legs and go, or would you still try to get voted in.
Sounds more like you are a sore loser then Joe is.
Joe stands by his actions as he should, and should not bend to the whims and wants of the party as a whole. Being a Democrat, I do not believe in everything the party stands for, so does that make me a DINO also. I think Clinton should have been impeached and I think welfare needs to be reformed. I am against abortion but think a woman should have a choice. So I guess I am not a DINO, but a person who votes their feelings

Posted by: KT at August 17, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #176049

Jimmy Ray,

As I noted in another post, it is absurd for conservative Republicans, particularly a nut like Ann Coulter, to attempt to dictate what makes someone a good Democrat.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 17, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #176053


Just like Democrats keeping Delay on the ballot in Texas; I’m sure they have the best interest of those Republican voters at heart.

It’s all just politics

Posted by: George in SC at August 17, 2006 9:15 AM
Comment #176054

The reason the republicans support Joe is they are trying to push the party to the right. This makes the far right look not so far right. His support for the war came at a time when the republicans painted anyone that did not anti-american. And thats too bad I thank Joe is a good man and is a good Democrat that fell victim to bad republican poltics.

Posted by: Jeff Saffell at August 17, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #176057

Frist of all, politics is politics. I think that Lieberman is an independent, now. The neo-libs have taken over the party and will push out anyone who does not toe the party line. The Republicans have pushed out the blue-blood country-clubbers, mostly, out of the party and are now contributing money to the Dems and Independents. Indys have played and important part in the last few elections and their numbers are growing. Is this a good thing?

Its all just politics.

Posted by: JoeRWC at August 17, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #176059


We are talking about two different things. I agree it was pretty cynical for Democrats to sue to keep Delay on the ballot (just as GOP sued to keep Robert Torricelli on the ballot in NJ). But what I am talking about is political discussion. I don’t mean to imply that it is somehow immoral or inappropriate for Republicans to define what a good Democrat is. It’s just silly.

Here is my original post on the topic:

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 17, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #176061

Of course Lieberman leads in the polls - he’s an 18-year Senate incumbent, and probably has better name recognition than any other political figure in the state.

Once Labor Day passes and CT is awash in Clintons, Reids, Schumers, and the money they can generate and deploy, Lamont’s profile and name recognition will rise. Concurrently, Lieberman’s ability to raise money will be circumscribed - many of his big donors are Democratic donors, and they will be under tremendous pressure to withhold funds by powerful Democrats who can retaliate agains them quietly when Congress is in session.

“I’m sorry, Mr. X, we just weren’t able to get the language we spoke about into the bill. Maybe we’ll get ‘em next session.”

Lieberman does get much of his support from Republicans and independents, but is there enough of them to carry a plurality of the vote? Once it comes out that much of his support and funding is coming from K Street and the Republican party, how much of his support will dry up?

To paraphrase the Oscar Award-winning Triple Six Mafia, “It’s hard out there for an independent.”

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #176062

But Woody, what you describe as silly is just common debate practice. Republicans are using Leiberman to define Democrats as extreme.

Define and contrast.

Posted by: George in SC at August 17, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #176065

Joe the DINO changing his spots is perfectly understandable. As i’ve stated before, he has not represented his party or his constituency; that’s why he was voted out.

The discussion about Joe’s ability to ‘vote his feelings’ is a fun little play on words for me. Forgive me if i’m wrong, but isn’t his JOB to represent his PEOPLE? Who the heck cares about Joe’s opinion? He should be listening to his people and representing those people by voting WITH them instead of against them.

So i disagree with your opinion that Joe should ignore (as you said) the whims and wants of his constituency and vote his heart. He was voted in to REPRESENT his people; not his own views.

Posted by: John Trevisani at August 17, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #176066


I see what you are saying, but what is typical is for a candidate to define his opponent as extreme by the positions he actually took.

What the GOP is trying to do he is more like a double-bank shot. They are trying to say to voters: You shouldn’t vote for Bob Casey (or whoever) because he is a Democrat, and the Democrats rejected Joe Lieberman, who we think should be accepted as a good Democrat. (If you think about how Iraq fits into this, it gets even crazier.)

I can’t blame them for trying, but I don’t see how it can work.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 17, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #176069

The issue I have is calling Lamont (who has been Republican in a previous “life”) as extreme. WTF? Has anyone actually listened to this guy? He’s EXTREMELY moderate. The main difference is the Iraq war. How is that fringe or extreme or even left of center?

60% of the American public agrees with Lamont’s stance - how can that be honestly called ‘extreme” or “left”?

It’s political spin to support Lieberman…

Posted by: tony at August 17, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #176072


It has NOTHING to do with supporting Lieberman. Do you think Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Rove, Mehlman, etc. give a rats ass about old Joe?

The agrument being made is, “the Democrats rejected Lieberman therefore there is no room for moderates in Democratic Party.” And that’s a good frame for your opponent in middle-right America.

Posted by: George in SC at August 17, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #176074


There is an easy retort to your argument. The Democratic candidate just has to say “Well, I’M a moderate and they haven’t kicked me out. Actually, they just nominated me.”

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 17, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #176076


Interesting thing happening in the campaign now. Lamont is looking to replace his campaign staff, made up mostly of left-wingers, in order to run to the middle to counter Lieberman’s support by the independants, which are a very large voting block in the state.

And they are very upset. They feel that his is abandoning the people who got him nominated.

And we get told that Lamont wasn’t the left-wing candidate, yet all of the evidence points the other way…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 17, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #176077


I don’t think there is any argument that Lamont appeals to more left of center people than Lieberman. Even if he gets only 41% of the general vote, though, he hardly represents the left-wing fringe.

A lot of people (e.g. McCain) say that Lieberman is a liberal Democrat. In that case, the liberal candidates are getting 94% of the vote.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 17, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #176079

This might be why the Republicans aren’t “behind” their own candidate…mostly because his behavior seems pretty typical of a spate of recent Republican officeholders:

“Schlesinger is not considered a major threat. His campaign stumbled in July after it was learned that he used a fake name to gamble at a Connecticut casino and had been sued over gambling debts at two New Jersey casinos. Republican Gov. M Jodi Rell urged him to drop out of the Senate race, but Schlesinger called the gambling a ‘non-issue’ and vowed to remain in the race.”

