My decision to file for divorce from the Democratic Party is getting a lot of attention (an InstaPundit link, 39 comments in less than 90 minutes, etc. [UPDATE: Now at 161 and counting!]), but really, it’s not all that surprising; as I said, the Dems and I have been drifting apart for some time. This, however, is truly shocking: my mother, radical feminist ’60s flower-child, virulent anti-Bush and anti-war liberal — but also a great fan of Lieberman — is declaring her independence from the Democrats, too! She says, “I support Lieberman and I am sick of the Democratic Party and their death wish to put forth only unelectable politicians.” Unlike me, she is actively registered as a Democrat (has been since 1972), and she says she “will be changing my party affiliation tomorrow morning.” (To unaffiliated, I presume. If my mom registered as a Republican, I’m pretty sure lightning would strike her.)
“Perhaps one day the party and its radical activist groups (such as MoveOn.Org) will understand that the radical course is not a course that will ever succeed in the U.S.,” she wrote in an e-mail to MoveOn.org blasting them for supporting Lamont. “Politics is not a single issue, campaigns don’t have to be mud-slinging, and people [shouldn’t] be able to buy their way into public office, or seduce grassroots organizations with the concept that new is better.” In protest of Lieberman’s ouster, she pledges: “This election I will not only not vote for your candidate, I will not vote for any Democrat.” Hmm… I wonder if she’ll stick to that. Not even for governor, Mom?
Anyway, she also wrote an e-mail to Chris Dodd urging him not to try and pursuade Lieberman to drop out of the race; that letter is republished (all of this with her permission, of course) after the jump.
Senator Dodd,
Please do not try to dissuade Senator Lieberman from making his run for office between now and November. I have been a registered Democrat for 32 years, and I am now convinced more than ever that the Democratic party, now on the state level as it has several times in the past presidential campaigns, has a death wish, based on the choices it puts forth for statewide and national office.
I am one lonely voter, but I have never failed to vote in any primary or election from 1972 to the present, and I have also volunteered and worked on the campaigns of Walter Mondale and Bill Clinton, both as an individual and a unionist, and have contributed to Democratic candidates, including several hundred dollars I could ill aford for Clinton’s first campaign… because the country absolutely HAD to have a change from Reagan/Bush. My contributions and any volunteer work I can do will be for the Lieberman campaign. I will henceforth be an unaffiliated voter. The Democratic party is not just losing elections; it is losing party stalwarts.
I strongly urge you not to discourage Senator Lieberman from making this run. If Ned Lamont is my only non-Republican choice for Senate, I will not vote for that office. Washington D.C. does not need another white millionaire with no political experience, especially in such difficult times. We need Joe Lieberman more now than ever.
Thank you.
Leanna Loomer
UPDATE: Welcome, InstaPundit readers!
Other posts of interest: a plea for McCain and Lieberman to unite in 2008; my letter to Joe Lieberman (reproduced in a post which also includes considerable discussion of a possible third-party movement); and, as already mentioned, my “I am no longer a Democrat” post.
For more on the Lieberman-Lamont race, please visit my Election 2006 category… or just head straight to my homepage (which is presently dominated by Lieberman-Lamont stuff, but is generally quite diverse in its topics, covering everything from politics to hurricanes to pictures of kittens).
August 8th, 2006 at 9:35:52 pm
Well, that answers my question in the other thread . . . well, sort of.
Still waiting for the estimiable Joe Loy’s response. ;)
Yes, I’m going to use the word estimiable for Brendan’s dad from now on - because heck, its such a FUN word. And politically charged threads need a bit of fun.
Sooo . . . how soon until college football again?
August 8th, 2006 at 9:38:24 pm
Yeah, quit the Democratic Party. Because the war has turned out to be such a wonderful thing and anyone who can’t see that - the 52 percent of the Ds in CT - are just radicals who deny reality. Sheesh.
Who needs you.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:38:27 pm
The whole Loomer-Loy clan was solidly behind Lieberman. As for whether my dad will switch from Democrat to unaffiliated… I doubt it. Though it would be hilarious if he ended up the only Democrat in the family, considering he grew up a Goldwater Republican and was, for years, at odds with my mom over politics. My dad went through a Jim Jeffords-like conversion through the 80s and 90s, ultimately switching parties in (I believe) 1998. But all through the 80s, he was a Republican and she was a Reagan-loathing Democrat.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:41:43 pm
(This despite the fact that I’m the only one of the Loomer-Loy clan who agrees with Lieberman’s position on the war.)
