I will simply be glad when this Tuesday is over.
Check on Kos for updates on the race.
Hope a Lamont win strengthens the backbone of our local delegation.
I agree with you BTW.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
I will also be glad when this Tuesday is over and I think a Lamont win will help us reclaim the soul of our party. All the doomsday criers are full of it.
Click on the hat to see all Citizen Journalist files
*************************** Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
I watched the Meet the Press this morning while on the treadmill. Jim Dean was the Lamont supporter and there was some Lieberman lacky. I got more upset with watching that, despite the fact that Dean was subpar, than I have been for the whole campaign. Lieberman has got to go.
with our daughter tonight. We're all for Lamont - and we're eager to see Dems stand in opposition to the insanity of the Bush administration. Joe Lieberman is a Bush enabler on the critical issue of American imperialism.
I'm not saying we shouldn't tolerate diversity in the Dem party. But we should not tolerate apologists for the kind of incompetence and corruption represented by the GOP.
Speaking of which, this is why I oppose all Republicans and will fight long and hard to remove them from power. They are the party of war. They hate government and they suck at governing.
At the state level, their potential for damage is equally great.
“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden
But the whole race is still a mystery to me (in that it offers a whole lot more vitriol than seems to be justified or prudent).
I admit some puzzlement about the enthusiasm for Lamont. Yes I totally understand the dislike of Liebermann and share it.
But I read "Crashing the Gate" - and I don't finish many non-computer books, believe me! I thought that I took away the lesson that the Democratic Party shouldn't be a bunch of single-issue interest groups, and that having a seat filled by a Democrat of any stripe is better than having the seat occupied by a Republican. The reason is that committee chairs, the routing of bills, the schedule, redistricting, etc. are determined by the majority party.
So, I've got to wonder why we're threatening Liebermann's seat. Is it a forgone conclusion that a Republican will not win, no matter what? If Liebermann loses the primary but wins as an independent, will his seat count towards a Democratic majority? What if he's so pissed off at the Democratic Party that he doesn't causus with it, as he promised he would?
I suspect that if I were a Connecticut voter, I would have to hear the answers to these questions before voting for Lamont.
Paul Krugman had an astonishing column entitled Centrism is for Suckers on Aug 4th. (Sorry, but you've got to pay to see it.)
The take-away lesson from his column is this: "Now we’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs." In other words, the Democratic Party is more important than either Liebermann or Lamont. I think that's the same lesson as I found in Crashing the Gate.
I like Lamont okay, and I don't like Liebermann. But don't we have a lot more important fights to fight? As in right here in North Carolina? Or Montana? Or Pennsylvania? And so on??
Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
Was astonishing indeed. He basically said, the only thing that matters is the R or the D behind a name. Because if R's win, the person chairing a committee or serving as speaker of the house will not be the moderate you voted for in your district, but rather will be a party loyalist out to push the extremes. And got help us if the right wingers carry us any farther toward their radical agenda.
Sad but true.
PS I don't think there's any chance of an R winning in CT. Joe might prevail if he indeed decides to sacrifice his country in favor of his ego, but that would put an I in the seat, not an R.
As others have said, the Republican running for the seat has virtually no chance of winning. Polls are showing in a three way general election, the (R) is pulling in about 18% of the vote. (Sorry I can't remember his name...although I do recall he has a embarrassing gambling problem that diminishes his electability).
Secondly, as apparently Krugman has stated as well as the Crashing The Gates duo, you have to factor in the party platform when you vote for a candidate. When it comes right down to it, a few dissenting members will not override the will of the majority party even if they vote against the platform. A prime example is Pro-Choce Republicans like Specter, Snow and Collins who voted for Cloture and to confirm Alito even though he has consistently ruled to restrict reproductive freedoms. Despite their personal positions, they protected the Republican Pro-Life platform.
That concept explains why a single issue shouldn't "disqualify" a candidate...like Casey in PA, a pro-life Dem running to unseat Santorum...but it also indicates the larger picture has to be the candidates ability to support the party platform.
The issue with Lieberman isn't just the war. It's representation. Lieberman not only consistenly supports issues at odds with his hometown constituency, he is the first to stand up and take a swipe at the Democratic party. And even though his voting percentage may be primarily along party lines, when it counts Lieberman abandons ship. He signed on to the Cheney energy bill, he was all for privatizing Social Security, he refused to vote No on cloture for Alito, he made that assinine statement that speaking out against the president during a time of war undermines the credibility of our country, and, lest we forget, he thinks a short drive to a different hospital for emergency contraception is a perfectly fine way to treat a rape victim.
As if those actions aren't enough to distance Lieberman from the Democrats, he vows to run as an Independant if he loses the primary and, as we speak, has the Yale Young Republicans working GOTV for him.
