Leiberman defeated...maybe
 

Looks like Democrat hawk, perpetual whiner, and Bush'ist suck up Joe Lieberman has lost his primary in Connecticutt with 84% of the precincts reporting.
http://drudgereport.com/

Good.

That is good. It clears the way for the GOP to pick up a seat in Connecticut. What a gift. Once everyone gets a load of Lamant, the Republicans could run just about anyone out there and smack down that socialist pussy.

How pathetic are the Democrats right about now?

The only chance the Repubs have of picking up that seat is if Liberman runs as an independent, which he might actually do. If he makes that incredibly selfish move, what little respect he still commands will disappear. But it might be enough to throw the election to the other side.

Anyone that wants to continue to see Republican domination of every branch of government for another two years hasn't been paying attention to the miserable condition our country finds itself in at the moment.

We are in desperate need of Congressional oversight of this administration. The only way we get that is to elect Dems this time around.

Well, he's running. :D

I think miserable is too strong a word to describe the condition of the country. The economy is pretty strong and unemployment is low. I'm not happy with what the GOP is doing (or not doing) with immigration and they're not getting the message across about the goals in Iraq, but the Democrats don't have any message at all when it comes to anything!

People want to vote for something, rather than against something or someone. Hating Bush is not going to swing the Congress to the left. If the Democrats come up with a coherent plan, they could get both houses. Without something tangible, it's going to be incumbents holding the line.

I don't think it is even remotely possible for the GOP to gain ground in CT. If you lived here, you'd know what I mean.

Expect a 3rd spinter party to run in 2008 with a McCain/Leiberman ballot.

McKinney's out. So long, don't let the door hit you on the ass on way out.

Maybe there's a bright side. If Lieberman runs as an Indy, and is successful, maybe it's exactly what the party needs. A big name like Lieberman being an independent, might attract other big names. Unless the party doesn't want that...

BTW, am I the only person in this thread who knows how to correctly spell the Senator's name: L-I-E-B-E-R-M-A-N. :D

It depends which part of Connecticut. I happen to live in Fairfield County. In this county, there are a lot of very wealthy residents. Much of this area is a bedroom-community for NYC.

Fairfield County is a strong Republican foothold. However, as you head to the other counties in the state, it turns from red to blue.

BTW, I did not vote yesterday as I am not registered with that party. But, I have long held the opinion that Lieberman is pompus, opportunistic dickhead.

He has a history of playing by the rules as long as they suit his purposes. Then, if they don't, he decides to play by his own rules (hence this independant campaign). Lieberman is about to give the Democratic party a royal screwing.

I wrote a few years ago that all you need is $10M to run for Congress. Dean opened that gate.

The real issue here is the growing power of the Far Left. How that will affect the party is ??

Hillary & Far Left's new power ?

The only positive thing I can say about Leiberman is he does not put his party before his convictions or before his country. He is just wrong about the war, a really big mistake many have made.

I don't like the guy, I don't like that he is running as an independent.

He should find a new career.

And that's only what matters most!

The ramifications of this could be huge. If the Dem party feels this is a call for them to move "loony left" then it will cost them in the November elections. JMHO.

BTW, Lieberman will win as an independent anyway.

I've never liked the guy either, but anything that helps dismantle the 2 party grip on the electorate is a good thing in my book. The more choices, the better.

Although the voters in CT made this decision, I think it bodes ill for the Democratic party as a whole. They have lost one of their only centrists that was remaining which means they will move even farther towards the radical left. I have a feeling that the Democrats will gain seats this November, maybe even get a majority back in the house, but will shoot themselves in the foot come 2008. The majority of America is simply not in line with the far left's ideas. You really cannot win a Presidential election in this country while pandering to the radical left. This would be similar to McCain losing a primary to Pat Robertson.

Somehow I think a McCain/Lieberman ticket is not all that far fetched.

Oh, and isn't it just perfect that McKinney got booted out? Wonder how long until she claims some sort of racial reason for her defeat?

