And By the Way, Joe Lieberman Lost Last Night- Page 2

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 9:47pm

He's a liberal Chanticleer. He can't possibly have great insights. ALL liberals think one way, the wrong way. At least that's what you've been asserting for the past three days.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 9:53pm

jrby--I think you got it backwards: this was a referendum on Bush not on the war. The Connecticut voters are neither rabid lefties nor web denizens. They were simply tired of a senator who swore fealty and devotion to Bush and Cheney.

This primary elections puts all Republican and (Republican-leaning Democrat) incumbents on notice that the public wants change.

"Bad for the Democrats": You're sounding like my grandmother, who used to groan at every event, "Oy, this is not good for the Jews."

I think this bodes well for taking back both houses of Congress, because it tells the disenfranchised: "See? It can be done!"

Updated On: 8/9/06 at 09:53 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 10:01pm

its telling that Ken Mehlman refused to endorse the republican candidate over Lieberman on Tweety today.

[AbbaRabbit]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 10:10pm

"he Connecticut voters are neither rabid lefties nor web denizens. They were simply tired of a senator who swore fealty and devotion to Bush and Cheney."

THANK you!
i'm so glad he lost. i met him when he came to our firehouse when we did a fundraiser. before i met him i thought "what a great guy to come show support for a small firehouse"
but the whole thing was a puplicity stunt. he had me stand next to him in the group picture x_X
he talked to me like i was 12... "are you going to be a firefighter like your daddy?"
and when people wanted to talk to him after he suddenly "had a thing" he had to get to.

then the whole "in connecticut another hospital is just a short ride away" thing saying doctors can deny a rape victem the morning after pill if they want.

Updated On: 8/9/06 at 10:10 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 10:13pm

He lost the votes of many women when he said that. Men too.

[AbbaRabbit]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 10:15pm

i couldn't believe it when i heard that.

so if a doctor is against blood transfusions or organ donation, are they going to be allowed to refuse those as well?

as far as i know, the only hospital in the hartford area that refuses the morning after pill is st. fransis.

[The Grovers Corners Yenta]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 10:41pm

I did not vote for Joe Lieberman yesterday. I am a staunch democrat, but I firmly believe that he no longer embraces those ideals. He is siding with Bush on the Iraqi war and creating another Viet Nam. Then he says the he is running on a an independent ticket for Novemeber. As far as I am concerned he has not only abandoned the Democratic party, but respect for human life. I am not too crazy for Ned Lamont either, but I think he actually may have a chance.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 10:56pm

PJ--I only have it backwards if Lamont wins. If he doesn't, you'll see the effects.

I wish you would elaborate how this referendum will affect the rest of the election--it only spoke of how registered Dems in Conn vote. It doesn't make anything certain about the rest of the voters in Nov.

I am, however, glad people stood for what they believed in.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 11:06pm

Re-posting this from the deleted thread, for jrby:

===
Time.com

Lieberman Lost the Old-Fashioned Way

He was out of touch with voters. And he's not alone. His defeat foreshadows an upheaval to come in November

By JOSHUA MICAH MARSHALL

Posted Wednesday, Aug. 09, 2006
So who brought Joe Lieberman down? Was it the liberal blogs? Was Lieberman the first political casualty of the Iraq War?

Both. But neither.

Yes, Iraq was the issue that crushed Lieberman in the Democratic party. And the blogs were the vehicle that helped that latent but pervasive disgruntlement among Connecticut Democrats become aware of itself. But Joe Lieberman succumbed to a political ailment (common to long-serving senators) that would have been as recognizable to Daniel Webster and Henry Clay as it was to so many 21st century bloggers: He got his head lost in the clouds of national politics and lost touch with his constituents.

The Lieberman camp says Joe stuck to his guns on Iraq notwithstanding the political perils or the unpopularity of the position in his party. But that doesn't quite cut it. True, he had to know he wasn't winning any points with the broad mass of Democrats around the country. And his embitterment against his party for his ignominious defeat in the 2004 presidential primaries probably made him more willing to court that displeasure. But I don't think Lieberman really understood the peril he was courting back home. Because if he had, he would have been more prepared for it. And he wasn't.

Most politicians keep close tabs on what's happening back home and work assiduously to keep lines of communications open with the political players in their states or districts. They may get into trouble for any number of reasons. But if they're good at what they do, they don't get caught off guard. And no one was more caught unawares by what happened in the last two months than Joe Lieberman.

Many pundits claim that Lieberman's defeat is a replay of the way Democrats tore themselves apart over Vietnam. It's an appealing thought for Republicans. And it has got nice drama. But those pundits are either being disingenuous or are caught in a time warp. Democrats are actually fairly united on the Iraq War in their opposition to it — which is actually where most Americans are right now. And though many Senators are not as full-throated in their opposition as the base of the party, you don't see any successful challenges being made against other Senators who aren't ready to bring the troops home.

