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 Lieberman also argues that Lamont’s victory sends the message that the Democratic party no longer represents the mainstream of Americans in this country.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.
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.
Well, I agree with Trest’s conclusion, if not his reasons…
And what about conservative friends of Jack Abramoff? 🙂
No Joe, _you_ no longer represent the mainstream of _Democrats_.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…
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.
“Most” Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq, 62 percent disapprove (vs. 36 percent approval).
in this case most does mean most
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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?
Enough said?
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 ?
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.
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?
what the #%&* is an irate moderate? is that the same as a militant pacifist?