ZOOM

What puzzles me is why the issue of keeping America safe is constantly equated with the War in Iraq? Democrats in Connecticut took umbrage with Lieberman over his support of the Iraq policy. Many of them obviously do not believe that U.S. actions in Iraq are effective in the “War on Terrorism” or make the U.S. any safer.

Perhaps it is for those reasons they no longer endorse Lieberman? He is supposed to represent his constituents, not his own views. The U.S. is a Republic, meaning elected officials are charged to represent the electorate.

Why are you surprised the Democrats would protect their own interests over one party member, especially one that is talking about switching parties to run against them? Isn’t this exactly what the Republicans did when encouraging Trent Lott to step down as majority leader, and Tom DeLay, who also dropped out of the Senate.

Seems common sense to me that if a candidate from either party was going to switch parties to run against them, and possibly cost them an election, they would not want that person to run. It is not a party’s job to protect or support one member over the interests of the entire party. Am I missing something?

What puzzles me is why anyone would think that the Democratic party should do what's best for one person rather than pay attention to what the voters say. Lieberman is not entitled to his Senate seat just because he has held it for years. If that were the case, we wouldn't have elections at all. What I find most interesting in this case is that Lieberman seems more concerned with himself than with Democratic party presence in the Senate. Now that the Republicans in Connecticut (and elsewhere) are throwing their support to Lieberman at the expense of their own candidate, one has to wonder what they will expect from Lieberman in return if he should retain his seat.

That electorate also includes Republicans and indenpedants. While Democrats are free to not to re-nominate him, the rest of the state should have the chance to re-elect him if they choose as an independant. To some extent what you say about representing the voter is true, but they are also elected based on their personal views they espouse during the campaign - whether it be taxes, war or whatever. Is this to say an anti-war congressman should support the war in a pro-war district? Or can he take a prinicipled stand against war?

They dumped Lott because Democrats accused him of racism because of a comment about an old collegue and DeLay -- who was dropped from the House -- because of legal issues. And Joe isn't leaving the Democrats for good. When he wins, he plans on re-registering as a Democrat.

Supporting Lamont is a natural position to take. But to attempt to pressure or demand Lieberman to leave the race is a bit much. Lieberman told everyone all along he'd run as an indy and voters had to decide whether electing Lamont was worth that gamble.

They decided it was and now they may see Lieberman re-elected. On the brighy side, the Democrats can't lose the seat no matter the result.