Moonbats Now Have Taken Control Of DNC

[Annie]

Credit was given in advance regarding the left blogs if Lamont won. The MSM actually went out of their way to credit sites like Daily Kos for fundraising and such, ignoring the fact that Lamont mostly used his own money. So, guess which groups are now 'in control?':

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/lamonts_win_is_bad_news_for_de.html

August 09, 2006
Dems Move Closer to McGovern's Losing Formula
By John McIntyre

Democrats lost the 2004 presidential election over leadership on national security. Last night's win by anti-war Ned Lamont over pro-war Joe Lieberman, while joyous for the far-left netroots crowd, is a bad harbinger for future Democratic Party prospects nationally in 2008 and beyond.

The closeness of the election only makes the outcome more frustrating for Democratic strategists. Had Lieberman eked out a victory, the Connecticut Senate primary would have been a huge win for the Democratic Party as they would have been able to reap the dividends of all the energy (and voters) Lamont's candidacy had attracted, while at the same time sending a message to the country that the Democratic Party is large enough for pro-war Democrats. Had Lieberman held on and won, he undoudtedly would be reaching out to left-wing Democrats and pushing further away from President Bush and the Republicans. Instead, Lieberman will now be ostracized from the party and will be reaching out to Independents and Republicans while chastising the extremists in the Democratic Party.

Incredibly, for a sitting three-term Senator who just lost to a political neophyte, in many ways Lieberman is the guy who comes out of the primary with momentum. A month ago it was not unreasonable to assume that Lamont would have received a significant boost from a win, but the polls seem to indicate Lamont peaked near the end of July. Bill Clinton's July 24th visit may have been more of a turning point than was commonly thought at the time. In my pre-election analysis I suggested that Lieberman's distance from 40% would be the best tell on how the three-way would shakeout. With his very solid 48.2%, Lieberman is in an extremely strong position to win in November.

Nationally, the images from last night are a disaster for the Democratic Party. Perched behind Lamont during his victory speech were the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, grinning ear to ear, serenaded by the chant of "Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home." For a party that has a profound public relations and substantive problem on national security, these are not exactly the images you want broadcast to the nation.

Anti-war Democrats and much of the mainstream media continue to confuse anti-war with anti-lose. The incessant commentary that 2/3rd of the country is against the war completely misreads the American public, as much of the negativity towards the war isn't because we are fighting, but rather a growing feeling that we are not fighting to win or not fighting smart.

Democrats went down this road in the late 1960's with Vietnam and they are still carrying the baggage from that leftward turn. Lamont's win is a big step back to that losing formula. During the height of the "progressive" revolt against the war in Vietnam, Americans voted 57% for Nixon and Wallace in 1968, followed by a whopping 60% for Nixon in 1972 against the avowededly anti-war McGovern.

These Democratic wipeouts in '68 and '72 occurred while tens of thousands of Americans were dying in Southeast Asia. Today, as much as our media and the left want to make Iraq a Vietnam-like quagmire, casualties are running at a tenth of what they were in Vietnam. The other big difference from Vietnam is 9/11. America was attacked 5 years ago, something many on the Left seem to forget, but the voters have not. The comments that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 are irrelevant as Americans understand, rightly or wrongly, that we are in Iraq because of what happened on September 11. Only conspiracy-minded leftists believe otherwise. Just ask yourself if the U.S. would have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened.

The "Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home" chant may win congressional districts in San Francisco and Seattle as well as Democratic primaries in solidly blue states, but it is not a serious policy. Just what does "Bring Them Home" really mean? Bring them home and Ahmadinejad suddenly gives up his pursuit of nukes, Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah domesticate and forego terror? Leftists, pacifists and Pat Buchanan isolationists may be that naïve, but the majority of Americans are not.

The civilized world is at a very dangerous moment. There is no question that the Bush administration has made a bucket load of mistakes in fighting this war, but they (and thus America) are fighting. Bring them home is the equivalent of "we quit, we give up." Americans aren't quitters and the majority of Connecticut's citizens aren't quitters, as Lieberman's likely win in November will prove.

The Democrats have an insurgency of their own that is rapidly gaining strength, and Lieberman is the first high profile victim. But in the long run the real victim will be the Democratic Party if they continue to purge the few remaining FDR/Truman/Scoop Jackson Democrats from their ranks.

