Ah, I'm in a fine mood today, a very fine mood. At last, some voters have taken my advice and are swerving leftward, out of the way of the on-coming disaster that looms in front of the nation's current trajectory.
[Guardian] Voters in Connecticut rejected three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman for a political newcomer in the nation's first major test of the depth of anger over the Iraq war.
As "only the fourth incumbent senator to lose a primary since 1980", Joe should go home, lick his wounds, and think about his next job outside of the government (he'd make an excellent Republican lobbyist). Instead, he's going to endure more pies in the face:
But Lieberman, undaunted, vowed to run as an independent against fellow Democrat Ned Lamont. ``For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand,'' he said of Tuesday's Democratic primary results.
How his running as in independent is "for the sake of" his party is beyond me, considering that his party has clearly rejected him. C-Net has an article asking the question: "Did bloggers cost Joe Lieberman an election?" We can only hope that we did our part.
Let's take a quick look at what some of the bloggin' noggins got to say about this on the internets:
Edward Stewart has a typical reaction:
The Lieberman/Lamont primary proved one thing. That the Foil Hat Rebellion is in full force in the DNC. This was not a contest of Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont. It was a contest between the DNC establishment and the Foil Hat types like DailyKos, Democratic Underground, George Soros, et. al.
All I can say is if any of you want this guy so bad--have him. He already knows the Republicon goose-step so he'll fit right in as you march off to make the world free for non-bid contractors. Of course, we shouldn't write Joe off too quickly. Karl Rove, after all, has apparently 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." In other words, don't worry Joe--we see you sinking. Grab this anchor and tie it to your life-jacket.
Real Clear Politics had this to say:
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.
You know the Republicans are in trouble when they try to appeal to people's nostalgia for Nixon. (Any of them "Nixon Now" buttons left?) What horse-shit! You're talking about a president whose corruption has only been surpassed by Shrubby himself--someone who was fighting secret wars and lying about it. Vietnam? A war for freedom? I get so tired of repeating the history for those with a 30-second attention span (just big enough for the last beer commercial) but the initial U.S. involvement in Vietnam was IN SUPPORT OF THE FRENCH OCCUPATION. Enough said. The Vietnamese coalition were freedom fighters. Nixon was a Nazi who didn't have the advantage of a 9/11. Lieberman is a lapdog. As for misreading the American public--get real. We're against the war. The current president is going to go out as one of the most unpopular, corrupt and inept presidents in U.S. history. The idea that the Democratic party is veering left (or that it is left at all) is patently absurd.