Video: Ned Lamont Wins In CT.
Rahm Emanuel: "This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means"
Lieberman concedes. I don’t know about you, but I believe that the Democratic party’s support must be for the Democratic nominee for Senate — Ned Lamont.
For Joe Lieberman, I think the Dixie Chicks say it best:
I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
>> Lieberman Lost His Hometown
>> Lieberman Loses Connecticut Primary Bid
Related
links for 2008-06-15
TBA 2007: Obama, Edwards
Cowboys Prep All-Felon Team
Meet Joe Lieberman’s Worst Nightmare
Liberal bloggers jumped on Ned Lamont’s bandwagon before he even owned one. Now the anti-war crusade
Lieberman will get plenty of support from Republicans, in and out of CT to finance his ‘fukc you’ tour this fall. This time around he will have Rove overtly on his side.
Lieberman isn’t a bad guy. He just let himself get snookered by the War Fog created by the Plausible Denialists. Just because they’ve moved the 50 yard line to the 30, there is no reason to swallow that camel whole without question.
The center has been moved right, and it’s time it was returned to the middle,
Semantcleo, I am interested to hear what you believe is good about him. I have dispised him since the PMRC and have seen nothing recently that would salvage him. Please don’t take it as combative. I really would like to know what anybody outside of DC likes about this guy.
How completely appropriate to lean on the Dixie Chicks music for your sentiment.
The parallels are astounding.
The Dixie Chicks committed career suicide by alienating two-thirds of their fan base.
The Democrats are committing party suicide by alienating two-thirds of America.
The Dixie Chicks just cancelled 14 shows because they can’t sell concert tickets.
The Democrats haven’t won a national election in 12 years because they can’t sell their ideas.
Even with mountains of publicity and fawning media profiles, the Dixie Chicks can’t convince the American people to buy their music the way they used to.
Even with mountains of publicity and fawning media profiles, the Democrats can’t convince the American people to buy their empty rhetoric the way they used to.
Only the die-hard, ass-kissing one note anti-war liberals in their fanbase still pay any attention to the Dixie Chicks.
Only the dies hard ass-kisisng one note anti-war liberals pay any attention to the Democrats.
The leader of the Dixie Chicks gets the bulk of her media attention for saying monumentally stupid things.
The leader of the Democrats is Howard Dean.
Astounding, isn’t it?
tyfoc,
Do you even believe that we should have more than one party? Because you come across as one of these arrogrant right-wingers who thinks that everyone should believe the same as they do. Chances are that six years ago you bashed Lieberman endlessly for “selling out” his morals by running with Al Gore, which was the extremely popular rhetoric at the time among the conservative base.
By the way, in case you’ve been living under a rock, most of the country is in your words composed of “one-note” anti-war liberals.
tyfoc,
Thank you for your concern about the Democratic party. We appreciate you, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, and all the other hardcore wingnuts coming out of the woodwork to support Joementum and sincerely looking out for our interests. And to think you were calling us traitors and America haters only yesterday! Sorry we’re idiotically joining the 2/3rds of the country currently lining against GWB and the Republicans this fall, I’m sure we will regret this foolishness. Oh well.
Enjoy Fox News!!!
Either the American people are somehow divided into five thirds, or tyfoc got it backwards. Ned Lamont’s victory was backed by the 2/3rds of America who are “teh anti-war Lieberalz OMG LOL”.
Actually, rereading that I think you took a wrong turn on your way to LGF or some other place where “DEMOCRATS SUCK BECAUSE I SAY THEY DO AND HERE IS THE PROOF IN THE FORM OF ME SAYING THEY SUCK IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS” type rhetoric is welcomed and indeed cherished.
Wow, they still make cons like tyfoc? I thought we had seen the last of the dead enders.
Shouldn’t he be in Iraq fighting the War on… what is the reason for the war now?
“Only the dies [sic] hard ass-kisisng one note anti-war liberals pay any attention to the Democrats.”
“Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?”
Democrats 46%, Republicans 38%
“Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?”
Democrats 43%, Republicans 40%
Source: Washington Post, August 7, 2006
It’s kinda strange how the “netroots” first and only “victim” to date is…
a Democrat.
Now let’s see how this one works out.
That sucking sound you hear is the Democratic party being dragged even further to the left.
Good luck running with THAT in November.
“The Democrats haven’t won a national election in 12 years because they can’t sell their ideas.”
Tyfoc, given that you cannot handle simple arithmetic, I fail to see why anyone should take you seriously. Clinton won re-election in 1996. It is now 2006. 2006-1996 = 10. and 10
And for that matter, how does dragging something make a sucking sound?
Oh, please. I like Ned and all, but if he’s far-left, I think that would make me some kind of extreme Mao-Trotskyist, because I not only do I own a copy of The Ragged Troused Philanthropists, I read it. Sign me up for the Militant Tendency right now!
