Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Connecticut -- The Morning After

The Fix's Chris Cillizza will be filing some additional thoughts from Connecticut later today. In the meantime, here's the announcement put out by Senate Democratic leaders Harry Reid (Nev.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.):


Democratic Leader Harry Reid and DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer issued the following joint statement today on the Connecticut Senate race:

"The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken and chosen Ned Lamont as their nominee. Both we and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) fully support Mr. Lamont's candidacy. Congratulations to Ned on his victory and on a race well run.

"Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction."

By Editors  |  August 9, 2006; 10:54 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Lieberman Concedes Connecticut Primary to Lamont
Next: Aug. 8: Winners and Losers


I agree with Paul on that one, its the moderates who lost that fight. However, I think this negates the Republicans efforts to paint the Dems as a small tent party because they got rid of Leiberman. If they argue that, the Dems can argue they got rid of Schwarz, and CoG is really trying to get rid of Chaffee.

Posted by: Rob Millette | August 14, 2006 7:53 PM | Report abuse

How is Bush a loser due to Schwarz's loss? Schwarz is against making the Bush tax cuts permanent and the Club for Growth, hardly an anti-Bush group, campaigned hard for Schwarz's challenger. If anything, moderates are the losers here, not the president.

Posted by: Paul | August 10, 2006 7:43 PM | Report abuse

KAS -- that was a sarcastic comment. Trust me.

Posted by: Colin | August 10, 2006 6:08 PM | Report abuse


Are you saying this was a positive? Because the only people its helped are the richest 1% who really don't need help.

Posted by: KAS | August 10, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

KAS - Cut taxes. The sure fire positive solution to every problem imaginable. No matter how stupid it may be at the time.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 10, 2006 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Why is it that those who continue to support this failed administration cannot give any specific examples of anything they've done right or positive for this nation or the world?

Posted by: KAS | August 10, 2006 10:08 AM | Report abuse

C'mon Fred, you know bush deserted his unit during wartime. He was a cut and runner, buddy -- a deserter. You know that... you know what the penalty should have been, too.

Posted by: Drindl | August 10, 2006 9:48 AM | Report abuse

as I see it Leiberman's loss should scare the Connecxticut Republicans in the house races very much. The Dmcorats rejected the slightly right leaning Democrat in Joe Leiberman, who was a VP candidate back in 2000 and has won election easily. This just goes to show that Democrats are fed up with people's connections to Bush and in Connecticut, that does not bode well for any Republican or right leaning Dem like Leiberman. Joe may yet win because he has enough support from moderate Democrats and Republicans who will not vote for Schlesinger, but even having a Republican in this race makes life harder ffor Joe and easier for Lamont, who may pull this off if the main stream Dems back him.

Posted by: Rob Millette | August 10, 2006 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Fred -- I guess my point is that you seem attached to a political party whose leaders aren't any more likely to have actually served than Democratic party leaders are. Given that, I suppose I find it interesting when people make statements implying that Democrats don't support and honor EVERY SOLDIER who contributes to this country's safety on a daily basis. In point of fact we (I) do.

As to GWB, I don't personally care if a politician didn't serve - although I think it's a PLUS if they did. What I DO have a problem with is when a man who had his father pull strings to keep him out of combat (and if you doubt that happened, I don't know what to say) acts as if he has a monopoly on patriotism while - in my opinion - recklessly sending other people's children into harm's way. Somehow, I think he might have a different perspective on those decisions he's making if the national guard and reserves had seen as much combat in HIS day as they do today under his command.

Posted by: Colin | August 9, 2006 11:08 PM | Report abuse


OK, the number is 30 :)

Posted by: Fred | August 9, 2006 9:18 PM | Report abuse

You may be right, but I strongly suspect there are more than three.

Posted by: Joan | August 9, 2006 8:16 PM | Report abuse

To Colin,

My point was to rebut the caustic remark of Drindl "...let whichever republicans who are not cowards [if there are any]..."

and GWB did serve in the reserves. He did receive an honorable discharge. From my vantage point as a veteran, I have no problem with this. Over half the soldiers in my basic training company at Fort Polk were AR's and NG's and not one "fortunate son" among them. They were just regular folks.

To Joan,

I have no issue with people not choosing military service when there is not a draft. My point being that in the current military, there are a lot more individuals who identify with republicans rather than democrats.

Posted by: Fred | August 9, 2006 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I respect your military service. There are many ways to serve; teaching, innovating ways to protect the environment and cure diseases, nursing, doctoring, and being a dedicated parent to name a few. That you and your family and others chose the military is no less or more admirable a way to serve than others. Again, some avoid miltary service for this war out of principle.

Posted by: Joan | August 9, 2006 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Dick Cheney ("had other priorities")
GWB ("Dad said I didn't have to go")

Lots of Democrats have fought and continue to fight for this country. Plenty of Republicans, including the ones who now consider themselves "hawks," chose not to fight when they were young and had the chance. What's your point Fred?

Posted by: Colin | August 9, 2006 7:21 PM | Report abuse


My Father (WWII)
My Uncle (WWII)
My Father in Law (Vietnam, Grenada, military attache in Yemen and S.A)

All fighting Dems.

Posted by: Will | August 9, 2006 7:01 PM | Report abuse


A bit of family (military)history.

My grandfather fought in WWI
My father and his 2 brothers were in WWII
My MOTHER was in the military in WWII
My oldest brother was in Vietnam.
My next oldest brother was in Vietnam
My son was in the army but is out now.
My daughter is currently in the air force.

and BTW, I was in Vietnam thanks to a certain president whose initials were LBJ.

Is this enough family participation in the military to suit you?

Posted by: Fred | August 9, 2006 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I guess you and your sons have fought in wars, right? Uh,huh. Besides, there are people who actually avoid this war out of principle...Yes, principle. This war never has made any sense and it has proved to increase terrorism and hostility toward the US.

Posted by: Joan | August 9, 2006 6:20 PM | Report abuse


Let all the dem soldiers come home from Iraq. Gee, that total would be about 3.

Posted by: Fred | August 9, 2006 6:01 PM | Report abuse


We are a Representational form of democracy. Thus the bias causing the Party system to become the reality of things. The party members pick a candidate rather than having an open free-for all style.

So the voters have to pick a party first.

If people don't care to vote in the primaries, then they get what they get in November.

In a country as large as the US, imagine the size of the ballot with candidates representing every cock-eyed special interest with enough wherewithal to get on the ballot if it was a free-for-style election.

It would look alot like the mess we put in place in Iraq!

Posted by: zippy | August 9, 2006 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that people are assuming that Lamont caters to the 'lefties' and Lieberman to the 'moderates.' As an independant (not in CT though), I'm rooting for the Dems to retake Congress this year, as the Rs have bolloxed it up, but good. Joe, who I liked about as well as George & Dick in 2000 (which is to say, not at all), has never had much appeal. While he gets labelled as a 'moderate' that does not necessarily mean his views match those of the middle. For instance, 'stay the course' is the exact wrong policy in Iraq. We need leadership that will propose a solution that's neither 'stay the course' nor 'cut and run.' That doesn't mean we need a half-assed policy that splits the difference, it means we need a new policy that learns from the mistakes of the last three years and tries to salvage some kind of peace in the region. Joe clearly wasn't offering any new ideas in that regard. Given his wimpish boot-licking of the White House, I can say nothing but Good Riddance.

Posted by: bsimon | August 9, 2006 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Reports of Joe Lieberman's political death are (as Mark Twain once said of rumors of his own demise) "premature and grossly exaggerated." Lieberman has lost a battle, but he can still win the war running as an independent.

While Ned Lamont will clearly have a bounce after yesterday's primary victory, the Rasmussen Poll of July 20 showed Lieberman and Lamont tied at 40 percent each in the general election (with scandal-plagued GOP nominee Alan Schlesinger at 13 percent).

Those who would consign Lieberman to the dustbin of history need to realize that the Democratic primary in Connecticut is an affair that could be conducted in a good-sized phone booth. About 140,000 people voted for Lamont. But the state saw 1,575,000 votes cast in the general election of 2004. Assume a lower turnout in 2006 (an off year), say 1 million votes, that still leaves 860,000 that can vote for Lieberman.

The Connecticut incumbent can, of course, count on the roughly 130,000 who backed him yesterday (aside from a few party regulars who might find it necessary to fall into line and endorse the nominee).

Then, with the Republican plagued by reports of huge gambling debts, Lieberman will strongly attract independent and GOP voters, plus moderate Democrats who weren't energized enough by the Lamont challenge to vote in the primaries.

In the general election, Lieberman can paint Lamont (a former client of mine) as the rich, light-weight dilettante he is (heir to the fortune of J.P. Morgan's partner) and can focus on the broad range of his legislative agenda. After all, Lieberman has taken the lead on issues ranging from campaign-finance reform to tobacco regulation to corporate-governance reform to tough action against terrorism to the battle against global warming. He'll look better and better, while Lamont will look like a one-issue challenger who is out of his league.