Looks like Lieberman is the Republican’s only hope…

Posted by: Lynne at August 17, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #176084

if lieberman was the poster boy for the republicans before this election, as you say, he is sure to be royally pissed off at the dems after the way you all have hung him out to dry.
im going to bet he wins the election too. And if he does win, i dont want to hear any more liberals whining about “not respecting the democratic process” or “the voters have spoken - he should just quit”, cause unless im mistaken, if he retains his senate seat, it wasnt because he bribed some election committee. It will be because the constituants in his state put him back in office by voting for him. Then you can all shut up.

It really sounds to me like you are scared…

Posted by: b0mbay at August 17, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #176088

Scared of what?

Either way, the Democrats gets a truly Democratic senator or a DINO who has pledged publicly to caucus with the Democrats and, as folks on the right say, support the Democratic leadership 90% of the time.

So it looks like Connecticut Democrats get either 90% of a loaf or the whole thing.

Remember when the Republicans named Sen. Lieberman “Sore Loserman” in 2000? A) They were right, and B) now he’s their ideal senator. The world is a funny place.

Maybe you Republicans could start to fund and promote a Liberman/Zell Miller 2008 ticket. From the way you folks talk, that’d be the sure path to capture moderate American voters.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #176092

So, you’re saying that Joe Lieberman is a DINO because he puts his country ahead of his party? If so, then he should wear the label with pride. It distinguishes him from the AINOs (Americans In Name Only) on both sides of the isle who prefer to value Party over Country.

I don’t agree with Lieberman’s stance on Iraq — I was opposed to the invasion even when Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were in favor of it. But the fact remains that Lieberman’s record is more Liberal than Conservative. And if the new Democratic motto is “Tow the party line, or get out”, they’re gonna lose a lot more Statesmen in favor of AINOs, and alienate a LOT more voters.

Is that really what you want?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at August 17, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #176093

I can’t see any beenfit to the Republicans in the race other than to use it to try and paint the Democrats extreme or finge. (Don’t have any real idea - I’m not a REP, but… seems to make sense to me.) The idea that neither of these guys are even close to the liberal side of the party, it’s laughable… except the REPs want to pretend things are different.

I have an idea, why do those who want ot paint Lamont as ultra-liberal try actually presenting specific examples?

As far as Lieberman goes, who cares… he lost, so I think DEMs should stay focused and ignore the disctractions tossed around by the people who want us to loose in Nov. Lieberman’s only viability in this race is his ability to gain media attention (or distraction… however you want to see it.)

Posted by: tony at August 17, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #176094

As a conservative I disagee with Joe Lieberman far more often than I agreee with him but I have always thought of him as honest, sincere and less political compared to other Senators. I do not expect democrats to throw a love fest for him at this point but I do find it intersting to read that he isn’t a democrat and never was a democrat. One thing both democratic and republican politicans have in common is that if you rock their boat they will disown you and all but wish cancer on yur family.

Posted by: carnak at August 17, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #176095

Rob C.:

“And if the new Democratic motto is ‘Tow the party line, or get out’, they’re gonna lose a lot more Statesmen in favor of AINOs, and alienate a LOT more voters.”

Recall history. From Goldwater on, the GOP built their success on a long-term focus on moving right, message discipline, and an amazing communications and outreach infrastructure.

“Tow the party line, or face the consequences” is what any successful political party tries to do. Whether that’s good for the _country_ is certainly debatable, but it’s astronomically silly to portray the Democrats as authoritarian and the Republicans as the party of comity.

But then, astronomically silly seems to be about all many on the wrong wing have left in the tank.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #176097


if he retains his senate seat, it wasnt because he bribed some election committee. It will be because the constituants in his state put him back in office by voting for him

The Democrats don’t want the constituents to choose their Senator. They just want the DEMOCRATIC constituents to choose. That’s why they don’t like Lieberman running in the general election — it allows non-Democrats to vote, too.


Maybe you Republicans could start to fund and promote a Liberman/Zell Miller 2008 ticket. From the way you folks talk, that’d be the sure path to capture moderate American voters.

Zell Miller scares me. But I’d vote for a McCain/Lieberman ticket in a heartbeat, no matter what party it ran under. And I’d be MORE likely to vote for it if they ran as Independents.


Lieberman’s only viability in this race is his ability to gain media attention (or distraction… however you want to see it.)

Well, that, and an 18-year incumbency….


I have a friend who refers to people like Lieberman and McCain as “walking fire hazards”, because they’re always “standing in the isle”. Personally, I think the best politicians are found in that isle. It’s the ones who refuse to go near the isle that we should be afraid of.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at August 17, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #176102


but it’s astronomically silly to portray the Democrats as authoritarian and the Republicans as the party of comity.

But then, astronomically silly seems to be about all many on the wrong wing have left in the tank.

See, that’s the problem with politics today — you criticize the Democrats, and everyone immediately assumes you’re a Republican.

I’m a true-blue, dyed-in-the-wool Independent. I agree entirely that the Republicans have mastered the art of political exclusion. But now the Democrats think they have to play the same game.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at August 17, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #176106


I didn’t mean to single you out personally, but my prose certainly lead to that interpretation, so I apologize.

Speaking as a political scientist, I can say that much of the best empirical research on voting behavior and electoral strategy in the last 10 years or so is pointing pretty clearly that partisan mobilization “the base” is increasingly more successful than moving toward the center. Now, I’m painting a lot of good research with a very broad brush, but the reality is that most (not all, darn it, not all!) people who self-identify as “independent” possess little political information, do not hold consistent political values or attitudes, are considerably less likely to vote than partisans, and are more difficult to mobilize to vote.

