CT-Sen: Looks like Ned Lamont to take on Lieberman

It looks increasingly likely that wealthy Connecticut businessman Ned Lamont will give Lieberman a primary challenge.

Lamont has apparently promised to spend over a million dollars of his own money on the race. Lowell Weicker will support his campaign and should be present at the announcement. Kiki Kennedy, Ted's wife, has been promoting Lamont to her personal circle -- the Lamonts and Kennedys apparently have long had a warm relationship. Connecticut Citizen Action Group is apparently aboard.

The big questions are whether DFA and MoveOn get involved as they've been threatening the past couple of months. DFA's Jim Dean is being lobbyied hard by Lieberman on Monday. We'll see how that goes. MoveOn's involvement (which would equal money and boots on the ground) would also be crucial to Lamont's chances.

Political Junkie diaried Ned yesterday.

•  Ned won't forget the delegates, right?

  since it takes a certain threshold to get in a primary and all.

  And I presume his followers won't be "Nedheads"

  by RBH on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:11:16 PM PDT

  •  Hecan also petition toget on the ballot

    Although he'll have enoughsupport at the convention  to get on the ballot ( I'm guessing)

    by calmer tiki on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:19:44 PM PDT

  •  This is what I gather

    To field a primary challenge to JL, one needs to file and launch a petition drive, presumably with the CT democratic party.

    If the petition gathers 5% of the votes lieberman got when he was re-elected in 2000, then that candidate will appear on the ballot for the Aug. 8th primary.

    From CNN, Lieberman got 813,265 votes in 2000.

    That means that Lamont, Weicker or any primary challenger would need 40664 signatures from registered Connecticut Democrats to get on the ballot.

    Piece of Cake!

    by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:52:50 PM PDT

    •  FWIW...

      40,664 signatures would be approximately 1/3 of the CT Democratic primary electorate in 2004.  IMHO, this means it will be rather difficult to get on the ballot, but could indicate a significant challenge if it arrives.

      by profmatt on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:56:34 PM PDT

      •  But

        another way to look at is this. From your link, CT has roughly 670356 dems, and 40664 is only about 6% of that number. That is, if we can one out of every 16 CT dems, we'll have a primary. I won't tell how, but it can be done with a promotionary expenditure of about $100-125K.

        by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:42:50 PM PDT

    •  15% of delegates at convention

      means there is a primary.

      The signatures may start being collected 14 days prior to  the convention (date will be in May but state central hasn't set it in stone yet do to venue problems)

      Neither of these is  a hurdle.Signature drive plan is already being worked on and since about 80% of delegates will be the same as last convention we know 15% is no problem.

      by ctkeith on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:08:13 PM PDT

      •  I see

        thanks for the tip, and sound like Lamont should be in by one of the two approaches.
        

        by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:45:30 PM PDT

    •  Here is why Lieberman MUST be challenged

      I do like giving credit where credit is due. In December 2005, Leiberman was united with the Democrats and voted for the progressive side of the issues. But notwithstanding, Lieberman should be vigorously challenged for the following reason.

      Lieberman authored the Iraq War Resolution, and presumably lobbied Democrats to vote for it, and even had Edwards and Bayh (among the presidential mentions) co-sponsor it. That vote has been the single most debilitating to the entire party in its recent history. It can be argued that we (seemingly) lost the 2004 election by the virtue of Kerry's pusillanimous support (followed by other wishy-washy stands) for Lieberman's IWR.

      All those that authored it and co-sponsored or otherwise promoted it, must be held accountable. In this context, I draw a distiction between promoting and simply voting for the IWR.

      Here is the senate version of the Iraq War Resolution in all its glory, as a pdf file. See also the dkosopedia page on the the IWR.

      IMO, Lieberman earned a lion's share of the responsibility for the IWR and hence the Iraq War. Hence he must go.

      A two-pronged strategy of
      

      1. Lamont in the primary
         
      2. if that fails, Weicker (I) in the General election.
         

      as sugegsted by Miri sounds like a good plan to make it happen.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:32:05 PM PDT

      •  Keep in mind

        that not withstanding IWR, Bush cut the inspections short prior to invading, and Bush and Co gets the blame for the invasion, while Lieberman gets the credit for facilitating it with the IWR.
        

        by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:17:40 PM PDT

  •  I'm curious about something ...

    We do not have a long, healthy history of primary challenges here in Connecticut. I believe that the petition route to a primary was only added in the last 15 years or so; I'm fuzzy on remembering the details, but think that the parties had to be pushed to it in court. I know, for sure, that Toby Moffett did not have a petition route available to him when he challenged incumbent Gov. Bill O'Neill in the '80s ... and arms were twisted almost off to keep Moffett from getting the necessary 40 percent of the delegates at the state convention.

    So this is pretty new to us. We've had a few minor statewide primaries for state office, underticket stuff. That's it.

    I'm all for dumping Joe -- I've never voted for him. But it is going to be a longshot, even with money. In the whole U.S. -- has anyone ever primaried a three-term Senate incumbent, either party, and won?
    

    by jeffbot on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:33:49 AM PDT

    •  ooops ...

      not 40 percent, above. 15 or 20 or whatever it was/is.

      by jeffbot on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:36:45 AM PDT

    •  Two of relevance:

      1980 NY-Sen:  4-term incumbent Jacob Javits defeated in primary by Al D'Amato, partially due to the rightward turn of the Republican party, and partially due to the fact that Javits was diagnosed with ALS in 1979.

      2004 PA-Sen:  6-term incumbent Arlen Specter barely survives primary challenge from Pat Toomey.  Toomey spent at least $2M of his own money and $2M from outside groups was spent on his behalf.  (Notably, this is without having to deal with an NYC media buy, which a CT-Sen candidate would have to do.)

      by profmatt on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 12:27:42 PM PDT

      •  correction

        Specter was completing his fourth term in 2004, not his sixth.

        There's also NH's Bob Smith, who had served three House terms and two Senate terms (briefly leaving the GOP to run for President as a third-party candidate in 1999-2000), and who lost in a primary to Sununu in 2002.

        by Adam B on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 03:58:30 PM PDT

        •  Ooops...

          used the wrong divisor.  Fundamentally, it seems, in order to lose, the incumbent must be sick and/or borderline insane, and to compete, big, big money is requisite.

          by profmatt on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 07:02:22 PM PDT

•  Really?

  Well, we need to dump Joe....somehow.

  by nwprogressive on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:11:26 PM PDT

  •  This isn't about Joe

    It's about warning Democrats what happens when they step out of line and become a part of the Republican machine rather than a way to defeat the Republican machine. That he is the go-to guy as Kos calls him for putting down other Democrats, and this says to him- even if he wins the primary he'd better shape up or else there are consequences. it's a good step toward discipline that is lacking on the left, and excused all to often as okay because 'that's just the way the left is suppose to be'

    by bruh1 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:26:57 PM PDT

  •  This isn't about Joe

    It's about warning Democrats what happens when they step out of line and become a part of the Republican machine rather than a way to defeat the Republican machine. That he is the go-to guy as Kos calls him for putting down other Democrats, and this says to him- even if he wins the primary he'd better shape up or else there are consequences. it's a good step toward discipline that is lacking on the left, and excused all to often as okay because 'that's just the way the left is suppose to be'

    by bruh1 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:26:57 PM PDT

    •  We aren't fascists

      I hate this stuff about needing party discipline and "punishing" Democrats we don't like - we aren't Republicans, and while it can be frustrating, the lack of lock step discipline is one of the things that makes us different from Republicans.  I'm not a fan of Lieberman, far from it, but he will vote for Harry Reid for senate president, and a Republican elected from Connecticut due to a bitter, divisive Democratic primary won't. Connecticut is not a slam dunk Democratic seat.

      by nascardem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:22:12 PM PDT

      •  LOL

        You wouldn't recognize fascism if you tripped over it.

        by MillionthMonkey on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:28:44 PM PDT

        •  ooooooh

          I think I just tripped over it.

          by nascardem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:07:51 PM PDT

          •  you are joking, right?

            by MonkeyDog102 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:49:38 PM PDT

      •  Frankly what you hate is irrelvant to

        how successful strategies work. I think at some point this must be made clear. Just because you think or feel it, doesn't make it so. For both Democrats and Republicans at this point in American history (just to get off topic a bit)is a big issue. What is clear is that party discipline is absolutely necessary to anyone who wants to win. Show me in any sector of life how one can suceed without discpline or focus, especially when one is down in the game? I can show you a million where discpline was necessary to sucess. The NAACP Legal Defense fund's pursuit of the civil rights laws such as Brown v Board of education for exampel took 50 years to happen and they pursuet it with discipline. FDR passed his  New Deal legislation using party discpline. There many others- cite me one example where a lack of discpline resulted in anything other than failure? Just one.

        by bruh1 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 06:01:40 PM PDT

      •  ps

        I am also frankly tired of people who think in the short term. The short term is what is screwing us over as a party and the American people in general. We thought in the short term for 30 years, and that resulted in a Republican take over that they started fighting back in the 1960s. The things I am talking about aren't going to win you an election in 2006, but it will start to win you elections. They are strategies that work in multiple other sectors, from non profit, to business to other political situations- the only difference is that somehow some of you think this occurs through some mystical process. It doesn't. It's a step by step process where by we a) have a message that appeals to people b) we stay on message and don't allow those who are trying to gain through our falures to suceed c) we start to win elections not just by hoping the other guy fails, but because people respect our brand and d) we take reasonable risks. The price of failure here is not a Republican Senator- the cost to the Democrats is that we will continue to have a Zell Miller wannabe in our midst who doesn't support the team. This isn't a matter of even voting records- but of a deeper concern about how he hurts other Democrats in public. I have noticed that nearly every person making your kinds of arguments- isn't discussing how by allowing Joe to go unchallenged we are essentially allowing him to continue through his actions to hurt other elected Democrats in their chances of winning. I have had to contend on another cite with someone calling this hyperbole because I didn't specific that this does not mean that some how Joe is doing this alone or that he is all powerful. I would have thought that was obvious. What the point of challenging one of our own who is up for the Zell Miller award is to say to them- their are consequences to you hurting other Democrat through your public actions- and not observing the 11th commadment of being a Democrat: Thou Shalt not keep Democrats in the minority by helping to legitimatize the Republican brand. Whether or not Joe loses or not- I want other Democrats to come out this understanding that carrying water for the Republican party is not acceptable behavior. Feel free to miscontrue my points. Peace.

        by bruh1 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 06:10:26 PM PDT

      •  the lack of lock step discipline

        the lack of lock step discipline is one of the things that makes us different from Republicans.

        That's just one thing that makes us different, but it's not what defines us.

        Look, we don't have to be robots to be disciplined.  

        DLC Dems like Liebermann gut us at every opportunity in an act of sheer self-promotion at our expense.

        I would be much happier having a Dem represent us who actually represented us.  

        If we don't get our shit together, we will never get out of this war.

        Big kudos to Bruh1!  You got a 4 from me.

        by Dumbo on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 06:10:50 PM PDT

        •  Who's "us"?

          Democrats, or liberals? If it's just liberals, "we" will never hold power in this country. Period, end of discussion.

          Stop thinking of "us" as liberals. We're a party, and our party (like the Republican Party) includes people of a lot of different ideologies. Whether to take on Joe Lieberman is just a simple question of distribution of scarce resources (money, time, effort, party unity). If you think it's worth it to spend a ton to beat him in a primary, then another (much bigger) ton to hang on and win the general, just to get someone who will shut up on national security issues (Lieberman is solidly progressive on virtually everything else), by all means. I don't.

          By the way, the progressive issues groups (environment, labor, womens, education) have no reason to oppose him and won't. For some, actually, he's quite the hero. Just so you know.

          by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:14:00 PM PDT

          •  You couldn't be more wrong

            Go look who Lieberman Gets his money from.ALL CT CONGRESCRITTERS are good on environment,labor,womens and education issues even the Republicans.

            This is a fight for the Democratic party in Ct.

            Our legislature passed civil unions,public financing of elections and other progressive legislation the last session because the progressive wing of the party is exerting itself.

            People of this state believe in Universal healthcare ,equal rights,superior education and most DON"T COMPLAIN ABOUT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE.

            All three challengers to the Republican house members have identified themselves as "Murtha Dems" and know if Joe is the Nominee for Senate no unified Message for our party in this state is possible.

            The Senate Election will be decided in the Dem primary.Any nutmegger with any knowledge of this state knows the Republicans have no bench  and will only run a token Senatorial campaign.

            by ctkeith on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:36:45 PM PDT

      •  Party discipline, unusual only here

        Many European parties, of both right and left, are willing to impose party discipline.  It is not fascist to do so.

        Might I add that fascists generally resort to thuggery?  No one is seriously suggesting we beat up Joe Lieberman or his supporters.

        by KbThorn In Massachusetts on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:08:13 AM PDT

•  MoveON, not MoveOne...

  Though MoveOne sounds cool too.

  by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:12:10 PM PDT

•  Great...

  Less money to spend against Santorum and DeLay.  Just what we need!

  by jkfp2004 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:13:35 PM PDT

  •  um...

    He will spend his own money to defeat Lieberman.

    by michael1104 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:16:53 PM PDT

  •  santorum and delay

    need only enough rope to hang themselves.  they are losing their own elections for us.  the money is much better spent against jarmentum.

    by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:17:21 PM PDT

    •  I wouldn't count your chickens so fast

      And besides, I believe the poster was making a general point that we should spend Dem money fighting Republicans, not fighting each other, especially considering that we have a decent shot at taking back the Senate if we spend lots of money in lots of states. (MO, MT, OH, TN, NV, RI, PA, etc).

      by tmendoza on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:20:17 PM PDT

      •  yeah

        and while we're at it, why not get rid of primary elections altogether? isn't it better if all incumbants hold their seats in perpetuity, and all candidates be handpicked by the wise party elders in DC, who know better what us plebes in the provinces want than we do? democracy is so divisive, after all.

        by wu ming on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:32:09 PM PDT

        •  I thought we were Pee-Ons

          not plebians. after all, this isn't ancient Rome ...

