D-Day for Joe Lieberman

[Dutch Nick]

What's his background?
(Hmmmm. I see Joe is another avid supporter of the Iraq War, but opted not to wear the uniform himself... ala Dick Cheney)

Joe Lieberman
Name: Joseph I. Lieberman
Party: Democrat
Birthdate: Feb. 24, 1942
Age on Inauguration Day 2001: 58
Hometown: Born in Stamford, Conn.; resides in New Haven, Conn.
Family: He and wife, Hadassah, have had one daughter together; he has son and daughter from previous marriage; she has son from previous marriage.
Education: Yale College (1964), Yale Law School (1967)
Experience: Connecticut state senator, 1970-80; state attorney general, 1983-88; U.S. Senate 1988 to present.


What's his views on 'gun control'?

Backed mandatory child safety locks. Backed five-day waiting period for handgun purchases and ban on semiautomatic assault-type weapons


How can a liberal like this be more popular with Republicans than he is with Democrats?

Poll: More Republicans like Lieberman than Democrats

US Senator Joe Liberman (D-CT), facing the greatest challenge of his Senate career, is preferred by more Republicans than Democrats, a USA Today/Gallup Poll has found.

The national poll, conducted last Friday, Saturday and Sunday, shows Lieberman's support among Democrats declining, from 65% in 2000 to 38% last week. During the same period, support for Lieberman among Republicans grew by 3%, from 43% to 46%.

[billdeserthills]

Lieberman? sounds Jewish? Why would any self respecting jewish person back gun control? Maybe he forgot about the Holocaust.

[Boogyman]

This is much more about the Iraq war than it is gun control. I see Lieberman's campaign is already calling foul for supposed "hacking" of their website by Lamont's people.
I'm following it on TV. Whatever happens, I think it's great political drama. There's a strong turnout and every vote counts. Democracy in action, folks! ;)

[Holliday]

What's his background?
(Hmmmm. I see Joe is another avid supporter of the Iraq War, but opted not to wear the uniform himself... ala Dick Cheney)

Joe Lieberman
Name: Joseph I. Lieberman
Party: Democrat
Birthdate: Feb. 24, 1942
Age on Inauguration Day 2001: 58
Hometown: Born in Stamford, Conn.; resides in New Haven, Conn.
Family: He and wife, Hadassah, have had one daughter together; he has son and daughter from previous marriage; she has son from previous marriage.
Education: Yale College (1964), Yale Law School (1967)
Experience: Connecticut state senator, 1970-80; state attorney general, 1983-88; U.S. Senate 1988 to present.


What's his views on 'gun control'?

Backed mandatory child safety locks. Backed five-day waiting period for handgun purchases and ban on semiautomatic assault-type weapons


How can a liberal like this be more popular with Republicans than he is with Democrats?

Poll: More Republicans like Lieberman than Democrats

US Senator Joe Liberman (D-CT), facing the greatest challenge of his Senate career, is preferred by more Republicans than Democrats, a USA Today/Gallup Poll has found.

The national poll, conducted last Friday, Saturday and Sunday, shows Lieberman's support among Democrats declining, from 65% in 2000 to 38% last week. During the same period, support for Lieberman among Republicans grew by 3%, from 43% to 46%.

i am glad he has courage to speak out even if what he is saying is unpopular with his political party. I wouldn't vote for him, on gun control he is like any other liberal dem.

[Boogyman]

Well, looks like Lieberman screwed the pooch, kissing up to Bush like he did. (literally!)

Lamont wins by 4 points.

Maybe now more Democrats will grow some 'nads and get unified.

Could be trouble for them though, especially if Sore Loser Lieberman decides to run as an independent this November. That would likely split their vote and end up with a Republican senator.

This definitely sends a strong message on how Americans feel about the Iraq war.

[Dutch Nick]

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 5, 2006;

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Mark Kennedy (Minn.) and Sen. James M. Talent (Mo.) are known as loyal Republican soldiers, reliable votes for President Bush on tax cuts and the Iraq war. In elections past, they have aired advertisements featuring the president and have stumped with him at public rallies.

