CT-Poll: Lieberman smokin' his primary oppenent.

From Quinnipiac:

CONNECTICUT SENATE
Joe Lieberman 68%
Ned Lamont 13%


By the way, whats up with Gov. Jodi Rell (R)?

CONNECTICUT GOVERNOR
Jodi Rell (R) 70%
John DeStefano (D) 16%

Jodi Rell (R) 70%
Dan Malloy (D) 15%

impunity.

are the primary voters of Connecticut.

And funny, I didn't realize that Republicans have the terrific record on environmental and civil rights issues that Lieberman does.

Apparently, one's position on the Iraq war is the ONLY thing that matters when deciding whether someone's a Democrat. I guess that means you'd be willing to vote for David Duke over Lieberman if Duke came out against the war.

It's single issue voters like you who destroyed the once great New Deal coalition.

His support among democrats.

What a turd.

Lieberman's voting record, especially within the last 6 years is deceptive. For example, he voted against the bankruptcy bill but the important vote was the cloture vote and he voted for clotured knowing full well that when it hit the floor of the senate it would pass. The same can be said of his vote on Alito. This way of voting allows Lieberman to deceive CT Democrats by voting against these bills or nominees on the floor but he fails to fight against these bills and nominees that help corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens by voting against his Party's leadership's position on keeping debate on these bad bills and nominations alive. This is how Lieberman serves Repuke interests and has helped Republicans destroy FDR's New Deal policies. Lieberman is a Repuke mole. That's why Repuke lobbyists attended a fundraiser for Lieberman about 6-7 days ago http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2006/02/11/186083.html.

It's reasons like Lieberman's deceptive voting record in addition to his enthusiastic support for the immoral Iraq war that has gotten Dems like me -- who is also secretary of my DTC -- to organize a primary battle against Lieberman.

You give the rest of us hope.

DINO's are the reason for our losses. The people see no difference between the parties on the economic issues because there are none.

Taking a crowbar to Lieberman, EVEN IF WE LOSE A SEAT, will get the message across to DINOS--
start REPRESENTING or get LOST!

Would the new deal coalition endorse Lieberman's weak support of unions and support for trade treaties that send American jobs overseas, only to be replaced with slave wages at wal-mart?

There's a good reason Lieberman was frequently booed by audiences of union members and other core Democratic constituencies during his Presidential run. If you think Lieberman is only conservative on one issue, then you're fooling yourself. Maybe it makes you feel better.

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

Catholics ate the pagan babies. That's why they oppose abortion maybe.

It all gets so confusing.

Jews just kill Jesus, but I don't think they eat him. Christians do that with the body and blood thing.

And let's see...we know about Muslims.

And what is Robertson's cult called? They get god to kill people.

And so on and so forth.

Are you aware of the "blood libel"?

Will that do? He IS Joe's best friend and kissing partner...

Is the claim that Jews routinely sacrifice Christian children and consume their blood as part of their religious activities. It remains in circulation today, even, in seriously Anti-Semitic circles, and originaled in Medieval times. Hence, people will sometimes react strongly to a jest along the lines you have essayed above....

a survivor of breast cancer quite recently and has acted in a very moderate fashion. She will be very tough to beat.

Ahead, yes she is, but by 50+ points? No way.

Popular Governor against relatively unknown challenger. Just like in Vermont, Bernie is 65+ points ahead of his challenger.

By the way, just a little wink at all those "progressives" out there fussing over what "the elite" are doing...Lamont makes a significant chunk of his dough off gated communities for the ultra-rich.....

http://www.lamontdigital.com/

Lieberman is a strong Democrat, and almost won us the White House in 2000. The fact that some people are blindly opposed to him is concerning.

The Holy Joe defenders are always playing the stupid anti-Semitic card. It is pathetic that the only way they can defend this sorry piece of shit is by playing an old AIPAC trick.

Down with Lieberman!

The anti-semitic posts about Lieberman get deleted pretty quickly by the administrators, but only an idiot or a liar would deny they exist. There's plenty of anti-Semitism among the new left.

Those same "anti-semitic" posters who dislike Lieberman would vote to put Feingold in the WH in a NY second.

Some of us just don't like warmongering, corporate asshats.

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

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

So apparently I'm in good company.

