New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | July 6, 2006 8:45 PM

I'm a Lamont supporter, and although Ned was a bit nervous at first (not surprising since he's never had the national spotlight before), he did give substantive answers to most questions and behaved like a gentleman. I'm shocked that a seasoned debater like Sen Lieberman would resort to the exaggeration and the bullying tactics that he used during the debate. Not to mention his use of the old Reagan adage, "there you go again". HAH! Doesn't the senator realize that he's already viewed as Republican light? A DINO...Democrat In Name only

Posted by: Cheryl Tyler | July 6, 2006 8:54 PM

Lieberman appeared to be the shrill, whiny old man that he is. This is all about Lieberman's ego.
Lamont defines the issues that Democrats care about and and will win the primary.

Posted by: chuck Bush | July 6, 2006 9:07 PM

Every Politician like JOE over the past eighteen years should now be layed off. I wonder who Joe will be a lobbiest for. Oh yeah, the drug companies gave him $400,000 in donations. Joe Blows.

Posted by: Mike Wiebner | July 6, 2006 9:25 PM

There's a post-debate straw poll now being held at Voteroo.com. It'll be a chance to influence the MSM spin with your vote, instead of the other way around.

Posted by: Thomas M. Timmermann | July 6, 2006 9:36 PM

Lieberman came off to me as mean spirited and defensive. It was as if he took a page out of Roves book, making the issues an attack on his opponent rather than discussing policy.

Posted by: amon anon | July 6, 2006 9:56 PM

Lieberman's tactics sure sound Rovian. That could be a liability in a democratic primary though. I know I won't vote for someone who uses Rove style talking points and sloganeering.

Posted by: AA | July 6, 2006 10:49 PM

What is wrong with you people? Apparently Lamont's psycho-bloggers are doing a good job of filling up people's brains with untruths.

Lieberman "exaggerating" - try checking his actual voting record before you impune his Democratic credentials. Comparing Lieberman to Rove? - Completely Absurd

Laying off Lieberman because he's been in the Senate too long? - Pick on Senator Kennedy instead, is he not liberal enough for you?

Dont you people realize that Ned Lamont cant win the general election? CT's electorate is almost evenly split between Democrats, Independents and Republicans. Even if you have a few policy disagreements with Joe Lieberman, he is a well respected and EFFECTIVE Senator. Far right Republicans are rejoicing at the Lamont primary challenge because it's the best chance Republicans have to win a Senate seat in CT, and thwart Democrats taking over the Senate.

Posted by: furball | July 6, 2006 10:51 PM

Once again, on Bailey. Joe was a founder of Caucus of Connecticut Democrats. Alongside him CCD leaders were McCarthy delegates to Chicago. Those folks became delegates by PRIMARYING the Bailey slate. Lieberman launched his political career hand in hand with primary challenger liberal democrats. That was then, a long time ago. DumpJoe, the entrenched Loserman.

Posted by: 13ben | July 6, 2006 11:24 PM

Posted by: AA | July 6, 2006 10:49 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

so by your logic.... if lamont wins the primary, he has no chance in winning the General Election... why???? are you going to vote for a republican if Lieberman isn't picked by the democratic voters to represent them??????

some democrats these Lieberman supporters are...... wow..... too compromising to see the urgency at hand....

Posted by: SEWART | July 6, 2006 11:48 PM

lIEBERMAN IS THE ONLY DECENT DEMOCRAT I WOULD VOTE FOR IN THE COUNTRY.

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | July 6, 2006 11:54 PM

AA,

You're off the wagon, again.

What is "Completely Absurd" as you put it, is for you to say Lamont can't win.

Who told you that baloney, Lieberman, blackmailer of the DSCC?

Lamont can only lose the general election if Lieberman runs as an Independent and splits the Democratic vote.

Like I said, Lieberman is blackmailing the DSCC and the voters of Connecticut. His loyalty is only to himself first, and the Republican Party second.

No wonder his new nickname is Traitor Joe.

Posted by: RJ | July 6, 2006 11:55 PM

I thought Lamont did a fine job for an inexperienced candidate. It's easy to say this in hindsight but all he really needed to do was close out like this: "The choice is easy. You can choose Joe Lieberman a career politician who's beholden to a slew of special interests, voted for the war and doesn't regret that vote, and continues to support the war and is against any type of exit from Iraq as fully evidenced by his not supporting even the mild Levin resolution. Lieberman who is most definitely a stay the course in Iraq with the rest of the GOP and Bush and in fact is proud he voted for the war and brags about it as if there is some badge of honor in being wrong and sticking to it.