With Lieberman, there's something different. It's not just that he wouldn't wash his hands of the Iraq War. Lots of Democrats won't. It's more than that. He's seemed almost militantly indifferent to the disaster Iraq has become. And his passion about the war seemed reserved exclusively for those who questioned it rather than those who had so clearly botched the enterprise. His continual embrace of President Bush — both literal and figurative — was an insult to Democrats, the great majority of whom believe Bush has governed as one of the most destructive Presidents in modern American history. It's almost as though Lieberman has gone out of his way to provoke and offend Democrats on every point possible, often, seemingly, purely for the reason of provoking. Is it any wonder the guy got whacked in a party primary?

If this were just a matter of Joe Lieberman's hubris and obliviousness, the story of his demise might have a human significance but not a larger political one. But the Lieberman train wreck is also part of the unfolding story of the 2006 election cycle and the dangerous gulf widening between Washington and the country at large.

Lieberman got in trouble because he let himself live in the bubble of D.C. conventional wisdom and A-list punditry. He flattered them; and they loved him back. And as part of that club he was part of the delusion and denial that has sustained our enterprise in Iraq for the last three years. In the weeks leading up to Tuesday's primary, A-list D.C. pundits were writing columns portraying Lieberman's possible defeat as some sort of cataclysmic event that might foreshadow a dark new phase in American politics — as though voters choosing new representation were on a par with abolishing the Constitution or condoning political violence. But those breathless plaints only showed how disconnected they are from what's happening in the country at large. They mirrored his disconnection from the politics of the moment.

The polls tell us the President's approval rating seldom gets out of the 30s. Congress is unpopular. Incumbents are unpopular. Voters prefer Democrats over Republicans by a margin of about 15%. When a once-popular three-term Senator gets bounced in a primary battle with a political unknown, it's a very big deal. Those numbers all add up to a political upheaval this November. The folks in D.C. see the numbers. But they haven't gotten their heads around what they mean. Joe was out of touch. And Washington, D.C., is too.

They didn't see the Joe train wreck coming and they're not ready for what's coming next either.

Joshua Micah Marshall is head of TPM Media and the founder of Talkingpointsmemo.com.
Lieberman Lost the Old-Fashioned Way

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 11:14pm

...another thing...

in his concession speech, Lieberman kept going on about how "petty squabbles in dc" are ruining the country...yet, he's been there for 18 YEARS...if its in his power to "do something" about it, shouldnt he have done something about it by now? seems like he's been in the thick of everything, & has not been part of any soloution.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 11:33pm

Listen, PJ, I hope as much as anyone that the GOP falls in Nov along with anyone who supports Bush politics.

But, I still fail to see for certain how this specific case will affect the elections in Nov when you factor in the question of how non-Dems will vote. Do Bush's terrible ratings give me hope? Yes. But when it comes to the ballot box, people won't be seeing Bush's name--leaving the possibility that they will still vote for their GOP guy or gal. (Because people often believe that it's the OTHER politicians that suck--not theirs).

I fail to see that this is a certainty that will affect the elections when you know as much as I that even a Kucinichesque competitor would still be unable to unseat Clinton (who has been playing the middle area) in the NY Dem primary.

I think races like the one Santorum faces give me much more hope. Yes, it's great to vote in Dems that we feel represent our values. But, they have to be able to beat their GOP rival. And, your story gives me hope that that can happen. But, I still fail to see how the Conn Dem primary will fulfill a great promise. I'm not saying I don't believe in the great possibility of what that article says. I'm just saying that I wouldn't get all celebratory just yet. And quite frankly, it's always possible--though hopefully not likely--that Lamont will lose in Nov. And it could just be to the GOP if a split vote happens.

On the otherhand, I think our GOP friends on this site would be wise to avoid adding more hubris to their falling pile of excrementative tragedy by getting too giddy over this vote in Conn. It ain't over til the fat lady sings. And this is JUST the prologue.

[pab]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 11:34pm

"[T]here's no prizes for second place in American politics."

-- Joe Lieberman, Speaking to Chris Wallace in November 2004

"As Teddy Roosevelt once explained, 'My power vanishes into thin air the instant that my fellow citizens, who are straight and honest, cease to believe that I represent them and fight for what is straight and honest. That is all the strength that I have.'"

-- Joe Lieberman, in his Clinton censure speech on the Senate floor, 9.3.98
Open Thread

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 11:37pm

All I can say is that long ago, all we had was this funny feeling, saying someday we'd send 'em reeling. Now it looks like we can.

"Someday" just began. ;-}

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 11:37pm

Well I sure as **** hope so!

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 11:39pm

pab, I find Joe's fight ridiculous! He lost, got get another job!

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 11:39pm

I said it twice! Updated On: 8/9/06 at 11:39 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 11:53pm

He can always go back to acting. He was perfectly fine as the easily flustered father dealing with TV's irascible furry cat-eating alien, Alf.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 11:57pm

Namo, are you saying that I could finally leave my boring job and become a STAR??? Thanks so much!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/10/06 at 12:02am

No, LIEBERMAN! Don't you want to be a firefighter like Abba's daddy?

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 8/10/06 at 12:07am

In Chicago Firefighters are well paid! Nice idea!

