Lieberman is now running as an independent against a candidate approved by the Democratic Party and the liberal blogosphere.  Will old Hawky Joe enjoy the support of the staunchest defenders of political choice?

The revolution will indeed be televised, analyzed, and blogged ad nauseum between here and November, and probably until 2008.  Ned Lamont is the unlikely standard bearer, a rich schlep who happened to be standing around when hardcore anti-war Democrats needed a candidate who would meet their highly orthodox criteria for going up against Hawky Joe in the Connecticut nomination ballot.  Now that the “hard-to-left” political tactic has been validated we can expect fireworks leading up to the 2006 mid-term elections. Raw disgust for George W. Bush and contempt for interventionist foreign policy have a new gust of political oomph, and Cindy Sheehan is out on the dance floor showing off her moves.

Of course, Ned Lamont only won the nomination.  Now his views will be scrutinized, and even the most ardent antiwar Democrats may be forced to admit that this guy has the right ideology on paper, but lacks substance.  If the citizens of Connecticut wanted a seasoned defender of their interests on the senate floor and in the cloakroom – what they got in Lamont might have be more of a nice haircut and a stuffed shirt.  He can nevertheless be counted as ‘yes’ vote for impeachment.

But where does this leave Hawky Joe?

The old centrist isn’t going away.  He’s running as an independent.

This creates a moral dilemma for a certain swath of our domestic political tapestry – the hardcore indie-rock socialists and Greens who have previously yelped and dickered over the lack of choice between the political parties.  Back in the days of Nader a high-minded ideology emerged that maintained that voters deserve more choices in the form of third party candidates.  The media should have less say in which candidates are elected, and the voice of the people should be heard over the wishes of fixers and insiders who otherwise govern the political process.

The jury is out on whether Lamont was delivered to the doorstep of the electorate by insiders in “the media”.  The newfangled ‘netroots’ - the bloggers and Blackberry-wielding upstarts – they certainly played a role in the Connecticut race.  They share one common feature with bloggers on the Right – they want ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ status depending on what suits them at the given political moment.  The extent of their influence will be hotly debated, since the answer has such a large potential impact on the how, in the future, politics are done in America. 

But another question persists:  Will the most vocal advocates of third party “choice” have the slightest amount of sympathy for Hawky Joe?  People like my friend Andrew Warner regularly make an impassioned defense of independent candidates – and the time-honored principles of civil liberty - defending our right to express even opinions that others find reprehensible (such as, for example, defeating terrorism).  Joe Lieberman has been set aside by his political party and is now running as an independent.  He is without question a conservative on foreign policy - and everyone forgets the issues about which he is liberal, since the war is the only issue that matters.  He may not be what the Greenies have in mind when they express their principles, but he’s an independent just the same.

In the next three months there will be many, many pundits, politicians and commentators in both public and private who will be urging Joe Lieberman to drop out of the Senate race.  That should be very familiar to the hardcore Naderites who spent the last two elections getting harangued by their Democratic friends.  Will any defenders of choice stick to their principles and support Hawky Joe’s right to stay in the game, or does the hardscrabble polemics of the antiwar cause trump everything else? 

The author resides in Pleasant Ridge and blogs regularly at Spacetropic.com.

Socializer!

del.icio.us

Furl It

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here!

1. says:
   09 Aug 2006  at  04:19 pm | #

   Sure, Brendan.  Lieberman should have the access to run just like anyone else.  Media should cover independent candidates fairly, letting people decide for themselves for whom to vote. 

   However, just because someone is an independent does not mean I need to support their politics.  That is different, however, from agreeing with their right to be a candidate.

   (This comment has been admittedly vague, and if people wish to nitpick, fine...)

2. f is for finney says:
   09 Aug 2006  at  06:55 pm | #

   Hey jackass, in case you didn’t read the news today, 60% of all Americans now oppose the Iraq war. Lieberman is out of step on Iraq with the nation as a whole and especially with Dems.

