I never thought it’d Be this close. The Netroots flexes its muscles…
With 76% reporting, it’s Lamont 52%, Lieberman 48%.
Who do you think will be in the chair in the Dirksen come January??
Total turnout so far is about 205,000 out of 1.95 million registered voters.
So the Netroots can’t raise serious money and can’t turn out votes. Why do they remind me of Jean Hagen?
Regretfully, I don’t think Lieberman can overcome a four-point deficit with only 24% left to go. But then, I don’t know where those 24% are located.
Donald, he doesn’t have to. He runs as an Independent and walks away with the race in November.
A.L.
The center of gravity of the Democratic Party has just moved leftwards. This will make it harder for them to win in 2008 (remember, the far-left dislikes Hillary now too).
For the delusionaly optimistic, the New York Times has results to the tenth of a percentage. The race has been closer to a difference of 3.5%, which is rounded up at the above link.
As of 10:38 Eastern, its a 3.2% difference with 89% of precincts reporting.
Joseph I. Lieberman 119,867 48.4%
Ned Lamont 127,786 51.6%
89% of Precincts Reporting
And so the season of Long Knives begins….
I don’t know if Lieberman wins in November or not. I hope so. But the party’s nomination means a lot. If Joe wins, it’s a wake-up call to the Dem establishment that not-Bush won’t be a winning tactic in ’08, when no one named Bush will be running anyway. If he loses, it’s a green light for the “not in my name” crowd. ’08 is looking to be an interesting year, in the ancient Chinese sense.
Anyway, if Ned does win, politics in this country just got dumber (not to mention richer). Progressives should be proud.
Lieberman’s main sin is being a Jew who supports Israel. See Lanny Davis’s WSJ editorial. It’s shocking even to me … how much overt anti-Semitism is in the Left.
Worst case for Dems; Lamont wins by less than 3%. Lieberman runs as Independent and wins.
Stays independent and says the Democratic Party has no room for Jews who support Israel.
Hillary has a lower ADA rating (Lieberman’s is 90% and voted for the War. Difference is that she does not support Israel much).
Republicans can and will paint the Democratic Party as the Party of anti-Semites. But don’t take my word for it, read Lanny Davis’s WSJ article (reprinted on various sites).
Click over to Kos to see the effete Lamont family standing in front of what appears to be the ancestral estate, with Kos crooning “This is what a political earthquake look like. Meet the new face of the people-powered movement.” “Kos”:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/23194/90528
I, for one, welcome my new aristocratic overlords. New boss, same as the old boss.
Some Jews in the DP are going to ignore the heavy dose of anti-semitism in the attacks on Lieberman. They’re very good at ignoring such things, as Jesse Jackson could tell you. Some, however, are going to recognize this as a Dreyfus episode.
In response, the DP is going to roll out its own accusations of anti-semitism, to reassure its Jewish constituency that all Republicans are closet Mel Gibsons, especially the Republicans that support Israel.
This will work, of course. It always does.
It’s going to be a long, dismal election season.
Well Lieberman concedes the primary, but is vowing to run as an independent. Lamont gets the bump of the victory; Lieberman gets the bump of beating expectations. I wonder what the margin had to have been for Lieberman to simply bow out? A week ago with polls at 8% margins, I would have said 10%. How ugly is this about to get?
PD Shaw-that is extremely funny. I can’t decide if the one in navy blue is male or female.
So is it “Billionaires for Soros” time?
Oh, wait; I’m always late to the Party….
#9 Glen Wishard: Unfortunately, you are absolutely right. There is a depressing number of really smart, wealthy Jews at the epicenter of the nutroots movement, with a powerful messianic religion: visionary, nearly hallucinogenic Socialism. Although they’ll find any possible word for it to use instead. And in the end, there is no amount of leftist anti-semitism that won’t be excused, and George I-escaped-from-the-Nazis Soros will help smooth any lumps over with warm east european destabilization lucre. In the end, they “know” that once proper leftists are in control, all the evil will be removed from the world, everyone will have healthcare, Muslims the world over will begin to “forgive” us, and all racism and antisemitism will be a vestige of the bad, evil Republican past. It’s ‘ends justify the means ‘ all over again. And here we thought that ended with the 20th century.
