Lieberman's Hedge - Against "every single WEIRDO in the left wing"

Joseph Lieberman, D, Ct. is a lightening rod in the struggle for power in the Democratic Party and the nation, for that matter. The notion that the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee might even think of supporting Lieberman running as an independent brought a sharp response here. The rest of the country has caught up in key areas and DU is now mainstream. Those those sentiments are probably not far from those of most Democratic activists. (Quotations from this excellent article: Senator Holds Party In Limbo, Mark Pazinokas, Hartford Courant)



If Lieberman thinks he'll lose in the primary due to Democrats just like us (activists and ideologues are key to primaries), he has to hedge is bets by mounting a petition drive to gain 7,500 signatures by 4:00 p.m. August 9.



This is an important point to absorb since we're the "weirdos" to whom Mr. Droney Jr. is referring. The logic here is simple - the core of the Democratic party is not really acceptable to the broader public, particularly in opposing wars and such. We can't have that, Mr. Droney Jr. seems to say, it's just too weird. Next thing you know, they'll be demanding cuts in defense spending. When will it ever end if the "weirdos" get control of the party.



This is one of those absolutely perfect examples of political "leaderspeak",("Newsspeak"). This really means just the opposite, sideways. "I'm not handing out petitions yet but if it looks like this jerk is going to take MY seat, I'll think again, real hard."

What does this mean for us "weirdos?"

Scratch the surface of the leadership, Schumer, Lieberman and their staff (e.g., Droney Jr.) and you get a total disdain for the people and party activists. Sure, they want us to pass out fliers, man booths, make phone calls, give money (until it hurts!), and show up at every election. But they do not want us messing with their choices for office. The very idea of that appalls them.

The real facts are these: a) a vast majority of Americans are finished with *, for good; b) the vast majority of Americans want us out of Iraq and view it as a betrayal of their trusting nature; and c) the vast majority of Democrats are sick and tired of being called the "opposition" party when there's no real opposition.

Let's have a primary and see who wins. Then let's have an election and see who wins.

In the mean time,in Connecticut and elsewhere, we need to keep an eye on that faction of the leadership and strategists that lost every single legislative battle except Social Security. I'll bet that they really don't like us much...why, well because we're so "weird." That being the case, a "leadership" move to the center to get "the majority of Americans" who are no longer moderate (and have not been so for a while)necessarily requires marginalizing us. I may be "weird" but I'm not naive.

New Leaders for a New Democratic Party

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

I'm up for a "free & fair" debate. Let the people decide!

:hi:

Front. They, and they alone, have the right to declare who is and who is not a loyal Democrat and who is and who is not entitled to have an opinion on Democratic policy and campaign strategy.

As Benchley has now told you.

if one side of the party suggests the other is 'holding the party hostage' by threatening to leave the party/not vote/etc. - when the other side of the party appears to be hedging bets and preparing to do the same exact thing.

For years, as a progressive dem, I have advocated working through the primary system - and if/when more progressive candidates that this will slowly shift dynamics overall. I have also always supported the dem., even when the more conservative candidate wins.

If I have at times seemed irritable on the point of more centrist dems hurling insults at more liberal dems as the 'threat' (note I am talking about loyal dems - on both sides, folks who work for and vote for the candidates on a regular basis - not independents progressive or centrist who periodically vote dem) - it is because I witnessed locally a situation where the scenario I push for (work through the primaries) resulted in two self-proclaimed 'green dems' won in the primary (one open seat for a retiring Council person, and one defeating a sitting dem on the Council). After the primary the retiring dem from the council, and the defeated dem came out against the candidates who won the primaries - letters to the editor - and later headliners at GOP fundraisers for the GOP candidates. With that the repubs (who had been out of power for sometime) were rejuvinated and did record fundraising - and won the two seats and took control of the Council (which holds the budget purse strings.) Locally I watched the more centrist dems NOT be loyal to the party, when their way was not voted for in the primaries. That scenario has remained seared in my memory - and makes me react strongly to allegations that it is the progressive members of the party who are most likely to bolt or to work against the interests of the party.

