Lieberman Losing Loses to Lamont
It now looks like Joe Lieberman will lose his bid for the Democratic nomination for one of Connecticut’s seats in the U.S. Senate to Ned Lamont. With just under 20% of the vote in, Lamont has been has a lead of about 12 points over the incumbent, a lead he has maintained since the first returns started coming in.
In this post, I expressed my support for Lieberman’s victory in the primary even as I believe his defeat will be good for the GOP. It will now be easier for the GOP to show the growing extremism of the Democratic Party as it rejects the man whom six years ago today its presidential nominee (Al Gore) tapped as his running mate.
UPDATE (9:20 PM EST): With 33% of the vote in, Lieberman is closing the gap, now behind by fewer than 10 pts.
UP-UPDATE (9:37 PM EST): With 50% of precincts reporting, Lieberman has closed the gap to 5 points.
UP-UP-UPDATE (10:10 PM EST): Some media outlets, including Drudge, are declaring Lamont the victor. Lieberman did come close enough that he can say he’s justified in pursuing re-election as an Independent.
UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (10:35 PM EST): As it now appears that Joe Lieberman has lost the Democratic nomination for the Connecticut Senate seat, Captain Ed writes:
this is now the nightmare scenario for the Democrats. He’s finished strongly, allowing him to argue that he has momentum and a mandate to keep running. If this finishes with this spread, Lieberman could easily win a general election, and the effort would keep this internecine battle front and center all through the midterms.
I agree.
UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (11:22 PM EST): John McIntyre pretty much echoes what I’ve been saying about a Lamont victory, calling it “just about the worst result possible for the Democratic Party.” (Via Instapundit). Money quote:
Democrats may try to downplay this result as a Connecticut issue, the rejection of a three-term Senator who was the party’s VP nominee only six years ago will have repercussions throughout the country and they don’t help the Democratic Party.
Lieberman gave a great concession speech. It doesn’t help Lamont that he has Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton standing right behind him as he declares victory. He seems more angry than elated. Not a good strategy to appeal to the independent vote even in a “blue” state like Connecticut.
51 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The Lieberman campaign is trying one last desperation tactic: accusing the Lamont campaign of conducting a DOS attack on the host server for Lieberman’s website. The MSM is lapping the story up without any even cursory investigation into the matter. It turns out the Lieberman site pays a huge $15/months for it webhosting! I’ll bet Bruce and Dan spend more than that. No wonder the site crashed with all the recent national attention given this primary. What’s sad is that the Lieberman campaign spends millions of bucks yet only puits $15/mo into hosting for its website. What’s infuriating is that they are making wild accusations based on no evidence that their political rival is to blame. This will backfire big time on Lieberman should he lose and decide to run an independent campaign. The true story is already coming out and he’s going to look bad as a result. At least if you’re going to act like Rove, don’t be an amateur about it.
Comment by Ian — August 8, 2006 @ 9:37 pm - August 8, 2006
If Lamont wins then it should be easy for the Republican to sail to victory.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 9:44 pm - August 8, 2006
Not, easy, Daniel, easier
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 8, 2006 @ 9:45 pm - August 8, 2006
#2: Daniel, it will only be easier if Lieberman runs his independent campaign. It will get quite nasty and I think this DOS accusation will wind up hurting Joe badly in such a campaign. I said earlier that this election would be close and it’s proving to be just that: with about 65% reporting the Lamont lead is down to 3 percentage points.
Comment by Ian — August 8, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - August 8, 2006
I don’t think it will be easy for the Republicans to win this seat, considering the state party has ever put much money or even put up a decent canidate to fight. People under estimated Lamont when this began and it would be foolish to underestimate him and his supports again.
Comment by DarkEyedResolve — August 8, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - August 8, 2006
74% reporting and Lamont up 3.5%.
Comment by Ian — August 8, 2006 @ 9:57 pm - August 8, 2006
Lieberman has narrowed the margin, but Ned is still up 3.4% with 80% reporting. This one will be close.
