The Lieberman Lesson

[Nederland]

Several months ago the left poured millions of dollars and thousands of hours into defeating Joe Lieberman.

He won anyway.

So tell me, all of you that hate Joe Lieberman, do you think it was worth it? Do you think we'd be better off today if all that time and money had been spent on, oh, I don't know--maybe HAROLD FORD--we'd be better off right now? Or do you like the fact that we now have to go hat in hand to Joe Lieberman, the very man you all attacked with such venom, and beg him to abide by his promise to caucus with the Democrats?

Still your think your plan worked well guys?

And one more thing. If Lieberman is the devil incarnate you all claim him to be, what will you say if he does in fact caucus with the Democrats as he has promised? After all, if he is the BushBot you all claim he is, he couldn't possibly enable the Democrats to take control of the Senate, could he?

[Rose Siding]

1. I believe Lamont's primary set the stage for yesterday's wins

He helped change the conversation and was first to win with the message of change.

[Justitia]

4. Ditto & Amen! It got the ball rolling. -eom

[Nederland]

7. Oh please

Iraq is such a disaster we were going to clean up yesterday regardless of what happened in the Connecticut primary. Do you honestly think the voters in Pennsylvania, Virgina, Missouri and Montana all voted their Republicans Senators out of office because of a PRIMARY, held TWO MONTHS AGO, in a DIFFERENT STATE?

Please. Your argument is absurd.

[Rose Siding]

14. No, not absurd. In fact, I think the more important lesson was learned

was by the party establishment. If they want any kind of support, they'd better make sure to maintain a platform that is distinct from that of the Republicans.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

100. Add to that...

"That most people never read or cared about"

[mike_c]

2. Lieberman is an asshat-- every dime spent toward his defeat...

...is money well spent, IMO. I donated money to his challanger and I'm glad I did. Lieberman was reelected by republicans. I'm happy to work to defeat republican candidates.

[churchofreality]

38. I agree 100%

The only reason Lamont lost is because Lieberman split the Dem vote and got the meddling republicans. Schlesinger only got 9% so the GOPers voted Lieberman. There was almost no way that Lamont could win unless Lieberman bowed out like he should have.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

110. Isn't that just saying "the only reason Lamont lost is because more people voted for Lieberman"?

If he can get Republicans to vote for him, then good, provided he doesn't vote for them, which he mostly hasn't, to date, and appears unlikely to be going to do.

[Critters2]

126. Except on foreign policy, where he's much as a Neo-con as anyone. nt

[The Magistrate]

54. Mr. Lieberman Is Not A Republican Candidate, Mr. C

He ran as an independent, and he certainly gained a number of Republican votes. Most of the Democrats who won last night, and took over seats formerly held by Republicans, did so with an edge provided by voters who view themselves as independents and even Republicans. Gaining the votes of such people hardly licenses calling them Republicans.

"Politics is a business of addition, not subtraction."

[Hippo_Tron]

121. True Magistrate, but...

None of the Democrats who won on Tuesday were doing so with the blessing of the RNC, the State Republican Party, and the White House. Lieberman was the only candidate who is not a Republican to form an active coalition with the Republican Party. This was admittedly a brilliant move on his part and it is the reason that Mr. Lamont simply didn't stand a chance in the general election.

When Mr. Lamont was running in the primary, most of us were expecting that Alan Schlessinger would get most of the Republican votes in a 3 way race. Unfortunately, we were wrong.

[The Count]

3. Lemme see those exit poll numbers and I'll get back to ya...if I have time.

In the Dobson/Haggard meaning.

[autorank]

5. The real Lieberman lessons

1) Party is subordinate to personality - Liebermans friends disregarded the party decision in CT and supported him or withheld support for Lamont.

2) Party support is vital for a Democrat nominee in these cases - it has to be there from day 1 and solid ongoing. It was not and Lamont lost.

If party, PARTY means anything you support the nominee in a free and fair primary. Nobody doubted the fairness of the primary. THEREFORE Lamont deserved support period. He didn't get it. He lost.

IF THEY WANT US TO BE IN THIS PARTY THEN THE POWERS THAT BE BETTER ACT LIKE PARTY MEANS SOMETHING.

IF NOT, WELL, I DON'T LIKE THAT ALTERNATIVE.

[Nederland]

11. A summary

You believe that Party should be subordinate to Personality.

Fair enough. However, the voters of Connecticut, and the rest of the country I imagine, don't.

Hint: you can't win elections when what you believe is different from what the voters believe.

[rpannier]

106. While you are correct

The fact remains that the Party Representatives owe it to the voters of the Party to support the nominee of that Party unless there is proof of something underhanded or the winner withheld pertinent information (like he plans on bolting from the Party and joining the other Party once he/she wins). Why should we have any responsibility, or loyalty, to the Party if they have no loyalty to us (the members of the Party).

The DSCC seems to have decided that they like Lieberman better and they were only going to pay lip service (at best) to Lamont's candidacy.

Lieberman had/has the right to run as an independent.
But the Party has a responsibility to actively endorse and work toward the election of ALL the Democratic candidates -- not just the ones they wanted.

[riona]

48. Years ago, I saw Democrat

powers that be in CT pull a similar stunt. Something was very wrong this time too - definitely not enough effort to pull the Party together behind Lamont. And, perhaps I'm wrong, but I think it was intentional.

[WinkyDink]

98. Do you mean "DemocratIC"? I think you do.

[xchrom]

6. well for my donated money,

he should be shut out by the dems.

[onenote]

19. so for your donated money, you'd give control of the senate back to the repubs?

Please tell me that's not what you meant. And then tell me what you did mean.

[xchrom]

57. he's there -- nothing can be done about that.

but he should lose his seniority -- and have to start like a frosh.

he may WANT to caucus with the dems -- but for my money -- little attention should be paid to him.

[Pithy Cherub]

8. Worth DOUBLE or even TRIPLE $$$$ and time!

Joe needs money and we won't be giving it to him or our time! Joe's only value to raise money is if he's in the majority and so if he defects he loses status. He is a hostage to the fact that he doesn't have acce$$ unless he can raise cash. Being a wounded ranking member gets nothing for his corporate clients! Joe needs democrats more than Democrats need sanctimonious Holy Joe!