And from Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/9/41720/34915

CT-Sen: Winners and losers
by kos
Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 01:17:20 AM PDT

Winner:

Ned Lamont. The guy has it all -- a great job, a great family, a great home, and very cute, if lazy, dog. Yet he tossed that aside for a quixotic run, dumping in millions of his own money in what was really, at first, a statement race. When I first met Lamont I told him that if he played this right, win or lose, he would have an army behind him that would be a force for good in Connecticut and beyond.

You know why I liked Lamont, what sold me on him? He had hints of insecurity. In politics, you realize that every politician just about oozes ego. You can smell it across the room. But here was a guy who didn't think the world revolved around him as he plotted the most efficient path to the White House. He was doing this not out of ego but because he believed in the causes he was fighting for. To me, that was refreshing. (Same goes for Tester, btw).

Loser:

Joe Lieberman. Obviously. An 18-year incumbent, former vice-presidential nominee, swimming in money and establishment backing, and he claims a moral victory for not getting blown out of the water? Bonus points for still keeping the "my crappy site was hacked" storyline. I can't wait to see the FBI report.

Winners:

People-powered politics. At YearlyKos, caught up in the moment, I foolishly made the following prediction in my keynote address:

Lieberman is going to lose.

Why was I so confident?

Just today we get news of a new poll out of Connecticut. A month ago, a Quinnipiac University had the Senate Democratic race at 65 percent Joe Lieberman, 19 percent Ned Lamont.

Today's poll? Lieberman's lead has shrunk to 55-40 amongst likely Democratic primary voters.

See that? Insanity. I saw Lamont losing by 15 points, and somehow that foreshadowed Lieberman's loss. But I was excited because we had just seen Jon Tester crush his opponent in Montana despite being tied in the polls. People-power propelled him to victory and I expected the same would happen in Connecticut. Tonight we saw that people-power is not just a Montana phenomenon but a national one, and it can move mountains.

Losers:

The DLC (and the New Republic, as well). Not only did they lose the first fully contested primary between a DLC candidate and a people-powered candidate in the Montana Senate primary, but they saw their patron saint go down in defeat last night. And this wasn't just any defeat, this was the triumph of a rag-tag band of rebels against everything the DC Democratic establishment could throw at us -- President Clinton, Barbara Boxer, NARAL, and so on. That's 0-2 in these contests for the DLC this cycle.

Seeing Al From's oldest nemesis, Jesse Jackson, behind Lamont tonight must've driven him insane. That brings a smile to my face.

Losers:

Lobbyists. They've paid good money to buy Joe Lieberman. How do you buy a guy that doesn't need money? That isn't willing to be corrupted by their strings-attached cash?

Winners

Democracy and the people of Connecticut. I haven't seen the final turnout numbers, but if they are around 50 percent, that's incredible. Maybe three percent turned out for the Virginia Democratic Senate primaries.

Losers

Every Connecticut newspaper which endorsed Lieberman. Memo from the people of Connecticut -- they didn't care.

Winner

Maxine Waters. Damn that woman busted her butt for Lamont, and she did so with class and flair.

Loser

Chris Dodd. Lieberman's staunchest defender can still redeem himself if he brokers Lieberman's exit from the race.

Winners

Hillary, Bayh, and Edwards, who moved most aggressively to embrace Lamont after the winner was called.

Losers

The DC beltway consultancies. Boy, they went up against an all-star team of out-of-DC consultants and got their asses handed to them. Tom Swan ran circles around the Lieberman brain trust, Bill Hillsman made the best ads of the cycle, ran far fewer than Lieberman's ad people did, and clearly had a bigger impact. Tim Tagaris, who I'm proud is a fellow Chicagoan, has shown us again how our 50-state-strategy can have unexpected benefits. While the 2004 campaign of Jeff Seemann fizzled, the campaign gave us Tim. And he tore it up in the Paul Hackett special election, and tore it up again in Connecticut. He's the best netroots coordinator in the biz and we might not have him had it not been for the 2004 Kos Dozen.

Meanwhile, the DC crowd led a popular 18-year-incumbent to defeat. Is it any wonder Republicans have been kicking our ass?