          My betters have better degrees from better schools than I went to, therefore they are better than me.

          I thought we had evolved, or been created, such that synchophants and toadies are not rewarded for having sharper tongues and harder elbows than the competing synchophants and toadies.

          Don't I deserve to be pee-d upon, since I am not one of the enlitened in DC?

          CAESAR: Let me have men about me that are fat;
          Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights:
          Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
          He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.

          Shakespeare Phrase Search

          rmm.
          

          by rmdSeaBos on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:41:10 PM PDT

          •  Don't Bogart that point. n/t

            by macdust on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:02:51 PM PDT

            •  what does the "n/t" thing

              mean? thxs.

              bob.

              by rmdSeaBos on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:27:39 PM PDT

              •  "no text" below subject line. n/t

                by macdust on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:38:50 PM PDT

      •  Joe Lieberman isn't a Republican?

        I would've never known....

        by pol on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:03:05 PM PDT

    •  no...

      Santorum will raise and spend $15M+ for his reelection.  Bob Casey will need at least $10M to compete, no matter how up in the polls he is.

      by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:35:40 PM PDT

      •  santorum

        is dead in the water.  PA ain't that big of a state and thanks to the sheer batshit-loopyness of his wingnuttery, pretty much the entire PA constituency is on to him.  fuggedaboutit

        by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:44:23 PM PDT

        •  i hope you are right...

          ...but we should remember that PA ain't exactly MA or VT or CA.  Bush barely lost PA in 2004.  There are a lot of wingnuts there.  And what if pro-choice Dems in the Philly suburbs take a pass and don't vote?  I agree that Casey is the favorite to win, but I'm still nervous about it.

          by tmendoza on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:47:30 PM PDT

        •  ain't that big?

          You try advertising in (and travelling between) Phila, Pitt, H'burg, SWB, Erie and the smaller media markets.  Sixth most populous state in the union.

          by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:51:50 PM PDT

          •  populous has nothing to do with size, yo

            and i'm sorry, but it's true that geographically, PA ain't that big, even if you can spend six hours driving east to west.

            and the fact that it is so densely populated underscores the point that his frothiness has nowhere to hide.

            by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:08:36 PM PDT

            •  Other than CA and TX

              Which states have longer drives?  Miami to Pensacola, maybe.

              It's a big state with a largely rural (surprisingly, I know) population.

              by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:07:08 PM PDT

              •  alaska

                and you're probably right about florida.  nevada.  freakin' montana.  

                suffice it to say that PA is equal in width to a lot of states that outstrip its height by far.

                by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:21:03 PM PDT

                •  well

                  I could argue, at least, that PA has population centers all over the state -- it's not like you'd actually have to TRAVEL to most of Alaska.

                  When I worked for Joe Hoeffel in 2004, we had him do a bus tour of all 67 counties, with 2-3 events in each.  It took about three weeks.

                  by Adam B on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 06:23:03 AM PDT

      •  I'm hoping

        >>>>
        Santorum will raise and spend $15M+ for his reelection.  Bob Casey will need at least $10M to compete
        >>>>>

        I'm hoping Casey won't be the nominee.  Santorum has made a big enough fool of himself to make him beatable by a real progressive.

        by aybayb on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:16:58 PM PDT

        •  Yeah

          and I'm hoping the Jets win the Super Bowl this year ... what's that you say? They're already out?

          Hmm ...

          I just think posts like this are so CUTE. And I'm sure your preferred candidate is cute, too. Probably wants to "be the change." I wish he could. I really do. But back in reality-world, Casey's the candidate and will need all of our help to win.

          by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:18:16 PM PDT

        •  well

          Unfortunately, the progressives who could have won the nomination chose not to run.

          by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:18:27 PM PDT

      •  Rick appearing with Falwell & Dobson tomorrow

        Please  join us  in protest against the Radical Right, this coming Sunday at 7PM at the Greater Exodus Baptist Church in Philadelphia, 704 N. Broad St. (Broad and Fairmont)
        More info below.
        Monique.

        http://santorumwatch.org/

        Justice Sunday III:  Proclaim Liberty throughout the Land

        The Jan. 8 program, "Justice Sunday III," follows two previous gatherings designed to rally support for conservative positions on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in public schools and other issues.  Christian television and radio stations across the country plan to broadcast the event from the Greater Exodus Baptist Church in Philadelphia, 704 N. Broad St at 7pm. Scheduled speakers include Sen. Rick Santorum, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family.

        Christian right in N. Philly to boost Alito
        http://www.justicesunday.com/
        

        by joy on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:35:17 PM PDT

  •  Ditto

    I would hate to see MoveOn waste any money on this race, when we have 5-7 very important Senate races this year.  I'd rather see the money go to say, Tennessee, then CT.  But having said that, people can do whatever they want with their money.

    by tmendoza on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:18:16 PM PDT

    •  well,

      i hope both of you are vociferously opposed to sherrod brown's candidacy.  imo, * that * is the example of wasting resources; recruiting a challenger to holy joe is worthwhile in every respect.  

      by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:20:16 PM PDT

      •  i don't see how that follows

        in ohio, there is a republican incumbent and two dems running for the nomination.  people in ohio should vote for brown or hacket and then everyone should get behind the nominee.  the polls show that neither one is clearly the better candidate to take on dewine.  i saw one poll that had brown doing better, and (i think) i saw another that had hacket winning.

        in conn., we already have an incumbent who will definitely win re-election.  of course, if this challenger (by some miracle) takes out joe in the primary, then everyone should get behind him.

        by tmendoza on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:25:13 PM PDT

        •  except that

          brown assured hackett he wasn't running, then decided to run after hackett committed.

          if a dem primary in CT is cause to lament wasting resources, then the same is true in ohio.  that jarmentum is technically a democrat is irrelevant.

          by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:40:25 PM PDT

          •  Not true

            I hate to say it, but this is not true.

            Brown announced before Hackett announced. Hackett had NOT made a commitment to the race when Brown announced.

            Had Hackett announced during Labor Day, like many candidates traditionally do, things may have turned out differently. But the longer Hackett waited, the more time he gave to Brown to change his mind.

            Go back and look -- Hackett's first leaks that he intended to run came AFTER leaks emerged that Brown was reconsidering his decision.

            by kos on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:46:48 PM PDT

            •  hmmm....

              what i found indicates that hackett made his intentions known in the first week of october and formally announced on oct. 24th.  brown was leaning towards a run at the time of hackett's announcement and declared in early november.

              by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:28:57 PM PDT

              •  Who cares, honestly?

                The first comment in this sub-thread is the correct one. The HUGE difference is that Lieberman is a Dem (with a very progressive voting record, actually, if you care about that sort of thing) and won't even have an opponent if he's the nominee. So that's a free ride, no money. In Ohio you have an early primary and one candidate (Brown) with most of the money. And the race is a dead heat. So not much is lost with that one.

                by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:23:49 PM PDT

            •  Dude

              Be honest about this.  Come on.   I went back and looked and that's not how it went down at all.  Can you give me a link to something that backs up what you are saying?

              by lando on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:57:23 PM PDT

        •  Mendoza, we don't have to BEAT liebermann

          to make our point.  And it is an important point.

          Let's assume that Liebermann will win the primary challenge.  But not without a fight, and not without spending some money and having to grovel before to donors.  And let's say he comes out of the primary challenge a little bit weaker, but still a Democratic senator incumbent running easily for reelection.

          What have we accomplished with this then?

          We have sent a CHILLING message not just to Liebermann, but to the rest of the spineless Dem weasels in Congress who support Bush at every turn that if they think not fighting Republicans is the EASIER of the two paths, they should think harder.  

          Supporting Bush rather than your own base should be a decision fraught with peril for these people.  Make it easier for them to do the right thing, next time Bush wants war authorization.

          by Dumbo on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 06:20:58 PM PDT

          •  I understand your point but want to make

             something Crystal Clear.

            The Team put Together for this effort is Experienced,professional,will be well financed,has won MANY CT statewide Election previously and plays to WIN.

            Anyone who thinks the odds are  far from even doesn't understand CT politics and hasn't done their homework.

            by ctkeith on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 06:49:18 PM PDT

            •  How confident are you?

              How confident are you?  If/when your cause fails to replace Lieberman in the Senate, will you agree to stop posting here forever?  I will agree to such a deal.  I am very confident that you will fail.

              by GoVOTE on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:54:47 PM PDT

              •  why don't you stop posting now

                or better yet get involved in the state elections where you live.

                by ctkeith on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:21:02 PM PDT

                •  I'm involved where I live

                  But you still haven't answered my question: how confident are you?  I am willing to make this wager: if you fail in replacing Lieberman, you will go away and stop posting here.  If I am wrong, I will do the same.  What's the level of your confidence here?  I am 100% confident you will fail and I am willing to take that wager.

                  by GoVOTE on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:23:34 PM PDT

                  •  that's a mighty big chip

                    you got there on your shoulder...

                    by MonkeyDog102 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:57:09 PM PDT

                    •  Chip away!

                      Looking forward to ctkeith's response.  He's so confident when he talks - let's see if he is willing to put his money where his mouth is.  I am!  Did he run away?  Perhaps he's not as confident in his cause as he pretends to be?

                      by GoVOTE on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:00:15 PM PDT

                      •  no offense intended

                        but your challenge is juvenile.

                        by MonkeyDog102 on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 05:15:56 PM PDT

                        •  So sad.

                          That's fine to think that, but it wasn't offered to you.  ctkeith seems willing to consider it, so he must feel otherwise, but lately he has just run away.  So sad.

                          by GoVOTE on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:56:21 PM PDT

                          •  great

                            you scared someone away from participating. Yep, you sure did clean up this town. Nice work.

                            Geez.

                            by MonkeyDog102 on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 10:26:44 AM PDT

                            •  oh please

                              you have made me your issue in life, without reading up on ctkeith's comments, without knowing the whole story.  Yup, you sure did clean up this town.  Nice work.

                              Geez.

                              by GoVOTE on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 05:18:13 PM PDT

                  •  Deal, on one condition

                    You promise not to post on any diary having anything to do with Joe Lieberman until August 8 2006.

                    I'm only thinking of your mental health.

                    by ctkeith on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:59:21 PM PDT

                    •  Only if the same goes for you

                      Only if you aren't allowd to post on any diaries about Lieberman either.  It's even steven, bud.  I am 100% confident that you will fail.

                      So the terms of the deal:

                      1. Neither of us will post in any diaries that have to do with Joe Lieberman until August 8 2006.  If one of us is found to be doing so, we will agree that it is because we have a lack of confidence in our respective causes.

                      2. If your cause to replace Lieberman with a Democrat fails, you will stop posting on daily kos forever.  If you succeed, I will stop posting on daily kos forever.

                      Agreed?  Please respond.

                      by GoVOTE on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:06:18 PM PDT

                      •  absolutely not

                        You said it's all about me and I'm giving you the opportunity to prove yourself right.

                        You see, I could have agreed and set up another account and posted but you're dealing with an honest man.

                        Please let me prove you right how silly this little accountibility project we're involved in here in CT is.

                        by ctkeith on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:11:04 PM PDT

                        •  You make no sense

                          Look, if you want to now back down and take out the diary posting clause that's fine.  It was your suggestion to begin with.

                          The deal, if you agree, is this:

                          Since you are so confident in your cause to unseat Lieberman and replace him with a Democrat, if you fail, you will stop posting and go away from dkos forever.  If you suceed, I will do the same.  I am 100% confident that you will fail.  If you do not agree to this, I will assume that you are not as confident in your success as I am in your faliure.  

                          Agreed?  Please respond.

                          by GoVOTE on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:14:15 PM PDT

                          •  If you are 100% confident

                            Why do you follow me around on this blog.You're scared shitless because your daddy has been exposed.

                            Careful of those elevators.

                            by ctkeith on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 08:19:29 AM PDT

                            •  Yes or no?

                              Ummm.... actually this is a public forum and I'm not following you around.  You seem to confuse posting in the same forum as following around.  Additionally, you seem to respond to me just as much as I do you.

                              But that still does not answer the question that I have posed:

                              How confident are you of your success?  I am 100% confident of your faliure.  I will agree to stop posting here forever if you succeed in replacing Lieberman with a Democrat.  You will agree to stop posting here forever if you fail.  Do you agree to this deal?  If not, we will assume that I am more confident in your faliure than you are in your success.

                              Do you agree?  Please stop stalling.  Yes or no?

                              by GoVOTE on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:05:53 AM PDT

      •  Hrrrrmph!

        >>>>
        ...i hope both of you are vociferously opposed to sherrod brown's candidacy.  imo, * that * is the example of wasting resources;
        >>>>

        Well, I hope MoveOn will live up to its 'progressive' claims and SUPPORT Sherrod Brown.  I hold exactly the opposite opinion of what would be a 'waste of resources'.

        But, hey....that's why it's called 'politics'.

        by aybayb on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:02:16 PM PDT

    •  MoveOn

      MoveOn, from what I hear, isn't doing and Senate race at all this year. All House.

