Lieberman by 12

[senorpogo]

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

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

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

Most interestingly:

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

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

[Azure]

Good.

I hope he wins.

[Cleon]

So Lieberman is popular among Republicans. Boy, there's a shocker.

[Mycroft]

It seems to me this Lamont/Lieberman thing is evidence of the Democratic party self-destructing.

[Grammatron]

So Lieberman is popular among Republicans. Boy, there's a shocker.

Remove the issue of war on Iraq and how is it not a shocker?

[JamesDillon]

Good.

I hope he wins.

I don't.

But he will.

[BobK]

The DailyKos crowd must be having a conniption.

[Azure]

I don't.

But he will.

Good. :D

[Rob Lister]

It's still early guys and gals.

Lamont was running to the far-far left in the dem nod for the seat.

Leiberman held his stance.

The only issue appeared to be the war.

Now that Lamont has the dem nod, he'll revise, ever so slightly, his stance against. It won't be (or seem to be) a flip-flop, he'll just clarify his position a tiny bit...just enough to tighten up the poll numbers.

[hgc]

Lamont was running to the far-far left in the dem nod for the seat.Maybe this time you have evidence for this claim.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Republicans in Connecticut aren't numerous enough to be important. Unless it's a close race between Democrats.

[corplinx]

Did anyone expect Lamont to be able to beat Lieberman (the incumbent) in a 3 way race in the northeast? Where Lieberman is the incumbent with the name recognition? Is this news?

[Azure]

Did anyone expect Lamont to be able to beat Lieberman (the incumbent) in a 3 way race in the northeast? Where Lieberman is the incumbent with the name recognition? Is this news?

Plus, Connecticut has more registered independents then they do Democrats or Republicans.

[Rob Lister]

Maybe this time you have evidence for this claim.

It was a subjective opinion. Feel free to disagree. I won't mind.

[Rob Lister]

Did anyone expect Lamont to be able to beat Lieberman (the incumbent) in a 3 way race in the northeast? Where Lieberman is the incumbent with the name recognition? Is this news?

Actually, many did.
Many still do.

I'm still only putting him at 80% or so for final victory.

I'd like to see Leiberman win for the same reason those on the left would like to see him lose.

But I also think that if he loses, they lose far more than I do.

[SezMe]

It seems to me this Lamont/Lieberman thing is evidence of the Democratic party self-destructing.
I'd be interested in your fleshing out this opinion.

[JamesDillon]

It seems to me this Lamont/Lieberman thing is evidence of the Democratic party self-destructing.

It seems to me that the above quote is evidence of Mycroft's wishful thinking.

[Rob Lister]

It seems to me that the above quote is evidence of Mycroft's wishful thinking.

don't be too sure just yet. Polls aside (or rather, despite the polls), the dems have not done well [enough] in actual elections of late. Not to say they won't this time. I personally expect the dems to pick up a few seats in both houses this off-term election but the real campaigning has not yet begun.

[JamesDillon]

don't be too sure just yet. Polls aside (or rather, despite the polls), the dems have not done well [enough] in actual elections of late. Not to say they won't this time. I personally expect the dems to pick up a few seats in both houses this off-term election but the real campaigning has not yet begun.

I know; the Democrats have a proud history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. My point was only that Lieberman's defeat in a bitter primary is hardly evidence of Democratic self-destruction.

[Rob Lister]

I know; the Democrats have a proud history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. My point was only that Lieberman's defeat in a bitter primary is hardly evidence of Democratic self-destruction.

I disagree.

1) Leiberman one of the most liberal candidates there is (your opinion my rightfully vary).

2) Leiberman lost on one issue, and one issue alone, the war.

3) Lamont is, again IMO, far more conservative otherwise and probably will change (clarify) his position during the actual election.

IOW, the Dems (that nominate) tend to knee-jerk.

Heck, Leiberman could have wooooped Bush's butt in 04, (I might well have voted for him) but, alas, we was not nominated.

No Thank you. Instead I was left with Kerry. No Thank You.

Maybe 02 as well (though I'd have likely voted for Bush on that one). Gore sealed that deal for me.

ETA: if Leiberman pulls the same Independent stratagy for the Pres election in 08, we'll be certain of another Rep. in the O-Office

[pgwenthold]

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

OK, so just for sake of argument, let's assume that Lieberman and Lamont are even among democrats (I know Lamont won, but let's just make them even), Second, let's assume that Lamont gets NO support from non-democrats. If that is the case, then it means that Lieberman is out-voting Schlessinger by a margin of 12 - 4%, or 75 - 25 for non-democrats.

What does that tell you about Lieberman if he is that popular among the republicans and independents? Sounds like he's not very democrat, to me.

Making the numbers more realistic only increases the lopsidedness of Lieberman over Schlessinger.

[Rob Lister]

OK, so just for sake of argument, let's assume that Lieberman and Lamont are even among democrats (I know Lamont won, but let's just make them even), Second, let's assume that Lamont gets NO support from non-democrats. If that is the case, then it means that Lieberman is out-voting Schlessinger by a margin of 12 - 4%, or 75 - 25 for non-democrats.

