Joe Lieberman goes independent

[Shapley]

The Democrats have shown us that there is no room for dissent in their very small tent. Joe Lieberman has been defeated in the primary by newcomer Ned Lamont. Liberals were even willing to forgive Lamont's membership in a whites-only country club, so fervent was there desire to punish Joe Lieberman for the sin of supporting Bush Policy.

I'm sure there were a few Republicans who crossed over to vote for Lamont, out of desire to split the Democratic ticket in November, but there were probably all but neutralized by Republicans who crossed over to support Lieberman as an ally in the War on Terror. Apparently there were quite a few new voters casting ballots in the Democratic Primary, which would indicate that the nutroots had been successful in their recruitment drives, as well as a number of crossovers. The sabotage of Sen. Lieberman's website on the eve of the election reeks of nutroot politics. So much for fair and open elections.

It has been suggested that Sen. Lieberman may be offered a position in the Bush administration. Perhaps even given Rumsfeld's job. This would be a noble gesture, and go far to show that Republican's, unlike Democrats, do not abandon their allies.

V/R
Shapley

[bignaf]

I think there's a very good chance he'll win as an independent.

[Shapley]

I don't always agree with him, but he does seem to be a man dedicated to the principles he advocates (very much like this President). I wish him well in whatever endeavor he undertakes.

I'd like to see him win as an independent, even if it means a Democrat-leaning independent in the Senate, and I think he has a chance. I think Ned Lamont will begin to look less appealing once he's undergone the scrutiny that he was able to avoid through the primary.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

Just my opinion, but I think there's a difference between being dedicated to your principles and changing your point of view when you're shown to be wrong.

[Shapley]

And, in my opinion, there is a difference between being shown that you are wrong, and merely being told so. Lots of people have said the President is wrong, no one has actually proven it satisfactorily.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

I think it does (or certainly should) send a clear message to any incumbent that when you stray from the will of your constituents, you risk being unseated. At this point 59 percent of those polled are clearly against continuing this war. Representatives (take strong note of the meaning of that word) are supposed to represent the people who elected them. The backlash begins and I hope it continues. We are off course and have been for some time.

[jamiebk]

PS...I think that it is likely that Lamont will be elected anyway, thus preserving the Demo seat. The Reps abandoned the hugely Demo state of Conn. long ago and have a very weak candidate.

[Shapley]

Jamie,

You seem to think that our representatives are supposed to be as fickle as the public itself. The polls showed the public supported the war when we started, so Sen. Lieberman went with the will of the people at the outset. Now that the people are seeing that it's going to be a real war, with real casualties and a very real occupational force with the problems occupiers face, they've lost their will. Sen. Lieberman has not, and he can see clearly that cutting and running is not a viable option if we are to win the larger war on terror. That is an admirable trait.

In addition, about 48% of the people supported his retention, even though many of them may not agree with him on the war issue. Unlike Lamont, he is not a one-issue candidate. I think the love affair with Lamont will fade as time begins to reveal his blemishes.

The Republicans have the chance to gain the seat if Sen. Lieberman splits the ticket, although the chance is slim. They can coax the weak candidate off the ticket and replace him, if needed, as has been done in other States. There is usually a time limit for such replacements (which Tom DeLay ran afoul of in Texas), but they are possible. I doubt that this will happen. I suspect that Connecticut Republicans not enamored of their party's candidate will pull for Sen. Lieberman. I think Sen. Lieberman has a very real chance of winning as an Independent. He will lose some of 48% of the Democrat vote due to party loyalty, but will pick up the Republican and moderate-to-conservative independent voters.

It will be an interesting race, IMHO.

V/R
Shapley

[shostakovich]

I believe the vote was a referendum on the Iraq war, and there was enough anti-war sentiment to send a nobody to victory here. Lieberman has lately been more concerned with Lieberman than with his constituency. In 2000 he kept his senate job while campaigning for VP. In 2004 Edwards gave up his senate seat while campaigning for VP. That was class. Many of us in CT have been irritated by Joe's shmoozing with the enemy (the administration). He has become a Washingtonian rather than a representative of his state.

His run as an independent will only serve to help the Republican nobody win in November. He is ignoring the lesson of Nader's campaign, which siphoned off enough votes to give us Bush. He looks increasingly like a man who feels entitled to election, regardless of the peasantry's wishes. As for the "sabotage" of his web site, that is far from factual. There should be an investigation. I think his Lamont "sabotage" claim was worthy of Karl Rove. Apparently, Lamont set up a part of his site for Lieberman when he learned of it. And the web sites had little effect on the day of the vote, anyway. Minds had been made up by then.

I expect Lieberman will be prevailed upon to abandon his quest "for the good of the party". There are still 3 months for him to make the grand gesture. As for yesterday, he had to lose gracefully while preparing for "round 2", as he had already announced that he would run as an independent. I think the most interesting result of the primary is yet to come. What will other Democrats, Republicans do regarding Bush and the war? We shall see.
Shos

[Shapley]

He should abandon his quest for the good of the party that abandoned him? Doesn't sound right to me.

I think he's a man that cares more for national security than for the fickle attitudes of the Democratic Party. The party's desire to deny Bush a victory at all costs has already cost them a fair and honourable candidate. I think it will cost them, and possibly all of us, a lot more in the future.

I see the old saw that Nader is now to blame for Bush' victory has resurfaced. Nader won votes from people that were dissatisfied with Gore. There is no guarantee they would have voted for Gore, or voted at all for that matter, had Nader not been there.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

You seem to think that our representatives are supposed to be as fickle as the public itself. The polls showed the public supported the war when we started, so Sen. Lieberman went with the will of the people at the outset. Now that the people are seeing that it's going to be a real war, with real casualties and a very real occupational force with the problems occupiers face, they've lost their will.

