Running the numbers on a Lieberman-Lamont-Schlesinger race

NRO ^ | 8/9/2006 | Jim Geraghty

[Prokopton]

"So he voted for the war. Are we going to have another war vote?

No!"

Before the WOT is over there will be many "war votes".

[Truthsearcher]

If he has no core beliefs and his only interest is being in the Senate. Then he will move to the right. Because if he goes back to the Senate, he will have been voted in by the independents and the Republicans, which means his future votes in the senate will reflect more of that constituency.

[TWfromTEXAS]

So everybody is writing off the Pub?

My dad says the Republican party up there is giving him about 15% in internal polls.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Sure we should get more anti-war Democrats into the Senate. Brilliant. You are probably a fantastic tactician.

[Jameison]

"The right needs to screw its head on! "


We do.
That's why no right thinking conservative wants Lamont aka Cindy Sheehan clone in the US Senate.

"So he voted for the war. Are we going to have another war vote?
No! "

How do you know that then?
Iran and North Korea look as threatenring as ever.
What you gonna do when North Korea fies their next set of missiles and they manage hit Hawaii this time?
Lamont is about as loony left as one can get. It's great the RATS voted him as their candidate. Will be even better when he gets clobbered in the November elections. It's a win, win for Republicans.

[Jameison]

So everybody is writing off the Pub?

From what I hear, he's got big gambling debts, is not much of a candidate, and is not even conservative anyways.
Given that his chances are so low, its going to be better to back Lieberman, just so he can hammer the RATS and Lamont, and take Lamont out come November.

[Wolfstar]

I predict that Lieberman will win, and announce a party change to the GOP the day the new Congress is sworn in.

He may win, but Lieberman will not become a Republican. He's already said he'll caucus with the Dems if he wins.

[Redmen4ever]

I think if Joe Lieberman runs as an independent, rather than as a so-called "independent Democrat," he will win.

For example, if he appears with a mix of Republicans and Democrats at rallies ... e.g., Ed Koch + Rudy Guiliani ... and talks about the need for a strong centrist position on the War on Terror, and not just be another party hack on judicial nominees, and somebody who can work with the Republicans to fashion legislation that can break Democratic fillibusters in the Senate.

Now, with regard to which party he will caucus with if he is elected, he should say he will be an independent, and will consider what each party offers to him in order to join their caucus. In other words, if the Republicans offer to allow him to bring his seniority with him, he might join with the Republicans, as an independent.

If he caucuses with the Republicans, he'd definitely be a "RINO"-type, but would better than Chaffee from Rhode Island, and might be just about as good as Snowe from Maine.

Furthermore, since he will have burned his bridges with the Democratic Party, he will be free to be Joe again, and not the thing he became when he ran for Vice President.

[BethforAmerica]

I agree completely.

[tcrlaf]

I have a stupid question....

If polls "Say" that 86% of Democrats are against the war, how did Leiberman get 48% of the CT. Dem vote?????

[dedbird]

What you gonna do when North Korea fies their next set of missiles and they manage hit Hawaii this time?

Hit back at them with five times the firepower. No war declaration or vote of congress necessary to turn N. Korea into a Rock. No change or them firing back because they will be extinct.

[dedbird]

Great point! I thought I was the only conservative nauseated by all of this drooling over this leftist moron.

[Jameison]

"He is jewish so he agrees w/conservatives on this one
issue."

Nonsense
Soros is Jewish too, and he is as anti-American as they come, and is rabidly against America fighting the WOT.
Plus Lieberman is far, far, far better in any way I can think of, as a US Senator than the totally moonbat Lamont will ever be.
It's a choice between a liberal who strongly supports the war (Lieberman), and a totally crazy anti-war wackjob that Lamont is. The Republican candidate stands no chance, so he's out.

[Jameison]

"No war declaration or vote of congress necessary to turn N. Korea into a Rock"

Oh yes there is.
Even after 9/11, we still needed a vote of congress and a decratration of war before we could attack Afghanistan.
Even though we had been attacked first, with devastating consequences to us in 3000 civilian dead.
And still the RATS are trying to wiggle out of it even as we speak.
Bottom line: I'd much rather have the strong on defense Lieberman in the US Senate at a time of war, than the braid dead Cindy Sheehan clone, Lamont.

[danamco]

I know a lot of Freepers consider Joe as good as a traitor for simply being a Democrat, but he has always struck me as a man of conviction and one of the most honest members of congress.

That might be so!??!

But at the end of the day, NO matter how you try to slice it, soreman is an arch-liberal and will ALWAS vote in that direction!!!

[driftless2]

Not only anti-war but anti-American. There will be many more votes concerning our nation's security in the upcoming years. Any conservative who doesn't understand the importance of keeping people like Lamont out of the senate are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. National security is THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE!!!! Everything else is a distant second. Without our security we will not be able to debate other issues. That is why getting Lieberman elected is so important.

[driftless2]

As if Lamont won't be even more liberal with the added distinction of being anti-defense. Use your head, it's either the pro-defense Lieberman or the anti-defense Lamont. Choose wisely.

[dedbird]

In afghanastan we actually used TROOPS. I'm talking about doing what we've never had the balls to do before.

If N. Korea tries to nuke us, NUKE THEM BACK!!!!

Geesh, what are we afraid of??? The international reaction? Screw them!

[Jameison]

"In afghanastan we actually used TROOPS"

We will use troops for North Korea if we are attacked by them.
We already have troops stationed right next to that country in South Korea. They are going to get involved one way or the other,if for no reason other than North Korea would hardly launch a missile attack on America without taking on our troops just a few feet from them as well.

" I'm talking about doing what we've never had the balls to do before.
I'm talking about doing what we've never had the balls to do before. "

If N. Korea tries to nuke us, NUKE THEM BACK!!!! "

Oh rubbish.

# 1.We HAVE used nuclear weapons before, when it had been absolutely necessary. In fact we are the only country to have ever used 'em in war. And that was in Japan in 1945.

# 2. North Korea's missiles that they have been firing do NOT have nuclear warheads.
We know because some of their past missiles have landed in the Sea of Japan.

# 3.I made no reference to nuclear attacks from North Korera in my post. It was all about a conventional attack.
Which we can get from North Korea either through a missile or an attack on our troops if they attack South Korea.

"Geesh, what are we afraid of??? The international reaction? Screw them!"

The fact that plenty of countries have nuclear weapons today, unlike in 1945?
And first use of nuclear weapons anytime we are attacked by some wackjob is merely going to leave us open open to the same nuclear retaliation?
It used to be called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

[Jameison]

"But at the end of the day, NO matter how you try to slice it, soreman is an arch-liberal and will ALWAS vote in that direction!!!"



He is the only RAT n the US Senate that has been consistently strong on the WOT.
That is the # 1 issue facing this country today.
Lamont would be a disaster.
It's a choice between a strong on WOT Lieberman, and a terrorist loving, America-hating, Kos/DU/moveon/Soros backed, loony left wackjob Lamont.
It's not even close.
It's Lieberman by a a mile.