Freed of the confines of the Democratic primary, Lieberman can now appeal to independents, Republicans and mainstream Democrats who were not sufficiently motivated to participate in the primary, he can win.

In the meantime, Lieberman's primary defeat sends a message to all presidential contenders, particularly Sen. Hillary Clinton, that they have to move to the left on the war or be buried by the party's increasingly radical and leftist base. Al Gore is emerging as the one for her to worry about in 2008. Anti-war from the start, riding the global warming issue and a proven popular-vote winner, Gore will be increasingly attractive to the same left-wing voters who nominated Lamont in Connecticut. Hillary's convoluted flip-flops on the war won't play well in the primaries.

Posted by: Richard | August 9, 2006 5:41 PM | Report abuse

What about CT02, CT04, CT05??

Chris, I know you are Conn. native (as am I, straight outta Meriden). Will an independent Lieberman will do to the campaigns of the Democratic challengers to Shays, Johnson, and Simmons?

I've heard that these incumbents are praying for a Independent Joe as it will take votes away from the Democratic challengers in the state.

These 3 races are very you think Joementum is now actually running in reverse and could possibly cost the Democrats the House come November?

Posted by: Mike Panetta | August 9, 2006 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm a little annoyed by the spin from Lieberman that this was a one issue vote. Perhaps this isn't a referendum on Bush or his policies at all. Maybe it is just a referendum on Lieberman and his policies.

Honestly, it seems ridiculous that for all his rallies in the last weeks of the campaign claiming that he was and always would be a Democrat, that he's signaling his run as an Independent almost within the same breath as conceding his defeat as a Democrat.

Frankly, Lieberman was one of the few qualms I had about voting for Gore way back when. I did, because I believed in Gore. Not because I ever for one second believed Lieberman to be a Democrat. He's been beyond moderate, chastising those who raise questions and debate and insinuating a lack of patriotism on their part. At the very least this primary signals that a majority of Democrats in Connecticut felt Joe Lieberman did not represent their beliefs anymore.

Posted by: Alison | August 9, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Problem was, Leiberman let the right frame his issues. Sayonara Joe.

Posted by: Ellie | August 9, 2006 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Whoever brought up the old "Sore Loserman" moniker, isn't it interesting how the 2000 election has ultimately made Al Gore a better, happier and more principled person? I think Gore took 2000 as a sign that he needed to get out of politics (which is something he had always been pressured to do by his father) and follow his true passions. This is what a good mensch does in the face of defeat. And now contrast that with Lieberman...

Posted by: captainlarab | August 9, 2006 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The conservatives figured out some time ago that bickering amoung themselves only caused them to lose elections, hence we have republicans of all sorts; "christians", working poor, neocons, etc. I get really irked when I hear the term "radical left," especially when it comes from democrats. What does it mean exactly? Nothing! Democrats have varying objectives; including, equalizing socio-economics, environmentalism, gender and racial equality, peace, anti-autocrats, etc. and of course there is a lot of over-lap. We must stick together and stop allowing the repubs to frame the issues! We have our own extremely relevant and critical issues. Lieberman says he is a democrat, but what he is doing is trying to split the party. We need to stick together and frame the issues and quit answering to republican talking points. I don't believe in war or violence except when we are protecting ourselves and that hasn't been the case for some time even though republicans keep framing this war that way. I also understand that there are democrats who don't entirely agree with me. We don't have to agree on everything.

Posted by: Ellie | August 9, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

When were newspapers ever unbiased. From the time of the American Revolution, newspapers have always inserted themselves into the political process.

The debate over the ratification of the US Constitution was as biased and contentious reporting as ever this nation has seen.

The "good old days" never were.

Posted by: RMill | August 9, 2006 4:22 PM | Report abuse

McGovern? Who is that? Try something a little closer to the 21st century, like 1994.

Posted by: Terry Green | August 9, 2006 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Zippy, but you know the papers nowdays, if they aren't owned by the "right then they are by the "left, the good old days of unbiased reporting left along time ago. I think it's great that people do have an outlet finally for the everyday guy to sound off. Let's face it our politicians stopped listening to us years ago. Our checks aren't big enough.
I am just hoping that somehow my twelve grandchildren will make this world a better place for everyone and I for one would like to use my vote to put people into office that worry about getting my next vote instead of my next check! Bye now. Sue F

Posted by: Sue F | August 9, 2006 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Read an analysis that discusses the political strategy ramifications of the Lamont win and how the Democratic position on Iraq will be a key to success in


Posted by: Daniel DiRito | August 9, 2006 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Have we all seen this yet?

ABC's George Stephanopoulos reports.

According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."

No surprise there. Lieberman is not just guilty of a kiss. I think he went all the way.

Of course, the Lieberman camp denies denies denies.

What a joke and total disgrace.

Posted by: F&B | August 9, 2006 3:46 PM | Report abuse


I know the explanation isn't that simple, but I had to get in a jab at bhoomes. The one part I'd disagree with is that Ohio had a lot of non-manufacturing jobs that have been lost in the past 15 years of GOP rule. All you have to do is take a stroll down the streets of my hometown, Dayton, to see what has become of the white collar jobs. Almost every office building in the city is deserted. Mead left for greener pastures, NCR has also started shifting jobs out of the area. Cleveland is even worse. I don't know a single person that I graduated with that had an easy time finding work in the state and most had no trouble once they left. It is sad, but that is what you get when you constantly elect people like Voinovich, DeWine, Taft, Blackwell, and Bush.

Posted by: Appalled | August 9, 2006 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Poor Richard-

I disagree. In a primary only people registered in a primary (in states that allow party registration anyways) can vote. The general election will allow all the voters to get a chance to decide. I think someone did the math earlier and found that only 10% of registered voters actually voted in this primary. (Republicans obviously stayed out, as well as independents).
Now I think the arguement that Lieberman should have pulled out of the Democrat primary is valid. But only because it really makes it appear that he is a sore-loser.

Posted by: Squirt | August 9, 2006 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Sue F.

You've missed your calling. There is a spot on the New York Times editorial page for you...seriously.

You tell it the way it is.

Glad people are telling bhoomes to stop using the Republican strategy of rewriting reality.

Posted by: zippy | August 9, 2006 3:35 PM | Report abuse

It is difficult to understand the rationalizing of the Lamont victory.

He won straight a margin even Diebold can't match, at least easily. No controversy except for the new netroots participants in the process- The only constant is change so we need to get used to it.

If this is a democracy, we go with the selected candidate. Lieberman should back off and support Lamont (or go on a 'round the world vacation until December). This sets a bad example. If every sore loser did what Lieberman is doing, this Old Republic's elections will start looking like that sham election they held in Iraq.

Posted by: poor richard | August 9, 2006 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Drindl, and Bohhmes, if were all shopping at Wal-Mart it's because your President has bankrupt the country, given big Tax breaks to his croonie oil company friends, thanks Cheney, and kept the borders open for his and Fox's cheap labor program! Thanks for your service to your country, I applaud anyone who has served, unlike the President/Cheney/Rove/Rice/et al. But, let's face it in Vietnam it was alot of poor, black, white, low guys on the totem pole that got drafted, while the rich/preppy/elit just called their Daddy's and stayed home, and yes I know Clinton did the same. However, right now there isn't a single sole in the Republican party that can tell us exactly "when is the mission accomplished",in Iraq, and pleeze don't give me that crap about, when the Iraqi's stand up we will stand down!. The Iraqi's can't stand up because they will be shot. Bush et al don't want this mess in Israel to stop because they think it's taking the heat off them. Tony Snow spoke awhile ago and it was the same old tired crap and dribble. We must bring democracy to Iraq and the middle east. Did anyone ask these people if they wanted America's democracy??? They voted in Iraq, just like they voted in Lebanon. Guess what the "bad guys won" and they even got to sit on the council with the good guys. So I say to Bush and Broohme, be careful what you wish for. It may come back to bite you in the ASS. thanks Sue F

Posted by: Sue F | August 9, 2006 3:30 PM | Report abuse


An economy based on manufacturing is bound to fail. Wisconsin is a Blue State (or so it has swung the last few elections) and is in a depression as well. It's got nothing to do with the color of the state, but how the economy is centred. Any economy on manufacturing is going to fail because of rising costs of labor compared to the prices Americans are willing to pay for products. Which is where outsourcing comes in.
Va is a red state that does remarkably well with the economy. Most of the college Grads here can find a job (Usually in the District or right outside). You can equate that to the last two governors (Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine), but then you got to remember that the Legislature is very red.
None of this has to do with Joe Lieberman, but my theory is that everyone should try to havea well balanced debate, and use actual facts (not that your opponent here is doing that...but why bother correcting him if it won't do any good?)

