Lieberman agonistes

Lieberman is smug and sanctimonious. He also looks and sounds like the dad from "Alf.">

Connecticut Democrats [might] prefer a Senator who was on the right side of the most important foreign policy issue since the end of the Cold War.

Uh ... what about the Cold War itself.>

These seemed particularly apt, but there's more where these came from.

The great error of nearly all studies of war... has been to consider war as an episode in foreign policies, when it is an act of interior politics...
~Simone Weil

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official...
~Theodore Roosevelt

War is fear cloaked in courage.
~General William Westmoreland

Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.
~A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
~Edward Abbey

Never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter.
~Sir Winston Churchill>

Brent, Bush is your president too, just as the odious Bill Clinton was mine. Unless he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, which no one has credibly alleged, he's not going to be impeached. Bungling the war has been catastrophic for this country, but that's not an impeachable offense. Calm down.

Will, from what I've been able to tell from my faraway vantage point, Lamont is a complete airhead. I doubt very much that I'd vote for him in the general election. I don't know that Lamont is "right" on Iraq at this point, because I don't know what he advocates (if it's swift withdrawal, then I think he's wrong). But Lieberman was wrong to have backed this war, as was I, and even though if my back was against the wall as a Connecticut voter in November, I'd probably vote for him, I can't say that I'm sorry that Lieberman got humiliated tonight over the war.

In a way, tonight's result might be the best thing for the GOP: Lieberman's probably going to win the general election as an independent, which will return him (and his useful vote) to the Senate while depriving the Democrats of a seat.

Obviously I'm a bundle of contradictions on this race. Which I wouldn't be if Ned Lamont weren't such a featherweight.>

What *should* the U.S. have done post 9-11, and what should we have avoided?

Well, I don't think it requires profound analysis to conclude that perhaps we should have finished one job (Afghanistan) before embarking on another one (Iraq).

We really are the ADHD country. Many of our opponents seem to think in terms of years, if not decades or centuries; we tend to think in terms of the next news cycle.

But from what I have read over the past few years, it does seem to be clear that the administration focuses on Saddam from the beginning, and looked for a rationale to justify moving against him, regardless of whether he had any real connection to 9/11.

Ultimately, I think the Bushies decided to take out Saddam mainly because they thought they could.>

You can tell me if I'm thinking over-simplistically, but if the Democrats are now split into two factions--with roughly half leaning towards Lieberman running as an Independent--doesn't that split the Democrats and "former Democrats" in half and make their votes count half as much? It may be a boneheaded question, but I was just wondering.>

A good night for the Dems, an even better night for the Repubs, in both cases.>

Accountablity, that is what its all about. The people have spoken in poll after poll that Bush dismisses. Says he doesn't lead by polls. Well, some polls tell you what we all think about this bloody mess of a war, and if Bush is going to continue to ignore THE PEOPLE, then the people will speak.

Tossing Lieberman is the people saying ENOUGH, SOMEONE LISTEN!!!!>

It's hard to collect evidence when the subject of the investigation can unilaterally make any particular piece of information off limits for "security reasons", which the Bush Administration has a well established record of doing.

Here at Baylor there is keen interest in the future George W. Bush presidential library, because Baylor is one of the finalists for its location.

But it occurred to me awhile ago, why should Bush bother to build a library? I mean, it's not as if he's going to declassify anything or any real significance, so there won't be any point for researchers to go there -- they won't be allowed to examine anything worth seeing.>

Joel, I agree. Except that I think Bush is himself dumber than the average American, but maybe I've got too high an opinion of the average American.

When I say "Bush did X", what I usually mean is "Bush's handlers arranged for Bush to do X". I'm perfectly willing to believe that Bush is personally sincere and well meaning, and has been used extensively by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Wolfowitz.

I'd rather see the members of his cabinet impeached, but that's not how the system works, alas.>

Here's a good observation by Michael Barone from yesterday's WSJ article. Sorry I can't link to it -- subscriber only.

"....The Connecticut primary reveals that the center of gravity in the Democratic Party has moved, from the lunch-bucket working class that was the dominant constituency up through the 1960s to the secular transnational professional class that was the dominant constituency in the 2004 presidential cycle. You can see the results on the map. Joe Lieberman carried by and large the same cities and towns that John F. Kennedy carried in the 1960 presidential general election.

Ned Lamont carried most of the cities and towns that were carried by Richard Nixon. In Stamford, where Joe Lieberman grew up the son of a liquor-store owner, and where there are still sizeable blue-collar and black communities, Mr. Lieberman won with 55% of the vote. In next-door Greenwich, where Ned Lamont (like former President George H.W. Bush) grew up as the scion of an investment banker family, and where the housing values are now among the highest in the nation, Mr. Lamont won with 68% of the vote. If Mr. Lamont wins in November, he will be just one of several members of a Democratic caucus who have made, inherited or married big money.">