Lamont supporters are gaining Republican votes for Lieberman.

[LoZoccolo]

Every time a Bush* supporter or Republican says that they are voting for Lieberman because Lieberman is a "Republican", they are doing so on the basis of the disingenuous notion that there is no difference between Lieberman and the Republicans which is perpetuated by the more disingenuous Lamont supporters. The truth is that over the last term, Lieberman has sided with the Democrats on issues where Democrats and Republicans disagree over 90% of the time:

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_4116528

I should note that I am currently behind Lamont; I think Lieberman has shown a lack of party loyalty, not for running as an independant so much as using talking points which hurt many more Democrats than help him. I speak here on strategic grounds.

If you really wanted Lamont to take office, you wouldn't promote Joe Lieberman as a Republican, but a Democrat who failed your 10% litmus test. That way the Republican vote might shift enough to Schlesinger to weaken Lieberman's percentage against Lamont when they realize they are voting for a 90% pure Democrat.

And you should never ever attack a Democrat disingenuously and insert false notions into the dialog regarding what the most effective course of action might be. When you operate with the truth, you don't have to deal with the unintended consequences of your fabrications, like this one which might keep Lamont from winning.

And for crying out loud, read this post before you respond.

[gully]

1. Exactly right.

eom

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

2. Very cogent points LZ, but after listening to Joementum's

speech on Tuesday night, he is nothing more than a quisling. He should be ashamed of himself. I just hope that he doesn't get the funding he'll need for this "independent" run and just disappears from the scene altogether.

edited for spelling error

[mike_c]

3. while that might be true, it fails to give sufficient emphasis...

...to the nature of those "10%" disagreements. It's disengenuous to suggest that all votes and all issues are funtionally equivalent. Frankly, I don't care if Lieberman is a good democrat 99% of the time if the one percent remaining is the war against Iraq and the phoney WOT being used to push the neocon and PNAC foreign policy agenda. On those issues the republican position is PURE AND UNADULTERATED EVIL, and ANYONE who supports them, regardless of party, deserves to be defeated IMO.

As for the political triangulation you suggest, it really doesn't matter to me as long as the issues are kept clear-- Lieberman supports the Bush foreign policy doctrine and the war against Iraq, even after every justification for invading Iraq has turned out to be untrue. A vote for Lieberman, whether as a lite republican or as a lapsed democrat, is a vote in favor of those signature issues.

[LoZoccolo]

You would then emphasize the importance of the 10%...

...to Democratic Lieberman supporters, and further weaken his percentage that way, from the left, if you wanted Lamont to win. I'm just addressing how to get Republicans to stop voting for Lieberman, who is now ahead.

[salin]

4. Good point - esp with # of GOP folks who have endorsed

Lieberman within the past 72 hours. The senate candidates in Washington and Minnesota are said to have both thrown their support to Lieberman. So while yes, it does rather echo with the sentiment that many here feel toward Joe - your point is very well taken. Why make it feel more "okay" for GOP voters to vote for Joe rather than their own candidate?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[salin]

43. Source considered.

I think that dem voters will more likely already be disatisfied with the "independent" run (and disloyalty to the party - and the harsher Lieberman's rhetoric, the more it works against him within the dem party voters). So now one has to shift gears to a) gain the lion's share of independent voters, and b) keep GOP voters loyal to the GOP candidate. Given the spate of GOP figures endorsing Lieberman OVER the republican primary winner - there is a danger that GOP voters think - well I can at least vote for someone who other GOPers support, and who has a chance to win, rather than having a futile vote... At the same time, the spate of GOP endorsements for Lieberman work against him in terms of keeping the dem voters who went for him when he still held the 'democratic party' tag.

[PassingFair]

5. If Hackett and Cegelis had run as independents after..

"losing" primaries, all HELL would break lose
against them in the dem party.

...and you "centrists" would be tripping
over your feet in denouncing them and declaring
them enemies.

Lieberman has actively worked against the best
interests of democracy. His work on "faith-based"
initiatives ALONE is enough evidence of that.

[MrBenchley]

29. LOL!

Hackett DID have a brief try as an independent after dropping out, and drew even less support than he had as a failed Democrat...

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dsytT6Q0WcoJ:www.hackpac.com/+Hackett+independent&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8

And Illinois law prohibits the spectacularly incompetent Cegelis from doing any such thing...not that she has any money to do it with. She pissed away most of her war chest before she even had a primary opponent.

http://www.archpundit.com/archives/013466.html

[PassingFair]

30. Nice try.

Neither one of them actually ran as
independents against dem primary winners.

Lieberman's gambit cannot be defended.

At least not according to the rules of THIS website.

[MrBenchley]

31. Be sure and show us the outrage you promised....

After all, somebody was announcing there would have been HELL if Hackett had done what he done.

[PassingFair]

32. Ahem.

A link to a "draft Hackett" page doesn't
signify anything.

Do you support Joe's independent run?