      Besides, they really haven't proven they can organize themselves out of a paper bag. Their organizing model stinks, and their lists are getting stale. I'd put your faith in another group. DFA (Dean for America) has a lot better buzz.

      by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:20:17 PM PDT

      •  Move ons here , involved

        and has people on the ground.You're correct about their model but they realize that and are very flexible.

        by ctkeith on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:40:11 PM PDT

  •  sometimes an example has to be made

    in order to keep the DINOs in line. if holy joe is tossed out by the voters of connecticut, it reduces his ability to do harm not only in the senate, but more importantly as a cable news talking head. removing a drag on the ticket might also help with congressional seats. it would be money well-invested.

    by wu ming on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:19:47 PM PDT

    •  how do you know

      that the Republican won't win?

      by anthonyLA on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:24:41 PM PDT

      •  Jodi Rell

        If Lieberman lost in the primary, and Rell decided she wanted that Senate seat, it would be hers.  She has obscene approval.  She of course wouldn't dare run against Joe.

        by tmendoza on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:26:32 PM PDT

        •   this is impossible

          once the primary is held, if joe were to lose at that point rell couldnt enter the race because the primary has passed - she would have to give up her run for governor and join the senate fray before the primary, and why the hell would she do that

          by yomoma2424 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:29:17 PM PDT

          •  You're Right

            by tmendoza on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:38:11 PM PDT

          •  Yes but

            there are such things as polls. If it looks like Joe has a chance of losing, you can bet your bottom dollar someone will jump in on the R side.

            by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:26:50 PM PDT

        •  yikes

          that would SUCK

          by anthonyLA on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:30:23 PM PDT

        •  lieberman won't lose

          but the effort is important, to let him know people are not happy with him.

          by shpilk on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:30:47 PM PDT

        •  Think twice. people...

          before you throw out someone who is guaranteed a November win and caucuses with the Democrats.

          I'm not thrilled with Joe's statements, but the facts are he's always been excellent on environmental votes and many other Democratic issues while my Dem Senator-Ben Nelson- is terrible. Ben was one of what, 3 Dems to vote for ANWR drilling? IIRC Ben has the highest score of voting with Bush of any Democratic Senator. I don't see the lynch mob at DailyKos after Ben.

          Being a strong liberal I don't have a lot of love for Joe but the wisdom of Dailykos experts was the unknown Jody Rell would be an easy takedown, instead I think she has the highest approval rating among governors or something close to that. I can see Rell stumping for the GOP candidate against an unknown who beat Joe and - whoops - one less member of the Dem caucus and Harry Reid remains Minority Leader.

          I think it's hypocritical to burn Joe at the stake for not being ideologically pure when there are Senators with worse records who get a pass here at Dailykos. Aren't we all always criticizing the Rethugs for their obtuse party discipline and for not having a big tent? Don't we always criticize them for excluding the party moderates like Snowe and Collins etc because they are not ideologically in lock-step with the leadership?

          I'm just saying spending resources to go after one of our own may be something we regret when the dust settles.

          Now go ahead and crucify me for having a different opinion.

          by NebraskaDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:25:29 PM PDT

          •  Amen

            Excellent post. I always find it interesting that posters with screen names that have red or purple states embedded in them (NebraskaDem, ColoDem) get it when the vast body of Kossacks don't. Wonder why that is?

            by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:28:59 PM PDT

            •  Here's why

              Kos and others are pissed that they couldn't muster the mighty force of the blog to take down Republicans, so now rather than reevaluating their strategies (i.e. attacking Democrats that don't do their biddings) they've decided that the reason why they are losing is not that they are ineffective, but that Democrats that don't fit their cookie cutter mold are actually keeping blogs from being able to take down Republicans.  So, instead of going after Republicans, they are now going after Democrats.  This isn't about what's best for the country.  This is about Kos and a bunch of posters wanting to feel more important; Kos wanting to sell his book; Kos and a bunch of posters wanting to feel they have some power.  

              Of course, they will fail, and resources that could have helped us take Republican seats will be wasted here.  They are, in effect, the Let's-Attack-Democrats Wing of the Democratic Party.  Republican's best friend.  Kos at the RNC in 2008 trying to sell his book?

              by GoVOTE on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:41:10 PM PDT

        •  She's going to stay governor

          She has a great chance of being officially elected governor, while I would think she would have less of a chance of being elected Senator. Keep in mind many blue or red states will vote for Governor differently than President, but they frequently vote for the same party for President and Senator. There is basically no chance she will run for Senate, because even if Lieberman loses the primary (hope to god) it will be too late to start a campaign for a different job.

          by northerndem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:16:45 PM PDT

      •  if we can't win a state

        as blue as connecticut, we've got bigger problems. i'm willing to entertain your argument for the ben nelsons of the world, but not for the liebermen or feinsteins.

        by wu ming on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:28:48 PM PDT

        •  CT

          has a Republican governor.  does this mean we have "bigger problems"?

          by anthonyLA on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:31:03 PM PDT

          •  governor and senate issues differ

            and rell hasn't been elected governor, she replaced rowland when he got canned for corruption.

            by wu ming on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:35:33 PM PDT

            •  and...

              Rowland was an elected Republican governor.  Rell has the highest gubernatorial approval numbers in the country.

              by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:37:15 PM PDT

              •  rell can't run for senate and governor at once

                who is the mythical republican challenger that would beat lamont? again, senate races revolve around different issues than gubernatorial ones, and the national republican party leadership will be a powerful anchor on any CT rethug candidate.

                by wu ming on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:40:02 PM PDT

                •  I imagine . . .

                  . . . that Shays or Simmons might go for the step-up.  People who could portray themselves as moderates against the "I can't believe this radical got rid of Our Joe Lieberman" Lamont.

                  We know NOTHING about Lamont's campaign skills or beliefs.  Lots of rich people have run for office and failed utterly as candidates.

                  And I don't see how national Republicans would be any more of a drain in CT than they are for Republican Senators in RI, NH and ME.

                  by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:43:30 PM PDT

                  •  If you're going to comment

                    at least know what the hell you're talking about.Every Active Dem in this state knows that there are 2 people who are being groomed by the republicans to run.

                    Name them and I'll start paying attention to you,Otherwise,stop saying anything you can think of to protect Joe Lieberman.

                    by ctkeith on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:14:36 PM PDT

                    •  Uh-oh

                      If I had any doubt whatsover that Joe would survive this challenge, they have been erased.

                      Easy now, pardner. It's not about you. Remember that. I T  I S  N O T  A B O U T  Y O U. I know Lieberman pisses you off. Me too. All of us, no doubt. But whether you're talking about war, sports, or politics, those who take things personally always lose.

                      by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:32:40 PM PDT

                      •  don't sweat it

                        Ctkeith is the guy who when he found out that Lieberman was growing a beard as part of the orthodox jewish tradition of mourning, decided that it was ripe time to mock that tradition and his mothers death.  After learning this, he also claimed that it was his website at the activities of anti-Lieberman bloggers, not Lieberman's mother's death, that kept Lieberman off the talk shows for a couple weeks.  Recently, ctkeith decided that Sharon being on his deathbed was "proof" that Sharon wasn't a good guy, almost like Pat Robertson's condemnation.  

                        There is no doubt in my mind that ctkeith will fail.  Any candidate that associates himself with ctkeith will be shown the true character of the dumpjoe website founder.

                        by GoVOTE on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:45:55 PM PDT

                        •  Oh. Thanks.

                          by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:08:17 PM PDT

          •  And several R congressmen

            Connecticut hates Bush, but is not solidy Democratic at all. I grew up there.

            by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:30:05 PM PDT

      •  we don't

        that's not the point. if you allow joe to think he can do whatever, he will continue to do whatever so long as the party is afraid to challenge him. he's an example- and if you aren't willing to take a risk with the most obvious example of those who work against the party rather than with it, then what's left? why not just stay home and let the republicans do whatever they want- because that's the equivalent of letting Joe continue to do some of the things he has done. a party can't exist without some discipline, and his continuing disregard of it is a big problem

        by bruh1 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:29:49 PM PDT

        •  i'm not that beholden to the Democratic

          party.  I think they make mistakes too, just less often than the Republicans.  I think we need some people within the party who don't follow the platform on every issues.  He's voted with the Dems plenty (much more often than with the Republicans).

          by anthonyLA on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:32:32 PM PDT

          •  Then you don't

            have an argument really.

            by pursewarden on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:36:55 PM PDT

          •  this isn't about simply having a voting

            record. this  about how he treats other democrats in public so as to effectivel uncut the party by being as Kos has called him the go to guy for Democrats who are willing to desparage other Democrats for the Republican machine. If it were a matter of voting record, it would be a matter of horse trading, but its more a matter of under cutting democrats nationally by providing the media a way of saying "see there is a democrat who agrees with the president that the democrats are wrong." it's what i call the zell miller effect. he was at the republican convention to provide cover for the republicans and bush. i firmly believe this isn't just about idealogical divisions, but fundamentally about asking whose team is he on, ours or the republicans when it comes to public perception. until now he has felt no pressure to make a choice. this force him to make one.

            by bruh1 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:13:36 PM PDT

            •  You're way over-thinking

              Keep it simple. Beat Republicans. That's really all there is to it. Everything else is a distraction.

              by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:34:31 PM PDT

              •  Way Wrong

                We can't beat the Republicans with a incoherent
                message, and that is just what Joe help's
                the Republicans provide.

                by rick on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 12:36:51 PM PDT

        •  we could also . . .

          . . . elect more of OUR kind of Democrats in other seats, and crowd out his influence as a majority party in the Senate.  We don't need a putsch.

          by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:37:56 PM PDT

    •  joe is worse than a pug.

      take him out , my 2 cents  .

      by cognitive dissonance on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:25:49 PM PDT

  •  Delay not a high priority anymore

    He is already essentially neutred-
    Lieberman's political disposal is.
    Lieberman is not only a sanctimonious gasbag, but he is an enabler of BUSHCO in Iraq and all his "war on terror" bag of horrors.

    by normal family on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:29:22 PM PDT

  •  with all due respect, I disagree

    I've seen a lot of snickering about how progressives are "wasting their energy" trying to take out someone as entrenched as Lieberman. They complain that Lamont's chances are slim-to-none, and that we should concentrate our resources elsewhere. I don't think these criticisms are an accurate or fair representation of the situation.

    First, there is ample historical precedent for unseating incumbent Senators in primary races: Lloyd Bentsen defeated Chuck Yarbrough in 1970, Dale Bumpers defeated J. William Fulbright in 1974, Carol Moseley-Braun defeated Alan Dixon in 1992, John Sununu defeated Bob Smith in 2002, and in 2004, Pat Toomey came within 17,000 votes of defeating Arlen Specter. So no one should say that Lamont has long odds, especially if the grassroots gets behind him.

    Second, this would occur in a primary challenge, not the general election. So there'd be ample to time to devote energies to defeating Santorum, DeLay, and all of the other crypto-wingnuts in the general election.

    by pine on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:31:12 PM PDT

    •  In other words . . .

      . . . twice in the past thirty years, out of 500 Senate races run during that period.  Actually, it's three, because Al D'Amato defeated a doddering Jacob Javitz in 1980.  Not great odds.

      by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:40:53 PM PDT

      •  Statistics don't mean anything

        Each race has its own dynamics.
        Joementum is clearly ripe for the picking if the right candidate adequately supported by financial and (a critical mass of) political backing.

        by normal family on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:43:51 PM PDT

        •  just remember

          Unlike the others involved, Lieberman's now polling at 70% approval in the state.

          by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:53:07 PM PDT

          •  Adam, What Have Recent Polls...

            ...shown for Democrats (as opposed to all voters)?  And do you know if there es anything on the ballot that would keep Repubs from crossing over?

            And what role if any would Rell be forced to play in a primary challenge to Joementum?

            by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:58:03 PM PDT

            •  See below

              The only one I caught had 70% job approval in July 2005.  In a December h2h versus Weicker, Lieberman was up 63-37 among CT Dems.

              by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:00:15 PM PDT

          •  and how much of that 70% is...

            ...republicans who don't vote in democratic primaries anyway?

            by DawnG on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:17:54 PM PDT

            •  no..

              That 70% was from Dems.

              by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:03:55 PM PDT

              •  I wonder why...

                ...he polls so well among dems then.

                by DawnG on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:22:09 PM PDT

                •  because, I think

                  His overall record is very solid, from civil rights to environmental protection to labor.

                  by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:48:46 PM PDT

              •  Joe's #s in last public poll

                59% Dem approval (10% drop in 1 month)

                69% Rep approval (3% drop in 1 month)

                these #s were all before Manchster Resolution
                http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/...

                You think Joe would be begging for a meeting with DFA if his internals #s were going up?

                by ctkeith on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:50:28 PM PDT

                •  source for the numbers?

                  NT

                  by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:57:53 PM PDT

                  •  Stop talking out of your butt

                    and pay the premium.
                    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...

                    Like I said,You think Joe would be begging for a Meeting with DFA is his pollster saideverythings fine?

                    by ctkeith on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:22:22 PM PDT

                    •  believe it or not

                      I don't live or die by this stuff; I'm not paying for polling data.

                      And I simply do not believe your Lieberman/DFA claim.

                      by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:20:16 PM PDT

                      •  It's also worth noting:

                        the results of the 2004 Democratic primary in CT, in which Lieberman, who'd long-since withdrawn, still got 5.2% of the vote, placing him third.  Dean (who'd also withdrawn by that point) got 4% of the vote.  Draw your own conclusions.

                        by profmatt on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:50:17 PM PDT

                      •  while the numbers...

                        while ctkeith's most recent numbers are correct, it doesn't matter: those are numbers that ensure the incumbent returning to the seat.  Why fuck with that?

                        by GoVOTE on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:58:31 PM PDT

        •  Whenever I See Comments Like...

