If they don’t support ‘their guy’, he’s not their guy. If they don’t support the democrat, it’s not their party. What’s the point of even having primaries if the party mucky mucks are going to choose their guy without regard to party?
A lot of Senators owe Lieberman big favors. He’s reminding them of that right now, when he needs some payback but they’d rather not be on the spot. It would be a mistake to read anythimg more into what you’re hearing from them than that, people.
If he loses in the primary, then we’ll see what all those favors are really worth - and probably not as much as ol’ Joe thinks they’re worth.
pat pat
You’re so gosh darn kyoote!
Not to rain on this parade, but Lieberman is not leaving the Democratic party to run as an independent. If he loses the primary, he will try to get the signatures necessary to run as a petitioning Democrat.
I’m in CT so here are my two cents: Lamont could certainly win the primary–FWIW, I’m seeing lots of Lamont signs and bumperstickers and haven’t seen a single Lieberman sign. On the other hand, he doesn’t need help from the little people. That said, if Lamont wins the primary, Lieberman will easily get the necessary signatures and, I think, win in a three way race. Lamont getting the nod will mean that CT’s three Republican reps will hold their seats because Lieberman will be too busy campaigning for himself to help out the Democratic challengers.
Finally, in my view, the only issue where Lieberman parts company with the majority of Dems is on Iraq–on virtually every other issue he is a stalwart Democrat.
Is that anything like a compassionate conservative? It sounds like meaningless gobbledygook. Is there any history behind that term, beyond it coming out of Lieberman’s mouth this week?
Since you’re from CT, you ought to know that “petitioning Democrat” is a term Lieberman made up the other day, that has no meaning or history. And that on the ballot, he can’t call himself any kind of Dem if he loses the primary; CT law forbids party names that are variants on the names of established parties.
Neither does Lieberman, since he’s got a pretty big war chest with money from persons affiliated with the usual big corporations.
The difference is that Lamont is getting lots of help from ‘little people’ and Lieberman isn’t.
And whose fault would that be? I’m thinking it’s Lieberman’s.
Alito, bankruptcy, took forever to keep him on board on Social Security…
According to Kos, Ben Nelson (D-NE) is also supporting Lieberman whether or not he wins in August, but Kos doesn’t provide a cite, and I can’t find one. But that’s at least two Dem Senators who’ve committed to helping Lieberman run against the Democratic nominee if Lieberman should lose the primary.
Hm? Lots of people do that. There are even many Dems who will vote for the Pub in the general election, if they don’t like the winner of the Dem primary; and vice-versa. Happens all the time. That’s why candidates know they can never afford to take their “base” for granted during the campaign season.
RTFirefly,
Just to get something straight here, I have no use for Joe Lieberman and have had no use for him since his smarminess during the Clarence Thomas confirmation vote.
He is a master at covering his own ass and this is just another example. He is going to run as a “Democrat” regardless of whether that’s the label on the ballot. Arguing about the semantics misses the bigger picture of whether it even matters. My point is that I don’t think it does matter–his name recognition and the lack of a viable Republican candidate and the fact he is more moderate/conservative/whatever you want to call it than Lamont means he is more likely than not to win, even in a three way race. Maybe the Republican candidate will peel off enough votes and maybe there are enough Democrats in Connecticut to put Lamont in office but I doubt it. Lieberman got close to 70% of the vote in 2000. As it turned out, his opponent was a pedophile, but that didn’t come out until after the election.
Finally, I agree with you on the difference in campaign donations–I wasn’t taking a swipe at Lamont although I see how it could be read that way. Lieberman has the corporate donors, Lamont doesn’t–that doesn’t mean Lamont can’t win the primary.
I’ll grant you that Lieberman’s more likely than not to win in a 3-way race. Schlesinger ain’t gonna do it, and anybody who thinks Lamont’s the favorite over Lieberman in the general election is fooling themselves.
What I would say is that Lamont’s chances against Lieberman in the fall, should he win next month, are far better than they look. Quinnipiac’s June 8 poll had Lieberman over Lamont, 56-18, with Schlesinger trailing at 8%, in a 3-way. If Lamont wins the primary, it’ll be more like 45-30 by that point.
