Race to November: Lieberman a bad sign for Democrats?

BenGarrett · 08-21-2006, 06:59 AM

Lieberman was supposed to be proof-positive that America was fed up with the war in Iraq. Prior to the Connecticut primary (and especially immediately afterward), the Democrats pointed towards Lieberman's trailing in the polls and touted it as symbolic of what will happen this November as America gives the boot to Senators and Congressmen who have supported the war in Iraq. Democratic strategists gleefully appeared on talk shows and morning news programs across the nation the morning after the primary to talk about their party's expectations for November, and seemed incredibly bolstered that Lieberman would lose, seemingly solely because of his support for the war.

Now it appears that the tables have been turned. Lieberman began picking up steam before the primary but ran out of time. Now, pre-November polls show that Lieberman, as an independent, is actually LEADING . . . and continues to gain ground. If we believed the Democrat pundits in the days prior to and immediately after Connecticut's primary, we'd have to believe this spells doom for the Democrats' hopes that the American Voter is going to vote solely on the issue of the war. But we know those guys talk through both sides of their mouth anyway, so what do you think?

Canuck_Buck · 08-21-2006, 07:20 AM

Do you folks really want to elect Lieberman?

NCOutdoors · 08-21-2006, 08:10 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Canuck_Buck

Do you folks really want to elect Lieberman?

Depends on our choices. In Connecticut, the likelihood a Republican is going to win is small. So if you had to choose between Lieberman and Lamont, it's a no brainer for me.

Aught Six · 08-21-2006, 08:45 AM

Come on, it's only the primary. Of course Lieberman lost because the Democratic Party signed his political death warrant. If anyone sides with Bush on any foreign policy issue, they get the boot from the party. When you get down to the mainstream voting public, however, it's a different ballgame.

The man stands by his principles, offers a moderate approach to the war on terror, and never once actedlike a raving lunatic after 2000 and 2004. For these reasons, people see him as a superior candidate to Lamont, even in a state full of leftists.

BenGarrett · 08-21-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Canuck_Buck

Do you folks really want to elect Lieberman?

I don't live in Connecticut, but I can't think of a real good reason to NOT vote for Lieberman, given the choices there. Lieberman's politics are too left-leaning for my liking, but as a Democrat, he's very moderate and, as Aught Six pointed out, he stands on his beliefs, which is more than many Democrats can say. Yes, if I lived in Connecticut, I might vote for him. I never thought I'd vote for a Democrat for Senate or President, but this year is going to be a first for me. I'm voting for Harold Ford, Jr. in Tennessee.

CalHunter · 08-21-2006, 10:46 AM

I think NC Outdoors and Aught Six have nailed this one. Connecticut is going to elect either Lieberman or Lamont and Lieberman is far superior to Lamont. I don't agree with all of Lieberman's views but he is honest, acts like a gentleman and, more importantly, acts like a Senator. He does support the war on terror and doesn't try to sabotage Bush at the expense of our country. I think if Lieberman is elected, it will send a huge message to the Demos about their slash and burn ultra-liberal beliefs and tactics. If Joe is elected, it will also signal a lot more support for a 3rd party in this country. This election will open the door or close it for a lot of political changes in this country. I hope Joe wins by a landslide.

Mizzouhunter · 08-21-2006, 03:59 PM

The worst thing about Lieberman losing is that it indicates that centrist Democrats are becoming an endangered species. Extremist in both parties despise political moderates and that is a shame. Those legislators in the middle might do something that will benefit the country. It's a shame that nuts are taking over the Democratic party.

Strut&Rut · 08-21-2006, 05:32 PM

Lieberman will NOT win, period.

He has made too many enemies in this state, which started with the VP bid in 2000. Lamont's strategist has a boatload of ammunition, and won't even use most of it until 30 days pre-election.

See, there are many things that stink about Lieberman, and it's not just his stance on the war and his continued support of GW Bush. The following is a short list...

1) His voting record stinks. When he's actually in the Senate, he likes to abstain. Since 2000, he's been absent for over 25% of the votes, and abstained for another 25% (at least MY last check). That's about a 50% voting record---at that rate, it doesn't really matter WHAT his stance is...

2) He PO'd too many people by running for Senator and VP, and now that there's a viable alternative, he's done. See, the problem with 2000 was this...he didn't put all his coins in the pot, and many saw that as a driving force as to why Gore lost. Also, if he & Gore had won, the Senate majority would have become Republican, which was really unthinkable. He hasn't been replaced because he's been like this state's Kerry...he's the worst of the best evils...

3) Continued support of GW Bush. In Iraq. On Iran. Definitely on Israel. On Katrina...and oh yeah, he actually HEADED the committee that placed Michael Brown as the head of FEMA. Don't think that one hasn't been in the press. He's more Republican than our current Governor, who IS Republican!!

4) He's wishy-washy, he's non-committal, and at best he has a blurred vision. I haven't voted for him since I moved here, and personally I think he may be one of the worst politicians I have ever heard speak. No originality, and definitely no true visions he can call his own. Gore added him as VP to help clear his name from Clinton, and it backfired so poorly I'm surprised Joe didn't get booted in 2002.

As the signs all across the state indicate, Joe MUST GO!!

Strut&Rut · 08-21-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Aught Six:

The man stands by his principles, offers a moderate approach to the war on terror, and never once actedlike a raving lunatic after 2000 and 2004. For these reasons, people see him as a superior candidate to Lamont, even in a state full of leftists.

Yeah, right. He's superior alright. So full of $hit he floats above the rest [&:]

Aught Six · 08-21-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Yeah, right. He's superior alright. So full of $hit he floats above the rest [&:]

Glad to know that the resident leftist academic has chimed in on the matter. Thank you for your opinion.