   Lieberman is a right wing rubber stamp for every policy The Smirking Chimp put forth. From the disastrous energy bill to the handouts for the drug companies to the so called ‘patriot act’, Holy Joe supported them all. Now this arrogant prick will not accept the peoples decision and go away with some dignity intact. No, holy joe thinks that he deserves to be a senator for life. His arrogance is mind blowing. Now that he is no longer a Dem the party will strip him of his precious committee chairmanships. Too bad for poor holy joe. Chimpy’s kiss was indeed the kiss of death.

   Why in the hell would a ‘Green’ support this arrogant right wing hack? They do not share any of the same policies, viewpoints or philosophies.

   I love that all of the right wing hacks are coming out with their praises for holy joe. It shows that we made the right decision to throw him out. All of the touching concern the righty wingnuts are showing about the Democratic party sans holy joe is really touching too. I didn’t realize how much they cared about the welfare of our party.

   Good riddance holy joe.

3. says:
   09 Aug 2006  at  08:40 pm | #

   The fact that Americans don’t support the war doesn’t mean they think the Lamont way to deal with things is any better.  Polls prove repeatedly that the only folks who have a worse solution than the current Republicans are the current Democrats.

   Which is amazing.  And sad. 

   But thanks for your predictably crass, anonymous perspective!

   And read more carefully next time.

4. funnelcake says:
   09 Aug 2006  at  09:29 pm | #

   Neither one of them will get my vote.  Take a wild guess why.

5. f is for finney says:
   09 Aug 2006  at  09:52 pm | #

   Yea Brendan, by all means, let’s stay the course, we are turning the corner, all we need is another 6 months.....meanwhile 1800 Iraqis were killed last month, and 200 the month before that. I bet you get all of the GOP talking points from Fox news end regurgitate them every day. or maybe Rush or O’Reilly is your source. Either way you are a deluded fool.

   All that this administration has accomplished with their unprovoked invasion of Iraq is to completely destabilize the entire Middle East, empower Iran and their Shi’ite allies and endanger the few pro-western regimes in the region like Jordan. You’re doing a hell of a job, Chimpy!

   Iraq is headed for a massive, bloody civil war. Just ask the British Ambassador to Iraq. The civil war has already started. Whether we leave tomorrow or in 15 years there is only one inevitable outcome for Iraq.

   You wingnuts are freaking out because you know the truth; the vote against Lieberman is a referendum on this administration and the ruling GOP in microcosm. Every poll shows that the American people have turned against the corrupt GOP and are now looking to the Dems to take over. The latest polling even shows that the American people trust the Dems more to fight terrorism. This is going to be a rout of the majority party the likes of which have not been seen since 1994.

   And you are shitting your pants because of it.

6. f is for finney says:
   09 Aug 2006  at  10:38 pm | #

   That should have read ”2000 the month before that”

7. anon says:
   10 Aug 2006  at  01:38 am | #

   Brendan doesn’t have any compassion for the lives destroyed or crippled by the senseless violence of the US war against Iraq, so he feigns an aloof, pseudo-objective stance. It’s a common game played by certain types. First he expresses brutal and uncaring remarks. Then when readers respond emotionally - a natural, human response to his callous approach - he then mocks them for expressing their feelings, something he’s incapable of doing. By attempting to humiliate those who are able to express their feelings, something he’s incapable of, he avoids his own emptiness. But who can blame him? Who wouldn’t want to avoid someone that cold and unlikeable?

   What happened in Connecticut yesterday was the worst thing that could happen to Brendan and other miseries like him. An outpouring of emotion and hope won the day. His immediate response was to piss on everybody’s parade. Better he should piss up a rope.

8. says:
   10 Aug 2006  at  06:30 am | #

   Bush venting by the fifth comment, and a bloviating personal attack by an anonymous commenter by the seventh.

   I’m really enjoying these, but I gotta admit, I expected better.

9. Freedom Fighter says:
   10 Aug 2006  at  07:17 am | #

   The Lieberman fiasco digs deep into the character of the individual.

   There are indicators of a lack of integrity.

