RK ARCHIVE - ANALYSIS: Why I encourage Democrats to support Joe Lieberman in the CT primary!

This is my own personal analysis about why I think that it is in the best interest of Democrats and the Democratic Party to support Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont in the CT Democratic Senate primary next Tuesday, August 8.

I fully realize that this is a controversial issue and is probably an emotional issue to some people but with so much on the line in the 2006 elections I think that what I have to say should at least be seriously considered before CT Democrats go to the polls to vote in the primary next Tuesday. My attitude comes from the same mindset that Gen. Wes Clark (who I highly respect) says in this quote:

"Debate, dialogue, discussion, disagreement, dissent - that's not wrong - that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it."

The main reasons why I support Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont are because if Ned Lamont wins the primary and Joe Lieberman runs as an Independent; then that will more than likely be a competitive race IN AN ALREADY SAFE DEMOCRATIC SEAT that will tie up many thousands (if not even millions) of dollars on both sides that could be going to other Democratic candidates in tight races, it will tie up many thousands of campaign volunteer hours on both sides that could be going to other Democratic candidates in tight races, that race will serve as a media distraction which will help to take a lot of attention away from other truly important races where Democrats have serious chances to win their races, it will allow the GOP attack machine to nationalize that race where they will paint and define the entire Democratic Party as having been taken over by the far left and being less inclusive which will cost Democratic candidates all over the country many moderate and center voters who these candidates need very badly in order to win their races, and it will obviously cause division within the Democratic Party at a time when unity is very important if Democrats are going to be able to take back at least one branch of Congress in the November election!

Below are three articles that will help to document this. The first article titled "Bush Isn't On the Ballot, Democrats!" from Rush Limbaugh gives a good preview of how he and others like him will use their heavy media influence to paint and define "the entire Democratic Party" as being "just flat out loonies; they are insane kooks, these left wing blog types."

The next article titled "The Dems & the Nutroots" from National Review already says how that "this will be exploited by the Republican Party for years to come."

The third article titled "Liberals angry at Boxer for supporting Lieberman" shows how that this is hurting unity in the Democratic Party and makes an excellent point when it says "this is a real test for our party, of whether we can be inclusive, or if our candidates have to be 100 percent pure.'' I will also quote some other sources along the way as I make my points that I described above.

I will state very clearly and with no hesitation that I completely disagree with Joe Lieberman concerning his position on the Iraq war. I have no idea in the light of all of the evidence that has been shown about no WMD in Iraq and with how much of a mess that Iraq is now how Lieberman can still back Bush on this issue and how he can still think that the Iraq war has made the world safer when it has clearly not and has made the world far less safe in my opinion!
Lieberman has also done some other bad things in my opinion: He is fighting much harder how against Ned Lamont than he did against Cheney in the VP debate that they had back in 2000, He was very wrong to tell Democrats not to criticize Bush on the Iraq war, and I have heard him myself after the 2004 election go on Sean Hannity's radio program as a guest and give "Yes" answers to all of Hannity's loaded questions against the Democratic Party which just energizes Hannity's listening base and discredits Democrats.

Lieberman should have known better that Hannity cares nothing about him at all and was (and still is) just using him as a tool to energize his listening base and discredit Democrats for purely political purposes. Shame on Lieberman if he did not see this when it was so obvious and shame on Lieberman if he did see it and went along with it anyway because he was probably still upset that Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean in the 2004 Democratic Presidential primary without even telling him about it first (which was not professional of Gore to do in my opinion when Lieberman promised not to run in 2004 if Gore decided to run again). These are some pretty bad things on the part of Lieberman in my opinion!

However Lieberman did do a good thing when he joined the bipartisan "Gang of 14" that stopped the GOP leadership from pulling the "Nuclear Option" in the Senate. If the GOP leadership had pulled the "Nuclear Option," then the filibuster over judicial appointments would have been eliminated and Bush could have appointed ANY JUDGE TO ANY COURT (INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURT) WITH ONLY 50 SENATE VOTES (Cheney would break a 50-50 tie in Bush's favor). So Lieberman can be credited for helping to save the 60 Senate votes needed to stop a filibuster while I cannot see Ned Lamont as having taken part in a bipartisan effort like that with him running to the far left the way he is now!

BUT there are two very important things to keep in mind that I think transcend any good or bad things that Lieberman did or did not do. First, we have to look at what the 2006 elections are truly all about in the big picture of things. THEY ARE ABOUT DEMOCRATS TAKING BACK POWER IN AT LEAST ONE BRANCH OF CONGRESS IN ORDER TO RESTORE SOME KIND OF REAL ACCOUNTABILITY BACK TO GOVERNMENT BEFORE 2008!

Second, we have to look at what Lieberman is running for now. This is not 2000 when he was running to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency and this is not 2004 when he was running for President. This is 2006 where he is only running for the Senate, where his Senate seat is already Democratic, and where he will just be only one out of one hundred votes. And he supposedly has a record of voting with the Democratic Caucus about 90% of the time and would pretty much just represent at worst one wrong Senate vote on the Iraq war issue in the next 2 years that Bush is still in office!

We need to keep that in mind when we look at the big picture and see that we have the most secretive and incompetent Presidency in modern history, the most arrogant and extreme GOP leadership in modern history, and that Democrats definitely have their work cut out for them to win either 15 House seats or 6 Senate seats in order to restore some kind of real accountability to this GOP leadership before 2008!

