Wednesday, August 09, 2006

'Sore Loserman' Vows to Split Democratic Ticket in his Delusional "Victory" Speech

Politicians are usually known for their arrogance. But Joe Lieberman takes the cake. He's the first politician who after losing an election delivers a victory speech. "As I see it, in this campaign, we’ve just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead--but in the second half, our team, Team Connecticut, is going to surge forward to victory in November."

In his "concession" speech to challenger Ned Lamont Tuesday night, Lieberman attributed his loss not to his own failed policies, support for the war, and perennial ass-kissing of President Bush, but to "partisan polarizing" by the Lamont campaign and voters. And it is these poor, naive, misguided voters--whom Lieberman believes really do want him as their Senator despite their 52%-48% rejection of him--for whom he's vowed to stay in the race.

"For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot, I will not let this result stand," said Mr. Sore Loserman. That's right Joe, stand up for America! We cannot let voters choose their candidates. We cannot let America's fragile Democracy be threatened by fair elections. We cannot let the Democratic Party choose its nominee and then unify around him. It is our duty, your duty, sir, as An American citizen, a Democrat, a patriot, to give voters what they so obviously begged for Tuesday: for you to run as an Independent, split the Democratic ticket, and allow, in true Ralph Nader fashion, an inept Republican to walk away with your seat in November.

Now the odds are, Lieberman's little delusion will end very soon. The man who last night, in one last pathetic homage to his mentor and hero George Bush, actually claimed to be a uniter not a divider, is hell-bent on dividing his party. But thankfully, there will not be one major Democratic leader who'll endorse him. What we're going to see in the next several days is one Lamont endorsement after another by Clinton, Emanuel, Dodd, Schumer, No leading Dem is going to commit political blasphemy by refusing to endorse his party's primary winner. And then the intense pressure will be cast upon Old Joe by the voices of reason within his former party:

"C'mon Joe, you've had a great run. Eighteen years, three terms. It's time to quit and let the Party and Lamont continue towards victory in November. Don't fight reality. Don't go out this way. Don't throw away 18 years of reputation. Remember 'Sore Loserman' Joe? That's what you'll be remembered by if you don't drop out of the race with dignity.

Let's hope Old Joe will listen.


Anonymous said...

Joe NEVER listens, that’s his problem. He is one very arrogant politician that just thinks of himself and what he can get for himself. The voters in CT I hope will start to see this, well 52% did, and show the rest of the nation that at least they can get it right.

You just know that from now until November you’ll be seeing the likes of McCain going to CT to play kissy face with Joe. It will be VERY interesting to see how strong of support Hillary, Kerry and the rest of the so called Democrats will give Ned.

I can’t wait to see and hear Al Sharpton now on Chris Matthew’s show, he was great the other night supporting Ned

Anonymous said...

I like Joe, but he did not serve the voters of his state.

Let's hope he does not run as an independent. He should put party before himself.

The problems of our once great country are too great to ignore for personal ambition.

From Michigan - the land of ample water

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised it took so long to get rid of the bum. He was the only, or one of the few Dems who voted to invade Iraq when BUSH I went in. I've not trusted him since then. And, the topper was that during the presidential campaign he allowed Cheney to "demolish" him during their bebate. Not only was Lieberman inadequate in his arguments during the deabate, he was obsequious. I'm surprised he didn't kiss Cheney's ring. He should be running now on the Republican ticket. However, many Republicans will vote for him and we all know why.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it was one of the many Dems who voted in favor. Res. 114 passed in October 2002 with
296-133 votes at the House, and
77-23 at the Senate

Anonymous said...

These are the names who voted against Resolution 114 - let's dump all the other criminals!

In the Senate, 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent voted against the war in Iraq.

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Re[resentatives in voting NAY, on October 11, 2002, to the unprovoked use of force against Iraq.

This is a list, organized by state, of the 156 members of Congress who voted NAY to the War in Iraq.