   Lieberman wants his cake and eat it to. He sought the endorsement of the Democratic party with all the benefits that go with it, i.e. fundraising, ground-troops, talking-heads, etc.

   Now, the voters have spoken and he is behaving like a school boy by taking his marbles and going home where he can make his own rules.

   He wants to invite everyone to his backyard to play ball without uniforms.

   The problem is what league will prevail.

   To me, it seems all bush league ?

   __

10. anon2 says:
    10 Aug 2006  at  09:05 am | #

    Brendan, I can’t make sense of your article. Would you please summarize your point in a sentence?

11. Anon says:
    10 Aug 2006  at  12:35 pm | #

    Did you feel that? The country just moved back to the left again. It’s going to take years to undo the damage that this administration has done to our country, and indeed the world. We must rebuild our alliances and bring some reason to our Middle East policy. Neoconservatism is about to be thrown upon the ash heap of history, and good riddance to it.

    The events of today are yet another example of this administrations mismanagement and incompetence. It’s been roughly 12 hours since it was disclosed that the British police thwarted an attempt to blow up transcontinental airplanes. Few facts are known about how the plot was uncovered and exactly who was behind it. Nonetheless, supporters of President Bush have wasted no time attempting to exploit this event to make what they evidently perceive are powerful political points in defense of the president and his most controversial policies.

    The White House has already followed suit by insinuating—explicitly claiming—that this incident proves that Bush was right about the whole array of our country’s foreign policy disputes, from Iraq to the current Israel-Lebanon war. This naked exploitation of terrorist threats for political gain occurs every time a new terrorist plot is revealed, no matter how serious or frivolous, no matter how advanced or preliminary, the plot might be. Each time a new plot is disclosed, administration officials and their followers immediately begin squeezing the emotions and fears generated by such events for every last drop of political gain they can manufacture.

    But this effort is as incoherent as it is manipulative. Nobody doubts that there are Muslim extremists who would like to commit acts of violence against the U.S. and the West. No political disputes are premised on a conflict over whether terrorism exists or whether it ought to be taken seriously. As a result, events such as this that reveal what everyone already knows—that there is such a thing as Islamic extremists who want to commit terrorist acts against the U.S.—do nothing to inform or resolve political debates over the Bush administration’s militaristic foreign policy or its radical lawlessness at home.

    Opposition to the war in Iraq, for instance, is not based upon the premise that there is no terrorist threat. It is based on the premise that that invasion undermines, rather than strengthens, our campaign to fight terrorism.

    Invading and bombing Muslim countries do not prevent terrorism or diminish the likelihood that British-born Muslims will blow up American airplanes. If anything, warmongering in the Middle East exacerbates that risk by radicalizing more and more Muslims and increasing anti-U.S. and anti-western resentment. And the more military and intelligence resources we are forced to pour into waging wars against countries that have not attacked us, the less able we are to track and combat al-Qaida and the other terrorist groups that actually seek to harm us. There are few things that have more enabled terrorism than turning Iraq into a chaotic caldron of anarchy and violence—exactly the environment in which al-Qaida thrives.

    Nor is opposition to the president’s lawbreaking somehow undermined when it is “revealed” that there are terrorists in the world who are trying to attack the U.S. Opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, for instance, is predicated on the fact that a constitutional republic that exists under the rule of law cannot tolerate a president who defies the law at will, and is further based on the indisputable fact that the president is fully able to eavesdrop on terrorists in compliance with the law, i.e., by obtaining warrants. Screeching about terrorist threats as though it justifies such illegal conduct is a complete non sequitur. Nobody opposes surveillance of terrorists.

    But Bush followers who exploit terrorist threats for political gain and to gin up support for the president’s policies are not pursuing rational arguments. They leap at the chance to manipulate terrorist stories because they want to ratchet up the fear levels, precisely because fear obviates rational analysis and increases the willingness of citizens to cede more power and control to the government, to place more blind faith in political officials in exchange for a feeling of protection.

    James Madison, in a 1798 letter to Thomas Jefferson, warned about this manipulative tactic: “Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” And Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 8, observed: “Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates.”

