Alan De Smet ([info]alan_de_smet) wrote,
@ 2006-08-08 23:00:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:douchebags, politics

Joe Lieberman: Still a Douchebag
Joe Lieberman continues his douchiness. In 2000 he simultaneously ran for Senate and Vice-President. While it meant that the election was a no-lose situation for him, it was bad for his party; if he and Gore took the White House it meant that the Republican governor would have picked his replacement in the Senate. Douchy.

So today Connecticut Democrats told him that they'd rather be represented by Lamont. So what's he doing? Running as an independent. In doing so Lieberman proves that he has zero sense of duty to his party. While I respect a politician willing to buck his party when he believes it to be wrong, to try and have it both ways, to be a Democrat until they say no, then independent, that's just weasely. Furthermore Lieberman has to know that he is going to split the Democratic vote, perhaps enough to allow Lamont's Republican challenger to win. Lieberman apparently feels that the Republicans are just as good as the Democrats. He's free to believe that, but as an ex-Democrat it reinforces how fickle his allegiance is; a Democrat until it's inconvient.

Lieberman can suck it.

All that said, as I predicted the results were razor thin: 52 to 48. Any pundit claiming that this represents a major sea change remains an idiot.




(2 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]scarybug
2006-08-09 01:55 pm UTC (link)
Er, except Lamont upsetted an incumbent senator, which has only happened less than ten times in the last 20 years.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]alan_de_smet
2006-08-11 01:48 pm UTC (link)
It's a historic event, I'll agree, but it's not a major shift in direction. Or put another way, if Lamont had lost the shift in direction wouldn't have changed at all. Lamont's win doesn't mean that incumbent senators are more likely to be replaced any more than a Lamont loss would have meant that incumbent senators were as safe as ever. It was a very narrow victory; the sign that there might be a sea change happened several months ago when Lamont got within margin of error of Lieberman in the polls.

My complaint is against pundits who would have portrayed Liberman winning 52-48 as "proof that Democratic voters reject far-left politics" or that Lamont win at 52-48 as "proof that opposition to the war is the key to winning this September." Neither is a reasonable conclusion given how close the race was.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(2 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…