Democrats & Liberals Archives

Senator Lamont - Maybe

There will be lots of speculation on what to expect from a 3-way race for the Senate in Connecticut, but it’s way too early to say just how it will shake out. Senator Lamont has a nice ring to it to my ears, but I’ll wait and see.

The other nonsense I’ve already seen from the right is how Lamont’s victory represents the ascendancy of the radical left in Democratic politics. Lamont is a sensible mainstream Democrat.

The pundits aren't all wrong. Strong disapproval of the war was a major factor - OK, the biggest factor - in yesterday's election. But Lamont showed himself to be a smart candidate who could talk about a wide range of issues, while Lieberman just looked more and more like an insider trying to hold onto power - all the more so now that he is running as an independent.

First on the silly charges of extremism. Challenging incumbency should be a welcome phenomenon, but instead the privileges of incumbency accrue to the party in power, making it against the party establishment's interests to have incumbents lose in the primary. That's why in this case folks like Dodd, Clinton, and even Barbara Boxer flocked to the incumbent's campaign. It's not because the challenger is far left. In fact I suspect Lamont is less liberal than Boxer, though simplistic linear grading of everyone at some point in a non-existent continuum can prove anything you want if you cherry pick your issues. Also, folks confuse stridency with extremism. But I digress.

Ned Lamont is a mainstream Democrat, and if he wins he'll have the party fully behind him in six years and this pre-primary posturing for Lieberman by the mainstream Democrats will be long forgotten. In fact already, in spite of earlier hints to the contrary, Schumer, Reid, and the DLC have thrown their general election support to the nominee.

Here's why I'm not calling the general election yet.

1) Connecticut has a lot of independents.
In a state that has been represented by liberal Republican Weicker, and liberal Democrat Dodd, and (choose your adjective) Lieberman, that's a fickle group, and a varied group. On average they are pretty moderate, but I suspect most oppose to one level or another our involvement in Iraq. They'll react to events between now and then and the pundits are only guessing.

2) Republicans will be split.
--One theory goes that, with the Democrats split, the Republicans may have a rare opportunity in a state where they are clearly the minority. There may be more incentive than ever to get them to the polls & actually vote for their own party.
--The countervailing theory goes that with a weak Republican candidate, most will choose to go with a moderate ex-Democrat who at least takes the position officially out of the blue column, and represents something closer to what they might like than Lamont would.
--There are certainly people thinking both ways now, but between now and election day, one of those two may become clearly predominate, and though I might wish otherwise, I'm leaning toward the second. Regardless, there is a small, but significant minority of Republicans who are sufficiently anti-war that they'll actually vote for Lamont.

3) Democrats will also be split, but less so.
At least 20% of the Lieberman voters yesterday when asked preferred that Lieberman not run as an independent if he loses. Others were luke warm on the issue. Again much will depend on the behavior of the candidates between now and then, but the sore loser phenomenon does not play well, so on this one I think will ultimately go quite well for Lamont, who should get overwhelming support from people who call themselves Democrats.

Which brings us back to 1) the real wild card. Their votes will be split - predominately between Lamont and Lieberman - but just how is the question.

Speculate away, but an awful lot of speculators will end up being proved wrong.

Posted by Walker Willingham at August 9, 2006 2:33 PM
Comments
Comment #174284

What happens if the reports of Rove offereing help to Lieberman are true? How many moderates or liberals would tolerate this?

Posted by: tony at August 9, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #174287

I lowered my American flag to half-mast today as I, along with many Americans, am saddened by the possible take-over of the beloved Democrat party by hate-filled Anti-American bloggers. When someone can win a primary for the U.S. Senate based solely upon hate it is a cause for trepidation.
I am quite confident that all of the Great Democrat politicians of the past, from President Clinton, Kennedy, Truman and Roosevelt and many honored Senators and Congressmen are concerned for the future of the party.

Posted by: Jim at August 9, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #174289

JIm -

?????? “hate-filled anti-American bloggers”?????

The future of the party is built solely on the needs of the party members. Lieberman failed them, so he was told to go home… and I completely agree with their choice. If Lieberman is such a icon of the DEM party, then why did he find it so easy to go Independant? Why did Karl Rove offer his assitance?