Posted by: Squirt | August 9, 2006 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Lily, The Republican's would love to paint Democrats as the party of left wingers. It's part and partial to the old Rove smear campaign tactics. The problem for them is, most of us are moderates. We shoot and own guns, we attend church, we think that government spends too much on ridiculous programs, we are all over the map. We do agree on the need for a national health care program, we agree that fiscal restraint and a balanced budget are necessary, we think our involvement in Iraq is simply insane and we want out right now - not a year from now - now!, we are for honest and open government, we demand an end to domestic spying, we want the Department of Homeland (in)Security abolished, we want the alphebet soup of new government agencies created by Bush dismantled, we want investors and corporations to take responsibility for the damage their outsourcing of jobs have caused, we demand that corporations be ethical and want the corporate bosses, shareholders, board members be held acountable for policies and actions that harm their employees or this country, we want science to be free from the dictates of government and policy, we want the government out of women's reproductive choice (sometimes women make bad choices, but the government will only make a bad choice worse), we demand a clean environment, and good schools. In other words, we are rational human beings that want a good and decent Amercia to leave our children. All of this is what distinguishes a liberal from the unthinking clods of the right and left.

Posted by: MikeB | August 9, 2006 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Primary Primer

August 15

Guinn (R)* is term limited

Dem Primary
Titus (State Sen.)

Rep Primary
Gibbons (US Congressman)
Hunt (Lt. Gov.)

US Senate
Dem Primary
Carter (D)(son of former Pres. Carter) $1.2 M

Rep Primary
Ensign (R)* $4.1 M
Derby (D) $748 K

Rep Primary
Angle $720 K
Dawn Gibbons (wife of Gubernatorial candidate Jim Gibbons) $743 K
Gilster N/A
Heller (NV Sec. of State)$904K
Thomas N/A


Dem Primary

Survey USA
July 17
Gibson 39%
McConnell 6%
Titus 42%

Rep Primary
Beers 23%
Damayo n/a
Gibbons 44%
Hunt 16%
Lusak n/a

Hart Poll
July 24
Gibson 29%
McConnell n/a
Titus 42%

Beers 28%
Damayo n/a
Gibbons 36%
Hunt 14%
Lusak n/a

Heat to Head Matchups
July 31
Gibson (D) 39%
Gibbons (R) 42%

Titus (D) 37%
Gibbons (R) 46%

July Battleground Poll
Gibson (D) 33%
Gibbons (R) 46.1%

Titus (D) 39.9%
Gibbons (R) 45%

Titus (D) 41.8%
Hunt (R) 40.8%

US Senate

Survey USA

Head to Head
July 31
Carter (D) 39%
Ensign (R)* 46%

July Battleground Poll
Carter (D) 35%
Ensign (R)* 49.5%

Posted by: RMill | August 9, 2006 3:23 PM | Report abuse


I still have my Ohio ID, so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. And I think it would be informative to let you know why Ohio is no longer my home state. After almost 20 years of GOP control, the Ohio economy is an absolute joke. Ohio ranks dead last in the country in the percentage of its college graduates that stay in the state post graduation. A truly pathetic statistic that shows Ohio is not only losing all manufacturing jobs, but any good professional jobs as well. That leaves young college grads like myself to seek the greener pastures of blue states and urban areas that actually create good jobs. But alas, we drift from the point of the post, which is Lamont's victory and the stunning rebuke to GWB, who is at 33% approval in Ohio.

Posted by: Appalled | August 9, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I think the NY Times had the most insightful editorial today, "The Revenge of the Irate Moderates," excerpt below:

"The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president's choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration's contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.

Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person's right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.

When Mr. Lieberman told The Washington Post, "I haven't changed. Events around me have changed," he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting the nation's basic traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back."

I think the key statement in the above is encapsulated in the following quote, "Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative."

Where the Washington Post editorial page so often fails (IMO), is their particular Washington Consensus view of what constitutes the middle. The Times nails this perfectly, "The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him."

This is not moderation, nor adhering to the center, this is the road to authoritarianism as Gore pointed out earlier this year in his MLK speech at Constitution Hall. The Lamont primary victory was a small step in the right direction.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | August 9, 2006 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Your review of the work of John Dean, makes for interesting reading. You claim his book "is another rhetorical bomb in the war of words between political left and right", which I find disinginous because you are clearly speaking from the right, and not as an objective reviewer.

Posted by: PATRICK | August 9, 2006 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Lamont's victory was a resounding victory for representative democracy. Ever heard of "throw the rascal out".

For all those intellectual heavyweights who seem to think being tough on national security means attacking a sovereign nation under the pretext of lies and distortion - Iraq that is, as opposed to where the real enemies were let go - Afghanistan. Perhaps you may have the common sense to recall, there was an administration in power with a cacophony of warnings before September 11, 2001. And if you research the militaries own feedback channels, the sound is a roar that this President, and his boss, Vice, have led this nation down the proverbial garden path with a ditch at the end.

It is time for all to recognize, one does not sacrifice liberty for one's life, one should be willing to sacrifice one's life for liberty. Land of the free remember, not Vice's Oz.

Respect the voice of the people, even if we make mistakes sometimes, it is the freedom of speech and thought, without interference from government, any government is what makes our nation great.

Posted by: ravenb0urne | August 9, 2006 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Lteberman is a self-centered jerk.In Liberman's case his pre-election declaration not to abide by the result if he lost showed that Joe was all about Joe .The voters will realize that in a very short time.He will be significantly behind by Labor Day.His claim that because the race was so close he is justified in running as an independent is ridiculous.Some reporter should ask him whether that means that any candidate who loses by 4 points or less is justified in continuing to run as an independent.I wonder if that included Lamont if Lieberman had won.A sore loser is still a loser,first and foremost.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 9, 2006 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter -- At the same time that Governor Casey (my governor at the time, incidentally)was precluded from speaking at the convention Bill Clinton was running a campaign as a New Democrat who embraced ideas like balanced budgets, welfare reform, and middle class tax cuts. I think Casey should have been allowed to speak too, but it's pretty hard to argue that ANYTHING Clinton did constituted a move by the party to the left. His whole politican existence was predicated on moving the party to the center and coopting some conservative ideas.

Anyone else have an actual example of the Democratic party moving to the LEFT in the last 25 years? Seriously, I'd be interested to discuss any examples that someone can think of.

Posted by: Colin | August 9, 2006 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Will, drop me a line at,

if you are so kind.

Posted by: South Carolina Dem | August 9, 2006 3:11 PM | Report abuse

SC Dem- I agree with all of that. I only mean, he's not a loyal dem, that's all. What's the point of having a Democratic Primary if it's just meant to be a vanity fair for the incumbent? He's a Democrat, the Dems chose somebody else. He doesn't respect that.

As far as the seat belonging to the voters of CT, you're darned right. They'll decide, even if it's Joe. That's their perogative.

Posted by: Will | August 9, 2006 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Will, once again I agree, but unlike a Rep., a Senator represents an entire state. He isn't contesting the primary results or trying to get Lamont off the ballot; he's moved on.

He's putting his record before the entire electorate in CT. If Joe has gone too far with his ardent support of W and the war and all the other issues you mentioned, then he won't win a majority of the votes needed to return to the Senate. Seems pretty simple to me.

The issue is that the Lamont knows Joe has a pretty good shot running as an Indie. CT voters prolly split tickets a higher rate than most states. As much as I hate to say it, this seat doesn't belong to the Democratic party, it belongs to the voters of CT. Make no mistake, I'd take Lamont any day over a GOPer, but Joe is a principled guy and who has done much for the Nutmeg State. He deserves a 4th term and a chance to cast a vote for Henry Reid as Majority Leader.

Posted by: South Carolina Dem | August 9, 2006 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Question for all those who claim the Dem party is moving too far left.

Seen the latest poll about the war in Iraq?

60% of Americans are now against it. Got that? SIXTY PERCENT.

So if you want to impugn the patriotism of anti-war voters, have at it (personally, I have never understood the virtue of being "patriotic" so to be called unpatriotic is not an insult in my book) but know that you war-mongers are very much in the minority.

Posted by: Lily | August 9, 2006 2:57 PM | Report abuse

It's no surprise Joe lost. He's a Southern Dem. in a NEast state. I'm not sure this is as big a deal from a national prospective as many of you have made it out to be. I think with all the Bush hatred out there, dems feel this is a good time to bring their party to the left. Time will tell whether this is sound political stretegy or not.

Posted by: FH | August 9, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

Newt Gingrich Considers Political Opposition, American Citizens, to be an ''Insurgency''
A. Alexander, August 7th, 2006

Some have expressed concern over Newt Gingrich's use of the term "insurgency", while referring to Ned Lamont supporters in Connecticut. From a personal perspective, Gingrich was correct in obliquely referring to America's blogosphere and directly Lamont supporters, as being an "insurgency". Gingrich, of course, meant the term to be derogatory and a means of linking those that oppose Bush's war follies with terrorists. Still, Crazy Newt the serial divorcer was correct in more ways than he fully understands and, too, revealed the Neo-Conservative agenda in a clear and yet, unintended way.