Being anti-stupidity (as in "anti-Iraq-war") is hardly "loony left". Yet another poll today shows 60% of the American public outright opposing the war but of course you'll say that polls aren't valid and don't mean anything (unless presumably they're favoring your position, right?)

Look around and talk to a few people that aren't members of the Oil Executives Club, the Coalition of Bush Supporters, the Fox News Sewing Circle, the local chapter of the KKK, the Americans for Bombs, Guns and Destruction Club or the Federation for Good Old Fashioned White Christian Male Supremacy in your area and ask 'em what they think. The opinions out there are overwhelmingly negative towards this administration, where they think the nation is headed under current leadership and certainly about the war. I've spoken to all manner of people - ardent right-wingers all the way to "out there" left wingers and the common ground they almost ALL have is that this administration is a failure and that the war is a bad idea. Instead of focusing on ways to differentiate people, this country needs unification and people that can focus on ways to bring them together. I just gave two examples. Let's start with those and try to mend the huge rift that's tearing our nation asunder right now. What do you offer? Oh, more division, more intolerance, more hatred, more name calling and more damage to a nation under the guise of "supporting" it. :rolleyes: Okay.

Nobody wants to see a "loony left" Democratic platform any more than we want to see a "radical right" Republican platform. It'd be far more discriminating (given our nation's lack of alternatives and predelection towards silly party politics in the first place) to have a battle over near-centrist positions than extreme-left versus extreme-right. Ultimately the latter is only divisive and more destructive to the nation as a whole.

I blame BOTH parties for polarizing themselves. Neither has the moral high ground right now of moving more centrist - both have done the opposite and in doing so, are contributing to the destruction of the nation.

Although I think Lieberman is a fool for supporting the war, it only goes to show how politics really is. If he'd changed his mind and come out against the war, he'd simply be accused of "flip flopping". If he'd stayed the course (as he did) he'd be accused of being bull-headed and obstinate and out of touch with his constituency. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Nobody wins. . . Ironically kind of like the war itself.

Such is the sad state of our so-called "democracy" today.

You sure are right about that! :D

The Lamont campaign was pushed by the internet loony left (Daily Kos, MoveOn, and just about every other lib blog). They will now try to cash in this earned capital by pushing other Dem candidates to the left. This is a bad scenario for the dems as far left doesn't win outside nationally. Hell, Lamont won't even win in Conn come November.

Oh, and I also agree that the loony left is definitely NOT anti-stupidity:D

It's not "radical left" to oppose this incompetent, big-spending, big government, clueless administration. That's just spin, intended to appeal to voters that don't actually think about policy, but vote based on labels.

Keep talking about the "loony left" and the "radical left," but the American public has figured out by now that you are talking about them.

The people that oppose this war, that are sick of high oil prices, that were dispirited by the Katrina incompetence, and that want some Congressional check on this brash and reckless administration represent ALL Americans, not some fringe group you can dismiss with a label.

Lamont got everyone talking in CT. He really appeals to people. I predict a big win for him in CT in Nov.

Did I say being against this war was loony left? No, I said the loony left was behind this win. There is a difference and it goes to my point that they will claim responsibility for this victory and try to drag candidates to their side......costing the dems moderate voters. Just watch.

If you care to discuss actual policy positions, maybe this discussion will go somewhere ... you labels don't help much.

I'm not looney and I'm barely left (except compared to you :)), and I oppose this administration on many issues besides the war. Incompetence in virtually everything they touch is my main gripe, but by no means the only.

Interesting turn this discussion has taken.

I am concerned that we have had an executive branch that has gone unchecked since they have controlled the legislative branches as well.

The war in Iraq is the extreme case. But, what worries me more is the erosion of our personal liberties and privacy in the name of security.

I would welcome a mid-term cleansing of the legislative branch that would provide some opposition to the current administration. I would like to see some intelligent questioning of their actions.

I hope that Congress and the White House will become controlled by people who believe in government and know how to run one.