I appreciate all this concern for the Democratic party, I really do. From the people who impeached our president, invalidated our votes, smeared our war heroes and called us traitors, you’re truly the ones I look to for advice about integrity.
Steve, what leftist positions does Ned Lamont hold?
Be careful, the anti-war position is held by a clear majority of Americans.
So now 43% to 46% = two thirds of the country?
Perhaps a reality check is in order here — Ned Lamont still has to be elected to the Senate.
And I think it’s doubtful that he will win 2/3 of the vote in an open election against Lieberman and a Republican challenger.
BTW, no Democrat since LBJ has won more than 51% of the popular vote. So maybe you should rethink the whole “2/3 of America” nonsense.
I must chuckle at Oliver blubbering about being called a ‘traitor’ when it’s something he does to conservatives and Republicans every other day.
He also trots out the “votes weren’t counted” meme another time. “We didn’t lose!! You didn’t count our votes!!” If you guys would just for once stop and consider that maybe it’s your suck-ass ideas and positions that cost you elections, and not some mythical force that keeps votes from being counted, maybe you’d actually start winning some elections of importance instead of celebrating a preferred candidates primary win.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060809/pl_nm/iraq_usa_poll_dc_3
You were saying?
“The telephone survey, which had an error margin of 3 percentage points, showed 61 percent believed at least some U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2006.”
Mike, when people speak of the “two-thirds” of America soundbite, they’re not referring to the poll I referenced; they’re referring to Bush’s disapproval numbers on Iraq and in general, both of which hover around 60-65%. But you knew that already.
so, what other “leftist” positions does Ned Lamont hold? So far you’ve identified…..none.
Wow, I guess there are a lot of issues where 60+ percent of Americans have gone against the GOP narrative. Thanks Factcheck!
I dunno, you know, Lieberman running as an indie might even manage to split the Republican vote more than the Democratic. We’ll see. It’ll certainly be interesting.
Now that the “loser” tag has been tattooed on Nomentum’s forehead, if you think he ran a bad campaign this time, with EVERY POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE (incumbent, name recognition, 3 times the money, Clinton, Boxer, etc.), how is he going to do in November when every one of his endorsements disappears?
You mean those “suck ass” positions more people voted for in 2000? And I only note people who are truly traitorous to our nation (like, for instance, doing everything in their power to avoid catching the man who slaughtered 3,000 Americans).
zadura;
Combative? Mois?
Seriously, I don’t like him
politically because he represents the soft underbelly of the Dems. You know, the one Republicans like to slice open and gut. He is not combative enough to defeat the pposition. I just think he’s a guy who likes to get along. ergo. Nice guy.
I don’t know, Semanticleo, he sure doesn’t show his “soft underbelly” to anyone who attacks his pro-war positions. I guess he only attacks Democrats.
This war wrecked Lieberman with most liberals, but remember which Democrat called for Clinton’s resignation in Monicagate? Same Holy Joe.
I’ve lost all respect for Joe Lieberman.
If I’m not mistaken–he’s the guy who urged Gore to gracefully exit the stage after Florida went to Bush.
What a difference a few years makes. Joe hath seen the light!
Frankly, while Joe’s insistence on not letting go upsets me, I find it rather sad. He’s obviously man who can’t accept rejection, or defeat. Most of us have to live with the consequences of our poor decisions. Apparently, Joe’s better than the rest of us.
Joe…get out. You took an unpopular position and it cost you.
You lost. Get out, get out.
I am URGING every liberal reader of this blog to fire off a “get out” email to the Lieberman campaign.
JK
You mean those “suck ass” positions more people voted for in 2000?
Not where it counted. New York, California and Mass. are not the entire country.
And I only note people who are truly traitorous to our nation (like, for instance, doing everything in their power to avoid catching the man who slaughtered 3,000 Americans).
Riggggght. That’s the only time you’ve done so.
Marty hit the nail on the head. It never ceases to amaze me how electorally dumb Democrats can be.
In 2000, they didn’t know about this little thing called the electoral college.
Now they think they’re gonna retake the Senate and their biggest victory to date is getting a Democrat to win a primary where the best case scenario, even if he wins in Nov, doesn’t gain them a seat.
The chest-thumping from the Kos crowd is fun, though. It would be like Temple finally winning a football game and acting like they’re 2004 USC.
Oh my God, your theatrically drawn out use of the word “right” has rendered Oliver Willis completely irrelevant now, in perpetuity and retroactively! Congratulations!
Also you have established for once and forever that New England, New York and California don’t count in an electoral sense! They’re already drafting a bill to remove their electoral college votes! How do you do it? Is it just by assuming you’re right and talking as if there is no concievable way anyone could prove or even claim otherwise, or is there more to it than that?