[Greyhound]

9. The real Lieberman lesson: $$$ is the only factor that matters in CT.

Lets not forget who CT is. Damn near a two class enclave of the uber-rich and the impoverished.

The masters tools will never destroy the masters house.

As for lieberman, he will be the same corporate shill he has always been.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

101. Right.

I'm sure incumbency had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Greyhound]

118. Ever been to CT?

Furthermore, what do you think the biggest advantage of incumbency is, if not $$$?

[Totally Committed]

10. Tell me I didn't know THIS was coming....

It was worth every dollar, every hour of our time, and I'd do it all again in a heartbeat.

Lamont should have won. What Joe did was arrogantly disrespectful to the Democratic voters of CT who voted him out in the primaries.

"After all, if he is the BushBot you all claim he is, he couldn't possibly enable the Democrats to take control of the Senate, could he?"

There needs to be an enemy informant in our camp to let the other side know what we're up to. He'll caucus with us when it serves his purposes, and when his masters need him, he'll cross the aisle as he did before. Without the "D" after his name, he just has less cover when he does.

TC

[Nederland]

18. Nice words

Lamont should have won. What Joe did was arrogantly disrespectful to the Democratic voters of CT who voted him out in the primaries.

A "minor" point:

It doesn't matter who you think should have won. What matters is who actually won.

[Totally Committed]

24. I thought you asked what we thought...

I should have known you weren't interested in that. Silly me.

"It doesn't matter who you think should have won. What matters is who actually won."

So, the end justifies the means? That seems to be the prevailing sentiment these days, I have to admit. Well, okay. At least I know where you stand, and you know the same about me. 'Nuff said.

TC

[Apollo11]

35. What matters is this

"It doesn't matter who you think should have won. What matters is who actually won."

So let's see now. All the money spent on John Kerry's campaign in 2004 was money wasted.

Because --- in the end ---- Bush won (according to the official count - at least).

Here's what matters to me: supporting candidates who tell the truth.

It's true the good guys don't always win. But that doesn't means it's wrong to try.

[LeftishBrit]

51. It's true the good guys don't always win. But that doesn't means it's wrong to try.

I TOTALLY agree, Apollo11!

Not every race is going to go the way we'd hope, but that doesn't mean there's no point in trying.

This year, more races went the way that we hoped, than most people would have expected.

[CTLawGuy]

93. Lamont should have won

because Lieberman should have respected the primary, rather than run against the Democratic nominee.

Some Democrat he is.

[Totally Committed]

105. That's my feeling, too...

except you're a lot nicer expressing yourself about it. Imagine that exact opinion with a few words needing to be bleeped out, and it's what I was trying to say.

Lieberman is no "Democrat". He's a putz.

TC

[CTLawGuy]

131. he'll caucus with us

I feel better that he remains an independent who caucuses with Dems. I think it suits him better. He'll stay cuz he wants a chairmanship and there's no reason to switch.

[geomon666]

12. It's nice when you have dems and rethugs voting for you.

You always tend to win when that happens.

[Poll_Blind]

13. Ha ha ha! What a crock of shit. n/t

PB

[skipos]

15. We should work to defeat anyone who tries to defeat our Democratic candidates

I was a Lieberman defender before he announced he didn't give too shits about the votes of CT Dems.

[Norquist Nemesis]

16. No, the Lesson is that CT should tighten up their laws

so getting a second bite at the apple doesn't happen like it did. The Lieberman Lesson is that a primary doesn't really matter. If you don't like the results, just run again!

[LynzM]

26. I respectfully disagree

I don't like Lieberman. I worked for Lamont and hoped like hell that he would win. But a democracy is about respecting the will of the majority, who unfortunately happen to think Lieberman should have the seat.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

103. I'm sorry....

...but I utterly hate "Sore Loser" laws, regardless of this whole Lieberman fiasco. They strike me as being deeply undemocratic, and little more than a way to further entrench the two party system which does not appear to need our help.

[RogueTrooper]

17. We were right to challenge Lieberman

and we had the right too as well.

Whilst we are talking about money...

All those second and third tier races that won last night did so in part because the netroots provided funding. Provided funding when the Washington establishment couldn't see past the bear minimum to win Congress.

So, Joe won last night. You win some, you loose some. In "our" case we won a shitload.

On Harold Ford Jnr....

Do you mean despite the money we raised for the guy and the attack dog rebutals we did for him. We are to blame of his lose?

His loss is his responsiblity, not "ours". His vote collapsed in the last week and that had nothing to do with us giving money to Lamont - Joe Liebermen spent at least twice as much as Lamont. If you want to spread your blame around - I'm j

Last night our plan worked.

Fortune favors the bold.

[Nederland]

23. Response

Do you mean despite the money we raised for the guy and the attack dog rebutals we did for him. We are to blame of his lose?

Yes. The fact is that in every election there are limited funds. If the money that went into a very expensive Connecticut TV market had been poured into a relatively inexpensive Tennesee TV market it could have made a world of difference to Harold Ford. We could have given him the means to fight back against an opponent that was smearing his good name, but we chose instead to attack a guy that agrees with us 75% of the time.

It was dumb.

[RogueTrooper]

28. Actually

he agress with us 90% of the time.

Well, I suppose, judging from what you written before, it is a little too much for us to expect you to get your facts right.

[Nederland]

79. No, it's not that high

In 2005 it was 70%: http://www.adaction.org/ADATodayVR2005.pdf

In 2004 it was 75%: http://www.adaction.org/ADATodayVR2004.pdf


I admit to taking the high number.

[RogueTrooper]

96. Well

That's just makes him more of a traitorous bastard then.

[Larkspur]

42. The DSCC did not fund Lamont's campaign

so Lamont's campaign can not be used as an excuse to say that money spent there would go elsewhere. I would not have sent money to Harold Ford anyway. Jon Testor got some of mine along with Lamont and Joe Courtney.