This year, both are running for Senate seats, but their television ads have made no mention of Bush -- and have been conspicuous in distancing the candidates from their partisan affiliation. "Most people don't care if you're red or blue, Republican or Democrat," Talent's ad states. A recent ad from Kennedy says, "He doesn't do what the party says to."


For months, political analysts have waited to see how GOP candidates would navigate the challenge of running in the face of what polls show are dismal approval ratings for Bush and the Republican-led Congress. The ads give an answer: Endangered candidates are presenting themselves as independent-minded problem solvers who are not part of Washington's partisan wars.

Even Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, who heads the National Republican Congressional Committee, has run TV ads in his Buffalo area district that do not identify his party affiliation.

These Republicans have hardly broken with Bush. Talent and Kennedy, after all, have invited him into their states this year to help raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for their campaigns. But their tactics are representative of the diverse ways, large and small, that Republican candidates are trying to put distance between themselves and the president and his most unpopular policies.

Last week, Maryland GOP Senate candidate Michael S. Steele caused a tempest with his comments knocking Bush for the Iraq war and the administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina.

[Dutch Nick]

"Just cause I lost fair and square ain't gonna stop Me!"

[Dutch Nick]

Boy... Lieberman sure reminds me of a TV star....... Howdy Doody.

[Boogyman]

Ronald Reagan used to remind me of Howdy Doody. Now they call him "the last great conservative... HA! :lol:

Lieberman needs to go back to school and learn how to make an honest living...

[freesw]

Lieberman needs to go back to school and learn how to make an honest living...

Hehehe, you mean like shilling for corporations on TV?

Oh wait, you said "honest."

That's asking a lot, no wonder Lieberman's so determined to hold onto his seat.

[Dutch Nick]

Screw the voters!

[josh]

liebermans loss is a huge victory for the republicans if they have the brains to run a good candidate against him.

[ice-nine]

U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a three-term Democrat now running as an independent candidate, leads the man who beat him in last week's primary vote by 12 points in a three-way race, a poll released on Thursday shows.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-08-17T124021Z_01_N17245231_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONNECTICUT-LIEBERMAN.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-politicsNews-2

[Boogyman]

Yeah, you know why?

The Republicans like him way better than their own candidate! :lol:

Even the Whitehouse refused to endorse the Republican candidate! :lol:

Lieberman is in bed with Bush, that's why he lost the Democratic primary. Duh!

Ice-Nine, you're really gonna hate it when the Democrats take back the Congress, Senate, or BOTH this November...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[josh]

!

Ice-Nine, you're really gonna hate it when the Democrats take back the Congress, Senate, or BOTH this November...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I wouldnt laugh. You have stated you are opposed to the Bush administration and a republican congress stealing our liberty and defocating on the constitution. As left as you are I doubt you are going to enjoy the trampling of our rights that the dems have promised to escalate.

Or maybe im misjudging you . Maybe you will readily embrace those who shred the constitution as long as it is not GW. Many others will.

Either way the American people as a whole will get screwed with either a republican or a democrat controlled congress.
If the sheeple ever wake up maybe a libertarian or constitutionalist will have a chance.

[Boogyman]

I wouldnt laugh.
I'm laughing at Ice-Nine. It's funny that a neo-con would actually be crowing about a Democrat leading a Republican in the polls. :lol:
You have stated you are opposed to the Bush administration and a republican congress stealing our liberty and defocating on the constitution.
I'm opposed to any one party having control over the Whitehouse, Congress and Senate, and picking the Supreme Court with impunity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Bush administration are radical neo-cons, not true Republicans.
Either way the American people as a whole will get screwed with either a republican or a democrat controlled congress.

Unlike you, I still have hope. I believe in the system of checks and balances our Founders intended. I wouldn't want to see the Democrats in total control either. But as long as we have a Republican Whitehouse, we need the Democrats in the majority in the House and/or Senate to balance power.

And please don't bother with the tired old argument that nothing will get done that way. Nothing is getting done now! :lol:

[josh]

And please don't bother with the tired old argument that nothing will get done that way. Nothing is getting done now! :lol:

You wont ever get that arguement from me. Our congress passes far to many laws. Most of them are just ways to either spend the taxpayers hard earned money or support campaign donors. As of late the only thing we have asked congress to do(stop ilegal immigration) has been refused.
And you are correct. I have no more faith in the system of checks and balances.It seems to me both parties are concerned with themselves and not the betterment of our nation. It is time to start over.
But you know what opinions are like.

