August 08, 2006
Lamont supporters, of course, are screaming that it's a Rovian-esque deception on Lieberman's part. But, honestly, is there anyone who can deny that the Nedheads aren't capable of this themselves?
Whatever. Just another goofy part of this whole election.
One Sunday morning on C-Span I debated Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel on the Lieberman versus Lamont race. Afterwards I received a series of emails--many of them in ALL CAPS (which often suggests the hyper-frenetic state of these extremist haters)--that were of the same stripe as the blog posts, and filled with the same level of personal hate.It never ceases to amaze me how so many of these people aren't able to understand how insane they sound to the rest of the country. Their "passion" has become a mania - one that desperately cries out for some psychological consultation.
But the issue is not just emotional outbursts by these usually anonymous bloggers. A friend of mine just returned from Connecticut, where he had spoken on several occasions on behalf of Joe Lieberman. He happens to be a liberal antiwar Democrat, just as I am. He is also a lawyer. He told me that within a day of a Lamont event--where he asked the candidate some critical questions--some of his clients were blitzed with emails attacking him and threatening boycotts of their products if they did not drop him as their attorney. He has actually decided not to return to Connecticut for the primary today; he is fearful for his physical safety.
I do not blame Joe Lieberman's political difficulties on the liberal blogosphere. Most Connecticut Democrats voting for Mr. Lamont are genuinely outraged at President Bush for his Iraq War policies. They are entitled to express that outrage by voting for him and against Sen. Lieberman on that basis alone, although Sen. Lieberman's record as a progressive Democrat and his opposition to President Bush not only on most domestic issues but also on the conduct of the war cannot be disputed--despite egregiously distortive ads paid for by Mr. Lamont with $4 million of his own money.
Moreover, the support he gets from these haters should not be attributed to Mr. Lamont--nor should he be blamed for their extremism, bigotry and intolerance. But he ought to denounce them. He hasn't as yet.
Lamont has been silent about his blogosphere buddies leading up to primary day. And he will probably not be hurt today in the vote count because of it. But when we head into the general election, with Lieberman as an independent, he's going to have to answer for their conduct. He can't dodge it for three solid months. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
I wanted to mention that I'm offended by Davis' puerile use of a tired, old - and unfounded - stereotype of Conservatives as intolerant and hateful to make his point. Each side has it's embarrassing wingnuts, but intolerance has become fashionably mainstream for Liberals these days.
August 07, 2006
The problem with primary polls is that it's so difficult to pin down likely voters or predict turnout. How many people in CT even know tomorrow is a primary day? Hard to guess.
But considering the trend, my guess is that a little more than half of the registered Democrats in CT who turn out will be pulling the lever for Lamont. So where does this leave the other (slightly less than half) who still support Joe Lieberman?
Very likely, they will still have a chance to vote for him in November because - barring some unforeseen circumstances - it's looking like Lieberman will appear on the ballot under the party "Connecticut For Lieberman". Joe will go independent. Some Democrats complain that if he can't run as a Democrat that he shouldn't run. Well, others would argue that if they don't live in CT, many of Lamont's supporters around the country shouldn't be spending so much time and money on a race that doesn't directly affect their representation.
All's fair in love and politics.
At this point, I will only make one prediction. If Lamont prevails, it could well be the catalyst for a significant number of registered Democrats to finally decide that they've had enough.
Accoring to CNN's exit polling, in 2004 the party affiliation in CT was:
Two years from now, expect that number for "Independent" to be higher, chiefly at the expense of the "Democrat" number. CT is a pretty "Blue" State and a vast majority would probably poll as being "against" our presence in Iraq. But only a portion of those voters feel so strongly on that issue - and are so consumed with Bush-hatred - that they would turn out an otherwise Liberal-voting incumbent Senator who has demonstrated the level of integrity that Joe Lieberman has over the last 18 years.
If after tomorrow, Senator Lieberman is kicked out of his party than I expect there will be a number of party members who will join the ranks of the ex-donkeys.
Don't be surprised to be reading new blogs a year or two from now identifying this primary election as their "moment of clarity" when they decided that they no longer felt comfortable belonging to a party that says "agree with us or get out".