Posted by: tony at August 9, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #174293

I think Dems were concerned about the future of the party when they lost in ‘04 to a ticket featuring a trained chimp and satan himself. This is the party correcting its course, weeding out the weak, and moving forward with a stronger, more unified front. If I were Karl Rove, I’d be scared, too.

Posted by: David S at August 9, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #174295

LaMont is a one hate candidate and it is very interesting that the Dems did this too themselves it shows that they are very split and just what is the message they are going to carry in November “join us we will eat our own” uhh i am not sure about this one.

Posted by: peter at August 9, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #174296

:^D Wow Jim T!!! You’re right, it IS the end of the world that the Democrat won the Democratic Primary in Connecticut, rather than the Sore Loser Independent!

tony:
“Why did Karl Rove offer his assitance?”

tony, I think Glenn Greenwald nailed the answer right here.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #174297

peter -

Wow, thanks for your personal input on the situation. I’m amazed at the “Lamont hate” talking points surfacing right now… no idea where they come from (yea - OK, Karl Rove… but still) they are based on complete crap.

Lamont represents the frustrations of voters - but don’t worry about it - I’m sure it won’t effect REPs at all. Stay the course…

Posted by: tony at August 9, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #174298

Walker:

I think Lamont will try to paint Lieberman as getting help from Republicans. He’ll paint him as a RINO. Lieberman will avoid being painted as such, and will distance himself not from Iraq, but from outright Republican ideas. He’ll try to stake out a middle ground, having lost the left side ground already. He cannot win that back, since to do so would alienate his only hopes—the moderate (meaning NOT anti-war) Democrats and the Republicans who will vote for Joe as the better of two evils.

My prediction: Lieberman gets most of the Dem votes that he got in the primary, adds enough from the other two categories, and wins re-election. Not saying this is a good thing, necessarily, because I like the idea of incumbents losing. Its just what I think will happen.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 9, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #174299

“What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq war. It’s that he’s unashamedly pro-American.”

Adrienne -

Wow, found this quote there. HAHAHAHAHAHA! These whack jobs actually believe what they shovel…??? Pro-American… Pro-American… like the only way to be Pro-American is to agree with a particular party? It’s such a contradiction in terms… Isn’t exercising the right to vote and freedom of speech… dissent or agreement - isn’t that heart of freedom.

It’s starting to look like the REP party is infiltrated with extreme, anti-American pooh-pooh heads! (If anyone really needs a link to support this, it’s between your 2nd and 4th fingers.)

Posted by: tony at August 9, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #174301

JBD -

I predict Joe wil run out of cash well before the election… and since the body of DEMs seem to be comfortable in Lamont’s camp, Joe will become about as successful as Nader in his IND bid. It’s only a guess - obviously, and it’s not THAT much of a concern in the overall Nov. picture, but it will be very interesting to watch.

Posted by: tony at August 9, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #174302

here is a man who at the very top of his party, good enough to be Al Gores VP, a man with ideals and convictions where he wasn’t saying just anything to get elected “like John Kerry” and he just got bum rushed out of his own party by a factional wing, now just take a minute and think what kind of message is being sent here, it’s obvious there is know consensus on a platform, just factions and this will be exploited by the other side, no matter how some might feel right now this was not a good thing go study your history, Nixon had an unpopular war a horrible economy and a populace who really didn’t trust him and the Dems let it’s party become factionalized and put McGovern in against him and they got smoked to say the least, this has the exact same earmarks…..so stop with the high fives and get a real platform.

Posted by: peter at August 9, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #174304

peter-

Stop ignoring the platform and read it. (http://www.democrats.org/ - under agenda.) I know it’s easy to keep tossing the tired old talking points around, but they really ring hollow. People want America back from the incumbents in DC, and I think Lamont’s victory is a direct result of this. (I hope.) Anyone who thinks of Lamont as an extreme liberal has never seen or read anything about Lamont. He’s a moderate, probably even more so than Joe.

Not sure what “being at the top of his party” offers the average voter right now. Corruption? Moronic foreign policies? Complete failure in Congressional responsibilities?