ABC, I’m not sure if you’re responding to my mom or me, but… my mom is solidly against the war, so your comment has no applicability to her. As for me, I already addressed that issue in my “time for a divorce” post:
August 8th, 2006 at 11:01:57 pm
B. Minich, B. Loomer Loy, & LDKC Loomer :}, the oft-underEstimiated TJL Loy will be Keeping Up the Hilariarity :> by (for the Present at least :) sticking with the DimmyCratical Party to which he formally Switched his politiciaral Affiliaration in October 1996, having at That time experienced the sudden Epiphany that his prior Republicanism had been a fooking Joke for at least the preceding 12 years since he had rushed out at 7:30 p.m. to vote for Walter Mondale but only after learning Definitively from Dan Rather that Reagan (the Silly old fart :) had been safely re-elected. :>
Pursuant to which unshaken Party loyalty, I shall gladly join with the strong Plurality of CT voters who will re-elect Senator Joe Lieberman, CTfL/D/CT, on November 7.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:05:58 pm
Boo-hoo, Democrat turn-coat Joe Lieberman lost in an election, now I’m gonna change my party. You can’t win them all pal, and if you continue to support stupid people, you’ll continue to lose. It’s time to take this country in the CORRECT direction, and start making smart decision like it was the 90s again. If you support the war in Iraq, pick up your sack and a gun and go fight it, you’re the right age. But you won’t because you’re a priveledged coward just like Joe Lieberman, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, all of whom have no problem sending somebody elses kid off to die for nothing.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:23:54 pm
Lamont isn’t “unelectable” at all.
In fact, the Rasmussen poll, much discussed on this blog, showed Lamont with a hefty edge over the Republican candidate in Connecticut in a heads up race.
I mean it isn’t even accurate to say Lamont is “unelectable.”
In fact, the person who might cause the election to go to the Republican candidate in Connecticut is Lieberman: he’s split the party’s finances and base, possibly with a wide enough gap for a Republican to get elected. It’s happened before. Was it 1970?
If Lieberman accepted defeat like a gentleman and threw his weight behind Lamont– Lieberman’s party’s candidate– Lamont would have NO trouble defeating the Republican.
Instead, Lieberman is more concerned with Lieberman.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:27:22 pm
Brendan - I trust that Loy the Elder at least had an honest conversion, announced before the election, unlike Senator jeffords who waited until after he was re-elected to turn his coat …
sandyunderpants - while we fully understand why you are so cranky and irritable, if you would only change ‘em, you’d be a lot more pleasant with everyone … that grit can be very wearing in those sensitive areas …
August 8th, 2006 at 11:29:45 pm
I suspect that Senator Liebermann will “accept defeat” like the gentleman he has been all along, and will make himself available to the general electorate in November … and thus, true democracy will have its way …
August 8th, 2006 at 11:30:56 pm
Apparently, FOX News is also upset about the Lieberman defeat: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608080007
August 8th, 2006 at 11:34:44 pm
Instead, Lieberman is more concerned with Lieberman.
As it should be. Since the party abandoned him why should he feel obligated to the party now? What he is doing is legal so more power to him.
Face it, he was punished for not hating Bush enough. Not by all of the voters but by the party which backed Lamont and aided in the campaign of misinformation. If Lieberman’s positions on everything except Iraq were given to voters as an anonymous candidate he would have won in a landslide.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:39:47 pm
No, Lamont isn’t “unelectable” in Connecticut. However, his victory heralds the ascendance of the lefty base, who, if left unchecked, will absolutely lead the Democratic Party further and further down the road of “unelectability.”
As for your analysis of Connecticut politics… please. Spare us. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The current Republican candidate is NOT a serious threat to win, in either a two-way or a three-way race. As long as he’s the GOP nominee, it’s going to be either Lieberman or Lamont — period. Now, if the Republicans get their act together, convince Schlesinger to withdraw his candidacy, and nominate someone credible to take his place, then perhaps we can talk about whether Lieberman should bow out “for the good of the party.” Even then, I would argue that the Republicans actually probably have a better shot in a two-way race than in a three-way race, due to Lieberman’s substantial crossover appeal and Lamont’s “scary liberal” anti-appeal (whether that’s fair or not is irrelevant). But that’s a debate we can have. However, unless and until the Republicans find themselves a credible candidate — which they cannot do unless their current candidate voluntarily withdraws, which he has sworn he won’t do — there is simply nothing to talk about. Lieberman is not endangering the Democrats’ hold on the seat by running against Lamont as an independent. The voters of Connecticut will choose in November either one Democrat, Lamont, or another Democrat, Lieberman.