[ice-nine]

Yeah, you know why?

The Republicans like him way better than their own candidate! :lol:

Even the Whitehouse refused to endorse the Republican candidate! :lol:

Lieberman is in bed with Bush, that's why he lost the Democratic primary. Duh!

Ice-Nine, you're really gonna hate it when the Democrats take back the Congress, Senate, or BOTH this November...

:lol: :lol: :lol:




Main Entry: pro·jec·tion
Pronunciation: pr&-'jek-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : a systematic presentation of intersecting coordinate lines on a flat surface upon which features from a curved surface (as of the earth or the celestial sphere) may be mapped <an equal-area map projection> b : the process or technique of reproducing a spatial object upon a plane or curved surface or a line by projecting (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/projecting) its points; also : a graph or figure so formed
2 : a transforming change
3 : the act of throwing or thrusting forward
4 : the forming of a plan : SCHEMING (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/scheming)
5 a (1) : a jutting out (2) : a part that juts out b : a view of a building or architectural element
6 a : the act of perceiving a mental object as spatially and sensibly objective; also : something so perceived b : the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety
7 : the display of motion pictures by projecting (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/projecting) an image from them upon a screen
8 a : the act of projecting (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/projecting) especially to an audience b : control of the volume, clarity, and distinctness of a voice to gain greater audibility
9 : an estimate of future possibilities based on a current trend

[freesw]

There you go again with your inexplicable non-sequitors, ice-nine:D

First, it's the Sudetenland, now Projection, what will you think of next?

[Boogyman]

I think it's his attempt at looking like an intellectual. What we would normally call "psuedo-intellectualism"....

Oops! There I go "projecting" again! :lol:

I sorta feel for the guy... he doesn't look very happy in that avatar pic, y'know?

Dang! There I go "assuming" that's really him in the pic! :lol:

Just kidding, Ice-nine.... don't get your panties in a bunch! :rolleyes:

Tell ya what, Ice, would it cheer ya up any if I shot myself in the head? :blink: All that guilt and anxiety, y'know?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[freesw]

Ice never did explain his "Sudedenland" reference (and that's all it was, no explanation whatsoever of why it was there), so there's no reason to expect he'll explain why a straightforward remark like "Ice-Nine, you're really gonna hate it when the Democrats take back the Congress, Senate, or BOTH this November..." is actually "the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety"

Hehehe.

[plinky]

This thread is hilarious!:lol: Keep it comin` fellas...:D

[ice-nine]

There you go again with your inexplicable non-sequitors, ice-nine:D

First, it's the Sudetenland, now Projection, what will you think of next?



Gosh, where to start;

The context of my Sudetenland reference was the current situation in Lebanon, and Boogey’s treatise on pacifism.

Was not Israel’s 2000 pull out of Lebanon was an attempt to make peace with Syria? Land for peace.
Doesn’t seem to be working …

Hmmmm has that ever been tried before? Land for peace?

In 1938, Czechoslovakia let go of the Sudetenland to Germany, and it bought them 5 full months of peace! What a bargain!

I guess Israel got a real deal with the 5 years it got.

I see now how Israel relinquishing land for short term peace has no correlation to the Czech relinquishment land for short term peace.

My bad.


http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/showpost.php?p=392354&postcount=39 (http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/showpost.php?p=392354&postcount=39)

[Boogyman]

Gosh, where to start;

The context of my Sudetenland reference was the current situation in Lebanon, and Boogey’s treatise on pacifism.

Was not Israel’s 2000 pull out of Lebanon was an attempt to make peace with Syria? Land for peace.
Doesn’t seem to be working …

Hmmmm has that ever been tried before? Land for peace?

In 1938, Czechoslovakia let go of the Sudetenland to Germany, and it bought them 5 full months of peace! What a bargain!

I guess Israel got a real deal with the 5 years it got.

I see now how Israel relinquishing land for short term peace has no correlation to the Czech relinquishment land for short term peace.