Come on Rodeo. I'm not saying you're looney, but you are about as far left as it gets on PPOT, where there are some pretty left people!!

I used to think I was smack dab in the middle, until I realized that I actually am probably about medium right.

I used to think I was center too ... I honestly don't know anymore. The old classifications don't seem to work.

What would you call an administration that expands government massively, creates the biggest new social program in a half-century, deficit spends at historical levels, and sends the US Military around to world to help oppressed people? "Right?" I don't think so.

On the other hand, what would you call a Congress that is beholden to the wealthiest of Americans, that has given the upper 1/10 of 1% of the population untold additional wealth, that favors big oil over middle class motorists, and that actually seems proud that it has been bought by the K Street lobby? "Conservative?" Not really, unless the term conservative has morphed to mean "raid the treasury for your contributors."

And what do you call a government that spies on Americans without warrants, that uses national security to suppress dissent, that signs new laws with "signing statements" indicating that it will not actually comply with those laws, and that advocates torture for captured enemy?

Precisely why I think the "party" system is utter idiocy and should be abolished in its entirety. Labels are for those that can't think.

Positions should be filled on the basis of individual candidate views, not whatever label or affiliation they happen to slap on themselves, since it's ultimately meaningless anyway.

I'd probably fit into the "right" mold, and typically vote Republican, and I can't say I'm incredibly happy with a number of issues in this country. Polls seem to support the fact that most Americans agree. BUT, while people want change, many of the candidates the Dems run are simply too liberal for the average American. After losing the presidential election with an aloof liberal Mass. lawyer, who always "had a plan" that he never really disclosed, they should have adopted a more centrist philosophy. Instead, they put Howard "the scream" Dean in charge of their party. The last few years have been spent bashing the current administration, but without any clear direction which way they would lead the country.

So, the stage is set, people want change. The Dems will probably gain some ground in the house and senate, but unless they use the next two years to appeal to the average American, instead of pandering to a vocal minority, they're screwed for the presidency. And if they run Hillary, they're screwed regardless. She even scares many Dems.

Rodeo,

I'm not defending the current administration or the current crop of "conservative" Congressmen. I think that Bush has spent himself into oblivion and the Republicans proved just as adept at gorging themselves at the trough of pork as the Democrats were. I agree with you on the spending issue.

The rest of your post seems to be the typical liberal soundbites, which we could certainly discuss on another thread, I don't want to hijack this one.

Back to the topic, the problem the Democrats have is that although the Republicans have F'ed things up good and are ripe for the picking, the Democrats are moving AWAY from the majority of Americans. Right now, they can just be for "180 degrees from what Bush does" and that is ok with many Americans because they are pissed at Bush. But in 2008, the Democrats will end up with a leftist platform which just doesn't resonate except on the left and right coasts. There is a whole country in the middle that they seem to be forgetting about.

The original socialist party in America, the Republicans, are doing exactly what they did when they first came to power in 1860, and held onto power most of the time for the last 40 years of the 19th century. They're essentially the fascist style of socialist, but became the party of small government when the democrats decided to copy their postitions beginning with Woodrow Wilson, and expanding exponentially with Franklin Roosevelt. It should be obvious to nearly anyone with more than two gray cells that the Republicans were only in favor of small, responsible government while it served them in opposition to the Democrats and as soon as they held both legislative bodies and the White House they cast small government[ aside and returned to their roots.

There are some of us that would like the Democrat Party to return to its' paleo-libertarian roots, but that is, unfortunately, unlikely while there are names like Kennedy, Gore, and Kerry within the party and running the show.

Yeah, I just love hearing those on the Right grumble about how losing Lieberman is bad for the Democratic party. Shove off!

This is democracy in action, not some "Liberal Inquisition" as Brooks would have us believe. Its a great big message to leaders everywhere: You fall out of line with the people you represent and you will be replaced. Its not the blogs fault, or the media, or any other nonsensical boogeyman that pushed Lieberman out, its the people of CT exercising their right to vote.

