Fact of the matter is-- if not for Loserman, Ned Lamont would be the Dem Senator-Elect from CT..

[trumad]

Right now, we would have a strong progressive liberal Democrat as a Senator elect heading to Congress.

I know that we gots what we gots with Lieberman--- but to those who are now trying to sugarcoat what happened----give it up.

[skipos]

1. If not for the voters in CT, we would have Lamont.

Lieberman is a lame ass, but the thousands of independents and Democrats who voted for him should have known better.

[Greyhound]

21. Hundreds of independents and thousands of Repukes... n/t

[theboss]

2. Yea...too bad he lost

Why don't Lamont supporters just admit this.

They are angry that Joe Lieberman did not drop out of an election that he knew he could easily win.

[trumad]

6. Of course the Loserman apologists miss the entire point.

If he bowed out gracefully like he should have done--- Lamont would have crushed the Repuke.

Oh---but I guess you guys prefer the pro war hawk.

[RiverStone]

58. OK Already! Lets move on. Loserman is in. It sucks, BUT...

Now we MUST have his cooperation to caucus with the Dems to keep the rethugs out of the majority in the Senate. Most of us don't like it (myself included), but it is the reality. Whatta say we move to a more constructive and unifying dialog about greater issues?!!

[Ken Burch]

7. self-delete

nt.

[theboss]

8. Wow...a Hitler comparison on just the 7th post

Is that a record?

[Ken Burch]

15. I wasn't comparing Lieberman to Hitler

I was pointing out that "he figured he could get away with it" was no defense.

You can get away with a lot of things that are immoral.

Joe's rejection of the verdict of the primary was immoral.

And it is wrong that he will waltz right back and be even more arrogant than ever.

This was a man who used to claim to be more of an expert than anyone else on what was right and wrong.

[Zensea]

16. Maybe not, but there's a certain insensitivity to your comment

in bringing up Hitler as the example instead of Nixon or an American politician, particularly considering that Lieberman is Jewish.
To give you the benefit of the doubt, probably some dark corner of your unconscious (which we all have) did it.

[Ken Burch]

17. I was using the extreme example.

My support for Ned Lamont was NEVER based of Lieberman's Jewishness, and neither was anyone else's.

I reject the idea that Senator Lieberman is entitled to use the arbitrary fact of his ethnic or religious origins to deflect legitimate criticism.

I despise antisemitism and all other forms of hatred. And everyone on DU knows it.

But I withdraw the Hitler usage in order to prevent war-loving Lieberman apologists from using it to derail the thread.

It was enough to say that Lieberman was dishonorable. No one can seriously dispute the point.

[theboss]

22. I'm still not convinced it's dishonorable to run in his situation

If by running, he was risking the seating turning to the Repubs, it would have been dishonorable. But there was no risk in that happening. So he let the voters of the state decide.

If Lieberman had split the vote and cost the Ds the seat or if he was caucusing with the Repubs, I would be furious and leading the charge against him.

But he won. He's a Democrat. We have the majority. I don't care.

[Alexander]

54. He played both sides, hedging his bets. It's WRONG.

Is Joe CFL? Then he shouldn't pretend he's a Democrat, he shouldn't accept party support, and he should have ACTED like an independent and ran as his own man, like Weicker did.

Is Joe a D? Then he should have agreed to support the winner of the Democratic primary, because that's what being a Democrat (as well as a democrat) is all about.

Instead he tried to have it both ways - and not only that, he made his decision less than a MONTH before the primary, because it looked like his warmongering ass actually might get thrown out.

He exploited a loophole in the Connecticut law for his own personal gain, so he could take money and party support from Democrats and use it to thwart the will of the Democratic voters.

He also broke the law by not disclosing exactly what he did with the $300K+ in petty cash that he spent during the primary (paying for petition signatures, maybe?).

To top it off, in the 2004 Democratic primary, he repeatedly berated Howard Dean, suggesting Dean would bolt the party and run as an independent if he lost. This distracted from the issues and forced Dean on the defensive, while ironically, it was Joe who was going to bolt the party.

