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

Connecticut: Can Lieberman Move His Numbers?

UPDATE, 1:21 p.m. ET:

White House press secretary Tony Snow provided more grist for the Lieberman rumor mill at his press conference today.

Asked whether President Bush supported Schlesinger, Snow replied: "The president supports the democratic process in the state of Connecticut and wishes them a successful election in November."

Huh?

Not surprisingly, the reporters followed up, wondering why Snow wouldn't commit the president to backing the Republican nominee. "It's not a game, it's not a game," Snow said. "I'll refer you to the political office to give you the full judgements on that. I think you know the situation in Connecticut."

Snow went on to say that "there are some peculiar characteristics going on in the Republican Party with the Republican candidate. And why don't you wait and see what happens?"

All of which makes The Fix wonder whether something more is going on here ...

Thanks to Post reporter -- and Washington Sketcher -- Dana Milbank for pointing us to the transcript.

Original Post from this morning:

Unbowed by calls from Democratic Party leaders to end his independent Senate candidacy, Connecticut's Joe Lieberman (D) is on television with a 60-second ad explaining his decision to remain in the race.

Sen. Joe Lieberman
Sen. Joseph Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, on the campaign trail last week before his loss in the Democratic primary. (Getty)

"I'm staying in this race because I want to keep working for the things that matter to you," Lieberman says at the ad's start, detailing his leadership on national security matters and global warming among other issues.

Then he turns to the Iraq war. "I'm staying because I want to help end the war in Iraq in a way that brings stability to the Mid-East and doesn't leave us even more vulnerable," says Lieberman.

Lieberman's ad, which you can watch right on the homepage of his campaign Web site, represents his first attempt to explain to voters why he remains a candidate despite losing to Ned Lamont in the party primary last Tuesday. The state's voters, the campaign may believe, need a quick reminder that Lieberman is still in the race, since many likely assumed he was out of the Senate following his defeat in the primary.

Can it work?

The Fix skeptical. There's a very good reason that no independent has been elected to the Senate since Harry Byrd Jr. in 1976. The two-party system is entrenched in American politics, and a candidate without the backing of his party typically winds up in a political no-man's land.

Lieberman appears headed in that direction now. The establishment within the Democratic Party is unified behind Lamont -- a solidarity that is likely to convince many Democrats who voted for Lieberman in the primary to switch to Lamont in the general. And it's not clear that Lieberman will be able to convince the majority of Republicans, who represent a minority of voters in Connecticut, to support him over former state Rep. Alan Schlesinger (R).

The lone poll conducted since Lieberman's primary loss was done by Rasmussen, an automated survey research firm -- so take it with a grain of salt. That survey showed Lieberman ahead of Lamont 46 percent to 41 percent; Schlesinger received just 6 percent.

While the Lieberman camp touted these results, let's wait and see what the Quinnipiac poll has to say in the coming days. Our bet is that Lamont and Lieberman will be tied or close to it. The problem for Lieberman is how to rebuild excitement and energy around his campaign. Even though his concession speech was more rah rah than boo hoo, he still has the look of a loser to most Connecticut voters at the moment.

To win in November, Lieberman must reshape that image, and that is going to take a lot of money. Lieberman ended the primary with $2 million in the bank, according to The Hotline's Chuck Todd, but he'll need far more than that to convince voters that he is not George W. Bush's favorite Democrat. Without any support from the party, it's hard to see where Lieberman's money comes from.

Dan Gerstein, a spokesman for Lieberman, said that since the primary not one donor to the campaign has said they won't support the senator in the general election.

While the Lieberman camp insists the senator is in the race to stay, the new TV ad may be an attempt to see whether Lieberman can move his numbers with a pan-partisan message. If the numbers remain stagnant and Lieberman struggles to raise cash over the next month, perhaps he will reconsider his decision.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 14, 2006; 11:14 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Romney Lands a Palmetto Player
Next: Nevada Primary Preview

Comments

joe is self-serving, as are most politicians... ned called him on what voters saw as overdue ... time to change career senators with new, energized personalities, encompassing the american dream of enterpeneurship, speaking out on the issues without being afraid of labelled by neocons. joe is a neocon (conservative would be a misnomer -- neoagenda more like it).

Posted by: go_ ned | August 16, 2006 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Ha! It wouldn't submit my last post because it had too many expletives on how crappy this article is, and how lame the WaPo blogs are in general.

Posted by: ErrinF | August 16, 2006 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Will,

I am just noting what I have read. I am not advocating a vote for Lieberman

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 15, 2006 10:33 PM | Report abuse

I do not agree that it would be "poetic justice" for Lieberman to be Ambassador to Iraq. The justice would be realized if he were to be made a foot soldier there, worrying about being blown to hell for nothing.

Posted by: LonestarJR | August 15, 2006 5:05 PM | Report abuse

JimD.. I think Lieberman needs to reaffirm that he will vote as Democrat to organize the Senate for an entire 6-year term for any Democrat to even consider voting for him. Things will be close in future years and given that he is evolving into the de facto GOP candidate, it is a serious issue.

Posted by: Will | August 15, 2006 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Toby, I have read in press reports going back to before the primary that Lieberman said he would side with the Dems if elected as an independent.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 15, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

So when will Lieberman go on record and say, if he wins the General, which party will he side with for control of the Senate?


Because I think the people of Connecticut deserve to know before voting.

Posted by: Toby | August 15, 2006 1:43 PM | Report abuse

It is good to read the difference in comments from a various array of folks. This is what this country is about. I will continue to get info and pass it on, when it has meaning.

Posted by: lylepink | August 15, 2006 1:23 PM | Report abuse

If, as seems likely now, the plot foiled in the UK is linked to al Queada, then Bush's, and therefore Lieberman's, argument for going to war against the wrong man, Saddam, just grows stronger. Our military did a brilliant job defending us after 9/11 in Afganistan until the very end when bin laden got away apparently. Shifting the new villian of the day to Saddam, Bush's dad's villian a decade earlier, will be much clearer to see as potentially disastrous for bogging us down in the only one of the 3 "Axis Of Evil" countries that not only did not have weapons of mass destruction, but didn't have the capability to develop them in the near future. No surprise that such a huge error made the leaders of N. Korea and Iran to rush to develop nuclear capability taking a page from Mutually Assured Destruction which the U.S. and Soviet Union employed that mercifully got us through what could have made all this discussion moot if either had been able to annihalate the other without consequence. So Joe, go with the idea that Sadman Hussein was the real problem when it was bin laden afterall. duh.

Posted by: CB | August 15, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Wow Drindl....

And more from CNN:

"""""The video clip shows Allen telling the crowd: "Let's give a welcome to Macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

Sidarth was born and raised in Fairfax County."""""

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/15/allen.volunteer.ap/index.html

The most despicable and insulting thing Ive heard since that Fox News talking head called Lamont "the Al Qaeda candidate". Racism has no place in a democratic society.

Posted by: F&B | August 15, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

OK, I tried the "We've Got Issues" link at the top left of this page and it worked...

Apologies to the nerds who make this blog work. You do good work, and the world is watching.

As for Lieberwho, just remember that bumper sticker: "Its the War, Stupid!"

The simple fact is, most Americans are tired of being "the bad guy" to everyone but Israel's war zealots and Arabia's oil princes, and for the most part, we think it is time to replace "The Ugly American" with a more benevolent model...

JEP

Posted by: John Patterson | August 15, 2006 10:55 AM | Report abuse

It is no surprise that Allen used such a racial slur, he is one of the most insensitive, arrogant and condescending dullards in our government.

I remember when he tried to tell Cindy Sheehan that a bigger death-benefit payment might make the loss of her son Casey somehow acceptable.

She told him she would prefer having her son back to Allen and his neocon blood money.

I doubt that Allen's offspring will ever face the same imposed and profane duty Casey was stuck with.

And Allen should refrain from ever using the "macaca" reference again, it just makes him look like a stupid gorilla, and gives one more solid proof of evolution.

Who needs to find a missing link when we have people like Allen in Washington DC?

JEP

Posted by: John Patterson | August 15, 2006 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I can't seem to get back into the comments section of any of the more controversial threads, particularly the recent "Issues" blog that racked up almost 400 posts, which all seem to be lost to the black hole of posterity.

Maybe some of the posts were too controversial, or maybe someone just missed a backslash when they built the link.

Regardless, it is something one might expect from the Smithville Gazette, but not the Washington Post...

JEP

Posted by: John Patterson | August 15, 2006 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Anyone else having troublle getting into the comments section on Chris' new posting? I swear this blog is technically one of the worst I've seen. Can't they afford a decent system administrator?

Anyway, here's a little tidbit for George Allen fans. He's a real jewel...very presidential:

'The WP fronts Sen. George Allen, a likely presidential candidate, razzing--real racistlike--a young, dark-skinned man who was filming the senator on behalf of Allen's opponent. Allen twice referred to the kid--the one nonwhite person in the crowd--as "macaca."

Asked by the Post to clarify, Allen said, "I don't know what it means." Macaca appears to be a French slur against North Africans; it refers to monkeys. Allen, who once had a thing for Confederate flags, is American, of course. But his mother is French Tunisian.

Posted by: Drindl | August 15, 2006 10:04 AM | Report abuse

It is very difficult to track down polling for Congressional races. They are few and far between.

I follow the competitiveness ratings from a couple of sources. This is what they say about the CT Congressional races:

CT 2 Simmons (R)* $1.283 M on hand
CQ Politics- leans Rep
Cook Political- toss up
Sabato Crystal Ball- toss up
Won with 54.2% in 2004

vs. Courtney(D) $988 K on hand

CT 4 Shays (R)* $1.507 M on hand
CQ Politics- no clear favorite
Cook Political- toss up
Sabato Crystal Ball- toss up
Won with 52.4% in 2004

vs. Farrell (D) $1.376 M on hand

CT 5 Johnson (R)* $2.621 M on hand
CQ Politics- leans Rep
Cook Political- leans Rep
Sabato Crystal Ball- leans Rep
Won with 59.8% in 2004

vs. Murphy (D) $1.022 M on hand

In most cases, the Dem challenger is holding steady in fund raising against the incumbants except in the case of CT 5. I would expect this to remain the case. CT 2 and 4 could switch party while CT 5 will likely remain in Rep hands unless national momentum builds for a sea change event like 1994 in reverse.

Posted by: RMill | August 15, 2006 9:58 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes,

I cannot resist posting this excerpt from George Will's column in this morning's Post

"The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented Sept. 11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.""

Of course, it is just a bunch of left-wing, blame America first, whackos who would criticize the administration's prosecution of the war on terror.


Posted by: JimD in Fl | August 15, 2006 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Will, Lieberman has repeatedly said that he will vote to organize the Senate with the Dems. Despite his pro-war stance, he voted with the Dems something like 90% of the time. It will be interesting to see how much real support the national Dems give Lamont, as opposed to lip service. I would guess that if the polls continue to point to a Lieberman victory, the answer would be not much. Of course, they all have to say they are for the primary winner. The real test will be donations, logistical support and campaign appearances.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 15, 2006 8:56 AM | Report abuse

To: Senator Joe Lieberman...Your Party and the Connecticut Electorate has spoken! They imposed Term Limits on your Service!! What is it that you don't understand about Mandatory Retirement?

To: JimD Fl...Excellent analysis on the Iraq Situation. General Eric Shinseki is a true Patriot in my Book...He had the courage of his convictions! He would probably make a great replacement for Mr. Rumsfeld...At least General Shinseki did his homework...He really did understand the phrase "Know Your Enemy" before you engage!

