Working = Not Blogging

Work will keep me from posting today.

As consolation, here's Ned Lamont's new TV ad:

Hopefully I'll get a few quick posts in, but I make no promises...

Ned Lamont Joe Lieberman 2006 Election

Entitlement Joe

Via My Left Nutmeg:

Foxnews asks "Will Connecticut senator's independent run help embattled GOP candidates?"

Joe's response? "Well, they should have thought of that before they had the primary."

Damn it! What do those Connecticut Democrats think this is, a Democracy? They're my constituents and should be grateful for it. How dare they express their dissatisfaction with my actions by exercising their rights as American Citizens to follow the long established practices of our democracy and elect a different candidate to run for MY Senate seat!

Joe Lieberman Ned Lamont Connecticut 2006

Lieberman Leads Lamont

The Quinnipiac Poll released today shows Lamont trailing Lieberman in a three way race:

Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, running as an independent, gets 53 percent of likely voters, with 41 percent for Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont and 4 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Among registered voters, Sen. Lieberman gets 49 percent, followed by Lamont with 38 percent and Schlesinger with 4 percent. This compares to a 51 - 27 percent Lieberman lead over Lamont, with 9 percent for Schlesinger in a July 20 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

In this latest survey, Lieberman leads 75 - 13 - 10 percent among likely Republican voters, and 58 - 36 - 3 percent among likely independent voters, while likely Democratic voters back Lamont 63 - 35 percent. Two percent are undecided, but 28 percent of those who name a candidate might change their mind before Election Day.

Staunch Liberal? Getting 75% of the Republican Vote, not including Karl Rove and George Bush.

It's a long way to November. Give Lamont some time. Without a viable Republican candidate, this could go down to the wire.

Joe Lieberman Ned Lamont Connecticut 2006 Election

More News from Connecticut

The Hill reports on new developments in the Lieberman vs. The Democratic Party brouhaha.

A group of Senate Democrats is growing increasingly angry about Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D-Conn.) campaign tactics since he lost the Democratic primary last week.

If he continues to alienate his colleagues, Lieberman could be stripped of his seniority within the Democratic caucus should he defeat Democrat Ned Lamont in the general election this November, according to some senior Democratic aides.

In recent days, Lieberman has rankled Democrats in the upper chamber by suggesting that those who support bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by a certain date would bolster terrorists'’ planning attacks against the U.S. and its allies. He also sparked resentment by saying last week on NBC'’s Today show that the Democratic Party was out of the political mainstream.

Democrats are worried that Lieberman may be giving Republicans a golden opportunity to undermine their message.

May be allowing the Republicans to undermine our Democratic message? Of course he is. Honestly, an actual Republican Senator from Connecticut would be less dangerous in that the myth of 'bipartisanship' would be gone.

But back to the issue at hand: If Joe is running as an independent, why the hell shouldn't he lose his standing in the caucus? I mean, don't you have to be a Democrat to have any sort of standing in the Democratic Caucus?

Joe's sense of entitlement seems to know no bounds! Not only does he feel that he's entitled to his Senate seat despite the vast chasm between his positions on multiple issues and the positions of his constituents, he feels entitled to a senior position in a party he abandoned as soon as it suited him.

I'm sure the Connecticut for Lieberman Party (Note: not the Lieberman for Connecticut Party) will give him all the seniority he wants.

Joe Lieberman Ned Lamont Democratic Caucus 2006ElectionConnecticut for Lieberman

Ridge Slams Cheney

Think Progress reports that the 8/21 issue of Newsweek quotes fromer Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge,

"[Responding to Cheney'’s claim that Lamont'’s victory would encourage 'al Qaeda types'’], former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge bridled at his former colleague's remark: "‘That may be the way the vice president sees it,"’ he sees it, "‘but I don'’t see it that way, and I don'’t think most Americans see it that way.'"”

Somebody hasn't been getting his ration of koolaid lately...

I haven't seen the article, but I'm hoping that somebody in the media is going to start calling Republicans on their scaremongering. We're fighting a war in the middle east to bring them democracy but when democracy works in Connecticut, it encourages terrorists. Then why the fuck are we sending American soldiers to fight and die in Iraq to bring them democracy?