That Gingrich would openly refer to those who oppose Bush-Republican Neo-Conservative madness as being an "insurgency" is, in a very real sense, the first public admission that the Bush regime and Republicans are at war with the American people. It is a blatant confession of the ultimate Neo-Conservative agenda, i.e. a deliberate and swift movement toward a very real Executive dictatorship wherein those who dissent or disagree are "the enemy" or members of an "insurgency". Gingrich's use of the term "insurgency" when referring to fellow Americans reveals in no uncertain terms the reality that the Neo-Cons recognize a movement forming that consists of the American people and that is designed to directly challenge their drive toward a nationalist imperialistic dictatorship.

Open and truly democratic governments don't view their political opponents as "enemies" whose opposition is looked upon as an "insurgency", and they certainly don't feel a need to be at war with the people they govern. For Gingrich, Bush, Republicans and the entire Neo-Conservative movement; however, the reality is that the American people are increasingly questioning their "right to rule" and are, therefore, considered enemies or, as Newt Gingrich more aptly said, an "insurgency".

The fact of the matter is that Newt Gingrich is right! There is no better way of defining and describing those American citizens who have formed and continue forming a direct and spirited opposition to the Neo-Conservatives' madness, as being anything other than an "insurgency". Bush and Republicans have busied themselves at the task of disregarding American laws; International laws; have committed war crimes; lied to the American people in order to engage in war with Iraq; unilaterally exempted themselves from the Constitution; committed treason by revealing an undercover CIA agent's name; undermined a free press; illegally spied upon American citizens; instituted a policy of merging church and state; stacked the courts with nefarious individuals that would knowingly and willingly support an Executive dictatorship; provided their crony pals with government appointments and large government contracts that have resulted in grotesque profits without services being provided; raped the nation's treasury; supported big oils' obscene profit taking at the expense of the American people; left New Orleans to rot and refused to help while more than 1,300 citizens perished, and through stygian deception refused to hold anyone to account.

Bush-Republican Neo-Conservatives have consolidated all the government's powers and have used that power as a tool to undermine America's democracy, to viciously assail any citizen who openly disagrees with their policies, and to cow their opposition. As such, the people have no effective systematic recourse or resources through which to oppose their government, other than through the formation of an internet "insurgency".

The Bush-Republican Neo-Conservative form of governance displays all the symptoms of tyranny and as such is deserving of being opposed in the most strenuous manner, including the formation of an internet-based political "insurgency". It is in fact the patriotic duty of every American citizen to directly confront and oppose the tyranny being imposed upon the United States of America by the Bush-Republican Neo-Conservative movement. Therefore, if Newt Gingrich wishes to expose once and for all, the fact that the Bush-Republican Neo-Conservative movement views the American people as their enemy and chooses to label the American people as being an "insurgency", he is correct in so doing!

What choice do the American people have, but to form an "insurgency" when the current government has consolidated its power in such a way that the people have no legal or Constitutional means through which to protect themselves and their civil liberties? If Gingrich chooses to label fellow Americans as "enemies" or being part of an "insurgency", I personally welcome his unintended honesty. If fighting for the American way of life, freedom, liberty, and the Constitution makes the blogosphere an "insurgency" the label should be worn with pride.

Posted by: che | August 9, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

You got to have ID now "appalled" before we will allow you to vote in Ohio. County jails are going to be quite full if you guys try to vote. I know, Mr. Blackwell told me so.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 9, 2006 2:43 PM | Report abuse

south carolina dem-

Falling on his sword would be respecting the decision of the democrats. I agree that he believes that we should stay the course, I just wish he'd respect the opinion of a majority of Connecticut Dems who don't.

They also, didn't agree with him about the hospital abortions, Terri Schiavo or his speech on the senate floor about Clinton. So they wanted someone else. Too bad he listens only to Washington.

Posted by: will | August 9, 2006 2:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm beginning to think that Lieberman is something else altogether -- a Zell Miller, someone who is selling out the Democratic party altogether, a republican plant, a tool to divide the Dems.

Is this really the kind of representative you so-called moderates want? A Bush democrat?

And I understand the S. Carolina comment, but how can you force a stable democracy? No one ever has imposed a democracy on a country before from outside. What makes you think we can do it now? Especially in a country with thousands of years of conflict between sects. Don't you think we should get out and let them work it out themselves?

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Colin - Gov. Bob Casey (PA) not being allowed to address the 1992 Democratic National Convention because he is Pro-Life.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 9, 2006 2:28 PM | Report abuse


I'm still registered in OH, so you bet I'll be casting my ballot against that right wing nutjob Blackwell and the oh, so "independent" DeWine. What a wuss, won't even acknowledge that he's an R on his campaign website or in speeches and then uses doctored footage of the WTC's for partisan gain. And Dems are the ones who exploit national security for partisan gain?!?!? Please!!! And you still haven't addressed the popularity of your dear leader, shrub, in Ohio. Comments will be greatly appreciated. But I'm sure I'll just get your 2 minute hate instead.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Blackwell is Governor.

Posted by: Appalled | August 9, 2006 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Will I agree with you, but it was Joe's committment to his principles that got him defeated. Yes, he may be too close to GWB, but he really does believe what he says about Iraq and the policy positions the US should take. And by the election results I saw last night, Lieberman did fall on his sword.

Posted by: South Carolina Dem | August 9, 2006 2:24 PM | Report abuse

My question for those who say this benefits the Republicans so much: If that's the case, why were som many Republicans like Hannity and others working so hard for Joe, and why did no prominant Republicans or Republican donors donate to the Lamont campaign, like they do to get Green party candidates on the ballot elsewhere? The meme tha this pushes Dems to the left may last about a week, and Republican spin will probably be big on the morning talk shows this weekend, but simply doesn't have any staying power. The real lesson here is that incumbents are vulnerable (MI and GA too) and positioning yourself too close to Bush can be lethal. Mehlman may act this week like he's happy about this, but it doesn't bode well in the long run, especially since things in Iraq could look a lot worse 2.5 months from now.

Posted by: Michael | August 9, 2006 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I just knew it -- Lieberman's campaign stank of rove's diry tricks...

"According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Appalled: the dems in your former buckeye state wish you would move back, they control absolutely nothing in this state. Yes, Bush has only done fund raisers so far, but that's because it is to early, wait until after Labor Day, and Bush will be out in front helping Blackwell and Dewine. You guys are going to be eating a lot of crow after election day. My guess is I will not hear from you after election day.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 9, 2006 2:21 PM | Report abuse

The dems are cleaning house! We want strong leaders who believe in principles, who will fall on the sword if necessary. Lieberman was wishy-washy, and the consumate washington insider. McKinney was pretty much a liability to anybody who got near her and soon we will kick out Jefferson for being corrupt. Republicans can say what they want, they may even be right when they say it will cost us in the upcoming elections, but then Fighting and losing for your principles is not only truly an American idea, it's better than winning at all costs. The republicans won, but they sacrificed everything to do it. As a result they don't stand for their beliefs (they have damaged civil liberties, they intrude into america's bedrooms, they destroyed balanced budgets, they weakened the military), they just stand for clinging to power. I'd rather lose and believe in my self than win and believe in paper tigers.

Luckily I don't think we're going to lose, because we're cleaning out the weak dems and replacing them with people like John Tester, Brian Schweitzer and Ned Lamont.

Posted by: Will | August 9, 2006 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Appalled, Thanks for your kind words. In the classical sense, I think I'm a "liberal." Health Care, Education, Civil Right, etc. But when it comes to military issues, I am extremely conservative and prolly defer to GWB and his cronnies at the Pentagon a little more than I should.

In reference to being a "hawk" I don't think it means being a supporter of all wars all the time, I think it means there is an unwavering committment to the mission (I explain mission a litte bit better). Even with Murtha's call for re-depolyment, I think he would still be considered a hawk for his steadfast committment to the troops. We both know that are some DEMS out there who would love for us to dismantle the Penatagon have no military presence anywhere.

With regard to the mission in Iraq, yes Sadaam is gone, but the instability in the country is a direct result of our action. It's unfair that our brave men and women have be there on the front lines (trying to prevent a civil war) but it's our responsibility to make Iraq a stable democracy.

I guess overall this bodes bad for us since Lamont win endangers our chances of picking off some of those CT Republicans. Only 7% of voters in CT voted for Lamont. There is no way he wins in three way general election. Lieberman and Rell are going to drive turnout for this election. We keep talking about anger from the left, but those moderates who may have taken a chance on one of the DEMY challengers might not now becuase of their "anger." I plan to write more on it on my blog, so check it out over the next few days and leave a comment.

Posted by: South Carolina Dem | August 9, 2006 2:14 PM | Report abuse


Still waiting a response on Bush's popularity in the Buckeye state.

Posted by: Appalled | August 9, 2006 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Anyone want to provide any actual examples of the Democratic party moving left in the last 25 years? Clinton ran and won as a new democrat. Carter ran and won as an outsider moderate. This whole business of the party moving left is just silly. 60% of the country thinks the Iraq war was and is a mistake. That's not a bunch of fringe lefties folks. That's moderate and conservative Democrats and Republicans and the overwhelming majority of independents.

