[ozZuB-ginK]

i dunno if anyone has been following this, but Lamont won the Democratic primary in connecticut tonight! Of course lieberman wants to have his cake and eat it too. Hopefully in the next few days he will rethink running as an independent. Anyway, a win for progressives, i couldn't be happier. thoughts?

[Daycare Nation]

From what I understand Lieberman is not too popular.

[pantophobia]

the only thing that could derail him,(and i don't know how much of a republican presence there is) but Lieberman said he would run as an independent, that could completely derail Lamont if there is a split democrat vote in November

[Daddylikes]

I don't understand this primary at all. Lamont does not have a platform at all (outside of "I oppose Bush"). Lieberman has been an OUTSTANDING senator, has a BEAUTIFUL record and has a 97 percent party line voting rate. Perhaps he doesn't oppose Bush's war record, but he falls in line with the Democratic party in ALL other areas. Whereas Lamont is a D.C. outsider, has no record whatsoever and no experience. I understand that the CT Dems feel like they're making a stand, but it is the most retarded stand they could make to oppose the war.

I actually hope that Lieberman defeats Lamont in the fall (and I'm almost sure he will).

[silverfreepress (sdasher)]

Originally Posted by Daddylikes

I don't understand this primary at all. Lamont does not have a platform at all (outside of "I oppose Bush"). Lieberman has been an OUTSTANDING senator, has a BEAUTIFUL record and has a 97 percent party line voting rate. Perhaps he doesn't oppose Bush's war record, but he falls in line with the Democratic party in ALL other areas. Whereas Lamont is a D.C. outsider, has no record whatsoever and no experience. I understand that the CT Dems feel like they're making a stand, but it is the most retarded stand they could make to oppose the war.

I actually hope that Lieberman defeats Lamont in the fall (and I'm almost sure he will).

You think its "retarded" to oppose war?

[ricechex]

Originally Posted by silverfreepress (sdasher)

You think its "retarded" to oppose war?

That's strange. I was so fucking pumped for this, u have no idea, and it went the way i was hoping it would. What a fantastic message. Here's a total nobody ,who does seem like a winner or smart enough b/c he built his millions from the ground up, unlike a-hole Bush jr... coming out of nowhere to ride this huge wave of retribution. Partisan politics? Damn straight. Has to be nowadays, sad to say, with these fucker neocon, K-street, war mongering, law breaking republicans. It says so much, and is a positive sign of things to come. No one is safe in congress. Power to the people. CT, amazing job.

[ricechex]

I'm sure the R's r salivating at this win, but i think they r and should be truly worried. It's a direct challenge. People aren't buying the BS any more. "I oppose Bush" may just be all u need to win on.

[jheii]

That's lame. I only vote for third party candidates. Libertatrian, Green, I don't give a fuck as long as they're not (R) or (D) they at least deserve a chance at fucking this country up as much as the other two have and will continue to do as long as their power is left unchecked for decades and centuries to come. "I oppose Bush" may be all you need to win in the Democratic primaries, but where did that shit land John Kerry last time around? I don't know, it is CT, New England and all that, but I just think that the Democrats are digging themselves a deeper grave by not taking anything except their aversion to competition seriously.

[Daddylikes]

Originally Posted by silverfreepress (sdasher)

You think its "retarded" to oppose war?

No, that's not what I said. I said that "this is the most retarded WAY to oppose the war". This vote is like saying "ok, there's a war? I'm committing suicide". Voting for Lamont won't end the war, and will possibly secure the November election for a Republican candidate.

If Lamont wins, I can tell that he'll be a horrible Senator, because his only platform is "I'm against the war". There are a billion other things that he has to do as a senator besides voting on issues related to our foreign policy in the middle east. Sure, he might vote against the war, but in the 97 other percent of the things that senators campaign and vote for, how will he vote? Nobody knows. Lieberman has an IMPECCABLE congressional record and always champions Liberal causes (outside of the war on Iraq). He has been a great senator.

I'm afraid that CT just lost the Senate another Democratic seat. Way to protest the war guys!

[ricechex]

Well, that's one way of looking at it. But u don't know anything about him. I'm sure CT voters do. Read up on him. He won on a platform that played to a liberal base outraged with not only Iraq, but all of the Republican corruption and lies. Iraq is only number one among them.

Among us liberal and general anti-bush, there was nothing to lose.