Tom Ridge Dick Cheney Ned Lamont Terrorists

The Lamont Effect

WNYC, New York Public Radio, has a story on Hillary that shows the effect Ned Lamont's victory will have on our party:

Senator Hillary Clinton has denounced Vice President Dick Cheney for saying terrorists would be emboldened by the results of Connecticut's Democratic Primary.

[...]

CLINTON: I don't take anything he [Cheney] says seriously anymore. I think that he has been a very counterproductive even destructive force in our country and I am very disheartened by the failure of leadership from the president and vice president.

Being seen as a Hawkish Democrat is now a bad thing. Watch for more Democrats to start racking up 'I'm against the war' points. Many will couch their comments in 'I'm against this war' or 'I'm against the way Republicans have conducted this war' frames, but the effect, both politically and in the real world will be the same: More pressure on Republicans to take responsibility for a 'stay the course over the cliff' policy that nearly 6 in 10 Americans disagree with.

Even if Ned Lamont loses in November, his victory over Joe Lieberman made it politically safe to be critical of the war.

Hillary Clinton Dick Cheney Ned Lamont War in Iraq

Microwaved Lieberman Leftovers

From the AP:

Sen. Joe Lieberman filed to run for re-election in November as an independent, saying Wednesday it would be "irresponsible and inconsistent with my principles" to quit.

Where was that sentiment in Florida, circa November 2000? Was quitting 'responsible and consistent with your principles' then? You even received more votes in that election!

Lieberman said that he fired his campaign manager and spokesman, and asked for the resignations of his campaign staff.

I'm going to read that as 'most of my staff are faithful Democrats that believe in the democratic process. When I lost my primary, they knew that an independent run was neither responsible nor in keeping with their ideas about representative government so they left and I'm trying to spin this as a 'shake-up.'

Washington Post columnist Eli Pariser piece today was, with the exception of a corny finish, excellent:

Ned Lamont's victory Tuesday night in Connecticut's U.S. Senate primary is great news for Democrats. And it's a watershed moment for the growing majority of Americans, in red states and blue, who want change.

For months, polls have warned that across the political spectrum people are fed up -- with the no-end-in-sight occupation of Iraq; with an energy policy that caters to oil giants while gasoline prices soar; with a health-care system that leaves more behind with every passing day. Lamont's victory is evidence that a long-awaited wave of voter sentiment on those issues has materialized.

[...]

[W]hile Lamont's victory is a promising development, it marks the beginning of the end for an old favorite of Washington insiders -- the tactics of triangulation. Originally employed as a survival strategy by a Democratic president in the wake of 1994's Republican revolution, the policy of seizing the political middle ground no longer makes sense in an era when any attempt at bipartisanship is understood as a sign of Democratic weakness and exploited accordingly.

Had triangulation worked, we'd be in a different moment. But for six long years, it hasn't. Even Sen. Hillary Clinton has seen the writing on the wall in recent weeks, criticizing the Bush team's Iraq fiasco by publicly confronting Donald Rumsfeld, calling on him to resign and demanding that troop withdrawals from Iraq begin soon.

With triangulation passing, a new era of bolder, principle-driven politics can begin. Lamont's success should be the opening salvo in a 90-day campaign to establish the clear-cut differences between Democrats and Republicans. Most independent voters, like Democrats, want change, but many of them aren't sure yet whether Democratic candidates are capable of giving it to them. Now's the chance to seize that mantle.

Yeah, lots of paragraphs. The Washington Post's lawyers will be after me, but I couldn't pick out just two or three. The whole thing is very good.

My final analysis of Lieberman (for now) is that while his position may look strong now, he will get weaker as November approaches. His ability to raise money is diminished. The resources of the Democratic Party are gone for him. His staff, certainly professional and experienced (despite a rather poor primary campaign) won't be replaced with anybody who's better simply because the Connecticut for Lieberman party doesn't have as large a pool of campaign workers to draw from.

Lamont, meanwhile, will only get stronger. The adds against Lieberman practically write themselves.

