<p>I’ve been biting my nails all evening. </p>
<p>Go, Ned!</p>
<p>It ought to be an interesting concession speach. I guess Joe will say “I lost” and “See you in November”, unless he’s changed his mind about running as an independent. </p>
<p>Also, does this mean that the Democratic Party is now committed to being the anti-war party or will that remain an open question until November?</p>
<p>Pyrrhic victory. The Dems just lost a seat in the Senate. Karl Rove has done it again.</p>
<p>I’ll make book on that, Brownie. As a prognosticator, you’re doing a heckuva job.</p>
<p>DRJ, considering that “staying the course” leads to nowhere good–I enjoy watching the Busheviks try to tap dance as they try to describe any sort of “victory” conditions that align with the political realities on the ground in Iraq–a controlled withdrawal from Iraq is rational option.</p>
<p>[My track record on Iraq is hard to attack: if anything, I’ve been too optimistic about prospects there. Whereas, all the beliefs of the Bush supporters, measured by their support for leaders who have uttered such complete nonsense and utter crap as “a few dead enders,” “last throes of the insurgency,” etc. have consistently folded in the face of realilty. The Doofus-in-Chief the other day came out with “the Iraqis voted against civil war when the had their elections”…someone ought to cue him in on the events of 1860 et seq.]</p>
<p>Contrary to some of the equally delusional but in another direction Kossacks et al, I see Lieberman’s defeat as a one-of-a-kind thing: I think people would have forgiven him mere votes in support of the administration if he hadn’t been such a deity-cursed cheereleader. For that, the s.o.b. deserved to go to the wall and he has.</p>
<p>Lieberman does not win in November. Most of the Democratic heavies that were with him in the primaries will support Lamont and anyone who thinks the Indies are going to go with Lieberman haven’t read the polls and suffer from a severe case of retrocranial inversion.</p>
<p>You want to see bi-partisanship? Okay, have a leading Republican vote with the Dems on major issues and get nothing back for it, all while giving a hickey to Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or Harry Reid. That’ll balance the scales some.</p>
<p>
That just about sums up and reaffirms my view of today’s Democratic party - to hell with personal convictions and putting your country before politics … just march in lock step with your party and never pass up an opportunity to say something negative about the President - even if you agree with him on the issue. If you don’t comply with this, you will be shot at sunrise. </p>
<p>
You have obviously failed to note that the current leading candidate in the Republican Party is John McCain who regularly votes with the Democrats and slobbered all over Hillary on Meet the Press.</p>
<p>Hey FundingFather, who are you looking at in a positive light at this point in the “campaign?”</p>
<p>From the Republican perspective I see a lot of good candidates: McCain (while I disagree with some of his positions, I see him as a principled man who puts convictions ahead of politics - something that we need more of), Rudy (he just comes across as a LEADER), Newt (extremely bright and well spoken and has done a lot to shed the pit bull image that he had when in Congress). A dark horse could be Romney or possibly Huckabee. I’m not particularly enamored with George Allen but I have an open mind about him. I think Frist is done.</p>
<p>On the Democrat side I have seen some flashes of potential in Richardson. With some additional experience, I think Obama has potential. I’ve heard good things about Mark warner, but don’t know enough about him yet. Disasters would be Hillary, Kerry and Gore.</p>
<p>I agree with what you said there, FundingFather. I do see McCain as a man of principle, but some of his principles are opposed to mine, i.e., immigration. I do like Rudy and always have. I think he would be an excellent president and I agree with him on a lot of issues. I just adore Newt. He is such a brilliant man. I think Edwards is a lightweight and Pataki is a buffoon. Gore is too extremist and Kerry hasn’t a prayer. George Allen is an interesting candidate and I might give Richardson the benefit of the doubt but his immigration stance troubles me.</p>
<p>I’m ashamed to admit this because it brings me down to Moonbat level, but I could tolerate just about anyone but Hillary. The thought of hearing the sexual predator’s voice on a regular basis makes me want to hurl.</p>
<p>What’s that expression you’re so fond of, TD? Ah yes…“even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.” Enjoy your acorn, squirrely one, and congratulations on the first call I’ve seen you get right. All the indignant spluttering aside, your post does contain one bright, shiny nut of wisdom: it’s a one time thing.</p>
