Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

CT Senate: The Five Questions

MARLBOROUGH, Conn. -- Today's the day Connecticut Democrats will choose between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont in their Senate primary -- all under the watchful eye of a slew of national political operatives and reporters.

There have been hundreds of stories written in national and state newspapers, news magazines and blogs over the last few days. As always here at The Fix, we seek to cut through the clutter.

Here's a look at the five key questions that will be answered when the votes are counted tonight:

* Will the "netroots" turn out? Lamont's campaign has been fueled by the liberal blogosphere (Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga appeared in a Lamont television ad), but it remains to be seen whether that online activism translates into off-line votes in Connecticut. The party's establishment remains unconvinced, pointing out that the army of volunteers on the ground for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in Iowa during the 2004 presidential race did not deliver on caucus night. Lieberman is relying on a more traditional get-out-the-vote effort managed by organized labor. (He has been endorsed by the state's AFL-CIO.) But Lieberman has pulled some of his funds from his GOTV efforts in recent days to flood the airwaves with ads defending himself against charges that he is Republican-lite. In a late summer primary, turnout would typically be low, but given the attention paid to this race in the state (and nationally), traditional voting patterns may not apply.

* Did Lamont peak too soon? With five days before the primary, Lamont led Lieberman by 13 points, according to a Quinnipiac University poll. Four days later, Lamont's lead had shrunk to six points. Lamont remains in the driver's seat, but it should be worrisome to his campaign that his lead was cut in half in less than a week. Are voters who were initially enthused about Lamont's hot rhetoric against the war in Iraq sobering up and deciding to stick with Lieberman? Incumbents (especially those in the Senate) rarely lose by wide margins no matter the political environment or their own problems. Still, if political conventional wisdom holds, Lamont should be the nominee. Voters who remain undecided until the final day of the race tend to move overwhelmingly for the challenger. Even if this trend is tempered somewhat, Lamont is still in strong position.

* Do newspaper endorsements matter? And if so, which ones? Lieberman's campaign has spent the last few days touting the fact that he has received the endorsement of every major newspaper in Connecticut. He is running a radio ad in the race's final hours touting the backing of the Hartford Courant, Connecticut Day and New Haven Register among others. While Lamont has been shut out by the big Connecticut newspapers, he won the backing of the New York Times -- a not insignificant fact in a state where many voters read the Times as their daily newspaper (especially in the affluent 4th District that Lamont calls home.) Lamont is making sure potential voters know where the Old Gray Lady stands on the race, noting the paper's endorsement in a direct-mail piece that hit mailboxes Monday informing voters of their closest polling place. Will undecideds be swayed to back Lieberman because of his endorsements from the state's newspapers? Or will it further cement the idea that Lieberman is the establishment choice in a time when voters have soured on the status quo? (Ok, that's three questions in one, but we couldn't help ourselves.)

* Who wins the black vote? Less than one in every ten Connecticut residents is African American, according to the 2000 census, but black voters could be the crucial bloc in today's election. Lamont has enjoyed considerable support from prominent black leaders, including Rep. Maxine Waters (Calif.), actor Danny Glover and Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Lieberman has made certain to remind voters that he was an advocate of civil rights for blacks in the early 1960s and has his own group of elected black officials on board, including Rep. John Lewis (Ga.). Former President Bill Clinton's support for Lieberman could also influence how African Americans vote today as Clinton is a beloved figure in the black community.

* How soon do the rats jump off the ship if Lieberman loses? We've already seen hints in comments by Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg (both Lieberman supporters) that if he comes up short today, he should not run as an independent in the fall. We tend to believe that Lieberman will not run if he loses to Lamont, but some political observers believe the margin of defeat is important when it comes to forecasting the incumbent's plans. Lose narrowly and Lieberman can make the case that a near majority of Democrats supported him and continue on to the general. Lose by a wide margin and that case becomes extremely difficult to make.

Stay tuned.

See also Dan Balz's piece in today's Post, "Lieberman's Troubles Go Beyond War."

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 8, 2006; 8:03 AM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: CT Governor: Playing the Bush Card
Next: CT Senate: Joe's Last Stand?

Comments

We can all bet that Joe is honest.
Now days that is reason to vote for him.

Posted by: Ted Harmon | October 3, 2006 10:55 AM | Report abuse

hey i wanna talk about chris shays he have done nothing for ct and he supported the war in iraq he is just like bush so ct lets vote for dian fharell come november and ned lamount

Posted by: JAY2316 | August 13, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

RMill

Sorry but I forgot to put my name in the last post. Also, I see that the turnout is very high in the more liberal areas and low in the cities. I think this favors Lamont. I look forward to your analysis tomorrow. Wes

Posted by: weseto | August 8, 2006 7:27 PM | Report abuse

RMill

Hamster said: "I think your logic is flawed". I must concur with Hamster.

By far, you are one of the best ommentators on this site. I think that is because you use your head. But, alas, this time you used your gut. And you used some erronous data. 27,000 people did not cross over to Democrat. About half were Inds who did cross over but, the other half are NEW voter who registered for the first time.
You give all 8,000 undecideds (4%) to the incumbent but historical data says most undecideds go to the challenger. That's about 5,000 for Lamont and 3,000 for Joe, NOT 8,000 for Joe. Buy some Tums sir. Go back to your head, it's smarter than your gut.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2006 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, they may say that in public but I bet every elected official on both sides will be really frightened if Liebermann goes down big. It will show that the voters (not just democrats) are paying serious attention and that name recognition alone ain't going to cut it anymore.
I mean this is unheard of in political history. Liebermann didn't commit any crime. He didn't leave his wife, or cuss out another senator. He is going to lose an unlosable race because of his policy views. That ladies and gents is democracy at work.

By the way Chris Matthews had a great monologue on the Conn race on his show on Sunday check it out if you can find it.

Posted by: Andy R | August 8, 2006 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Good points, Anon, re: UHC for the poor. Im no expert, nor do I really have the numbers on hand... Perhaps 50-75% of poverty level would be more economically feasible. It is something that can clearly be hammered out by the parties. Your point about the cost of health care and pharmaceuticals is obviously a pertinent issue and should obviously be addressed by the federal government asap. Thanks GOP for letting the price go thru the roof so your big pharma buddies can turn massive profits.

Im all for federal investment in education, alternative energy, public works, environmental conservation. I believe that many of these issues are relatively minor in dollar figures compared to things like big energy biz and big pharma, social security, medicaid/medicare. If we werent in the middle of a costly war and under the thunb of a Republican bent on giving hundreds of billions to a select few industries, we would have enough money to invest discretionary spending in America. Hence the tidal wave of positive sentiment for the Democratic party. How can anyone be happy with the status quo unless you are in the 1% that are on the payroll?

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Back to Connecticut, anybody hear any early returns yet?

Here will be the response from the 'liberal' media if Lieberman wins-- 'Dems came to their senses and...'

Here will be the response if it's Lamont, 'A divided Dem party has wounded itself and now will lose the midterms'

Of course, that's exactly what the republican party will say, too. Funny how that works.

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Interesting piece of news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060808/pl_nm/texas_dc_2

DeLay reiterates that he will not run for reelection. This leaves the Texas GOP with a write-in campaign; I think Lampson's odds just got a LOT better in view of the general disaffection of the GOP electorate. It's one thing to show up and pull the lever for the (R), another thing to motivate to write in a vote.

Posted by: Venicemenace | August 8, 2006 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the heads up Zip,

The interesting thing on that front is that it really shows that Delay left to save money for his legal fees. How I understand it is that a sitting politician can take all the money he/she has raised for a campaign and use it to pay legal fees IF they decide not to run.

That would kind of tick me off if I gave money to joe smoe and he went and used it to pay some chump lawyer. But I guess that is what you get when you donate to a crook.

I think that if Liebermann loses by 15-20 points that he doesn't run as an independent.

Posted by: Andy R | August 8, 2006 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Where is the article on Barack Obama?????

Posted by: Carol Crooks | August 8, 2006 4:14 PM | Report abuse

hamster

I was not suggesting that the 27,000 people who crossed over to vote Dem would vote for Lieberman, but that it would be a factor today.

My assertion was that undecideds at this late stage would stay with what they know. At 4% undecided, that could mean as many as 8,000 votes.

It is all supposition and speculation and we will know one way or the other in a few short hours.

My gut tells me that Lieberman will hang on. I am obviously not on the ground in CT and I have no preference one way or the other becuase the seat will likely stay D (unless Lieberman runs as an Indy). If I am wrong, then I will not hesitate to take my lumps regarding my attempts at prognostication.

