Redstate

The Republican has very low name recognition, much lower than Lamont and obviously much lower than Lieberman's 100%. Bush got 44% in CT in '04... granted, it was against Kerry and Bush was more popular then, but there ARE some Republicans in the state.

If money was put into it, things could possibly get interesting. 34% is mathematically sufficient to win in a 3-way race, and I think the GOP candidate could approach that with more funds.

conservatives are, as is usual, selectively picking information to "prove" a point.

We heared from someone that Chafee was "far left", and they cited the ACU and nothing else.

Let's see:

The Republican Liberty Caucus gave Chaffee a rating of 65/100 last year.

The RLC is for limited government. Not exactly a leftist mission.

NARAL gave him a rating of 65% last year.

Is that far left? You could make a case that Kennedy's record is. Not Chaffee.

He supported issues favored by the National Committee for effective Congress 55% of the time.

Is that far left?

On Civil Rights He supported issues favored by Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 41% of the time and the NCAAP 75%

Is that far left?

You can get away with saying he leans left. But saying he's far left cannot convince anyone.

Ohio is real f-d this year.  Republicans at this point will lose the governorship but there is a good chance that Dewine will keep the Senate seat.  But Ohio right now is a bit like Indiana.  Unpopular President, Unpopular Governor, Unpopular Majority party.

I think Indiana will lose at least 1 Republican Congressional Seat because Mitch has pissed everyone off with Major Moves and the Daylight Savings Time bit.  Farmers are pissed by the Daylight Savings bit and everyone else is pissed by Major Moves.

I don't think Chafee endorsed Kerry, he just said he wouldn't be voting for Dubya. As a matter of fact, I think he said he would vote for Bush 41 as a write in.

The PDF stated nothing about time, place, or manner. Would Gore have asked that all Arab men be closely watched?   If the 9/11 terrorists had been kept off the planes, President Gore would have fired the officials that kept them off and requested an investigation by the Justice Department into Civil Rights Violations.

familiar with Indiana, just Ohio because I've been following Blackwell for a while now.

As for that Troll thing, that's absurd. What did Indiana do with Daylight Savings? I totally missed the bus on that one?

I almost went with "Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad Chuck Norris has never cried." but chose this one at the last minute. :)

Chafee lifetime ACU rating: 37

Specter lifetime ACU rating: 45

They're not really all that different.

For comparison:

Nelson (Nebraska): 53

Lieberman: 17

Jeffords: 24

Byrd: 30

I'm not afraid of Lamont. Why would I prefer Lieberman? The Democrats can't get their act together on the war anyway.

But one data point does not make a trend.  It makes an exception.  If '06 and '07 are the same, then you are correct.  I think '06 might be, but after the election he will return to voting like Snowe and Collins.

Not good, but I don't think lost.  Down I believe 6 in the recent U of Cincy poll which has a decent track record in the state.  Most of the other polls were showing 10 the last I saw.

As said, the Ohio GOP is a mess thanks to the king RINO (name only if there ever was one), Bob Taft.  The media is painting Blackwell as the right wing Uncle Tom, but he has won state wide election before and he's not seen as part of the Republican establishment.

I think once Labor Day hits and voters start paying attention it will come down to can he get his prow growth economic message beyond the media insisting he's a right wing Uncle Tom, homophobe..., sexist...

Strickland is tough demographically though, coming from the southeast part of the state.  His House district is the length of the Ohio River.  Combine enough of the Appalachia vote down there with Northeast Ohio libs (where I'm at) and enough disillusioned exburb voters and he may be tou8gh to beat.  

I think Blackwell will pull it out and DeWine will need his turnout to keep it safe.  As for feeding the trolls, I think I was the troll and you were feeding me.

because i didn't reply to a comment about bananas in China. It was a comment about the Kos kids influence in the elections.

The real reason they target Leibermen is something called political reality. Let's face it. There are more conservative Democrats in the Senate. The prime expample would be Ben Nelson. However, you don't see the KOSSAKS going after Ben Nelson or Kent Conrad in their primaries. The reason is simple. They know that Ben Nelson is the best they are gonna get out of Nebraska. Connecticut on the other hand has a good chance of electing a solidly liberal candidate. That is why the attack Leiberman, but are OK with Nelson. The same is true with the GOP. Let's just say that a Senator from Oklahoma started voting like Lincoln Chafee. We'd oust him in a second and get a real GOPer in there in his place. Since Chafee represents Rhode Island however, we tolerate him because we know he is the best we will get. Trust me, the Dems would love to replace Ben Nelson with a left winger. They just know they can't. With Leiberman though, they see opportunity.

Political Reality

But I tend not to trust 1 rating system.  You guys have any others?  I like to compare these things.

"if i lived in new jersy i would probably vote for tom kean jr."

Chafee is far left?  I guess that is where we differ.  I don't see Chafee as far left at all.  Maybe he is moderate left and I give you Chafee but for Specter?  I have a harder time seeing him as far left

the netroots doesn't hate lieberman because of his politics.  as others have pointed out, he's pretty liberal, and there are plenty of more conservative democrats that get the support of the netroots.

he is hated because he is so willing to go on the sunday morning shows and endlessly attack other democrats.

I really didn't think he could lose the primary, but I guess he thinks he can. This is such a damning statement on the state of the Democrat party. They are determined to kick every last respectable member out of their party. And this isn't just bad for the Democrat party, but in the long run for the Republicans and the nation as a whole, without 2 serious parties (I know, its been a long time since the Dems have been serious, but...)

Go Joe!

Does the name Pat Toomey ring any bells?