My bad

Wow, so you really can write your own thoughts down, instead of all these obscure references! :o

So excuse me while I "project"...

You are against peace? Or negotiation?

Or you believe that war is the only possible solution to idealogical or religious conflict?

Or do you think more sarcasm will solve the problem? :rolleyes:

By the way, I'm not a pacifist, nor was my "treatise" promoting pacifism, just diplomacy.

You really shouldn't "project" like that, y'know? <_<

:lol:

[Hoodoo]

Liberman's great sin was that he was not liberal enough. The current feeding frenzy has occurred because he had an ultra liberal opponent and the Democrats saw the opportunity to ditch him and get someone who would strictly follow the Party line. He has committed the ultimate sin of making up his own mind.

[freesw]

Liberman's great sin was that he was not liberal enough. The current feeding frenzy has occurred because he had an ultra liberal opponent and the Democrats saw the opportunity to ditch him and get someone who would strictly follow the Party line. He has committed the ultimate sin of making up his own mind.

Gee, and all this time we thought it was that he has been too much in lockstep with the Bush administration's Iraq bungle. Now we find out that Democrats voted him out for a more esoteric reason.:D

[ice-nine]

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27267890.shtml

[freesw]

Re: Sudetenland - I simply don't see how the analogy is valid.

The following are being compared:
Czechoslovakia and Israel
South Lebanon and the Sudetenland
1938 and 2000
right?

The Sudetenland was universally recognized - except by the Nazis - as part of Czechoslovakia prior to 1938. On the other hand, Israel has never claimed that South Lebanon is part of Israel; the occupation was always intended as a temporary expedient, so there was no relenquishing of what was rightfully Israel's to begin with, as was the case with Czechoslovakia relenquishing the Sudetenland.

The situations are so different that a comparison is of little or no use in drawing conclusions, making predictions, or analyzing the motives and intentions of the involved parties.

[ice-nine]

Re: Sudetenland - I simply don't see how the analogy is valid.

The following are being compared:
Czechoslovakia and Israel
South Lebanon and the Sudetenland
1938 and 2000
right?

The Sudetenland was universally recognized - except by the Nazis - as part of Czechoslovakia prior to 1938. On the other hand, Israel has never claimed that South Lebanon is part of Israel; the occupation was always intended as a temporary expedient, so there was no relenquishing of what was rightfully Israel's to begin with, as was the case with Czechoslovakia relenquishing the Sudetenland.

The situations are so different that a comparison is of little or no use in drawing conclusions, making predictions, or analyzing the motives and intentions of the involved parties.



So no land would have to be relinquished by Israel for there to be a lasting peace in the Middle East?

[freesw]

So no land would have to be relinquished by Israel for there to be a lasting peace in the Middle East?

Actually, I didn't imply that, simply that the Sudetenland analogy is of little use. Clearly, Israel can't negotiate with the many that will settle for nothing short of the demise of the Israeli state. It is my belief that Ariel Sharon, a much wiser man in his later years, intended with the relenquishing of the Gaza Strip, to demonstrate with that substantial action that Israel is very serious about being willing to come to some terms satisfactory to a large percentage of the Palestinian population. In doing this he intended to strengthen the hand of Palestinian moderates, those not unwilling to settle for nothing short of the destruction of Israel, but who are willing to work towards a solution that, though it may not be ideal, permits the Palestinian people to live in peace, govern themselves, and have a geographically viable state of their own. I also believe he wanted to see how the Palestians responded to that concession, and regrettably the response was not on the whole a positive one. Obviously there has been more violence, and they have mismanaged the situaion in Gaza after the Israelis left. Unfortunately, as it now stands, Palestinian society does not seem to have any organizing principle aside from Intafada. Whether this is due to behind the scenes Israeli activities designed to destabilize Palestinian society and government is an open question, however.