Comment by PoliticalCritic — August 8, 2006 @ 10:11 pm - August 8, 2006
A nightmare scenario? Maybe for Repubs. It will keep the disastrous and incompetently managed Iraq adventure – rubber-stamped every step of the way by Republicans and their allies like Lieberman – front and center of the national campaign. I say bring it on.
Comment by Ian — August 8, 2006 @ 11:28 pm - August 8, 2006
Now that Aravosis, Markos, Chindy Sheehan, Jesse Jackson, George Soros and others on the far-left are the face of the Democratic Party, it’s likely the GOP will maintain control of at least the U. S. Senate.
Comment by Trace Phelps — August 8, 2006 @ 11:30 pm - August 8, 2006
#9: Interesting that Markos and Aravosis were both Repubs at one point. As far as Soros being the “face of the Democratic Party,” who even knows what he looks like? I sure don’t and I follow politics. The fall campaign is shaping up to be a decision on whether or not Americans want to “stay the course” of Bush incompetence that this Republican Congress has rubber-stamped for so long. All indications are that they’re getting a bit tired of Republican failure both domestic and foreign.
Comment by Ian — August 8, 2006 @ 11:49 pm - August 8, 2006
I would just add that it seems that incumbents aren’t doing too well tonight – McKinney lost and so did some Repub in Michigan. If people are really that ticked off at the government, then which party are they going to hold accountable – the one that controls all three branches of government or the one that does not?
Comment by Ian — August 8, 2006 @ 11:54 pm - August 8, 2006
LOL: It used to be fidelity, bribery, lies, crimes that politicians slung back and forth at each other. Now it’s Denial of Service attacks? oy.
Comment by Kevin — August 8, 2006 @ 11:55 pm - August 8, 2006
I hope that Joe Lieberman does run as an independent in November. I’m not sure a Republican can win a blue state like Connecticut. But there are a lot of Jews there. And lately the rhetoric from the far left is very anti-Semitic these days. Mel Gibson can’t hold a candle to what is coming out of the left these day. I think a lot of the Jews and moderate Democrats who voted in the past for Lieberman will do so again.
I’m sorry to see the Democratic Party slipping into an irrelevant LooneyParty. We need two strong parties that can compete with each other on real issues, not this fever swamp of “I hate Bush and the war”. That is all the Democrats seem to stand for these days.
Comment by Leah — August 9, 2006 @ 12:02 am - August 9, 2006
So, the left “Nutroots” have officially shot one of their Party’s few remaining grownups. Soon their dream will be realized – an all-children’s party. GO RAJIAN!
Comment by Calarato — August 9, 2006 @ 12:04 am - August 9, 2006
Why are you blogging about “the growing extremism” of the Democrats for throwing out a moderate incumbet, and IGNORING the fact that the Republicans did the exact same thing in Michigan today?
Why aren’t you blogging about what the defeat of Joe Schwarz, a moderate Republican who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, by a conservative who supports the FMA? Doesn’t THAT result show “the growing extremism” of the Republican party? If not, why not? How is it at all different?
If the Lieberman defeat is an indictment of the Democrat’s intolerance of moderate voices in the party, then what conclusions are we do draw from the defeat of Joe Schwarz in his primary? Doesn’t your logic seem to indicate that the Republican party has grown too extremist for moderate, especially PRO-GAY moderate, members?
You really picked the wrong race to blog about. Why are you condemning the Democrats when your own party is doing THE EXACT SAME THING? Blog about your own party, why don’t you?
It seems that you are so busy hating and finding fault with Democrats, that you forget that you call yourselves Republicans and should really be paying attention to the direction of YOUR OWN party. Because your party got just a little more anti-gay today. Did you not notice?
Comment by Anonymous — August 9, 2006 @ 12:09 am - August 9, 2006
Because, Anonymous, if you understand the history of the district in question, it was a fluke that Joe Schwarz was ever elected at all. He was the winner of a six-way Republican primary to replace a far more conservative individual; this year, given the emergence of a far stronger candidate and the fact that he is grossly out of synch with his district in his stances on border security, forget it.