Or how about Stephen Laffey?

buckeye,

i see where you're coming from, and i agree with your basic sentiments wholeheartedly, but: (1) a republican doesn't have much of a chance in this state, anyway (in either a two-way or a three-way race with lieberman running as an independent), and (2) schlesinger doesn't seem to be offering what you're looking for.  schlesigner is calling for a murtha-style reduction in US forces in iraq, and he's preaching liberal immigration policy too.  he will be running against lieberman specifically as an antiwar candidate.  the press will home in on this as a republican revolt against bush and the party.  is that what you want to be a part of?  especially when his candidacy is doomed?  in my head this just doesn't add up.

the best we can get here is lieberman.  the republican organization nationally should be looking to coalitions between democrats like lieberman and RINO-disaffected conservatives in new england.  this is kennedy country.  they should seize opportunities like the divisions among democrats this race represents to build and redefine who they are anew and borrow from the lieberman model to promote what is both electable and sensible.

schlesinger doesn't offer a realistic hope for that.  if lieberman goes, we're not even going to get RINOs, just democrats, and then those democrats will move even further to the left.  take a look at the connecticut statehouse.  this isn't ohio, my friend.  this is the home of lowell weicker.

putting a gun to voters' heads forcing them to vote for Lamont?

Lieberman supporters aren't Republicans. I don't know why you are so obsessed over left-wing New Englanders, but they aren't Republicans and shouldn't be, unless they undergo radical changes in ideology.

Lieberman is a regular Democrats, except for Iraq. The only "opportunity" here is to enjoy to leftists wacking each other.

I was not saying I support Schlessinger.  I was saying that I think your analysis of Lieberman was off.  Schlessinger is no conservative.  But I'm guessing he scores better than an ACU 8.  

The point was, Lieberman is no conservative, and forging some sort of formal alliance with him in this election (whih seems to imply that we would toss the Republican under the bus), provides nothing to conservatives.  They get a liberal Senator (who granted is pro-war), along with lots of liberal supporters.

Joe, and the people voting for him, simply do not agree with conservatives on most issues.  And courting Joe in a formal apacity is not going to make him more conservative on those things we disagree on.  My point was that we do not need to compromise, and should not compromise, conservatism in order to win over new voters in places like CT.

Your point (repeated ad nauseum now) seems to be based on the idea that Joe is a conservative and that his supporters are conservatives.  It's simply not the facts on the ground.

I think you give them too much credit.  Given what we know about Al Gore, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a reason why he would have won re-election.  I doubt he would have responded to 9/11 in a way that comported with what most people in this country wanted.

It wasn't the response to 9/11 and the war with the Taliban that was the issue in 2004.  It was all about Iraq.  So sure, Gore wouldn't have been in Iraq, but I'm guessing we'd still be trying to talk the Taliban into being nice and cooperating with our "law enforcement procedures" against bin Laden, all the while allowing him to plan more attacks.

I don't think it's a stretch to think that Gore (and Lieberman) would be enjoying an early retirerment, having been bounced from office in 2004 (think about it - if Gore had one, McCain would almost certainly gotten the nomination - him or Rudy, whose stock was much higher then - either of them would have probably beaten Gore).

As an independent if he does it after a primary loss.  His image will be too damaged after the loss.  It's an R pickup in that scenario.

talks a big game, talks tough, but when push comes to shove, he always falls into line.

I still wish President Bush had offered him SecDef a year or two ago.  Not only would he do an admirable job, but Gov. Rell could have appointed an R for the past year who would be running as an incumbent.  It would be a moderate CT Republican, but they would still have a fighting chance.

This reminds me a bit of Chafee, Specter and to a much lesser extent McCain.

It shows that both wings of the party do not care if you are a (R) or a (D) if they believe you are hurting the party.  Dick Morris said that he believes if Lieberman loses the primary he will lose the general election also because of the bad press it would give.  I would have to agree with him.  I also would have to think Republicans there wouldn't support Lieberman in a 3 way race because the possibility of an upset is so great.

pointing that out is simply pointing out a fact.

so is pointing out that the republican establishment in connecticut has given us weickers and RINOs and that i've seen little to demonstrate schlesinger represents a departure from the usual on that score.

so is pointing out that the risk in this election is getting ned lamont.

so is pointing out that support for schlesinger increases the risk of getting lamont.

so is pointing out that schlesinger, in terms of appreciable benefits over lieberman, is not worth taking such a risk (the lamont prospect), and that schlesinger has no chance.

you can call me obsessed with liberals, or tell me that lieberman isn't a conservative, until you're blue in the face.  i still say supporting schlesinger only leads to the potential for getting lamont, and that all conservatives will be unhappy if that happens.  i have yet to see one good reason posted why this risk is worth taking.  i have yet to see one good reason posted why "no compromise conservatives" think supporting a RINO, and by doing so, paving the way for a lamont victory, makes any idological, political, tactical or strategic sense at all.  what do they believe they are gaining?  will someone please step forward and explain why supporting schlesinger is a good thing and why that makes sense in view of the risk of getting lamont instead of keeping lieberman?  why are conservatives so loyal to the connecticut republican establishment that has betrayed them at nearly every turn?

Senator Lieberman has a fairly liberal voting record. Sure, the left hates him because he has been steadfast in his belief that the U.S. has to fight and win in Iraq. But there's much more to it than that. In the main, the left hates Senator Lieberman because Lieberman himself actually likes or even loves his country. He's one of only four or five Democrats in the U.S. Senate who actually think America is a force for good in the world. Most of the Democrats see the U.S. as a racist, militaristic, homophobic, sexist piece of uncultured crap.

He's worried about losing the primary, not the general election.

Chafee did not endorse Kerry.  He announced that he would write in President George H. W. Bush on his ballot.  

The comparison is wrong.  The issue in CT is that the far left has effectively abandoned one of their own over a single issue.  If you look at Lieberman's voting record all you can say is "he's a liberal."  Except for Iraq he is on board with everything else the Kos Krazies want.

Specter and Chafee are not opposed for a single issue.  They seem to be against the average Republican as often as they are with him.  They tend to diverge from "the base" on many issues.  Chafee more so than Specter.  And that is why they have drawn challengers.

There is nothing wrong with primary challenges.  But when the challenge seems to be motivated by hatred of the incumbant over a single vote or issue, that's over the top.

Analysis of Lieberman's options presented here on RedState a few days ago.  The fact is that Lieberman is strong already with those core constituencies.  The question is the primary.  In a general election, Lieberman will win with the people he's already won over.  But this primary gives the wacko contingent the chance to preemptively eliminate him before it ever gets to that point.