Yes, he won, and yes, we have to accommodate his sleazy ass now, but we can fight like hell to win a solid 52-48 or greater majority in the Senate, and work for his Democratic opponent next time, so hopefully he falls into the dustbin of irrelevancy, where he belongs.

And to think, I used to like the guy....I feel so cheated.

[Zensea]

29. Well, I'm not pro-Lieberman or pro-war

but that didn't stop me from having the take I have on the post.

[Ken Burch]

40. If you didn't notice, I deleted it.

There's really nothing more to say on the matter.

[Zensea]

42. I was trying to clear up a different point though

I agree your deletion of the post means there is no need to say anymore on the original matter.
But I was referring to something different, that being your remark inferring that objecting to your original post somehow meant someone was pro-war or pro-Lieberman. You didn't delete that comment (and I'm not asking you to or thinking that you should) and that comment was what I responded to.

[Ken Burch]

50. I accept that you don't fit into the category I mentioned.

And I apologize to you personally for any misunderstanding there.

Still, it was those types who were most likely to misuse what I wrote, unlike you, who responded for honorable and legitimate reasons.

[BlueStater]

18. He wouldn't have won without the help of Republicans

He had to betray his own party to win. What a guy. :eyes:

I guess it's a ridiculous thing to argue about anyway. Lieberman's victory was just a small bit of gray on an otherwise great day.

[WinkyDink]

56. I'm disgusted that Lieberman thought only of himself, and thumbed his nose at

HIS OWN PARTY'S VOTERS after the primary.

[WI_DEM]

3. True he would have probably won but we can also thank

over a quarter of the states democrats for still backing Lieberman as well as a huge majority of Independents--not to mention the Republicans that Lieberman won. The sad truth is that Lamont was unable to build on his primary victory. He didn't expand his base.

[sandnsea]

4. If Lamont knew how to talk to the center

They'd have voted for him just like they voted for other anti-Iraq, anti-corruption candidates across the country.

[Ken Burch]

5. The whole point of the shadow Democratic campaign for Lieberman

was to say"fuck you, peasant scum. Primaries don't matter. The only thing that's important is what we and the big donors want".

Every Democratic senator that refused to do the right thing and campaign for or strongly endorse Ned Lamont should be punished in some way.

If we let them get away with this, we don't have a party anymore.

[onehandle]

9. Fact of the matter is-- if not for Rove, Al Gore would be the Sitting President from TN..

We still got bigger problems.

[bowens43]

10. Fact of the matter is the people of Connecticut chose Liebrman

another fact is that Lieberman, despite his stance on the war, is a Liberal and he will caucus with the Democrats. Those trying to make it worse then it is --- give it up.

[saigon68]

13. Yes well, Joementum Losermann still ADORES THE CHIMPANZEE

[WinkyDink]

57. despite his stance on the war,---SUCH a little thing, no? Just close to 3,000 dead.

[chaumont58]

11. I save some of my harsh feelings for the Dem Senators that backed

ole holy joe. Landrieu(sp?), Carper, Pryor, Salazar, Nelson of Ne. They basically told the Democratic voters of Ct to go fuck themselves. They should be rewarded, but it ain't going to happen in this lifetime.

[bullimiami]

12. i guess joe was right though. the majority of voters in conn are with him.

[Horse with no Name]

20. Never mind they were Republicans

but that's not important now is it?

[theboss]

23. It's not the least bit important

Joe is caucussing with the Democrats. So, the Republicans of Connectiuct willingly gave us the majority.

And for that, I may send each of them a fruit basket.

[Greyhound]

34. Yep, rich white corporate whores, that pretty much sums up his constituents. n/t

[LynneSin]

14. That's to Ned Lamont we have possibly two new democrats in the House

I know that for many, Lamont is who we wanted. But perhaps because of the inspiration that Lamont gave to rally the voters to GOTV, we have at least one but possible TWO new democratic representatives taking over seats previously held by republicans in CT. (CT-02 still not called).

It's not the happy ending we want but it still turned out ok

[Greyhound]

25. Tell us all how OK it is next year after he has cast the deciding vote

on a few of the Democratic attempts to balance the burden of our folly. He is the same corporate shill he has always been, and will hurt the party and the people he claims to represent.