Posted by: Colin | August 9, 2006 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Oh, please! Joe Lieberman is responsible for a whole host of sins and Iraq is the least of them. The Democratic Party wants moderates and you can refer to us as left wingers or whatever and we aren't going to let it go any more. We're LIBERALS, moderate ones, not left wing lunatics (and that label would only refer to me, anyways, and then only on environmental issues) and more than anything else we want to simply save this country from the excesses of Bush and his cronies and the nutty conservatives that regularly post here. These morons apparently don't even vote in their own interest. A feature in todays WashPost is the fact that there is more than 9 trillion dollars in outstanding mortguage debt right now, 500 billion dollars of it in ARM's. This bright idea was allowed by the Bush and his true believers that unregulated banking would ultimately benefit consummers. Couple all of this with the Republican's completely insane bankruptcy laws. Liebermann went along with much of this silly notion and the result is that we are facing somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion dollars in real estate defaults in the next 12 months. This is going to cause a great deal of damage to banks and investors and these bloated ticks are already lining up for government assistance to bail them out of their excesses. Well...Not going to happen, guys! The days of freeloading free capitalism are dead and gone with Bush and his pro-business-anti-American crowd. Leibermann is gone! Ding Ding the witch is dead...

Posted by: MikeB | August 9, 2006 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Drindl you must know I did 20 years in the U.S. Air Force, when did you serve your country?, why are you not in Bosnia or Afghanistan?, do you even volunteer for community service,like donating your time sponsoring a person at a nursing home. Probably not, I bet you are grossly overweight from sitting on your big keester whining about republicans and woe upon me, life is so unfair.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 9, 2006 1:59 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Lamont had some black people up on stage with him sure stirred up the righties. Their bigotry is never far from the surface.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 1:58 PM | Report abuse


Lieberman and McKinney. Who was the third? I think you are referring to MI Cong. Joe Schwarz who was a moderate R .

Posted by: RMill | August 9, 2006 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Sue, always enjoy your thoughtful comments. You can't pay any attention to bhoomes -- he thinks other people, like your husband, should fight his wars for him. He never explains why, when he's a big backer of the Iraq occupation, he's not over there. I say the same to all of you who are military age -- if you believe in this so much, why are you still here? They never have an answer.

I thhink you're right. We should bring all the Dem soldiers home and let whichever republicans who are not cowards [if there are any] complete our 'mission' --if anyone can figure out what that is.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with John that the Democratic party is in a steady decline. They've maybe been out in the woods the last few years, but I think they're finding thier way again.

For a while, it seemed like the winning strategy for Dems would be a race to the political center, and bipartisanship would win in the end. However, even after 9/11, the Republicans stuck to thier ideological guns on the right and never wandered to the center to join the Democrats.

Although occupying the center while your rival party occupies one side of the spectrum may sound like an ideal situation to win the larger bloc of voters, this actually hurt the Democrats two-fold - by alienating more and more of thier base, and allowing the center of American politics to slip rightwards.

I think that by finally moving leftwards -nothing dramatic, but leftwards nonetheless- the Democratic party will be doing itself a favor. First it will ignite its base (i.e. not the screaming-head blogger winger types but the millions of everyday men and women who truly believe in the Democratic way and who've felt abandoned for a while.) Secondly, and I think most importantly, a move leftwards will restore the proper center of American politics, giving those American moderates and independents a proper yet interesting choice come November.

And after 6 years of this administration known for its sometimes breathtaking ineptitude, I think Americans will think hard and make the proper choice in the end.

Posted by: Gloucester | August 9, 2006 1:42 PM | Report abuse

The big question in this election cycle to me will be whether the Rs and Independents are as teed off as the Ds. The Ds threw out 3 incumbents last night. I hope they know what they're doing. If those seats become R, that will be a catastrophe... I'm getting worried - better go take some Tums...

Posted by: Chris | August 9, 2006 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I will agree that for the past twenty years or so the Democratic party was in decline as a whole. That has more to do with Party orginization than policy in my eyes. That is one of the reasons that I support Howard Dean's movement towards a fifty state strategy. The GOP has done an excellent job of working the small market politics to benefit them on the National stage. I think that the netroots is a part of that movement. People feel alot better about voting democrat when their mayor or state senator or school board are democrats too.

Posted by: Andy R | August 9, 2006 1:41 PM | Report abuse


I notice you conveniently forgot to answer those who have pointed out that Bush is a very toxic personality in Ohio proving you to be dead wrong about an assertion in your comments once again. Both Blackwell and DeWine have accepted his fundraising, but only in private fundraisers where he slips in and out of the state with nary a word. Doesn't sound like candidates embracing shrub to me. Thank God the residents of my native state have finally figured out what a crook he is.

Posted by: Appalled | August 9, 2006 1:39 PM | Report abuse


If you knew anything about "we so-called" liberals you would know we don't patronize Wal-Mart.

Posted by: RMill | August 9, 2006 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the Bushie deadenders are on their way out, starting with Bush comrade Lieberman.

More to come!

On a lighter note, I killed the endorsement of a sitting incumbent WA State Supreme Court Justice by my District Dems last night.

Payback - it's what's coming. Get used to it.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | August 9, 2006 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Sue, did you forget to take your zoloft today, you liberals are miserable bunch aren't you. Please go to your local Wal-Mart and look at the happy face icon. Cheers little missy

Posted by: bhoomes | August 9, 2006 1:34 PM | Report abuse

These were the last polls done with 3 way race and Joe running as an I.

July 20
Lamont (D) 40%
Lieberman (I)* 40%
Schleisinger (R) 13%

July 8-12
Lamont (D) 27%
Lieberman (I)* 51%
Schliesinger (R) 9%

They are a month old so it will be interesting to see the new numbers. Undoubtedly, Lamont should rise in the numbers after his primary victory bump kicks in.

Posted by: RMill | August 9, 2006 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The people, like Jesse Jackson, who were on stage with Lamont when he gave his victory speech are a good indication where Lamont and his supporters throughout the country would like to take the Democrat party.
The majority of Democrats and Independents will not support the radical left.
If extremests like this speak for Democrats the party will become a minority
never able to win a national election.
Didn't they learn anything from George McGovern?

Posted by: Ed | August 9, 2006 1:29 PM | Report abuse

CNN also reporting that Sens. Bayh, Clinton, Dodd, Feingold and Kerry are backing Lamont.

Posted by: RMill | August 9, 2006 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: getalife | August 9, 2006 1:22 PM | Report abuse

CNN also reporting that Sens. Bayh, Clinton, Dodd, Feingold and Kerry are backing Lamont.

Posted by: RMill | August 9, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

SC Dem,

I appreciate your views and your stance as a Dem in what I can imagine is probably a pretty unfriendly place. The problem I see with Lieberman is not his hawkishness, but how that hawkishness plays out in the media. I've never understood why proponents of the Iraq War have been referred to as hawks. Does being a hawk mean being for all wars, all the time? This Iraq war was a collossal mistake as you acknowledge. The biggest problems for Dems is that Rove has used it as a club to clobber all Dems. We have to counter it and the only way to do that is to provide a serious alternative, which should have been done in 2002, but there are too many D cowards in the Senate. What we are seeing now is a push back against those who enable this R attack on D's. That is why you see so many R's on TV and in this chatroom giving full throated defenses for Lieberman, he gives credence to their positions and helps destroy D's in elections.

I just have one more question to ask of you and that is what exactly is this mission we have to finish in Iraq? We took out Saddam and he didn't have WMD. The violence that is playing out now is the expected (as long as you're not a neo-con D-bag) result of the natural sectarian differences that result in the ethnic make-up of the country. What are we supposed to do about that? Pick a side and fight it out? I just don't see how we can accomplish anything by keeping our troops in the middle of this mess. The Iraqis are going to have to figure things out for themselves, we cannot decide what type of government they are going to have.

I just offered up this view as a conversation that we as a nation should be having. I respect your views and appreciate a Dem in SC, but I think the reasons so many think Joe has to be ousted go beyond the Iraq war or his hawkishness. To win elections we're going to have to distinguish ourselves from the R's. One way to do that is to say we have a different plan for Iraq and for the WOT. Let's reduce our size in Iraq, increase it in Afghanistan(where the Taliban is making a comeback), and begin to focus on the threat of Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in the future. Just a thought, not a concrete policy objective. This stay the course mantra is very troubling b/c the course obviously isn't working and Joe helps feed and give legitimacy to Rove's attacks on people who want the best for this country.