And here comes the Lieberman story. When it first broke - I defended the Senator, even though I am not a fan, as it seemed in the initial reporting that he hadn't indicated any such plans and folks who were not fans were putting words in the Senator's mouth. Clearly, I was incorrect.

Frankly I don't really think that Lieberman would pull a third party candidacy. I think it is a bit of a threat that he is hanging out there (counterproductively, in my mind) - as in "vote for me in the primary as a dem - and vote to try to get dem maj. in the senate..." OR watch me run/win as an independent - and lessen the possibility of getting a dem maj. in the Senate.

Counterproductive, imo, as it is likely to inspire the type of aggrevation that occured locally in the situation I refer to above. While the repubs won, it was more due to rejuvination (due to the public support of previously elected dems) and fundraising that far surpassed what they had done in the past - meanwhile the defecting dems became personas nongrata - esp after the loss - as they had (prior to the primary) pushed the need for party loyalty and working within the party... and then showed an extreme form of disloyalty towards the will of the voters (the primary results) which led to a turning over of power to the other party. Were Sen. Lieberman to really run as an independent - I think that some of the dem votes he counts on now, would turn away from him due to the act of disloyalty.

What do you think? Is the hedging real or feigned? Would he run as an independent or not? Is this talk of keeping that open helping or hurting him? Personally, I think it is hurting him. I think that he could have walked through the primary, but now many of the very dem voters he needs for that primary win - may grow more wary of his 'loyalty' to the party - and to them (as dem voters who would like to see a dem majority in the senate).

a progressive equivalent of Democrats for Nixon.

You remember them. They were the intellectual forefathers of the DLC.

stands in the fall as an independent that all Democrats will be obliged to campaign against him and that the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee will not, in good conscience, be able to give him financial support, will you not?

It seems like a little of both. This is one of the strangest "articles" I have ever read. It appears to be nothing more than anti-Lieberman propaganda.

and survival. How does Lieberman survive a primary of anti-war Democrats when that risks his very ability to run in the election? The answer is the "hedge" - keep options open for a petition drive. The discussion of his problems doing that are of interest also - calling Lamont a "Republican" and then having to seek Republican votes in the general if he goes to a petition. It's the story of quickly shifting political attitudes and fortunes based on a rapidly changing environment. The Courant did a very good job. Value added reporting.

What's anti Lieberman about that?

But that's not the point of my thread. The items of interest is the "weirdo" comments by the state chairman. What a slam at the core of the party.

"A decision to quit the primary would ripple far beyond the Senate race, depressing the turnout for the Democratic gubernatorial primary and possibly undermining the efforts of three Democrats in tight contests with Republican congressional incumbents."

Seems to place more on Lieberman than just a basic "hedge." (on edit: This makes Lieberman responsible for even MORE democrats losing, not because of who THEY are, but because he may "hedge." I am sorry, that is just piss-poor "reporting.")

The rest of the article is 'what ifs" and not much more. Lieberman appears to be heading for the primaries and this author is speculating what he could do, not has been mentioned by him or his people. The only substantial thing is from a friend. Should he not have an opinion?

While I don't care for be characterized as a "weirdo" because I am anti-war with Iraq, it is understandable that 'card' would be played; it has been on BOTH sides.

This is for the OP, sorry.

If Lieberman runs as an Independent, that will prove that he would destroy the Democratic Party to save it from its Left base.

That makes him worse than a Republican.

I think this is the best example of hyperbole ever (:)):

"If Lieberman runs as an Independent, that will prove that he would destroy the Democratic Party to save it from its Left base."

It would certainly mean that Lieberman had betrayed the party, and forfeited his right to ask registered Democrats to vote for him in the fall.

a "neodemocrat"?

I do not think that Joe Lieberman has as much in common with the left base of the democratic party, as he does with the former democrats who transformed into the neoconservative branch of the republican party. I think that his considering running as an independent has less to do with protecting the democratic party from the left base, than it does with protecting his best friends from real democrats.