I agree with you that we can ill-afford to just walk away from Iraq at this juncture. However, some alternatives would be well worth exploring, such as a serious effort to use a Coalition of Muslim Forces to replace the U.S. and British Forces in Iraq. Forces from Egypt, Jordan, and other moderate Middle Eastern Countries might have a better chance of moderating the growing sectarian violence. Such a force would go a long way towards taking the Wind out of The Jihadist Sail!

Posted by: M.Stewart | August 15, 2006 7:49 AM | Report abuse

I think one major issue Dems need to raise is whether Joey would continue to vote to organize the Senate as a Democrat if he does win. He seems to be so cozy with Bush and Cheney, spouting all their Big Scare Rhetoric, I am afraid he'd organize as a Republican, which would have severe consequences if things wind up being as close as they are.

If he equivocates on this, no Dem or person who opposes the Bush Plutocracy should vote for him.

Posted by: Will | August 15, 2006 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Have there been any more or less reliable polls on what's going on in the Connecticut Congressional races?

Posted by: Mouse | August 15, 2006 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone else noticed that Lieberman looks and sounds like the guy that used to play the father on the TV series ALF? Same haircut, same droopy eyes, same whiney voice. In fact, I think they're the same person. I couldn't believe Gore picked him as the VP candidate. If he was the first to announce to the country that we had just won World War II, everyone would have thought we just surrendered. Although the numbers say he can win this race, I think in the end he has a depressing image, and a lot of late deciders will go with Lamont's positive image.

Posted by: SadSack | August 15, 2006 6:03 AM | Report abuse

hurricane in dc, your last post was very disappointing.

>>>all that we've gotten over the last six years is "Bush this" and "Bush that."

Ugh, thats such a lame Republican talking point. Dems from all over have spoken loudly about any number of issues, but it doesnt get nearly the same play as sound bites of, say, Howard Dean on Fox News. Again, you seem somewhat rational and yet you spout these neocon talking points. McLaughlin group on Sunday, John asked them all about the Dem wave sweeping the nation, small, medium or big. All said big, I think, even T.Blankley. It would be wise not to ignore what is happening on the ground.

>>>I completely disagree about a Pelosi House being more congenial

What, so she'd be just as bad as The Hammer? Ha. What kind of evidence that the Dems will run an equally as partisan House? Of course, Im sure the R's will be none too happy when we start to investigate the multiple criminal acts of fraud and abuse that have happened in the last 6 years. But, I dont see it being as partisan. DeLay wanted to rewrite the ETHICS rules so that he wouldnt be investigated. Now THAT is partisan. And also crazy....

You reject Pelosi as an extremist when what she is saying, about Big Oil, for example, is TRUE. Face it, DC, it is the EXTREME truth that Dick Cheney met with oil execs behind closed doors to write the energy policy. That energy issue is a total cash cow for the Republican Right and that they are CLEARLY milking it for all it's worth. Record profits. Consecutive quarters. Each big oil company. The oil companies and the Republican party have not allowed there to be significant improvement in CAFE standards. Doubling that over a certain amount of years would lessen the NEED for oil. They wont do it because it doesnt help THEM. It is shortsighted and it is dead wrong.

And why your faith for Lieberman? Your line that your loyalty is to country over party. That is so like the lame line that Cheney and Lieberman used. Implying that b/c Lamont wants a phased withdrawl from Iraq that he is helping Al Quaeda. You dont honestly believe that do you? You think a Civil War in Iraq with 130k American troops in the middle is that much better for our country? That the Iraq War is making us safer?! and that the Dems would be SO incapable of defending this country that they would be essentially "helping the enemy"...? Do you really believe that? Rhetoric like that is just insulting.

>>>peopl who do the right thing

Like who? Lieberman? Bush? Id like to see your list of people "who do the right thing". What about Bernie Sanders. You're supposedly independent, do you like him?

Posted by: F&B | August 15, 2006 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Robby, you're absolutely right about Porter goss and the CIA, Heat of the moment. Too many issues and acronyms to absorb. As far as the personal, well it's politics. It is, after all, our lives that are at stake.

Posted by: Drindl | August 15, 2006 12:53 AM | Report abuse

"Is this the big tent you promised? everyone is welcome - unless you want to defend the country, or stop abortions, or cut taxes, or improve education, or fix social security or, oh forget it."

A Democratic (or Republican) primary voter has the opportunity to look at the candidates and choose their favorite. It is not a repudiation of the "big tent" to say that one candidate (Lamont) is better than another!

Connecticut voters watched the candidates in a hard-fought campaign and chose Ned Lamont -- a fiscal conservative, thoughtful anti-war candidate who supports womens' choice, improvements in education and health care, and protection for the Social Security Trust Fund.

The loser of the campaign, Joe Lieberman, didn't like the results, so he is trying to run as an "independent" in the Joe For Connecticut Party. He does not support the winner of the Democratic primary in his own state; he insults other members of the Democratic party and the Connecticut Democrats who voted for the primary winner.

Ned Lamont won the Democratic primary. Joe Lieberman is whining that he lost and pretending that means something is terribly wrong with the Democrats because they didn't choose him.

Get over it, Joe! If you're a Democrat, you support the winner of your party's primary!

Posted by: MS | August 15, 2006 12:33 AM | Report abuse

"Is this the big tent you promised? everyone is welcome - unless you want to defend the country, or stop abortions, or cut taxes, or improve education, or fix social security or, oh forget it."

A Democratic (or Republican) primary voter has the opportunity to look at the candidates and choose their favorite. It is not a repudiation of the "big tent" to say that one candidate (Lamont) is better than another!

Connecticut voters watched the candidates in a hard-fought campaign and chose Ned Lamont -- a fiscal conservative, thoughtful anti-war candidate who supports womens' choice, improvements in education and health care, and protection for the Social Security Trust Fund.

The loser of the campaign, Joe Lieberman, didn't like the results, so he is trying to run as an "independent" in the Joe For Connecticut Party. He does not support the winner of the Democratic primary in his own state; he insults other members of the Democratic party and the Connecticut Democrats who voted for the primary winner.

Ned Lamont won the Democratic primary. Joe Lieberman is whining that he lost and pretending that means something is terribly wrong with the Democrats because they didn't choose him.

Get over it, Joe! If you're a Democrat, you support the winner of your party's primary!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2006 12:30 AM | Report abuse

There have been a couple of great articles. One was in the NYT's that confirmed what was seen in the lone exit poll, Lieberman still gets 39% of Democratic support (75-80% who supported him the primary)..... Mr. Cillizza pointed out that because the democratic establishment gets behind Lamont that all of a sudden Dem's will switch their vote? That didn't really seem to switch votes in the primary... At the same, the washington post's sister site, had a great article by Tom Curry pointing out that most of Lieberman 's donors will stick with him..... And I gave my first political donation over the weekend..... And Mr. Cillizza I also point out an article by Peter Brown of Quinnipiac University (History v Math)...... yes history is not on Lieberman's side, but if u think GOP's are going to vote for the joke from Derby in droves or even 30%, you got another thing coming. At the same time, plenty of the indepedents who are going to vote for Lamont already did in the primary. Chris Matthews had a great line tonight "I see dead people" in response to the Lieberman ad.... well he might start thinking its a Frankenstein movie because Lieberman might turn out to be the walking dead.....

Posted by: HJE | August 15, 2006 12:08 AM | Report abuse

If Schleisinger(R) stays in the race, Lieberman gets a third of the Dem vote, half of the Ind vote, and four-fifths of the GOP vote. He wins in Nov, 47% to Lamont's 42%.

Posted by: ajp | August 14, 2006 11:51 PM | Report abuse

A reminder for the younger folks interested in how politics really works. LISTEN FOR WHAT THEY DON'T SAY. I learned this back in the early 1950's and it is still true to this day.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2006 9:31 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes

I agree that we cannot leave Iraq in the mess we have made of it. However, I am angry about the whole issue. I am angry about the shameless hyping of intelligence that supported the WMD in Iraq theory and the supression of contradictory evidence. I am angry about the ideological blinders which prevented realistic planning for contingencies in Iraq. I am angry that officials who tried to inject reason into the planning were ignored or ridiculed or both. I am referring to General Eric Shineski who was Army Chief of Staff and predicted that we would need "a couple of hundred thousand troops" to secure Iraq after the invasion. For this disturbing bit of prescience, he was shunted aside by the neo-cons. In fact, the "chicken hawks" questioned his courage, anonymously, to various reporters. I am angry that experts on the Middle East from other agencies were not allowed a role in the planning for the post-invasion situation. That exclusion was due to the neo-con delusion that the 'liberation' of Iraq would be a reprise of Paris 1944. I am angry about the way Bush, Cheney, et. al. continually conflate Al Qaeda with Iraq. Polls showed that a majority of Americans thought Sadaam was behind 9-11. I am angry that we have neglected Afghanistan where the Taliban is rearing its ugly head again. All this is due to the breathtaking incompetence of this administration. Furthermore, they have ignored several critical areas of national security. I take the Katrina response as an indication of the competence of the Homeland Security Departmetn. Far too little of the cargo that comes in through our ports is screened - much more, an order of magnitude more, comes in via sea than via air. I also see that the administration recently tried to divert funding for better screening technology at the airports. When I look at these events and remember Bush criticizing Kerry (and I am no fan of Kerry's) for seeing counter-terrorism as primarily an intelligence and law enforcement task as opposed to a military task, I get angry. Of course, intelligence and law enforcement will be the primary weapons against the terrorists. There will not be that many cases like Afghanistan where the government is so in bed with terrorists. Many of the current crop of foiled terrorists were in Europe. Should we bomb London since there are terrorists on British soil? We will need air and missle strikes and special operations forces to go after specific terrorist targets when we can pinpoint them - usually in failed states. And guess how we will pinpoint them - intelligence. Yes we may need to take military action against rogue states, but I hope we do not try to occupy another Muslim country (that is not the same as saying do not take military action against them). And I hope we will have clear objectives and use overwhelming force when we do have to attack. That used to be our military doctrine until Rumsfeld changed it.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 14, 2006 9:06 PM | Report abuse

F&B: Now U R begining to make sense. Try thinking about the min-wage issue. Yes it did pass one house as expected and failed in the other as expected as well. These so-called achievements are almost without exception linked with the old standby. [poisen pill]. The repugs base almost everything on TAX CUTS, no matter the actual cost to generations far in the future.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2006 9:02 PM | Report abuse

What I said about Dems not getting bills through and what I said about Dems being whiny and without answers are not mutually exclusive concepts. Sure, being in the minority sucks... but again, it's not like they have no voice. Every Sunday, I'm watching the Dems on the same talk shows as the Rs, reading about them day after day in the same papers, watching the same speeches on the Senate and House Floors... There are plenty of opportunities to be heard, yet all that we've gotten over the last six years is "Bush this" and "Bush that." (Fair enough, the guy is incompetent and has done little to prove otherwise; but that has nothing to do with whether I'd support Lieberman or Lamont or whether I'd want to be or vote for a Dem.)

And I completely disagree about a Pelosi House being more congenial. IMO, her rhetoric is as bad as anything from the Right. As I've heard many conservatives say, the best thing that could happen for them for '08 is having Conyers heading Judiciary, Obey heading Appropriations, Rangel heading Ways & Means, etc... They may be right.