Posted by: Appalled | August 9, 2006 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Bohhmes: Or whatever your name is, my son did two tours of the gulf in the Marines, he and most of this family are registered Democrats, my husband served in the Navy, my father served in the Army and was awarded the Purple heart having been only one of sixteen survivors in his company at the Battle of the Bulge. Do you in your tiny little brain realize that there are many Democrats fighting and dying and being maimed for life, right now in IRAQ and Afghanistan. So, I guess in your mind, since we seem to be a bunch of WHIMPS then maybe we should pull all the DEMOCRATS out of IRAQ and we will just leave all those patriotic REPUBLICANS. With more guys like you around we would still be in VIETNAM! Now as for Liberman, so long, take a vacation, that goes for McKinny too.
This is a start and I really don't care which side of the isle they are on the American public needs to CLEAN HOUSE and dump all the incumbents. They are inept, irresponsible, out of touch and just plain need to go. It's too bad we can't just make a clean sweep of D.C. altogether. That includes this entire administration.
And believe me this wasn't just about IRAQ, it's about the hugh profits of the oil companies, the Katrina debacle, our lack of border security, the give away prescription drug program for the pharmaciticual companies and insurance companies, the minimum wage, healthcare, jobs being lost every day to cheap overseas labor, you name it. We have a bunch of people interested in only three things in Washington. Money, Power and re-election! We need to start putting alot of these people in prison for their total abuse of power, their greed and corruption But the ballot box is our only hope, and that's as long as we can keep it honest! Good luck with that one. So Liberman needs to get the message, GO AWAY and DO NOT RUN!!! And as far as GWB goes, well he's all hell bent on bringing DEMOCRACY to the Middle East, he better be worried about bringing it back to the U.S.A. Thanks Sue F

Posted by: Sue F | August 9, 2006 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Sad the coverage Lieberman is getting and the marginalization of the Lamont victory. It was solid by most standards

It shows the Foxization of the news vis-a-vis the attempt to reposition Liebermans loss.

Same relativistic mind set as at the White House. If one doesn't like the reality one is faced with, redefine it and promote as the redefinition as the truth until everyone forgets what really happened.

Posted by: poor richard | August 9, 2006 1:05 PM | Report abuse

'When Bush comes to Ohio this fall, he will help all of our candidates'

Again, bhoomes, thanks for the laugh of the day. Perhaps you haven't been reading the news. Republican candidates are running from bush like the plague. 60% of the public wants out of Iraq yesterday. About 70% think it was a mistake. Almost no one thinks it was done right. His approval rating is down to a third of the population.

We had a local election recently, and the republican candidate never once mentioned his party in his speeches or his material. He tried to hide it, but he still lost.

So tell me again how bush is going to help repugs? bring it on.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 1:00 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes - Let's not steal the 49 other states. Florida in 2000 was enough.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 9, 2006 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Posted by John,

"Drindl, you can't be serious? Lamont's entire campaign was premised on attracting the left-wing, cut and run crowd. If you can't see this, you'll have part of the reason why Democrats can't get elected nationally."


I live in Tennessee where in the Republican senatorial primary the right wing conservative candidates who strongly supported the Iraq war where defeated by a moderate republican who avoided any mention of the Iraq war. If the republicans continue to follow Karl Rove and his strategy of basing the mid term election on Iraq and terrorism, then they are in for a shock. I don't think the majority of the American public is going to be fooled again on the politicalization of Iraq and terrorism. As a democrat, if the republicans want to follow this strategy, then as Bush said, "Bring it on".

Posted by: DC | August 9, 2006 12:56 PM | Report abuse

As of 7/18/06, according to Survey USA, Bush's approval rating is over 50% in exactly 2 states: Idaho and Utah. He's at 50% in Wyoming. Can you feel the "love?" One can only hope he campaigns in Ohio, where he has a 33% rating. Maybe he can make appearances with Ney and Taft.

Posted by: Settembrini | August 9, 2006 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Markos's comments were taped at 8:00, before the results of the election were known.

The 12:00 Countdown is a repeat of the 8:00 show (except for last night when they brought on Chris Matthews for a special segment - the rest was exactly the same, including kos).

He was mostly brought on to talk about the Lieberman campaign's claim that bloggers hacked their website.

Posted by: Tim | August 9, 2006 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, Mike, but I thought it was the liberals and Democrats that are painting with a broad brush by lumping all Republicans (and even some Democrats (e.g., Lieberman)) with Bush. Truth is, for better or for worse, "liberal" is a bad word in American politics. Thus, the "progressive's" recent ascendancy in political jargon.

Also, let me suggest you make your point(s) without condescension. It diminishes your credibility.

Posted by: Michael | August 9, 2006 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Just matching your FOX sandbox statement, John. You insulted me by calling me a 'cut and run' liberal. Wnat do you expect? What wingers like you are good at is projection -- thus your amusing use of 'childish, bile and vitriol'. That pretty much sums up the so-called 'conservative' conversation these days.

OT. But for Obama fans, he is sponsoring a new bill that anyone who cares about clean government should support. [He's co-sponsoring with Tom Coburn, which surprised me, but it's still a good bill:}

'Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Introduced by senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to establish and maintain a single public website listing the names and locations of all individuals and groups receiving federal funds, including the amount of federal funds received annually by program. replete with search engines that include subcontractors.'

Naturally, Halliburton, Bechtel and all the other bloodsucker war profiteers bleeding the taxpayers dry will do everything they can to kill this, but for the sake of our country I hope it can somehow manage to pass.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 12:47 PM | Report abuse

To Mike way up close to the top, yes, the winner of a three-way election would be the one with the most votes (i.e. a plurality), even if they don't have a majority.

Posted by: Lucas | August 9, 2006 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Dixonj: Lieberman represents a blue state, there are 49 other states with the majority being red states(see election 2000,2004) who still loves George Bush.When Bush comes to Ohio this fall, he will help all of our candidates. By the way, you just lost your chance for winning the House with Lamonts win. We tried to give this election to you and you still find a way to lose. It almost no longer fun beating you dems anymore, you make it to easy.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 9, 2006 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Its folks like Lamont who are killing our party. Like Joe, I'm pretty Hawkish and have an unwavering support to the troops and finishing the mission in Iraq like a zealot. I live about 5 minutes from Ft. Jackson and I see how hard it is too be a service member today.

Is GWB a failure as a president? Yes! Is the war being mismanaged? Yes. But we are there and at the end of the day we have to stay there as long as it takes.

Lieberman will cruise in the General just like Jodi. As soon as his website up and running, I'm sending Joe a check. I think you are going to see the moderates in the party stand up to the liberals and say "back the hell off." I've never been a that politically active, but folks like me gotta do something.

Posted by: South Carolina Dem | August 9, 2006 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, thanks for your childish, sand-box rebuttal. Truly in keeping with the bile and vitriol that comes out of liberals these days.

Posted by: John | August 9, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"Believe me, the Democratic party will destroy itself if it gives in to the liberals."

Your problem John is that you paint "liberal" with a broad stroke and have convinced yourself its a dirty word that means "hippie communist", which just isn't the deal. It would be like believing "conservative" means "neocon", which it does not.

I suggest you read more books about political philosophy.

Posted by: Michael | August 9, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

All the senators in congress have to Caucus with a party. So even independents have to choose if they want the Republicans or the Democrats as the majority party. SO if Lieberman wins he will have to choose Dem or GOP. Hope that helps.

Posted by: Andy R | August 9, 2006 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I see anonymous poster is a republican pontificating on what we Democrats should believe and do. Thank you, but no thank you.

Why is it that republicans want to tell me how to vote? Why do they think we should listen to their advice? Because you have our best interests at heart? I sincerely doubt it.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I was born and raised in Connecticut and am a life long strong Democrat, yet I feel we are losing our way in Bush hating (with good reasons) and Iraq dissent (more good reasons).

We need to stand for problem solving not McGovern defeatism (although I voted for him)....we need to figure out how to capture the houses of COngress...

losing the resources to defeat the three Republican members from COnnecticut for a nasty senate fight is not the way...too many one issue voters ...

Posted by: Stephen | August 9, 2006 12:33 PM | Report abuse


I'm not claiming a public mandate, but you must agree that the Democratic Party has been in steady decline for going on half a century now. Rather than fixing the problem, however, they have intensified it further by allowing liberalism to pretty much dominate the platform. The real story for 2006 and 2008 is whether the center and liberal wings of the Democratic party will be able to agree on nominees and the overall philosophical direction of the party. The Lamont/Lieberman debacle indicates how difficult it will be to achieve such a consensus. Believe me, the Democratic party will destroy itself if it gives in to the liberals.

Posted by: John | August 9, 2006 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Kos' post election analysis performance on Keith Olberman's show was a waste of air time.

This was the second time I've seen him on TV. He should stick to the Internet.

The best he could offer Olberman in a totally too long interview was that Lieberman's campaign was "incompetent" (stated many times) because they used a cheap website, subject to crashing with heavy traffic on Election Day.

Little, if any, perception of the broad picture and opinions as to its implications.

Still wondering if the netroots play any significant role? My guess is that it's a "work in progress" for a good number of additional election cycles; and any credit taken by them right now is premature.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 9, 2006 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"I don't hate you, bhoomes, I hate being called a traitor. I hate people telling me I hate my country."

