<p>He's such a good Democrat that he is trying to DEFEAT the Democratic party's choice for that Senate seat.</p>
<p>And may I add that RNC chairman Ken Mehlman sent out an email talking about how the Democrats made the wrong choice in defeating Lieberman and talking about how great Joe is. The GOP actually WANTS Lieberman to stay in the Senate.</p>
<p>"most registered voters in CT are registered as independent, and they couldnt vote yesterday"</p>
<p>I think Independents in CT are allowed to vote in the primaries.</p>
<p>^no, actually you're wrong on that one. According to NPR and other news source, independents can't vote in the Dem. primary. </p>
<p>-don't you think it's good that Lieb wants to work with the GOP on foreign policy issues? It used to be that partisanship stopped at the water's edge, but these days, the country is more divided over foreign more than ever before (yes, even more than during the Vietnam years, and I can verify that) For our country's sake, we do not need another Democrat who's unwilling to budge with the GOP. The reason I like Lieb is because he is able to see what really matters and what is really at stake, if we keep going the way we are, we will have a nuclear war on our hands.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the stubborness of the Dems. to face the situation head on has divided the country, leaving the U.S. looking weak in the face of the Arab states.</p>
<p>I am lifelong conn democrat. In fact, I was a delegate to the convention when Ned got over a third of the delegates. There are many reasons why I voted for Lamont aside from Lieberman's steadfast support of Bush's War. When Lieberman ran for the VP spot, he wouldn't relinquish his senate seat and ran for both and if he won the VP (some would say he did but for the Supreme Court which we'll get to in a minute!)which would have allowed the Republican Gov at the time (Rowland) to choose the senator from CT to take Joe's place- sending a rebublican to the Senate.
Joe backed the republican position in the Terry Shiavo affair.
He backs the Bush neocons on all matters dealing with wiretapping.
All that censorship regarding video games and music is Joe's baby.
The filibuster gang of 14. There is NOTHING more impt than the makeup of the US Supreme Court. If you aren't going to support a filibuster of Alito- when are you going to filibuster?!!!
He and all the dems should have called the rebublicans' bluff and told the republicans to jam their idea of the nuclear option on the filibuster up where the sun doesn't shine and see how the electorate would have liked that!
And the absolute topper. The conceit that Lieberman shows to say that if he lost the primary- he'd run as an indy. Which is what he's now doing. It's alway about Me with Lieberman and screw the party.
Finally- with Ned Lamont the democrats of CT feel there is hope for the nation!
Joes' idea of bipartisanship is roll over! The neocons and right-wing extremists in the republican party are laughing at him while they use him. GO away Joe- we don't want you. If you win- you'll win because the CT republicans have no one to vote for. Schlessinger is a lite weight and if they had any smarts- they'd put up a good candidate and you'ld split the democrats and Ct would send a Republican to the Senate. But then - what would the difference be - huh Joe?</p>
<p>^ You make good points. I just learned something.</p>
<p>I still think Lieberman will end up winning in November becuase he will pick up the moderates and some Republicans. But who can say at this point? No one ever thought Lamont could touch Lieberman's career.</p>
<p>According to a July 20 poll by Rasmussen Reports, <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/connecticutSenateJuly.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/connecticutSenateJuly.htm</a></p>
<p>Lieberman, as an Independent, was in a dead heat among likely voters with Democrat Ned Lamont -- both at 40%. 27% support the Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger.</p>
<p>It seems to me like Republicans have more of a reason to just not vote come November than to go and support Joe. However, I'm not from Connecticut so I don't know what kind of other things will be on the ballot.</p>
<p>WOW!!! I live in CT and didn't quite realize that it was so big everywhere else... well I did see it on CNN but I simply dismissed it. </p>
<p>I don't really follow it that much, but I do know that Lieberman was in the lead for a while until he started to change his views on the war in Iraq and how buddy buddy he is with Bush. </p>
<p>A lot of people dislike Lieberman simply because of his close ties with Bush and I can tell you that most people (or atleast the ones I know) don't support Bush.</p>
<p>^ Yes, haha, I think most people that everyone knows don't support Bush. </p>
<p>I think it's such a big deal because it's forcing the Dem. party to make decisions about the Iraq war, something that they seem to hesitate to do. But, it seems that the dems. of Conn. have spoken, at least 17% have.</p>
<p>^ OOPs! i meant to say over 40% have</p>
<p>Hmm... like forever ago I was watching a debate between Lamont and Lieberman on C-SPAN. Anyways it seemed like they were making promises that they couldn't keep (well most politicans do) like bringing home troops to Iraq, Funding more Government money for school and the future (kids) and like really big things. I understand that they can try to make a point that that is what they should do but can they really promise it?</p>
<p>"bringing home troops to Iraq"</p>
<p>Not going to happen, as a berzerkeley liberal lefty, I think we have an ethical obligation to fix the country we smashed for no good reason. But that said, it would be nice to have a deadline (like most people do when they have a job) to measure projected progress (how can we measure Bush's claimed success in Iraq if there are no reasonably defined goals). Even if we have to break the time-line because of circumstances out of our control, it's best to keep the public in the know as much as possible. Yes, it's long, sorry for all that reading you had to do.</p>
<p>"Funding more Government money for school and the future (kids) and like really big things."</p>
<p>Only gonna happen if you jump through the hoops NCLB established. Really there not much these senators can do, in terms of legislation, until they take back congress (which probably won't happen in the senate). But they can speak up and be general pains in the arse.</p>
<p>a) we CAN leave Iraq, now, whenever we want to, you break it you buy it? how about you break it, leave the store and don't break anything else?</p>
<p>b) Lieberman is a p*ssy and his teeth are messed up, two good reasons not to vote for him.</p>
<p>"we CAN leave Iraq, now, whenever we want to, you break it you buy it? how about you break it, leave the store and don't break anything else?"</p>
<p>Of course we can, never said we couldn't. But it's probably not going to happen while Bush is still president. And ethically it's wrong, I'm not willing to dismiss ethics here. If you do that, you play the same kind of politics the Republicans have been playing for the last 6 years or more. Foreign policy should be made rationally, not by exploiting emotions (fear, anger, grief) and rushing to action. </p>
<p>Liberman had other problems than just his war stance. And Slessenger is a drunk, an obsessive gambler, and greedy...fodder for all those hungry lobbyists.</p>
<p>Lilybloom- your post makes me so angry I better not respond right now.</p>