The West Bank is the other major land concession that Israel continues to hold as a bargaining chip, and it is of more importance than Gaza. I don't envision Israel being willing to enter into negotiations about it for some time to come, however, after witnessing the aftermath of giving up Gaza. Eventually, though, yes, the West Bank will have to be part of a Palestinian state for there to be lasting peace in the middle east, to answer your question. The difference between Gaza/West Bank and the Sudetenland, however, in terms of your analogy (which wasn't about them, but would have been somewhat more valid had it been), is that the Palestians have a very real historic claim to those regions, and, in fact, to territory in Israel that will never be negotiated. It is false to claim otherwise. Israel's claim to its primary holdings are perhaps more valid today, because they have now held it for 60 years, but the fact that they seized it at a time when many still alive can remember just goes to show how tenuous that claim is. That is why it is of critical importance that Israel negotiate in good faith - and I think for the most part, they have.

Will many Palestinians and Arabs never be satisfied, and will land concessions merely embolden them? Yes, and Israel knows that, which is why we won't see them turning over the West Bank any time soon. But it will have to remain on the table, if there is ever to be even any hope of real peace in the middle east. (And BTW, the fact that there are so many extremist "Christians" running around making the absurd and blasphemous claim that God does not will peace in the middle east isn't helping matters, considering that many of them influence US foreign policy. Remember, God wills for those of us who believe to pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)

[ice-nine]

Actually, I didn't imply that, simply that the Sudetenland analogy is of little use. Clearly, Israel can't negotiate with the many that will settle for nothing short of the demise of the Israeli state. It is my belief that Ariel Sharon, a much wiser man in his later years, intended with the relenquishing of the Gaza Strip, to demonstrate with that substantial action that Israel is very serious about being willing to come to some terms satisfactory to a large percentage of the Palestinian population. In doing this he intended to strengthen the hand of Palestinian moderates, those not unwilling to settle for nothing short of the destruction of Israel, but who are willing to work towards a solution that, though it may not be ideal, permits the Palestinian people to live in peace, govern themselves, and have a geographically viable state of their own. I also believe he wanted to see how the Palestians responded to that concession, and regrettably the response was not on the whole a positive one. Obviously there has been more violence, and they have mismanaged the situaion in Gaza after the Israelis left. Unfortunately, as it now stands, Palestinian society does not seem to have any organizing principle aside from Intafada. Whether this is due to behind the scenes Israeli activities designed to destabilize Palestinian society and government is an open question, however.

The West Bank is the other major land concession that Israel continues to hold as a bargaining chip, and it is of more importance than Gaza. I don't envision Israel being willing to enter into negotiations about it for some time to come, however, after witnessing the aftermath of giving up Gaza. Eventually, though, yes, the West Bank will have to be part of a Palestinian state for there to be lasting peace in the middle east, to answer your question. The difference between Gaza/West Bank and the Sudetenland, however, in terms of your analogy (which wasn't about them, but would have been somewhat more valid had it been), is that the Palestians have a very real historic claim to those regions, and, in fact, to territory in Israel that will never be negotiated. It is false to claim otherwise. Israel's claim to its primary holdings are perhaps more valid today, because they have now held it for 60 years, but the fact that they seized it at a time when many still alive can remember just goes to show how tenuous that claim is. That is why it is of critical importance that Israel negotiate in good faith - and I think for the most part, they have.

Will many Palestinians and Arabs never be satisfied, and will land concessions merely embolden them? Yes, and Israel knows that, which is why we won't see them turning over the West Bank any time soon. But it will have to remain on the table, if there is ever to be even any hope of real peace in the middle east. (And BTW, the fact that there are so many extremist "Christians" running around making the absurd and blasphemous claim that God does not will peace in the middle east isn't helping matters, considering that many of them influence US foreign policy. Remember, God wills for those of us who believe to pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)



So my comment was Non sequitur for Southern Lebanon or Shebba farms or the Golan Heights, but not for Gaza or the West bank?

[freesw]

So my comment was Non sequitur for Southern Lebanon or Shebba farms or the Golan Heights, but not for Gaza or the West bank?

Both, just more so with the former (didn't I just write that? I could have sworn that's what I just posted...).

Look, I realize typing is a lot of work ;) , but it would have helped if you'd explained why you were bringing up the Sudetenland, and how it is that you thought the situations are comparable. Not all of us are mind readers. Also, without at least some explanation, such pithy references are easily subject to misinterpretation.

[ice-nine]

Both, just more so with the former (didn't I just write that? I could have sworn that's what I just posted...).

