Lieberman loses Conneticut primary

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 9, 2006, 10:27 am

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... ml?ref=rss

Some good news. An outspoken anti-videogame activist has been neutured of his influence. He'll still run an an independant however his odds are probably greatly diminished because of that.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 9, 2006, 10:54 am

great, great news.

Lieberman is an authoritarian fuck who believes in imposing his personal morals upon the greater public, i would go as far as to say that George Bush in the whitehouse is far less painful then Lieberman could be in the whitehouse...hopefully this is a good start to a more progressive wave hitting the senate and house this fall.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 9, 2006, 10:59 am

Good news. It is amazing how fucks like Lieberman, Gore's wife and Bush wind up with political influence. Oh yeah....most people believe what they are told. This guy would have warning labels put on soup if he found it offensive enough.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 9, 2006, 2:12 pm

I'm not thrilled about it.

I know that the population of this board is going to hate Lieberman because the population of this board is drawn from a video game and Lieberman is not a friend of the video gaming industry. Regardless, I thought that Lieberman approached his job with honesty and accountability, and generally acted outside political and partisan influences. While I often don't agree with his politics, I do think we need more congressmen with his backbone. I'd much rather see Harry Reid go than Joe Lieberman.

I don't know much about Lamont. I certainly hope he has a more thought out anti-war stance than the entrenched Democratic leadership does.

Hopefully this will be an improvement.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » August 9, 2006, 3:03 pm

Only thing I know about Lamont is that he creeped me the fuck out when he was on Colbert. Guy has scary googly eyes!

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » August 9, 2006, 3:07 pm

Lieberman having a "backbone" isn't exactly what I would call a good reason to re-elect him. Lots of the most unsavory political figures in history have had "backbones" and its been a mixed blessing at the very least. And while I may not agree with a lot of the "Cindy Sheehan" type Democrats who say your troops have to come home from Iraq now (like I disagree with the assholes up here who say our troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan), Lieberman's support for Bush in that unnecessary bloodbath is, IMO, a justifiable reason to want him out of office.

One thing that does make me shake my head about your system though, is that he can still get on the ballot as an independent. The people have already spoken once: take the hint and come back for the next election, if the desire is still there. All his running as an independent does is gives him the ability to act as a spoiler on the guy who was able to out-run him to gain his old party's nomination.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » August 9, 2006, 3:47 pm

In most states he would not be able to run as an independent. Connecticut is one of a few states that allow it. This primary, and the further polarization of the public can be attributed to Karl Rove. The "with us or against us" attitude which is prevelent in this administration has caused ripple effects like this one. If the right insists on moving more to the right, the left must move left to balance the scale. Harry Reid, while voting for the Iraq war, has been able to maneuver and distance himself from the president since, which is what most democrats want.

The point is that centrists and moderates are gonna have a rough road ahead in politics. Neo-conservatism has spawned neo-liberalism, and that's where Lamont gets his support.

I'm glad Lieberman is gone. What did he expect after he made out with Bush in public?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 9, 2006, 4:35 pm

The sickening part is that neither the Neocons nor the Neolibs are in favor of true fiscal responsibility. All you get from either side is two different flavors of fucking PORK.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 9, 2006, 5:10 pm

How about the upside to this? Providing an outlet for splitting the democrat vote and thus allowing the republicans to win again?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » August 9, 2006, 6:52 pm

It is unrealistic that a Repub will come out of connecticut. The guy they have running has been asked to step down by the republican governor and he refused. He has used an alias to gamble at casino's in connecticut, and is being sued by casino's in Atlantic City for outstanding debts.

As far as splitting the party nationwide, that is a possibility. However, most of the bickering that happens within the party will be in primaries, and once a candidate has been elected the party almost always backs him/her in the general election.

The only positive for republicans is they can and will once again crank up the propaganda machine and spin this into liberals being too soft on national security. Ironically it was primarily that issue which got Lieberman ousted.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 9, 2006, 7:06 pm

One of the articles I read contained some discussion of potential vote-splitting in a three-way Senate race. I wasn't reading anything too in-depth, so it's probably the AP article, and it's probably contained in the link above in this thread, although I'm not bothering to check.

The gist of it was that, although it's impossible to get accurate poll numbers at this point, pre-primary polls, across party lines, indicated more than 50% support for Lieberman and NINE (yes, nine) percent support for whoever the Republican nominee is, with Lamont falling somewhere comfortably in the middle. Obviously, those numbers will shift around pretty significantly with the primary results in, but it'd require a fucking miracle to move from 9% to victory.