Against the winner of the democratic primary?

[MrBenchley]

34. It sure signifies that the original claim was bullshit

And as for me, I plan to give Lamont the same level of enthusiastic support that DUers give the respected and accomplished Democrats who are part of the DLC.

[PassingFair]

35. We DO vote for them, if they are the nominees.

We hold our noses and vote for them.

And a "draft Hackett" website does
NOT indicate, nor did it result in,
an independent run against a dem
primary winner AFTER LOSING A PRIMARY.

And you didn't answer my question.

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. He won't answer your question.

He'll just sulk over the loss of Lieberman to a centrist like Lamont.

[PassingFair]

38. But, but, he's so OPINIONATED!

Surely he has an answer!

:hi:

[LincolnMcGrath]

42. Still won't answer your question

:rofl:

[T Town Jake]

112. Hey, do you mind answering one of mine real quick?...

:rofl:

[MrBenchley]

41. Yeah, but that wasn't your claim

Your claim was that there would have been an uproar if Hackettt had even hinted at an independent run. In fact, all but the lunatic fringe were glad to see the back of "Deport 'em all" Paul.

"And a "draft Hackett" website does
NOT indicate, nor did it result in,
an independent run"
Imagine that. Nobody really gave a shit about Hackett but a handful of loonies without two pennies to rub together. It's why his Senate campaign crashed and burned, after all.

[PassingFair]

45. My claim...

"If Hackett and Cegelis had run as independents after.."

Since when is HAD RUN AS...

correctly interpreted as

"even hinted at"?

:crazy:

Maybe you need a break from DU, because you're seeing things.

[MrBenchley]

46. In otehr words, your claim was hooey....

[PassingFair]

47. In "otehr" words...

I think you're losing your mind.

I said "HAD they RUN";

NOT "even HINTED at RUNNING".

Did you have a stroke?

[dsc]

52. Hackett was clear and unambiguous that he would run for no office

after dropping out of the primary. He also got quite a bit of grief from many here for his refusual, at the time, to endorse Brown.

[MercutioATC]

58. Sorry, but a "draft" is NOT a candidacy.

Hackett did NOT run as an independent...even briefly.

[IndianaGreen]

116. For a second I thought your sorry ass was back in DU berating liberals

I am glad to see you are still tombstoned.

[LSdemocrat]

6. The real problem is the lack of a remotely viable Republican candidate

Schlesinger is so mired in his own problems that no one in their right mind would vote for him.

[madfloridian]

7. If every incumbent who loses a primary runs as an independent....

we would have no party left. What he is doing is simply bringing out his true colors. We don't need to say much at all.

In the future, I can see several Democrats who vote with Republicans all the time doing the same thing if they are challenged.

I could easily see Bill Nelson in Florida doing that. I think there should be zero tolerance for it.

[Vincardog]

8. I think I read the Lieberman went progressive less than 50% of the time

The good thing is that it no longer matters.

Lieberman is HISTORY.

To quote a rethug HE LOST GET OVER IT./

[Zodiak]

81. When it comes to bills and nominations, yes

Joe votes with progressives 40% of the time.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist/4



That 90% number I hear thrown around is a canard. The link provided in the OP to prove Joe is 90% Democrats is broken, by the way.

[madfloridian]

9. It is not about Lieberman any more.

He is not running as a Democrat now. He can not be spoken of in the same terms as before.

[LoZoccolo]

11. OK but do you have anything to say about what I wrote here? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

13. Actually, you are correct; I apologize.

Yes, during the primary, one strategy to promote Lamont would be to call attention to the differences between Lieberman and the rest of the Democrats. Now in the general, if you'd like to siphon Republican votes off of Lieberman and back onto Schlesinger, you would call attention to how un-Republican Lieberman is, voting against the Republican agenda 90% of the time. You're right, he cannot be spoken of in the same terms as before.

[Zodiak]

82. you say 90% a lot

I see no proof of that. Even progressive punch, which has a methodology that pads Democrats progressive records, has Joe at 77%.

Here are the votes that DUers probably have a problem with (from the 109th Congress only).

1. He voted for Condi
2. He voted for Gonzales
3. He voted to take class action lawsuit rights away
4. He voted for Negroponte
5. He voted for the Cheney Energy Bill
6. He voted for CAFTA
7. He did not stand up for voting rights in Ohio
8. He voted for cloture on Alito
8. He voted to extend the Patriot Act
9. He voted for the US-Oman free trade agreement
10. He voted for Roberts

He missed three important votes, as well.

This is his record for the last two years. Notice that the Iraq war isn't even on my list? So much for this being about just one issue.

[lillilbigone]

10. He needs Dem votes more than he needs Repub votes

if the race basically comes down to Lieberman and Schlesinger splitting the repub vote, lamont is golden

[mike_c]

24. frankly, I doubt there will be much of a split....

