Conn. Race Could Be Democratic Watershed - Loss by Lieberman May Embolden Critics of War

Washington Post ^ | 8/6/6 | Dan Balz

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

It would be good for these far-left whackjobs to become emboldened and really raise a ruckus between now and November.

Let the people take a good long look at the ugly truth that is the Democrat party.

[Aegedius]

Let's keep our eyes on the ball. If Lamont wins, the anti-war whackos will have to spend more of their money in the general election, leaving less to spread around to other Democrats. Therefore, root for Lamont.

[nopardons]

Though well thought out, I disagree with a some parts of your reply.

LIEberman WILL lose the primary, which is, as you said, a closed primary; all of Conn.'s primaries have always been "closed". It is possible that he could win the general election, if he goes at it as an Indy; however, the fact that as an Indy he will be woefully short of funds ( something that has been completely ignored, from the beginning of all of his downward slide ), makes even a run, "iffy". And as for the supposed "intensity" felt by ALL Dems, against President Bush and/or the war, that is over-hyped, in the extreme.

Lamont is a puppet candidate, funded, supported, and pushed down the throats of Conn. voters by outside forces. His ads are terrible, his debate style worse, his campaign, though slick, very superficial.

The Dems never ending onslaught against Nancy Johnson has resulted in her being reelected; reelected every single time. The phone calls, junk mailings, T.V. ads, and push-polls have done absolutely NOTHING whatsoever, to take her down and Lamont's campaign hasn't been nearly as hot and heavy as the one against Johnson. For that reason, I am telling you to NOT extrapolate about what will happen in the rest of the country, based soley on the Lamont/LIEberman campaign.

For the most part, Americans are not "angry" about us being in Iraq. Neither are a majority of people consumed with the illegals problem. And ALL politics really IS "local"; no matter how much the damned Dems want to make an off year election about the president; it isn't.

Hijacking this thread, because of your own concerns and biases, don't help matters at all and neither is it now allowable, no matter how carefully you couched it all.

There will be NO "Dem tsunami", come November and if there were one, none of your concerns would be addressed or taken care of.

[seanmerc]

That didn't work too well for the last guy who tried it.

[seanmerc]

Yes, you're right. The moonbats might succeed in knocking Lieberman off in the primary, but he'll run as an independent and stands a good chance of winning if he does. The moonbats are the ones most likely to vote in the primary. In November, it won't just be the moonbats voting.

The moonbats aren't just throwing Lieberman under the bus. They're throwing the whole Rat party under the bus in the name of "ideological purity." Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.

[Frank T]

"Driven by intense anger at President Bush and fierce opposition to the Iraq war, they are on the brink of claiming their most significant political triumph, one that will reverberate far beyond the borders here if Lieberman loses."

I doubt these people are so much against the war, but the fact that it proceeded w/o the approval of the *international* establishment.

Candidates who are more national, such as Lieberman, will be pruned by their base who see themselves as global citizens, and not so much Americans. Elitists, in other words.

[Frank T]

"Hijacking this thread..."

This coming from nopardons? Have you no shame?