Alabama Rep Earl Hilliard

Arizona Rep Ed Pastor

Arkansas Rep Vic Snyder

California Sen Barbara Boxer- Rep Joe Baca- Rep Xavier Becerra- Rep Lois Capps- Rep Gary Condit- Rep Susan Davis- Rep Anna Eshoo- Rep Sam Farr- Rep Bob Filner- Rep Mike Honda- Rep Barbara Lee- Rep Zoe Lofgren- the late Rep Robert Matsui- Rep Juanita Millender-McDonald- Rep George Miller- Rep Grace Napolitano- Rep Nancy Pelosi- Rep Lucille Roybal-Allard- Rep Loretta Sanchez- Rep Hilda Solis- Rep Pete Stark- Rep Mike Thompson- Rep Maxine Waters- Rep Diane Watson- Rep Lynn Woolsey

Colorado Rep Diana DeGette- Rep Mark Udall

Connecticut Rep Rosa DeLaura- Rep John Larson- Rep James Maloney

Florida Sen Bob Graham- Rep Corinne Brown- Rep Alice Hastings- Rep Carrie Meek

Georgia Rep John Lewis- Rep Cynthia McKinney

Hawaii Sen Daniel Akaka- Sen Daniel Inouye- Rep Neil Abercrombie

Illinois Sen Dick Durbin- Rep Jerry Costello- Rep Danny Davis- Rep Lane Evans- Rep Luis Gutierrez Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr- Rep Bill Lipinski- Sen Bobby Rush- Rep Jan Schakowsky

Indiana Rep Julia Carson- Rep John Hostettler- Rep Pete Viscloskey

Iowa Rep Jim Leach

Maine Rep Tom Allen- Rep John Baldacci

Maryland Sen Barbara Mikulski- Sen Paul Sarbanes- Rep Benjamin Cardin- Rep Elijah Cummings- Rep Connie Morella

Massachusetts Sen Ted Kennedy- Rep Michael Capuano- Rep Bill Delahunt- Rep Barney Frank- Rep Jim McGovern- Rep Richard Neal- Rep John Olver- Rep John Tierney

Michigan Sen Carl Levin- Sen Debbie Stabenow- Rep David Bonior- Rep John Conyers, Jr- Rep John Dingell- Rep Dale Kildee- Rep Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick- Rep Sandy Levin- Rep Lynn Rivers- Rep Burt Stupak

Minnesota Sen Mark Dayton- the late Sen Paul Wellstone- Rep Betty McCollum- Rep Jim Oberstar- Rep Martin Olav Sabo

Mississippi Rep Bennie Thompson

Missouri Rep William Clay, Jr- Rep Karen McCarthy

New Jersey Sen Jon Corzine- Rep Rush Holt- Rep Robert Menendez- Rep Frank Pallone, Jr- Rep Donald Payne

New Mexico Sen Jeff Bingaman- Rep Tom Udall

New York Rep Maurice Hinchey- Rep Amo Houghton- Rep John LaFalce- Rep Gregory Meeks- Rep Jerrold Nadler- Rep Major Owens- Rep Charles Rangel- Rep Jose Serrano- Rep Louise Slaughter- Rep Edolphus Towns- Rep Nydia Velaquez

North Carolina Rep Eva Clayton- Rep David Price- Rep Melvin Watt

North Dakota Sen Kent Conrad

Ohio Rep Sharrod Brown- Rep Stephanie Tubbs Jones- Rep Marcy Kaptur- Rep Dennis Kucinich- Rep Thomas Sawyer- Rep Ted Strickland

Oregon Sen Ron Wyden- Rep Earl Blumenauer- Rep Peter DeFazio- Rep Darlene Hooley- Rep David Wu

Pennsylvania Rep Robert Brady- Rep William Coyne- Rep Mike Doyle- Rep Chaka Fattah

Rhode Island Sen Lincoln Chaffee- Sen Jack Reed- Rep James Langevin

South Carolina Rep Gresham Barrett- Rep James Clyburn

Tennessee Rep John Duncan, Jr

Texas Rep Lloyd Doggett- Rep Charles Gonzalez- Rep Ruben Hinojosa- Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee- Rep Eddie Bernice Johnson- Rep Ron Paul- Rep Silvestre Reyes- Rep Ciro Rodriguez

Vermont Sen Jim Jeffords- Sen Patrick Leahy- Rep Bernie Sanders

Virginia Rep Jim Moran- Rep Bobby Scott

Washington Sen Patty Murray- Rep Jay Inslee- Rep Rick Larsen- Rep Jim McDermott

Washington DC Rep Brian Baird

West Virginia Sen Robert Byrd- Rep Alan Mollohan- Rep Nick Rahall

Wisconsin Sen Russ Feingold- Rep Tammy Baldwin- Rep Jerry Kleczka- Rep David Obey

Anonymous said...