We would have to change the electorate in the Michigan 7th District first, and given that there are Democrats like you running around who say it’s OK to vote for the FMA and state constitutional amendments as long as Democrats support them, ain’t gonna happen.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 9, 2006 @ 12:43 am - August 9, 2006
Let me be one of the ones to ‘downplay’ the results tonight. Yes, the Dems dropped Lieberman, apparently due to his pro-war stance (Though, arguably, there were other issues as well).
On the other hand, they also voted out McKinny, who clearly is on the far left end of the left.
Comment by Henry — August 9, 2006 @ 1:47 am - August 9, 2006
McKinney’s loss is one reason this is not the worst of all possible situations fro Democrats.
And I understand that the man who won the GOP Senate nod in Michigan was the more moderate of the two candidates.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 9, 2006 @ 1:55 am - August 9, 2006
Actually, given that nearly half of them voted for him, I find it difficult to say that the Dems dropped Lieberman.
This is also why you can say that there couldn’t be a better possible result than this; we get three more months of Ned Lamont as an example of a “good Democrat” running photos of Joe Lieberman in blackface and posing with moonbats, Joe Lieberman winning the election, and the loony left self-immolating.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 9, 2006 @ 3:10 am - August 9, 2006
IF you want to see true tolerance in action, read the comments on the site you linked to Lieberman’s concession speech. Some babbling about “now the grown ups can be in charge” or some other such nonsense. Admittedly I’m not much of a grown up (I’m only 21, too young to grow up all the way), but aren’t you supposed to have stronger points than “go give the president another bj you blowhard”? Because if thats grownup…. um… yeah.
Re: Georgia
From what I’ve read, McKninny’s opponite was just as wacky as her, he just knew how to be quiet. Quiet is not exactly one of McKinny’s strong suits.
Comment by alli — August 9, 2006 @ 3:22 am - August 9, 2006
#1 Ian — August 8, 2006 @ 9:37 pm – August 8, 2006
The Denial of Service (DOS) rumor regarding the Lieberman web site has been pretty much laid to rest. The $15/month web service payment has been, too. There have also been rumors that one problem the Lieberman web site had was that it only recently changed web hosting services, and the new host’s IP identity had not filtered to all of the Domain Name Servers. The last two rumors don’t make a lot of sense. The DoS rumor might have made some sense, except that sophisticated web hosts have software to protect against DoS. I don’t know what the cause of the alleged failures at the Lieberman web site were–an potential criminal investigation is apparently under way–so who knows? For all I know, the Lieberman campaign may have pulled the plug themselves just so they could have something to complain about.
Comment by raj — August 9, 2006 @ 5:54 am - August 9, 2006
#2 DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 9:44 pm – August 8, 2006
If Lamont wins then it should be easy for the Republican to sail to victory.
I’m not sure where you get this. Even though Lamont won, and even if Lieberman actually does run as an “independent,” the Republican party candidate Schlessinger isn’t going to win. Even the CT Republican party is embarrassed about him. It will be either Lamont or Lieberman.
Unless, of course, you are considering Lieberman to be a Republican in “independent” clothing.
It will be interesting to see to what extent the Dem party helps Lamont with respect to organization, etc. Maybe the Dem party apparatchicks will sit out the race in the general in hopes that Lieberman might win, banking on his promise to caucus with the Dems if he does. If I were them, would take that promise with a huge mountain of salt.
Comment by raj — August 9, 2006 @ 5:54 am - August 9, 2006
#9 Trace Phelps — August 8, 2006 @ 11:30 pm – August 8, 2006
Now that Aravosis, Markos, Chindy Sheehan, Jesse Jackson, George Soros and others on the far-left are the face of the Democratic Party…
Do a poll. Just how many Americans have ever heard of John Avarosis, or Markos, or even George Soros? Probably more than a few Americans have heard of Jesse Jackson–and I’d suspect that most of them view him negatively–but I’d almost be willing to wager that even fewer have heard of Cindy Sheehan–or, if they had, remember who she is.