That was aimed at Jay. This is aimed at that other guy with the selective memory:
What
Wait, you’re disputing that Gore won more votes across all of America than Bush in 2000? I’ll gladly admit that Bush beat Kerry by all of 2.4% in 2004, but quit trying to rewrite history.
“The telephone survey, which had an error margin of 3 percentage points, showed 61 percent believed at least some U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2006.”
So withdrawing at least some U.S. troops now equals “against the war”? That’s a bit of a reach, don’t you think?
Let’s look at how they got that 61% figure:
26 percent said they would favor the withdrawal of all troops
35 percent said not all troops should be withdrawn
34 percent said they believed the current level of troops in Iraq should be maintained
So they got 61% by adding the “withdraw all” and “don’t withdraw all” numbers. But do both of those groups fall into the “anti-war” category?
I think a more accurate breakdown would be as follows:
26 percent = against the war
34 percent = support the war
35 percent = Somewhere in the middle, wanting some, but not all troops out by the end of the year
So really, you’ve got only a quarter of the country that could be considered anti-war, while a little over a third support it. The remaining group is somewhere in the middle.
Claiming that “the majority” or “two-thirds” of the country are anti-war based on these poll questions is really stretching it, guys. I thought you were supposed to be the reality-based community?
Sematics is fun.
Drone, think what you like, but a clear majority of the country is for all the troops being home in the next 16 months. Anyway, I was referring to 63% of the country disapproving of Bush’s handling of Iraq, but the country does favor starting to withdraw as well.
Uh, except for another question in the same poll
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html?section=cnn_latest
Poll: 60% of Americans oppose Iraq War.
You were saying?
Dumbass.
Glad to see you’re still your usual obnoxious self, factcheck. If you ever begin showing signs of civility, I’ll start to worry.
The poll figures I was responding to (i.e. 61%) were the ones YOU quoted in your 10:44am post, which of course failed to support the claim in your 9:44am post that “the anti-war position is held by a clear majority of Americans”.
And that “60% of Americans oppose Iraq War” you refer to was not another question in the same poll (as you claimed), it was how CNN summed up the overall poll results. The only figure they gave was “36 percent said they were in favor of the war”, which means we’re supposed to assume that the other 64 percent (minus the margin of error) were “against the war”. What were the specific poll questions they used to reach this conclusion? Was it another “X percent are against the war and Y percent have some middle position” that they added together like they did with the 61 percent figure I posted on?
But if you want to gloat based on an assumption, be my guest.
Sematics is fun.
Twisting numbers to support your position must be too!
Drone, think what you like, but a clear majority of the country is for all the troops being home in the next 16 months.
Yes, a clear majority of the country wants either some or all troops brought home. This is a bit different than the ridiculous claim by factcheck that “the anti-war position is held by a clear majority of Americans”.
I personally would also like to see some (but not all) of the troops start coming home by the end of this year, but that doesn’t make me “anti-war”.
Regarding the “63% of the country disapproving of Bush’s handling of Iraq”, you can count me in on that one.
>>”63% of the country disapproving of Bush’s handling of Iraq”, you can count me in on that one.
Whether or not you take the position that the war should not have happened in the first place (which I now do), is sort of moot, because we’re there. Ain’t nothin’ going to change that.
Are there dozens of potential Presidential candidates that could do a better job of managing this war than Bush? Yes.
(There are teenagers and young adults that I would trust more than Bush to run this country. Not kidding.)
Clearly, neo-con decision making and leadership has made a disaster of this war, and GOP Congressional leadership, save for a few, has fallen lock-step behind the Bush administration.
So, time for a change.
My sense is that if Democrats keep pushing the “change” theme, the way Bill Clinton did in 1992, they have a decent chance to take back one of the houses, at least.
JK
The 2/3rds statistic was explained in this thread before you showed up with your Thesaurus.
Your problem, drone, is that your right wing spoon-feeders have turned “anti-war” into an entire constellation of views in order to frighten you into sticking with the GOP. In fact, being antiwar really boils down to: “do you support or oppose the U.S. continuing to fight and die for nothing? If you oppose, then you’re anti war.” And the people who check the “oppose” box are far and away the majority. That’s the only claim anyone’s made. It’s the GOP who’s done the demonization brainwash fear-job on you; don’t blame factcheck for that.
This winger mantra about Lamont being an antiwar activist, etc rings hollow, even though it gets lots of repetition in accordance with the GOP memo.
So how many Democratic leaders were against taking military action in Afghanistan? Very, very few.
And how many are demanding that we immediately pull our troops out of Afghanistan? Well, none.
