Lieberman VS Lamont --Does it really matter?

[59millionmorons]

I know this question will bother some here. For full disclosure I want Lamont to win. But listening to Hannity today talking about Joe, left me with this thought. Does it really matter? Joe will still vote 90% of the time with us. I want Lamont to win but I wont be upset if he doesn't. Say what you want about Joe he may not be with us over the Iraq war but he is still a Democrat and he knows he will never get elected in CT as a Republican. Okay flame if you must.

[SaveElmer]

1. I disagree...

Because I think it harms the Democratic Party both electorally and in its ability to govern effectively

[Lefty-Taylor]

27. You're off about the 90 percent voting record. Joe's a GOP shill and most

people know it. Many really dislike the man and think Gore made a BIG mistake in selecting him as a running mate in 2000. To answer your question: There's a big difference between Ned Lamont and Joe. Joe needs to go!!!

[SaveElmer]

29. I think you responded to the wrong post...nt

[Wilhelm Klink Reich]

2. Darn I thought this was going to be

a thread documenting what tools BOTH Lamont and Lieberman are..

[Don Claybrook]

3. So you think Joe will continue to vote with Democrats?

And you listen to Sean Hannity?
And you think it doesn't much matter one way or another?

I'll stick with the counsel I've got now, thanks.

[59millionmorons]

10. Absolutely he will

I guess part of my point is that Hannity and his callers think that a Joe win is a republican pickup and that is far from the truth. I am sure Joe got the message loud and clear and he would be out to prove his loyalty to the Democratic party. I forgot to be a good Democrat I am not allowed to listen to the enemy. (how silly)

[JerseygirlCT]

4. It's that 10% that worries me. nt

[MrModerate]

5. I would dispute that he's "still a democrat."

He may be a liberal (except on a few key social issues); he may be a moderate (compared to rightwingnuts), but membership in a party requires some discipline and some loyalty. A loyal dem would have conceded and moved on to the next stage of his life (or the next election, if that's the way he wanted it).

I admit that his ability to give political cover to Bush is now irrelevant, and for that I'm thankful (if he wins again).

[napi21]

6. Even if you're right, that 10% that he doesn't are always the

IMPORTANT ISSUES!

Alito, Roberts, Bankruptcy, the drug bill, financing the Iraq mess.

YES IT DOES MATTER!

The other point that is being bandied around in the last few days is that the Pubs are supporting Joe with words and money. If he wins, they will be trying very hard to persuade him to become a Pub! You know how it works, look at who supported you, look who gave you money, and look who got you re-elected! Is it possible that he might change? I don't know, do you?

[JAYJDF]

11. I agree and believe this is the bigger issue. It makes no sense

for a Dem to be supported by a Repuk. If a Repuk wants to fund you, then you must not be running for the right reasons. Face it, Lieberman is only running because he doesn't want to get kicked out of the club. I a club is just what Congress has become.

[ChiciB1]

7. That Record You're Talking About......

it's kind of out-dated!!! And let's not forget, he's putting HIMSELF before the Democratic Party! There's the real rub for me!!!

[Drum]

8. Which 10% of the time will Lieberman vote against you?

Are you measuring only by the number of Senate votes, not by the weight of each? As a US Senator---one of only 100 for the whole nation---his votes also touch all of us as citizens. I do not live in Connecticut, but still I feel dubious of "Joe," on a national level.
:shrug:

[chaumont58]

9. I will be upset

In 2004, the re-selection of chimpie sent me into a funk that lasted all of the day after election day. Holy Joe helped chimpie with his bastard love child more than any other so-called Democrat. I am not a resident of Ct, so its mostly a mind game with, but I am glad the son of a bitch is no longer running as a Democrat. If I had my druthers, there are three other Democratic Senators who would lose the (d) after their title.

[Clarkie1]

12. I hope Dems donate to other senate candidates besides Lamont.

And I hope Lamont wins.

[MADem]

13. Are you from CT????

Since your profile is disabled, there's no way to tell if you are just tossing out a viewpoint, spouting, or a concerned CT voter.

I'd say the choice matters very much to those who live in CT. They're first on the list. The interested parties from across the nation are second to the interests of those represented by the person who occupies that Senate seat.

