The moonbats think that activists that represent 21% of registered Dems that voted for Lamont will somehow translate into a majority in November.

News flash, Dems only represent about 33% of the electorate in Connecticut. So Lamont is going to have to get a substantial portion of Independents and Republicans. (Both unlikely)

Once the voters understand that Lamont is nothing but the anti-bush candidate, he will be toast.

With the Republican candidtae polling at 6%, clearly the Republicans will vote for Lieberman in droves.

Its going to be a meltdown for the Democrats by November.

I have been predicting that for some time now - at least 6 months. Joe's situation is evidence that the meltdown is coming and cannot be stopped. Already Reid finds himself torn between the demands of the Kossacks to strip Joe of his committee seats or waiting until the election. Other high-profile donks have fallen suddenly silent or have tried the "Hillary triangulation" of "I'll support whoever wins the primary." But this set of circumstances is being repeated all across the country where the party is torn right down the middle.

The result of that will be a loss of seats in both houses in November. Most think if that happens that there will be a major explosion in the donk party apparatus but I think not. People like Howlin' Howie will call for unity and scream that the Presidential election is "just around the corner" and that "we cannot afford to change things now." So they will continue on until they once again lose the big one in 2008. Then heads will roll. I cannot predict what will happen but one of two things will:

Either the far-left will leave the party - creating some new "Peace" party which, based on history, will fail miserably, or the moderates will banish the far left to insignificant roles in the party "for the good of the party." This will be a wet-blanket on the most enthusiastic members of donkdom and they will end up like the Jews in Biblical times, wander lost in the desert. Only with a new generation of members with maybe some common sense and the advantage of lessons learned will the party be able to rise again and acquire power. If none of this happens, the party will go the way of the Bull Moose party, which was called ironically "The Progressive Party." After a great split in the Republican party between Taft and Teddy Roosevelt, Roosevelt formed the party to oppose Taft. The infighting ended up with a Democrat getting elected, Woodrow Wilson, and the Bull Moose party (the progressives) never recovered from the rift. Roosevelt's schism allowed the conservatives to gain control of the Republican party and left Roosevelt and his followers drifting in the wilderness for decades. Donks...its coming. Be afraid, be very afraid.

One thing that may also be a sign of the times is the fast that in August 2005, Cindy Sheehan was able to get over 10,000 protesters to show up in Crawford for her "ditch-in" protest. This year, the number is about 150 people. Pathetic.

"is the fast that" is supposed to be is the fact that...

Rev,

Close enough - main thing: you're right...this supposed surge of anti-war sentiment is showing up everywhere except, you know, the real world...if there was a wave of desire to scuttle Iraq, then we'd have millions in the streets of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc demonstrating for just such a thing...

Its fun to watch the leadership of the Donks trying to placate the Kos Kontingent while hedging their bets with Lieberman by not stripping him of his committee seats. But then hypocracy has always been a strength of the donks.

If the Donks fall on their face and don't gain seats or worse...loose seats in Novemeber...Hitlary may be in the cat bird seat for the nomination for the 2008 nomination.

Here's a story about a former Democrat (former as of when the party ousted Lieberman) and a phone call he got from the party asking for a donation. The reaction of the phone solicitor speaks volumes:

I just got a phone call from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, asking for a donation. When I tried to calmly and politely explain that I’m no longer associating myself with the Democrats because they “don’t consider Joe Lieberman a Democrat anymore,” the caller interrupted me and said, “Well, that’s true. He’s not a Democrat...

...I said, “but I’m not interested in donating any money to the party.” And then, just as I was in the process of suggesting that he take my name off the DCCC’s list, so as to avoid wasting either of our time in the future, the caller — without saying a word — simply hung up on me.

I wonder how many times a day that has been happening recently?

Wife and I have sent a modest amount of money to Joe for his re-election, 1st time since 1980 that we have contributed to a Democrat at any level of government.

ah...

I guess the record is still intact as Joe is no longer a Democrat, just like the wife and I.

I signed up for email alerts from Joe Lieberman's website today, and look forward to making several donations to his campaign. We need more politicians like him.

