Talk:Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006/June 2006 - August 2006

message: Not a citation issue, but is it really of general interest to have a section about Stephen Colbert? As I read the article for the first time it gave the article a distinctly amateurish feel. C'mon, is it necessary to mention that there's an empty chair in the audience? Why not mention what Leno or Lettermen have said? Is there a good joke on ebaumsworld? I'll take my response off-air. 72.24.182.238 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen Colbert

message: Russ Feingold made it clear on MSNBC's "Meet the Press" that he is steering clear of this race altogether, and will endorse the winner of the Democratic primary. It is misleading to categorize Feingold as a "Democrat supporting Lamont" when Lamont has not yet won the primary, so I deleted that sentence.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13484195/
66.188.222.224 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feingold for Lamont?

message: Looking at an edit you reverted, I noted something I didn't even know-- that Lieberman had come out against repealing Bush's tax cuts.  He's even worse than I thought, as I think Bush's tax cuts are the single worst act he has committed as president.  Anyway, while modifying the other person's language might have been fair, and the charge of "repeating Republican talking points," while I believe it to be true, is basically impossible to prove, to completely remove an important fact about Lieberman sourced by, of all places, Fox News, was an unfair decision.
I'm sure Lieberman voted against at least one of Bush's tax cut bills.  Unless he voted against them all, I would see removing the reference or pointing out a Bush tax bill or two he voted against to provide "context" would be unfair, as would picking out the Bush tax cut bill that got the most Democratic support and saying something like "He was joined by 20 other Democrats in supporting X bill."  He said what he said, as reported by Fox News.  Conservatives knowing of this would undoubtedly like him even better; liberals would like him even less. KP 00:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush's Tax Cuts

message: I just removed some of them and softened others.  I don't know if he reads this page, but he went too far.  The cited articles about Lieberman criticizing other Democrats were from the 2004 presidential primary.  Many Democrats criticized their opponents in that primary, and specific issues, such as Bush's tax cuts (mentioned above) and opposition to strong criticism of Bush, are mentioned in the same paragraph.  The "repeating Republican talking points," while I believe it is a true charge, is POV.  I tried to name the sources of the complaints he cites and state more neutrally what they claim.KP 04:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by 69.211.50.40

message: I think the context for the speech is important as an NPOV matter, since the use of the out-of-context quote shows just how unfair Lieberman's opponents have been to him:
:“To me, bipartisan foreign policy means a mutual effort under our indispensable two-party system, to unite our official voice at the water’s edge so that America speaks with maximum authority against those who would divide and conquer us and the free world. ...
:"It is time that America’s leaders, in the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who agree on our goals in Iraq but disagree on tactics to start trusting each other again so that we can work together again. The distrust is deep and I know it will be difficult to overcome, but history will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust and join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq.
:"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril.  It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war."
This is simply a restatement of the ancient maxim "In matters of national security, the best politics is no politics." It's improper for the article to imply that Lieberman meant something else; the NPOV thing to do is to acknowledge that the accusations are being made that Lieberman meant something else, provide the original source, and let readers judge for themselves. Neutral reporting of facts, rather than subjective characterizations, are what belong in Wikipedia. -- FRCP11 06:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with your providing the context of "...at our nation's peril" speech and giving both sides.  That edit looks fair to me. -- KP 10:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, when I made that comment I had missed your sentence about his criticizing Bush.  I wonder how many of the criticisms he lists on his web site were made before, say, as big an audience as the "...at our nation's peril" speech.  He has never criticized Bush in such a way to truly do damage to him.- KP 10:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm alright with your compromise edit. -- FRCP11 15:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril 

message: Please source this.  I'm guessing this is based on voting record, and not rhetorical record, which is where Lieberman is more Republican-friendly than probably any other Senate Democrat.
Until it's sourced, such that I can read the source and provide accurate context, I am reverting it. -KP 23:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "one [[Daily Kos]] article criticizing [[Tom Carper]] identifies sixteen Democratic senators, including several from "blue" states, with worse party unity records than Lieberman." 

