Poll: Sen. Lieberman Cutting Into Lamont's Lead




beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
This bit of news does not seem good for the "conservative" audience.

The reason Lieberman is catching up is that he is beginning to attack Bush. Lamont's strongest campaign tactic is to show Lieberman cozying up with Bush. And Lamont is unabashed anti-Iraq war.
 

Cabowhntr

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
816
Reaction score
0
Don't look at the conservatives on this one Beast...This primary will tell the tale for the Democratic party. Lieberman is the last Pro-Security Democrat left, That is why they are trying to kick him out, If they succeed tomorrow, That will give more Fuel for the Republicans in November with proof to their claims! Its a sad statement that Lieberman was good enough to put on the ticket just six short years ago, Now his own party has abandoned him...What happened to the Dems "Big Tent Party" Rhetoric? Shows how far their "Tolerance" really goes.



I disagree with 90% of Joe Liebermans political philosophy, but I consider him one of the most Honorable men left in Washington. Regardless of which side of the Isle you hang your hat, you have to respect the man for sticking to his convictions.
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cabowhntr @ Aug 7 2006, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
That will give more Fuel for the Republicans in November with proof to their claims! Its a sad statement that Lieberman was good enough to put on the ticket just six short years ago, Now his own party has abandoned him...What happened to the Dems "Big Tent Party" Rhetoric? Shows how far their "Tolerance" really goes.

I disagree with 90% of Joe Liebermans political philosophy, but I consider him one of the most Honorable men left in Washington. Regardless of which side of the Isle you hang your hat, you have to respect the man for sticking to his convictions.[/b]
Cabowhntr - Not really accurate that the party abandoned him. Hillary is with him.

Ditto on Lieberman. He is an honorable man. It is just unfortunate that he hitched his wagon to a falling star: GW
 

Cabowhntr

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
816
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (beastslayer @ Aug 8 2006, 11:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cabowhntr @ Aug 7 2006, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That will give more Fuel for the Republicans in November with proof to their claims! Its a sad statement that Lieberman was good enough to put on the ticket just six short years ago, Now his own party has abandoned him...What happened to the Dems "Big Tent Party" Rhetoric? Shows how far their "Tolerance" really goes.

I disagree with 90% of Joe Liebermans political philosophy, but I consider him one of the most Honorable men left in Washington. Regardless of which side of the Isle you hang your hat, you have to respect the man for sticking to his convictions.[/b]
Cabowhntr - Not really accurate that the party abandoned him. Hillary is with him.

Ditto on Lieberman. He is an honorable man. It is just unfortunate that he hitched his wagon to a falling star: GW

[/b][/quote]


I guess your right...If you consider Hillary the entire Democrat party...
 

Cabowhntr

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
816
Reaction score
0
Hillary was supporting Lieberman for the nomination, Now that Lamont has won the nod, She said she will support Lamont... Thats what I call loyalty!
 

IBAfoo

Inactive
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
464
Reaction score
0
The race is looking much closer than the polling. It clearly tightened in the last few days

Not having any knowledge of Connecticut politics why is beyond my understanding.

Win or lose for Lamont the struggle for the Democratic Party is clearly "on." Even if Lamont loses now, the statement has clearly been made.

No one would have foreseen this a few months ago. This is election clearly is the war, and nothing but the war.

Reminds me of Buchanan v. Bush in 92 in New Hampshire and McArthy v. Johnson in 68.

With 75% of the vote in the margin is about 2% for Lamont.

Much less than predicted, and it has been tightening since the polls closed.

The CW is that the late precincts will be pro Lieberamn, but if you have the CW and 50 cents you can buy a Hartford Courant and read all about it in the am.

How this will play out is also beyond me, but I've been on the record as saying that the Red Team will hold both houses of Congress in November.......

And I am on the record on Iraq. We should "cut and run" just like Reagan "cut and ran" his phrase, not mine, when he realized that his policy in Lebanon was not working. We should just walk away. Yeah, if you want to call walking away "cutting and running" call it what you like. But its not cowardice to admit that what you are doing is not working.
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Win or lose for Lamont the struggle for the Democratic Party is clearly "on." Even if Lamont loses now, the statement has clearly been made.[/b]

And what statement is that? That the far left is in firm control of the party? Unfortunately, I do not see that as a good thing for the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party cannot tolerate anyone who does not tow the far left line, then all the work the DLC and Bill Clinton is going right down the drain. Now, that does not bother me personally, but I think it should scare the crap out of some of you moderate leaning Democrats.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
We should "cut and run" just like Reagan "cut and ran" his phrase, not mine[/b]
Again, you are misquoting Reagan and using his words out of context. Not exactly being honest are you Foo.

"Yes, the situation in Lebanon is difficult, frustrating, and dangerous. But that is no reason to turn our backs on friends and to cut and run. If we do, we'll be sending one signal to terrorists everywhere: They can gain by waging war against innocent people." Ronald Reagan, Camp David, February 4, 1984
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cabowhntr @ Aug 8 2006, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Hillary was supporting Lieberman for the nomination, Now that Lamont has won the nod, She said she will support Lamont... Thats what I call loyalty!
[/b]
Why is that news to you? The last time I checked, Lamont and Hillary are both Democrats.
 