Now, if you want to argue that Lieberman’s continued presence in the race is bad for the party because it will divert the netroots’ time, energy and money away from important Congressional races… that’s a valid point, but then again, I’m not sure it’s Lieberman’s fault that those folks are so damn obsessed with defeating him. They should be able to prioritize, and obviously defeating Republicans should get priority over defeating Lieberman… if they can’t figure this out for themselves, I’m not sure it’s Lieberman’s job to spoon-feed them.
There’s also the question of whether a three-way race will increase turnout among Republicans and conservative unaffiliateds/independents in such a way that it will damage the Democratic candidates in the contested House races. But I’m not sure that’s true. By keeping the Senate race competitive and interesting, instead of a Lamont cakewalk, I suspect both sides will be motivated to turn out in greater numbers. I don’t think it’s self-evident that a Lieberman candidacy helps the Republicans in those races. But if you want to make an argument, that’s one you should make… it’s by far your strongest. This business about Schelsinger winning a three-way race is absurd. He’s just a terrible, terrible candidate. Not gonna happen.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:21:51 am
Uh-Oh !
“Not gonna happen.” - was that typed with a {shocked gasp!} Texas drawl ? And a smirk ?
Is Loy the Younger finally metamorphosing into a Bush-supporter and imitator ?
August 9th, 2006 at 3:45:09 am
If your mom can support Lieberman and be against the war in Iraq she has my respect as a thinking voter. Tell her thanks from another member of the class of 72.
August 9th, 2006 at 5:26:22 am
“If my mom registered as a Republican, I’m pretty sure lightning would strike her.”
Oh, not at all my good sir! She would actually be given her own key to the Karl Rove lightning machine, which is just a part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Weather Control System (New Orleans was just a test). Those of us who’ve been Republicans since we first registered to vote don’t always get such cool gifts, though - it’s kind of like new subscribers to magazines get the free CD of “today’s greatest hits,” but the long-time subscribers get nada when they renew.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:35:03 am
Wow, what a bunch of sore winners. The last time I looked, This was a free country. Who needs me?? Nobody, if you read my letter to Chris Dodd. I’m only one solitary voter. But who (or what) do I need? Leadership based on something other than mud-slinging and carefully-choreographed pep rallies. Emphasis on the mud-slinging. You don’t go to the politician who disagreed with his party line on one single issue: you go after the person who created the issue, and the last time I looked, that person was Dick Cheney — call him George W. Bush if you prefer.
And as for li’l ole me, sling all the mud you want. They are slinging much more than that in Israel, south Lebanon, the Gaza and Iraq (to name a few). I should go there?? Well, when he was called to serve, my father went “there”, and if it weren’t so ludicrous (I am 57 years old, virtually deaf in one ear, and have an eye disease for which there is no cure), I WOULD defend my country. Loomers are brought up to defend our country. And you suggest it as though that were a curse on me. If it is to you, then our nation IS in peril. But since going there is not an option, I will defend it the way I can: by speaking out about the bloody obvious — and as you may have seen here, that quality is hereditary; and by one inconsequential vote and voice to sift through all the crap that passes for leadership in this post-9-11 world. I was just invited to join fellow members of my shul to travel to Israel this coming winter, and I would gladly be Brendan’s field reporter there if my financial situation allowed it if the possible consequences — it IS the Middle East, there IS a war going on there, and I AM a Jew — would seriously impact my better (and more jovial, here) half. A person has to have the courage of their convictions. Hence, Joe Lieberman.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:43:24 am
“Boo-hoo, Democrat turn-coat Joe Lieberman lost in an election, now I’m gonna change my party. You can’t win them all pal, and if you continue to support stupid people, you’ll continue to lose. It’s time to take this country in the CORRECT direction, and start making smart decision like it was the 90s again. If you support the war in Iraq, pick up your sack and a gun and go fight it, you’re the right age. But you won’t because you’re a priveledged coward just like Joe Lieberman, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, all of whom have no problem sending somebody elses kid off to die for nothing.”
C’mon Brendan, you want to leave THAT? :-)
August 9th, 2006 at 6:50:03 am
Brendan-
It’s been obvious for months that you are a DINO. This isn’t shocking.