So the fact remains that these 147 senators and house members, as well as most of us had the Bush-Cheney invasion idea pegged from the get go. We didn’t have all the details as they did but even we could figure out what was going on and were against this from day one, why didn’t the others? Well we know why really, it’s because they thought they HAD to back this idiot and everything he did or “they” might be looked at as unpatriotic, another WH spin.

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE that voted with Bush should be very afraid because as Michael Moore put it, we’re coming after you. Here is his letter:
Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.
Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.
I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.
To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war. I'm sure someone has advised you that a woman can't be elected unless she proves she can kick ass just as crazy as any man. I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?
To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.
If you don't believe us, give Joe a call.
Michael Moore
P.S. Republicans -- sorry to leave you out of this letter. It's just that our side has a little housecleaning to do. We'll take care of you this November.

Anonymous said...

I'm Anon "surprised it took so long to get rid of the bum" who didn't make it clear that I meant Lieberman was one of the few, if not the only Dem who voted YES on Jan. 12 1991 for the DESERT STORM invasion of Iraq led by President Bush, Senior, (41) I tried to find the actual vote on Google. and could not. However, I watched the voting on TV in 1991 and scratched Lieberman off my approval list then as I watched and heard him cast his vote. I remember he was about the only Dem who did vote YES. The second vote on Iraq in 2002 by Democrats is of course unforgivable. They didn't even vote on the war they voted to give BUsh, Jr. the POWER to declare war.

Anonymous said...

Why is Michael Moore letting Hillary of the hook? She voted YES. She supported BUSH. She is only now beginning to see the light and trying to makeup for her treachery. Who knows if she's converted; she's just being expedient. And voting yes on a war because she is a woman afraid to appear weak disqualifies her right away. What else could we expect from her under that thinking. Anti-abortion because she doesn't want to seem as though she's favoring women? No day-care help for working mothers? Nuke Iran, North Korea or wherever, because that the "butch" thing to do? The list of prospects she could rationalize about is frightening. It's as bad as President Bush trying to appear macho with his Cowboy routine. Gender has nothing to do with brains and understanding the human condition.

Anonymous said...

Well said!

Anonymous said...

ID like to see the hidden list of the senators that voted,approved the money for Bush to fight this Iraq war while at the same time claiming to be against it.also who aproved giving Israel money,bombs for this other war.
Where I come from if I give a hit man money to kill somone IM as guilty as the guy that pulled the trigger.That makes our government guilty of mass murder.
Like Leaverman, is hillary and Bill.traitors Bill was on Tv about a week ago trying to fool everybody telling how good a man leaverman was I guess to him leavernman is a prince.Bill Clinton will say anything for a buck.I wonder what it cost leavernma,I think these kind ought to be behind bars so they cant run on a independent ticket and cause more trouble and the political party ought to be closed down for supplying such people for office.Both parties should be held accountable,sued and shout down for good

Anonymous said...

The defeat of Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary is a blessing to America. The Democrats really stepped in the shit this time. Mark my words, "Joe Lieberman will win his Connecticut Senate seat in a landslide victory." The unraveling of the Democratic Party has officially begun and independents will start gaining momentum in American politics.

Joe Lieberman was one of the few Democrats that was respected by people across the entire spectrum of American politics. The move-on radicals on the left have taken the reigns of the DNC and aborted Lieberman. Will the Democrats treat their idol Hillary the same? I doubt it. How about all the other democrats that authorized the war in Iraq? Will they be tossed? I bet not.


On the July 22, 2006 OstroyReport, Cathy said,

"Loyalist: Loyal to the Repub Party no matter what; puts political party before country

Patriot: The rest of us who put country before political party"

On the August 9, 2006 OstroyReport, Cathy said (about Joe Lieberman),

"Let's hope he does not run as an independent. He should put party before himself. "

So Cathy, which is it? Do you care more about the Democratic Party or do you care about America?

-- -- -- -- --

DEMOCRATIC SENATORS WHO VOTED TO INVADE IRAQ (107th Congress, session 2, vote 237)
On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114)

Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Anonymous said...

