So what? They don't count? Our elected officials should only win by votes cast by members of their own party? The state likes him, and it is to those people and his conscience that he answers to first, not his party. He is, in short, a moderate with some views in line with his party and some on the other side of the fence. And for that, like McCain, he has been bushwhacked by the with-us-or-against-us crowd in his party.

So what? They don't count? Our elected officials should only win by votes cast by members of their own party? The state likes him, and it is to those people and his conscience that he answers to first, not his party. He is, in short, a moderate with some views in line with his party and some on the other side of the fence. And for that, like McCain, he has been bushwhacked by the with-us-or-against-us crowd in his party.

Suddenly I am reminded of what was happening in the Connecticut Senate primary in 2006 between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont, when the party really WAS hopelessly splintered. An incumbent Senator lost the primary, yet remained in the race and eventually recaptured his seat. So the question is: why did the party splinter in Connecticut?

Of course, the answer could never be that out-of-state activists like Duncan Black himself, as joined by Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas, and their attendant casts of thousands simply loathed and despised Joe Lieberman and everything he did and said. The answer could never be that they would attempt anything in their power to influence the election of a Senator not in their state. The answer could never be that, without their constant and unwavering support, Ned Lamont would not have defeated Lieberman in the primaries in the first place. The answer could never be that they themselves designed the blueprint for the hopeless splintering of our party when they scribed a bright dividing line, between the moderate wing and the progressive wing, that none shall pass without suffering near-permanent damage to their political careers.

Initiate flaming in 3… 2… 1…

Suddenly I am reminded of what was happening in the Connecticut Senate primary in 2006 between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont, when the party really WAS hopelessly splintered. An incumbent Senator lost the primary, yet remained in the race and eventually recaptured his seat. So the question is: why did the party splinter in Connecticut?

Of course, the answer could never be that out-of-state activists like Duncan Black himself, as joined by Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas, and their attendant casts of thousands simply loathed and despised Joe Lieberman and everything he did and said. The answer could never be that they would attempt anything in their power to influence the election of a Senator not in their state. The answer could never be that, without their constant and unwavering support, Ned Lamont would not have defeated Lieberman in the primaries in the first place. The answer could never be that they themselves designed the blueprint for the hopeless splintering of our party when they scribed a bright dividing line, between the moderate wing and the progressive wing, that none shall pass without suffering near-permanent damage to their political careers.

Initiate flaming in 3… 2… 1…

Slamfu said: “… but for them to have hung him out to dry in 2006 was them cutting ties not him.“

The “them” you speak of was NOT the Democrat Party, it was the electorate that put Lieberman in office in the first place… his constituents.

“The fact he was able to run outside the part y and win should tell you something.“

Yes Slamfu it tells us quite a bit…
According to Andy's post (above) 3 out of 5 Connecticut Republicans voted for Lieberman. It seems they wanted someone they could manipulate in amongst the Democrats. Lieberman was more than happy to oblige them and be their boy.

Slamfu said: “… but for them to have hung him out to dry in 2006 was them cutting ties not him.“

The “them” you speak of was NOT the Democrat Party, it was the electorate that put Lieberman in office in the first place… his constituents.

“The fact he was able to run outside the part y and win should tell you something.“

Yes Slamfu it tells us quite a bit…
According to Andy's post (above) 3 out of 5 Connecticut Republicans voted for Lieberman. It seems they wanted someone they could manipulate in amongst the Democrats. Lieberman was more than happy to oblige them and be their boy.

I can see why he would find more common ground with McCain than the democratic nominees. Another man who has bucked his party in what he believes to be the best interest and been taken to task for it. Both parties should take a note from the election successes of these men and also take note which way the wind is blowing. Or maybe they can piss in his wheaties until he decides to caucus with the GOP.

I can see why he would find more common ground with McCain than the democratic nominees. Another man who has bucked his party in what he believes to be the best interest and been taken to task for it. Both parties should take a note from the election successes of these men and also take note which way the wind is blowing. Or maybe they can piss in his wheaties until he decides to caucus with the GOP.

No, it reads as I meant it. I don't care if he's 180 degrees from me. I respect Bill Buckley, but disagree with most of his opinions. I disrespect Bill Clinton because he has no convictions, but has far more similar views with mine than Buckley.

Any other asinine presumptions you need deflating?

No, it reads as I meant it. I don't care if he's 180 degrees from me. I respect Bill Buckley, but disagree with most of his opinions. I disrespect Bill Clinton because he has no convictions, but has far more similar views with mine than Buckley.

Any other asinine presumptions you need deflating?

Your last question is answered by the above paragraph.

Your last question is answered by the above paragraph.

I don't agree with your characterization of the difference between Jeffords and Lieberman. Exactly what “principle” did Jeffords leave the party for? I remember something about not getting support for some farming subsidy. What “principle” required Jeffords to strike a deal with the Democrats so that he'd get a committee seat?

And almost all politicians are primarily concerned with “their own skin.” How is Lieberman any different from 99% of his peers?

I don't agree with your characterization of the difference between Jeffords and Lieberman. Exactly what “principle” did Jeffords leave the party for? I remember something about not getting support for some farming subsidy. What “principle” required Jeffords to strike a deal with the Democrats so that he'd get a committee seat?

And almost all politicians are primarily concerned with “their own skin.” How is Lieberman any different from 99% of his peers?

As for “w/o core conviction”………I believe the sentence should continue “that aligns with mine”.

Go ahead, keep kicking at your swing vote……of course you absolutely know already you won't be needing it.

As for “w/o core conviction”………I believe the sentence should continue “that aligns with mine”.

Go ahead, keep kicking at your swing vote……of course you absolutely know already you won't be needing it.