[LynneSin]

27. Tell me how it would be OK if we get another Alito on the bench

If dems had the majority, Alito would have never gotten out of the committee for a floor vote

[Greyhound]

28. What makes you think we won't? We got Scalito and Roberts because of the

"dry powder strategy", what has changed?

[LynneSin]

30. You do know how the Senate Judiciary Committee works?

And you do remember that in 2002 when we had the majority, there was around 10 activist judges who never made it to the bench during that period because they never got approval from the committee. You don't get the majority of the committee supporting you, you don't get on the bench since you never get a floor vote. And we will have +1 democrats on the committee once again.

Gang of 14 can go fuck themselves with a Democratic Majority because none of them are on the Judiciary Committee.

But hell, if you prefer trying to round up 41 senators to support a filibuster instead of 10-11 pro-choice democrats who have proven they are committed to keeping bad judges out of the system (all of them voted against Alito in committee) then hell, go for it.

Me, I prefer to make it a bit easier on myself

[Greyhound]

32. One more anti-abortion zealot on the bench and things are going to much harder for you

than for me. But hey, I'm sure they all have your interests at heart and would never throw women under the bus for political expediency.

[LynneSin]

35. My god, did you sleep through politics 101?

Clearly you have - you'd rather get rid of Lieberman than protect our bench

[Greyhound]

43. Getting rid of lieberman is not even a possibility and he and the other DINOs

(although he really isn't a DINO is he?) is what is endangering the bench. Eternal capitulation and pervasive mediocrity is how we lose.

The narrow majority we will have come January is the result of the re:puke:s losing, not any great message nor wide-spread support of the people for the Democratic message and if we continue with business as usual, our adopted SOP, they will take it all back in two years, thus ensuring another hundred years of servitude when the Re:puke: appointed SCOTUS is complete. We're still fighting to overturn the results of the SCOTUS from the 1830's (the last time we allowed the court to become so badly partisan)

[LynneSin]

45. Please, figure out how the Senate Judiciary Committee works first

before you post again.

It seems everyone else has a clue; hell, Dick Durbin made the home page of DU about it.

[Greyhound]

51. Please restrain your arrogance before you post again.

As I said before, you will bear more of the consequnces than I, so enjoy them. :hi:

[LynneSin]

53. whatever

This just makes us look bad that's all. We don't even officially have the majority and already everyone is flying off the handle about how everything is going wrong especially since it seems not one person here understands anything about strategy. You'd be someone I would enjoy playing chess with - you'd had me your entire game plan before we even make the opening moves.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever that we have Lieberman caucusing with us or giving him the seniority that he had before going independant. There are way too many ways that our country will benefit NOT from Lieberman but the concept that we have the majority. Anyone who doesn't have a clue about that perhaps should read up and understand why.

[Greyhound]

59. we'll just have to see what we do with this new majority.

I'm looking forward to all of the reforms of the corporate giveaways and economy killing treaties that will result from accepting traitors back into the fold.

[theboss]

60. You do understand that without Joe, we are a minority

Please explain to me that you get that small part.

[Greyhound]

63. "The ends justify the means", OK that has worked so well in the past.

The people are looking for someone to stand up and do what is right, in spite of consequences, if it ain't us they will try someone else.

This mentality is how we got here, I guess it isn't bad enough yet.

OTOH, maybe I'm completely wrong and we will make the changes required to alleviate the worst of the consequences and turn us onto a course toward sanity. I'll just continue to prepare for my escape.

BTW, None of this changes the truth of the OP.

[theboss]

31. You simply don't understand how the Senate works

Alito never would have gotten out of committee. Roberts probably would have, but not Alito.

[LynneSin]

36. Feingold voted for Roberts - I still don't get that

But Roberts was replacing Rehnquist so it was a wash for us. Alito was replacing Sandra Day O'Conner which hurt us bigtime because they had more republicans in committee than we had democrats.

Thank you, it's nice to see one person understand just how important that Senate Judiciary Committee is.

