Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the world

by **stickdog99** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:43 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Liebermann is quite likely to win as an independent. <hr></blockquote> Lieberman was quite likely to win the race he just lost by more than 10,000 votes.

by **Wolfmoon Lady** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:28 am

A helluva night, folks. We did it. We do have the old fashioned lever system, Sunny. No Diebold equipment as far as I know. (Joe might've managed to get that little thang changed if he'd won). For those concerned about him running and winning as an Independent, please understand what is happening here: What matters is the long-term reform of the Democratic Party. Tonight, voters sent a long overdue message to elected Dems that their seats are no longer guaranteed if they support (or waffle on) the Iraq War. If they cannot take an antiwar stance, as 80 % of Democrats wish, they can no longer count on their voting base to keep them in office. They will either represent the anti-war contingency they've done so well in ignoring or they will lose our vote and be forced to join the other side. Tonight's victory also sends a message to BushCo: your key informant/double-talking mole-lackey got his ass whooped by voters in the smallest of the small blue states. So there. Whatever happens with the final outcome of the Senate race, this moment is historic and meaningful. One by one, Dems not listening to their base will be voted out of office. Other progressive activists I've corresponded with via email are involved in similar grassroots movements such as what we've done here in CT. Until we can get a viable third party to fight the Neocons, this is what we have to do all across America. This is bringing the WAR HOME, people. We must work and campaign for candidates we believe in, in order to swing the party back toward the left, where it belongs. Whew. I'm off to bed. Peace. Out.

by **Wolfmoon Lady** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:01 am

Before turning in, I checked Daily Kos and found the following: <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/9/04547/20355" target="top">CT-Sen: Who will stand with the Democratic nominee?</a> Here are links/snips from the above post by Kos. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Mr. Lamont said that former Senator John Edwards, the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee in 2004, was the first Democratic leader to call him last night.<hr></blockquote> From WAPost: <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/08/lieberman_concedes_connecticut.html" target="top">Lieberman concedes</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Lieberman said he had called to congratulate Lamont on is victory, but there is clearly no love lost between the two men. "The old politics of partisan polarization won today," said Lieberman. "I cannot and will not let that result stand." Lieberman is expected to file signatures to run as an independent tomorrow. That decision was met with squeamishness among many within the party establishment who had signaled that they would not support an independent bid by Lieberman. Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh -- who, like Lieberman, has close ties to moderates within the party but is considering a 2008 presidential bid -- quickly announced he would support Lamont. "Senator Bayh supported Senator Lieberman in the primary because of his respect for Senator Lieberman's service and their long friendship," said Bayh spokesman Dan Pfeiffer. "The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken, and Senator Bayh respects their choice and will support their nominee." Expect many more announcements like Bayh's over the next day or two. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) will speak about the race tomorrow.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/08/breaking-news-first-dem-leader-steps-up/" target="top">Crooks and Liars</a>: Breaking News: First Democratic Leader Steps Up By: John Amato on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006 at 9:38 PM - PDT In a C&L exclusive, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>A check from Hillary Clinton’s HILLPAC is being cut to Ned Lamont for five thousand dollars. She’s the first one to be counted on and make good on her promise to support the winner of the Connecticut primary. We can only hope that the rest of the Democratic Party stands behind Ned in his bid to win the Senate seat.<hr></blockquote><hr /> NOW - it's time to pull the plug on Joe's connections. Check out Americablog: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 <blockquote>Quote:<hr><a href="http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/on-wednesday-call-senate-dems-and.html" target="top">On Wednesday, call Senate Dems and demand that they support Lamont, and that Lieberman be removed from every Democratic seat he holds on any committee</a> by John in DC - 8/08/2006 11:22:00 PM He is a disloyal Republican partisan. He now openly defies the will of the Democratic voters, and would rather risk our party's future, our chance to take back the Congress in the fall, in order to coddle his increasingly-conservative ego. Fine, Lieberman wants a fight with Democrats, he's got one. Our voice has to be heard, we need to stand for something. Can't we even stand to agree on who won our own elections? Joe Lieberman doesn't respect the voters, and he doesn't respect the decision of the Democratic Party, plain and simple. So he's no longer welcome in the party. <a href="http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=party&Sort=ASC" target="top">Call every single Democratic office in the Senate</a> on Wednesday and demand two things: 1. That the Senator immediately come out in support of the Democratic Senate candidate from Connecticut, Ned Lamont. 2. <a href="http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=katsiva&comment=115509296458351365#1761659" target="top">That Joe Lieberman be immediately kicked out</a> of every single committee seat given to him by the Democratic party. Joe Lieberman is more interested in his own welfare than the welfare of the party. It's time for him to go. And it's time for us to tell the Democratic party that we're going to war over this race. 3. <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/231459/7695" target="top">Markos makes a great suggestion.</a> Call the liberal interest groups who supported Lieberman and, now that Lieberman has lost, demand that they support Lamont who likely has a 100% record on most of their issues, and certainly he is better than the Republican candidate. I will be happy to help on this, so please give me feedback about any guff you get from the groups. If that's what Joe Lieberman and the Democratic Party wants over the next three months, then that's what they're going to get. It's going to be a disaster for the party, and will jeopardize our chances of taking back the Congress. But Joe Lieberman made that decision for all of us. So let the war begin. Actually, I'd call the Senate offices now, fill up their mailboxes for the morning, then hit them all day tomorrow.<hr></blockquote><hr /> That ought to keep a number of us busy tomorrow. The sh*t has hit the fan. LOVE IT!!!!!!!