What does that tell you about Lieberman if he is that popular among the republicans and independents? Sounds like he's not very democrat, to me.

Making the numbers more realistic only increases the lopsidedness of Lieberman over Schlessinger.

erm...it requires a bit of background on Schlessinger.

[BPSCG]

Now that Lamont has the dem nod, he'll revise, ever so slightly, his stance against. It won't be (or seem to be) a flip-flop, he'll just clarify his position a tiny bit...just enough to tighten up the poll numbers.You mean like this?

When it comes to universal health care for everybody in this country as a basic right, that's a principle of the Democratic Party that Sen. Lieberman has never quite embraced. He's come up with tax incentives for businesses to see if they might be a little more inclined to insure their people. So he generally has not embraced a lot of the Democratic goals and certainly the Democratic methods to achieving where we want to go. Ned Lamont (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008373), interview in The Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2006

That's why I believe in an employer-based health-care system that covers everyone, and providing tax benefits to small businesses so they can provide insurance without risking bankruptcy.
Ned Lamont (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008801), op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, August 16, 2006

Emphases mine. I'm sure there's a difference between tax incentives (= bad!) and tax benefits (= good!).

[JamesDillon]

You mean like this?

Ned Lamont (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008373), interview in The Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2006

Ned Lamont (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008801), op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, August 16, 2006

Emphases mine. I'm sure there's a difference between tax incentives (= bad!) and tax benefits (= good!).
Did you notice that the statements are not at all inconsistent? In the first, he's criticizing Lieberman for Lieberman's lack of committment to universal health care, and willingness to apply tax incentives to encourage voluntary health coverage as a compromise position.

In the second, he's saying that he supports universal health care ("an employer-based health-care system that covers everyone"), and that he favors tax benefits along with the universal system in order to soften the blow to employers.

Where's the inconsistency?

[Rob Lister]

James, of COURSE they are not inconsistant. And when he makes his next statement on this issue, it will NOT be inconsistant with the last statement.

Your job is to take his FIRST statement and compare it with his LAST statement.

p.s. don't think that I don't know that both sides do this...it is necessary to win.

[pgwenthold]

erm...it requires a bit of background on Schlessinger.

What requires background on Schlessinger?

I just took the poll results and estimated that Lieberman is favored to Schlessinger by more than 3/1 by non-democrats.

Therefore, Lieberman is much more popular than the republican Schlessinger by non-democrats, and that includes republicans.

If Lieberman is a democrat, why do republicans love him so much, even compared to republican candidates?

[JamesDillon]

If Lieberman is a democrat, why do republicans love him so much, even compared to republican candidates?

I'm not crazy about Lieberman, but I imagine that at least part of it is that everyone knows the Republican nominee has no chance of winning, and Republican voters view Lieberman as, at least, a lesser evil. They also realize that if they back him, he'll beat Lamont easily.

[Rob Lister]

I'm not crazy about Lieberman, but I imagine that at least part of it is that everyone knows the Republican nominee has no chance of winning, and Republican voters view Lieberman as, at least, a lesser evil. They also realize that if they back him, he'll beat Lamont easily.

That's really the key point. Were a Regan running, the numbers would be quite different.

[SezMe]

2) Leiberman lost on one issue, and one issue alone, the war.
This is the conventional wisdom on the right but I think it is utterly wrong. I'll give you two additional examples where Leiberman and Lamont are wide apart and that are important election issues.

1) Leiberman was a toady for the Cheney enerby policy. Lamont has been adament that the current policy is crap.

2) Leiberman was a toady for the Shrub administration on the Schaivo affair. Lamont has staked out a position that personal decisions are not in the perview of the federal government. This affair is symbolic of how much intrusion by the federal government should be allowed.

[Rob Lister]

This is the conventional wisdom on the right but I think it is utterly wrong. I'll give you two additional examples where Leiberman and Lamont are wide apart and that are important election issues.

1) Leiberman was a toady for the Cheney enerby policy. Lamont has been adament that the current policy is crap.

2) Leiberman was a toady for the Shrub administration on the Schaivo affair. Lamont has staked out a position that personal decisions are not in the perview of the federal government. This affair is symbolic of how much intrusion by the federal government should be allowed.

Okay. Let's see how it goes. I mean, really, did these really enter the minds of the Dem-nominators (those that voted)? I think not, except maybe as a very mild supporting factor. I don't live in that state so I don't have the feel that you do.

No, I maintain that if Leiberman had held, or switched to (which he is not prone to do) an anti-war stance, he'd have won the nod very, very easily against Lamont. Just my opinion.

The fact that he did not, would not, even in the face of loss within his party, raised his standing among republicans...and conservatives in general (such as myself), very greatly.

Charactor really is the most important factor to me. I can speak for no other. Keep in mind that I personally belive (right or wrong) that Leiberman is far-far more liberal than Lamont on every single other issue. I think the political swing would end up right, not left, with Lamont's election.

But...alas...I find he has no charactor...or at least less than that of Leiberman (no politician has any real charactor, else they would not be politician.)