#11
“I can’t tell if the one in navy blue is male or female”.
Nice one evariste – pick on the 13 YEARS old son of Ned Lamont. Sweet! Way to prove you are so much better than the liberals, eh?
Good to see that Armed liberal approves of the trolls here – or at least won’t take ’em to task.
ev – that was low. Chelsea Clinton and the Bush daughers took hits, and the people who did that were asses. They’re not the candidate…
So I’ll gently suggest a climbdown is called for.
But hey, Pajamas just slurred me as a conservative…
A.L.
hypocrisyrules and AL-yeah, I took a cheap shot. Sorry, tongue engaged before brain.
(It was intended to be tongue in cheek though, for the record)
Pink Joe should run as a true red republican and guarantee victory for the Democrats. Splitting the vote (remember 2000?) guarantees a loss to the true reds.
Those who think a Bush won’t be running in 2008 need to understand that there are two available and, in order to prevent a full, impartial investigation of 911, one of them will be nominated.
The Clintons should notice the shortcomings of the 911 commission report and join in demanding a full impartial investigation.
Joe Craine,
Whatever it is you’re smoking, stop bogarting it. Here’s a free hint: If you sound like a caller on the Art Bell Show, folks just aren’t going to take you seriouosly.
Joe Craine, a fashionable shade of blue:
Anybody think this is cute?
How cute is it going to be when the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate calls for an investigation of 9/11?
The “truth is out there” bunch in the Dems is going to demand an investigation of 9-11. Might as well get used to it. They will keep demanding investigations until we finally prove that Elvis actually was on the grassy knoll and built one of the airplanes in his secret bunker at the North Pole.
Big events like that bring the paranoia out in people. Some folks would rather believe ANYTHING than we are in a long war with crazy people who want to kill us. Any other option is preferable to reality.
I’m in my 60s my mom is in her 80s. I tell her about Democrat anti-semitism. She sort of acknowledges it and then it is back to “I can’t abide Republicans”.
I bring up all the suspects she knows. The Rev. Jesse. The Rev. Al. Nothing shakes her.
“Some folks would rather believe ANYTHING than we are in a long war with crazy people who want to kill us. Any other option is preferable to reality.”
Yep. Far easier to lash out against Bush than against a group of people who would literally rather kill you than look at you.
Richer, Whiter, Dumber: A Progressive Platform to Build On.
That’s the ticket.
Lamont was on TV last night saying we should bring the troops home immediately and spend some of that money where it’s really needed: on domestic social programs.
Translation: let’s keep playing the same old “pay off the special interest groups” because we don’t have any other clue how to run a campaign.
I’m with the liberals in that I think there are things we can and should do for the poor and helpless. But politics has to mean something more than what the Dems are offering.
Once again we are back to the definition of the word “war”. Are we at war or not? The Dems say no, and legally they’re right. Events in the world sure portend a lot of people dying, however. In the large year-to-year sense, we are very much at war. In the day-to-day sense, however, we need some new word. The old ones aren’t working so well. Part of the problem is denial by poorly read people, sure, but part of the problem is also that the political debate is framed in terms that don’t make sense to Joe SixPack. If there’s a war, where’s the draft?
#24 Dan,
The problem with Congress declaring war vs. paying for it and authorizing large troop movements is civil rights.
We have more civil rights in an “undeclared” war.
You might want to rethink your positiion.
The collapse of the Democratic Party into meaninglessness continues – the odds of the Netroots becoming a historical footnote in the story of the party’s fragmentation and its eventual replacement are increasing.
I don’t think I gave a position, M.
I believe the explanation for the problem the politicians are having is based on faulty terminology. Even this week, we have marches to “end the war.” What war? What would an end look like? Who would surrender?
I understand the civil rights issues you bring up, ahd I’m with you. I favor the maximum amount of personal freedoms. All I’m saying is that if you bandy around a term like “nazi” too much, fairly soon it loses its meaning. Likewise, if you want a war on drugs, war on crime, war on poverty, AND a war on terror, then you’re really not saying much at all.
So we are back to anonymous comments on blog posts representing a party.
Wow, that certainly doesn’t bode well for the GOP’s chances in November does it?
And what’s worse, it’s not just commenters.
Of course, a reasonable person would say hey, they’re just bloggers.