          ..."statistics don't mean anything" I'm reminded that there are faith-based believers on both sides of the political spectrum.

          Of course "statistics" mean something.  They're not deterministic in a mechanist way, but you've gotta have a good argument for why other factors overwhelm  the overwhelming historical pattern.

          by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:53:09 PM PDT

          •  Don't be disingenously obtuse

            Obviously my comment wasn't trying to characterize "statistics" generally.
            It was directed at trying to derive substantial meaning from them in judging Senate race primaries. And I stand by the assertion that little if anything meaningful can be extrapolated generally from the previous races mentioned.  Its like the canard about Senators can't win presidential races (and the only democratic ones that can are southern Democrats)

            Now Liberman's present polling numbers in Connecticut are a relative (though far from positive) statistic. I think that given a strong candidate that can take it to Lieberman on his necon stances with optimal exposure can overcome the deficit.

            by normal family on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:10:32 PM PDT

            •  Obtuse?

              One person says something that's happened 99% of the time points to the almost inevatability of it happening again here, and the other one says that stitistic isn't significant, and the the person who claims it is significant is being obtuse.

              I feel confident that any fair-minded reasonable person will see that it's not be who's being obtuse.

              by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:16:35 PM PDT

              •  I said you were pretending to be obtuse

                As in misrepresenting my flippant "don't mean anything" into the sweeping generalizing that was not likely to be intended.
                And where do you extract this "99 percent" number from?  In 99 % of the races where an incumbent had a credible challenger with an apprciable margin of financial and dissident political support , the incumbent wins?  Maybe you could have come up with a more imaginitive number than 99%, with your scientific acumen.
                

                by normal family on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:24:40 PM PDT

                •  Maybe You Could Fucking Read?

                  Pine cites the 5 times an incumbent Senator lost a primary.

                  AdamB points out that during that time there have been 500  Senate races.

                  Now, follow along with the math, that is if you can stop insulting people whose arguments you're too impatient, too lacking in knowledge, or too obtuse to understand:

                  5 (Senate races where a challenger defeated an incumbent in a primary) divided by 500 (Senate races in the time period under discussion)=.01

                  Thus, the Senate races in which a primary challenger did not defeat an incumbent comprise 99% of Senate races in the time period under discussion.

                  Are these figures exact?  I dunno, but I'm going off AdamB's numbers, and from past experience he's generally a solid source.  Maybe the actual figures are wrong.  But I actually based my claim on evidence introduced into the discussion.  You may want to try that sometime.

                  by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:35:11 PM PDT

                  •  The ad hominem insults are not so interesting

                    Just to respond once more.
                    Obviously the number of races is meaningless; the only races that matter are the credible ones (which are difficult to set parameters and criteria for, but would have to be part of any analysis.)  Primary races are very common; serious ones less so.  I pointedly qualified my remark to refer only to such races.
                    Feel free to have the last words

                    by normal family on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:48:23 PM PDT

                    •  I'd be curious to know

                      in how many of those 500 races the incumbent faced a primary contest.  That would be a telling statistic in this discussion.

                      I'd wager that incumbents only face serious primary challenges in fairly remarkable circumstances. IMO, Lieberman falls into that category.

                      by chuckvw on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:53:33 PM PDT

                    •  There might be a reason why there are so few

                      instances where a serious primary challenge is mounted to an incumbent Senator.  In other words, those with no challenger aren't irrelevant at all.  It is highly relevant that so few serious challengers take on incumbents and, when they do, few win.

                      by Mimikatz on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:59:10 PM PDT

          •  Probability is ALWAYS 100%

            one way or the other.  Lamont will either win or he will lose.  Statistics are a way people try to make sense of a world that makes no sense.

            I think a problem democrats have is they spend too much time looking at the odds.  They try and fight only the fights they think they can win and not the fights need fighting.

            Win or lose, this is a fight that needs fighting. And you'll never win if you don't try.

            by DawnG on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:21:31 PM PDT

            •  You Missed My Quotation Marks

              What Adam B proffered wasn't really a statisitical analysis, it was an historically based example.  It wasn't my terminology to refer to that as "statisitics," it was the other commentator's.

              by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:26:32 PM PDT

          •  but...

            what is the "overwhelming historical pattern?" Seems like too many variables here: how often is an incumbent senator challenged in a primary? When there have been challengers, how often was the challenger a legitimate candidate? How often did the incumbent have major potential negatives like Lieberman does?

            Find me all the previous cases that are similar to this one, then tell me what the success/failure ratio is. Otherwise, in this case I don't think the "statistics" cited are really relevant.

            I know that Adam B says Joementum has 70% approval among CT Democrats, and that's pretty daunting at first glance. But, as I comment below, even THAT is somewhat dependent on some variables. Once Lamont is in, and has become established, I'd like to see if that 70% still holds up.

            by snookybeh on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:22:54 PM PDT

            •  In Politics, Past Patterns Often Influence...

              ...future decisions, even if they shouldn't.  And in assessing Lamont's chances, one has to consider that regardless of whether Lamont thinks he can win--and almost all candidate think they can win, even when they don't have a chance, because if they didn't most of them would have a hard time getting out of bed--the views of other players are crucial.  So regardless of what Lamont thinks, if all or even most of the other potential players in the election, including and especially those players who hold significant instutional resorces than could either be deployed against Joementum or held in abeyance, think he can't win, their actions (or inaction) will be self-fullfilling.  Sometimes what seems like a lost cause will be percieved differently as time passes, like Wellstone's 1990 campaign (because of what an amazing campaign Wellstone ran) or Mongiardo's 2004 campaign for Senate in Kentucky (because Bunning increasingly looked and acted like he was senile).  But the people who have to calculate risk in how they disburse PAC donations or whether they antogonize Joementum and possibly burn a bridge in order to endorse his opponent or people who wonder if defeating Joementum in a primary makes a certain Dem seat a possible Repub pickup will be cognizant of how exceedingly rare it is to defeat an incumbent in a primary.  So in some sense, the specifics of those races matter less than the fact that there have only been five or six cases, two of them occurred in situations where the Dem primary was really the only election that mattered, and that its so rare that almost nobody even tries.

              by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:55:18 PM PDT

              •  right, but...

                What I'm asking is, what ARE the "past patterns?" Saying that "only X number of times" an incumbent senator has been defeated in a primary is meaningless if the incumbents have run unopposed 99% of the time, or whatever the percentage is.

                If it were 3 losses by incumbents in 500 challenges, I'd say "wow, that's .06%. Almost insurmountable." If it were 3 losses in 20 actual challenges, I'd say, "Hmm, 15%. Big difference."

                that's all I'm sayin'.

                by snookybeh on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:09:28 PM PDT

                •  There is a reason there are so few challenges

                  See my comment above.  The relevant universe isn't all challenges in which there was a serious challenge.  It is rare to unseat an incumbent in a primary first because there are few seriuous candidates who try it because of the advantages of incumbency.  If there are 500 senate races over a tiome period, and during this time 10 incumbents are challenged in a promary and 2 challengers win, the odds of unseating an incumbent aren't 20%.  Granted, a serious, well-funded challenger has a better chance of success, but the infrequency of such challenges isn't irrelevant, it is testimony to how difficult it is.

                  by Mimikatz on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:03:54 PM PDT

                  •  well, in 2004

                    Specter was primaried.  So was Murkowski.  Not remembering who else.

                    by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:09:09 PM PDT

                    •  When a challenger loses, it's not news

                      There were probably as many challenges last time as there were challenger wins all-time.

                      Cantwell will be challenged this fall. zzzZZZZzz...

                      by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:05:42 PM PDT

      •  maybe not, but...

        how often IS there a legitimate challenge to a sitting, deeply-entrenched senator? I don't think it's something that can be necessarily measured by past performances. It's all up to whether the challenger makes an attractive candidate (unknown, in this case), if the challenger has money (sounds like that won't be a problem), and whether there is much discontent with the incumbent (I'm no Connecticutter Connecticuttian resident of Connecticut, but I know there sure is plenty of discontent with Joementum among Democrats in general).

        I think this is more than doable, but it all depends on what kind of candidate Lamont is. We're not talking about a primary challenge to a Harry Reid or a Ted Kennedy - we're talking about a challenge to someone who most Democrats consider a major liability to the party.

        by snookybeh on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:52:17 PM PDT

        •  in CT

          70% job approval for Lieberman among CT Dems, measured this summer.

          by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:56:30 PM PDT

          •  okay, but...

            I submit this for your consideration: if I'm a staunch Democrat, and the senator being polled about is a Democrat, and an approve/disapprove poll question basically implies, "Do I want this guy or some Republican in office?", I'm gonna hold my nose and say "approve." `Cause, bad as Joe is, I'd still prefer him as my senator to a Republican.

            I'd like to see a poll that asks Democrats if they would like to see a challenger to Joe or, better yet, once Lamont is officially in and has had a little time to establish a presence, see a head-to-head poll.

            Besides, is 70% among Dems really that good, considering how long the guy's been around? 30% disapproval within the party for a one-time VP nominee seems pretty high to me. If we saw a poll that listed 70% approval for Bubble Boy among Republicans, we'd all be screaming about how he's losing his base.

            by snookybeh on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:06:49 PM PDT

            •  response

              Besides, is 70% among Dems really that good, considering how long the guy's been around? 30% disapproval within the party for a one-time VP nominee seems pretty high to me. If we saw a poll that listed 70% approval for Bubble Boy among Republicans, we'd all be screaming about how he's losing his base.

              At the time that this poll was taken (July) he was the most popular Democratic Senator running for reelection.  His numbers have dropped since then (now 59% support amongst Dems) which, believe it or not, is still quite high.  

              And yes, if we saw 70% approval for Bubble Boy among Republicans, we'd all be screaming about how he's losing his base.  Once again, we'd by hollering over very little.

              by GoVOTE on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:01:10 PM PDT

          •  Thank you for pointing this out.

            It means progressive Dems in CT have their work cut out for them. We'll just have to roll up our sleeves and work even harder.

            by BranfordBoy on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:21:46 PM PDT

          •  my question is so what?

            It's kind of besides the point what he is polling right now. The question is what will he be polling if he faces a challenge that brings up the questions that are being raised here, and that challenge is well financed? The answer is no one-including your polls can answer that. I also think that regardless of outcome- it's important to force him off of his game of playing to the Republican playing game in this election. The less he's out there disparaging other Democrats the better. It's sad that this needs to be considered, but at some point that's  the choice.

            by bruh1 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:17:44 PM PDT

            •  and my answer is . . .

              . . . limited resources.  I think if we had a 55-seat majority, these are things which can be entertained.  We don't.  We have to get a majority first, IMHO.

              by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:47:59 PM PDT

              •  your answer makes no sense

                under the context given. His challenger is self financing. So whose resources are you talking about? As for the majority- that's a pipe dream unless you change the conditions upon which we lost the majority- namely things like a lack of party discipline, risk adversion, etc and allowing people like Joe to sabotage other Democrats. As long as we let people think they can get away with it- so that the only consequence to people like Joe are that the Republicans will react- the longer it will take to obtain the majority you claim you want. That majority for example requires message discpline, and Joe ain't interested in that because he does't think he is vulnerable or beholden to the democrats. I see this in a few people and it's a big issue because even during this election year- if he wants to he can provide cover for the Repulbican meme, and that's a dangerous thing when one is trying to create a concerted effort to defeat the other side. The more preoccupied he is and those like him, on their own survival, the better off the party will be precisely because they won't be out there mucking things u that would have required those extra millions in advertising dollars to correct.

                by bruh1 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:11:19 PM PDT

                •  Well, no.

                  His opponent allegedly is self-financing $1M.  It'll take $4-5M more to compete.  Plus, then we'd actually have to spend money to keep the seat in a general if Lieberman loses, money and effort we don't have to spend now.

                  The Republican Senators of 1994 were a far more diverse group than the Dems we have now; it's about having a coherent message for the challengers, not the incumbents.

                  by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:22:37 PM PDT

              •  Lieberman's a quisling

                If he has anything to say about it, Democrats will never have a majority.  He spends his time on television ripping Democrats and undermining the party's image, presenting himself as a "good" Democrat because he agrees with Republicans.

                We cannot reasonably believe we will achieve a majority by acquiescing in the public beating Joementum has given us for the past few years.  He gives political cover to Republican obscenities of all stripes -- war, phamaceutical industry worshipping -- etc. - and they use his agreement with them to paint REAL Democrats as obstructionist and "far left."  God knows how much his influence has counted against other Democrats in their elections.

                Get rid of him if at all possible.  Getting rid of Lieberman is not party "discpline."  It's common sense.

                by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:35:37 PM PDT

          •  that was July 05

            .I'll show you quinipiac #s for Joe in June 03 during the Pres. primary where Joe was in the 40s(go look it up).

            When Joes in the spotlight his #s go down,FAST.We're gonna keep him FLOODED with Light.

            by ctkeith on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:55:28 PM PDT

            •  Keith . . .

              . . . tell us everything you know about Lamont -- his beliefs, his skills as a candidate.  Would it fill a paragraph?

              You're so hungry for a challenger to Lieberman that you'll look at sand and pretend it's water.

              by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:57:13 PM PDT

              •  his believes are irrelevant

                what's relevant is that it makes Joe think twice about crossing the party. That's a lesson that people on our side need to learn.

                by bruh1 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:12:08 PM PDT

              •  I've known for months he was one of the

                horses and vetted him myself long ago.

                I'm wondering, if everything was exactly the same but Lieberman attended a Mosque instead of a Temple would you be spending all this time protecting and defending him?

                by ctkeith on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:28:39 PM PDT

                •  Absolutely

                  I disagree with Lieberman on the war, and have differing views with him on Israel.  I just think this is a waste of resources when there are actual Republicans who need beating.