I'm trying to look at this from a non-personal view, however. I think my past analysis holds true.

My crystal ball says Leiberman by 3% in the final outcome.

[Regnad Kcin]

Plus, Connecticut has more registered independents then they do Democrats or Republicans.Do registered independents automatically (or near enough) pull the lever for the guy who runs as an independent, even though two seconds ago he was a Democrat?

[Mycroft]

It seems to me that the above quote is evidence of Mycroft's wishful thinking.

As a registered Democrat, I find it sad.

[Regnad Kcin]

I know; the Democrats have a proud history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...Like in the pres/vp contest of 2000?

Speaking of which... Funny how so many of our friends of the rightish persuasion are singing songs of glad tidings for Joey L., considering how he was branded as "Loserman" by pretty much those same charmers back then.

[Mycroft]

I'd be interested in your fleshing out this opinion.

Not much to flesh out. It seems to me that once Clinton left, the Democrats have suffered a critical lack of leadership. Bush was able to win both elections because the Dems put up terrible candidates.

Gore had all the advantages any Presidential candidate could want. He could bask in the glory of all Clinton's accomplishments yet still stay away from the scandal. He was part of the administration that finally balanced that budget and had a dynamite economy on top of that. Too bad he was so damned boring. Just boring enough that the public felt like giving the other side a try…what harm could it do?

Gore could be seen as just bad luck for the Democrats. After all, it wasn’t as though they really had a choice in who to nominate. Besides, he came really close to winning.

Kerry was just the worst choice imaginable. I voted for him, he’s my party, but I hated doing it. In the middle of a war, did the dems really think America would go for some 70’s anti-war hippie? It’s hard to imagine them being that stupid, but they were. The honest truth is in that election, America went for the lesser of two evils as they saw it. By that time they already knew Bush was an idiot, but they knew at least he was an idiot who would fight the WOT, not surrender it.

Two years later the Dems still don’t have any clear message on what they stand for other than we’re not Bushitlerhaliburton!! Now it seems instead of trying to develop a message, they’re turning on their own. Instead of figuring out how to beat the Republicans, they’re conducting purges.

[SezMe]

Okay. Let's see how it goes. I mean, really, did these really enter the minds of the Dem-nominators (those that voted)? I think not, except maybe as a very mild supporting factor. I don't live in that state so I don't have the feel that you do.
First off, I have no more insight into the minds of Conn Dems than you do, Rob. I was merely reacting to your assertion that, "Leiberman lost on one issue, and one issue alone, the war." (my emphasis) I provided some evidence that this assertion might be false. I cannot assert anything more than that "might".

No, I maintain that if Leiberman had held, or switched to (which he is not prone to do) an anti-war stance, he'd have won the nod very, very easily against Lamont. Just my opinion.
Actually, I agree with you.

The fact that he did not, would not, even in the face of loss within his party, raised his standing among republicans...and conservatives in general (such as myself), very greatly.
I understand what you are saying...that steadfastness in the service of one's position is an admirable quality. That said, I would challenge you (as a representative of conservatives) with these two points:

During the Clinton years, the Rep mantra was "character counts". For example, Michael Reagan (the talk show host) would go on day after day about how you "cannot separate the man from the job" and he was just one of the chorus of those on the right. This was not only in reference to his Lewinski fling, but also (sometimes vehemently) in reference to his supposed drug use.

But then along came Shrub and Cheney...having four DUIs between them and Shrub having four citations for insider trading. Where, Rob, was the "character counts" mantra? Can you justify this sliding scale of "character counts" that seems to depend on whether the person being judged is a friend or foe?

Secondly, sure steadfastness is an admirable quality...but it can also be viewed as stubborn denial of a changing reality. Let's take it as given that Joe's original support for the war was a principled stand. No problem.

But the premises for the war have proven to be false. The execution of the war has proven to be a disaster. The conduct of the war (torture, civilian deaths, etc.) has also proven to be a disaster. At some point, one would hope that your admiration for Joe's steadfastness would morph into a disdain for his refusal to recognize the changed reality. Clearly the Bush administration has also been unwilling to recognize this changed reality. At what point, Rob, does steadfastness become denial?

But...alas...I find he has no charactor...or at least less than that of Leiberman (no politician has any real charactor, else they would not be politician.)
Aw c'mon Rob. "No" politician has any real character? Not the conservative's hero Reagan? That is an awful condemnation of lots of people who are politicians at the local, state and federal levels who are in it on both sides of the aisle because they truly want to improve the lot of us all and who want a better country. That is waaay to broad a brush.

But with respect to Lamont/Lieberman, why would you think Lamont has less character than Lieberman. After all, Lamont should be the absolute darling of the conservatives. He is a successful businessman who created a profitable company and provided jobs for Americans. He innovated at the technoligical edge. He has (I presume) operated within the confines of the law while creating the great American, capitalistic dream career.

So, Rob, on what basis do you assess Lamont's character to be found wanting with respect to that of Lieberman's?

My crystal ball says Leiberman by 3% in the final outcome.
My crystal ball ... is filled with 2% non-fat milk.