Posted by: RMill | August 8, 2006 4:08 PM | Report abuse

F&B, good post. I'm merely pessimistic to the actual practice of it. The effects it would have on our economy. The children under 12 thing, that sounds like a good one to start with, I like that. But EVERYone under the poverty line? How is that not just a handout? Whats capitalistic about giving away free healthcare to poor people? Remember, we're not Canada, we have a huuuge population issue. Though, their emergency rooms are always overwhelmed.

I just think, I'd be pissed working a crappy factory job just to get healthcare, only to find that I could have just quit my job and gotten it for free, possibly allowing me to work on my own terms. Or even worse, I die in the hospital because they were overwhelmed. Payment by only those who can afford it? I mean, the problem is that its been made unaffordable by pharmaceutical industry. Why should tax payers pick up the tab just to let the pharmaceutical company keep raping us? and why should Americans cover the asses of the lazy masses just because they made some money? Why punish the working middle class, making them pay for the poor? These people are breaking their backs daily, only to get laid off, and now we're supposed to make them providers for our poor? We just need meds to be affordable, then our system will make sense again.

If you're taking all of those billions and putting it somewhere, don't put it into UHC. Nothing about that is an investment, an investment would be something like education, the research and many public works projects needed to help our dying environment, I would want to encourage ways for our children to not grow up and be poor and lazy. To opt to get the problems at the root, not just cover it up with free doctor visits.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2006 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Anon, how about Universal Health Care for all children under 12 and all people below poverty line? I think VT has something like that. Either way you look at it, though, are you really that pessimistic about UHC when our government is giving BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars to just the Oil and Gas industry ALONE despite shattering profit records each and every quarter (and the price of oil is NOT going down). I just dont believe your pessimism. If there is a will in the populace (man on the moon... energy independence, UHC, whatever it is), there IS a way.

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 3:22 PM | Report abuse

For another perspective on stolen elections, as well as other political issues, read Greg Palast's book, "Armed Madhouse".

Posted by: Ellen | August 8, 2006 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I also changed my affiliation from Indy to Democrat after 2004 and I was indy for 6 years. I had enough of the party not standing for anything and not offering alternative plans. It's not enough to complain with the deadly mistakes being made by complacency.

Make that 3 people you know....

Posted by: Mike | August 8, 2006 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I'll go with Anon, cuz i forgot to put a name in last time.

OK goodbomb, I'm glad YOU get it...I mean thats exactly what I said, they're both bad, and it reminds me of 2004 presidential election. And I DID NOT vote Bush then. Hell naw! But, this time around, we don't even have a Kerry, who had brains and a bit of a history, we just have little old Lamont! What the hell has he done?!

Connecticut is by far the greatest state in the union, due mostly, as a previous post said, to its intelligence and how non-west coast it is. I just don't feel right, throwing the Senate to someone who hasn't proven ANYTHING to me. Lamont seems to be another all-talk liberal, who is in it for the vanity of it. Its a fact he just wants to be known as "the guy who took a stand!" I haven't forgotten what Lieberman has done for me personally, and he DOES fight for democratic causes (pro-choice, human rights). goodbomb, thank you again, for a good post.

To be honest, I am one of the few that was AGAINST the war when we went in. Because I knew then, what we've figured out now. I didn't 'come around' with my opinion. Circumstances have just changed to where my original wish is not possible, I could write a book called "I told you so" but then I'm afraid I'd have to shoot myself. The reality of it leaves the option of pulling out right away impossible.

A buddy of mine just went in two weeks ago, first time, real young guy (21) and right when he got there, we had that hell weekend (last last weekend.) So, most soldiers get some time to adjust, he didn't. Nothing him or anyone else can say about the war is hopeful. The truth is, there is no good reason to stay in Iraq, but its far too hostile to leave to the Iraqis. The war is hell. Its expensive, its killing and wounding our soldiers and as far as getting oil, you could say its a useless piece of land. A land that should have just been left to Saddam and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. I wasn't worried about his WMDs. Not at all. But, we 'took out' Saddam and we 'took over' Iraq. Who the hell are we going to leave it to? The Iraqi police? They're not ready yet, who knows when they will be. I certainly don't have high hopes for ANYwhere in the middle east. But, I don't think its in anyone's best interest to leave it designated as yet another terrorist's safe haven. I said I was a democrat, and I mean it, yes that does mean I want to see us moving out of there. And doing so significantly! I didn't make that clear before. If you wanna see something other than news footage...often, videos from both the US Army and ones sent in by their enemies can be found at Ogrish.com
.Bad stuff tho, not for weak-stomachs.

You talk of Universal Healthcare. What a dream that is, for me, and millions others. Well at the moment, I don't have ANY healthcare at ANY capacity whatsoever, I just try and not get sick! But, I think I'm qualified to answer with an unbiased realistic opinion. It can't work in this country, we're way too messed up, vain, materialistic, capitalistic. Too divided. We're not Canada. We have plenty of sick and poor citizens, and outrageously rich ones. Here, let me be devil's advocate, here's a scenario- Dirt poor homeless people with no bearing on anyone else's well-being are flooding our hospitals and those who could very well afford healthcare and who are productive citizens don't get in to see a doctor and die waiting... all because some crackhead is "sick man, oh man im so siiiick, help me doctaah" ...If you aren't preferred treatment based on your income (and having a job!) then we really have to make a huge change in our society. I think its sad, and I really wish things were different. After I have just likened Universal Healthcare to communism, I think I've done enough damage for now. I'm off to go vote Leiberman and do more!!;) Sorry in advance for future misunderstandings, thats how it works with this internet thing. :D

Posted by: Anon from before | August 8, 2006 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Rufus

The Repub may end up being appointed Ambassador to Cuba...or Deputy to the UN ambassador for middleast public relations.

My freinds there are saying landslide in CT.

Anyway, it seems to be starting to look like that guy in 'Network'- People are mad as hell and are not taking it anymore.

Should be an interesting November. Revenge of the John and Mary Lunchboxes around the country.

Hey AndyR- 20 minutes ago or so, Delay says he ain't running so his machine can run a write in candidate.

Posted by: zippy | August 8, 2006 3:14 PM | Report abuse

FH, cmon buddy you're so close to seeing the light.

>>>I will say that I see no problem with a Republican having contacts with the business.

Republicans own EVERY voting machine company. Its not a matter of contacts.

And they vehemently RESIST both Paper Trails and Govt Oversight. Diebold pulled out of North Carolina b/c the state wanted to place Diebold source code on escrow.

https://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_12.php
(scroll down to Dec 23, 2005)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10252248/

This week's Diebold madness:

Diebold now faces formal SEC accounting probe (the URL is really long, just google the headline.

Cmon FH, these guys are crooked as can be, and unfortunately for everyone, deeply tied to the Republican Party. Google Diebold and Blackwell... And we're supposedly a democracy. Please.

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 3:09 PM | Report abuse

To clear up the questions -- you must be a registered democrat to vote in this election here in Connecticut - those registered as "independents" could change their registration up until noon, yesterday - which I did at about 11 AM so I could vote for Lamont. Which I did at about noon today. If signs are any indication, Lamont will win by a landslide; there are far more yard signs for Lamont than there are for Lieberman (Westport, Norwalk, Wilton, and Weston areas - which is the 4th district - Fairfield County, CT. -- A side note to the Republican hoping Lamont wins -- the Republican candidate for Senator was thrown out of a casino here in CT for cheating at cards... he was gambling under an assumed name. Maybe he'll end-up working for Homeland Security - or FEMA - when he loses.

Posted by: Rufus | August 8, 2006 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Lamont today; I hated to turn my back on Lieberman since he should be vice-pres right now, but it just became so apparent that he's not running for CT and only for himself. He got to close to the powermongering Rep party.

Lamont was a one trick pony at the start but after he was able to speak on other issues the choice was clear. He will make a stand as a junior senator even if he isn't able to get as many pork projects for our state. Job security from Lieberman my ass....we're dead last in job growth. Some of the brightest people in the country and outpaced by buffoons in Kansas??? Time for a change.

Posted by: mike | August 8, 2006 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I only know two people who switched their affiliations from I to D, but they both did it so they could cast their vote for Lamont. RMill, I think your logic is flawed. People aren't motivated to change their voter registration to keep things the same, they do it because they are motivated to change.