I'm glad to see Lieberman taking this step.  It's a difficult thing for him to do, but the people who know him well should realize that he's not abandoning them -- it's the fringe that is out for blood.  Go Joe!

is getting more of a McCain treatment than a Chafee/Specter one.  Lieberman votes how Democrats want him to on 90% of issues.  But he is willing to talk to and with people of other persuasions on national TV.

Chafee/Specter actually vote against Republicans often.  Whereas McCain votes with Republicans most of the time, but also talks on TV a lot and usually on issues where he differs with the party.  McCain is the mirror image of Lieberman in this case.

he's not a credible threat, he's against the war, he's for more liberal immigration policy and no one knows his name.  what good is that?

meanwhile, lieberman is getting forced out of his own party, supports the war, stands tall and is appealing to republicans for the right reasons.

that's a window of cataclysmic opportunity reminiscent of thomas jefferson!  are we dumb enough to let that slip through our fingers when lieberman brings with him all the truman-like disaffected democrats disgorged by the post unionized industrial economy in the highly taxed rust belt known as new england, home to patrician libs like ted kennedy, john kerry and lincoln chafee (regardless of their party affiliations)?

what a waste!  wise up, conservatives!  see the light and build the future for a new republican and conservative base in new england!  show joe lieberman and his followers that we have a big tent ready and waiting!

That we've reached this point shows how far left the Democrats have gotten.

He's not an especially charismatic man, and he won't agree with everything I want, regardless of what party affiliation he chooses to run for office under.  But he's a thoughtful, articulate and balanced man who truly cares about his principles and his constituents, and deserves to win.  If you read past the soundbites and the mudslinging, Lieberman is, and has been, one of the most truly honest (D)s in the Senate.  Here's hoping he stays there.

As a supporter and campaigner for Schlesinger, I think there are enough strong differences between him and Lieberman to warrant a candidacy, and enough of a strong chance for Lieberman to win as an independent that there is no concern for a "danger zone".

...and this senate race well demonstrates it--not surprisingly, coming, as it does, from the state whose republican establishment gave america what spiro agnew (with the probable help of bill safire and pat buchanan) so aptly described as "the christine jorgensen of the republican party," lowell weicker.

this is as good a time as any to remember how connecticut was blessed with joe lieberman in the first place: because bill buckley and other fed-up-with-RINO conservatives got behind him in reaction to weicker.  and, may i remind good conservatives, that was a major accomplishment, but it didn't prevent mr. weicker from eventually being elected governor, soon thereafter ushering in connecticut's economically punitive income tax ON TOP OF the personal property tax once regarded as the reason connecticut never needed an income tax.

since and largely because of that weicker legacy, connecticut is distinguished as the only state in the country to have experienced a net LOSS of jobs over the past 10-20 years.  even worse, weicker's RINOism as governor forever redefined the endpoints of the left/right political spectrum in connecticut, inuring its tax-beleaguered citizens into accepting the "pragmatism," now institutionalized, that "republican = moderate" (at best, and loosely defined moderation at that), while "democrat = cuckoo left."

BUT, through all that, who stood tall and remained balanced, realistic and sane?  that's right, JOE LIEBERMAN.

so let's not get starry eyed about how events now unfolding within the connecticut democrat infrastructure undermining joe lieberman "might be good for republicans."  for heaven's sake, the REASON connecticut democrats are attempting to dump joe lieberman is precisely because of the fact that he IS good for republicans, and, what is more, we already have him!  why should conservatives cash in a blue chip to make a dumb penny-stock bet on something that "might be" when we've already got the real thing?

please take a look at what schlesinger has said; in this instance i quote from the litchfield county times:

"Mr. Schlesinger said that he agrees with U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-New Britain, [another RINO]) that the United States needs to encourage well-skilled legal immigrants to come to the country.

"Mrs. Johnson has said she is concerned that since the 2001 terrorist attacks the country may have discouraged some of the bright foreigners that have typically come to America to earn graduate degrees and then work in innovative industries.  [boo-hoo, nancy johnson]

" 'I think we can look to increase the number of legal immigrants in this country based on their expertise and what they have to offer the country,' Mr. Schlesinger said."

is that the grand prospect for which connecticut conservatives have been patiently awaiting the arrival of a pitch man to support?  are we supposed to embrace schlesinger, campaign on behalf of him and dump lieberman to realize THAT?  is sacrificing lieberman to make it easier on skilled immigrants supposed to excite connecticut conservatives and be regarded by them as a fair, timely and compelling bargain?

why am i getting the feeling something remains to be desired?  i don't get it.  is this the connecticut republican establishment's idea of something alluring to conservatives?  where in the world did they get the idea that this is a priority at a time when federal spending is still galloping ahead at an 8% compound annual growth rate and we are fighting tooth and nail in a worldwide life-or-death clash with radical moslem terrorists?

speaking of the latter, how about schlesinger's statements regarding "date certain/timetable" (more from the litchfield county times):

"...he said he wants to have '50 percent' of the troops in Iraq removed within a year."

hello?  have republicans decided that connecticut is the new favored location to help jack murtha find friends in the senate on the other side of the aisle?  was this scheme hatched in howard dean's office?

ok, so schlesinger has also stated he wants to privatize social security by creating pension accounts that would invest in home mortgages.  he has said he favors reducing government's role in education and has praised "no child left behind" (not sure where he stands on vouchers).  maybe schlesinger is a good man--i confess i'm not a scholar so far as his career and ideology are concerned.  then again, based on those blandishments, i'm not getting the feeling he's trying to educate me or clarify his stands much either.

but i do know this.  RINOism is a pernicious and virulent pathogen that must be met by nutmeggers as well as conservatives nationally with ZERO TOLERANCE--ideological, rather than partisan, disinfectants in hand.  failing to do so fertilizes the breeding ground of the lowell weickers.  and it fails to reward the joe liebermans who have done more of the the right thing for republicans and conservatives than republicans themselves have--despite fierce resistance from within their own democrat ranks precisely because that's what folks like joe lieberman have done.

