Primary day in CT

[EdHill]

Went to my polling place today a block from my apartment and Jesse Jackson was there giving interviews. Went back 40 mintes later on my jog (Im freaking ripped with 2% body fat BTW) and Ned Lamont was there giving interviews.

Today show was in West Hartford, Hardball is in New Haven, and every otehr major news outlet is in Hartford. In fact I think a guy from MSNBC is camped out in my closet. Its an exciting day up here for us Nutmeggers.

[Mulv]

It was primary day?

[BSL]

The Sunday Post (that would be the Washington Post for those of us this far south on 95) had an excellent article on this race and how it will be a referendum for any Democrat hoping to get the nomination in 2008, since many of them are on the fence about Iraq. (Cough...HRC!)

So this brings about an interesting question to me...say your Lieberman and you truly believe we should stay in fight in Iraq and not have any sort of pull-out time table. I'm not trying to start a debate on whether that's right or wrong - let's just accept it as fact. But you can see that your constituents DO support a pull out and don't support the war in Iraq. What's your job? To stick to your convictions and stay the course? Or listen to the people you represent? On the one hand, you're principled but not listening to your constituents. On the other, you're listening to the constituents but you're flip flopping.

Hmmm...this may be a little deep for the TVGasm forums but this is the type of dorky shit I think about on my bus ride in the morning. Not that you all just sit around thinking about Laguna Beach all day...not that it would be bad if did...okay, stopping now.

[carewski]

While here in Georgia, the voters of the 4th finally woke up and dumped Cynthia McKinney's sorry ass.

That woman is crazy.

[BSL]

While here in Georgia, the voters of the 4th finally woke up and dumped Cynthia McKinney's sorry ass.

That woman is crazy.


Well, not to burst your bubble, but the 4th district has "woken up" once before. (Says the woman from Marion Barry land.)

[carewski]

Well, not to burst your bubble, but the 4th district has "woken up" once before. (Says the woman from Marion Barry land.)

True that, but hopefully the lesson has been learned. Denise Majette got too big for her britches, ran for Senate and lost, and Cynthia McKinney got herself re-elected. Ooooh, still gives me the shivers.

I believe in America (just like they say at the beginning of The Godfather), and I believe that the vote is a precious right. Too bad more people don't avail themselves of the opportunity.

[TaxGirl]

What's your job? To stick to your convictions and stay the course? Or listen to the people you represent? On the one hand, you're principled but not listening to your constituents. On the other, you're listening to the constituents but you're flip flopping.

BSL - I think your job a senator is to represent your state. I believe it's the foundation of our system of government. We can't all vote on everything, so we send people to DC to vote on our behalf. If you feel differently than the majority, you express that and maybe try to get them to change their minds but then vote as your constituents wish.

I saw a Lamont speech where he declared he would bring the troops home if elected. Unfortunately, I don't think one senator is going to have that effect.

[BSL]

I saw a Lamont speech where he declared he would bring the troops home if elected. Unfortunately, I don't think one senator is going to have that effect.

Yeah, I saw clips of that too. I like Lamont and I'm glad he won but that's a bit like promising free pizza day in the high school student council president race.

[Mulv]

BSL - I think your job a senator is to represent your state. I believe it's the foundation of our system of government. We can't all vote on everything, so we send people to DC to vote on our behalf. If you feel differently than the majority, you express that and maybe try to get them to change their minds but then vote as your constituents wish.

I saw a Lamont speech where he declared he would bring the troops home if elected. Unfortunately, I don't think one senator is going to have that effect.

By and large, I agree, TaxGirl. However, there have been times in our country's history when, had Congressmen and women not voted against the expressed wishes of the majority of their constituents, progress would not have been made. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 comes to mind, for instance. Many southern Democrats (who were, in effect, what we now consider to be Republicans) as well as some real Republicans voted for the Amendement against the wishes of their constituents and/or party leaders. Had they not done that, who knows where we'd be. And no, before anyone asks, I am not equating the Iraq War with the Civil Rights movement.

Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules for how to be a good Senator or how to please all of your constituents.