I haven’t seen the video of the debate last night yet, but the Courant’s second paragraph is interesting:
That could cut both ways. Since I don’t have cable, I didn’t watch the debate live, but I’m gonna have to find time to watch it over the Web and see how it actually looked. How well Lamont recovered is gonna be key for him. And it sounds like Lieberman was on the attack the whole time, which I’m betting won’t play well at all with either Dems or most CT independents by comparison with his making nice to Cheney in 2000 and kissing up to Bush in recent years.
I’ve been saying for awhile that Lieberman’s guns are all aimed left, but I think I managed to underestimate how true that is.
Does this shit really have a place in GD?
Sure, but in this case it’s the same guys running twice. If someone supports Lieberman over Lamont in the primary because they think he’d make a better Senator, then it’s tricky to then support Lamont over Lieberman later on.
I think it does. The first time, I retracted it, but the second…I think it’s an apropriate response to the same old sorry partisan song and dance that BrainGlutton was spouting. GD is for debate, not for repeating tired old talking points again and again. I’d say the same thing to a fundamentalist Christian whose argument was “Because God said so!”.
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
:dubious: You want cites? Don’t you remember what happened in 2000? Weren’t you living in America then? The recount was in progress but it was never finished because the SC put a stop to it. That’s what happened and the whole world knows it. How does my simply pointing out that plain historical fact in contradiction of your misstatements not belong in GD?
How so? If Lieberman loses the primary, then he’s officially a Loser. You’ll practically be able to see the giant L tattoed on his forehead. He’ll be politically crippled, although perhaps not fatally. Going with a Winner instead won’t be hard at all.
What do you mean “the” recount? There were several.
The reason that there was yet another recount underway when the SC ruled was that Bush had won all the ones that were completed. Cite.
And the implication that Gore would have won if the latest recount had been completed is wrong, too.
If you are going to fulminate about historical fact, you need to be more accurate.
Regards,
Shodan
BrainGlutton was correcting a factual error in what you said.
There’s this thing called ‘fighting ignorance’ which we’re supposedly about here, remember?
None of us does everything we can to fight ignorance, but I’d say a minimum threshold should be acknowledging demonstrable errors in plain, unquestionable facts when they are pointed out, rather than pretending that the facts in question are something else entirely, be it talking points or whatever.
I made no misstatements. The rule of law was followed. As a result, Bush became president. I dunno if you’ve noticed, but we are a country of laws. If you don’t like the laws, lobby your congressperson to change them. Personally, I think they should have recounted every single vote in Florida, they could have done it too, if everything wasn’t tied up in court. Be that as it may, that’s how it went down: by law. That’s a long way from your claim that one man “short circuited” the process.
Sit down sometime, get rid of the partisan blinders you’ve been wearing for the past couple of years, and try to turn back into the thoughtful, wise Doper you used to be. I’m not saying this to be insulting, but to call to your attention the Miami Herald study of the 2000 Florida election results. The short of the matter is:
[ul][li]Mr. Bush won because the SCOTUS freezing of the recounts to meet the Dec. 18 deadline for certification left him in the lead.[/li][li]Under about a half dozen different scenarios for what might be reconsidered in a recount, Mr. Gore would have won the recount, Florida, and the Presidency.[/li][li]If the broadest possible standard were applied, making presumptions about both “overvotes” and “undervotes” based on what the ballot appears to be seeming to show – a process called for by a small minority of Democrats and strongly objected to by the Bush election organization – then Mr. Bush would have won.[/ul][/li]
I am personally content to accept a SCOTUS decision with which I don’t agree, provided that we learn some lessons from the fiasco (which recent comments regarding Ohio in another thread here would show that we didn’t), on the basis that we are a nation governed by the rule of law, not by partisan hacks. I flat out refuse to accept the results as proof “we won fair and square” – unless you won’t mind having the road between your house and the polling place blocked by with menacing Democrats on Election Day 2008, and consider that fair play. Something very closely akin documentedly did happen in Florida, with the parties reversed. And I think it’s execrable, whoever does it. The foundation of our system is the sacrosanctness of the individual vote – either party playing cheating or coercion games has IMO sacrificed the war to win a single battle.