i for one refuse to believe the label "republican" represents any iota of guarantee for favorable alternatives to proven goods like joe lieberman, and i'm not buying a pig in a poke.  too often in connecticut, "republican" has been a stalking horse for treachery.  a weakened lieberman candidacy due to internal democrat party rancor DOES NOT necessarily translate to "what's good for conservatives in connecticut," or anywhere else, but especially in new england where the weickers and chafees are "republican."

don't forget who helped launch joe lieberman's career and what they were fighting against in lowell weicker, perhaps the worst RINO in republican history even before that acronym was coined.

maybe schlesinger is a good man; i'm not saying he isn't.  but i KNOW joe lieberman is a good man, and i see no reason to toss him over the side, from a conservative's point of view, based merely upon the "republican" label attached to something essentially unknown and making no proactive effort to bring into focus.  not in connecticut, the GROUND ZERO of RINOism, where the scorched earth of such shenanigans remains as black as coal, and the emptied pockets of once believing conservatives remain absent of even a perfunctory republican thank-you note.

indeed, keeping lieberman around does two valuable things: (1) it shows that conservatives are smart enough to rise above RINO-tainted worthless labels that guarantee nothing good (and, in new england especially, often disguise something much, much worse), and (2) it preserves a major headache within the democrat party, reminding far left wackos of whatever nominal political affiliation what democrats in the mold of jfk, scoop jackson and harry truman once stood for (and which joe lieberman still does!).

PLUS, WE KEEP JOE LIEBERMAN!  DUH!!

give me a convincing reason to believe schlesinger is worth the sacrifice of joe lieberman in view of these points.  but whatever that reason or reasons may be, don't try to sell me with "he's a 'republican.' "  because i ain't buyin' based on that, and i'd vote for joe lieberman if he ran on the socialist worker ticket.

instead i say (barring good reason to fix what "ain't broke"), reward what has already been delivered by the standing record of joe lieberman.

being ignorant, but I do not know what an ACU rating is?

Can you fill me in?

Thanks.

The American Conservative Union rates every member of Congress according to a list of votes each year.

American Conservative Union.  The Right's equivalent to Americans for Democratic Action.  They select a number of "key" votes during any session and then rate how each CongressCritter votes.  The rating is the degree to which they support the conservative side on the key votes.

It's usually a pretty good starting point for a discussion of liberal/conservative.  Anything below a 50 is certainly not conservative.

On an absolute scale the ratings aren't always perfect - but they are very helpful when you use them comparatively (as in comparing Chafee's 12 with an identical score by someone like Babs Boxer, who I think almost all of us here could agree is a very liberal Senator).

automatically starts out with a -5 believability rating in my mind... this one is no different.  It might be close, but I believe Lieberman would win as an (I) just as he would as a (D).

I don't trust Dick Morris and I don't like him either.  But, every once in awhile he gets it right.  I would consider it a betrayal for a member of my party to leave because they lost the primary.  In turn I would refuse to vote for them even if I support the person in the primary.  Traitors are the worst types of people.

Zell Miller endorsed President Bush.  Linc Chafee endorsed Senator Kerry.  Good call.

Personally I compare Senator Lieberman best with Senator McCain.  He's tends to be a moderate on some issues, but is right there with the party on most others.  But on the issues he diverges he gets really vocal with the press, drawing attention to himself as a maverick.

how much anti-Jewish feeling there is among the left these days. It's more blatant with people like Cindy Sheehan but the undercurrent runs through every post that says anything about this being a war for Israel.

Thanks the for data.  I did not mean to imply he is a conservative.  But he is definitely not the same as Clinton or Feingold.  His track record is pretty consistently the most liberal of the Republicans but marginally better than almost every Democrat, that's a better analysis than the original "he's worse than Feingold" cherry picking upthread.

But if the Republican were a credible threat to hold the Republican base in that state and get 30%, I'd say a three way race would be enticing for the Republican candidate.

My concern isn't the CT GOP.  It's the U.S. Senate.  Other than the GWOT, Leiberman's been of little use to conservatives in the Senate.  

Sitting in Ohio, I'll take a moderate GOP Senator from CT that will be there for judicial nominees and bringing cloture on other matters, even if we have to fight with him over tax cuts and fiscal spending.  It's more than we're getting from "I have to make up for my support of the GWOT by giving my party everything else they want" Joe Leiberman.

It doesn't solve CT's GOP problems, but it moves the Senate one step closer to where it needs to be.

!

That makes sense to me.

77's "guns to the head" comment was just so out in left field...

It will be interesting to see how many Republicans vote for him in the general if he goes Indy.  I don't live in CT, and I've never cast a vote in my life for a name that didn't have an (R) next to it, but what's the point of throwing away a vote on a GOP place holder when you keep a nut like Lamont out of office, while still keeping a reliable vote for security related issues.

Leiberman is still a Democrat, despite the growing gaps between him and the current state of his party, but that's the party's fault, not his.

I can imagine JL as a cabinet member should he lose in Senate election.

He's talking sufficient not in the mathematical proof sense, but rather in an ordinary meaning of "enough to meet the needs of a situation or end," which 34% can be in the best case.

but I hope it doesn't have to come to that... it's going to be unbearable sharing the blogosphere with the Kos Kiddies if they win another primary after Montana and Virginia.  Of course, luckily they will never win a general election. Their best bet is in Montana, and I just don't see it happening in the end. And Lieberman will win this race regardless of what party he is running under.

Of course, this move can only help Republicans. this may increase the chances of Lieberman caucasing with Senate GOPers, or at least not toeing the Dem party line as much. 2006 is shaping up to be a very interesting year.

It seems to me that if the ACU is to be believed, Sen. Chafee is only better than the average Democrat IF 2005 was an anomaly.

If, however, 2005 turns out to be part of a new trend, then we lose next to nothing by losing him.

At this point, Connecticut will be represented by Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman, with Joementum much more likely than the poor victim of the netroots home invasion.

My guess is, even as an 'independent' Lieberman draws post-primary support from Schumer and other Democrats.

... this whole situation makes me want to scream or throw things (I'll try to be more productive and see if I can't send him a check instead).