[SezMe]

<snip> ...Now it seems instead of trying to develop a message, they’re turning on their own. Instead of figuring out how to beat the Republicans, they’re conducting purges.
The <snip> contains some interesting points, some of which I agree with. But they are not germane to the issue at hand.

Mycroft, a primary election is exactly for the purpose of determining who the Democratic or Republican candidate will be for the final election. If you think that rejecting the sitting incumbent constitutes a "turning on their own" then why have a primary at all? Based on what you have written, you think the incumbent should automatically get the nod?

Also, why do you use the loaded language "purge". Lieberman did NOT get purged. He is still a Dem. He is just not the party's nominee for the senate seat. How in the world does that constitute a purge?

[zakur]

An independent's view (http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/004393.html):

Who knows how independents will vote. That's why they're independents. But I am an independent, and I'm here to tell you that Lieberman's strategy sticks in my craw. He's an independent through convenience only, jumping to that status when the system he benefited from for two decades didn't give him the results he thought he deserved. Personally I would love it if there were more independent political candidates; I pretty much despise the idea of political parties on principle. But if you're going to be independent, then be independent -- don't be independent when it's useful to you and then go back to being a party member when it comes time to get your committee assignments, as Lieberman has already made clear he would. As an independent, I say: Screw you, you insincere schmuck.

And as for the Democrats, well. Lieberman's already baldly stated that the Democratic voters of his state couldn't have possibly meant not to vote for him, which is why he's graciously going to give them a chance to vote for him again in November. I sincerely doubt, had Lieberman won last night, that he would have been sanguine about Lamont turning around and declaring himself an "independent Democrat," so in addition to being a loser, Lieberman's also a hypocrite, and evidently of the opinion that his incumbency is more important than the processes of the democratic (small d) system. If the Democrats have any brains at all, they will quickly and loudly support Lamont as the legitimate and only Democratic candidate, and politely but firmly work to minimize Lieberman's support among core Democrats. Whether they do this is another matter entirely, as I've said before, I've always been impressed by the ability of the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[headscratcher4]

Two years later the Dems still don’t have any clear message on what they stand for other than we’re not Bushitlerhaliburton!! Now it seems instead of trying to develop a message, they’re turning on their own. Instead of figuring out how to beat the Republicans, they’re conducting purges.

Not being BushHitlelhaliburton seems to me like a pretty good message. Bushheitlerhaliburton have made such a mess of things that it is almost an anything but determiniation...which is why stay the course falls flat...when you've driven the car into the tree and it can't go any further, stay the course seems like a pretty bad idea.

By they way, political parties purge....that is the nature of a Political Party. Maybe Leiberman is now a Republican (the White House seems to think it possible) so maybe it is time he outed himself and moved on. But, Lamont got more people who ID themselves as Democrats to vote for him, in the process, that may seem a purge, but Leiberman has no right to either the party nomination or the Senate seat. He has to earn them...and a majority of Democrats, at least, seem to think he should be fired.

In the end, Leiberman may pull it off and win the seat as an "indipendent"...running for it as such is certainly his right...but I hope the new "bi-partisan" Joe will at least articulate why staying the course is a sound policy...I mean, the car is stuck on the tree, the driver is drunk, the passengers are hurt, and the road is about 200 meters behind the accident.

[Azure]

Do registered independents automatically (or near enough) pull the lever for the guy who runs as an independent, even though two seconds ago he was a Democrat?

Hard to say. Many registered Republicans and Democrats vote simply for the party line, rather then the candidate, but one would think independents are different.

The whole idea of being an independent voter is not towing the party line.

[pgwenthold]

Not being BushHitlelhaliburton seems to me like a pretty good message. Bushheitlerhaliburton have made such a mess of things that it is almost an anything but determiniation...which is why stay the course falls flat...when you've driven the car into the tree and it can't go any further, stay the course seems like a pretty bad idea.


I heard an interesting statement on Chris Matthews the other night. Something like, "The debate about how best to secure our country against terrorism continues..."

Now, this seems like a pretty innocent remark, but if you think about it, there are some serious implications there.

All along, Republicans have been touted, and people have bought, that they are the ones to count on when it comes to our defense against terrorists. But after 6.5 years of a republican administration, and 5 years after Sept 11, we are still debating the best way to secure our country? The only reason we would be debating it is if there were doubts about the effectiveness of the current procedures. IOW, acknowledging that we are debating this issue is a blatent admission that the Republican approach is not working well.

If the Republicans know so well about how to defend the country, then why are we debating their policies 6 years later?

[headscratcher4]

I heard an interesting statement on Chris Matthews the other night. Something like, "The debate about how best to secure our country against terrorism continues..."

Now, this seems like a pretty innocent remark, but if you think about it, there are some serious implications there.

All along, Republicans have been touted, and people have bought, that they are the ones to count on when it comes to our defense against terrorists. But after 6.5 years of a republican administration, and 5 years after Sept 11, we are still debating the best way to secure our country? The only reason we would be debating it is if there were doubts about the effectiveness of the current procedures. IOW, acknowledging that we are debating this issue is a blatent admission that the Republican approach is not working well.