[RiverStone]

136. Wrong! No matter what spin you put on it, Iraq was the most compelling reason to VOTE NO on Joe.

Of course we all would have preferred if Harold won too. Limited resources or not, there was NO WAY Dems could ignore Joe's pro-war position. You can counter with any strategical argument you want about dollars and cents; but there is no escaping the fact Joe supports BushCo's immoral war. PERIOD! It was a hugely successful day for DEMS, and I'd rather lose against Joe on principal then win (in the turncoat way he did).

[GetTheRightVote]

20. Yes it was worth it, put reality out there for public, & Joe now knows

he is not a favorite child of all Dems and is on our list for deserters of the Dems...he should realize this at least. He needs to stop siding with the Republicans against the Democrats period. Yes, still do not like him and want him out still today.

:kick:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Nederland]

25. Brilliant

Lieberman is a Republican in Democrat clothing. He has been outed and should lose his seniority. If this does not happen, I will be sorely disappointed, as he has earned that penalty.

Even now, at a moment that we cannot gain control of the Senate without him, you still attack him.

Fucking Brilliant.

[Ferret Annica]

30. We?

I am a Green. Save your "we" words for intramural comments. I am an admirer of Wayne Lyman Morse, the old Democratic Tiger of the Senate. I ask myself, "how would my old friend Wayne view this? How would my idol William Orville Douglas view this?"

My answer to myself is elegantly simple; principle.

If you can't stand up for your principles despite the costs on the short term, one is not worthy of winning on the long term.

Be expedient enough to overlook principle in this if you wish, but I left the Democratic Party because I saw too many doing precisely that. And judging by reactions such as yours' I'm not coming back into the fold any time soon.

[Nederland]

32. My mistake

I thought you were a Democrat.

Sorry.

[Ferret Annica]

34. No problem

and I just want you to know I am here because I deeply care and want profoundly to see the Democratic party do well and am trying to give my most honest and best insight into this as a former resident of Connecticut where I grew up before moving to Oregon in 1971, Thanks for your input, and thanks for sharing your opinion anyway.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

102. So you're a green, eh?

How's that working out for you?

P.S. Thankx for helping to put Bush in the White House in the first place.

[Ferret Annica]

113. I did not steal the 2000 election, Bush's people did that

I did not chose Al Gore to run, I merely voted for him despite not much caring for him or Clinton because I knew Bush and Cheney were dangerous and evil.

And if your party does not prosecute these criminals for what they have done and help cease these illegal and immoral wars, you will share more and more of the blood from them on your own hands.

Now, personally, I am the whistle blower who saw fraud being conducted by petitioners being paid for with Republican money to get Ralph Nader on the ballot in Oregon in 2004. I contacted the SEIU union and the law firm monitoring the election in Oregon for John Kerry.

They took my information, investigated it and drew blood so effectively Bush was denied the chance to possibly split the vote enough to take Oregon which was a swing state that year, or force Democrats to waste time and money shoring up Oregon for Kerry.

I also canvassed and phone banked for Kerry. So I laugh at your petty attempt to trash me buddy. I am a real life political activist who has worked on environmental issues in real life for years.

I also am a nine year army veteran, So whine at me all you ant because I finally was fed up enough to move to another party after an idiot like Clinton became president. You don't have to like my party any more then I like Clinton which is not much.

But if you are going to try to rub guilt on a Green party member, you are picking on the wrong man. The initial articles in both the Oregonian and Eugene Oregon newspaper the Register Guard both mention me and what I did. I spoke at th press conference at the SEIU union hall in Portland breaking the Nader petition fraud story because of my status as the whistle blower.

I also still like John Kerry enough to support him if he runs again. Nice try booby, but no Clinton cigar from a human humidifier for your on this one. Go find another person to play wanker with.

Yours truly, Michael Joseph McCarthy

[GreenArrow]

85. "moment that we cannot gain control of the Senate without him"

if he wouldn't have been in the race (after his defeat in the primary, had he even a smidgeon of honor, he wouldn't have been)Lamont would have won, and Democrats still would have held that seat and the Senate.

The welfare of the Democratic Party had no bearing in Lieberman's decision to run; it was all about Joe Lieberman, and maintaining the power and influence he has gained while in the Senate. Lets' repeat that: nothing Lieberman did in this race was done for the benefit of the Democratic Party. He's a pustule.

[Ferret Annica]

117. He is indeed a pustule

We can agreeon that much. As a young boy I got to meet and actually get to know Tom Dodd who was also born in the same town I was in that state. It hurt to see him censored, but he had done things to deserve that sanction and more.

So I have strong feelings regarding Lieberman, and I don't respect nor like him to the extreme.

[still_one]

59. let's through the baby out with the bath water, great plan

maybe if you work hard enough we might lose the Senate

[Cha]

22. Fuck lieman and the corporate

warmongering shit he rode in.

No fucking lessons from the republicons in Conn.

[still_one]

60. Then you will need to say the same thing about many of the Democrats in Congress

who also voted for the IWR

I WANT THE MAJORITY, and I want US TO SET the Agenda, and just because you PERSONALLY dislike someone, I WANT HIM TO caucaus with the Democrats

[Cha]

74. No I will not have to say

the same thing. lieman is bushkisser in his own category.

[ChiciB1]

27. I Don't Even Want To See His Name Anymore!! n/t

[ProSense]

29. Two-thirds of the country rejected Bush

and the war and by extension Lieberman. Shays was forced to call for withdrawal and almost lost his seat. Johnson lost! Simmons is down and may lose. I think because there wasn't a strong Republican on the ballot, Lieberman picked up some support there, including independents who normally vote Republican. If this had come down to Democratic support, with a strong Republican on the ballot, Lamont would have pulled it off! His support among Democrats was 55% to 45% for Lieberman.

Lieberman's win isn't about the Democratic Party, it's about a person who turned his back on the party's nominee and cozied up to Republicans to win. That's Joe Lieberman.

[karynnj]

31. By your logic, no candidate would ever be challanged in the primaries

That sounds pretty bad to me

[madfloridian]

33. Lieberman was elected mostly by Republicans.

He took enough Dem votes from Lamont to cause him to lose.

Don't excuse this.