Posted by: tony at August 9, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #174306

tony, my very favorite thing on that page was the video link to Newt saying that all the Lamont supporters were “insurgents.” That slayed me!!! :^)

You’re right Peter, we “insurgents” are giving the bum’s rush to all the corporate sell-outs in the DLC. Lieberman is, ooops, I mean was, like unto their poster child.
Oh, and btw, Lieberman didn’t win the Democratic Primary in 2000, Gore did, and then he choose Joe, not the voters. Can’t tell you how disappointed I, and many others were at that time.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #174307

I am well aware of what that agenda says but 49 percent of Democratic voters obviously went the other way on that yesterday in Conn. and just saying vote for us because we are not them will not work, if the Dems want to control this thing stop yelling at every moderate person in this country and get a platform in which the majority will endorse and believe in…..thats all.

Posted by: Peter at August 9, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #174308

Connecticut is one messed up state right now. It seems like there is a huge moderate block that will probably play right into Lieberman’s hands and vote him back in. I hope not, but I’ve been watching the news all day and it seems to me that the news has a centrist bias as well. They constantly paint this portrait of a radical lefist candidate beating out a hard working guy for reasons out of his control. They always refer to Lamont’s campaign tactics and his supporters as being this crazy fringe group. It is subtle, but I think many people just want to make the safest choice. That mentality has been screwing the democrats for decades now. These “bloggers” are just people who find it easy to get involved in politics because they get to do it from home. I grant that anyone who actually goes out and works on a campaign is usually pretty radical or passionate, but these “grass roots” supporters are not all crazy people who knock on doors with flyers, there are regular people too. And they are getting portrayed, much like Dean supporters did in a media about-face in 2004, as extremists. The campaign is now the “far left” talking point on major media, and that makes people re-evaluate their positions I think, and they get more “central”. New England is for dems what the midwest is to repubs, so they better take a long hard look at what they want from their party and act accordingly if they want anything other than Lieberman-esque gum flappers.

Again, THIS is why I can’t register democrat anymore. Voting for a democrat has become very much like abstaining from voting. Not really an option, but more the “non-option” option. If I’m proven wrong by a wave of popular SUPPORT for statements like the ones voters just made in connecticut, I will happily eat my hat. My guess is that voters will instead start a nationwide trend of backlashing against any “unsafe” candidates, and we’ll be back to square one.

I realize that lately republicans favor simple answers while democrats seem to be all about complexity. Now the perfect solution comes around that enables different voices and progressive thinking debate between people who wouldn’t have the time nor energy to do so without this technology, and everyone starts treating the fruits of this “movement” as some radical left unfair doomsday tactic. But if nobody calls the mediaor others on this subtle mind bending, then we deserve exactly what we get. Usually it will be a safe sounding, centrist, great looking and speaking, personable television star and PR tool …who happens to have power over the greatest military in the world.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 9, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #174311

Greenwald has a good point. Lieberman IS popular with bloggers, pundits, and other ideological hacks… It’s just that they’re mostly conservative Republicans.

So in other words, the media is telling us that the Democratic party is crazy because it rejected someone who is popular with the most extreme elements of the other side.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 9, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #174313

Woody:
“Lieberman IS popular with bloggers, pundits, and other ideological hacks… It’s just that they’re mostly conservative Republicans.”

Yeah, but Neocons aren’t at all conservative.

“So in other words, the media is telling us that the Democratic party is crazy because it rejected someone who is popular with the most extreme elements of the other side.”

Exactly. And after the Nomentum of yesterday, perhaps we should dub those trying to get Joe elected the “Joemental element?” :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #174314

I don’t know which is the more silly concept, that the right would offer advice on how the Democrats should run their campaigns, or that the right would think the Democrats should even consider taking said advice.

Posted by: Rocky at August 9, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #174321

Looks to us that the dems’ “Titanic” struck the iceberg last night. It sure helps us on the conservative side. But, I don’t think it is healthy for our political system in the long term. We need two (or more) strong parties.

What ever happened to the party of FDR, Truman, Kennedy? The party that could be trusted with national defense?

Posted by: nikkolai at August 9, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #174322

Here is an anology:

Conneticut voted for Lamont because they were dissatisfied with the (painted picture) of Liberman.