If the Republicans know so well about how to defend the country, then why are we debating their policies 6 years later?

Why are you trying to undermine the President and give comfort to the terrorists?

Unfortunately for Bush the above is not a credible anti-terrorism policy, even though it fits Rove's election scheme.

The biggest problem the President and men like Leiberman ultimately have, it seems to me, is exactly to your point: most people don't feel substantially safer than they did post 9/11 and little that is being done gives them confidence that the policies are ther right policies or working. I think, myself included, that the President would gain much credit for even incremental improvement in the security situation. Instead, the best they can do is to suggest that it may get worse before it gets better (and, sub-rosa, it is the fault of those who oppose them). This after 5 years and billions of dollars, not to mention thousands of deaths.

[pgwenthold]

The biggest problem the President and men like Leiberman ultimately have, it seems to me, is exactly to your point: most people don't feel substantially safer than they did post 9/11 and little that is being done gives them confidence that the policies are ther right policies or working.

Yet, ask them who is going to do better at protecting them against terrorists, republicans or democrats, I bet that the majority will still say republicans.

[headscratcher4]

I am sure you are right...but, if this is the best they can do, we're in serious trouble. It seems to me that our current situation is the difference between greatness and mendacity. Partisan thought they were, leaders like Lincoln and FDR appealed to higher causes, built new coalitions, were creative and open to change (even in their steadfast commitment to the cause they were leading). This Administration sees everyting as an opportunity to play to its political base, creating a situation where fewer and fewer people trust their words, vision, capabilities and leadership. Vocalizing and following a vision of how to fight terrorism that strives to be inclusive and creative would win the President and the Republicans a 50 year majority. Instead, they've chosen to appeal to our baser insticts -- not our "better angles" -- and we have, as a result, squandered time, money and energy -- all of which we will need to see the fight through.

[SezMe]

Why do you hate America? :)

[marksman]

I heard an interesting statement on Chris Matthews the other night. Something like, "The debate about how best to secure our country against terrorism continues..."

Now, this seems like a pretty innocent remark, but if you think about it, there are some serious implications there.

All along, Republicans have been touted, and people have bought, that they are the ones to count on when it comes to our defense against terrorists. But after 6.5 years of a republican administration, and 5 years after Sept 11, we are still debating the best way to secure our country?

I think we will be debating the best way to secure the country until the country is undeniably secure (which is, to say, never).

When George Kennan developed the strategy of containment to oppose Soviet expansionism, it didn't end the debate. Even after eight years of Eisenhower being a solid and tempered foe to Soviet aggression (unlike, the current administration, in my opinion), it wasn't like the Democrats just rolled over and said, "Well, I guess the GOP knows how to contain 'dem Soviets."

No! They fought back, nominated JFK and the debate continued. Was the Bay of Pigs something Ike would have done? Who knows. How would Ike have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis? No idea. The debate on how best to fight Soviet expansion continued. JFK did it differently form Ike. LBJ did it differently from JFK, Nixon was different from LBJ, Carter different from Nixon, and Reagan different from Carter. All along the debate continued.

Why should the War on Terror be any different.

IOW, acknowledging that we are debating this issue is a blatent admission that the Republican approach is not working well.
Eisenhower's approached worked very well against the Soviets, but we continue to debate. This isn't to say that the Bush doctrine is a success. It's not. But the presence of debate is not indicative of a failed policy. It's indicative of a robust democracy.

If the Republicans know so well about how to defend the country, then why are we debating their policies 6 years later?
Because that's what democracies do.

[Rob Lister]

I understand what you are saying...that steadfastness in the service of one's position is an admirable quality. That said, I would challenge you (as a representative of conservatives) with these two points:

During the Clinton years, the Rep mantra was "character counts". For example, Michael Reagan (the talk show host) would go on day after day about how you "cannot separate the man from the job" and he was just one of the chorus of those on the right. This was not only in reference to his Lewinski fling, but also (sometimes vehemently) in reference to his supposed drug use.

But then along came Shrub and Cheney...having four DUIs between them and Shrub having four citations for insider trading. Where, Rob, was the "character counts" mantra? Can you justify this sliding scale of "character counts" that seems to depend on whether the person being judged is a friend or foe?

The voting tally elected Bush, not I. I did vote for him, reluctantly. Had the Dems nominated Leiberman, I'd have voted for him. I simply could not stomach Gore in 00 or Kerry in 04. Clinton I thought was reasonable. Certainly no Regan, but he got stuff done. I voted for Bush Sr in for his first term but for Clinton for the second.

I'm not a republican, but I am a conservative.




So, Rob, on what basis do you assess Lamont's character to be found wanting with respect to that of Lieberman's?

Because he claims to want to cut and run.

[BPSCG]

most people don't feel substantially safer than they did post 9/11 and little that is being done gives them confidence that the policies are ther right policies or working. Other than the absence of any subsequent terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001?

Other than the breaking up of several terrorist rings here since Septembr 11, 2001?

What, specifically, would the Democrats do to fight the Islamist terrorists better, were they in power?

