Go Ned!

[filkertom]

In case you just emerged from a cave, Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the CT Democratic Senatorial primary.

Excellent takes on the meaning and effects of the outcome by Kos and Joe Conason. My own short form? 'Bout damn time. For years now, Lieberman has been representing his interests, rather than those of his constituents, and undermining his purported allies. And that is what it pretty much comes down to. We don't know yet what kind of legislator Ned Lamont will be (and, sure, he may lose the general election and we'll never know). But we know exactly what kind Lieberman is.

And it seems that Sore Loserman will indeed run as an "independent Democrat", whatever the hell that is. Uh, Joe? Remember whan Chimpy tried to claim a mandate after winning 51-48 (or 51-49, depending on how you miscount)? You got beat by a greater margin. Sit down, Joe.

Oh, and, all of you tender-hearted, well-meaning Republican pundits, telling us how devastating a Lieberman loss will be for the Democratic Party, fearing for what will happen to us? Blow it out your asses. Sugar Ray never listened to Marvin Hagler tell him how to fight Marvin Hagler for a real obvious reason. For weeks now, you've all been spouting the talking-heads version of "puh-leeeeeeze don't toss Joe in that briar patch!" And now you're all going to be shocked and horrified and worried for the very soul of the Democratic Party because Joe wasn't tossed in the briar patch, he was right out in the open, and we used conventional weapons (i.e., grass-roots door-to-door democracy) and his own words against him.

Screw you. When a "Dem" is getting support from Hannity and Coulter, that's the only clue one needs.

Comments

[scott644.livejournal.com]

hehehe... so true!

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

We don't know yet what kind of legislator Ned Lamont will be (and, sure, he may lose the general election and we'll never know). But we know exactly what kind Lieberman is.

Damn straight.

Well put, Tom.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Of course, the Republicans are likely thrilled about this.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Maybe not. Or at least, they probably love seeing it, but may not be able to profit by it. We can only hope, and work to keep it that way.

[bchbum-98.livejournal.com]

It sounds like Alan Schlesinger will die from a mysterious hunting accident soon

[drzarron.livejournal.com]

The other outcome that made me smile is that nutbag Cynthia McKinney got booted.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Word. And that was a real blowout.

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we saw the REAL Sore Loserman last night. Give it up, Joe. You're making yourself look ridiculous. The Hannity "endorsement" was just the nail in the coffin.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Huzzah!

*ahem*

Now's the time to write or call Sens. Harry Reid (head honcho Democrat) and Chuck Schumer (in charge of the DSCC, which supports Democratic campaigns and which had not previously committed to supporting Lamont if he won) and tell them to get their asses in gear repudiating the loser in terms of his being a Democrat, and to support Lamont, the legitimate Dem in the race.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Not to mention making Joe drop out of his stupid, ego-driven "independent" race. I think that's what filkerdave might've meant above by the Repubs loving this -- I think they see us eating our own, when what's really going on is we're purging the ranks of a known Repub mole, or at least an enabler.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

Right, that's what I took away from Dave's comment. Likewise, a coworker of mine is convinced Joe will end up splitting the Democrat vote.

I think that's not too likely, though, because a lot of people remember the stories about Nader and Florida in 2000. (I don't know whether those stories are true, mind; it's just that everybody remembers them...)

I'm worried about a split vote

[capplor.livejournal.com]

but it sure isn't the answer to say "Vote for Lieberman because otherwise he'll split the votes & no democrat will win".

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Schumer has already lined up behind Lamont. So have Senators Clinton, Bayh and Edwards, all of whom supported Lieberman in the primary. Don't know about Reid yet.

Lamont won mostly due to Joe's Captain Queeg act, but partly because he had the grass roots. Now he has the DC establishment as well. Lieberman will either sensibly drop out well before November when he sees he has no more establishment support, or he'll melt down to the point where he has no more political career at all.

I say this coming from the opinion that Lieberman wasn't all that bad, and I'd have happily supported him had he won his primary. Seems to me it's not too late for him to accept the results and be somewhat gracious about it. If he does, there's enough of him left to make him a contender for a cabinet post in the next Democratic administration, maybe Governor if he doesn't think that's beneath him. Any more of the steel balls and ranting that Lamont took the strawberries, though, and no one will ever touch him again.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

Reid's already thrown in with Lamont, according to this CBS News report. A number of Dems supported Joe in the run-up, but had already stated that whoever got the nomination would get their backing. Bucking the party, regardless of one's years of service, is never rewarded.

[poltr1]

The next one to go: Georgia senator(?) Zell Miller. Is he up for reelection this year?

