If the Republicans were showing the slightest degree of compromise, I'd be with Joe. But the fact is, here's a party that has spent no time at all working in a bipartisan fashion. Joe sounds like it's still 2001 -- before September -- and he's eagerly agreed to let bygones be bygones and "compromise" with the Bush administration. He championed the Homeland Security department, and for his trouble, what did the Republicans run on that year? They were forced by public opinion to accept the new agency. They then pretended they had invented it, and ran in 2002 blaming the Democrats for holding up HSD. It was a Democratic idea, which they then took, and stripped labor protections out of it, and then blamed the Dems for not bashing the unions. Not only blamed, but blamed as unpatriotic friends of Osama because they held out for union contracts.

There's no compromise there, Joe. They're just taking Democrats who work the way you do as Useful Fools, and your "centrism" holds nothing for Democrats at this time except certain defeat.

Republican Majority Leader John Boehner had speculated to a reporter that Democrats are "more interested in protecting the terrorists than the American people,"

Oh why yes! That must be it. We Democrats have always been friends with the Bin Ladins.

No wait, that's Bush's daddy and the Carlisle Group.

Jim Hightower was right: Ain't nothin' in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

Which resulted, among other things, in the state of Wyoming (population 500,000) and the state of California (population 35,500,000) having the same representation in the Senate.

So the Democrats are aiding Bin Laden how? By emphasizing port security? By seeking to put homeland security funds into the hands of the places where there are real threats? By actually wanting to hunt down Bin Laden instead of putting all our troops into Iraq? I'm waiting for your explanation, John.

Wow, I sure hope this jerk loses. Go Ned!

As a CT Democrate adn voter, Liberman is an embarresment.

He only cares about Joe

and it only took thme three years to do so. If one of the largest container ports in the world can do it, how come its implied the US cannot?

Senator Kennedy who co-authored the major bipartisan legislation during the last five plus years (think immigration and education).

If you think that his work on the Homeland Security bill made the Republicans proud when every employee of the new Department was terminated by their old department or agency and rehired by DHS stripping away employee rights (remember Secretary Ridge beaming about such an wondrous accomplishment), that is not the brand of bipartisanship we need in Congress.

If Joe is such a bi-person, why is his in trouble for denouncing Democrats for their positions on Iraq with a script that could have been penned by Karl Rove? If he didn't toe the Republican line on Iraq, surely W would not have embraced him warmly and kissed his cheek. But then maybe, a kiss on the cheek is as bi as Joe & W can be.

Remember when jolting Joe was running with Gore for the VP spot during the 2000 election. He was also simultaneously running for the Senate seat. Connecticut voters knew then that Joe was only looking out for number one. He was just hedging his bets, and didn't care about Connecticut voters at all.

Joe is a follower, not a leader. The last thing the Democractic Party needs right now is a follower who makes decision based on peer pressure. Joe doesn't stand a chance against Lamont, and it serves him right. Connecticut and the Democractic Party deserve a represenative who reprsents them and not himself.

That's right, he was also running for his Senate seat in 2000. What this would've meant is that if the Supreme Court had let Gore/Lieberman win the election, then Republican Governor Jim Rowland of Connecticut (BTW since sent to prison for accepting improper gifts and influence peddling) would've been able to appoint a Republican to that Senate seat. If Joe wasn't "looking out for number 1", another viable Democrat could've run for and won that seat in the event that Katherine Harris never had the opportunity to become a household name.

From http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html:

The Middle Ground Fallacy

This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Position A and B are two extreme positions.

2. C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.

3. Therefore C is the correct position.

While it may be true that Positions A and B are both wrong, it doesn't follow that C is correct. That's the problem with so many of these "moderates" in politics. If I claim that the sun is out at noon, and Tom Delay claims that it's not, then clearly he's wrong or lying. Trying to find some middle ground on the basis that it must be correct is pointless. Centrism, in and of itself, is not a virtue. Taking a position that is well defended and based on solid evidence is of much greater value, and that's why Joe's been rejected by the democratic voters of CT.

This is a fairly obvious ploy on Lieberman's part. He is trying to stake out some kind of power position in the Senate while (he thinks) he still has some. When he becomes an Independant, he will be someone who has no party to support him. He will need both Dems and Repugs to cede him power, so he has to become the guru of bi-partisanship now. The sad thing for him is that it is doomed; he became irrelevant to the process when he lost the primary. Whether he wins or loses he is a straw man. How appropriate for one of the Senate's most soulless.

Actually, Lieberman ensures his relevance by showing his electability.

Presuming he is elected as an independent (which current polls show he most likely will be) he will be in the very good position of possibly determining who controls the senate.

As the Democrats need every seat to regain the majority, he will surly be welcomed back with open arms by everyone who now speaks against him. If by contrast he decides that, you're right he's really a Republican, than his loyalty will be rewarded in kind when he keeps the Senate Red.

Lieberman, by running as an independent has set himself up to possibly be the most powerful man in Washington, at least for a little while. And as he has been guaranteed that he will not lose his seniority if he is elected as an independent, his current power level will not be diminished once he has decided who will control the senate.

In all honesty it is highly unlikely that even if a power shift were his to dole out that Lieberman would vote republican, even with numerous possible rewards laid at his feet. For whatever else one says about Joe Lieberman, he is a man of principle. He calls himself a Democrat to this day, and will when elected take his seat as a Democrat and the Democrats will be thankful for him to do so.