#24,
The draft is useless for high tech weapons and net centric warfare.
The days of cannon fodder are over.
The Dems fail to recognize that the environment has changed.
Today’s Army is interested in people who WANT to do the job. Not people press ganged into it.
The Dems will not be a power again until they stop living in the past.
Davebo? (#28)
Care to explain what the heck you are talking about? Where’s the anonymous comments representing a party? Was it directed at a certain comment on this thread? The article in general?
Dan,
I’m definitely against a war on users of some drugs.
For instance aspirin kills more people than pot. I’m against a war on aspirin users. Unless it will increase arbitrary government power.
#29
I’m not talking about military needs, I’m talking about political positioning.
Like it or not, the country was formed when a draft was a real possibility, and politics up until the last 30 years or so is based on this. If a significant portion of the population is in national service, that significantly changes the electorate. Needs of the military has nothing to do with it.
Not that you responded to my point. My point was about the definition of the term “war” — the draft comment was just an example of those types of things Joe SixPack associates with a _real_ war.
I didn’t give an opinion about the draft, or whether we should declare war, or any of that. I was just saying that it’s kinda hard to have a political debate over something you don’t have a definition for. The Dems don’t know what it is either, but they know one thing — smells like money! Money they’d rather spend on special interests.
M (#31)
I would like to declare my support for users of beano. In fact, I’m in favor of a bottle of beano in every pot. But not pot in every beano bottle!
I’ve always wondered about the war on poverty. Does that mean we go out and kill poor people? Seems kinda cold, even for LBJ.
It should be interesting to see what the reaction is from Lieberman’s Senate colleagues. Do they (a) support their colleague and party’s former Vice-Presidential nominee (thereby alienating the “netroots”) or (b) support their party’s endorsed Senate candidate (potentially alienating Lieberman should he be elected as an “independent” and freeing him up to vote against the Party)?
Daniel
I was referring to all the claims of antisemitism.
Se #7 referring to the Lanny Davis editorial in the WSJ.
Then Wishard explains that even though the left hates Jews, a some jews will still vote Dem. There’s always a few nutcases I guess.
And finally we find that, according to #13 waiting for oh-eight, there are lots of these Jews, they’re wealthy, smart, and socialists who oddly worship a billionaire. But hey, he’s a Jew.
The mind reels I tell ya.
Davebo,
The fact that neither Rockford nor Wishard actually wrote those things you put in their mouth doesn’t discourage you?
Wishard is referring to Speilberg’s making of Munich, along with Tony Kushner (Angels in America) espousing the view that if Israelis were just nice to Arabs or somesuch they’d stop killing us. Or perhaps Art Speigelman (Maus) who wrote that the worse thing about 9/11 was Bush “squandering the world’s sympathy” or somesuch nonsense.
However, IMHO Glen is wrong.
Speilberg, Haim Saban, and Jeffrey Katzenberg all gave Arnold lots of money; Mayor Tony “apologized” to CAIR for supporting Israel at the LA Rally with Arnold.
Even a man like Spielberg can look at the Hezbollah operation (Israel gave land for peace and gave up both) plus the Seattle Shooting and realize he cannot ever escape being Jewish. There is no deal to be made and no agreement possible. He’s come to accept IMHO that Nasrallah really means it.
IMHO the break from the Democratic Party by Jewish supporters is underway; primarily over the support for Israel. Daily Kos is sponsoring a Diary suggesting the US use military force to make a “one-state” solution for Israel which is a suggestion of Genocide. Lieberman’s candidacy was the subject of horrid anti-Semitic slurs and tactics that will open up the eyes of many.
Even Mel Gibson now is a mutual admirer of Michael Moore and has made anti-War statements; he seems to be a Cindy Sheehan “conservative” which is to say not conservative at all and a complete lunatic.
Ironically the Republican Party has erased most of it’s traditional conservatism and is basically another version of LBJ-FDR with more pork and less competency.
But it’s quite clear that CT results say: you can’t support Israel and remain in the Democratic Party.
SPQR
Reading issues?
So Jim didn’t refer to the Davis article? Or are you saying Davis had any examples of anti-semitism other than anonymous blog comments?
So Wishard never claimed that some jews would ignore attacks against them?