Winner

ctkeith, who was the crazy guy telling anyone who would listen that Lieberman was vulnerable. He tried, so, so hard to get Attorney General Richard Blumenthal into the race. I bet Blumenthal wishes he'd done it now. ctkeith was the genius/crazy guy behind the kiss buttons and DumpJoe.com, which was sort of forgotten as the Connecticut blogosphere (another bunch of winners) rose and took center stage.

Losers

Republicans. They're going to do some silly press conference on Wednesday claiming the Democratic Party is held in thrall by craaaazy people who agree with, um, 2/3rds of the American people on Iraq. If they want to make a big deal and remind people they have no exit strategy for Iraq, then by all means, therein lies the path to bizarro 1994.

If they really thought Lieberman losing was such a bad thing for the Democratic Party they wouldn't have gone out of their way to prop him up. Instead, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, the wingnutosphere, several Republican congresscritters, and the GOP's Big Money all rallied around their man. This is not a happy day for them....

 

[theHawk]

Ned's victory speech was hilarious. Screaming that he is going to "fix health care" and there is Jesse and Sharpton in the back grinning like morons. What happened to Dems' claim that the party is more fiscally responsible than Republicans? The second this guy feels the rush of political power flowing through his veins all he can do is shout about how he wants to expand the welfare state.

And our board Libs can't figure out why we'd rather vote Republican. :baby4:

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I don't think it's a good thing when any blog sites like this one or any of the others (left or right affiliated) start to actually affect real politics. Blog sites attract radicals from both sides and it is never good when radicals gain any foothold in political fronts where important decisions that actually affect US citizens are made.

 

[red states rule]

I don't think it's a good thing when any blog sites like this one or any of the others (left or right affiliated) start to actually affect real politics. Blog sites attract radicals from both sides and it is never good when radicals gain any foothold in political fronts where important decisions that actually affect US citizens are made.

Libs are now worried about Sen lieberman running as a Indepedent. Perhaps the MOveOn.org nuts will find out the hardway, payback is a bitch

http://newsbusters.org/node/6859

Morning Show Drumbeat: Drop Out Joe!
Posted by Geoffrey Dickens on August 9, 2006 - 10:34.
Matt Lauer, Diane Sawyer and Harry Smith aren't dumb, they know a potential roadblock to Democratic success when they see one, and that's why all three of them collectively told Sen. Joseph Lieberman to drop out. Lieberman appeared on all three network morning shows and received identical reactions from all three hosts.

NBC's Matt Lauer on this morning's Today show: "Senator is there any phone call you could receive, is there anyone in the Democratic Party who could call you today and ask you to drop out that you would listen to?" ABC's Diane Sawyer on this morning's Good Morning America: "Senator, I heard you say I'm a Democrat. But you're talking about running as an independent and there are members of the party who've already said, commentators, that this is a selfish decision. How can you run against the party? What will happen?" CBS's Harry Smith on The Early Show: "A final quick question. You will run as an independent at risk of losing the seat to the Republicans? You understand that risk? By splitting the Democratic vote."

Below is the barrage of "Drop Out," questions Lieberman face from Matt, Diane and Harry:

NBC's Today show

Lauer: "Good to have you here, thank you for your time. I would imagine your phone is gonna start to ring pretty early this morning, Senator. The likes of Frank Lautenberg and Chris Dodd and maybe even Bill Clinton calling to say, 'Senator step aside, the voters have spoken.' Are you gonna take their calls or are you gonna screen those calls?"

Lauer: "But, but facts, facts are facts Senator though, and you lost to a political novice by four percentage points. Now that political novice is going to have the support of the entire Democratic machine behind him for these next three months. How can you win?"

Lauer: "Let me go back to that line in your speech last night, I'll paraphrase it if you don't mind. You said, 'For the sake of your state, your country and my party you will not let these results stand.' It's a nice line in a speech but the fact of the matter is there are a lot of Democrats who think now, going forward you're putting your own personal ambitions above the good of the party. How do you respond to that?"

Lauer: "So you won't bend at all on the issue of a deadline for troop withdrawal. Senator is there any phone call you could receive, is there anyone in the Democratic Party who could call you today and ask you to drop out that you would listen to?"

