Redstate

Agreed in every particular. I want Ned Lamont to be the new face of the Democrat Party.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

At least Liberalman was his sobriquet when he was on the presidential ticket. He is on the right side of the GWOT, but in far left field in any other area you care to name.

Since he supports almost nothing we stand for, is he now to be supported at the expense of a Republican candidate? Obviously people are not thinking this through. The Dem vote is split between the Dem and an Independent and we have a real opportunity to elect a genuine republican instead of a liberal poseur.

Seminole 6, out

The Republicans and Democrats have the ability to shift the debate in this country. Their positions automatically approach mainstream status. So the closer the national Democrats get to Daily Kos, the closer the country is dragged toward that site's positions.

So I want to see them rejected. I want to see supporters of the War on Terror vindicated at the polls. I'd love to see the orangeshirts tested in the way the conservatives were after Johnson routed Goldwater.

I don't think they're patient enough to recover. So my hope is that the party WILL get handed back to the DLCers like Lieberman and Clinton. Maybe then the war, free trade, and things like that will no longer be points of contention.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

There are times when country must take precedence over party. The War on Terror is one of those times. I understand people who complain that Lieberman's problematic on everything but the war issues. But that's one big but, and it's the only one that counts in wartime.

On the personality side, it may be the Religious Right in me, but I say go with the rabbi over the preppie.

On the practical side, I wouldn't worry too much about a reduction in netroot insanity and Democratic dysfunction if Lieberman wins. I hear that the Clintons, Kerry, Edwards, Feingold, Dean, Kos, Arianna et al have all hired foodtasters for those Democratic Unity Dinners.

After thinking about it - you put it well - I agree that the GWOT support from Joe is worth overlooking his other failings at this juncture.

Where I was coming from initially is that while the GWOT was always the biggie, we must pay heed to retaining control of either the House or Senate while GWB is in office. Further, I would say that we must retain one after 08 also - not to mention capture the presidency. My first thoughts were that electing Joe damages those goals.

Seminole 6, out

Because the longer the Lieberman/Kos soap opera continues, the more damage it does to the hard left and the Democrats.

If Lamont wins, the soap opera dies out by March of 2007. Lieberman finds himself some job at a think tank or in the private sector, and eventually, things return somewhat to a status quo.

However, if Lieberman wins as an independent, the anger, fury, and indignation from Kos and their types will be immense. They will demand that the Senate Democrats expel Lieberman from their caucas or else (which they have the means to enforce in a primary).

The resulting public fight will be immense - and it will drive the Democrats further to the left. And the Republicans won't have to lift a finger. Hopefully, it will spill over into the 2008 Democratic primaries as well, which are already shaping up to be a lot like World War I - a (figuratively) bloodly conflict which is catastrophic for the losers, and a phyrric victory for the winners. A Lieberman victory would assure such a bloody, vicious, no-holds-barred affair (which is already highly likely given what we know of the natures of the combatants, the Clintons on one side, and Kos/MoveOn on the other).

That would set up the Republican nominee (at this point, one of Romney/Giuliani/McCain) to sweep the general election against a Democrat low on primary funds, and facing a badly fractured party.

the same thing but see this playing out different ways.

I'm really afraid the dKos lunacy cannot continue at this level without concrete electoral wins. Offing Lieberman would give them increased prominence and would scare the bejeezus out of the DLC Dems and most anyone else not on thorozine.

I'm afraid if Lieberman wins that by 2008 dKos will just be an online Tourette's convention.

Their strength in the primaries is enough to keep most Dems in line through the 2008 election cycle. Not all Dems can get the crossover appeal Lieberman's generating in Connecticut, nor do all other states have Connecticut's penchant for electing third-party candidates statewide (the only other states to do so that come to mind right away are Alaska and Vermont - the former elected Hickel as Governor, the latter elected Bernie Sanders to the at-Large seat in the House, and is likely to make him a Senator).

This Connecticut race is the exception, not the rule.

No question about it, asking Republicans to vote for an "independent" candidate who is truly a dyed-in-the-wool liberal is the wrong strategy.

If Lieberman wins and is given his powerful seats again, he will continue to do damage to the country by blocking tax relief and most likely, every other republican policy aside from votes dealing with the GWOT. Lamont would do the same, but without the loud voice, the authority, or the ability to reach across party lines. A Lamont win will continue the Democrat march to the far left, a march we all know will end in failure.

But he'll get stripped of seniority and probably booted from the caucas. Because that is what DailyKos, MoveOn, and DU will demand.

And the Democrats now know that the netroots can take out people in the primary.

So Lieberman will be booted. He will be a non-person to the Democrats in the Senate.

Kos and the netroots will not just smile sweetly and say, "Better luck next time," if Lieberman wins.

When I brought up this strategy a week or two ago, with the Cynthia McKinney election, all I got was grief on how we should hope for the best possible candidate. I felt the same way, but there was a part of me that wanted her to be the new face of the Democratic party. Now that I bring up this strategy where the good guy actually agrees with our party on one or two issues, I get slammed saying that the better strategy is to have Ned Lamont win.

I can't say you were one of them, streiff. I'm not sure. But I just wonder why, if we are concerned with getting the best representatives versus the best strategy, did we support McKinney's opponent when he doesn't agree on a single issue, but simply opposes her, yet we all want Lamont to win whenever Lieberman actually has made the correct call a few times?

Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan

To be the Strength of the immediate reaction to Lieberman's Primary loss that has so many Republicans backpeddaling the way they are. A McKinney or a Lamont General win would have done inordinate harm to the Ds for a long time, but also inordinate damage to the country.
Lieberman is better to win than McKinney because he actually does agree with us on the 1 Big Issue. Unfortunately, with all the bigname republicans and so many of the little guys pulling for him, some folks are getting scared off...

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