"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:07:29 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:56:10 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:32:19 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


Lieberman might have avoided the primary today had he merely been
"hawkish" on the war and otherwise been non-supportive of Bush and
Bush's conduct of same.
Suggesting he might run as an independent, if he looses, has also cost
him. It's telling the primary voters that their votes don't count,
and
that he somehow deserves to be their Senator. If he is going to run as
an
independent, he should have at least kept his mouth shut until after
the
primary.

It's amazing that Lieberman would EVER consider running as an
independant/spoiler if the Dems make it clear they don't want him.
Someone should remind him of how a similar decision by Ralph Nader
kept Lieberman himself out of the White House.

I wouldn't count Joe out of the Dem primary just yet.

If I were still a Connecticut resident, I'd have a hard time voting
against Joe in a Democratic primary. He's been a solid Democrat and he's
entitled to hold positions that don't adhere to the party line at any
given moment. That doesn't bother me nearly as much as his announced
plan to run as an Indy if he loses the primary. *That* would cause me to
vote for his opponent in the primary if I found his opponent acceptable.

That's the key right there.

Lamont isn't acceptable - in particular to me. He might be acceptable
to those gold coast leftie ton-of-money liberal moonbats, but he's not
anywhere near what I would consider acceptable.

According to my sources, Lamont was talked into this bid by Markos
Moulitsas Zuniga of the Daily Kos and some from MoveOn.org based
solely on Lieberman's support for the Iraq war - that's it - period.

Here's some commentary from those supporting Lamont - all direct
quotes.

"Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to
beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be
an AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim,"
posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).

"Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about
a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red.
It would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July
11 and 12, 2005).

On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about
the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone
of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that
jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil
rights movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily
Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

"Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to
the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot
escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is
Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover"
(by "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).

And then there was the Jane Hamisher incident in which she posted a
picture of Joe in black face. Lamont claimed he didn't know Hamisher
at first and when some bloggers posted pictures of him taking to
Hamisher and hugging her at a commercial shoot Hamisher was making for
him, he said she wasn't part of his "staff".

No thanks Mr. Lamont - I'll take a pass on you. If your primary
backers are these kind of folk, forget it.

If Joe does lose, I'll support his Independant Bid in the same fashion
as I've supported him through 30 years of politics.

He's the only Democrat I've ever sent money to and the only one who
I've consistently supported by my direct vote.

GO JOE!!


I had a strong feeling that there was more to this behind the scenes than
what appears in the "normal" news media. Lieberman has too much class to
even respond to such dirty politics and his statement to run as an
independent if he loses is as far as he would go.

It's not often I feel so positive about a Democrat, particularly from
another state, but I think he is one of the few honest people in federal
government and we need to keep him, Democrat, Republican or Independent.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
It's not often I feel so positive about a Democrat, particularly from
another state, but I think he is one of the few honest people in federal
government and we need to keep him, Democrat, Republican or Independent.


Then why didn't you vote for him for Vice President?

I think it's kind of funny that the Rove-bots are shrieking
about keeping Joe Lieberman in place, and even claiming that
a primary challenge to him is proof the Democratic Party is
anti-Semitic. Now they rightwingnuts have got some of you
folks who ought to have better sense chiming in.

Personally, I'd prefer to see Lieberman stay... but then I
am actually a registered Democrat even if it's not my state.

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
...

Now they (the) rightwingnuts have got some of you folks who ought to have
better sense chiming in.

Regards
Doug King


Rightwingnuts have absolutely no influence on my high regard for Joe
Lieberman. And his support of the war and/or perceived support of Bush have
absolutely no influence either. I just think he's an honest man with strong
convections.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...

Now they (the) rightwingnuts have got some of you folks who ought to have
better sense chiming in.

Regards
Doug King


Rightwingnuts have absolutely no influence on my high regard for Joe
Lieberman. And his support of the war and/or perceived support of Bush
have absolutely no influence either. I just think he's an honest man with
strong convections.

Eisboch



I know it was an innocent typo........but I would invite anyone with strong
heat 'convections' to stay at my house all winter long free of charge. ;-)

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...

Now they (the) rightwingnuts have got some of you folks who ought to
have better sense chiming in.

Regards
Doug King


Rightwingnuts have absolutely no influence on my high regard for Joe
Lieberman. And his support of the war and/or perceived support of Bush
have absolutely no influence either. I just think he's an honest man
with strong convections.

Eisboch



I know it was an innocent typo........but I would invite anyone with
strong heat 'convections' to stay at my house all winter long free of
charge. ;-)


did too much technical writing in my life.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...

Now they (the) rightwingnuts have got some of you folks who ought to have
better sense chiming in.

Regards
Doug King


Rightwingnuts have absolutely no influence on my high regard for Joe
Lieberman. And his support of the war and/or perceived support of Bush
have absolutely no influence either. I just think he's an honest man with
strong convections.

Eisboch



heh ... make that "convictions"

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
Rightwingnuts have absolutely no influence on my high regard for Joe
Lieberman.

Mine neither.

... And his support of the war and/or perceived support of Bush have
absolutely no influence either.

OK, if you say so.

... I just think he's an honest man with strong
convections.


IMHO he is as honest & conscientious a Senator as is likely
to be found on either side.

*But* let me ask a few leading questions... why does the
Republican publicity machine suddenly want to dabble in a
Democrat election?

I can think of several reasons- by having a lot of blatant
Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders supporting Lieberman, he is more
likely to lose, thereby removing a senior Democratic Senator
with a lot of influence over where the money goes; also
putting in place a more vulnerable Democrat.

Did it not seem odd to anybody else that the rightwingnuts
are suddenly so hot about Lieberman, when just a few short
years ago they were screaming about what a
commie-liberal-fag-traitor he was (almost as bad as
shudder Al Gore).

DSK

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:03:09 -0400, DSK wrote:


IMHO he is as honest & conscientious a Senator as is likely to be found on
either side.

*But* let me ask a few leading questions... why does the Republican
publicity machine suddenly want to dabble in a Democrat election?

I can think of several reasons- by having a lot of blatant Bush-Cheney
Cheerleaders supporting Lieberman, he is more likely to lose, thereby
removing a senior Democratic Senator with a lot of influence over where
the money goes; also putting in place a more vulnerable Democrat.

Did it not seem odd to anybody else that the rightwingnuts are suddenly so
hot about Lieberman, when just a few short years ago they were screaming
about what a commie-liberal-fag-traitor he was (almost as bad as shudder
Al Gore).

I can think of another very good reason Republicans are interested, fear.
The main issue that brought Lieberman's defeat, was his support for the
war in Iraq. That makes a lot of Republicans, and Democrats, worried.
It's too early to say, how a Democrats defeat, in a relatively liberal
state, will translate to a national election in November, but I would say,
many do have reason to worry.

"thunder" wrote in message
...


I can think of another very good reason Republicans are interested, fear.
The main issue that brought Lieberman's defeat, was his support for the
war in Iraq. That makes a lot of Republicans, and Democrats, worried.
It's too early to say, how a Democrats defeat, in a relatively liberal
state, will translate to a national election in November, but I would say,
many do have reason to worry.


There may be an unexpected backlash in the national elections that does not
favor Democratic candidates.
Democrats everywhere will be taking notice of what happened to Joe Lieberman
and collectively will be moving their respective positions more to the
left, further narrowing voter options. Republican candidates will then have
room to move more to a center "moderate" position and may end up having more
appeal nationwide.

Betcha Hillary starts moving left soon. This is going to be interesting.

Eisboch