<p>Any serious student of politics must pay attention when an incumbent is defeated, particularly in a primary–it’s definitely an event. One of the interesting things in this is that despite all the effort, the juvenile representations of Lieberman as a cheerleader who gives Bush hickeys and the like–fully 48% of the Democratic activists (a)were OK with a Bush hickey-giver or (b)saw that as the caricature that it was. These are the rank-and-file of the Democrat party in one of the most liberal of the bluest states, so there is also a third possibility–that the 48% of the Democratic base that did not turn into deluded NedHeads recognized that Lamont could not win against an Inpependent Lieberman in a general election, and that joining NedHeads would mean throwing away a safe senate seat.</p>
<p>As Dick Morris points out in the piece linked below, 140,000 Dem activists voted against Bush. 130,000 Dem activists voted for Lieberman. They will be joined in November by roughly a million more voters in the general election–most of them Dems, who were so incensed by all that hickey-giving that they didn’t bother to vote in the primary. A seasoned senator and well known son of the state with experience in foreign policy–one who has actually brought home the bacon for the “little” people of the state will be running against a political dilettante (Morris’s word), millionaire scion of the JP Morgan Co. (a robber baron–gasp!) owner of WalMart stock, and on and on. <a href=“http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/joe_will_rise_again_opedcolumnists_dick_morris.htm[/url]”>http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/joe_will_rise_again_opedcolumnists_dick_morris.htm</a>
Good analysis, btw, ZMom and FF. Wouldn’t a Giuliani/Lieberman ticket be interesting in 2008?</p>
<p>im quite happy lieberman lost. he’s the biggest bush supporter ever.
i’m proud that he lost the primary–democrats don’t need a guy who supported the war, is against a free media, and who didn’t support clinton</p>
<p>republicans should be unhappy though</p>
<p>“Giuliani/Lieberman ticket be interesting in 2008?”</p>
<p>Very much so. Would that be a “unity government?”</p>
<p>Yes, but I think the chatboard fulminators would feel left out.</p>
<p>“Yes, but I think the chatboard fulminators would feel left out.”</p>
<p>So what? The rest of us could hold hands and sing the old Coca-Cola jingle!</p>
<p>Check out this political commentary from author/columnist/soldier Austin Bay
<a href=“http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1351[/url]”>http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1351</a></p>
<p>“democrats don’t need a guy who supported the war”</p>
<p>Humm, how far back do you like to go to frame that statement? 2000? 2001? 2002? 2003? or today? </p>
<p>Your list of “needed” candidates might be atrocioulsy thin! Of course, you still have those waethervane leaders who were for the war while being against it at the same time, or was it the opposite? Vote du jour and flip flop!</p>
<p>So, Xiggi - Barbara Lee for President? ;)</p>
<p>I hear that Cynthia McKinney has more time on her hands now. She may be up for a run for the WH.</p>
<p>Interesting how our Eastern-liberal friends in Connecticut and New Jersey seem to favor very wealthy candidates who can buy their seats, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Interesting how our conservative friends from anywhere seem to favor candidates bought and paid for by the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, etc. Bush considers “diversity” a matter of having representatives of more than one oil company in his cabinet.</p>
<p>Driver, I’ll make book with you to the tune of 200 ITY’s (I Told You So’s) about Lamont/Lieberman/Schlesinger(?) in November. You read your own press too much. </p>
<p>Lieberman running as an independent after losing the primary is a disgusting if opportunistic matter of taking advantage of a loophole in the Connecticut election law. You lose a primary–any one, anywhere, any party–you should be done. Shrug. Lieberman had the support of the national Democratic party, the vast majority of Democratic office holders, and the Connecticut state party machinery all behind him. All that’s done and over, now gone over to Lamont, with the exception of maybe Sens. Salazar & Akaka.</p>
<p>Lamont’s position is not a “fringe” one, despite whatever spin of Ken Mehlman you’re absorbing. Only about 10 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of Independents support Bush’s lemming-like over-the-cliff policies in Iraq.</p>
<p>90 days to go for change to begin. And then another two years to finish the first phase. At which point all the Bush supporters can concern themselves with their tennis game, canasta, square dancing, and volunteering for their local historical society and those they champion be kept far from power for at least three generations…it may take that long to repair some of the damage. And if they don’t like it, they can emigrate to the Ukraine or Kazakhstan or someplace like that where the political culture is more to their liking.</p>
<p>
oh…I thought that happened in New Jersey, with Lautenberg?
I don’t think I called it a fringe position, but if 48% of the Dem rank and file supported Lieberman despite only 10% supporting our Iraq actions, perhaps it isn’t the magic Acme Super Bush Annhilation machine you were expecting, Wile E.</p>