As for the last comment I mentioned, well lets just say it stands on it’s own. If you bother to read it that is.
Hilarious, really.
Davebo,
I did read the comments and you did put things into each’s mouth that were not there, esp. Wishard’s.
The mind reels alright.
SPQR(#40)
I was just happy that Davebo was able to point to the thing he was talking about. I figured that was a big enough victory for rationality for one day. Tomorrow we’ll work on predicate logic. Or, errr, maybe next month for that one.
Winston (#34) The Dems are all going to support Lamont now. Why these political parties insist on having witch hunts is beyond me. I would think the idea is to make the tent bigger, not smaller.
SPQR
If you say so. Perhaps even one day you’ll point out the words I put into anyone’s mouth.
Or you and Daniel can just continue with obscure, no wait, non-references.
#32 Dan,
I associate a real war with an attack on America in America.
You know the 9/11 thingie.
The number of troops in national service is not a consideration. Especially when you have the left wailing 9/11 conspiracies. And impeachment. The Rs may actually gain seats.
As numerous commenters have pointed out the Dems are reMcGovernizing their party. A strategy that worked really well for the Republicans in ’68 and ’72. Fer gosh sakes one of the most repellant Republicans ever (Nixon – I still hate him and I lean Republican these days) got re-elected when the Dems last tried this strategy. When the death rate was 10X what it is now and there was a draft.
Figure 1/2 the dissatisfaction with the war is that progress is too slow and the anti-war movement is not near as important as the people in it think.
#33 Dan,
The idea of the war on poverty was to bomb poor people and their minders with money. Unfortunately that lead to too much collateral damage (loss of work ethic etc.) and the war was called off.
Bringing the troops home and reallocate money to domestic programs is the short version of McGovern’s “Come Home, America”:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/shownomination.php?convid=16 acceptance speech from 1972.
One of McGovern’s lines is interesting:
bq. _. . . let us resolve that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die trying to prop up a corrupt military dictatorship abroad._
Is the Democratic party moving to the left of McGovern?
(#43) 9-11 was an attack, M, not a war. Sure as heck should trigger a war, and I guess you could count Afghanistan and Iraq as those wars? But wars have beginnings and ends. I’m almost certain 9-11 wasn’t the beginning, and nobody yet has defined where the end is. When we all sing Kumbaya? When the cows come home? When the lion lies with the sheep? When Michael Jackson is black again? So far — I’m not hearing much.
That’s not to say there isn’t a very real, cold, deadly GWOT going on. Just call it something else — maybe Fred. If anything, it looks like the beginnings of a real world government with real police powers, with the US in the lead. Now I’m going to go wash my mouth out with soap for saying that.
I agree that the Dems are in danger of drinking their own Koolaid(tm). What motivates the base isn’t going to motivate the middle. The base is smoking hot, but the middle went with GW and the war, and even though they have concerns, I don’t think they’re ready for the X-Files yet.
Davebo (#42) Apologies if you missed the reference. I was trying to say that I was just glad I understood the link you were referring to. When I looked at it, I disagreed, and I don’t think you characterized those comments appropriately, but for now I’m just happy I understand what you mean. Maybe later we can work on whether the logic makes sense or not. I tried to “de-snark” my comment. Maybe I wasn’t so successful.
Jim:
Precious little empirical evidence for that. The Jewish vote is reliably 80% Democratic. Granted, the GOP does better among younger Jews.
They also do much better among Jews who attend synagogue, which is going to be tough when ANSWER starts burning down synagogues.
The base is smoking hot, but the middle went with GW and the war, and even though they have concerns…
At what point, I wonder, will the smoking hot base come up with the brilliant idea of dis-enfranchising the middle and preventing them (us) from voting. We already know that the over-educated liberals of the Democratic Party (represented by the Kos Kids) think anyone who did not vote for Kerry in the last election were sadly uneducated and probably braindead from birth.
Would it be that big of a leap to institute legislation demanding the equivalent of an IQ test before one could register to vote? Isn’t that how the Jim Crow laws worked in the Deep South and successfully kept black people from voting for years.
I *know* my liberal friends would like to see something like this put into effect, to deny the opportunity to vote to all those wheat farmers, loggers, car workers, and coal miners in Middle America who just refuse to listen to what their better-educated peers are trying to tell them.
