Lamont or Lieberman?
 

Today is the Connecticut primary. Sen. Joe Lieberman is locked in the fight of his life with insurgent challenger Ned Lamont. While liberals criticize Lieberman on a number of issues, the race has become a referendum on the war in Iraq. Lieberman has been a staunch supporter of President Bush (although he is now trying to distance himself from the White House) and the race has national implications.

If you’re a Democrat, who are you rooting for? Why?

I’d rather not get a bunch of snarky comments from Republicans, but I’m sure you guys will chime in anyway.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

Lieberman said all the right things in his last speech, but I don't trust the guy. Although I applaud his willingness to work with the other party and his ability to have opinions that don't simply follow party lines, he is just too conservative and too much of a politician for my tastes.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you’re a Democrat, who are you rooting for? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lamont because he is the only real democrat in this election.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

Lamont, because if Lieberman runs indy then the Republicans have a shot in November

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

I'd like to hope that this thread starts leaning towards discussing some of the issues surrounding the choice between these two men and perhaps the national implications. The presence of the poll is too likely to just have people stating their horse and being done with it.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

MrWookie,

Fair enough. I'll try to give a response, but I too lazy to spell check.

I am supporting Lamont for a number of reasons. First of all, I think the 2006 elections need to be a refferendum on Iraq. A majority of the public now believes that the war was a mistake and it is the primary reason for Bush's high disapproval ratings. If the Democrats can't make this election about the war, they will blow an incredible opportunity. If Lamont wins, it will send a serious message to the media and political elite about frusteration with the war.

Second, I am not impressed by Lieberman's willingness to work with Republicans. We live in a era of polarized politics. I could write a lot about this, but essentially it means that the parties have become more ideologically rigid. You can debate if this is good or bad (i think it's good), but the traditional bipartisan model that Lieberman operates from is very flawed and actually empowers conservatives.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lamont, because if Lieberman runs indy then the Republicans have a shot in November

[/ QUOTE ]

Not likely. The guy who is running on the Republican ticket has a ton of baggage, including a number of outstanding gambling debts.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

Joe cares about Joe first. Here is why I believe that to be true.

Joe was reelected in 2000. He lost VP with Gore in 2000. If Gore had won then Joe's seat would have been filled by a republican governor's selection.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

I care much more about the Democrats retaining that seat than which one of these two get the nomination. And I think it's a serious concern that a Republican will win if it's 3-way.

If I knew that one of them would win, then I would vote for Lamont. The Iraq issue is the least of the reasons. Lieberman has the religious, moralistic approach to many issues and that really turns me off.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

If this thread continues to be sniping at the candidates, it will be locked. Please discuss the issues, the campaigning, the imprtance of this contest to US politics, but stop posting your little snipes at the candidates.

IF you must talk about them, explain your position a little more fully.


db

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Joe cares about Joe first. Here is why I believe that to be true.

Joe was reelected in 2000. He lost VP with Gore in 2000. If Gore had won then Joe's seat would have been filled by a republican governor's selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another important point that upsets many Democrats. One of the main criticism of Lieberman has been that he doesn't look out for the interests of his party. In my opinion, this is a fairly legitimate critique and should be factored into any decision about who to vote for. In a Democratic prmary, you're looking for the best person who represents your party. I don't think a good arguement can be made that Lieberman is a loyal Democrat.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
stop posting your little snipes at the candidates.

IF you must talk about them, explain your position a little more fully.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I really wish you would stop equating brevity with a lack of thought or substance. I think it's unfair to characterize any of the comments here as "snipes."

If brief responses are intolerable, then I suggest you start banning polls like this.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

As a democrat in CT, this race is really disappointing for me. I don't vote ( discussion for another time) but I think the democrats screwed up majorly with this race. Millions of dollars and volunteers went into the lamot campaign from the democratic party, only to try and beat another democrat. althouh I think lieberman has some problems, there are three republican house seats that could have been taken if that effort and money had been redirected. (also of note is that these republicans are all in districts that supported kerry over bush, and since the beginning of the democratic primary campaign have all endorsed lieberman, who is one of the most popular politicians in the state, further hurting the chances of a democrat taking on of their house seats) One senator isn't nearly as important as trying to take back control of the house, and the goal of democrats should be to try and take seats, rather than oust members of the party that aren't as liberal as many democrats would like them to be.