IBAfoo

Inactive
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
464
Reaction score
0
So GW, you are on the record that the race in FL is 50-50..... lol, Remember that one? I asked you for the "facts" you indicated led you to that conclusion and you have remained silent on that issue. So where are those "facts" GW? Do you want me to repost that thread? I think you don.t.



Reagan said we should not cut and run. You quote him accurately, as did I.

And then, we withdrew, without conditions.

The argument implicit in my statement, since you could not figure it out, is that by withdrawing, without conditions, we, he, "cut and ran...."

I have posted this previously as well.

I did not quote him out of context, I argue that he did what he said he would not do.

So, GW, when we left Lebanon, why was that unconditional withdrawal, not "cutting and running?" Reagan did, in Lebanon, what I advocate doing in Iraq. We should "cut and run." We should walk away.



As for the rest, I really think you have a problem reading for understanding.....

I said this:

"Win or lose for Lamont the struggle for the Democratic Party is clearly "on." Even if Lamont loses now, the statement has clearly been made."


and you said this:

"And what statement is that? That the far left is in firm control of the party? Unfortunately, I do not see that as a good thing for the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party cannot tolerate anyone who does not tow the far left line, then all the work the DLC and Bill Clinton is going right down the drain. Now, that does not bother me personally, but I think it should scare the crap out of some of you moderate leaning Democrats."


1. The word struggle means that there is no "control." The "left" has not been in control of the Blue Team since 72.

2. The references to Buchanan and McCarthy are to campaigns that lost, but made a statement in losing. Both campaigns did fatal damage to the front runner..... This election has sent a signal to Democrats on the issue of the war. You can see Hillary changing tack in the last couple of weeks to adapt. Those campaigns made a statement, and sent a message, even in losing. I was using them as analogous to the Lamont campaign, win or lose, before I knew the outcome.

3. Here is my two cents on the election result's future impact....

" ....the truth is, predicting the future of a complex political event like that tends to make one eat one's words. I'm disinclined to try to make either side of that argument, but my instinct is that the victory of Lamont is good for the Red Team. I would guess that the liberal net blogging progressive types are probably torpedoing the Nov. election for Team Blue."

I think we agree that the defeat of Lieberman is bad for Blue.


4. The DLC has produced wins, but you will appreciate that those of us to the left of them do not consider either Clinton or the DLC crowd to be "liberals."



Lamont is one of the few people to stand up in public and say the war was and is wrong, and we should walk away. Not many of us, and most of us have the luxury of not holing public offce, were willing to oppose the war from the start, and advocate leaving now.


If you watch the polls in that race the numbers moved faster than almost any election I have ever seen. Lamont came from out of nowhere, to have a 15 point lead in some polls and rolled back off to a handful. Beating a 3 term incumbent of Lieberaman's stature as a dark horse is bigger than Harris Woffords win in Pennsylvania, which, arguably, presaged the Clinton win in 92.....

Here's the Weekly Standard when the race was at 40 points, and then it was moving to 20 points of a Lieberman lead. Yeah, the Daily Kos guy called a Lamont win when the race was 20 points against his guy. Markos is looking like a genius today.....

Weekly Standard:

"The other bit of comforting news comes from lefty blogger Markos Moulitsas. A recent poll from Quinnipiac put Sen. Joe Lieberman ahead of his super-liberal primary challenger, Ned Lamont, by some 40 points. A new Rasmussen poll says that Lieberman's lead is 20 points. Here comes the good news. Yesterday Moulitsas eagerly told his readers that Lamont is "within striking distance.""



Please don't infer that I am not being honest if you can read for understanding GW.
 

Cabowhntr

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
816
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (beastslayer @ Aug 9 2006, 11:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cabowhntr @ Aug 8 2006, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hillary was supporting Lieberman for the nomination, Now that Lamont has won the nod, She said she will support Lamont... Thats what I call loyalty!
[/b]
Why is that news to you? The last time I checked, Lamont and Hillary are both Democrats.
[/b][/quote]


I see I'm wasting my time again....my point was pretty clear and simple, or do you just like arguing to waste time?
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cabowhntr @ Aug 9 2006, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (beastslayer @ Aug 9 2006, 11:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cabowhntr @ Aug 8 2006, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hillary was supporting Lieberman for the nomination, Now that Lamont has won the nod, She said she will support Lamont... Thats what I call loyalty!
[/b]
Why is that news to you? The last time I checked, Lamont and Hillary are both Democrats.
[/b][/quote]

I see I'm wasting my time again....my point was pretty clear and simple, or do you just like arguing to waste time?
[/b][/quote]

I also do this to "rattle some cages" (with apologies by borrowing GW's own words).

But I can't make you waste your time. That's entirely your own call.

That I believe is the essence of democracy.
 

Cabowhntr

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
816
Reaction score
0
Well then why don't you straight up answer whether you support the Democrats abandoning Lieberman after 18 years of loyal support to the party line and leave out the cutsey BS remarks!! and quit with the Hillary stuff she abandoned him too.. Do you support this or not?
 

