One of the hazards of waiting to let my thoughts settle on a topic before writing one of my traditional essayistic posts is that by the time I get around to blogging, most of what I already have to say (on that topic) has already been said. This is particularly true about the results in yesterday’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary in the Nutmeg State.
Noting that the “race finished much closer than anyone expected,” Captain Ed called Ned Lamont’s victory yesterday a “nightmare scenario” for the Democrats. At RealClearPolitics, John McIntyre called Democrats’ rejection of their 2000 Vice-Presidential nominee “a bad harbinger for future Democratic Party prospects nationally in 2008 and beyond.“
McIntyre elaborated:
Nationally, the images from last nightmare a disaster for the Democratic Party. Perched behind Lamont during his victory speech were the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, grinning ear to ear, serenaded by the chant of “Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home.” For a party that has a profound public relations and substantive problem on national security, these are not exactly the images you want broadcast to the nation.
Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds has lots of stuff and notes that a number of Democrats are unhappy with the loss of this center-left Democrat respected on both sides of the political aisle.
Time’s Mike Allen puts forward a theory I advanced nearly two months ago:
At a time when Republicans should be back on their heels because of chaos abroad and President Bush’s unpopularity, the Democrats’ rejection of a sensible, moralistic centrist has handed the GOP a weapon that could have vast ramifications for both the midterm elections of ’06 and the big dance of ’08.
(H/t: RealClearPolitics which has a great roundup of commentary on the Senate race.)
After reading much about the race, the thing that struck me the most was how well Lieberman did. And it wasn’t just the late polls which showed Lamont with a substantial (but diminishing) lead over the three-term incumbent. It was the evidence of the incompetence of Lieberman’s campaign.
Lieberman seems to have been caught flat-rooted by Lamont’s challenge. He had not had a tough race since 1988 when he ousted incumbent Lowell Weicker. (He won two-thirds of the vote in the very Republican year of 1994.) Indeed, his initial campaign commercials harkened back to the 1988 campaign as he attempted to tie his most recent opponent to his pompous rival that year.
At National Journal’s Hotline blog, Kevin Rennie noted that the campaign decided to “late last week to scale back its GOTV [Get Out the Vote] effort.” As I learned from helping Arlington [Virginia] score a rare victory in a 1999 special election, Get Out the Vote is crucial in tight races. The GOP learned a similar lesson in 2000.
Despite a well-financed campaign and a well-energized base against an incumbent with a poor campaign, Lamont only won by a narrow margin in the Democratic primary in a blue state. That suggests that the far left is not nearly as strong as its supporters in the blogosphere claim.
While not blaming his campaign staff for his loss, Lieberman “fired his campaign manager and spokesman, and asked for the resignations of his campaign staff.” This smart Democrat seems to have learned from his mistakes and plans to make a vigorous effort to hold his seat this fall.
In defeat, Joe Lieberman has shown the stuff that has caused me to admire him despite our partisan differences. He has thus shown himself to be in the league of such other liberal Democrats as Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy and even my state’s Senior Senator Dianne Feinstein whom I may end up voting for this fall. It’s not their politics which has caused these Democrats to earn my respect, but the way they present their liberalism, not as a force of opposition to Republicans but as the best means to promote the well-being of the nation.
Thus, I was heartened to read that Lieberman said, “While I consider myself a devoted Democrat, I am even more devoted to my state and my country.” No matter our partisan affiliation we should be more devoted to our country than to our party.
Joe Lieberman is a good man who, despite supporting the president on the war, has a very liberal voting record, earning high ratings from such liberal groups as Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) while getting low scores from such conservative outfits as the National Taxpayers’ Union (NTU) and the American Conservative Union (ACU).
I expect him to win reelection this fall, but not without a fight. While he will lose some of the Democratic votes he won yesterday to Lamont in the fall campaign, he will hold on to 75% of his total (my guess) and is poised to do well among Connecticut’s independent voters. I also expect him to win a majority, yes, I said, majority of Republican votes in the Nutmeg State. Alan Schlesinger, the Republican nominee is not only polling in the single digits, but has ethical problems as well. The state’s Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell has asked him “to drop out” of the race.
Given that this popular incumbent is expected to cruise to reelection, she could further Democratic divisions by endorsing Lieberman. Not only would that help Lieberman, but it would also help the three embattled Connecticut Republican Congressman, Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson whose campaigns are certainly buoyed by Lieberman’s defeat in the Democratic primary.
While this is a sad day for the nation as it shows the increasing success of angry extremists (whose only agenda appears to be hatred of George W. Bush and the GOP) at taking control of one of our major political parties, in Joe Lieberman’s continued campaign, there are signs of hope. Let us hope that a liberal Democrat who has parted from his party on the war succeeds this fall in a three-way race.