Comment by raj — August 9, 2006 @ 5:55 am - August 9, 2006
#16 North Dallas Thirty — August 9, 2006 @ 12:43 am – August 9, 2006
Because, Anonymous, if you understand the history of the district in question, it was a fluke that Joe Schwarz was ever elected at all. He was the winner of a six-way Republican primary to replace a far more conservative individual; this year, given the emergence of a far stronger candidate and the fact that he is grossly out of synch with his district in his stances on border security, forget it.
Let me understand something. As far as I can tell, what you are saying is that the Republican party in that part of Michigan was hard right long before Schwarz came along, and so their defeat of him in the primary does not indicate they were moving hard right. OK, but, so what? All that means is that the Michigan Republican party is and long has been hard right. Right? If so, they wouldn’t have had to be viewed as having moved right.
Comment by raj — August 9, 2006 @ 5:56 am - August 9, 2006
#19 North Dallas Thirty — August 9, 2006 @ 3:10 am – August 9, 2006
Actually, given that nearly half of them voted for him, I find it difficult to say that the Dems dropped Lieberman.
I don’t. For someone–Lamont–who less than six months ago had little name recognition in CT and who apparently had no political organization, and who only a few months ago managed to garner enough votes at the Dem state convention to get on the ballot, to beat the party’s currently-sitting senator in a primary election, against a DC and union-organized “get out the vote” campaign (most unions in CT sided with Lieberman), is a remarkable achievement. Maybe the national Dem party will, for once, sit up and listen.
Now that Lamont has won the primary, I would expect that the unions in CT will side with the Dem party’s candidate–Lamont–and that the Dem party’s organizational machine would also side with their party’s candidate. They may not, but if they don’t that would make a mockery of the party. I’m sure that that has happened in the past, but any one of them would have to be more than a bit naive to believe Lieberman’s promise that, if he won as an independent, he would caucus with the Democrats in the Senate.
Comment by raj — August 9, 2006 @ 5:57 am - August 9, 2006
It may be possible that those in the blogosphere see Aravosis, Markos, Chindy Sheehan, Jesse Jackson, George Soros, and others as the face of the Democratic Party, but I would venture to guess that Clinton, Reid, and Schumer have greater name recognition than the first list.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 9, 2006 @ 7:52 am - August 9, 2006
Oh how the mighty have fallen. It’s hard to believe that just 6 years ago (the last time August 8 fell on a Tuesday) Joe Lieberman was the freshly picked Vice Presidetntial candidate for the Democratic party. Now fast forward to 2006. Lieberman gets defeated by someone who was unknown just a few months ago. The Democrats will regret this election. Joe Lieberman was one of the few members of his party with his head on straight; & now he’s gone. One of Connecticut’s nicknames is the Nutmeg State. Just drop the “meg” portion & that’s how I feel about the voters of that state right now.
Comment by Jimbo — August 9, 2006 @ 11:10 am - August 9, 2006
If Lieberman can not win his 2006 Senate race, that might not be such a bad thing if he places respectably. By placing himself between the two major parties, he then in a position to consider accepting a “Unity Ticket” with McCain or Gingrich….personally I’d prefer Gingrich-Lieberman; and both men would not be in current office and could campaign fulltime without the baggage of encumbrancy.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — August 9, 2006 @ 11:59 am - August 9, 2006
LOL@Jimbo.
Lieberman’s head is on straight. Why? Because he supports Bush’s policies, which 60 percent of Americans, or close thereto, do not. I love all this spin and ranting. Lamont is hardly an extremist. He represents the MAJORITY opinion about Iraq. He is in most other ways as mainstream as you can get.