Working the base has been the key to the last 12 years of Republican domination, and it’s a strategy seems increasingly viable in an era of narrowcasting and incredibly diverse informational choices.

As much as I hate to say it, what you call “exclusion” might well be the name of the successful game, at least as it stands now.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #176111

I keep wondering why Hillary gets a pass on her war support. Shouldn’t the libs be casting her out of the party as well?

I think Joe will win fairly big in November.

Posted by: nikkolai at August 17, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #176112


Of course Independents are less likely to vote… we don’t even go to the Primaries! :-)

Honestly, in my (admittedly limited) experience, I’ve found that most people fall into one of 5 categories:

1) Democrats — people who actually agree with and support the Democratic Party platform;
2) Anti-Republicans — people who are vehemently opposed to the Republican Party platform;
3) Independents — people fed up with BOTH parties;
4) Anti-Democrats — people who are vehemently opposed to the Democratic Party platform; and
5) Republicans — people who actually agree with and support the Republican Party platform.

In my experience, very few people fall into categories 1 and 5 anymore. 2 and 4 are VERY strong, and 3 is small but growing. In other words, people are more likely to vote AGAINST someone than they are to vote FOR someone.

I did an informal poll at work right after the 2004 election. I asked about 2-dozen people who they voted for, and why. Without fail, everyone who voted for Bush, when asked why, told me why they didn’t like Kerry; likewise, everyone who voted for Kerry told me why they didn’t like Bush. The ONLY person who actually gave me a reason why they supported their candidate (instead of why they opposed the “other guy”) was the one who voted for Ralph Nader.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at August 17, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #176113


I keep wondering why Hillary gets a pass on her war support. Shouldn’t the libs be casting her out of the party as well?

Because Hillary found excuses to change her mind, and is now in line with her party.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at August 17, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #176119

Why is it, that the only issue Joe has sided with Republicans on is the War in Iraq, and national security makes him a Republican? Why can a democrat not support Security? Why can’t a democrat vote for a war? Why can’t a democratic listen to EXPERTS who know if we pull out of Iraq now it is going to lead to a genocide? So John I ask you, How do you sleep at night knowing that Ned Lamont’s answer for the tough issues, is to use a Carrot and Stick approach. You do not sit down and negotiate with Islamic Fundamentalists whose goal in life is the destruction of Israel and the West. You kill them or be killed.

When that dirty bomb goes off in NY your going to wish Ned Lamont was nowhere near the Senate. Oh and before you tell me I am crazy we stopped 14 dirty bomb attempts within the last year.

I am a democrat through and through, but I put American security and hegemony as nessecity to the world, and waiting for the UN to work, or ignoring scholars who study these events puts you to shame. The Liberal society is suposed to stand for tolerance, but as soon as someone disagrees you ask them to shut up.

Joe Lieberman is not the problem with the democratic party John, people like you and Ned Lamaont who want to tolerate everything, and do nothing because its hard work are going to be the downfall to American Society.

Posted by: Secuirty Expert at August 17, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #176120


24 states rely on open primaries, where the voter does not have to be registered with a political party. Regardless of primary type, approximately 80% of eligible voters choose not to vote in primaries - they’re low-salience and low-information elections, save when something is interesting is happening.

Your 5 categories track pretty well with the empirical world, though we usually talk about strong/weak Republican/Democratic identifiers, and yeah, a plurality of people fall into the weak identifier categories.

And to Rob and Nikkolai, maybe if a credible challenger had mounted a primary campaign against Sen. Clinton, that might have happened. I don’t think she gets “a pass,” in fact, I think you’ll see just how much of a pass she gets if she actually announces a candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination. Say what you will, but Lamont had little money and name recognition, and managed to eke out a narrow defeat against a well-known, well-funded incumbent. Democratic voters in one of the most Democratic states found Sen. Lieberman too unrepresentative of their views. Good on ‘em.

Tell me, good people, do you think that the Republican party embraced their “right-wing fringe” by unseating Rep. Joe Schwarz in the 2006 Michigan Republican primary? He was, after all, beat by a challenger from the right.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #176123

Oh yeah, “Secuirty Expert,” I guess the fact that Lieberman supported government intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, failed to support a filibuster against Justice Alito, has continually campaigned against “indecency” in media, and supports Catholic hospitals’ (who get public money) right to deny emergency contraception to rape victims somehow has eluded you - and you a lifelong Democrat and all.

The fact that you seem to have nothing but Republican propaganda in your post aside, please provide some evidence that “we stopped 14 dirty bomb attempts last year.” Troll.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #176125


Because Hillary found excuses to change her mind, and is now in line with her party.

Actually Joe L. supported the entire Bush war effort without reservation, Hillary on the other hand supports the mission but admits to mistakes in the handling of the war. Joe has yet to admit any mistakes in leadership by the Bush administration nor has he withheld any support for the Whitehouse handling of any middle east effort.
With Joe it is Isreal first, America second. And that is no way for a Senetor to be.

Posted by: Sully at August 17, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #176134

Security Expert:

John, people like you and Ned Lamaont who want to tolerate everything, and do nothing because its hard work are going to be the downfall to American Society.

Are actually saying that active dissent is the downfall of American Society?

Lieberman is an elected official in office to serve his constituency; nothing else. He’s not in office to serve his own good, to listen to his heart or to feel his way around the capital. He is a public servant. And if the public he was elected to serve decides he isn’t serving their needs and he gets kicked out. Well… NEWSFLASH… that’s the way our democracy works.

The republican support for Lieberman is serve only the republican needs. The republicans are doing this all over the country by having RNC staffers gather signatures for Green candidates to take votes away from Democrats. It’s a political tactic, a pathetic one, but a political tactic nonetheless.

i believe in an America that Jefferson wanted. Where our democracy constantly checked and balanced itself. Through voting, press and revolts; this democracy checks and balances itself.

i feel sorry that you don’t have the same opinion of what Jefferson envisioned.

