The journey from there to here

As Connecticut's Senatorial race begins to heat up, the possibility of a Joe Leiberman victory is looming large. A Leiberman victory would be the ultimate slap in the face to Soros and the radical left "shadow party" that are trying to hijack the Democratic Party and chase the moderates (such as Leiberman) away.

A Leiberman victory would mean a Senatorial seat that will go to an Independent, and not to a Democrat. To a party trying to regain seats in November's election, this would be a loss, because it would be a seat given up to the party's extreme arrogance and exclusive mentality. Ironically, as they accuse the GOP and Bush of a "you're either with us or against us" mentality, the same mentality has cast a man who was only 6 short years ago the party's VP candidate out of the Democratic Party. And while he could switch his affiliation once elected, it seems unlikely that Leiberman, a sane man by most accounts, would do so to the party that so cruelly betrayed him after years of faithful service.

The Democrats may have been handed a seat in the US house, with Delay's removal of his name from the ballot (but don't count the Libertarian candidate out yet!). But in a move that shows extremely lousy foresight, they have simply handed away a seat in the Senate, a move that could very well cost them dearly come November. Whether this is a sign of a larger DNC implosion or not is hard to say, but I would not be putting the early money on the Dems to regain the White House two years hence.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 13, 2006
But won't Lieberman's presence on the ballot split the Dem (or heck, the Republican also) voting? I mean, Ross Perot's presence on the '92 ballot resulted in a Clinton plurality, and splitting the Minnesota '98 gubernatorial ballot resulted in four years of Jesse Ventura.
on Aug 13, 2006
But won't Lieberman's presence on the ballot split the Dem (or heck, the Republican also) voting?


From all accounts, the Republican's not well liked, and Leiberman is a moderate who's capable of drawing moderate Republican votes...especially when he doesn't have that "D" attached to his name. And let's not rule out the possibility of "buyer's remorse" on the part of a few primary voters, or the appearance of saner Democrats at the polls in November. He's leading in all the polls that show the three candidates head to head.

We'll see what gives, though.
on Aug 13, 2006

I am reminded of Bush (warding sign for libs) support of moderate Republicans.  And then this.

06 may be a loss for the republicans.  But it will be a bigger loss for the democrats.  I hope 2 year control is their cup of tea.  Lieberman is no moderate, but he is not a loony leftist either.  And that will be their Waterloo.

I dont think Lieberman will Caucus with the Republicans.  But it will mean that many moderate democrats will think twice about running in Red States.  And there are a lot more of them, than blues.

on Aug 13, 2006
Lieberman is planning, at least according to what I've read, to continue working with the Democrats if he does win his seat back. I'm not sure that means he plans to continue caucusing with them or not, but I have to expect the Democrats will extend some sort of olive branch and do their best to keep him from going over to the evil other side.

As if my own articles on the subject don't give my position away, I'll make it clear, I hope to god that Lieberman wins the election and makes it a stunning defeat for Lamont and the rest of the loony far liberal left. Until the Democrat party learns their lesson a few dozen more times it seems clear that they will continue to welcome in the fringes in much the same way that (sadly) my party welcomes some of the fringe on the right. Actually they are worse at it as they go well out of their way to court such loons, thinking that the likes of Soros, Michael Moore, and their friends in Hollywood will somehow help them win it all.

Dr. Guy says above that Lieberman is no moderate, but compared to the rest of the Democrats in the congress, he's a friggin' righty himself. When you compare him to the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Pelosi, he's a full-on moderate.

Given the alternative, I'd rather Lieberman win it all in a landslide. But then again, perhaps some of what else Dr. Guy said above is true -- let the Democrats win it all for a few year and let them try running things for a while. It failed them badly in 2000 (even with the help of Jumpin' Jim Jeffords giving them control for a while) and it would probably do it again as they really don't have any idea what to do if they did take power. They aren't ready to go from obstructionists to activists on anything. The only thing they can do lately is cry over a lack of power they aren't ready for.
on Aug 13, 2006
Dr. Guy says above that Lieberman is no moderate, but compared to the rest of the Democrats in the congress, he's a friggin' righty himself.