[madfloridian]

36. Lamont was the real winner....Joe was the loser.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/565

[Nederland]

41. That's a funny way to define 'Winner' (nt)

[madfloridian]

47. Lamont a winner in every way... Joe lost.

He should not have kept running. Period. Bottom line.

[Nederland]

78. Well

...if he hadn't kept running the voters of Connecticut would have been denied their first choice.

Is that fair?

[madfloridian]

80. Oh, you are not thinking in terms of the Democratic party are you?

Got it.

[Nederland]

81. Nope

I'm thinking in terms of what the people of Connecticut as a whole want, regardless of their party affiliation.

I thought that's what "Democracy" was all about. Silly me.

[madfloridian]

84. You are saying the Democratic party decision did not matter.

I am backing off because that is so wrong I don't even want to go there.

[paulk]

87. No! Don't back off!!!

Explain to us how the Democratic Party decision "matters" more than the decision of the voters of CT. Then explain what "democracy" is.

[madfloridian]

89. Oh, my God...please tell me you are kidding!!!

This is beyond acceptable.

Come on, let's do that tag team thingy, and then go and make fun of me at the "blogs".

Ready.

No wonder our party is so screwed if so many don't even care that a Democrat lost a primary and ignored the voters of his party.

You are making yourself look uninformed.

[paulk]

116. Oh My God!!!!!!!

"Mad Floridian" thinks that I'm making myself look uninformed!!!!!

You know what? I don't care that Lieberman won. He's still registered in the Democratic Party and he will caucus with the Democrats. I don't care that you've been harping endlessly on this issue for the last few months while the rest of us spent our time working to defeat REPUBLICANS. I don't care that you think our "party is screwed". I don't care that you will surely spend most of your time harping on how screwed our party is for the next two years.

I don't even care that you're "mad" enough to believe that I post on other websites about you, or that there's some kind of tag team effort underway ... because, as everyone knows, what you've got to say on this board is so important that an organized effort is needed to make you look foolish.

[katsy]

91. "people of Connecticut as a whole want, regardless of their party affiliation"

That's exactly what joe said as an excuse for stabbing the Democratic primary voters in the back.

How many seats would we have picked up this week IF every LOSER in every one of our PRIMARIES throughout the country turned around and ran as an Independent?

Joe stabbed his party in the back. Fuck him - I'd rather beg on bended knee to any republican to vote for our legislation... to help us. I'd humble myself before any one of those republicans. FUCK JOE the snake.

[Critters2]

129. The Democratic Pary has the right to decide who it's candidate will be

And so it did--the Democratic Party chose Ned Lamont. If Loserman had played by the rules, and been a good sport, the real choice of the Democratic Pary would have had a chance. But rules don't apply to Joe!

[katsy]

37. "Still your think your plan worked well guys?"

Our plan?

That was democracy at work.

Democrats elected their candidate in the primary. His name is Ned Lamont. Democracy at work.

Lieberman lost the Democratic primary and changed parties. He's not a Democrat and I don't support him.

What is your problem with that?

As to whether he's the devil incarnate... you tell me: what kind of Democratic candidate would change party affiliation after losing his party's primary?

Lieberman is a snake.

He was worthless to us as a Democrat and he should be stripped of all Democratic party chairmanships and his seniority.

There are devils that we know in the senate... Republicans from blue states that have read the writing on the wall from yesterdays election. They may vote with us when we need them. Who knows.

But one thing we shouldn't do is deal with a snake. Lieberman's word is worthless. Lieberman is not a Democrat. Lieberman will answer to his masters... the pukes.

I can deal with that. I can't deal with your "notion" that Democrats have no right to elect their candidate of choice in the primaries and work hard, donate lots to get the representation WE WANT.

If you have a problem with the primary system... take your problem to a higher authority but don't come here chastising us for working for the representation we deserve.

[paulk]

76. Lieberman never changed his party affiliation

he's still registered as a member of the Democratic Party.

[GreenArrow]

86. words and deeds, friend, words and deeds

.

[katsy]

90. He entered the election as an Independent.

He won the election as an Indedendent.

He slapped the CT Democrats in the face after losing the primary.

He accepted puke $ to run.

He acted dishonorably.

[paulk]

114. he never changed his party affiliation

which you, in your post that I responded to, say that he did.

Maybe it was this kind of constant dishonesty on the part of the people who opposed Lieberman that had something to do with the people of CT rejecting Lamont? Especially since most of it came from people who weren't even residents of the state.


And since when has politics been an honorable business?

[Q]

39. Strange that it doesn't concern you that Republicans voted him...

...into office. Why would they do that? Don't you think they'll expect something in return (and probably get it)? The Right knew they owned Lieberman when he became an independent. They needed a high profile Dem? like him to help keep their perpetual war machine in high gear.

Joe may or may not 'caucus' with the Right...but they KNOW they have him on the central issue of Iraq and he'll help protect them against war crimes and other criminal activities. Incidentally...Lieberman has been a big supporter and benefactor of the war machine for his entire career.

It's a sad day when rank and file Democrats can support someone that literally abandoned their party in order to win votes from the opposition.

[Nederland]

40. Concern me?

What should I be more concerned about, the fact that Lieberman won with some Republican support or that he now has us by the balls?

[Q]

43. Not 'some' Republican support...the majority of it...

And he only has 'us' by the balls if we allow it. I hope the the Dem leadership kicks his ass if he tries to blackmail them.

Remember that Joe is a 'new' Democrat...with the desire to replace the 'party of the people' with another 'party of the corporation'.

[madfloridian]

45. What do you mean by "your plan"...whose plan?

Aren't we all in this together?

[madfloridian]

46. But you are blaming the grassroots for what Joe did...

You are not assigning blame to Joe at all. He attacked Lamont fiercely.

[Ferret Annica]

49. He doesn't, unless

Democrats try to take more cookies out of the jar then is possible to do so. Maintain the course and penalize Lieberman even if the wanker runs crying to a new party who bought and paid for him anyway.

What? You Democrats are so unwilling to stand behind a larger principle if it costs you on the short term you would get back in bed with this political adulterer?

