Why does the Lieberman defeat Freak Cons out so much?

Its bizarre, really. Personally, I pay very litle attention to GOP congresional or local primaries. Its not my party. I frankly don't give a shit which wingnut they elect. Especially in states I don't live in.

But on this board and the other, Cons have been wiggin' for days and days about lieberman. Post after post, thread after thread.

Possible theories:

Ok for starters, who has been freaking out? I could give two shits... I don't see any massive freakout going on... I think that's just in your head.

1) Lieberman's loss freaks them, because he's the first prominent delusional war-apologist being held accountable - is it a trend?;

2) Its extremely rare for incumbent senators to lose primaries. Is this the beginning of an anti-incumbent mood in the electorate. An anti-incumbent mood is obvioulsy more dangerous for the GOP;

CT is a northeastern liberal state. who cares? As if that speaks for the entire country.

Is his loss a trend that the electorate is fed up with lame, failed policies that don't promote the common good?

yeah that's probably it.
 
Kerry has apologized for the war, and said it was a huge mistake. I'm forgiving him.

That freedom-fried republican congressman, Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) has apologized for his war vote.

It wasn't a war vote, remember? It was just a vote to authorize force.
 
whatever you righties want to spin it as....the fact is, Kerry regrets it, Joey does not....and it is THE singlemost important issue for democrats, and Joey was on the wrong side and stays on the wrong side, so nobody ought to be surprised he got beat.
 
whatever you righties want to spin it as....the fact is, Kerry regrets it, Joey does not....and it is THE singlemost important issue for democrats, and Joey was on the wrong side and stays on the wrong side, so nobody ought to be surprised he got beat.
It doesn't bug me at all, CT Ds get to choose who they run. I do think it will go as I posted above. "Joey" will get both D and R votes from those in the Middle as the R's have no reliable candidate and some of the Ds will remain faithful to him. He'll end up in the same Senate Seat doing the same thing....
 
a guy who was loyal enogh to the democratic party to accept their nomination for Vice President, should not be so disloyal to them now to run as an independent after the democrats in his own state chose someone else for a position that Joe took that was clearly against the wishes of the majority of his fellow democrats.

If Joe runs as an independent, I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire. If he drops out and lets Lamont win the seat in a two way race, and then campaigns hard for democrats in not only this mid term, but also in '08, I think he might be deserving of a cabinet seat in the upcoming democratic administration.
 
a guy who was loyal enogh to the democratic party to accept their nomination for Vice President, should not be so disloyal to them now to run as an independent after the democrats in his own state chose someone else for a position that Joe took that was clearly against the wishes of the majority of his fellow democrats.

If Joe runs as an independent, I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire. If he drops out and lets Lamont win the seat in a two way race, and then campaigns hard for democrats in not only this mid term, but also in '08, I think he might be deserving of a cabinet seat in the upcoming democratic administration.
It doesn't matter how you would vote. There will be a portion of them who will remain faithful to Lieberman regardless... That and the fact that the Rs will likely cross over to vote for him as a more viable candidate will give him the win.
 
then I hope the asshole is struck by lightning

Because he is running as an independent? He's just trying to find another avenue to the sacred power all politicians so desire. His motivations are no different than Lamonts or any other politician. His motivation is power.

Wasn't it you that said something to the effect of "its not my state, what do I care?" about Byrd? Why do the rules change here?
 
.

Let's dispense with the "feelings" about how lamonts victory will affect dems - some claim it will "destroy" the dems, some claim it will help them.

Let's look at the first actual empirical evidence demonstrating whether or not lamonts victory will create a backlash, as some have claimed:


Fox News Poll - First post-Lamont victory poll:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Aug. 8-9, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

" if the congressional election were held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate in your district or the Republican candidate in your district?"

Democrat: 48%
Republican: 30 %
Unsure: 22 %


Dems with 18-point generic lead. Highest margin ever polled, since 1982.
 
Well, its looking like the Dems will take a gain in the Congress come November.

What if they take the lead? This worries me, but nor for reasons you may think. I am worried that if the Dems gain the hill, then we will have a bunch of Lame Duck Republicans on the hill that may make one last stand. Maybe a couple of "pre-emptive strikes" on Iran or whatever. It'll be W's last ditch effort to wage war while he legally can.

Am I a fear monger?
 
They believe it is anti-semitism from what I've read.

Some of them, ie Dixie, assume people can't be judged on their actions, but only their ethnicity....
 
What we have here is some kind of left wing psychic meeting? I maintain its not because it freaks me out .. it was an assinine move on the Democrats part ..thats all ... no skin off my nose ...
Ive been waiting for you all to start going after Kerry, Biden and Hillary for the same reasons ...