That's the problem. Schlesinger is a toad that his own party chairman won't endorse. Lieberman will take most of the republican vote, even if only as votes *against* Lamont. There is also at least one other independent candidate if I'm not mistaken, but the race really will be between Lieberman and Lamont unless Lieberman withdraws, or unless the republicans can run someone other than Schlesinger.

[inthebrain]

12. You mean all 9% of them?

Thats what the Republican challenger was pollled at.

I don't know why people are so worryed about the Republican vote in CT for. In this election cycle is completely ridiculous. Democrats practicly have Carte Blanche to do anything they like. Provided that they whack the Republicans over the head with the Katrina response.

Republicans are a non issue in CT.

The next is the idea of what the "mainstream" represents. Republicans constantly refer to themselves as the "mainstream" and too many Dems argue from their angle regarding that. There is no mainstream in politics!!! Especially in American politics where less than half og eligable voters show up at the polls.

And if Lamont wants to stomp Lieberman this time, that's what he should be looking at. Lieberman has a 40% ranking amongst civil rights groups!!!! That means the poor and downtrodden amongst us!!

[LoZoccolo]

14. I'm have no fear that Schlesinger will win the seat.

I'm telling Lamont supporters how to beat Lieberman, Lamont supporters who are now fond of bringing up how many Republicans are voting for Lieberman as a vindication of Lieberman. You don't want to associate Lieberman with Republicans at all; you want the Republicans to go to Schlesinger, who can't win. You want a more even split between Lieberman (who is ahead) and Schlesinger, so that Lamont beats both.

[calico1]

15. I think what Democrats need to focus on

a lot is how Lieberman will say and do anything to stay in office...which is true. He is looking for Republican votes not because he particularly likes CT Republicans but because he sees them as a way to keep his Senate seat. Joe's only loyalty is to Joe.

[CrushTheDLC]

36. Lamont must know how to defeat Lieberman.

Considering how he already DID.

[dolstein]

100. Here's a lesson for you -- Politics 101

Winning a political primary is not the same as winning the general election. In the primary, Lamont only had to a small slice of the electorate -- specifically, the most liberal Democrats, who are the ones who typically turn out in primaries. In the general election, the independent and Republican voters can participate. And seeing how these voters make up two-thirds of the electorate, Lamont has to do more than simply appeal to partisan Democrats.

[calico1]

17. Schlesinger, bad as he is will pull

more than 9% of the vote. He hasn't even put out one campaign ad yet. Also, while its true that CT voters are known for ticket splitting there are still a number of them (from both parties) that will vote straight ticket. The Republican party will be on the top line which means Shchlesinger will be across the top line along with Rell. Every single Republican in CT is not enamored of Lieberman. Some of them will vote for the Republican no matter who he is. So I would say he will pull about 20% of the vote.

[inthebrain]

20. The RNC has ditched Schlesinger and Mehlman won't encourage

voters to vote for him.

He's not a factor as he doesnt have the backing of his own party. That guy is dead in the water and considered the spoiler by most Republicans. Take a gander at Free Republic and you'll see them saying the same thing.

Although many of them have not been enamored of Lieberman in the past, most of them lack the ability to think for themselves. The right wing's battle is not so much against the Democrats as it is against Liberals.

1)Stomping out Liberalism comes first

2)Democrats comes second.

They will conflate the two whenever it is convenient for them. Lamont in this race is seen as the liberal whereas Lieberman is seen as the Democrat. Knowing the stakes of the battle you are in goes a long way to defeating them.

The Bulk of the Democrats they call Liberals they know are really not Liberals. Their big fear is a Eugene Debs type politics. They will do anything to prevent that from becoming a reality in their little circle in the beltway. Lamont may be not be Eugene V Debs, but he's much closer than what they've seen in quite some time.

[GreenTea]

16. This is classic vindictive republican BS-Anyone but Lamont......

Lamont represents everything the fascist do not want to catch fire in this country.

Lieberman is a spoiled, arrogant, ugly, ugly person....who just wants & needs the power and visibility, Lieberman doesn't give one fuck about party, people or issues...it's all about his ego & money and being in the spotlight....

This is one sick republican...who's been masquerading as a democrat, far too long...good riddance...I support Lamont only in donations, (and spirit) that's all I can do living in CA...But I'll tell you my true feelings....I always believe Democrat first, but in this case, Green or republican is better than Lieberman...so it appears my slogan would be...

ANYBODY BUT LIEBERMAN - VOTE FOR NED LAMONT!!

[LoZoccolo]

18. Let's talk about what I wrote, please. n/t

[GreenTea]

19. Sure Skippy! n/t

[Ken Burch]

92. We ARE talking about what you wrote.

Please stop repeating that shrill, annoying little phrase.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

21. So what

the more the rethugs embrace him, the more the Democrats will embrace Lamont.

Liebermann splits the rethug vote, Lamont gets all the Dems.

Good deal. Let's do more of it.