Much like…

Palestinians voted for Hezbollah over Fatah because Hezbollah convinced the voters that Fatah couldnt get anything done.

In both examples, voters didnt vote FOR a candidate because they liked what they had to say, or stood for…voters voted out the incumbent because they were dissatisfied with their (perceived) performance.

Posted by: b0mbay at August 9, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #174325

b0mbay,

Your comparison is silly and the party you’re thinking of is Hamas.

nikkolai,

What happened to Dems who weren’t afraid to start pointless, self-destructive wars like Vietnam?

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 9, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #174327

nikkolai -

Your uncomfortable with the idea of driving the politics locally rather than letting DC call all of the shots? DEMs voted for someone different simply because the incumbent had failed them.

BTW - When Bush said to stay the course, I didn’t know it was aimed at elections as well… you can obviously see who would benefit by staying the course.

Also, I wouldn’t worry too much about the DEMs running into icebergs - they’re all melting too fast to be of much danger.

Posted by: tony at August 9, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #174333

tony:
“Also, I wouldn’t worry too much about the DEMs running into icebergs - they’re all melting too fast to be of much danger.”

Too true, unfortunately. :^(
But, it was in fact Joetanic Lieberman who ran into the proverbial “iceberg” and sunk last night — thing is, the many souls who he gave up were due to the fact that he’d sold us out to corporate interests, or to appease his Republican friends, long ago.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #174336

hamas - yes you are right.

I dont think my idea is silly. im merely pointing out that lamont was chosen not because voters like lamont, but because they were not happy with lieberman. You disagree?

Posted by: b0mbay at August 9, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #174341

bombay,
I think the voters do like Lamont (he is after all smart, articulate, with plenty of ideas, and solid opinions on the issues) AND they were not happy with Lieberman.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #174348

nikkolai, there is a difference between Defense and brutish knee jerk offense. Something the Republican Party is going to have to learn if they ever hope to regain power in the future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 9, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #174349

Woody,

Your point is funny…

“What happened to Dems who weren’t afraid to start pointless, self-destructive wars like Vietnam?”

I think that most of them were run out on a McGovern rail…


Posted by: Discerner at August 9, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #174351

David,

“Regain power” ???

Did i miss an election or is this 2007?

Posted by: Cliff at August 9, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #174356

b0mbay,

“Palestinians voted for Hezbollah over Fatah because Hezbollah convinced the voters that Fatah couldn’t get anything done.”

Hamas was able to win because they actually do something to help the Palestinian people. Hamas doesn’t just blow things up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Provision_of_social_welfare

“Its popularity stems in part from its welfare and social services to Palestinians in the occupied territories, including school and hospital construction. The group devotes much of its estimated $70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network, running many relief and education programs, and funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues.”

For much the same reason, Hezbollah is also popular with the masses in Southern Lebanon.

Posted by: Rocky at August 9, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #174357

“I think the voters do like Lamont (he is after all smart, articulate, with plenty of ideas, and solid opinions on the issues) AND they were not happy with Lieberman.”

He also looks a lot less like Woody Allen…

Posted by: tony at August 9, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #174365

Hey we may be getting somewhere. David finally realized there is a difference between Defense and Offense. To help you out a little more.

Defense is when terrorist blow up buildings in the US and we try to figure out how to stop them from doing it again.

Offense is when you go kill all the bas***ds before they have a chance to do it again.

In a global war the best defense is a good offense.

At least the Republicans are willing to use Offense. The neolibs just want to hold hands and sing songs while the terrorist laugh at them and plan their destruction.

Posted by: Nunya at August 9, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #174366

Lieberman understands the difference, Lamont does not.

Posted by: Nunya at August 9, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #174368

Nunya,

“In a global war the best defense is a good offense.

At least the Republicans are willing to use Offense. The neolibs just want to hold hands and sing songs while the terrorist laugh at them and plan their destruction.”

I just can’t help myself.

You have made some pretty vast assumptions, and some pretty half vast assertions.

The Republicans have done exactly squat when it comes to preventing a re-occurrence of Sept. 11th, except bust some morons in Miami.

Where is this vaunted security we have heard so much about?
Defence starts at home.
Why isn’t the border secured yet?

All this administration has done in the Middle East is hit the nest with a stick, and in the process has totally destabilized the region.