Look at the long term gains by investing in a short term expense. You are not seeing the forest for the tree planted a inch from your snout. And old saw of a metaphor, but it applies well here.

It is only a dilemma if you make it one. Stay the course and let hem suffer that which he earned and that will prove in the long run to earn your party far more respect and set the foundation for even better gains two years from now.

[wyldwolf]

115. As they obviously did Jon Tester and Jim Webb, among others...

[tnlefty]

44. The knuckledraggers and the racists in the state of TN are the

reasons that Harold Ford isn't the new senator from this state. He had support both financially and from people willing to do the grunt work required during campaigns that kicks into overdrive as election day nears.

The only lesson that I learned from LIEberman, is that primaries no longer matter. The next time anyone hands me a loyalty oath to sign, I will refuse and will cite Lieberman.

[Ignis]

50. How's that WAR working out for you? Thanks, Joe. (nt)

[Blue_Tires]

52. this thread suxxx

why wouldn't the left pour money into the Lamont campaign when he is the Dem nominee???

[Zodiak]

53. CT voters will regret their vote

in a very short time; that is my prediction. They will regret their vote for Leiberman the same as so many moderate Republicans regret their vote for Bush, now.

All Joe did was prove that he is one of the slimiest members of the Senate. He will continue to prove it, but that is the responsibility of Joe and Joe alone. We have washed our hands of him and are a cleaner party for doing so.

We stood up for our principles, and we should be proud of ourselves. People will remember that in the next cycle. It was worth every cent.

ALSO: if one looks at the exit polls, Leiberman got his support from a)old people b)rich people and c)Republicans. Not a great endorsement.

In two years, he may become completely irrelevent if we get another senate pick-up. Let's make THAT happen.

[still_one]

61. everything you say may be true, BUT THAT IS NOT THE REALITY NOW

and I WANT THE MAJOIRTY, SO I WANT THE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE TO WORK WITH HIM

[bigwillq]

55. It was worth it.

Lamont's primary win signaled the start of the change movement. That primary, I feel, set the tone for yesterday's victories.

Although Lamont lost, we owe his battle, his courage and his commitment a great deal of credit.

Lamont reminds me of Dean in many ways.

[AzDar]

56. Joe Lieberman is a Bush-kissing piece of shit. Had he been a true

'team player', he would've accepted defeat after he lost in the Primary, and thrown his full support behind Lamont who would've won the seat HANDILY and put the seat in the "D" column.
Joe is interested only in Joe; we'll see how he votes, but I don't trust him AT ALL.

[still_one]

58. I am sure you will get flamed for this, even though you are right on two levels

1. The practical level
2. If you look at most of Lieberman's record he is a progressive, especially compared to a lot of the republicans who were defeated. Example: Choice, stem cell research

Obviously, so much hate has been generated, some may think it is better to destroy the party than compromise. If you notice, the Democrats in Congress DID NOT burn any bridges with him, and why should they?

This is similar to the attitude of the greens in 2000, there was no difference between bush and Gore.

Well, there was a difference, and if people work together, even though they don't see eye to eye on everything we will be successful, otherwise, we all lose

[grizmaster]

62. LIEberman's primary loss was the first domino

in the chain that led to yesterday's results. And if Lamont had run a better campaign he might have won.


As to Harold Ford, the racists beat him. And that's not our fault or Ford's fault.

And after LIEberman casts his vote for majority leader he becomes irrelevant.

[AtomicKitten]

63. It was a fair and square primary challenge.

Truth be told, the only lesson I got from this mess is that Joe Lieberman doesn't respect the will of the voters.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

104. Well, I think the voters of CT disagree with you.

Seeing as they put him in office by what I'd certainly call a decisive margin.

[July]

111. The voters who selected the primary winner were Democrats.

As Joe claimed to be. He promptly ignored the will of THOSE Democratic voters.

Once he decided the primaries were irrelevant, and only then, the nature of the race changed, and he was able to seek votes outside of his party. If he had been a loyal Democrat, the Democrats who voted for him would have voted for Lamont, along with some Republicans and independents. We'd have a real Democratic senator from Connecticut, instead of an Independents for Lieberman senator.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

112. Huh?

The voters who selected the primary winner were Democrats. As Joe claimed to be. He promptly ignored the will of THOSE Democratic voters.

The primary selects who runs as a Democrat for that election cycle. Lamont ran as the Democrat in that election. That, and only that is what's decided by the primary.

The same thing happened in California when the Republicans elected Simon in the primary to run against Davis. Nobody outside of the weird right-wing base of the CA GOP wanted Simon to run in the general. The Republicans could have picked just about anybody except an anti-abortion zealot who was under investigation by the federal government for his business dealings to run against Davis and won. But they did, and people were fed up enough with Davis (rightly or not) to demand a recall, which bypasses the primary process, and now we've got the gropenfuhrer going into his second term.


Once he decided the primaries were irrelevant, and only then, the nature of the race changed, and he was able to seek votes outside of his party.

This is ridiculous. Are you suggesting he wouldn't have sought votes outside his own party if he'd run as a Dem? Seeking votes outside your own party is part of winning elections. I can't believe anybody would think otherwise. A hell of a lot of Republicans just voted for our candidates in places like Virginia and Montana. Are you suggesting that Webb and Tester should have just stuck to the base and ignored eveyone else?

You might not understand this, but the general voter population - those of no strong party affiliation or who don't vote in the primaries - do not always like the choices offered them by the primary process. And in that case they're free to vote for someone else. In this case they voted for Lieberman.

Face it, the guy we picked in the primary wasn't the guy the voters of CT wanted.

[July]

132. Speaking of not understanding,

you're doing a fine job of reading into my post things I didn't say.

Face it, you're conflating the Democrats in CT with all voters in CT.

EVERY candidate -- once he is a candidate -- seeks votes outside of his party. I'm talking about the phase when one's party is making its choice, and I think you know that.

Joe played at being a Democrat by participating in the primary, and we had every reason to believe that he would respect his own party's choice. He only had the opportunity to seek those other party members' votes when he flipped to being an Independent for Lieberman who took Republican money and help. It's called backstabbing. Now he expects us to think of him as a Democrat when he refused to support the DEMOCRAT his fellow CT DEMOCRATS chose to be their standard-bearer?