[Daddylikes]

Yes. But as he's fed up with republican corruption and lies, he's splitting the party and securing a win for the republican party in his state.

What's his response to that?

(Besides, he only won the primary by 4 percent...which is pretty effing weak...considering how much media support he had)

[Daddylikes]

And running as an anti Republican isn't a platform. It's a general attitude.

A platform contains specific issues and what he intends to do about them. For example, a platform could contain a goal of bringing a nationalized health care system to everyone. A platform could also include initiatives to raise taxes on the rich, while giving tax breaks to the poor. Those are parts of a platform...

Not, "I am sick of corruption".

[ricechex]

LaMont platform: here r the issues: http://nedlamont.com/issues

[ricechex]

interesting tidbit from Think Progress: ABC’s George Stephanopoulos reports, “According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President’s political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: ‘The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do.’”


Isn't that nice. But uh-oh, is Karl and Co. gonna rig the election?

[Daddylikes]

no. they will finance his campaign to split the vote, giving the election to the republican candidate.

Like I said, congratulations CT, you just gave your state to the republicans.

[ricechex]

well, good luck. CT is a blue state and has been for many years.

[Daddylikes]

And, his platform frankly sucks. He touches on social issues that appeal to the heart strings of democrats...while at the same time failing to specifically say how he will accomplish what he is saying he is setting out to do. He doesn't even broach his Economic policy which should be at the FOREFRONT of everyones mind. Nowhere in his platform does he have an outline or plan of action. It is like he just thought of all of the social issues that he thinks Democrats believe in and then turned them into his platform, without any forsight into how he can even begin to accomplish these goals. He seems to be very good at crafting his image, yet there is absolutely no substance behind it or true intent or ability to actually affect any change. He's like switching from Pepsi to Coke. Sure you made a differance, but you're still drinking flavored corn syrup and caffeine.

[LifeDistortion]

I never liked Liebermen anyways, even as Gore's running mate. Lieverman is too conservative for a Democrate. He seems like the kind of man who will jump ship from his party. Actually I guess if he's going to run as an independant he already has. Why can't he just graciously take the defeat and get behind who the voters picked? Now I know little to nothing about Ned Lamont, don't know his platform and don't live in Conneticut, but I do know Lieberman, his big thing as VP running mate was blasting hollywood. Isn't that Republicans' job? When will politicans learn that most of America can careless how hollywood votes, I don't care which celebs are Dems and which are Republicans, it doesn't dicate how I vote. Liberman would make a terrible Presidant and I hope he doesn't plan on running for it by next election. Republicans vote for canidates who appeal to thier base. Democrates want to vote for progressive candiates who look at the bigger picture.

[Daddylikes]

Originally Posted by ricechex

well, good luck. CT is a blue state and has been for many years.

YES, BUT JOE LIEBERMAN IS A DEMOCRAT!!!!! People don't vote along party lines!!!!! Even if only 15 percent of Democrats vote Lieberman in this election, you realize that the Republican candidate will win, don't you?

That's what happens when you split a vote.

Ross Perot is why Bill Clinton won with such a large majority in the 90's (Despite the fact that we had 12 years of a Republican majority in both the federal and legislative branches).

In the Ross Perot example... you have two conservative candidates. You have George Bush and Ross Perot. However, you have only one liberal candidate, Bill Clinton. So, even if 55 percent of the U.S. is registered Republican, and 45 percent of the U.S. is registered Democrat, and assuming that everyone votes along conservative/liberal lines... If 15 percent of the Republicans voted for Ross Perot...all of a sudden you have 15 percent for Perot, 40 percent for Bush and 45 percent for Clinton.

Even tho in this hypothetical example there are 10 percent more conservatives than liberals, the liberal wins the election, because the conservative vote is split.

In CT, Lieberman on the ballot (he already has twice as many signatures as he needs to get on the ballot, so face it, he's there) will split the liberal vote, giving the Repub candidate a victory.

It's simple mathematics, it's almost impossible for a party to win with a split vote on their side.

[silverfreepress (sdasher)]

Just because you have (D) next to your name doesn't mean yr an angel of hope. Sure Lieberman voted with party lines. But the parties week and needs a good switch. This is the party that gave Bush carte blanche for war so I'm all for a new guard.
Do I want a republican as a senator in Ct? No.
But I don't want some political pansy either. (D) or not.