How was this an asinine move? For that matter, how was it a "move" at all? It wasn't some grand strategy, cooked up in a back room by a group of insiders. It was a vote. The will of the people, expressed in a democratic tradition. The voters decided that he no longer represented their best interests, and voted accordingly.as far as the rest you mentioned, Kerry is already on board, and if Hillary and Biden want to retain their seats, they will cease defending the indefensible, straighten up, and fly right. This is all about being held accountable for your voting record, and Lieberman's no longer represented a Democratic voters of Connecticut.

it's a shame that we've all gotten so hung up on arcane political strategy, instead of just voting on the person's record. All other considerations are bullshit, and only play into the hands of the career politicians. There is a libertarian poster on one of these boards, whose signature line includes the phrase, "politicians should be changed like diapers, and for the same reason." With very few exceptions, that says it all. It was obviously Lieberman's turn to be changed, in the judgment of the voters.
 
Well said Jarod.
However I do not like Kerry or Hillary very much. Biden, I am not sure about.
Of course if GWB could run again I would vote for Peewee Herman before I would him.

I would vote for a brick before I would vote for Bush. At least the brick isn't going to lie to me, send my child to die in a war of choice, or pick my pocket.
 
Yep, that's actually true. I am a registered Independent. I even went on to list the numerous democrats I've voted for, did you miss that part? Apparently so!

You mean Democrats like Strom Thurmond, John Stennis. John Sparkman, James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, Richard Shelby, and Zell Miller?
 
How was this an asinine move? For that matter, how was it a "move" at all? It wasn't some grand strategy, cooked up in a back room by a group of insiders. It was a vote. The will of the people, expressed in a democratic tradition. The voters decided that he no longer represented their best interests, and voted accordingly.as far as the rest you mentioned, Kerry is already on board, and if Hillary and Biden want to retain their seats, they will cease defending the indefensible, straighten up, and fly right. This is all about being held accountable for your voting record, and Lieberman's no longer represented a Democratic voters of Connecticut.

it's a shame that we've all gotten so hung up on arcane political strategy, instead of just voting on the person's record. All other considerations are bullshit, and only play into the hands of the career politicians. There is a libertarian poster on one of these boards, whose signature line includes the phrase, "politicians should be changed like diapers, and for the same reason." With very few exceptions, that says it all. It was obviously Lieberman's turn to be changed, in the judgment of the voters.

You are right .. it is the will of the people .. for that reason it is good ... but it just seems that it is only happening to Lieberman .. if it catches on and it begins to happen across the board in both party's ..you know what? Im on board come November .. I wouldnt mind a good 'ol fashion house cleaning! Throw the bums out! Lets keep this up right through 2008 and bring both houses back to ground zero ...

Sometimes I do look at things too strategically ... you actually got me thinking about that one ...
 
Throw the bums out! Lets keep this up right through 2008 and bring both houses back to ground zero ...

Agreed.
There might be 10 or so in there worth keeping.
 
Well, its looking like the Dems will take a gain in the Congress come November.

What if they take the lead? This worries me, but nor for reasons you may think. I am worried that if the Dems gain the hill, then we will have a bunch of Lame Duck Republicans on the hill that may make one last stand. Maybe a couple of "pre-emptive strikes" on Iran or whatever. It'll be W's last ditch effort to wage war while he legally can.

Am I a fear monger?

I doubt the dems will take back either house; they'll probably win some seats, but the power of incumbencyy has grown to levels never seen before.

I find it interesting that Fox News has been drumming the "news" for a couple weeks, that a Lamont victory will freak out voters and demonstrate the Dems are going "extreme left" -- yet the actual empirical evidence shows the opposite. This Fox post-lamont poll shows the generic gap growing wider in favor of Democrats.
 
How was this an asinine move? For that matter, how was it a "move" at all? It wasn't some grand strategy, cooked up in a back room by a group of insiders. It was a vote. The will of the people, expressed in a democratic tradition. The voters decided that he no longer represented their best interests, and voted accordingly.


This is why people call you a koolaid drinking idiot, you don't acknowledge the facts. Like the fact that MoveOn.org and George Soros, in connection with the DNC and Howard Dean, targeted the Lieberman race, backed his opponent, and swayed 100,000 Independents to vote in the Democratic primaries... that's what MONEY will do for a campaign. Why did they do this? Simple... fundraising! This was, and is, being billed as the "early indicator" of things to come, it's being played up as this big grass-roots movement of the anti-war left, to get the kooks worked up into a frenzy so they will send their money in! To assume that how 100,000 people in CT voted, is reflective of what 300 million Americans think, is ridiculous.
 
Back
Top