I live in CT, and I voted for Ned Lamont this morning. Lieberman has taken his constituents for granted. I write to all my elected officials, and Lieberman is the only one who *always* sends a form letter that basically says "Thanks for supporting Joe!" There is never any indication that anyone on his staff even read what I wrote.

I'm no radical, I'm a married, church-going mother of two. I can't help but think that the reason some of the above posters are so angry about Democrats like me supporting Lamont is because they prefer our Congressional Democrats to be the submissive kind. If you don't like partisan rancor, I suggest that you Republicans start electing some different candidates. You guys started the fight, and for too long, Democrats like Lieberman have refused to stand up against you.

No longer.

Posted by: hamster | August 8, 2006 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Vienna Local, like the reality we control all three branches of government. We always win because we are winners, you always lose because you are losers. Somewhat simplistic but accurate.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 8, 2006 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Andy.

I thought that he no longer lived in District which would disqualify him statutorily.

I still see him getting the majority vote.

Posted by: zippy | August 8, 2006 2:42 PM | Report abuse

from Reuters-

Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz said she expects about 200,000 voters, including about 27,000 newly registered Democrats who can cast ballots in the Senate primary.

Independents and unaffiliated voters had until midday Monday to register as Democrats to vote in the Senate primary.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060808/pl_nm/connecticut_dc_4

This is definately a factor. Since the African American vote accounts for 10% (20,000 votes in todays primary) than 27,000 voters applying as newly minted Dems from the independent and unaffiliated rolls will be even greater.

Also, regarding the last minute decision makers breaking for Lamont. I would say that at this point, undecideds are likely to stick with "the devil they know".

Since such a large percentage of voters expressed their vote for Lamont is really a vote against inst Lieberman (54% according to Quinnipiac), than anyone one who still has doubts will likely not change horses in midstream.

Posted by: RMill | August 8, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Zippy,
Delay isn't disqualified. Basically the ruling said that the GOP couldn't disqualify him and then replace him on the ballot. So now it is back to Delay vs Lampson, like nothing ever happened. Except Lampson has been campaigning this whole time.

Posted by: Andy R | August 8, 2006 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I wonder whether bhoomes is just your standard no-life troller, or some automated spam generator.

BTW--CT-SEN isn't going to go GOP in November, or haven't you been following the gambling travails of the Repub candidate, bhoomes? Then again, why would you let anything like reality get in the way of your little turds.

Posted by: vienna local | August 8, 2006 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Colin: Re ur past couple comments are right on. For past few minutes I've been watching charges --- countercharges --- about blogs, seems Joe is pulling every stunt he can to discret Lamont's campaign. So who is really to blame, fake blogs ?. Could it be the accuser is really the perp ? As happens so often ??.

Posted by: lylepink | August 8, 2006 2:31 PM | Report abuse

FH, I want the exact same thing from the Democrats too. Albeit I don't want Newt invovled in any way shape or form. And I think you are starting to see that. The democrats are rallying around the Troop pullout, and Lamont's campaign is a microcosim of that. Take that with Gore's push on Global warming and energy independence, pro-stem cell technology (which will win the Missouri senate seat alone), and minimum wage increase and you got yourself a platform. Those are four things that the democrats should ride into the mid-term elections.
The democratic thinkers have used the opposition (and culture of corruption) label to get folks like us excited for the past year or so. Now they will turn to spreading that platform mentioned above to bring in the middle of the road voters. I would look for a big push of "issue" ads around the country from the DNC and others.

Posted by: Andy R | August 8, 2006 2:31 PM | Report abuse

This is off topic. But what else is new on the Fix.

Question- The Supremes rule Delay's name stays on the Sugarland District ballot as the republican cadidate. I fully expect that his district will vote in a majority for him even though he is ineligible.

Does this mean whoever the Democrat wins by default? Or am I missing something here? Or is there some ancient rule of the Ol' West that will save this seat from turning Blue?

Posted by: zippy | August 8, 2006 2:26 PM | Report abuse

FH-- I wish all republicans were more like you..you seem reasonable. Although the idea that the media is a 'watchdog' is a joke.. [read Helen Thomas on this, or James Wolcott, or new book 'Lapdogs'--] the media has become simply a bunch of celebrity huggers and DC cocktail circuit hangers-on.

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"If I honestly believed that my candidate lost because of dishonesty in the voting machines.... I would be in the streets or in jail right now!!!"

FH, We are after all still a nation of laws, no matter how currently feebly enforced. The problem has been the death grip the GOP has on all three branches of government, upholding these laws has been stymied. Street protests would fall on deaf, Rove-agenda-driven ears.

The best way to reverse the disasterous course the Bush administration has forced upon the country is to toss them out of office. The Connecticut primary is a test of that resolve.

If Lamont prevails, no GOP globalist neocon Bush supporter, or their enablers, are safe in November.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 8, 2006 2:20 PM | Report abuse

F & B: I honestly don't know. I will say that I see no problem with a Republican having contacts with the business. I mean, either the technology works or it does not work. You can't possibly remove all political affiliation from elections...everyone is political in one way or another. We kind of rely on our media to be the eyes of the public with regard to making sure our elections are on the level. They are the watchdog.

As for dems...I want to see a "Newt" moment from them. A contract of sorts...this is what we as a party stand for. All politicians are individuals who stand for things related to their state, but as a party it would be nice to see a platform. I take these next elections more seriously than at any moment in my life due to the many forks in the road that can be taken at this moment in our history. Bush has angered me as a voter in regards to; deficits, diplomacy (or lack thereof), energy independence (or lack thereof). If there was ever a time for forthrightness, its now.

Posted by: FH | August 8, 2006 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Colin -- agreed there should be a paper trail. But beyond that, there should be independent certifiers of the machines, which the republlican owners fight, because they say it's 'proprietary technology' -- a fishy and obscurationist tack.

How can Democrats win enough votes if the vote is 'rigged'?

I read the RS piece too, but I think there's enough question about it that one of the first pieces of legislation a democrat-controlled congress should pass is tough oversight of voting machines of elections. Right now we've got less oversight than most banana republics, which we resemble more every day.

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Drindl -- Agree to disagree I guess. Salon had an interesting analysis of Kennedy's Rolling Stones piece, that I thought was pretty conclusive in establishing that OH was not stolen. Plus, I just find it hard to believe that any kind of systematic electronic voter fraud could occur without the conspiracy eventually breaking. Regardless, I guess my answer to all these issues is simply that: (1) Democrats should simply win enough votes to make fraud a moot issue; and (2) There should be a paper trail for EVERY electronic voting machine, to ensure that mistakes of all kinds (intentional or otherwise) can be addressed.

Just my two cents...

Posted by: Colin | August 8, 2006 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"We don't really even know anymore what our own government will do to us if we becme a nuisance to them."

If machines were actually rigged, then I'd say that'd be a good reason to protest. Otherwise... Good riddance. I'll support them in any endeavour to rid this country of its rampant 'over-protesting'

I'm glad I live in Connecticut, very agreeable place to live, people hardly ever protest anything here; and thats because we have the highest avg. IQ of any state in the union and we're not on the Liberal Waste Coast. Far out man, far out.

Posted by: joe | August 8, 2006 2:02 PM | Report abuse

nameless poster:

Lamont isn't just against Iraq, he's against Bush. Freakin-ay Its so unfashionable to support someone just because he's against Bush but I do. He seems to understanding the glaring faults in the Bush government and he declares himself strongly opposed. As said, I think that's what democrats want from thier leaders.

Agressive war is wrong damn it. Staying in Iraq isn't making Iraq better.

nameless poster, please tell me what I don't understand about the war. what's this 'reality?' you don't really talk about anything in your post, you just bash 'liberals' and talk about how Ned Lamont's eyes preclude him from being Senator material.

bah, what a joke. politicians are all scumbags, they're BOTH scumbags, but at least one scumbag is against Bush. I know know, I'm the problem. bah.

Posted by: goodbomb | August 8, 2006 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Nice post by Mr/Ms. Anonymous, who I can only assume is pretending to be a Democrat. Seriously, what is with making crazed attacks against "liberals" without substantiating or explaining any of your remarks?

FYI - There's plenty of room for actual principled disagreement regarding Iraq in the Democratic Party. So if you are a Democrat (which I doubt), you might want to actually pay attention to why people are dissatisfied with Senator Lieberman. Quite simply, the guy is out of touch with ALL his constituents. Connecticut is an overwhelmingly pro-choice state. He refused to support a filibuster against Alito. Connecticut is virulently against the war. Joe not only supports the war, he ATTACKS DEMOCRATS who have challenged Bush on the issue and argues they're unpatriotic. Similarly, he's provided cover for the current administration on issues ranging from birth control, to SS privatization, to the whole Terry Schiavo debacle.