If Lamont is anti-anything, he’s anti-QUAGMIRE, as are most of the American people. The pro-QUAGMIRE party is on the wrong side of this issue. Leading the nation into a wrong-headed invasion does not make you strong on national security. It just means you’re not good leadership material.
Alright drone which poll would you like?
How about the Washington Post poll?
“Do you favor or oppose the US War with Iraq?” 39% Yes, 60% No
“All in all, considering the costs….do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting or not?” Worth 39%, Not Worth 60%.
How about CNN?
60% oppose, 36% pro
57% are for a timetable
48% US will not win
I know the truth hurts, but you need to realize that you are out of the mainstream, and have a hard right, wild eyed perspective when compared to the heart of America.
posted by me at Move)n today:
So, let’’s see. An organization that purportedly wants to return power back to the people, in league with Daily Kos, etc., has hitched its wagon to an ulta wealthy Exeter WASP opportunist and, in the process, trod all over a decent man because it disagrees with him on one issue, albeit a very important one. Whither nuance and the once “vital center”? Now, we have the rogues on the right, who I abhor, facing down the naive but very Rove-like “We’ll show you not to support the war!”, beat-a-Democrat-in-the-primary-at-any-cost MoveOn folks. Wonderful. What now? Having handed all political momentum back to your opponents, while tolerating vile anti-senitic rants on your various websites, what exactly comes next. Feeling pretty muscular, I bet. Bravo!
As I said yesterday, you have driven me completely out of the party, which now seems to have room only for “disaffected” naifs with no ability to manage what they have wrought. Like it or not, and this goes for both sides, governing is about disagreeing respectfully, compromising, and groping, sometimes despairingly, for that ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY “vital center”. Rushing to either extreme while ranting and insulting has been tried by the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Absurd absolutism from either extreme looks the same when all is said and done.
There must be a third way. The world will not survive unless common sense moves the two extremes towards one another. So, in your delirium, pause and ponder where you are headed, if you can. You strut about as though you have accomplished something, when all you have done is tear things to pieces in a directionless frenzy.
If you on the lunar left could find some way to plant your flag nearer the middle, which would give you a footing to bring your opposites also back to that same middle, then all is lost. For now, I guess I am left with Kinky Friedman and the waning hope that you will learn to lead and not lock arms in a parody of some childhood game.
- Will Hough, Educator (August 10, 2006; West Wareham, MA)
“trod all over a decent man because it disagrees with him on one issue”
This is simple ignorance. Either educate yourself about the matter and retract, or be revealed as a willing GOP stooge. Which is what I suspect you are, anyways, due to the hilarity contained within this next assesment:
“governing is about disagreeing respectfully, compromising, and groping, sometimes despairingly, for that ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY “vital center”.”
This is your belief, nd yet, your gripe is with Democrats? Never heard of Karl Rove, have you? You’re definitely a sock puppet.
- Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy, Educator, Raisin Farmer, Poet, Warrior (August 10, 2006; atop Mount Rushmore)
Anatole,
Thats just about what I expected. I rest my case.
Will, I sincerely hope you find the political center. Most people who’ve gone looking for it tell me it combines the easy, smug, pie-in-the-sky attitude of John McCain’s “sure I criticize the President — for not killing enough Iraqis!” brand of militarism with Joe Lieberman’s “stick with the president no matter how stupid” brand of loyalty. THAT’S bipartisanship even Sean Hannity can love! Your depth of respect for actual Democratic ideas is commendable. You will be missed, man of the middle.
Hitler and Stalin, indeed. Spoken like a true statesman.
“As I said yesterday, you have driven me completely out of the party,”
Buh bye. We can’t miss you til’ you’re gone.
“Like it or not, and this goes for both sides, governing is about disagreeing respectfully, ”
and then in another paragraph
“If you on the lunar left”
(Continue to) vote for Cons, “educator”.
“As I said yesterday, you have driven me completely out of the party,”
Buh bye. We can’t miss you til’ you’re gone.
“Like it or not, and this goes for both sides, governing is about disagreeing respectfully, ”
and then in another paragraph
“If you on the lunar left”
(Continue to) vote for Cons, “educator”.
You know, about a month ago Lieberman’s campaign labeled Lamont as a man who voted like a conservative Republican when he was a selectman in Greenwich.
So what changed?
To Will:
Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Seriously, the people who actually want to stand for something are beginning to reclaim the party*, and if you don’t like it, too-f’ing-bad.
Look bi-partisanship is nice and all, but if that means trusting con-men with important matters, than no thanks. i’m not letting my party allow me to get swindled, especially when I had no say in the matter.
In short, screw the center of the road**. I don’t want to get hit by oncoming traffic.
*Let’s just hope this trend continues.
**Ok, maybe that statement was a little harsh, but my main point remains valid.