by **Gouda** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:35 am

It is nice to see Joe get wrist-slapped for his overtly pro-war, pro-imperialist stance. Yet, I also see his likely run as an independent as a potentially ominous fulfillment of prophecy regarding the resurgence of ruling-class, centrist, "third-party" candidates, as predicted by Alan Greenspan and hashed out at this year's Aspen Ideas Festival. One has seen, especially in the last few years, the centrists in both parties flirting with a united front. Back to that later... Now, what about Lamont, multi-millionaire cable television executive? My (limited) understanding is that he takes a Murtha position: withdraw (most) troops from Iraq only to re-deploy the warmakers and wardollars to other, less revealing theatres on the empire's perimeters. He does not seem to me to be truly anti-war, but anti- "how this war was handled," ala Kerry/Wesley Clark. Wrong war, wrong time, etc. He also unquestioningly backs Israel and sees Syria and Iran as imminent threats. There's a recipe for more war in that stance, despite his talk about "investing in the middle-east peace process" which as we know, when brokered by the US, somehow always crafts terms so conditionally and unfairly that the Arab world (and even christian Serbs: see Rambouillet agreement) is further provoked and humiliated, and thus inevitably blamed for derailing peace efforts, thus justifying the patented 2-step forward, 1-step back grind toward neoimperial subjugation. Sigh. Furthermore, his website states that U.S troops should “continue to provide logistical and training support [in Iraq] as long as we are asked.” ...Erm: "logistics and training" are the bread and butter of black ops, hidden cash flows, flase flags, and covert power maintenance. Maybe he does not know that yet, despite being a member of the ruling class. I'd just like to politely add some comment for consideration to a few of Wolfmoon Lady's assertions: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What matters is the long-term reform of the Democratic Party.<hr></blockquote> I would like to have some hope there, but I really see no sign or possibility of that. Why don't true progressives break from the democratic party and work on forming a true alternative - independent and authentic - free from the systemic rot which has pervaded the democrats and which the democrats have had no small part in spreading? Lieberman is smart to leave the democrats. Progressives ought to get there first and define the terms before he and his neolibcon cronies do. Lieberman knows that progressives will remain trapped and neutered within the Democrat's albatross. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>If they cannot take an antiwar stance, as 80 % of Democrats wish, they can no longer count on their voting base to keep them in office. They will either represent the anti-war contingency they've done so well in ignoring or they will lose our vote and be forced to join the other side.<hr></blockquote> What is a truly "antiwar" stance? Have you seen many Democrats able to see the Global forest for the Iraqi trees in terms of War? That is, are they able to synthesize an obvious “anti-war-in-Iraq” stance with a broader, deeper, sustainable AntiWar conviction, which would require radical (meaning: healthy, sane) systemic changes? Maybe there are a few. They might consider leaving the party. If Joe can do it, so can they. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>One by one, Dems not listening to their base will be voted out of office.<hr></blockquote> Or, they will take the Lamont cue and play to their base - but when elected, re-assure their ruling class domestic and foreign policy elites with a softer, multi-lateral approach to aggressive imperialism. Feels good now, but you might be scratching your head later. Watch the Dance of John Edwards for example. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Until we can get a viable third party to fight the Neocons, this is what we have to do all across America. This is bringing the WAR HOME, people. We must work and campaign for candidates we believe in, in order to swing the party back toward the left, where it belongs.<hr></blockquote> How are we going to get a viable third party to fight the Neocons (and please don’t forget their brothers-in-arms: the Neoliberals) if we are continually deferring our conscience and leasing our souls to the democrats? No party or movement gets built if we continue to say: “this is an emergency…next time.” We have entered the "permanent emergency" zone, so someone has to draw the line and organize. What if I do see and believe in an independent, progressive, third-party candidate? Should I abandon her/him for the sake of the lesser evil, aka Democrat? I have said ‘yes’ to this, on and off, before in the past - but after 2004, no more. My assessment: the US duopoly system is so far gone that only radical measures might, might salvage it - and "progressives" ought not waste more time and energy salvaging the thoroughly corrupted democratic party. It is an anchor. Release it. A last question: is there a good progressive third party in Connecticut that will really fight the military-corporate ruling class?