I understand why he is doing this, and we all know he was pushed to it.  There are a ton of things I could say about this race, but what concerns me most (and what hasn't been talked about too much yet) is that, at least to me, it seemes like the Senator has run a terrible campaign so far.  I think he needs to, in a blunt and straightforward way, go to the core constituencies of the Democratic Party (labor, blacks, seniors, etc.) and say "Most of you may disagree with me on the war, but here's what I've done for CT and America over the past twenty-odd years."

Chuck Norris once lost the remote, but maintained control of the TV by calmly telling it what to do.

If Chuck Norris falls down in the woods and no one is around to hear it, he will find the nearest person and accurately reconstruct the noise he made as he fell.

Need to take back your party from the Kos Kids. Unfortunately the dynamics don't seem to be on your side. As long as the truly insane left controls the funding and the agenda, it looks like the dems would rather have the funding than win.

than there is any reasonable chance of getting schlesinger.  we are either going to get lamont or lieberman.  a vote for schlesinger is essentially a vote for lamont (in a 3 way).  and in every way on the issues i've been able to check out, schlesinger is either the same as or worse (from a conservative's point of view) than lieberman.  i see no reason to prefer schlesinger over lieberman and at least one reason (the war) to prefer lieberman over schlesinger.

My hope is those "core consituencies" that we both mention will be the ones motivated to turn out -- and organized labor still can have a tremendous impact in Democratic primaries.  I just pray that "regular, run-of-the-mill Democrats" in CT (even those who opposed the war) will take a deep breath and look at the totality of this man's Senate career.  And if he loses, vote for him in November regardless if a D or an I is next to his name on the ballot.

... if you're going to play "what if," let's consider the possibility that a President Gore would have taken seriously an August 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US" and put the FAA on a higher alert status, among other things.

Who knows what might have happened next?

I think that lends even more credibility to the McCain is mirror image of Lieberman analysis.  Someone who votes with the party almost all the time, but is seen as disloyal.

I don't know much about him, but I bet he would have voted for Alito (Lieberman didn't) and other judicial nominees among other issues.

Connecticut voters like Joementum.  The Netroots don't represent them.

But it would be tough for the GOP to win there. They would need Joe and Ned to split the center-left vote right down the middle in order to let the GOP win with 34-35% of the vote. I still take Joe in a 3-way. I say he gets at least 40%.

The ACU publicizes what votes it considers in its ratings and what position it considers a "conservative" vote on the issue.  The rating is just the percentage of times you voted with the ACU over the total number of votes.

Go here for the 2005 voted considered (you'll need to click on the "Senate vote explanation").

Here are the issues for 2004.  And you can find the 2003 votes here.  I link to the Senate vote information in all cases since we're talking about a Senate race.

Wait just a second here.  Are we not in Iraq just for Israel?????

That's it, count me out.  I'm only up for wars that help Israel. I thought that's what we were doing.

I got out my Dispensationalist theology charts and timelines and everything.  Dang it!  Curses!

i am probably between chafee and ben nelson overall.  at some point i should post a diary stating my positions on major issues and let people say what they will.

and state that i will probably die (hopefully not for a very long time) a democrat.  

btw...if i lived in new jersy i would probably vote for tom kean jr.

and that is why he is a man who should be entertained by the right.

That's how he wins so easily as an independent: Republicans there like him.

I think that's the bigger issue at hand - that he is perceived as an opportunist in that regard, making himself look better by attacking his own. Dunno if that's the same thing as being a "maverick", but I think that's why he makes people so angry.

Personally, I say if we're a party that can have Ben Nelson, we can deal with Lieberman, but I'm not a CT voter, so my opinion means squat. :)

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/04/D8ILC9U80.html

(ht: Drudge)

I guess you at least have to give her credit for not evading the question like Chuckles.

looking like for a Blackwell win in Ohio this year? Isn't sounding to good from what I've read.

His lifetime rating is 37.  But he's only been scored since 1999 (6 years of service).

His year by year scores - still by no means a fiery conservative:

2000 - 44

2001 - 44

2002 - 53

2003 - 40

2004 - 40

2005 - 12

i'm curious to know why, when you put lamont and lieberman side by side, you might prefer lamont.

34% is not sufficient to win, except in the slimmest probability of scenarios.  the other 66% might be divided as 65% for one candidate, and 1% for the other.

A few counties switched to the Central side of the timezone line (which cuts off the NW and SW corners of the state), but as of this year Indiana now does daylight savings.  (Leaving Arizona and Hawaii as the only states that do not.)

My parents, who live in west-central Indiana, complained to me that now it doesn't get dark until 10pm, for the first time there.

Chaffee is opposed because he is far left.

Lieberman is far left and his party still opposes him.

Even though its now pointless to do so, I still can't help but wonder how badly Rehberg would have beaten the Democrat in Montana.

If Al Gore won in 2000, all fossil fuels would have been outlawed.  Thus the attacks of Sept. 11 would have been thwarted.  Also, it would be a cool 73 degrees outside right now here in Texas.

Gavin Newsome would be permitted to marry Barney Frank in a quaint Cape Cod ceremony because Supreme Court Justice Susan Estrich penned an opinion mandating that men can not only date but must be permitted to marry under the Equal Protection Clause.

In an attempt to keep ANWR pristine, Gore ceded it to Canada.

And finally, Gore would have hired a team of cartographers to work out a way so that they could draw the Rio Grande to so that it read STET!

And it's true, we wouldn't be in Iraq.  You'd be a fool to think we would be.  

After all, do you know how long it takes sail boats to get the Persian Gulf?

if they are going to get rid of lieberman over 1 issue then moderate to conservative dems like myself are in real trouble it seems.  lieberman is to the left of me on a number of issues (possibly most of them) but i still respect him and like him.  he is one of the last sane democrats left in the senate...(ben nelson is the other one for sure and there are other possibilities)

last year was a 12. That's on a scale of 1 to 100 where 100 is conservative and 0 is liberal. That's pretty dang far left. A 12, by the way, is what Feinstein and Boxer both scored in California last year. And his lifetime rating is only a 37. He was one of only two GOP Senators to oppose all of the Bush tax cuts (McCain was the other one).

