Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

August 09, 2006

The Morning After

Two races were in the spotlight during yesterday's Democratic primary: Rep. Cynthia McKinnon vs. Hank Johnson in Georgia, and Sen. Joe Lieberman vs. Ned Lamont in Connecticut.

Both incumbents lost.

In an AP story, McKinnon is called "fiery" and "controversial." How about bitchy and kooky? After all, this is a woman who claimed publicly that President Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, and who hit a Capitol police officer earlier this year after he dared to ask her to stop and show ID when entering the Capitol building. The House will be a better place without her in it, even if fellow Democrat Johnson wins the seat in November. Good riddance.

Connecticut millionaire Ned Lamont managed to upset Joe Lieberman for the party nod in November, but Lieberman says he will run as an "independent Democrat." The big issue, of course, is that unlike John Kerry and others, Lieberman refuses to apologize for his support of the Iraq war. He says he disagrees with how the war has progressed in some ways, but still believes we did the right thing by going in. And now, this social liberal has been discarded like yesterday's rancid cold cuts by Connecticut Democrats.

The only thing Lamont has to recommend him to supporters is his stance on Iraq. Everything else is a big question mark. Of course, the fact that he's a self-made millionaire should send true Democrats running -- especially since he poured millions of his own dollars into his campaign. (RINO Mike Bloomberg was roundly criticized for doing the same during his run for mayor of New York.) But I've noticed that while Democrats feel a Republican with money is a bad thing, a Democrat with money is just another politician. Why else would we have so many Democrat moneybags in office? (Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry come immediately to mind.) It must be that rich Democrats are not a part of the problem, they are a part of the solution because they "care." Republicans, as a rule, do not.

So what happens now? Lieberman runs as an independent. I heard on the radio that voter turnout in Connecticut yesterday was about 43%. How will the other 57% vote in November? How many votes will Lieberman siphon off from Lamont? (Quite a few, I imagine.) Will Republican Alan Schlesinger (unimpressive website here) be able to make inroads into the electorate? Maybe, if he gets off his duff. Then again, maybe not...

Kos and his pals may be celebrating Lamont's win now (their first!), but the champagne flute is only half full. He still has to win the actual election in November. And that is far from decided.

UPDATE: An article on Time's website discusses why Republicans are enjoying Lamont's victory and Lieberman's loss. A snippet:

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking to the City Club of Cleveland this morning, said the rejection of a well-liked Senator who was strong on national defense showed that Democratic candidates must embrace "defeatism and isolation" or "risk being purged" for their party. "For those of us who follow politics closely, who work in politics, and who know that there can be good and honest people on the other side of the political divide, it is a shame," he said. "It is also a sign of what the Democratic Party is has become in the 21st century. It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a ‘blame America first’ attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous."

More: Ex-Donkey here and here; Connecticut Commentary, Brainster, and Right Wing News.