I'll go back to what I said about Dems doing nothing but whining (at least from the far left): if they have no solutions other than an immediate pull-out from Iraq, then what will they be doing with a Majority? Sure, the party put out a policy paper several months back, but that took years. And heck, do you even hear the Dem leadership refer to that paper? Never... just "Bush is bad." We're in a huge fiscal hole and the Dems do not have the track record or a plan to deal with it. We're in a potentially catastrophic security situation, domestically and internationally, and if the Dems have a solution (besides throwing money at airports and complaining about port security that they, themselves, don't know how to fund), then I'd love to hear about it. Healthcare? Social Security? Please... they've become experts on doling out critique but have no answers themselves. And the few answers that they offer are either impossible or unacceptable.

Finally, I'm not "hanging in" with the Dems. My loyalty is to my country and not my political party. I'll still vote for or work for Dems if they're among those who do the right thing (again, IMO, Lieberman is one of those)... but from the selection of leadership to the daily rhetoric, it's looking like they're going in the wrong direction.

Posted by: hurricanewarningdc | August 14, 2006 8:49 PM | Report abuse

The verdict seems to be in on whether the GOP will support Lieberman.

I was just listening to the Sean Hannity radio show and he was urging his listeners not to support the Republican candidate in CT in November, but to vote for Lieberman because of his "moral clarity" on the Iraq war.

Any doubt about where Hannity gets his talking points?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 14, 2006 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Correction on Drindl's earlier post: Porter Goss headed the CIA, not the FBI.

Also, I have to say that I haven't been very impressed with the tone of this debate. It's gotten unnecessarily personal at times.

In response to Zouk's question about national issues, it's pretty tough to get into specifics on complex issues in this type of format.

Regarding Iraq, people might find it helpful to read some of the 8/3/06 testimony given by generals Abizaid and Pace before the Senate Armed Services Committee, in which they expressed concern about sectarian violence in Iraq. Here's a quote from Abizaid:

"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war"


Posted by: Robby | August 14, 2006 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Back to Lieberman.... I just saw his new "commercial" thanks to Chris Matthews.

It reminds me of the commercial with the dog whose nose gets too close to the lens because he is pandering for food. The dog is cute, Lieberman pandering for votes isn't.

Iraq. Since Bush unleashed the dogs of war upon the Middle East, just how do the Bush supporters expect the Dems, or anyone, to be able to fix it? I doubt there are any good answers. But we all know how we got into this position.

Zouk, if you're interested in the current situation in Iraq, read the report filed from Iraq in the latest issue of Vanity Fair. Then tell us just how you would "fix" Iraq. Staying the course isn't a policy, it's a saying.
http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 14, 2006 6:56 PM | Report abuse

'all you people who seem to know all about Iraq, please detail what you think is wrong'

Best laugh of the day. I don't even know where to start. What's right in Iraq? One thing that is going well?

This guy must get all his news from Fox--how else to explain this? Whoa. Breathtaking ignorance.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 6:52 PM | Report abuse

'Listening in on phones and proactive intelligence in cooperation with the Brits and Paks resulted in a foiled mass airline attack. But I presume you would have preferred sitting in court waiting for a warrant instead. '

Um, dude, the Brits had a warrant.They always do. And it wasn't exactly cooperation, since they didn't tell us till the last minute, for fear your beloved leader would blow it.

'It has not been demonstrated that securing ports or borders is effective or economical. '

Lame, lame, lame. They just don't want to do it because there's no profit in it, unlike the massive war profiteering going on in Iraq. And you, JD, everything you mention was already being done by Clinton --only he did it legally, with oversight.

Also, 3000 American did not die on his watch.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Bush was pres on 9-11 dimwits! He sure did not protect us then now did he?

Posted by: Larry | August 14, 2006 6:09 PM | Report abuse

>>>I am glad you above all others know how much everything we buy SHOULD cost

I know that our government already artificially adjusts the price of gas in a number of ways. I know that our government has released little or no oil from the SPR even during major gas crisis (post-Katrina) and shortages, allowing oil companies to charge whatever they wanted b/c of a "supply interruption". I know that the energy lobby VASTLY supports the Bush Admin and GOP, and get BILLIONS in tax-breaks and relaxed environmental laws along the way to increase their record profits. I know that the investigation of price-gouging after Katrina was run by Republicans. Of COURSE they're not going to say that Exxon did anything wrong. I know, but you apparently dont, that a shift in energy policy would GREATLY reduce the price of oil/gas and energy, helping ALL Americans in the pocketbook. I could go on, but I must go.

Posted by: F&B | August 14, 2006 6:08 PM | Report abuse

JD - "...all Bush's presidency has been about is making us safer"

Not quite. All of it would have been about tax cuts and doing away with Social Security, if 9/11 hadn't occurred. Even with 9/11, much of it still has been about those two other topics.

And, if it is has been about making us safer, then why don't I feel any safer.

We invade Iraq while the Terrorist threat is centered in Afghanistan and Pakistan. [Where did this week's "threats" originate?] We create a brand new agency to make the Homeland secure and fill it with remarkably dysfunctional political hacks. [Or was it really a ruse to restructure the Federal work force and "bust" the Federal Employee Unions at the same time?] We have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who tells the truth about what we need to win in Iraq and he gets fired (before you try to rationalize that one, forced retirement in the military is the equivalent of being fired). And on...

Also, Zouk doesn't have any "ideas;" the part of his brain which would otherwise produce them was either highjacked by the RNC or more likely, he rents it to them.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 14, 2006 6:04 PM | Report abuse

hurricanewarningdc, oh ok, so your tone has TOTALLY changed from "dems are a bunch of whiny crybabies" to, "well, they rarely get legislation through commmittee." Big difference bud.

>>>do you really believe that a Pelosi House would function any differently? It will be the same old stuff with Rs not getting anything to teh floor either

#1 yes, I do think it would be vastly more congenial.

#2 who cares about what the R's want to bring to the floor. Look what theyve done with their Majority?!?!? Cmon. How can you possibly compare the two. Even if you are not involved in current political situation, you must be able to discern a difference as to the whole thrust of the two ideologies. Anyone who wimps out of the Democratic Party now that we are starting to fight the good fight is not only abandoning the party when support is needed most, but you are simply misconstruing the rationale for why we are engaged in this debate in the first place.

And I totally agree with you that we, as a country, need to stay away from the virulent extremes on both sides. But after 6 years of total insanity, bi-partisanship has to be put aside until at least after the election so the Dems to stand up and be true to their ideology (unlike stretching towards the wimpy middle that leads to lost elections and sub-par candidates). Truth is, I seem extreme to some b/c of some of my Liberal views, but in all actuality, I am very much in favor of bi-partisanship (unlike Tom DeLay). I LIKE Republicans who are not sold out on NeoCon b.s. Many of the issues I push for (renewables, lower health care costs) would VASTLY benefit Red States! So, it's interesting being a progressive in post 9/11 post failed Iraq, post Katrina, post-Abramoff world. At least the American public is waking up. Hopefully we will capture the House, make Bush accountable for the first time, and then we'll get the WH in '08. We'd still have to deal with the mess that has been left us (and our children) but at least we'd get back on the right track... Which is all everyone seems to want anyway.

Posted by: F&B | August 14, 2006 5:57 PM | Report abuse

So as to not bore the population with your obvious overwhelming knowledge of all things, I choose one.

"Be more specific. Yes, there should be oversight and/or investigations on oil/gas industry price gouging, health care costs and other economic issues. "
I am glad you above all others know how much everything we buy SHOULD cost. this is amazing. I can't figure out why you haven't been on Leno with that perpiscacity.
The gouging investigations took place twice now with no findings. Maybe we should try again.
do you really, truly think that someone (an individual or group) should be setting prices for things outside of the market?
It makes no sense to argue capitalism with an avowed socialist. Marx is dead and so is his theory. Move on.

all you people who seem to know all about Iraq, please detail what you think is wrong. Or just continue chanting. But please close your eyes so no new information arrives to throw you off.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"I dare any of you, name ONE THING Bush has done to make us safer, to protect this country."

Why, why... he poured hundreds of billions of dollars into converting a secular Iraq into the Islamic Republic of Iraq that now has a treaty of military cooperation with Iran! And there is a great terrorist breeding ground there now whereas they didn't have a place to train before. Oh and 150,000 Iraqis dead.

And it only cost us a few thousand lives and the goodwill we had banked after 9/11.

Pretty goodish for a failed oil businessman and National Guard deserter, eh? And you thought he'd never amount to anything.

Posted by: B2O | August 14, 2006 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"JD - Be careful , thinking straight will bring the wrath of Drindl down on you."

Actually thinking will get you kicked out of the Republican party - and it's happening in droves these days. It's such a surreal experience watching their faces as they finally realize, four years too late, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (gasp!). I feel like I'm watching the mass deprogramming session of former cult members. Well, at least they're the lucky ones.

Posted by: B2O | August 14, 2006 5:50 PM | Report abuse

JD:

"If Joe is such a bad solution, funny how WaPo practically endorsed him this weekend."

Uh, do ya think it might have something to do with the no-holds-barred cheerleading they did to help get us into the insane Iraq invasion? To this day none of them have taken the tiniest shred of responsibility for this collosal (and predictable, to many of us) debacle. Supporting Joe is just more of the "in for a dime, in for a dollar" school of editorial denial that they have come to epitomize.

Posted by: B2O | August 14, 2006 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Why does extreme beliefs equal corruption. do you prefer that we not ever try to advance bold initiatives? extreme beliefs exhibit stark differences in philosophy and purpose. Wanting government to radically change while simultaneously supporting the moderates is at cross purposes.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 5:44 PM | Report abuse

>>>energy policy (I guess that is what this means)

Yes. It already does. Just the WRONG policy (drill everywhere is not a sustainable policy). But a national federal renewable standard would ELIMINATE imported oil. If you are against that, you have issues.

>>>health care issues (but stay out of the decision ???)

Does how much health care COSTS equate to who decides who has an abortion? Again, if you cant see the dichotomy, you have issues. And yes, the government should be able to negotiate for cheaper drugs, lumping HUGE savings on the middle class of America. But you are against that too b/c of the huge huge pharma industry and their pro-GOP lobby.

>>>representative government issues

Yes, there should be oversight of representation especially given DeLay/GOP's strategy for a Republican Majority thru unethical gerrymandering. And yes, the Civil Rights Act extension is not favored by the Southern GOP.

>>>government watching government

CHECKS & BALANCES. Hulloooooooooo!

>>>gay marriage

Im all for it. Civil unions is a better term, but yes, I dont see why gay marriage cant be legal in this country. Land of the FREE, home of the BRAVE. Or are too chicken to accept someone's differences?

>>>price fixing

Be more specific. Yes, there should be oversight and/or investigations on oil/gas industry price gouging, health care costs and other economic issues. It's the ECONOMY STUPID.

>>>But not:

Who said NOT?????? I listed 4 or 5 issues that were specifically not related to the same old issues like Iraq, National Security, etc b/c all you would do is whine that the "dems have no ideas". Gimme a break. But I'll humor you.

>>>tax issues

Yes, clearly we need to ajust the tax code to be simpler and easier for common folks. I am vehemently against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I am for removing all tax breaks for giant mega-industries like oil/gas, and I am for removing all of the off-shore tax loopholes that allow corporations to get away with NOT contributing the couple hundred BILLION they would owe in taxes otherwise.

>>>emergency responses

Clearly we need to improve on the communication front. 9/11 taught us that. Katrina taught us that Bush cannot be trusted to make us safer. We have NOTHING to show for the 9/11 lessons learned in emergency response except the outing of a lame Bush crony who was vastly underqualified. Heckuva job to the Whole Bush Admin.

