It's Lieberman, I-Conn. for fall ballot

... then he shouldn't be holding any Dem positions on committees or anything in DC, effective immediately, right?

:shrug:

Right...and very good point, IMO! :hi:

of being a member of the Democratic Pary.

when, after losing the Democratic mayoral primary in 1977 to Ed Koch, ran against Koch in the general election on the Liberal Party line?

He was not sitting on any committees at the time as a member of the Democratic party.

mole

And anyway, yes, he did stop being a Dem, at least for that election.

The situations are VASTLY different given what's at stake. I coould almost guarantee Cuomo would never have done that had he been in the situation Lieberman is in now, where he could possibly spoil the Dems opportunity to control both houses of Congress. Yeah, that's some Democrat there, really thinking of the party, huh. So much so that he's willing to let his ego get in the way of the Dems taking over the Senate and the House. Pathetic.

Your love for Lieberman knows no bounds. :eyes:

BTW, did Ed Koch still count as a Democrat when he spent the Eighties supporting Reagan, D'Amato and Giuliani?

I know his son Andrew did both.

Of course, in his myopic, ego-addicted NewSpeakin' worldview,
that utter TREASON makes him a "loyal Democrat".
:puke:

Democrat. So, that wouldn't be fair to the people of Connecticut.

Dem does he get to keep his Puke privileges?

Then it really would be the truth: Lieberman, Neo-Conn, for fall ballot...

If not, when he drops out replace the I with an "ex".....

He is a CON

responsibilities, memberships, and perks he has received due to being a member of the Democratic Party. To do anything less is to send the wrong message to everyone: that the Democratic Party still supports a man who has deserted them, and has been unwilling to accept the will of the Democratic voters in his state.

Strip Joe bare, and let him drift away to sea on his own. The Democratic Party should no longer be letting him use them as a flotation device. If he sinks, he sinks. It was his choice.

and energize Republicans than to have Ned Lamont's supporters strip Lieberman of his committee memberships and seniority.

Joe was a Democrat, but he lost the primary. So now he's an Independent, but still on all the committees, etc. So does this mean the Democratic Party still supports Joe? Or do they support the candidate who won the primary, Ned Lamont? Have they done yet another flip flop?

I think the message to Independents should be clear and concise: The Democratic voters want change, because Joe is just too close to Bush and supports the war in Iraq. Which, by the way, had NOTHING to do with 9/11. So why are we over there? Why are we spending billions in Iraq when New Orleans is still battered and bruised from Katrina?

I think most Independents are leaning to the left anyway at this point, like many Republicans they find what has been going on with the right wingers to be unacceptible, and they know it's time for a change.

rest of us, so not throwing Joe off his committees will confuse them? If there is any race where the voters know exactly where everyone stands, it's this one. He's a Democratic Senator who was elected for a full six years. He has not resigned from the party and, should he win, will remain in the Democratic caucus.

Last time I looked, the typical DUer loves both Jim Jeffords and Bernie Sanders, neither of whom were elected as Democrats. We either welcome independents who caucus with us or we don't - which is it because we can't have it both ways?

Support Lamont with enthusiasm, he's the party nominee. November, however, is about the next Congress, not this one. Start screwing around with committee assignments, and congratulations, you have sunk lower than Rove. CT voters put him in the job and THEY have a right to his representation and the clout that comes with his assignments. Screw THEM over and brace for the backlash - why do you think so many ar independents to begin with?. Then get ready for the barrage of commercials about the petty party in all the other close races.

And there IS January 2007 to consider. Go ahead and kick him out, but don't go crawling back whining should Senate control hang in the balance by one vote - and newly-minted REPUBLICAN Senator Liebermann votes to keep his new party in power.

What do they/us have to do with the rules of the game ? Or are you suggesting that we change the rules to fit Liebermans ego ? Since when do non party members hold committee seats ? Should the Dem leadership go along with another unprecedented political manuever to appease one group or another ? Wouldn't that be seen as pandering ? What ever happened to standing on principle ?

I never went along " do overs " when I was a kid, and I certainly don't believe in them now, NO MATTER WHO WANTS IT !

Lieberman has left the party. The Democrats have no choice but to expel him.

Why should Lieberman be treated differently?

as if he is still a Democrat in good standing.

The primary meant he was obligated, if he was still a Democrat, to get out of the race and endorse Lamont. Once he stayed in, Lieberman stopped BEING a Democrat. Don't you get it yet?

DEMOCRATIC BASE.

This will teach TRAITORS who spend TIME AND ENERGY AGAINST DEMOCTRATS that supporting REPUKE CRIMINALS will be at their PERRIL!