Posted by: John Trevisani at August 17, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #176139

John Trevisani,

i believe in an America that Jefferson wanted. Where our democracy constantly checked and balanced itself. Through voting, press and revolts; this democracy checks and balances itself.

I believe in an America that Washington wanted. Where political parties didn’t exist.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at August 17, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #176142


Thanks for your contributions to this board - I hope you continue to post.

My observation as a “free thinking conservative” is that I would rather have a person who is willing to stand in the middle of the aisle and vote his/her conscience rather than just down the party line (or worse - the “wet the finger to see which way the wind is blowing” type of politician).

My observation as a student of political science and American history (my two degrees from a respected university) is: I see nothing fundamentally wrong with a person switching parties before the actual election. If Lieberman is elected by the voters of Conn. - then fine. The will of the people have spoken, and our democratic process has been followed and preserved. I do have a problem with someone like Jim Jeffords switching his party affiliation during his term (if you remember Tom Daschle promised a chair position for Jeffords if he switched parties and essentially handed the power of the senate to the democrats). But hey - if he ran again in 2005 and was reelected by the wacko Vermont constituents, then fine (I can say wacko, because I actually grew up in Burlington and got to witness Vermont politics first hand - don’t even get me started on Bernie Sanders…) And if Joe Swartz from Mich. reran as an independent after losing in the primaries (and won) then I would have no problem with that either.

My observation to this whole situation as a person (albeit somewhat of an off the cuff thinker) is that the democrats have a REAL FEAR that Lieberman will be reelected. And whatever modicum of support you think Lieberman showed to the current administration/republicans will be ever greater as an independent who doesn’t have to cow tow to his Democratic colleagues. If Lieberman wins in November, I predict a lot of olive branches being extended from the left.

My $.02 - your thoughts?

Posted by: b0mbay at August 17, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #176143

“A DINO leaves Connecticut
Joe Lieberman is no Democrat. He is a DINO; a Democrat In Name Only. He never represented the party and his actions last week proved that fact.” Posted by john trevisani at August 17, 2006 07:34 AM

John, I must question your logic…or lack of it. If Joe voted with the Democrats 90% of the time and, according to your logic, that does not make him a Democrat, then logic would indicate that the same 90% of the votes he cast were actually representative of Republican values.
Logic would then follow that all the Democrats that voted with Joe on these same issues were also DINO’s.
Sorry John, you can’t have it both ways. Either Joe voted the Demo position 90% of the time or all the Demo’s voted for the Republican position 90% of the time. I sure hope you can follow this as I am convinced that your are merely writing from the seat of your pants (raw emotion) versus writing with a mind that has really considered the nonsense you spew.
It really is upsetting when some on this blog are so admiring of a politician when he/she stands for their beliefs and positions in the face of critisism from the opposition as long as it agrees with the bloggers position. But, when that persons position, even when genuine, flys against some of the writers here, they become outraged. Methinks John, that your venom against Joe Liberman either stems from ignorance, anti-Semetism, or from fear that your guy is going to lose in the general election.

Posted by: Jim at August 17, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #176147

If Joe runs as on the indy ballot it could (would) split up the blue vote, wouldn’t it?

His main crime in terms of blue-hued politics was that he would say one thing, taking a left-wing stand and then shift over to the right, apparently after running into Sen. Frist somewhere in the cloakroom (sarcasm). It’s not just the Iraq issue it’s his democratic shill-ism that gets alot of people’s goats here.

In other words using the democratic ticket to get office and support rather right-wing initiatives on our party’s dime. Personally I think he is a good man but he seems to like the amour coming from the right-wing more than he desires such support from the left.

The Republicans should, on same token, get rid of John McCain being he has no idea where he stands either.

Posted by: Congrulio at August 17, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #176148


It just seems to me that conservative commentators really want to have this both ways. First and foremost, the Republican noise machine has transformed their “Sore Loserman” into the Best Senator Evar and savior of the Democratic party. On the other hand, the Wrong would have us believe that the Democrats are somehow “scared” to have back among their ranks a man who, as they claim, “votes with the Democratic leadership 90% of the time” who has publicly vowed to caucus with the Democrats.

Again, I ask you, what’s to fear? If Lieberman wins as an independent and caucuses with the Democrats, I guarantee you they will strip him of all his seniority and make him the most junior member of the Post Office committee - he’ll be exiled to Pluto. What’s Lieberman going to do about it, caucus with the Republicans? That paints him as a baldface liar, and even worse, plants himself in the same marginalized camp as Sens. Snowe, Chafee, etc. - supernumerary members of a majority caucus whose votes are only needed to break a filibuster, and whose votes are insufficient to guarantee same.

Again, what do the Democrats fear? President Bush becomes a “lame duck” (I despise the term so used, but it’s universal now) as soon as this election concludes, and if the Republican margins in both chambers narrows (as I think it will, though I think Democrats will retake neither chamber), that just guarantees 2 more years on the current glide path.

But Lieberman _will_ have to kowtow - independent members of Congress are completely at the mercy of the party apparatuses that distribute committee assignments and all the other things that put an elected official in a position to do their thing. He’ll have the freedom to take whatever public stands he likes, but that’s thin soup indeed.

Sorry to run long. I don’t have any problem with anyone running as anything, I just want people to see the realities, absent spin.

And you’re right; what Jeffords did was astronomically shady.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #176151

This works out fine for Republicans

There was no way the Republican could have won in Conn. Lieberman would have crushed him. We will probably get Lieberman anyway, but now he will be a little less tied to the Dem Party. I would presume that he will mostly split the Dem vote which means he will depend on Republican or independent votes to win. The liberal wing of the Democrats will be telling him to go to hell (and trying to send him there) so he will owe them no loyalty at all. No matter what, this whole thing can only make him more moderate, and the lefty Dems already thought he was TOO MODERATE already.

Nice job lefty Dems. I suppose your next task is to scratch out Hillary Clinton’s eyes. Remember that revolutions always devour their own children.

