Lamont's vicotry is more than a Democrat loss.
Once again, some daddy warbucks with nothing to recommend him for office, aside from overweening conceit and large bankroll, has gotten nominated and possibly, but not likely elected.
Just like the Keans in New Jersey, the Frank Lautenbergs, the Mike Bloombergs, the Jon Corzines, the Kennedys, the Gores, the Kerrys, the McCains, the Rockefellers, etc. etc. it seems like you need a huge bankroll to get elected to office these days, or that if you HAVE a large bankroll, you can buy your way into office. I think this is just one outcome of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. Cut off contributions from outside sources and only the wealthy can afford to run.
Lieberman is the liberal conservatives sort of like. He supports the war on terror, is basically a decent guy personally, but on all other issue is a real liberal.
Too bad the Repubs don't have a viable candidate in COnnecticut, they might win. As it is, my suspicion is Lieberman will get relected as an independent. Only 20% of the Democrats voted and 44% of registered voters are independents - probably liberal.
A newspaper editor on FOX News last night said that the peolpe who came out to vote for Lamont (wasn't Lamont Cranston the "Shadow") were for the most part, VERY affluent and part of what he termed "transnationalists" - I assume one-worlders.
Sean likes him though.
You made excellent points, Zulu!
Here's more proof that Lieberman is decent.....
Michael Schiavo campaigned against Lieberman because Lieberman wasn't a knee-jerk supporter of killing Terri Schindler Schiavo.
If nothing else, Lieberman stands up against terrorists and "husbands" who kill women and children.