Honestly, if that laundry list of issues doesn't strike you as a legitimate basis for being angry with Lieberman, I'm not sure why you do identify as a Democrat. I respect the folks who are sticking by Joe despite these issues, as obviously everyone has to make their own decision about who does or doesn't represent their values. But I think it is simply ridiculous to argue that only the "loony left" could think challenging Lieberman is legitimate. Ultimately, I'm betting a majority of Connecticut Democrats will prove that that couldn't be further from the truth.

Posted by: Colin | August 8, 2006 1:58 PM | Report abuse

>>>Who the hell couldn't see that Ned Lamont isn't Senator material just by looking at him?!

Thanks bhoomes. I mean anonymous. Your rant is totally irrational. The choice in this election is between Lieberman (who thinks the Iraq War is going well) or Lamont (who wants to remove our troops from a Civil War and grant universal health care in the richest country in the world)... It is NOT some fictitious radical versus a perfect Democrat. Pay attention.

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and about the GOP stealing elections. I just wanted to add that (1) I think the kind of systematic "purging" of the voter roles in OH in '04 and Missouri recently definitely is politically motivated and ethically questionable, but NOT illegal; and 2) That electronic voting machines should ALWAYS have paper trails, not b/c I think anyone is INTENTIONALLY conspiring about anything but b/c the technology is clearly not full proof and recounts should be possible.

Posted by: Colin | August 8, 2006 1:51 PM | Report abuse

'your liberal 'midas touch'

--lieberman supporter or republican troll?

and Colin, I usually respect what you write, but you don't think anyone is intentionally tampering with votes? Just why do you think republicans made sure they own all the machines?

C'mon, don't be naive.

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Reading these comments really proves to me how we are all in big trouble. I know the internet is a very, very, different place than the real world. Just what is wrong with you people? I'm a democrat, and you far-left liberals are killing me.

The fact that you let your blind support for anyone not supporting the Iraq war lead you to believe that Ned Lamont in anyway could be a Senator, is really typical I guess. You let promises of 'anti-war candy' cloud your judgement.

Who the hell couldn't see that Ned Lamont isn't Senator material just by looking at him?! Through his mannerisms, and robot-like eyes he will surely get the Democrats, and Connecticut, absolutely nowhere. But, I bet most of you don't need him saying anything other than "I am against the war in Iraq" to believe that he must have 'the rest' right.

I really can't blame him tho, he wants to play Senator for a little while, and there was a unique opening for him. He jumped in to 'promise the liberals a new dreamworld.'

Just a lowly cable executive of below average intelligence and the liberals treat him like... a liberator.

Some have compared this race to the 'giant douche v. turd sandwich' presidential election of 2004. In that analogy, Lamont would remind me of a pathetic version of John Kerry, one that has never done anything with his life and feels its really time to shovel more crap into the Senate.

As for Iraq, there aren't enough Liberals over there. But the ones who are, and make it back, they're the only liberals I care to listen to about it. You blog-o-sphere 'war gurus' are just too far off from reality. Don't think I am pro-war, I'm not. I just have this hesitation about leaving the country of Iraq at the merciless hands of the now-more-than-ever explosive 'Allah.'

Liberals- Go too big, fall way short, and try again.
Democrats- Rational, progressive thinking.
Please, don't fuse the two together, they really don't belong, I never asked for your liberal 'midas touch'

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2006 1:50 PM | Report abuse

'.if I honestly believed that my candidate lost because of dishonesty in the voting machines...I would be in the streets or in jail right now!!!'

You know, you're right. I have often wondered why I didn't go out and arrange a protest or have myself arrested after the last election. I guess because I am a mother and feared for my children. We don't really even know anymore what our own government will do to us if we becme a nuisance to them.

For too long after 9/11, very few dared to challenge them. But I hope that is changing. I will tell you one thing though -- if Lamont loses due to voting machine 'irregularities -- THIS TIME, I will be out in the streets -- and I hope some of you will join me.

And you do know, don't you, FH, that every electronic voting machine in this country is owned by a Republican?

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Fair enough "Appalled". Your points are reasoned and I now understand you a little bit better. But you totally wrong about republicans hating liberals. Politics is a rough sport and just about everyone involved will be occasionally bruised. I know if the 2000 election had gone Gore's way, I would have been probably just as upset as most of the dems. But life would be extremely boring if we all thought the same. Each party does contribute to the national good even though we get caught up in calling each other names.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 8, 2006 1:44 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes -- I find it interesting that you seemingly alternate behind criticizing Democrats for not being sufficiently united behind a concrete agenda (fair criticism in the past, but not today)and criticizing them for, in fact, challenging a Senator who has refused to buy into the agenda that they've united behind.

As FH noted above, Democrats have failed to adequately stand up for their core beliefs in the past and have paid a heavy electoral price for that inaction. Challenging Joe Lieberman is a sign that that may be changing, and I for one think that the GOP should be concerned about such a change. When it comes right down to it, more people in this country agree with Democrats on individual policy issues. If the day has arrived where the party is ready to stand by those policy views (and campaign aggressively even the face of Republican attacks), then I honestly don't think the GOP has much of a chance in November.

Posted by: Colin | August 8, 2006 1:43 PM | Report abuse

FH, you are on the more rational side of the Right. So tell me. Do you honestly think that Diebold and the Republican party have no affiliation with each other?

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Don't Bhoomes et al strike you as probably just being professional trolls? Republicans are civil? Bush cynically lied to all Americans. The real deep-down conservative justification for this is that a) people are stupid and need to have thier decision made for them by the elite and b) they prefer to be lied to and get the good effects of war then be told the truth and have to live with a weak America. I'm not saying Democrats are better, but this is anything but a civil, respectful attitude. (although yes, i realize those are MY words, not Bush's, obviously Bush can never be quoted talking like that)

Also, yeah, why can't elections be about politics. Why can't politics be about politics. Ultimately it doesn't matter who's 'civil' because even being civil is a political ploy to later say "WE'RE civil, THEY aren't." Democrats guilty first, now republicans too.

Respect to D. Martin.

The neo-con plan isn't working. The right-wing approach of all-military foreign policy is bad in theory and now everyone can see its bad in practice. Voting about it is about the most constructive thing anyone can do.

Posted by: goodbomb | August 8, 2006 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with one point, Drindl. The Democrats are not victims of the Republicans. Democrats have been unsuccessful in countering the Right-wing publicity machine, but are not the victims. They have had every opportunity to counter it but have failed. Thus Ned Lamont.

The REAL victims are the Constitution, people who have to deal with difficult socioeconomic issues like abortion, homosexuality, poverty, race. And of course, the countless citizens of the world who have been effected by GOP policies, or worse, found themselves in the line of fire.

But as you noted, it is clear that an underlying stream of thought in their ideology is the strong father figure. It is absolutely unbelievable to me that the Republican constituents CANNOT see that a strong father-figure leader is a vastly inferior leader in a democratic society than a fair and THINKING leader who is able to weigh the pros and cons of a situation and make a determination based on measured fact and not ideological assumption.

Well, Drindl, regardless of whether or not that ideology will stand the test of time, it is clearly our turn to clean up the godawful mess that the GOP has created of the world..... AGAIN!!!

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 1:32 PM | Report abuse

FH,

I believe my point in that post and that line was that Dems have failed to effectively counter the Repugs and their tactics. We can debate whether those tactics are right or wrong, but it can't be debated that the Dems have been too timid in opposing these tactics and Lieberman is one of the best examples (see 2000 VP debate). That post was in response to bhoomes preposterous claim that R's are always civil in political discourse. So I don't blame Republicans for D's losing, I blame wussy Dems like Lieberman and his DLC cohorts who don't stand up to people like Atwater, Rove, Reed, Mehlman, etc. Now if you come back and say that the R's are civil in political discourse, I will strongly disagree with that point.

Posted by: Appalled | August 8, 2006 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans have exploited the hate-mongering ways of human slime like Lee Atwater to attack (almost always in dishonest ways) their opponents and find a way to victory"

What do you mean...what do I mean? I thought my comment was crystal clear. Or perhaps I should have said some of these comments, although this is a pattern I have seen often on this site...blaming Republicans for Democratic woes. Or, they cheated. I'll say it again...if I honestly believed that my candidate lost because of dishonesty in the voting machines...I would be in the streets or in jail right now!!!