I have to say I'm having a little trouble with the "Republicans for Lieberman" concept. On virtually every issue the guy is somewhere to the left of Hillary Clinton. And you want to vote for him? And isn't it kind of ironic that the GOP is turning its back on their own candidate, Schlesinger, in favor of Lieberman? And this is somehow taken as an indication that the Dem party is melting down?

I don't get it.

And what about Sen. Lincoln Chafee, the GOP incumbent in neighboring Rhode Island -- who is in favor of pulling troops out of Iraq? He's also pro-abortion rights, pro-gay marriage, he voted against the Bush tax cuts, against the war in Iraq, against Supreme Court Justice Alito's nomination and didn't vote for Bush himself in the 2004 election (he cast his vote for Bush's dad). He's in a primary contest against
Stephen Laffey, a pro-war candidate and one who is generally much more conservative than Chafee. The last I heard, Chafee and Laffey are running neck and neck. The problem is, if Laffey wins he will almost surely lose against the Dem candidate Sheldon Whitehouse in the general election. In fact, Chafee himself is running behind Whitehouse. So who would you vote for? Either way, would that be an indication that the GOP is melting down? Interesting question, isn't it?

Interesting question, isn't it?

Not really. Is the Republican party (especially the radical right) after Chafee? If they are, I have not heard it. The party has not thrown him under the bus like the donks did with Lieberman. And Chafee is no Lieberman. Chafee has exactly zero chance of ever being the Republican candidate for VP.

The meltdown in the Democrat party signaled by the demonification of Lieberman is real and will only get worse. Some, who have zero integrity like Kerry, have already reversed their positions on the war (at least once). The party is split on that one issue and it has become a litmus test for those in donkdom who want support from the party of the jackass.

Chafee, who I wish would go away - and take Snowe and Collins with him, has no lynch party on his heels. And since my vote in Missouri has no effect on him, my opinion matters little to him.

So I don't see the similarity. Chafee is guilty of all the things you cited which are all counter to what I think a Republican should be, but if he wins his primary, the party will likely support him. Lieberman was not only defeated by the radical leftists in the party, but centrists now are urging him not to run as an Independent. They truly are like sharks with blood in the water.

To add to what the Rev said...the Republican in Ct. has ZERO chance of winning. I don't support Lieberman on issues other than the war. But given the choice between Lieberman, Lamont, and a republican polling at 6%, most same republicans will vote for Lieberman...even if they have to hold their collective noses.

At worst, Lieberman is no more left than Chafee, and on the plus side he supports the President on the war.

Can you spell RINO???

Scaramonga: "Is the Republican party (especially the radical right) after Chafee? If they are, I have not heard it."

Perhaps that says more about your own tin ear, as well as the true power of the MSM (or lack thereof), than anything else. Let me spell it out for you: L.A.F.F.E.Y. You're a principled sort, and heavy into ideology and the principles defined by such alone. If you want Chafee to go away, here's your best chance for at least the next six years -- put your money is where your mouth is. What's wrong with Laffey? For that matter, what's wrong with Schlesinger? Can you answer either question anywhere near intelligently?

Is it all about potential VP candidates? In which case, what if the CT GOP comes up with a viable candidate other than Schelsinger? Would you vote for him? Would you vote for him even knowing that if you did you would essentially guarantee Lamont's election? Where are your principles, exactly? While you consider it, keep in mind that you have adamantly favored a continuously constricting GOP tent.

"The party is split on that one issue and it has become a litmus test for those in donkdom who want support from the party of the jackass."

Can you name any other Dem candidate where that "one issue" is the predominant litmus test? For that matter, can you name any other GOP candidate where that same "one issue" is the predominant litmus test? The fact is, there are precious few candidates who differ on primarily only one issue, and even less so who differ on the war issue. But there are a few. And I'm guessing I know more about them than you do. But I have to warn you... this is not a winning issue. Don't spin this election on the basis of the Iraq war alone. Let it be local. Blind optimism on a national level is going to kill us. Rove is wrong on this one. I feel it in my bones. Let it be local. It worked for Bilbray (against some rather amazing odds, I must say). That's the real litmus test. More imporantly than that, that's all we got.

What's wrong with Laffey? For that matter, what's wrong with Schlesinger? Can you answer either question anywhere near intelligently?

