Connecticut primary

[Slyder]

Why are Republicans so upset by the result of a DEMOCRATIC primary election? The politicians and pundits seem overly upset. Shouldn't they be concentrating on taking this Democratic seat for themselves and pushing their own candidate, rather than criticizing Democratic electors for voting their consciences?

[babylonsister]

1. I read that Mehlmann (RNC chair) and even dimson haven't backed

their repug (Schlesinger?) candidate. Who's left, the newly Independent?

[Ninja Jordan]

2. They don't want the honest guy to get elected.

LIEberman is in the pocket of the big media as it is.

[MadMaddie]

3. This is the question isn't it....

Is it because they felt they had a lock on Lieberman's seat and therefore a guaranteed lock step vote for all of their bullshit policies?

I think this is it.....if they lost Lieberman an entrenched Democrat...then it does not bode well for them in November....

They can't control everything like they used too....a chink in the armour my friend....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. They don't want to lose Joe.

They know they'll lose some Senate seats this time, and that the lame-ass Republican who's running in CT hasn't a chance anyhow. But even though Joe is technically a Democrat, he has always come through for them on the important stuff, like the war and Alito's confirmation. (He's even a good ol' buddy of PNACer Wolfowitz and was instrumental in selling the Iraq invasion.) So basically by supporting Joe they can get a "free" Senate seat if he wins, even if their nominated candidate loses. Joe would be a better deal for them in terms of power and reliability and ass-kissing than their own guy.

[Sparkly]

5. Here's what I think...

On the surface, it could be about splitting the Democratic vote to give the Repug a chance -- but then, they aren't even endorsing the Repug, so I think it's something else.

I think it's about splitting the Democratic PARTY, yes -- along positions on the Iraq war. Voting down Lieberman is voting down BushCo's policies in a loud way; if he can float along and wage a campaign, even if he doesn't win, he's made into a symbol of "moderate" support for BushCo's policy on the war, and all the brouhaha is about that... It casts Lamont, and certain wild-eyed Democrats in the blogosphere, as "radical" and "out of the mainstream" and exerting undue influence on the party. That's the argument they want to make, imho...

And yes, it's BS...