It's very clear. Democrats of late have been too afraid of issues and don't stand up for what they believe in. They simply blame Republicans for their lack of ideas and amorphous positions.

Posted by: FH | August 8, 2006 1:23 PM | Report abuse

F&B, I would say that the Dems are 'victims' of a republican assault on democracy itself-- and a savage attack machine. We should have taken the gloves off long ago, and understood that we were dealing with a monster, a movement to seize power and hold it at all costs, not just in the US, but around the world, a movement not unlike fascism and communism.

But I think you're right --- there seems to be, among a large percentage of the weak-minded and cowardly in every country, in every age-- a longing for a dictator, a daddy figure, to tell them what to think and do.

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I have an idea for bhoomes, let's send 'Coultergiest'Rove Vader, Rummy, Rice, Bush, Snow et al with Cheney, hunting! We will give Cheney a big gun, and lots of refreshments and let the others point out the targets. If Cheney's aim is good and he doesn't shoot anyone then Bhoomes can tell everyone to "F" off like Cheney did. If he isn't so good however, then on the next hunt Bhoomes must go! I simply cannot believe some of the diehards when describing their 'MORAL MAJORITY FAVORITES'!!! THANKS Sue F

Posted by: Sue Filutze | August 8, 2006 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, cmon, you know exactly what he's talking about. It's part of the whole fabricated Neocon ideology that Liberals are soft on security, for appeasement, godless, witless, ivory tower numbskulls who know nothing of the common man and are victims of the cruel cruel Republicans.

How else would their ideology make sense to them were it not for these totally fabricated straw men? They need a "strong leader" to tell them what to do, or they really are hopelessly lost. Sad aint it? I simply cannot comprehend what life must be like without the ability to think for myself. Again, it is just sad imho. I don't mean to pick on you FH, but that was probably the lamest post you've ever made on here.

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Cut that "Finally, bhoomes" don't know how that got in there

Posted by: Appalled | August 8, 2006 1:01 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes,

My distaste for Senator Lieberman is a long and detailed laundry list that begins with the time period I really started to dislike Washington politicians. That would be late April 1999, when Lieberman and others of his ilk (both R and D) sought to blame the Columbine massacre on Marilyn Manson and other similar types of music. This is the type of intellectual laziness that permeates Lieberman's (and many of his Washington colleagues) mind.

My distaste for Lieberman continued to grow with his sanctimonious rebuke of Clinton on the Senate floor. There were plenty of R's to continue this bashing, but Lieberman showed his true colors that day and laid his claim as the best cover for right-wing R's. I'm still waiting for his speech on the Senate floor to blast all the lies of GWB that have resulted in far worse ramifications than Bill's Oval Office BJ.

When he was chosen as Gore's VP, I was incensed and for a short time and decided to cast my lot with Nader. However, I had seen the tactics of GW and his minions in the SC primary and knew what would happen to our country if he were to be elected, so I swallowed my pride and voted for the G/L ticket. I have proven to be correct in spades on that belief. Lieberman proved to be a drag on the ticket and he showed his true commitment to the cause by not dropping his race for Senate at that time.

Joe Lieberman has been most destructive in the past 4 years as the cheerleader in chief for the President and his failed policies. When he told me and the rest of the country that criticizing the President would tarnish the image of our country he became forever a lost cause. His years of cozying up to Hannity, Bush and the other Republicans does more damage to liberals in this country than those Republicans could do by themselves.

I do not hate the President or any Republican for that matter. But they have proven time and time again that they hate me. Their campaigns and their message has come loud and clear, if you oppose us in any way, we will destroy you. It's time for Dems to realize that they won't win against these people by playing nice. The gloves must come off and we must oppose all of their tactics. Getting Lieberman out of the way is the first step to taking a strong stand and letting the country know that there is a strong alternative.

bhoomes, I suggest that you admit that Lieberman is more valuable to Republicans than he is to Dems and that a Lamont win would be devastating to the Republicans b/c it would deprive you of your bipartisan cover. I mean, how can anyone bought and paid for by William F. Buckley really be considered a Dem anyway?

Finally, bhoomes

Posted by: Appalled | August 8, 2006 12:57 PM | Report abuse

FH -- I don't really understand what you mean. What are you talking about?

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 12:56 PM | Report abuse

This vote may send Washington a message of accountability for the Iraq war.

It is a civil war and with a little history lesson on the culture, you would see it coming.

The war in Iraq and Lebanon has played right into the Iranian plan to unite the Muslim world against us and Israel. Iran won the war in Iraq.

The Iranian plan is working, the failed neocon plan is not. It has made the situation worse for future generations here and especially Israel to fight terrorism.

General Pace said you have to love your children more than you hate the enemy. Clerics, preachers, ministers, etc... should be promoting this idea instead of promoting violence.

As far as career politicians like Joe, term limits are the solution.

Posted by: getalife | August 8, 2006 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I love the fact that most of these comments puts all the impetus of the dem. downfall in recent years on Republican windbags, all the while placing democrats in the "victim" role. How liberal of you.

Posted by: FH | August 8, 2006 12:40 PM | Report abuse

>>>that comment was not meant for public consumation, it was two men in the heat of personal combat not a speech unlike Reid and Pelsoi.

Wow, where to begin with that statement.

Ah forget it. Total waste of time and energy.

Thanks for the laugh tho, but not for the image of two old men consumating on the floor. ouch.

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Dan Balz ever leaves the DC bubble? He always spouts the most clueless 'conventional wisdom'--

'His [Lieberman's] instincts for collegiality and bipartisanship, once regarded as virtues, are now seen as virtual disqualifications by his critics here and nationally.'

What a load of bollocks. The only people Lieberman is 'collegial' with are rabid republicans.When will the Post stop being a tool of the entrenched DC establishment?

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes:

I don't know what you've been watching or listening too, but the conservative stalking horses have poured vitriol over Democrats and others for generations, turning the word "liberal" from a positive description of humane generousity into some kind of sneering "evidence" that the one so labeled is a weak-minded, weak-souled and pathetically scheming former hippie. That W may not have attacked publically (at least not when he knew the mic was on) is a function of his handlers' control and the wide availablity of other fanatics to slander the left. The mean-spirited character we are experiencing during this eventide of American statemanship began with the win-at-any-cost attitude of out-of-power conservatives decades ago. Many Democrats (and, Mr. Gray, voters not registered with any party) have been dispirited by the left's seeming inability to fight back as viciously.

But to the primary itself: as a former resident of the 4th District, I know Ned Lamont's record. No political newcomer (just newly on the self-referrential national media's screen), he has always done a commendable job of local political engagement. He's spent many hours for many years standing in the morning dark at train stations, introducing himself to commuters, hearing their concerns, asking for their votes.

Lieberman, made electable by Bill Buckley and his crowd of right-wingers to spite moderate Republican Senator Lowell Weicker, has always relied on the money and connections of his conservative masters, and he has grown increasingly distant from the voters. He has carefully paid attention to the powers he thought could keep getting him reelected: labor union bosses, religious leaders and conservatives.

I concur with the comment that it is far more likely that so-called independents are re-registering as Democrats because they've heard someone apparently challenge politics-as-usual, rather than because the same old Joe is running again. And it's certainly not because there's a big groundswell of support in the rest of Connecticut for the Iraq fiasco -- it's the poor and middleclass whose children and spouses, siblings and parents are being killed and crippled every day in this bloody adventure that Lieberman continues to view as a policy choice.

If Lieberman as a prominent incumbant won the primary by 1 or 2 points, it would be viewed as a warning to the Cheney administration. If Lamont wins by the same margin, as seems likely, conservatives will point to a "big comeback" by Lieberman but it will still be a significant statement about the limits of public tolerance for this pointless and dangerous slaughter.

And it will make it even more interesting to see who comes forward as the GOP presidential frontrunner for 2008, and what that person has to say about Iraq.