Don't know much about either of them. But what does that matter? Last I checked, I can vote for Jim Talent in the next election. That's my choice. I know enough about Chafee to know if he were running here in Missouri I wouldn't vote for him. I don't give money to ANY candidates so why would I give any of these people any? And somebody, not sure who, once said, "Let it be local." Chafee is from one of those New England states that are about the size of one of our counties and he sure ain't local. If they want him, they can have him.

And I am mot making this a "one issue" thing. Any candidate that I vote for will be supportive of the war on terror, that's for sure. But if they were pro-abortion, they'd lose my vote no matter what their stance might be on the war. My candidates have to be against abortion, against homosexual marriage, for supporting the war, against higher taxes, for cutting spending, for cracking down on illegal aliens and there are other things I want them to support as well. All I said is Lieberman lost his primary on that one issue - the war and his support for it.

Since you think me unable to offer an intelligent response and have decided I must have a tin ear, I suspect that continuing to discuss things with you has turned into a waste of both of our times. Plus, as you so humbly put it, you probably know more than me. So with that, I see no reason why you'd want to discuss things with me any further. The feelings are now mutual.

Scaramonga, I'm sorry if I offended you. But the Rhode Island primary is Sept. 12. If you haven't heard about Chafee yet, chances are very good you will hear about him soon -- and for reasons very similar to those for which we are hearing about Lieberman now. That's what I meant. And I also meant that I do pay attention to the polls more than most - more than anyone else I know anyway. Chafee's in a tough bind -- one very similar to (though a mirror opposite of) the one Lieberman is in in the sense that IF Chafee loses the GOP primary (and right now it's a slightly more than even bet that he will lose, just like Lieberman), he is still the stronger candidate to go against the Dem nominee (just like Lieberman). The difference is, the Dem nominee in RI (Whitehouse) is a much stronger candidate than the current GOP nominee in CT (Schlesinger). That's the only difference. And looked at from that perspective (the local perspective, in other words) the notion that either Lieberman's or Chafee's defeat spells some kind of doom to their respective parties is more than a wee bit ludicrous. It's all local.

Getting back to CT, here's the problem with Schlesinger: he has gambling problems. Not only was he sued a few years ago for non-payment of debt by a casino, but he was caught more recently (that is, within the last month or so) for gambling under an assumed name. That's why his poll numbers are atrocious. But there's another guy, by the name of Jack Orchuli, a well-connected multi millionaire who ran statewide (and lost against Senator Chris Dodd) in 2004, and who has reported himself as "available" for replacing Alan Schlesinger as the GOP nominee for Lieberman's seat. He's a viable, honest to goodness, GOP candidate. The problem is, he can't win the general election (rather like Laffey in RI). All he can really do is ensure that Lieberman loses if he gets in the race. That's the dilemma. Lieberman knows that, Lamont knows that, everyone in the state knows that. Up to now though, the MSM hasn't picked up on it to any great degree. So let's keep it just between you and me, okay?

As far as other "one trick ponies" go, there are a number of them -- but mostly in the House races. In terms of anti-war candidates, the Dems have more than 40 first time (politically speaking) military verterans running for various congressional seats compared with, um... two(?) GOPers. That statistic alone is pretty darned weird, don't you think? Needless to say, all of the Dem candidates are against the Iraq war. But very few of them are likely to be successful because, well... there are a couple of predominant reasons. First, they're one trick ponies -- they have little else to offer except for the fact that they've been in the military and are against the war. Second, most of them are running against entrenched incumbents. But there are a handful who stand a chance -- but mostly because they're actually reasonable candidates apart from (or in addition to) their military bonafides.

In addition to the anti-war candidates there is an additional handfull of one trick ponies that are banking on making hay off of the various corruption scandals currently plaguing Washington. Realistically, I figure the corruption scandals alone could net the Dems maybe eight seats in the House. I also figure they may pick up five more for other reasons. That puts them perilously close. On the Senate side I figure Jefford's indie seat is going Dem, as is Chafee's, Burns's and Santorum's. Menendez may fall in NJ, but then again things are pretty tight for your boy Talent there in MO and DeWine in OH. Even Frist's TN seat is still in play. Then again, so is Cantwell's in WA.