Interesting news. I was glad to see McKinney out. She was a nut and a racist. Lieberman didn’t deserve this, but I think he’ll do fine as an independent in the fall.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly wouldn't say that him running guarantees a Republican victory. There are many Republicans who like Lieberman (and wonder why he's not Republican himself! ) It's just as likely he will split a Republican ticket as he will a Democratic one.
I have to admit that back when he was a running mate of Al Gore, I gave Gore a second thought just because I liked Lieberman so much. He appears to be a man of integrity and values.
posted
Since registered Republicans only make up about 22% of the Connecticut electorate (compared to 33% Democrats and 45% unaffiliated), it doesn't guarantee a Republican win. It may, though, guarantee a Lieberman win. Check out Jim Geraghty's analysis.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don’t think for a sec there will be a GOP victory there. How many GOP is there in Connecticut anyway? I thought I heard it was a majority independent, next with Dems, and a small minority of GOP. Sure I wouldn’t mind a GOP victory, but doubt that is at all likely.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. He's also for government regulation of video games. Which major issues does he align with you on?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lieberman's unpopular because he's the token Democratic supporter of the Iraq war in the Senate, and he comes from a state where 75%+ of voters disapprove of the war. His being in favor of video game and media regulation is another point against him, but his hawkish views are what catapaulted Lamont to victory. The fact that he's viewed as a "Beltway insider," beholden to his corporate sponsors first and his constituents second, probably didn't help.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have to admit that back when he was a running mate of Al Gore, I gave Gore a second thought just because I liked Lieberman so much.
This is one of many reasons why Lieberman was a bad choice. Convincing people who'd never have seriously voted for Gore to give Gore a "second thought" didn't get him any votes, and Lieberman was such an uninspiring loser to everyone else that it depressed turnout in droves.
The man's a complete tool, and the Democrats are infinitely better off without him.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being from Connecticut, I cannot express how much this delights me. I'm unaffiliated, albeit conservative, but the manner in which he would act as if all of his proposals and votes were Correct, despite ideological or internal inconsistencies, always infuriated me and my family-- especially when he flaunted the few 'good' decisions he made. Here is Tim Cavanaugh's opinion of the ousted senator, which I agree with: http://www.reason.com/hod/tc080906.shtml
I don't think he will win as I don't think he has built a strong enough relationship with the state. We aren't exactly known for sticking with fallen politicans, especially those in disfavor with leading Democrats as Lieberman is (Connecticut is anti-war, but also relatively apolitical, and the public disapproval of him really hurt him, possibly worse than his voting record. For whatever reason, most Connecticut Dems/Mods respect Clinton, Kerry, and Dodd, probably a lot more than they did Lieberman in the first place).
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest: you might look at the Dem's other candidate. While he's strongly anti-war, I don't know much anything else about him. He might or might not be better overall.
Also, its not very hard to be anti-this war. Most of the major conservative think tanks have blasted the handling of it. The main anti-war view I regard as misguided is the idea we need to immediately withdraw troops (or withdraw them on a narrow timetable).
edit: I know you're not voting in the senatorial election so it doesn't matter much, but there are a few Republicans and a few Democrats (more of the former in the Senate, and more of the latter in the House) who aren't completely absurd.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu: although I frequently come across as such, I am not a conservative.
Since I can't vote in the connecticut election (being a californian by residence) I'm not inclined to review the other candidate. Since I'm even further from the dems than the republicans I doubt I would like him.
lalo: sorry, not in the mood to appriciate snarkiness...
posted
I'm mainly talking about the economic conservatives, which make up most of the conservative think tanks. Most think tanks of all political philosophies have blasted the handling of it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pixiest: you might look at the Dem's other candidate. While he's strongly anti-war, I don't know much anything else about him.
I don't think anyone does. And a lot of CT residents read my local newspaper, so if he had any other beliefs, I would probably have heard of them. Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a conservative and a republican I think Lamont's victory over Leiberman was a fantastic gift to the right. It was great fun the other day watching former Clinton aide (and Leiberman supporter) Lani Davis trying to minimize Lamont's victory as not representative of the direction that the democrat party was going in. Liberal pundits are worried, as exemplified in an excellent peice by Jacob Weisberg in todays Slate.com http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/
They're worried that this move to the far-left will lose them elections in the same way that McGovern in the 60's set-off the perceptions that the Democrats were soft on the fight against communism. They're worried that the party is moving to far from the perceived center that politicians like Bill Clinton tried so hard to position the party in.
The extreme left is taking over the party. No doubt about it with guys like Lamont winning elections and a man like Howard Dean running the party. As liberal as Leiberman is, he even lost the support of NOW, despite his being the founding member of "Orthodox Jews for Abortion." Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxime Waters all were by Lamont's side at the end. They don't come much more liberal than Leiberman: Voted against the ban on homosexual marraige, against confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in ANWAR, against Bush's tax cuts, against banning partial-birth abortions, and in favor of the Kyoto Accords. Leiberman's only offense: He supports the war on terrror and Isreal's right to defend itself. That's just too unforgivable for those on the extreme left.
We can't ignore that the Anti-Semitic elements in the far-left have played a role, as evidenced by their lack of support for Isreal in its fight for survival, the anti-Jewish rants on the liberal blogs that were reported in the weeks leading up to the election and that I regularly hear from some of my leftest friends (Mel Gibson's recent tirade is representative of many in the far-left), the Anti-Jewish rants made by McKinney's supporters on election night as it became clear that she was going down, and Lamont supporter Jesse "Himie Town" Jackson. Very sad.
On the other hand, McKinney's loss was a blow to Republicans. I can't think of a better spokesman for the Democrats than Cynthia, at least from the Republican POV.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:They don't come much more liberal than Leiberman:
:blink:
Funny, I've never thought he was remotely liberal. In favor of governmental regulation of the media and video games; in favor of the death penalty; in favor of funding faith-based institutions... you don't even need to start on his foreign-policy issues to note that he's pretty far from the left-wing side of the spectrum.
(For what it's worth, I'm a Jewish liberal who refused to vote for the Gore/Lieberman ticket in 2000, on grounds that it was too far to the right. This perception far predates the events in Iraq.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Watch out Mig, they’ll be hating you in no time around here!
I disagree with your assessment that McKinney's loss was a blow to Republicans. That district was going Democrat no matter what. I’d rather have someone in there reasonable that we can work with instead of that racist nut job who does nothing but try to stir the pot. I guess I’m really saying there’s enough nuts in the DNC that getting rid of one is a very good thing. If we’d ever get down to just a few of them then I might agree.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) It's just as likely he will split a Republican ticket as he will a Democratic one.![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
