Just say no to Joe! Say yes to Ned instead!

Lieberman cut and ran from his party even before he quit it completely,
Otter

Thanks for the travel logs. They are both good and bad for me. They are good in the sense that they motivate me to contribute more money, and at the same time they are bad (not really) for the same reason. They also make me fantasize about leaving my job and joining up with Friends for Kerry.

On another topic, I wonder if the Democrats will allow Joe Lieberman to caucus with them when the Iraqi issue is discussed? Are parties allowed to pick and choose when a Senator is allowed to caucus with their party? Quite honestly I think the Dems should take the position that they would never allow Lieberman to caucus with them. That would make some Dems and Independents reconsider a vote for the weasel.

I’m increasingly confused about what exactly the payback reasons for all this Joe support .

Both the GOP and Dems are getting IOUs. The NYT, which endorsed Lamont over the war and other Joe obstructions during the primary, has been campaigning for Joe ever since.

Maybe CT is thinking only local and protecting the shipyards, but I think the elders of the party are more to blame, and I want to know why.

Schumer, yes, the middle east, but everyone else?

I wish the debate wouldn’t always place the Dems as leaving Iraq tomorrow, when we are posing let’s talk about leaving at all, and we’ll do it as a process.

Ned Lamont is a businessman, and fully capable of providing leadership.

Joe, on the other hand, never met an obstructionist GOP talking point he didn’t like. Having initially circumvented debate on Iraq because he wanted in, even without WMDs, helping end discussion and filibuster efforts on GOP judges, supporting Bolton, and the list is endless.

Just because he supports the views of the other party, consistently, doesn’t make him independent because he votes for the environment and once marched in the south decades ago.

MH,

I am painfully aware of the stakes if the Dems decide not to allow Lieberman to caucus with them. However, if the party wants to prove that it can move beyond the politics of a single man, then they should dump him. The agenda could be set by the Republicans, but they will have a harder time getting their agenda passed if it is a 50-50 Senate.

Great news!

NYT endorses Ned Lamont!

Ned Lamont has run a far less polished campaign than Mr. Lieberman, but the more we see of him, the more impressed we are by his intelligence and his growing sophistication about the issues facing the nation. He is very much in the Connecticut mold of basically moderate, principled politicians, and his willingness to take on Mr. Lieberman when no one else dared to do it showed real courage and conviction. He would make a good senator. More important, he has the capacity to continually become a better one. We endorse Ned Lamont for Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/opinion/29sun2.html

ProSense, thank you for the wonderful news!

Bye, Joe.

Marjorie -

Are we saying that Joe is threatening ‘support me or else.’

I don’t know that he’s openly threatening, but it’s an obvious reality.

oncall,

I disagree. If Joe wins - and let’s make sure that doesn’t happen, then this discussion is superfluous anyway - the control of the Senate is worth some dealing, imo. It’s a tough call where to draw the line, but I don’t think we should needlessly antagonize the guy. Let’s work with him where we have common ground (like on the environment), try to accentuate the importance of those issues and the Bush administration’s complete moral failure in those areas, and try to get that majority leader vote.

OTOH, I may be being completely naive and you may be right. Having Joe in the caucus will certainly present some challenges. The question is whether those challenges would be worth it to have Dems controlling the agenda.

But, let’s make sure it isn’t even a question come Nov. 8!

Lamont won’t win. Lieberman already got this in the bag.
Unlike most dems he did not sell out his country to pander to the anti-war vote and that’s why he has my respect and support.

Pundit,

Who sold out the country? Was it the man who lied to our Congress and to Americans in order to get us into a war of choice? Was it a man who gave tax breaks to an industry that is making its highest profits in years? Was it the man who came into office with a budget surplus and has turned it into a massive deficit? Was it the man who received a daily briefing that OBL was determined to strike in America and ignored it? Was it the man who let the pharmaceutical industry have everything they wanted while Americans are still forced to choose between food and medicine? So, I ask you again who sold out this country. His name is George Bush and he is a Republican, not a Democrat, and he sold out the country.

I know that it would be a lot less expensive if the attempts to prevent terrorism in this country were done with some forethought and not by giving ridiculous contracts to Cheney’s buddies.

Unfortunately you might be right about Lieberman winning CT, but that doesn’t change the fact that there has not been pandering by Dems. There have been responsible alternatives suggested, but these were ridiculed and eventually adapted by Bush et al.

Lieberman actually is the one who has been pandering. Just ask his Republican supporters.

I am ready to throw him out because he didn’t play by the rules of the party he belonged to. I can’t trust him. I would rather see somebody win whom I can trust, and it is not Joe Lieberman. Just because Clinton campaigned for him doesn’t mean diddly squat to me.

John Kerry puts his foot in his mouth by insulting our troops and tries to convince us it’s a GOP plot against him.
He then insults the intelligence of the American people by telling us he didn’t say what he said.
His hate for George Bush (like a lot of Democrats) clouds his judgement and even his intelligence.

There was no misunderstanding what he said.

He now owes not only the military and apology, but he personally owes ME and apology for insulting my intelligence.

And while he’s at it, he might want to apologize to George Bush.  Every personal attack against Bush is an attack against our country that is tearing it apart.  But is he concerned with that?
No, he’s just interested in furthering himself.  Why would someone like him push himself on the American people?  And he thinks that George Bush is stupid?

John Kerry, think about how much you hate George Bush and then realize that the American people chose Bush over you.  Does that tell you something?