Personally, I think your quitting the Democratic Party should be based on your principles and not on Joe Lieberman losing a race. It makes you look like the Sore Loserman.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:55:52 am
Angrier -
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=197
Do the birds laugh at you guys on the way down?
August 9th, 2006 at 6:59:57 am
“Perhaps one day the party and its radical activist groups (such as MoveOn.Org) will understand that the radical course is not a course that will ever succeed in the U.S.”
So your mom thinks Bush is a moderate? That the neo-cons are moderates? That Bush’s policies on the Environment are moderate?
The radicals are in control of the country - they just happen to be on The Right. Knocking down stem cell research isn’t radical? Holding a special session of Congress to put a feeding tube back in Terri Schiavo isn’t radical?
The problem is a moderate response from Democrats hasn’t been enough to stop the nut-jobs in charge of this country. It’s time the Dems stand for something. That’s not radical. It’s American.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:04:14 am
Brendan,
I sense you’re trying to use a nice tactic to get independ. votes for Joe. And, noone will ask Joe to stay out, as votes for Joe not equals votes for gop.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:06:57 am
Lojo-
If you hadn’t noticed, most Americans think this country is going in the wrong direction under Bush and the Republicans. Democrats aren’t going to win if their platform is “more of the same.” They tried that in 2002 and 2004 and got their clocks cleaned. Time for a change.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:19:14 am
This isn’t about Kos and MoveOn. This is about people who are sick of six years of the same shit…
“An anti-incumbency mood is also sweeping the nation. Private polls indicate that more than 90 percent of Connecticut Democrats feel the United States is on the “wrong track” â€â€? a staggeringly high number.”
…Time for a change. It’s called the will of the people. Michael Moore didn’t do this. Kos didn’t do this. The registered Democrats of CT did it.
Maybe I should have been a big baby and quit the Democratic Party, too, when my candidate didn’t win the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 2004.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:58:19 am
Dudes, what with all the name calling? Alienating those who were in your party? Espicially someone like Brendan’s mom, who seems to agree with you on many issues.
Think about it for a second . . . a 70s anti-war radical, someone against the CURRENT war in Iraq, leaving the Democrats? She’ll probably vote for candidates who support your aims for the most part . . . but think about why she’s leaving. Could it be that she’s got more political experience than you, and realizes that compromise is sometimes better? That character assasination is not the way to go for politics? That you can respect and vote for someone who doesn’t agree with you on everything?
I very much disagree one of the Senators from my former (and future?) state, Pennsylvania. Arlen Specter is not a conservative in many ways. I voted against him in the primary, but had I been given the choice in the general election (I moved between the PA primary and the PA general election, so I had a different slew of races to deal with), I probably would have voted for him over the other choice. Why? Because he would do more for my causes than the other guy. I don’t get bitter over Specter like some of you guys over Lieberman.
Again, think about this - you’re losing people out of the party, and I think you are taking the Democrats to a place of greater irrelevance - its only the ineptness of the Republicans that might save you from total oblivion.
August 9th, 2006 at 8:03:39 am
The best thing about this is that being close to Bush and the iraq occupation is a death knell for even a democrat! imagine how bad things are gonna be for republicans come november! expect to see many people/republicans distancing themselves from this fiasco of a presidency as election time draws near
the turnout was really high in connecticut (much higher than normal). this shows a lot of excitement and motivation for change. people tired of the direction this country has gone and want change. democracy does work folks. god bless america. i give joe’s independent campaign about 2 weeks. as all of the democrat bigwigs distance themselves from the train wreck known as lieberman and he sees his support dwindle, he’ll try and save face and withdraw.
August 9th, 2006 at 8:09:28 am
all this unelectable stuff about non-centrist candidates is a total joke. bush is anything but a centrist (i guess you can argue hes not electable after the questions about 2000 and 2004 but thats for another time).
a large part of the reason kerry even won the primary last time was because he was thought to be the most electable candidate. how did that work out? could howard dean have won? we’ll never find out because the establishment bombarded the media with ads about his “we’re going to state1! and state2!” speech. good job sticking to the issues. candidates like kerry fail to energize the younger electorate base, and i think lack of excitement about the candidates from the left side is a big reason why the country is in the state that it is in today.
i have a novel idea, you can disregard the stuff i wrote above and let me know what you think. how about nominating/voting for candidates based on their stances on issues instead of how “electable” they are or how the corporate media portrays them?
August 9th, 2006 at 8:14:17 am
Angrier -
A change TO WHAT??? What is their platform other than “Something New”? Please, educate me.