Is that your idea of an offence?

It’s past time for some new ideas, because staying the course isn’t working.

Posted by: Rocky at August 9, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #174372

“The other nonsense I’ve already seen from the right is how Lamont’s victory represents the ascendancy of the radical left in Democratic politics. Lamont is a sensible mainstream Democrat.”

Watching Lamont on the news with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton standing behind him on the stage makes me think the Reps may be on to something. Mainstream Democrat, huh? That’s really creepy.

Posted by: traveller at August 9, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #174379

You lost Joe Lieberman.Look at the dam scoreboard,Ned Lamont 51%,Joe Lieberman 49%.Lieberman is whiny schoolboy bitch,who takes it up the ass from Karl Rove.

Posted by: thelibertine at August 9, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #174388

Is there any validity to the rumor that Rove has offered assistance to Lieberman? What could this help possibly be? Rove is from Texas and Florida, not Connecticut.

Posted by: DOC at August 9, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #174392

——Adrienne—- Remind me when you say right here,
that I should go left. Ha (.*.)

Posted by: DAVID at August 9, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #174393

nikkalai

After the fiasco in Iraq who should we trust on national defense? Certainly not the Bush Rebublicans?

Posted by: mark at August 9, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #174397

——Ned Lamont gave his acceptance speech with
eloquence an honor an showed great class. He made
a speech of all the things he would like to accomplish, an never said one bad word about Liberman. To bad the spinmeisters talking about
Lamont on this site were never taught how to
show a little tact, by at least being capable to
distinguish the good that a person has in them.

Posted by: DAVID at August 9, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #174400

Walker,

I predict that Lieberman’s running as an independent will result in a Senate win for the Republicans. Just what we need.

Furthermore it shows that we are “lukewarm” on issues and the Republicans will gain a few more points in other states. What Joe has managed to do is prove that his own egotistical self-importance rises above his constituents desires and the welfare of the USA.

Joe is not your average Joe! Just ask him!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 9, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #174402

David

“an never said one bad word about Liberman…”

he didnt need to say anything bad about liberman during his acceptance speech! He said all the bad stuff during the campaign!!!

If J.J. Sharpton, Schumer and Kennedy support Lamont - that pretty well sums up which outfield position Lamont is playing…

Posted by: b0mbay at August 9, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #174403

JOEMENTUM STRIKES AGAIN!!!!

HAHAHA!

Good to see Dean got his revenge and came through with knocking out an entrenched corrupt incumbant.

Posted by: Metacom at August 9, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #174408

—-bombay—-You seem unable to decipher what you read
an their for you appear to be unable to respond to
what was written in a coherent manner, therefore I
will not try explaining, because I think you are
troll baiting. I have a trick question for you,
Do you want to play?

Posted by: DAVID at August 9, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #174418

Kansas: Your despair is unwarranted. Lieborman will get some Dem vores,sure,but he will get a lot of Rep votes also. Enough to put him back in the Senate? I doubt it . His candidacy will be a wash. He is also comming off as a sore loser. No body likes that.Personally,good riddance.


As for the Dems being taken over by the left wing,thank God. It is about time. They complain about the Dems not haveing any real solutions. Now they will see some. Of course these “extremist leftwing” solutions will include things like a plan to actually honor Social Security promises,a real national healthcare system (without insurance companies) like every other western country,a balanced budget even if it means repealing the Bush tax holiday for the wealthy,a national commitment to end our reliance on fossil fuels,workplace fairness by taking the handcuffs off the labor movement etc. I can hear the wailing already.
What better opportunity will we have. This is an historic junture. Many Americans are fed up with the neo-con/right-wing regime like they were about the depression and the policies that led to it. It is much like when FDR was elected and the country embraced the New Deal. We can move the nation in the correct direction and make lasting improvments.Tempest fugit.Get busy.

Posted by: BillS at August 9, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #174422

——BillS—I am Hopeful for the same things, good post!

Posted by: DAVID at August 10, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #174424

The Republicans are spinning so much, they’ve become dizzy. What they’re missing here is the shift in the electorate. One of two things happened there: Either Democrats came to the polls that didn’t usually do so, or many of the ones who did have changed their minds.