Not OUR progressives.

when they sabotaged Hackett's senatorial campaign because they didn't trust the Ohio Democratic voters to choose for themselves.

The usual "moderate" drivel of one set of rules for the establishment and another one for the grassroots.

Now go snivel about what a drama queen Hackett turned out to be to somebody else.

He polls HIGHER with 'pukes than he does with DEMS!

Why? Please be specific on why you like this turncoat Democrat.


John

No. Really. Why and don't tell me all because he is Jewish. There must other reasons why. Please do tell us!

http://www.peacemajority.org/dia/organizations/PeaceMajority/scorecard/scorecard.jsp?person_legislator_ID=344

Scored 25% according to peacemajority.org, which puts him politically to the right of Representative Murtha, who is a bona fide hawk!

http://www.peacemajority.org/dia/organizations/PeaceMajority/scorecard/scorecard.jsp?person_legislator_ID=262

Or have you failed to become aware of the PNAC loyalty demonstrated by Joey from CT?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Joey's name isn't signed to it, but his votes in the Senate are a testament to it.

Go see for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3798&can_id=S0141103

http://www.counterpunch.org/liebermanrecord.html

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Joseph_Lieberman_SenateMatch.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Joseph_Lieberman_Homeland_Security.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/International/Joseph_Lieberman_Defense.htm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/security.cfm

***

Otherwise, Joey is a left-wing liberal!

If it weren't for Joey's votes and political leanings on issues of War and Peace, then Joey wouldn't motivate me to vote for his opponent.

You are a single-issue voter. Many people are not, including, apparently, a great many who vote in Democratic Party primaries in Connecticut.

Joe has a liberal voting record on most issues, but on issues of War and Peace, he is too far from the mainstream of the Democratic Party in the US Senate, IMO.

Does that constitute a one issue voter?

I don't believe so.

The issue, at any time, could be another one that is equally damaging to the Democratic Party in the US Senate. It just happens to be on War and Peace votes that Joe trends against the Democratic Party in the US Senate.

It is not the actual issue that I am faulting Joe on, but the fact that he is bucking the Democratic Party when he is needed on War and Peace and votes related that issue.

***

Joe is confusing ideology with reality when he bucks the Democratic Party in the US Senate, IMO.

***

In 1988, Joe barely eked out his Senate victory by 10,000 votes.

He used the Democratic Party to get that Senate seat.

You have heard the rumblings that whether by Democratic Party nomination or as an Independent, Joe will run to keep his seat, haven't you?

What is more important to the success of the Democratic Party?

Joe or his seat?

The Democratic Party made him what he is, and if they cannot reign him in, then Joe must go.

Rather than bite his tongue on a vote for the Democratic Party, he'd leave the party.

The whispers of accepting a DINO before a Republican are moot here, because Joe is a liberal in every way except for War and Peace. US Senate DINO's are only acceptable in very conservative states where a liberal cannot get elected, IMO.

***

Am I to believe that CT voters who would support a liberal on nearly every issue, would reject a liberal strictly because he is more moderate on issues of War and Peace?

Yes, more moderate. Just not as hawkish. To the left, rather than the right of Murtha, whose hawkish War and Peace votes can blend into a larger political body such as the House.

Am I to believe that most CT voters are strictly hinged on this one issue?

If Joe loses the Democratic Primary, will he succeed in running as an independent? I don't know, but I believe not, because Democratic voters' unity will be demonstratably against him in the primary if he loses the Democratic nomination.

If the Democratic Party gives Joe another pass in 2006, will the Democratic Party ever get another chance to right this wrong? I don't know, but I believe not.

In 2006, the Democratic Party is facing a do or die scenario, IMO.

***

If I am guilty of voting on a single issue, then certainly in Joe's case the issue is party loyalty and not War and Peace.

It would not botherv me at all if he were to fail in it, as he is one my least favorite politicos. But should he prevail in the primary, his election will better serve our cause than the election of a REpublican instead to his Senate seat.

The Democratic Party should throw everything it has at him, including the kitchen sink, in order to prevent him from winning the Democratic nomination, though.

IMO, a Democrat who is just moderate, rather than right-wing, on War and Peace should be able to beat Joe.

But then you'll notice that nearly ALL the Democrats who come under attack frequently by name here are:
--up for election/re-election in 2006, and
--beating his or her prospective Republican opponent soundly.