No, make no mistake about it, Chaffee is about as far left as you can go.

On the other hand, Lieberman scores an 8 with the ACU, making him a very liberal senator. The only area he disagrees with his party on is the war in Iraq, but they are willing to toss him overboard for that.

Therein lies your major difference.

I brought bananas, now we're even. Both appear to be equally relevant.

We may disagree and alot of us are unhappy but we would support them over democrats. The left is willing to take a chainsaw to its legs to show it can.

Maybe my memory did fail me there, but in any case, failing to support the Presidential nominee is a pretty bad failure for a sitting Senator.

2005 - (15/25) = 60

2004 - (11/25) = 44

2003 - (10/25) = 40

lifetime - (36/75) = 48

note:  this is just an guess due to the fact that i don't know all the details of the bills in question and wasn't sure on some due to that fact



                     \|||/

                     (o o)

            ,----ooO--(_)-------.

            | Please            |
 
          |   don't feed the  |

            |     TROLLS !      |

            '--------------Ooo--'

                     |__|__| 

                      || ||

                     ooO Ooo 

Well, I only know of two ratings that tend to be general: the ACU and the ADA.

(Old) Lifetime ADA ratings:

Specter: 59

Chafee: 70

Lieberman: 76

Byrd: 61

i would possibly rank between 30 and 45 with the acu.  it depends on the issues and what their views are in general on some of those issues

note:  i am guessing my number and it is only a guess nothing more

appears to be anyone who wears the republican label, which is all schlesinger has to offer as a proponent of antiwar, anti-bush, murtha-style troop withdrawals on a "timetable/date certain" basis, and who favors easing restrictions on immigration, and who increased taxes in seymour as his first official act as mayor there.  why is that so great?  how is that a move to the right for republicans, or even the preservation of an ideological status quo?  not to mention the fact that he doesn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of being elected.

getting together with A MAN WHO CAN WIN, lieberman, gives republicans the opportunity to unite with disaffected conservative democrats their party has abandoned.  that's a huge opportunity in new england, if you have the vision to see it.

I don't see it.  I don't necessarily dispute that Lieberman will lose support after a primary defeat, but I don't know that it all jumps to the GOP.

Those three-way polls all show the Republican running third.  And they seem to show that he trails Lamont by double digits.

Some of those Lieberman voters are pretty loyal Democrats.  If Joe loses the primary, they will either stay with him or jump back to the Democrats.  What we really need to see are some breakdowns of where Lieberman's support in a 3-way comes from.  If it's coming mainly from Democrats, then a Lieberman run as an Independent doesn't help the Republican - Joe's people would likely shift between him and Lamont and not jump over to Schlessinger.

Unfortunately, is doesn't look like anybody is asking voters what kind of impact a Lieberman primary loss might have on their opinion of him.  Now that he has declared that he will petition, maybe some outfit will find out if voters will think him a "sore loser" if he runs Indy after losing the D primary.  If that's not the impression his move gives people, then his support might not fade.

please.  javits had been diagnosed with a terminal disease.  that's why d'amato got the republican nomination, and it's the only reason he did (except for his consummate deal making abilities, which wouldn't please republicans to get into a detailed discussion about).  javits lost as an independent because he was (rightly) perceived as a walking dead man.  and the only reason d'amato won was because he was in a three way race in which democrat votes were siphoned off.  he would have lost otherwise, which is exactly what happened in his reelection bid after he shot his mouth off about the benefits of betsy mccaughey having a roll in the hay with rudy giuliani in an ill advised comment within earshot of numerous '21' patrons later reported by the new york times.  that is how chuck schumer became a US senator.  the comparison of any of these peculiar dynamics in new york to the current connecticut situation is a stretch at best.

The only reason to circulate petitions is if he is worried about losing.

If the netroots don't reflect the views of CT, why worry?

Rasmussen: June 19, 2006 Ned Lamont 29% Alan Schlesinger 15% Joseph Lieberman 44%

Quinnipiac: June 8, 2006 Ned Lamont 18% Alan Schlesinger 8% Joseph Lieberman 56%

And Quinnipiac is IN Connecticut, dontcha know.

Is not Chafee/Specter v. Leiberman.  I think it's Chafee/Specter v. Zell Miller.  Libs would rightly oppose Miller in the Dem primary because he's so much more conservative than the party.  Conservatives rightly oppose Chafee/Specter in primaries because they revel in opposing their party.  Ever seen those guys on tv for their support of Bush?  Nope, they only get quoted when MSM says "Republicans are split on the issue of XYZ.  In a press conference today, Senators Specter and Chafee, longtime Republicans, announced opposition to the President Bush on . . . ."

It's not a conservative base.  It's a hawkish base.  They're not the same.  With the exception of the Iraq War, Joe Lieberman and his followers are LIBERALS.  They do not favor conservative positions on immigration, taxes, out-of-control spending, judicial nominees, the size and scope of the federal government, and the list goes on.

If that's the "base" you want us to invite in, I'm interested to understand your definition of conservatism and how Joe Lieberman is "conservative" by any of the various definitions that one might reasonably use.

Joe Lieberman is NOT a conservative.  His followers are not conservatives.  Your "appeal" here is simply the same old statement that the GOP should move to the Left in order to garner votes in places like New England when we don't need them to form a national majority or maintain control of Congress.  

Maybe before we worry about appealing to this "new conservative base" in an area that has been hostile to most national Republicans for the past quarter century, we should work on getting the folks that have been with us all along to send people to Congress that truly represent them.  Liberal Democrats hold seats in any number of states that have been, or have shown themselves to be conservative in national politics (WV - Rockefeller and Byrd, ND - Conrad and Dorgan, SD - Johnson, even though he's trying to toe the moderate line, AR - Lincoln, and some might say Pryor, NV - Reid, CO - Salazar, who's broken just about every promise he made of "moderation", FL - Nelson, LA - Landreiu, also trying to save herself ala Johnson, NE - Nelson).  That's 10-12 seats that we really should be able to win given the ideology of the voters in those places.  I mean Bush won ND, SD and NE with 60+% of the vote and we are giving away two races there (ND and NE).