by **sunny** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:24 am

Gouda, I voted for Nader in 2000 precisely because of Lieberman-did not, and never was going to, make one damn bit of difference, as I live in Alabama; it was like spitting in the ocean. Your suggestions on viable third party candidates would be great if we could get every progressive on the same page. Any ideas on how we could do that? Meanwhile, not only should Lieberman's committee assignments be yanked, but every penny of party money should be handed back. Why should he be able to use that money to defeat the Dem nominee?

by **wordspeak** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:44 am

Actually, Gouda, there's a pretty big Working Families Party in Connecticut. They've had a presence down there the past few weeks (I don't know if you saw them, WolfmoonLady, but I saw them when I was down there). I recently worked on a campaign in Massachusetts called "fusion voting," in which candidates can be cross-endorsed by multiple parties, theoretically forcing leftish Democrats to try to win the endorsement of a third parties like the Greens or WFP. The WFP has used this a lot to grow in New York, I understand. It seems like what we need most is *good candidates,* whether they run as Democrats, Independents, or with a leftist third party. Regarding Ned Lamont, from reading interviews with him, he doesn't seem like any radical, mostly an opportunist (and a capitalist through and through). However, he doesn't seem controlled, which is refreshing. --------------- Meanwhile, not only should Lieberman's committee assignments be yanked, but every penny of party money should be handed back. Why should he be able to use that money to defeat the Dem nominee? -------------- I certainly agree with that. But what's actually likely to happen?

