{"id":2922,"date":"2006-08-09T00:11:26","date_gmt":"2006-08-09T07:11:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2006\/08\/09\/sore-loserman-rides-again-ii\/"},"modified":"2006-08-09T10:10:20","modified_gmt":"2006-08-09T17:10:20","slug":"sore-loserman-rides-again-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2006\/08\/09\/sore-loserman-rides-again-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"Sore Loserman Rides Again (II)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s Democratic party primary was the occasion for some characteristic whining from the losing candidate — a proclivity that earned him the sobriquet “Sore Loserman<\/a>.” Now he’s confirming what we all knew — he’s a two-time sore loser-man. Not content to accept the verdict of his own party, he’s jumping ship and running as an “independent,” i.e. a Neocon Democrat — a very narrow constituency, and one that is getting rapidly narrower, much to Hillary Clinton’s (and Marshall Wittmann’s) chagrin.<\/a><\/p>\n

Loserman’s defeat is a major rebuke to the War Party: his opponent, Ned Lamont, campaigned almost exclusively on the issue of opposition to the Iraq war. Loserman, on the other hand, refused to abandon his pro-war position, and defended his stance at every opportunity. If ever there was a referendum on the war, then this was it<\/a>: but Loserman — who famously ascribed the verdict of the voters in 2000 to “the rule of the mob<\/a>” — can’t accept the judgement of his own party. Instead, he smeared Lamont and\u00c2\u00a0his supporters in\u00c2\u00a0his non-concession speech<\/a> — “Every disagreement is considered disloyal. And every opponent it is not just an opponent but is seen as evil” — and whined that he fell victim to “insults” instead of a fair debate of “ideas.”<\/p>\n

But the election was <\/em>about ideas — Lieberman’s ideas about foreign policy, which proved such a disastrous failure in Iraq and are rejected by the majority of Americans. And as for charges of disloyalty, it was Lieberman, you remember, who\u00c2\u00a0said<\/a> that criticism of Bush during wartime “undermines presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”<\/p>\n

We can expect more of the same — and worse — during the general election. Get ready for charges of “extremism” directed at Lamont. This, coming from the co-chair of the extremist Committee on the Present Danger<\/a>, is a charge that no one can take too seriously. But that won’t stop the Lieberman-Beinart<\/a>-neocon wing of the party from trying.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s Democratic party primary was the occasion for some characteristic whining from the losing candidate — a proclivity that earned him the sobriquet “Sore Loserman.” Now he’s confirming what we all knew — he’s a two-time sore loser-man. Not content to accept the verdict of his own party, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[676],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-2922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-antiwar-movement"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2922","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2922\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2922"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}