Posted on 09/26/2006 12:15:18 PM PDT by .cnI redruM
The question most frequently asked in Connecticut of right-wing voters is: Whom do you intend to vote for on November 7? There are only two patriotic answers to that, but hang on as the drama unfolds.
Voting is what you do every two years—and then, mostly, repine, wondering whether democracy really does anything for you beyond giving that little throb of tactile pleasure in recording your enthusiasm for one candidate or—and this pleasure is very keen—your loathing for another candidate. That last is a vital contribution to democratic hygiene, effected by candidates who arouse every hate gland in your withered frame, thereby offering a pure draught of remedial youthful joy, and you leave the voting booth humming “John Brown's Body.”
The all-time generator of negative conservative satisfactions was Lowell Weicker. He was first senator from Connecticut, then governor. He was the King of Schadenfreude: dispenser of the nectar of health & satisfaction when we conservatives had a chance to vote against him. It is a prime chapter in this narrative that the man who defeated Weicker in 1988 was none other than—Joseph Lieberman. What that adds up to is a huge debt to Lieberman felt by Connecticut conservatives.
Now three alternatives are offered to the voters in November. One of them is to vote for the Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont, who defeated Lieberman in the primary.
Ned Lamont hasn't been around long enough to generate true 100 proof animosity. But he is off to a very good start. He has criticized everything President Bush has done and said respecting our presence in Iraq and has associated himself with the national left-wing opposition to a foreign policy that seeks to confront anti-American activity abroad and to intervene where necessary to interrupt the evolution of terrorism.
This, of course, makes the critical difference in contemporary politics, in Connecticut and elsewhere. Irrespective of one's position on the Iraq campaign, do we want to endorse a neo-isolationist removal from the world scene? Such a movement as would satisfy MoveOn.org? Those are the people so enthusiastic about the defeat of Lieberman, which practically speaking can't be done without electing Lamont.
It is required, in telling the whole story, to acknowledge that there is a Republican nominee. His name is Alan Schlesinger, and as of this writing, he has not broken into two-digit life in the polls.
Connecticut periodically acknowledges the two-party system, as for instance by tolerating a Republican governor, who is very popular and anticipates reelection. But Mr. Schlesinger got hung up on casino questions when he was mayor of Derby and has not emerged as a viable contender.
This makes the reasoning of the conservative voter complicated. There is an understandable reluctance to cast a ballot the effect of which could be to turn the Senate of the United States over to Democratic management. The organizational vote is very tight. The Democrats need to gain six seats in order to organize the Senate next January.
Mr. Lieberman—just to begin with—is not an orthodox conservative. He is closer to being an orthodox liberal. If you subtracted from his record his important votes on international affairs, he would emerge as a blue-ribbon Democrat, the kind of Democrat a Democratic presidential candidate could comfortably tag for vice president. It is not surprising, then, that, even though Lieberman is running as an independent, he has said that if sent back to the Senate, he would join with the Democrats to organize the chamber. And, conceivably, his vote would be critical.
Now add to this complication a further factor. Much of the enthusiasm for Joe Lieberman over the years has been from mainstream Democrats. Their loyalty to Lieberman is striking, but in politics, vows of fidelity are renewable every 24 hours. During the primary campaign, both Bill and Hillary Clinton supported Lieberman. After the primary, however, they both shifted over to Lamont, with Bill Clinton giving as his reason that Lieberman had accepted the ''Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld'' position on the invasion of Iraq.
We leave for last, as is expected in political tallying, the factor of temperament and character. Joe Lieberman is a singular human being. He has personal support—-from people who know him, and who sense in him a true love for God and country.
>>>>Ned Lamont hasn't been around long enough to generate true 100 proof animosity. But he is off to a very good start
Ned Lamont; he's The Evil of Three Lessers.
Question for Conn GOP: Where did you find the Lincoln Chafee wannabe with a rap sheet?
To save this Senate seat from falling into the hands of Moveon.org and becoming a megaphone for George Soros, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, the only logical vote is to vote for Lieberman. He's not our dream Senator, but he's right on national security the most important issue of our time.
The alternative is to put a terrorist enabling demagogue into this seat and hand a big, big win to Soros and the rest of the swamp fever crowd on the crazy left.
Schlessinger is a joke and has no chance.