Tangurena · Post by **Tangurena** » August 9, 2006, 11:12 pm

Sore Loserman sounds like a democrat only during election time; the rest of the time he sounds and acts like a republican. He outspent Lamont 3 to 1, and got a huge amount from the republicans - his real constituents. Nationwide, the last time someone lost in the primaries, then ran as an indy and won, well, that was back in 1969.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 9, 2006, 11:58 pm

masteen wrote:The sickening part is that neither the Neocons nor the Neolibs are in favor of true fiscal responsibility. All you get from either side is two different flavors of fucking PORK.

you can't even remotely compare the two. republicans have spent absurdly more money since nixon. it's just that it all goes to huge mega corps so it's less visible.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 10, 2006, 6:43 pm

Jesus, how left wing are the moronic dems going to go in an attempt to counter fucking republicans. They could not win being more centrist, so they move left?

Fucking idiots are going to stick us with a New Republican for 4 more at the rate.

Only major party individual I would vote for is McCain.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » August 10, 2006, 6:53 pm

Good riddance to Lieberman. He is a neo-con with teh best of them. THe only reason he claims to be a democrat is because it is required to get elected in Connecticut. He is more conservative then half the Republicans in Congress now. He is proving his republican ties by running as an independent. He has no chance of winning but he will likely draw enough of the vote away from Lamont to allow a republican to win Connecticut.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 10, 2006, 7:18 pm

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33604

Lieberman's 'hack' was no such thing

Cheapskate paranoia

By Nick Farrell: Thursday 10 August 2006, 14:57

US DEMOCRAT Joe Lieberman might have been a bit too quick off the mark when his campaign team claimed his vital fundraising site had been hacked yesterday.

Sean Smith, deputy press secretary for the Lieberman campaign has complained to the US attorney and the Connecticut Chief State's Attorney about a DoS attack which he was certain came from supporters of his rival Ned Lamont.

However INQ readers have pointed out that while the site was down it did not show a 503 error which is typical when a site is suffering from a DoS attack. The site had low pings during the "attack". Normally if it were under a DOS attack, it would be dropping packets and have high pings.

According to FEC filings, Lieberman outsourced his web design and domain hosting to an outfit called myhostcamp.com. Myhostcamp.com has a long history of handing high bandwidth sites and DOS attacks are a walk in the park to it.

However Lieberman was not running his $16 million dollar campaign on a high bandwidth site. In fact the whole thing was being run on a $14.95 a month site on which he got only 10GB of bandwidth. When he exceeded it, the site shut down.

Yesterday Smith called for Lamont denounce this kind of dirty campaign trick. We have it off the record that Lamont, who is a former techie, offered to provide him some good names that could provide him with some better technical support.

For what it is worth, Lamont won the election anyway. It might be that Lieberman, who was once Al Gore's unsuccessful running mate, might like to ask his old boss about that Interweb thingee he helped bring about.

Oops, I guess they didn't really understand what they were getting for $14.95!

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 10, 2006, 7:44 pm

Deward wrote:Good riddance to Lieberman. He is a neo-con with teh best of them. THe only reason he claims to be a democrat is because it is required to get elected in Connecticut. He is more conservative then half the Republicans in Congress now. He is proving his republican ties by running as an independent. He has no chance of winning but he will likely draw enough of the vote away from Lamont to allow a republican to win Connecticut.

1. You wouldn't know a neo-con if it bit you.

2. While Joe is NOT more conservative than half the Republicans, he most certainly has more guts than they.

3. I disagree with your assessment of Lieberman's chances to win the election. He pulled 48% of the Democratic vote. Unless the Republicans field an enticing candidate many right-leaning voters will vote for Joe just to stick it in the Democrat's ass. So if Joe continues to pull 48% of the Demoncrats and he pulls even 25% of the Republican vote then he skates home. Please don't forget that a lot of Republicans still are pissed over the whole Jim Jeffords debacle. They would love to see Lieberman win as an independant and then reward him in the Senate just as the Dems did with Jeffords.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » August 12, 2006, 4:40 am

1) He is unabashedly pro Israel, a chickenhawk (Hawk who never served in the armed forces, himself), and allows his religion to dictate his policy choices. The guy IS a fucking neocon. You do know all the neocons began as pro Israel democrats right? Christ, even you, in your oblivious state, must have noticed how much the propaganda spin machine at Faux News has bleating over this. They didn't even go this apeshit to defend Tom "Gerymander-master" Delay.

2) The guy practically tongue kissed W at the last SOTU and toed the party line on every vote the last couple years..... the GOP party line. You want courage? How about Feingold who voted against the Homeland Security act at the time that rights raping piece of shit first got put though congress? On the other side of the isle, how about Bob Barr raising the same concerns when it was being pushed through? Those two guys have some guts. Joe just ran with his marching orders from the pro Israeli lobby.

3) He, as a nationally recognized canidate with senior commitee posts, lost to a no name guy who he outspent 3 to 1. Now he has almost no campaign money to spend and has been made a fool of publicly over the whole DNS thing. His votes have gone counter to the wishes of hist constituancy the majority of the time (not that that matters to you, of course), a fact he has been both unapologetic and egotistical about. Connecticut is a blue state, bluer than Cali even. HE isn't going to win shit. He will be hard pressed to split the vote enough to get that corrupt fucker on the GOP ticket in, which is what the GOP is donating to him for in the first place.

