Lamont or Lieberman?

[waxie]

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.

[Paluka]

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.

[Mr. Orange]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[Copernicus]

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

[MrWookie]

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.

[waxie]

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.

[Paluka]

[ 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.

[waxie]

[ 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.

[ericd]

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.

[Wynton]

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.