>>>general safety from random attack

9/11 commission reccomendations. They need to be implemented right away (as in, years ago). This recent liquid explosives threat has been on the federal radar for ages. Bush has done NOTHING but attempt to remove funding to liquid explosives detection and towards something totally unrelated.

What else ya got? Oh right, that Dems are ugly and smell funny. Sorry, the GOP rhetoric has FAILED. See Ken Mehlman for that. If it wasnt so sad it'd be funny.


Posted by: F&B | August 14, 2006 5:43 PM | Report abuse

JD - Be careful , thinking straight will bring the wrath of Drindl down on you. she may ask you to leave. and larry will call you a liar and Ohio guy will call you a hypocrite. Ouch.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"You must REALLY not follow politics. The Republican Majority have not allowed even the hint of Dem legislation near the floor. You know that but clearly choose to ignore it."

F&B, You're wrong. (And I say this - as I've said - as a former Dem staffer.) Dem alternatives (in the form of amendments that replace the entire piece of proposed legislation) get voted on with some frequency. Check almost any major bill, and you'll find a substitute amendment offered - and rejected by a vote that's typically down party lines. They're there, but they simply don't pass. You're correct, though, that the Dems, as the minority party, have far fewer opportunities to get legislation through committee, onto the floor in whole, or to get their hearing witnesses on the panels. The minority is a sad, dull place to be. (But that said, do you really believe that a Pelosi House would function any differently? It will be the same old stuff with Rs not getting anything to teh floor either.) Being the minority does not, however, mean that one does not have a voice.

And re this statement by someone else," Until the Democratic Party shakes off the maniacal and psychotic grasp of its radical left-wing base, it will continue to lose national elections and play second fiddle to the Republicans and newfound Independents as yourself." True... but the exact same thing goes for the Rs who have their own demons. E.g., I think we've all seen the overbearing control wrought by the fundamentalist religious groups in that party. Pick any number of issues (from gay marriage to stemcell research) and you'll find the party corrupted by its extremist factions.

Posted by: hurricanewarningdc | August 14, 2006 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, I think you and I had the same idea at the same time...

Posted by: JD | August 14, 2006 5:39 PM | Report abuse

To the last anonymous (real brave, btw) poster, asking to name one thing that made us safer....

Dude, you gotta be kidding. Everything from the NSA program to wiretap Al Quaida conversations to the NY Times revealing tracking of finances (which they point out is legal...after the jump) to TIA to about a 100 other initiatives - all Bush's presidency has been about is making us safer. The liberal left would have us almost completely disarm for the sake of fairness and not making the bad guys mad at us (we create the insurgency and other bulldink).

Get a life dude. It's clear that there's only one party that wants to err on the side of keeping your family safe. You can nitpick with implementation, but certainly not with intention, and I daresay not with results: we haven't been successfully attacked since 9/11, now, have we? Or are you going to say that that's a coincidence?

When the Brits just busted up a terror plot using the same tools the Dems are against this administration using, is it any wonder who the American people think will make us safer?

Posted by: JD | August 14, 2006 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Let me think back about three days or so. Listening in on phones and proactive intelligence in cooperation with the Brits and Paks resulted in a foiled mass airline attack. But I presume you would have preferred sitting in court waiting for a warrant instead. Perhaps you are not aware of all the things that have been done for your safety. Traditionally this is not revealed to the general public, despite the NYT's attempts to do so.
It has not been demonstrated that securing ports or borders is effective or economical. Certainly this appeals to common sense but that is not the same as policy and strategy. how exactly would you "seal the borders" and "protect the ports" without causing severe damage to systems in place and functioning. easy to chant this but a real expert will clue you in that this is anything but easy, cheap or even productive. Are you aware of ANY changes done to our transportation security systems in the last 6 years? It seems you know neither about changes or existing policies since you have stated Bush has not done one thing. How about the airport puff machines - does that constitue one thing? but your assumption is just silly, as usual.
Note, not one intelligent response since my challenge. not expecting any.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 5:34 PM | Report abuse

You get to decide when to die? Amazing.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Best health care in the world? We are ranked 23rd in health care far below all countries that have universal health care. Best standard of living? We are ranked 10th again below most countries in Europe. Why do you just lie and lie? Were you not taught to tell the truth? Are your parents liars like yopu are? Record wealth? You mean borrowing of China? What is wrong with you? You and your neocon kind will be gone in less than 90 days.

Posted by: Larry | August 14, 2006 5:26 PM | Report abuse

'you see, we conservatives are too stupid to even decide when to die'

Or to leave.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I dare any of you, name ONE THING Bush has done to make us safer, to protect this country.

Has he secured the borders? Has he secured the ports? Has he done one thing? NO. Admit it.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2006 5:19 PM | Report abuse

You forgot to mention that housing prices are also through the roof. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Please state clearly what exactly needs to be reformed in: health care (best in the world) , lobbying (most representative government in history) etc. Or are you just chanting again. Please explain about the massive domestic problems - unemployment, productivity, record wealth and the world's best standard of living might be a good place to start.

It seems you really support huge government interference except when you don't. Can you please inform me as to the correct price for a gallon of gas? And how much my doctor should charge? and what level of interaction I should have with my congressman? I will have trouble making these decision without you because, you see, we conservatives are too stupid to even decide when to die.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse

'general safety from random attack' -- if that's important to you, then why would you vote republican, when they have done, I repeat, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect us.

And just like they did on 9/11, just like they did with Katrina, when disaster strikes, they fall apart. They run, they hide, they wait for someone else to fix it. Just wait, when the next big hit comes, they will have no plans, no clue that is was coming or what to do about, becuase they never do.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey Bill, guess you want to pretend bush beat gore with the popular vote. Guess again.

>I'm sick and tired of seeing my (former) party point fingers and cry as the world falls apart instead of it actually doing something proactive about it?'

Really, like what? Invade a country that was no threat to us and utterly destroy it, while letting bin Ladin get away? You mean like ruining the FBI like Porter Goss did? You mean like doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for five years to secure our borders, our transportation systems, our ports, etc?

And zouk, I don't say that all republicans are morons or deranged or delusional or dittoheads... just you. And why do you come to this site if you hate everyone on it so much? You've been asked to leave by a number of people.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 5:11 PM | Report abuse

So you want Washington to decide:
energy policy (I guess that is what this means)
health care issues (but stay out of the decision ???)
representative government issues
government watching government
gay marriage
price fixing
But not:
tax issues
emergency responses
general safety from random attack

and this is because, as I stated before, you know what's best for everyone else and if people could just see things your way, it would be best for those poor fools.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I didnt think you could argue with facts Bill

Posted by: Larry | August 14, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse

>>>Please state clearly what legislative agenda?

Renewable Portfolio Standard, real health care reform, lobbying reform, govt oversight, and for the government to stay out of a family's medical desires. Among a million others.

And yet you have Frist and DeLay (now Boehner) who have presided over the WORST agenda in our country's history. Tax cuts during wartime, gas/health care prices through the roof, Katrina mishandling, Schiavo, and a million more insane, inept, or criminal issues...... Throw in FLAG BURNING?!?! Gay marriage, etc while we have massive massive domestic problems, and you have yourself plenty PLENTY of reasons for the common person, who is BARELY attuned to politics, who wants to "throw the bums out". If you cant see what your party is doing to this country, ALL AROUND the country and not just blue states, you truly need help.

Posted by: F&B | August 14, 2006 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey Lar, pretty dumb comment.

Posted by: Bill | August 14, 2006 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Very substantive points there. As usual. Here is the summary for those with limited time:
Larry thinks all elections are fake unless a Dem wins.
Drindl thinks that Bush likes to kill babies and eat them for breakfast.
F&B thinks that he is smarter than anyone else out there and still can't understand why everyone can't see his way and just get along.
Rmill hides his lack of any insight by simply posting numbers
Nor'easter is too busy hiding under the bed to read.

If any of you have anything positive to advance in the way of Dem policies I dare you to post them in logical, linear fashion with citations to facts. Otherwise, keep up the good work on your way to Whig-ville.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 4:47 PM | Report abuse

You mean like that brilliant earth shaking minimum wage bill? Or maybe the bankrupting Kyoto treaty? Oh that was the Dems that killed that off. Please state clearly what legislative agenda? cut and run? Raise taxes? there is a reason this is not being passed - we don't want it! Pelosi wants subpeona power and that seems to be it. At least the Rs have expresed what they are interested in passing, agree or not.

anyone who disagrees with the liberal mentality (converted too) is clearly crazy according to this site. Or a paid spy. Or stupid. Or immoral. Not a chance they could have come to that conclusion on their own. Over half the population has been duped in this fashion if you believe this crackpot idea. Observe.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Dems have only elected 2 pres since 1968? How do you explain that the American people chose LIBERAL Al Gore by 600000 votes in 2000? Truth is the Republicans have not elected a pres since 1988(without cheating that is)

Posted by: Larry | August 14, 2006 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Just to let you know. I will put my crystal ball away for a time. Everything I've said about the Conn. race has come true in less than 6 hours. To take advantage of some of you is not my style.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

>>> no wonder the thinking people... blahblahblah

If you are so concerned with the "thinking people" then why did you elect an Anti-intellectual to the highest post in the land?

Posted by: F&B | August 14, 2006 4:39 PM | Report abuse

>>>I'm sick and tired of seeing my (former) party point fingers and cry as the world falls apart instead of it actually doing something proactive about it?

You must REALLY not follow politics.

The Republican Majority have not allowed even the hint of Dem legislation near the floor. You know that but clearly choose to ignore it. Either that or you are SO POORLY informed that it is absurd that you call yourself involved in politics. OR you are a RW shill. I vote #3.

Posted by: F&B | August 14, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

hurricanewarning - you are in the wrong place if you think you will change anyone's mind on this blog with reason. this is the arena of name-calling and fantasy conspiracy theories. I have never been a Democrat and not really much of a Republican. but I am characterized as a rabid Rush fan although I have not once ever heard his show. there are no facts in this place and the nuts who reside here seem to know everything there is to know about any subject you bring up. when challenged on anything they revert to kindergarten playground antics. no wonder the thinking people still do not take much of the blogs seriously - they are not serious people - they are kooks who delude themselves into thinking they are clever and witty by repeating the same old drivel ad infinitum. Just examine the responses to my challenge to come up wtih something substantial. It has been the same in here for months. If you manage to question the most liberal wacked-out ideas presented, you will be ganged up on as if you are the only one outside the asylum who could possibly be so evil and degenerate. But the greateast threat to our freedom and safety is Bush. go figure.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Good points, hurricanewarningdc.

I'm always amazed how the leftist journalism offered by the Post fails to genuinely discuss the disintegration of the Democratic Party over the past several decades. It truly is one of the most under-reported dynamics of contemporary American politics. Until the Democratic Party shakes off the maniacal and psychotic grasp of its radical left-wing base, it will continue to lose national elections and play second fiddle to the Republicans and newfound Independents as yourself. Electing only two Democratic presidents since 1968, its very clear where America's true beliefs and convictions reside.