Democrats who authorized the use of force in Iraq under operation Desert Storm:

Breaux (D-LA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Gore (D-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Heflin (D-AL)
Johnston (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Shelby (D-AL)

Yes you read that list correct. The beloved Al Gore authorized the use of force under operation Desert Storm. I wonder if the anonymous poster who no longer trusts Lieberman for this vote will no longer trust Al Gore as well? I doubt it.

Anonymous said...



I'd like to check out the list of Dems who voted for Desert Storm. Where did you get that list?

Anonymous said...

I love how all these so-called pundits are saying the Democratic Party is doomed, DOOMED they tell us! Really? Miss Cleo is out of business, so where are they getting this information from the future? The people vote the way the people vote. The Dems had to deal with that fucking disaster's election named Bush, now they should deal with the reality that offsets his bullshit.

Anonymous said...

Excerpt from an article by Barry Grey

The response of Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman and the Democratic Party leadership to Lieberman’s defeat in Tuesday’s Democratic primary election says a great deal about the politics of the Democratic Party.

Lamont’s challenge to Lieberman was a crack in the bipartisan pro-war front of the US political establishment through which popular opposition to the war could be registered in the electoral arena. Tuesday’s Connecticut primary was an unambiguous repudiation by Connecticut Democrats of the war and the war’s most prominent and strident Democratic supporter.

Lieberman’s response was to announce, in his concession speech Tuesday night, his intention to oppose Lamont in the November election by running as an independent. With this declaration, Lieberman expressed his contempt for the democratic will of the voters within his own party. Even if someone in Lieberman’s position had managed to win the primary, one would have expected him to at least give the appearance of being chastened and to make some acknowledgment of the deep and sincere opposition to his policies.

Instead, he ignored entirely the issue which was pivotal in his defeat—the war in Iraq—and cast Lamont’s victory as a triumph of “the old politics of partisan polarization.” Implicitly dismissing as illegitimate any opposition to the war, he denounced his opponent for employing “insults instead of ideas.”

“For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and is decision to oppose Lieberman’s bid for a fourth term last February, made the war the central issue in his campaign and tapped into the overwhelming anti-war sentiment of Democratic voters, as well as will not let that result stand,” he declared. No “the people have spoken” here! One is reminded of the ironic aphorism of Bertolt Brecht: When the people make the wrong choice, it is necessary to elect a new people.

The thrust of Lieberman’s remarks was an appeal to Republican voters. In the course of a brief speech he denounced “partisan politics” and political “polarization” at least five times. Presenting an upside-down view of Washington politics—where Democratic prostration before Bush and the Republicans is omnipresent—he spoke of the “partisan politics that has assailed Washington today.” Having conceded defeat to an opponent who attacked him for rubber-stamping the policies of the Bush administration, he made the absurd claim that “People are fed up with the petty partisanship and angry vitriol in Washington.”

He called for a “new politics of unity and purpose,” and just in case his message was not sufficiently clear, he added, “I will never hesitate to work with members of the other party if it helps me achieve solutions” and said his campaign would aim to “unite the people of Connecticut—Team Connecticut—Democrats, Republicans and Independents so we can go forward together...”

This is the man who was supported by the entire Democratic Party leadership. Former president Bill Clinton campaigned for him against Lamont, and the leadership of the Democratic Party in Congress backed him, including supposed war critics like Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

To take the measure of Lieberman and the Democratic Party as a whole, one need only compare the senator’s defiance of Connecticut’s Democratic voters with his cowardice and indifference to the theft of the 2000 election. Then, as the vice presidential candidate, he could barely manage a whimper in the face of an open, illegal and ruthless campaign by the Bush campaign and the Republican Party to block the counting of votes in Florida.

Lieberman had, by that point, already demonstrated his inveterate spinelessness before the Republican right with a fawning performance in his vice presidential debate with Dick Cheney. And when the Republicans sought to witch-hunt the Gore-Lieberman ticket and incite the military brass against it in the midst of the legal wrangling in Florida by demanding that illegal absentee military ballots be counted, Lieberman appeared on national television to support the Republican demand.

Lieberman today refuses to accept the verdict of the voters in his own party, but six years ago he accepted without protest the verdict of a Republican majority on the Supreme Court to halt the counting of votes and hand the election to George W. Bush.

No less significant was the response of the Democratic leadership in Congress to Lieberman’s defeat. On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Charles Schumer, the chairman of the Senatorial Campaign Committee, issued a joint statement formally supporting Lamont in the November election. They called the Connecticut primary election a referendum on George Bush, but failed even to mention the issue on which the election turned—the war in Iraq.