You'll also notice that our "progrssive purists" not only turn a blind eye to loony Cynthia McKinney's open anti-Semitism, but fly into a rage if its mention and desperately try to whitewash it.

Harold Ford Jr. is bashed a lot around here and he's up for election, but not soundly beating his Republican opponents.

Sorry, but it's true.

I will say the words "nearly all" and you will awake, refreshed as if from a sound sleep....

If you COULD care less, you would.

SIGH... Bench.. when are you going to learn that moderate Dems aren't DLC?

I'm a moderate Dem, but the DLC rankles my core!

I was an Independent, voting for both parties until Bush. I'm a moderate. I don't, however, like corporate pigs, of any ilk.

of the contempt I have for our anti-DLCers is well-warranted.

Snip
"Internet, telephony and security for college campuses and residential gated communities through two divisions:"
Snip

Wonder if the Unknown Millionaire uses the college campuses as a tax writeoff? Hmmmmm?

Sorry, but people in New England hate the guy.

n/t

Lieberman continues to enjoy relatively high approval ratings in Connecticut, despite many of us who wail and gnash our teeth over his hawkish stances. Despite his nasty tendency to side with all things bloody when it comes to war, Lieberman's views in other areas hardly make him a conservative mouthpiece. He placates enough of the left with, for example, his pro-choice voiews, while being welcomed by the right for his pro-war stance. In a general election, the man is practically unbeatable. And in the primary -- well, most voters fall in the mushy middle, not the right or the left, and the middle likes Lieberman. His poll numbers prove it.

One of the state's nicknames is "The Arsenal of Democracy."

And bipartisanship plays well in Connecticut.

NT!

CT demographics have changed!

Does anyone have a link to election demographics from 2000 and those for 2006?

Your reply has nothing to do with my post.

to be accused of "defending weapons contractors" by pointing out where they exist.

But then since I've never been against collective munitions, there's nothing odd about it. Just because I think the army ought to have guns doesn't mean I think every numbnutz with rambo fantasies ought to be allowed to runaround with a popgun in his pants. And vice-versa.

I still found it odd that you mentioned it without your usual snark, but this post does a good job explaining why.

Not necessarily because of the positions he takes, which on most issues are fairly progressive (environment, women's rights etc). WHat I hate about the guy is his constant bootlicking to Bush in public. The guy is either naive or ignorant if he thinks Bush and his gang that can't shoot straight, won't stab him in the back first chance they get. If Lamont had any kind of chance to beat him I really would not mind...but he doesn't. We are gonna have to get our minds around the fact that Lieberman is gonna be around 6 more years. He is still a vot efor Harry Reid as majority leader, and vastly preferable to any Republican Connecticut might send.

It's the same where I live - we had a choice in 04 - pick the guy you knew would vote often with the republican's or the true democrat and anti war veteran - who had an amazing resume.

From my perspective, a lot of DU'ers are at best Democrats in name only, as all they care about are defeating other Democrats. Of course, to be fair, a lot of DU'ers are socialists and greens.

in the Democratic Party. Sadly, I am starting to think that these people are being drummed out slowly.



John

What do you mean? Democrats like who?

Lieberman and Feinstein are lifelong Democrats and are solid on the vast majority of issues of importance to Democrats. But because they don't satisfy the left-wing litmus test, which says that anyone who isn't 100% against George Bush on every issue isn't a Democrat, they are branded as DINO's and DU'ers constantly post about how they must be purged from the party.

Oh my Gawd! DON'T YOU GET IT??? It is no longer a stinking left-wing, right-wing litmus test! It is about fighting for our own survival as a free country and it is not about getting Feinstein and Lieberman out of the Senate, it is also about getting Biden, Cantwell,and those who betray the country by voting along to get along with these right-wing fascists!

John

That's a pretty stupid thought, isn't it? Why should we let George Bush get to define who a Democrat is? I suppose if he came out in favor of universal health care tomorrow, you'd be against it.

I think you misinterpreted what I said. The Democrats should fight Bush and the Neocons all the way! Did the Allies fight the Nazi Germans half-assed? No! When you fight a war, you go all of the way! This is no different. George W Bush does not define what a Democrat is. And Bush calling for universal health care??? What planet are you on??? Once again, you go way off base and twist what I am saying.