Or you can vote for me and trust that I would have done everything I could not to have gotten us bogged down in this horrible quagmire becauise I would have had exercised better judgment and not allowed someone like Bush to pull the wool over my eyes with all of those lies."

With all of the unnecessary carnage because of Iraq not to mention the trillions of dollars that will be wasted there, Instead of voting to re-elect Joe, you should be questioning his judgment and his sanity."

I would rather be called a flip-flopper any day than someone who lead us into war based on lies.

Posted by: Somatoman | July 7, 2006 12:31 AM

Left wingers love to bash the "DINO" Lieberman the same way right wingers enjoy bashing the "RINO" McCain. Both sides should be (but will not be) ashamed. Apparently, these two statesman will only be respected by history.

Posted by: JJ | July 7, 2006 12:33 AM

Interesting that Joe was on the attack in this debate, given that he spent his VP debate smooching Cheney's a**.

Mark my words: he will not win as an independent, but he will help get an R in, and then he'll get that Bush cabinet nomination he's always wanted.

Posted by: rtdrury | July 7, 2006 12:51 AM

Liberman thinks peace dumb? So he thinks war smart? Not a winnable war - endless war rut keeps Americans scared, confused, enslaved. Liberman to open the oil spigot further, maintain consumption levels, protect shareholder value, rig the game for profit at expense of progress. Renewable energy and polyculture are more efficient, eat into GDP, must be suppressed. Lieberman plays the game, it's required. Lamont plays the game too if elected. The answer is grass roots action. Then Washington matters less. Get a diesel car and sign a biodiesel contract with your local small farmer. Demand polyculture production and a price 1/3 gasoline's. Biodiesel production costs 1/4 gasoline's. Biodiesel smart, gasoline dumb. Peace smart, war dumb.

Posted by: Anne | July 7, 2006 12:54 AM

There is nothing Joe Liberman could say that would make me vote for him. I NEVER liked him, from the day back in the late 80s or early 90s that he was grandstanding on how he was diligently working to get the assault weapons ban passed, yet behind the scenes he was working to get the Colt Sporter semi automatic REMOVED from the list!
His invocation of Ronald Regan's 'There you go again' just goes to show how far from the Democratic party ideals he's fallen.
I've seen him follow whichever way the wind blows, whichever is most convenient for him at the moment.
The fact that Joe is already collecting signatures for an independent run shows how loyal he is to the party. Joe is loyal to Joe, no one else. If he wasn't scared of losing he wouldn't bolt the party at the first whiff of defeat.
I look for more backbone than that in my candidates.

Posted by: nfjanette | July 7, 2006 1:01 AM

Lieberman responded that he’d like to see American troops gradually withdraw from Iraq, but without a deadline. He called Lamont’s position – which echoes those of Democratic congressmen and some Army generals – “dumb.�

Which Army generals have supported Lamont’s position? It would be foolish to announce any such dates for planned withdrawal of military assets; it sets up the insurgency with a political target they couldn't, and won't, refuse.

Lieberman's position on this conflict is unfortunately correct and is consistent with the normative military position; once you're in the fight, you need to plan carefully and dynamically for the withdrawal, you can't just cut and run based upon some empty election promise.

This has nothing to do, BTW, with the lies and incompetency of the Bush administration for their choices in the how and why for starting this mess in the first place. It is their fault that they planned so poorly for what to do after the initial military victory. It is their fault that they spent billions on pie-in-the-sky weapons programs rather than giving our fighting men and women the far less sexy but necessary equipment such as armored personal carriers and good body armor. It is their bumbling errors such as releasing the former Iraqi army members into unemployment - who became an important tool in the insurgency because of their military knowledge - rather than retraining them to protect the country from the religious zealots. The Bush administration has failed our military on many levels consistently throughout this conflict.

Posted by: bill stender | July 7, 2006 2:14 AM

why does anyone believe that the democratic party represents an anti-imperialist ethic and agenda? or even that it represents an ethical and humanitarian agenda?

are campaign statements sufficient? is it that they dont hold a majority that they refuse to act on such an agenda?

i think it is simply that the fruits of the imperialist agenda are too seductive for everyone, repugnicans and democrats, candidates and supporters, to do much more than talk about what is good and right than actually do something that would upset that apple cart (juicy apples in January, cheap!)

the Iraq war is the most naked and brutal aggression seen in a hundred years and it goes on without opposition bc everyone knows in their hearts that it is a necessary part of the american lifestyle.

the only difference btwn demos and repubs is that the dems are in denial about this fact. if there was a viable alternative it would have been taken.

Posted by: Paul | July 7, 2006 2:24 AM

I agree, Lamont can't win. Lieberman is a shift to the new Democratic party. Lamont has the old Democratic values that will allow the Republicans to win again. Lieberman can get the Democratic, Independent, and some Republican votes, something that is desperately needed if the Democrats are to win.