ABC's Good Morning America

Diane Sawyer: "Senator, I heard you say I'm a Democrat. But you're talking about running as an independent and there are members of the party who've already said, commentators, that this is a selfish decision. How can you run against the party? What will happen?"

Sawyer: "President Clinton has indicated that he's going to support the Democratic nominee and so many other members of your party, your friends, have said, we're going to come in and campaign for the Democratic nominee. You're going to be all alone out there. Will you stay in, no matter what, til November?"

CBS's The Early Show

Harry Smith: "And that's why you've said you're going to run as an independent, even though polls show among Democrats, 61% of people polled yesterday said don't do it."

Smith: "A final quick question. You will run as an independent at risk of losing the seat to the Republicans? You understand that risk? By splitting the Democratic vote."

 

[Annie]

Lieberman won't win anything if he actually runs for president on a third party ticket. He won't have the right-leaning independent votes. The only thing he will ensure by running is that the left-leaning independents will vote for him instead of for the Democratic ticket, thereby ensuring another win for the Republican party.

He'll be running for senator, as an independent. Already registered.

 

[Annie]

More pontificating from Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/231459/7695

CT-Sen: Lieberman to go indy
by kos
Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 0859 PM PDT

While this race isn't officially over, it's pretty much over. Lieberman just announced that he is running as an independent.

I know Democrats in DC, including many of Lieberman's allies, are horrified at that possibility. Lieberman will tell them all to fuck off. He doesn't care. He doesn't care about promises he made to them to respect the will of the primary voters.

Lieberman's original rationale for collecting signatures was that only 20 percent of Democrats would vote in a summer primary. Well, we got a blockbuster primary turnout. While only about 3 percent of Democrats voted in the Virginia primary a few weeks ago, about 50 percent will have participated today. That's an incredible number -- unprecedented -- for a Senate primary. I'll leave others to do the historical research, but this isn't normal. This is what people-power looks like, and it is changing the face of politics.

Now, Lieberman wants to stab his allies and his party in the back. It won't be the first time.

Here's what we all need to do the next few days:

1. Push Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all committee assignments.

2. Let people know what a sore loser Lieberman is.

3. Get all Democrats -- including Bill Clinton -- to publicly back Ned Lamont.

4. Get the Democratic interest groups who backed Lieberman to switch allegiances in the general.
​

The DSCC and the DCCC will have to deal with the fact that this race will continue to suck oxygen from great pickup opportunities. And I won't apologize for that, because as a proud Democrat, I will help in whatever way I can the Democratic nominee from the Great State of Connecticut.

The Republicans rejoiced at Lieberman's decision to stay in. They couldn't be happier. And let's not talk about the lobbyists! They're besides themselves!

Joe Lieberman is not an independent Democrat. He needs to be stripped of his committee assignments and have those handed to real Democrats. And then we need to buckle down and finish the job we started.

This was never going to be easy. it still is not. But in the end, we will prevail.

 

[5stringJeff]

Here's hoping the Republican wins in CT. Who is the Republican candidate, anyway?

 

[Annie]

Here's hoping the Republican wins in CT. Who is the Republican candidate, anyway?

Not that he has a chance:

http://www.schlesinger2006.com/

 

[red states rule]

Republicans should not waste their time in the senate race. CT is a liberal state despite what the liberal media says

http://newsbusters.org/node/6860

Smith Hits Lieberman Loss from Left
Posted by Lyford Beverage on August 9, 2006 - 10:55.
On Wednesday's edition of CBS' The Early Show, anchor Harry Smith discussed the primary election results from the state of Connecticut with Senator Joe Lieberman and political analyst Amy Walter. Harry took his standard, normal position - the left side. (I would bet that at some point in his life, some place and some where, at some time, Harry Smith asked a question of someone from the more conservative side of an issue, but I've never seen it.) In the course of his interviews, Smith asked a question or prompted Lieberman with a comment, 5 times. 4 of them could be considered as coming from a neutral point-of-view, though the emphasis and context certainly seemed to be the Democratic point-of-view. The fifth was clearly a question from the Democratic point-of-view. (You can click here to see Harry Smith's questions for Senator Lieberman...)


HS: Incumbents do not get turned out of office, especially in primaries in this country. Do you understand that your support for the war is the reason you lost Tuesday?
HS: And that's why you've said you're going to run as an independent, even though polls show among Democrats, 61% of people polled yesterday said don't do it.

