I got this one via another blog, but the post has been deleted for some reason. Anyway, here’s something to take a look at: the 2006 Connecticut Senate election results.
| Lieberman | 563,725 | 50% |
| Lamont | 448,077 | 40% |
| Schlesinger | 109,329 | 10% |
| Ferrucci | 5,923 | 0% |
| Knibbs | 4,638 | 0% |
And now let’s take a look at the numbers from 2000:
| Lieberman | 828,902 | 63.21% |
| Giordano | 448,077 | 34.17% |
| Kozak | 25,509 | 1.94% |
| Moore | 8,773 | 0.67% |
A little fishy, no? Now, the blog I snipped this from seems to have been a fiercely “liberals suck” kind of thing, and that this situation isn’t evidence of a democrat conspiracy may have precipitated the deletion.
And that is the peculiar part. In 2000 it would have been the democrats handing Lieberman his victory, but in 2006 it would have been the democrats handing it to Lamont. Does Holy Joe have personal connections to the vote counters? Very strange indeed that his main challenger would stop at the same number each time.
What I don’t understand is all the cheering about Dems taking back the Senate – they are including Lieberman, yes? Can you really count him as a Democrat? He acted like a Republican for so long, and now he’s not even listed as a Dem.
I think the conservatives still have a handle on the Senate.
Well that’s the thing. The Democratic party is now truly the party of America. The Republicans appealed to the neocon base so many of the more level-headed Republicans went Dem. So it’s not that “liberals” took over Congress, it’s a return to reason.
Lieberman’s voting record isn’t too bad, truthfully. I heavily disagree with him on a lot of things, I would never vote for him, but he’s still too far to the left for the Republicans to embrace ‘im.