"Joe had an exit strategy if he lost the Primary, why doesn't he want one for our troops in Iraq?"

You get the idea. Money will come easier to Lamont now. He's getting money from every aspirant 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate. They know that strong support of Lamont, the Netroot's darling, will benefit them in their runs for President.

Watch for Lieberman to start making mistakes and start looking desperate. With some luck, in a few weeks calmer heads within the Democratic Establishment will convince Joe that his independent run is ill-advised. Perhaps someone will convince him that he should retire gracefully from the U.S. Senate and wait for a chance to run for Governor.

Joe Lieberman Ned Lamont Eli Pariser

Lamont Beats Lieberman

And the MSM still doesn't get it.

I was watching the Daily Show last night, flipping to CNN during the commercials to get updates on the Lamont/Lieberman race. During the commercial before the Brian Roberts was on (I think. I was tired) the banner at the bottom of CNN's screen read 'Lieberman Concedes' or something to that effect.

I was pretty happy. The talking heads were blathering but I wasn't really paying attention to them but something Anderson Cooper (in full body armor) said stuck out to me. I don't have a transcript, but here's what I remember:

Cooper: "What does this mean for a Democratic party trying to attract more voters that moderate candidates can't get through the primaries?"

Who's asking the Republicans that question? Seriously. Rick Santorum is an incumbent Senator in Pennsylvania. He'd be in much better shape if he'd been a little more centrist. But nobody's asking him why he's not more friendly to moderate voters?

It's always 'Democrats just need to be a little more like Republicans' to win. But Republicans can go as far off the Right Wing deep-end as they want. Nobody's calling for more moderate Republicans. And nobody's noticing that Joe Lieberman's Republican Counterpart, Lincoln Chafee, is in a very similar situation.

And enough of this 'crazy, angry Left' bullshit. I'm a progressive blogger and I challenge anybody to find anything as crazy on my sight as what I can find within five minutes on Redstate or LGF. You'll have a dickens of a time...

The Washington Post reports that the race was won by Ned Lamont, 52% to 48%.

And of course, 'I'm Entitled' Joe is going to run as an independent. Here's Joe's 'concession' speech, in part:

"I am, of course, disappointed by the results, but I am not discouraged," Lieberman said. "I'm disappointed not just because I lost but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand."

This is a logical statement, if and only if the opposition, in this case Republicans, were above the 'partisan polarization' that Lieberman finds so abhorrent. They're not. They play politics with the body armor provided for the troops fighting the war Lieberman supported so unquestioningly.

* * * * *
The big problem is that Lieberman's independent bid could have some success. The Connecticut GOP hasn't fielded anything resembling a strong candidate so in a general election, Republicans (among whom Lieberman has a higher approval rating) could tip the election in Joe's favor. This is assuming that everybody who supported Sen. Lieberman in the Primary would continue to support him in the general election.

As celebration flows around the Liberal Blogosphere, it's important for us to remember that we can't stop working now.

We've sent a message. We're a real force in politics. Maybe not a big force, but one that can have real effects on real races. We've announced that anyone with even a whiff of George W. Bush Republicanism is going to have a tough time getting elected. And we've proven that the DLC, beltway insider's cash isn't enough to guarantee victories.

It's a new day.

Ned Lamont Joe Lieberman Democrats Republicans 2006 Elections Moderates Media

D-Day for Lieberman

Today is the day Lieberman finds out if he's out of a job. The Washington Post has an article on page A1 with some pretty good analysis of the situation.

Lieberman's plight, according to Democrats here and in Washington, is two stories in one. The first is a metaphor for politics in the era of President Bush and how an unpopular war in Iraq has divided the electorate, inflamed the public debate and intensified an already partisan political climate.

[...]

The other part of the story here is a familiar tale in politics, that of an incumbent who, as he gained national prominence, gradually lost touch with the voters and politicians who first sent him to Washington. Long before Iraq, there were signs of erosion in Lieberman's standing in Connecticut. "There was a personal sense among Connecticut Democrats that his national agenda is what matters to him and not Connecticut," said George Jepsen, a former state party chairman and supporter of antiwar challenger Ned Lamont.