Al · Post by Al » August 12, 2006, 5:08 am

While I applaud the nonpartisan tone of Sen. Lieberman, I don't agree with his politics much at all. I do feel that the loss of moral standings in America is part of the problem in America, but I play a lot of video games (heh). I think he's a close minded douche, but I think Washington needs to get on the same page as him regarding party boundaries.... While the moral fiber of this nation is a problem, a larger problem is the bickering that goes on between groups of people who are paid by ME to work towards the nations benefit. In my scant 26 years I have seen nothing but partisan BS in congress, and it is not helping any cause at all.

edit: They're also paid by a lot of other people. And I suppose THEY are entitled to an opinion as well.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » August 12, 2006, 8:11 pm

Seriously, who is this guy?!

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » August 12, 2006, 8:39 pm

Perhaps Al Sharpton has joined our great online community?!

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 13, 2006, 1:15 am

Jice Virago wrote:HE isn't going to win shit.

Your post was highly entertaining in an offensive sort of way.

I still disagree with you. If Joe runs he wins.

Someone remind me of this thread in 3 months. I'm confident Jice will be sucking wind as usual.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » August 14, 2006, 2:00 am

I know you have a massive disconnect with reality, to the degree that you are proud of it, but I will take the fucking pepsi challenge against you in making predictions every time. Shit I would take Miss Cleo or Cartalas over you when it comes to making accurate forecasts.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 14, 2006, 2:36 pm

Al wrote:While I applaud the nonpartisan tone of Sen. Lieberman, I don't agree with his politics much at all. I do feel that the loss of moral standings in America is part of the problem in America, but I play a lot of video games (heh). I think he's a close minded douche, but I think Washington needs to get on the same page as him regarding party boundaries.... While the moral fiber of this nation is a problem, a larger problem is the bickering that goes on between groups of people who are paid by ME to work towards the nations benefit. In my scant 26 years I have seen nothing but partisan BS in congress, and it is not helping any cause at all.

edit: They're also paid by a lot of other people. And I suppose THEY are entitled to an opinion as well.

do you know what the moral fiber of this nation is?
its simple...FREEDOM, the freedom for an individual to dictate his or her own moral boundaries, the FREEDOM to make one's own moral choices without the government trying to force their interpritation of morality down your throat

its funny, do you know what the greatest threat to american freedom is?
americans.

americans who wish to limit freedom in the name of security or a black and white moral guideline

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » August 14, 2006, 7:48 pm

I saw today that Lieberman and Cheney connected Lamont to the terror attacks in England by saying to this regard, "This nomination is a positive for the terrorists." It's sad, as soon as he loses his primary, Lieberman becomes a Cheney soundbyte puppet by echoing his scary shouts of how anyone who disagrees is a terrorist.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 15, 2006, 1:37 am

trying to scare someone into a vote by bringing up terrorist is cowardly and pathetic.

an act by even one of my favorite politicians(heh if there were any) would likely result in me not voting

Al · Post by Al » August 15, 2006, 9:17 am

Xzion wrote:
Al wrote:While I applaud the nonpartisan tone of Sen. Lieberman, I don't agree with his politics much at all. I do feel that the loss of moral standings in America is part of the problem in America, but I play a lot of video games (heh). I think he's a close minded douche, but I think Washington needs to get on the same page as him regarding party boundaries.... While the moral fiber of this nation is a problem, a larger problem is the bickering that goes on between groups of people who are paid by ME to work towards the nations benefit. In my scant 26 years I have seen nothing but partisan BS in congress, and it is not helping any cause at all.

edit: They're also paid by a lot of other people. And I suppose THEY are entitled to an opinion as well.
do you know what the moral fiber of this nation is?
its simple...FREEDOM, the freedom for an individual to dictate his or her own moral boundaries, the FREEDOM to make one's own moral choices without the government trying to force their interpritation of morality down your throat

its funny, do you know what the greatest threat to american freedom is?
americans.

americans who wish to limit freedom in the name of security or a black and white moral guideline

I agree. I will stand for anyone who is for freewill. That does not mean I have to agree with 13 year olds shooting at each other because they think they need to to get by in the ghetto. That does not mean I have to agree with a priest molesting an altarboy, or a teacher banging a student. That is what I was refering to by "the moral fiber", not "going to church and praying and donating time to charities." The freedom to make ones own destiny is paramount to the the American spirit. If that destiny falls short of your 18th birthday because you get mixed up with crack, well, I guess that is what I would like to see fixed in this nation.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 15, 2006, 3:31 pm

lol

Joe for the win, because most voters are too stupid to read the paper and realize he changed parties. Primaries and regular elections are not equal. Hell you can bet that their will be republicans voting for joe just to fuck Lamont. Unless their state is as fucked as mine and will not let you split ticket.