Aftermath

Actually, more like an observation.

By Moe Lane Posted in Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Two, actually:

1), It very much looks like I will get to watch Cynthia McKinney move out of Washington DC. Again. That brightens my week right there, and it's not been a bad week so far.

2), Via the Hotline it is noted that Ned Lamont is waiting for Joe Lieberman's concession call. Given the fact that the odds are good that Lieberman will be running as an independent, and given the fact that if he does the upcoming campaign will make the previous week look like a softcore 1980s soft-rock music video (complete with lit candles and gauze and a horse running through in slow motion, for no apparent reason), and given the fact that Lieberman will be accused of much worse than mere ungraciousness (I expect to see badly photoshopped pictures of him with goats)... well. Lamont may be waiting for a while, or said concession may arrive wrapped around a brick.

I'm not ruling out a flame-shaped dagger, for that matter.


« When Negative Ads BackfireComments (4) | Uh oh.Comments (6) »
Aftermath 31 Comments (0 topical, 31 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Joe has become, I hope, the new Jim Jeffords...going Independent. Perhaps he'll see things differently now that his party stabbed him in the back.

Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.

Jeffords isn't a good analogy. Like Zell, the crazy Dems have left Lieberman for the outer fringes of mainstream Marxism. The additional good news is that the Dems in the Senate, Slick W, Zowie Howie Dean, et al, ALL say they will support the Party nominee. But it appears Lieberman has a great shot at winning the general election with a coalition of his 48% of the Dems, a goodly number of Republicans (given the weak candidate they nominated) and lots of independents. This leaves Joe his own man, with no reason to caucus with the hacks who left him for the Dkos kindergarten.

Lieberman may be more important to our side as an independent who votes with us most of the time. This could be a home run for us.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. St. Paul

And Lieberman is a liberal. This was simply dumb.

--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts

Miller was always a conservative "blue-dog" Democrat. Joe has always been a McGovernite with a dose of Scoop Jackson tossed in where it comes to defending the country. Bottom line, Joe is a liberal who votes with the Democratic Caucus about 90% of the time. Even if he chooses to not caucus with the Dems, he will still vote with them 90% of the time.

The key question is what happens to his committee assignments. If the Dems pull them, he might caucus with the Reps but he'll still vote way to left of Lincoln Chafee.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

1. He's going to caucus with the Democrats.

2. He votes with his party on most issues.

3. He's not badmouthing his party.

I don't WANT him caucusing with Republicans. He'd just buddy up with the RMSPers and hold our majority back even more.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Says he will not let this result stand. He will file as an independent tomorrow. He seems very fired up. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents together.

Is it safe for us all to jump on his campaign? :) I am in.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

and he'll be the first (and quite likely the last) Dem that I'll even give a bit of financial support to. go joe!

but rather to an Independent.

Or at least you can rationalize it that way.

A Political Hero!

...Well, sorta...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

That says it all.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

I wonder if Al and Jessie were going to kiss Lamont or not. What a visual. All they needed was "Sit Down and Shut up" Maxine up there on the dais.

That was not a concession speech that was on to Victory Speech

Look at the people Lamont has on the poduim. Rev, Al, Jesse Jackson, Kim Gandy...

that says it all

Lamonts crowd is no bigger than Joe's. DId all the Kos Kiddies go to bed?

Your Word is your Worth, your Worth is your Word

Central Chairman Kos has spoken. Let the purge begin.

"Joe Lieberman is not an independent Democrat. He needs to be stripped of his committee assignments and have those handed to real Democrats. And then we need to buckle down and finish the job we started."

Lets see how long it takes the Children's Wing of the Democratic Party to show how truly wonderful things will be when they take power.

we (GOP) should give Joe any material help. A wink and a nod, and if you live in CT, a vote.

We've got other races to win, people like Mark Kennedy, Tom Kean, Mike McGavick, Bob Corker, Talent, etc, etc. We don't need to help a guy who votes with the Democrats 95%, just so we don't have a guy who votes with the Dems 100%.