A piece that is allowed to have both news and opinion entertwined: reporting the facts while leaning in the article.

It should have been labeled as such so that the average reader - who doesn't know the difference between articles, editorials, columns and letters to the editor - knows that it's an OP-Ed.

The best you can do is insult me? I expected so much more from you.

How did I insult you?

I was explaining that it was a news/op - a sort of news, sort of opinion piece.

The insult contained in the post was toward the newspaper for not clearly labeling that it was a news article WITH opinion in it. I worked in the industry for years and had to go read the damn thing to figure out that it was an op/ed because the paper didn't clearly label it - and they should have. I don't like opinion being passed off as straight news.

I had just finished a roe with another set of posters, so rather than giving you the benefit of the doubt, especially based on your prior writings, I went the route that it was a veiled attack on my intelligence. It seems you and I have the same opinion that papers should not print Op-ed pieces as news.

I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion about your intentions. :blush:

:wtf:

:hi:

It is clear that Droney thinks Lieberman should have an automatic right to the Democratic nomination, and that it's unfair for those pesky voters to have any say in it. Quite a profound attitude, I think.

Lately I have been wondering if the DSCC is more interested in maintaining the status quo for Democratic incumbents than it is in helping to ensure that we nominate electable candidates who will support the goals and values that are shared by a majority in our party. I guess some people might think it's old fashioned to have primary elections, but I think it's still a good idea.

...plebian;) I'm from the "democracy" wing of the Democratic Party should be Lamont's retort.

to describe his Democratic opposition.
Exactly who is utilizing propaganda again?
If I didn't support him before, I certainly wouldn't support him after all this.

So I guess military who are opposed to this war must really be super-weirdos.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003044627_nogo7m.html

Officer at Fort Lewis calls Iraq war illegal, refuses order to go

In a rare case of officer dissent, a Fort Lewis Army lieutenant has refused orders to head out to Iraq this month to lead troops in what he believes is an illegal war of occupation.

1st Lt. Ehren Watada was scheduled to make his first deployment to Iraq this month. His refusal to accompany the Stryker brigade troops puts him at risk of court martial and years of prison time.

"I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."

In a statement released today, Watada said the "war in Iraq violates our democratic system of checks and balances...

because they kept losing people on meaningless delivery runs. That took some semantics to unravel.

Thanks!!!

moderate dems who fear the left and constantly question their activism and yet BEG for their votes are not ''moderate''.

they really fear the loss of corporate support -- or their influence within the corporate branch of government.

this is a struggle for what democracy is in america in the 21st century -- and nothing short of that.

Ct is a great state, has a lot to offer except in one area - a top tier large city. Stamford, Bridgeport, Hartford...Nothing wrong with them, but it's a suburban state populated by folks who do quite well working for large corporations. If Lamont wins the primary and the general, that will be a sea change.

It's going to be interesting to watch. I prefer Lamont and would like to see the Democrats unite behind him, after a gracioius whatever they do between Lamont and Lieberman.

The statement by the party chairman is really bad form. Can't figure that one out.

and speaks volumes about the state of politics.

I thought of moving there in the early 90's. This was after years of "down sizing." It was difficult for the professionals as well as the working people. Its clear they remember.

And their anti-Bush numbers and anti war numbers are right up there.

Interestingly, Northern VA, a cross between CT and Silicon Valley just put Webb over the top over
Harris, a former Diebold lobbyist (and outsourcing champion) who the Dem establishment in state
thought they could sneak past us. Oh, those "pesky" primary voters.

re: the virginia voters.

see i think the whole clintonian thought lies with the voters you are talking about.

Because they wanted to knock a prochoice Senator off the Judiciary Committee. Although the left wing is hardly a mirror of the RW, this is essentially the same process.

I saw the CNN special on 'intelligence' failures prior to Iraq. Even with their spin, it was
obvious that everybody knew the war was based on a crock of b.s. in terms of the stated rationale.

