It may have turned some heads in Washington. But the Democrats are completely overreaching if they think that an immedeate pullout is what the Country wants. They will regret it in November.

__________________

Liberal-a person who has his cake, eats his cake, and complains that other people don't have cake, and believes that you should donate your cake to them

I realize that not as many people vote during primaries as vote in the November elections, but if the war was the biggest issue, then why the low total. There were 1.6 million who voted in 2004, about between 850-900,000 for the Democrats. Of those 300,000 voters, less that 160,000 voted for Lamont.

You would think that everybody who had the war as the biggest issue would have turned out. With a Lieberman win or a Republican win, they would have a representative in the Senate that would most likely support the administration in the matter of the war. Yet only between 150-160,000 democrats thought it was important enough to actually go vote for someone not supporting the war in Iraq.

They might be able to fastrack it, but I don't know. I would think that the Ex Post Facto law would apply to this primary.

Sorry...had it all wrong...

LEIBERMAN THINKS WE ARE PLAYING A DOUBLE ELIMINATION TOURNAMENT LIKE THE WORLD CUP MATCHES; WIN/TIE/LOSE AND YOU STILL GET IN THE NEXT ROUND.

160,000 thats a suburb in Houston. Must be "The Kiss."

__________________
"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably wind up somewhere else."
- Laurence J. Peter

He got blackballed by his own party WTF???

He should be allowed to run for whoever he wants to as long as he meets the criteria such as enough signitures, etc, that law would be BS in my opinion. They're trying to play catch-up now becuz they know some their party will vote for him, thus, costing the Dems the election. The isn't about whats right, it's about saving their arses. In my opinion, its far too late.

The Dems are pushing away from the majority of voters(moderate) thinking anti-Bush is the way to go but what happens when Bush is gone is a year or so? First, Newt, Guliani, McCain, are still well received by most. Slinging mud at these folks won't stick. Good Riddence.

The proposed law seems like they are trying to turn our Democratic Republic into a Aristocracy, where if you get the backing of the people already in the clup you can join the club, too.

The proposed law is coming from the voters themselves from what I understood, not 'faithful' of the party..

The Dem party is so split in that state because of this I am not sure they know exactly what is going on.

But, it still sounds dangerous. Anytime you limit the number of people you can vote for in a Republic is dangerous.

Because we don't all get to vote on every issue we have to choose people that hold the same values that we do. But, since we only have two parties to really choose from, we have to choose the one that's not going to mess up too badly. This kind of bill only leads to more restricted options for voting. Thus, taking your rights away. I don't think you want that do you?