A Senator has the *right*, though seldom used, to not vote with either caucus.
One wonders just how cordial Senator Lieberman will be with Senator Clinton, who just donated multi-thousands to Lamont, too...
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/16/2006 6:54:40 AM PDT by Lead Moderator, reason:
Duplicate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1684419/posts |
Posted on 08/15/2006 7:45:13 PM PDT by freedrudge
Just one week ago, national Democrats united to try to nudge Senator Joseph I. Lieberman out of his race for re-election after his defeat at the hands of his antiwar rival, Ned Lamont, in the Connecticut Democratic primary.
But today Mr. Lieberman appears to be in the race to stay, running as a retooled independent candidate who is taking on both political parties, and Connecticut is already seeing a full-throated re-enactment of the men’s blistering primary battle.
Far from sulking in defeat, Senator Lieberman has fired most of his senior aides, energized his broad base of donors from his campaigns for president and vice president, produced a new television advertisement explaining his political intentions, and attacked Mr. Lamont over the London terror plot.
The senator appears so emboldened that in spite of the Democratic unity around Mr. Lamont, some Washington Democrats are now acknowledging that a Lieberman victory in November is a distinct possibility. According to guests at a fund-raiser for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Hamptons on Saturday, Mrs. Clinton — who is supporting Mr. Lamont — said that Mr. Lieberman had more than a 50-50 chance of winning re-election. (Clinton aides said they could not confirm or deny the remark; one of the aides said that if Mrs. Clinton had discussed the race, she might have been referring to a new poll that had Mr. Lieberman slightly ahead.)
To help Mr. Lamont, national Democrats are providing ideas to his campaign on policy issues and staffing, as well as a steady flow of donations, Lamont aides said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So Hillary is supporting a 100% anti-war candidate?
Interesting.
Of course they did. The editorial staff needs to learn that supporting Lieberman is wrong these days.
I wonder which caucus a Independent Lieberman would vote with?
That quote is the epitome of cluelessness - as if having Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton flank Lamont on primary night wasn't bad enough, his campaign manager actually wanted to have Lowell Weicker up on the podium. Weicker is still radioactive in Connecticut years after bringing in the hated state income tax...
It is so entertaining, in the way that all freakshows are entertaining, to watch someone like Hillary Clinton (who is constantly trying to calibrate her "positions" against changes in the direction that the wind is blowing) try to be all things to all people, which leaves her bewildered staff members in a panic because they're never sure which direction they're supposed to be leaning towards this instant or the next...
I disagree. So many in CT will vote for Lamont regardless who's on stage with him. CT voters, in general, are the dumbest. They stand in line at the poll with politicians' hands in their pockets and never say a word about it.
To the NYT, when the liberal Dems totally deningrate a person, use blackface on a website with close ties to the challenger, hack his website while the Dem leadership completely abandons a longstanding champion for their usual positions, they call it a nudge.
I can't wait to see what they say when Republicans (not leadership) back a challenger to Chafee, who is more liberal than most Democrats.
As cynical as I am about the intelligence of Connecticut voters, my sense is that the count of those who think "Weicker = bad man lied and raised my taxes" dwarfs the count of those who think "Weicker who?" and by an even larger margin dwarfs those who think "independent RINO Senator Weicker".
*I was gonna say, "Weicker = fat man lied and raised my taxes", but I decided that it might be in poor taste...
"some Washington Democrats are now acknowledging that a Lieberman victory in November is a distinct possibility. "
Huh?
It's not just a distinct possibility.
It's going to happen.
Lamont has been going down in the polls since one week before the primaries when he peaked.
And it's continued down for Lamont after the primaries.
“There isn’t a Republicans for Lamont group yet, but I’m confident that we’ll have the message to organize one pretty quickly,” Mr. Swan said.
My laugh of the day.
Fool me mr. liberal politician..fool me!! And then raise my taxes! Im under taxed and dont know what to do with my own money!!! Yeah!!!
The moonbats forgot this little detail when they engaged in their own witchhunt against Leiberman.
Lamont advisers said that they had hoped Democratic pressure on Mr. Lieberman to quit would have been unbearable.
Well, if he hasn't caved to Kos and paid him off yet...and he has jewish organizations and other groups to mine for campaign funds....he has incumbency...admination from Reps for firm stance on WOT...and the ability to be the playmaker of the Senate if it really IS closer in November...again? Seems to me that pressure at this point is overrated.
Mr. Lamont is still introducing himself to swaths of voters, and has to hone his political pitch to appeal to those who are not liberal or primarily concerned with the war in Iraq.
wait...I thought the whole point was they could win an election by being Hard left. This smells like a...sell out? :gasp: Is the NYT's advocating he abandon the Kos Bible Dems can ONLY win if they are Hard Left? yes, I know Kos himself is a hypocrite on that scripture he penned...if the price is right.
“There isn’t a Republicans for Lamont group yet, but I’m confident that we’ll have the message to organize one pretty quickly,” Mr. Swan said.
ROFL!!!
A Senator has the *right*, though seldom used, to not vote with either caucus.
One wonders just how cordial Senator Lieberman will be with Senator Clinton, who just donated multi-thousands to Lamont, too...
The DEMS; he's already said so.....repeatedly. Not only that, he's recanted everything he's ever said about Iraq. Now, he wants us out of there YESTERDAY.
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.