And according to polls, the majority of Americans don’t support an immediate and/or total pullout either.
And please don’t act like this is some holy event, uninfluenced by Kos and their like. Those guys got Lamot press and free coverage. They help with the GOTV effort. They acted as free political operatives.
Hell, the McKinney losing was cleaner because it was about the candidates. You guys have been drilling one issue period. The Iraq war and how Lieberman acted towards it. Its pretty asinine to then come back and say he’s a bad senator because he voted for the war, and he’s voted for the war because he’s a bad senator.
August 9th, 2006 at 8:32:05 am
yea,
The “non-centrist” theme is used to bash ONLY the candidates the mainstream media considers to be too Liberal.
It’s always a serious concern when there’s some Liberal in danger of actually winning. Then and only then is the spectre of those “fringe candidates” raised.
The last time the concern was raised about any Republican running for office was when David Duke ran for the Senate in Louisiana back in the 1980s.
“Non-centrist” is buzz language for “too Liberal and not pro-business enough.”
August 9th, 2006 at 8:32:39 am
yea -
Umm, only Democrats vote in the primary. Using the primary as extrapolation to how the general election will be is pretty weak.
From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14250887/):
“There are a total of about 1.3 million active Republican and independent voters in Connecticut, twice as many as the number of Democratic voters. If Lieberman can get perhaps a third of the Democrats, he could just make the math work for him.”
And Bush as anything but a centrist?
Stance on Immigration: Let’em all in.
Stance on Federal Spending: Cha-Ching!
Stance on Campaign Finance Reform: Free Speech, Pah!
Stance on Smaller Government: Smaller? MORE government, dammit!
Stance on Intelligence Deficiencies: More departments
This guy is hardly the radical you guys love to paint him as.
“how about nominating/voting for candidates based on their stances on issues”
I TOTALLY agree. Can you tell me what Lamont’s stance was past Iraq? Or what is Hillary’s stances on the issues?
August 9th, 2006 at 9:06:55 am
Nun -
From 2004 Elections:
Tom Brokaw to Senator John McCain: “It appears tonight that your side of the aisle — in the Senate, at least — will be more conservative with Jim DeMint coming in from South Carolina, and Tom Coburn coming in from Oklahoma, very outspoken, very conservative, and very proud of their hard-right credentials.”
CBS’s Early Show, 7:48am EST Wednesday rundown by Tracy Smith of House and Senate results - “Of those seats, South Carolina’s, vacated by Fritz Hollings, went to ultra conservative republican Jim DeMint.”
Jon Meacham, Newsweek Managing Editor: “As long as there, as long as there is an ‘L’ in that, yes. I think the ‘liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal,’ seems a little tinny these days. I think it’s a more serious time. I think people understand that. I think Bush if he simply throws red meat out that’s trouble.”
Nina Easton, Boston Globe: “For a long time, they’ve ridden that tired horse of calling Kerry a liberal from Massachusetts and out of the mainstream, which doesn’t, I don’t think, play that well to swing voters.”
Judy Woodruff asked McGovern, who was with her at CNN’s convention floor-side space: “Senator, when you ran for President, we mentioned 32 years ago, the Republicans were criticizing you and the party of being too liberal. They’re still accusing the Democratic Party of being too liberal. Are they going to be able to get away with that argument this year?”
McGovern: “I don’t think so. John Kerry is a moderate liberal, he’s not way out in either right field or left field.”
Suuuure, Mouse. Its the MSM against liberals. Suuuure.
In fact, here’s a challenge. Give me a race, and I’ll go find where the GOP candidate is called right-wing and the Democrat candidate is hardly ever called a Democrat much less a liberal.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:08:36 am
agreed nun-mouse, the use of these buzz-words is lame.
lojo,
of course only democrats vote in the primary, but the high turnout among democrats is a very good sign. i really feel that the majority of this country wants change, and getting them out to vote is maybe the hardest part. we really underestimate how many americans just don’t vote.
as far as the one issue stuff goes. im not a connecticut voter, so i can’t say how i voted. but the way lieberman handled iraq is a huge part of the reason im so happy hes on the way out. his stance/actions in regard to social security and his stance/actions in regard to free speech in the media are pretty important too to me.
bush’s immigration stance is hardly “let em all in”. the rest of your points are pretty much irrevelant toward making bush out to be a centrist. i could go off listing a multitude of reasons why bush isn’t a centrist, but id rather not steer the discussion in that direction.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:35:09 am
Jeez, talk about unhealthy obsessions.