Ultimately, democrats need to be a big tent party, and it sends a pretty poor message if the most visible moderate democrat gets kicked out of the party. (I know he isn't getting kicked out, but it doesn't look good when you are as big a deal as lieberman is and are getting challeneged within your own party.) I think lamont supporters are generally being short sighted and overly idealistic and looking any further than lieberman being for the war, to conservative, etc. and not looking at the most important thing, which is how do we get the democrats back in power in the legislature, and spending millions to try and beat a democrat, where even if you win the primary you may lose the general election, is about the worst use of resources possible.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

If Lamont wins the primary and Lieberman doesn't win as an independent, I see the Democrats McGovernizing in 2008, destroying a prime chance to recapture the White House and weakening the party for years to come. They'll nominate someone like Feingold, who'll quickly come across as soft, and as long as the Republicans don't go hard right, the foaming at the mouth far left activists will so turn off the middle Feingold will stand no chance.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

Wynton you are right that short comments are not necessarily substance free. But what we have seen in this thread IS a lot of sniping. I happen to agree with some of it, but saying "he's not a real Dem" is not thoughtful discourse. It sums up my position rather succinctly, but if that is all I have to say then I will not post. Other people should learn to do the same.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think the 2006 elections need to be a refferendum on Iraq. A majority of the public now believes that the war was a mistake and it is the primary reason for Bush's high disapproval ratings. If the Democrats can't make this election about the war, they will blow an incredible opportunity. If Lamont wins, it will send a serious message to the media and political elite about frusteration with the war.

Second, I am not impressed by Lieberman's willingness to work with Republicans. We live in a era of polarized politics. I could write a lot about this, but essentially it means that the parties have become more ideologically rigid. You can debate if this is good or bad (i think it's good), but the traditional bipartisan model that Lieberman operates from is very flawed and actually empowers conservatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree having the election be a referendum on Iraq may be the best way to get democrats elected, but in my opinion it just further leads us in the wrong direction of what campaigns should be about. The core issues of American life like jobs, education, etc... are always given nothing but lip service, and the hot idealogical issues are all people really talk about. While I agree the war in Iraq is an important issue, I don't like treating it the same way Republicans treat gay marriage and abortion, which is simply as a hot button issue that gets them elected but in the long run won't change americans lives for the better. I'd like to emphasize that I don't mean to say that the war in Iraq isn't an extremely important issue. I'm simply saying that I don't think that campaigns being decided on a single hot issue is a good thing for our nation.

I agree that Lieberman's willingness to be non-polarized empowers conservatives, but that is because he is too conservative for my tastes. A more liberal candidate with the same views on working with the other party could have more pleasing results.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

snowden719,

I have heard several people make the arguement that spending resources beating Lieberman is waste of money and time-- resources that should be spent trying to retake the House.

I have a very simple response. The Democrats will not be able to retake the House unless they make the election about Iraq. The Democratic establishment (consultants, intrest groups, some labor unions) seems unwilling to make the war a serious issue. I believe a Lieberman loss will shock the establishment and hopefully force them to refocus their strategy.

As for those who believe that a loss by Lieberman will cause the Democrats to go too far to the left-- Lieberman is actually one of the more liberal memebers of the Senate. He is out of the mainstream on Iraq-- the majority of the American public supports a speedy withdrawl. By forcing Democrats to come out against the war, Lamont will help the party become more mainstream.

As for the complaint that focusing on the war distracts from other issues: the war in Iraq is the most important political event of our generation. Every other issue is impacted by the war. Most importantly, our future is being jepordized by the millions of enemies that President Bush is making by waging war in the Middle East.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

When Lieberman said this:

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years," the senator said. "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

He lost my support. When someone calls a liar a liar, I don't blame him for "undermining the [liar's] credibility". The liar undermined his own credibility by lying in the first place.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

Early results from CNN in white:
<font color="white">ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- With the polls closed, cable executive Ned Lamont led Sen. Joseph Lieberman in early returns in the Democratic primary for the Connecticut Senate nomination.