AJ Strata weighes in:
The Democrats, it seems, are preparing to go down into the history books as the party that could not cope with changing times. It will end through a series of angry outbursts and dreams of impeaching President Bush as the answer to all of the worldÂ’s problems - including Islamo Fascism. The far leftÂ’s tunnel vision has warped their sense of reality to the point that even listening in on the plans of those who want to kill as many Americans in order to stop their efforts as possible is considered illegal. When you are that far gone all you do is build walls between yourself and reality.
Jed Babbin at The American Spectator:
The effect of a Lieberman purge should reverberate throughout America. A political party that cannot tolerate dissent, that cannot accept as legitimate any position that doesn't hew to the leftmost fringe, cannot last unless its opponents fail to take advantage of its fundamental weakness. If the kiss on the cheek Lieberman got from the president proves to be the coup fatal, it could be one that produces a veto-proof Republican Senate.
August 06, 2006
Head on over to RightThoughts and see the video of Mr. Lamont chatting it up with Jane "Rape Gurny Joe" Hamsher.
Is it me or could Greg Kinnear play Lamont in the movie?
BTW, the wife and I signed Joe Lieberman's petition this weekend. I asked the volunteer how it was going with the signatures. He said they were right on schedule. They even expected to finish up a day early.
Should be an interesting couple of days.
August 03, 2006
- The name of the Jon Cryer-looking dude sitting next to him on his couch in his first internet ad. That was Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Ned. You know, King of the Nutroots?
- His campaign has it's own blog: Ned Lamont Official Campaign Blog
- firedoglake (Jane Hamsher's site) is listed in the blogroll of said campaign blog
Michelle Malkin has all the details.
I gotta go make myself some popcorn. This is just too good.
Lamont's campaign manager Tom Swan condemned this, calling it very offensive and said he requested that it be removed. He also said that while blogger Jane Hamsher is a supporter, she is not on the campaign pay-roll.Oh, and I suppose that Ned Lamont hasn't even heard of Hamsher, right? Bullshit. According to this Hartford Courant piece, Lamont and Hamsher have been pretty chummy lately. The producer of such cinematic "gems" as "Natural Born Killers" even went to far as to help Lamont on one of his latest campaign commericals. No, both Lamont and his staff are quite familiar with Hamsher and have been only too happy to accept her cyber-support.
But, hey, she's "not on the campaign pay-roll", right? She's just a hired thug who doesn't get paid but has a huge stake in the candidate's success. Where is Ned Lamont? No statement? No public condemnation, repudiation or even a lousy "I don't approve of that sort of thing"? He's most likely hunkered down with his strategy people trying to figure out how to distance himself from Hamsher while at the same time deriving the benefit of her frothing-at-the-mouth support.
Hamsher offered a sorta-kinda apology that sounds more like an anti-Lieberman rant - trying to direct blame over to those mean old "rightwing Republicans". Yeah, it's their fault.
When you play with fire, Ned, you're going to get burned. Right now, the multi-zillionaire businessman-turned candidate is finding out the hard way who is using whom. Captain Ed echoes what I've been thinking during this whole "get Lieberman" campaign:
It really is difficult to understand what a mainstream Democratic politician has done to inspire such hatred and vitriol. In fact, it's becoming more and more obvious that Lieberman hasn't done anything to inspire it, but just that the haters on the Left have set their sights on Lieberman this cycle. They will do and say anything to destroy him, and this is about as low as it could get. Lieberman doesn't deserve this kind of treatment after his years of honorable public service. He's not my favorite by any means, but that doesn't mean he should have to suffer this kind of despicable treatment at the hands of his own party.And The Moose says that since Lamont is a creation of the nutroots, it is by his association with them that he should be judged.
This incident should be instructive to the national Democratic Party. Enough of the pandering and the capitulating to the nutroots. The embrace of the left blogosphere will come back to haunt the party.Am I "piling on"? You bet your ass I am. If something this disgusting had been posted by a high-profile blogging supporter of a Republican candidate, then this would be THE number one story for the next month. So as a proud card-carrying member of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" it's my duty to go after 'em with both barrels!
Count on it.
Eric Lindholm calls this another "Wellstone Moment". That is, "when the Left casts off all sense of propriety and decorum to revel in their own self-regard".
August 02, 2006
LGF has the link and the picture that I don't care to replicate.
Honest to God, do you think you'll hear one peep of outrage from Al Sharpton or Jessee Jackson - who will be campaigning for Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont, this week?
Or perhaps Mr. Lamont would take time out of his schedule to condemn the image?