I'm interested in what the Dems would do, not as defensive measures, but as offensive ones. You do agree, don't you, that fighting a war is an offensive undertaking, not just defensive? What offensive weapons do they support giving the administration - any administration, Republican or Democrat - that the current administration does not now have?

We already know they would eviscerate the USAPatriot Act, end warrantless wiretapping, and prevent ethnic profiling (they've already gotten that last one). So what new offensive weapons would they use that this feckless administration has not?

[BPSCG]

"better angles" Dunno who you're quoting here, but Lincoln was speaking of "the better angels of our nature..."

[SezMe]

Because he claims to want to cut and run.
You question his character because he has a policy difference with you? By implication, do you question my character because I may differ with you on some political matters? Seems harsh.

And, BTW, he has not advocated "cut and run". You've been reading the Republican talking points. And believing them, which is far worse.

[Rob Lister]

You question his character because he has a policy difference with you? By implication, do you question my character because I may differ with you on some political matters? Seems harsh.

And, BTW, he has not advocated "cut and run". You've been reading the Republican talking points. And believing them, which is far worse.

Sorry we disagree.
So too shall he
When he loses by 3

[Tony]

Because he claims to want to cut and run.

As opposed to the republicans who want to stay and die.

FYI JREFers, when Rob says someone has "character" what he's really is saying is that they agree with him.

And, BTW, he has not advocated "cut and run". You've been reading the Republican talking points. And believing them, which is far worse.

What? Do you really expect independent thought from a True Believer?

[Rob Lister]

As opposed to the republicans who want to stay and die.

FYI JREFers, when Rob says someone has "character" what he's really is saying is that they agree with him.

Well, I think Leiberman has character and I disagree with him on every other issue than this (that I can think of).

[Tony]

Well, I think Leiberman has character and I disagree with him on every other issue than this (that I can think of).

What issues are those?

Leiberman, like most politicians, simply tells people what they want to hear so they'll vote for him. I doubt he believes most of what he says. A politician with character is a politician that doesn't get elected.

[Rob Lister]

What issues are those?

Leiberman, like most politicians, simply tells people what they want to hear so they'll vote for him. I doubt he believes most of what he says. A politician with character is a politician that doesn't get elected.

See the parenthetical portion of the third paragraph from the bottom in post #30

[Tony]

See the parenthetical portion of the third post from the bottom in post #30

Cool. It's interesting that you admit politicians lack character, but still maintain that Leiberman has character. Do you mean that Leiberman lack character, but in the context of lacking character he has character?

On what issues do you disagree with Leiberman?

[Rob Lister]

Cool. It's interesting that you admit politicians lack character, but still maintain that Leiberman has character.

On what issues do you disagree with Leiberman?

para1: As expressed, it's all a matter of degree for me. None are without sin. Lesser of two evils, yada.

Para2: It doesn't matter. I'm not a voter in that election. Ask me when he runs as an Independent in 08

[Azure]

What issues are those?

Leiberman, like most politicians, simply tells people what they want to hear so they'll vote for him. I doubt he believes most of what he says. A politician with character is a politician that doesn't get elected.

Then why would he go against the party that helped him get elected?

[SezMe]

Rob, Lieberman is not going to run for Prez in 08 as an Independent. And I'll bet a TAM scholarship on that assertion.

[Azure]

Rob, Lieberman is not going to run for Prez in 08 as an Independent. And I'll bet a TAM scholarship on that assertion.

Would you vote for him if he did?

Seems to me that what the US needs most is a candidate that is free from the party line.

[Rob Lister]

Rob, Lieberman is not going to run for Prez in 08 as an Independent. And I'll bet a TAM scholarship on that assertion.

Perhaps not. My crystal ball is a bit fuzzy on that.

So, I gotta rely on logic

1) Does he want the position? Yes
2) Has he run for the position? Yes
3) Does he get the hint that he will not get the Dem Nod? Yes
4) Will this latest dis'ing by the Dems put him over the edge? Yes
5) Does he stand a better chance as an Ind than as a Dem? Yes

6) will he win as a Ind? Unlikely but not impossible. He could get very serious backing and, depending on what candidates the Dems and Reps nominate for 08 could make it a reasonable gamble (he'll have little to lose)

We'll see. Perhaps this thread will still be available then so that all can see our thinking now.

[Tony]

para1: As expressed, it's all a matter of degree for me. None are without sin. Lesser of two evils, yada.


Then why do you consider Lamont, who doesn't have the record or the sin of Leiberman to be the greater of two evils?

[Rob Lister]

Then why do you consider Lamont, who doesn't have the record or the sin of Leiberman to be the greater of two evils?

As I said, it doesn't matter what I think. It is the voters in this election that matter. Latest poll has Lieberman by 12. I expect to see that reduced to 3 by election eve.

[Tony]

As I said, it doesn't matter what I think. It is the voters in this election that matter. Latest poll has Lieberman by 12. I expect to see that reduced to 3 by election eve.