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:46 am

Some interesting exit polling findings: <a href="http://politicalwire.com/">politicalwire.com/</a> "Political Wire obtained a copy of the exit poll last night done by CBS News and the New York Times that provides some interesting insight into the views of Connecticut Democrats who voted in the primary yesterday. Key findings: As expected, the war in Iraq played a significant role in the race with "a significant majority" of primary voters saying they disapproved of the U.S. decision to go to war with Iraq, and most of them cast their ballots for Ned Lamont. Of those surveyed, 78% disapproved of the decision to go to war. Among the war’s opponents, 60% cast their vote for Lamont, while 78% of the smaller group who supported the U.S. decision to go to war voted for Lieberman. Lieberman’s relationship with President Bush was also a factor in the race. 59% of Democratic primary voters said Lieberman was too close to the President, while 41% didn’t think so. Those who said Lieberman was too close to Bush voted overwhelmingly for Lamont. 61% of voters rejected the notion of Lieberman running as an Independent candidate in the fall, something he has promised to do. 39% supported it. Moreover, one in five Lieberman voters does not think he should seek an Independent run in November. "

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:50 am

In other words, of the 78% who were against the war, 40%actually voted for Lieberman.

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:38 am

You know, that is pretty astounding, that 78% of these voters disapprove of the war.

by **Gouda** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Any ideas on how we could do that?<hr></blockquote> Sunny: not really. I am no expert. There are ideas out there (unity tickets & fusion voting as wordspeak mentions) but I think one sticking point for the wider public is this notion of "viability" which is a bizarre catch 22. You can't vote for a candidate who is not viable because viability requires that you would vote for her/him. And in this system, viability means party-machine dough, regardless of the person's capacity, sanity, or morality - and party machine strings overwhelmingly mean making a trade-off on most of your convictions and principles, if you have them, since party-machine doughmaking and baking has become diametrically opposed to a people's participatory democracy. Ah, "but that's politics." Yes, but that's also a copout, and we know here that it is much more than just regular politics-as-usual. I think we can start with the notion that all candidates (and/or parties) are viable in a supposed democracy when "viability" is understood as a good candidate/party supported by you and me, if we agree, with en masse cooperation, participation, organization, and hard work taking precedence over the easy, naughty demands of mammon. The Working Families Party is viable if enough of us support it. The Working Families Party also has a responsibility: don't suck. So we don't let it suck. There are good candidates and parties are out there - you've got to find them, scrutinize them with your rigorous intuition, and if they don't suck, at least not too much, then dive in with all you've got. If our votes are only meaningless stones thrown into a vast sea, then we might as well rest well at night having worked hard in the day for candidates we believe in. If not, let's call the charade and pack it in - stop wasting time and energy on the illusion of "democracy" - work instead on some sort of pitchfork revolution - or, alternatively, retreat into a heavily-fortified ashram and lint-pick your navel in blissful defeat. Back to getting other progressives to agree and rally away from the party machines: well, that will naturally take some pretty rockin' persuasion, using our best multi-media and organizing and coordination talents, as we have them. Spending priorities and hard sacrifices also come into play. Oh, and do it with joy: then it becomes an infectious inspiration. I think too many progressives and even some leftists (especially americans) are too soft, too afraid, and thus want to have it both ways, keep their comforts. Sorry, but I think that is true - I am battling that in myself as well. Progressives are going to have to toughen up and wean off the democrat's mealy teat. The neocons are right: it is a dastardly bitch-tough world out there, and it ain't going to accommodate or make an exception for my soft ass. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It seems like what we need most is *good candidates,* whether they run as Democrats, Independents, or with a leftist third party.<hr></blockquote> Wordspeak, that would be helpful as a start, but I think that is probably the exception rather than the rule. How much leeway and policy independence are candidates really allowed within their respective party machines? That's the nature of the party I guess: got to kind of be loyal to its platform - thus, it could be argued that a *good party* ought to be the priority rather than the candidate. (Today's 2 parties have evolved into something entirely different and monstrous). Feinstein might be a *great* candidate if he'd free himself from the chains of the democratic party. But maybe he is such that he cannot remove himself from the party, and as such, is not so great after all. That said, I would vote for a *good* candidate (one who is beholden to the people, relatively uncompromised, and shares my values etc..) even if the candidate is within a major party should said candidate consistently demonstrate fidelity to her/his principles, promises etc... o' where art thou? Sorry for the muddled answer(s). I am admittedly muddled these days about democracy & electoral politics in general, the world shaping up as it has and all. It is a battle negotiating between and reconciling purist principles and pragmatic complexities.