Cabowhntr

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
816
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (beastslayer @ Aug 8 2006, 11:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cabowhntr @ Aug 7 2006, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That will give more Fuel for the Republicans in November with proof to their claims! Its a sad statement that Lieberman was good enough to put on the ticket just six short years ago, Now his own party has abandoned him...What happened to the Dems "Big Tent Party" Rhetoric? Shows how far their "Tolerance" really goes.

I disagree with 90% of Joe Liebermans political philosophy, but I consider him one of the most Honorable men left in Washington. Regardless of which side of the Isle you hang your hat, you have to respect the man for sticking to his convictions.[/b]
Cabowhntr - Not really accurate that the party abandoned him. Hillary is with him.

Ditto on Lieberman. He is an honorable man. It is just unfortunate that he hitched his wagon to a falling star: GW

[/b][/quote]


And if your going to question my accuracy again, please know what your talking about before you respond to a post!

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/9/230811.shtml?s=ic
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
So GW, you are on the record that the race in FL is 50-50..... lol, Remember that one? I asked you for the "facts" you indicated led you to that conclusion and you have remained silent on that issue. So where are those "facts" GW? Do you want me to repost that thread? I think you don.t.



Reagan said we should not cut and run. You quote him accurately, as did I.

And then, we withdrew, without conditions.

The argument implicit in my statement, since you could not figure it out, is that by withdrawing, without conditions, we, he, "cut and ran...."

I have posted this previously as well.

I did not quote him out of context, I argue that he did what he said he would not do.

So, GW, when we left Lebanon, why was that unconditional withdrawal, not "cutting and running?" Reagan did, in Lebanon, what I advocate doing in Iraq. We should "cut and run." We should walk away.[/b]
Foo, I have already addressed these issues. If you have not seen them, then I suggest you go find them. Quit wasting time and space reposting this stuff if you are not going to read what I wrote the first time. My answer will not be changing no matter how much you write.

Concerning Lamont, thanks for sharing your side of the issue.
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
I'm sorry Cabowhntr. I just thought you have the same knowledge of party politics that would parellel McCain's experience with the Republicans.

Well, this is my backdrop. In primaries, party splits between two contending hopefulls from the same party -- in this case Lamont and Lieberman.

Unfortunately, Lieberman is going against the grain and core beliefs of party representatives on the primary. He is being seen as too cozy with Bush and pro Iraq war. So he lost. The party decided to honor the results of the primary that Lamont won the nod as the party's official candidate. Now Lieberman will be pursuing his candidacy as Independent. Hillary was with him in the primary. Now that the party made a choice, Hillary has to support the official candidate.

Now the simple question? Why is that in your mind a case of "his own party abandoned him"? Isn't that the case of him abandoning the party? If you believe your own "cut-and-paste", that's your entirely your own call. I am repeating myself here, that's part of our freedom.

Now if you think I'm wasting my time on this, with due respect sir, that's none of your business.

Now if you don't want your writings disputed, don't blog. Stay at home and talk to your dog who would likely agree with you everytime.
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
Politics is rarely boring that is for sure. I understand Hillary's move on Lieberman and quite frankly I think it is the smart move on her part. Hillary would be stupid to buck the party fanatics if she really seriously wants to be President, unfortunately, they are the ones that are motivated to vote in primaries. The problem with Moderates in general is that they do not consistently vote.

At any rate, Lieberman running as an independent will add all kinds of fireworks to the race. If I were a Democrat, then I would be pissed but I am not.
Lieberman has the potential of splitting the CT Democrats right down the middle, therefore is theory allowing the Republican to walk away with the election. I am not sure of the overall political breakdown of CT, but prospect of splitting the Democrats would not thrill me if I were them.

Alternatively, Lieberman could hog the "center" Republican and Democrat voters and leave the fringe groups voting for the party. In theory, Lieberman could win this elelction. I wonder if Lieberman wins will he re-register as an Independent?

The funny thing about this whole situation is that Lieberman is for all intents and purposes as "good Democrat." He bucks the party on one issue...Iraq War and suddenly he is a traitor? Duh! He is Jewish. Fighting Islamo-Fascist who are hell bent on killing all Jews seems the logical course for him to take to me. Maybe Democrats have no room for Jews in the Party anymore?
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
GW - You always manage to twist and insert your "agenda".

I was beginning to agree with your analysis until you inserted your own Ann Coulterism (LOL), this:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gwhunter69 @ Aug 10 2006, 10:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
The funny thing about this whole situation is that Lieberman is for all intents and purposes as "good Democrat." He bucks the party on one issue...Iraq War and suddenly he is a traitor? Duh! He is Jewish. Fighting Islamo-Fascist who are hell bent on killing all Jews seems the logical course for him to take to me. Maybe Democrats have no room for Jews in the Party anymore?[/b]
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
Sorry Buddy, I do not see a Coulterism. Just my opinion and some observations...maybe a pondering or two. The Democrats really screwed the pooch on this one in my opinion...there is no win-win here for them. Unless I am missing something...feel free to point it out.
 


Top Bottom