If Lieberman Loses On Tuesday...

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

If the good Democrats of the Nutmeg State vote Lieberman out, the implications for democracy could be staggering.

Why, who knows what will happen next - residents of other states, maybe even of both parties, might get the same idea - that incumbents don’t have to be re-elected as long as they choose to run. How could we possibly save democracy in America if that were to happen?

Why, next door in Rhode Island, another incumbent Senator - another moderate, appropriately enough - is facing a primary challenge from a more extreme member of his own party. How can a guy like Laffey - why, even his name is a laugh - dare to try to drive out a good moderate like Chafee? Doesn’t he know that democracy is at stake?

Geez. Next thing you know, candidates will run viable challenges to incumbents in the general election. What is this country coming to??

That’s amusing, but it no one is arguing that the good people of CT shouldn’t elect whomever they think represents them the best. The OP clearly indicated that this is a debate about whether that means anything about how future elections might turn out.

[Frostillicus]

@Squink

If Lieberman goes down, the sky will fall: Ducks will also mate with sheep, and nuclear mushrooms will blossom over America’s cities.
Of course, the conservatives would just as soon every democrat were a traitor to his party. That makes their doom mongering more than a little suspect here.
If Lieberman loses, so will the lobbyists and the Washington democratic establishment. I suppose that’d be a bad thing, if those groups had been leading the country in the right direction these past few years, but as things stand, it’s hard to see a down side.

I for one am truly touched by the heartfelt concern that so many Republicans seem to have for the future of the Democratic Party. :rolleyes:

[GIGObuster]

War is not the only issue why Holy Joe is in trouble:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/07/28/michael_schiavo_campaigns_against_lieberman/

Michael Schiavo campaigns against Lieberman

…

This year, he has been campaigning across the nation against government intrusion into personal medical decisions.

He said he decided to target Lieberman after watching him make the rounds of national Sunday talk shows supporting the government’s right to intervene in his wife’s case.

“Joe Lieberman never met me; he never met Terri,” Schiavo said Friday. “Joe Lieberman didn’t know anything about us or what Terri wanted, but that didn’t stop him from saying on national TV that he and George Bush knew better.”

Schiavo has formed a political action committee that has raised about $25,000 and is also targeting races in Colorado, Florida and Texas.

Lamont said he decided to run for Senate in part because he was tired of watching government trample on personal liberties.

“Be it stem cell research, be it a woman’s right to choose, be it the illegal wire taps, be it those who are reading our e-mails, be it a government that is intruding into the hospital rooms at those private moments, that is not where you want your government to be,” he said.

Lieberman on Friday said Schiavo’s “tragic story” has no place in the campaign.

“It’s time, isn’t it, for politicians to let Terri Schiavo rest in peace,” he said.

Schiavo said if Lieberman didn’t want the case politicized, he should have stayed out of it.

“Terri is at peace. She’s where she wanted to be,” he said. “But now it’s time to get out there and hold these people accountable.”

[BrainGlutton]

Meanwhile, in Michigan, centrist Pub Congressman Joe Schwartz is facing a primary challenge from social-conservative minister Tim Walberg.

Is this a trend?

[Squink]

@BrainGlutton

Is this a trend?

Nope. Just today, Bob Ney is out, but Tom DeLay is back in the saddle again.. There is no trend, merely the descent into chaos Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind predicted if we failed to ratify English as the nation’s official language.

[BrainGlutton]

@Squink

Nope. Just today, Bob Ney is out, but Tom DeLay is back in the saddle again.. There is no trend, merely the descent into chaos Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind predicted if we failed to ratify English as the nation’s official language.

I meant, is it a trend towards dumping the “centrists” in each party? And if DeLay is going to be running for re-election, that just bolsters the theory.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Frostillicus

I for one am truly touched by the heartfelt concern that so many Republicans seem to have for the future of the Democratic Party. :rolleyes:

Me too. I’ve been saying that for some time now. Why, the Republicans have been telling us for the last year or two about how we better stop, better pull back to the center or we’ll be sunk.

If only the Democrats had listened, they wouldn’t be in the predicament that they are in.

[Squink]

@BrainGlutton

I meant, is it a trend towards dumping the “centrists” in each party?

Ben Nelson is still getting party support in Nebraska, so I don’t think that’s happening with the democrats. On the republican side, the club for growth has endorsed Chafee’s opponent in R.I., and there does seem to be a trickle in Kansas:

This November, nine former Kansas Republicans are running as Democrats, including one for the office of lieutenant governor and another for that of attorney general. For years, moderates and conservatives have been battling within the Kansas Republican Party, mostly over social issues such as abortion and evolution. As moderates get pushed out, they sometimes wind up with a ‘D’ next to their name.

In the latter case, it’s probably more ‘centrists getting fed up’ than ‘centrists getting dumped’, but the result is the same.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

I meant, is it a trend towards dumping the “centrists” in each party? And if DeLay is going to be running for re-election, that just bolsters the theory.

But then, I forgot, he’s not running for re-election, which leaves the Pubs with no nominee at all for Texas District 22 – even though DeLay’s name remains on the ballot. (The other candidates are Democrat Nick Lampson and Libertarian Bob Smither.)

If he gets a majority despite having resigned and withdraw from the race – what then? Can he still claim his seat?

[Squink]

This link’s a bit old: DeLay suggests he might change mind on retirement.

DeLay says Democrats may get what they want if he’s forced to remain on the ballot.

I expect we’ll hear something more definitive soon.