I love hearing cries of extremism from members of the party that has made political hay by opposing the teaching of evolution, protecting blastocytes from “murder,” trying to override the courts to deny a braindead woman a dignified death, campaigning against homosexuals — while Tom Delay and friends are indicted for ethical violations and acts of terrorism continue to multiply despite Bush’s color-coded war on terra.
The mind reels. I love it here. It’s better than inhaling crack and punching a policeman in the face.
Comment by Ovid's Lovechild — August 9, 2006 @ 12:03 pm - August 9, 2006
NDXXX, you’re analysis of the 7th Congressional District race in Michigan is correct and dead on, of course.
For those who think the race means the Michigan GOP has moved even farther to the right, I’d suggest tea-bag readings might be more effective ’cause you don’t have a clue on politics… let alone Michigan GOP politics.
Dan, you’re also right –Mike Bouchard is a law-n-order moderate sherif in a large blue collar Reagan Democrat county. Rev Butler is a conservative Detroit pastor and leader of the largest black congregation in the Midwest.
Michigan GOP isn’t radical Right, it’s just correct.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 9, 2006 @ 12:06 pm - August 9, 2006
i am calling this: THE CRUCIFIXION OF JOE LIEBERMAN… it proves… the moonbats eat there own…
Comment by gay neocon 2006 — August 9, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - August 9, 2006
The happy, smiling faces of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson flanking Mr. Lamont on the podium in Connecticutt should be enough to scare any thinking-Moderate.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — August 9, 2006 @ 2:37 pm - August 9, 2006
#32: Real moderates in Connecticut will terrified of supporting a Rove-backed Lieberman: http://tinyurl.com/g84an
Comment by Ian — August 9, 2006 @ 2:51 pm - August 9, 2006
Ovid’s Child shows why its closer to a terrorist than it thinks: “The mind reels. I love it here. It’s better than inhaling crack and punching a policeman in the face.”
Ovid, that would constitute two felonies in one act –you even beat Slick Willy’s record on that score.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 9, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - August 9, 2006
I completely agree with Ovid’s post in #29. It’s dead on, and very well articulated. And btw, i think that last sentence was a snarky remark meant to be humorous, for who didn’t ‘get it.’
Comment by ndtovent — August 9, 2006 @ 3:12 pm - August 9, 2006
But Ovid, that dubious merit aside, when you wrote: “he (Joe Lieberman) supports Bush’s policies, which 60 percent of Americans, or close thereto, do not. I love all this spin and ranting.”
By the “60″%, was that meant to convey the usual LeftTalkingPt that nearly 60% of Americans disapprove of the Iraq War, or the WOT, or Bush’s handling of the WOT, or the casualties coming home from the war, or are now isolationist trending?
The usual LeftTalkingPt is 60% of Americans disapprove of Bush. Sort of the spin you gave it in your statement.
Well, it’s just spin, Ovid. Spin –the thing you decry.
If you look closely –and this means beyond the headlines at the NYT or in the chatrooms of the DemocratUnderground or DailyKos threads– according to Rasmussen Poll of TODAY, over 52% of Americans –not just voters– everyone– either think the Prez’s handling of Iraq is fair, good or excellent. Less than 48% say he’s doing poorly –the last choice in a four point scale.
No one said “miserable”. No one said “throw da bum out”. No one said “Impeach ChimpeyBush”. And to raj’s chagrin, no one said “The Bush malAdministration is incompetent”.
You can see the Rasmussen crosstabs if you’re a premium member. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
And very interesting to me, if you look you’ll see that when asked if the Allies/Us or the terrorists are winning the war… the best the terrorists ever did was 36% share –right around the time of the fevered pitch of Democrats like Murtha and Pelosi and Kerry and Dean were beating the drums the fastest. It’s now down to about 26% and hovering there.