BTW - Biden - voted against every activist judge we've ever gone after. We Delawareans understand the importance

[theboss]

37. Roberts was too much of a blank slate to reject

My view on judges is kind of the "Robert Byrd" view. The President gets who he wants unless the nominee has something on his record to make him clearly objectionable. Roberts whole career is based around arguments about standing. It's an annoying record, but not a horribly objectionable one.

Alito had some ugliness in there.

[LynneSin]

39. Well David Souter was another blank slate

So you never know what you're gonna get

[theboss]

41. I may be stupid (and I probably am) but I have a smidgen of hope for Roberts

I think he will be conservative but not nearly as bad as we thought he would be.

Alito is going to cause me much anguish.

[LynneSin]

46. You and me both, but I'm not willing to tempt fate

The other guy still hasn't figured out why Lieberman has no affect on the judicial nominations

I thought it was all pretty obvious

:shrug:

[Greyhound]

52. Uh huh, we'll see won't we...

I'd like you and all the other sophisticated followers of the DC cesspool to please keep this in mind over the next two years as our "leaders" sacrifice our future in the name of political expediency.

[cali]

19. To paraphrase you: For those whining on and on about Lieberman

give it up. Lieberman will stay with the dems, and there's tons to celebrate re the Senate. Senators Brown, McCaskill, Kobuchar, Tester, Webb and Sanders, should more than makeup for disappointmaet about Lamont.

As far as the Senate goes, the glass isn't half full- it's three quarters full.

[Greyhound]

24. The fact of the matter is that rich white people are CT, and they know Joe will

not require, nor support, any sacrifice from them or his corporate masters. He will protect their privilege with his last breath, regardless of who pays the price.

[cali]

38. Funny as Hell!

Considering Lamonts Round Hill roots, inherited wealth, and his wife's occupation, not to mention your bullshit line about "corporate masters". Look, I grew up in those environs, and I can honestly say it's improved. New Canaan, Greenwich, Wilton, Ridgefield, Westport, Darien, yeah they're still some of the wealthiest towns in the US, but the voters have become largely liberal. They voted for Kerry, and though I haven't seen the breakdown, it's my guess that a lot of them voted for Ned, as well. And CT is hardly only rich white people. Try visiting Waterbury and you'll see loads of working class folks, or Bridgeport or New Haven. You don't know enough about CT to have made your statement. It's embarassingly ignorant.

[Greyhound]

49. Yes the servants are indeed well contained.

We have a very similar situation here, and they are easily controlled in just the same way. We don't call them ghettos anymore since there is such a bad connotation connected with that term, now they are urban.

I never said Ned Lamont was better, but he might have been and we know for sure what Lieberman will support, don't we.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Right, and you can change the nation on what could have happened, too. n/t

[Cleita]

33. That was really dirty tricks of him.

I didn't think my estimation of him could get any lower, but it has.

[Zensea]

44. Anyone considered that a Republican might have won?

If all the people who voted for Lieberman had voted for the Republican, Lamont would have still lost.
It wouldn't even have taken all of them would it have?
Who really knows what would have happened?
I don't.

I would have preferred that Lamont win, but I'm not going to get particularly upset about Lieberman winning as long as he caucuses with the Democrats.

[trumad]

48. Not a chance...

the indies would have gone to Ned...

[bigwillq]

47. I am so upset.

:cry: :(

But the people voted and we still have Joe.

The CT law needs to be changed so that the primary and general candidates need to file at the same time before the primary takes place.

As the law is now, Joe did nothing illegal. As much as I hate to admit that.

[WinkyDink]

55. Thank you. Lieberman should have LED LAMONT'S CAMPAIGN,

as a "loyal Democrat"!!!!!
Now? Joe is a turn-coat, IMO.

[Orangepeel]

61. is making the best of the situation the same as sugarcoating?

If Lieberman hadn't run, Lamont would have won. If Lamont hadn't run, Lieberman would have won. If neither had run, the what's-his-face republican would have won.

So what? Reality is reality. Lieberman won and the Democratic party has to make the best of it.

[Blue-Jay]

62. Yes, that is true.

So?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. Useless Logic. There's Always An If This Than That, But In Reality It Just Is What It Is.