HS: I hear that. Also, though, through this race, there was a sense among people just, you know, talking to people in the corner store, at the local gas station, 18 years in the senate. Some folks there just said maybe Joe's lost touch with his constituency.

HS: But you are so closely aligned with his -- with his war policy.

HS: A final quick question. You'll run as an independent at risk of losing the seat to the Republicans? You understand that risk. By splitting the Democratic vote.

Clearly the last question is a question that comes from a partisan Democratic perspective. The interesting one to me is that first one. He doesn't ask Lieberman whether he thinks or considers that he lost because he supported the effort to go into Iraq - he asks whether Lieberman understands that that's why he lost. Smith's position assumes that position. It may, probably is, the case, but a "fair-and-balanced" questioner would not have started that way.
And there's a huge political analysis question that went unanswered. It went unanswered because, of course, it went unasked. It is a question something along the lines of "Senator, do you think that the fact that the extreme left was able to generate enough votes to beat you in the primary carries potential negative ramifications for national security?" But that's the kind of question that you see only if you're in the center or on the right. Those aren't places that Harry Smith stands.

After finishing with Lieberman, Smith went on to discuss the results with Amy Walter, who is a senior editor for the Cook Political Report. And again, his prompting came primarily from the left, from the "what does this suggest that the Democrats need to do?" position. (The mainstream press is always concerned about what the Democrats have to do to win.)

HS: Does this send a message to Democrats to say, if you want our support, you better get out there and be against the war and against the president?
HS: By and large, it's kind of a moderate state in many, many ways. A lot of Republican congressional seats there. Is this -- is there a wind? Is in a shift? Is there something that can be gleaned out of this?

I love that amusing suggestion that COnnecticut is a "moderate" state. When I look back two years, I see that there were only 5 states (plus Washington, DC) where John Kerry got a higher percentage of the two-party vote than he did in Connecticut. The extremely liberal Chris Dodd more than doubled the vote total of his Republican challenger. While it is true that there are three Republicans and only two Democrats in the US House of Representatives at the moment, a quick glance shows that the three Republicans, none of whom are conservative, won close races and the two Democrats won blow-outs. In the 2004 US Representative voting in Connecticut, the Democratic candidates took over 55% of the two-party vote. In other words, to call Connecticut a "moderate" state is to suggest that there's no such thing as a "liberal" state.
Which, come to think of it, probably accurately represents Harry Smith's feelings...

 

[Abbey Normal]

Here's what we all need to do the next few days:

1. Push Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all committee assignments.

2. Let people know what a sore loser Lieberman is.

3. Get all Democrats -- including Bill Clinton -- to publicly back Ned Lamont.

4. Get the Democratic interest groups who backed Lieberman to switch allegiances in the general.

Lieberman is a sore loser, but Gore & Kerry weren't?!

:rotflmao:

 

[Annie]

Rational dems are getting it:

http://instalawyer.blogspot.com/2006/08/lets-see-if-ive-got-this-right.html

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Let's see if I've got this right. Conventional wisdom says that the country has gone progressively to the center/right. The last two Democratic presidents were centrists. The Democrats desparately want to regain control of Congress in 2006, and the White House in 2008. Joe Lieberman was the Democratic standard-bearer just six years ago, along with Al Gore. the DSCC and the Democratic establishment [aside from President Clinton] provided little or no help to Lieberman in his campaign, which is the same as opposing him. And many left-leaning Democrats are now gleeful over his defeat by a "trust fund baby" in the Connecticut primary, which makes the party as a whole look like total freaking disloyal idiots to the rest of the country.

What's wrong with this picture?

Not for nothing, but it does strike me that this deepening division in the Democratic party benefits -- wait for it -- the Republicans. Why? When push comes to shove the Repubs can hold their base, as they did in the last two presidentials, as well as in the mid-terms. The Dems, however, are so divided that only chaos will result. Result [and prediction]: Repubs will hold onto their congrssional majorities in 2006. If the Dems continue this exercise in mass denial, we'll have another "northeastern liberal" [or some such] running in 2008, and the White House will be lost again. The Republicans couldn't have done better if they had planned it. Hmmm, did they plan it?