Lamont can challenge independents by saying the obvious: Lieberman only chose to run under your banner when he found out he couldn’t succeed under our banner. To him, you’re just an insurance policy for keeping him in office. You were the hedge on a bet he lost. Are you going to reward a loser who didn’t have the guts to start with you in the first place, or are you going to vote for the guy who won against this incumbent despite the odds?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 10, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #174430

Stephen Dangherty— From all I have seen an heard
from Lamont, would show he has a lot to offer
our Democratic Party, (new blood) an I believe we
we are going to have four long, hard Blogging
Months. I like your endless perseverance with
this issue.

Posted by: DAVID at August 10, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #174433

—-Stephen Daugherty— I wounder why so much animosity, is it the man the loss of one Senator. or
are the Republicans afraid of a snow ball affect!

Posted by: DAVID at August 10, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #174435

——Yes I know Joe is part Democrat—-but every
Democratic vote for the Republican side helps them.

Posted by: DAVID at August 10, 2006 1:06 AM
Comment #174446

—-Walker Willingham—- Tony Snow in his daily news
briefing made the statement that a vote for
Lamont was a vote for another 9/11 an I am curious if that statement, fit in your scheme of
things. With out the up-down-right-left-in-out
stop-go, Proclamations you put forth, maybe you
could in 100 words or less explain, what your
post signifies, I am a bit slow in these matters!

Posted by: DAVID at August 10, 2006 3:37 AM
Comment #174462

I think its great that Liberman lost the primary due to the fanatically uninformed emoting left which is the largest group to participate in Democratic primaries. Liberman is an independent and once he’s elected as one he’ll be one of the country’s most powerful senator’s without any obligations to those who abandoned him on the Hill. All this is great news for CT. Cheers!

Posted by: Cober Canady at August 10, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #174472

Connecticut Democrats voted for a change, a change that Lieberman didn’t offer. Lieberman was “stay the course” but the electorate was “bring the troops home from this illegal, awful war”. The obvious and clear choice was a man who didn’t kiss a mass murder: Ned Lamont. Lieberman is now showing his true colors. He is more concerned with keeping his job than representing the interests of his constituents. The radical right Republican party wants Lieberman to keep his job as well so the Bush sent his dog to do more dirty work and offered to do anything they can to help Lieberman. Now that is hatful; hate for Connecticut voters who clearly want a change.

Posted by: Eric Ferguson at August 10, 2006 9:26 AM
Comment #174474

“Liberman is an independent and once he’s elected as one he’ll be one of the country’s most powerful senator’s without any obligations to those who abandoned him on the Hill.”

Oh yea… those IND Senators get all the choice Committee Chairs…

Posted by: tony at August 10, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #174536

Lamont on the news with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton standing behind him, Posted by: traveller at August 9, 2006 08:08 PM

Were there any other people behind him, or were these the only two people? They are two people who are concerned about electing someone that will help put a stop to the war, instead of helping GWBush to continue it until the end of his term.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 10, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #174547

Jim,
I wonder what part of Lamont’s message you consider hate filled. I think he and many democrats are motivated by a love or their country. Disagreeing with someone does not mean you hate them.

Posted by: Tracy at August 10, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #174577

I love it! Lamont engages in “negative campaigning” which consisted of comparing Lieberman to Bush and calling him the equivilent of a lapdog of the white house. As evidence, Lieberman’s voting record and public statements over the last few years are used against him to show people exactly how out of touch he was with his own electorate.

Lieberman on the other hand engages in a “positive” campaign by constantly claiming he is being personally attacked and saying the tactics of using his own words and actions against him are unfair and perpetuated by cruel far-left leaning extremists…effectively demonizing Lamont’s supporters. He then ends the campaign by reminding everyone that his positions ARE in line with the white house.

Lieberman loses, immediately says he’s going to switch parties to run again, alludes that the loss is a “win” for terrorism, and yet tries to distance himself from the issue of the war.

Talk about spinning until dizzy. Lieberman is a man desperate to keep his job…at the expense of everything he purports to represent. Yet, Lamont supporters are the “negative” ones? Amazing.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 10, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #174645

—-Kevin23— I like your post. I haven’t seen any
objections posted about Tony Snow comparing
Ned Lamont’s win yesterday to 9/11- I feel outraged
not one person is showing any attention to this
A—H— Comment!