Why do you have to dodge? You said Leiberman has character, you said all politicians lack character, but that some have more sin than others. Lamont demonstrably has much less sin than Leiberman, but you assert that Leiberman still has more character. Why? It appears that you really do attribute more character to those politicians you agree with.

[SezMe]

Would you vote for him if he did?
No, and not because of his position on the WoT. Because of his truly idiotic position on energy policy.

[Rob Lister]

Why do you have to dodge? You said Leiberman has character, you said all politicians lack character, but that some have more sin than others. Lamont demonstrably has much less sin than Leiberman, but you assert that Leiberman still has more character. Why? It appears that you really do attribute more character to those politicians you agree with.

Sorry you feel that way. If you want to discuss personal opinions like character, start a thread and, should I find it worthy, I'll engage.

[Tony]

If you want to discuss personal opinions like character, start a thread and, should I find it worthy, I'll engage.

Dodge away buddy. You're the one who brought up character. Your un-willingness to discuss what you've already asserted now that you've been debunked is intellectual cowardice.

[Rob Lister]

Dodge away buddy. You're the one who brought up character.

Indeed I did first use the word in this thread...and in this context...

Charactor really is the most important factor to me. I can speak for no other. Keep in mind that I personally belive (right or wrong) that Leiberman is far-far more liberal than Lamont on every single other issue. I think the political swing would end up right, not left, with Lamont's election.

But...alas...I find he has no charactor...or at least less than that of Leiberman (no politician has any real charactor, else they would not be politician.)


A careful analysis will yeild an observation of my own character. IOW, I know that my opinion doesn't matter (I'm not in that state). Nor does yours (as you claim to be from Texas ((registered as a republican which is not possible))).

What matters is what the people of that state do. Right now, Leiberman is up by 12. on election day I predect he'll win by 3.

[Tony]

Aw c'mon Rob. "No" politician has any real character? Not the conservative's hero Reagan? That is an awful condemnation of lots of people who are politicians at the local, state and federal levels who are in it on both sides of the aisle because they truly want to improve the lot of us all and who want a better country. That is waaay to broad a brush.

Is it really? I think it's healthy to assume that someone who has an interest in telling you what you want to hear so they'll obtain/keep a job is lying or grandstanding. In my opinion, the de facto view of politicians, people who want political power and leaders in general should be one of extreme skepticism.

[Rob Lister]

Is it really? I think it's healthy to assume that someone who has an interest in telling you what you want to hear so they'll obtain/keep a job is lying or grandstanding. In my opinion, the de facto view of politicians, people who want political power and leaders in general should be one of extreme skepticism.

And yet, Leiberman did not do that.

[Tony]

A careful analysis will yeild an observation of my own character. IOW, I know that my opinion doesn't matter (I'm not in that state). Nor does yours (as you claim to be from Texas ((registered as a republican which is not possible))).


More dodging.

[Tony]

And yet, Leiberman did not do that.

Yes he did. He has done it many times. For example, he flip-flopped on affirmative action (because he needed the votes)

[Rob Lister]

Yea, well, don't vote for him in the state race.

Doesn't change his lead by 12.

[SezMe]

Just to keep us all on the up-and-up, the quote in post #68 is by me, not Rob.

[Mycroft]

The <snip> contains some interesting points, some of which I agree with. But they are not germane to the issue at hand.

Mycroft, a primary election is exactly for the purpose of determining who the Democratic or Republican candidate will be for the final election. If you think that rejecting the sitting incumbent constitutes a "turning on their own" then why have a primary at all? Based on what you have written, you think the incumbent should automatically get the nod?

Yup. Unless there are severe extenuating circumstances, it's traditional that the incumbant gets the nod and the actual election is just a formality. That's the way it works in both parties.

Lieberman especially has a lot of seniority built up. Casting him out will hurt the Democrats.

Also, why do you use the loaded language "purge". Lieberman did NOT get purged. He is still a Dem. He is just not the party's nominee for the senate seat. How in the world does that constitute a purge?

Oh really? Does that mean he will get Democrat money while running as an independent against another Democrat?

[SezMe]

Yup. Unless there are severe extenuating circumstances, it's traditional that the incumbant gets the nod and the actual election is just a formality.
Traditional? You mean because of the power of incumbancy and money, the incumbent has the advantage. That is the only "tradition".

And, BTW, the fact that Joe has actively, unquestionably supported a war whose purpose was (is) unjustified, has been a fiasco from the get go, and has no chance ending well does not constitute "severe extenuating circumstances"? If not, what would - say, getting a BJ?

Oh really? Does that mean he will get Democrat money while running as an independent against another Democrat?
Well, he still has some Dems campaigning and supporting him. Don't know about Dem money but it is not a problem - he is getting plenty of GOP money and endorsements.

[Mycroft]

Traditional? You mean because of the power of incumbancy and money, the incumbent has the advantage. That is the only "tradition".

The issue in question involves party politics. It is in the best interests of the party to keep an incumbent. Why? Because he has already built up seniority.

And, BTW, the fact that Joe has actively, unquestionably supported a war whose purpose was (is) unjustified, has been a fiasco from the get go, and has no chance ending well does not constitute "severe extenuating circumstances"? If not, what would - say, getting a BJ?