Posted by: John Zengerite | July 7, 2006 2:50 AM

As noted above, Lamont can't make the math work in a three-way race.

Therefore, the Lamont candidacy will ratify the Lieberman-Bush Iraq position by putting it on the ballot. When all is done, Ned will get 35% of the vote; you'll say once again, right message, wrong candidate.

I say- why pick a fight that you are guaranteed to lose- and why pick a major fight, where you've given the nation a front row seat to lose?

This is political negligence on the part of progressives.

Posted by: met00 | July 7, 2006 4:35 AM

As I read these I have to wonder. Just what debate were some of you watching?

A tentive begining for Lamont gave Leiberman the chance to show he was "Senatorial", but one would expect a Seantor for the last 18 years to appear that way. The key thing Lieberman had to do was make sure that Lamont didn't look and sound good. Show people that Lamont wasn't able to take on the job. What is commonly called a "knock out punch".

But as the debate progressed Lamont started to get his pace. As he got better, Lieberman got worse. He needed to shake Lamont, throw him off his stride, so Lieberman said "to hell with the rules of the debate" and went to town.

This was a massive error. It made Lamont look calm, cool and relaxed and made Lieberman look like he was unable to use any self control. His continued attacks, and interuptions gave him a desperate look, not the look of a winner or polished 18 year Senator and one-time VP candidate.

So much for the debate.

Paul, one small thing. CT is generally very BLUE state. It would take a lot for a Democart to not win the election. Of course, if you were working for the Bush administration and you wanted to ensure that the election has the greatest possibility of throwing a Bush supporter in office, then you would want Lieberman running as the blue, or if he can't make the cut, as a third party to suck air out of the blue.

Something tells me that if we get to the point where Lieberman runs as an independent, and there is a three way debate, Lieberman will be tossing all his ammo at Lamont, not at the GOP hopeful. And that is telling. Lieberman has no problem going to town against Democrats (whether it be Dean or Lamont, or Democratic principles, like the votes on Rice, Brownie, Gonzalas, Alito, his stand on gutting an insurance program to make it a risky investment program for his wall street financiers, his support for the Bush-Cheney energy policy, and his support for the GOP when he votes with them on cloture, eliminating any chance the Democrats have at getting bad bills off the table - like he did on the bankrupcy bill and then hides that vote by voting with the Dems after it doesn't make any difference, becuase he ensured the bad bills passage with his clture vote).

Finally, Joe isn't a Democrat. If he was he would let the Democrats in CT decide who was the person they want to send to DC to represent them. It's all about GOP-Joe.

Posted by: Ron | July 7, 2006 4:51 AM

AA is right. Lamont wont win the general election. How many fringe, unhinged leftist (I won't even call you denocrats)do you think there are in ct. Let me answer that for you, not enough. Once again your deranged hatered has made you stupid.

Posted by: Rama Schneider | July 7, 2006 7:12 AM

(first: I'm from Vermont) I watched the Lamont/Lieberman debate last night. Good on Connecticut and the TV station that put it on.

My thoughts (as a non Democratic progressive) are:

1) What the hell does Lieberman mean when he says that withdrawal from Iraq timetables are bad, but he sees major reductions in troop levels by the end of '07? A rose by any other name ... etc.

2) Lamont mentioned "Democratic values" ... Lieberman didn't ... once.

Posted by: Alice Allen | July 7, 2006 7:13 AM

THERE YOU GO AGAIN, Joe...
You showed your true colors now.

Posted by: Ned | July 7, 2006 7:51 AM

Does anyone else think that the problem isn't who governs, but that there is too much government? Neither one of these guys, as far as I can tell, is interested in restraining power; they're lusting after it. Joe is bought and paid for by his campaign financiers, but do you really think that Ned Lamont is going to turn his back on his rich corporate friends?

Posted by: Mike | July 7, 2006 8:27 AM

Lieberman is running on the past, what he used to be, before his Zell Miller transformation. When you get offers from Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin to endorse you...I don't think you're representing anything that true Democratic voters want anymore. I don't even live in CT, but I've contributed to Ned Lamont because changes start with the people in office, if they don't do what they say, then you vote them out... Joe, thanks for what you did...but its time for a change for the better.

Posted by: Jay | July 7, 2006 10:31 AM

Most of the anti lieberman post mention Bush, not a coincidence. Simpletons. You're not voting against Bush by voting for Lamont, you're voting against an effective rational experienced democrat for a clueless guy who got abused in the "debate."