[Peace Patriot]

22. I see your point, LoZoccolo. But those who are painting Lieberman as a

Republican, both on the facts (Bush's brainless war), and as a strategy, also have a point. If it's as big a Dem state as CT is, with the Repub pulling only 9% currently, then it's not Repub votes that Lamont needs (or not many)--it's Dem votes that he needs!

Likely these are folks who are pro-Iraq war, or pro-Mideast wide war, or militarists for some reason, or are benefiting from military jobs Lieberman has procured, or are Lieberman loyalists just because he's been around for so long. (He pulled older voters, who might go for the "tried and true," in the absence of other information--as opposed to Lamont's rather dramatic pull of young voters). The most likely to switch to Lamont would be the "tried and true" group--once they get to know Lamont, and perhaps are worked on by younger members of the family. Those who are more militarist (rare among Dems, esp. on the Iraq war) need to hear more messages like the one Lamont put out today, in reply to Cheney: that the Repubs are mixing up the Iraq war and the war on terror. The Iraq war is draining resources from the real fight, etc. I don't like this line myself. I don't think anyone should ever be allowed to use the phrase "war on terror" again. But that's me. If the militarists and pro-war types feel that we'll be continuing SOME kind of war--with Lamont--they'll be happy.

Sorry. Couldn't help the sarcasm.

Someone please explain to me how Lamont can lose with the Bushite vote--already small in CT--split between Lieberman and Schlesinger (however they split it--even if Schlesinger pulls only 9%).

Polls have Lieberman and Lamont very close now--one said Lieberman by 3%, I think (a day after the primary). Lamont will only grow in stature as a candidate--he's a great leader--and he is the Democratic Party-endorsed candidate, and will gain from that in CT. I can't see people coming out of the woodwork to vote for Lieberman. I don't see any enthusiasm for him, and many people have come to despise him. And I can't see Dems holding out for him--why would they?--against pressure of family, friends, co-workers, with arguments like party loyalty and 'we obviously need a fresh face and fresh policy in DC--Lamont is the man--Bushite policies have failed."

One other thought: The Iraq was is EVERYTHING. It is the black hole down which universal health care, Social Security solvency, government pension solvency (both are being looted), alternative fuels development, environmental regulation, our National Guard and emergency readiness, funding of port security and police and investigative agencies, and all social programs are going. It has also been the excuse for dismantling the Constitution, spying, a government alliance with rightwing 'christians,' the assault on women's rights, the blitheringly stupid assault on science, and the secrecy and lack of accountability in Bushite spending and in everything they do.

It is THE issue. It really doesn't matter how Lieberman has voted on other issues if he has been gungho for a $10 TRILLION deficit! And an entirely UNNECESSARY one at that, with lots of padding for the super-rich.

I hope Lamont makes this clear, and if he does, I think he will win by an landslide.*


----------------------------


(--except for election fraud, which can never be ruled out where Bushites are concerned, even in a state with the old fashioned, reliable lever voting machines. Anybody know who manufactures the new central electronic tabulation system they just installed in CT? Anybody suspect that it robbed Lamont of 6% of his 10% lead going into the primary election? How good is the auditing of the lever machine totals? What other ways could they steal it?)

[dolstein]

25. Dems make up around a third of the electorate in Connecticut

The largest voting block is independents (nearly half). So if you think Lamont can win solely by appealing to Democrats, you need to get yourself a calculator.

[madfloridian]

26. Lieberman's loss is being used as threat to progressives everywhere.

He needs to stop. You guys need to stop worrying about what he will or won't do.

He is not a Democrat right now, and we can not be threatened by him. It is wrong.

[LoZoccolo]

64. I'm not sure I understand your approach.

It seems like you would like if Lamont or his supporters would ignore him in order to not be influenced by him. I can't stop you from doing so, but I can't see how pretending he's not having an influence on the voters if not Lamont's support can help.

[JeffR]

23. You make some good points here, LZ

But you're overlooking a major source of the Lieberman=Republican canard: Lieberman himself. Within 48 hours of his primary defeat, there was Joe on TV using the phrase "Cut & Run" in reference to Lamont.

Lieberman himself reinforces the syndrome by spouting Heritage Foundation talking points every time he opens his mouth. If Joe wants to be perceived as a Democrat, 90% pure or otherwise, he might consider sounding like one.

That said, I also believe Lieberman's Independent run will flame out well before the general. I think it'll be Lamont versus Schlesinger. Lamont's going to win. I'm not saying there's room for complacency, or that a strategic balance isn't needed, but I'm convinced Lamont will win this.

[Guaranteed]

27. So, you're saying that we SHOULDN'T polarize this race, in a Dem state?

I'd say that's bad advice.

We want the Repukes voting for Lieberman and the Dems voting for Lamont.

[saltpoint]

33. Lieberman's campaign is in a downward spiral after losing so much

ground that rapidly to Lamont.