August 9th, 2006 at 10:26:22 am
yea -
So your telling me that bigger government hasn’t been the philosophy of liberalism for decades? Come on.
And your pretty much saying that Iraq is the single issue that drives your opinion on this. My characterization of this as a one-issue purging still stands.
As for social security and media free speech, I’m curious what is bothering you about the social security issue? When his plan was rebuffed in totale by the biggest political hypocrisy in years, Bush asked to get plans and suggestions from Congress to reform social security. Yet, the democrats, who had spent the past 20 years demanding social security lockboxes and reforms, suddenly said it was just fine as is.
As for media free speech, exactly how has that been curtailed. I’m sure your going to say, “Look at all the reporters records being subpeonaed”, but there are two responses to that. One, that is because they are searching for the GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL who leaked the information ILLEGALLY. Two, are you really going to try and argue that there is a chilling effect on critical reporting of this administration when we get exposes into secrets every two-three weeks?
August 9th, 2006 at 12:38:16 pm
Great Proclamations throughout History:
“Let my people go!” - Moses
“I will fight no more forever!” Chief Joseph
“I am not a crook!” Richard Nixon
“My mom is quitting, too!” Brendan Loy
heh.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:56:28 pm
LOL Angrier
August 9th, 2006 at 1:07:22 pm
Brendan-
Glad I could make you smile.
August 9th, 2006 at 1:41:53 pm
Lojo,
“One, that is because they are searching for the GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL who leaked the information ILLEGALLY. ”
Under pressure from the NY Times no less.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:11:29 pm
Wilbur -
If your going to investigate who illegally leaked the information, and the only person who knows is a NY Times reporter, and reporter doesn’t want to tell, what do you do?
Especially when there are no legal protections like that on the books for reporters to protect their sources. And rightfully so considering you or me would certainly find our asses in prison if not reporters.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:05:48 pm
I’m sorry - but you and your Mom need not look outwardly for Democrats doing dumb things. Please, gaze in the mirror.
Third party talk with Joe? Please, you’ll be getting a sloppy kiss from George AND Karl.
Did you think Ralph Nadar was a smart guy too?
Joe ran. Joe lost.
Lets move on….
August 9th, 2006 at 4:13:51 pm
Lieberman lost in the most purly white uber-riche Democrat Liberal Conn district to a uber-riche purly white white guy whose supporters like to ‘blackface’ anyone who they deem is corrupting their purly-pure ideology.
If I hadn’t given up on the Democrat Party when Zell did I would certainly would leave today. Of course The Party has been a joke ever since Micheal Moore became a Democrat icon.
Democrats aren’t Liberals they are National Socialists.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:32:00 pm
Syn, I was kinda sorta with you, up until that last sentence.
Neither major party in America today is the Nazis. The Republicans aren’t Nazis; the Democrats aren’t Nazis. Can we all please agree on this?
August 9th, 2006 at 4:32:51 pm
Someone waaaay up above suggested that I stated Bush was a moderate. Only if you spell that A-N-T-I-C-H-R-I-S-T. And I won’t call any of you idiots or misguided or whatever concepts you have been using on both Brendan and me. You are entitled to your opinions and I will respect them. Try that yourself sometime. It is great for the soul.
And a high turnout isn’t necessarily a belwether for change. The momentup that drove up the number of voters also drove up Lieberman’s percentages, NOT Lamont’s. If there had been two more days at the rate things were going percentage-wise, Lieberman would have won. There is nothing new and refreshing about a white male millionaire with no political experience going to Washington D.C. with no agenda but the war in Iraq. Lamont won 58 to 42%. I don’t call that a mandate.
But most of all, thank you, Instapundit!
August 9th, 2006 at 4:35:45 pm
Damn. 52 to 48. 58 to 42 was how the refreshing candidate started out. The breeze that blew him down to 52% was not the voice of the people. It was the voice of JUST over half of the people. And the rest of the people came out in numbers no one expected.
August 9th, 2006 at 5:01:18 pm
I wish you folks could see the Nebraska Senate race - Ben Nelson (the Democratic incumbent) basically is trying to show he’s more Republican than the Republican nominee - his campaign commercials feature President Bush!
My point is that anyone in CT who feels this election symbolizes a national trend is sorely mistaken. Anti-war zealotry and Bush hatred does not play well in the red or purple states, and alienates even the Democrats in those areas.
