Lieberman, The Morning After (Video)

He’s doesn’t seem to be doing all that bad considering.

Lieberman makes it known that he’s in it until November and argues that he’s going to be the candidate that will fight against the partisanship which helped move his opponent to victory and unify Connecticut voters of all political stripes. Lieberman also argues that Lamont’s victory sends the message that the Democratic party no longer represents the mainstream of Americans in this country.

That might be true, but last night’s result certainly do represent the sentiments of the majority of Democrats irate moderates in this country.

FILED UNDER: General, , , , ,
Greg Tinti
About Greg Tinti
Greg started the blog The Political Pit Bull in August 2005. He was OTB's Breaking News Editor from June through August 2006 before deciding to return to his own blog. His blogging career eventually ended altogether. He has a B.A. in Anthropology from The George Washington University,

Comments

  1. Payback time started last night.”Payback indeed. Joe. Will. Win. ***Update*** Greg Tinti has both McKinney and Lieberman covered too. The video of McKinney from H&C tonight is great, and Lieberman looks good the morning after. He’s onto Lamonts new buddies too.

  2. [IMG working] [IMG Outside The Beltway | OTB] Beltway Traffic Jam Dilbert’s Guide to Parenting Two-Point Scales Lieberman, The Morning After (Video) Short Work Day Key to Happiness Adnan Hajj’s Secret Identity Michael Moore Issues Fatwa Warning To Democrats Hezbollah Has Fired 3,333 Rockets Israeli Left and Right United on War Lamont-Lieberman Exit Poll Results

  3. Meet Joe Lieberman’s Worst Nightmare…

    Liberal bloggers jumped on Ned Lamont’s bandwagon before he even owned one. Now the anti-war crusade…

  4. Trest says:

    This guy is doing the whole Sore Loserman charade again. He is a total liberal and a scumbag. Any liberal friend of Clinton and ozone-man Alan Gore is destined to be defeated.

  5. Old War Dogs says:

    Screw Lieberman? (Updated and bumped)…

    .. As I said yesterday, the pack has no official viewpoint on this. I personally, however, will use my posting privileges to campaign against Ned Lamont. He’s just taken his rightful prominent position on Bill’s Shitlist, not terribly far below Jean …

  6. legion says:

    Well, I agree with Trest’s conclusion, if not his reasons…

    Any liberal friend of Clinton and ozone-man Alan Gore is destined to be defeated.

    And what about conservative friends of Jack Abramoff? 🙂

    Lieberman also argues that Lamont’s victory sends the message that the Democratic party no longer represents the mainstream of Americans in this country.

    No Joe, _you_ no longer represent the mainstream of _Democrats_. Demonstrably in CT; possibly not in the country.

    He needs to stop lying to himself & everyone else and just join the GOP…

  7. James Joyner says:

    I do find it amusing, however, that Trest’s argument against Lieberman is that he’s too liberal. He lost because he wasn’t liberal enough, at least as defined by being in synch with his party on the Iraq War.

  8. walter66 says:

    “Most” Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq, 62 percent disapprove (vs. 36 percent approval).

    in this case most does mean most

  9. Anderson says:

    Lieberman’s arrogance in refusing to admit any error on Iraq is of a piece with his arrogance in refusing to accept defeat.

    I live in Mississippi. Haley Barbour’s our governor down here. I am trying to imagine Barbour’s losing the Republican gubernatorial primary to a moderate, and then running as an independent against his own erstwhile party’s candidate.

    And I just can’t even imagine its happening. Ditto with Trent Lott and Thad Cochran.

    So is it just me, or would other OTB readers have the same reaction? It just isn’t done.

    Lieberman’s sense of his own indispensability is reason enough to vote against him.

  10. Tano says:

    Enough with this “liberal” stuff already. What does the word mean anyway? There is always a constellation of liberal-minded, and conservative-minded policy instincts, and these coalesce into a set of coherent policies only when confronted with the responsibilities of power. Liberal-minded people are out of power, and so that end of the spectrum is in the arguing and discussing phase. We dont have a parlimentary government in which the opposition mounts a defined coherent set of shadow policies to constrast with those of the party in power.

    The conservatives are in power, and have exerted the necessary discipline to whip up a coherent set of policies. On foreign policy matters, that synthesis has been driven by the neoconservatives, so there really is something recognizable that can be referred to as the neocon agenda.

    Liberman’s problem is that he has bought into the neocon agenda. This is not centrism (trying to define a middle ground between liberal and conservative instincts). And Joe has not retreated from his neocon agenda even though the mainstream of America is in the process of roundly rejecting it. Joe has lost touch with the mainstream of not only CT dems, not only CT voters, but with the mainstream of America in general.

    The fact that Bush policies remain the official policy of the US government should not confuse anyone into believing that they are “centrist” or mainstream positions. The mainstream of America does not support those positions anymore, but Joe still does. Hence, he loses.

  11. legion says:

    Tano – brilliantly succinct.

    I have always considered the terms (in a very broad sense) to be conservative=’status quo good’ and liberal=’let’s try something new’.

    While this allows for me to define myself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal, it renders the modifier “activist” rather pointless…

  12. James Joyner says:

    Anderson: I find if amusing that someone named “Anderson” would make that argument, considering that John Anderson ran as a sore loser independent for presidnet in 1980 after getting trounced in the GOP primaries.

    I agree that Lieberman should have dropped out of the primary rather than suffering defeat in it given that he was going to go independent if he lost. Ironically, as close as it was, it may well have been that he would have won the primary if he had categorically foresworn this option a month ago.

  13. Trest says:

    I find it interesting that all of the liberals are getting worked up by Sore Loserman’s defeat while absolutely nobody is mentioning the fact that Republican liberal COngressman Joey Schwartz got clobbered by Tim Walberg in yesterday’s Michicagn primary.

    Walberg’s win is more of a harbinger of things to come in Novmeber–a removal of all liberals regardless of party and (finally) the ascendancy of conservativism.

  14. Anderson says:

    Anderson: I find if amusing that someone named “Anderson” would make that argument, considering that John Anderson ran as a sore loser independent for presidnet in 1980 after getting trounced in the GOP primaries.

    Aaargh! Unveiled! And I thought dropping my first name would suffice!

    –No, really: good counterexample (from ancient history of course), but it does sort of prove my point. Anyone heard from John Anderson lately?

    In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, he endorsed Ralph Nader.

    Enough said?

  15. ChrisCam says:

    What Lieberman’s Defeat Is NOT…

    I guess I’m alone in seeing Joe’s defeat as a ho-hum event. I don’t think it is watershed. I don’t think it is a foreboding harbinger of the revolution coming in November. If anything, I see it as a product of the same grassroots effort that led to…

  16. Herb says:

    Some hard core left wing extremist liberals Would “follow the party” even if their platform advocated the surrender of our country to the terrorist.

    But, what more would one expect from a Democrat ?

  17. jpe says:

    Liberals and Dems may not articulate it as such, but Lieberman has violated Reagan’s 11th amendment time and time again. That had a lot to do with his loss.

  18. walter66 says:

    Herb sez…..”Some hard core left wing extremist liberals Would “follow the party” even if their platform advocated the surrender of our country to the terrorist.”

    you mean like Bush surrendering our country to Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi?

  19. floyd says:

    what the #%&* is an irate moderate? is that the same as a militant pacifist?