    Over the next several days, at least, we will repeatedly hear Bush and his supporters attempting—implicitly and overtly—to transform this terrorist plot to into political support for Bush policies. That is a game they have been playing for several years now, and it is what accounts, more than anything else, for their victory in two consecutive national elections. But it is an intellectually dishonest and corrupt ploy, and the collapse of Bush’s popularity strongly suggests that Americans have become increasingly immune to being told that they should support the president’s extremist policies and overlook his profound failures, all because there are terrorists in the world who want to commit violent acts.

12. D is for Dumbass says:
    10 Aug 2006  at  02:44 pm | #

    Brendan fancies himself as smug and ‘above it all’.

    In reality, however he is just another vacant dittohead sheep. I say to hell with him and his philistin il

13. anon2 says:
    10 Aug 2006  at  04:06 pm | #

    Brendan, I’m still awaiting for you to summarize the point of your article in a sentence. Ball’s in your court.

14. f is for finney says:
    10 Aug 2006  at  04:06 pm | #

    I was ‘Bush venting’ on the second comment. By the way, the term you are looking for was ‘Bush bashing’. With his approval rating down in the 30’s, there is a lot of it going on around the country.

    Since you dislike anonymous posts how about posting your last (or real) name? ‘Brendan’ is the epitome of anonymity.

15. A Touch Of Gray says:
    10 Aug 2006  at  08:22 pm | #

    So, a major terrorist plot is foiled in England, airline traffic is FUBAR for the forseeable future, and now all of us who have to get on planes any time soon will be dealing with not only our own panic but everyone else’s.

    And how does the Bush administration feel about this? Well, apparently, they’re stoked.

    Someday, just once, I want to see someone get up in public and ask why it is that Americans are expected to feel safer with a guy in power whose political fortunes are linked this closely to terrorism. Doesn’t it bother anyone else to see that every time something either blows up or almost blows up, the Bush administration lackeys get out there and say, “Hey, fabulous, this is really going to boost our approval ratings”? Wouldn’t you rather have someone in power who did not see terrorism as a political godsend? Wouldn’t you maybe trust a guy more whose whole political survival didn’t depend on things like this happening? Who, you know, didn’t think terrorism had an upside?

    I merely ask.

    I mean, no matter what they do, it’s not as if the Bush admininstration will ever run out of terrorism. They have ensured that for the forseeable future there will be an inexhaustible supply. Which is great for them, because apart from terrorism, as that anonymous Republican quoted at the end of the above piece admits, they’ve got nothing. It is not so good for us, however, because it means that the people running the country believe that terrorism is good for them--whereas, of course, it is not good for us. Things have gone so badly for them that they must now share our sense that the twenty-first century is just a big black cloud of pain and suffering raining down anxiety and grief upon us. But for them, apparently, an incident like this is the silver lining. And its effect on the people they supposedly govern? Well, I guess that’s the touch of gray.

    When it comes to terrorism, Bush’s self-interest is diametrically opposed to that of the rest of the people in the country. He actually profits from it. We don’t. This is a major problem, and it’s been obvious for a long damn time. It just galls me to see so many people stare right at this giant flashing red warning sign and not see it.

16. Brendan says:
    11 Aug 2006  at  06:38 am | #

    Hey anonymous f:  It’s not hard to figure out who I am, follow a link or two.  I put my real name with my opinions consistently - ask Andrew or The Dean. 

    Sounds like you didn’t much bother to read to the end of the post.

17. Brendan says:
    11 Aug 2006  at  06:59 am | #

    anon2 - Are you the same anonymous who asks that question consistently in other posts?  I’m sorry it wasn’t clear to you - but I’m not going to offer the Spark Notes.

    There really haven’t been any perspectives offered here that can’t be seen repeatedly (and usually much more articulately) in the Kos comments - with the possible exception of ‘Grey’, who at least politely pointed out the unfortunate connection between terrorism and the presidents political fortunes (not that this had anything to do with Lamont, Lieberman or third party politics).