There's more to this than just how the candidate votes. It's an issue of perception, which can become reality in the wink of an eye.

[59millionmorons]

16. No, I am from PA

I am just reacting to those Republicans who think if Joe gets elected that it will be a senate seat for the Republicans. I do agree that a Joe win would allow the repukes to say see we are right about the war.

[MADem]

23. I'd say Joe has gone over to the Zell side, if he doesn't drop out

And I'd count on him getting MORE conservative in his old age. His swell voting record might just morph a bit. He's not BEHOLDEN to the party anymore--no DNC dough, no DNC influence. If RNC dough finds its way into his coffers, he's tacked well to the right.

People do what they must to keep the cash spigot open. But if there's no quid, there's no pro quo.

[bluerum]

14. Listening to Hannity was your first mistake,,,,, and second and third.

[59millionmorons]

19. wow

I forgot to be a good Democrat I am not allowed to listen to the enemy. Can someone send me our does and dont's playbook.(how silly)

[bluerum]

20. Ok then - Yes. It does matter.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

15. Listening to Hannity? I guess there's the thought of knowing your

friends but keeping your enemies closer...

[loves_dulcinea]

17. Yes, Absolutely. It matters very much

consider what will be spoken during debate. what would LIEberman say? What might Lamont say? it is true that everyone is in lockstep with regart to party right now, but, the last thing the democratic party needs right now is a bush apologist within it's own ranks.

[Mend]

18. Who does joe have to kiss besides bush to get your attention....

hitler? I can't stand the guy and yes, this matters a lot to me, and no, I don't live in CT but I do send money to Lamont. Holy joe voted for alito, he votes for things that really matter to conservatives, he is not to be trusted, he is a whore.

[59millionmorons]

21. good points

But I do believe other Dems voted for Alito also. Shall we get rid of them also? If we do we will have about 35 Democratic senators.

[Mend]

25. joe was safe, in a safe blue state. he had national stature and

could have done so much for liberalism and progressive causes. Not every senator is as lucky to have 18 years tenure, be a vice-presidential candidate, live in the northeast. Instead of using his power for good, he sold out and in that way he is uniquely awful.

[flyarm]

22. yesssss ssssss!!!!! !!!!!11 !!!!!!1 !!1!!!11!!!

[EndElectoral]

24. 90%. Joe has only voted 50% Democratic. Yeah, it matters.

[skipos]

26. A primary loser winning as an independent sends a very bad message

to Democratic voters (your primary vote doesn't mean shit, Dem politicians will do what they want)
and Democratic politicians (if you didn't win the primary, maybe you can win as an independent).

[dolstein]

28. Yeah, that political parties and the extremists that control them . . .

shouldn't get the final word in our democracy. To think that the 85% of Connecticut voters who didn't participate in the Democratic Primary, as opposed to the 15% who did, should get the final say on whether the three-term incumbent stays in office. How OUTRAGEOUS. How UNDEMOCRATIC.

[skipos]

35. Feel free to actually read my post and respond to the two points I make

You'll have to show me where I said it was "outrageous" and "undemocratic," as I don't see those words anywhere in my post. Sounds like some Fox News extrapolating on your part.

Lieberman is free to run, just like Nader was free to run in 2000 and 2004. Just as Feingold and Kucinich and Clinton are all free to run as independents if they lose the Democratic primary. You may like the sound of that, but I don't. Any Democrat who joins Hannity, Kristol, Coulter and all the other stellar human beings endorsing Lieberman is making a mistake. In my opinion, it sends a bad message to Democratic voters and Democratic politicians.

[liberalpragmatist]

30. Joe's Going to Shift Further Right

Full disclosure: I was never heavily anti-Lieberman until quite recently; I defended him often on DU in the past and even over the past couple of years as I've gotten increasingly put off by him, I felt that a challenge was unnecessary. I felt that Lieberman's insanity on the war was making him irrelevant anyway and that as long as the rest of the Democrats were strong and united, it mattered little if you had Lieberman pissing inside the tent.

But having lost the primary, I'm quite firmly against the idea that Lieberman ought to win the general election. Frankly, Lieberman sealed his fate all by himself. He would have won had he pledged to support the primary winner. He probably wouldn't even have faced a challenger had he simply been willing to criticize the Bush administration over, at the very least, their competence in Iraq and especially had Lieberman simply showed some respect and understanding of those within the party who disagreed with him.

