Joe Lieberman voted out of party, running as an Independent

[Guest DRH 502]

I am just curious as to where the notion that Saddam was just itching to attack the US came from in the first place...!?!

 

He has a different color of skin that most of us?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I am just curious as to where the notion that Saddam was just itching to attack the US came from in the first place...!?!

 

He has a different color of skin that most of us?

 

The notion came from inside George W. Bush's brain.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Recent Rasmussen poll shows the following:

 

Lieberman (I): 46%

Lamont (D): 41%

Schlesinger ®: 6%

 

See it here

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Schlesinger, the official Republican nominee, is only pulling 6%?

 

Something's wrong with that poll.

[EricMM 0]

Word has it something is wrong with Schlesinger.

 

And that should show you what kind of Indy Joe really is.

[Art Sandusky 0]

His Joementum was flying by so fast, it gave Schlesinger a cold.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Well, obviously Lieberman's taking most of the potential Republican voters if that's to be believed. Lamont needs to use this and further tie Lieberman to Bush.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Well, obviously Lieberman's taking most of the potential Republican voters if that's to be believed. Lamont needs to use this and further tie Lieberman to Bush.

 

That's a pretty risky strategy, though, because Independent voters may not like Lamont going negative like that (but it depends on how he handles it) and basically telling followers "hey look some GOP people are voting for Lieberman so he MUST be a right-wing insurgent!" Who knows, some of those GOP voters might not like Bush and are throwing their support behind Lieberman because his entry into this race actually makes it competitive and Schlesinger is such a lousy candidate in the first place. What I'm trying to say is that if Lamont isn't careful he could alienate a lot of voters or tick off a lot more GOP voters to vote for Lieberman because you can't try to paint other voters as stupid or that you don't need their support.

 

As an example look to Cythnia McKinney's race against Hank Johnson in Georgia where she said he was getting GOP money and she didn't need to work with the GOP. It made her appear as if she was extremely partisan which turned off a large segment of her party vote and she lost.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Not "going negative" only works if you're already 10 points ahead. Lieberman's already gone negative on Lamont, claiming that Lamont's part of the far-left radicals that have taken over the party and comparing him to Maxine Waters. Insulation from cries of blind partisanship can easily be countered by sayng: "I'm not going to go along with the Republicans on issues that they're clearly wrong about, such as the Iraq War."

[snuffbox 0]

I really doubt that calling 60%(and I personally feel that if that poll number is wrong, its only because those against the Iraq ocupation is closer to 70) of Americans 'radicals' is a strategy that will work.

[NoCalMike 0]

I really doubt that calling 60%(and I personally feel that if that poll number is wrong, its only because those against the Iraq ocupation is closer to 70) of Americans 'radicals' is a strategy that will work.

 

 

Being that Lieberman is pretty liberal in most of his views, it would seem a rather easy task for Lamont to get across the message that what seperates him and Lieberman is the view on the Iraq War. If he does that successfully, he should win. Someone already pointed out in this thread earlier that Lieberman is actually pretty liberal, but it is his stance on the War and the seemingly blind support for it that is hurting his chances the most. Lamont should just bring up Lieberman's liberal voting record and/or views, to get rid of the "Lamont is a far left extremist" bullshit, and then just re-iterate that over 60% of America aren't far-left extremists for being against the War.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

I really doubt that calling 60%(and I personally feel that if that poll number is wrong, its only because those against the Iraq ocupation is closer to 70) of Americans 'radicals' is a strategy that will work.

I want to put that in 10 foot letters on a giant billboard outside RNC headquarters.

[snuffbox 0]

The old Goldwater trick...nice.

[Special K 0]

And I'm sure that the polling numbers told Clinton not to kill 40-something people and burn down Waco in cold blood...but he did anyway.

 

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Sarcasm is often difficult to detect in written word. You must know that by now.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Any senator that supports censorship is a fuckoff in my book anyway, so Lieberman has more than the one strike against him.

[snuffbox 0]

And I'm sure that the polling numbers told Clinton not to kill 40-something people and burn down Waco in cold blood...but he did anyway.

 

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

 

Yes, thats sarcasm....didn't think it would be too dificult to realize.

[2GOLD 0]

And I'm sure that the polling numbers told Clinton not to kill 40-something people and burn down Waco in cold blood...but he did anyway.

 

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

 

Yes, thats sarcasm....didn't think it would be too dificult to realize.

 

I'd like to think Clinton did get that poll done, just to see how many people said, "undecided".