by **Gouda** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:01 pm

Ominous. Shall the economic oracle of doom (greenspan) be proven equally precocious in political matters (rise of ruling class 3rd parties)? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sean Smith, Lieberman's campaign manager, said Lieberman was prepared to go forward with an independent run no matter what the primary outcome. "This is bigger than the party now," Smith said. <hr></blockquote> Lieberman barks: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"I'm fed up about the partisanship in Washington that stops us from getting things done."<hr></blockquote> You know, those things that need getting done. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060809/ap_on_el_ge/primary_elections;_ylt=AiLTSkQGXVlSJg.aIG2esxFG2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--">Yahoo/AP Link</a>

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:02 pm

I've voted third party three different times, twice for the weasley little Perot, not because I liked him, but as a form of protest. I just don't think third party is going to get anywhere, and I doubt that I will ever do it again. What's running through my mind is whether the Democratic party can be reformed. . I'm talking almost a coup d'tat, in that the party has been taken away from the people, so it's time to take it back. I blame big money for much of that, but in the end, money doesn't cast votes, it can only attempt to influence votes. Ultimately, it is the people's fault if they let this happen, and I think THAT message, one of ownership of the problem, needs to be distributed. The voters, the people need to perform the coup. Joe Lieberman's loss is a perfect example of a perfect storm, a people storm, a coup d'etat. The problem with big money, and big power, is that it is egotistical, thinks of itself as a subtle aristocracy, and it's influence on the "vulnerable" politician usually results in the politician becoming divorced from the people. I'm going to have to dig up Ed Luttwak's book on how to perform a coup, read it again. There's some very practical advice in it, such as taking control of the civil service sectors. For the Dem party, I suppose that would amount to taking control of key positions in the party. Actually, I'd say the first step of the coup has already been accomplished---When Howard Dean became party chair or whatever the title is. Soooo, a good beginning is to just throw the bums out, clean house, both of those holding party positions, as well as the Congresscrooks. On the other hand, a characteristic of the Democratic party that causes trouble for the party as a whole is that it is multi-multi-facetted group of opinions, while the Repuglicans are one humongous, homogeneous mind:what one Republican thinks, the entire mind thinks, pretty much. But the Dems have a gazillion opinions, and almost every one of them want it their way or no way. This is where I see a problem with the consideration of third parties: people of like mind fracture off in their own little groups, and never get anywhere because they don't accommodate, because they tend toward rigidity. The PEOPLE need to be MEDIATING, finding a way to accommodate as many of those opinions as possible into a comfortable whole. Take the immigration issue as an example. Isn't there some way to recognize the resentments of being over-loaded with Mexico's poor, whose presence keeps down wages here, and still be fair to the immigrants? So, what I'm saying I guess, is that there are two problems: the party has allowed itself to be too influenced by money and power, resulting in a divorce between the leaders and the people, and it has not done a good job of finding a way to effectively accommodate diverse opinions into a more acceptable voice for the whole. We don't need to and don't want to become a homogeneous mind, by any means, but we need to be a voice that is more comfortable for the whole.

by **Ouish** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:48 pm

It's contradictory to get worked up over an election while mentally inhabiting the space of parapolitics, but I think it's possible to reconcile the mediated surface and the hidden depths without getting the bends. To steal a few lines from Carl Oglesby, this dichtonomy is false: Politics and parapolitics are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they embody the same energy but in different quantum states. It is only broad forces that give conspiracy its context, and it is only conspiracy analysis that reveals the innermost destructive potential -- the dialectic -- of broad forces. As for what Mr. Lamont will do when he gets to Washington, I hope that the blogosphere can become a new kind of institutional memory that keeps our public servants, or masters, in focus.