Who needs "a new base" that doesn't agree with us on 8 of 10 issues?  And why exactly is a Senator with a lifetime rating under 10 from the ACU the guy we should be pulling in if we're trying to win people over to conservatism.  Inviting Lieberman in only shows that we're willing to compromise our beliefs in order to win votes (that we don't need).

I keep thinking that the Chuck Norris jokes are going to get old soon.

And the devout RedStaters&trade keep proving me wrong.

Regarding Lieberman: this is great news.

The Kreepy Kos Kids&copy are batting 1000 right now.  Every single one of the candidates they've backed from Schwartz to Busby to Howard Dean has been defeated (usually in the general but sometimes in the primary).

The fact that they've won two primaries and stand to win one more means more wins for Republicans and Sane Democrats&trade.

I am so glad that Markos and his merry crew came along to bend the Democratic Party back into a circular firing squad.

This will not be 1994 for the Dems.  It will be like groundhog day for those KK Kids who are old enough to remember 2002.

He won't take a large enough of a percentage of the Dems with him to add to his independent vote.  Too many Dems will buy the argument he lost the primary fair and square, not vote yellow dog like you were raised.  Plus independents will break GOP to block a nutter if they don't think Leiberman can pull it off.

Independents -- especially sore losers running as Independents -- almost always peak early and fade.  Think of Perot, or if you've been a junkie for 30 years, think of Sen. Jacob Javits (R-NY) in 1980.

There are exceptions, but I don't expect Lieberman would be any different if he decides to go that route.  He'd almost certainly lose.

One thing he could do is split off enough of the Dem vote to elect a Republican, as Ralph Nader did in 2000.  As Javits did in 1980, for Alphonse D'Amato.

That would be so ironic, since if it hadn't been for Nader, Lieberman would be in his second term as VP and we wouldn't be in Iraq, doing the thing that is causing Joe so much trouble with his base in CT.

The netroots are the ones that vote in the primary.  I believe CT Dems have a closed primary - so Joe can't call on independents to vote in the primary.  So he's stuck with the registered voters.  His support in the general as an independent comes not only from those Dems that support him but large numbers of Republicans and independents, who cannot participate in the primary.  The netroots my represent the "base" of the Democrat Party in CT but they certainly don't speak for the whole state electorate.

Is who I've been going with, out of wishful thinking.  But CT isn't New York, this isn't 1980 and I'm being selective about when I listen to what Morris has to say.  That I will admit.

But after second thought, I think it's going to come down to the polling after a Leiberman primary loss, assuming he even loses.  If he stays up there, no doubt he holds.  But if he starts slipping, independents may move GOP just to avoid the nutter.  It's a situation where the polls can create their own momentum.

D'amato lost his re-election bid after serving three terms.  Not bad for a conservative in NY.

Does that mean you're going to back the Kyoto Protocol, too, once you find out we're NOT opposed to it because we're trying to bring the end times that way?

For a Democrat, Lincoln Chafee is not a far leftie.

For a Republican, he can't even SEE the mainstram from how far left he is.

Joe Lieberman is to the Democrats what John McCain is to the Republicans.

That kind of makes sense since it seems each has more fans in the other party than in their own.

and if you are a Republican, can you state why you believe him to be in the "far left"?

I do feel it necessary to point out that his lifetime score is much better than his 2005 score and better than almost all Ds except Nelson (NE).  I'm doing this from memory but I think he's in the 30s.

I collect here some Senators who were less liberal than Lincoln Chafee in 2005 according to the ACU - Chafee scored a 12 in 2005.  I wouldn't consider these folks anything other than liberals in the US Senate:

Bill Nelson (FL)  (20)

Evan Bayh (20)

Carl Levin (17)

Mark Dayton (16)

RUSS FEINGOLD (13)!!

Herb Kohl (13)

The fact is that Chafee scored a 12 - the same as Babs Boxer, Diane Feinsetin, Hillary Clinton, and Debbie Stabenow.  That's not the kind of company I'd want to be keeping as a Republican.

Today's announcement should send his support among Democrats through the floor. Nobody likes disloyalty.

I don't think Lamont's overtaken him yet in the three-way, but it could become interesting now.

Where the right has shown how far right it will go because it is opposing Chafee and Specter?

Hypocracy is a part of politics I guess

my point is NOT that joe lieberman is a conservative; it is rather that the treatment he is receiving from the democrat establishment in connecticut forms a rare window of opportunity for conservatives in new england to attract the traditional democrat base the dnc types want to purge from their party.  lieberman is in effect a potential "new england zell miller."  i say this knowing full well you will come back at me with miller's acu ratings and point out that there is no way to compare the two, but the ideological climate in new england is what it is, and it certainly isn't the deep south.

that's political reality here.  all i am saying is that schlesinger has in no way demonstrated that he would be an improvement over lieberman, and that history demonstrates quite amply that what the republican establishment has given us here is weickers and RINOs.  we are taking that establishment's word on schlesinger if we support him, and i'm not willing to do that because i don't want ned lamont.

if we bet it all on schlesinger, we run the real (and in my mind, dangerous) risk of electing ned lamont.  i believe that is a very risky, impractical and bad bet with little or no upside and plenty of downside in losing lieberman to lamont.  i respectfully suggest you look into schlesinger's positions and carefully weigh the political risk involved: that supporting him may well be the most effective way to lose lieberman and get ned lamont.  there is no way in my judgment that schlesinger can be elected in either a two-way or even a three-way race, but it is clearly the case that "no compromise conservatives" have it in their power to pave the way for ned lamont.

are you prepared to look back on a lamont victory after the polls close and say that supporting schlesinger at the expense of lieberman was a wise choice?

Some day you will give the Republicans a chance.  If Ds won't welcome a 90% liberal Senator like Lieberman, I'm not surprised moderates aren't feeling too welcome.

In 2004, I was looking for moderate Democrats that I might have supported for President.  Lieberman stood out in the group of Ds seeking the Presidency.  Then I went to a media event with 7 of the nominees at Oklahoma State University and Liebermann got booed by the Democrats there.  It was a wake-up call.  That was when I realized that Democrats had totally given up on the Clintonian "New Democrat" idea and they were shifting toward the "Kos model."