                  I do wonder how many people here would be opposing Lieberman if he wasn't Jewish.

                  by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:24:02 PM PDT

                  •  yup

                    I do wonder how many people here would be opposing Lieberman if he wasn't Jewish.

                    While this threat seems pretty civil, other anti-Lieberman threads have made me wonder too.

                    by GoVOTE on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:04:56 PM PDT

                •  by the way

                  You still haven't answered MY request:  tell us everything you know about Lamont -- his beliefs, his skills as a candidate.

                  by Adam B on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 06:29:52 AM PDT

    •  Your Examples Show How Long the Odds Are

      The first two examples really don't count, especially Bumpers v Fulbright, because TX and especially Arkansas were still solid Dem states at that time.  I don't think either had elected a Repub statewide up to that point, so the Dem primaries were, in reality, the election.  

      So you've only got three examples.  I can't remember the Braun/Dixon stuff, but didn't Dixon have some problem or other?  And Smith had essentially broken from the Repub party for a while and was going to run for President as an independent, which is much, much farther afield than even Joementum has gone.  Plus, he was never all that popular in his own state.  And I would argue that Specter is more out of the mainstream of his state's party regulars than is Leiberman, since many of the people who would have voted for Specter as part of a straight party vote in the 1980's now split their tickets and vote mostly Dem (often because of the social issues).  But with Lieberman, he's actually fine on most of his party's social issues; he's not on the wrong side for CT dems on choice, or gay issues, or he's not bad on the environment.  It's only the war that in terms of policy that he's way out of step with the mainstream of his party, and unlike on choice or taxes with the Repubs, that's not something where you have long-standing instutional powers (like Right-to-Life or the Club for Growth.

      by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:08:25 PM PDT

      •  Mr. STatistician

        Don't you in fact at the very least need to compare these results with number for races where there were credible opponents in primary races (ie, well financed with at least a modicum of support from significant power brokers in the state or national party.) -

        Its not only the war in Iraq.  Its the entire imperial approach to foreign policy, the "war on terror" and human/civil rights.  Also he is league with the religious right on cultural issues- attacking hollywood and Marilyn Manson for national ills.  
        (And he's a sanctimous and smarmy nit - which doesn't necessarily place him outside of the mainstream of the party, but certainly doesn't reflect well on it either.)

        by normal family on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:18:41 PM PDT

        •  Mr. "I Only View Things...

          through my own perspective and don't try to understand things through the perspectives of other voters":

          You're giving plenty of reason why you don't like them.  But you seem incapable of realizing that your views may be widely shared by you...and maybe even by people at Daily Kos.  But your views aren't universally shared.

          I've talked to thousands and thousands of voters over the years.  And I don't think a single voter has ever invoked "imperialism" for their reason to vote for or against someone.

          by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:23:55 PM PDT

          •  No, "imperialism" has not carried much

            currency in the US political lexicon, (although that may be changing).  But because the appellation is not used, it doesn't mean the context is not; what is the "project for the new american century" but a blueprint for imperialism?
            Not to belabor this spirited discussion, but at the very least, the use of martial power to secure markets, resources, and geo-political position is presently not supported by the majority of the popultation.

            by normal family on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:37:51 PM PDT

            •  You sure about that, buddy?

              Seems to me the "no war for oil" slogan didn't carry much weight most folks... personally, I sort of suspect that if they thought it would cut gas prices down to $1 a gallon most people in this country would quietly support invading Canada.

              by MonkeyDog102 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:13:50 PM PDT

      •  Why Dixon lost

        1992. Year of the Woman.  He voted to confirm Thomas.

        by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:09:51 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    I see nothing wrong with mounting a primary challenge against an incumbent. National party money does not come into play until the general election, right?

    No incumbent--Democrat or Republican--should assume that they get a free ride to waltz into their next term. Joe should have to deal with the fact that he's made much of his own party disgruntled. (I'd love to be a fly on the wall in his meeting with Jim Dean.)

    However, I would like to see someone give all Democratic primary candidates a good talking-to about keeping it on the high road so as not to damage our chances of beating the Republican when the general rolls around. (Please God, keep it civil and keep your eyes on the prize, Hackett and Brown! I'd love to hear you both frequently acknowledge that your opponent would be a much better Senator than DeWine.)
    

    by saucy monkey on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:34:07 PM PDT

    •  It can be a zero sum game

      For instance, Kos made this post about this race and now we are all arguing about it.  Kos could have made a posting about what is going on in the Missouri or Tennessee Senate races.  It seems that Lieberman is more discussed on this site then Jim Talent.

      I could make other examples, but the basic point is that if people are campaigning, giving money or blogging on one race, they can't be doing the same for another.  And of course people have a right to do whatever they want, and many will choose to focus on this primary, instead of a Republican incumbent somewhere.

      by tmendoza on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:56:14 PM PDT

      •  right... guess I better

        spit out my gum, since I need to take a walk to the store.

        by MonkeyDog102 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:15:54 PM PDT

    •  Yes but

      the problem is if the challenger wins, then he gets a nasty general election. And who knows if he's got ANOTHER $1 million to self-finance, probably not. And CT's a very expensive media market. Hence, big national money has to come to CT to save a seat that Lieberman won't even have a R challenger for.

      by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:40:25 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely insane...this is stupid

    Every dime, foot, and hour we invest in defeating a Democrat, means more life for Santorum, Chafee, Ensign and the other GOP's running this year.

    This blog has gone more and more over the edge.  The NYT not the Washington Times is the big boogy man of the news.  Lieberman not Crapo or Hatch is the evil senator.  CNN is evil, but Fox isn't discussed...Why?  

    I understand why we're picking on our errant friends, but at the expense of giving the bad guys a free walk?  Front page Lieberman and NYT but on page 25 for any criticism of Lott or Fox News.

    I'd rather lose than be a majority mentality is running rampant here.  I'd rather be right on 100% on the issues that I deem important than allow for a broad spectrum of differing points of view within our party.

    Well, here's one for party purity and the superior progressive race.   Are some of you folks wearing brown shirt pajamas?

    by redlief on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:17:27 PM PDT

    •  Everyone needs a hobby ;)

      by PhillyGal on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:24:57 PM PDT

    •  on the contrary...

      "Every dime, foot, and hour..." etc. implies that there is a zero sum of money and effort available, which is ridiculous. First of all, Lamont is going to do the lion-share of both money and effort - he's said that he will invest $1 million of his own money in the primary, and job one "effort-wise" is for him to increase his visibility in CT.

      This primary challenge isn't going to draw anyone away from important races in their own backyard, and the primary is going to be over well before the general election. This possible primary race is irrelevant to Santorum, Chafee, Ensign et al, and Lamont running in it - and people here being in favor of it - isn't going to mean "more life" for any Republican.

      And Lieberman has become more than just an "errant friend" - he's become a major liability to this party. He's provided too much cover and too much legitimacy to the Republicans too many times. He's  dangerously close to being Zell Miller without the duel challenging and the early onset Alzheimer's. He's Vichy.

      Our party allows plenty of "differing points of view" - this party includes Harry Reid AND Ted Kennedy, Ben Nelson AND Dick Durbin. But you don't see conservatives like Reid and Nelson going on FOX News to consort with the enemy like Lieberman does. I'm guessing that if Bush tried to kiss Harry Reid, Reid woulda cold-cocked him.

      He's an anchor on this party, and if we have a legitimate chance to cut him loose, it's not "insane" and "stupid." It's tactically smart, in addition to being the right thing to do.

      by snookybeh on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:41:33 PM PDT

      •  "Static Pie Theory"

        People often make the huge mistake of assuming that there is only one pie of a permanent fixed size -- the static pie.  In their world view, someone taking a piece of the pie (or a larger piece) means less for what they value.

        But the pie is not static.  I am a fairly active political contributor, but I contribute to what I find compelling.  For example, I do not start off saying, "I will spend $867.00 in 2006 on political campaigns" and thereafter decide where that static amount budgetted will go.  Instead, I give to people and campaigns that move me -- some shoe-ins and some longshots.  And I will give between nothing and several thousand dollars this year.

        I WOULD NEVER give money to Lieberman, but I will give money to his challenger, even if it is a long shot.

        The money I give to Lieberman's challenger is not money I am diverting from another race, it is money I simply would have kept in my pocket and spent on more stuff for me and my family.

        Therefore, I will be altering the pie -- enlarging it.  Maybe my contribution is not what you would do with your money, but I am not going to spend my money on your priorities.

        And a credible challenge to torture Joe is a priority to me.  If Joe is beaten in the primary, it seems a better than even chance that Lieberman's failure would be the product of Connecticut voters' principled rejection of his policies.  In such a blue state, the person that beats Lieberman in a primary should be able to preserve the seat for the Dem.s in the general election.

        by immanentize on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 07:30:52 PM PDT

      •  $1 million is pocket change

        He needs $4-5 to win the primary, another $9-10 to win the general. He got that?

        by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:41:55 PM PDT

        •  Is that the kind of money

          Dodd spent in 2004?

          by Sheffield on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:23:27 PM PDT

          •  2004

            No primary for Dodd; he raised $7M+ for a race against a TOKEN challenger, and spent most of it.

            by Adam B on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 05:19:20 AM PDT

    •  Good lord, we don't have any leverage

      over Orrin Hatch or Fox News.

      We barely have leverage over Lieberman and CNN.

      We're democrats; we know Orrin Hatch is bad; what would be the point of screaming about it all day?

      For the apolitical visitors to the site I guess.

      by texas dem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:12:35 PM PDT

      •  What a weird perspective

        So because Orrin Hatch and FoxNews don't read Kos, we shouldn't discuss them? But we should try and rip our own party to shreds so that Joe Lieberman can't go on CNN anymore to support George Bush on Iraq. If that's not a loser's mentality, I don't know what is.

        by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:43:27 PM PDT

        •  Well, not exactly.

          We have very little direct influence over George Bush.  But if we can prevent Joe Lieberman from going on TV and defending him, not just with his words but with his identity ("Democrat supports Bush, says other Democrats unserious"), then we deny Bush an ally and some cover.  We make his life harder, constrain his actions more.  That's what Josh Marshall (and many others offline) tried to do with Social Security -- deny the R plan any cover at all from among the Ds.  It worked.  

          It's a question of seeing which part of the equation you actually have any influence over.  We can credibly threaten Lieberman with a primary.  (Well, supposedly we can.)  If that convinces him to shut his trap, the we've changed something.  We can't credibly threaten Orrin Hatch with anything, except maybe drag his name through the mud a la Santorum or Jesse Helms.

          I'm not surprised to see our focus evolve this way.

          As far as Fox News goes, the thing we can do is try to keep all Ds OFF that channel, and hurt them that way.  Again, using the tools at our disposal, rather than just sort of whining into the ether.

          by texas dem on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:07:29 PM PDT

    •  "errant friends"

      JL is no friend to many of us, errant or otherwise. His stance on the war has, is, for me, a deal breaker - it is consistent with the that of the enemy, ie, the current administration.

      by anotherCt Dem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:23:39 PM PDT

    •  Except for the brown shirt rhetoric

      I agree with much of what you say.  I'd like to see less emphasis on rounding up errant Dems and more on rousting aberrant Republicans.  

      Many kossacks consider punishing Lieberman to be as worthy an endeavor as unseating a Republican.  I can't figure it, but à chacun son gout.  Seems like a fool's errand to me.  When we have seats to spare, then I'll be glad to push Lieberman towards the exit.  

      by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:02:21 PM PDT

  •  Joementum

    Currently Joementum is doing more damage to the Democratic party than Santorum or Delay.

    by Miri on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:27:32 PM PDT

  •  Is money the issue, or votes?

    Come on.  Where's the Wellstone attitude?  We don't need dollars, we need votes!  If the grassroots in Connecticut can get organized and crush the Joementum machine, they win.  All it takes is getting enough support for Lamson on the ground, starting now.

    DFA-Leaders list is debating this.  I say we need Democracy for CN to stand up and be heard.

    by chadlupkes on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:18:32 PM PDT

    •  Lamont

      Still not familiar enough with the name.  Wikipedia?

      by chadlupkes on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:19:57 PM PDT

•  Good luck, Ned

  Lieberman is turning into Zell Miller 2.0. Time for the Democrats to show him the door.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:15:10 PM PDT

•  Lieberman is hard to beat

  As much as I disagree with him on ssues, I think we are better served focusing on other senate races where we stand a chance of picking up seats. 2006 is too important financially and politically for infighting on our side.

  by ten10 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:17:15 PM PDT

  •  I agree that it will be hard

    But it will be worth it.

    No longer will Lieberman give Bush's policies a thin veneer of bipartisanship.

    Besides, incumbency shouldn't be a guarantee of future wins, as it is for Democratic incumbents in CT.  That bastard has higher % support among Republicans (who are vastly outnumbered in CT, right?) than among his own party.

    by someone else on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:30:21 PM PDT

    •  "Policies?"

      What "policies" are you talking about?  There is Iraq of course, and that the biggest issue, but its not like Joe votes with the Republicans that often.   He has a very progressive voting record on everything except national defense.  No?

      by tmendoza on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:43:32 PM PDT

      •  Lieberman's pro-censorship antics are real bad too

        I really disagree with him on his thoughts on TV/radio censorships (he's in line with the right-wing Parents TV Council).

        by Fro on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:30:52 PM PDT

        •  You're Right

          and that's one I didn't remember. But the original poster is right. Joe's voting record is really very solid. That's why the normal progressive issue groups are all either supporting him or staying out. This challenger really has no chance at all. All he's got is maybe some of the webroots-based organizers such as MoveOn, and they haven't won a race yet. Taking on a long time Senator (and previously AG) with a 70% approval is not a promising candidate to get that first win.

          by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:46:16 PM PDT

      •  He voted for cloture on the bankruptcy bill

        Sure he changed his vote on the final bill so that he could get his window dressing to make it look good for him.