Who knows, but I, for one, am sick to death of going down in flames, but feeling good about myself in the process. If I don't win, I can't govern. I can't win unless I am a centrist candidate. Polarizing the party plays directly into Repub hands.

The left wing of the Democratic party better get its collective head out of, er, the clouds, or they'll have it handed to them come election day.

By the way, I wouldn't be the least surprised if Lieberman runs as an Independent, kicks Lamont's ass in the general, and then sticks it to the Democratic party forever. I wouldn't blame him. And I say that as a loyal Democrat.

posted by Douglas C. Weinstein at 5:20 PM

and another:

I really like this one:

http://www.brendanloy.com/2006/08/time-for-a-divorce.html

Time for a divorce
Posted by Brendan Loy on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 at 7:44 pm

Okay, I’m calling it. It’s over. Ned Lamont has won the primary. Democrats in my home state of Connecticut have seen fit to give their incumbent U.S. senator, the honorable Joseph Lieberman, the old heave-ho. Get out of our party, the Democratic voters have told Joe. You aren’t one of us anymore.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that Lieberman’s fine Senate career is over — he says he’ll run as an independent, and if he does, he may well win. Nor does it necessarily mean that the majority of national Democrats, or even the majority of Connecticut progressives and liberals, agree with the decision that today’s voters made. Connecticut’s largest “party” is unaffiliated voters, who were ineligible to vote in today’s primary, and they have long been big Lieberman supporters. Moreover, even among registered Democrats, it was always going to be more difficult for Lieberman to motivate his contented-but-not-fervent supporters to vote in the same numbers as his rabidly angry critics. Lamont was bound to have a natural advantage in this primary, and Lieberman a natural disadvantage, for the same reason that moderates are almost always at a disadvantage in primaries. (See, e.g., the 2002 GOP gubernatorial primary in California.)

But regardless of all that, the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: there’s no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonight’s result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. It’s really much more than just a single primary in a single state; it’s a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, there’s one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today:

I am no longer a Democrat.

I’ve been calling myself a Democrat since I was ten years old, when I marched around the schoolyard in fifth grade chanting “Jerry Brown! Jerry Brown!” and, later, played the part of Bill Clinton in a sixth-grade mock debate. At the age of 13, I threw my hands up in dismay when the GOP took over Congress. When I turned 18, I registered without hesitation as a Democrat. I proudly cast my ballot for Al Gore in 2000, and — somewhat less proudly — for John Kerry in 2004. In recent years, I’ve seen the “base” of the Democratic Party drifting away from sense and sanity, and at the same time, I’ve felt my own ideological compass pulled somewhat to the right by world events. Yet I remain profoundly uncomfortable with the Republican Party for a variety of reasons, and I’ve never much liked the idea of being an “independent,” considering it — with all due respect to those who wear the label proudly — something of a cop-out in many cases.

So I’ve continued to cling to the label of Democrat, and to the hope that the party would somehow save itself from the tired orthodoxies of its interest groups and the execrable excesses of its far-left wing. I’ve shaken my head at the irrational policies and irresponsible rhetoric coming from so many corners of the party, comforting myself with the thought that while Dennis Kucinich may be a nutjob and Al Sharpton may be a charlatan and Howard Dean may be an idiot and Dick Durbin may be, well, a dick, at least there’s still Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman stood for just about everything good in the Democratic Party, while shunning most of the bad. He was — he is — an honest, decent and rational progressive, a moral but not overly moralistic man, a loyal but not blindly loyal Democrat. He agreed with the party most of the time, but he was willing to disagree when he felt his collegues were wrong. He was also willing to challenge liberal orthodoxies when they needed to be challenged, a rare and crucial trait. Mind you, I don’t worship the man, and I haven’t always agreed with him. He was wrong on Terri Schiavo, for instance, and in his views on the entertainment industry he sometimes tiptoes uncomfortably far toward the line separating criticism from censorship (though, to his credit, he never actually crosses it). But he was — he is — usually right, especially on the big issues, particularly the global war on terrorism and the conflict in Iraq.

