Of all the times not to have any bubbly in the house

Hartford Courant:

August 09, 2006 – 12:55AM ET (i) = incumbent = winner = runoff
U.S. Senate –
– Dem Primary
745 of 748 Precincts Reporting – 99.60%
Name Party Votes Pct
Lamont, Ned Dem 146,061 51.78
Lieberman, Joe (i) Dem 136,042 48.22

Fuck you, Fredo. Fuck you right in your quisling sanctimony.


12 thoughts on “Of all the times not to have any bubbly in the house

  1. Graham

    I’m not quite sure this is the victory that many think. To be sure, I think Lieberman has been there long enough. I just wonder about the chops of this one-time Greenwich Selectman. This was clearly a No-Joe vote, and I get the willies when Lamont makes pulling out of Iraq his top priority.

    Just sayin’.

  2. Ananth

    Yeah, this may be a very Pyrrhic Victory for the netroots and the ‘progressive’ wing of the democratic party. What will it say if Lieberman wins as an Independent about the decision making of the activist base?

  3. Tom

    I’m worried about him winning too but I think it’s about getting on the ballot. I don’t know Connecticut rules but if he’s a write in, forget about it.

    Part of me worries about him pulling a reverse Jeffords as an Independent, though he seems pretty loyal to whatever screwy notion of the Democratic party he identifies with.

    He also could run out of money now too, as he won’t be getting any of that sweet DCCC loot.

  4. Ananth

    He’s not a write in. He will be on the Ballot as Joe Lieberman, independent petioning democrat or something like that.

    The DCCC loot won’t be a problem. What will be interesting is how much the DCCC decides to send to Lamont to try and beat Lieberman.

    I don’t think he’ll pull a reverse Jeffords unless the Democrats in the Senate start pulling some of the stuff that Markos suggests (ie pull all his commitee memberships and what not). Then when/if he wins he may be less likely to stay loyal.

    The other question is what kind of Democratic party is going to exist afterwards if they decide that there is no place for Joe Lieberman types in the party? The GOP has the same question when it comes to McCain, but at least right now he still a party star. So much for the Big Tent party.

  5. Tom

    I don’t know that I agree there are really “Joe Lieberman types” in the same way there are McCain types. I think there is just Joe Lieberman. On the Republican side you’ve got more people who won’t carry Bush’s water, McCain, Hagel, Specter, important guys too. Sure, the Democrats have the occasional Ben Nelson, but no one of any weight.

    I don’t think Lieberman so much represented a faction of a particular kind of Democrat in the same way McCain, Specter, and Hagel represent a particular kind of Republican. Lieberman just represents a particular kind of person from Connecticut.

    Also, note my homestate’s proud tradition of contrariness. I’d like to add not-quite-parenthetically that I’d totally chug cock to get Bob Kerrey in the White House.

  6. Ananth

    Yeah, I guess their aren’t many Joe Lieberman types in the democratic party. You know, people who stand by their convictions regardless of popularity within the base.

    I don’t see how the way that McCain and Specter disagree with Bush on certain tactics and details are any differenct than Lieberman’s position. Yet these Republicans aren’t carrying water, but Lieberman was?

  7. Steve

    You know, people who stand by their convictions regardless of popularity within the base.

    What are these convictions that tribal Republicans see in Joe Lieberman? Unless you count, “I’m convinced that I like being on Fox News,” maybe?

  8. Steve

    Also, Tom, not only will Specter carry Bush’s water, he’ll kneel before him and wash his feet. Have you heard anything about the wiretapping bill he’s written for them? It makes everything they did legal, and adds even more stuff they can do without a warrant. Just because he goes on CNN every once and a while and makes noises, that doesn’t mean he’s not eager to fall into line.

  9. Ananth

    Dude, cut the bull. Leiberman lost for one and only one reason. He refuses to back away from his opinion that removing Saddam was the right call. He doesn’t say he was tricked into voting for it or anything like that. He does criticize the execution to an extent. But his unmitaged gall of standing by his decision caused him the bear the brunt of Kos and Moveon and the rest of that ilk and he lost that election.

    Let’s see how Lamont holds up now over the next 12 weeks. I think CT still will have a Sen. Leiberman come 2007 but if not, I am sure a Cabinet position awaits him.

Comments are closed.