Posted by: Treehugger | July 7, 2006 1:03 PM

I have voted for Joe in the past. He has become the person he defeated 18 years ago. His arrogance of power, special interest and corruption shined through loud and clear last night.

Its time for truth in advertising and Zell Lieberman should join his fellow republicans.

Congress las failed us. Lets vote them all out.

Posted by: Punky America | July 7, 2006 2:43 PM

Most right-wingers are blatant liars. No coincidence. Like Jay here, who pulled his head out of an Ann Coulter book long enough to spew,

"Most of the anti-lieberman post mention Bush, not a coincidence. Simpletons."

Hard to be more simple than yourself, Jaybee baby. Because a SIMPLE 'Find Word' search would show you only 3 "anti-Lieberman" mentioners of Bush out of the 20+ posts here.

But there are 4 or 5 pro-Lieberman Bush mentioners- including yourself (who mentions Bush in 2 out of 3 lines).

MOST of the posts, however, are anti-Lieberman. So you were either just lying, or you can't count without taking off your mittens and boots.

Not like that's a bad thing; I'm just mentioning is all.

Posted by: Treva | July 7, 2006 8:49 PM

He has been disloyal to his state and country .I'm a registered Independent, but not a Ct. voter. If I was registered to vote in your state and if Lamont won the Dem. primaries, I'd most certainly vote for Lamont.

Lieberman serves corporate and personal interests first. I wouldn't be surprised if they old Republicrat has money tied up in defense contractor shares.

Lieberman and the rest of the DLC are why I left the Democratic Party. Get rid of him and the other DLC (Republican-lite) trash and I just might return to the party.

Posted by: Steve Bastian | July 7, 2006 10:04 PM

Firstly, I'm not from CT and don't profess to undestand the politics up there (first I have to understand those of WV).

Most blatant naked agression in 100 years? Maybe you should read your history books.

As for those screaming about biodiesel, do a little research and you will find out that, even if we plant soybeans on every square foot or areable land in the US, we could only provide 1/3 of current fuel consumption.

I have always liked Joe Lieberman and have always respected someone who is willing to go outside the party lines. It's interesting that people like Lieberman and McCain get so much support from the center since most voters don't take the extreme positions that get the most press. I would compare those who are rabidly attacking Lieberman to the right-wing conservative nut-jobs who constantly attack McCain in the same fashion.

The issues which affect the real silent majority (those who support conservative economic policy while being pro-choice or those who want prayer in schools but oppose the death penalty) who can't be pigeonholed like the right-wing nazis and left-wing pinko commies don't make for good news but are on their minds when they go to the polls.

So, let's go Joe, kick some butt.

Posted by: cv | July 7, 2006 10:26 PM

Posted by: Mike | July 7, 2006 08:27 AM

Lieberman is running on the past, what he used to be, before his Zell Miller transformation.... Joe, thanks for what you did...but its time for a change for the better.

You So Right. It's time for Joe to retire. He might as well have quit the Party this week, if you talk to CT Dems. We were already pretty disgusted but this tears it for a lot of people. Does he really think that it's admirable to stick to his positions on principle when those positions are not just wrong but very unpopular?
Across the State of Connecticut, there are at least thiry weekly vigils in town centers, protesting the occupation of Iraq. Many of them grew out of vigils trying to prevent the invasion of Iraq, so they've been going for a long time. Judging by the 95:5 ratio of waves and peace signs versus flipoffs and angry insults, Joe is toast.
And to thumb his nose at the party that he's been carried by for eighteen years... Hapless Joe...
Funniest line was that even if elected as an independent, he'd still caucus with the Dems, still vote with the Dems!?! He doesn't stick to that now, in fact, that's part of the problem.
As for a Republican win, 81 81 81 81 81 Our GOPig Ex Governor just got out of jail and several of his co-conspiritors on on their way in. The Party in CT was only moderately corrupt, contract steering, playing footsie with Enron that cost CT $200 million or so, chumpchange really. The GOPigs are turning out to be a criminal enterprise and we all want to see the RICO investigation.
Hopefully, Joe's surprise retirement will douse some of the incumbent Dems with some cold water, as Robert Scheer titled an article this week, "Will the Real Democrats PLEASE stand UP."

NoMoJo

Posted by: warren smith | July 8, 2006 12:06 AM

A Lieberman V Lamont V Republican race is likely to be
won by the Republican even if CT voters prefer either L
over the R. The problem is not Lamont or Liberman.
The problem is the voting system, because of its
mathematical flaws, not giving the voters what they want.
A better voting system is "range voting".
Click the hyperlink to http://RangeVoting.org to find out more.
If you want democracy, I recommend endorsing RV
(which you can do by clicking "endorsements" and filling out the form at that web site).