August 9th, 2006 at 5:19:44 pm
JUST over half of the people
Actually, more like JUST over half of the people who voted, which was JUST over half of registered Democrats, which is well UNDER half of all registered voters. :)
August 9th, 2006 at 5:22:16 pm
Didn’t the 2004 Presidential come out at about 52% to 48% ? Doesn’t that mean that the People Spoke in 2004 ?
August 9th, 2006 at 5:38:32 pm
Keith -
So Lieberman will run as an Independent. And will likely WIN given the poll numbers.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:08:35 pm
Made my switch in 1996…
The funny thing is that once I moved I realized that there are multiple ways of solving problems. The Democratic Party concepts seem old and outdated now.
I still vote the individual, but a more conservative candidate has the strong edge.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:31:21 pm
If you hadn’t noticed, most Americans think this country is going in the wrong direction under Bush and the Republicans. Democrats aren’t going to win if their platform is “more of the same.� They tried that in 2002 and 2004 and got their clocks cleaned. Time for a change.
Angrier and Angrier
I do wonder what world you people live in.
I am serious.
You must not have paid much attention to those campaigns, or you are just trying to rationalize your cheering on of defeatest candidates.
Either way, you’re an ignorant idiot.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:32:32 pm
[…] e), and alsoâ€â€?pay attention, nowâ€â€?an effective lawmaker overall. I’m tempted, like Brendan Loy and his mother, to just file for divorce from the […]
August 9th, 2006 at 6:36:36 pm
The radicals are in control of the country - they just happen to be on The Right. Knocking down stem cell research isn’t radical?
Um, stupid, Bush is the first President in the history of America to federally fund ESC.
Repeat that until you grasp the idiocy of your running commentary.
Thanks in advance.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:39:35 pm
i could go off listing a multitude of reasons why bush isn’t a centrist, but id rather not steer the discussion in that direction.
yea �
———–
You could do no such thing without lying.
I love watching you ignorants do that.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:44:04 pm
instapundit reader here
well, as a registered republican I suspect that this almost puts a lock on the republican party keeping the house and the senate.
you democrats have to get a handle on your anger.
(after 8 years of Bill Clinton, believe me, it isn’t easy)
don’t worry, after Jeb Bush is elected president and
Karl Rove is added to Mt. Rushmore, you guys will settle down and elect a center/right candidate. By then, however, we will have 8 supreme court justices.
Welcome to hell
August 9th, 2006 at 7:44:52 pm
I fear for my country.
On one hand, we have an incompetent in the White House. Whether or not you think the war in Iraq is justified, there’s much less doubt that the Bushies have bungled everything but the actual military task of beating the Iraqi army. The Bushies severely underestimated the difficulty of winning the peace. I, for one, would like to see him tell Maliki that he’s got x number of months to get his act together — after that, we’re leaving and Iraq will be on its own.
Don’t even get me started on how the Bushies have mishandled energy (though he had lots of help from previous occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.) and the budget.
So why am I not a Democrat (I am, after all, an Irish-Catholic, the type of person that used to flock to the Dems)?
Aside from the Dems’ stance as anti-life, anti-Catholic and anti-religion, I’m repelled by their lemming-like march to the left. It’s like watching 1972 all over again, except that George McGovern, whatever people thought of his politics, was a man of integrity. I guess that’s what bothered me most about seeing Joe Lieberman beaten — I disagree with him about a lot of things, but I don’t question his integrity. I suspect he’ll win in November, after which he would have every right to tell the Democrats to take a hike (I’m betting he won’t — too bad).
I think Lieberman had lost touch with his constituents and paid the price on Tuesday. Hopefully he’ll learn his lesson and regroup in November. If he succeeds as a third-party candidate, maybe there will be a viable third-party presidential candidate in 2008 — since I foresee the middle as being wide-open as the two established parties race toward the left (liberal donkeys) and right (neocon and coservative elephants). Few people seem to care what’s best for the country; only what’s best for making everyone subservient to their point of view.
August 9th, 2006 at 8:33:40 pm
Lieberman lost for a number of reasons, not just the war. It’s all about Joe, isn’t it? The turning point in the poll numbers came when Lieberman said he would run as an independent if he lost the Democratic Primary. It’s all about Joe, isn’t it? Hasn’t that been the problem? It’s been all about Joe since 1998 when he stood up and made his little speech about Bill Clinton. He hasn’t really thought one iota about the voters of Connecticut since that day. Since then, it’s been all about Joe.
THAT is why Joe Lieberman lost.