[John_Mace]

@GIGObuster

War is not the only issue why Holy Joe is in trouble:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/07/28/michael_schiavo_campaigns_against_lieberman/

Is that really a fair representation of his position, or are we witnessing the Swiftboating of Lieberman? He said he’d keep the tube in, but did he actually advocate government intervention to do so? This was also discussed on Tim Russert’s show this weekend, and IIRC, Russert called it an unfair characterization of his position. I might be wrong on that, so if anyone has some other evidence, I’m open to changing my mind on the matter.

[Sunrazor]

@Phlosphr

His opponent in CT is Ned Lamont - a wealthy businessman from Greenwich. As a CT resident and tax payer I actually like Joe but for future of our state in terms of economic outlook etc…etc… I’m voting for Ned Lamont.

Let me be the first to welcome our new liberal Democratic overlords …

Huh? Connecticut? Where the hell is that? And why is Keith Olbermann so upset about all of this?

[Squink]

@John Mace

Is that really a fair representation of his position, or are we witnessing the Swiftboating of Lieberman?

Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe

Lieberman speaks on Meet the Press
“I have been saying this in speeches to students about why getting involved in government is so important. I always say the law is where we define the beginning of life and the end of life, and that’s exactly what was going on here,” Lieberman continued.

“And I think as a matter of law, if you go - particularly to the 14th Amendment, [you] can’t be denied due process, have your life or liberty taken without due process of law, that though the Congress’ involvement here was awkward, unconventional, it was justified to give this woman, more than her parents or husband, the opportunity for one more chance before her life was terminated by an act which was sanctioned by a court, by the state.”

Lieberman added, “These are very difficult decisions, but - of course, if you ask me what I would do if I was the Florida Legislature or any state legislature, I’d say that if somebody doesn’t have a living will and the next of kin disagree on whether the person should be kept alive or that is whether food and water should be taken away and her life ended - that really the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to life.”

I wonder where he got that snappy ending? Perhaps someplace like this:

If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.

[GIGObuster]

@John Mace

Is that really a fair representation of his position, or are we witnessing the Swiftboating of Lieberman? He said he’d keep the tube in, but did he actually advocate government intervention to do so? This was also discussed on Tim Russert’s show this weekend, and IIRC, Russert called it an unfair characterization of his position. I might be wrong on that, so if anyone has some other evidence, I’m open to changing my mind on the matter.

Video:

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2354

These are very difficult decisions, but–of course, if you ask me what I would do if I was the Florida Legislature or any state legislature, I’d say that if somebody doesn’t have a living will and the next of kin disagree on whether the person should be kept alive or that is whether food and water should be taken away and her life ended that really the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to life. And the family member who wants to sustain her life ought to have that right because the judge really doesn’t know, though he heard the facts, one judge, what Terri Schiavo wanted. He made a best guess based on the evidence before him. That’s not enough when you’re talking about aggressively removing food and water to end someone’s life.

Counting appeals, there were more than 3 judges that by then had concluded that was what Terry Schiavo wanted and doctor’s testimony overwhelmingly showed in court the permanent vegetative state of TS, (It has to said: the evidence the doctors on the other side of the case presented was stupid and the doctors were quacks, one of the judges almost had to tell that to their faces)

Holy Joe just thinks it is ok to lie to the American people or be a willful ignorant of the facts in a case like this. And Tim Russert is once again shown to not be able to hold a candle to any of the great informed reporters of the past.

Scroll down a little and Check the video of the Daily Show’s take on the Federal government jumping in this case, it is not only Lieberman who needs to be kicked out in (August or) November.

[John_Mace]

@Squink

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/27/213955.shtml

What does he mean by giving her “one more chance”?

I wonder where he got that snappy ending? Perhaps someplace like this:

I doubt it. Isn’t he pro-choice?

[Squink]

@John Mace

What does he mean by giving her “one more chance”?

Well, he was referring to the action in congress in that sentence.
So the answer to your question: “did he actually advocate government intervention to do so?” appears to be yes.

[wonky]

@Squink

Nope. Just today, Bob Ney is out

Yeah, replaced by a woman who smeared a hostage by saying he was a friend to terrorists.

I just love my district.

[John_Mace]

@Squink

Well, he was referring to the action in congress in that sentence.
So the answer to your question: “did he actually advocate government intervention to do so?” appears to be yes.

OK. What was the vote and how many other Democratic Senators took that position?

BTW, I may very well have not remembered the Tim Russert show accurately, so I take issue with GIGO’s dismissal of him. Russert is one of the best interviewers around. Blame my not-so-perfect memory before you blame him. “Holy Joe” does sound a lot like an attempt to Swiftboat him, btw.

[Squink]

@John Mace

OK. What was the vote and how many other Democratic Senators took that position?

Jeeze John, look it up. You’re the one thinking there might be a swiftboating going on. I think Lieberman made his position pretty clear, regardless of what any other democrats may have said or done at the time.

[Squink]

@jsgoddess

Yeah, replaced by a woman who smeared a hostage by saying he was a friend to terrorists.

Maybe not: As Ney Quits, ‘Sore Loser’ Law Crops Up

State Sen. Joy Padgett, Ney’s hand-picked successor for his seat, could fall under a little-known provision of Ohio election law, dubbed the “sore loser” provision. It prevents a candidate who loses in one primary from running in another during the same election cycle. Earlier this year, Padgett was the primary running mate of gubernatorial hopeful James Petro, who lost to the ticket of Ken Blackwell and his running mate, Ohio State Rep. Tom Raga.