Like Dianne Feinstein and many of the great liberal statesman of the last half of the twentieth century, Joe Lieberman does not see politics as a means of attacking his ideological and partisan adversaries, but as a means to promote policies in the national interest. Unlike the leaders of his party who have used the legislative process to obstruct legislation put forward by the majority, Lieberman sees that process as a means to work out compromises with his colleagues, on both sides of the political aisle.
We could use a few more Joe Liebermans in the United States Senate. And we Republicans could use a few more conservatives with Lieberman’s attitude on our side of the political aisle.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
I question whether his campaign will have what it takes to go the distance since Dem money will now flow to Lamont instead of Lieberman. Yet, while I would of course prefer someone more conservative, it would be sweet to see Lieberman win as an independent. After getting bitch-slapped by his own party, should he win (which is not a given by any means) I expect his independent streak will grow bigger. At the very least this one race makes the elections interesting to watch. Nothing like Dems eating their own to warm one’s heart…
John, there are a lot of Democrats (including big-money people) upset by the party’s drift away from Clinton whom, I expect, to flock to the Lieberman campaign. And I expect a lot of Republicans would be willing to contribute to Lieberman’s campaign as well.
Eh, you may be right Dan. I know very little about Connecticutt politics so I haven’t a clue about how things tick up thar. One thing last night’s results is making me do is seriously reconsider voting for Webb in Virginia. I may not like Allen and remain impressed with Webb’s resume, but I will not vote for a party that wants to turn our security over to the UN. I need to think more on this and will decide for certain as the election draws nearer.
From what I recall hearing from Alan Colmes on Fox News at the Lamont campaign (after desperately trying to ignore the moonbat behind him with a sign that said “Hannity Sucks Ass”), the DNC is not going to be flowing a lot of money to Lamont’s campaign as it is considered a “safe seat.” Rather, they are going to try to unseat GOP senators and representatives in red/purple states instead.
One gets the feeling that the DNC is not exactly running on all four cylinders…but hey, if they want to act like a horse’s patoot, fine by me.
Regards,
Peter H.
Seeing Al and Jesse flanking Lamont on the podium in Connecticutt should send shudders up the spines of a number of moderate Democrats and Republicans. And it would not surprise me if plenty of Republicans funnel their money to Leiberman rather than Schlesinger after this…Schlesinger was more of a sacrificial goat than candidate against Lieberman anyway.
#5: “plenty of Republicans funnel their money to Leiberman”
Oh please please PLEASE do! Let him become a Connecticut Republican. I’d go further and immediately strip him of all committee assignments just to speed up the process. Three months to go and Lieberman becomes a Republican best known for his sucking up to Bush’s failed Iraq war! Not sure how well that will go over in Connecticut but hey, you’re going to need a northeast “moderate Republican” to replace the one you’re about to lose in Rhode Island. But alas, I think it’s not to be – after warmly embracing Lieberman only a few short days ago, Sean Hannity apparently stabbed him in the back today by attacking him as a liberal and questioning why any Republican would vote for him. Et tu Sean? LOL!
Ian, that screed of yours sounds a little bit hysterical. Could it be that you, like those on the radical Left of your Party, think a pissed-off Joe Lieberman may cost you that Senate seat?
Wow, for the natl Democrats to fight so hard against a Lieberman-as-Independent run suggests that the natl Democrats no longer think they’ll win in November with a net gain of… what was that number HowieScreamingDean was kicking around this spring? Umm, I think 5 seats.
Ian, moderate Republicans outside of Connecticut will send Joe money because of a simple concept you can’t fathom: loyalty to an independent mind. Will Hannity send money? No. Would he ever? No. Will Christy Todd Whitman’s organization help? You bet.
It’s called loyalty, Ian. Something the cannibals in the radical Democrat fringe don’t understand.
Take the rhetoric down a bit and the edge off when you try to speak with authority on Lieberman –right now, you just sound scared and running on empty.
Oh, Ian, you write: “I’d go further and immediately strip him of all committee assignments just to speed up the process.”
Umm, Ian. Protocol lesson here. The Senate Majority is a GOPer; his name is Bill Frist. He makes the committee assignments for all Sen Committees –he takes the recommendations of the Senate Minority Leader –Harry Reid– into consideration. But Frist makes the decision… it’s why there’s a Sen Maj Leader.
You can ask him to strip Joe of his assignments –I don’t think it’ll work.
Maybe you were thinking of former Sen Jim Jeffords (I-Vt)? The dottering senile angry old man from Vermont the Senate Democrats used and then set out at the curb for recycling in the last session?