2006 - It's just not safe to vote Democrat

Lieberman isn’t worth it. If you’ve got extra cash and you want to contribute to a Senate candidate, there are a lot of terrific (Mark Kennedy) Republican candidates who don’t have the baggage of Frist and company and who will probably agree with you on 80-90% of the issues. Let the Democrats fight this out amongst themselves and pour their finite resources into beating up the guy who was good enough to be their vice presidential nominee 6 years ago but couldn’t get double-digits 2 years ago in their presidential primary. We should use this as an opportunity to focus on races that matter.

By the events in the CT primary. Lieberman will easily win in a general election, but this race sends a message that the ultra left is attempting to take over the party. If they accomplish that, it's going to be a loooooooong time before the Dems win anything. Their message, of retreat and run away, simply will not win anything.

Democrats should be very worried this evening, very worried indeed.

The Democratic Party really has no room for dissent of any type any longer. Even a mainstream liberal like Joe Lieberman cannot stray from the playbook without fear of reprisal. The lesson tonight is that the Democrats have become very radicalized, and are very much out of the American mainstream. We soon will hear Hillary Clinton pronounce that she supported an immediate Iraqi pull-out all along. She will joined by Sens. Kerry, Biden, Bayh, and so on.

From a strictly partisan standpoint I am elated. From an American perspective, I am worried.

ok, i've read the "no room for dissent"/"crazies taking over" twin memes about a gazillion times at this point.

Can someone *please* explain to me why the Lamont/Lieberman race is any different than Toomey/Specter, Laffey/Chafee, or any of a myriad of races in which an incumbent was challenged from the left or right of their own party?

There's a point where voters feel a politician has lost touch with them and the core tenets of their party--or worse, helps enable the opposing party. Seriously, how did you guys feel when Chafee very publicly voted for G.H.W. Bush in '04? Or when Chuck Hagel blasts the administration?

But really, this isn't just a referendum on Iraq. Sure, if you watch the MSM, you'll be regaled with typically dumbed-down "analysis" of how this race was about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. But besides Iraq, Lieberman sold our party out on the bankruptcy bill, on Terry Schiavo, on confirming appointees, and numerous other key, high-profile votes--and then berated us while doing it. Just imagine it was your party, your key issues, and your loudmouth senator.

All I'm saying is, let's not be hypocritical about this. And if you think that Kos can really work some kind of mass-hypnosis over a couple hundred thousand CT voters, you're giving him quite a lot of undeserved credit. You don't lose a primary to a complete unknown without having generated massive disgust.

Joementum has a ADA rating of roughly 90. Specter is at about 55 from the ACU and Chafee is in the low 40's. So, to spell it out, your side just threw someone who votes with you 90-plus-percent of the time under the bus.

There is simply no comparison with Specter or Chafee.

Now, if we took out Crapo or Kyl, or even Johnny Mac, in a similar manner then you might have a point. We didn't, and you don't.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

it's not about the rating, it's about where he's been on key votes, and how he's handled himself.

Just in the past several years, he has been against party members' interests on privatizing social security, terri schiavo, CAFTA, the bankruptcy bill, iraq, major appointments (alito/roberts/gonzalez, etc.), DOMA, and providing Plan B in hospitals (his infamous "short ride" comment). And those are just a few off the top of my head. And just about every time he went off the reservation, he stuck the knife in deeper by gloating about it on Fox, or criticizing fellow Democrats in the papers.

For all this talk about there being "no room for dissent," why does no one notice how little we criticize just our red- and purple-state senators like Ben and Bill Nelson, Lincoln, Pryor, etc. (Heck, Ben Nelson's rated at something like 55%.) This is because we understand that we're not going to get an ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy coming out of Arkansas; we take what we can get in states where Democrats are centrist. But in Connecticut? There's no reason those voters need to tolerate someone who goes off the reservation as publicly and frequently as Lieberman.

On the flip side, the Club for Growth and its supporters went after two moderate, blue-state Republican senators in Specter and Chafee, even though a strongly conservative nominee would have little chance in the general. (Have you seen the Whitehouse-Laffey numbers?)

Again, I just don't get it. We knock out a condescending, demoralizing, enabling incumbent, and we're politically suicidal. Yet you'd almost be willing to hand over seats in PA and RI just to prove a point. That seems to be an extremely unfair criticism levied against us.

the Democrat party left him.

