Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Lieberman Concedes Defeat In Senate Race

Good, I'm glad that's over (sort of). After the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 elections, my faith in our Democracy was dwindling. Results like this will help to restore it. This is what it's all about. People don't like the job the guy representing them is doing, and they are supporting someone else who they hope will do it better. Kind of sucks that Lieberman is going to try to screw things up by running as an independent. Not that I begrudge him that avenue, if he wants it, but if he did, he should have done that from the beginning. Kind of shitty to use the support of the Democratic party when it's beneficial to him, then shed it quickly when the results don't suit him. Though it shouldn't be surprising, since he certainly doesn't seem to hold too tightly to Democratic or progressive ideals. Anyway, to echo what Toast said earlier, I really hope the Democratic party unequivocally supports Lamont (which should go without saying since he won their primary), but I'm afraid that they won't. I know politics is a slimy business, but a party that won't even support their own nominees is a party that deserves to lose. Hopefully, they'll do the right thing and support the democratic process, which apparently does work occaisionally.

Posted by


Kristin in NC said...

Music to my ears. This was a great first step and I hope Lieberman heard the loud message he was being sent.

CNN reports today that 60% of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began.

We're waking up. Slowly but surely.

Westley (random internet loser) said...

So the guy that you think had the Vice Presidency stolen from him in 2000 has now lost his Senate seat, and you're happy? That makes sense. Wait, what were you saying again?

Chris Howard said...

The reason Lieberman was chosen as Gore's running mate is one of the reasons that a lot of us don't like him.

Westley (random internet loser) said...

Why do you think Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate? Traditionally, presidential nominees have selected running mates who compliment them in terms of voter bases. So I seem to recall that part of Gore's reasoning was to pick someone from the Northeast, just as Kerry selected a southerner (Clinton went the opposite route with obvious success).

I also seem to recall that Gore wished to help wash the taint of the Clinton administration off his candidacy by picking someone who was known to be of the highest moral and ethical standards. Lieberman certainly has always fit that bill and has been known as a particularly pious man.

Am I missing something else?

John Howard said...

Yes, you are missing something. Lieberman is a Republican.

Westley (random internet loser) said...

Gore selected him as his running mate because Lieberman's a Republican? wonder Gore lost in 2000 (excuse me.....had the election stolen from him by Bush, the Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, et al., in 2000). I don't recall that part at all. You'd think I'd remember the first split party ticket in modern history.

On another note, what exactly makes Lieberman a "Republican?" I think the fact that Lieberman sometimes votes with Senate Republicans indicates that he is bipartisan and thoughtful, not an actual Republican. Do you mean that he's somewhat "conservative" for a Democrat?

John Howard said...

No, I mean he's a Republican. Making compromises where your side gains something and the other side gains something is bridging the partisan divide, adopting their postions and suggesting that it's wrong to disagree just means you're on the other side or just an idiot, no matter what letter is next to your name.

Westley (internet genius) said...

I assume that you vote a straight party ticket, eh? Just fill in the Democrat bubbles right down the line without even bothering to think. That type of partisan hijinks is why politics sucks.

John Howard said...

Are you serious? No. If I did that, I'd have no problem with Lieberman, up until last week, since he was still a democrat. The kind of thinking you're talking about is what leads people like Lieberman to think they're entitled to keep their seats, no matter how bad a job they do.

And a lot of people do do exactly what you say. But often, it's because it's a choice between a member of their party that they're not happy with or a member of the ther party. This campaign with Lieberman is exactly the opposite of that. People were given a viable choice and they took it.

Westley (i invented the internets -- not gore) said...

You're equating "doing a bad job" with "having positions with which I don't agree." I'm not sure what made the other candidate such a "viable" choice -- unless I'm mistaken, he's inexperienced as hell. All he did was do a little dance and jig about how he's against Bush and all you unthinking Democrats jump off the Lieberman bandwagon.

If you'd had your way in 2000, Lieberman would be our VP, and you'd be saying what a great man he was. Hell, you'd probably be saying that he should be running for President in 2008! There would be "Lieberman 2008" signs all over the yard in front of your trailer!

John Howard said...

I wish Lieberman was our VP, but only because that would mean that Gore was president. Who gives a shit who the VP is? I would never support Lieberman as a presidential candidate.

Lieberman is a terrible Senator. Yes, a lot of that is because he has positions that I don't agree with. I agree with Lamont on a lot more things than I agree with Lieberman on, so if I was in CT, I would have voted for Lamont, so I'm glad he wom. That's what democracy is about, people choose represenatives who represent them. Sure, there are a lot of problems with how we do that, but Lamont winning the primary against Lieberman shows that they system still can work.

Storm said...

Westley I enjoyed your postings. It is amazing the duplicity of Demos.

CNN is about as unbiased as Fox. I will accept no pole results from CNN.

Poles do not matter it is trends you should look at. The trend in America is toward the center. More Americans than ever do not identify with either party. The concept of a true third party has been widely debated.

Let's set the record straight Lieberman is no Republican. However, he was the most moderate voice in the DNC.

Although, I would probably not vote for him, you all just lost the guy that possibly could have been the best candidate for the DNC in 2008.

Westley said...

Thanks Storm! I have enjoyed your sparring with jrh as well.

John Howard said...


CNN is nowhere near as biased as Fox News. That's patently ridiculous.

If Lieberman was the best candidate for the DNC in 2008 (and he absolutely wasn't), then I'm glad we lost him. Maybe you're right and he's not a Republican, but he's closer to them than to Democrats on enough issues that it doesn't make any difference.

Westley said...

One is a "Republican" only if one is registered with the Republican National Party. It's not a political stance per se, although I'm sure some people consider it such (it would be like you saying that you're a college student because you like to drink beer and sleep until noon -- you're not really a college student unless you're registered somewhere).

As I stressed before, perhaps you mean that Lieberman is relatively "conservative" for a Democrat? Conservative refers to a political framework, as opposed to a political party. Saying that Lieberman is a Republican is kinda idiotic.

Of course, the sad thing is that the only President during your lifetime who approaches being a "classic" liberal is Carter (who was a great man but a dismal leader). Clinton was a Democrat, but he clearly followed a rather moderate agenda (which does not make him a Republican, btw).

Storm said...

JRH You are missing the point.

Most Americans are in the center neither conservative nor liberal. Lieberman was the one well known moderate in the DNC. He was chosen by Gore for exactly this reason and now you all have cast aside the one senior moderate representative you had just because he does not always fall into lock step.

The proof that Demos are missing the point is found in recent polls which indicate that as an independent in a general election he still might beat the Demo candidate. Although I am no fan of polls it is interesting to note the difference between the general voting public and the more fervent party members that vote in primarys.