The public is "fickle" and has "lost their will", as opposed to 'have learned the Iraq invasion was at best a huge mistake, and at worst, which is more likely, was one of the deadliest criminal lies ever foisted on the American people'? Just because the neocons are stubborn and refuse to learn from their mistakes(once again, giving a huge benefit of doubt), it doesn't mean the rest of us have to go that route.

Nice try.

[Shapley]

We're there. We've made a commitment. Is it your belief that we can just say "oops" and walk away. Let Saddam out and give him his country back?

We're in a war. Like it or not, we have to fight it and win it. To do otherwise will send the message to al Queda, to Iran, to North Korea, et. al, that Americans have no will to fight protracted battles. It will also send the message on those who are counting on our support, who have accepted that we are going to bring democracy and stability to their country that we have no intentions of doing any such thing. What message would that send? Why, we'd look like, well, like the U.N..

Let's hear your options. Cut and Run? That seems to be the Democrat plan, although they like to call it something else. We left the South Vietnamese with a similar plan, thanks to liberal do-gooders who were 'tired of the war'. Is that the Democrats plan?

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I think the US invasion of Iraq was the worst single action the US government has taken since I started paying attention. I've stated that in so many words several times on this and other boards.

It appears we are not in a situation where we have much of a prospect of making an orderly exit and leaving behind a grateful Iraqi citizenry.

I, for one, don't feel that staying the course is wise. I think Iraq, which is a synthesis anyway, should be broken up into at least three regions where there at least stands a chance for localized peace.

I believe the existing administration has butchered a very important operation. There is evidence they were planning to invade Iraq before 9/11, and that just gave them a convenient excuse to not put their full efforts into capturing bin laden. They do not deserve to continue making a mess out of this. It's far too important.

[OperaTenor]

How could packing up and leaving make things less stable in the Middle East than they have become in recent weeks? The way we've been doing things certainly hasn't made the world a safer place.

Yep, cut and run. The way things have gone, I wrap my arms around the notion.

We've completely and irretreivably blown any chance of total success we had in the "war on terror." We now have to live(and die by the numbers) with that. The Middle East is more polarized than ever(hmmm, just like the U.S., thank you, George), and God only knows when or if we will ever have the opportunity again to unite as many free countries as we had standing with us right after 9/11.

And you all called me a cynic for labelling it a quagmire...

[Shapley]

I don't think it's a quagmire, just as I didn't think Vietnam was a quagmire. We have the ability to win in Iraq, but it requires a commitment at home, a commitment the Democrats are not willing to make. Not only, I may add, not willing to make, but willing to lie, cheat, and steal to destroy every opportunity that may present itself to achieve that victory.

You can cheer them on, cheer them to victory if you will. Then, when all Hell breaks loose here, on American soil because of our perceived weakness over there, you'll all be jumping back on the 'blame George' bandwagon.

It takes two sides to polarize. You seem to think that the President has polarazied the nation because he won't work with the Democrats on the issues? Who just offerd a minimum wage increase, which only required that the Congress sign on to extend existing tax cuts to pass it? Who rejected it? The Democrats have stated that they will punish any Democrat who works with the President, and Sen. Lieberman seems to be proof that they are serious. Yet, they claim it is the President who is polarizing the nation. Lies. Outright, vicious, lies. Lies by the Democrats, not by the Republicans or the President. Yet you are willing to defend these lies as just, because you share their dislike for the current occupant of the White House. Just as Shos now blames Nader for Gore's loss, when he's not blaming the Supreme Court or Gov. Jeb Bush or whoever else happens to be handy.

The Democrats share the blame for whatever mess they percieve the nation to be in. Now they claim to be the saviors that will lead us to redemption. What rot! If they didn't want to go to war in Iraq, they had the power to vote against it. They shirked their duty, and now they hide behind the lie that they were lied to. And now they're turning on anyone in their ranks that has the guts to face the truth, the guts to say "I voted to authorize this situation and I'm willing to face the consequences of that vote".

If they can offer real solutions, then let them do so. If not, let them get the hell out of the way and let our leader lead. Obstruction and obfuscation are all they have now, and it's getting really, really, old to those of us who are paying attention. Fortunately for them, we that are find ourselves in the minority.

V/R
Shapley

[Serenity]

I'm still undecided on whether to vote:

a)against the incumbent or

b)"none of the above" or

c) against whoever Shapley endorses or

d) a write- in candidate like "Al Quesadilla" or Manuel Lopez Obrador

[Catmando]

Although I don't read all the political debate topics, I have to say that I admire Shapley for sticking to his

I'm not a fan of Bush myself, although the media probably has a lot to do with that.

It just seems that there aren't any other Republican supporters on this board, am I right or am I wrong?

Seems like it's always Shap vs the world (that's the BBB political world). Just an observation from an outsider.

Have there been any other Republican/President supporters on the board in the past, along with Shap?

Just curiosity from the outsider.

I'm going back outside now.

[Catmando]

And yes...............I know! Curiosity killed the cat.

[Serenity]

Where's the "hairball" emoticon?

[OperaTenor]

Hi Cat,

Yes, there have been a couple of others who support GWB and the Iraq invasion. Long, long flame wars stored in "The Debate Team."

Shap's the one pulling out the dead horses to wail on this time - I've done my share in the past. No one ever changes anyone else's mind on any of the important issues in these discussions, so they're mostly farting in the wind.

But one can always hope....

I will say one thing for the discussions here: They've only gotten mildly insulting on the rancor-meter. I just quit another forum where the neocons there advocated shooting liberals as traitors - in all seriousness.

Doncha just love intolerance?