Posted by: Jack at August 17, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #176152

You may not approve of my opinion, but throwing out a phrase like ‘anti-semite’ is crossing the line. Either retract it or i will ask for you to be banned from the site.

Numbers are a funny thing when you throw your percentages like 90% of this and 10% of that. What exactly is the 90% of?

It’s a pretty simple thing to examine each vote and see where Lieberman stood. But the hard part is finding out what his constituency actually wanted. In this case, they never wanted a war with Iraq, want the US to get out Iraq and Joe paid the price. He’s made it pretty clear, publicly, when he differs from his party and his constituency but announcing his support for issues that differ from those that elected him. He’s the one out in front of the cameras, kissing the President.

Posted by: John Trevisani at August 17, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #176153


I know you only have the best interest of the Democratic party at heart, and that’s what makes your advice so good. Please see my previous post on how Congress actually works so you can get a grasp of why an independent Lieberman is, in fact, even more firmly tied to the Democratic party than he would have been as the Democratic candidate.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #176158


“But then, astronomically silly seems to be about all many on the wrong wing have left in the tank.”


This entire discussion is subterfuge—much to the delight of the Republican Right. This coming election should have everything to do with conservative governance, or lack thereof. What Lieberman has done has detracted from that Democratic message. That is why Democrats are disgusted with JL—his little ego-trip independent run mirrors his ego-trip decision to not step down from his senate position when he ran with Gore in 2000, thus opening the possibility of a Republican governor appointing a replacement if the Democratic ticket had won.

This election is not about JL—it’s about Republican accountability for the last six years. The country has gotten a snootfull of conservative theory—and, by all accounts, the voters are not pleased.

That is JL’s real sin—that of aiding the Republican noise machine’s static regarding their dissembling of their record of governing.

“Hey! Look over there!! There’re two gays trying to get married!!”

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 17, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #176159
There was no way the Republican could have won in Conn. Lieberman would have crushed him.

So basically, the GOP is so weak in Connecticut that making a moderate Democrat act (arguably) more moderate is a victory. Let’s hope all of your victories are this big!

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 17, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #176160


you’ve given me something to chew on. My initial reaction is that there havent been that many independent senators throughout our history to establish a blanket response to an independent. That, and every situation/person is different. If Joe wins, will the democrats come back and embrace him into the fold? Maybe - There certainly did seem to be a toning down of the rhetoric from the left towards Joe recently. I mean the guy does have a lot of longstanding and well deserved credibility. It very may well be that the Democratics banish Joe to the water closet as punishment though. What will the republicans reaction be though? Will there be any political goodies thrown Joes way from the right? Who knows - its tough to say. Id say a better strategy for the democrats would be to try and soften the rhetoric, let the election play out, and if Joe gets back in the senate, to try and welcome him back into the fold. Its either that or Joe will be forced to work with the republicans as Arr-squared mentioned. How would that serve the liberals?

Posted by: b0mbay at August 17, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #176162

Rob, I like your 5 cat’s, and I have to agree with it. I guess I would most likely fit more in 3 leaning toward 2.

Now I want to know one Democrat who follows the party doctrine 100%, other then Ted Kennedy?

Posted by: KT at August 17, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #176164

“Now I want to know one Democrat who follows the party doctrine 100%, other then Ted Kennedy? “

Okay, sure…uh, what’ the party doctrine?

Getting a party doctrine out of Democrats is like herding cats.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 17, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #176169

Jim: “You may not approve of my opinion, but throwing out a phrase like ‘anti-semite’ is crossing the line. Either retract it or i will ask for you to be banned from the site”.
John, I wrote, “Methinks John, that your venom against Joe Liberman either stems from ignorance, anti-Semetism, or from fear that your guy is going to lose in the general election”. The fact that you chose “Anti-Semite” from among three possibilities given is no reason for a “mea-coulpa” from me. Does your not objecting to the other two possibilities mean you agree with them?
You make the wild claim that Joe’s constituency did not want a war in Iraq. Joe was re-elected in 2000, well before the war so how could that even have been an issue. Joe is now leading the race by a substantial margin among the entire voting populace in Conn. If the majority of voters are for Joe now, how can your analysis make any sense. And, by the way, 90% is not difficult to understand. It’s 9 out of ten, 90 out of 100. If he voted with the party 9 out of 10 times what you’re objecting to is not his political party faithfullness, just his votes every once out of ten times. Does this help?
Please name the Democrat Senator who votes 100% with the official party position. And, who do you think makes up the official party position? Thanks!

Posted by: Jim at August 17, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #176171



Republicans had zero chances to win. Now Dems will spend time and energy fighting among themselves. It can’t hurt.


In all the excitment of the piranas chewing on Lieberman and making him impotent, I think you are missing the point. Lieberman was a good and powerful Democrat. It might be fun to eat him alive, but you are losing him as a strong player. It is like a football team taking pleasure that one of their own best players broke his leg and now will not be a “threat” to the team.

BTW - it is TOE the line, as in stand in perfect order with your toes to the line, not stepping over as in a race. TOW the line makes no particular sense. It is like the loose cannon BALL.

Posted by: Jack at August 17, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #176174


Thanks for your compliments.

Let’s say Lieberman wins as an independent. What are the relative bargaining positions of the 3 major players involved (the Dem caucus, Lieberman, and the Rep caucus). I don’t think the Republicans will increase their Senate margin, let’s call the seats 53R 45D 2I (Lieberman and Jeffords).

Lieberman can caucus either with the Dems or Republicans. The party caucuses divide up all committee seats between themselves, leaving independents no way to get assignments other than through a party caucus. The average Senator sits on 4 standing committees. Lieberman currently sits on the Armed Services committee (very highly prized), Environment, Government Affairs (highly prized and stealthily powerful), and Small Business.

Say the Dems play the hardest ball possible - they strip Lieberman of all his seniority and assignments, and give him 4 garbage committees where he is the juniormost member on each.