Posted by: Bill | August 14, 2006 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, I was never a Dem? Why? Because I'm not falling in line, goosestep behind what the party tells us to think and vote? Because I'm sick and tired of seeing my (former) party point fingers and cry as the world falls apart instead of it actually doing something proactive about it? Get off the damn bench and onto the playing field. Stop whining that we can't get in the game and come up with some strategy to get us to the end zone. (Oh, and there are plenty of Dem policywonks out there with ideas. It's not like there aren't Dem ninds thinking big and proactively... but in the current environment, if you're not parroting the leftist wing of the party, you're ignored.)

Believe what you want, but I've been a Dem since the day that I first registered to vote. I've seen enough to know that there's no difference between the two parties and that the junk spewed by posters here is not any different than what's available on the conservative blogs out there. (Individuals may be different - which is why I still vote for and donate to particular Dems... but the party machinery is exactly the same. I want nothing to do with the DNC et al.)

Certainly, you didn't think that Howard Dean was somehow morally superior to Ken Mehlman?

Posted by: hurricanewarningdc | August 14, 2006 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"It's Israel and the oil companies who would be the big losers. The Israel Lobby wold never let it happen with this white house."

The soundbites...The scapegoats...The whining...The conspiracy theories: case in point on why I'm no longer a Dem. Any concept of responsibility has completely disappeared (from left and right), and this schlock is what remains. "The Israel Lobby?" Lemme guess: that would be like "The Bloggers," "The Unions," and "The ACLU/NAACP/NOW/Emily's List?"

For starters, the idea that we're in the mess that we're in because of American Jews with voter-registration cards or because of oil-company cocktail-parties with Dick Cheney is just ridiculous. (I know that it's big on "teh internets," but not in circles of educated, scholarly people with experience in Middle Eastern affairs or politics and policy.) And any suggestion that the Dems don't have all of their own monied interest groups in their collective back pocket is naive. If one were to say that the Dems are anti-war, we, too, could name half-a-dozen interest groups and put them in Caps to make the same misguided point.

Vote for Lamont if you like the guy. Vote for him if, after considering the alternatives, you're not happy with the other choices. You should even vote for him if you're the knee-jerk type of partycrat who can't think beyond the spam in your inbox. But to do it simply b/c a blog tells you that he's "Bush's best friend" or because someone online drops some potentially anti-Semetic junk about Israel (and thus, Lieberman the Jew) being behind the war is throwing away a vote. At least some of the other folks here have bothered to give some factual, policy-based justification for their positions.

Posted by: hurricanewarningdc | August 14, 2006 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Nor'easter, misread you. My sincere apologies.

Does anyone here beleive this person 'hurricanewarning' was ever actually a Democrat? I don't.

Sure are a lot of these astroturf dems out there. They invariiaibly turn out to be fake.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman will win CT...mark it down. The primary results will then serve as fodder for the Republicans (in 2006, but mainly 2008) to paint the Democratic party as composed of two parts: (1) one with back-bone (Lieberman), and (2) another composed of "girlie-men" (Lamont). The former wins hands down in front of a national or bipartisan populace. Fair or not, Lamont has been effectively pinned a member of the "cut and run" faction of the Democratic Party. As such, he will lose in CT. Democratic candidates will then start their typical equivocation in the run-up to 2006 and 2008. Once again, the left-wing nuts will sabotage the Democratic Party's viability before a national and bipartisan audience. RESULT: Republicans lose some seats in 2006, but win big in 2008.

Posted by: Bill | August 14, 2006 3:52 PM | Report abuse

'If you think the RNC or any R is going to contribute one dime to Liebermann, you clearly have no knowledge of politics and should refrain from offering your idiotic ideas.'

So we can hear your idiotic ideas instead? Obviously you don't read much, or you would have heard that Rove promised to help Lieberman and said Bush would do everything he cuold for him, including financial help.

Before you open your mouth to spew your recycled Limbaugh talking points, why don't you open a newspaper?

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"And of course, get the troops out tomorrow (and is America safer with an Iraq-turned-chaos, I doubt it)."


JD:

Iraq is already in chaos.


THS

Posted by: THS | August 14, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Well Mike DeWine from Ohio is gone for sure.

Posted by: Larry | August 14, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

JD

America would probably se as safe as it is now with a partitioned Iraq once we left.

It's Israel and the oil companies who would be the big losers.

The Israel Lobby wold never let it happen with this white house.

Posted by: everyman | August 14, 2006 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Or maybe those repubs voted for the Dem most likely to split the party and hand the seat to an R. In VA we get to vote in either primary and Rs vote for a kooky candidate all the time. But the support dissappears in the general. that is why I speculated that this may be the high-water mark for Lamont. Nevertheless, half of 15% is not convincing and Ole Joe himself said he wants to hear from the other 85%. what else could he say?

Maybe Peanut Jack can follow in his father's footsteps and strive to become the second worst politician in history. Doesn't look like it. RMill do you have any polls on upsets of incumbants brewing?

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the extreme leftists on this blog can only call people names rather than debate on the issues. Oh well, par for the course with that crowd.

If Joe is such a bad solution, funny how WaPo practically endorsed him this weekend.

As for Lamont, yes he's a liberal who is rich and inherited a lot of money. But his POSITIONS are liberal: pro choice (including pro partial-birth), pro gun control, higher taxes, affirmative action, against school choice, right down the line. And of course, get the troops out tomorrow (and is America safer with an Iraq-turned-chaos, I doubt it). I'm not trying to tar him with the L word (and no, I'm not a dittohead either).

Posted by: JD | August 14, 2006 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Will: U R saying ? most of us are that support Lamont. On Chris's update, the Media with few exceptions, keep spewing the White House junk, like David Gregory. How can the Media be held to account when all they do is repeat ? is being put out and very seldom even attempt to correct the false statements.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2006 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is an interesting case study in Dem politics. If Gore had eeked out a victory in 2000 and managed to be reelected in 2004, Lieberman would be the next Presidential candidate. but instead....Is this the big tent you promised? everyone is welcome - unless you want to defend the country, or stop abortions, or cut taxes, or improve education, or fix social security or, oh forget it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Primary Primer
Nevada

US Senate
Dem
Jack Carter (son of former Pres) $1.195 M
Ruby Jee Tun n/a

Rep
Senator John Ensign $4.146 M
Edward Hamilton n/a

Not expected to be closely contested on either side

Survey USA
July Approval
Ensign (R)* 52% (same as June; same as Feb)

HTH
Rasmussen
July 31
Carter (D) 39%
Ensign (R)* 46%

Zogby/WSJ
July Battleground Poll
Carter (D) 35%
Ensign (R)* 49.5%

Governor
OPEN Gov Guinn term limited
Dem Primary
Jim Gibson
McConnell
Dina Titus (State Senator)

Rep Primary
Bob Beers
Melody Damayo
Jim Gibbons (US Cong. NV-2)
Lorraine Hunt (NV Lt. Gov)
Stanleigh Husak


Dem Primary Polls
Survey USA
July 17
Gibson 39%
McConnell 6%
Titus 42%

Hart Poll
July 26
Gibson 29%
Titus 42%

Rep Primary
Survey USA
July 17
Beers 23%
Gibbson 44%
Hunt 16%

Hart Poll
July 26
Beers 28%
Gibbson 36%
Hunt 14%

Lt Gov
OPEN (Lt. Gov Hunt running for Gov)

Dem Primary
Goodman
Montgomery
Stupak
Unger

Rep Primary
Hammargren
Kao
Kroliki (NV State Treasurer)
Moncrief
Woolen

Congress
NV-2
OPEN (Cong. Gibbons running for Gov)

Dem
Derby $748 K
No primary opponent

Rep Primary
Angle $720 K
Dawn Gibbons $743 K(wife of Cong. Gibbons)
Gilster n/a
Heller (NV Sec of State) $904 K
Thomas n/a

Secretary of State
OPEN (Heller running for US Cong. NV-2)
Dem Primary
Boyd
Miller

Rep Primary
Scroggins
Tarkanian

State Treasurer
OPEN (Kroliki running for Lt. Gov)

Dem Primary
Marshall
VanderPal

Rep Primary
DeStefano
Pitts
Augustine (State Controller- died in July of apparent heart attack; Coroner's report no longer bears out natural causes; toxicology report pending from FBI; husband attempted suicide and may be held; name remains on ballot)

State Controller
Dem
Wallin
No primary opponent

Rep
Martin*
appointed to fill unexpired term
No primary opponent

Posted by: RMill | August 14, 2006 3:04 PM | Report abuse

One more time and this is to kingofzouk -- only about 60% of Lamont's winning numbers can be attributed to "Liberal" voters -- the other 39% to conservative voters. 48% over the normal number of voters voted in the Connecticut primary -- a first -- these are voters that were registered Dems or Independents who could change affiliation the day before. For those moderate/liberal Republicans -- they would have had to switch parties in May to vote in primary and some have. Most of Lamonts voters are college educated or some college and have earnings over $50,000 the breakdown with either the super rich or highly educated is negligible in comparison done with an after poll.
From Political Arithmetik --- "It means that in the upper-income and education areas where Republicans are more common, the DEMOCRATS who share their socio-economic status (but NOT their political views) were heavy Lamont supporters, while in the low-socio-economic status towns where Republicans are rare, the Democrats were more likely to support Lieberman."
The paragraph is entitled "Where The Lattes Reign". Why do you think David Brooks was so upset he created a third party?? -- and what a fiasco that sounds like. Two old has been's -- you see I would have voted McCain 8 years ago and I have voted Lieberman -- but he is an ole, Angry man right now who should move on and McCain missed the boat.

Posted by: Paulet | August 14, 2006 3:03 PM | Report abuse

-- to obtain a change in vote on one issue (war) which is not really open to a vote anyway, with all the other liberal visions remaining, you believe the RNC would give up resources which might actually change the R/D balance in the Senate. Paranoia strikes deep. adjust your tin-foil hat, what is the frequency Kenneth?

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm one of those donors (and former dem staffer) who will be giving to Lieberman and who hopes that he'll stay in the race. He's one of the few people in Washington who are willing to do the right thing. (And in case the definition is needed, the "right thing" is not kowtowing to your party over defense of your country.) I've recently switched my own registration from Democrat to Independent because I can no longer stand to be a part of this reactionary, close-minded, whiny, and selfish party. They've got not one policy leg to stand on - unless that policy is crying about the war. After this election, I'm pretty sure that my entire family will be doing the same. If the Bloggers/Dean/leftists wanted to prove that they're just as dirty and self-interested as the Republicans, well, they've done it: Nothing like "Swiftboating" one of your own to make that point...

Posted by: hurricanewarningdc | August 14, 2006 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Oh Dear, such name calling. You'd think this had something to do with politics.

KOZ

May years ago, I grew up on the south side of Chicago. 9th Ward in fact. You didn't learn politics. It was hereditary. And you didn't work if you didn't give the ward its due.

But to counter your otherwise astute comments, in politics, only self interest counts. In the immediate case, if Joe L were acting in other than self interest, he would have graciously bowed out and become a dignified ambassador to some rock in the North Atlantic in the first Obam administration.

If it is in their self interest, the RNC will fund Lieberman. If the best they are going to get is a pro-war 'kissing' cousin in Joe L, they will back him. The options in an antiwar Lamont who would question administration policies after the committee heads all change next February must be intimidating.

Posted by: poor richard | August 14, 2006 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Drindl - Too quick on the read again. The new trends which have to begin on August 9th are the statistical trend lines in the Connecticut 2006 Sentate race polls.

The "Who would you vote for" question changed dramatically when the polls closed on August 8th in Connecticut.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 14, 2006 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Yes, because the entire poopulation who happens to vote for R is paid to do so. Otherwise they would obviously vote for the correct party. dimwit.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Why should you ask anyone else to add something profound, KoZ, when you yourself do not?