Well, you certainly have identified the reason you feel purging him from the party is justified, though I don't see why you feel compelled to get sexual about it.

Well, he still has some Dems campaigning and supporting him. Don't know about Dem money but it is not a problem - he is getting plenty of GOP money and endorsements.

Can you cite your sources for Lieberman getting GOP money or endorsements?

[steverino]

The 800 pound gorilla no one here has brought up yet is that Lieberman is Jewish. With all the Israel bashing and coddling of the "beautiful Islamic religion" I just don't think the climate in these times is favorable to a Jewish prez. candidate. As I am a member of the Tribe, I guess I am allowed to voice that opinion. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is sort of Hispanic. He will talk about guns and hunting and that wild west stuff that Dukakis seemed lame about. I think he will be an easier pill to swallow in '08. But I think he lied about playing for the Kansas City Royals in his autobiography.

[Meadmaker]

I'm surprised by the poll. I guess it shows I just don't know Connecticut.

If he wins, it will show the folly of the primary system. The theory behind primaries was that it would get the nomination into the hands of "the people" and away from smoke-filled rooms and deal-makers. Instead, it put the nominations into the hands of the party faithful, ensuring that centrist candidates had hard times. The Republicans have to kiss up to the religious right. The Democrats have to kiss up to their set of special interests. Someone who actually has views that don't follow the party line has a hard time getting into the election, even though he would win it if he could just get there.

[SezMe]

The issue in question involves party politics. It is in the best interests of the party to keep an incumbent. Why? Because he has already built up seniority.
No, it is in the best interests of the party to nominate a candidate who has the best chance of winning in the Fall. Usually, this is the incumbent - but not always. This election season in Conn is one of those exceptions.

Well, you certainly have identified the reason you feel purging him from the party is justified, though I don't see why you feel compelled to get sexual about it.
I don't understand why you stick with the "purge" mantra. Here is a quote from Joe, himself, "I am a Democrat and will always be one." He is still a registered Dem. He continues to hold his Democratic positions in the Senate. So saying he has been purged from the party is factually incorrect.

The BJ remark was a snide comment about extraordinary conditions. I cited the horrible state of our country and was trying to contrast that with the horrible state that lead to Clinton's impeachment proceedings, that is, merely getting a BJ and lying about it. It was probably uncalled for and I withdraw the comment.

Can you cite your sources for Lieberman getting GOP money or endorsements?
Not for Joe getting GOP money. It was in an article in my local paper. I do know that his picture was on the GOP home page for a while. It is no longer there.

Again, the endorsements were in the same article. But I did see a recent press conference by Tony Snow where he, speaking for the President, refused to back the Republican candidate. That is as close to an endorsement of Joe as it is possible to get. An outright endorsement by the President would probably be the kiss of death for Joe.

[SezMe]

If he wins, it will show the folly of the primary system.
I agree with your analysis but not with the conclusion above. I think it will show the folly of allowing politicians to do their own redistricting. They have created "safe" seats that appeal to the party faithful, not to moderates.

[Mycroft]

No, it is in the best interests of the party to nominate a candidate who has the best chance of winning in the Fall. Usually, this is the incumbent - but not always. This election season in Conn is one of those exceptions.

The surely the party screwed up this time, unless you believe Lamont running against both Lieberman and some Republican candidate stands a chance of winning?


I don't understand why you stick with the "purge" mantra. Here is a quote from Joe, himself, "I am a Democrat and will always be one." He is still a registered Dem. He continues to hold his Democratic positions in the Senate. So saying he has been purged from the party is factually incorrect.

I think it appropriate, particularly given the level of ire Lieberman has been drawing from some on the left.

The BJ remark was a snide comment about extraordinary conditions. I cited the horrible state of our country and was trying to contrast that with the horrible state that lead to Clinton's impeachment proceedings, that is, merely getting a BJ and lying about it. It was probably uncalled for and I withdraw the comment.

As a registered Democrat and Clinton supporter, I also believe the blow-job incident was…uhm…overblown. *

Not for Joe getting GOP money. It was in an article in my local paper. I do know that his picture was on the GOP home page for a while. It is no longer there.

If true, I’m sure it will by hyped and brought to everyone’s attention on a national level.

Again, the endorsements were in the same article. But I did see a recent press conference by Tony Snow where he, speaking for the President, refused to back the Republican candidate. That is as close to an endorsement of Joe as it is possible to get. An outright endorsement by the President would probably be the kiss of death for Joe.

Is it possible this article you read is not factual?

* Cripes, there has to be a better way to say that!

[Rob Lister]

Wow...Lieberman is kicking butt. Go figger!

RCP Average 09/21 to 10/03 - 51.0% 37.3% Lieberman +13.7%

Rasmussen 10/03 - 10/03 550 LV 51% 40% Lieberman +11%
Reuters/Zogby 09/25 - 10/02 601 LV 53% 33% Lieberman +20%
Quinnipiac 09/21 - 09/25 1181 LV 49% 39% Lieberman +10%

[marksman]

edit: mispost