Sure, everyone's free to run, but he played the game both ways, "heads I win, tails you lose, because I'm running no matter what." If he were a fairer and more honorable man, the voters of CT would have had to choose between the Democrat Lamont and the Republican, and we'd still have a (real) CT Democrat in the Senate.

Your claim that "the guy we picked in the primary wasn't the guy the voters of CT wanted" is disingenuous. There was no hue and cry for Lieberman when he lost the primary, except from Joe Lieberman. What I and many others are talking about is the fact that it was a three-way race for the whole state's vote at all. Lamont vs. Schlessinger would have been a Lamont win. Imagine that, a guy actually chosen by his party to seek the whole state's votes could have won if It's My Seat and You Can't Have It Lieberman hadn't only pretended he would take his (then) party's primary seriously.

Thanks, I don't need your lectures about how the system works.

[ProudDad]

64. I'm GLAD Ford lost

He was an egregious religious fundamentalist right-wing dem. He even had the 10 COMMANDMENTS ON HIS F*CKIN' BUSINESS CARD. I couldn't see much difference between Ford and our buddy Blackwell in Ohio...

He's anti-choice, descriminates against gay folks, etc. etc. No great loss there as long as the Dems pick up Virginia and Montana...

I think the Dems would have had that seat if they'd picked a more unashamedly progressive candidate...

[Lurking Dem]

65. Clearly you don't live here.

An "unashamedly progressive candidate" is a fucking pipe dream in Tennessee. 82% of the voters here wanted their marriage "protected". From what I'm not sure but my son put it rather succinctly albeit sarcastically, "From the rampaging hordes of monogamous gays."

We don't have the benefit of an Oakland, CA electorate here.

[ProudDad]

73. Tell it to Richard Pombo

Jerry MacNerney an unabashed liberal, environmentalist won in the CENTRAL VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA -- an area of the country that makes Tenn look like Mass...

Admittedly, Pombo was tainted with Abramoff but Jerry is no conservative but he's an honest progressive...and he campaigned on his values and won.

As long as folks continue to believe that reason, fairness and justice can't win, it won't...

I HAVE lived many years in the South, not TN but Georgia and Virginia during the last years of Jim Crow and South Carolina during the 50's...some of the worst of Jim Crow. I never bought into the racism and bigotry (or the mindless desire to re-fight the Civil War (As Brother Dave Gardner called it, the war to retain our "help"), but I understand the South.

I also understand that people's minds can be changed over time if they hear something worth changing to. Progressives have that message, we are right, we are the long-term sustainable wave of the future if the human race (and most mammals) are to survive at all on planet Earth...

I hope that the fact that Mr. Ford tried to fool the folks of TN into voting for the faux-conservative cracker instead of the real "conservative cracker" and lost causes the correct type of rethinking in the Dem party of TN... The Earth can't afford many more years of "conservative" thought but must instead be aided by progressive, REAL conservative forces.

[AtomicKitten]

66. well that's an interesting strategy ...

[The Gunslinger]

67. If all the Dems would have voted for the Democrat

Lamont would have won. I support anything that helps to get Leiberman out of office. He is OWNED by the Republic party. The Rpublucans voted for him.

Quit making excused of for the guy. I don;t believe him for a second that he will caucus with the Democrats, and if he does it will be just for his own political gain. He is not a Democrat and should never be refered to as one. Lamont won the Democratic primary and was the Democratic candidate.

[Jacobin]

68. neo-con warmongers, whether left or right must be driven out

of the party, unless we are willing to see this country lurch toward all out war in the middle east, which the neo-cons and Lieberman want, and this country, as a whole does NOT want.

Fuck Lieberman. He's still a POS.

[LynneSin]

69. One only needs to take a look at Connecticut House races - it was worth it

Connecticut had three US House seats that were in heavy democratic districts that had republicans in those seats. All three of those seats were highly competitive this election cycle and I think that Lamont had something to do with that because he really helped get the democratic voter base to turn out for the election. We picked up one seat and a second hasn't been called but the democratic is in the lead. The third that we didn't win was held by Christopher Shays, who is one of the more moderate republicans in the house.

Perhaps if Lamont hadn't challenge Lieberman, the democratic base might not have been as excited to GOTV and those seats might have remained in republican hands. Thank you Ned Lamont!

As long as Lieberman doesn't get on the Judiciary committee, I'll deal with him

[Ignacio Upton]

70. Lamont would have won had he not run such as inept GE campaign

Taking a vacation right after you win while your opponent is regouping, is not the smartest move to make.

[madfloridian]

72. More on that vacation later.

Ok?

Lamont lost because Joe attacked him mercilessly, and then Joe has people here who excuse his actions.

Lamont was a team player, Joe is not anymore.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

71. Really well said, bravo! :)

nt

[Jai4WKC08]

75. Damn straight it was worth it.

It's an absolutely GREAT precedent that we in the netroots were able to throw out an incumbent Dem during a primary. That we did it to Lieberman proves we can do it again. And even if we never do, it means incumbents had better listen to us, and at least some small attempt to keep us happy.

Because even tho Lieberman was able to overcome losing the primary, he ONLY did it with gobs of GOP support and money. And he ONLY got that from the GOP because he was running in a very blue state with a very poor GOP candidate, so that the GOP had nothing to lose by backing him. Any future back-sliding Dem incumbent will expect similar GOP favors at his/her peril. The lightening ain't likely to strike twice.

Please note that I was never one who thought "Lieberman is the devil incarnate" -- not until he stabbed CT Dems in the back, anyway (altho, in hindsight, I should have seen it coming from the crap he pulled before the '04 NH primary). But never for what I think were his sincere beliefs about the war.

In my opinion, Lieberman was not hated here so much for his position on the war, as for the way he sucked up to Bush, never really provided Kerry much support, and more often than not undercut us when he went on TV during Kerry's campaign. He chose to play the quisling, and for that he deserves the hate. Let's face it, lots of Dems have supported the war, many still do, and while they may not be the most popular congress-critters around these parts, no one goes after them like they do Holy Joe.