Now, the Republicans _could_ try to entice him into their caucus, but A) this guy IS a 90% Democratic voter, and B) any plum Lieberman gets tossed means a sitting Republican must get bounced from an assignment earned by hard work and party loyalty. Lieberman would also alienate his constituency, since CT is about the 3rd most Democratic state. Very risky for no real payoff.

Suppose the Democrats and Republicans tie it up - 49/49/2 - this is the best case scenario for Lieberman, since Jeffords caucuses with the Dems. Lieberman can caucus with the Republicans and force a 50-50 tie, giving VP Cheney a lot of important tie-breaking votes. OR, Lieberman can take a hard-line position with the Dems, giving them a bare majority in return for a choice committee chairmanship.

If the Dems manage to seize a majority in their own right, which I see as unlikely, Lieberman’s choices would be to accept whatever crumbs the Dems could offer or caucus with a Republican minority.

You’re right that there’s almost no empirical/historical evidence to rely on…this is a job for a little elementary game theory. :)

Is anyone reading these posts but us? :p

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #176178


You don’t get it. Lieberman was a powerful Democrat because he had earned a lot of power and prestige in the Democratic caucus. Running as an independent after losing his party’s primary wipes out that power and prestige. It’s really that simple - he becomes an outsider looking in, hoping for some seat at the table.

I didn’t actually write “tow the line,” did I?

Your football analogy is entirely wrong. A better analogy is this: Lieberman is Terrell Owens constantly calling out Donovan McNabb and the Eagles management. Andy Reid just de-activated him and put in a pretty solid rookie. Owens might get picked up by another team, but all the other teams already have well-established receiver corps. It’s “addition by subtraction” for the Eagles, and the other team doesn’t want the cap hit or the baggage.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #176179

I _did_ write “tow the line,” and I knew better. Mea maxima culpa.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #176182


I dont know, but I like your analysis. Guess we will have to wait until after the election. Makes for good political debate though!

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion in terms of what will happen if the senate is split 49/49/2? (assuming JL wins as an independent).

One more food for thought - what if JL wins by a decisive margin? How will that play into the above scenario?


Posted by: b0mbay at August 17, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #176186

I’ll take the easy question first - if JL wins with a large margin of victory, however defined, it doesn’t matter. It’s not like Lieberman can help CT deliver its electoral votes to a Dem in 08 - that’s where they’re going anyway.

I’ve been thinking about the 49/49/2 split all day, and here’s what I’d do if I were JL. Of course he’ll go Dem, giving them a 51-49 margin, but he’ll extract a major concession. I’d ask to be made chairman of the Armed Services committee, overstepping Sen. Levin, who is currently the ranking member. As the committee chair, I can make sure my sub base and General Electric facility in Groton never go away, hugely bolstering my support in blue-collar CT.

But if I were the Democratic leadership, I ask myself, “Will Lieberman _really_ caucus with the Republicans?” And I think I answer “yes,” so I give him the chairmanship and toss Levin some other bone, though no bone really compares to Armed Services.

Which leads me to a response to “Jim” above that I wanted to make before:

If the 90% of the votes where you support your party are procedural, minor, or tangential and the 10% you differ are on your party’s key issues, AND you attack your party for disagreeing with the other party on those issues, then you’re not a good member of your party. I’d think everyone could see that.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #176191


I think you may be right given the scenario, however dont you think republicans will know that, and try to exploit the fact that during/after the primaries the democrats left joe out to dry. I see your point on the right not wanting another member to have to give up a seat on a chair that they worked for (through party loyalty…etc).

However, with JL on the right side of the aisle (in terms of caucus) the republicans get:

1. someone who votes with the party on (as you say) key issues.
2. to retain control of the senate (given the 49/49/2 scenario) and Id be willing to bet that they would give big for this
3. rub it into the face of democrats (dont discount this - I can see how the conservatives could spin this to their favor).

That is why I say that democrats should soften their tone toward JL and that the left is (and should be) scared of the possibilities.

Did I miss anything?

Oh -anyone else reading this and discussing politics? Or should we just go back to the mindless bashing?

Posted by: b0mbay at August 17, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #176192


I have an idea, why do those who want ot paint Lamont as ultra-liberal try actually presenting specific examples?

Is that Al sharpton I see there? Was Jesse Jackson there? Does support him? What more evidence do you need?

Posted by: G.K. at August 17, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #176197


So if any of those you mentioned support someone, then it translates into that person being exactly like them? Nice try, but Anne and Rush are way better spinsters than you are. What evidence do I need? How about any REAL evidence.

Facts people…not crap. By the way…I read that Jesse and Al weren’t even supposed to be on the stage…they just went up there on there own.

Do you think that Lieberman would have booted them off HIS victory platform, or do you think he might have been simply happy to have won, and decide to let the moment play out naturally? Damn desperate republicans are getting rediculous these days…every time I read these idiotic posts that show no thought whatsoever, I get really embarrassed to call myself one. I know it is a stretch, but lets try, as republicans, to avoid “guilt by association” comments…seeing as how current republicans have associated themselves regularly with criminals and shady people. Remember Ken Lay and the dozens of other corperate criminals that had VERY good ties to Bush? The list is extensive, so try and think before you spout off.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 17, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #176198


Well, I don’t think the “Democratic party left him high and dry.” The Democratic party funded Lieberman’s primary run, and prominent Democrats campaigned FOR Lieberman during the primary season. Let’s not forget that.

What happened was, Lieberman still lost. What can the _Democratic Party_ do? Can they say, “Well, Ned, we know you won, and by the rules you’re the official Democratic nominee, but we are going to endorse and fund Joe Lieberman anyway. Maybe you’ll get ‘em next time.”

I’d say that the credibility of the institution (the Democratic party) trumps the short-term aberration here.

Re: your analysis, I’d point out that under the 49-49-2 scenario, Lieberman caucusing with the Republicans gives the GOP a tie, not a majority. On some important vote, if the Dems can peel off Snowe, Chafee, or someone else, that gets rid of the Cheney problem.

On the other hand, caucusing with the Dems gives them an absolute majority, albeit the smallest possible one.