        But when it counted, he sold out the people.  That is rather fresh in my memory.

        What I wonder is how many other votes where he voted the "right" way tell a very misleading story of where he really stood.  

        Sure, this criticism is applicable to all congressmen, but good to keep in mind that you can make things look better for yourself by waiting until the last minute and then voting for what looks good after you've figured out it won't matter.

        by PeteB2 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:16:28 PM PDT

      •  Civil Liberties

        Lieberman is rated pretty middle-of-the-road by he ACLU.  Still, you;re right on his voting record--he votes pretty liberal for a Democrat most of the time.

        I will note, however, that his politics is odd--he enjoys giving his fellow Dems the old finger in the eye.  He seems gleeful and/or sanctimonious when he does it.  This attitude, I think, is at the root of the intensity against him within the party.

        by Sheffield on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:29:47 PM PDT

        •  I agree with that

          I agree that his anti-Dem rhetoric is the problem with Joe.  I just think people are over-stating their case if they argue that Lieberman doesn't typically vote with the Dem side.  He does.

          I was just responding to the previous poster's point regarding his policies, which I took to mean his voting record, legislative history.  Besides Iraq, I would say his policies

          by tmendoza on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 09:41:32 AM PDT

  •  no reason not to do both

    no reason that we can't give attention to possible pickups AND support this guy (if in fact he's "the one": see my comment below). In a state as blue as Connecticut is, whoever the Dem nominee is should win, so I don't see supporting a challenger to Lieberman as being much of a risk as far as possibly losing the seat.

    And getting rid of Lieberman would be one of the best things for our party, short of actually knocking off a sitting Republican. Every day Lieberman's in the Senate as a fake Democrat is another day that the Republicans have an ally and cover for their misdeeds.

    Time for Joe to "spend more time with the family."

    by snookybeh on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:36:12 PM PDT

  •  Generally, I Agree. HOWEVER...

    ...if this guy is able to spend $1 million of his own money and raise another $2 million (especially if it mostly comes from CT and not from out of state donors), and he's able to generate a lot of institutional support (from the groups Markos mentions), then it may be worth considering.  Until now I've thought Joementum would be impossible to defeat, but this scenario is starting to get interesting, what with Weicker backing him and his pledge to spend some of his own money.

    Here are some questions:

    1. Can someone get him to commit another million?  $1 million isn't that much, not when you consider that some of it will have to be spent on NYC television, which is outrageously expensive.  

    2. OK, Kiki Kennedy is in the mix.  What does this mean to other donors, but especially labor and the other interest groups?  Is her involvement seen as tacit endorsement by Ted?  And does that then lead labor and others to see it as a tacit message to consider supporting this guy against Joementum?

    3. Hate to bring it up, because it almost always spins into Protocols of the Elders of Zion idiocy, but Kiki Kennedy is Lebanese.  If she's out there pushing this guy against Joementum, will it become viewed as a pro-AIPAC person against an anti-AIPAC person?  I think Ted is generally seen as straight down the American congressional middle on Arab-Israeli issues (which means leaning pro-Israeli), but will this stir up AIPAC donors to dump another $3-4 million into Joementum's coffers?

    4. What really are the chances of knocking him off?  Every poll I've ever seen show Joementum to have outrageously high positives in CT.  He's always looked invicible to me.  Is something changing?  What would make people shift from Joementum to a relatively unknown guy?  The war?  CT voters know where he's at on the war, but he still polls outrageously high.  

    5. What do we know about Lamont?  Joementum's problem isn't usually his voting.  Him and Dodd actually vote together on almost everything.  Joementum is an outstanding Senator on enviro issues, and he's absolutely rock solid on choice type things.  I think he's solid on tax issues.  No, his problem isn't really his voting, it's his inability to shut his damn mouth and quit giving aid and comfort to Repubs, especially on the war.  Would Lamont be as good on the issues that Joementum is good on, and better on the issues on which he's bad?

    6. What happens if, as seems likely, Lamont wins and Joementum is returned to the Senate?  Will he be chastened and act more in the generally percieved interests of his party (as has been the case with Specter)?  Or will he go even further afield, with nobody on the Dem side really able to keep him reigned in?  And would he switch parties?  I doubt he'd switch parties, but I could see him being a Repub version of Chaffee.

    Lots of questions here, and still little reason to think that Joementum can be defeated.  But it's getting slightly more plausable.

    by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:50:18 PM PDT

    •  And can Lamont take the nomination

      ... but lose the election?

      R's don't have many high-opportunity Senate races this cycle. They could go all-out on an open seat race.

      Lieberman drives me up the wall, but not off the cliff. How good are our odds, and what's our downside, if we take this shot?

      by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:02:21 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, I've Assumed the GOP...

        ...would field a fifth tier candidate in this race, but if it's possible that Joementum could be beat, what might happen on the GOP side?  Its a huge risk for a viable Repub to take, hoping that Joementum gets beat so they're competetive in the general but knowing that if he comes out of the primary you'll likely get slaughtered.  It would make it very difficult to recruit a top candidate.  But losing the seat, for those reason not a huge risk, is nonetheless a higher risk should Lamont get the nomination, and one that has to be figured in while gaming this out.

        by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:12:48 PM PDT

        •  when's the filing deadline?

          Am I right in assuming that CT Republicans can't just watch how the primary goes, and then field a top-tier candidate if Lamont beats Lieberman? Aren't they going to have to make a decision on that before the primary election happens?

          by snookybeh on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:45:24 PM PDT

          •  They can probably slate a placeholder

            ... who would withdraw and be replaced by a party central committee selection -- but restrictions vary from state to state.

            Who's got CT details?

            by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:51:43 PM PDT

            •  Yeah, That Would Be My Concern

              Especially if Rell decided to get in.  It's risky, because in being sneaky you can be too obvious.  But one can also "invent" a reason to withdraw.

              The difficulty the GOP may have in that scenario would be ensuring that they only have one candidate in the primary, because often if the person who wins the primary bows out, the replacement has to be primary runner-up.

              But ulitimately you're right, we need someone with CT specific knowledge.

              by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:00:47 PM PDT

              •  isn't Rell...

                running for re-election?

                by snookybeh on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:10:49 PM PDT

                •  I Assume She Is

                  I just mention here because she's even more popular than Joementum, and there are often amazing stunts a party can pull to move people around on a ballot.  I doubt they could pull off that kind of stunt, but without knowing CT election law, it's something that can't be completely discounted.  

                  by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:41:21 PM PDT

    •  Another potential downside

      Lieberman couild be challenged, and survive, but take it out on the Dem's:
      

      • Accepting a seat in a Bush "unity" cabinet (creating a Republican flip in the Senate)
        
      • Joining a Marshall Wittmann McCainiac "Bull Moose" coalition.
        
      • Other?
        

      by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:11:20 PM PDT

      •  It Had a Typo...

        ...("Lamont wins" should have been "Lamont loses"), but that's essentially my question #6.

        by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:18:23 PM PDT

      •  It Had TWO Typos

        I meanst a Democratic Chafee.

        by Dana Houle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:20:16 PM PDT

    •  Word to #5

      I agree with your analysis on why Joe rankles.  

      I don't think this race is about CT voters, who will not diss Joe.  They will re elect him, whether he runs as a Dem or on a 3rd party line.  No, this race is about CT Dem Primary voters, who might diss him.  And losing his Democratic Primary would shame him, and therein punish him.  

      Imagine: Lieberman punished by his party--at home in Connecticut.

      Then Joe would then run as an independent and be in decent shape.  Joe has high name rec since he has been AG, Senator, and ran for VP and won (sort of).  Republicans like him--he has high favorables with them, and with independents.  No Republican who could run against him will have anywhere near such high numbers.  

      Rell is just not running against him.  Rell is THE GOVERNOR with 81% approval ratings.  Why does one give that up?  She is not going to walk away from being Governor, just as she is getting the hang of it and doing quite well.  She has a mission and it is to redeem herself and the administration she took over after the disgrace of Rowland.  It is very difficult to see her just tossing that away in August--3 months before the general election she will be about to win--just because there's a new guy running for Senate on the Democratic line instead of Joe.  

      And I suspect Joe would run on a third party line. And given his record and his name and his money, he would be the favorite to win.

      by Sheffield on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:44:51 PM PDT

•  Joementum lobbying Jim Dean/DFA?!

  Is that grapevine?  Where'dja hear that?

  I will REALLY be suprised if Joe convinces Jim Dean that he has turned the corner and will be a good Democrat now.

  I know the DFA as a grpup reprimanded Lieberman in December for his Hawkish, neocon ways.

  by roonie on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:18:13 PM PDT

  •  Actually

    it wouldn't surprise me at all, no matter what DFA thinks of Joe. You don't commit to these kinds of battles unless you're pretty sure you can win. There are no "win by losing" scenarios. Joe is so solid politically in CT (by the numbers, that is, not by the passions of Joe-haters, of which I number myself ... but I still prefer numbers).

    by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:50:24 PM PDT

•  Excellent

  I live in the 2nd district, I hope we can beat Rob Simmons too!

  by DaveP on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:20:14 PM PDT

•  Cull the herd

  We have to take out one of the DINOs. Joe-mentuem was always ready, willing and able to sell out his party at any point. We damn sure can return the favor.

  The status quo will not do anymore.

  by SnarkyShark on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:24:36 PM PDT

•  re DFA and Lieberman

  I would be very surprised if Jim Dean and/or DFA supported Lieberman.  Maybe if Lieberman did a complete about-face, apologized for things said in the past (for example Howard Dean coming out of his spider hole and lots of crap from the 2003 debates etc), promised to stop dissing Dems in public +++ then DFA could support him or stay neutral.  After all, old enemies can make up.  But my guess as a devoted DFA person is that DFA activists in Connecticut would welcome a progressive challenger to Lieberman.  I will watch this with interest.  (Wasn't it just a few weeks ago on a TV interview that Howard said something about Lieberman that implied how hopeless he is?)

  by norabb on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:27:17 PM PDT

  •  Let him also apologize to Marilyn Manson

    by normal family on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:31:00 PM PDT

  •  Joe change ideology - overnight?? no way

    by annefrank on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:31:27 PM PDT

  •  Supporting Joe

    If DFA simply stays out of the race, that is the gift to Joe.   I doubt they would get behind him in a fight with the grassroots Dems who are mad at him.  But simply not getting behind those Dems would be a huge favor to Joe.

    by Sheffield on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:49:00 PM PDT

•  Who is Ned?

  by annefrank on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:30:23 PM PDT

•  a dissenting view...

  not by me, but by a commenter in Political Junkie's diary yesterday.

  rgilly commented that Lamont Digital "...provides horrible, and I mean horrible cable television and internet broadband service to the community that I happen to live in in Northern Virginia," calls Lamont a "fly-by-night company," and says that the voters of Connecticut would be "...trading someone beholding to insurance companies to someone from the demi-sleazy world of cable television service."

  "Connecticut had better go back to the well for a suitable challenger to Lieberman," says rgilly, "because Lamont ain't it."

  And, it should be pointed out that rgilly is no fan of Lieberman and, judging by the low ID number and a cursory look at his/her diaries, is no troll.

  Anyone have any more detailed insight about Lamont? Are we sure this is the guy? I'm not trying to start trouble, just want to know whether this guy really deserves our support. I don't want to get excited about somebody who's going to turn out to be a dog of a candidate.

  by snookybeh on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:30:34 PM PDT

  •  Hmmm

    Not sure what rgilly is saying there - does Lamont run the company?

    by Armando on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:32:40 PM PDT

    •  Yes.

      NT

      by Adam B on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:41:12 PM PDT

    •  I'm not sure either...

      but if it's Lamont's company, he at least "runs" it in a nominal way. And rgilly's comment says that Lamont himself came to their community to pitch Lamont Digital for the cable franchise.

      It's entirely possible this is little more than bitching about the local cable provider, something I'm sure we've all done at some point. And anyone who has owned or is an executive of a large corporation that provides some kind of service to the public is going to have critics. But I'd like to hear from someone else with experience dealing with Lamont Digital - I assume it's a rather large company that provides cable service in a lot of communities, correct?

      This all may be entirely irrelevant to Mr. Lamont's political views, or potential skills as a senator. But it also sounds like a potential liability if there's anything to it.

      by snookybeh on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:42:34 PM PDT

    •  Ned Lamonts Telecom/Digicom bizz...

      "Until recently, it has not been the major telcos but  rather  the  entrepreneurial  companies  who  have  reignited FTTH from the bottom up."

      -Ned Lamont talking about FTTH (Fiber To The Home)... an initiative to get more fiber optic cable to large housing developments...

      to diversify the market seemingly.

      I like the way Ned seems to think about business. This is only a snippet and I don't live in the area, so I can't say anything about cable service... there or here actually.

      But I can say to the post above, that getting Lieberman out of office and America's nose out of Israel's asscrack...

      that's more important to me than whether Lamont's cable service blinks in and out or not.

      by Lode Runner on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:42:49 PM PDT

      •  Quote from

        a pdf article Lamont wrote that I downloaded at Broadband Properties Magazine.

        by Lode Runner on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:48:46 PM PDT

      •  not disagreeing...

        about the need to stop the Joe-mentum. Just want to know more about the guy, and whether he's the right guy for the job.