Drindl, I share that feeling. Especially since I crawled through the mud and sand hundreds of miles with a ruck sack for this country, spend countless hours every month in public service in my city on beautifcation, crime awareness and a number of other issues that benefit the public good. My wife teaches elementary school when she could be making double if she drove downtown and did corporate teaching, etc.

Bottom line is Fox News channel has created a strong culture of hatred for anything but hardcore republican views - and thats the truth of it. To find a conservative you can have a real conversation with anymore you have to turn to folks who do not watch television. Its not the views in and of themselves that is so foul, its this "anti-american" stuff thats just plain garbage - and truly, ignorant.

Posted by: Michael | August 9, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

And by the way, John, 'Lamont's entire campaign was premised on attracting the left-wing, cut and run crowd' -- I asked for specifics. How is Lamont left-leaning? And all you could manage was to parrot FAUX news talking points.

Try growing a brain. But then you wouldn't be a republican anymore, would you?

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse


I'm not claiming a public mandate, but you must agree that the Democratic Party has been in steady decline for going on half a century now. Rather than fixing the problem, however, they have intensified it further by allowing liberalism to pretty much dominate the platform. The real story for 2006 and 2008 is whether the center and liberal wings of the Democratic party will be able to agree on nominees and the overall philosophical direction of the party. The Lamont/Lieberman debacle indicates how difficult it will be to achieve such a consensus. Believe me, the Democratic party will destroy itself if it gives in to the liberals.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 9, 2006 12:29 PM | Report abuse


You and the rest of your Republican ilk must all be using Rush Limbaugh's pharmacist if smiles are in order for you today. An 18-year Senator lost his own party's primary because he was way too close to George W. Bush. If Joe was brought down for because of a kiss, what's going to happen to the Congressional Republicans that have Lewinskied George every day he's been in office?

Posted by: dixonj | August 9, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

This is a great day for America, for Democracy and for the Democratic party.

Posted by: Greg in LA | August 9, 2006 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bhoomes

"Talk about spin "The election results bode well" Yeah the do Mr. Reid, they bode well for mainstream americans who will reject lightweights like Lamont. The fact that Joe was only a handful of democrats who was strong on national security and now he loses, why don't the democrats just put out a big sign, TERRORISTS ARE WELCOME ON OUR WATCH BECAUSE WE HATE AMERICA AS MUCH AS YOU."

The Democrats said the same thing just before the 1994 midterm elections, just different issues and different candidates. Terrorism is nothing new; it's been with us since 1776. What is new is the policalization of it by the republican neocons. If Lieberman wants a future in politics he will monitor the polls and if it appears a Republican will get elected due to his Independent candidacy, he will drop out of the race.

And contrary to what you wrote, "TERRORISTS ARE WELCOME ON OUR WATCH BECAUSE WE HATE AMERICA AS MUCH AS YOU", it was the Bush administration that welcomed the terrorists into this country that perpetrated 911. Then invaded Iraq, when the staffing and financing of 911 was mostly Saudi and continues to be to this day.

Posted by: DC | August 9, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I think the Connecticut Democratic voters chose their candidate and Joe Lieberman should listen. Would he have expected Lamont to run as an Independent had he lost the election.

Joe Lieberman unfortunately is making this about Joe Lieberman not anything else. He can't have that big an ego- or maybe he can- to think the Senate can't do without him. If the Democrats lose the House of Representatives because Lieberman helped Republicans in Ct. to win I don't understand how he will sleep at night.

Lieberman should take heed of his own call for decency and abide by the rules. He lost. Now endorse the winner and be a mensch. Not a sore loser. He claims to be a big man now let us see him prove it.

Posted by: a concerned citizen | August 9, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Joe's party should be called Lieberman for Lieberman. He believes he knows better than anyone else and morally superior to everyone else. He knows to what your should be reading/watching/listening. He knows that Terry Schiavo isn't really brain dead. He's against all of that bitter, partisan name calling especially when it is by that dirty politics, lying, leftwingnut Lamont. Can anyone else see this for the hypocracy it is?

Posted by: Capeman | August 9, 2006 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I don't hate you, bhoomes, I hate being called a traitor. I hate people telling me I hate my country. I'm tired of the poisoned debate, the attacks, the viciousness, the swift-boating, the nastiness. I hate what happened to Max Cleland. It was disgusting.

This whole viciously partisan atmosphere that exists in DC was engineered by republicans. Ever since Clinton was elected, they have never stopped trying to destroy the Democratic party so they can hang on to the reins of power forever.

How is caring about the lives of 10,000 of my fellow Americans who are dead or maimed hating America? How is wanting to stop pouring more than 400 billion dollars down a rat hole hating America?

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 12:24 PM | Report abuse

So Joe is out as a Democrat? Interesting. Now, what is your best guess CC as to the number of Republicans that will vote for him as an Independent? In CT, what are the breakdowns of voters for D,R and I camps?

Posted by: Merry | August 9, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

From a post on the previous blog by Fides: "Liebermans behavior demostrates him to be more than just a regular centrist."

He's a self-centrist."

Perfect !

Lieberman's concession/announcement speech was actually sad. All he could talk about was "partisanship."

Remember how the country, including Democrats, united behind the President after September 11th. Mr. Rove decided that wouldn't work though. And the President went along.

Or, Grover Norquist's comment, "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape." (Denver Post, May 26, 2003)

Until the people who are scattered throughout this Administration who support those views are replaced by people who see merit in bipartisanship, then no effort Sen. Lieberman can make will work. Unless, he totally toe's their line. But then it's not bipartisan, is it?

How many times do you have to get burned before you stop putting your hand into the fire?

Joe's on another plane of reality right now. His own.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 9, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

John, there is one problem with this statement
"this is a fundamentally slightly right of center country that does not support the increasingly leftist stance of the Democratic party"

Is that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Now I am not saying he should be president because we have an electoral college and a Representative republic style government. But for Republicans to claim some public mandate is ridiculous. The truth is that the population of this country is more democratic, but the voters of this country are pretty much straight down the middle.

Posted by: Andy R | August 9, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse


Lieberman wins as an Indie. How does that affect the makeup of the Senate (The Dems lose a seat but the Reps don't gain one). Since Indie's don't count in the party totals isn't that a win for the Reps regarding control of congress?

Posted by: Dan W | August 9, 2006 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Listened to the Dianne Riehm show on NPR and came away with some reassuring and one not so re-assuring fact. First, folks in Connecticut are routinely ticket-splitters, so despite a very popular Republican Governor in CT, those who vote for her and Lieberman are still very likely to still vote for Democratic Congressmen. A Democratic House is still very much a live option next year.

Second, the contest between Lamont and Lieberman is likely to be very even, with a great deal of institutional strength switching to Lamont. Let's see if Lamont blossoms or wilts on the vine. His biggest asset so far is that he has made no major mistakes (very unusual for a novice). He has also run a very smart Paul Wellestone anti-establishment campaign, let's see if he can tweak that to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters in CT.

Which leads to the major negative, if Lieberman decides he has been treated "unfairly" by Lamont, he may be tempted to become a Republican, if he wins in November. Republicans likely to hold on to the Senate (at least in this cycle) might offer a prize plum chairmanship for him to switch sides. Susan Paige says no, E.J. Dionne, not that certain. Put me in the Dionne camp. Lieberman's independent run, itself, should raise red flags.

Finally, the insider view of these developments. According to Dionne insiders had two preferred results. First, a win by Lieberman. Second, a big win for Lamont. Either way it would drain some uncertainty out of the race. A small Lamont win was the least preferred outcome, but a recent poll in CT shows both Lamont and Lieberman getting 40%.

In a sense I think the brave talk of Schumer and Reid may have a modicum of truth to it about boding well for Democratic victory in November, given the anti-incumbent nature of the Lamont upset and the fact that there are more Republican incumbents protecting their seats than Democrats. If Lieberman had won there would be less of a dynamic (or perception fueled by press coverage) to shake things up in our political system.

The Lamont win whether he ultimately wins the CT Senate seat or not aids in promoting this narrative which works to Democrats advantage, a net (if minor) plus for Democrats. This also leads Democrats not to over-interpret a Lamont victory nor to be too conservative in what is possible beyond Hillary (good for Gore and Edwards IMO). Which in my view is good for the party. It also pours some water on the prospects of a Feingold win which might have been fired up by a large Lamont win. Much as I like Russ, all I can imagine if he ran is a McGovern-like trouncing.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | August 9, 2006 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have been the majority party for too long, that is obvious from the continual stream of "AMERICA HATER" kind of filth that is on the rise for having a view even a shade left of center. There has to be a change and a swing back to moderation before an entire generation of our young people become so polarized they can't even talk to people who have opposing views.

I'm a veteran who voted for Bush in 2000. I believe in the Powell doctrine. I'm from Texas and have cattle, not just a hat. I have friends serving overseas, and take the time to read about the issues directly - and think more people should turn off Fox News every once in a while.