With 55 percent of the precincts reporting, Lamont led Lieberman 52 percent to 48 percent, according to The Associated Press. </font>

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

Not sure why that needs to be in white. Lieberman just "conceded" and then said that he is going to run as an independent. As a democrat, this makes me sick. I hope the democractic machine will convince him to step aside, and if he continues to refuse, do everything it can to derail his campaign.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

It needs to be in white because I am trying to make a strat forum joke. But otherwise I agree with you. I was about to say that Ned Lamont agrees with me on the issues so I am happy he got elected, but I have no idea where he stands on the issues other than Iraq. Meh, good enough for me. Go Ned.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure why that needs to be in white. Lieberman just "conceded" and then said that he is going to run as an independent. As a democrat, this makes me sick. I hope the democractic machine will convince him to step aside, and if he continues to refuse, do everything it can to derail his campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an American first, and a Republican second, it makes me sick that the Democratic Party has sunk to this low. I have no desire to argue about it, and will not post further in this thread. I believe this will help the Republican Party nationally in the long run, for several reasons, but it still saddens me as an American. He was one of the shrinking number of Democrat politicians I still had some measure of respect for.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure why that needs to be in white. Lieberman just "conceded" and then said that he is going to run as an independent. As a democrat, this makes me sick. I hope the democractic machine will convince him to step aside, and if he continues to refuse, do everything it can to derail his campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an American first, and a Republican second, it makes me sick that the Democratic Party has sunk to this low. I have no desire to argue about it, and will not post further in this thread. I believe this will help the Republican Party nationally in the long run, for several reasons, but it still saddens me as an American. He was one of the shrinking number of Democrat politicians I still had some measure of respect for.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an American it makes me proud that Lieberman lost today. He is wrong on the war and the voters let him know about it. God Bless America!

I do agree with Lieberman about 95 percent of the time but the biggest issue he is dead wrong which outweighs everything else. This is the same reason the I will not vote or support Hillary.

Here is the question that should be on peoples minds.

"Knowing what you know now would you have voted for the U.S. to go to war with Iraq"

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

Frankly, his support for the war does not bother me as much as his pandering to the "religionists" during the 2000 election. As a Jew, I found it tremendously offensive coming from another Jew. There were plenty of people who made the mistake of supporting the war.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

I highly disagree with people saying that Lieberman's loss is bad for the Democratic party. I would personally contend that Lieberman is not a Democrat at all. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A closet-Republican who has fooled the voters for far too long. Look at his recent record; he is pro-war, buddy-buddy with the president, and a social conservative. He spends most of his time denouncing the evils of violent movies and video games. If this is the kind of person I wanted representing me, I would vote for a Republican. In 1988, when Lieberman was first elected, it was with the help of REPUBLICANS, because they felt that the Republican senator in CT was too "liberal". They replaced a supposed liberal republican with a conservative Democrat.

Senators like Lieberman are not helpful for the party, they are detrimental to the cause of the Democratic party. People like Lieberman pull the Democrats to the right, closer to the Republicans. Being more like the Republicans is not going to win elections. Instead, it only limits choices and stifles debate.

The fact that Lieberman lost today should not come as a shock to anyone. CT is not in the south; it is not Texas. Connecticut is in the northeast, a part of the Democratic stronghold. Even the Republicans in the area vote more towards the left than Mr. Lieberman. CT wants somebody more in line with their ideology, and they got it.

Personally, I think it is a great day for the Democratic party to rid itself of this plague that has been a Republican wearing a Democrat's clothing since 1988.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think it is a great day for the Democratic party to rid itself of this plague that has been a Republican wearing a Democrat's clothing since 1988.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm skeptical that yo've gotten rid of him. I expect him to get re-election in November.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

Yup. Too lazy to look, but in hypothetical 3 way polling done before the election, Lieberman was ahead.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

Hopefully you're wrong....

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

http://myspace-295.vo.llnwd.net/0035...56969295_m.jpg

Lamont.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think it is a great day for the Democratic party to rid itself of this plague that has been a Republican wearing a Democrat's clothing since 1988.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is. Hopefully the trend continues.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

This was a sad day in a once great party. Whatever was left of the Truman/JFK Democratic tradition of being strong on national defense/security issues has been vanquished by the Dean/Soros/Daily Koz wing of the Party. The Democratic Party is no longer a national party that tolerates dissent or honest intellectual debate; last night's election makes it clear that it is no longer a "big tent" Party.