If JL went Republican, do note that he’d be by far the most liberal Republican in the caucus. I personally don’t like the DINO/RINO epithets, and I’d point out that while JL _is_ conservative by Democratic standards, he is a raving liberal loon by Republican standards. The only reason at all the GOP is going to bat for him is because he has consistently provided a fig leaf of “bipartisanship” for the President.

Also, giving Lieberman pride of place above the exisiting moderate Republicans who have swallowed a linear ton of shite over the past five years might just cause one to bolt to the Dems and even the sides again. Chafee could do it and fit much more comfortably with the Donkeys than Lieberman would fit in the GOP.

I definitely encourage you to rethink the “hung him out to dry” idea - what else could they do and maintain any credibility as a political party?

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #176205

“Getting a party doctrine out of Democrats is like herding cats.”

Ok, for a laugh, why don’t you elighten us as to the republican party doctrine?
If you say “smaller, less intrusive government”, I might have to bust a stitch laughing.

Posted by: Observer at August 17, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #176207


“Ok, for a laugh, why don’t you enlighten us as to the Republican party doctrine? “

Tax cuts (and more tax cuts) for the rich, plenty of bootstraps for the poor, fear, ridicule and hate for dissent, gobs of piety and hypocrisy for our evangelical brethern, back to the 1920s for women, back to 1880s for blacks and unions, and plenty of school vouchers for deserving whites who hate truth; tough love and blame for the least of us, ‘atta boy Brownie’ for the entitled and the well-heeled, belligerence and hubris for foreign policy, and an immigrant in every pot.

How’s that?

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 17, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #176214

So Joe is a DINO… too moderate for the Democrats. Yet, he’s WAY too liberal for the Republicans. What can we learn from this? Perhaps the biggest lesson is that there’s a HUGE middle ground between the two parties! Given that, it seems a bit foolish to expect voters to choose between those parties, without offering a third option. We’re presenting voters with two extremes, and then debating which extreme is less severe. Shouldn’t we be avoiding the extremes entirely?

Maybe we’ll get lucky. Maybe the Ds and Rs will BOTH dump the moderates, who will all get together in the middle and form a new party. Maybe THEN we can get back to running the country, instead of fighting this partisan war.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at August 17, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #176222


Okay, so personal appearances by quintessential liberals isn’t evidence enough for you. How about your own words and actions. A known liberal (Lieberman) wasn’t considered left enough for you all. You set out to destroy him for a slight move to the center. By your own definition that makes Ned Lamont a leftist - or liberal. If not, he has certainly pulled the wool over your eyes. Do ou know what he stands for?

Posted by: G.K. at August 17, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #176244


Active dissent vs. lacking political will are different things. You can disagree with policies and strategies, but you can not argue against logical experts, who spend their lives working on solutions to problems like these. Lamonts instand solution to remove the troops from Iraq will cause a conflict between the Shi’i and Sunni’s causing the Shi’i Iran to enter into the war, and create a united Shii’i government including Iraq. This isn’t republican or democrats stating this. This is coming from experts on the field, Stefan Wolff for instance, Francis Fukuyama, some who were for the war but others that were against.

Liebermans job is to do what is best for American and the people of Connecticut. Do you actually live in CT. I do and he has done a fantastic job for this state.

The republican candidate in this state is a joke, which is why Lieberman gets so much support within this state. Schlesenger the card counting, jackoff who is known for being worthless probably couldn’t get the support of his own wife.

Yes Republicans do want Americans to vote for them and use dirty tactics to do so. (lets not pretend democrats are totally clean in this either). But that has nothing to do with Lieberman.

Jefferson also said he made a mistake in giving the American people for wanting to live the good life. He was angry that Americans were selfish and did not care about the community as much as the invididual.

I have what Jefferson envisioned, a society where the checks and balances exist, but are not used out of selfishness or lack of political will. Jefferson also said we had to defend our democracy from others, and protect the state. Allowing Lamont into office protects nothing but scared hippies (this includes republicans against the war that support him) who have no political will and want to cut and run as soon as somethign gets hard. What happens when we have to fight a real war? (Iraq wasn’t real we won in 3 weeks).

Posted by: Secuirty Expert at August 17, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #176247


You claim your a political scientist may I ask what your expertise is in? Because any IR person would think your insane for supporting Lamont.

The 14 attempts are public knowledge if your a real political scientist and not a at home couch potato wannabe you will find it. Nothing in my post is remotely republican. In fact I am a democrat as I stated and you prove my point. A democrat who disagrees with you is a troll talking republican propoganda when its actually accurate, factual, logical, and in this case backed up by experts. You may not want to examine anything logically and look at the facts but after you remove your head from your rump, you may see the truth. You may not like arguments, truth and reality, but some of us live in the real world, where islamic fundamentalists can not be negotiated with and the only way to save the state is to protect America.

The filibuster against Alito was a waste and he knew it. Lieberman dosn’t liek Alito, neither do I but the filibuser was not going to prevent him from eventually being appointed and was going to make democrats look like jackasses in doing so. Logical.

The medida indecency or what you refer to as censorship, is not bad. I don’t want kids watching sex on tv, and music does need warnings on it today. Have you ever listened to 50 cent, or Nas or Mace or any of the rap world. The lyrics are about sex, violence, drug use and murder. Is ok to say, “hey young kids shouldn’t hear this and parents may not know so lets inform them.”

Those Catholic hospitals also treat hundreds of thousands of patients a year who will not trust state hospitals. While I may not agree with them doing that, Id like to save all those lives if possible, as well as that Churches regularly do drug and alchohol counciling and the money is well spent on that. Unless you think drug abusers should be left on the street because state institutions are full? Yes Rape victims should recieve Plan B contraceptive if they request it, but pharmacists legally don’t have to give it out to anyone they don’t want to, the same with birth control. Maybe as a political scientist you should do more research first.

Posted by: Secuirty Expert at August 17, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #176276

I’m an Americanist who studies behavior, most of my research is on interest groups. I also teach methods.