Sometimes Republicans can make the same mistakes, but I hope there are enough moderates in the party like McCain, Guiliani, Rice, and Schwarzenneger that moderates feel welcome joining.  Maybe someday, you'll give 'em a chance.

like you're to the right of where I am, but the last thing I want is for Democrats like you to be drummed out of the party -- or maybe we should say "Deaned" out of the party -- UUGH!!

to the price of bananas in China?

what in the world is that "sufficient" for?  textbook theories, at best.  and that's the whole problem with the way people who should know better are thinking about this race and the potential republicans' getting behind lieberman represents.

and did you notice how the fellow who posted that the republican candidate had a name recognition problem never mentioned his name?  probably because he doesn't know it himself!  this is the state of republican politics in connecticut: even the redstate posters don't know who the republicans here are!

republicans in connecticut are lost (as a party, and as political tacticians and strategic thinkers) for the same reason they are throughout new england and most of the middle atlantic.  they're trying to outdemocrat democrats.  then they get ticked when they wind up with RINOs, but in response to that they want to fight the liebermans and support guys like schlesinger who will campaign as an antiwar candidate who also pushes more liberal immigration--a man who was elected to his current post as mayor of seymour and immediately raised taxes!  this is not worth defending when we have a man like lieberman already in the senate who could lay the basis for an extended conservative coalition given the hard time the democrats are giving him!  we're missing the boat!

lieberman is a national treasure and political opportunity true conservatives who want to see conservatives gain power in the last bastion of liberal democrats should embrace and support.  if they don't, the press will eat schlesinger alive (yes, his name is schlesinger) for leading an antiwar revolt within the party, and he will lose anyway.  but all they will talk about is how a republican took on bush's war in iraq against big bad bush supporting joe lieberman.

there is absolutely no conceivable benefit to conservatives by supporting schlesinger, either politically or in policy.

we can eat our cake and have it too if we would only think this situation through.  i for one am very concerned that schlesinger is going to be made out to be an antiwar candidate, and that this entire race, once it goes 3-way, if it does, will be about "war vs. antiwar," i.e., lieberman vs. lamont/schlesinger.

think about it.  we got alito without lieberman's support.  why did that really happen?  answer: because bush made a bad appointment in harriet meiers, whose true positions were difficult to unearth but, once they were, we discovered she was far more sympathetic to liberal points of view than most conservatives had simply assumed she was without really checking into her true disposition.  she eventually withdrew and in her place alito was nominated, a far more conservative judge with a clear and unambiguous record.  but whether you may like to remember it or not, it was the anti-meiers animus from the far left and conservatives who did bother to look into her views that formed the sine qua non to getting alito, so let's remember that little bit of history a bit more correctly.

meanwhile--and this is what i would like to bring the spotlight on--what does schlesinger want?  answer: we don't really know that much about him, but we do know that he wants a 50% withdrawal of US forces in iraq within a year; he wants more liberalized immigration policy, and finally, on taxes, all we know about him is that when he took over seymour, he immediately raised taxes there.

in net, i don't understand how conservatives are so quick to line up behind this guy simply because they don't like how lieberman viewed alito.  they are just trusting the same connecticut RINO establishment that gave us lowell weicker.  i hope they do some investigating.  i don't want to go through a campaign in which they suddenly discover they are speechless trying to defend a candidate's positions they didn't bother to find out in advance.  how will they answer:

--why are you supporting a candidate who disagrees with the president's iraq policy?

--how do you feel about schlesinger's support for more liberalized immigration policy?

--what do you think of schlesinger's tax increases in seymour?  how do you expect him to vote on tax policy as a US senator?

is that a prospective improvement over lieberman?

is that what you're ready to get behind in order to get a guy whom you're assuming would have supported alito, when (a) you're not really sure of that, (b) alito won anyway with joe lieberman, (c) schlesinger is closer to murtha than to bush on the war, (d) he wants more liberalized immigration, (e) he raised taxes as his first official act in seymour, (f) he will almost surely lose the election anyway?

conservatives had better think this over very carefully.

to me, this is wasting a huge opportunity, when we instead could get behind lieberman and try to appeal to his traditional democrat base increasingly being made pariahs by their own party establishment and build up the franchise for a future beyond the kennedys, chafees, kerrys and other liberal icons of new england about whom many of these traditional democrats have deep misgivings.  internal democrat party divisions are offering a rare opportunity via the lieberman situation as the democrat leadership continues to alienate its traditional base.  let's seize the day, or at least look before we leap regarding schlesinger, or the press is going to portray the entire republican effort up here as an attempted antiwar coup on bush, and we will just look stupid and come away empty handed.

the reality for conservatives in new england is to approach new england for what it is: ted kennedy country positioned on a shaky and divided democrat base.  the republicans have given us RINOs and weickers.  our only hope here is to take advantage of divisions in the democrat establishment when those moments rarely occur to fight republican RINOism.

this is that moment.  now is the time to strike.

For those who condemn the other "RINOs", they have significantly better 2005 numbers than Chafee.  I include here all Senators I have heard referred to as RINOs more than a few times:

Snowe - 32

Collins - 32

Coleman - 64

Specter - 63

Smith (OR) - 58

DeWine - 56

Voinovich - 68

McCain - 80

Hell, even the pair in Maine look like right wingers oompared to Linc.  They have a score almost three time higher than Chafee.  The rest are clearly on the right side of the 100 point scale.

It would be for the best if the Kos Kids get all their candidates through the primarys.

When they are all defeated, the Republican leadership won't be able to make excuses for not getting things done.

Lieberman is awfully fond of those cameras on Meet the Press.

I don't care if it's Lamont instead of Lieberman. War aside, I might prefer Lamont.

unfortunatly i think it is going to take getting our (the democrat party in general) rears handed to us and resulting in the party getting reduced to 38 to 40 seats in the senate and about 38 - 40% of the seats in the house before they realise what is happening and return to the center-left.