by **Wolfmoon Lady** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:17 pm

Sorry I don't have too much time today to debate this, Gouda, but you put some good questions and I'll do my best to tell you how I feel and why I'm encouraged by Lamont's victory (although I said pretty much what I thought already). A while ago, a new poster came here to RI and said we should do x,y,z to start reforming the Dems. I put her down flat. I said I had the 'turned the corner' on the Dems since the 2004 election and would never again vote for another of their candidates. A while later, I was persuaded to change my mind by a dear friend, an RN, who is a political activist in the Baltimore area. She challenged me by asking me just what I was going to do while this magical, progressive third party I had been hoping for was going to emerge (a party she would love to see, but in the meantime...). How much more damage, in other words, was I willing to allow the neocons to wreak while I sat back and sulked because my party has lost its spine? What happens if we abandon the party to the moderates, the centrists, the Liebermans? Answer? The GOPS will never leave office because people like me refused to vote at all. Geez, that helps which side? Yeah. I got it. And while you can categorize it as voting for the lesser of two evils, what else do you want us to do? Sit back? Watch TV? Complain in our respective blogs while the right goes merrily on to victory? The neocons have to be stopped. The world is looking to us to do something. We must do whatever we can and take whatever small victories are accessible and put them together to make larger victories. Those who are registered Democrats must hold our elected officials accountable. We do that by constantly and persistently reminding them by letters, phone calls, and e-mails. If needs must, we will show up at their offices and demand answers. We can write op-ed pieces in local papers, we can organize petition drives, and take the issues to the streets -- be seen, be heard, be willing to cry out in public so the whole world hears us. We must continue to work for a stronger party and show the world what we stand for and which candidates are not cutting it. Like Lieberman, they must know they will be voted out if they stray from the promises they made as candidates. Period. We're taking our party back - the party of Martin Luther King, of Bobby Kennedy, a party that is inclusive, that considers all of its members as best it can, and that is (as my Dad would say and always believed) for the common man, the working stiff, for women, for people of color, for the elderly. A party that is not afraid to create and sustain social programs that help people become better citizens by providing a hand-up while not enabling them to stay on the system. A party that will raise the minimum wage and improve our deplorable health care system (one based on profit rather than need). Finally, a party that does not support or condone illegal and immoral wars. High ideals, yes. The usual talking points at campaign rallies, maybe. But these ARE the core values and issues that distinguish Democrats. We keep letting the other side tell us what the issues are. NOT ANY MORE! We must find candidates who refuse to play that foolish game. It's not going to happen overnight. Nothing worthwhile ever does. Cleaning house is hard work, and it's going to be ugly. Chigger, baby, you put it best:<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The voters, the people need to perform the coup. Joe Lieberman's loss is a perfect example of a perfect storm, a people storm, a coup d'etat.<hr></blockquote> Hell, yes! Happy coups to ya'all. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wolfmoonlady>Wolfmoon Lady</A> at: 8/9/06 2:19 pm

by **yathrib** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:42 pm

What more proof does anyone need that Lieberman is an egomaniac/megalomaniac, or that he has the moral and political integrity of Vidkun Quisling (look it up)? I actually suspect he's up for smaller and worse things, like a cabinet post in the Demian--excuse me, Bush--administration.

Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the world

Re: Lieberman concedes

Re: Lieberman concedes

Re: Dems already breaking with Lieberman; Pull the plug

Re: allied encouragement in the form of a friendly challenge

Re: allied encouragement in the form of a friendly challenge

Re: allied encouragement in the form of a friendly challenge

Re: allied encouragement in the form of a friendly challenge

Re: allied encouragement in the form of a friendly challenge

Re: allied encouragement in the form of a friendly challenge

Re: allied encouragement in the form of a friendly challenge

Re: allied encouragement in the form of a friendly challenge

Re: allied encouragement in the form of a friendly challenge

Re: Politics and Parapolitics

Re: allied encouragement in the form of a friendly challenge

Lieberman's independent run

Who is online