message: I have removed the "Benedict Lieberman" statements. This nickname predates this current election cycle, thus making its presence in this article superfluous. Furthermore, I feel that this substantially compromises this article's ability to conform to an NPOV. Including specific insults directed at Lieberman are totally unnecessary. I personally despise the man, but he is entitled to a fair shake on Wikipedia. It is important that we maintain very high standards for EVERY article. I am furthermore having qualms about the "liberal critics" part of the Independent Candidacy section, but I also feel that an inclusion of how people perceive Lieberman's petitioning is important. Please follow up with thoughts. --Neocarpetbagger 05:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Lieberman's Independent Candidacy" edits

message: I'm going to remove Weicker's name from the possible independent candidate list, unless there's some verifiable evidence that he still might run.  He was apparently thinking of running before Lamont entered the race, and might reasonably have been on the list at that time, but he's since endorsed Lamont and I think he no longer has any interest in running himself.  Phr (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weicker in possible indep. candidate list 

message: The following sentence seems out of place: "Before the 3rd there was large speculation that this would happen. It now becomes a large issue especially in dealing with endorsements from the party's elite.".  I can only assume it's referring to Lieberman's independent candidacy, but given the structure of the section, this sentence is not in the right place to have that meaning. Venknat 20:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieberman's Independent Candidacy 

message: Can someone produce a link to the Wall Street Journal article in which Lieberman said "we undermine presidential credibility...?" I can't find that article, though he did write a similar one on 11/29/05 expressing optimism about the war effort and disappointment in both congressional parties. 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611
The only place I can find the language in question is here:  http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=249522
69.37.115.98 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WSJ Editorial 

message: We've been arguing a bit about this over at the Joe Lieberman page, but I think it would be beneficial to make separate articles detailing endorsements each candidate has received. These articles would be linked to under the endorsements section of this page. This would make the article easier to read, more concise, and shorter. In the midst of confusion, I took the liberty of creating List of Endorsements for Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate Race but I need help detailing who has endorsed Joe for the primary while supporting the eventual nominee, and who has endorsed joe for the general. What do you think of this?
Smedley Hirkum 03:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate endorsements page 

message: Over at the Lieberman page, we are arguing as to whether a separate section should be devoted to criticism of the candidate, and whether the section should be in the Lieberman article or in this article. Smedley Hirkum 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please join us 

message: Is it significant that the Democratic National Committee didn't make an endorsement?  I'd think they'd be required to stay neutral.  Have they ever endorsed one Dem primary candidate over another? Phr (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  endorsements 

message: I'd like to revert this edit: .  The endorsements are relevant because they express the POV's of the endorsers, so those POV's are also relevant, and in the case of newspapers, the previous endorsements express the POV's succintly.  I don't see any "real left vs. fake left" stuff going on, since neither of these candidates is "left".  However, Bush is far more conservative than either of them, so a prior Bush endorsement would correlate with supporting the more conservative of the two Dem candidates.   Thoughts? Phr (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior endorsements from newspapers 

message: :At least, the Democratic primary for this particular race.
:Senator Lieberman is delivering a concession speech at the moment, and-it seems-preparing the ground for an independent bid for re-election.  
Ruthfulbarbarity 03:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Over

message: He won by more than the 2.5 point "mandate" that Bush won by in 2004. This "narrowly" sounds biased.
:First of all, the two situations are in no way comparable. 
:A presidential race, with a few rare exceptions, will always have a closer outcome than the vast majority of Senate races across the country. 
:Secondly, one was a party primary-with extremely low voter turnout-while the other was a general election, with moderate voter turnout. 
:Finally, it was a "narrow," victory insofar as the Lamont supporters were trumpeting ludicrously inaccurate polls that showed him to be ahead by more than fourteen points. 
:In comparison to the numbers his campaign had been touting his victory was extremely narrow.
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrowly? 

message: Please tell me where a post by Kos on DailyKos.com violates WP:RS, please copy and paste the specific passage you are referring to. --kizzle 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DailyKos citation 

message: If anyone wants to add it, here's a reliable source: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-08-10T164937Z_01_N10461049_RTRUKOC_0_US-REPUBLICANS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
I'm too lazy to do it now, maybe I'll do it later. --Smedley Hirkum 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Rove called Joe on Primary Day 