 

Lieberman is a censorship nightmare, which is why I really dislike him. I don't give a damn if he supports Bush or the Iraq War so much as I'm worried about anyone who says we need to change things in movies and television for the children.

 

What worries me is if Lamont runs a silly, "he works with BUSH!" campaign, it might end up screwing the democrats. They really need a new plan other than, "Bush sux! War sux! OMG GIV PEACE A CANCE!!"

[snuffbox 0]

So, you don't know a damn thing about Lamont's campaign do you 2gold?

[2GOLD 0]

So, you don't know a damn thing about Lamont's campaign do you 2gold?

 

I meant the suggestions being tossed around. Not Lamont himself. The guy obviously did a damn good job getting the nod, the last thing he needs to do is change his approach now. He can actually win if he would do what he is doing and not listen to some of the more nuts demos in the party.

 

The guy can win if he tries something different from other democrats and avoids listening to the party suggestions.

[snuffbox 0]

Are you referring to the 83% of Dems/60% of Americans 'nuts'?

[2GOLD 0]

Are you referring to the 83% of Dems/60% of Americans 'nuts'?

 

No, I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to the extreme side who want that to be all he's about. The guy can obviously take this using his ideas and plans and shouldn't turn his whole campaign into a one message pony.

 

Of course people hate it, but he's not running for President. He's running for a seat in his state. He can mention it, but it shouldn't be a focus of his campaign which is one of the ideas I've seen tossed about. And even if he is running for President, making it the only focus would be a horrible idea.

 

If the guy has charisma and a message, he should be fine. Lieberman has bigger things they can aim the guns at and those are the spots Lamont should really seperate himself. Which it seems like, he can do.

[snuffbox 0]

I have no problem with the war in Iraq being the main subject of this election...it is a pretty big thing, 2gold. And I honestly am not familiar with this bloc of nothing-but-Iraq people that are hijacking the Democratic Party...must be the Ultra Socialist Bluh Fluh Tin Foil Hat Block Party Whack Jobs.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/14/lamont.ap/index.html

 

"All Lieberman did was point out an important difference between his approach to national security and Ned Lamont's, which is what campaigns are all about," said Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein.

"Let me point out the difference between my opponent and myself. He wants terrorists to kill you, and I do not."

 

 

Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said Lamont was the one seeking to score political points with terrorism.

 

"Sounds like he's the one playing politics at a time the president is trying to build national unity and cooperation in fighting a determined and murderous enemy," McBride said.

 

Politics aside for a second...but do people not realize when they sound like they're reading straight from the party's platform when they speak?

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Lieberman's challenge in this race will be to have a more lively campaign. He was very lackluster against Lamont in the primary either because he didn't take the challenge seriously or figured that in the end he was going to win. Joe isn't a very enthusastic person so that could play against him but I think the debate between these two (a rematch debate if you will) is going to be absolutley critical b/c either the "war on terrorism" philosophy or the "war in Iraq" philosophy will come out the winner. If war on terror wins then Lieberman wins BUT if Lamont wins the Iraq card then it's pretty much game-set-match because Lieberman is going to be tied up in tons of knots if that issue becomes the dominant one in this race.

 

Lieberman also needs to use his depth on issues to school Lamont if at all possible. I'm not talking going ultra-negative but he needs to pick apart Lamont's campaign speeches bit by bit. For example, when asked about his stance on Iran Lamont said that the U.S. should ignore Bush's course and work with our allies and use a "carrots and sticks" approach that is well balanced. Sounds good BUT the only problem is that Bush has basically done that by allowing the EU-3 to work with Iran in negotiations and used the UN Security Council to issue a resolution against Iran. Also, we've been using carrots with Iran like with North Korea until they are coming out of our ears.

 

Basically, Lieberman needs to win the TRUST factor and make people a bit hesitant to vote for Lamont based on a fear of what they might get (and I'm not talking the fear of "the terrorists are coming...hey they ate with Ned Lamont last night for dinner I saw it with my own eyes!" crap). He needs to use his experience as a critical factor to show that he knows all of the angles and understands the issues better.

[2GOLD 0]

I have no problem with the war in Iraq being the main subject of this election...it is a pretty big thing, 2gold. And I honestly am not familiar with this bloc of nothing-but-Iraq people that are hijacking the Democratic Party...must be the Ultra Socialist Bluh Fluh Tin Foil Hat Block Party Whack Jobs.