John

That led directly to the abuses that created Enron and now pension raping and plundering a "solid" Democratic value.

We've been down this road before. He's not on our side.
So spare the DLC rhetoric, because THEY aren't on our side either.

If they were, they wouldn't take money from the Bradley Foundation. Or Coors. Or Olin.

plus anyone who did not vote for filibustering Alito are some of the ones a fair amount of posters seem to want defeated and get pegged as "DINOs"

Right up to the moment that sorry ass Confederate motherfucker decided to swap his DINO credentials with a GOP badge. The same situation exists now with Holy Joe, the man that exchanged kisses with the tyrant Bush!

Personally, the Democrats would be better of if the George senate seat were held by a right-wing Democrat than a right-wing Republican.

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats used to depend on conservative Democrats for their Congressional majorities. Without Congressional majorities, we would never have had the New Deal or the Great Society.

Perhaps you ought to learn how to count. The last time I checked, it was mathetmatically impossible for the Democrats to regain the majority in the Senate or the House without taking seats away from the Republicans. But all the left-wingers like you talk about is defeating Democrats who don't hew to your narrow agenda.

FDR's biggest failure as President is that he did not listen to Eleanor often. He should have abolished segregation as she urged him to do!

There's no way that FDR could have gotten away with abolishing segregation in the military at that time, and he'd probably end up setting back the cause of civil rights rather than advancing it. Your inability to grasp basic history never ceases to amaze me.

By the way, the Democratic Party depended on the votes of segregationist for decades for their electoral and congressional majorities. The left wing likes to ignore this fact, and instead pretend that these were liberal majorities. Not true. Besides, the Democrats don't have to embrace segregation in order to win in the South. They just can't embrace the kind of left-wing agenda that loses not only in the South, but in the rest of the country. Bill Clinton wasn't a segregationist, but he managed to win enough Southern states to get into the White House.

giving us a sugar coated version of the Republican 'GAWD, GUNS, and GAYS!"

What a winning strategy. Apparently, it's not enough for you to write off at least half the Democratic Party. You want to write off 90% of the country.

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

you have just about demolished every argument against
the likes of Sen Lieberman. Good job.

You guys should be proud of yourselves!

that there are no more mass graves being created
in Iraq. How many have they unearthed so far?
Is it nearing 400,000 Iraqi's mass murdered?

Are 2300 Americans dead worth saving more mass
murders in Iraq? I honestly don't know.

As for Sen Lieberman, he has voted on most issues
to my satisfaction. I refuse to be a one issue
voter.

While there is no question Hussein was a brutal and murderous thug, the large figures for Iraqis dead at his hands commonly bandied about lump in the battlefield casualties of the Iraq-Iran War, and often from the Gulf campaign of '91 as well. The number actually killed by him in political repression domestically, mostly in campaigns against Shia and Kurdish uprisings, are probably less than half the figure you mentioned.

It would take a damned committed optimist to set the total of Iraqi non-combatant civilian dead at the hands of U.S. forces over the last several years much below thirty thousands. If you are trying to argue the lethality of life for the average Iraqi has been much improved by the U.S. occupation, you are at best workig on pretty slim margins. The most that could be said is that our presence has altered the portions of the populace endanged, but on a yearly basis we have not really cut the rate....

I did expect a bloodbath once Hussein was out of power
and the majority shia get a chance to take revenge for
years of subjugation, torture, rapes and brutal murders
by the Bathist regime.

So now there are only two possibilities. Either the shia
are quickly satiated and the civil war calms down or it
breaks out stronger than ever after the GI's are gone.
Only time will tell.

since the Us Invaded.

All I can say is there are no easy answers. Is a brutal
dictator who tortures and then kills better or killings
by bombs better? I think both are despicable. I have no
preference to either.

the Iraqis weren't being killed and tortured in MY NAME.
Now they are.
Makes a difference to me.

we now torture, and bomb! take a look at the recent photo's Salon published, especially the one where the CIA literally beat a man to death.

i'm glad you have no preference for either, because the US does both.

Zell was a Republican, with a Republican voting record. Lieberman, though is a Bush suck up (which is why I cannot stomach him anymore), actually has a pretty good voting record on most issues.

More deaths and destruction to satisfy the war criminals among us.