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

...Miller didn't seek reelection in 2004. He's now a lawyer and Fox News talking head.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Who would have thought six months ago that this could have happened? Lamont was a frigging fer chrissakes protest candidate with no money, no establishment support, no experience, no chance to win.

And he didn't win, really. Lieberman LOST it.

Lieberman was the Goliath candidate. When you're Goliath, you win by being as gracious as possible, trying to keep the condescension out of your voice as you welcome the chance for an amicable primary contest and talk about how Democracy is so wonderful and your little-known opponent has every right to run, and then you swamp him financially with positive, upbeat ads about your record, mentioning the "David" by name barely if ever. "Goliath" wins popularity contests by being a gentle giant, not by being a brutal bully.

Lieberman didn't do that. He was Fred Sanford, clutching his chest and yelling "LAMONT! LAMONT!" every chance he got. He didn't even bother to hide his contempt for the democratic process as he screeched and raged at how this bloody peasant was daring to besmirch the divine right of incumbents. He publicly insulted not only the "David" but anyone who held "David"s views--which happened to be popular, majority views. And to cap it off, he unveiled his spoiler independent bid, stabbing his own party in the back before he had even had the primary.

It was Lieberman, and not Lamont, who turned this race from nothing into a real contest, and then an upset.

It's the subject of epic tragedies. If he had been a little less ultracompetitive, he'd be the safe nominee today. And yet, if he'd been a little more fiercely competitive in 2000, when he was the "David" Candidate, he'd be Vice President today. His career will stand as an epic warning for politicians for years to come.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

You definitely pegged one of the things that the blogosphere finds amusing, infuriating, and most potentially devestating to the Repubs -- the idea that holding views contrary to the President and his neocons is "leftist", "radical", etc., etc., etc. What burns me about that is [a] the incessant portrayal of being against this war making one "anti-war", and [b] that is somehow a bad thing.

I, and I'm pretty sure most Americans, have no trouble flexing our military might when we have to defend our country. That's kinda the point of having Armed Forces. But stupid, illegal, ill-thought-out wars... gee, why would anyone have a problem with that...? And I thought the idea of having a military was to win a war, i.e., end it. Not in Bush World, or Lieberville.

OT

[louisadkins.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I saw that last sentence and had a flash of Superman (original) the movie. "Otisburg?"

So far, so good

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

This outcome is great. The concern now is whether Lieberman's independent run will split the vote enough for the Republican to get a plurality. Don't get me wrong, I wanted (and want) Lamont to win. I just hope that either someone will pound some sense into Joe, or he'll self-destruct to the point where he doesn't get enough votes to screw up the election.

On the home (Michigan) front, I'm waiting with a bit of trepidation to see how the Senate race progresses. Debbie Stabenow, who's finishing her first term, leaves me kind of lukewarm, and I'm concerned that I'm not the only one. Meanwhile, Mike Bouchard, the sherriff of Oakland County who just won the Republican nomination, and with whom I have many disagreements, has already aired a really good ad.

[rook543.livejournal.com]

If everybody is, and has always been, so sure Ned is going to win, why do you CARE if Joe runs as an independent?

[thealien.livejournal.com]

I had a long (I mean, essay length almost...) comment about what would have happened if Bob Dole had decided he was going to run for President after losing the primary in 1980, the way Anderson did. But Dole might have been more effective, taken 18% to Anderson's 6% and gotten Carter another term.

But then I realized that it would be easier to say that in a system like ours, there is a benefit to concentrating votes. It's why they have primary elections. If both parties are roughly equal(swinging back and forth) but one runs 2-4 people each time and the other runs one, the second party will tend to win all the time. Which wouldn't be any fun for the first party.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Because the Democratic party is and always has been split.

There are liberal Democrats and there are conservative Democrats. We provide room for both in our party. We're inclusive that way.

Conversely, there is no such thing as a liberal Republican because the Republican party doesn't allow room for liberal ideas.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

DC Simpson says it better than I ever could...

http://idrewthis.org/2006/extremists.html

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

On the plus side, the Republicritter is currently running third behind both Lamont and Lieberman--accusations of gambling under an assumed name and legal trouble with two New Jersey casinos have pretty well derailed Alan Schlesinger.

Also on the plus side, I've had it in for Lieberman ever since he took Lowell Weicker out, one of the last classic New England Liberal Republicans, by running at him from the right. Lieberman got a pass in '00 in the face of a greater enemy, but he spent that nickel.

On the down side... well, I can't think of one. The GOP is in statewide disarray in Connecticut, Lamont has a lead on the field, and we rest of us get to chant hey, ho, no mo' Joe!