Excellent question. The state GOP convention endorsed him as candidate because IMHO no one else wanted to take on Lieberman. Of course, such temerity didn't accompany Lamont who took on Lieberman on his home turf and whipped him in the primary. However, Lieberman will most likely be elected in this state where registered Independents outnumber both registered Republicans and Democrats.
Schlesinger is taking one for the team (CTGOP) precisely because he is damaged goods. I'm sure he has been promised something for his lack of effort.
Personally, I would vote for the Republican and no one else, whether he is funny or not. And regardless of his or her chances of winning. If he came up short, oh well, but he is my candidate. Too many conservatives are willing to vote based on the speculation that they might actually benefit from voting for their enemy. It's the old Politics as a Sport model. Everyone wants to be on a winning team, and losing teams have very few fans. So we choose between two Dems to be able to vote for a winner. What a waste of a perfectly good vote. That is the joke, not Schlesinger.
With the GOP candidate only pulling 5% of the vote, a vote for him would be a vote for Lamont. This seat will never go GOP but could go Moonbat. The logic of that to me means voting for Lieberman to keep George Soros from winning a Senate seat in November.
Blindly voting for someone merely because they're GOP and ignoring what it could mean in terms of an extremist demagogue taking over a Senate seat and turning it into a megaphone for the likes of Cindy Sheehan is pure folly. Normally I would go along with you in saying we always should support GOP candidates, but this is an extraordinary situation that reason dictates requires voting for the person most likely to defeat the loathsome Lamont in this 3 way race and that would be Lieberman, not Schlessinger who is only polling at 5%.
The CT GOP is in real sad shape.
The last Republican that Lieberman ran against (Giordano) is in jail.
The last Republican governor just got out of jail (Rowland)
The Republican senate candidate (Schlessinger) might go to jail.
Then we have the king and queen of RINOs (Chris Shays and Nancy Johnson).
Our most conservative federal representative is Bob Simmons...who makes John McCain look like Ronald Reagan.
I'm left with the question: do I vote against the Move-On.org candidate or do I vote for the anti-war Constitution party candidate?
I will never vote for Nine-Nine-Ned (Lone-Issue Lamont)
You vote based on polls?
No, I would vote based on the issue of national security as well as the fact that Lameont and Lieberman are the two main candidates in this race personifying the differences of perspective on this issue at large in the nation and the fact that a Republican will not win in a state like CT, especially one who has run no campaign and embarrassed himself with his compulsive gambling and therefore is political carrion.
Thus I would vote to keep a loathsome Cindy Sheehan clone like LAMEont out of the Senate by voting for the only person who can beat him, Lieberman. Meanwhile you'll remain stuck on party labels as being the only criteria determining your vote while ignoring the real state of this race and what's at stake for the nation, i.e. replacing a voice who is responsible on national security in the Senate (a much needed voice by the way) with one who is totally irresponsible on national security.
My thoughts exactly.
Schlesinger was the guy who was chosen to lose to Lieberman before Ned Lamont was so much as a tingle in George Soros' loins.
We had a real change to elect a Republican here, but blew it.
change = chance
lisdexlia.
"Blindly voting for someone merely because they're GOP and ignoring what it could mean in terms of an extremist demagogue taking over a Senate seat and turning it into a megaphone for the likes of Cindy Sheehan is pure folly. Normally I would go along with you in saying we always should support GOP candidates, but this is an extraordinary situation that reason dictates requires voting for the person most likely to defeat the loathsome Lamont in this 3 way race and that would be Lieberman, not Schlessinger who is only polling at 5%."
You are correct.
You're right. But who?
Actually, I don't think it matters at all who wins the race in Connecticut, Lieberman or LaMont. If Lieberman wins, the Stalinist democrats will suffer considerable humiliation; if LaMont wins, the rest of us will benefit from an even clearer picture of what has happened to the democratic party. As time passes and history unfolds, the patriotism of democrats will be called into question, and rightly so.
Bump
IMHO, WFB seems to be endorsing Lieberman just for the reason of national security since the GOP put up such a lame nominee.
I wish I knew.
Tom Scott?
My brother lives in CT and his family are voting for Lieberman. They're independent voters. The Republican canidate is not worth voting for. They're putting their bets on the experienced Liberman. Lamont has no experience except his feelings about Iraq.
If your Republicans and support the WOT. Vote for Liberman.
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.