 

Yeah, those are the nutballs. While I agree it should be a main issue, it shouldn't be the only one. From what I read of his platform, the guy has a pretty solid one. I'd hate to see him alter it for the sake of the party when he can probably take it on his own without a radicial change in strategy.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Greenfield: A gathering anti-incumbent storm?

The Web is making it easier to challenge the establishment

By Jeff Greenfield

CNN Senior Analyst

 

 

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A governor, two House members, 17 state legislators in Pennsylvania, a U.S. senator -- maybe two.

 

What do they have in common? They're all incumbents who lost (or may well lose) a primary. As they say in the news biz with barely contained lust: "Is this a trend?"

 

Well, it is unusual for this many to lose in one season. Sen. Joe Lieberman's loss to Ned Lamont in Connecticut earlier this month puts him in an unhappy rare category. Since 1980, we've had only three incumbent senators lose primaries. Sen. Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island is in danger of joining that club. He's no better than even money to win his primary against conservative Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey.

 

And Alaska's Frank Murkowski is only the fourth governor to lose a primary in the last 12 years. (Full story)

 

The trouble with extrapolating from these and other incumbent defeats, though, is that there seems to be no common explanation. Sometimes it's a question of character or personality.

 

In Alaska, Murkowski gained a reputation for aloofness, even arrogance; he appointed his daughter Lisa to fill out his term in the U.S. Senate and wanted a jet plane for his travels. In Georgia, Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney lost her primary -- for the second time in four years, by the way -- after a publicized altercation with a Capitol Hill police officer.

 

The other key reason is policy or ideology. Lieberman lost in Connecticut for not being enough of a "real" Democrat, for being out of step with his party's antiwar sentiments on Iraq, as well as for views he's held on everything from affirmative action to school vouchers to the Terri Schiavo case.

 

In Rhode Island, Chafee is being pushed for not being Republican enough. He's the most independent, or least loyal, Republican in the Senate. He didn't even vote for President Bush in 2004, announcing he'd written in Bush's father.

 

In fact, the most eye-opening incumbent defeats happened in Pennsylvania last May -- largely beneath the national media radar -- when 17 state legislators were thrown out, including the top two Senate GOP leaders. This was a classic response to what was seen as arrogance -- last-minute pay raises and increases in benefits.

 

But if there's no common explanation for these losses, that doesn't mean we can't draw some modest notions about the broader meaning of these votes. For me, it lies in the emergence of the Internet as an organizing and money-raising tool.

 

The power of the Web may be easy to overanalyze; but when it comes to unhappy party members, its potential is clear: disaffected voters now have an efficient mechanism with which to bypass a party establishment that is inclined to protect incumbents.

 

For instance, national Republicans are backing Chafee, despite his maverick ways, because they fear a conservative candidate will likely lose in November, threatening GOP control of the Senate. But the Web makes it easier for conservatives angered at Chafee's voting record to get money to his opponent and to reach out to like-minded voters.

 

Indeed, my own quirky notions have made me curious to see what happens in the New York Senate primary, where Sen. Hillary Clinton's relatively hawkish views on national security don't sit well with a lot of liberals. Her primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini, has no money and no support -- he's now at 15 percent in the polls. If he winds up with a whole lot more primary votes, it will be sign for less secure incumbents that there's a new ball game out there.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/25/gre...ents/index.html

[SuperJerk 0]

Lieberman may have the last laugh on Election Day

 

HARTFORD, Connecticut (AP) -- A wry grin on his face, Sen. Joe Lieberman stepped into the brilliant fall sunshine after a Baptist church service and declared his plans for the campaign's final days.

 

"Actually, I'm planning to go into hibernation," he joked to reporters. "I'm going to be in prayer for the next nine days."

 

Lieberman has plenty to smile about these days.

 

Less than a week before Tuesday's elections, Lieberman, 64, appears to be on-track for a fourth term as statewide polls show him with a double-digit lead.

 

Just three months ago, the Connecticut lawmaker's 18-year Senate career was on the rocks.

 

Anti-war challenger Ned Lamont had flattened him in the August 8 Democratic primary, a bitter race that was widely seen as a referendum on Iraq -- and a blunt rejection of Lieberman's pro-war views.

 

It was a dramatic fall from grace for a man who had been his party's vice presidential nominee just six years ago and who came within a few hundred votes of the White House. Lieberman sometimes cites a bittersweet Bob Dylan tune, "Simple Twist of Fate," in recalling the loss.

 

A defiant Lieberman quickly shifted gears and launched an independent bid to hang onto his seat, bucking top Democrats who urged him to bow out for the sake of party loyalty. Some even branded him a traitor.