About the same percentage of voters who consider themselves Democrats… interesting, very interesting.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 9, 2006 @ 3:20 pm - August 9, 2006
I don’t think you can trust polls very much, as they will all yield varying results, but CNN is reporting with this headline “Poll: 60 percent of Americans oppose Iraq war”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html
dr
Comment by DanielFTL — August 9, 2006 @ 4:18 pm - August 9, 2006
Gheez, Daniel, for someone who advises we can’t “trust the polls much”, it’s neat to see you go ahead and do it in the same comment. And a CNN poll? Come on, CNN’s agency uses a near push-poll technique to help former Democrat apologist and uber-liberal Bill Schneider spin the news in the best way possible to aid the Democrats.
Why don’t you just quote HowieDean… “I think most Americans think Bush is evil and should be impeached”. It’s cheaper than a poll. And with anything out of CNN, it’s about as useful.
But I love the “don’t trust polls” and then you quote one technique. You need to head over and help Ned Lamont win Joe’s seat.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 9, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - August 9, 2006
DanielFTL in #26, you’ve taken too literally what was meant as a figure of speech. Sure, I know that Bill Clinton and other prominent Democrats are better known than the bloggers I cited. I was following up on comments by former Clinton aide Lanny Davis in another posting here. He was appalled by the McCarthy-like tactics of liberal bloggers (the Democratic “netroots”) of whom Markos and Aravosis are among the most prominent.
Comment by Trace Phelps — August 9, 2006 @ 8:42 pm - August 9, 2006
I can’t remember the guy’s name — Joseph somebody — who was here a couple of weeks ago commenting that most wealthy people are “conservative” Republicans because they favor low taxes on the rich in order to keep more of their money. I wonder if he noted in the Connecticut primary results that Lieberman received his largest margins of support in working class neighborhoods and Lamont’s strongest support came from Democrats in the state’s wealthiest communities (per Michael Barone’s analysis on FOX News).
Comment by Trace Phelps — August 9, 2006 @ 8:50 pm - August 9, 2006
It’s a little simplistic to say simply ‘you don’t understand the district’ to explain away Schwartz.
Swartz is a retired military person, who was endorsed by Bush, McCain, the NRA, the police, the chamber of commerce, and a slew of others.
Walberg was supported by James Dobson, traditional values coalition, and right-to-life groups.
So, a GOP incumbent candidate was tossed out for a more conservative candidate, even though he had support of the President of the United States and others for a candidate he beat handily in the primary, apparently mostly due to his pro-choice stance.
How is that different than the Dems voting out someone primarily due to their pro-war stance?
Comment by Henry — August 9, 2006 @ 9:02 pm - August 9, 2006
The point, Matt, is that you and others have claimed that 60% of Americans support the war. There are probably polls that yield this and there are polls that refute it. The CNN poll is one of many, but it is there. Which poll would you find un-biased and acceptable? Zogby? Fox? WSJ?
Comment by DanielFTL — August 10, 2006 @ 2:05 am - August 10, 2006
Matt, I know how you like actual quotes and references, even if you’ll reject them as you did in post 38, so I have to retract my statement in 42 because I could not find an exact quote on this site where you’ve said 60% of Americans favor the war. Therefore, my statement in 42 is hereby retracted.
In another GP post, you complained that I made general references without supporting them and that it was “Doing the RAJ.” In subsequent posts in that thread, I provided them as I knew that I could, as required by, but without response from you. It seems that I’ll have to vet my sources through you first to find out if the sources and quotations will withstand “Matt scrutiny” before posting them. Should they not withstand “Matt scrutiny”, then I’ll simply ask you which sources you’ll trust on a particular item in question and then seek the results to back up my statements from those trusted sources.
Matt, just because you don’t like the quotation/source/reference or in fact distrust the source doesn’t make it false out of hand.
dr
Comment by DanielFTL — August 10, 2006 @ 2:33 am - August 10, 2006
Trace, in post 9 you wrote, “[n]ow that Aravosis, Markos, Chindy Sheehan, Jesse Jackson, George Soros and others on the far-left are the face of the Democratic Party….”
How was that “taken too literally what was meant as a figure of speech?”
