It seems like the more people find out about Ned, the more they like him in CT. If this were a national election it might be riskier to move to the left, but this is a US Senate seat in a Democratic state.

As for the broader public, I think they are 56% opposed to the war, with similar majorities wanthing troop levels reduced by the end of the year. The only risk the Democratic party runs is having a strong and visible anti-war stance that allies them with a majority of Americans.

Yeah, run with that.

Please.

::-)

The phrase all politics is local needs to be replaced with all politics is national.

Every little house race (like CA-50, or the one in Kentucky a while back) is analyzed to death on what it means for the national party's fortunes of the winner and loser. Look at all the discussion over the Virginia results of last November.

Anyone who thinks that a Lieberman defeat would have no bearing on future elections for the Democrat party is simply ill-informed. It is all that will be discussed, and it will be a HUGE can of worms for the Democrats when Lieberman runs for the seat as an Independent (and probably wins) - showing that the Democrat party has been taken over by the Kos-brigade, and that Independents support the non-Democrat.

Democrats love to bring up David Duke, but the GOP disowned him. However, the Democrats apparently (like Hillary) feel the need to support WHOEVER the Democrat winner is - even if the best candidate for the job is still running as an Independent.

Why is the GOP going after Chaffee? Is it because he said he might switch parties? Or because he did not even vote for George W. Bush? Or because he is a RINO?

If Joe was a real maverick, or stood up to Bush as much as he "stands up" to his own party, he would win in a landslide. People in CT would go out of there way to vote for him out of principle and support. Independents and centrists of course choose a candidate closer to the center, but it does not dispute the fact that Joe did not go to DC and represent his constituents on a lot of big issues.

Why is the GOP going after Chaffee?
--------------------------------
I answered this question in another thread, but I repeat it here...since the challenge is repeated as if it has some sort of valid relevance to the Lieberman primary challenge...I read your 'adores Bush' silliness, and note you are sorely lacking in any specific examples...And by the way, Lieberman was quite public in stating that Kerry was getting his vote in 2004 - hardly like Chafee.

Your comparison to Chafee shows you do not know a thing. If the Democrats were targetting Nelson in Nebraska (who still votes for the Dems more than Chafee votes for the GOP) it would be different and you would have a fairly decent comparison.

Lieberman is a liberal. He got a ZERO conservative rating from ACU in 2004 (Dodd got a 4). Chafee got a 12 rating last year from the same group and publically told the nation he would not vote for Bush for President.

Yes Lieberman is a liberal but less and less every year, and that coupled with his failure to stand up against Bush (and his criticism of those that do) is what hurts him.

People are obsessed with the Lieberman race because of this belief that is driven by some intangible netroots group--when really the netroots are just Democratic activists on computers. It is no different than GOP activists looking to unseat Chaffee, which will cost them a Senate seat based on the attacks. At least the Dems are going after a seat that will stay Dem, whereas the GOP is committing real suicide by purging one of their Northeast Republicans. Going after Nelson would be similar, because we would trade a Democrat for a Republican and lose based on principle. Nebraskans are more conservative, and deserve and ought to be represented by a conservative Democrat, so the party supports Nelson.

Anyway, the whole Dean-DailyKos internet left-wing phenomena is the beginning of 21st century politics and the media is obsessed with this meme right now, hence the coverage of CT. If Lamont loses, they are losers, and if he wins they just lost Lieberman and they are losers, so they just keep on doing what they believe in.

Yes Lieberman is a liberal but less and less every year,
-----------------------------
Actually, you are again incorrect on the facts, but never let the facts get you to change the delusional fantasies you imagine to support your commentary.

Lieberman's ACU lifetime rating is 17 - and that is AFTER the last two years of an 8 and a 0 (which brought the average down from the 20 range)

Lieberman is voting MORE liberal overall, than when your party thought he should be the VP. His 2000 record was a TWENTY! And that was also his lifetime average at the time of his nomination.

I know facts suck when they are against your delusions, but they are stubborn nonetheless.

Keep on posting ignorance on the facts. It does worlds of good for the credibility of your opinions.

Excuse me if, rather than taking the ACU's numbers about his votes, I look at the big picture of his support for the GOP and Bush.

This is the equivalent of saying you should sign a baseball player to an extension cuz he bats .312, while ignoring the fact that he bats .176 with runners in scoring position, or strikes out all the time, or is a terrible fielder.

Electing people is not about their voting record according to the ACU, but also about how their actions affect the debate. Lots of Senators vote similar to Lieberman, but they are vocally opposed to Bush instead of being allies. The other thing is that in CT we have a chance to replace him with someone who will be a strong critic of Bush and a reliable Democrat. We don't have that chance in other places around the country.

Keep clutching the facts that support your belief, even if you have to ignore the big picture. You speak as if you were Lieberman's mother, indebted forever to his cause...