Finally, I'd hold off on your prediction on how Lieberman will caucus in the next Congress. If, as we all expect, Webb wins VA and the Dems control the Senate, you can be 100% SURE that the Repubs will offer Joe some sweet incentives to swap over to their side. Let's see what he does then. I think he's proven that he puts a higher priority on his own career and power than on the good of his party or the nation.

[ulysses]

77. the real Lieberman lesson

is that it's harder to unseat a centrist incumbent through the primary than it is a progressive, because the centrist can just ignore the wishes of party voters and run in the general anyway, counting on Republican votes to win.

Was it worth it? Yes.

[Nederland]

83. Agreed

It is hard to unseat a centrist, and I think that is what really pisses off the Left and folks here at DU. Joe proved decisively that he doesn't need them.

[ulysses]

108. I'm not sure who's been under the impression

that Joementum needed the left, but I haven't.

And no, what pisses me off about Lieberman is his ass-kissing of Bush over Iraq.

[sendero]

82. It was absolutely worth it..

... and I'd do it again.

But there's no point explaining why to you if you don't know already.

[TankLV]

88. Fuck harold ford - he's another LIE-berman repuke ass kisser...

He'd BETTER caucus with the Democrats AS HE'S PROMISED.

But he's in it for HIMSELF, so don't be surprised when he switches to REPUKE...

I will never forgive LIEberman OR ford for that matter.

So when PROGRESSIVES don't abide by the wishes of the Democrats in a DEMOCRATIC Primary, then we can assume YOU'LL be happy when we RUN AGAINST THE DEMOCRAT!

I don't want to hear ANY complaints from YOU and your ilk when WE do that - and WE DAMN BET YOU ASS WILL!

THAT's the lesson WE are going to take home.

Deal with it...

[ribrepin]

92. I heard Joe being interviewed on Hannity radio show today

He was muttering darkly about former friends and all the new friends he's made. I don't know if I'd count on Joe to caucus with the democrats. The repubs may call in all the favors they did for Joe and insist he caucus with the republicans.

He sounded like he really wanted to get back at some people. He wouldn't even give props to the democrats who came and campaigned for him. He did mention Blomberg as if he was his best friend. Stand-by.

[CTLawGuy]

94. what do you think of Lieberman running against the duly

elected Dem nominee?

Closet Con.

[rpannier]

95. I disagree with you

Your arguement basically rests on this notion, "Why should we try and do better?"
"We can have a senator who votes with us about 75% of the time, but publicly undermines our Party in front of the media."

It was Joe LIEberman that was the point man for the republikkans on the debate over setting a time table for the removal of troops from Iraq. It's one thing to oppose the legislation as Ben Nelson did, it's another thing entirely to be the opening speaker for the other side of the aisle.

It's Joe LIEberman who criticized Democrats for criticizing this administration. Basically saying those of us who are criticizing scrub are endangering people's safety and the safety of the Republic.

The 1000 dollars I donated to Ned Lamont and groups supporting Lamont was well spent.

For you to blame the supporters of Lamont for Fords defeat in Tennessee is bullsh*t!
You are entitled to your interpretation of events.
But for my money, and I gave it liberally to Democrats and progressive causes, your interpretation and attempts to demonize Lamont supporters f**king sucks.

[WinkyDink]

97. If Joe had taken his primary defeat like a DEMOCRATand a MENSCH, he would have

CAMPAIGNED FOR LAMONT.

And a Democrat would have won in Connecticut.

[grizmaster]

122. BINGO!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

99. "we now have to go hat in hand to Joe Lieberman"

Fortunately, we don't, since the leadership was smart enough to realize that the netroots were nuts and didn't exactly go all-out for Lamont.

[LWolf]

107. Yes.

I believe Joe Lieberman lost the primary, and deserved to lose it.

[CatFelyne]

109. ...reflecting on the Lieberman lessons...

Ok, please let me know if I'm wrong, but are you a resident and voter in CT or not? Have you ever been? Your profile says you're from Colorado, so please let us know, this is a sincere question.

Lieberman has been an elected politician here for over 30 years. He knows the rules. And it's been a closed primary for as long as I can remember. Joe has always known this, and always abided to it until this year. Obviously, he for over 30 years (1970) had no problem with it...didn't see him at the forefront of changing that law. Nope, he's been a vocal loud and aggressive Democrat.

Lieberman doesn't know what we want overall as a constituency, he's neglected us here way too long. He's great for big business and more affluent residents, he seems to know what they want and generally keep them very happy, but I can't remember a time when he's held any open town meetings, or meet and greets with any of us common fold. I've been a registered Dem for 15 years.

In July, Lieberman announced that he would file papers to appear on the November ballot should he lose the primary stating, "I'm a loyal Democrat, but I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party." Ok, this is the the same Joe I voted for twice before? I've always though of him as a very strong supporter of the democratic process. The process has always been good enough for him, up until that same process decided against him.

In declaring himself an independent candidate, he made it clear that he considers his personal power and ego far more important than the interests of either the Connecticut Democrats or of us, his constituency. From a man that was always a straight up senator until recent years, that was a real low blow. I was still going to stay loyal to him despite some of his recent antics, but he decided not to be loyal to us.

As far as what the people of Connecticut as a whole wanted, well this will sound harsh, and I don't mean it as such. Many people crossed over for the primaries, I can vouch for that speaking with my Registrar of Voters in town. Closed or not, we had many non-Dems register just to vote in it. And overall, they felt Lieberman was not the man to represent the Democratic party. The will of the people, wasn't good enough for Joe, and that's where the problems began.

IMO, we the people of CT had a bigger dog in this fight than outsiders. It was our problem and our fight, our State. We tried to stop him here, in our Senate race, so you didn't have to deal with him over there in the Senate. We didn't succeed, but we showed the country that we the people stood up and unseated a long time incumbent, and that together they could too. And well, looks like we did.

But remember, its our state, we're going to take care of our own problems here first...so we took on Lieberman, Shays, Johnson, and Simmons. Sorry, Ford wasn't on OUR radar screen. Perhaps if you were THAT worried and upset with the Ford race, you should've spent more time there rather than agonizing over CT. Blaming Lamont supporters isn't going to change what could've or should've happened there.