        Like I said, I don't care much about some customer bitching about his cable service. But if it turns out that this guy has a history of doing bad business, and has LOTS of people bitching about their cable service, that's potentially a liability that would be tough to overcome.

        by snookybeh on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:51:30 PM PDT

        •  See my piece below about the family

          Ned Lamont can still be a crook for all we know at this stage but his family has a tremendous record on progressive issues throughout the entire 20th century in America. Unprecedented really for a family of this wealth.

          by Scarce on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:59:43 PM PDT

      •  Careful, my friend

        I do not believe criticizing Israel is tantamont to anti-semitism, as some do (hell, I do it myself on a daily basis). But suggesting that defeating the most prominent Jew in Congress will "get the U.S. out of Israel's ass-crack" is very very close to the line.

        by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:53:40 PM PDT

        •  america needs to get real

          or we're going to BE israel.

          and it's just fact.

          and i'm not afraid to say it. there IS a huge problem in america with powerful jews forcing their agenda down our throats... because neocons (oil barons, disaster capitalists, weapons manufacturers) and evangelical fundies also support it.

          fundie jews are one leg of the trifecta.

          my opinion of israel is more in keeping with the general attitude in europe.

          they're barely a legitimate country.

          and palestine sure as hell deserves to take over quite a bit of their lands/power.

          my view.

          america needs to step away from israel, and allow palestine a greater voice at the bargaining table.

          guys like joe lieberman don't represent the best interests of america.

          he represents the best interests of israel... because rich fundie jews are a large portion of where his votes come from... rich new york jews living on the ct. gold coast... new haven... west hartford. it's just fact.

          and i don't care if people want to call me an anti-semite for pointing out the facts. i simply don't.

          israel is not part of america... contrary to the opinion of jews like lieberman and neocons like cheney/bush. screw israel... in my opinion. they haven't done a damn thing to earn my respect or my political support.

          i have nothing against jews... i have quite a bit of a problem with fundies in america of any stripe though when they start shoving their religion down  my throat. israel doesn't deserve to exist in the middleast. it does however, but its time their violence and power grabs ended. no more fundie jewish settlements for example. no more palestinian target practice.

          cause in my view, israel sure as hell isn't worth puting our kids lives in danger to protect. no freaking way...

          by Lode Runner on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 12:47:53 PM PDT

  •  If the opponent was

    a bucket of piss, I would support it over Joe Lieberman.  

    I don't really care who it is, Lieberman needs to go.

    by IhateBush on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:42:48 PM PDT

•  Related to Corliss Lamont?

  I asked this question in the previous thread but got no answer. Is Edward (Ned) M. Lamont related to Corliss Lamont, one of the most progressive voices in recent American history? It would certainly appear so.

  
  Bill Clinton, Edward (Ned) M. Lamont, Jr., and Corliss Lamont in 1992 in Greenwich, Connecticutt

  http://www.corliss-lamont.org/...

  This would also go a long way to dispelling any notion that Lamont is "just another rich guy". Not with this sort of pedigree.

  by Scarce on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:32:45 PM PDT

•  I believe in this...

  For me... this is the most important race in America in 2006.

  I simply cannot go on ignoring the fact that powerful pro-Israel hawks are undermining our National Security and threatening the lives of our kids...

  and they're in my own party.

  That has to stop... immediately. It is the most important thing to changing the direction of our foreign policy.

  Joe Lieberman cannot be allowed to be a Democrat after 911 and Iraq. He simply just CANNOT.

  Lieberman just doesn't belong in the Democratic party in a post-911 world.

  What can a person in another state do to help Lamont? Other than donate some bucks?

  I heard he's good on the issues. And he actually does want to take on corporatism. This is good news.

  In any case, with Hackett-like support, I really do hope that Lamont can beat Lieberman.

  The DLC and Hillary types will throw everything they have into stopping this.

  I think this will be a fascinating test to see just how much the net-roots count for... ie what the Progressive side of the Democratic party can do.

  Let's go people! This is a race that could strengthen the Democratic party in an exponential way.

  Lamont will need a website soon I suppose. I hope to see a graphically sophisticated layout. If he'd like any free website design advice... he can contact me at [e-mail], I can offer that at least...

  to rid our party of NeoCons.

  by Lode Runner on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:33:49 PM PDT

  •  I agree with you...

    I simply cannot go on ignoring the fact that powerful pro-Israel hawks are undermining our National Security and threatening the lives of our kids...and they're in my own party.

    That has to stop... immediately. It is the most important thing to changing the direction of our foreign policy.

    I'll agree with you.  How could Joe be an almost win veep and then suddenly support the amazing and ever nuts Bush?  It has to be about Israel.  Isn't the entire neo-con theme about Israel and oil? From what I understand of it, the protection of Israel is more important than oil at this poiint.

    What say you?
    

    by victoria2dc on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:05:10 PM PDT

    •  Well...

      They're really one and the same.

      Israel means a toe-hold in the Middleast for our oil barons. It means a base of operations to conduct clandestine power grabs... it means influence.

      That's all it is. They'll use the Jewish and Evangelical fundies (ironically paired) to justify it as some sort of moral issue...

      but like anything moral wrt Bush/Cheney... it's total bullshit.

      It's all about the caysh...

      by Lode Runner on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:15:23 PM PDT

•  If any of you have listened to Bob Dylan

  then Dylan's song "Positivley 4th Street" describes Joe Lieberman perfectly.

  by LennyLiberal on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:34:58 PM PDT

  •  if?!

    if?! ;)

    Definitely agree though...and not just Lieberman, it describes lots of Rethugs too!

    by Jordan LFW on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:38:38 PM PDT

    •  a lot of "casual" Dylan listeners...

      may not know the song from its title, given that it's one of those Dylan songs where the title doesn't seem to have much in common with the lyrics.  Like "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35."

      You got a lotta nerve
      To say you got a helping hand to lend
      You just want to be on
      The side that's winning

      Talkin' to you, Joe...
      

      by snookybeh on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:59:19 PM PDT

•  No Lieberman, Stronger Democrats

     Lieberman has been a thorn in the side of the Democratic Party for at least five years.  His criticisms of Clinton during the run-up to the impeachment hurt the President and the Party; he sabotaged his own ticket in 2000; immediately afterwards, he decided that a Constitutional Amendment mandating a religious Pledge of Allegiance was the number one priority for the nation; his Presidential run in 2004 proved his own unpopularity among Democrats and was a national embarrassment, as he lied like a dog in support of that crime against humanity, the war against the Iraqis; and since his Joe-mentum turned into No-mentum in 2004, he's been taking his revenge on the Democrats by undercutting them at every turn and literally kissing up to George Bush.
      Dumping Lieberman can only strengthen the Democratic Party.  When a structure has flawed material, you replace the weak part.  Lieberman is the weakest link.  He's got to go.

  by WIds on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:37:13 PM PDT

•  too bad

  but this is no time for sympathizers.

  by seesdifferent on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:41:25 PM PDT

•  if moveon and dfa don't support lamont...

  ...they will never get one red cent or any effort from me ever again.

  if this guy is up for challenging joe, then i say let's get busy.  where do i send money?  what website do i direct ct voters to?  heck, i'll move back to america just to vote in ct.

  let's have the first progressive electoral victory early this year so we can get a taste of what november could be.

  by kevin lyda on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:48:11 PM PDT

•  Take him down!

  I live in CT, and will proudly vote for Lamont in my first vote ever, in the CT primary.  We can not tolerate Lieberman anymore.

  by maxgray7 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:51:01 PM PDT

  •  At first I was like...

    ...whoa, this dude has never voted!

    Then I saw you have a facebook link and I realized...ohhhh, another young one like me.  Well, I was old enough to vote for Kerry in '04, but that was it.

    by iCaroline on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:47:11 PM PDT

•  Tom Gogola's scathing piece

  ..on Joe Lieberman in the New Haven Advocate, 1/05/2006:

  G.I.Joe

  Elsewhere in the paper this week is an interview with Sen. Joseph Lieberman. It's hard not to like the junior senator and New Haven resident; like Ronald Reagan before him, Lieberman has the ability to charm the bejesus out of you, even if what he's selling is completely odious.

  The question we are left with is whether, on balance and with critical Congressional elections looming, the Democratic Party would be better off without Lieberman as one of its leading statesmen. It's a tough question made tougher by the high stakes involved. What can we ask of the senator, in exchange for our reluctant vote?

  Strong stuff coming from a supportive publication.

  http://newhavenadvocate.com/...

  The complete interview is found here:

  http://newhavenadvocate.com/...

  by Scarce on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 01:55:54 PM PDT

•  Sweet.

  I once again believe in Karma.

  Lieberman had it coming. He's been asking for it for a long time.

  by tricky dick on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:09:10 PM PDT

•  Calling All CT Kossacks!

  If any of you Connecticut Dems reading this want to get behind what looks like a very credible challenge to Joe, hop over to My Left Nutmeg for some notes on how the political process to get Lamont on the primary ballot will play out from here on in, and what you can do to help.

  (And, no I don't mean give money.)

  by BranfordBoy on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:15:42 PM PDT

•  Joe Lieberman, favorite quotes

  "By their words, some in my party are sending out a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and, more broadly, are not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom."

     I don't know what party Joe Lieberman thinks he belongs to, but I'm not part of his party.

     Anybody else got any favorite Joe-isms?

  by WIds on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:36:47 PM PDT

  •  In my mind...

    ...nothing will beat his "I've got the Joementum quote.

    JP
    http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

    by jurassicpork on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:59:22 PM PDT

  •  Lieberman fails as a true Democrat

    True, Joe is obviously Repug-lite. And he never stood behind Howard Dean, so he's a real loser. When I think back to the campaigns, I can clearly see the screwed up mindsets of these politicians.....just campare them to Howard, and it's oh so obvious.
    I say draft Howard Dean for President. He's the only true hope for this country. Sorry for the digression, but the atmosphere of corruption these days leads me to this conclusion again and again!

    by singer on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:30:55 PM PDT

•  To be a fly on the wall

  "DFA's Jim Dean is being lobbyied hard by Lieberman on Monday."

  Bwah! Now there's a meeting I'd like to see. Holy Joe crawling on his knees to the brother of Howard Dean!

  by Chris Andersen on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:54:57 PM PDT

•  You have to wonder

  how much the GOP will kick in to keep Lieberman in the Senate.

  JP
  http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

  by jurassicpork on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:57:47 PM PDT

•  Stop Jim Dean

  from endorsing Joe Lieberman.

  How can we do it?

  I'm with Ned.

  by Dean Democrat on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:05:21 PM PDT

  •  Blog for America

    Maybe if we keep up this theme on the Blog, the message will be reinforced for Jim. I assume he takes a look every now and then on his own blog.

    by singer on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:39:11 PM PDT

•  Wait and see.

  I don't see a Ned Lamont for Senate website yet. Until there is one, this is all much ado about nothing. Let's spend our energy on things that are actually happening. Plenty of time to discuss when and if Lamont declares and puts up a site.

  by CarbonFiberBoy on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:07:11 PM PDT

•  Ideas 4 Lamont Campaign

  I realize that Lieberman may have some high approval numbers right now, but that's w/o a lot of negative campaigning. I think those numbers could go down with LOTS of negative campaigning. The theme of the negative campaigning should be about accountability and good ol' Joe's unwillingness to perform his constitutional duty and keep big business, Republicans in general and this administration in particular accountable for their wrongdoing.

  I can think of 3 clear examples where Sen. Lieberman FAILED in his constitutional duty to act as a check against executive power. We constantly talk about Iraq so I won't go there. I think Lamont or other Lieberman challengers should mention his role in the Enron affair and how he nixed the accounting rules that the Clinton administration wanted to implement in the 1990s. Did anyone in Connecticut lose their pension as a result of the Enron fiasco? FIND THEM!! Put ordinary people who lost their pension in a commercial and then in the end of the commercial say that Senator Lieberman failed to do his job to protect people like me and now I've lost everything . . . .

  Then go for the jugular. Next commercial could be how Sen. Lieberman failed to perform his constitutional duty and vet "Brownie" appropriately. He was on the committee after all that confirmed Mikey Brown. Although he did not appoint Brown, I think Lieberman should take some responsibility for the limited role that he did play in failing to vet Micheal Brown fully, which led to the Katrina fiasco. I'm sure that there are some family members who suffered from the aftermath of Katrina in Connecticut. Maybe have them build a coalition against Joe Lieberman for Brown's shoddy confirmation hearing.

  Anyway, towards the end of the negative campaign, the slogan for the anti-Lieberman forces should be "With Democrats like Joe Lieberman, who needs Republicans?"

  As for people who say that we shouldn't waste time with Lieberman, I obviously think that we should. Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time. That's our advantage over Republicans. Obviously, not all of us can focus on Lieberman, but those in Connecticut and even New York can. Defeating Lieberman is doable, but we've got to begin to get negative and stay negative on him until 8/8. JMHO!!  

  by ademption on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:15:30 PM PDT

  •  Joe Actually PRAISED Brown!

    Lieberman didn't just fail to vet Michael Brown. He actually praised the idiot and cited Brownies "extensive management experience."

    Also, add to the list that Joe has abandoned Connecticut and the Connecticut Democratic party. There's a lot of anger in the rank and file about the way Joe has consistently been a no-show when it comes to campaigning for Democrats in the state.

    by BranfordBoy on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 06:18:17 PM PDT

    •  The only commercial you need....

      is Bush kissing Joe.

