Linkmeister

I dunno....I think that it's a strategically smart thing to do. It gives the CT dems time to cool off, really check out Lamont and have another go at it in the November election.

It's a primary; he only faced about 1/6th of his constituents yesterday. Why shouldn't the rest get their say, too?

Even money says Kos or somebody Kos-y ends up costing Lamont the seat. I can't cover more than a bajillion dollars, but any bet up to and including that amount, I expect I'm good for. 8^)

If they'd wanted their say they could have voted (at least, the registered Democrats could have).

This is what the primary system is supposed to do. Lieberman should abide by it.

I dunno about a blogger costing Lamont the seat. I suspect that many of the non-Connecticut ones who were following it will start focusing on races closer to their own homes. 'Course, that's no guarantee no home-grown one won't screw things up. ;)

I'm saying Lieberman was the elected senator of the State of Connecticut, not the Democratic party. He is/was a member of the Democratic party, too, but the party membership is incidental to his constitutional office. The right of the people of Connecticut to pick their senator is not contingent on the 1/6 of them who are registered Democrats and willing to vote in a primary permitting them to. They don't have an obligation to affiliate themselves with a party they don't like in order to vote for the candidate they do.

It's fine to say that if he wins, Joe shouldn't be permitted to caucus with the party, that's legitimate, if self-defeating. But to say that it's illegitimate to run as an independent, doesn't seem fair.

Anyway, it's all red on red to me.

I'd be fine with him running as an Independent if he hadn't already lost as a Democrat. He knew what the rules were when he got into the business. Now he wants to ignore the way the game is played.

Look, McKinney got beat yesterday in Georgia. Is she squalling that it wasn't fair and she's gonna run as an Independent? Is the Republican representative in Michigan (Schwarz, I think) who just got beat in a primary by a candidate mostly funded by the Club for Growth running as an Independent? No. Both of them played by the rules. To Lieberman, rules are apparently for other people. Hmm. Even more synchronicity with Bush, come to think of it.

You know, there's an argument to made in favor of centrism, though I tend to lean much more to the left on most issues; electing far lefties will only spur on far righties to run, and so on, and nothing will get done, and so on. Centrists may not satisfy all the people all the time, but at least we don't get debates about flag burning when there's much weightier issues being ignored.

That said, Joltin' Joe is not really a centrist. He's a lapdog. There's a difference.

McKinney is definitely squealing that it wasn't fair (she blames the media, voting machines, and maybe the Jews). She isn't running as an Independent because she knows she wouldn't win.

There isn't a rule against running as an Independent after losing a party primary. There shouldn't be. If Lieberman wins the general, he'll deserve the seat. If he doesn't, he won't.

You have to admit that it's funny that Lamont falls all over himself telling people how much he loves Teddy Roosevelt, and now Lieberman is going Bull Moose on him. Maybe you don't have to admit it. I think it's funny, though.

Actually, several states (Ohio, Nebraska, and some number of others) have enacted what are called "sore loser" laws to keep exactly this situation from occurring. The intent is to prohibit somebody from losing a primary and running anyway. I don't think Connecticut has one or we'd have heard of it by now.

I didn't know that. Well, there you go. Another reason I'm glad I don't live in Ohio.