Aw, shit!:argh:
I hope someone here on DU comes up with an emoticon for "pulling a Lieberman" or some such equivalent.
What an egotistical asshole...oh, yeah, he's really a Republican in Independent/ Democratic (not) clothing!
Will someone please remove him from those committees, NOW, please!!

is no longer a Democrat, and therefore should NOT be able to enjoy his current Committee positions.

I'm going to call him myself since I wrote him LAST week, but no reply. I'm not from CT so perhaps Harry doesn't think my opinion counts! As soon as I find where to call him I intend to do so. I have a list somewhere around here!

We need to make this CONCERTED effort IMO!!!

had promised him his 'role' in the Democratic Party would remain unchanged;I was apoplectic.
We need to let the Dem leadership KNOW that we won't suffer traitors gladly!

"Harry Reid had promised him his 'role' in the Democratic Party." :grr:

Harry Reid should retract that offer or FACE being unseated in the next Democratic Primary. :(

These bastards THINK they they will stay because they are The Blessed Incumbent?

Think again HARRY REID! ------> http://voidnow.org/


Do the right thing for Our Democratic Party NOW!

But Lieberman's role in the Democratic Party is to undercut all efforts at representing an effective opposition, to render the party as helpless and acquiescent as possible.

Hey Harry, you suck.

we shall see...

I don't know how to do it, but I'm sure someone does! I will help in any way I can, just not as PC savvy as so many other here.

the majority of Democrats in the Senate want Lieberman to win.

Most democrats support Lamont because he won the democratic state primary.

Anybody?

Is this possible???

C'mon, Joe, like your beloved leader, stay and fight the "good fight..."

I guess Connecticut is going to get a Republican Senator because the Democratic vote will be split between Lamont and Lieberman and neither one will win. You Connecticut Lamont people better show up in droves.

A spoiler is a candidate who has no chance of winning the election himself (or herself) but who, in a race involving at least three candidates has the ability to draw enough support away from one candidate to enable another candidate to win.

Ralph Nader in 2000 was the quintessential spoiler candidate. He never got out of single digits in the polls, but he was able to draw enough votes away from Gore in Florida to tip the election to Bush.

Many Republicans believed that Ross Perot was a spoiler candidate in 1992, but polls showed that he drew almost evenly from Bush and Clinton.

You may despise Joe Lieberman with the burning white hot intensity of a million supernovas, but that doesn't make him a spoiler candidate, as polls show that (a) he is capable of winning the election and (b) there is only one other viable candidate. Be angry if you want, but try to be truthful as well.

He has no chance of winning as an independent, but he will draw votes from Lamont. This gives the Republican candidate a good chance of winning. I don't care how flakey the Republican candidate is and how little support he has from the Republicans, it puts him in a better place with what has to be really confused voters by now. I don't hate Joe. I don't like his politics but I don't hate him. I just feel bad that he used our party to advance his political career until it wasn't convenient for him anymore. I feel he was a real liability to Al Gore too in 2000. I don't know what Al was thinking.

If Connecticut voters don't see what will happen, then I guess we will have more neo-con shit to deal with in the future until we don't recognize our nation anymore. Joe Lieberman will probably have a lot to do with this.

and too many of the Democrats there see to be aligning themselves with the Rightists to vote for him.

A vote for Leiberman is equal to cheking R on the ballot.

You say Lieberman has no chance of winning as an independent, but he's led in every post-primary poll. Could Lieberman lose? Sure. But to say he has no chance of winning is to ignore reality.

You say that Lieberman is drawing votes from Lamont, and that this gives the Republican a chance of winning. But the Republican is mired in the single digits, and Lieberman is drawing a higher percentage of Republican votes than he is Democratic votes.

You can certainly be opposed to Lieberman. That's your right. But he's not a spoiler.

Whatever happens, Connecticut and maybe the USA loses because of one petulant little man. Let's hope the voters know whom they should vote for.

it's exactly the same as if the seat were to go Republican.

And you know perfectly well that Joe won't caucus with the Dems next year.

The rules state you are supposed to support the Democratic nominee. Last time I checked Lamont was the nominee and Lieberman isn't.

And you know it.

WINNER of the primary, but he is also UNWILLING TO SUPPORT THE OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES in the other races in Connecticut!

Get your head out of your ass!!!!

How much proof do you need that this TRAITOR is NOT A DEMOCRAT any longer!!!!!

You are truly amazing in your ignorance...

No it's not I-Lieberman, it's CFL-Lieberman. Independent is a separate designation in CT and Joe is NOT an Independent party member. He's a Connecticut for Lieberman party member.

Now not only do they have the task of removing his name from the Dem ticket, they have to recognize that the Independent Party is not just another name for Connecticut for Joe party.

http://www.connecticutforlieberman.com/

Very funny site: apparently Zell's campaign manager didn't get this domain registered so some reality-based individual has done it!