Posted by: DAVID at August 10, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #174656

David-

Snow’s comment is exactly the kind of crap that people on the right find normal these days. No wonder Lamont is considered radical left, when the centrists are supposedly people who are completely in line with Bush and happen to be registered Democrat. The media don’t seem to mind it when Cheney or Snow blatently use scare tactics and moronic connections to terrorist victories in the event an unfriendly political opponent wins a voice. Hell, they embrace it and perpetuate it. So it makes me believe that the media is learning what politicians seem to have known for a long time: that the public are idiots waiting to be spoon fed their next 30 second sound-bite, and that anything covered in debth is better left to a major motion picture company because they can at least hold people’s attention with big booms and cookie-cutter emotion acting from overpaid, undertalented scientologists.

I can only hope that voters buck the trend soon. The pendulum always swings both ways, and I’m pretty sure it can’t go any more to the right. Then again, if any of those crazy ass Imam ever gets a nuke…

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 10, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #174668

——Kevin23—- I also find the Red Warning very much
like before Bush’s second election when all the yellow
an orange alerts started flashing on t.v. an
after the elections, not to be seen again. Strange
also, both Bush an Blair are on vacation, when
in just four Months we are due for another election,
an up pops a giant Red Warning, A quincidence
I guess.

Posted by: DAVID at August 10, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #174697

ohrealy,

There were a lot of people around Lamont on that stage. The two most radically left racists in American politics stood out from the crowd and made the following quote scary.(and creepy)

(from Walker’s article)
“The other nonsense I’ve already seen from the right is how Lamont’s victory represents the ascendancy of the radical left in Democratic politics. Lamont is a sensible mainstream Democrat.”


Posted by: traveller at August 10, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #174756

—-DOC—- I think now we see why Rove called
Liberman, to inform him of CODE RED thus
helping him decide to run as an Independent
believing his stand on the war will now help
him win against Lamont ?

Posted by: DAVID at August 11, 2006 4:41 AM
Comment #174814

I’m happy to say that my earlier post in this thread must have gotten the attention of a certain hilarious satirist yesterday. The Colbert Report did a really funny segment on those nasty “extremist” and “negative” Lamont supporters, and how Lieberman is standing proudly in his majority position (14% of dems agree with him about the war) and standing firm in his commitment to fight the vocal minority who oppose him (86%).

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 11, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #175003

It is interesting that the Republicans continue to say that the Democratic Party has been hijacked by extremists when the opposite is true. If you call those persons trying to hold the Bush administration accountable for lying our country into a war, a war we started against the wrong enemy, extremist, then you have definitely gone mad.

The Bush administration ignored any and all evidence for not going to war and instead manufactured evidence and assassinated the character of anyone who tried to make a case for not attacking Iraq. When they were caught, they blamed the intelligence community and the military.

That is another problem we are all aware of. The Bush administration can apparently do no wrong so they blame everyone but themselves. I find that appalling and disgusting especially since our military men and women continue to be killed and maimed in this illegal war. So, again, the opposite is true.

The Republican Party has been hijacked by radical right wing religious extremists who have ruined our reputation among the world community and have exponentially fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. It is the Republican Party that has emboldened the terrorist and our enemies. It is the Republican Party (along with any Democrat who continues to support this war) that is guilty of the murder of every member of the armed services that has died in this war, not to mentioned the countless thousands of Iraqis that have been killed. Also, isn’t it interesting that the Republicans refuse to call the situation in Iraq a civil war? It has been a civil war for at least two years.

Our efforts to get our troops out of harms way is not an extremist activity. Our efforts to remove from office politicians responsible for supporting this war and failing to hold the Bush administration accountable is also not an extremist activity. It is our responsibility as citizens to hold the government accountable. It is our responsibility to use those tools provided by the Constitution to remove a government from power that has so completely trashed our Constitution and violated our laws.

The Connecticut Democrats understand that responsibility and have done their duty by voting their conscience. The tally: One down, many more to go.

Posted by: Eric Ferguson at August 11, 2006 11:10 PM
Post a comment