Colbert referred to Lieberman as "my favorite Republican".
on Aug 14, 2006

Colbert referred to Lieberman as "my favorite Republican".

He is supposed to be funny?

on Aug 14, 2006
you are assuming Leiberman will win on Nov.

I am personally tied of his arrogance and his full support of this mess we are in. I live in hartford,
and I am going to make certain my vote goes for anyone BUT HIM this Nov.

Hes got this cocky demeanor like he OWNS the senatorial seat. Heres one vote against him come Nov. And I know a lot of people who feel the same way.

We need new faces, new people new ideas this election year
out with the old in with the new
on Aug 15, 2006
and I am going to make certain my vote goes for anyone BUT HIM this Nov.


You're not an independent, you're an anti-incumbent. There's a difference.

The idea of voting AGAINST someone in an election is pretty absurd. While I'm not a huge fan of Leiberman's, he does seem one of the less objectionable candidates. His Democratic opponent is exactly what independents have long claimed is wrong with politics: a billionaire buying his way into office. Worse, he is a billionaire with George Soros pulling the puppet strings. Rest assured, if Soros wins office this November (as he will if Lamont is elected), he will yank power from Lamont as quickly as he gave it if Lamont doesn't do EXACTLY as he, Soros, an UNELECTED individual, dictates. That's the lesson of Leiberman, a lesson I believe Lamont learned well.
on Aug 15, 2006
>His Democratic opponent is exactly what independents have long claimed is wrong with politics: a
>billionaire buying his way into office

He earned it so what?
How is he different from
Bush?
Frist?
Delay?
etc
etc

Hell, even NY's mayor funds his own campaigns ... nothing wrong with that if you have the money and
earned it. Truth is I trust someone using their own money than someone using PAC money ... too many
masters to serve.

All the money in the world and all the positive ads on tv will not make me vote for you ...

btw Gideon, your bias is all too apparent. you support the hosts of fools who support lieberman
financially. the same ones currently dictating foreign policy, driving us to debt.

That mess will come to an end this November. I am about to do what I have NEVER done in my life, go
out and ACTIVELY support a politician to get the word out.

I dont care if a lemming runs ... it will be better than lieberman

Drive down to hartford and get the feel of the place ... youll see the mood we are all in.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
complete replacement of any incumbent ... even if my shoe has to run
on Aug 16, 2006
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
complete replacement of any incumbent ... even if my shoe has to run


Frankly, if George Soros wins multiple Senate seats (if Lamont wins, he will have won at least one), it is a frightening process that should concern EVERY liberty loving American (at least those of us who want to remain a sovereign nation and not become part of a global government).

To call me biased in favor of those who support Leiberman is to be completely ignorant of my politics. I am first, foremost, and always a Libertarian, but no Libertarian is running prominently enough in the race to stand a fair chance of winning.

I understand your dilemna, but I do hope you do some reading on Soros, and his agenda. It's disturbing to every liberty minded citizen, which is what you appear to be.

He earned it so what?
How is he different from
Bush?
Frist?
Delay?
etc
etc


Please show me a single endorsement in any of my articles of Bush, Frist, or Delay.

He didn't technically earn his money; it was his birthright. But you're right, it is, and should be, rightfully his money. However, the fact that he's in the Soros camp, a group of people whose behind the scenes manipulations of their puppet politicians is frightening, to say the least, says enough to me that I wouldn't want him to represent me. But, you live in CT, I don't, and it's your vote. I applaud you for not wasting it by staying home, at least.

But I would encourage you to take a hard look at the Soros agenda and ask yourself if that's what you want.
on Aug 16, 2006
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
complete replacement of any incumbent ... even if my shoe has to run
- Independent American

I second that.

In going door-to-door for our local primaries I came upon a house that sported a sign that read, "Re-Elect No One".

I agree.
Let's toss them all out on their ear.
on Aug 16, 2006
>He didn't technically earn his money; it was his birthright.