18. Mr. Anonymous A. Somebody III says:
    11 Aug 2006  at  10:08 am | #

    Brendan can’t defend the ‘substance’ of his harangue. All he can do is lament the anonymity of posters. If you can’t take the heat Brendan get out of the kitchen. You have all of the bad qualities of an Enquirer columnist.

19. Naderite says:
    11 Aug 2006  at  10:22 am | #

    Here’s some of what Nader said on democracynow.org the other day.

    AMY GOODMAN: Ned Lamont, Democratic Senate candidate for Connecticut, speaking last night, his victory address. As we turn now to Ralph Nader. He was an independent candidate for president. You have welcomed Joseph Lieberman to the ranks of third parties, Ralph Nader.

    RALPH NADER: Yes. I think that his entry as an independent candidate will diminish some of the chronic opposition by the Democrats to anybody who expresses their First Amendment right and runs as an independent or a third party candidate, like a Green candidate.

    AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the success of Ned Lamont, talk about this whole campaign, as you speak to us today from Connecticut?

    RALPH NADER: Well, I think it’s a testament to word of mouth, Amy. This whole campaign started without any expose, without any major 60-minute program, without any ecological disaster that the Democrats have ignored. It started in small towns around the state, with people talking to one another in the post office, meeting in living rooms, and that developed an aura of possibility that caught the attention of Ned Lamont. And, of course, it helped that he had lot of money to spend and he had some good campaign managers.

    But basically, it’s a testament to the power of the word of mouth, which historically has always been the generic source of progressive movements, whether it was in the farmer populist days or in the labor union organizing days. And I think that’s a message throughout the country for progressives. This Lamont victory is certainly going to give a lot of morale boost to beleaguered progressives in the Democratic Party to try their hand at challenging incumbents or running for various offices at the local, state and national level, and I think in New York State, it should bring more people to rally to Tasini’s campaign against Hillary Clinton in the Senate Democratic primary there. I expect to see some activists and celebrities, maybe Jesse Jackson, maybe a number of others around the country now to come to his candidate support.

    AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson wrote a piece in the Chicago Sun-Times saying, “Joe Lieberman has been in the Senate for 18 years. He’s a leader of the Democratic Leadership Council, the money wing of the party. He became the party’s vice presidential nominee, even as he championed the DLC’s ‘triangulating’ politics, pushing off of the Democratic Party base to demonstrate his ‘independence’ by embracing key elements of the conservative agenda—championing the war in Iraq, attacking affirmative action, pushing capital gains tax cuts that benefit only the very wealthy.” Can you talk about Senator Lieberman saying, while he agreed with the Bush administration over the Iraq war, that he has taken a progressive stance on many other issues?

    RALPH NADER: Well, Senator Lieberman would have lost even bigger last night if Lamont’s people actually expanded their criticism of Senator Lieberman as big business’s favorite Democratic senator, not just George Bush’s favorite Democratic senator.

    The most aggressive, cruel and insensitive business lobby and the most powerful in Washington is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and they have enthusiastically endorsed Senator Joseph Lieberman, one of only two Democratic senators they’ve endorsed out of 46 Democratic senators. And they have given him the highest cumulative score in their ranking of any Democratic senator in the Northeast, and for good reason.

    He has supported the U.S. Chamber of Commerce positions, not only on capital gains tax cuts, he supported NAFTA and WTO and CAFTA, which have depleted jobs here, high-paying jobs here in Connecticut. He has supported the Chamber’s drive to weaken the rights of injured workers and consumers and defrauded investors from having their full day in court against the perpetrators of their misery.

    He has supported the Exxon-Cheney energy bill, that notorious energy bill that was signed into law last year that subsidized big oil’s profiteering, weakened environmental standards in a variety of ways and made sure that there were no further advances in fuel efficiency for motor vehicles. And here in Connecticut, like everywhere else, they’re paying $3.40 - $3.50 a gallon, and it’s going up. So he hasn’t done anything on that.

