« Big day in Connecticut | Main | Handicapping Joe »

The results are in!!

The bad news is that I lost a case of beer. (I haven't seen anyone other than Drudge actually call the race yet, but I don't see how Lieberman can put the arithmetic together at this point.) The good news is that Georgia Democrats had the good sense to send this hateful bigot packing, hopefully for good this time.

But enough about her. The Lieberman/Lamont race is far more interesting. I feel awfully lonely on the whole Joe Lieberman thing, and either I'm nuts or the entire political landscape has turned into Bizarro-world. I frankly find Joe Lieberman to be the same whiny little creep he was back in 2000, and it's freakin' beyond me why A) it took the Democrats six years to figure it out, and B) why so many Republicans are suddenly kissing the guy's ass just because of his unapologetic support for the war. Makes no sense to me, but welcome to American Politics 2006, I guess.

November will be interesting. It's a pity the Republicans can't find a halfway viable candidate, because as anyone who's seen or heard Ned Lamont speak extemporaneously knows, the guy is simply not ready for prime time. He managed a narrow victory in the Democratic primary that was all about Joe Lieberman, but I doubt he'll perform as well in a race that's actually about Ned Lamont.

I guess the big potential wild card in the whole picture is whether Lieberman will, in fact, run as an independent. Ace seems convinced that he won't actually do it, that it was all a big bluff. Normally, I'd be inclined to agree, but this is the same guy who ran for vice president and the Senate simultaneously, all the while insisting with a straight face that he was absolutely confident of a Gore win. It's not like such a move would be out of character.

In the meantime, Mazel Tov, moonbats. You won one. I liked that guy in that DailyKos thread who was celebrating with chocolate martinis. I know it's kind of a girly drink, but I confess he made me want one. The sad part is that I'm all out of creme de cacao, and the liquor stores are closed. I suppose I'll just have to celebrate in my usual fashion, with a frosty mug of Arrogant Bastard. See y'all tomorrow.


That's about the size of it Barry. As Don Surber pointed out in an article, some of the highlights of Lieberman's tenure were;

"* He voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment.
* Voted against a supermajority for tax increases.
* Voted to keep the marriage penalty in July 2000; voted to reduce it in May 2001; voted against it again in May 2003.
* Voted against repealing 55 mph limit.
* For a moratorium on the death penalty.
* Against school prayer but for handing out condoms in school.
* Opposes ANWR.
* Opposed medical malpractice reform."

THAT'S no longer an option!

That horse left the gate back in 2002, with our Military response to 9/11.

For better or worse, we're in a global war against pan-Islamicism/Islamo-fascism and any retreat, at this point, would only be seen as weakness by the enemy, inviting further attacks and very possibly forcing us to abandon our rightful interests in the Mid-East (Oil & Israel).

Sure, most Americans want peace...but, you know what else they want EVEN MORE?

A sound economy that will at least maintain their current standard of living.

We're an oil-based economy and will be for the forseeable future. Should the Left ever preside over America being forced out of the Mid-East, the impact on our oil-based economy would be devastating...almost certainly far worse than Carter's reign, possibly approaching Herbert Hoover's.

If you think presiding over a war makes a President unpopular (it does), well, it's nothing compared to presiding over a failed economy, just check out Herbert Hoover's and Jimmy Carter's sordid tales of woe!

After the economy tanked under their watches (poor old Hoover was caught in a worldwide Depression, he had no hand in causing), they both lost in landslides in the very next election, and their respective Parties paid the price for years to come.

The race here was called about 30 minutes ago and Mckinney still hasn't made an appearance at her campaign HQ, much less made a concession speech. (yet)

I'm already hearing many liberal people saying how they want Lieberman to win as an independent. It was one thing to vote for someone because they had the goods. It's another when people feel the win of an empty suit was due to extremists one-trick ponies by rich folk and pompous, intolerant nutroots.
I get the feeling Lamont will be the Feingold of CT. He may want to bring the troops home, but it's more difficult than that. And when he starts getting the cold shoulder from other Dems (who will realize that leaving immed could be just as/more deadly than invading), his supporters will dissapear.

also, I started thinking last night...how can 58,000 people in a single state determine the foreign policy fate of 300,000,000 people?

also, I started thinking last night...how can 58,000 people in a single state determine the foreign policy fate of 300,000,000 people?

Hey Rachel,
The reality is that more than 60-70 % of the country are against the war in Iraq. Thats why Lieberman lost and thats why others will lose also in other parts of the country. And thats why the republicans will lose control of the house and senate.