Many Republicans might agree with Joe on the war, but many don't. Some may look at Lamont and see a sensible businessman, successful, family-directed, well-spoken, cool-browed, nattily dressed, and quite electable.

I wouldn't discount Lamont's appeal in and of itself, nevermind when you set it next to whiney, Me-First Joe.

Schlesinger will draw the straight-ticket GOP voters and a few others who don't like the liberal social positions of either Joe or Ned.

Nationally, the karma is running strongly for Ned and strongly against Joe.

This is it for the Lieberman Shuttle.

[IndianaGreen]

39. "a Democrat who failed your 10% litmus test."

:puke:

[LincolnMcGrath]

40. This is nothing more than the latest attempt to slip one by the mods here.

[LittleClarkie]

44. I think that people who say such things about Lieberman ARE being genuine

You just disagree with them, is all. Argue that they are wrong, but don't call them fabricators or disingenous.

I'm sorry, but you come very close to calling several people here liars. I don't see that. They just see something in Lieberman that you don't see.

[LoZoccolo]

55. I do call several people liars.

Yeah, I'll admit to that. To say that Lieberman is a Republican when his voting record says otherwise is a lie; it's meant to manipulate people.

[Ken Burch]

90. It does sound, though, like you are trying to get people to

campaign for Lieberman without meaning to. If that's not your intent, and if you aren't anti-Lamont, it's hard to tell from your thread title and that snide "10% litmus test" line. I know Benchley thinks we had no right to oppose Joe, but I thought you weren't on the same plane as him.

[Clarkie1]

48. So wise.

Your analysis is correct. We have to try and raise the level of support of the Republican in the race....and the best way to do that is to inform them of his Lieberman's Democratic voting record. Doing so will not draw support away from Lamont, because Democrats who support Lamont are not doing so based on domestic policy issues.

[leesa]

49. Nah. They know a Republican when they see one.

[MrBenchley]

50. For that matter

I wonder how independents and Democrats in Connecticut reacted to the spectacle of Lamont playing kissy-face on the "victory" podium with Al Sharpton.

[Hawkeye-X]

51. No reaction from me.

What do you say, Mr. Benchley? Should you continue to denigrate every single Democrat because your man Loserman didn't win the primary, and now you're backing his sorry ass?

[MrBenchley]

53. YOU may not have a reaction, but.....

I doubt that's true of many folks in the tri-state area, just as I doubt it's a favorable reaction.

"Should you continue to denigrate every single Democrat"
Ask me about Hillary Clinton or Dianne Feinstein, I got nothing but good things to say about them.

Speaking of a sorry ass, guess you didn't know Lamont's good snugglebuddy Reverend Al was managed in his 2004 "guest for the presidency" hahahahaha by a Republican dirty trickster....

[skipos]

56. Wow Benchley, we used to agree on many things

but I see post after post of anti-Lamont (D) sludge from you. I was a Lieberman defender until the day he announced he was hedging his bets. I think it is a serious problem for ANY Democratic politician to thwart the will of Democratic voters.

I support any Democrat who is better than the Republican they are running against. And since different states are going to have different views of what kind of Democrat should represent them, I will support their descision. That's why I have no problem supporting Nelson in NE and Lamont in CT, that is who they chose and I stand by it. Is there anything wrong with that?

[MrBenchley]

62. As I've said before

it's hardly a "triumph" for the Democratic party to trade a Senate seat we didn't have to spend a dime on for a Senate race in which we have to spend a fortune and battle every step of the way, all so the lunatic fringe can enforce some notion of ideological purity on a national stage.

Especially when the only thing that can be said for the Unknown Millionaire's candidacy now is that "party loyalty" (hahahahahaha) is everyone's duty--or else.

"I support any Democrat who is better than the Republican they are running against."
So do I. In fact, if you saw Meet the Press, you saw Ken Mehlman hung up on the horns of an exquisite dilemna: either he had to endorse one of the country's best known Democrats to run against Lamont (You could see the campaign ad even as the question was asked: "even the head of the Republican National Committee thinks a Democrat is better for the job than a Republican"), or he had to endorse Alan "Card-counting? Who, me?" Schlesinger. So he dodged the question, which was the third bad alternative.

That's a lose-lose-lose outcome for the GOP.

But it only plays out if the crazies don't continue to caper and shout on the national stage. Look around here at the calls for purges in other states and tell me if that's likely to happen.

Alas, I do not think so.

[The Magistrate]

66. Still, Sir

Mr. Lamont is the nominee of the Party for the office. Those who have in the past pressed on dissident elements the need for Party unity and loyalty, whether a particular nominee is wholly to one's own liking or no, cut a poor figure attempting to shift from that stance now. Democratic Party voters who cared enough to participate in the primary were within their rights to repudiate Lieberman and endorse Mr. Lamont, and that is what they did. Whether that strikes you or me as a good thing, or a thing we are stuck with, matters little. Complaint over it, and predictions of doom in consequence of it, serve no useful purpose.

