Lieberman Concedes, Will Run As Independent

So says the Hartford Courant. Lieberman is precisely why the Democratic Establishment perpetually has its collective head up its collective backside: an incumbent senator loses to a no-name challenger whose only previous political experience was in local government. The challenger was massively outspent and did not have over a decade’s worth of political favors to call upon. And Lieberman still lost. Instead of taking the hint, he plows on in the name of a cause I can’t fathom. Overwhelmingly, his party and the country reject his stands on Iraq, social security, and popular culture, just to name a few issues. He still thinks it’s the 60s, and he has to defend the Democrats from the damn hippies. He’s not just out of touch, he’s literally out of century–Vietnam is long over, Holy Joe. Between his stupidity and that of his advisors, it is a case study in why the Democratic Establishment is so hapless. Lamont never should have had a chance.

The election also highlights something very important: the political reference points have completely changed. Partially, it has to do with the diminishment of single-issue politics. But it’s pretty clear that the old playbook has to be tossed out the window. I lived in CT for almost nine years (and even grudgingly voted for Lieberman), and I couldn’t figure out what happened. The rural areas leaned slightly for Lamont–and traditionally in CT, they’re more conservative, while the urban areas and labor strongholds were essentially split. Not what I would have predicted. I think a lot of drive-by national pundits are going to try to shoehorn this election into a preconceived storyline, when I’m not sure there is a storyline (or what that storyline is given the close vote). Anyway, it’s late, and I’m off to bed (I work for a living pally).
Update: A more fine-scale breakdown of the votes actually suggests that Lamont did much better among middle class and lower income voters than Lieberman did. Lieberman really is the senator for stockbrokers from Stamford. Looks like trying to paint Lamont as a ‘richie-rich’ didn’t really take.

This entry was posted in Democrats, Fucking Morons, Progressives. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Lieberman Concedes, Will Run As Independent

  1. Troublesome Frog says:

    Instead of taking the hint, he plows on in the name of a cause I can’t fathom.

    It is interesting that when issues of national importance are involved, he’s a moderate team player, but when the issue is his political career he’s suddenly ready to fight like a cornered animal and never give an inch. Too little, too late.

  2. The Christensen Gang of Four says:

    Lots of democrats were for the war.
    Even John Kerry voted for it, before he voted against it.
    Hillary Clinton says “we” can’t “cut and run”.
    So why pick on Lieberman?
    Is it because he is a JEW and talks about religion?
    You know liberals hate that.

  3. “Christensen Gang of Four”,
    You’re obviously a newbie around these parts: I’m a Jew and I “talk about religion” (my anger towards Christopathy is that I think that particular religion is harmful, not that it’s a religion per se). As a moderately observant Jew, I find Lieberman’s sanctimony obnoxious and self-serving.
    You’re right in that many Democrats were for the war–note the past tense–but now they realize we need to change course. Lieberman is still drinking the Kool-Aid.
    Third, Lieberman spent most of his time criticizing and undercutting Democrats on virtually everything from Social Security (he floated a privitization plan) to judicial nominations, to Iraq where he repeatedly defended Bush long after Kerry and Clinton left him on the issue of Iraq.
    Or maybe I’m just a religion-hating anti-Semite.

  4. Troublesome Frog says:

    Apparently, there’s still some sort of twisted honor in sticking to your guns even after it’s pretty obvious to everybody that your idea has failed miserably. I think it’s captured pretty clearly in the final frame of this comic.
    Yes, a lot of Democrats did vote for it, and I have a hard time forgiving a lot of them for it. They voted for it either because they got swept up in the idiotic panic that gripped the country, or they voted for it because they didn’t have the guts to stand up to a popular president during a time of crisis. Even now, I have a lot more respect for anybody who has the integrity to say, “Yes, I voted for it, and it was a mistake,” than for people who say, “It was a good idea at the time,” when it clearly wasn’t–then or now.
    For me, Lieberman brings the worst of all possible worlds. He panders to the Republicans when they’re at their worst (arrogant, destructive foreign policy, wacky privatization schemes, and moral sanctimony) without any of the redeeming attributes of lip service to fiscal responsibility or folksy charm.

  5. The Christensen Gang of Four says:

    So Mike, you say you are a Jew and that you are angry at “Christopathy”, and think the whole religion is harmful?
    That is as open and honest an expression of raw bigotry as I have seen around here, and especially ironic considering that Christ and his first generation followers were Jews.
    How is that any different from a Muslim expressing bigotry toward Judaism?

  6. TDGF,
    I didn’t say Christianity, but Christopathy. The hate-mongering of Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, and the rest of the ‘religious’ right (long-time opponents of civil rights and interracial marriage) is not worthy of the Christianity of Martin Luther King, Niebhur, and Niemoller (and I was unaware that Jesus had an opinion on the estate tax too). That’s not Christian, but bigotry and irrationality that diminishes all religions, including Christianity. Again, why don’t you read through the blog before you engage in Pavlovian responses and post.
    BTW, I’m not the only one who uses the term.

  7. Disciple of Christensen says:

    Mike, thats a bullshit evasion.
    Of course you do call your blog “mad” (as in insane, I take it) rantings.
    You are fucking nuts.
    We don’t need your bigotry.

  8. skunqesh says:

    Please explain how you have suffered at the hands of bigotry?
    Where, when, who, perpetrated this bigotry against you.
    How you achieved your victimhood status is ever so interesting to know.

  9. skunqesh says:

    Food for Thought – from The Nation:
    “The Lamont media flailing truly was remarkable. How else to describe longtime Lieberman pal and DC corporate lobbyist Lanny Davis, trolling online through liberal comment sections in search of random anti-Semitic slurs in order to prove thoughtful progressives opposed to Lieberman were really filled with “scary hatred.” Davis also trembled theatrically for a liberal Connecticut buddy who confided that he might not return to the state to vote on primary day “out of fear for his safety.”

  10. skunqesh says:

    Me again, if curious, read the whole text here:

  11. sex shop says:

    thanks for all

  12. thanks for all

Comments are closed.