To add to what Blue Wind said, look here, Rachel (you should learn how to spell that name of yours correctly):

These aren't outlier polls. They are all of them consistently sayign the same things about where the American people stand on Iraq and on the way Bush has handled Iraq. The only poll on the page from Fox News has the country siding with Democrats handling Iraq instead of Republicans by 38% to 36%. The fact is that opposition to the war in Iraq is the mainstream position and has been for at least a year and a half, so it isn't exactly new, either. One has to remove one's self from the mainstream in order to think that support for the Iraq fiasco is a mainstream position.

No war is popular.

People die in wars.

Lots of things are destroyed in wars.

And polls like that are very flawed. Hell, I disapprove of the way Iraq was handled! I believe we needed to defeat Saddam Hussein and break that terror alliance he'd forged and let that country partition itself the way the Balkans did after Yugoslavia was broken up.

So what percentage of those polled believe that we should simply "get out now?"

UNKNOWN, since that was never asked. I do know this, the "get out now" opinion is an ignorant and uninformed opinion.

Most Americans, like most humans everywhere, don't think past today. If polled and asked, "Would you invade and ravage another country for oil, food, or water, if the alternative was an end to your curreent economy, your current standard of living?"

I'm certain that a super-majortiy would favor invading and ravaging another nation...it's basic human nature.

Fortunately or unfortunately (I'd say fortunately), there is no longer any chance of America negotiating with the Islamo-fascists.

For one thing their terms are way too high at this point (1) America completely out of that region and (2) Israel ceded over to the Arabs (Palestinians)...NEITHER of those things is negotiable, especially the former. American companies dug most of the wells in that region!

The Republicans have lied/"sugar coated" this situation (we've got at least another twenty years worth of wars abroad and mammoth security expenses here at home ahead of us.

But the Democrats, who act like there's "another way" are lying as well. There is no other way. Oil is the foundation of our economy and we need access to that oil rich region and Israel acts as our sattelite in that region, so we can't let that go either.

These are hard realities that we ignored at our peril for over ten years.

The worst is almost certainly yet to come and "Get out now" and "Let's negotiate" are not a viable foreign policy.

first, my name is spelled perfectly, thank you ;P
Second, what if those 58,000 people decided to keep Lieberman *despite* his decision for Iraq?

Learn the facts first. There were not 58,000 people. Where did you get that number? Over 282,000 voted yesterday in Connecticut. It was the largest turn out in a democratic primary since 1970. And as Barry graciously acknoweldged yesterday, Lamont won fair and square.

> And as Barry graciously acknoweldged yesterday, Lamont won fair and square.

Mostly square. ;-)

fine then:
what if those 282,000 people decided to keep Lieberman *despite* his decision for Iraq?

Mostly square. ;-)

Are you flip-flopping now ? :)

If the Lamont win is, as both Michael Moore and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga claim, proof of their new found power and influence in the Democratic party and a warning to all those Democrats who "don't toe the Kos line," then are they going to have the guts to go after Harold Ford Jr in Tennessee?

Now that would be something!
Why Harold Ford Has a Shot

Time Magazine
Sunday, Aug. 6, 2006

The Congressman who is running to replace retiring Bill Frist as Senator from Tennessee has voted to outlaw gay marriage and to repeal the estate tax, and wants to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning. He supports getting rid of the handgun ban in the nation's capital and says the Ten Commandments should be posted in courtrooms around his state. He favors school prayer, argues that more troops should have been sent to Iraq and wants to seal the border with Mexico. He likes to tell a story about the time he campaigned at a bar called the Little Rebel, which had a Confederate flag and a parking lot full of pickup trucks adorned with National Rifle Association bumper stickers. When he went inside, as he tells it, a woman at the bar greeted him with a hug and exclaimed, "Baby, we've been waiting to see you!"

None of that would be so remarkable were it not for the fact that this particular Senate candidate is a Democrat, an African American and someone whose last name is synonymous in Tennessee with urban-machine politics. But that's not the reason that both parties are suddenly paying a lot more attention to this state and to 36-year-old Harold Ford Jr. ...."

Obviously Harold Ford Jr. is not a "Kos-MoveOn kind of Democrat," but will they have the guts to enforce their agenda on him.

Somehow I strongly doubt it.

Hey JMK,
In my capacity as a "Kos-MoveOn kind of Democrat" let me assure you that the vast majority of the party is with us now. As I wrote here the democratic party has just rediscovered its roots.
Thanks to Kos and MoveOn. They are the greatest and I am proud to support them. Cheers.