I'm sorry Ford Lost, I'm sorry Lamont lost, but the fight was worth every moment, every dime, everything we poured into it. No apologies, no regrets

[Hippo_Tron]

119. Since when do we have to beg Lieberman to caucus us, he'd be an idiot not to

Why would you not caucus with the majority party and the party that is much more favorable in your home state. And most of the money spent on the Lieberman/Lamont race was from Lamont's own personal funds. Secondly, if all of the money raised by Lamont had gone to Harold Ford Jr.'s campaign, Bob Corker would've just matched every dollar with his own personal finances (the guy is a mega-millionaire).

What you seem to forget is that primaries are part of the democratic process. Why is it so bad that we wanted to challenge a democratic incumbent that we don't particularly care for? Primary elections are elections just like general elections are and we have every right to participate in them as we do in general elections.

Trying to get rid of party members who are a major thorn in our side on big issues is nothing new. Alan Dixon lost his primary because he voted for Clarence Thomas. FDR made a major attempt in 1938 to purge southern democrats in primaries that didn't support the New Deal.

If Connecticut were a red state I'd say that it wasn't worth it because Lieberman would be the best that we can do. But Connecticut is bright blue and Lamont could've won if Lieberman hadn't formed a coalition with the state's GOP and the White House. There's not really much you can do when your opponent spends all of his time campaigning for Democratic votes but gets 70% of the Republican vote without having to give up anything in return.

Besides, this campaign has made Lieberman look like a total asshat and losing the primary did significantly damage his credibility. He can forget about another presidential run and when he goes on TV and promotes the neocon agenda I don't think people will care as much anymore.

Would I rather have seen Harold Ford elected than Lieberman's credibility damaged? Yea, probably. But the tradeoff doesn't exist, because Ford's problem wasn't that he couldn't get his message out and he certainly wouldn't have out-financed Bob Corker. As far as I'm concerned it was money well spent.

[grizmaster]

120. If the party had supported Lamont

LIEberman would have lost.

And no, I don't regret wanting to dump the worst turncoat in the party. The scum supports torture and the destruction of habeus corpus, and supports all of the worst on the bush junta agenda.

And I can't wait till '08 when we win some more seats and we don't have to hear people whining that we should kiss the traitor's ass.

[Hippo_Tron]

123. IMO if the party had supported Lamont it would've been closer

But I still think that Lieberman would've pulled it out. Nobody predicted that Joe would have the blessing of the RNC, the State Republican Party, and the White House (well some people predicted it, but they weren't taken seriously). If Alan Schlessinger had pulled in the GOP vote like he was supposed to then Lamont would've had a real shot. I think this is the real reason that Lamont simply didn't have a chance.

[Seabiscuit]

124. Lieberman's not the devil incarnate...

he just worked since 2000 for the neocons as a plant in the Democratic party, working through the DLC, until he lost the Connecticut primary, and he will undoubtedly continue doing their dirty work for them as an "Independent". He undoubtedly has and will continue to feed the neocons important "insider" information about the Democrats.

He's a turncoat and a traitor and can't be trusted.

As for the Democratic Party working for Lamont in Connecticut, it's what we had to do, and were justified in doing given Lamont's victory in the primary. No one can in hindsight legitimately say we shouldn't have, just because Lamont didn't win the general election.

And your entire thesis presupposes that all the votes in Connecticut were properly counted, something not the least bit likely given the hackability and unreliability of the voting machines.

[kentuck]

125. Lamont would have won...

and nobody would have went begging with hat in hand, if Lieberman had not run as an Independent. With 25% of the vote, the majority of Democrats in CT do not support him yet. There is a lot of deception in Mr Lieberman, imo...

[Guaranteed]

127. You're damned right it was worth it. It taught him and the rest

of the clowns a lesson.

Respect your constituents, or get booted and humiliated.

[Skittles]

128. YES IT WAS WORTH IT

TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT A WAR-MONGERING DEMOCRAT WILL PAY

[gully]

130. NO, I think we needed to let Dems know that we are a force and that

they will be challenged for kissing "R" ass.

[Zhade]

133. Absolutely worth it.

And he wasn't attacked - we ran against his own words and bad votes.

We're not the ones who took Republican money.

We're not the ones who called him a terrorist.

We're not the ones who voted for Cheney's energy bill.

We're not the ones who broke federal election law.

Fully confident that the decision to run Lamont was the right one to make.

[RiverStone]

134. Oh, our plan worked very well !!! Its called control of the HOUSE/SENATE

On principal alone, every penny we spent on defeating turncoat Lieberman was worth it! If we are to walk our talk as DEMS, how could we do any less then fight tooth and nail against such a proponent of BushCo's war. Not to mention the fact he gave the finger to his own party and ran against it. And I'm very proud of every one of us that did NOT abandon principal and tried to sink Joe's ship!!!:applause: We were good role models for our kids and our party. Walk your talk. We did. Joe did not. And did I say, OUR "PLAN" WORKED so well that not one DEM incumbent lost in the country!

[Jack Rabbit]

135. It was worth the money

To paraphrase Senator Kerry, Joe Lieberman lost before he won.

Senator Lieberman was guilty of not merely supporting the failed policies in Iraq, but of providing the Bush regime political cover to pursue those failed policies. Lieberman has also voted with the regime on its ploice state measures, such as the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act.

By defeating Lieberman in the primary, rank and file Democrats sent the entire nation a message: Senator Lieberman does not speak for us. He says that in time of war we criticize the commander-in-chief at the nation's peril; we say that in time of war we support a dishonest and incompetent commander-in-chief at the nation's peril.

Lieberman won the election, but only with White House support. He became the de facto GOP candidate. He speaks for the Bush regime, not for rank and file Democrats.

With the narrow margin by which the Democrats took over the Senate, it will be necessary for the Senate Democratic leadership to play nice to Senator Lieberman and let him keep his chairmanships and seniority.

But I'm not a Democratic Senator; I am part of the rank and file of the Democratic Party. Senator Lieberman does not speak for me.