message: I would like to propose that we move the primary coverage to its own article, and provide a brief summary of the primary for this senate election article. I know the distinction is somewhat fuzzy, since the primary bleeds into the election, but the article is dense enough to warrant it (unlike other primary races). - anonymous, August 11th
:Agreed, good plan. MikeHobday 20:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with moving the primary coverage to its own article. I do not agree with providing a brief summary of it because many over-eager contributors will probably turn it into a very long section like it already is.  Instead, just refer readers directly to the article about the primary. JHP 03:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the Democratic Party primary section and placed a tag at the top of this article referring readers to the new article. JHP 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JHP, Good job.72.82.161.204 14:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulling out the Primary Race into its Own Section 

message: I went bold and re-organized the article, hope you guys like it. --kizzle 19:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite 

message: :What about the RNC's decision not to back Schlessinger, and the threats by high-ranking Dem. Party officials to strip Lieberman of his seniority?
:From the Hartford Courant,
:President Bush's press secretary, Tony Snow, told reporters Tuesday: "The Republican Party of Connecticut has suggested that we not make an endorsement in that race, and so we're not."
:Two days earlier, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman refused to say if he supports Schlesinger on Sunday's NBC news show "Meet the Press." Mehlman said he consults "our leadership in the states" - which, in this case, has told him: "You ought to stay out of this one." So he said he is focusing on U.S. House races and the governor's race in Connecticut.
:Connecticut GOP Chairman George Gallo, when asked Wednesday what he's told the national GOP, said he told the Republican National Committee political director 1½ weeks ago that the Schlesinger campaign "isn't one of our top priorities."
:http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-senate0817.artaug17,0,2859516.story?coll=hc-headlines-local
:Snow's comments should be included, IMO. 
:Also, shouldn't Governor Jodi Rell's request that the Republican candidate, Schlessinger, drop out of the race be mentioned? 
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent News

message: This article is way too long and rather disorganized, badly needing an editor. The result is that it is basically inpenetrable to anybody without a pretty firm grasp of Connecticut politics. I'll be looking at editing options, but could we at least move the "Post Primary" section to the top? It explains the current situation, which is liekly of most interest to the greatest number of readers. 
Right now, readers have to get past miles of once-important ephemera (e.g. Lieberman's bear cub ad) to get a current picture of the race. That said, the move would be a small fix to a big problem and a major post-primary editing job is definitely in order. Any opposition to a move?Francisx 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article seems like it was written entirely by Democrats for Democrats. No matter what the political persuasion of the authors, it should be written for readers of all political persuasions, per WP:NPOV. The article's emphasis seems to be on the Democratic primary, rather than the general election. I suggest reorganizing this article so it's in reverse chronological order so the general election comes first, followed by the primaries. Either that or strip out the Democratic primary stuff and create a separate article for it. I also suggest deleting the long lists of who supports who. I do like seeing the opinion poll data, though. JHP 03:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed the Democratic Party primary section and placed a tag at the top of this article referring readers to the new article. JHP 04:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: Since there is an actual Independent Party in Connecticut with a candidate, there are some problems with the article. It would be fair to qualify Lieberman as an independent with a lower case 'i' if he hadn't created the Connecticut for Lieberman party to run under.  I think the article should be changed to replace "independent" with "third party" in a few cases and Connecticut for Lieberman in all the rest. There is the matter of the when he is listed as Lieberman (I) and it would probably be better to use something like Lieberman (C), but I'm not sure. 
I was going to make all of these changes on my own, but there are so many instances and types of them, that it's hard to do in one pass. --waffle iron talk 17:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about (CFL) instead of (C)? Just a thought.--Bobblehead 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works better than just (C). I wouldn't want people thinking he is running under the Communist party, which is probably better known. --waffle iron talk 22:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The only large party in the Northeast that is known by that initial is the Conservative Party, which is the fourth largest party in this state, but-as far as I know-is unique to New York. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word independent 

message: If it is ok for nonveterans to criticise a veterans group that expresses a political opinion, then I suggest the various "chickenhawk" material in the Lieberman bio ought to be stricken, since it is based on the same theory.  
You can;t choose to wear the uniform selectively —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.107.245.70 (talk • contribs) 13:06, August 18, 2006.
:Which paragraphs are you referring to?
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: vets for freedom and chickenhawks

message: I started working on moving the primary section into it's own article and discovered it is rather lacking in prose.  Basically started an article here, so if y'all want to help actually adding some actual sentences instead of lists before I lop off the primary section in this article and leave behind a quick summary, I'd be greatly appreciative. --Bobblehead 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the Democratic Party primary section and placed a tag at the top of this article referring readers to the new article. JHP 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary article

