The obligatory post on Lieberman getting beaten like he owes me money
First, I never cared for Lieberman. As I said before, he’s a statist and only seems to appeal to the conservatives lately entirely due to the war. The significance of Lieberman’s loss is that the people, for good or bad, can be motivated to buck the status quo. That’s a good thing, overall. Also, it’s that rare occasion where the ideals take precedence over the party line and the status quo.
Also, for good or bad, Lieberman has (in the words of Andy) invoked the spirit of “party unity” at 11:05, Joe Lieberman concedes, but vows to run as an Independent. I do not think that means what Joe think that means. I wonder if the Democrat machine will back party or the status quo this time? It damn sure doesn’t have a history of backing ideals.
This could be the beginning of a one party system if the Dems grassroots primary campaigns can’t get electable candidates to the general election. They seem to be doing that lately. Granted, I know very little about Lamont and he may be electable. He has no stance on gun control, according to On The Issues.
Update: Jay says:
Joe Lieberman lost his primary race because he wasn’t moonbatty enough, and Cynthia McKinney lost her primary race because she was too moonbatty.
Heh. Not sure if Lamont is moonbatty but I’m sure that’s how this will talked about for the forseeable future.
Update 2: Well said:
But he embodies so much of what’s wrong with Washington. He’s the prototypical David Broder candidate, a big government liberal who’s willing to engage in magnanimous gestures of bipartisanship . . . on issues where Republicans also support big government. So he’s cool with bombing and nation building, and state-sponsored health care. He’s okay with government censorship of video games and cable TV, and heavy-handed regulation of business.
Golly. What a moderate!
In other words, he’s wrong on every issue. He’s a culture warrior, a values cop, a Nanny Statist, and a big government foreign policy hawk. He favors high taxes, and a massive welfare state. He’s pro-pork, pro-status quo, and pro-business as usual.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:37 am
A one party system, or a third party coming into focus? Maybe it’s time for the Democrats to go the way of the Whigs.
August 9th, 2006 at 10:11 am
The Pakaderm rules!
August 9th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Nonsense. Change is a moral neutral; it’s not intrinsically good or bad. Replacing a moderate with a moonbat is a change, all right, but I fail to see how anyone (other than a moonbat, of course) would interpret this change as a good thing. The only potential good I see coming out of Nut Lamont’s victory yesterday is the possibility – and a remote one, I might add – that some of the inevitable anti-Democrat backlash will happen before the November election rather than after.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:00 am
I didn’t say ‘change’ was good or bad. I said people can be motivated to buck the status quo. Remember, this was record voter turnout for CT.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Lieberman’s issues (and for that matter McKinney as well), for better or worse, had a lot to do with style in addition to substance. Many of the “moonbats” don’t have a problem with Democrats supporting the war, it was the “Bush’s favorite Democrat”-bit that put them over the top.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Problem is, the GOP candidate (whom I honestly know nothing about, except that he polls in the low teens at best in a three way race-but he’s got a better chance of being right on the issues I care about than Joe L. or LaMont) is going to lose this race no matter what.
What’s you got is a race between a Big Government Nanny State hawk and a Big Government Nanny State dove. And a third guy poking his head up and saying “Hey, I’m here too!” whilst being ignored by everyone.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
The Lord-of-the-Flies Party won this one, let the cannibalism begin.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Well, I don’t know if it would be considered “party” or “status quo,” but it’s long been known that Lieberman’s machine support would only last until the primary. Even big-time D’s who went to bat for him on the ground in CT are in the process of cutting him loose.
Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama among them. But also Chuck Schumer and Harry “We Have a Lieberman Problem” Reid, who issued a joint statement this morning vowing Senate and DSCC support for Lamont.
Still no word from Big Labor, but if memory serves, Lieberman had the AFL-CIO (again, with the stipulation that this was guaranteed only until the primary) while Lamont had the SEIU.
Now, as far as the local machine, that was teetering precariously for Lieberman even before last night. If you recall, there was a state party convention in which Lamont had to get 15% of the delegates to commit to him before there was even going to be a primary. If Joenertia had any ground game to play at that time, he could have spiked this early on. Didn’t happen.
And if you look at the demographics of CT party delegates, I imagine you’ll see what you see among TN party delegates. They’re not, by and large, “moonbat” bloggers and McGovernite hippie activists. (If you look at the age breakdown among voting members of the DNC, you’ll find less than 15% of them are under the age of 40.)
As far as ideals, we’ll see. I sincerely believe, though, that Reid should have Chris Dodd talk Lieberman back off the ledge here, and if Joestasis can’t figure out a way to say, “I’m out,” Reid should respond with, “You’re dead to me.” And since Nomentum is now no longer [officially, as of 9 EDT this morning] a Democrat in the Connecticut general election, Reid should reallocate Sore Loserman’s committee assignments.
Enjoy the rest of your tenure, Senator.