Whether invading Iraq was a mistake or not remains unclear (I was there in 2003 and dodged my fair share of IEDs). What is perfectly clear is that executing Lamont's plan of immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the political and security situation on the ground, is disasterous. If Lamont has his way, we will leave a failed state, extremely vulnerable to Iranian influence, that will forment terrorists the same way Afghanistan did during the 1990's. Having Troops in Iraq may suck, but the latter option sucks much, much worse.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

a typical response by a woman.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If Lamont has his way, we will leave a failed state, extremely vulnerable to Iranian influence, that will forment terrorists the same way Afghanistan did during the 1990's. Having Troops in Iraq may suck, but the latter option sucks much, much worse.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an extremely difficult question, but a lot of people feel that that the US invasion and occupation were one of the driving forces behind turning Iraq into the failed state it is today; at the very best they haven;t managed to prevent it sliding into large scale sectarian murder. Having troops there could help but they need competent leadership and that's clearly lacking. Iraq needs an awful lot of help but it's not surprising that people think help from the people that put it in the state it is today is the kind it could do without.

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
a typical response by a woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd delete this, but it provides the sort of example of exactly what not to post here. B1.

To you guys saying the loss of Lieberman is bad for the Democrats
 

What about Mckinney? Let's look at a larger picture here. Democrats weeded out two figures in their own party which are devisive, and arguably negative. I think there is some disengenousness here, but mainly people are so used to seeing a circular Democratic firing squad we don't know what it looks like when Democrats come together and finally get something right!

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Democratic Party is no longer a national party that tolerates dissent or honest intellectual debate; last night's election makes it clear that it is no longer a "big tent" Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one in the party tried to silence Lieberman, nor inhibit his ability to engage in an honest, intellectual debate. In fact, most of the Democratic Party insiders endorsed Lieberman (Connecticut's Senior Senator Dodd, former President Clinton, Minority Leader Reid, Senators Clinton, Obama, Bayh, Feinstein, Wyden...and all of the big Democratic political action groups like NARAL and big labor like the AFL-CIO all endorsed Lieberman). If the Democratic voters of CT decide that they no longer want Lieberman to represent their party, why is that indicative of a party that 'no longer tolerates debate'? If the Republican voters in the '08 Presidential primaries decide they don't want someone like Rudy Giuliani representing their party in the general election because his views don't align with the majority of the party, is that indicative of a party that 'no longer tolerates intellectual debate'? One of the reasons for the Republican Party's success over the past 25 years is the ideological cohesiveness they've managed to achieve -- and the consistent message they've been able to craft due to that stability.

The claim that the "the national party no longer tolerates dissent or honest intellectual debate" seems especially specious because most of the party leadership at the national level backed Lieberman.

I Have Mixed Emotions
 

I have mixed emotions.
As a conservative, I'm glad to see the Dems show their true colors and move further left by chasing a 90% voting liberal from their party because he voted 'wrong' on just one issue.

But then I'm sad to see one of the few Dem politicians with class get stabbed in the back.

The result is good for conservatives. Dems that voted for the war because the polls told them to do so will now have to flip/flop their positions and parrot what the hard-core lefties say. Hillary is in huge trouble because she has tried to take the line she is a moderate that is strong on defense. Now she will have to honest about her true views.

We Are Seeing the Dems Becoming More Polarized...
 

We Are Seeing the Dems Becoming More Polarized.........and I think this is a good thing.
Also the 527 bloggers have flexed their muscles and are demanding the Dem leaders get tougher with their rhetoric. So people like Hillary will have a tougher time trying to pretend to be a moderate. This is a good thing.

In a way, I'm jealous because I'd also would like to see the Repubs get more polarized and squeeze out the Rockafeller wing of the Repub party. The moderates have been screwing up the USA for too long.

I want voters to elect liberals like Jimmy Carter or conservatives like Ronald Reagan!
Liberals like Carter are good because they ****-up the country so bad that people turn to conservatism. Conservatives like Reagan is good because they leads the country to prosperity and greatness. Screw the nitwit moderates like Bush41, Bush43, McCain, Lindsey Grahm, and pretty much 60% of the people in the US Senate....

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lieberman is actually one of the more liberal memebers of the Senate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind explaining this?

Re: Lamont or Lieberman?
 

The ultra-intense, white hot, deep down hatred for President Bush that many Demoncrats feel is completely blinding them to anything and everything else...

that's all they see and the only thing they can think about. I believe this election had little to do with Leiberman and more to do with anti-bush zealots. People didn't vote "against" Leiberman or "for" Lamont, they simply saw it as another way to voice their vote "against" Bush.

I think the Iraq was is another instance of this. Bush is for it and created it, therefor it is 100% bad and must be challenged completely (people have hated bush even before Iraq of course, the seeds of it go back to Florida recounts naturally).