People all over are fed up. Check out the links in the OP. I'll bet that the numbers against
* and the war are even higher in Ct.


Survey USA Poll: Ct 06/09-11/06
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060613State.html

Connecticut on *:

Approve 30%
Disappr 68%

Quinnipiac Poll 06.08.06
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=922

All Connecticut voters

disapprove 72 - 24 percent of the job President Bush is doing.

Voters disapprove 73 - 23 percent of the way the President is handling the Iraq war

and say 63 - 33 percent that going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do.

Looks to me like the war is the driving force behind the Lieberman campaigns problems.

is that the "left wing" and Lamont's position on Iraq is supported by a clear majority of people in Connecticut. In Pennsylvania, Specter held the majority position on abortion, while the wingers didn't.

As a side note -- if Casey wins this fall, Pennsylvania is going to have an odd situation, with a prochoice Republican and a prolife Democrat.

was sayin how Lieberman sucks.

K&R.

I have family in Ct. and there is a large throw the bums out, contingent.

I thikn its interesting that While Dems Fight to get congress back, we may also get to clean house.... DUMP JOE.... Lamont getting elected will end up being a shot across the bow of the DLCers. I think thats a great idea.

Plus: come on... Joe Leiberman is a NEO CON....

Strike!

JoeMentum won that seat from Lowell Weicker by less than 10K votes. Now he's being pushed, and he
is not liking it. Oh well...you either listen to your constituents, or you run into trouble. His mistake is thinking that HE owns the seat, when it belongs to the people of CT.

that we were weirdos before it got trendy.
LIHOP, everyone buzzes about it these days...
But that was so... 2004, also which incidentally, ironically, is 2004.

"weirdos" irrelevant. American citizens with the right to vote who will choose NOT to return Joseph Lieberman to the United States Senate. Makes no difference who they are as long as they are legally sanctioned to vote.

This is getting interesting. (Note: left wing weirdo opinion.)

hierarchy decide who should represent us in elections. Every viable candidate should be given the opportunity to run, and voters should decide through FAIR, TRANSPARENT + VERIFIABLE ELECTIONS.

Thanks Auto, you're on the mark, as usual! GO LAMONT!

:hi:

I'm willing to be a fair few of the people most critical of Lieberman have also, at other times and in other contexts, praised (far-left) candidates for their willingness to place principle above party and expediency.

I have no idea whether or not Lieberman will run as an independent if he loses the primary - in practice, I don't think we'll ever know, because I don't think he will - but there is absolutely no reason in terms of general principles why he shouldn't put himself before the electorate as an independent if he chooses to.

If he does do so, he will be harming the cause of left-wing politics in America, but whether that's bad or not is a matter of personal opinion, not a universal principle we should expect everyone to adhere to.

Running as an independent would be (I nearly typed "is", but I suspect Lieberman won't, and probably wouldn't even if he lost the primary) in no way a subversion of the democratic process.

By all means criticise him for his positions. But a) don't assume he'll run as an independent, and b) don't criticise him specifically for doing so if he does.

...and he or anyone who meets the criteria has the right to run. If he runs as an independent, we also have the right to rake him over the coals on any number of issues.

Here's a Rasmussen Poll-small sample: Lieberman 46% Lamont 40%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/June%202006/ConnecticutPrimary.htm

"Senator Joe Lieberman (D) might be better off skipping the Democratic Primary and running as an Independent this November. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of the Primary Election shows Lieberman leading challenger Ned Lamont by just six percentage points, 46% to 40%. The survey was conducted Monday night, June 12.

These results should be viewed as a clear sign that Lamont is gaining traction. Our last survey found Lamont at the 31% level of support (that itself was a stunning figure at the time)"

People are sick of lousy wars and the massive betrayal that goes along with them. This is a manifestatin of that ailment, IMHO.

When he ran for VP, what was it that happened with his seat? I forget the circumstances.