Just in the past several years, he has been against party members' interests on privatizing social security, terri schiavo, CAFTA, the bankruptcy bill, iraq, major appointments (alito/roberts/gonzalez, etc.), DOMA, and providing Plan B in hospitals

Define "several years." Because as recently as 8 years ago, a certain President held the same view as Lieberman on Iraq, Social Security privatization, was an advocate of "Safe, Legal & Rare™", and signed DOMA & NAFTA (and these were mainstream Democrat positions at the time too). Suddenly those principles that Lieberman hasn't changed on have become the litmus test for being part of the donkey party.

2006 - It's just not safe to vote Democrat

I may be confused, but I'm not sure what you mean by Clinton having had a position on Iraq, which postdated his presidency.

as far as privatizing social security, i'm pretty sure that's incorrect. While trying not to sound like an expert in something I'm not, I'm pretty sure Clinton's idea was to invest a small part of the Soc. Sec. Trust Fund in private stocks. However, that did not involve creating personal "private accounts." The trust fund would have continued to exist, unlike under Bush's private account system. Clinton's proposal was a minor tweak, Bush's was a major revamp.

DOMA was always a steaming pile for us true-blue dems. Clinton is not the be-all, end-all of Democratic values. Heck, as you know, he even employed Toe-Sucker Morris to "triangulate" those values to be more palatable to Republicans. So while we were quite satisfied most of the time, we weren't with him all the time.

As for CAFTA, a long time passed between NAFTA and then. Democrats had seen the disastrous effects free-trade agreements had on jobs and communities. It's one thing to vote for a new animal like NAFTA, but another to happily vote for its spawn a decade later. In fact, I read that Lieberman has the highest Chamber of Commerce rating among Northeastern Democrats. Not quite the area of the country where you'd expect to see that designation.

And there's no need to get into the thicket of abortion--this is solely about Plan B and his opposition even to that.

Yes, you can probably isolate each example I named and pick through it, but I'm sure you get the point. Eliminate the '90s examples, and you'd see that he's really become the party's Condescendng Voice of Disapproval since his presidential bid frittered out. I think the tipping points were Terri Schiavo and his support of the bankruptcy bill, one of the worst bills of the last decade--we all agreed on that one.

I think this sums it up pretty well.

If you're a sports fan, have you heard a player referred to as a "cancer in the clubhouse"? Imagine a player who hits .280 and hits 25 HRs, but brings down team morale by criticizing his teammates and trying to draw attention to himself. At a certain point, management's going to want to get rid of him, numbers be damned. He may hit well, but he's bringing the rest of the team down and hurting their chances at a successful season.

Better to get rid of him give his position to the prospect in the minors, who has all the tools to be a better player. (Only time will tell if he actually will be, though.)

That now concludes Bad Sports Analogy Theatre. :)

Lieberman is more like a guy who bats .325, but leads the league in strikeouts.

2006 - It's just not safe to vote Democrat

I may be confused, but I'm not sure what you mean by Clinton having had a position on Iraq, which postdated his presidency.

I mean 8 years ago (as I said), you know, when Clinton dropped more bombs on Iraq than the total number of bombs in the first Gulf War. Or I could point to any number of speeches given in 2002 and 2003 by prominent Democrats supporting the Iraq war.

If you think the "Trust Fund" is something real and not just an accounting gimmick (done by both parties) I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you, but yes, I was talking about when Clinton wanted to invest the SS trust fund. The situation might not be perfectly parallel, but in the 90s, most Democrats wanted to do something to fix SS, now they stick their fingers in their ears while shouting NONONONONONONONONO.

Clinton is not the be-all, end-all of Democratic values.

That's funny, since most Democrats act like he is.

And NAFTA was so horrible, it was the 1930s all over again. Don’t give me a sob story about people losing their jobs, change happens. Otherwise, we’d all still be farmers, and no one would have lost their farming jobs.

Yes, you can probably isolate each example I named and pick through it, but I'm sure you get the point. Eliminate the '90s examples, and you'd see that he's really become the party's Condescendng Voice of Disapproval since his presidential bid frittered out.

No, you missed my point. My point is that Joe's stances on these issues hasn't changed, you (plural you as in the Democrats) may want to throw him out of the party, but don't pretend that he was the one who changed.