Of course today's election is going to come down to turnout. Will Lieberman supports show up at the polls? Then there's the really big question: The Political Wire reports that "Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) told Fox News that he's likely to go forward with his independent bid if he loses Tuesday's Democratic primary."

For me, this is the height of arrogance.

If, up until that announcement, I had been a Lieberman Supporter, I would have changed my allegiance. How can someone vote for a candidate that has publicly declared, 'if the people, through a democratic election, reject me, I will not heed. I will run again anyway'

Joe has the same problem that the Republicans have - a sense of entitlement to power. He thinks that he's entitled to represent the people of Connecticut even though he no longer represents their position on many important matters.

Joe thinks he's entitled to be a candidate in the November election, even if he loses his party's primary. After all the money and support, he's going to tell Democrats 'thanks, but shove it.' Classy.

Joe truly believes that he's more important than the rest of the Democratic movement, the progressive movement, the people of Connecticut, and that's why people don't want to vote for him.

Some Democrats still resent his 1998 Senate floor speech criticizing President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Others dislike his support for legislation allowing federal courts to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. Others were offended when Lieberman, who is a strong supporter of women's rights and has the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said Catholic hospitals should not be required to offer emergency contraception to rape victims because they can easily go to another hospital.

Joe Lieberman spit on his base to many times and now can't understand why they don't want to give him what he feels he's entitled to.

Joe Lieberman Ned Lamont Connecticut Primary

Today's Post

I'll be out of the office for the rest of today, but I wanted to put up a post on what will be today's big story.

Joe Lieberman has closed the gap on his challenger, Ned Lamont, who now leads 51%-45% according to a Quinnipiac Poll. The last poll, conducted August 3rd, had Lamont ahead 54-41.

Lieberman's been running ads trying to dirty up Lamont, but has only made small gains.

This election will come down to turn-out and 'get out the vote' efforts - neither of which can really be effectively polled. It's still anybody's game.

Regardless of who wins, it will have far reaching implications. A Lamont victory encourages anti-war candidates to speak out more strongly, encourages stronger Progressive positions, and scares the shit out of 'beltway-insider' Democrats.

A Lieberman victory does the opposite.

The big question, the elephant in the room, if you will, is whether or not Joe 'I deserve my seat because I'm an incumbent' Lieberman will mount an independent run. More analysis as I have a chance to post...

Joe Lieberman Ned Lamont Connecticut Democratic Primary

The Lieberman (I, Conn) Problem

With so much effort focused on getting Ned Lamont into the race against Joe Lieberman, then making sure he's well funded, then the excitement as he slowly closed the gap with Sen. Lieberman, one very large problem has been largely ignored.

What happens if Joe really does run as an independent?

Kevin Rennie, guest contributor at the Political Wire and columnist at the Hartford Courant approaches the issue this way:

The Lieberman campaign in the towns, where the race is fought at the end, is in a full-scale retreat that rivals the French west of the Ardennes. The Washington generals who came in to inspect, organize and deploy the troops with nods and waves have sent word back to Washington that all is lost. The news has shaken cozy beltway types who did not think Connecticut had enough barbarians to defeat one of their favorites. The staff of Meet the Press doesn'’t identify voters and make sure they get to the polls, so Lieberman is a lonely figure at home.

State Democratic leaders are now trying to figure out how to dissuade Lieberman from carrying on as an independent. The first formal shot should come at a unity press conference on Wednesday. If he wins the night before, Lamont will find himself surrounded by dozens of Democratic leaders now pledged to Lieberman.

No one can see how Lieberman will save himself from a stunning rout on Tuesday and theyÂ’ve stopped trying to figure it out.

Mr. Rennie is a former Republican state senator and representative, so I'll ignore the 'barbarians' comment.

Yes, it seems Mr. Lamont may pull off a win in the upcoming primary. If Ned doesn't, he's promised to endorse Lieberman. Sen. Lieberman has made no such promise.

This is my question: Where are all the national Democrats, the Hillary Clintons, the Harry Reids, the Bill Clintons telling Joe that if he loses the Primary, he should be gracious and endorse Ned Lamont?