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 8/10/06 at 12:15am

Actually what that means is cut-and-run, cut-and-run! You know, it's fascinating to watch this, because the netroots and the kook fringe, the blogosphere, think they have finally prevailed!

You know a dirty little secret? One of the ways they did this, via exhaustive research late last night and today, is that they moved into Connecticut and they convinced 14,000 independents to register as Democrats so they could vote against old Joe. Now you might say they succeeded in doing that, but they didn't tap into a huge constituency of theirs that's already there. They were able to get these 14,000 people, but it misrepresents the mood that was actually on the ground in Connecticut.

They're also ignoring the momentum shift that was occurring here, when Lieberman was down by 13 or 14 points just a week ago. But I want to focus on one thing Lamont said here, because I've always told you guys that the Democratic Party is actually a party that's made up of disparate constituency groups. They all have their basic single interests, and what unifies them is their quest and desire for power and the liberalism that they all share as an ideology. You've got Big Labor, for example, and they want what they want; the feminists, the NAGs, they want what they want.

When it came to Big Labor, you had to hate Wal-Mart. Whatever Big Labor's issue was, you had to be for it, and one of the theories evolving here is that the party -- and, by the way, all these people talking about how the Democratic Party is McGovernizing itself... I want everybody to remember I first said that this was what was happening in this party well over a year ago.

They are attempting to relive their "glory days" of shutting down the Vietnam War by being able to mobilize so much anti-war support among the American people -- and that, to them, represented their quest for power, and I've asked all over the place, "Do these kook fringe base members actually care about winning?" I think they have more satisfaction by being able to get noticed. I think they have a tendency here to love the fact that they can cause the party to move and react to them, but in terms of winning, they really haven't won anything, even this race. I'm going to be probably a lone wolf here and suggest that this victory here does not represent what they think it means, which is fine and dandy, as long as they continue to fool themselves, that's fine with me. But they're McGovernizing themselves and what they forget is McGovern lost in a landslide.

We are in a world situation that argues for strength, national security, national defense, and these people are making it plain they want no part of it. They don't consider a threat to be legitimate out there, any of them. And as such, they're making it plain to casual observers -- and this is the key when talking about presidential races, because not everybody pays all the attention to this on a day-to-day basis as you and I do. Casual observers, people that pay attention every four years to vote for the presidency and other things, they've gotta notice that these people can't be trusted, and if they don't notice it, we'll tell 'em. We'll make sure they notice it, that they can't be trusted on matters that are very serious -- and, I'll tell you what, these guys are out there pumping themselves up and they're feeling really good today and they're flexing.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 8/10/06 at 12:18am

My wife is a Mini Van driver, she does not shop at WalFart!

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 8/10/06 at 12:19am

On the other hand, Mr. Lamont has only won a primary, and Republicans and Mr. Lieberman now have a chance to frame the general election debate from here to November. The Lamont victory means that the Democrats are now the withdraw-from-Iraq party. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate united behind a somewhat more cautious pullout policy last week, calling for a phased withdrawal beginning this year. But with the support Mr. Lamont is now drawing from mainstream Democrats, the momentum within the party is all toward the come-home-now left.

This means that if Democrats retake Congress, we will be back where we were in Vietnam circa 1975. Early that year the Congressional left blocked funds for our allies in the government of South Vietnam, weakening its defenses even as Hanoi massed for an attack. Within weeks, the North was on the march and the last American helicopters were leaving Saigon. The stakes are just as serious today in Iraq. The defeat in Vietnam could at least be contained elsewhere in Southeast Asia, although the Soviet Union was clearly emboldened to assert itself via proxies from Afghanistan to Central America.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/10/06 at 12:21am

"We are in a world situation that argues for strength, national security, national defense, and these people are making it plain they want no part of it. They don't consider a threat to be legitimate out there, any of them. "

Not true.

It's the Republicans who have bungled strength, security and national defense.

Updated On: 8/10/06 at 12:21 AM

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 8/10/06 at 12:22am

He's not in the senate yet, Wow, MoonBat-Man, I didn't know that.

A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would likewise signal a defeat echoing far beyond Baghdad. Iran would exploit the turmoil in Iraq to assert itself in the Middle East, and both terrorists and their state sponsors would feel they could hit us again, this time with confidence that any U.S. response would be limited, as it was before 9/11. The idea that quitting Iraq would be discrete penance for President Bush's invasion is a delusion against an enemy that cited our 1993 withdrawal from Somalia as a reason to believe it could attack New York with impunity.

The Lamont Democrats argue that a timetable for withdrawal will prod Iraqis to defend themselves more quickly. But there's a reason that every Iraqi ethnic faction--Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish--save for the most radical wants the U.S. to stay until security improves. They know the Iraqi Army is standing up as rapidly as possible. They also know the main security threat today comes from Sunnis affiliated with Saddam's regime and ethnic Shiite militias. An American withdrawal would only make Iraqis less likely to take personal risks to assist the new government in defeating those threats. And it would only increase the sectarian violence, as everyone picks sides in preparation for the day when the last Blackhawk helicopters leave Baghdad.