But he didn't do any of those things. Then he attacked Lamont with a sense of entitlement that indicated he felt the seat was his and "how dare somebody challenge an incumbent senator in a primary!"

So what now? What happens if Lieberman wins? I think Lieberman will stick by his pledge to remain a registered Democrat. He will insist on being styled "D-CT" and will vote for Harry Reid as majority leader. The Democrats aren't going to want him to truly turn indie or Repub so they'll probably allow him to keep his committee assignments.

But don't be surprised to see Lieberman grow MORE loud and vitriolic. He will likely continue voting generally Democrat on most issues, and especially on the environment and budget issues, on which he is good. But his big focus will become issues on which he will find common ground with the Republicans, above all defense and foreign policy issues but also issues like cutting the capital gains tax and business deregulation. He will likely become one of the most hawkish senators, and will berate Democrats even more than before, joining Republican filibusters, protesting any attempts to cut the defense budget or cancel programs, and consistently calling for us to "stay the course."

As Mark Schmitt, of the Decembrist blog puts it, Lieberman may well wind up like the "original NeoCons" - not so much the Wolfowitzes and Perls but rather former liberals who retained some liberal domestic positions post-Vietnam but became extremely hawkish and concerned above all with castigating the real or perceived "extreme Left."

A Lieberman in such a position will be MUCH more annoying than before. And while his record won't come to match Zell Miller's (who completely switched all his old positions and became a right-wing nut post-2000), he will be increasingly strained from the Democratic caucus. It's also VERY easy to imagine that, if the 2008 Democratic nominee is someone pushing for a troop "redeployment" and John McCain or Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee, Lieberman will endorse them. He might even get picked as the running mate of a "unity ticket" or get a cabinet position in a Republican cabinet should they win in '08. And although I don't think it's as likely (and it would surely be a humiliating fizzle), it's quite possible to imagine Lieberman, dissatisfied with, say, a Romney nomination among the Republicans and a withdrawal-favoring-candidate for the Democrats, Lieberman choosing to run for President himself on a third-party ticket.

So, yes, I think that Lieberman, while he did some good things in the past (along with some questionable things) will likely become a MAJOR thorn nor just a minor one should he win reelection in this third-party bid.

[Cassandra]

31. Apparently, he already has.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17052200&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6

"But then Gerstein posed "a question" for Lamont.

How could he expect to convince "moderate Democrats, Republicans, and most importantly, unaffiliated voters" that he "would be anything other than a rigid partisan rubber stamp in the Senate," the Lieberman spokesman asked, "when the only proof of his independence he can show is that he is slightly to the right of socialist Bernie Sanders on fiscal policy?"

"Why should anyone outside the Sharpton/Kos wing of the Democratic Party believe Ned Lamont will represent their views in Washington?" he added.

Gerstein had associated Lamont with three figures on the left: Sanders, the self-described socialist congressman from Vermont who caucuses with the House Democrats; the Rev. Al Sharpton, the New York civil rights advocate and former Democratic presidential candidate; and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos, one of the liberals' most popular political weblogs.

The Lieberman aide's e-mail came the same day the Waterbury Republican-American editorialized about "Ned's true colors," describing the candidate's great-grandfather, Thomas W. Lamont, as not only chairman of J.P. Morgan but "the sugar daddy for the American Communist Party," and his uncle, Corliss Lamont, as "an unapologetic Stalinist and atheist.""

[saltpoint]

32. Real Democrats voted for Ned over Joe in CT. It matters a lot who

wins the general.

Joe is not a Democrat any more.

Joe has left the building.

[Lone_Wolf]

33. You have to look at Joe's "10%" voting with the repugs...

In this case, all votes are not equal. Some of his votes have more dire consequences than others. Quite frankly, I'm a little skeptical of Hannity's 90% claim. I'd say Joe votes with the Dem's closer to 80 to 75% of the time. In fairness, his votes on social issues are probably lean to the liberal side, but he is still a corporate dem.

[ChipsAhoy]

34. What matters

is that Joe is a traitor. he is of NO use to us anymore.