Posted on 07/29/2006 11:30:31 AM PDT by LdSentinal
ROCKY HILL, Conn., July 28 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman commissioned a poll in January as he prepared for his fourth campaign for the Senate, and the results were sobering. Mr. Lieberman was tied against a hypothetical primary opponent, described only as a Democrat who was opposed to the Iraq war and was critical of Mr. Lieberman’s ties with President Bush, an aide recounted.
That poll was one of a number of early warnings that emerged well before Mr. Lieberman found himself locked this summer in a career-threatening battle with Ned Lamont, a Democratic primary challenger who is opposed to the war and is critical of Mr. Lieberman’s ties to Mr. Bush. John Olsen, the president of the Connecticut A.F.L.-C.I.O., said he tried in April to persuade Mr. Lamont not to run and then warned Mr. Lieberman that he had trouble on his hands.
“I shared with the senator that Ned was in,” said Mr. Olsen, a former state Democratic chairman. “And I told him that it was very serious.”
Mr. Lieberman, he said, nodded in appreciation.
But Mr. Lieberman responded lethargically to those warnings until two months ago, according to interviews with his associates and aides. They cited a variety of reasons: a misreading of the depth of antiwar sentiment among Connecticut Democrats, an exodus of experienced political advisers after Mr. Lieberman’s failed presidential bid in 2004, a relatively green Senate campaign staff and the pride that often settles around a politician after many years on the public stage.
[The New York Times, in an editorial published on Sunday, endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with President Bush on national security.]
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Whatever happened to politics ends at the nations shore?
The CRIMES circulation will dip farther as they move leftward outside of the realm of 'decent' liberals and becomes nothing more than a printed edition of DU.
The Times supporting the communist candidate? Naaahhhhhhh!
I hope Joe runs as an Independent and either wins or splits the vote and puts a Republican in
After how he has been treated in this deal, I doubt he would care.
Interesting how Maverick Republicans are celebrated but Dems who break from caucas are ripped for it.
[The New York Times, in an editorial published on Sunday, endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with President Bush on national security.]
WOW. JUST WOW. NYTimes is gone full-tilt Moonbat!
I see Bill Clinton stumped for Joememtum last week... interesting.
To modern Democrats, it's Power Uber Alles.
9/11..cancelled all the old cliches...stops at shore,
Geneva Convention (?), United Nations..as protectors,
etc.etc.....then after a while..forget 9/11..lets get
the money....forget energy and our dependence on the
Arabs who want to kill us....forget the babies who have
never had a chance (abortion),,,all the above is where
the ...moveon. org -crowd is and has been...media still
belittling Bush..but he is only one with guts to stand
up to the chaos, Democrats...etc,... Jake
You mean Surrender Uber Allies,don't you?
I have recently read about Pat Moynihan's endorsement of Mrs. Clinton. For all his well-placed disdain for her and her husband, for all his (accurate) understanding of issues like partial-birth abortion, in the end all of his principles counted for less than they should have. He voted against conviction of Clinton, as I recall, and of course endorsed Hillary Clinton just to remain at the center of power I suppose.
He's not a socialist, and he's not far left (although, he is on some particular social issues), but he is a hardcore liberal and that is not going to change.
Despite that, I think he's a good man, who's only doing what he thinks is right. The fact that I think he's very wrong is not really that relevant. ;)
But, yeah, your call about him never bucking the Democratic party? Spot on. He's not a Republican, not even close to being a RINO, let alone a real conservative and he is a dyed blue in the wool liberal, through and through.
WOW.
I am not easily shocked these day when the NY Times goes off the deep end- but I admit that THIS is shocking.
"Lieberman is a far left New England socialist. Just because he throws a rhetorical bone to insecure conservatives about "family values" or the war, he'll NEVER buck his party."
I have to disagree with you. Lieberman is the true meaning of a liberal. Everyone to the left of him are outright Marxists but are too cowardly to come out and say so.
Yes, I am surprised too. It seems the NYTs now follows periodicals like the VILLAGE VOICE and THE NATION into the oblivion of anti-American socialism.
What has happened to this once great newspaper?
Hah! I'm not the only one who sees that. Great minds think alike, FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.