I agree that electing Lamont ain't going to do a whole hell of a lot to change the course of the Iraq War. The Democrats would have to win big in November AND change some Republicans' minds in order to get the pullout some want. That's a tall order for a party that is down five or six seats in the Senate and five times that in the House.

OK, I've reached my limit with political talk. I'm going to go leave a comment about The Hills or something.

[BSL]

However, there have been times in our country's history when, had Congressmen and women not voted against the expressed wishes of the majority of their constituents, progress would not have been made. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 comes to mind, for instance.

YES! This is exactly what I'm talking about! Sometimes you should stick with your convictions and do what you know is right. Alas, probably a lot of those Members of Congress were then voted out. And unfortunately, in politics - staying alive is the name of the game. Much more so than being principled in any way. But hopefully those politicians found validation later in life that they did the right thing.

[Staciatrix]

I'm going to refrain from the political stuff because I tend to get arguementative and pissy. :D I will say I am glad Lamont won but damn his commercials annoyed the hell out of me--"I'm Ned Lamont, and I support this message!" and then the oh so perfectly varied supporters in the background: "And so do we!" Gah.

But I didn't see no news folk today in Norwich! Dang it, the boonies are exciting too.....:thumbup:

[Bauer's Sweetheart]

It's true that Ned Lamont won't end the war by himself, but a majority of the voting Democrats in the state want him in the Senate on their behalf to be talking about it and making an issue of it and working with others who feel the same way.

My problem with Lieberman is that now that he officially will run as an independent in November's election, he is showing that his highest priority is keeping himself in office. It's not about his principles or political values, it's about his ego and his employment in the Senate. By running as an independent, he risks taking Dem. voters away from Lamont, and ultimately allowing the Republican candidate to sneak in as the winner. And that's totally unforgivable and a violation of the trust that the Democrats have given him in the past. Doesn't he realize there are more issues than just the war that the Dems want to see addressed, and that his vanity and self importance may cause the Dems to LOSE a seat in the Senate when they so desperately need to gain more?

Lieberman needs to accept that sometimes the voters want a change in their representation, and his time of service is up. He should heed the decision of his constituents and do what is best for CT Democrats as a whole - in fact, all Dems across the country - and resign himself to leaving the Senate and help ensure that Lamont beats the Republican candidate.

And doesn't he know he can make more money and have more free time doing something else in DC?

[chick110]

My problem with Lieberman is that now that he officially will run as an independent in November's election, he is showing that his highest priority is keeping himself in office. It's not about his principles or political values, it's about his ego and his employment in the Senate. By running as an independent, he risks taking Dem. voters away from Lamont, and ultimately allowing the Republican candidate to sneak in as the winner. And that's totally unforgivable and a violation of the trust that the Democrats have given him in the past. Doesn't he realize there are more issues than just the war that the Dems want to see addressed, and that his vanity and self importance may cause the Dems to LOSE a seat in the Senate when they so desperately need to gain more?

I felt this same way with Perot and Nader in the past presidential elections. While I realize they had good intentions, the result is that the water is muddied and instead of having a clear majority winner, we get recounts and hanging chads...

[EdHill]

It's true that Ned Lamont won't end the war by himself, but a majority of the voting Democrats in the state want him in the Senate on their behalf to be talking about it and making an issue of it and working with others who feel the same way.

My problem with Lieberman is that now that he officially will run as an independent in November's election, he is showing that his highest priority is keeping himself in office. It's not about his principles or political values, it's about his ego and his employment in the Senate. By running as an independent, he risks taking Dem. voters away from Lamont, and ultimately allowing the Republican candidate to sneak in as the winner. And that's totally unforgivable and a violation of the trust that the Democrats have given him in the past. Doesn't he realize there are more issues than just the war that the Dems want to see addressed, and that his vanity and self importance may cause the Dems to LOSE a seat in the Senate when they so desperately need to gain more?

Lieberman needs to accept that sometimes the voters want a change in their representation, and his time of service is up. He should heed the decision of his constituents and do what is best for CT Democrats as a whole - in fact, all Dems across the country - and resign himself to leaving the Senate and help ensure that Lamont beats the Republican candidate.