Please provide a link where he states he "wants to go to war with Iran"

Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday that the U.S. is prepared to deal with the Iranian nuclear crisis militarily - even if the war in Iraq continues to require a substantial American troop commitment.

"We have the most powerful military in the history of the world," Lieberman told CBS's "Face the Nation."

"We are capable, if necessary, of continuing to pursue our aims militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere and, if necessary, conduct a military attack on Iran."

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/22/225235.shtml?s=ic

1. While I disagree with any notion of attacking Iran, it would be foolish to announce publically that it had been ruled out. Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is a dangerous development and must be dealt with. Lieberman's comments are a far cry from saying he wants to go to war with Iran.

2. Zell Miller undoubtedly holds this same view, whereas on the environment, women's choice etc, Lieberman's voting record is quite good. Zell is a right winger through and through.

Israel and the US do have nukes!

These war criminals are following the same script they followed to suck us into the Iraq war, and they think Americans are too stupid to realize that they are being duped again. I am beginning to think that they have a point about public stupidity.

There is no doubt they are pursuing their aqcuisition!!

Again, I do not support invading Iraq, even if they did have weapons. I do believe it is a threat however.

The point of this thread is not to get into a debate over Iran's nuclear program, but to look at Lieberman. A claim was made that he is another Zell Miller. His voting record indicates this is not true.

Thanks to the Bush dictatorship, the only deterrent to American invasion are nukes. Countries such as Iran and Venezuela should get nukes to protect their people from US attack.

The folks in charge of Iraq are unstable and dangerous. But again, I think that is a debate for another thread.

It reminds me of that Ali G episode where he's asking (I believe it was) James Baker, "Hey what if you tell a guy to go fly his F 16 and bomb Iraq, when you mean Iran".

As for Lieberman, he's scum and I'd hold my nose and vote for him, but I still think he does tremendous damage to the party. He gives cover for all the loony RW policies. Bush and the others can always say "Well he's a Dem and he supports us". But still, numbers are what's important. I'd rather have him over another Susane Collins or Olympia Snowe...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060217/D8FQKRG02.html

But Indiana Green has a better spy network in Iran than
France could hope to have perhaps.

If so, then why wage a war against Iran before North Korea?

or any other country for that matter. And N. Korea has
TWO 800 pound golrillas in its neighborhood (China & Japan)
both of whom will not be very happy if N.Korea expressed
any desire to actually USE the nukes.

Much different story in Iran. President Ahmedinejad has
OPENLY avowed destruction of Israel by ANY MEANS POSSIBLE.

But I guess you will not see the difference in the
situation between Iran & N. Korea.

The cold war is about to rear its ugly head up again to say "SURPRISE!"

Haven't you heard?

Russia has already advised the US against considering military action against Iran.

There is more than that tidbit behind the rumors that the cold war never actually ended.

Does that sound like a conspiracy theory to you?

***

btw, China and Russia are twins separated at birth, and Japan is already in denial of its fall from grace.

Lastly, Korea is making land claims against China that could more than quadruple the size of Korea.

Does that sound like a nation afraid of China?


***

sorry about the circular story line, lol.

would threaten even China. But I dont see any signs
of nervousness in China. N. Korea can barely feed its
people much less mount a military offensive against a
foreign power.

Bill Clinton negotiated a no-nukes for food and fuel
agreement with N. Korea. It is transparent that all
N. Korea wants is more food and fuel from US and the
only leverage it has is rattling the half a dozen nukes
it has. A. Q. Khan of Pakistan gave N. Korea the bomb
making knowhow and in return received missle technology
from N. Korea.

N. Korea's economy is a total disaster as is the case
with every communist country. China was in the same boat
until it saw the light and opened up free enterprise zones,
and the results speak for themselves.

Iran is another matter though. It has PETRO-DOLLARS or
soon to be PETRO-EUROS. That makes Iran 100 times more
dangerous than N. Korea.

The Petro-euro seems to be a more powerful Iranian weapon than a plan for nukes today, to be sure.

However, the Petro-Euro problem is escalating exponentially, and way beyond any PNAC fantasies, based on recent European and Asian rumblings.

Again, the cold war story line.

Didn't Russia make aggressive gestures toward the US on both the impending War on Iran and on the Petro-euro during this past week?

Correct me if I am wrong.