> ...let me assure you that the vast majority of the party is with us now.

Really? Is that why we just saw more than 48% of Democrats in a solid blue state vote for a "Bush loyalist" and a "right-wing extremist" last night?

Really? Is that why we just saw more than 48% of Democrats in a solid blue state vote for a "Bush loyalist" and a "right-wing extremist" last night?

The only reason they did was because the democratic party (i.e. other senators, Clintons etc.) were supporting him as an ex-VP candidate of the democratic party. Now that they abandoned him, see what he will get. He would lose in November by a landslide (unless he drops out earlier under pressure).

Again, and Barry's got that exactly right, even in a Liberal northeast state like Conn, with nearly half the Democrats voting for the anti-Kos Dem, the question remains, how does that wing of that Party expect to exert its will over Democrats like Harold Ford Jr who "voted to outlaw gay marriage and to repeal the estate tax, and wants to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning. He supports getting rid of the handgun ban in the nation's capital and says the Ten Commandments should be posted in courtrooms around his state. He favors school prayer, argues that more troops should have been sent to Iraq and wants to seal the border with Mexico."

So I just to be clear on this, you're now down with the radical, Jew Hatin' fringe of the Democratic Party...is that correct?

A radical fringe that endorses sentiments like these;

"Jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).
"Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).
Imagine a world without Israel

By grswave
Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 06:41:50 PM PDT

Grswave’s diary

"Or is that not allowed?

Muslims, Jews, and Christians could live in peace without fear of mutual destruction.

There would be no more need for US AID or justification for Dimona.

We could bring down the Wall, send prisoners home, and families could be reunited.

We could dismantle checkpoints, open crossings, and pull down barbed wire fences.

There would be no more settlements or armed settlers because the people would be united.

We could replant trees and olive groves and rebuild battered cities.

No more suicide bombers or sniper fire, and no more dead civilians.

No more targeted killings and hell-fire missiles, or systematic demolitions.

Palestinians and Jews could live together and the world could address other issues.

What a simpler place this world would be
if there was no need for a Jewish majority - where there would otherwise be none.

Is it so hard to imagine?
"Israel killed at least 23 Palestinians in Gaza on Wednesday, including nine members of one family . . .

"The air strike killed a local Hamas leader, Nabil Abu Selmeya, his wife and seven sons and daughters aged 7 to 19, medics said. His eldest son, who was not at home, survived.

"A later Israeli air strike using two missiles killed at least five other Palestinians, aged 15 to 20, in central Gaza."
Evidently, yes. And I'll be branded a terrorist for trying."
Or THIS from a recent anti-war rally;


So that's the "new Democratic mainstream" and that's the agenda you now claim to support?

Well here's a pretty decent analysis of the Connecticut race that puts it in fairly succinct perspective, it's written by Real Clear Politics' John McEntyre;
Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
Democrats lost the 2004 presidential election over leadership on national security. Last night's win by anti-war Ned Lamont over pro-war Joe Lieberman, while joyous for the far-left netroots crowd, is a bad harbinger for future Democratic Party prospects nationally in 2008 and beyond.

The closeness of the election only makes the outcome more frustrating for Democratic strategists. Had Lieberman eked out a victory, the Connecticut Senate primary would have been a huge win for the Democratic Party as they would have been able to reap the dividends of all the energy (and voters) Lamont's candidacy had attracted, while at the same time sending a message to the country that the Democratic Party is large enough for pro-war Democrats. Had Lieberman held on and won, he undoubtedly would be reaching out to left-wing Democrats and pushing further away from President Bush and the Republicans. Instead, Lieberman will now be ostracized from the party and will be reaching out to Independents and Republicans while chastising the extremists in the Democratic Party.

Incredibly, for a sitting three-term Senator who just lost to a political neophyte, in many ways Lieberman is the guy who comes out of the primary with momentum. A month ago it was not unreasonable to assume that Lamont would have received a significant boost from a win, but the polls seem to indicate Lamont peaked near the end of July. Bill Clinton's July 24th visit may have been more of a turning point than was commonly thought at the time. In my pre-election analysis I suggested that Lieberman's distance from 40% would be the best tell on how the three-way would shakeout. With his very solid 48.2%, Lieberman is in an extremely strong position to win in November.

Nationally, the images from last night are a disaster for the Democratic Party. Perched behind Lamont during his victory speech were the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, grinning ear to ear, serenaded by the chant of "Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home." For a party that has a profound public relations and substantive problem on national security, these are not exactly the images you want broadcast to the nation.