Especially if the Dem’s lose significantly (again) in the November election and it’s apparent (again) that they’re losing because the arrogant brainiacs are pissing off everyone else, and driving them away from Democratic candidates.
Very true. But unlnike Bush, the middle is capable of re-assessing their decisions when the facts change.
So if as polling has shown only 36% of all americans, republicans, independants and democrats, are opposed to the Iraq war, then how could one claim that the middle, or even a significant minority of the middle, still supports the war?
And I seriously doubt it’s a coincidence that the percentage still supporting the Iraq war is almost exactly the same as the percentage who still support Bush.
Oops,
Obviously I meant that only 36% of Americans still support the Iraq war.
In my mailbox today, the Atlantic Monthly cover story is “Declaring Victory” by James Fallows, with the following blurb: “The United States is succeeding in its struggle against terrorism. The time has come to declare the war on terror over, so that an even more effective military and diplomatic campaign can begin.”
Daniel, haven’t you heard? The war is over.
Over already? Is that good?
Now that terror has surrendered, perhaps we’ll only get very, very frightened.
Davebo: I’m really glad that my fellow Americans don’t like war and would rather try anything else than wage it. That is heartwarming.
It doesn’t change reality, of course. The GWOT will continue, just like it has in the past, no matter who the president or the party in power. Maybe in 50 years everyone on both sides will see that. I think the Israelis do, so there is hope for the rest of us.
I also hope the Dems take at least the House this time around. I really do. I am becoming concerned that the Dems are out of touch and if they can’t win this time, when can they? Have we reached the point where there will be no new parties? Are the ones we have locked in stone?
A lot of us Democrats actually believe (a) that our country is under serious attack by dangerous enemies, and (b) that the policies of the Bush administration have made the situation a great deal worse. We criticize Lieberman for his support of Bush.
I assume that most WoC readers agree with me on (a) and disagree with (b). But I’m not trying to argue about (b) here, or what should have been done instead. This post is about the “anti-Semitism” claim that’s being bandied about.
It’s perfectly reasonable to oppose Lieberman without being anti-Semitic. Likewise, it’s perfectly reasonable to oppose certain policies that Israel has pursued over the years without being anti-Israel.
Sorry to have not kept up – this is a great site.
Those who think that the paranoid never have anything to worry about, please consider:
If you hired a security company and shortly after hiring the company, your home was robbed and a child was killed, how would you react?
You discover in the process that the security company had turned off the existing security systems that would have prevented the robbery and the murder in the first place and that senior executives of the company actually watched the breakin happen and still did nothing.
Then the president of the company destroys the evidence needed to determine how it really happened, who did it and to catch those who did it. The president tells you you can’t have information you need because then your house would be robbed again and we can’t have that. The president does tell you who did it, but never catches the person, and uses your money to try to secure a different neighbor’s house.
Would you keep that security company?
Not in a million years.
Yet you won’t demand that your senators nor your congressman demand a full, impartial investigation of 911? You won’t vote for a new regime?
Is any bad guy enough to satisfy your lust for vengeance?
Not for me! I neither want the guilty to go free nor the innocent to be condemned. I want the guys who did it to be caught and punished.
Neither the 911 commision nor the FBI believes that OBL did it. The guy the 911 commission says did it has been in Guatanamo bay for a long time, been subjected to torture and has not confessed.
And, yeh, every one knows that a 757 full of passengers hit the pentagon (see 8/13 NYT editorial) and there was no missile involved…but, gosh, the frames released by the FBI (or whoever released them) clearly show two frames (before the hit and at the hit) with contrails from whatever flying object is headed toward the pentagon wall. No commercial flying passenger object of any kind produces contrails at 5 feet off the ground; watch commercial jets taking off and landing.
Oh, but the 911 commission says it was flight 77. Yeh. Um hum, sure. We don’t need no thorough investigation.
I believe that those of us who are victims of 911 deserve closure, especially for my brothers and sisters who have lost their lives or become permanently disabled in a war totally unrelated to the crime of 911. Closure means they get to see the suspects caught, tried, found guilty and, for my taste, hung.
Sorry, I am sure that sounds like a caller on the Art Bell Show.