Posted on 08/29/2006 6:58:32 PM PDT by ncountylee
WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye said Tuesday he is supporting Ned Lamont over Sen. Joe Lieberman because of the Connecticut lawmaker's contention that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for mainstream America.
Inouye, who campaigned in Connecticut for Lieberman prior to the Aug. 8 primary, issued a statement endorsing Lamont and citing Lieberman's recent criticism of the party. Lamont upset Lieberman in the Democratic primary and the three-term senator is running as an independent in hopes of holding his seat.
"After the primary, Senator Inouye was most disappointed and unhappy when Senator Lieberman remarked that the Democratic Party no longer represented the mainstream of America, and that the Democratic Party had lost its values," the eight-term Hawaii senator said in the statement.
Inouye is the latest prominent Democrat to rally behind Lamont, a political newcomer whose anti-war views helped him topple Lieberman, a staunch supporter of the war.
"Senator Inouye tried his best to help ensure a victory by Senate Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary," the statement said, referring to the earlier campaign appearance. "Unfortunately, that did not happen."
The Lieberman campaign had no immediate comment.
Party officials such as Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who backed Lieberman in the primary, have endorsed Lamont in the three-way race. Republican Alan Schlesinger also is seeking the Senate seat.
The Connecticut race has been cast by many as a referendum on President Bush's Iraq war policies. Lieberman has been a strong supporter of the Iraq war, winning praise and endorsements from Republicans.
The plantation masters have spoken.
Sniff... They got to him... Resistance is futile...
In No Way is such as loser.
Think any of the libs will see what is happening?
victory is a very sweet thing. when Lieberman wins, what are they going to say? "Connecticut is filled with radical bible thumpers"? Or "we didn't get our message out?"
tsk tsk, liberals, you reap what you sow....
Message should be clear to all Dem candidates across the country: run hard to the Left or your party won't support you.
My guess is that since none of the Democrats feel obligated to be consistent in any way, Lieberman and the other Democrats will get along like none of those words ever happened.
No honor among thieves.
The people of Connecticut should elect their own Senator without any interference from anybody outside Connecticut.
And that goes for Hawaii, and Massachusetts, and every other state.
Keep repeating this often. Hopefully, the Democrat candidates will buy it.
Et tu Danny Boy?
They'll say that the electronic voting machines mistook Lieberman for a Republican and switched all the Lamont votes to him. I have this on good authority from Cynthia McKinney. Because we all know that no matter how lopsided the outcome, no Democrat ever really loses an election.
Dam Uanoyme (D-HI) is one of those rare liberals in the mold of Kennedy, Schumer, Reid and well just about any other left wing nut job.
Hawaii should be a territory.
Wouldn't it be funny as hell if Lieberman wins, and then resigned from the Dems and became a Republican? (The political mess and distrust aside, Reid, Inouye, Clinton, Kerry et al would be apoplectic!)
AP Photo/Jessica Hill
and this is the insanity of the left. So if they do manage to win a election, what then? According to the wackies the voting is rigged so if they win what then?
If they win, then "the people have spoken!" No matter how much voter fraud and other chicanery it required to help "the people" overcome their laryngitis.
Regardless of how this comes out we win. Watching the left fall apart is priceless.
Ditto :
"Regardless of how this comes out we win.
Watching the left fall apart is priceless."
It means they think they "really" won by a landslide, instead of the by skimpy margin they barely managed to steal.
A "One Armed Bandit"...
How nice that the WW2 hero from Hawaii is now supporting a red diaper baby Marxist millionaire over Joe Lieberman.
The disease that is the Democratic Party must go the way of the Whigs.
It 's more like the Mafia with every passing day.
Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
Inouye may want Lieberman back, he may find himself in a similar situation after September 19th
Inoue (?) won't vote for Joe? Gee, that's tough. I didn't even know he was registered in Conn.
The real story here, the one that the AP fails to mention, is that Inouye originally supported Lieberman, but the rules of the Hawaii Dem party forbid members from supporting opponents of officially sanctioned Dem candidates.
I'll see if I can find the details of this rule...
Why should any Dem elected official support someone other than the nominee of their own party? I would expect Reps to do exactly the same thing. Lamont won the Dem primary and is the party nominee for the Senate. At the very least, Lamont should expect the Dem Party to support him.
Here it is:
http://blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/index.php?blog=10&title=inouye_reverses_course_on_lieberman
"Inouye drew criticism in the local Democratic Party when he said he would continue backing Lieberman even after he lost the Aug. 15 Democratic primary in Connecticut to Ned Lamont.
Party rules require loyalty to the Democratic nominee, and several Hawai'i Democrats have faced disciplinary action in the past for backing third-party candidates over the party's choice."
Because we spent 46 years in a cold war against everything Ned Lamont was raised to revere.
And the Senator from Hawaii was a hawk in that war in the 50s and 60s.
A man of advanced age like him should be able to spot a Marxist a mile away.
Now, since the Dems have no principles, and they desperately want Vietnam II, a replay of their success of the cut and run that was Vietnam I in 1974-75, they are throwing a stalwart of their party overboard to gain another opponent of Bush's war.
The detriment to the country, or to Iraq, or to the Middle East, be damned.
Hell, they didn't care one wit that their gutless cut and run thrity years ago resulted in the slaughter of three million human beings in Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam.
Why should they care now?
Frankly, I could give a damn to what happens to Lieberman. He is a liberal through and through. He has voted with the Dems 90% of the time; he has called for Rumsfeld's resignation; he voted against the confirmation of Alito; he voted not to impeach Clinton; and I could go on and on with this member of the gang of 14. I don't understand this silly concern about and sympathy for Lieberman. It is misplaced.
Ditto to all that you say about Lieberman. This fraud who set himself up as a moral man but who is actually a craven politician, thoroughly deserves his present situation.
My comments relate to the other Dems who have sold their soul out for the new leftist party over their country, even stalwarts of previous eras such as the senator from Hawaii.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.