And doesn't he know he can make more money and have more free time doing something else in DC?

Bauer's Sweetheart, dont worry, the republican candidate thats running is a complete nobody. His only claim to fame is he has a gambling problem and has been banned from the indian casino's. Even teh head of teh republican party when asked who the CT Republicans should vote for refused to asnwer the question.

[BSL]

his vanity and self importance may cause the Dems to LOSE a seat in the Senate when they so desperately need to gain more?

Your point is very well-taken. But from what I understand, there's no chance in hell the Republican will win - unless they can get someone else on the ballot instead. It's pretty much a lock to be a race between Lieberman and Lamont, only this time the Republicans can vote too. And if the situation were reversed, I would totally vote for the Republican the Republican voters didn't want in office - just to be a shithead.

I mean, for Democrats nationwide, it's a win-win because Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats so he'll still help us in our quest for the majority. The only potential losers are the people of Connecticut and really, who cares about them?

[Firecat]

Personally, I think the Democratic party should be dissolved. They are useless, and have failed as the "oppositon party"...of course that is expected, because they really aren't that different from the Republicans.

Furthermore...any government official (in either the legislative or executive branch) that supports the occupation of Iraq should be summarily executed.

[Bauer's Sweetheart]

Well, good news for the Dems that the CT Republican candidate is a major loser. I still won't let Lieberman off the hook, and say to him in the words of Janelle, "Too bad, so sad!"

As for the thoughts of our favorite revolutionary, Firecat, I agree that as a whole the Democratic Party has let its members down over the past 8 years or so. I think that after Clinton's "personal indiscretion," the leaders of the Democratic party have mostly been afraid of offending and therefore losing voters, when they really need to be aggressive and creative in finding new voters/converting moderate voters. There is probably nothing the Dems could do to lose the party loyalists, so why not take some chances and improve their odds with those who tend to be flexible voters? Keeping things "safe" is not working. Wish they could all be like Henry A. Waxman of California . . .

[sg-dub]

Am I the only CT resident now fascinated by a 25 yr old woman named Staciatrix with an avatar like she has?

[Mulv]

FYI, there's a really interesting article about the CT Dem. primary in today's (Saturday's) New York Times Metro section. It's got a lot of maps showing the demographic breakdown of the voting. I too love maps so I was very pleased to see that. I mean, reading is, like, so hard sometimes.

[sg-dub]

Thanks, Mulv, I'll check it out. The town I live in is super Jewish but also super liberal so I'm super curious to see how it broke down here. Super!

[brilliantmistake]

What's your job? To stick to your convictions and stay the course? Or listen to the people you represent? On the one hand, you're principled but not listening to your constituents. On the other, you're listening to the constituents but you're flip flopping.

Ideally, you've made your political ideologies clear before being and therefore, being elected means your consituents have some idea how you'll vote before elected. If you run on a 'cut taxes' platform, then your constituents know where you stand, and presumably, how you'll vote. It's unlikely all your constituents will agree with you on every issue, but they should know and get an explanation where you stand. They might agree with your 'cutting taxes' stand, but disagree with your environmental views. I think ethical politicians (oxymoronic as that may be) would struggle between the desires of their consituents and their ethics when they are in conflict, but they should always explain their reasoning behind their votes.

It's harder when new issues arise during a term. Before the senate vote on the authorization of force in Iraq, I wrote to both of my senators (and my rep) opposing the use of force until the presence of WMDs could be confirmed. One senator voted for, the other against, but both wrote back and explained why they were voting the way they did, which I respect. It would have been hard to predict their votes or the issue pre-election. I don't want to get into a discussion on Iraq, I'm just using it as an example.

I think with Lieberman his Iraq position was just the last straw, he was in disagreement with democratic voters on a lot of issues. I respect his sticking by his ethics, but people vote for someone who'll advocate the policies that are in line with their ethics.

OK, enough politics, back to TV. Although here in Cali, home of the Governator, that line is very blurry.