[Zhade]

67. And Benchly was one of those pressing for loyalty.

He's also one of those who demanded that if people want more liberal candidates, run them in primaries and not as third-party candidates. That's what CT dems did.

He's being hypocritical in this instance, and is actively smearing the Dem candidate in CT with unsupported assertions. It's ridiculous.

[Moochy]

74. Let's not act suprised eh?

> He's being hypocritical ...

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

68. I would argue with your point about predictions of doom.

If we're in the midst of a hard lesson, it's easier to teach while the circumstances are present and easily accessible, and can't easily be rewritten.

[The Magistrate]

70. Any Prediction, Sir, Is Mere Speculation

It cannot teach anything, as it represents nothing actual anyone has need to learn from. My expectation is that Mr. Lamont will win, and that the matter will have a good outcome all around. You are not required to agree, of course, and my view could turn out a poor prediction. But from the point of view of unified political action among Democrats, prediction of doom now has no utility, but at best can only detract from the effort behind the Party's candidate.

[MrBenchley]

75. Hey, I'm all for party loyalty

And I plan to give toward Lamont the same loyalty that DUers show toward the Democratic Leadership Council, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and scores of other accomplished and admirable Democrats.

"predictions of doom in consequence of it, serve no useful purpose"
Nor am I predicting doom. But it would be folly not to recognize that now we have an uphill fight where once we needed no fight at all, nor to remonstrate with those urging further needless fights that they NEED the 48% of Connecticut Democrats they have castigated as "stupid sumbitches" and the like (not to mention needing a majority of independent voters, who by definition are immune to calls for party loyalty).

[The Magistrate]

78. Would It Not Be Better, Sir

To show towards Mr. Lamont, the winner of the primary and the Party's candidate in Connecticut, the same loyalty you bear to the excellent ladies and gentlemen you have mentioned, and the same loyalty you would have others show to them? Surely in an uphill fight, that would be of some benefit?

[MrBenchley]

85. Better for whom?

I don't see any sign the Lamonties want to do anything but hold drumhead tribunals to see which of their fellow Democrats isn't loyal to the Unknown Millionaire...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2777762&mesg_id=2777762

It's of benefit to the Lamont campaign to reach out to other voters (many of whom are independents who don't give a shit about "party loyalty"), but they seem hell-bent instead in pitching people out of their little boat and howling in self-righteous suicidal glee. Far be it from me to lend a hand to people who don't want my help.

They turned the Democrats' safest seat into that uphill fight...and now they want to scream abuse at anyone who notices what a fuck-up they've caused. I don't see that those of us in other states who are fighting for a Democratic majority in the Senate have anything to thank them for, and they seem to want to give us grief for not being overjoyed.

[Raksha]

103. You certainly are showing your true colors on this thread...

I mean even more than usual.

Re >>They turned the Democrats' safest seat into that uphill fight...and now they want to scream abuse at anyone who notices what a fuck-up they've caused.<<

What kind of a "fuck-up" did we cause? If Lamont wins, it will still be a Democratic seat but an even MORE Democratic one. And if worse comes to worse and Lieberman wins, well, we won't be any worse off than before. Unless of course he officially becomes a Republican after the election, but the odds are he would have done that anyway.

Right now Joe Lieberman needs US a lot more than we need HIM...and that just seems to drive you up the wall!

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[ulysses]

99. I would love to make this entire post my sig

but I suppose I can't. :)

[Hippo_Tron]

98. The problem you described in the first paragraph

Could easily be avoided by Lieberman showing some loyalty to his party and not running as an Independent. I'm not going to ask you to like Ned Lamont because I know that won't happen. The fact is, though, that primaries in Senate races go as far back as the 1930's when FDR tried to purge southern democrats who wouldn't support his New Deal programs. So while you may not like Ned Lamont or the way in which you interpret how he won the election, the fact is that he has gone through the traditional process of challenging an incumbent of his own party and succeeded. If this were completely unprecedented, you would have some ground for saying that he is not being a loyal Democrat, but it is not.

I must add, though, that there is a bright side to all of this. Three Republican House incumbents are being targeted by the DCCC in Connecticut. Because the Lieberman/Lamont race is so high profile, Democratic and Independent turnout will likely be very high on election day and that doesn't bode well for the likes of Nancy Johnson and Chris Shays.

[Ken Burch]

94. What difference does it make who managed Al Sharpton's campaign?

That campaign had no effect on the 2004 race anyway. You aren't really suggesting we should see Sharpton as a mortal enemy of the party, are you? Why bother?

[boolean]

69. WHAT IS WRONG WITH AL SHARPTON?

Please, enlighten me. Tell me what you have against Al Sharpton.

Then tell me why you put "victory" in quotes.

[The Magistrate]

71. A Great Number Of People We Need To Vote Democratic, Sir

Have a very low regard for the fellow. You are doubtless aware of these sentiments, and the comforting thought they are simply racism is quite unfounded. The man's reputation, on the basis of his own actions, is rather mixed.

