Redstate

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Depends on which side of The Big Ditch™ you're on. You're a sensitive sort, so you don't see anything odd about a grown man whining and sniveling while seeking election to a leadership position. I'm just betting that when CNN and AP are done parading him around the country as the new face of the Democratic Party, it won't play out like you or Lamont or AP reporters think.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Lamont's ruffled sensibilities are even more hilarious considering one of his campaign's standard attacks on Lieberman, that the war in Iraq supported by Liebermann was helping the terrorists.

I don't think that is the question. The question I see is whether the media, in their zeal to parade their latest antiwar "phenom" from sea to shining sea, poison the well for Democrats nationally. What plays in Connecticut may not be suitable for use West or South of Bayonne.

What happens in Connecticut isn't that significant. One of the Democrats will win. No gain, no loss, in the grand scheme of things. But by putting a Hero of Moonbats from Connecticut on the Sunday talk shows, and writing him up in all the newspapers as the shining new star of the Democratic Party, the media is spreading Moonbat Stink on Democrats in general. And that's a good thing.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Show me a good Republican candidate in that race, and we'll all surely support him.

The problem here, though, is the Daily Kos people are just furious as they're realizing that over 40% of Connecticut residents voted for President Bush in 2004, and they just might all vote for Joementum.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong

I don't see Lieberman going back to D after several months of being in a bloody knife fight with the Dems and getting zero support from any of them. It is much more likely we would end up with a new Lieberman... one that is much more independent. He would be crazy to go back to the Dems. Then he can start this all over again in 6 years.

I'm not sure who this "good Republican candidate" you speak of is, but there is no such guy in the race.

and you are familiar with his voting record outside of Iraq, correct? There is no reason to be rooting for him. Schlesinger is not a great candidate, but he was polling much better before Republicans started lining up behind Lieberman. What about getting Schlesinger our and Jack Orchulli in? He could win, don't you think?

That was when he had to follow the party line... and he hewed pretty close to it outside of the GWOT. That did not provide any protection against a primary challenge with very significant backing. Why would he go down that road again?

I don't take him at his word on who he will caucus with. Even if he caucuses with the Democrats... if he works against them and becomes more conservative, it is a win for us. I know I would be totally shocked to find a Senator go back on his word and do something other than what he campaigned on. Shocked, I tell ya.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember Jeffords giving any indication he was going to jump when he was campaigning only months before that as a Republican, spending Republican money, and relying on Republican support and votes to get reelected.

First of all, Jeffords voting record as a Republican looked a lot like Lieberman's. Jeffords caucusing with the D's was as natural as the sun rising in the East.

Lieberman caucusing with the R's is more like the sun rising in the West. I have a hard time seeing him getting committee chairmanships because of his seniority and us being happy with that result.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

The Dems expect everyone to fall into line and they are pretty good at maintaining discipline. Even D Senators from red states are out there voting the liberal party line again and again (as unpopular as it may be in their home state), until maybe 6 months before election time when they make a couple symbolic votes to show how "moderate" they are.

The Republicans will tolerate anyone so long as they claim to be an R. If Jimmy Carter himself ran for office as a Republican, we'd be standing right there beside him, talking about what a great guy he is. You can even publically refuse to vote for our incumbant President over the Democrat and we'll just reward you with free money to help beat off a primary challenger. It's pathetic. Jefford's record was typical for pretty much any NE Republican.

The primary's done and the nominee has been chosen.

Why are you do desperately against Lieberman, chuckles? Could it be you're against the War on Terror?
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong

and not Republicans supporting a Democrat who occassionally votes with Republicans and has become an independent soley to keep his seat.

... you are familiar with his [Lieberman's] voting record outside of Iraq, correct?

Familiar enough to know it mostly aligns with the his fellow Democratic liberals. But in the middle of a war I'll take Lieberman's support for victory over the CT Republican candidate's support for retreat any day of the week, more important than which one's views are closer to mine on tax cuts or minimum wage.

1st) To get Schlesinger out and replace him with a better Republican, we have to convince him to Willingly give up his candidacy. He has shown every sign of not be amenable to that suggestion.

2nd) What makes you think someone like Lieberman is going to let himself be portrayed as crawling on his belly to get the Democrats to Let him caucus with him? And How else do you think he would be portrayed if he Did caucus with him?

Besides, even if he Is a Democrat, he has served with great dignity and respect and has kept his word as best as he could (which Really says something for someone on the Hill).

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

1. Where is the evidence that anyone has pressured Schlesinger? All I see are complacent Republicans decideding that a state that has a Republican Governor wouldn't elect a Republican Senator.

2. "What makes you think someone like Lieberman is going to let himself be portrayed as crawling on his belly to get the Democrats to Let him caucus with him?" Because he said he would. And as you say "has kept his word as best as he could."

So now that I have explained that, you can explain why Republicans shouldn't be putting forth SOME KIND OF EFFORT to
get Schlesinger out
get good Republican candidate in
support that candidate instead of Liberal Loserman Lieberman.

a lot more than I like, say Darlin' Arlen. Besides Joe's going to win in a walkover. Do you think any one who didn't vote for Lamont will?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

You don't think this kind of thing qualifies? This is about as much pressure as you'll ever see being applied publicly.

The most serious trouble for Schlesinger, however, comes from Republican state chairman George Gallo, who told me this afternoon that the gambling questions raise “a lot of questions which Mr. Schlesinger is going to have to answer in the next couple of days.” GallGalloo is close to Republican Governor M. Jodi RellRellid, “Our mistake is that we only vetted candidates using their real names.”

Gallo has spoken to Schlesinger and sounded, without providing specifics for the record, unimpressed with the candidates explanations. The party chair would be unlikely to have been so critical of the Republican nominee without a signal from Rell’s office.