Tuesday, November 07, 2006

If You Don't Buy an Election, Guess You Can't Win Today

It's over.

I can't tell you though, with the screaming and throwing things at the television screen here -- I am so proud to be associated with a campaign that would not lie, cheat, steal and buy votes to win. That's it.

This was about the politcal machine pulling out all the stops in the incumbent protection racket to stop Ned, and try to stop the Nedroots and the Netroots.

Now, the question is -- do we want a majority in the Senate so Joe gets his chairman's seat or do we take the House and be happy with Joe not sleazing his way into everything....

We were intially stunned and it is very quiet in here.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bullshit

Anonymous said...

way to play the blame game

magoo said...

It's not over yet, but I'm shocked.

Anonymous said...

cmon kirby. its not black and white. joe wasnt " the bad one" and ned wasnt "the good one."

SailRacer said...

Good job guys, but actually wanting a republican led Senate rather than Lieberman in a position of power seems a bit rash.

Certainly the ideals of the left trump the frustration over Joe. Think of the big picture here.

milford dems (democratic wing) said...

thanks for hanging in there.

joemustgo said...

Joe suppported torture. Joe is the bad one.

Ned_Opportunist_2006 said...

Ned deserved to lose.

Standard Gauge Blogger said...

I disagree. Ned is an honest and decent guy. Joe is past that. He bought the Right Wing agenda hook, line and sinker.

I'd like to wait until I see EVERY result. Something is mighty stinky here. I saw quite a few of the polling places and old Joe's presence wasn't there at a single one of them. Not a person, not a sign, nothing. When someone is that sure of themselves and drops $14 million on a campaign with $387k vaporized, something wreaks like bullshit.

M

DR said...

How about a large enough margin in the Senate that Joe can be told to go Cheney himself. Oh, wait. That won't happen. The leadership LIKES Joe. Scumbags.

magoo said...

Don't concede until every precinct is in! Please...
CNN is only reporting 14% at 10:pm

magoo said...

I know these stats are behind - but still, do not give up! Something is fishy, indeed.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/CT/S/01/index.html

Anonymous said...

Where are the numbers on this site coming from. No one else that I know of has this much of the vote in.

Anonymous said...

Think I posted this here before, but everyone please pass the word to Ned ro not concede until the votes are counted, or Friday, whichever comes first.

Standard Gauge Blogger said...

I agree. Ned should not concede diddly! Don't throw in the towel, I can't believe the people of CT are just that stupid.

Anonymous said...

If you so mistrust the democratic process that you will question every election result that does not go your way, why do you continue to participate, maybe you should give up and use some of Ned's incredible wealth to purchase an island where you can live in peace? Maybe Ted Kennedy can sell you Nantucket?

magoo said...

Lieberman
(Incumbent)
74,827 47%

Democratic Lamont
68,353 43%

Republican Schlesinger
15,489 10%

19% precincts reporting - Updated: 10:06 p.m. ET

Its way too early to call it. The media is calling it for Joe because they want him to win, so they can yak about "the liberal bloggers"
Don't let the "opinon makers" declare the winner, let the votes be counted.

Anonymous said...

MAgoo, thanks for the link:

Lieberman
101,228 48%

Lamont
86,091 41%

Schlesinger
20,768 10%

Ferrucci
1,208 1%

Knibbs
836 0%

23% precincts in

caffeine soldier said...

Damn sorry, Bob and Kirby. Y'all did everything possible. Not your fault that most of your countrymen are simply too dumb. With Joerruption, nothing will change.

Frank S. said...

Whoa, wait a minute. Buy the election? Ned poured $10 million of his own cash. Get a mirror. Where were all those "so do we" votes?

Anonymous said...

I'm 18 years old, a registered Republican, and proud to say that I cast my first vote, ever, for Ned.


Onward and forward.

Rusting said...

Independents have machines now? How very interesting. I seem to remember the darlings of the Lib...uh..."Progressives" (Kennedy, Kerry, and Clinton) supporting One-trick Ned despite his near-total lack of substance, and abandoning a senator who is, on balance, a pretty decent statesman. Party loyalty apparently means more than depth of intellect to these "Progressives." This is an incumbent protection racket? What fascinating standards you have!

Standard Gauge Blogger said...

Rusting, you need to read up on your history. The gameplan the founding fathers had for us wasn't about "party loyalty". It was about electing the best person for the job.

Civil service was supposed to be for anyone that wanted to serve. They could serve their country than go back into private life. It wasn't a career option, the point of the short terms was to keep the government fresh and vibrant.

Joe Lieberman is neither fresh nor vibrant. And by the way, I do wonder aloud why someone would defend him, his record of votes in the Senate sucks; also a matter of historical fact and record. He seemed to miss voting quite often and when he did vote he wasn't exactly "loyal" (to use your word) to his party.

The other thing I have to wonder is where an incumbent and complete independent got $14 million from. His campaign didn't attempt to raise any funds. Most of it was culled from the "other party".

One more concern I have about Mr. Lieberman: hopefully when his time is up again we'll be able to attract a person of quality and decency like Ned Lamont. Most people from ordinary cloth don't have the kind of money and time Ned had. Will we be able to find someone when Joe is finally just an old fart/babbling fool that is just being propped up and used by lobbyists even more than he is now? I hope we can find someone with a brain like Ned's. Regardless, he would have been a much better choice. Hopefully the other party will lose some momentum and won't come to rescue Mr. Lieberman next time.

Anonymous said...

You wonder why "netroot" candidates often don't do well in general state-wide or national elections? Maybe because you call people who disagree with you "stupid", etc.

I left the Republican party two years ago when Bush supported the gay marriage amendment (Vote for Gore and Kerry in prior elections despite my party affiliation). This year I voted for Rell, voted for Chris Murphy, wanted Shays to win, and voted for Joe. Why? Because I cannot fit in with either party. Both parties are far to the right or left, and many moderates are left out.

Another reason? Because I am involved in international government work (vote via absentee ballot) and from what I see everyday, losing Iraq will be the worst thing that could happen to this country. Did I support going into Iraq? No way. Fought tooth and nail at work trying to get some people to listen to me. But now that we are in, I think we need to stay until Iraq can stand completely on its own two feet. If that does not happen, and we begin to remove troops, Iraq WILL become like Afghanistan or Somalia. It won't be overnight, but it will happen.

So how about you guys stop calling those of us who voted for Joe "Stupid". There are people on both sides of every issue who clearly need to be educated, but not all of us are stupid.

Anonymous said...

Are you friggin kidding me? "Losing Iraq would be the worst thing that could happen to this country"?

I don't think you are stupid by any means but I also don't think that you're realistic. We're in the middle of a civil war and last I checked, there is absolutely no reason for us to be there. Go back and read some history: who has been successful in the Middle East delivering democracy at the end of a gun. Or anywhere for that matter?

We need to pull out of Iraq tomorrow. The blood is going to get spilled regardless. We are sticking on our noses squarely where they don't belong. 50 years from now, history is going to ask why everyone was so stupid (so see, nobody is singling anyone out, we're all going to look like idiots).

M

Anonymous said...

Hey, Standard Gauge Blogger: read Rusting's comment again. You and he/she are in violent agreement. Rusting assails those who value party loyalty over competence. So do you. And if the founding fathers did value competence over party loyalty, and if Lieberman rejected party loyalty at times, then he's obeying the dictates of the founding fathers, by your line of reasoning. Or would you prefer to have it both ways? Wait: maybe Rusting voted for Joe, and that automatically makes him/her "stupid," right?