Thanks.
dr
Comment by DanielFTL — August 10, 2006 @ 2:46 am - August 10, 2006
Daniel at #42 queries: “Which poll would you find un-biased and acceptable?”
Rasmussen, Daniel. It’s why I quoted it –most pollsters without political inclinations will tell you they are methodologically proper, assiduous in crafting the polling instrument, and honest in their assessments.
CNN are hacks as bad as Fox. The key difference is that Fox has a bigger market share and CNN struggles to find relevancy with anyone other than the far Left.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 10, 2006 @ 10:00 am - August 10, 2006
Henry at #41 writes: “How is that different than the Dems voting out someone primarily due to their pro-war stance?”
Significantly different, Henry. And if that’s how you capsulate the Schwarz-Walberg race, you really don’t know the Michigan 7th.
Schwarz is a moderate to progressive GOPer. He was as mayor of Battle Creek, he was as a State Senator, he was as a candidate for Governor, he was as a candidate for the US House, he was as a Congressman.
Moderate to progressive GOPers in Michigan are about as rare as thoughtful Democrats in Massachusetts.
Walberg ran a campaign against Schwarz’s positions on illegal immigration “amnesty”, Congressional pay hikes, run-away govt spending and porkbarrel politics, abortion and the FMA.
Walberg didn’t run a campaign against Schwarz on any lack of military credentials, his alliance with the Prez, his support of the 2nd Amendment, failures in homeland security, the prosecution of the WOT or other issues.
Walberg ran very little positive on his own credentials –he ran against Schwarz’s positions on a core of social issues. That’s why he won amongst Michigan 7th GOP primary voters… that group was far more conservative than Schwarz and no amount of surrogacy endorsements would sway the hardcore primary voters who already knew Schwarz and felt he wasn’t the right choice in 2004 either –he just won then because, as NDXXX rightly points out, he was the top vote getter in a multi-candidate race featuring three or more strong conservatives who split the vote.
How is that different than the radical Left Democrats ditching Joe Lieberman because of his WOT/Iraq positions? Huge, Henry. Huge.
You can’t say that Joe Lieberman never really represented the Democrat voters in Connecticut… but one can say Joe Schwarz’s political philosophy and policies never represented the voters in the Michigan 7th.
BTW, Schwarz’s predecessor was Nick Smith, a far right pig rancher. And there were some in the Michigan 7th who thought he was too liberal for them. Ugh.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 10, 2006 @ 10:21 am - August 10, 2006
DanielFtL at #43, sorry to have missed commenting on your references in that other thread, Daniel. There isn’t a Matt Scrutiny test and, frankly Daniel, to create such a game or stunt suggests to me you aren’t serious about debate and discussion. I didn’t think your references proved a thing and simply to dismiss them didn’t help advance the discussion.
I did read your references that, you contend, prove that nutcases from the right want to recriminalize sodomy. I offered that in all the time I’ve spent at natl and state conventions, I’ve never heard a responsible GOP member make such a stupid statement. That’s a fact.
That you could find whacked nutcases on sites contending that it is a reputable goal of society doesn’t surprise me… anymore than some can find examples on the DailyKos of people calling for the execution of HowieDean for being conservative and selling gays down the river.
We can concur easily that there are nutcases on both the right and left. That doesn’t translate into proof that responsible GOPers have called for the recriminalization of sodomy. You may feel they have given your stake in the matter –but they haven’t.
My advice to you: if you’re serious about debate, don’t build a straw man out of some Matt Scrutiny Test. Stick to the issue.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 10, 2006 @ 10:35 am - August 10, 2006
Yes, but Matt, you said “responsible GOPers” and before that I said “some on the right/Republicans” and those aren’t the same thing. VtheK accused me of moving the goal posts another time, but isn’t that what you’ve just done by changing the context then and now? See, I never said responsible GOPers, that was your phrase, added later. You asked for citation and reference to my initial factual statement…and I provided it. You guys cannot hold me to a standard to which you don’t apply to yourselves and that is the case here.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 10, 2006 @ 10:58 am - August 10, 2006
Daniel, I asked you to name one responsible GOPer. One. You’re right, that is what I asked. It IS different than asking for a nutcase citation –I would dismiss those out of hand.