[MrBenchley]

77. His 2004 "Quest for the Presidency" (hahahahaha)

was unmasked as a Republican dirty trick.....(Try to contain your surprise.)

"Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton. "

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0204-09.htm

[Ken Burch]

95. Sharpton's campaign had no effect on our chances in 2004.

And you know it, ThugLife.

Stop repeating untruths.

[T Town Jake]

111. So, let me get this straight...

...you post a reply to a post that was made TEN DAYS EARLIER knowing full well that the poster you're replying to cannot respond...

That's a curious way of doing business. Some would call it something else, altogether - and they'd be right.

[Ken Burch]

113. I was out of town for a week

I didn't know at the time that Benchley had been banned. If I had, I wouldn't have posted.
OK?

And bringing up fair play regarding HIM...oh PUHLEEZE...

[LoZoccolo]

73. For me it's he's a race-baiting demagogue.

So much so that a Republican dirty-tricks operative used him to trash Howard Dean in the primaries for the 2004 presidential election.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0405,barrett,50745,1.html

[MrBenchley]

76. You mean besides the clown being a GOP handpuppet?

Why, other than being a Republican dirty trick and a public asshole, Sharpton's just a pussycat. He's like a great big snuggle bunny.....

"Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton. "

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0204-09.htm

[martymar64]

117. He doesn't like Sharpton or McKinney

What do they have in common physically? Do the math.

[Ken Burch]

91. Al Sharpton hasn't caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq.

Al Sharpton hasn't stolen two presidential elections from the Democratic ticket. So it's nowhere near comparable.

Face it Benchley, Sharpton may not be a saint, but unlike your beloved Dubya, he ain't evil.

[Hippo_Tron]

96. Not as bad as they will reacted to Lieberman on TV with Sean Hannity

We let Sharpton speak at the Democratic National Convention and I don't think that really did too much harm to us.

[unkachuck]

54. I am going to hold....

....the many good-ole buddy DLC friends of Lieberman personally responsible for getting Joe out of this race....

....Joe is a spoiler, he should not be in this race....dry up his money, offer him a Party job, send him on a nice paid vacation but get Lieberman out of this race....no bullshit excuses are necessary, just get Lieberman out of this race....

....if Lieberman stays in and fucks things up for Lamont, many of us are going to hold YOU responsible....

[CTLawGuy]

57. It's insulting

that you think this is all about failing a "10% litmus test."

First of all, that 90% number is meaningless because,
1. It assumes all votes are equally important
2. It probably does not include cloture votes, which Joe used (with Alito and the bankruptcy bill) to get what he REALLY wanted and then voted against the underlying bill, to boost his interest group ratings.
3. it doesn't include non-voting behavior that harms our party and country.

I talked with many voters in this my home state, and they felt that Joe has been ignoring the state of CT for many years. That is the reason he lost, not a "litmus test."

They didn't like how he said that criticizing the president hurts our country's security...
They didn't like him standing up with the Republican with his especially spirited defense of Bush's foreign policy...
They didn't like that he ran for VP and for his senate seat in 2000, without visiting CT for any significant time (if any time at all)...

[alvarezadams]

59. 10%?

As a weighted average (placing more weight on economic and foreign policy/defense matters, less on the talkingpoint issues), he "failed" his party 85% of the time.

I'm sick to death of this 10% bull. Where it COUNTED he FAILED.

[LoZoccolo]

60. As a weighted average...

...where you place more weight on the issues where he agreed with Democrats, he "failed" his party 0.0001% of the time.

[CTLawGuy]

61. self delete

NT

[alvarezadams]

63. What do you mean?

[LoZoccolo]

65. I was being silly. n/t

[nolabels]

79. The 10% is a B.S. talking point

The 10% is what came up for vote, with a progressive agenda and a idealogical encrusted incumbent it might be much different.
I like take out the garbage before it gets in my way, if you know what I mean :)

[Zodiak]

83. Its worse than that

I score votes, and Leiberman is not even CLOSE to 90% progressive. It is a canard.

[Imagevision]

72. Repugs keep running their mouths off - will increase the Lamont win in Nov

[ihelpu2see]

80. I Think Lamont's target should be moderate Republican voters early

for the remainder of Aug and in early Sept. try to woo the middle Repubs. I personally have talked to two in my town that hate GWB and both, independently called GWB and Cheney war criminals.

Then from mid Sept on grow the base.....

[dionysus]

84. completely... full... of.... crap....

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

86. I have a question about Independents in Ct.

About what percentage of voters in CT. declare themselves independents? Just out of curiosity. I've been reading the polls of independents and their support of the Iraq War and Bush policies. A high percentage are against the war, so, Joe's position on it would seem to hurt him. In short the Indies don't want him either. So how does that play into this little scenario?