Perhaps, I told myself, despite the ascendancy of Nancy Pelosi, the Deaniacs and the Kos Kidz, perhaps Lieberman’s side could still somehow win the struggle for the party’s soul. As long as that hope remained viable, I could continue to be a Democrat. A “Lieberman Democrat,” I called myself, and I was proud.

But now the voters have spoken. Lieberman may still consider himself a Democrat — he says that, if elected as an independent, he’ll vote to organize with the Dems, and I believe him — but the Democrats don’t consider Lieberman a Democrat anymore. That’s the cold, hard truth of today’s results. He’s been kicked out of the “big tent” because his loyalty wasn’t blind enough, because his conscience wasn’t pliable enough. He’s been replaced by the shiny new millionaire who said all the right things to win over the hearts and minds of the netroots. The war in Iraq is wrong, wrong, wrong; President Bush is bad, bad, bad; and Joe Lieberman is a traitor, a traitor, a traitor. That’s the undeniable message that Democratic voters from my home state have sent out across the land this fateful day.

Well, if there’s no room in the Democratic Party for Joe Lieberman, then there’s no room in it for me.

So I’m done. I’m out. See ya later. Sayonara.

This might seem like an overreaction to a single primary result in a single state, but really, it’s just the straw that broke the donkey’s back. As I said, the Democratic Party and I have been drifting apart for some time now. I believe it began on a Tuesday morning in the fall of 2001; I can’t exactly remember the date, but let’s just say a certain catastrophic event happened which changed the world in the eyes of most people — but not of many liberals and Democrats. Oh, they were sad and mad, just like everybody else. But as the weeks and months wore on, I learned to my dismay that the far left didn’t see 9/11 as a world-changing event or a paradigm shift, but rather, just a minor historical blip that didn’t require any adjustments whatsoever to their worldview or their policy ideas. And as the months turned to years, I watched with even greater dismay as the Democratic Party establishment concluded that the best way to win elections was to drift ever closer to the poisonous views of the far left. When Dick Durbin compared American soldiers to Nazis back in 2005, I almost bid adieu to the party of FDR and JFK… almost. I started drafting a blog post much like this one, declaring that “I am no longer a Democrat,” but then thought better of it. There was still hope for the Democrats, still a possibility that the party would save itself. After all, there was still Joe Lieberman.

Well, I don’t see the point is holding out hope anymore. It’s official now: the Democrats have jumped off the cliff, and are in free fall toward a richly deserved oblivion. I’ll continue to vote for Democratic candidates when and if they’re the best for the job. I might even continue to root for a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate this November, if only to shake things up and rebuke the Republicans for their corruption, their lies and their failures. But my “default” setting in the voting booth is no longer the Democratic column. As of today, I’m an independent.

I never wanted to be an independent. As I said earlier, it always struck me as something of a cop-out, the meaningless refuge of those who “don’t want to be labeled.” Screw that, I said; I have no problem with being labeled, so long as the label fits. But now, I finally understand where earnest independents are coming from, because now, for me, neither label fits. I’m not a Republican; I’m far too liberal on social issues to join their camp, and there’s quite a lot else I disapprove of, too. I’m not a Democrat; those who support a sane foreign policy, and who put loyalty to conscience and country ahead of loyalty to party, are no longer welcome on that side of the aisle. Nor I am aware of any national minor party that adequately represents my views. So I’m an independent.

Mind you, this doesn’t mean I’ll never register in either major party if doing so would be pragmatically useful for a particular purpose. For example, come 2008, I’ll decide which party’s presidential nomination race I care more about, and I’ll register in that party so I can vote in their primary. Indeed, this decision isn’t really about party registration at all. Technically, I am not currently registered in either party, since the way Indiana’s system works, you don’t pick a party upon registration, and I haven’t yet had the opportunity to vote in an Indiana primary, so I’ve been listed since 2004 as an unaffiliated voter. Unfortunately, that means I’ll be denied the catharsis of calling up the town clerk and demanding to be removed from the Democratic voter rolls. Darn it.

But again, this isn’t about party registration. It’s about self-labeling. That might strike some people are trivial, but to me, it matters. I’ve always been proud to call myself a Democrat. No more.