The Party as a whole has to know that a run by Independent Joe Lieberman is bad for the party symbolically, and the fact that what in all rights should be a Democratic Senate Seat (Connecticut has a large majority of registered Democrats) could, by twist of fate, end up with a Senator who won't vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader, be it a Republican, and Independent Joe Lieberman, or Joe Lieberman, R-Conn.

The inside-the-beltway Democratic Leadership must realize this isn't about the 'angry left' or 'peaceniks' or 'blog politics.' This is about a candidate with political positions out of step with his constituents. If Joe Lieberman was running in Kansas, this wouldn't be an issue. But he's running in a state that isn't right leaning and the people want democracy, primaries and all, to work for them. They just want a Senator that represents their views. That isn't Joe.

Joe Lieberman Ned Lamont Connecticut Primary Democrats

Good Take on Lamont/Lieberman

From the Washington Post, of all places. E. J. Dionne Jr. gives us this in his op-ed piece today:

The opposition to Lieberman is motivated by an effort to reverse the trend to the right. It's true that Lamont's campaign has been energized by widespread opposition to the Iraq war and the fact that Lieberman has been one of the most loyal Democratic defenders of President Bush's Middle East policies.

But Lieberman's troubles are, even more, about a new aggressiveness in the Democratic Party called forth by disgust with the Bush presidency -- an energy comparable to the vigor that a loathing for liberalism brought to the Republican right in the 1970s and '80s.

[...]

Lieberman's core problem was not even his support for the Iraq war. It was his eagerness to challenge the legitimacy of fellow Democrats who have called attention to the administration's mistakes.

Well, the media can't entirely abandon the 'anti-war' candidate narrative, but at least Dionne correctly identifies Lamont's opposition to the war as an outgrowth of the ideological root from which his opposition comes.

Kos at DailyKos has a diary looking at the nitty-gritty of Joe's campaign. Regardless of your feelings about DKos, go read it.

Joe Lieberman Ned Lamont Media

Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

The Political Wire reports that Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman's scuffle for the Democratic nomination in Connecticut has emboldened Republicans.

Republicans now believe they can be serious players in a Connecticut Senate race for the first time since Lieberman beat gadfly Republican Lowell Weicker in 1988. First they must get through two fights. They need to get Schlesinger to take a powder, and then they must quickly settle on a replacement. Interest in the race grows in Republican circles in Washington, with the National Republican Senate Committee rumored to be licking its chops at torturing left-wing Democrats should Lamont win in August.

The route to victory, locals believe, runs through Schlesinger campaign advisor Richard Foley, a former state party chairman and legislator. He is a consultant to the campaign who won'’t want to give up that sinecure before November'’s certain humiliation of his candidate. Foley has defended his candidate against revelations of his gambling under an assumed name and running up debts that caused Atlantic City casinos to sue him.

Republicans seem to think that Bob Dole is the key to a miraculous win over Progressive Darling Lamont or DINO Joe Lieberman (if they don't just give him the Republican nomination out right.)

Foley was a great supporter of Dole's Presidential runs in 1988 and 1996. With his encouragement and fundraising, a replacement for the soon to be more scandal ridden Schlesinger could be found and a war chest could be quickly filled. Pulling off a stunning victory in a Blue State would be a feather in the cap of Liddy Dole's otherwise lackluster leadership of the Republican Senate re-election effort.

This is the sort of fear that crawls down Democrats spines late at night. Just when we think we're going to elect someone we respect, unseating a Senator out of touch with his constituency, the GOP comes and snatches the seat away. FoxNews trumpets the loss and the myth of the 'inept, incompetent, disorganized Democrats' rides on.

God, if this happens, the depression I felt after Bush won re-election will be right back in the pit of my stomach.

Joe Lieberman Ned Lamont Bob Dole Richard Foley Connecticut Senate 2006 Republicans

Lamont Edges Ahead of Lieberman

In a Quinnipiac poll released today, Ned Lamont pulls ahead of Joe Lieberman, 51% - 47%, in the Connecticut Democratic Primary for Senator.

