"The reason to vote for Lieberman is to keep Ned the Red Lamont out of the Senate. Lamont is a hard leftist."
Not good enough to vote for a liberal. That really is like saying "we need to vote for Hillary Clinton to stop moveon.org backed candidate Russ Feingold from winning the whitehouse." No thanks.
I don't live in Connecticut, so it's not like I matter in this race. But if I did, it would be a cold day in hell before I'd ever, ever vote for either Lieberman or Lamont.
Here here. total agreement.
Lieberman is better ideologically, and more honorable, than Hillary. Lamont is probably worse than Feingold. Whatever Republican Hillary runs against will have at least a chance of winning the White House. Schlesinger, the GOP candidate in CT, has no chance of winning the Senate seat.
So your analogy is krap.
I'm glad you don't live in CT or "matter in this race."
Lieberman is better ideologically, and more honorable, than Hillary. Lamont is probably worse than Feingold. Whatever Republican Hillary runs against will have at least a chance of winning the White House. Schlesinger, the GOP candidate in CT, has no chance of winning the Senate seat.
So your analogy is krap.
I'm glad you don't live in CT or "matter in this race."
Bingo. The LIEberman apologists must be really excited about Hillary's "victory" over the unabashed "anti-war" Steven Tasini in the RAT primary.
By Loserman voter logic, since there's NO WAY a Republican can "win" in NY, we Republicans should support the 90% liberal Hillary over the 95% liberal kooks running against her, as a "symbolic" show of support for the WOT. I mean sure, Hillary is a demonic power-hungrey woman hellbent on controlling America, BUT she voted the "right way" on Iraq, so we should be THANKFUL to have her reprsenting NY instead of her anti-war opponents like Steve Tasini, Steve Greenfield, and Howie Hawkins. Thank goodness Hillary votes the "right" way 10% of the time. That's our gal!
Keep voting for socialists, and they'll keep on running them.