Look, I realize typing is a lot of work ;) , but it would have helped if you'd explained why you were bringing up the Sudetenland, and how it is that you thought the situations are comparable. Not all of us are mind readers. Also, without at least some explanation, such pithy references are easily subject to misinterpretation.


So Gaza and the West bank, taken in the six days war,
are different than the Golan Heights that was taken in the six day war?

[freesw]

South Lebanon is. That was the topic, right?

That's alright, you can keep picking nits, and I'll keep clarifying, if you want.

Since you aren't responding to my criticism of your analogy, however, may I assume that you've wisely yielded on that point?

[ice-nine]

South Lebanon is. That was the topic, right?

That's alright, you can keep picking nits, and I'll keep clarifying, if you want.

Since you aren't responding to my criticism of your analogy, however, may I assume that you've wisely yielded on that point?


So I’ll take that response as Gaza, the West bank, and Golan Heights, all originally taken in the six days war, are the same;
In that using the term *** “land for peace” when talking about them, would not be considered a Non Sequitur.

But anything past 1967, that involves contested land and Israel,
Say the Yom Kippur War of ’73,
or Operation Litani of ’78,
or Operation Peace of the Galilee of ’82,
or the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

These events, both advances and withdrawals, have nothing to do with “land for peace” and using the term is so beyond the pale that it is worthy of cross posting to a thread about Joe Lieberman?

Who’s picking nits?


*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_in_our_time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_in_our_time)
Half way down, click link, “See Also” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_for_peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_for_peace)

[freesw]

Alright, in broadest terms, "land for peace" can be applied in both cases. No argument there. I still maintain that the Czech Crisis of 1938 is a poor analogy to the situation in southern Lebanon, in 1982, 2000, or 2006. You never did address my reasons for saying so.

And it's real flaw is that, in making it, one raises the spectres of Nazism and Hitler without justification. Where there is no real equivalency, doing so only serves to inflame, rather than enlighten.

[ice-nine]

Alright, in broadest terms, "land for peace" can be applied in both cases. No argument there. I still maintain that the Czech Crisis of 1938 is a poor analogy to the situation in southern Lebanon, in 1982, 2000, or 2006. You never did address my reasons for saying so.

And it's real flaw is that, in making it, one raises the spectres of Nazism and Hitler without justification. Where there is no real equivalency, doing so only serves to inflame, rather than enlighten.


Fair enough. I can agree with that aspect not being germane.

[deguello]

Well, looks like Lieberman screwed the pooch, kissing up to Bush like he did. (literally!)

Lamont wins by 4 points.

Maybe now more Democrats will grow some 'nads and get unified.

Could be trouble for them though, especially if Sore Loser Lieberman decides to run as an independent this November. That would likely split their vote and end up with a Republican senator.

This definitely sends a strong message on how Americans feel about the Iraq war.
Great news for republicans, the dem. party become mgovernite-extremists, Karl Rove has a field day spinning them into soft on terror marxists, and 1972 repeats itself! Way to go Move o .org! dEGUELLO

[Boogyman]

Great news for republicans, the dem. party become mgovernite-extremists, Karl Rove has a field day spinning them into soft on terror marxists, and 1972 repeats itself! Way to go Move o .org! dEGUELLO
A big fan of Karl Rove, huh? Figures.

Let's see, Ted Nugent is your idol, Ann Coulter your dream girl, and you repeat everything that Bill O'Reilly says.

Not hard to figure you out. :rolleyes:

[josh]

What is wrong that the republicans cant run a better candidate in this race? Why do they have to back a socialist because he supports their war.
Cant they get a real conservative candidate?

[ice-nine]

In Connecticut's U.S. Senate race, a new Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=964) shows Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) leading Ned Lamont (D), 49% to 39% with 5% for Alan Schlesinger (R) and 7% still undecided.

Key finding: Lamont wins among those who say Iraq is the most important issue, but that is only 35% of the electorate. Lieberman wins on all the other issues voters say matter most to them..

Said pollster Douglas Schwartz: "Ned Lamont has lost momentum. He's gained only two points in six weeks. He's going to have to do something different in the next six weeks or Sen. Joseph Lieberman stays in for another six years."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/09/28/in_connecticut_lieberman_leads_by_ten_points.html