Posted by: v | August 14, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Zouk finally admits that he's at the RNC.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 14, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

GOP=Out Of Gas

Posted by: MT | August 14, 2006 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I live in Connecticut and I have seen parts of the ad as sometimes I am not quick enough with my remote -- Joe's no-mentum non-concession speech was enough to make me dislike him even more; how Haddassah could let him humilitate himself only they can say. Not only is he condensending and rhetorical -- he is also unbelievable -- Joe should sit the last dance out and save his humility; but my guess, is the GOP is behind him on this one.
Nancy Johnson's ad's are pretty pathetic too, and I must admit I have voted previously for her, but priorities have changed -- the state of Connecticut and the United States needs a change!! Time to Clean House.

Posted by: Paulet | August 14, 2006 2:35 PM | Report abuse

If you think the RNC or any R is going to contribute one dime to Liebermann, you clearly have no knowledge of politics and should refrain from offering your idiotic ideas. Just another indication of how unhinged the Dems have become.
I am still amazed that the responses to all my posts are name calling, dumb jokes, conspiracies and delusion. no mention of any ideas, policies or solutions. this is why you dems will lose the upcoming elections. Everyone is on to your tactics which I have just outlined above.
Prove me wrong. Add something profound.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 2:29 PM | Report abuse

oh, and since when has a CEO of a company with a long history in business been considered "a hard-left candidate"? I mean, really, don't you choke when you try to spin things like that?

Try telling the truth instead - you'll sleep better at night, and you won't be visiting Lucifer in Hades as a bonus.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | August 14, 2006 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Oh dear, the name calling. How undignified in discourse regarding the noble and fundamental franchise in a democracy of the Vote.

Quite simply, when the RNC money comes rolling in to Joe's coffers, he will clearly outdistance Lamont.

The DNC's goal is to take the house-or at worst take it away from the Republicans. So for them, they are winners either way.

Lamont wins. One in the Democratic column. Lieberman wins. There is an independent-non Republican, who on most things will vote as he always has and may be split on the war.

DNC wins either way and will decide to spend their money on a more critical seat. Better yet, the RNC will have paid for the Connecticut seat staying non-Republican. What a sweet deal.

Sorry Mr. Lamont, but in politics as in real estate, money goes where it brings the greatest return.

And bhoomes, even by your standards, your last posting is a rather low blow. Remember, if past history and recent events involving what the current resident of the white house calls "Islamofascists", sadly bigotry is not the sole domain of any one party.

I'm sure your party has enough of its own to deal with.

Posted by: poor richard | August 14, 2006 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, Your comment... "the left's bereft of any actual ideas and the truth of this is emerging steadily. a shame since the right could use a dignified and plausible opponent to debate issues with and offer the Americans a valid choice,"... is really not close to reality.

Do you mean out of ideas like... WWIII, bloating our deficit, increasing the size of government with inept Homeland Security-type departments, out-of-control spending, trying to bring tens of millions wage-suppressing undocumented lawbreakers into the fold, giving tax breaks to corporations while crippling the middle-class, give-away globalism... those type of GOP ideas?

You consider the party of Dick "F Word" Cheney, frat-boy Bush dignified? Tom DeLay would agree with you.

The voters HAVE choice.... more Bush administration failures or change. No contest.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 14, 2006 2:16 PM | Report abuse

>>>What passes as perceived humor, cleverness and intellect on this site is paltry.

Sour. grapes.

Go play with Loserman.

Posted by: F&B | August 14, 2006 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I like how bhoomes either doesn't understand sarcasm or pretends not to, and then rants about bigoted democrats. As if he and his ilk are shining beacons of tolerence and decency. What a typical combination of dimness and hypocrisy.

Posted by: james | August 14, 2006 2:15 PM | Report abuse

>>>F&B: Why are you making a issue of Melhman's percieved sexuality? Are you a bigot or homophobe?

Not at all. I just think it's absolutely friggin HILARIOUS. hoomes, dont assume. It makes an ASS out of U and ME. Ok, well, mostly just you.

>>>you know the Post is solidly behind Lieberman, just like all the rest of the DC establishment. He shares his cocktail weenies wiht them

Of course. You dont think I pulled my SN out of thin air didja? ;-) hehe

Posted by: F&B | August 14, 2006 2:12 PM | Report abuse

The cold hard truth is that Joe is George's buddy in every sense of the word, and is being funded by Rove and other Republicans appropriately.

That the media don't question the lies coming out of the White House and RNC is just more acknowledgement that they're out of touch.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | August 14, 2006 2:09 PM | Report abuse

YW Drindl. :)

I think he was actually using the GOP talking point so that KM would have to respond to his own rhetoric. B/c in the context, the question clearly implies that the GOP talking heads are talking out of both sides of their mouths by denouncing Democrats on Security but supporting Lieberman. Gregory is the closest thing to an investigative reporter that exists in the MSM.

Btw, Drindl, its not up on their "library" archive of videos and transcripts, but this Sunday's McLaughlin Group was AWESOME. They basically shredded Bush from every which way. Even Tony Blankley was not able to throw out as much red meat (as our friend bhoomes loves to do so much) b/c the criticisms were all totally on point and irrefutable. Pat Buchanon was vehemently anti-war. And anti-Bush rhetoric. There was a discussion on Bush's use of the term Islamofascist (post Liberman loss, post British threat use of the word mind you). And Buchanon RIPPED Bush for using that phrase. Drindl, you should see the transcipt. Even Eleanor Clift was fully agreeing with Buchanon on many points. Pretty amazing stuff. And entertaining as always. :)

Check here for the video and transcript (should be posted within a day or so):

http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/library.asp

McLaughlin's prediction was that after the Nov elections Bush is going to draw down the troops in Iraq to 50,000. That's the first report Ive heard of such a massive draw-down. If the Dems can seize on any memos that show that the Bush Admin is HOLDING the draw-down till AFTER the election, that could be an additional political nightmare for the GOP.

Posted by: F&B | August 14, 2006 2:08 PM | Report abuse

What passes as perceived humor, cleverness and intellect on this site is paltry.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 2:05 PM | Report abuse

F&B--you know the Post is solidly behind Lieberman, just like all the rest of the DC establishment. He shares his cocktail weenies wiht them!

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Yes, right bhoomes, I hate my own child, who is Jewish. You are a filthy pervert. You think I care what Mehlman does in his bedroom? I even support his right to marry!

I just wish he wouldn't lie every time he opens his mouth.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 1:59 PM | Report abuse

F&B: Why are you making a issue of Melhman's percieved sexuality? Are you a bigot or homophobe? Who cares if he is gay or Jewish!. Oh, that's right you hate Mehlman because he is gay and Drindl hates him because he is Jewish. I 'm glad you racist bigots belong in the democratic party and not ours.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 14, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

And btw, Chris, re: this line:

"All of which makes The Fix wonder whether something more is going on here..."

Have you purposefully left out reports about Rove buddying up to Lieberman and relaying Bush's help in the Independent run???? Or are you just not a very observant reporter? Clearly Bush/Rove and Lieberman have been using each other as political tools. Over terrorism too. They should be ashamed.

Bush/Rove + Lieberman are clearly more than "just friends." Theyve even KISSED (on national TV no less). But really, they are both adept at using extremely calculated political rhetoric to demean the opposition. A match made in heaven.

Posted by: F&B | August 14, 2006 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, F&B. 'expose the Democratic party as weak and divided?'

LOL... our liberal media.

'MR. GREGORY: Do you want Senator Lieberman to win, to, to expose the Democratic Party as divided and weak?'

'New trends have to begin with August 9th.' Why? There was a terrorist threat before, which this administration has not addressed, and it still exists--and they will still do nothing to make us safer. So why any new trend? All this latest incident proved was that the administration was clueless and had no idea what was happening.

'the ostrich head in the sand approach is running out of gas very rapidly' -- omigod the ostrich head is running out of gas. God save us.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 1:54 PM | Report abuse

In other news, Rep. Ney has pulled out of the election. There will be a special Republican primary to replace him.

This probably makes it harder, but with still a solid chance, for the Democrats to pick up the seat.

Posted by: Zathras | August 14, 2006 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Rmill, my point was moreover that this represents a small slice of the electorate and is possibly indicitive of the maximum potential. I see your polls verify that.
the ostrich head in the sand approach is running out of gas very rapidly. the left's bereft of any actual ideas and the truth of this is emerging steadily. a shame since the right could use a dignified and plausible opponent to debate issues with and offer the Americans a valid choice.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Correction - New trends have to begin with August 9th.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 14, 2006 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, another hack who doesn't keep his word. He had promised not to come out of his hole again until after Election Day.

RMill - Don't mean to quibble, because you bring a lot of good data to the table; but this is a significant factor. I think that pre-August 8th data are more than irrelevant; they are invalid for "going forward" purposes. The dynamic changed from "what if" to "this is what it is." That has a significant effect on how people respond. It's "apples and oranges" now. That one change skewed everything. New trends have to being on August 9th.

The geese shouldn't have a problem with a fence on the Canadian border. Remember VivaBush smuggles Cuban contraband in from Canada. The geese can get through where Viva gets through.

I wonder if Ned will use Tony Snow's "Presidential Edorsement" in any of his ads?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 14, 2006 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Ken "No really Im not a flaming homosexual" Mehlman also refused to support Schlesinger nor would he endorse Lieberman on Meet the Press on Sunday.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about the Republican candidate in Connecticut, Alan Schlesinger. You've been going around the country...

MR. MEHLMAN: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: ...and been very clear...

MR. MEHLMAN: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: ...and forceful for your support of Republican candidates. Are you endorsing Alan Schlesinger to be the next senator from Connecticut?

MR. MEHLMAN: There's nothing more important to me, as you know, than electing Republicans. It's what I spend my life doing; it's my passion. The way I do it...

MR. GREGORY: So, yes?

MR. MEHLMAN: The way I do it is to work with our leadership in the states, and what my leadership in the state has said to me is, "You ought to stay out of this one. You ought to focus on the House races and focus on the governors' races."

MR. GREGORY: Why endorse candidates all over the country but not do it here?

MR. MEHLMAN: Again, I do it based on the leadership in the state.

MR. GREGORY: Do you want Senator Lieberman to win, to, to expose the Democratic Party as divided and weak?

MR. MEHLMAN: I'm following--I'm following the advice--I'm following the advice of my leadership, which is I'm focusing on making sure that Chris Shays and that Nancy Johnson, and that Rob Simmons is re-elected, and that Governor Rell is re-elected.

MR. GREGORY: Do you support Senator Lieberman as senator?

MR. MEHLMAN: I do not.

MR. GREGORY: You do not?

MR. MEHLMAN: I, I, I think it is up to the people of Connecticut. I'm certainly not endorsing Joe Lieberman who, while I agree with him on some issues, I disagree with him on most issues.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14273400/page/7/

The Republican Majority is almost officially over.

Posted by: F&B | August 14, 2006 1:40 PM | Report abuse

ofaolain

Yes, Senator Jeffords is an Independent (switched from Republican) caucusing with the Dems, as will his successor, Congressman Bernie Sanders (I).

Posted by: RMill | August 14, 2006 1:38 PM | Report abuse

RMill--can you send some unmanned drones to shoot them down when they cross my local park?

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Very funny Rmill.

I'd be willing to bet he was trying to get home to be treated for his illness in the Canadian universal healthcare system.