 

He's bounced back with a hard-hitting campaign that has yanked the spotlight off the issue that cost him the primary -- his support for President Bush's Iraq invasion.

 

"I will believe that, if this works out and I win, it is because people wanted me to be their senator for a lot more reasons than Iraq," Lieberman said, noting that voters often approach him to say while they disagree with him on the war, they still support him.

 

He has struck a chord among Republicans and the state's vast pool of independents, calling himself an "independent-minded Democrat" willing to resist the party line.

 

He has framed the race as a choice between an experienced senator able to work across party lines to deliver for Connecticut and "Negative Ned," a partisan political newcomer running on a single issue, the war.

 

"Lieberman has done a good job of defining Lamont for voters," said Gary Rose, a politics professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield.

 

Lamont is a wealthy businessman whose previous political experience is limited to local posts in Greenwich. He has pumped $14.7 million of his own money into the race, including a $2 million loan last week.

 

Lieberman climbed back by winning the political center, particularly independents, the largest voting bloc in a Democratic-leaning state where the war and Bush are unpopular.

 

"The independent turnout is what's really important for Lieberman," said Quinnipiac University Poll director Doug Schwartz.

 

Lieberman has done a masterful job of distancing himself from his pro-war views by stressing his independence from Bush and the Democrats while calling for a bipartisan approach to Iraq, said University of Connecticut public policy professor Ken Dautrich.

 

"He's taken a negative and turned it into a positive," said Dautrich.

 

At the same time, Lieberman has run TV ads questioning Lamont's business background. One of his most effective commercials trumpeted what he did to help save the submarine base in Groton.

 

Steve Grzesczyk, a Republican who works as an office manager, was among those at a recent Lieberman appearance at a Chamber of Commerce breakfast in Southington.

 

"I'm sticking with Joe," Grzesczyk said. "His tenure there in Washington helps the state of Connecticut."

 

Lamont's campaign got off to a slow start after the primary amid hopes Lieberman would drop out. Efforts to broaden his message have mostly fallen flat, and he has returned to his signature issue, the war, as the race closes.

 

Lieberman, meanwhile, has won support from the White House and other top Republicans.

 

Bush praised him this week for standing firm on Iraq. Prominent Republicans like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg have also chipped in with endorsements, fundraising help and the loan of some key political operatives.

 

The GOP has largely snubbed its long-shot nominee Alan Schlesinger, whose gambling background generated unflattering headlines earlier this year. He trails in single digits in the polls.

 

Despite his ties to Republicans, Senate Democrats are likely to need Lieberman's vote in a closely divided upper chamber. They say they will welcome him back to their ranks, though there are still some bruised feelings.

 

Lieberman has pledged to caucus with the Democrats. And if the party can gain six seats next Tuesday, he would be in line to become chairman of the Senate Homeland Security panel, a powerful committee dealing with the issue of terrorism.

 

It's a point he has brought up with voters in recent days.

 

"People are reading," he said. "They see that there's a chance that Democrats might control and they know that if that happens, that I would be a committee chair and also would be in the majority."

 

From the war in Iraq to Social Security, the opponents of U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman had plenty to say about his record.

 

"We have these massive, massive torrential problems and Joe Lieberman decides to tell you, 'Everything's OK, just stay the course with me,"' Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger said during a televised debate Thursday night at Quinnipiac University.

 

The three-term incumbent had no immediate comeback for that. He wasn't on the stage.

 

Lieberman, who enjoys a double-digit lead in the latest statewide poll with less than a week remaining in the race, declined to participate in the fourth debate with his major-party rivals.

 

Lamont, who is pressing his anti-Iraq war views as the race closes, accused Lieberman of being a cheerleader for President Bush's policies.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/ct....e.ap/index.html

 

Anybody think Joe will rejoin the Democrats?

 

He wasn't actualy kicked out of the party as this thread's title suggests, but was told he couldn't be CT's senator by some primary voters. The DCCC didn't back him, but could they legally? The real test will be if Christopher Dodd and Liebermann can reconcile their differences. Dodd will probably reveal at some point that he voted for Liebermann in either the primary or the general election.

 

And you have to appreciate that the official Republican nominee is only pulling 5% in some polls.

[BUTT 0]

I don't see why he would.

 

If they didn't want him and he doesn't need them........

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Dodd actually pushed for Lieberman in the primary but, being a Democratic Senator, supports the Democratic nominee in the general.