Then so be it. If the Republicans want to be portrayed to the American public as obstructionists, they do so at their own peril.

Lamont won the primary over Lieberman. In our democratic system that means the party now supports Lamont. Lieberman then ran as an “Independent Democrat”. The Republicans then dropped support for their official guy so the wing nuts could now support Lieberman. Lieberman narrowly won in the end because of Republican support and the Democrats that still supported him.

The Democrats might have needed Lieberman before but they certainly don’t need him now. If he wants to caucus with the Democrats then he better start showing some loyalty and earn his way back into their good graces.

Not just would Lamont beat Lieberman “at some point in time”, but at every point in time since residents of the Nutmeg State realized what a loser they’d put in office.

With every loving stroke his tongue applied to Dumbya’s ass, the margin got wider and wider, until now Lamont would beat Lieberman almost 2:1.

As to the size of the tent, I wouldn’t go bragging about the size of the Republicans’. The only reason that there’s any diversity at all is because they have to pander to both the snaggle-toothed cross-eyed inbred mutants who want hang all the niggers on one hand, and the $100,000,000.00/yr business titans who have been milking middle American for far too long on the other.

In any case, Lieberman made his bed, now he’s got to lie in it. It’s one thing not to “tread the party line 100%”, it’s quite another slavishly support a war based on dishonesty, and to become the national champion for a presidential candidate from the opposing party.

TFB, Joe.

Patently untrue. The DNC withdrew their funding from Lieberman and backed Lamont. After Lamont lost, they rewrote history to make it look like they hadn’t backed a losing loser horse, but that isn’t what happened.

It’s nice that polls showed Lamont could beat Lieberman at some point. Polls last year also said that Hillary would pound Obama.

The only loser here is the myopic small tent Democratic party who has no room for anyone who doesn’t tread the party line 100%. ‘My way or the highway’ meets a swift kick to the balls. Fortunately the swift kick won.

>>nothing at all illegal or out of line about
>>the war.

I guess that depends on your definition of “illegal”. It’s certainly immoral.

>>We pulled out the first time under certain
>>conditions. The conditions were violated and
>>we went back in. Period.

Oh, didn’t you get the memo? We “went back in” because Iraqis were the 9/11 hijackers, they had WMDs, etc.

You should be watching more of Faux Spews.

Lamont funded most of the campaign costs (>$13,000,000)out of his own pocket. Moveon dot org gave him about $250,000 (1.9%).

Polls since the 2006 election have shown that Lamont would pound Lieberman to bits, if the election were held at the time of the poll. The most recent one, taken after Lieberman was pimping for McBush, shows he’d lose by 59% – 34%.

Lieberman is a loser.

Lieberman has more integrity than most of the rest of Congress combined. Especially the necrophiliac Reid and Cannibal Pelosi.

Basically, the Dems threw him under the bus, thinking they could replace him with a basically unqualified one issue candidate.

Well, despite all the money and endorsements, their candidate lost.

Then they tried to pretend that “no, we never wanted Lieberman out of the party”. No, not as long as it was 50/50 in the Senate and they needed him.

But bottom line is: Karma is a bitch and Lieberman emerged more powerful after the whole mess than he was before.

>>Hell, the Dems were the first to substantially
>>pull one. They chose not to support his
>>incumbancy with DNC $$ so he wound up going
>>indie.

wtf?? Is this April Fools’ Day or something? Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic primary to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. Lieberman was forced to “go indie”, or find a new line of work.

>>Yeah that’s it. The fact that Lieberman’s
>>kids actually signed up shows that even
>>though it wasn’t the easiest thing to do,
>>they believed in serving their country so
>>much that they put their lives on the line
>>for it.

wtf???

“Matt Lieberman graduated from Yale University in 1989, and from Yale Law School in 1994. He is the Head of School of Greenfield Hebrew Academy in Atlanta, GA. Rebecca Lieberman graduated from Barnard College in 1991, and from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1997. She is married to Jacob Wisse.“.

Obama overlooking Leiberman’s ‘waywardness’ is the smartest thing. He appears magnanamous, and if the DNC does oust him it isn’t BO’s fault. He (Leiberman) never struck me as a bad sort, what a rip if they throw the book at him while true crooks/zealots–Dodd, Frank, Waxman–continue to stay in place. Without a few moderates on either side, though, there will be less cover politically. So let them do it at their own risk.

Yeah that’s it.
The fact that Lieberman’s kids actually signed up shows that even though it wasn’t the easiest thing to do, they believed in serving their country so much that they put their lives on the line for it. And I really don’t think the kids or Lieberman were thinking about their Dad’s friends profits when they enlisted. To each his own, I disagree with the war also, but that doesn’t make sense to me.

Other than having the courage to essentially be a sitting representative for a foreign country (israel) I can see very little consistency or loyalty to those that have helped him in Lieberman’s record. Remember, Obama worked to keep him in his committee position after he won as an independent, and he rewarded him by calling him a terrorist sympathizer on national radio. . .