August 9th, 2006 at 8:53:59 pm
Dudes, what with all the name calling? Alienating those who were in your party? Espicially someone like Brendan’s mom, who seems to agree with you on many issues.
Exactly. Welcome to the “tolerant” Left. You are now considered a traitor and heretic b/c you refuse to drink the kool-aide. Expect alot of vicious attacks from your former “friends” in the Dhimn party.
And welcome to the Independent brand. You’re not alone, lots of us have already taken this road. Thanks for keeping your integrity. America needs more people like you [and Joe Lieberman]
Good luck. Don’t let the flames get to ya.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:48:53 pm
All these comments just substantiate something I noticed several years ago: The Right is looking for converts. The Left is looking for heretics.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:54:58 pm
Fen - the “tolerant” Left is why I come across as a Republican-supporter … I’ve seen what the intolerance does, and I’m not going to let it happen easily … and, so far, in this country, the only way I’ve found that works to minimise the intolerant Left is to support the very-mixed-bag Right … sometimes with held-nose, sometimes wholeheartedly, depending on the policy …
When the students up at UCBezerkeley decided to trash an edition of the student newspaper rather than allow an editorial to be read, that’s when I knew that none of my kids would be going to UCBerkeley …
How do you explain to someone who, with a straight face, asks “How can you be so intolerant/such a bigot/racist as to allow someone like *that* into your PArty ?” - how do you explain that excluding them doesn’t make ‘em any less like “*that*” ?
And then how do you explain to them just how much they are acting the way they are *accusing* you of acting ?
August 10th, 2006 at 10:08:33 am
I can see Lamont winning a three-way race, but only if Lieberman doesn’t understand what he’s facing. He can’t just run as Joe, you Senator who’s done so much for you over the past 18 years. He won originally against a nutcase Repub, and kept winning, as most incumbents do, by not screwing up too badly and being roughly in tune with the state.
It’s not obvious to me that he is still all that in tune with the state. I guess we’ll see, but the primary didn’t tap into the ‘independent’ views which weren’t expressed because the couldn’t vote. I don’t know that much about CT voters, but many ‘independents’ just don’t want to have to declare an affiliation (my in-laws are like that).
I find it very possible that the ‘indies’ are pretty much like the Dems in the primary and Joe might have very tough sledding, indeed.
OTOH, angrier and angrier pretty much typifies what I see as the problem the Dems have. Parties driven by anger seem to end up driven mad by anger. This doesn’t work all that well in our system. It may work in some instances, but overall it’s very off-putting. Also, when you see *everydamnthing* thru the lens of anger you get a lot of stuff wrong (see the Clinton-haters of the 90s) and normal, sane people can see that and they are offput.
Just my two cents.
August 11th, 2006 at 4:49:04 pm
Lojo -
“If your going to investigate who illegally leaked the information, and the only person who knows is a NY Times reporter, and reporter doesn’t want to tell, what do you do? Especially when there are no legal protections like that on the books for reporters to protect their sources. And rightfully so considering you or me would certainly find our asses in prison if not reporters.”
I agree 100%. I was mearly commenting on how assinine it is for people to complain about the administration curbing freedom of the press when the cause of that is the behavior of the NY Times followed by the NY Times pressuring the administration to go after the leakers. Where did they think the administration would look?
August 16th, 2006 at 10:10:36 am
Brendan, If you could get past the demagoguery (nice use of the GOP talking points, BTW) and looked at the facts you would see that 1. The Dem’s best hope at unseating an incubment GOP senator is Bob Casey, Jr. , who supports the war and it anti abortioni to boot 2. Ben Nelson, who is much more supportive of Bush than Liebemran ever was, is winning easily in NE, with full Democratic support. 3. Bill Nelson,a war supporter and much more of a centrist than Lieberman, is cruising to reelection and Dems like Atrios and Kos are loving it. 4. A far left anti war challenge to Hillary in NY is going nowhere and 5) Ed Case, a moderate who supports the war is in a dead heat in a primary challenge to liberal anti war senator Danny Akaka. There’s no purge going on. Dems are free to take whatever position they like on this issue, but like all issues, they do so at their own peril. And don’t think for a minute that you are hurting a party, which quite obviously, you never had much respect for anyway, by threatening to leave. More than 13,000 people switched TO the Dems in CT alone. In KS, the former GOP party chairman is no w a Dem. Charles Barkley, ones of the the GOP’s prized black Republicans is now a Dem. I think this more than offsets a irritated law studend/bloger and his mom leaving the party. Ciao!