Posted by: Andy R | August 14, 2006 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I think staying in Iraq is precisely what the 'terrorists' --[as if all these disparate groups, with differing motives were one and the same thing] want.

As long as we are there, our hands are tied in dealing with real threats in other regions. It sucks up all our resources. Again, 5 years after 9/11, nothing has been done to protect our ports, our borders, our transportation systems, our bridges, tunnels, etc. Our first responders still don't have equipment or training.
Our intelligence capabilities have, if anything deteriorated because experience people have been replaced with cronies.

We are sitting ducks at this moment--just waiting for the next attack. People on the left have no doubt that there are those out there who would harm us -- we just want to something that actually protects us, instead of trying to secure the oil supply of the entire middle east.

I hope Lamont campaigns on real protection from real threats --I think he would do well.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 1:30 PM | Report abuse

KoZ

I assume you mean 15% of total population (including under 18, non-registrants, illegal immigrants, etc.)

Turnout was a record high in the CT primary (about 50%-twice as high as expected).

Posted by: RMill | August 14, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Isn't VT Sen. Jim Jeffords an independent?

Posted by: ofaolain | August 14, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

KoZ

I assume you mean 15% of total population (including under 18, non-registrants, illegal immigrants, etc.)

Turnout was a record high in the CT primary (about 50%-twice as high as expected).

Posted by: RMill | August 14, 2006 1:25 PM | Report abuse

A Canada goose is released after getting an identification band and a test for H5N1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060814/ts_nm/birdflu_usa_dc_16


How high of a border wall do we need to build to keep out these illegal Canadian threats to US Security?

Can we appropriate some defense dollars for unmanned drones to shoot them down if they cross US airspace?

Posted by: RMill | August 14, 2006 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Nor'easter

I am aware that the previous polling is largely irrelevant now but thought it would be interesting to see the trend prior to and after the primary.

Posted by: RMill | August 14, 2006 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Well I see the Rush Brigade in out in full moron regalia... it's sure easy to spot an IQ of 40 with its attendent illiteracy, authoritarainsm, and lack of ability to reason.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 1:19 PM | Report abuse

What is all the fuss about? the Dem primary reflects all the loonies of the bluest state. do the math. 15% of the population voted. about half pulled for Lamont. that means Lamont can expect at least 7% of the vote. I suspect this may be the most he will get. trying to force a trend from this is typical of August slow news days. Even CN won't fall for this putz in Nov. Dems are sounding more and more like LaRouche. you Bush haters with your conspiracy theories are sounding nuttier than a fruitcake. did you ever consider that the reason we keep hearing scary things is that there are people out there actually trying to attack and kill us. you all sound completely Zany with your tin-foil-hat predictions. To state that Liebermann is conservative is detached from reality. Take a look at his voting record.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2006 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Lamont seems to be the perfect person for Conn. Wealthy, from his father. Wealthy, made it in Cable co. lib, social issues, cons, how not to waste. Clean, no scandels. For, the working poor, For, stem-cell research. Against, killing innocent people for money. What else could anyone want in such an honest polition??

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2006 1:12 PM | Report abuse

JimD: You make some valid points but no matter whether going into Iraq was ill advised or not, pulling out before a stable government is in place would be a total victory for terrorists and it would embolden them to keep at us for belief we just don't have the stomach for this fight. That is what a Lamont victory would send to our enemies like it or not.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 14, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I agree with what you say, JimD, but how much longer should we stay in Iraq then? One years, 5 years, 10? How many more of our young people should we allow to be maimed and murdered? 2000 more, 10,000, 50,000? How will you define 'success'? Things are going steadily downhill there now, and it's already lasted longer than the Korean War.

It's also draining resources away from what we should be doing to protect ourselves from genuine threats. Absolutely nothing has been done to protect our ports, our borders, our transportation or communication systems. Nothing, nada.

We've already spent 400 billion dollars in Iraq, every cent of it borrowed from our children and grandchildren. Even if Iraq becomes a 'stable democracy' how will that change the middle east at all? What difference will it make?

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Lamont needs to concentrate on the unafilliated voters which is the largest block...I have no doubt that a good number of them are against this war, but lamont would have toenlarge his appeal a bit more.

Talk more about other issues, everyone knows you're against the war..If he can talk about how we can win the war on "Terror" if we pull out of iraq, then lamont easily wins BUT if he keeps running under the anti-war slogan, i dont think it would be enought.

Posted by: maria | August 14, 2006 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Drindl,

Sorry. I'm not a copywriter by profession.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 14, 2006 12:55 PM | Report abuse

RMill - thanks for the poll data; but, anything pre-August 8th no longer has any validity. The dynamic changed too much that day.

Also, I don't know that tagging candidates with the "Liberal" label is going to hurt anybody in Connecticut. Sorry to say it, but they're not the South Carolina or Georgia voters who actually believed that John McCain and Max Cleland were "weak sisters."

The voters in CT know Joe and will vote for or against him. Labels aren't necessary.

They don't know Ned, so he has his work cut out for him to get the voters to get to know him. Labelling him won't work either; unless it's to paint him as a "one-issue" candidate. Whether it's true of not.

FYI - 2004 Senate election: Dodd (D) 945,347 (66%); Orchulli 457,749 (32%), Others (2%)

Oscar - Joe as Ambassador to Iraq would be poetic justice.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 14, 2006 12:54 PM | Report abuse

The big question is if PAC money starts to dry up for Lieberman. I suspect it will! If the Democrats win a house it will not be good for the PAC contributors. If the Republicans retain both Houses, PAC did not buy much for its money by re-electinng a guy who may end up voting with the Democrats.

In November 2005 Lieberman said about Iraq: "The country is now in reach of going from Saddam Hussein to self-government and, I'd add, self-protection,". He added "That would be a remarkable transformation ... I saw real progress there." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/29/95709.shtml

The best thing for Lieberman to do is ask for a job in the Bush Administration, preferably as an ambassador to Iraq. That way he can report on the "real progress". Of course he would have to leave the Green Zone to show that progress which no one does these days except marines below the rank of a captain.

Posted by: Oscar | August 14, 2006 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Politicians like Lieberman (either Democrat, Republican, Independent, other) are sort of disturbing. Why? They just want to keep their jobs for the prestige, the psychological ego-building, and government dole benefits. To even suggest that Lieberman gives a rat's ass about his constituency is almost laughable. Iraq is a mess and loving or hating Bush is not going to change that.

Posted by: Mister Obvious | August 14, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes,

Iraq is a DISTRACTION from the war on terror. Look at the Taliban rising from the ashes in Afghanistan. We diverted troops and resources from Afghanistan to invade Iraq chasing phantom WMDs. Iraq is degenerating into civil war. Too many Iraqi politicians seem incapable of moving past their militia loyalties and acting on behalf of all Iraqis. Most of the terrorists (as opposed to insurgents) we are fighting in Iraq are foreign jihadists. The local insurgents fighting us and each other were not terrorists before the invasion. I am really disgusted by the negative affect this invasion had on our efforts in Afghanistan and on our overall standing in the world.
Having established my position on the invasion, I think we have a moral responsibility to achieve some sort of stable, political settlement and a functioning Iraqi government. Frankly, I do not know how this can be done but I do believe it will take help from other Muslim governments. The ironic thing about all this is that the biggest winner in this fiasco will be Iran.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 14, 2006 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Re: "Vote Repub or die". Guess what? The country did vote R and thousands died in Iraq, Katrina, Afghanistan, Isarael, Lebanon. I think that message can easily be countered.

Posted by: Ellen | August 14, 2006 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Julia-- don't you know that to dittoheads all 'liberals' and all Democrats [except Joe] are traitors?

Sorry RMill. Misread your post. But i think Lamont will do with unaffiliateds, because most of them are likely independent because they're tired of business as usual and Lamont is clean.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 12:43 PM | Report abuse

That's true, RMill, but that's exactly the opposite of what he is doing so far. 60% of the general population now against the war in Iraq, and much higher in CT, and all he can do is talk about what a good idea it was?

Brilliant.. go Joe.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

>>I'm not sure what meuphys is smoking, but to doubt that Lamont is a liberal? Take a look at his positions, if you're not too lazy to do so. He makes Howard Dean look like Pat Buchanan.<<

Of course, Pat Buchanan has been hugely critical of the Iraq war, U.S. support for Israel in the Lebanon war, and the whole neocon interventionist adventure in general. Does that put him to the left of Hugo Chavez by your lights, JD?

Also nice to see you pinning your hopes on another terrorist attack before the general election. Fortunately, most Americans have figured out that an endless war in Iraq has nothing to with, say, rooting out British terrorists of Pakistani descent in London. Does that kind of thinking make me "liberal," or would Rush skip the niceties and call me a traitor?

Posted by: JuliaR | August 14, 2006 12:38 PM | Report abuse

State of CT
Voter Registration
Oct 2005

Rep 427,903 active
Dem 653,055 active
Minor 4,029 active
Unaffiliated 867,761
TOTAL active voters 1,952,648

Ratio's
1 : 1.5 : 0.01 : 2

Rasmussen states Lieberman is picking up 35% of Dem vote and viewed favorably by 69% of unaffiliated voters and Lamont 49% of unaffiliated voters.

Assuming Lamont is getting a full 63% of Dems taking out (undecideds), the rest of his 41% is made up of approximately:

17% of Republicans and 36% of unaffiliated or minor party voters

Lieberman is 30% of Dems, 53% of Reps and 55% of unaffiliateds

Schliesinger is 0% Dem, 25% of Reps, 1% of unaffiliateds and

Undecideds are 7% of Dems, 5% of Rep and 8% unaffiliated

Lamont needs to be much more concerned with his attraction of unaffilated voters than Lieberman needs to be of attracting more Repubilcans.

Posted by: RMill | August 14, 2006 12:34 PM | Report abuse

J. crozier... are you a copywriter? I worked with someone by that name once.

"vote for me or die'... yup. You're right. It works well for the repugs, for the Mafia, too.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman loses because Bush stinks worse than week-old fish in a bucket, and Lieberman can't throw the bucket far enough away to escape the smell.

There undoubtedly will be saber rattling, and Red Alerts galore come September, but Rove may just outsmart himself. This strategy could be countered, i.e., "Do You Want Another Iraq?" and "Are You Safer Now Than You Were Four Years Ago?".... a savvy campaign could make Turd Blossom eat his words. (Hope these campaigns are in the works now.)

Lieberman won't win unless the fix is in with Diebold and the rest of the GOP-engineered voting machines.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 14, 2006 12:31 PM | Report abuse

lyle,

Good point. And well phrased.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 14, 2006 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"A vote for Lamont is a vote to embolden terrorists in that it tells them some americans don't have the fortitude to continue this battle against terrorism."
-bhoomes

Campaigning in Connecticut, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who lost Tuesday's Democratic primary and is now running as an independent, said the antiwar views of primary winner Ned Lamont would be "taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England."
-Washington Post article Friday afternoon

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again ... "
Dick Cheney

"Vote for me or die."
J. Crozier's translation of the Republican message

You know, as much as I find the message distasteful, I sometimes do have to admire the simplicity of the Republican message.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 14, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

J. I did not mean for Lamont to run from the liberal label, only to define it in his terms. In reality, most folks are a combination of lib cons mod .. As is and always will be, diverse opions on most issues.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2006 12:19 PM | Report abuse

If Lieberman becomes the de facto Republican nominee, he probably has a chance to win. The incredible weakness of the de jure Republican nominee certainly helps in that respect. Lieberman's sanctimonious, lecturing tone about why he is right to support the president and the war in Iraq are the main reason he's in this predicament. The fact that he made his shot and lost but refused to give up is another strike against him. All this adds up to a hazy picture. If I had to guess, I'd say that if Lamont doesn't make too many mistakes, he had a good chance to be the next Senator from Connecticut. He seems like a pretty likeable guy so far, and Lieberman's Iraq position is a heavy stone around his neck.