July 24, 2006
Connecticut Democrats have been down this road before. In 1970, anti-Vietnam War candidate Joseph Duffy knocked off incumbent Thomas Dodd, who had been a supporter of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson's policy. Dodd's son Chris Dodd is now Connecticut's other U.S. senator.So in 1970, you had a Democrat Senator from CT who was driven off the ticket by the Left for supporting his own party's President. The result was a net loss of one Senate seat for the Dems. The winner of that race becomes a "maverick" and a thorn in the GOP's side for eighteen years and is eventually beaten out by Joe Lieberman for the seat.
But the anti-war wing, although powerful within Democratic primaries, did not represent the political mainstream in 1970. Duffy lost the November election to Republican Lowell Weicker, who is backing Lamont against Lieberman, who defeated him in 1988.
Flash forward thirty-six years. Joe Lieberman is being driven off the Dem ticket by the Left for supporting the opposing party's President. The result will likely be a net loss of one Senate seat for the Dems. Lieberman, as an independent, has the capacity to be a "maverick" and a thorn in the Dems' side for the foreseeable future.
Thomas Dodd's son, Chris Dodd, is now CT's senior Senator. Lowell Weicker, who defeated Dodd now supports Lamont. And in both 1970 and 2006, the big loser as a result of the Left's actions is...the Democrat Party.
You just can't make this stuff up.
July 20, 2006
There are less than three weeks remaining until the primary and , unless Lamont is peaking too early, he very likely may end up with the nomination. This would push Lieberman into an Independent candidacy. While the nutroots are all a-twitter with the news, such a scenario doesn't help the Democrats in the Senate as Lieberman would certainly attract enough independents and Republicans to carry him to victory in November anyway. The only difference is that he wouldn't have a (D) after his name.
"The poll shows [Lieberman] leading a three way race with the support of 51 percent of likely voters, compared to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger."If Democrats think the three-term Senator is a thorn in their sides now, wait until they get a load of Joe v.2.0 - the one who doesn't need support from the continually marginalized Left.
Capt. Ed weighes in:
A Lieberman primary victory would be the best outcome for the Democrats; it would keep the state's party from fracturing in the general election. It doesn't look good for that result at the moment. Lamont may well top Lieberman in the first round, but an eventual Lieberman victory looks all but assured. That means that the national party leaders will have to be very careful in how they support Lamont, if they decide to do so at all. If they antagonize Lieberman enough, he may give Democrats a few more headaches in the next session of Congress.And if they antagonize the Kos-sacks, they have to deal with a different set of headaches.
John Hawkins makes this observation:
So, if Joe loses as a Democrat, but wins as an independent with lots of Republican and Independent support, what does that mean?In other words, the GOP - who had no shot to pick up this seat - will end up with the next best scenario: one less Senate Democrat in their minority caucus.
Well hopefully, it'll mean that the "Harry Truman Democrats" will realize that if they're serious about defending America, they're in the wrong party. Could it mean that some Jews, who vote Democrat 2 to 1, might get the message that they're in the wrong party? Sure. Could we see Joe Lieberman become a true centrist in the Senate in order to better represent his much more Republican and independent base? Sure.
And all the while, Kos and Company would be crowing about the huge "victory" they've won. It sounds like a real Pyrrhic victory to me.
Lieberman still has one big weapon left in his arsenal. According to his campaign, Bill Clinton will be coming to Connecticut to campaign for him and, these days, the former President is probably the most popular and influential Democrat alive. But time is running out.
Be careful what you wish for, guys...
July 19, 2006
[V]oter unrest does not by itself portend wholesale electoral change. Even disgruntled Americans are reluctant to "fire" incumbents if they think they're just trading in one pol for another, regardless of party. That's the lesson of 1994.Democrats fail to grasp the idea that Republicans took control 12 years ago because they ran on ideas and voters responded because they were tired of the "same old, same old". Of course, many a Republican these days seems to have failed to grasp this concept as well.
Led by Newt Gingrich, the GOP candidates that year responded to the disillusionment of voters with the refreshing and specific ideas of the Contract with America. They proved that voters are drawn to issues and genuine political leadership, even in the absence of complete ideological agreement. In my own case, the voters in my district seemed electrified by the positive promise of specific policy proposals related to issues they cared about--fiscal responsibility, ensuring the safety of our homes and streets and schools, securing family values, family-oriented tax policies, strong national defense and commonsense legal reforms. And this was not just a Republican phenomenon. The Contract spoke to a wide cross-section of all voters.