[bigwillq]

87. This story says:

About 900,000 unaffliated voters in CT.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-newdems0805.artaug05,0,6036325.story?coll=hc-headlines-local


and another link says 942,000


~~snip~~~

Voter Affiliation: August 1, 2006
Source: CT Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz, AP

Unaffiliated: 942,000 = 44.9%
Democratic: 702,00 = 33.4%
Republican: 456,000 = 21.7%

~~snip~~~



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/1/121010/1910

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

88. Wow

So, the approximate 6 in 10 Indies who oppose the war, could significantly effect this race for Lamont. Let's see that means, at least on the Iraq War issue alone, the Independents could swing about 540,000-565,200 votes to Lamont. Even half that would be well....interesting!

[Ken Burch]

89. Some of the resistance you're getting here is based on

The fact that you sound like you're recycling Lieberman's own talking points and the MSM attacks on the Lamont movement in Ct.

And that "he failed your 10% litmus test" line is a cheap shot. We weren't opposing Lieberman over nothing.

Frankly, it's hard to totally trust your intentions in this thread.

[Hippo_Tron]

93. Lamont's general election camapign started less than 2 weeks ago

Give him some time to get his message out to the independents in Connecticut.

[mmonk]

101. I see Alito and Roberts and war.

You're right, he's failed my 10% litmus test.

[saltpoint]

102. In this past week's poll, undertaken after the OP here, Joe's up by 2%

-- well within the margin of error -- over Ned. Not anywhere near the shoe-in spread the Lieberman people were touting in the Hartford press only a week ago.

As desperate and grasping as Lieberman's been in the late weeks of the primary and these past few days, it is embarrassing to think how he'll behave if he can't break that margin of error. Because it puts him in the national spotlight but on his challenger's terms. Undecideds very often break for the challenger, and Ned is the challenger this year. Joe's abandoned the party and is now running against its nominee.

Lieberman looks pathetic, frankly. He's garnering Thug endorsements while an overwwhelming majority of Democrats endorse Lamont.

If Joe had a lick of sense he'd pull out of the race Labor Day Weekend.

[JeffR]

104. Nailed it

the OP & the 101 responses to it are redundant. You said it all.

[saltpoint]

105. JeffR, hello to you, and I hope you're having a good night where

you are.

On Lieberman: I'm not unaware or ungrateful for many of his votes on traditionally liberal bills in the Senate. But I really have a lot of respect for Lamont and I think he can win in November.

I'd like to see a more liberal Senate and the bluer the better in the House, too.

[JeffR]

106. Hey OC

Back atcha! I agree with you 100%. Lamont impresses me a lot; he strikes me as a Mark Warner who actually has something going on in the cranium (Warner fans never mind, nothing to see here...).

At this point, I'll settle for pretty much any shade of blue, but the deeper and more vivid it is, the happier I am.

Ol' Joe probably doesn't deserve some of the excoriation he's received on DU (from myself among others) but he's completely out-of-step with reality. It's time for him to hang it up. I firmly believe he'll bow out before Labor Day. If he doesn't, it just gives me another excuse to berate him and gives him yet more chances to render himself a complete idiot. Sic transit gloria Joe.

[saltpoint]

107. ! That Latin flourish there at the end is a knockout.

Yep -- Labor Day Weekend would be a good time.

While people are out on the patio with relatives and friends wolfing down burgers and wieners and barbecued chicken, Joe could call a quick presser and get it over with. A lot of people stay away from the tube over Labor Day Weekend to celebrate, or in my case, to avoid seeing even 2 seconds of the Jerry Lewis Telethon.

It would be better for everybody if Joe just hung up the apron and walked out.

[JeffR]

108. Jerry Lewis telethon

:rofl: the best excuse ever invented to switch off the set and turn instead to the simple pleasures of violating any rational standard of dietary sanity. And how doggone American is that?

Joe should aim for the Friday night beforehand. That way, his announcement may eventually be drowned out by the Friday night Bushco newsdump. Come Tuesday morning, "Joe Who?" will be echoing across the land and in these august forums.

Better times ahead in so many ways!

[saltpoint]

109. Ok, it's settled. The Friday of Labor Day Weekend, Joe bails.

Do you want to email his office, or should I?

[JeffR]

110. Maybe we should just hack his campaign website?

I hear it's kinda vulnerable.:shrug:

[saltpoint]

118. LOL!

[Vinca]

114. Good point, but it's hard for anyone to ignore Lieberman

cozying up to the Republicans. You don't need to say anything - he's "in your face."

[IndianaGreen]

115. Lieberman is a Republican, like Chafee is, but more warlike

I don't know why we must constantly have to hear and read articles by the pro-Lieberman whiners that are still spreading the lies that Lieberman is a Democrat. For those that have missed it, Lieberman formed his own personality-driven political party, like Juan Peron in Argentina. I can almost hear Hadassah sing "Don't cry for me, Argentina."