Saying “look it up yourself” is not evidence. If it’s as easy to find as you say, you should be able to prove your claim easily. The burden, my friend, is on you to support your outlandish claim.

Your reply centers on the fact that Lieberman was right to differ with his party where and when he did. Maybe he was. The point, however, is that by doing so, and by being a vocal public critic of his own caucus, he alienated a lot of core voters in his state.

So prove your claims about the “14 dirty bomb plots in the last year,” troll, or trouble me know more. And perhaps work harder to be a spelling expert in addition to your core competency in “Secuirty.”

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 18, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #176290

Ahhh an Americanist, well that would explain why i disagree with you so much.

Actually the information was released in Congress and came out a few times already. I said look it up yourself because every political scientists I know including Americanists knows this. Sad.

And if you have seen recent polls he is leading within his own state, now behind. So much for that theory. The problem is that Lamont is a one issue candidate (i met the man he dosn’t know what he is doing) and the business from scratch was started with a multi-million dollar inheritance from his daddy.

So to prove it, not gonna put a link on here, not sure its apropriate. I suggest you look in some Internationl Policy journals from the U.S. government. For fun you should also read the NSS 2004. Its enlightening.

I should work on my spelling but respdonding after explaining the poor planning by the U.N. in creating the Hezballa/Israel ceasefire, and how it was not going to solve the underlying or sufficient problems within the situation could eventually lead to another war that is far worse in a short period of time, and that Olmert was going to send in a full invasion this time, no holding back which would shock the I.C.

My research if you did not guess is IR.

Posted by: Secuirty Expert at August 18, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #176293

Jim, ascribing motive to WB participants based on their statements of support or lack of for candidates, is critiquing the Messenger, NOT the message. You can’t possibly know what other’s motives are unless they state for themselves what they are, and even then, the information may not be reliable. Describing a participant’s motive as anti-semite DOES cross the line.

Please observe our Rules for Participation or lose the privilege to participate.


Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at August 18, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #176301


So you won’t provide any specific evidence for your claims about the alleged dirty bomb plots? It’s entirely appropriate to provide direct citations here - the first 10 pages of a google search of “foiled dirty bomb plots” and various permutations thereof turn up no support for your outlandish claims.

I’m from Missouri, so you’ll have to show me. Your unsupported allegations are not credible evidence. Provide a specific link or reference; put up or shut up.

And if you’re going to criticize a candidate because he got his start with inherited money…start at the top.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 18, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #176308


HUH? Are you attributing words to ME personally that I never said? First, I’m not a democrat. Second, I DO know what Lamont stands for. Third, making some general statement about the inferred general motives of a huge political party made up of millions of individuals is NOT evidence. It is an assumption, or it is attributing the feelings of SOME people to ALL people in that group. And when you say “by definition” you are in no way defining anything. Matter of fact, your entire post is disturbingly retarded in that it makes no point, provides no evidence, and arbitrarily inputs words and feelings to those who may or may not be deserving of your assumptive attributions.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 18, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #176314

And this is contradictory in and of itself:

“A known liberal (Lieberman) wasn’t considered left enough for you all. You set out to destroy him for a slight move to the center.”

If he wasn’t liberal enough, why’d the party go towards the center? And how does this national election mean anything to the Connecticut election? Please clarify so I can actually follow your thoughts.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 18, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #176586

Joe is a true Harry Truman and a john Kennnedy. The party needs more Dems. like Joe. The party needs to forget about small populations and rally around the majority of people. Gay marriage, let that popoulation work it out privately. And, Etc… My Party needs to worry about education, the three R’s for all, employment for all, unions, and raising the middle class. And, protecting us from terrorists.

Posted by: Mark in Greenwich at August 20, 2006 8:08 AM
Comment #176606

The radicals are taking down the democratic party and I’m loving it. That’s right, people like Joe should be smeared, attacked, run out of the democratic party.

Common over Joe, we are a big tent party and the democratic party has no place for democrats like you. Liberals, the progressives think you are traitors. Common over to a party that will not treat you like yesterdays trash!

Posted by: Stephen at August 20, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #176619

I love the libs, Joe votes 75% with the liberal agenda, 20% with the Clintonite tribe and 5% with the Bush tribe. Then you get these media folks like John Trevisani all upset now because Joe is not supposed to even have the right to run. JOHN, he has the right to do this!!! We have a right to label Lemote as a lib, HE IS!!! Get over it. Also, this is a fight between the moderate dems and liberal dems, has nothing to do with true moderates or repubs. Dean/Gore tribe vs Ickes/Clinton tribe. You libs got your way, live with it, deal with it. Go and try to defeat Joe - GOOD LUCK!!!

Posted by: Fred at August 20, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #176623

I love Joe…Joe is great…I want to have his babies.

Sorry, I got caught up in the wave of republican emotion.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 20, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #176702


The radicals are taking down the democratic party and I’m loving it

You’ve made an interesting indirect point. What this discussion in this thread, and it was something that i didn’t foresee when i wrote it, proves is that the GOP and it’s control on the media are going to spin Lamont’s win as Democratic shift to ultra-liberal causes. The GOP, like you are saying here, will paint ole Joe as a good, middle-ground guy that’s being forced out of his party by extremists. (did i get that right?) And that’s an easy message to play and replay and replay on Fox.

i just hope that when the actual election begins, you’ll see that Lamont isn’t the radical extremist that the GOP want him to be, but rather a person, driven by a frustrating representative government, wants a different direction with the Iraq invasion.

i think you misunderstood my original posting. Allow me to summarize:
- Joe ignored his constituency on volatile issues
- Joe sided with the Bush administration on many of those issues
- Joe was voted out because of his stance
- Many candidates lose primaries but do not abandon their party after their loss
- Joe had many many big named party support before the loss. By abandoning his party, he proved that he does not belong in the Democratic party

Also, you might check out what Lamont’s actual platform is before labeling him.

Posted by: john trevisani at August 21, 2006 7:36 AM
Post a comment