I can tell you what's gonna happen to his seat this time out...it's gonna get burned.

and his name appeared in two places on the Connecticut ballot.

So, yes, he had his cake and ate it, too.

Hot Damn!

And are they criticizing other Democrats while following their principles?

you don't agree with the neocons, or the DLC!

They can say what they want, but I know exactly where I stand.

To a lesser extent, Russ Feingold's motion to censure Bush, and his attacks on those Democrats who refused to help him, despite the fact that there was never any chance of its succeeding, was an example of the same thing.

and Russ Feingold is not far-left, unless you are Attila the Hun.

You haven't been around long enough and you're in the wrong country to know about the browbeating the so-called "far left" has taken from Joe's faction over party unity. "Thank you for Bush" is the standard retort for anyone who ever dreamed of voting for a non-Democrat. You want change, do it inside the party, otherwise you're a Republican-supporting traitor, blah, blah. So now, at the first whiff of a challenge in a farkin' primary, with an 18-year incumbency advantage, the ex-president of the Democrat Leadership Council plays coy about staying a Democrat. And the director of the DSCC says he'll fund him if he isn't. Of course, Joe's gonna get troughs of shit rained on his head for pulling this blackmail crap. And rightly so.

SUPPORTS an independent run, that WILL be a violation of the Demcoratic party AND democratic principles.

If you are responsible for organising a political party's campaign, you have a duty to support that party's candidates, or else resign that position.

I haven't heard anything about Schumer supporting the idea of Lieberman running as an independent (or anything to the contrary, to be fair), but if he does he should pass on the role of organising the Democratic campaign to someone who wants it to succeed.

...if it does so.

Not sure if that's the case, though, so don't take it as fact.

That it was out of bounds for the chair of the Connecticut Democratic Party to suggest such a step though, I hope?

You would also agree, I hope, that it is unconscionable for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee NOT to promise to withhold any party funds for Lieberman were he to run as an independent after skipping the primaries?

And you would also agree that Lieberman, were he to hold the seat in such an instance, would forfeit any right to sit with the Democratic caucus?

If you have volunteered to chair the local party, you have a duty to support it. The difference between this and a candidate is that the chair has stepped forwards to do something for the party, and therefor has an obligation to do it, whereas a nominee for candidate is asking the party to do something for him.

I definately think that spending Democratic party funds to support a candidate opposing the Democratic party candidate would be wrong. That money was donated to help Democratic candidates, and should not be spent for any other purpose, especially not one directly opposed to it.

I have no problems with an independent coordinating his efforts with the Democratic party. Independents oughtn't to gain any of the priviledges of party membership, though. Note, however, that I'm from the UK and not totally clear on the meaning of sitting with a caucus - if it were the same as "taking the whip" here in the UK, I'd say he probably oughtn't to be allowed to, but my impression is that it's a less formal arrangement - is this correct?

nt

Suppose Tony Blair was worried(and I'll agree that he'd be unlikely to have let things get this loose in his own back yard)that he might be deselected as the Labour candidate in his constituency because of his fervent participation in the Iraq invasion, and that, in response to this concern, the Chairman of the Labour N.E.C. were to suggest that he not seek the Labour nomination at all but rather stand as an Independent Patriotic Labour candidate, and then promised that Labour would provide Blair with financial backing against the official Labour candidate that was nominated in his place in his constituency. That is more or less what is happening with Lieberman and the Connecticut state Democratic Party chair.

class mentality, that has put America behind this present 8 ball. To the manor born democrats, think we owe them our votes, even though they forget all about what we "commoners" want and need, once they get the cushy, perky, jobs that they BEG and PLEAD and PROMISE us things, to get. I get tired of someone promising the voters anything they want to hear at election time and then doing as they please, once the election is over! Joe Lieberman is an open Bush supporter and enabler on far too many issues and he should pay for the betrayal, of the DEMOCRATS who elected him.