    And then, finally, on the labor issue, he’s not been outspoken on the minimum wage like Senator Kennedy. He has not pushed for labor law reform to give workers a chance to organize. He has not gone after OSHA because of its weak enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health laws. 58,000 American workers die every year, according to OSHA, from worker-related diseases and trauma.

    So, in many, many ways, including never challenging the military budget—that’s the Chamber of Commerce position, as well—never really in 18 years advancing universal health insurance. That’s a Chamber of Commerce provision.

    So, you know, the question I ask Joe Lieberman is, is he going to repudiate publicly the Chamber of Commerce’s endorsement and campaign support—lots of money from businesses in his campaign—and is he going to challenge the Chamber of Commerce’s drive all over the United States in hundreds of campaigns, working overtime to undermine his own Democratic Party and its more progressive candidates? Well, calls to four Lieberman offices in Washington and Connecticut last week received no answer to the question: Joe Lieberman, are you going to reject the Chamber of Commerce’s endorsement of you?

    So, he goes around, including this morning, saying he’s a progressive Democrat and a progressive independent Democrat. So I think the struggle is going to be between the progressive Democrats and the corporate Democrats, who for years have dominated the party and has had Joe Lieberman as one of their charter members.

20. anonymously yours says:
    11 Aug 2006  at  12:56 pm | #

    OK, Brendan isn’t going to offer the ‘spark notes’. Too bad he can’t write an articulate and coherent post either. He can’t back up his post, he can only cry about responders remaining anonymous. You aren’t ready for prime time Brendan, and you can’t pick the rules in the new media. You are no better than Steve Fritsch. You might just be a Chickenhawk as well.

    BTW, Steve doesn’t allow comments at his site either. Apparently Brendan like to hear the sound of one hand clapping.

21. anonymously yours says:
    11 Aug 2006  at  01:00 pm | #

    The site meter at spactropic says that you get a whopping 20 or so visits per day Brendan. How many of those hits are you smugly reading your own posts? I think that makes spacetropic a masturbatory indulgence at best.

22. Brendan says:
    11 Aug 2006  at  06:51 pm | #

    A is for Anonymous –

    Are you the same hostility junkie who shows up on the Steve Fritch posts?  I thought I recognized the style.  Have you gotten your fix yet?  You’re going to have to do a lot better with the nasty personal attacks.  I’ve heard all of that before - none of it’s original.  But I hope it’s doing something for you …

23. says:
    11 Aug 2006  at  06:55 pm | #

    Brendan,

    Why not provide the one line summary, as has been requested?

24. Brendan says:
    11 Aug 2006  at  07:48 pm | #

    Dean --

    If we value political independence, Joe Lieberman’s willingness to run as an independent despite the express wishes of his party deserves credit as a brave act.

    (That’s the essence.  But additionally, if I allowed more than “one line” ...)

    Lieberman will be assaulted by people asking him to drop out - and this should be offensive, in particular, to Naderites.

    And if we don’t like the media making our choices for us, we should at least be willing to analyze the role played by the new media, including liberal bloggers.  Was Lamont really the best choice, or was he just the nearest convenient billionaire?

    Finally, if Lieberman ignores the calls to withdraw and wins a plurality of voters (R, D, and I)—and I’m not the only one suggesting that could happen, why do you think people are suggesting he withdraw—then it could be seen as very conclusive proof that both parties are not serving the public’s interest. 

    Nothing more.

25. f is for finney says:
    11 Aug 2006  at  09:32 pm | #

    A new Zogby Poll today shows that fully 79% of Democrats are happy that Lieberman lost. Add this to the fact that Lieberman spent most of his campaign money on the primary, and the DCCC and other major Dem donors aren’t going to give him a plugged nickle old Holy Joe is really up a junction. Of course he can always count on AIPAC for a few shekels.

    I really appreciate that righty wingnuts like O’Rielly, Hannity, Cheney, Rush and now Brendan are so eager to prognosticate about the will of Democratic voters and what is in our best interest. With friends like these who needs enemies?