Posted by: Staley | August 14, 2006 12:18 PM | Report abuse

See, bhoomes is echoing exactly what Leiberman said...

'A vote for Lamont is a vote to embolden terrorists in that it tells them some americans don't have the fortitude to continue this battle against terrorism'

Proof positive that Lieberman is now the official candidate of dittoheads, rightwing extremists and morons.

I don't think that's going to play well in CT... there are some intelligent people there who understand that the invasion of Iraq severely damaged the fight against terrorism.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

'I guess he's what Rush et al would refer to as a Limousine Liberal.'

JD, I guess you're one of those people who lets Rush do their thinking for them. Did you know that your friend Rush is extremely wealthy, hmm? And that he himself has a limousine? And a driver? As well as a dozen other expensive cars?

'At the end of the day, it all depends on circumstances in late Oct/early Nov. If there's another terrorist plot exposed near election day, Joe wins.'

Well of course there will be another 'terrorist plot exposed' near election day. All sorts of arrests, and 'plots' and scary stuff. Beleive me, after Labor Day [when the campaign begins] it will be pretty much nonstop 'terror'. The script has already been written.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 12:10 PM | Report abuse

A vote for Lamont is a vote to embolden terrorists in that it tells them some americans don't have the fortitude to continue this battle against terrorism. I don't believe there is enough anti-war democrats for Lamont to win. Republicans, democrats and ind. will give Joe the votes he needs to win. Lamont is just another spoiled rich kid using his money trying to win office.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 14, 2006 12:10 PM | Report abuse

lyle,

The liberal label is the political equivalent of the black death in the South. If I was a politician running in a Northeast state I'd wear "liberal" like the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Lamont doesn't need to run from being a liberal in Conn.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 14, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

lyle,

The liberal label is the political equivalent of the black death in the South. If I was a politician running in a Northeast state the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Lamont doesn't need to run from being a liberal in Conn.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 14, 2006 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"I guess he's what Rush et al would refer to as a Limousine Liberal. It will be *such* poetic justice if the Dem's get to 50 votes in the Senate and Lieberman gets re-elected, just so he's in a position to screw them back. How funny would that be."
-JD

Dude, the Democrats did everything they possibly could to help Lieberman. How many national Democrats endorsed him in the primary? How many visited the state to try and help him? The party did everything short of trotting out the ghost of JFK to introduce Lieberman at a campaign rally. In what way have they screwed him over at all?

If Lieberman IS elected, I suspect he will be a substantially more liberal version of himself in the future after the narrow escape. Call it Lieberman 2.0 or something.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 14, 2006 11:58 AM | Report abuse

My prediction was 5% Lamont about ten days before the primary to win. The most important thing for him to do is stop the LIBERAL label before it gets traction.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2006 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Without a serious candidate, where else do Republicans turn in this race?

There was a report (July 12, 2006 Hartford Courant of CT) that Gov. Jodi Rell told Schleisinger to get out of the race, worried he would be a drag on the ticket. His arrest for card counting in a casino under an assumed name "Alan Gold" has renewed prompts for his exit from inside his own party.

Posted by: RMill | August 14, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

What this poll shows me is that Lieberman isn't picking up full GOP support. Since Lamont is a fiscal conservative and anti-war, I bet he is picking up some support among "liberal" CT republicans - not a lot mind you, but enough to prevent Lieberman from capitalizing big time on the GOP candidate's weakness.

I used to like Lieberman, but this run makes look like a spoilt child who is throwing a fit because he didn't get his way. Also, Lieberman's comments about a Lamont victory pleasing those who tried pull a terror attack on transatlantic flights was completely out of line.

I predict Lieberman will run out of momentum by mid-September and lose by 5-8 points to Lamont.

Posted by: Eugene | August 14, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

for voters to see Lamont as "a candidate who can't win" is exactly what the GOP would like. the problem is that he defeated a longtime incumbent in the primary, demonstrating at least some talent for winning... and the Democratic machine will be behind him in november, a Democratic machine that is more energized and better funded than any in the past couple elections. Furthermore, i think it legitimizes the Republican spin to characterize Lamont as a liberal. I myself am not that familiar with all of his positions, but I do know that he is an heir and a successful entrepreneur - not necessarily the average picture of a "liberal." My hope is that his and other races in this election cycle could give us the opportunity to move - if, probably, only temporarily - beyond "label" politics to a reasoned discussion of the issues we face and their possible solutions. overly optimistic, sure, but it's necessary to keep always in mind the ideal toward which you strive and to believe that there must be a way to move closer toward it, otherwise what's the point.

Posted by: meuphys | August 14, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure what meuphys is smoking, but to doubt that Lamont is a liberal? Take a look at his positions, if you're not too lazy to do so. He makes Howard Dean look like Pat Buchanan.

I guess he's what Rush et al would refer to as a Limousine Liberal. It will be *such* poetic justice if the Dem's get to 50 votes in the Senate and Lieberman gets re-elected, just so he's in a position to screw them back. How funny would that be.

At the end of the day, it all depends on circumstances in late Oct/early Nov. If there's another terrorist plot exposed near election day, Joe wins.

Posted by: JD | August 14, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Many people have different takes on this, From what I;ve read the issue will still be the war, I somehow, have came up with a couple of things. The most important is for Lamont to idenify himself, This will be hard for he will be attacked as a liberal, which in politics is a ditry word, yet it still works.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2006 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Lamont is a not a 'liberal' -- that's an out and out fabrication. Do you remember that Leiberman first attacked him for being able to work in a bipartisan manner with the mostly republican members of the Greenwich board of Selectmen? That's just Rove's strategy and the press is sucking it up,

Oh, want to know who's been giving money to Lieberman?

'Lieberman's list is nearly 200 handwritten pages long, containing the names of more than 700 individuals and Political Action Committees, representing business and special interest groups. The contributions total six figures on some days. The filings contain many well-known individual donors, including Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, former New York City mayor Ed Koch and executives at major companies, among them Hartford-based United Technologies Corp.

The PACs that gave to Lieberman include the Chicago Board of Trade, Tyco International, Verizon Communications, AT&T, Bank of America, Microsoft and Eastman Kodak. Lieberman's PAC money for the two and a half weeks totaled more than $220,000. Lamont's list is shorter -- each report contains only a few names and donations that seldom break the $10,000 mark on a given day....

Only about 15 percent of Lieberman's contributions of $1,000 or more came from Connecticut donors, while half of Lamont's big givers lived within the state.'

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Pre-primary polls considering the Lieberman independent candidacy from Rasmussen and Quinnipiac had Lieberman ahead or tied.

In addition to the current Rasmussen 46%-41%-6%...

Quinnipiac
July 8-12
Lamont (D) 27%
Schleisinger (R) 9%
Lieberman (I)* 51%

June 6
Lamont (D) 18%
Schleisinger (R) 8%
Lieberman (I)* 56%

Rasmussen
July 20
Lamont (D) 40%
Schleisinger (R) 13%
Lieberman (I)* 40%

June 12
Lamont (D) 29%
Schleisinger (R) 15%
Lieberman (I)* 44%

Posted by: RMill | August 14, 2006 11:51 AM | Report abuse

If Joe Lieberman were handsome or charismatic or had a strong speaking voice or was taller than Ned Lamont or was a war veteran he might be able to pull this off. But Lieberman is a bore. He looks like a loser. He sounds like a loser. He is a loser.

Posted by: J. Donne | August 14, 2006 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Lieberman will get money from the RNC. He already is. They're not backing Shlesnger -- Lieberman is much more valuable to them, because he provides 'bipartisan' cover for their actions in Iraq. He's their mole, designed to split the progressive vote--on Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and particularly Iran.

The Bush administration will begin pushing to bomb Iran the beginning of September. The election campaign begins in earnest then. That is why the deadline for Iran to 'accept' the US insistence that it shut down its nuclear program at that time. As Andy Card once said, you don't roll out a marketing campaign until after Labor Day--no one is paying attention. I've worked in marketing, this is absolutely true.

Now, the Leiberman campaign is already using Karl Rove's talking points, having made the disgusting statment over the weekend that a Lamon't win would 'empower terrorists like those the british just caught.' Execrable. Just like bush, conflating Iraq with al-Queda. Ned Lamont thinks we should be concentrating on finding and stoppping actual terrorists, not sticking our soliders in the middle of a civil war.

Lieberman has sunk to the bottom, indistinguishable from other pond scum like cheney, et al. He can only win if his enablers in the media {like Dan Baz] prop him up.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 11:49 AM | Report abuse

for voters to see Lamont as "a candidate who can't win" is exactly what the GOP would like. the problem is that he defeated a longtime incumbent in the primary, demonstrating at least some talent for winning... and the Democratic machine will be behind him in november, a Democratic machine that is more energized and better funded than any in the past couple elections. Furthermore, i think it legitimizes the Republican spin to characterize Lamont as a liberal. I myself am not that familiar with all of his positions, but I do know that he is an heir and a successful entrepreneur - not necessarily the average picture of a "liberal." My hope is that his and other races in this election cycle could give us the opportunity to move - if, probably, only temporarily - beyond "label" politics to a reasoned discussion of the issues we face and their possible solutions. overly optimistic, sure, but it's necessary to keep always in mind the ideal toward which you strive and to believe that there must be a way to move closer toward it, otherwise what's the point.

Posted by: meuphys | August 14, 2006 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Lieberman doesn't need to convice voters that he isn't George W. Bush's favorite Democrat. That's an impossibility at this point. It is a fact that he IS Bush's favorite Democrat and nothing is going to change peoples' minds on that point right now.

Lieberman needs to convince the voters to like him despite that fact. A very tall order.

As for your prediction Dave, I distinctly remember you also predicting that Lieberman would beat Lamont in the primary. Hope springs eternal.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 14, 2006 11:47 AM | Report abuse

for voters to see Lamont as "a candidate who can't win" is exactly what the GOP would like. the problem is that he defeated a longtime incumbent in the primary, demonstrating at least some talent for winning... and the Democratic machine will be behind him in november, a Democratic machine that is more energized and better funded than any in the past couple elections. Furthermore, i think it legitimizes the Republican spin to characterize Lamont as a liberal. I myself am not that familiar with all of his positions, but I do know that he is an heir and a successful entrepreneur - not necessarily the average picture of a "liberal." My hope is that his and other races in this election cycle could give us the opportunity to move - if, probably, only temporarily - beyond "label" politics to a reasoned discussion of the issues we face and their possible solutions. overly optimistic, sure, but it's necessary to keep always in mind the ideal toward which you strive and to believe that there must be a way to move closer toward it, otherwise what's the point.

Posted by: meuphys | August 14, 2006 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Republicans know that they are going to get Lieberman or Lamont. I find it hard to imagine they won't see the writing on the wall, and go with the more moderate of the two over a candidate they know can't win. What do they gain voting for the R, only to end up with a hard left D? My prediction is that Lieberman pulls this out with the help of Ds that feel they have sent him a message in the primary, and Rs that know he's their only hope. Dave

Posted by: Dave | August 14, 2006 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company