message: Call me a Nutmeg homer, but why is some blather from Chris Matthews expressing a personal  opinion more relevant than a story from a Hartford Courant columnist pointing out the operational difficulties the Lieberman candidacy poses for local candidates?
:It's not too notable, I added it because of all the Coulter, Hannity, etc. media figures' "endorsements"... but it is only one line and shouldn't be any more.  The passage you cite is indeed relevant to this page and probably deserves more space than Matthews' quote. --kizzle 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: relative importance

message: There are almost 150 sources. I think the sources should be beside the sentence they are citing. It is such a pain to click the number and then click the website. Byrdin2006 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I'm way late, I know, just providing a justification in case of future reverts:
Joe is not an 'Independent', Joe is the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman (CT4L) party. The Independent Party is a registered entity in Connecticut that has no association with Holy Joe.  One can view their website here, where one can plainly see Joe is not mentioned anywhere.  Instead, he belongs to the Connecticut for Lieberman party, which is clearly a distinct entity from the Independent party, thus he is not an "Independent". --kizzle 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought that up a few sections up under Talk:Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006#Use of the word independent. There are a lot of changes to be made, and your help would be appreciated. --waffle iron talk 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Kizzle, since Joe Lieberman created his own party he is certainly not an independent. However, don't assume you have to be a member of the Independent Party to be an independent. The word 'independent' (with a lowercase 'i') is the proper term for people who are not affiliated with any political party. The word 'Independent' (with a capital 'i') refers to people who are members of the Independent Party. There are far more independents in America than there are Independents. JHP 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Lieberman is not an Independent 

message: I think we should have slightly more links in the EL section... now that the primary is done with, we should take a sample of 3-6 articles that say something extremely interesting both pro-Lieberman and pro-Lamont. --kizzle 19:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to avoid having the external links section get out of control, I suggest just limiting it to each candidate's official campaign web site. By the way, your pro-Lieberman and pro-Lamont idea would violate WP:NPOV because there are other candidates running. JHP 05:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So include those articles as well, obviously. --kizzle 00:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More External Links? 

message: This article is very long and could use some cleanup.  There are two sections for endorsements (during the primary then during the general) that can be consolidated.  Also, is polling data leading up to the primary really relevant given that the election took place?  Doctofunk 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did start a Democratic Party primary, Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006 article a week or so ago. I just haven't had the time of late to go back and actually make the article more than a copy and paste of the primary section of this article so I hadn't linked the article to this one and removed the redundancy. If someone has the opportunity and time, could take advantage of the primary article I started. --Bobblehead 03:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the primary stuff from this article. It is a general-election-only article now. I also resorted the article to move the less-useful stuff to the bottom. JHP 05:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I added a summary section, so should be good to go. Well, until people start to add stuff to the summary section. --Bobblehead 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: We must not extrapolate an endorsement from a statement of an intension to vote for someone.
If this was logical, then we would have to assume that all voters of a candidate are endorsing that candidate, when quite plainly that is not the case.
In 2004, many liberals had to "hold their nose" while voting for John Kerry due to his close ties to the W.T.O. and big business.  They certainly did not endorse Kerry; they only voted for him because the alternative was worse (the evil of two lessers).
And I presume that on the republican side, the same thing holds true (see above RE: lessers) 
72.82.184.123 07:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the whole "Endorsements" section should be deleted. It seems to me to be a game of one-upsmanship between Lamont and Lieberman supporters, and a substitute for actually content. (Are we really to believe that nobody endorses Schlesinger?) There are 100 senators, 435 congressmen, 50 governors, and many more former office-holders in the U.S. This list has the potential to grow extremely long, and is already too long in my opinion. As the saying goes, "Less is more." Good editing requires removing the junk. How do others feel about removing the "Endorsements" section? JHP 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of endorsements from notable people, Schlesinger really is lacking in them. He's one of the most embarrassing candidates in decades in Connecticut. I think it's worthwhile to keep endorsements from major players who currently hold office or very recently held office and maintain a very active political role - for instance, John Edwards. Such a list would help Wikipedians compare Lamont supporters and Lieberman supporters vis-a-vis social issues and foreign policy, should they so desire. Captainktainer * Talk 09:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endorsement vs. "Voting for.."