So, what does Lamont do now? Does he moderate his positions, to win over the moderate voters he needs to win? Will that not piss-off his Nutroots base, whose demands for ideological purity were what propelled his campaign to begin with? Or, does he continue to be the strident spokespuppet for the tinfoil-hat brigades, and concede moderate voters to Lieberman?
VdaK, I don’t think he knows. He should consult with Saint Hillary who can change a position on a dime, in a flash, and you won’t even realize it’s been done. Damn, she is slick. Can you have two Slick Willys in a family?
Radley Balko on Lieberman:
I think he makes some valid points. Both GOP and Dems are crowing victory prematurely. Its more complicated than their publicists would like you to believe.
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026903.php
It appears Republican Senate candidates in Missouri and Pennsylvania are already pressing their democrat opponents on whether they will back moderate Lieberman or radical Lamont. Look for the strategy to be picked up in Montana and other close states.
It’s a tough spot for a Democratic candidate. Back Lieberman and lose the base, back Lamont and lose the moderates, or dodge the question and look like a weasel.
Republican candidates can be put on the spot as well about their support for Bush, but they have more maneuvering room and can cherry pick issues on which they agree or disagree with the president. The radical left won’t give Democrats that much wiggle room. The Lieberman purge demonstrates that being a 90% liberal isn’t enough anymore.
Patrick, I can understand why you think its premature to try to figure out what Lamont’s win or Lieberman’s loss means to the larger issues. The message from Lieberman’s loss is one you wouldn’t like hearing –the fringe Democrats have given away a chance at the CT Senate seat… and that’s not something your BushHatred ‘tude can absorb.
On a different topic, I wonder how quickly the GayLeft voices here will rise up and condemn Michael Moore’s use of a homo-smear image to lampoon Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman and our President George Bush? And Moore isn’t alone in the tactic; lots of fringe Left groups have been using these homo-smear images to undermine the credibility of non-Left candidates.
Michael Moore’s use of the homo-smear images can be seen on his website today where he wags his finger at all Democrat and sticks his middle finger up at gays.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/index.php
Michael Moore and others on the radical Left have used images of Lieberman and Bush either kissing, fondling, or engaged in other acts uniquely suggestive of gay sexual activities.
I know I take offense when someone on the Right tries to use “gay” or “gay conduct” or “simulated gay conduct” in images and words to smear someone on the Left. Are our community members on the GayLeft so enamored of the Democrat Party leadership and spokescharacters that they’ll allow str8s to use simulated gay action images as a smear tactic?
Where’s that collective sense of community the GayLeft tries to provoke among gay conservatives? “I can’t understand how you can be gay and Republican?” Talk about being “a kept man” on the Democrat Plantation –I bet our GayLefties here don’t even sense the attempt to smear someone by suggesting the target is gay.
How low will GayLefties sink, anyway?
VdaK, you are right again. Nailed it.
Republican candidates can be put on the spot as well about their support for Bush, but they have more maneuvering room and can cherry pick issues on which they agree or disagree with the president.
And actually, the White House has been, over the course of the past few months, deliberately (in my opinion) giving them issues on which they can disagree with the President — stem-cell funding comes immediately to mind.
#7: “moderate Republicans outside of Connecticut will send Joe money”
Like I said, I hope they do. It will demonstrate that he’s not really an independent but just another Republican supporting a failed President and a failed Iraq war. That might play in other states but it will be a hard sell in CT. As for loyalty, Lieberman’s only loyalty is to himself.
#8: Fine, have the GOP support Lieberman in keeping his committee assignments – it’s just more proof to the folks back home that’s he’s not an independent but simply another Republican eager to rubber stamp more of the failed Bush agenda.
#12: “radical Lamont”
You’re joking right? Lamont is a successful businessman who’s as mainstream as you get. If you have poilicy proposals he’s made that are so radical, then why don’t you enumerate them. The main differences between him and Lieberman are first, Lamont won’t be an apologist for failed Bush policies such as the disastrous invasion of Iraq. Second, Lamont will be a strong advocate for his constituents in CT, something Lieberman hasn’t been for years. Third, Lamont will be a fighter not an appeaser like Lieberman.
#13: What’s so homophobic about “the kiss?” It just reinforces how close Lieberman and Bush are and would be equally as effective if the two were opposite sex. But obviously, they are both men. Now you might have a point if Lieberman had been depicted as some kind of gay stereotype but Moore doesn’t do that.
Ian, nice try at being coy, but you failed as much as the fringe Democrats in CT did yesterday.
Ask any str8 person what two guys kissing means and they’ll tell you “gay”. Ask anyone outside the Democrat Plantation you habit what Bush and Lieberman kissing means and they’ll tell you… either George or Joe are gay.