26. Brendan says:
    12 Aug 2006  at  07:19 am | #

    The numbers game is very simple.  Lieberman lost 48 to 52 among Democrats only in a hotly contested primary in Connecticut.  Everybody gets to vote in the November primary in Connecticut, inluding Republicans and Independents.  There are realtively few of the first group in that state (but even if they’re 20% of the population that makes a big difference) - and quite a few of the second group.  Winning an election is simply about taking the edge away from your opponent by a small enough margin using whatever contiuencies are at hand.  Lieberman may still lose because or ground organization and funding, but he’s got the numbers to win - which is why he’s being pressured to leave the race.

27. Brendan says:
    12 Aug 2006  at  07:34 am | #

    And ... the other thing that came out of the CT race was the ‘donut’ voting patterns.  In the Nutmeg state - like the rest of America - the outer exurbs have seen an explosion of growth, and they vote ‘Red’.  The donut hole - the cities of Hartford and New Haven themselves - these are still reliably Blue.  This pattern is nothing new to people living in the Midwest but the extent to which it influenced the recent primary was a surprise to many.  It’s still a reliably Democratic state, but if this emerging pattern can be seen in Connecticut then you can bet it’s about 10X more pronounced in places like Ohio, even since the 2004 election.

    If Democrats are going to win overall in 2006 they will need low turnout in the donut demographics caused by disaffected Red voters, and a massive influx of cash to mobilize their core constituents in the cities.

28. Chickenhawk says:
    12 Aug 2006  at  01:20 pm | #

    "Are you the same hostility junkie who shows up on the Steve Fritch posts?”

    I’m not a hostility junkie, I just point out the fact that Steve likes to act like a tough guy that will die for his country when in fact, he isn’t. I never called him anything but a chickenhawk. (Which he certainly is.)

    “You’re going to have to do a lot better with the nasty personal attacks.”
    Anon did just ask you for a simple summary. Lighten up!

    “If Democrats are going to win overall in 2006 they will need low turnout in the donut demographics caused by disaffected Red voters, and a massive influx of cash to mobilize their core constituents in the cities.”
    If Democrats are going to win they need to make sure all votes are counted for a change. They need to support a withdrawl of our troops.

29. Mike Diehl says:
    12 Aug 2006  at  01:55 pm | #

    Did you ever have the feeling that you were being used?

    I am a indy Green. I voted for Nader in 2000 and I am volunteering for Bob Fitrakis this year. I keep reading these blogs from Democrats and Republicans where they are trying to use us to vote for or against Joe Lieberman and I’m tired of it. I can only speak for myself but Joe Lieberman doesn’t share any of the values that are important to me. He is pro big business, pro Bush, anti environment and he is pro war. But what I really don’t like about him is that he is trying to keep outsiders away from politics. He was aghast that someone would ‘dare’ challenge him in the primary. Joe Lieberman thinks that politics are for the chosen elite and no one else. If I lived in CT I would probably vote for Ned Lamonte because he is an outsider and his views are the closest to mine and to most indy’s and Greens. The notion that Brendan and other Republicans are trying to pass off, that because Joe Lieberman is running as an ‘independent’ we would be hypocrites not to support him. this is a hobson’s choice and it is a sham. We will make up our own minds about who we will support in the election. You democrats and Republicans can’t use us.

30. Brendan says:
    12 Aug 2006  at  03:05 pm | #

    Mike --

    I never anywhere said you should “support” him - and I certainly don’t see any reason why you would vote for him.  That would be a misrepresentation of what I am saying.  But it’s very telling the reaction from people who have such noble ideas about the political process - how they respond to Lieberman’s independence.  It sounds like there may be some, like you, who would be happy to see him withdraw from the race under pressure from one of the major political parties.

    Andrew Warner seemed to get it.

31. Green machine says:
    12 Aug 2006  at  05:34 pm | #

    Brendan,
    I happy to see Joe run. He’s going to tank again and everybody will once again see that his rubber stamping of Bush’s failed policies are being rejected again.

32. Jim Meeker says:
    14 Aug 2006  at  02:05 pm | #

    Tom Tomorrow sums it up perfectly