And I heartily congratulate Ned. Lieberman 's foreign policy is far too slanted to push us in the direction of being able to improve situations in the middle east. You can bet other people sharing his policy views are going to be turned before the mast in November, and our country will be better for it.

Posted by: Michael | August 9, 2006 12:21 PM | Report abuse

TNer I see your point, and your right that the netroots folks could be a drag on Lamont if Lieberman paints him as beholden to them (which I don't think is true but Politics is perception).
I disagree however that Rell will excite the Republican base. She is going to win in a walk and the Republican running for senate is a Joke. Even if Independents come out in high numbers which is probably likely, I see that as a plus for the down ticket Democrats especially with the anti-incumbent, anti-Bush sentiment in Connecticut.

By the way higher turn-out is always a good thing. The more people who get involved in politics the better off for everyone.

Posted by: Andy R | August 9, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Why do republicans care what candidate Democrats pick for Senate in CT anyway? If hte GOP loves Joe so much, my humble advice to all you of you would be to shut your mouths and stop saying you love him so much.

Do you honestly the think the full throated endorsement of the Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and other right wing hacks are going to make Democrats vote for Joe? If the GOP pundits and voters just stayed out of this Joe might have won.

Posted by: Yanks | August 9, 2006 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, you can't be serious? Lamont's entire campaign was premised on attracting the left-wing, cut and run crowd. If you can't see this, you'll have part of the reason why Democrats can't get elected nationally.

Lamont, Pelosi, Boxer, and Clinton might win in blue states, but they don't stand a chance before a purple populace. If you don't believe this, then ask yourself why H. Clinton is angering so many on the left with her posturing? Also, why have only 2 Democrats been elected President in almost 40 years (and the 2 that did got in under exceptional circumstances: Watergate (1976) and a strong third party candidate (1992 and 1996)). The answer is simple: this is a fundamentally slightly right of center country that does not support the increasingly leftist stance of the Democratic party. Believe me, as a Republican, Lamont's victory doesn't scare me one bit. I have history on my side. What do Democrats have?

Posted by: John | August 9, 2006 12:13 PM | Report abuse

On "This Week" the round table, including George Will, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson discussed how a Lamont victory would be detremental to both parties. It would underscore and energize the anti-Iraq war sentiment favoring Democrats in the November elections. But, as with Vietnam, may serve to cast the Democrats as a whole as too dovish when it comes to matters of war, hurting their chances at a White House takeover in 2008. It's easy to run against those responsible for an unpopular war when we are in the middle of it. If troops are significantly reduced in the next two years, it will be harder to do so. The question is whether Democrats can learn from such recent history as the political fallout of the Vietnam War Protests and mold public perception to favor restraint in times of both war and peace.

Posted by: BFair | August 9, 2006 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on guys, you must know by now I occasionally throw out some red meat just for some fun. Don't want this blog to get to bog down in policy debates and bore everybody. Drindl I do not hate you, why do you hate me? Are you that insecure and thin skined, that you hate people you disagree with. I find your postings to be quite entertaining, keep up the good work.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 9, 2006 12:04 PM | Report abuse

How supremely arrogant. Joe is utterly disgusting.

For the good of the country??

Spend the rest of your days tending to the families of the dead and injured Americans from your bogus Iraq war.

Posted by: Jim | August 9, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse


CT is a state where independents make up 44% of registered voters, and which has a long history of crossover voting patterns.

A Lamont-Lieberman battle will drive up Indie and GOP turnout for Lieberman as well as Dem turnout - maybe even to a greater extent than Dem turnout. Lamont, with the perception that he's bought, paid for and owned by the Netroots, could end up being a real albatross around the necks of down-ticket Dems.

Especially considering the popularity Governor Rell brings to the top of the GOP ticket.

Posted by: TNer | August 9, 2006 11:58 AM | Report abuse

As is too often the case, Harry Reid misses the point.
This is not a referendum on Bush or the Iraq war, per se -- after all, Connecticut has never been Bush territory. What this is actually about is a deep-seated anger against Democratic politicians who, as the result of some addle-pated, election-losing calculus, act like Republicans. These politicians have philosphically abandoned the Democratic base, represent no one, and don't even win elections!
Liberman's loss should serve as a wake-up call, not to Bush, but to Reid, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the master tacticians who, in trying to thread the needle, have failed to act as Democrats or a constructive opposition, caving on all the big things -- war, Alito, and on and on -- playing it "safe" as the Republicans continue to win election after election and ruin our country.

Posted by: Robby Berman | August 9, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Ahh, John, stop fakin it, boy. Republicans are scared to death today, and you know it. There's a strong anti-incumbent mood in the country--with good reason.

And to anyone calling Lamont 'left' -- what positions does he hold that are 'left'? Seriously. He's as middle of the road as you can get. He's a centrist. Leiberman is the radical. He's as far right as his buddies like bush and limbaugh.

Name one position of Lamont's that 'leftward'.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Lamont's victory is evidence of the Democratic party's ever-increasing leftward bent. Rest assured, the victory is not a sign of a monumental change in the political direction of the country, but rather of liberalism's sick and vain endeavor at senseless self-promotion and preservation. To risk Lieberman's clout and experience for an imbecilic, one-dimensional hack like Lamont (a millionaire, I might add--you gotta love the irony!), will go down in history as yet another thoughtless miscalculation that suppresses liberalism's viability and allows it to keep its title as the laughing stock of American political thought and philosophy.

Republicans are all smiles today.

Posted by: John | August 9, 2006 11:49 AM | Report abuse

It just might be that Joe was more (or only) interested in supporting Israel than supporting Bush. He 'courted' Bush only to gain favor for Reason #1. I can understand that, but I disagree with how Joe has done what he thinks needs to be done. Bye, bye Joe.

Posted by: R W Johnson | August 9, 2006 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Joe running as an independent after losing in his own party's primary makes me think of two words: "sore loser"

Posted by: CB | August 9, 2006 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Sorry for my ignorance, but now does the general election just get decided by which of the 3 has the most votes?

Posted by: Mike | August 9, 2006 11:31 AM | Report abuse

I don't think you are going to see alot of money from the DNC and DSCC in this senatorial election. The netroots folks will pour money into Lamont's coffers and Lieberman has enough big name donors he will be fine. I think the DNC will invest its money in those other congressional elections. Look at it this way we KNOW democratic turnout will be at an all time high, so this race will give the Democrats the ideal chance to take back those seats.

Also bhoomes get a grip, you were making such progress towards being a civil person on this blog, lets not digress to name calling.

Posted by: Andy R | August 9, 2006 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Colin. That's what I get really tired of. The simple-minded, one-dimensional dumbing down of the discourse. You disagree with a single thing a winger says and they start jumping up and down and screaming you hate america.

I always want to say, but I don't hate America -- I just hate YOU.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Wow -- Democrats have to admit that the Repubs were right when they called Joe Sore Loserman.

Of course, now those same Repubs are screaming because Connecticut Dems had the audacity to reject Joe.

Politics is a funny game.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 9, 2006 11:22 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes - You know, it actually is possible for people to disagree with you about HOW to best protect this country without either (1) hating america; or (2) welcoming terrorists. Honestly, it's comments like those that really make me feel like our political process is hopelessly broken. I think both you and Senator Lieberman are wrong about Iraq, but I don't doubt for a second that 99.9% of all the people in this country - regardless of their position on the war - want what's best for America. Maybe we should all try to aggressively debate important issues like this WITHOUT calling the other side terrorist lovers or haters of america? Strikes me that the conversation would be much more interesting. Just a thought.

Posted by: Colin | August 9, 2006 11:19 AM | Report abuse

You are pathetic bhoomes. Connecticut voters chose their own rep instead of listening to you -- and you're so angry--how dare they!

TNer--what do you think elections are for--to guarantee the seats of incuments? Give me a break.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Lieberman isn't going anywhere ... other than back to the Senate after winning his seat as an Indie.

A general election fight with Lamont is going to be expensive and bloody ... lots of resources that could go to defeating Shays, Simmons and Johnson (the three CT Republican Reps) will now go to the Senate fight instead.

When all is said and done in November, maybe the "Netroots" will have a clear understanding of the meaning of "Pyrrhic Victory".

Posted by: TNer | August 9, 2006 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Talk about spin "The election results bode well" Yeah the do Mr. Reid, they bode well for mainstream americans who will reject lightweights like Lamont. The fact that Joe was only a handful of democrats who was strong on national security and now he loses, why don't the democrats just put out a big sign, TERRORISTS ARE WELCOME ON OUR WATCH BECAUSE WE HATE AMERICA AS MUCH AS YOU.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 9, 2006 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Adios, Lieberman.

And don't let the door hit you on the way out!!!

Posted by: Apollo 13 | August 9, 2006 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Had Sen. Lieberman won, would they have said something other than, "the results bode well for Democratic victories in November?"

Posted by: BFair | August 9, 2006 11:02 AM | Report abuse

'The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction."

YES! Please God rescue us from the lunatics who are driving us over a cliff -- please.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 11:01 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company