Here, however, is the part that really pisses me off:

In possible general election matchups:

-Lieberman defeats Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger 68 - 15 percent;

-Lamont beats Schlesinger 45 - 22 percent, with 24 percent undecided;

-Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51 percent, to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger.

I don't know which pisses me off more, voters in Connecticut who would vote for Lieberman even though he basically went around the rules to get on the ballot or Joe Lieberman who demonstrated such a lack of decency in ignoring the will of the voters within his own party.

In the end, at least the seat is safe from a Republican pick up.

Ned Lamont Joe Lieberman Quinnipiac

Something is Rotten in the State of Connecticut

The Stamford Advocate breathlessly reports that,

"Ned Lamont's primary campaign against U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman has rallied plenty of angry Connecticut Democrats eager to unseat the 18-year incumbent for his unwavering support of the Iraq War.

But a list of campaign donors shows there are hundreds of nonresidents seeking Lieberman's ouster, from celebrities such as Barbra Streisand to an ex-"Baywatch"-lifeguard-turned-activist to a California strawberry farmer and craft-store owner in Illinois.

[...]

70% of donors to Lamont's campaign are from out of state."

Gasp! It must be a 'Left Wing Conspiracy' to unseat a moderate Democrat and move us one step closer to socialism.

Wait.

Open Secrets reports that 79.6% of Joe Lieberman's money comes from out of state.

In fact, let's take a look where most of Joe's money comes from, by zip code:

10021 (New York, NY)..................$437,050
06831 (Greenwich, CT)................$295,350
90210 (Beverly Hills, CA..............$188,560
10024 (New York, NY).................$184,370
10028 (New York, NY).................$182,350

I don't know why the press is so surprised that Lieberman is facing a tough primary challenge. He's backed a President that's wildly unpopular in the state of Connecticut, not only been a strong supporter of a war that also unpopular among his constituents, but went so far as to question the patriotism of people questioning the President's handling of that war. He's staked out positions far to the right of most of the Democrats in Connecticut on issues from Social Security to Women's Rights.

And we're surprised that Democracy is working?

The Right Wing and their media lackeys want us to believe that we should vote for people who are firm in their beliefs, regardless of whether we agree with them? They want us to just be grateful that we have a Democrat to represent us (at least until they can gerrymander that problem out of existence) and forget that we have the ability to choose leaders that share our values?

Seriously, we're supposed to be overwhelmed by Joe's strength to support unpopular policies and say "wow, he's so strong, I'll vote for him even though he's trying to do the exact opposite of what I want?"

The fact that Lieberman is so self-centered and self-important to set up a run as an independent should he lose the primary is a much better 'non-ideological reason' to NOT vote for Joe than his 'strength' is to vote for him.

Joe Lieberman Campaign Finance Ned Lamont

Joe Knows American Idol?

US News & World Reports has Joe Lieberman's campaign manager saying:

"Senator Lieberman has as good a chance of winning the MoveOn primary as he does being the next American Idol."

The concept of Joe Lieberman being grilled by the American Idol judges is fascinating. (It was a little pitchy to me.) The premise of the U.S. News article was that the Democratic base (we have one too, you know) is starting to abandon the Connecticut DINO.

Now running for a fourth term, the Connecticut senator has been an unwavering supporter of the Iraq war. He was famously kissed on the cheek by Bush after last year's State of the Union address. "Lieberman has spent the last six years undermining the Democratic Party every chance he gets," says Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos, a popular liberal blog. "He spends the weekend going on Fox News and Sean Hannity's show talking about how wrong the Democrats are."

Moulitsas recently appeared in the first TV ad aired by Lieberman's primary opponent, the antiwar Ned Lamont, and he has posted a link for Lamont donors at Daily Kos, generating $50,000 for the candidate. "We're not accepting money from lobbyists, so we need to be creative with fundraising," says Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager. "The Netroots have been vital in that effort."

Not taking money from lobbyists is a scrupulous position that I'd like to see more candidates and politicians take up. Help Ned out by going to his website, NedLamont.com, and look around. If you like what you see, give some money in support of non-corporate government.

Joe Lieberman Ned Lamont 2006 Elections