IMHO Russians are actively helping Iran build
nuclear AND many other facilities. Since Iran
has the money, Russians would be fools to get
on the bad side of Iran. But who knows what the
Russians and Yankees & Brits are talking behind
closed doors. My spy network has failed me again!!

One good thing the Iraq adventure has accomplished
is that Bush is unlikely to move on Iran single
handedly with token participation by the Brits.

Let us hope, for the sake of a avoiding a nuclear
confrontation in the middle-east, Iran will be
persuaded at diplomatic level to forego nuclear
bomb making ambition. I just can't see how the
Israeli's can sleep well knowing a nuclear button
is ready to be pushed by someone like Ahmedinejad.
I don't believe the jews in Israel are ready for
holocaust II. And just think, what a devastating
retaliatory nuclear strike by Israel at Iran will do...
it is simply unimaginable.

As for the switch to Euro's by some OPEC nations,
I do not believe it will affect the dollar all that
much. Actually, the dollar is appreciating against
most foreign currencies in the last few months. I am
convinced the Federal Reserve is ratcheting up the
interest rates is not because of threat of inflation,
but rather to support the dollar. And that is working
atleast until now. The higher the rates on treasury
bonds, higher the demand from foreign and local buyers.

Privately they were all falling over themselves at the prospects of getting a share of the oil and reconstruction profits that American was going to reap.

This is a replay of the Iraq fiasco.

BTW, all nations have the right of self-defense, and nukes are the ONLY deterrent to American aggression as North Korea has clearly shown.

Bush is the Hitler of the 21st century and America is the Fourth Reich!

2008. I can't think of a better time to get a democrat
in the WH than in 2009. In the meanwhile, let us hope
there will be no additional wars and bloodshed.

Where? I must have missed that one!

John

I can understand southerners helping keep the BFEE running things but why do Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pensylvania, Maryland etc keep electing "liberal" (what a joke) Republicans. If liberal yankees would just vote for liberal DEMOCRATS then we could go a long way to taking back both houses of congress.

Lieberman is popular among a large segment of the CT electorate. The same poll has him defeating Lowell Weicker 62 - 21 %.

to hide their awful decisions. Lieberman gives great cover for Repukes. Just ask Bush.

Anyway, Lamont has about 3% name recognition, so these poll numbers for Lieberman and Lamont are to be expected at this point in time, but like Rell, Lieberman's numbers will remain high as long as he is not challenged. Rell has not received any significant challenge to her decions and leadership and that is why the 2 Dem gubernatorial candidates are getting blown out right now.

Any of the folks who think Lieberman is going to lose want to make a friendly wager?

He was going to win no matter what.

the 2004 national presidential primary poll. How did that turn out?

Not saying that Lieberman will necessarily lose, but people aren't paying attention yet. As a Dean person, I know how much things can change in 2 weeks, to say nothing about 6 months.

Let's look at it another way, Lamont is pulling 13% with NO political experience and NOBODY knowing who he is.

BTW I am a CT primary voter.

I'd feel pretty nervous if I were a Joementum or say Chucky Grassley and a no name nobody was polling at 13% this far out.

people do not pay attention this early. These polls are nothing more than tests of name recognition. There maybe some play with people who just don't like lieberman moving to Lamont, but the dynamic will change as the primary approaches.

I bet Jon Corzine was down quite a few points when he first started.

Lieberman beats him 62 - 21 %.

Yea he's running as an Independent but he's known as a Republican. He's going to get zero support from Republicans and democrats are going to be reluctant to support him due to the caucus vote.

Challengers start out with low numbers and odds are that Joe will not be beaten. But as the race goes on one of these guys might give him a run for his money.

It's been 16 years since he's been a member of that party.

Still your point is well taken. The primary is not until September so there is plenty of time for Lieberman's opponents to build a campaign against him.

so I dunno if he is comparable to Lamont.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I couldn't give any money but I am on his email list. Looks like he got his 1,000 CT volunteers and I think it said he was planning on formally announcing in March. I hope I can spare him some cash later, I'd really like to see him mount a credible campaign. I do hope he comes out with some more concrete issue positions soon, not that I'm doubting he'd be better than Joe "I love Sean Hannity" Lieberman.

but he didnt inhale!

Two Republicans with overwhelming leads. The D is meaningless.