For their part, Nancy Pelosi's Democrats seem confident that they'll sweep into the majority this fall on a single concept: "We're not them." Even their highly anticipated "Take Back America" agenda was little more than a public relations ploy to repackage the same vague and boring platitudes their pollsters have been feeding them since George McGovern: "Putting People First," "Real Security," "Healthcare for All" or "An Economy That Works." Whatever happened to "Where's the Beef?"
As if conducted by a tone-deaf maestro, the Democrats unveiled this agenda against a public chorus of Bernie Sanders, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean--and Gary Hart. "Take Back America"? Two-thirds of Americans, if they paid any attention at all, probably turned to each other and asked, mystified, when did we ever govern America with them? And Ms. Pelosi is certainly no Newt Gingrich.
Now the party of "same old, same old" thinks that their mere absence has made the voter's hearts grow fonder. If they stick with their current strategy, they're probably in for a big disappointment come November 7.
June 19, 2006
"The primaryÂ’s August 8th. The deadline for submitting the requisite 7,500 signatures for an independent run is 4 p.m. on August 9th. If heÂ’s going to play chicken with Lamont in the primary, he needs to raise the stakes and promise that he wonÂ’t start collecting signatures until the primaryÂ’s over. WouldnÂ’t it be awesome on August 9th to watch the army of Joementum canvassers see if they can beat the clock? You know the nutroots retards would send out teams of anti-canvassers to harass them, too. Imagine someone opening their door in Danbury to find two kids with a clipboard in Lieberman t-shirts and two idiots behind them in black bloc gear trying to shout them down with blood-for-oil slogans. Please, god, make it happen.Personally, I'd prefer to see Lieberman win outright because it'll make the Kos Kidz and Moron.Org look stoopid. But then if Lieberman wins as an independent, it'll make the DSCC look even worse.
The next six to seven weeks should be fun.
June 15, 2006
With Lamont's increased poll numbers, Lieberman has a decision to make as to whether or not he should officially bolt the party and put his name on the ballot as an "independent". Lieberman would have to submit a petition signed by registered voters on August 9th (the day after the primary) to qualify as an independent candidate for November. Clearly, he couldn't wait until then, so he'd have to make that decision over the next seven weeks (preferably sooner rather than later). The Left is already pressuring Lieberman to make his move and if he chooses the independent route, he will likely alienate a number of Democrats who feel he is "bolting" his party.
The truth, however, is that he is being forced in this direction. Were Lieberman to run as an independent, the Democrats would certainly lose a Senate seat. Lieberman is so popular among CT voters overall that he is projected to win easily against Lamont and Alan Schlesinger, the Republican. And as an independent, he would no longer have any reason to associate with his former party. Surely, he could wield more power and influence by allying himself with the GOP.
So where is the logic in this course of action?
Ah, there is the rub. This puts the DSCC in an awkward position. Sen. Chuckie Schumer, the Committee's Chairman, has already publicly backed Lieberman in the race. But they back him as a Democrat. What if he becomes an independent?
"In order to financially support an indie Lieberman, does the DSCC need to have the CT Dem Party officially endorse Lieberman's indie run? Can the state party do that if Ned Lamont wins the Dem primary? Of course, the DSCC could simply sit out, something they regularly do in senate races where they don't believe party outcome is in jeopardy."Somehow I don't think the DSCC is going to get off that easy, though. Some Lefty powerhouse bloggers have already issued a call to arms. They want Schumer to go on record as saying that the DSCC will support whichever candidate gets the nomination - meaning Ned Lamont, who would be assured the nomination if Lieberman goes independent. If the DSCC continues to back Lieberman, they suffer the wrath of the netroots. If they were to back Lamont, they officially endorse a "retreat and defeat" candidate in a high profile Senate race who would end up losing anyway.
Either way, the GOP benefits from a weakened, divided Democrat party. So the Left is willing to pull a "D" out of the Senate count just to make a point. They go after a guy who reliably votes with his party 90% of the time but supports the GWOT - not for political gain, but because he genuinely supports it on principle. Now, they'll essentially push him into an alliance with the opposition.
Hey, whatever floats their boat.
113 queries taking 0.0579 seconds, 240 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.