Posted by: California Nutmegger | August 8, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Take a chill pill "Appalled" you sound extremely strident and angry. I did forget about that comment Cheney directed at Sen Leahy, but that comment was not meant for public consumation, it was two men in the heat of personal combat not a speech unlike Reid and Pelsoi. That Lieberman doesn't share your hate of his fellow americans is why you cannot stand him. It is people of your temperment is why Coulter makes so much money. You give her a ton of material to work with. Recommend you go watch "the ballad of Ricky Bobby" and lighten up a little. It parodies the red states, so you should like it.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 8, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I love this comment -- and expect to see it come true:

"[N]o matter what happens later today, Wednesday will be the worst day of press for the progressive netroots in years. If Lamont loses, we will be branded as ineffectual, irrelevant, extremist, and destructive. If Ned Lamont wins, we will be branded as powerful, relevant, extremist, and destructive."

-- Chris Bowers, MyDD

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 12:18 PM | Report abuse

>>>Who told someone to go **** himself

Not just SOMEONE. Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. On the FLOOR of Congress no less.

Real civil.

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Having read all the previous comments today, I see very little change by the regulars. I dont live in Conn. and had not heard of Lamont 3 months or so ago, now he is saying and doing something about what he and the majority of people think about Iraq, and many other issues. My prediction of Lamont by at least 5 made sometime back, still stands.

Posted by: lylepink | August 8, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

This site has gone weird on my computer. Anyone else having problems. It looks completely different than it did a few minutes ago.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2006 11:58 AM | Report abuse

BH,
Are you kidding. Cheney civil?! Who told someone to go **** himself in the Senate. While GW doesn't stoop to that level, he does directly and indirectly question the patriotism of those who disagree with him. I voted for Lamont b/c Lieberman no longer represents my views. I respect what he has done in the distant pass (i.e. his civil rights record), but what he has done in the more recent past is far more troubling to me. To compare Joe to Zell Miller does Lamont a favor.

I have no clue about the independents who have registered. I do have one friend who went from I to D just to vote for Lamont.

Posted by: CT Dem | August 8, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

In 2002 when it mattered the "smart" democrats, i.e. the ones who used to employ the term "no brainer" regularly in their conversation determined that it would be impossible politically to oppose the Iraq War.

I remember thinking in late 2002 that we would go to Baghdad like a knife through warm butter and then we would have a West Bank of our own. I said that to many folks and they laughed at me.

A friend of mine a 51 year old National Guardsman died in Iraq the victim of a roadside bomb. Why was it it in our interest that he should be there?

My son in law had two brothers at one time in Iraq, now one is off Lebanon diverted, I think, on his way to Iraq to rescue our citizens.

I voted for George Bush in 2000 because he promised "a more humble foreign policy."

Fool me once! I voted for Nader in 2004 and the Right to Life Candidate (Conservative) for the U.S. Senate in New York. I would rather be irrelevant than complicit.

The bombs were not falling in Lebanon for 15 minutes before my congressperson was seen on the floor of the House for the first time in years in support of Israel "defending itself." I guess my representative is worried about a primary because there 's no one in this bluest of blue states who would have a chance against the incumbent Democrat in this or any November.

I have as much contempt for slick Hilly as I did slick Willy! I want to put a D.N.R. on the campaign for their return.

Lieberman if he survives to win the primary will do so just barely. His travails have had one interesting effect: Hilly has now discovered that Rumsfield et al. were wrong in 2002-2003. Wow!

A leading figure in the party of the working man, she and her husband are out in the Hamptons gathering money for their return to the White House.

Will Hill consult Bill on pardons, or perhaps the real problem was that it was Bill consulting Hill's brother on them?

It's no crime to change your mind, but we expect statesmen and statespersons to have foresight as well as hindsight.

Now Israel is bombing the hell out of Lebanese civilians because their government will not engage in a civil war against Hezbollah. They are using bunker busters and precision bombs made in the U.S.A. Is it any wonder that the whole Muslim world thinks that we are archvillains and the Europeans that we are crazy?

The Israeli Prime Minister has so arranged things that a million of his coutrymen are confined to bomb shelters.

This is because two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah. It is as if the R.A.F. began bombing the hell out of Ireland when the IRA blew up Canary Wharf in London.

Remember when Lebanon was described as a success for our policy in the Middle East! I swear it would be laughable if it were not so sad.

Posted by: D. Martin | August 8, 2006 11:47 AM | Report abuse

How many repubs are gonna vote dem in the primary just to support Jomentum? That could decide it.

Posted by: Sarojin | August 8, 2006 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, F&B. Couldn't have said it better myself. Cheney has a real gift for 'civility'.

Sorry to be off-topic, but did anyone else see how the former director of Pakistani intelligence is suggesting the US will attack Iran and Syria in October? Now there's an election strategy for you...

He also suggests that Pakistan should use its nukes [which we american taxpayers paid for] to bomb Israel. It's nice to see how much 'peace' bush has achieved in the middle east...

'RAWALPINDI: The former chief of ISI, Maj. Gen (R) Hameed Gul has "predicted" that America would definitely attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October.
He was talking after attending the Hamdard Majlis Shoora, Tuesday evening. He also condemned the lackluster and weak reaction of Pakistan and Islamic bloc about Israel's attack of Lebanon.'

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 11:46 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes,

So telling a Senator from the other side of the aisle to "Go f*** yourself" passes for civility among Rethugs?? You guys are more morally bankrupt than I even I thought you were and that is saying something. The civility I'm talking about is run wholesale by the White House and there merry band of miscreants. Turd blossom couldn't put his pants on without say-so from Georgie boy. That means the tactics of SC against McCain and the questioning of patriotism of those who disagree comes directly from the mouth of George "snow blower" Bush. Karl Rove, Ralph Reed and Ken Mehlman continue to take their direction directly from the playbook of Atwater. That's his legacy whether he apologized for it or not. That is why right-wing nutjobs like yourself love Lieberman so much. You need him so bad b/c he continues to play into the tactics of the Republican smear merchants by playing nice, not ruffling feathers of his opponent, and even bashing one of his own once in a while and then shrub can use his words for bi-partisan cover. What I hope the result of this race is that Dems will cease to be the Rethug whipping boys. If they are going to hit us, we're going to come back at them ten-fold and stand with our positions, not try and play nice with the monsters on the other side.

Posted by: appalled | August 8, 2006 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Go f*** yourself bhoomes.

Sorry, just trying to be civil like Dick Cheney.

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Dick Cheney 'civil' to democrats? This bhoomes characters always gives me a good laugh. I often wonder if he's really serious, if anyone can be that simple-minded and blind.

Shouldn't speak ill of the dead? How about if they were evil? Lee Atwater was. Lee Atwater was at least partially responsible for changing the republican party from a respectable opposition party into the pack of vicious animals they are today.

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Again this vaunted new poll is within the margin of error of the last poll. So nothing could have changed.

Also let us never forget that Lieberman told rape victims that rather than get help in a Catholic hospital, it would only be a short cab ride to another hospital. He voted against the fillibuster for Alito, held out on social security priviatization under the wind blew into a hurricane, and approved Michael Brown for FEMA without even probing his background.

Also "all" of the Connecticut papers is a lie. Mostly Lieberman got the endorsement of the conservative ones, much like he has the endorsement of Hannity, Coulter, the neo-cons, Bush and the Washington Post.

Posted by: Greg in LA | August 8, 2006 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Appalled, you should be appalled, George Bush and Dick Cheney have always been civil to the democrats while disagreeing with them, I defy you to find a quote of GB using vitrolic or personal language at an opponent. Contrary it is the democrats who have used childish language at Bush" Harry Ried even called him a loser among other things. Pelesoi referred to him as stupid and corrupt. Your thesis just doesn't stand up to the facts. Also Lee Atwater repented for some of things he did before he died. Shouldn't speak ill of the dead. Not nice.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 8, 2006 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I've also read that, according to interviews of republican voters who switched registration to Dem, many switched to vote for Lamont--because they no longer support bush on the war.

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Adam Gray and bhoomes are both way off the mark:

-- There's nothing about Joe Lieberman that's so exciting that he's going to motivate lots of newly minted Democrats to vote for him. I'd venture to say those people are going to break for Lamont by the margin of about 70-30. Lamont is the reason most of those people switched, I guarantee it. There might be a handful of Rethugs switching parties to back Lieberman, but I doubt any more than that.

-- The current Republican, Alan Schlesinger, is polling under 10% last I saw. You could put five Democrats in this race and he wouldn't win.

Posted by: David de la Fuente | August 8, 2006 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes,
This is exactly what the american people want to see. Democrats for too long have been veiwed as weak politicians. They are viewed this way not because they don't support blowing the crap out of terrorists. Its because they never stand up and fight for what they believe in. People don't vote for the candidate that totally agrees with them because that is impossible to find. They vote for the person who will stand up for what He or she beleives in. Look at Russ Feingold's success in a purple state like Wisconsin and that is the blueprint of what the democrats need to do.