I have no doubt that this post will inspire a barrage of comments, so I want to make a few things clear. First, if you disagree with me on the war in Iraq, that’s fine. I respect that. I think reasonable people can disagree on the war in Iraq. There are some views that are patently unreasonable, of course (hence my references to “sense and sanity” above), but it isn’t inherently unreasonable to be against the war. In fact, where I truly part company with so many liberals is that they don’t think reasonable people can disagree; they believe their view is the only reasonable one. That’s why they think Lieberman is “spineless” and a “sellout” and a “closet Republican” — because they can’t conceive of how any non-Republican with a spine (by which they mean, any non-evil person with a spine, since all Republicans are evil… or, in the case of red-state hicks, maybe just stupid) could possibly support the war. They have no interest in a dialogue with the other side because they believe the opinions of everyone who disagrees with them are inherently worthless. That’s a sign of dangerous extremism right there, and I have no tolerance for it.

Secondly, as mentioned here, I want to emphasize again that I consider the argument that Lieberman is “spineless” and has “no principles beyond winning and political expedience and no honor beyond his own self interest” to be idiotic, asinine, and utterly absurd on its face, and anyone who makes such an argument is on notice that they may be ruthlessly pilloried by yours truly.

Thirdly and finally, in keeping with the notion of respecting those who disagree with me on the war, I also respect those Connecticut residents who voted against Lieberman because they believe “Iraq is the crucible of our age” and they simply can’t abide someone who disagrees with them on that issue. I’m not generally a single-issue voter, but I do feel that way about certain things — for instance, I could not under any circumstances vote for Bush, because he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment. So if you voted for Lamont because you can’t stand Lieberman’s stance on the war, I strongly disagree with your position, but I respect it. Likewise for voters who picked Lamont because of disagreements with Lieberman about various other issue(s). If that had been all this campaign was about — honest disagreements over issues — I wouldn’t nearly be as angry about Lieberman’s defeat as I am. But this hasn’t just been a campaign about issues. It’s also been a campaign about innuendo and lies and character assassination. Lieberman has been portrayed as a Bush stooge, a disloyal Democrat, a spineless sissy, a closet conservative and so forth. None of these characterizations are remotely supported by the facts, and all of them suggest a disturbing willingness on the part of the Democratic Party’s ascendant far left to throw under the bus anyone who gets in their way. These people are downright scary in their insistence on lock-step loyalty. They represent the precise opposite of the direction the party ought to be moving in, and that’s why I personally am jumping off the bus at this point. It’s ironic, really, that Democrats and MSM analysts (but I repeat myself) still trot out the old stereotype that the Republican Party is the one with the “small tent,” the one that’s unwilling to entertain dissent on its core issues. This despite the fact that, among others, Rudy Giuliani (pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun), Arnold Schwarzenegger (same), and John McCain (just generally a maverick) are nationally renowned Republican leaders — and, in the case of Giuliani and McCain, leading contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination. News flash, people: the Democratic Party is the “small tent” party of the 21st century. That’s been getting clearer for a while, and today it became official. You dissent from the party line, you’re hung out to dry. That’s the lesson of today’s vote, and it’s a disturbing one to anyone who cares about the future of the Democratic Party. (Which, frankly, I no longer do, particularly. I do believe it’s important to have a viable opposition party, but personally I’d love to see McCain and Lieberman hook up, form a third party, a centrist/unity party — let’s call it the Liberty Party, since Libertarian is already taken — and watch the Democrats’ numbers shrink and shrink until they become the third party. That’d be sweet.)

Anyway… so long, Democrats. And now, let the comment-flaming begin.

P.S. If you get the sense that I’ve been working on this post for a while… I have. I started drafting it when it became clear that Lieberman was trailing badly in the polls and was very likely to lose. I sincerely hoped that I wouldn’t have to post it. But here we are. Democratic voters have just given a big, unambiguous “f*** you” to moderates like me, and you know what? I can take a hint. You don’t want me in your party anymore. I get it. I’m going. Bye.

UPDATE: Far more surprisingly, my mom is jumping ship, too!

UPDATE 2: Welcome, InstaPundit readers! Please visit my homepage for much more on the Connecticut Senate election… not to mention a live travel blog by cute babes.

Categories: Election 2006

 

[dilloduck]

Lieberman is a sore loser, but Gore & Kerry weren't?!

:rotflmao:

shhhhhhhhhhhhh they don't know they lost yet!.