A harbinger...

Will the Republicans in the White House embrace Lieberman and make him a de facto GOP candidate? Lieberman not supporting the winner of the primary pretty much finishes him with the Democrats, and I can see it now - if he loses, Bush appoints him to a position and Lieberman becomes a professional victim of the bad old liberals - the book, the television appearances, the whole bit.

The Nixon White House in 1970, in effect, sandbagged Charles Goddell, father of the new NFL Commissioner and a Republican senator who was appointed after Robert F. Kennedy was killed and was the Republican candidate. The ripped Goddell and manaaged to get James Buckley, running on the Conservative Party line, elected (Moynhan defeated Buckley in 1976).

Lieberman didn't do himself any favors because he didn't give up his Senate seat when he ran for vice-president, and he ran for President in 2004 - all that lmakes it seem he is too big and important for Connecticut.

This election is the first real referendum on the Iraq war in 2006. It came out against this war. In 2004, Bush won only 51 percent of the vote - that's not an overwhelming support for the war and now it is two years later, more lives lost, more money spent, and more sliding toward civil war.

We've debated the Iraq war on the board a lot, but I'll just add this story - when I was finishing my degree in Finance in 1984, I had to take a Business Policy class where we had to do an analysis of a business, in my case a packaging firm. Me and my partner were the first ones to go, figuring we could get it out of the way early. We got a B for the report. The one thing the professor criticized our report was when I said the company should continue doing something because they had invested money in a machine and we said, in effect, the company shouldn't cut and run. The professor said never to spend more money because of that - that was one of the worst things you could do.

My professor was right. So is Ned Lamont.

 

TigerVols had a great post on here several months back saying that Tennessee would've gone for Gore in 2000 had Lieberman not been on the ticket. TigerVols says the state he grew up in and knows very well would not accept a Jewish person on the ticket. Don't know how accurate that is, but TigerVols' post was convincing.

 

I daresay Gore lost Tennessee because Gore and the Democratic base in West and Central Tenn. took it for granted while East Tenn. got cranking for Bush. Not to mention the Clinton shadow/not letting Clinton campaign (whichever side you take on this issue) was a factor in a bunch of swing states. I really don't think there was a large anti-Semitic swing vote.

 

Probably expected, but Lieberman sacks his entire staff...

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/09/ct_sen_lieberman_fires_staff