Posted by: Andy R | August 8, 2006 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Yes, I would like to ask 'anthony newbill' to please stop posting over and over again, the same crazy, illiterate rant. It's creepy.

What I would like to ask is, does anyone here know what proportion of the voting machines in Connecticut are Diebold or other electronic machines owned by Republican Pioneers, as Diebold is?

Also, who will be counting the votes? In the CA 50 race between Bilbray and Busby, it was discovered that the voting machines were unsecured for 2 weeks before the election, and election workers were allowed to take them home! I believe there is has been lawsuit filed over this.

If Lieberman wins, even after polls showed Lamont ahead, will anyone even pay attention to the voting machine issue?

Will you write about it, Chris? I dare you to tell the truth.

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 11:12 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes,

Ann Coulter does not hold any office, but George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Saxby Chambliss, and good old turd blossom do hold offices. These are the people that are responsible for the uncivility that presently exists in political discourse today. Republicans have exploited the hate-mongering ways of human slime like Lee Atwater to attack (almost always in dishonest ways) their opponents and find a way to victory. Somehow, you claim that Joe has civility and point to the debate to say that Lamont does not. I don't know what debate you were watching, but Lamont cooly dealt with the issues without becoming upset, while Lieberman threw multiple temper tantrums and generally acted like a petulant little child. This being the same Joe Lieberman that did absolutely nothing to Cheney in the VP debate, despite numerous openings to rip Cheney's blatant lies to shreds (I'm not successful b/c of government contracts). Joe's civility is always in the direction of Republicans, who continually slander his supposed friends on the D side. Yet he reserves his harshest criticism for fellow Dems (Lamont, Clinton, anyone who opposes the greatest foreign policy gaffe in US history). That is why he is being challenged and that is why he will lose.

Posted by: appalled | August 8, 2006 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Is Mel Gibson using the name "Anthony Newbill" to comment on this site?

"The Government should be constantly engaged in Pro Exceptance of all ways of life , so Hatered for one over the other ways of life are not used by Tyrants to spin hatered through people to gain support for their ideals to rule useing hatered ."

Mel, put down the tequila and back away from the keyboard.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2006 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I do not believe Joe Lieberman to be a bad man or a traitor. I do believe that he has been wrong in his blind support of Bush policy in Iraq, and I vehemently oppose his attempts to legislate his idea of what is moral, i.e. Terri Schiavo.
I do not live in Connecticut, but i think the "roots" movement is bigger than Connecticut, and I believe that a Ned Lamont victory would as others have noted be a slap in the face for the "business as usual" thinking which has enabled the current unfortunate political landscape. Business as usual so far seems to have led to the restriction of our civil rights, the devastation of our national environment, the underfunding of education, the above-mentioned imposition of conservative "morality" on public policy, and a dramatic loss of both respect and willingness to cooperate from the rest of the world. It may be that the US is too big now, both in terms of population and in terms of diversity, to ever completely agree on anything, and so must put up with the predominance of one or the other school of thought. That said, the current one ain't working, and somebody else needs to get behind the wheel before we go off the road.

Posted by: meuphys | August 8, 2006 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Jaxas, while true,Ann Coulter and Company make a living off bashing liberals, they do not hold any elected position and should not be confused as such, They are just entertainers to be taking with a grain of salt. That is not true of ggod old Joe, he is a very respected and polite individual who is going to lose his seat because of him being on Sean Hannity and Fox TV. I saw clips of Lamont in his debate with Joe, he is not bright, nor does he deport himself in a dignified manner you would expect of a Senator. I don't want to complain to much because you are helping us to show the american public your true colors. They will not like what they see.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 8, 2006 10:52 AM | Report abuse

The "Connecticut Day" newspaper refered to in the article does not exist. Perhaps the author meant "The New London Day."

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2006 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I hope Liberman does not get re elected, however, if the American public is going to make any impact on politicians it's going to be by holding their feet to the fire and every time they are elected, if they stray from what they are suppose to be representing (the best interest of the public) that means all the public not just their big hefty doners and corporations, then they need to be replaced! These people have "lifetime" jobs in their minds and it's so easy to become lazy and complacent about elections, not studying the candiate and just voting for the guy because he's been in there awhile and so I guess he's o.k. This is about War, tax breaks for the rich, subverting the constitution, Katrina, gas prices, healtcare and so much more. Our children, their children and our country deserve representatives that are going to represent ALL OF US, not just a choosen few. I think the Rebuplicans have shown their true colors with their total abuse of their voting debacle on the so called minimum wage bill! They wanted to give the rich that big tax break and if they throw a few crumbs at the poor then well that's just part of doing business. Only, thankfully I believe the american public see's through this crap by now, except those idiots who just want to keep Republicans in power because that's the party their in or the other way around. Get rid of them all! Thanks Sue F

Posted by: Sue Filutze | August 8, 2006 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I think Mr. Gray's prediction that the 11,000 independents who have changed their registration to Democratic to vote today will back Lieberman is off the mark. My guess is they changed because there was finally somebody running for office who is so clearly distinguishable from the other side as to make choosing a party seem worthwhile. (I could be very wrong. I have never understood much about independents. Neither has anyone else, but I admit it.)

What I keep hoping is that someone will lamp to the fact that Iraq is not a single issue. Torture is an issue on its own; Extraordinary Rendition is an issue, even for people who support the unilateral, preemptive invasion of another country as a part of our foreign policy. The same is true for warrantless wiretaps, other forms of domestic surveillance, impugning the patriotism of news organizations that make public information already known to the terrorists around the world. Another separate issue is the President's claim of a broad range of heretofore unknown powers, which though denied him by the Constitution, he asserts because it is "wartime." These include his breathtaking signing statements and his unilateral nullification of the Geneva Accords.

These are separate from disagreements over his conduct of the war, about which even supporters of the war differ. Conduct-of-the-war issues include whether the troop commitment was or is sufficient to the task, whether there was ever a real plan for the Occupation phase of the effort (the phase that has gone so terribly), whether the troops were appropriately outfitted (think body armor) for this war,the impact of the war on our overall military readiness and even the decision to not award Congressional Medals of Honor to those displaying extraordinary courage under fire.

Calling Iraq a single issue, limited to the 2002 vote to authorize military action, is an attempt to dismiss with a quick stroke an entire array of issues, including threats to our Constitution itself.

Posted by: LonestarJR | August 8, 2006 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Will Lieberman be hoisted with his own petard, or, can he have it both ways?.... beating up on a weakened President Clinton with his sanctimonious speech in Congress, and then rushing into Clinton's arms when he needs his clout with voters. I remember the speech, bet others do too.

Or, embracing (literally) Bush and giving a speech chastising the hapless electorate for criticizing Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq, and then his death-bed conversion to the anti-Bush camp. I remember the speech, bet others do too.

By the way GOP conservatives, whatever happened to your push for term limits? Joe would be the perfect candidate so why are you shilling so hard for him.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 8, 2006 10:44 AM | Report abuse

"We undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril." --This quote is the reason why Lieberman will lose. You can't tell Democrats not to use their critical eye when there's a Republican president in the White House, who has major credibility problems.

Posted by: 2 cents | August 8, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

A Lieberman win will embolden Bush and the neo-cons to argue that the country is really behind them,polls be damned. If there was ever an issue to unite democrats, Iraq has to be it. Dems need to really think about this at the voting booth today.

Posted by: crazynky | August 8, 2006 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Other Primary Poll Updates

CO-7
Dem Primary

Survey USA
Aug 7
Lamm 37%
Perlmutter 49%
Rubenstein 8%

Tightening up slightly from Aug 1 (51%-31%-10%)

CT
US Senate
Dem Primary
Research 2000
Aug 4
Lamont 53%
Lieberman* 43%

MI
US Senate
Rep Primary
Survey USA
Aug 7
Bouchard 56%
Butler 33%

About the same as previous margin on July 10 (51%-25%).

Posted by: RMill | August 8, 2006 10:25 AM | Report abuse

I don't know if Lieberman will lose today, but the reason this has become such a tight race is Lieberman's consistent stand in favor of the president on all issues surrounding the war and the mis-handling of the war. To claim we should not criticize the president at this crucial time is blasphemous! To cut off debate as unpatriotic or detrimental to this country is standing the foundings of this country on its head. Now is eespecially the time to ask questinos and seek alternatives to the disastrous policies coming out of this administration.
I believe Democrats in CT, and I hope elsewhere, see this election as a vote for America and against a proposed one party monarchy!

