NationStates Jolt Archive

It looks like Connecticut liberals, tired of dealing with Joe Lieberman's never ending desire to appear on Fox News and repeat Republican talking points to the detriment of his own party, have decided to support a primary opponent, according to this story from Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/17/1631/83836) via the Connecticut Local Politics Blog.
Connecticut Local Politics blog has a short Q&A with Ned Lamont, who will be challenging Joe Lieberman in an August primary.

Lamont is not a fringe candidate, and this isn't a hopeless battle. Uphill, yeah. Improbable, yup. But not hopeless. And given that he's promised to spend 7-figures of his own money, as well as possible support from DfA and MoveOn, and we've got ourselves quite an epic showdown brewing. Old world politics versus new. Insurance and corporate interests versus people-power. A Fox News Democrat versus a real one.
Now I don't live in Connecticut, so I don't have a say in who their senators are--I'll be working to make sure Bill Nelson is re-elected in Florida (and if Cruella DeVil, I mean Katherine Harris wins the nomination, my job will get a lot easier), but it has bugged me for a while that a state as blue as Connecticut has Lieberman for a Senator.

By the way, rumor has it that if Lieberman loses the primary, he'll run as an independent--if that rumor is true, it will only strengthen my belief that Lieberman is concerned about himself first and his party second.

Take the poll.

By the way, rumor has it that if Lieberman loses the primary, he'll run as an independent--if that rumor is true, it will only strengthen my belief that Lieberman is concerned about himself first and his party second.
Is there something wrong with that? If you ask me (which you didn't, but I'll pretend you did because it's 1 AM and my only alternative is writing stupid-ass papers for my stupid-ass professors) people went wrong when they formed parties in the first place. Too many people get huffed up over the "values of the party" that aren't being represented.
Since when did the Democratic party stand for anything more than what the people at the helm wanted it to stand for? At what point did the party become more than the sum of its parts?

From what I can gather Lieberman is quite popular in Conn.

And I wouldn't really characterize it as the bluest of blue states. It always strikes me as a place where conservative attitudes (in the old new england sense) are just lurking below the surface. A bit like westchester.

I have always liked Senator Joe Lieberman, he is a proven
anti Fidel Castro, my main issue on NS.

Wish his supporters could aprove of him becoming a Republican Senator.

Is there something wrong with that? If you ask me (which you didn't, but I'll pretend you did because it's 1 AM and my only alternative is writing stupid-ass papers for my stupid-ass professors) people went wrong when they formed parties in the first place. Too many people get huffed up over the "values of the party" that aren't being represented.
Since when did the Democratic party stand for anything more than what the people at the helm wanted it to stand for? At what point did the party become more than the sum of its parts?

I couldn't agree more, with what you had to say! I once was a democrat, but I was a member of a party that had men like Scoop Jackson, and JFK, and even Harry Truman. The democratic party has been hijacked by a liberal bunch that I could never support. Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator Miller from Georgia are about the only two democrats that remind me of the party that once was.

Like the man said, "don't get stuck on stupid".

Basically... What they said.

What's wrong with a politican doing what he believes is right and best for those he represents instead of blindly towing the party line?

Or is free thought being outlawed by the Democrats now?

Hell, Lieberman's the ONLY democrat in current times that I'd ever vote for.

Ww, this is the first time I've ever seen fiddles be political.

I couldn't agree more, with what you had to say! I once was a democrat, but I was a member of a party that had men like Scoop Jackson, and JFK, and even Harry Truman. The democratic party has been hijacked by a liberal bunch that I could never support. Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator Miller from Georgia are about the only two democrats that remind me of the party that once was.

Like the man said, "don't get stuck on stupid".
All I can say is that if you think of Zell Miller as democrat you can support, there's a party for you--the republicans. Seems to be the party he's supporting now, even if he claims to still be a democrat.

Ww, this is the first time I've ever seen fiddles be political.
Then you should get those cataracts looked at, my friend, and the state may feel the need to reconsider issuing you your driver's licence.
I play every game invented by man (and a few of the more clever one's that dogs have thought up) hence politics are within my forte.

Then you should get those cataracts looked at, my friend, and the state may feel the need to reconsider issuing you your driver's licence.
I play every game invented by man (and a few of the more clever one's that dogs have thought up) hence politics are within my forte.

Sorry, don't have a DL.

*zing*

Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator Miller from Georgia are about the only two democrats that remind me of the party that once was.

which party was that - the hopeless reactionary party?

Is there something wrong with that?

No, no there isn't. In politics its all about using people to gain positions of power.
On the otherhand you may want to do it the boy scout way and/or be idealistic; nothing wrong there.

I myself would vote for Lamont.

*zing*
*crash*

which party was that - the hopeless reactionary party?
The two parties we have now, are like Dumb and Dumber. One is spend a lot, and one is spend more. One is wanting to make the government big and the other wants to make it bigger, and yes, one is a hopeless reactionary party. The democrat party I once knew, was the one with the motto, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" JFK.

JKF was also for tax cuts, and the build up of the military. We are at war, and we have no one capable of leading us in this war. I will support whoever is in the White House, and I'm glad George Bush is there, and not Algore or Kerry. But this country needs leadership, and at the moment, as bad as they are, the republicans are the only ones offering any leadership. Hillary, Gore, and Dean are using the war as a political tool to divide the country, and regain power. Lieberman is the only democrat I see, who has a hint what being a leader is.