Tut-tut

Joe you gotta go,they don't want you anymore.

and he will be until the next Senator is sworn in in 2007 (either him as an I, or Lamount).

Stripping him of his seats today would accomplish nothing but pushing him to vote for the R majority leader if he were to win in November.

He is now registered as an Independent, and is supported by the Republic Party. How is he a Democrat? How can he be helpful for Democrats?

The interesting thing is that the democratic party has officially endorsed Lamont but in an effort not to make Joe hate them, the Democrats then do a 180 and dont come out directly against Lieberman. Some even support him. but the truly odd thing is that the republicans wont officially endorse their candidate. the president actually refused to comment. this is because the republican candidate is gathering 6% of the vote in polls. so the repugs want to swing joe to their side just in case he wins cause a recent poll has him ahead right now by a slight margin. basically, Joe is going to draw the more conservative dems (turncoats) and those that thing Lamont does not have enough experience. Lieberman is also expected to draw a lot of repugs. Lamont is going to draw the pissed off liberal side who doesnt like the direction the party is moving and hates the war so basically, the only thing we can do is hope and go out campaigning!

balance of power to continue Republican control?

"Non-Combatant" Lieberman Won't Back Democratic Candidates
by Melinda Tuhus | August 25, 2006 06:15 PM

Declaring himself a "non-combatant," U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, in remarks at a New Haven press event Friday, raised anew the question of whether his "independent" candidacy will help Republicans hold onto three Congressional seats in Connecticut -- and control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Lieberman -- who after losing an Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont has launched a third-party bid to hold onto his seat in the Nov. 7 general election -- was asked whether he still endorses Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy, three Democrats looking to unseat endangered Republican incumbents Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson.

“I’m a non-combatant,” Lieberman declared. “I am not going to be involved in other campaigns. I think it’s better if I just focus on my own race.”

Lieberman made the remarks at a Friday morning photo op held in the rain under an I-95 overpass in the Fair Haven neighborhood to tout his role in bringing $50 million to the state to help ease transportation gridlock.

“It’s a little awkward for me now” to endorse the Democratic candidates in the general election, he said, “since they all endorsed my opponent,” Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont.
…
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/08/noncombatant_jo.php
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2798632

Lieberman would use his next term to do nothing but punish the rest of the party. He'd probably demand that our Senate leadership support the war robotically and automatically support all the other wars Bush wants to get us into.

as stated - Lieberman, I-Conn. - he's made his choice. Party is obviously not important to him and his positions within it should be filled by other, truly Democratic, individuals. Lieberman and his supporters have to get beyond the notion that Joe is irreplaceable.

Lieberman's still a Democrat -- he's just running as a candidate for a different party. If he wins in November, he'll be back as a Democrat. There isn't any evidence that he would go over to the GOP.

Carolyn McCarthy was a registered Republican when she ran as a Democrat for Congress and didn't formally switch to the Democratic party for at least two or three terms.

Connecticut for Lieberman.

Put his own name in the party. A political party based on one man. What idiot advisor suggested that? Nonetheless, the Senator (who is currently the elected Democratic Senator from Conn., but who lost the democratic nomination to run as a democrat) chose a name for his independent run that serves to remind voters that this might be a tad more about the Senator than about the people he has, in the past, been elected by to represent them. But the Senator has shown before that he can have a bit of a tin ear.

I, too, doubt he would "go over to the GOP", but I have no doubt that he would often vote with them and against dems. Probably even a little more so than he has recently - as it is part of the story-line/image he is carving out for himself... the "team player" (headline in a Conn. paper today per sen Lieberman).

her registration to Democratic to run in a Democratic congressional primary. Did you mean she only changed it right BEFORE filing day?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Let the man run, that's the Democratic way. If he gets his ass trounced then I'll be happy but if he somehow manages to win then let's let democracy stand.

Assuming the fucking ballot machines aren't rigged that is.

The worst of both worlds...

Ugh.......

Is that slightly better or slightly worse than Nader-Lieberman '08? Damned if I know!

When the WTC was first hit, a lot of people said it was good thing that the Old Guard was in place to help deal with it. Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. Comedian Lewis Black even said in one of his albums (The End of the Universe, which he did right after 9-11) that that is why you don't vote for Nader, because Nader wouldn't know how to deal with the attack but would be able to get you a better warrenty on an appliance! :-)

This was, of course, long before the massive criminal incompetence of BushCo came to light, and long before Iraq was invaded.

At this point I'd take Nader because at least he's educated, intelligent, dedicated, and an anathema to Big Oil, Big Defense, and Big Consumerism.

I don't think 9/11 would have happened if the SCOTUS hadn't cheated America.