2006 - It's just not safe to vote Democrat

So as not to bore you to death with these Lieberman dissertations, I'll call it quits after this comment.

You are mostly correct: Joe definitely was always a socially conservative Democrat with strong pro-business leanings.

But the one thing that has changed was the current war in Iraq. With it, he went from liberal hawk to scolding voice of GOP-lite. He uppsed his jerk quotient in the last few years, becoming more and more defiant and strident as the majority of his state's party members moved away from him on the war. When Sean Hannity calls him his favorite Democrat, it gives us Dems cause for concern.

Strident might even be an understatment; Joe famously warned his fellow Democrats that they "undermine the president's credibility at the nation's peril." Here we have a member of our own party, warning that party that dissent will kill America. Terrific, Joe.

Aside from what he has said, it's also what he hasn't said: he's failed to criticize, second-guess or otherwise doubt anything the administration has done in Iraq, to the point where a reporter in Baghdad wrote that it seemed he was living in some other reality. Only in the last, desperate stages of this campaign did he suddenly "remember" how much he's criticized Rumsfeld.

As the political terrain has shifted, Joe's open defiance has become more obvious, and more unforgivable. By his rationale, it's not Joe's fault that he's out of touch, it's his party's fault that they don't do what he says--it's that bizarre Beltway-bunker mentality that we've all come to loathe. Regardless of whether you agree, I hope you at least appreciate that members of a party can and should remove those who are not merely moderates, but actually hurt party morale with their words and actions--the Club for Growth pioneered the current form of this and even scored a win last night. When politicians no longer recognize or respond to their constituencies, then they've become a politically-deaf creature of the Beltway who should be replaced.

but Lieberman is a mainstream liberal, as I first posted. As docj noted, he has a 90 percent ADA rating.

Both Specter and Chafee are proud liberals in a conservative party. Lieberman was a proud liberal in a liberal party. And he got the boot. There's the difference, and it is massive.

We will beat the Krazy Kos Kids™, again, by supporting, enthusiastically, Senator Joe Lieberman.

Welcome to the GOP, Senator Lieberman!

Remember, this was the man that MSM christened a "conservative Democrat" immediately after the word leaked out that he was Gore's running mate in 2008 (MSM intentionally did that to avoid the lukewarm "moderate" label from being attached to either Lieberman or the Gore/Lieberman campaign).

Also, he has supported school choice in the past and does not believe in affirmative action.

He is opposed to giving underage girls abortion pills over the counter.

He has been a vocal supporter of president Bush on the War in Iraq.

Sure, he's pro-choice and he's anything but the "conservative" that MSM was quick to label him as. But enthusiastic support by CT Republicans will do the same thing for Joe that the Democrats' embrace of Jeffords did: it will bond Joe to those who brought him to the dance. Or, rather, stood up for him when he was about to get kicked out of the dance.

Look at Jeffords' voting record before and after he left the party. There is no question that Jeffords was a moderate Republican before he left the party and a leftist, obstructionist dem after he left the party.

I'd vote Republican in CT if we had a real candidate there. We don't.

The only issue now is: are you for or against Ned Lamont, a liberal democrat who supports gay marriage, is a wimp when it comes to fighting communists in Lebanon (21 of 27 Lebanese suicide bombers this year were communists from Saddam Hussein's communist Baath Party), and believes in capitulating to Muslim terrorists rather than fighting them?

If you are anti-Ned (as I am), you vote for the only man who can beat him: Senator Joe Lieberman.

Romney/Coburn 2008 = Unbeatable

Also, he has supported school choice in the past and does not believe in affirmative action.

And he promptly repudiated both positions about six years ago when he was Gore’s running mate.

... that we must be thankful for the acumen (COUGHlunacyCOUGH) of our political opponents. But for them, as deserving as are our congresscritters of a savage beating, we would likely be in deep, deep doo-doo come November.

Let us recap: a RINO loses (badly) in MI, Jihad Cindy loses (badly) in GA, and Joementum pulls 48% in CT (he was at about 40% a week ago) and vows to fight-on (and will likely win as Neddy the Lord High Figurehead of the Nutroots is going to wear thin pretty quickly - probably starting tomorrow).

All in all, not a bad evening.

I think I'll sleep pretty well tonight.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Will those be posted on al Reuters?

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service