Frists family are in the medical/medicare/ business ...

Bush didnt earn his money either ... it was his birthright. Dont talk about all the failed businesses
hes run (Harken etc etc). He got in through birthright and FAMILY connections which allowed donors
(chevron,bp,amoco,kellogs brown and root,texaco,etc) to donate

etc etc

But, Lamont owns a Cable TV business HE STARTED ... one thats successful! Hes putting his money where his mouth is

>But you're right, it is, and should be, rightfully his money.

Youll get no argument from me here.

>However, the fact that he's in the Soros camp, a group of people whose behind the scenes
>manipulations of their puppet politicians is frightening,

Cut that crap out ... I dont care about Soros. Waving Soros and such allegations is a waste of time.
You didnt seem to have bothered to read my previous posting.

I WANT ALL INCUMBENTS OUT
EVERY
SINGLE
ONE
OF
THEM

IF SATAN-THE-DEVIL runs this November in CT ... against the incumbent I WILL VOTE FOR HIM.

FURTHERMORE I WANT TERM LIMITS NOWWWWW
if the presidency has term limits i want all public offices to have term limits as well. I dont care if you are democrat,republican,green,yellow or shoe ... term limits for all and

ALL INCUMBENTS OUT
even if you are an angel ... time for a change ... time for new faces.

Lamont funds his own campaign ... money from his pocket. Leiberman has MILLIONS from donations ... the MASTERS he serves are endless but they are certainly not CT voters

THAT MUST COME TO AN END THIS NOVEMBER
ALL
INCUMBENTS
OUT


thats the only message we are discussing at the hartford village council meeting (2600 people at the last one)
on Aug 17, 2006
Frists family are in the medical/medicare/ business ...

Bush didnt earn his money either ... it was his birthright. Dont talk about all the failed businesses
hes run (Harken etc etc). He got in through birthright and FAMILY connections which allowed donors
(chevron,bp,amoco,kellogs brown and root,texaco,etc) to donate

etc etc

But, Lamont owns a Cable TV business HE STARTED ... one thats successful! Hes putting his money where his mouth is


The Frist, Bush comparisons are ridiculous red herrings. NEVER have I stood in defense of any of these men. Your comparisons infer that I EVER stood in defense of these men, and yet you cannot find a single word to that end. This is the kind of shameful responses that cause people to hate the left. If you respond to my comments with "well, Bush did X, and Frist did Y", and I reply, well, then I am a shill for Bush and Frist. If I don't, then I'm "covering up the facts. How many times do I have to repeat myself before you realize I am NOT a Republican, have never BEEN a Republican, and have as much dislike for the party at large as I do for the DNC at large?

As for Lamont's cable business, yeah, he started it...but he had a heckuva bankroll to get the ball rolling.

Cut that crap out ... I dont care about Soros. Waving Soros and such allegations is a waste of time.


You don't care about Soros? Well, you might, once he gains power.
on Aug 17, 2006
>This is the kind of shameful responses that cause people to hate the left. If you respond to my comments >with "well, Bush did X, and Frist did Y",

WOW
yet you had no problems factoring SOROS into a conversation about Lieberman and Lamont.
around here we call that HYPOCRISY ... what do you call it?

Also I am not a leftie or a rightie. If anyone running against Lieberman took a viewpoint I am opposed
to .. I would set aside just to see him and all incumbents removed.

THATS THE KEY POINT
SOROS, SATAN, BUSH, FRIST,ANGELS, SHOES be damned
I dont care

>How many times do I have to repeat myself before you realize I am NOT a Republican, have never BEEN
>a Republican, and have as much dislike for the party at large as I do for the DNC at large?

Your support of Lieberman betrays you
Hes about as republican as they get
on Aug 17, 2006

Your support of Lieberman betrays you
Hes about as republican as they get

Actually no, since he voted against Bush 90% of the time.  But it does betray you.  Gid thought you were a real Anti Inumbent.  Instead you are just a loony leftist.  No harm in admitting it.  Just shame in denying it.

2 Pages1 2