I'm not sure why people like Lieberman so much but from what I have read, the reason why Gov.Rell is so popular is that she's a moderate republican, kind of like a Lincoln Chafee, she has supported things that most republicans are againist like civil unions for gay couples, a lawsuit againist no child left behind and a democratic plan to revive the estate tax.

I think that's your answer, now lieberman that's a different.

Run Lowell Weicker run!

Connecticut voters like moderates, period. The very thing that so many DU'ers detest about Lieberman -- his embrace of bipartisanship -- is the very thing that voters find attractive. Why is it that DU'ers can only comprehend this being an attractive quality in Republicans (like McCain) but not in Democrats?

Why is it that DU'ers can only comprehend this being an attractive quality in Republicans (like McCain) but not in Democrats?

They are both Bushbots and they should both be defeated at the polls!

Joe is far-left on all but gun control and War and Peace votes, issues on which he is a staunch right-winger.

Therefore the comparison is faulty.

A correct comparison would be a Republican Senator that is a staunch right-winger on all other issues, but a staunch left-winger on Gun control and War and Peace, IMO.

Find me that Republican US Senator, OK?

Rell has been given a pass by the CT Dems. Whether the 2 Dem gubernatorial candidates will be able successfully to put Rell on the defensive has yet to be seen. They're busy trying to win the Dem nomination first. Rell has no competittion for the Repuke nomination.

Lieberman has never had to defend his record against another Democrat. In 2000 he campaign for both VP and his senate seat. His Repuke challenger ended up being a child sex molester. That shows you the depth of Repuke candidates in CT.

And they are. Ever wonder why that is?

TC

Is he really a Dem then?

My question are:

If there are only two issues on which he is right wing, then how right-wing are CT voters?

If it is true that CT voters favor Joe because of his stance on the two above issues, then doesn't that depict the majority of voters in CT as figurative "single issue" voters?

What percentage of the CT voting population are either white collar executives or defense industry employees?

***

I don't buy that bull crap!

The Democratic Party made Joe what he is: A US Senator.

A more moderate Democrat on at least War and Peace, should not be so easy to defeat, IMO.

Joe is more to the right than Murtha on War & Peace votes.

What about his poor record on trade, civil unions, civil liberties and his failure to stand up for our freedoms being threatened by Bush and the Patriot Act? Its odd how many posts I've seen claiming Lieberman is only liberal on two issues. I guess that's the new spin, but it simply isn't true.

The defense of the indefensible starts with a lie. And for this thread, the lie is that Leiberman is a "liberal" on every issue but gun control and war & peace.

Here is why many Democrats have a problem with Holy Joe.

He voted to confirm Condi
He voted to confirm Gonzales
He voted to limit class action lawsuits
He confirmed Negroponte
He voted for the Cheney energy bill
He voted for CAFTA the first time
He was absent for the second CAFTA vote
HE refused to stand up for the voters in Ohio
He was part of the gang of 14 that gave us three radical right-wing judges
He voted to confirm Roberts

This is his record. OPlease, when discussing his record, actually post the votes. Otherwise it is one side's spin against another. If a DUer like this voting record, fine, but do not pretend that this man is some kind of liberal who just has a Middle East bias. He is far from a liberal.....no, he is not Zell Miller, or even a Ben Nelson, but he is a DINO.

but don't let any facty-wactys get in the way of an angry rant....

Republicans do not vote in the Democrat's primaries.

So, this "poll" is a fraud and a hoax if it is intended to show primary voter preferences for primary candidates.

Very deceitful in intent.

Lieberman will lose a primary election.

... that cites responses only from Democrats (as noted on KOS).

name recognition.

Although her two opponents are mayors, they're not well known outside their towns.

Same, only more so, with Lamont.

Land of steady habits and all that, you know.

to send another donation to Lamont!!!

http://www.nedlamont.com/contribute.html

Lieberman is one of the reasons why the Democrats have been weakened. The more this crap happens, the more I am more inclined to just raise my hands and say "To hell with it!" I am more inclined to join a third party than stay on a sinking ship. :eyes:

JOEMENTUM IN 2008! :sarcasm:


John

Jack.

LaMont is only known to the blog community at this point, and has ZERO name recoognition.

When he announces, and gets some issue ad help from worthy organizations like DFA and MoveOn, get back to me.