Although I would prefer a Lamont victory, I am about to say something that will get me flamed by a large number of Saloners.

I would not be upset with a Lieberman victory.

There. I said it, and I am still alive. Consider this: he is a strong supporter of the environment (http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/09/01/lieberman/), and of civil rights, and is endorsed by NARAL (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/states/endorsed-candidates.html).

Even though I disagree with him about the war, I do trust that he will continue to support most of the things that I do. It's just that Lieberman's votes on the war have been contentious and therefore have gotten much more press than his others.

Is this a one issue election, or should we be looking at the complete picture?

Puhlease...enough already. Liberman is a turn coat in the truest meaning. Anyone that goes from a presidental ticket nomination to one-off republican faux indie candidate is full of himself. His high moral ground act is pure baloney in this context.

People who get it both ways tend to have moral along the same lines. As another LW said, "toss him to the curb" and let the bus that Schlesinger crawled out from under run the SOB over.

The general beef with limo libs is that they’ve gotten theirs, now they want to take from everybody else in order to fund their pet causes. Most of them didn’t actually work for their riches and so have no idea how hard the rest of us worked to get where we are. Their money is protected in trusts and capital investments – usually the taxes they propose fall most heavily on those with high incomes but limited capital assets, such as first-generation professionals. Also, whatever personal pinch they may feel in the form of higher taxes is more than made up for by all the power they derive by pandering to special interests and administering expensive and bureaucratic programs.

You sound like a typical Republican. Are you basing your opinions on the kool aid dished out on FOX News? All of the democrats that I know who are weathly worked hard to get their money and are more than willing to pay higher taxes to make sure that we have solid police force, fire department, and other services (NOT entitlements) AND donate their money to charity to help other people less fortunate. It is the Republicans that I know that have worked hard to acheive a level of financial success who want to make sure that we have infrastructure in place but NOT pay any taxes to facility this. Their attitude is (like yours), "I worked hard for my money, I deserve to be protected by the police, have good schools and NOT pay my fair share in taxes for these services." Furthermore, their attitude is, if you aren't doing well financially, that's your problem NOT mine. And if this means you go without food or shelter, that's too bad. Which is exactly how your posts read.

This reveals a lot about a persons character and moral positions.

Votes to "nosethumb" instead of based on issues and candidate qualifications.

Gee, I wonder why this country is in such a mess?

What’s with the shouting? I can hear you fine.

The general beef with limo libs is that they’ve gotten theirs, now they want to take from everybody else in order to fund their pet causes. Most of them didn’t actually work for their riches and so have no idea how hard the rest of us worked to get where we are. Their money is protected in trusts and capital investments – usually the taxes they propose fall most heavily on those with high incomes but limited capital assets, such as first-generation professionals. Also, whatever personal pinch they may feel in the form of higher taxes is more than made up for by all the power they derive by pandering to special interests and administering expensive and bureaucratic programs.

Or to make it clearer: I don’t care that Lamont has money. I care that he’s trying to take my money. He could do a lot of good with his own huge fortune, instead he wants to appropriate my own paltry one. You may disagree with my views on him; I wasn’t offering them in order to convince anyone to feel the same way, but simply to explain what might be going through Republican voters’ minds right about now.

And note the "limousine" in the epithet. It’s not about having money; it’s about lifestyle, hypocrisy and opportunism. Look up the NYT article about Lamont’s resignation from his country club. He had no problem being a member of an exclusive (and might I add, incredibly beautiful) club until he began his campaign and realized it would be a liability. So he resigned. But he had to spin his resignation in some way that wouldn’t make it look like an empty move. So he said he had just realized that there weren’t too many minority members and this bothered him (mind you, this club has a six-figure initiation fee and is very difficult to get into). Of course, he didn’t criticize the entire concept of exclusive private clubs, and why would he, as that was where a lot of his financial support was coming from? Does anyone really believe Lamont’s justification for resigning, especially upon reading how carefully worded it was so as not to offend his wealthy friends? If he gets elected Senator, how much do you want to bet that he’ll be invited back to play golf whenever he likes? And if he doesn’t get elected, and he chooses to rejoin the club, how much do you want to bet that he won’t have to go through the cumbersome application process again? I guess the word I’m looking for here is "phony." A wealthy person can be a true, committed liberal, but he can’t turn his ideals on and off like a faucet when it suits him.

In a general way, let me further note that it is not unusual for class, race, or gender "traitors" to draw a disproportionate share of opprobrium from the other side. This is why Scalia may be criticized by the left, but Clarence Thomas is absolutely reviled. Or compare reactions to Michael Savage and Ann Coulter – the former is considered a jerk, the latter Satan incarnate. It is unfortunate that our judgments of people’s politics are informed by external attributes. I’ll take your point and try to be as critical of the well-born low-achieving frat-boy types who happen to be Republicans as those who happen to be Democrats.