Posted by: Jack | August 8, 2006 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Jack - First of all, I think you're painting with a ridiculously broad brush when you make statements that describe "the netroots" collectively as a bunch of hate mongers. Some folks on Dailykos or other sites ARE little nuts, but that's true of any cross cut of the population. In point of fact, Markos was a Republican until the early 90's and one of the main reasons he was drawn to the Democratic Party was b/c of the fiscal responsibility espoused by Clinton. Doesn't really sound like a "crazy left" kind of guy, does it?

As to your support of Lieberman, I would note that Joe finds himself in this situation NOT b/c he supports the war (we are a big tent, and no other Dems who supported the war are being challenged in a similar fashion); Rather, he's being challenged b/c he has ATTACKED Democrats who favor a change of course in Iraq and thereby given the President "bi-partisan" cover on what is the most important issue of the day. When you add that kind to his more conservative views on issues such as privacy (Terry Schiavo, hospitals refusing to provide birth control), SS privatization (he expressed support in the past), and vouchers I think it's pretty clear that Joe is simply out of touch with his constituents, who are mainstream Democrats. So can we retire this fairy tale about the angry loony left? It's just not accurate.

Posted by: Colin | August 8, 2006 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Just like Zell Miller , Joe Lieberman is starting to realize that his extreme side of the party is spinning out into Never never land , and in order to do what is the Best for his country he is having to drive out of the foggy left side of the road so he can stay focused on the road to fix the problems that were the direct result of Clinton Administration Foreign Policy in the 1990s that sat on their asses and did not stay engaged in Middleastern UN policy to combate the hatered that was allowed to spin out of control . The Government should be constantly engaged in Pro Exceptance of all ways of life , so Hatered for one over the other ways of life are not used by Tyrants to spin hatered through people to gain support for their ideals to rule useing hatered . If Clinton Administrators were doing so good during the 1990s then why did the hatered grow in the Middleast and span the globe to wipe out the west ???????????????

Posted by: Anthony Newbill | August 8, 2006 10:10 AM | Report abuse

I still think Lieberman holds on by a nose. Clinton trumps Jackson and Sharpton. Media loves to hype an underdog before pulling the rug out from under them (i.e. endorsements).

CC you missed an important question. Who can vote in the primary? Can independents come out and cast a Dem ballot?

Sec. 9-431. Eligibility to vote at primary. (a) No person shall be permitted to vote at a primary of a party unless (1) he is on the last-completed enrollment list of such party in the municipality or voting district, as the case may be, or (2) if authorized by the state rules of such party filed pursuant to section 9-374, he is an unaffiliated elector in the municipality or voting district, as the case may be, provided if two or more such parties are holding primaries on the same day in such municipality or voting district, whether for the same offices or different offices, such unaffiliated elector may vote in the primary of only one such party. Such state party rules may authorize unaffiliated electors to vote for some or all offices to be contested at its primaries.

From reading this statute they may be able to- per state party rules.

Is this a factor? Will unaffilated voters come into play on Lieberman's behalf?

CC do you have any further insight on this?

Posted by: RMill | August 8, 2006 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The netroots are like the college vote with money. They make a lot of noise, attract TV cameras and then don't show up. It seems to me that the big thing that they don't get is that when you're outnumbered you lose. It happened in 2004 and it'll happen in 2008.

Posted by: Jacketpotato | August 8, 2006 10:06 AM | Report abuse

The rise of the netroots has triggered a rise of single-issue politics in the Democratic party. We were supposed to be the party that targeted voters who based their decision on a single issue (typically abortion) and showed them the way of a broader, more progressive agenda. The day we, the Democrats, ignore all that Joe Lieberman has done for the people of Connecticut is the day we give into people like Markos Moulitsas and move to the extreme left. Wasn't Clinton a leader in the Democratic Leadership Council, a moderately liberal body? I seem to remember much of what the DLC gave us through Clinton working out okay. Let's not forget that Joe Lieberman is built of a similar mold. What's important is that the Democrats of Connecticut go to the polls today and focus on the whole range of issues, not just the Iraq War. If they do that, Joe will win with an overwhelming majority. Sadly, hate-mongers like Markos and the other netroots leaders have convinced the voters that their brand of Democratic politics is the best, whereas it is actually a brand of politics that will eventually crush all hopes of a unified, powerful Democratic party.

Posted by: Jack in New Orleans | August 8, 2006 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes, you may be right or wrong about the outcome but your comment that Lieberman is about to lose because he was "civil" to the republicans is laughable.

I say laughable because all of the current republican heroes--Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, William Bennett, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly--have made vast fortunes on peddling the distinctly uncivil and patently false line that liberals are evil and all democrats are liberals. For you--an admitted republican--to snivel away over the decline in civility in our political system is unbelievably cynical given the fact that republicans owe their present majority status to this crass and motely assortment of bile soaked talking heads who dominate talk radio and television.

Posted by: Jaxas | August 8, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Dan Balz writes today that:
"Long one of the Democrats' most prominent hawks, Lieberman has found himself at odds with the rank and file in his party, not only for supporting the war so vigorously but also for refusing to engage in the rhetorical combat of a politically charged moment in history. He has warned fellow Democrats that hyper-partisanship on foreign policy issues damages American interests. In recent days, he has noted that he has given the same warnings to Republicans and emphasized that he has not been a blind supporter of Bush on Iraq."

Let's go through each sentence shall we?

1. Altho he may have refused to engage in rhetorical combat with the GOP, he most certainly had no aversion to engaging in it with members of his own party, to wit,"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years," the senator said. "We undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril."

2. In the second sentence, Balz is referring to Lieberman's above comment when he talks about Joe's warning of 'hyper-partisanship'. No one reading the above quote can possibly interpret it that way...except for Lieberman whose talking point on that quote was duly quoted verbatim by Balz as fact.

3. This sentence, while technically true, fails to point out that there is not one case that a lexis/nexis search can find where Lieberman gave 'the same warnings to Republicans'. And yes he has not been a blind supporter of Bush on Iraq; he did criticize Bush minimally while HE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, which criticism was effectively rescinded after his run failed, when he wholeheartedly endorsed Rumsfeld in 2004 and 2005. And let us not forget his latest Senate speech on the war when he called a Democratic plan for orderly withdrawal, "retreat and defeat".

Perhaps another question to be asked after the election is why the Washington Post felt it necessary to distort facts to aid a Senator who has deserted not only his party, but his constituents as well.


Posted by: dratty | August 8, 2006 9:40 AM | Report abuse

is there a place online where folks far from Connecticut can watch the returns?

THis is a fascinating race and i am morbidly curious how it plays out...

Hey Chris, why not have a contet for Fix readers to guess today's results??

I say lamont wins by a nose...
52% to lieberman's 48.

http://einkleinesblog.blogspot.com/

Posted by: jay lassiter | August 8, 2006 9:38 AM | Report abuse

I think a strong Jewish and African American turnout pushes Lieberman over the top...but just barely.

Posted by: FH | August 8, 2006 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman is fixing to lose his party's nomination for no other reason than being civil to his political opposition. But with two democracts and one republican on Novemebers ballot, us R's standing a good chance of picking up this seat. Like Vietnam, the dems will self destruct over the Iraq issue.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 8, 2006 9:17 AM | Report abuse

There's a sixth factor, which I think may be crucial:

How will the thousands of independent voters who've re-registered as Democrats in recent weeks vote?

It seems to me that the odds are that at least a majority (and I suspect an overwhelming majority) are going to be Lieberman supporters - simply because former independents are hardly likely to be liberal activists (because they'd already be registered Democrats), and if they've taken the trouble to re-register, they're very likely to vote.

If the polls on this race are out, then this is going to be why.

Posted by: Adam Gray | August 8, 2006 9:08 AM | Report abuse

I suspect Lamont's margin of victory will be dissappointing to those of us in the netroots today, but he will win the big prize this November. The key will be how he holds up to the more intense scrutiny he receives after receiving the Democratic nomination.

As for the influence of the netroots I'm reminded of something I recall John Lennon once saying in an interview. Something to the effect of, "the sixties would've happened with or without the Beatles." The American body politic is poised for a correction following a generation of conservate misrule. The progressive blogosphere is a symptom of that but not the cause.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | August 8, 2006 8:55 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company