Anti-war Democrats and much of the mainstream media continue to confuse anti-war with anti-lose. The incessant commentary that 2/3rd of the country is against the war completely misreads the American public, as much of the negativity towards the war isn't because we are fighting, but rather a growing feeling that we are not fighting to win or not fighting smart.

Democrats went down this road in the late 1960's with Vietnam and they are still carrying the baggage from that leftward turn. Lamont's win is a big step back to that losing formula. During the height of the "progressive" revolt against the war in Vietnam, Americans voted 57% for Nixon and Wallace in 1968, followed by a whopping 60% for Nixon in 1972 against the avowedly anti-war McGovern...

I thought that it was obvious to everyone that the Jews only look after the Jews. That is why it is always Jews caught spying on America. They couldn't care less about this country. Kristol and the other neocons want to use America to advance what is good for Israel.

WoW! You really are sounding more and more like Ali Haji Hanging all the time.

And by Ali Haji Hanging, I mean, of course, the rabid Jew Hating Ali Haji...and not, you know, the other kind.....

I gotta say, with all the shite Israel has put up with over the last 60+ years, I can't fault them for spying even on us for the good of the Jewish state. They're focused on perpetuating the homeland they legally own, were given by the UN, and have since fought and died to keep. They want to help themselves out? So be it.

Oh bullshit, they bribed, extorted, and murdered Israel into existence using every dirty trick known to mankind.

It would be best to just nuke Jeruselem and all the other bullshite "holy sites" before the religious kooks of the world really do get us all killed.

eep! bailey's banned again.

oh, wait, i can't do that.


Now, now Ali Haji Hanging.

It isn't "religious kooks," it's cultists from ONE particular religion (Islam) ironically enough, "the religion of peace."

The Wahhabi beliefs are NOT traditional Islamic beliefs and therefore, they are a CULT. They certainly aren't "fundamentalist" Islam, since Islam has never had a Reformation, traditional Islam IS fundamentalist Islam, making radicalized Islam - a CULT.

Israel was founded by the UN and its founding was steeped in international law, common-law precedent, ad infinitum.

Modern Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people and that is where that nation belongs.

It also conveniently serves as America's sattelite in the oil rich Mid-East and that is truly a "higher calling," putting Israel outside the scope of mere international law.

In short, Israel is a lot like Sammy Davis Jr, whose book, Yes I Can, which should've been Yes I Can, Cause Frank Sinatra Says I Can, could well be Israel's tome - Yes I Can, Cause Uncle Sam Says I Can.

In other words, Israel's staying put.

Ancestral homeland ... big deal. That means nothing. Ireland was the ancestral homeland of the true Irish before the Brits carved it up, did they have a right to take it back by any means necessary? Do the Injuns still have a right to America?

Beside, the old Israel was a lot larger, let's put it back to the original borders like the religious kooks want, so the messiah can come back. That's what it is all about.

Nah, it's about giving the Jewish people a sanctuary in the area from which they came, in the wake of the Holocaust of WW II.

The Axis Powers (Germany, Japan, Italy and the Arab-world) LOST two consecutive World Wars.

The Arab world suffered little of the devastation that impacted Europe and Japan, so their penance was recognizing (1) the error of their ways (Nazism/Socialism is WRONG/BAD) and (2) that Israel has a right and necessity to exist.

They got off easy.

So easy in fact that the West largely overlooked the Baathist party (a direct offshoot of the European Nazi PArty) that took hold in much of the Arab world.

Overlooked "The historic Nazi connection to today's Islamic terrorism is Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem. He became a Nazi agent after meeting Adolf Eichmann, an architect of the Holocaust, in Palestine in 1937, and with Nazi funds organized the Arab Revolt of 1936-39 which led to the British closing Palestine to Jewish immigration. This facilitated the "Final Solution" by closing off the avenue of refuge...

"...But the Mufti's Nazi heritage did not end with the Holocaust. Nazi war criminals found employment in Arab capitals as advisers in murder. The notorious SS killer Alois Brunner was the personal adviser to Hafez Assad's brother, who was in charge of the Syrian security forces. Husseini, Yasser Arafat's mentor, brought former Nazi commandos to Egypt to teach Mr. Arafat and others how to become terrorists."

by Chuck Morse & Carol Greenwald, 2/9/06


The Arab/Muslim world has much to atone for. Accepting Israel is a necessary first step.

That's absurd drivel. Let Israel have some shit red state like Florida. They've taken over most of it already.

Post a comment