This fight is for the soul of the Democratic party with implications for candidates and incumbants across the country. Sitting back and playing the safe card - or backing the safe candidate - is why we are the minority party. If we are to change the direction of our party, and our country, we have no choice but to fight.
There's no serious Republican candidate, so let's take that off the table.
If Lieberman jettisons his own party in favor of an independent run, and he's laid the necessary ground work to do so, then what you've got is a guy who claims to be a Democrat refusing to listen to the will of his party.
Holding on to Lieberman is like holding on to the spinelessness that wrapped the Democratic party up in a cocoon of terra following 9/11. Lieberman is not a strong advocate for the things I believe in. Lamont is. Simple really. Vote for the guy you agree with the most.
Voting for Lieberman out of some sort of fear that things might get worse is a great way to maintain the status quo. I'm a bit done with the status quo. Enough with the appeasement Lieberman types. I'm ready for representatives who are willing to fight for the things I believe in.
Scrutiny Hooligans - http://www.scrutinyhooligans.us
Joe Lieberman is too valuable to sacrifice over a Iraq war protest vote
I see this as total BS – A bunch or radical party elements destroying party unity in a protest vote that means ZERO – Joe will win as an Independent anyways as many Democrats who join the protest vote for the primary have no intention of really voting for Lamont in the fall – it’s a total farce and very damaging to the party.
If Lamont wins it splits the party on the war and lays the stage for the GOP to paint us a “Foreign Policy Flip Floppers” advocating “Cut and Run” strategies playing right into the GOP strategy for 2008.
We could not give the GOP a better gift. Let's hope the good people of CT understand that Tuesday.
If Joe Lieberman has to run as an independent to win I for one think it will energize the moderate elements in the party and give birth to Independent campaign in 2008. I see serious problems for us Democrats if a strong Independent enters the race in 2008.
This is a defining moment. I say Joe wins.
I wish the followers would lead... With a voice so strong in would knock me to my knees...
what we need to do is paint the Republicans as too in love with oil profits to redeploy our troops to Afghanistan and find Osama bin Laden.
"If Lamont wins it splits the party on the war and lays the stage for the GOP to paint us a “Foreign Policy Flip Floppers” advocating “Cut and Run” strategies playing right into the GOP strategy for 2008."
How about this narrative instead...
If Lamont wins it highlights the growing strength of progressive politics and lays the stage for truly principled legislators who haven't kowtowed to the Bush Republicans for six years to make a real change in this country. The GOP will try to argue that the Democrats want to 'cut and run' despite the fact that a majority of the U.S. population wants our troops out of Iraq.
Lamont's a principled man who's willing to stand up to the Bush Republicans. Lieberman isn't. Principles first, politics second.
Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have both proclaimed their full support for Joe Lieberman. And you still think he's somehow good for our party?
So, even if he wins as an independent, he will count towards a Democratic majority.
The case aqgainst Lieberman is more than just the war for me. My biggest problem with Lieberman is that he gives cover to the Republicans on too many issues. Anytime the Republicans have a stupid idea like the war, they turn to Lieberman and say "even Democrats think this is a good idea".
There is also Lieberman's stupid statements, like taking Clinton to the woodshed over Lewinsky and then in 2003 saying that we criticize a president at our nation's peril. He just seems much more likely to criticize the Democrats than the Republicans. In that context I have no problem booting him.
I want to take exception to the tossing around of the epithets such as "spineless" and "backbone".
There is a danger that these terms are too-easily used to characterize people who disagree with us.
Let's suppose that I agree with yesterday's NY Times editorial, A Timetable Isn't an Exit Strategy, which argues that simply pulling US troups out of Iraq would lead to civil war.
If I state this opinion publicly, I risk being called "spineless" simply because I might be agreeing with Joe Liebermann or whomever else is "spineless".
I submit that in a forum such as BlueNC.com, it actually takes more spine to assert such opinions, and I don't like that.
I want this space to be one where "spine" isn't needed to express our opinions freely and actually discuss them.
Maybe we need a new term: Spinefulness?
In any case, I think you have called it right. We should reserve commentary about the lack of spine to people who actually deserve it.
just kidding of course.
cut 'n' runner liberal wacko child advocate dedicated to doing good.
...but I think I use it appropriately when it describes someone who doesn't or won't stand on his own feet and vote his conscience like Robin Hayes.
The other words I would use to describe Hayes would be censored, so I guess I will have to stick with spineless.
Spinelessness is jettisoning one's own principles due to political pressure
Tweets about "#bluenc, -clarkriemer, -henionforhouse, -PaulChesser, -LadyLiberty1885, -blueberrier0341, -ellieptweet,"
Exile on Jones Street
Public Policy Polling
Talking About Politics
alt="drupal counter" >