What you say is essentially true to an extent. What's going to happen with Sore Loserman is that he's going to run as an independent, funded by Bush'ists so that they can knock off the Democrat, giving the seat to the Republicans. Loserman will happily comply by running, his ego demands it.

Mat:

LOL, hey man, it's your party. I'm not upset about Lieberman losing the primary, as you mentioned when he runs as an independent he will probably hand the seat to a Republican. If the Democratic party wants to keep moving left that's fine, they will keep losing elections. Of course then you can grumble about how the election was stolen and the vast religious right conspiracy against you...

Oh brother. Please, the GOP and the entire conservative movement is going to be run out of town, tarred and feathered, come this voting season. Besides, I would rather have a Republican as CT Senator than a fake, egotistical, back-stabber like Lieberman any day of the week.

You keep claiming "left, left, so far left"! Whats all that about? Because the guy is anti-war? I don't know if you've been watching the news much, but nearly every candidate, Left and Right, is doing their damnedest to get away from Bush and his policies. Even Rove and his bad of dirty tricks aren't going to be enough to save that sinking ship.

This is a development that does not bode well for the country.

Someone who both sides of the aisle like and respect(with some exceptions) is unceremoniously cast aside by his party, sort of how they did McCain if you will recall. This was not the "People of Connecticut" making their choice. This was 140,000 people who are registered Democrats picking another guy on a single issue, disregarding everything else. It will be a far different story when the entire state votes and is choosing from 3 different candidates.

Both sides, Right and Left are becoming more and more polarized, and are using more and more extreme rhetoric to appeal to their "base" and don't care how they get into office, as long as they get elected. You get to pick from some whacko far left nut(Say Barbara Boxer) and some right wing sacrificial lamb(whoever the GOP runs against her) or you get some right wing nut job and a Democratic sacrificial lamb.

Everything is gerrymandered to rig things like this, and it is only going to get worse. If you think moving the pieces around the board a little are going to help much, you don't get out enough.

Move Karl Rove and his creation George Bush out of the White House and things will change.

For starters, the good men and women of the United States Military will no longer be on loan to radical Shiite Iraqis allied with Iran and Hezbollah.

How's that for a start?

Karl Rove is reported to have volunteered to help Lieberman. So watch for Lamont to get slimed.

Lieberman never impressed me as worthy of the VP candidacy, but it was a sop to the religious right. The power brokers just failed to notice he wasn't Christian. It'll be interesting to see if Bill Clinton campaigns for Holy Joe as an independent.

Sometimes a single issue is all it takes. It only took a single issue to get Nixon to resign or Clinton to get impeached or King George I not re-elected. . .

One issue is all it takes if it's strong enough. Hell, I'd even speculate that had it not been for the "one issue" of Kerry voting initially to extend war powers to the president in the early days of the Iraq conflict and later (when it was obvious it was a sham) voted not to extend further funding (which was painted as a "flip-flop" successfully by the (r)), we'd be singing "Hail to the Chief" for President Kerry right now.

Yes, sometimes one issue DOES matter enough. I think in the case of a few thousand dead Americans, untold billions of dollars and tens of thousands of dead/injured Iraqis it damn well should.

So many conservatives here are completely mystified that anyone would care about thousands of US soldiers dying for no good reason. Apparently, the majority of Americans do, and to conservatives, that makes them "loony."

I literally laughed out loud when I read the red part, thanks. You should check out a California district map sometime. Oh yeah, that was Rove and Bush too, I forgot.

The rest of it is not particularly funny, but not particularly correct either, unless of course we are talking about your opinion again.

Oh, BTW, Lieberman will win his seat.

As for the tossing him on this one thing, I suppose I should not be so surprised, it does happen all the time, and what the hell do I know about Connecticut politics anyway. Ironic thing is he will win, because the Democratic Appointee for the race is not in Joe's league, I know that much.

I think this will hurt the Democratic Party nationally, makes them look like a sorority at the wrong time of the month, IMHO of course