Similarly, Representative Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the election was a “referendum about being a rubber stamp” for the Bush administration. It showed that voters “want change, they want a new direction,” he declared. But again, he avoided any mention of the war.

Emanuel even suggested that Connecticut voters had unfairly judged Lieberman to be in the pocket of the Bush White House, and made the improbable claim that Lieberman’s decision to run as an independent would help the Democrats by bringing more voters to the polls.

None of these party leaders denounced Lieberman for defying the will of Democratic voters and running against the party’s senatorial candidate in Connecticut. When asked if he would call on Lieberman to drop out of the race, Emanuel said the decision was Lieberman’s.

These statements of official backing for Lamont only underscore the central fact that the Democratic Party leadership supports the war in Iraq and wants to exclude this single most critical issue facing the American people from the November elections.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:50,
I find it quite humorous that you call me 'OUT OF TOUCH' and then ask me where I get my information. In the end, I believe it is good that Americans know how to keep their elected officials in check, so I will educate you on how to do this. Hopefully the readers of this blog will do some research and wake up to the FACT that both Democrats and Republicans are playing political games with American politics and our taxes. The ONLY way to fix the political quaqmire we are in is to oust ALL Democrats and ALL Republicans from office and elect Independent candidates who are free to decide what is best for America - not best for their political party. For Example, Joe Lieberman. I personally think he is a little too liberal, but he was the best the Democratic Party had and I respected him. I fully support his up and coming landslide victory in Connecticut when he takes some of the democratic vote, most of the republican vote, and most of the independent vote to secure his Senate election as an independent.

What a great country we live in, where anyone (even Joe Lieberman) can run for office as an independent candidate.

As far as your defense of Cathy's flip floppery - you're wrong. On her 7/22 post, she clearly defined loyalist as someone who "puts party before country" and patriot as "the rest of us who put country before party". She then asked ME, "Which one are you Larry???", which implies you cannot be both. Her statement in this thread that Lieberman should put party first is a direct contradiction of her previous ramblings. The November election in Connecticut will prove that the voters want Lieberman more than the move-on handpuppet Lamont.

Instead of making things easy and giving you a direct link to find vote results, I'll make you work a little bit. Look to the library of congress for the information you desire. If you are only interested in the democrats who voted to authorize Desert Storm, which includes your beloved Al Gore, the list is here:

Breaux (D-LA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Gore (D-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Heflin (D-AL)
Johnston (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Shelby (D-AL)

Anonymous said...

It was not all about Losermans war support, but consider his constant support of every Bush appointmnet, advocating the piss poor Medicare Plan (less benefits, more cots, no volume discounts for Federal Agencies, while his WIFE is a PAID lobbyist for the Drug Industry),vocal support for the Patriot Act and silence on Imperial George's Constitutional attacks and "signing statements", support the Bankruptcy Reform Law that gave the gold to banks and the shaft to the people, chidding Clinton for his affairs wile forgetting his OWN "diddlin'" on HIS first wife, and of course calling for complete support for BUSH because "he will be President for 3 more year" . . . the list could go on . .

No Joe, the Democratic Party will be well served without the need of a Bush hemroid cover.

"Independent Democrat" . . . why not run as "Independent Whinny Weenie"

Anonymous said...

Joe's votes in the senate match Hillary's votes 86% of the time. Do you have the same to say about Hillary?

Anonymous said...

Oh, Lieberman's "WIFE is a PAID lobbyist for the Drug Industry" ??

John Murtha (D-PA) has a brother, Robbert 'Kit' Murtha, who is a Washington lobbyist whose firm reeled in more than $20 million for its defense contractor clients in the 2004 Defense appropriations bill.

Murtha is the ranking Democrat on the Defense appropriations subcommittee.

Do you have same problem with Murtha?

Why do democrats give Hillary and Murtha passes for the same exact reasons they aborted Lieberman? I'm beginning to think some 'jewish hatred' is eminating from the DNC. Come to think of it, it's the same democrats who want to stop Israel from destroying the Hezzbollah terror group.

Anonymous said...

Lieberman REALLY IS a Republican in Democrat's clothing. He would rather split the ticket than do his best to ensure that a Democrat wins.

He is a Republican ass-hole.