The elite in the democratic party, want the crooked voting machines too, I think, because they fear the true will of the people, almost as much as the GOP does. Why else would guys like Joe and the DLC republicrats, not say a word about Diebold, or Florida, or Ohio? The entrenched "entitled" "LAWMAKERS" are scared to death, that if the people EVER get their way, the shit will hit the fan in Washington. The "LAWMAKERS" might even someday have to live by the same sorry assed laws, that they dish out to the rest of the country to live with.

Joe should have to answer to his REAL BOSSES...the voters. If he runs from that, he is as cowardly as Bush. He knows that he's guilty as hell, of misrepresenting his constituency, or he wouldn't be running scared!

The reasoning behind DRONEy's argument, that Lieberman deserves special care, because he has had several terms in the senate, is really kind of silly. We have elections so that we can replace the people who don't do the jobs, that the PEOPLE elected them to do. If Joe is not up to snuff when his bosses evaluate his performance at election time, then he ought to be fired by the folks he works for.

If Joe didn't do anything wrong, then Joe has not a damned thing to be afraid of! If Joe truly thinks he's simply "entitled" by grand decree, or some other holy, bullshit, oracle from on high, to a senate seat, then he truly is in the wrong party. The voters of the Greedy Old Prima-donnas(GOP) "Haves and Have Mores" might be more to his liking!

joehadist thinks bush is his boss:*

Joey the Chin is a double citizen IMHO. and he reminds me so much of:



I know Bush is bad to look at on TV, so I don't look, but think about Joe being on there 24/7... :puke:

...there will be lots of people claiming Diebold action.

And my worry is that those claims might not be wrong. If we get into a position where the DEM party starts rigging against us, then hang it up!

Although I think the affair cuts much deeper than that.



That's Joe on the right snoring...and I want to snore too when I hear Joe's dynamic voice booming away into space. Mr. excitement!

He's a man with two countries!

Joe needs to take care of America's business FIRST, but he don't! His obligation to his religion trumps his sworn duty to his country. Kind of like Bush's obligation to big oil and Halliburton trumps his obligation to protect and defend our national security, freedom and liberty.

I sometimes feel that the DLC-type Dems made a deal with the neocons regarding vote manipulation.

The centrist Dems and the neocons are united by their disdain for true progressives, and people who just might shake up the establishment. A true progressive would break up the corporate corruption that is infused into the elite factions of both parties.

These conversations about "weirdos" further solidifies this opinion.

I believe that both parties conspire to manipulate elections and to trounce on progressives and demonize them. They both agree to squash true, American, progressive power--at its base--because they know that a progressive candidate would wipe out their little power-grab game they've got going.

Also, they all have major dirt on each other. That's why the status quo is so...staus quo. That's why Dems speak out intermittently about BushCo Fascism--but no change happens. There are very few establishment Dems who possess the appropriate amount of outrage and disgust for what Junior and his thugs are doing to our country.

They're all in cahoots--and these comments reveal just how united against REAL change they are.

As if the war is a GOOD thing.

Maybe, to these guys, it is.

what does that make them? Certainly not someone I would want to vote for. If alienating half the Democratic Party is their goal, they're doing a great job.

If they don't support the basic priniciples of what makes us Democrats, they don't need a new party, they just need to switch to Republican.

they couldn't get elected as a republican in the states they misrepresent! We have people like that in this state and I KNOW you do too! I could name a couple and make the case, but I won't, because we NEED to stick together to beat the GOP and to save what we can of the country, first and foremost, if we can. Changing parties does not change what they really want, or the way they think, it simply changes the lies they tell the voters.

If we don't quit fighting about the single issues, the smaller issues and think about saving the country, then the other issues we quibble over are moot. I know how important the single issues are to you and me both, but If we can't take America back, from the people who are trashing it, WE ALL LOSE! We need to win and stabilize the country FIRST. We can iron out the details later.

Lieberman and his buddy Chuck are playing right into Karl's hands with their divisiveness. Their attitude is...If I can't win, then F?ck America! Not a very patriotic approach, methink. They should be ashamed, but they aren't...