      Just a ten second bit -- Smooch!  

      by immanentize on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 07:44:45 PM PDT

•  Lieberman will be defeated

  The fight against Lieberman is a national campaign. The support for the candidacy of of Lamont will be enormous.  Lieberman will be defeated.  After that, he could maybe retire in Crawford, Texas.

  by Blue Wind on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:42:27 PM PDT

  •  You mean we'll forgo chances to take GOP seats

    ... in the House and Senate, put on orange hats and camp out all year in Connecticut? I don't think so.

    If Joe gets beat, he gets beat in CT by CT.

    by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:14:00 PM PDT

    •  Defeating Lieberman should be a national campaign

      Of course and the house and senate are top priorities.  But defeating Lieberman will be symbolically very important.  In that sense it should be a national campaign.  Thats why MoveOn is likely to enter the game.

      by Blue Wind on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:03:38 PM PDT

      •  Fine. How many seats is Joementum worth to you?

        Put an electoral price tag on it.

        How many winnable seats in the House, and how many seats in the Senate, would you concede to the Republicans in order to win a symbolically important challenge to Lieberman?

        by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:31:11 PM PDT

        •  Lieberman is not a real democrat

          None.  Both things can happen at once.  In fact, defeating Lieberman will be gaining a seat for the democratic party.  Lieberman is not a real democrat.  I consider him like any other republican senator.

          by Blue Wind on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 08:02:36 AM PDT

          •  Real Democrats

            Is this how a Republican votes?

            by Adam B on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:00:16 AM PDT

            •  Lieberman is not a real democrat

              Sure.  There are a handful of republican senators that have similar voting records on such issues.  Like Chaffee, Snowe, and even McCain on some of them.  In fact, Chaffee even voted against the resolution for the Iraq war.

              The problem with Lieberman is that he has been an apologist for the Bush administration and the disastrous Iraq war.  He looks more and more like Zell Miller.  

              To give you another example:  Would Sean Hannity ever support a real democrat?  Well I heard interviews on the radio of Hannity with Lieberman in which Hannity offered to raise money for Lieberman's re-election bid .  The "democrat" Lieberman, instead of responding with a crystal-clear "no thank you", instead said to Hannity that they should "talk about it" at another time, but apparently not on the radio.  So, would senator Lieberman consider using money raised by republicans for his re-election?  I wish he had made clear that he would not.  But he did not.   The republicans love Lieberman.  And as I indicated before, I am wondering why is Lieberman still in the democratic party.

              by Blue Wind on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 10:25:50 AM PDT

          •  Straight up, Blue Wind? (You too, DeanFan84)

            You apparently claim that a national campaign to defeat Joe Lieberman will not divert a single dollar or a single volunteer hour from other contested races, and that this campaign is certain to succeed.

            You "free lunch" claim is radically different from any case for the challenge argued here in terms of trade-off's, probablilities and priorities.

            Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof.

            Please explain.

            by RonK Seattle on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:14:53 AM PDT

            •  Re; Straight up, Blue Wind?

              I think that people will be willing to contribute against Lieberman, independently of other contributions to democratic races.  

              Let me put it simply.  I am not from Connecticut, but I will personally make the largest possible contribution I ever made to MoveOn, if they decide to support any democrat (or Weicker) that would oppose Lieberman.

              There is a lot of outrage among many democrats against Lieberman for very good reasons.   That guy was the VP candidate in 2000 and has now essentially become a supporter of the Bush administration.   At least on important issues that matter.

              by Blue Wind on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 10:44:59 AM PDT

•  Do we know...

  ...anything about this guy's politics?  There is no doubt that Joe-Mentum MUST go; but all I know about this guy so far is that he's rich and he's a friend of Mrs. Kennedy.  Should we assume that he's also white?

  I'm instinctively leary of 'political unknowns' who suddenly burst upon the scene with tons of case and influential friends (even if those friends are 'liberals').  I'd want to know a hell of a lot more about this guy....AND about other potential candidates.  Whoever is still standing after the Democratic primary wouldn't automatically meet with my approval in the General Election, even if he isn't Joe Lieberman.

  by aybayb on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:51:53 PM PDT

  •  Me too.

    Yes, I would also like to know more about Lamont. As disappointed as I've been in Lieberman's ridiculous support of Bush recently, he's still been an environmental leader and a staunch pro-choice, anti-discrimination voter. Trading him for somebody who opposes Bush and his war but doesn't vote progressively would be a wash, in my book, and not worth spending our limited resources on.

    On the other hand, mounting a primary challenge might still impel him to back away from Bush, the way that Republican challenges from the right sometimes keep their guys more conservative. I'm thankful to Lamont in any event for making this effort, I just hope it doesn't draw too many of our resources away from attacking the Republicans, who not only support Bush on Iraq but are ALSO gay-bashing anti-choice theocratic social-services-slashing corrupt hypocritical @!#$#!'s. My dollar's going to go to shooting down one of those every time.

    by tjekanefir on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:59:52 PM PDT

•  Excuse typo

  That should be 'tons of CASH'.

  by aybayb on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:53:37 PM PDT

•  When can I make a donation?

  I will donate to Lamont's campaign as soon as there's a website.  I think  Lieberman will be astounded by how much money Lamont raises.

  by mjr on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:03:33 PM PDT

•  Polls

  In a primary polls are meaningless. Only the party base votes. Meaning if you have a motivated base they will pick the nominee.

  How many people vote in the Conn. primary? Last I heard it was 60K. All you need is a well motivated and organized base of 30K+1 to defeat Joementum.

  If there is a challenger I suspect the turnout will be higher. Lets say 100K. Still Lamont will have lots of time to organize.

  by Miri on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:41:18 PM PDT

•  Lets take a breath before we give the boot to Joe

  Its nice we got that 60-40 split now in the Senate. Makes it real easy to get rid of Joe.If only this were true.

  A couple of points from someone who has lived 50 years in Connecticut.

  1. Lowell Weicker is a jerk. He treats people like shit. I worked in radio news in Connecticut for 15 years and have witnessed Weicker's foul behavior toward the little people many times.

  2. Weicker is not a Democrat! He's no Jim Jeffords. He comes from ruling class Republicans(he earned his money the old fashioned  way, inherited from a big drug company fortune)  For the most part he has always supported the interests of the ruling class. He has a big set of nuts, (he pushed the income tax through in Connecticut) but he's vindictive, too. He's still pissed off that Lieberman beat him 16 years ago. He ran as an independent here because no one from the mainstream Republicans could stand him.

  3. Joe Lieberman is still very popular here. He is a decent man personally, and believe it or not many folks in Connecticut know this and like this.

  4. If you think any Democrat is going to beat any Republican here in Connecticut, think again. It might be hard to believe, but we still have moderate Repubs here in very blue Connecticut. Cris Shays has been speaking out against the bugman Delay for years. Gov. Rell is very popular, as is Nancy Johnson. They could defeat a Democrat. And wouldn't that suck.

  Like I said up top, lets get the Senate back before we start purging Dems from the center.

  by al23 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:45:54 PM PDT

  •  Conn

    This is the kind of thinking that is keeping Dems in the minority. Too frozen with fear to take a chance. The GOP has been taking chances to the point of being reckless and look where it has gotten them. They control all three branches of govt.

    So no I am not going to support Joementum out of fear that a republican might win his seat. You have to take chances. In life and in politics. Otherwise you will be frozen with fear, reacting instead of acting.

    by Miri on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 06:10:26 PM PDT

    •  Cut off the nose to spite........

      not fear at all. Its called winning the war, not just the battle. It really sucks having the assholes controling all three branches, or maybe you haven't noticed. Look, Joe really blew it in the last month or so, but he's really strong in Connecticut. Why waste effort here, when we've got plenty of repub seats to get?  

      by al23 on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 06:19:43 PM PDT

    •  Repubs Rarely Challenge Their Own In Primaries

      Repubs mostly live by Ronald Reagan's 11th Comandment - don't publicly criticize another Repub and they almost never challenge their own in primaries.  The last time I remember a major challenge was Arlen Spector in 2004.  I am not aware of any in 2006.

      I am no fan of Lieberman but I agree with AL23.  I live in neighboring NY and CT is not a state where any Democrat can win.  They have a popular Repub Gov and 3 of their 5 House seats are held by Repubs.  

      I really don't want Sen Chris Shays (R-CT) which is what you might get with a serious challenge to Lieberman.  I have said it before and I'll say it again - keep your eyes on the prize which is a Dem majority in 2006.

      The most important vote Lieberman casts is for organizing a Dem Senate which gives us Majority Leader Harry Reid and Dem Committee Chairs who will investigate the Bush Administration.

      As long as Joementum is willing to cast that vote, I will tolerate his antics.
      

      by mets2005 on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 03:50:44 PM PDT

•  Joementum

  People don't realize how much damage Joementum has done to the Democratic party.

  Some Kossacks  keep bringing up Santorum and Delay. But Santorum and Delay are not harming the Dem party. If anything they are helping Democrats. Besides both are on their way out.

  Same goes for wingnut pundits. Ann Coulters and Pat Robertsons are not as dangerous as Bob Woodwards and David Broders. People view Coulters of this world as fringe. They view Bob Woodward as the reasonable center. So when he writes a fawning book about Bush and goes on Larry King shilling for Bush he automatically moves the discussion to the radical right.

  Joe has to go. He is hurting the party and Dems chances. He keeps sabotaging Dem efforts to frame the Iraq war and make Bush's lies an issue. This is a pattern with Joe. He did the same thing during Monicagate. He stabbed the president of his own party in the back when the president was most vulnerable and needed his party's support.

  There is only one thing you can count on with Joementum. He will stab Dems in the back when they need his support the most.
   

  by Miri on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:49:39 PM PDT

  •  Joe may "have to go"

    but in reality-world, he won't go. My God, people, the man has a 70% approval rating! Even if (as I gather) it's higher among Repubs, it's still 60% among Democrats! So to beat him, you'd have to, a) convince the remaining 40% that your man is worth showing up and voting for, b) get your man's name out there so that some of those 40% don't vote for Joe just because better the devil you know, and c) persuade 10% to abandon a guy they've been voting for for decades and they approve of, to vote for someone they've never heard of until this year. And do it all for the $1 million he's willing to spend. Good fucking luck. And the poster above is right: People in CT really think he's a decent guy, and are not so into party politics as to get offended by his back-stabbing routines. That just makes your race even harder.

    This is ridiculous, although it's been a blast to post on (I'm going to bed now). I hope this is the last we hear of this guy. We've had our fun. Let's get to the real business.

    by ColoDem on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:02:05 PM PDT

•  What?????

  What???  You mean that Paul Newman isn't running?  
  What???  You mean that Lowell Weicker isn't running?  
  What???  You mean that Jim Dean isn't running?
  What???  You mean that Dick Blumenthal isn't running?
  What???  You mean that Lieberman isn't the next Secretary of Defense?
  What???  You mean that Lieberman isn't the next Homeland Security Chief?
  What???  You mean that Lieberman isn't the next UN Ambassador?
  What???  You mean that Lieberman didn't vote for Bush's SS plan?

  Also: Newsflash:
  Amount of money that Ned Lamont donated to Kerry during the 2004 PRIMARY: over $50,000
  Amount of money that Ned Lamont donated to Dean during the 2004 PRIMARY: $0
  http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/...
  WHAT???  HE'S NOT A TRUE PROGRESSIVE!  IF HE GETS INTO OFFICE, LET'S PRIMARY HIM!!!!!!!!!!  
  

  by GoVOTE on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:38:02 PM PDT

  •  Raised not donated

    Get your facts straight.

    The campaigns of Howard Dean and John Kerry, two Democrats who have opted out of the public financing system, have released lists of top fundraisers who have collected individual contributions in "bundles" of $50,000 or $100,000.

    Edward Lamont donated $1000 to Howard Dean during the last election cycle. $500 to Joe Lieberman. Perhaps $3000 to John Kerry, though there is a Edward Lamont Sr and a Jr.

    http://www.fundrace.org/...

    Also contributions to Barbara Boxer and further contributions to Howard Dean from other members of the family.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/...

    by Scarce on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 12:48:58 AM PDT

    •  Get Your facts straight

      According to open secrets, the only Edward Lamont that donated to Dean is an unemployed one, which must mean that's not this Ned Lamont.  Edward (Ned) Lamont of his cable company donated $1000 to Joe Lieberman and did not donate a dime to Howard Dean.  I'm sure this will play out well when it is discovered that Lamont donated money to Lieberman and not Dean.

      by GoVOTE on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:11:36 AM PDT

      •  Note my first link

        Same address. Same person.

        Jesus....

        Also note Anne Lamont, Ned's wife gave $2000 to both Howard Dean and John Kerry.

        If only some people here were capable of even basic research....sighs

        by Scarce on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:22:41 AM PDT

        •  Prove to me

          Prove to me that one is not Edward Lamont Sr.  Why would Ned Lamont list his occupation as unemployed when he was donating to Dean?  Sounds suspect to me.

          by GoVOTE on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:37:29 AM PDT

          •  You're kidding, right?

            If you forget to include your employment you're listed as "unemployed", "not employed". That is not rocket science.

            Getting back to the subject, I would have thought more would be known about Edward (Ned) Lamont and that DailyKos readers would be a sight more inquisitive and less lazy in their speculation about him, which is what this amounts to in my opinion.

            I don't see how anyone running for such a high office expects to unseat one of the most visible of all US Senators. I appreciate the effort but don't hold out much hope at this point.

            by Scarce on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 12:04:00 PM PDT

            •  reply

              I agree with paragraphs 2 and 3 of your comment

              by GoVOTE on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 01:53:20 PM PDT

•  Where do I donate?!

  WEEEEEE!!!

  Wooo hoo!!

  by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 08:56:06 AM PDT