You’re the one who built the Straw Man of Matt’s Scrutiny Test. I don’t think by asking you to name one responsible GOPer that I’ve moved the goalposts.
I didn’t use your qualifer of “right/Republican” because it is meaningless in the context of alleging that Republicans want to recriminalize sodomy.
I think we both agree that finding quotable quotes from nutcases is pretty easy on the InterNet –heck, some of the GayLeft voices here make more of them in a day than Coulter can in a week (and that’s a lot from that nutcase).
Responsible GOPers aren’t out to do what you contend; I’ve never heard anything like it at any Party event I’ve attended. It’s just a fringe Democrat talking point –we both know it.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 10, 2006 @ 3:28 pm - August 10, 2006
# 46 …but one can say Joe Schwarz’s political philosophy and policies never represented the voters in the Michigan 7th
Why? They elected him, just as surely as CT elected Lieberman. And, as you pointed out, the person who won ran less on his own record and more on an anti-Schwartz record.
I could just as easily say you don’t understand the voters of CT, because clearly Lieberman didn’t represent them – because they voted him out. It’s meaningless.
The fact is that the GOP in Michigan ousted an incumbent moderate for a more conservative candidate. If Lamont is indicative of the Dems lurching left, then Schwartz is indicative of the GOP lurching right.
Of course, neither is true. They both represent the political winds of that district only. (I could argue that McKinny being ousted is indicative of the Dems moving to the center, but I’ll leave that as a later exercise.)
Comment by Henry — August 11, 2006 @ 4:02 pm - August 11, 2006
Henry, it’s pretty clear to most that you didn’t listen during those PoliSci classes in high school.
Schwarz ran in the strongly held GOP 7th in the 2004 Primary in a five-way race. Three of the five other GOP candidates were to the Right of Tim Walberg; even then, Walberg came in #2. Schwarz was a moderate and he secured the GOP nomination because there was no one there to split the moderate vote. If the conservatives had even two candidates, Schwarz would not have won the Primary in 2004. It was a fluke.
What part of a base of voters cut four ways don’t you understand?
This time around, the election features only a single conservative and Schwarz… guess what, Schwarz loses. 2004 was a fluke for Schwarz; he was lucky to get in –he got in late in the 2004 primary game when it became clear that leading conservative groups would be splitting their endorsements among the four conservative candidates in 2004.
Gheez.
BTW, he won in a year that JohnFKerry won the Presidential contest in Michigan, Michigan voters whacked the hell out of GayMarriage and the GayLeft by passing a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage and domestic partner benefits.
It wasn’t that the moderates didn’t come out to help Schwarz this time around –he got the “moderate” vote in the 7th Mi this time and the last time around. It wasn’t enough to counter the conservative voters.
On the other hand, a very small, very intense, very motivated group of disgruntled, angry, single issue hotheads from the Left fringe of the Democrat Party in CT did come out and supported Ned Lamont. If Ned had been running with CindySheehan, MichaelMoore and maybe BabsStreisand, Lieberman would have won CT. See how having to cut the pie into many pieces can mean an entirely different outcome?
The MiGOP hasn’t lurched Right as you tried to claim… the 7th was ALWAYS far Right. And it’s a Congressional District –one of 11 in Michigan, Henry.
The CT Senate race is, well, all of the state. Lieberman and the most of the CT Democrat Party leadership are going to be in a struggle to win back control from the fringe Left of MoveOnAhrrgg monster in CT.
It’s a significant difference Henry for the reasons I and others have outlined in this thread. You inability to comprehend that difference doesn’t mean it isn’t there… it just means you’re channeling Raj.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 11, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - August 11, 2006