:yourock:

As W.B Yeats might put it if he'd mixed up his meds that day.

:mad:

The Republican wing of the Democratic party needs to go. Run real Democrats against them.

When the crazy book-banning woman calls Kevin Costner a "weirdo" for building a baseball field in his corn. Honestly, isn't that word just a lame, 4th grade sort of put down?

If Lieberman and/or his friends think opposition to the war makes people "weirdos," then I say good riddance to them.

#1 Democrat -- Harry Reid
#1 Republican - Trent Lott

Connecticut has closed primaries so Lamont has a real shot......... CT has some very Republican towns (I live in one) and if this were open many republicans would support Lieberman.

If Lieberman does run as an independent he will dip into the Republican vote as much as the democratic one (my republican father in law is already giving me excuses about the weak GOP candidate and how he loves Joementum). Lieberman does not have a big base of democratic loyalists..... most people were fearing to have to figure out which was the worse of two evils before Lamont jumped in.

The primaries never even mattered by the time it got here in the Presidential election.... and CT will be blue. I will always vote, but this time it seems like I can make a little difference.

So CT Democratic state chairman, John F. Droney Jr., is publicly urging Lieberman to skip the primary, saying "every single weirdo in the left wing" enraged by Lieberman's support of the war in Iraq will turn out", eh?
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sendecide0618.artjun18,0,4802795.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

Let's see. The Democratic Party in CT solicits money from those "leftist weirdos". The Democratic Party in CT accepts thousands of volunteer hours each election cycle from those "leftist weirdos". So what is CT Democratic state chairman John F. Droney Jr. implying here, some kind of CT "Democrat Guest Worker" program? Anti-Lieberman Democrats can live in CT and work for the Democratic Party in CT, but those weirdo leftists shouldn't have a say in selecting Democratic Candidates in CT? Only "real Democrats" like him, full scale Democrat "citizens" with the right moderate credentials, get to determine who the real Democratic candidate will be, is that it? The Democratic Primary only counts if the correct Democrats vote?

Why is it again that Senator Lieberman thinks the war in Iraq is such a noble thing? I thought it had something to do with letting people chose their own leaders. Well I suppose if Joe Lieberman leaves the Democratic Party and runs as an Independent, if he loses the Primary, that at least would tacitly acknowledge that Democrats get to run the Democrat that they choose. So is Droney planning to leave the CT Democratic Party then, if he will not back the candidate that CT Democratic "weirdo" voters choose? Or is he planning to continue to run the CT Democratic Party as "an Independent" who insults the majority of voters in a CT Democratic Party Primary? Will he then continue to call on those very same Democrats he insults to toil away each November stuffing envelopes, making cold phone calls, and ringing door bells for Democrats like him? You know, doing all the menial unrewarding jobs that "real Democrats" like him aren't willing to do in Connecticut anymore.

:kick:

but you KNOW it makes me tingly when you plant big smooches on my ASS cheeks."

graves of hundreds of thousands of Arab peoples, and hundreds of US soldiers, while old Joe sits in comfort with his rich friends.

We have got to say, loudly and clearly, to hell with that agenda! To hell with the war. To hell with campaigns that undermine women's right to choose!

We have got to fight Joe if we care about values. If you just care about keeping the status quo, then support Joe.

Our new slogan;)

NT!

2 oppose feinstein. I have yet to find one democrat who voted for her in the primary. I was surprised @ the blue dog dems who voted for Fernald.

http://www.todd4senate.org

Since the Republican in the race is an unknown, and has about a snowball's chance in hell,

vote for todd, send out a message.

Along with Frist and Santorum, he's one of the senators who should the populace should have ditched and left in the dust a long time ago.

...and voting for my boy Ned Lamont.

No one with a combover that bad or who willingly has dinner dates with Hannity has any business calling someone else strange

maybe the dude's in the wrong party.

Whose party is it? It's our party, belonging to everyone who steps forward.

That's all I can say