How queer is that… to use a gay smear image and not realize it? Well, about as queer as you not realizing your buds over at fringe Democrat Central are making fun of gays with that image.
Coy don’t cut it anymore, Ian. Get serious or go to the back of the line.
Lamont is a successful businessman who’s as mainstream as you get.
Um, unlike One-Note Neddy and his army of bloggers, I don’t think most mainstream Americans are running around screaming that the terrorist plot was faked because of Lieberman losing the primary.
Sorry, Ian, but we can’t afford to have another Senator in the US Senate who thinks all terror plots are nothing but faked propaganda on the Bush administration’s part. We already have Kerry and Kennedy.
#18: “One-Note Neddy and his army of bloggers, I don’t think most mainstream Americans are running around screaming that the terrorist plot was faked because of Lieberman losing the primary.”
Let’s see a cite where Lamont claims the terrorist plot was faked. C’mon NDT, let’s see it. And realize that in the unlikely event you DO produce a “cite” I will be checking it carefully for whether or not it supports your outlandish claim.
#13 Michigan-Matt — August 10, 2006 @ 12:31 pm – August 10, 2006
I know I take offense when someone on the Right tries to use “gay” or “gay conduct” or “simulated gay conduct” in images and words to smear someone on the Left. Are our community members on the GayLeft so enamored of the Democrat Party leadership and spokescharacters that they’ll allow str8s to use simulated gay action images as a smear tactic?
This spin is funny as heck. Just when did you get this talking point from Karl Rove? Apparently, you have never heard of str8 men using kisses for purposes other than indicating sexual interest. I’m sure that you’ve heard of the “mafia kiss,” the “Russian kiss,” and so forth. So now we have the Bushian kiss. Same thing.
If Bush’s kiss on Lieberman is anything like the Bushian virtual kiss–Bush goes to factory, Bush praises the people there for the work they’re doing, Bush leaves, factory closes–maybe Lieberman is slated for closing.
raj, what part of “you’re not worthy of debate” don’t you understand?
#21 Michigan-Matt — August 11, 2006 @ 11:08 am – August 11, 2006
raj, what part of “you’re not worthy of debate” don’t you understand?
Poor dear. You must be referring to a comment of mine on another (unidentified) thread.
Now, run along from the playground with your ball.
On a serious note, your inability to respond to statements of fact is mindboggling, but not surprising.
raj, the point stands and is reinforced by many: you need to apologize for the comments in other threads –which you well know– and then we can rehabilitate your worthiness to enter debate.
Til then, you aren’t worthy of debate, raj. Simple as that.
Let’s see a cite where Lamont claims the terrorist plot was faked. C’mon NDT, let’s see it.
Well, first off, IanRaj, you don’t HAVE to provide citations here — your alter ego RajIan made that clear. Feel free to say he’s wrong for stating that.
Second, go to DailyKos and Americablog. There you can figure out what One-Note Neddy is thinking.
#24: LOL. Just as I figured NDT. You don’t have a cite because Lamont has NEVER said what you claimed he did.
#23 Michigan-Matt — August 11, 2006 @ 12:19 pm – August 11, 2006
raj, the point stands and is reinforced by many: you need to apologize for the comments in other threads –which you well know– and then we can rehabilitate your worthiness to enter debate.
You are still unable to focus. No surprise
Til then, you aren’t worthy of debate, raj. Simple as that.
What is there to debate? You cite to to facts, and you cite to no logic.
Sorry. You are the one who is unworthy of debate. Facts & logic are anathema to you.
But we knew that, anyway.
What is there to debate? You cite to to facts, and you cite to no logic.
should be
What is there to debate? You cite to no facts, and you cite to no logic.
raj, what don’t you understand in “You aren’t worthy of debate”?
You can try to spin it back, you can try to even spit it back. But the truth remains: most here don’t think you to be worthy of debate… despite your promises to be polite, be honest, be fair, be candid, be earnest.
You aren’t worthy of debate. You have some apologies to offer. Stay focused, get it done.
BUt don’t prove your a loser on top of dishonest debater by trying to spin my observations about your conduct back on to me. It ain’t working, raj.
You are still not worthy of debate. Redeem yourself, atone. And don’t have another sockpuppet do it for you.
#24: LOL. Just as I figured NDT. You don’t have a cite because Lamont has NEVER said what you claimed he did.
Now you’re saying that Americablog and DailyKos aren’t claiming the plot was faked?
One-Note Neddy has ALWAYS agreed with what these blogs are saying and, in fact, has paid them to publicize his campaign beliefs.