To use the analogy of the Iraq war, the 2006 elections are a "war of necessity" to restore accountability back to government and to the extreme GOP leadership which is very badly needed while a hard fought CT Senate race between Lieberman and Lamont is a "war of choice" that will be a major distraction from the real "war of necessity" of Democrats winning back power in at least one branch of Congress!

If Lieberman wins the CT primary on Tuesday, then that Senate seat will remain in Democratic control and Democrats can focus ALL of their time, resources, money, and attention to the many other key races where Democratic victories will be needed in closely contested races to win back power. Nobody will have to give Lieberman anything for him to win that race. He can run against his GOP opponent in his spare time using his pocket change to win that race!

If Lamont wins that primary and Lieberman runs as an Independent (which he will do), then thousands of dollars (if not millions), thousands of campaign volunteers, and thousands of hours that could have gone to help Democrats win key races will be unnecessarily diverted into a close "race of choice" which will hurt Democratic candidates in key races all over the country and will lower the chances of Democrats taking back power in at least one branch of Congress!

If Democrats are going to win back power in at least one branch of Congress in 2006 when things are going very badly for the GOP now (which will also help to set up for 2008), then there are certain things that Democratic activists have just got to understand and be patient about:

"Like the earlier generation of conservatives, today's Democratic activists are impatient with accommodating the powers that be. They demand that Democrats stop trying to chase a "center" that has veered ever rightward since 1980. Instead, they want to haul that center back to more progressive terrain. That's why so much of the political energy in Connecticut seems to be with Lamont."

"While Lamont and the bloggers who back him devote their energy to defeating Lieberman, Connecticut has three competitive House races where Democratic challengers have a chance of beating Republican incumbents and helping take back the House. Wouldn't those be a more productive way for Democrats unhappy about Bush and the war to channel their anger?"

"But as noisy and angry as the left-wing bloggers and the MoveOn.org groups may be, they have yet to prove they can win elections."

SCHNEIDER: "November is about re-electing the incumbent. That's when Lieberman can count on support from Congressman Chris Shays.

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (R), CONNECTICUT: I'm going to vote for him, absolutely. This is someone who has put his country first.

SCHNEIDER: That's why Lieberman says he will run in November, even if he loses the primary. The November election will be framed the way he wants. About his service, not about the Democratic party's message."

These links from Michelle Malkin (along with the ones that you see below from Rush Limbaugh and National Review) are just a very brief preview of what is to come, how Lamont will be attacked, and how that Ned Lamont and the CT Senate race will be nationalized by the GOP to try and define all Democrats if Ned Lamont wins that CT primary next Tuesday!

I really hope that activist Democrats can see these points, realize how much is on the line in the 2006 elections, not give the GOP attack machine the ammunition that they are looking for to distract attention away from their own serious problems, and look past "Lieberman's sin on Iraq" and one "race of choice" to focus on the real task at hand which is to help Democratic candidates all over the country in key races win so that the extreme GOP leadership can be held accountable by at least one branch of Congress that will be controlled by Democrats in January of 2007!

Please open up this link and just look for a moment at all of these good candidates who are running very important and closely contested races:

Is Joe Lieberman (only one Senate vote out of 100) really that important that over one main issue which he is wrong about that ALL of these and many other good Democratic candidates all over the country will lose a lot of money, media attention, volunteer help, time, talent, and resources all because Lieberman and Lamont will absorb much of that in a close race that will get huge amounts of media coverage?

Is Joe Lieberman (only one Senate vote out of 100) really that important that over one main issue which he is wrong about the Democratic Party will be divided when it needs to be united with this country (and the world) in a crisis from an extreme GOP leadership?

And if Lieberman wins in the general election should Lamont win the CT primary, then what might he do as revenge if he is upset with the Democrats who supported Lamont in what will more than likely be a very bitter and nasty fight?

All Democrats need to think about these questions long and hard before next Tuesday in my opinion and activist Democrats need to understand that elections are won and lost in the center. If the GOP can nationalize the CT Senate race because Lamont wins the primary, then that will cost Democratic candidates all over the country many moderate and center voters that they need to win their races when they probably could have gotten most of those voters due to strong GOP discontent!

Can we look past the small picture of one Senate candidate in Lieberman who is wrong about one main issue and whose one Senate vote on that one issue will probably never make a difference in any major policy at the end of the day in order to look at the big picture of how important that it for Democrats to win back power in at least one branch of Congress in order to restore accountability back to government before 2008 and help to set up Democrats for the 2008 elections?

Each person will have to answer these questions for themselves. I am speaking only for myself and I am not representing any other person or organization!

RUSH: We have audio sound bites here of a debate between Joe Lieberman and his kook cut-and-run Democrat opponent, a guy named Ned Lamont, wealthy media tycoon in Connecticut. Apparently what Lamont is doing is running against Bush and tying Lieberman to Bush, so Lieberman said...

LIEBERMAN: I know George Bush. I've worked against George Bush. I've even run against George Bush. But, Ned, I'm not George Bush. So why don't you stop running against him and have the courage and honesty to run against me and the facts of my record?

LAMONT: President Bush rushes into this war [sic]. He told us it would be easy [sic]. We'd be welcomed as liberators, weapons of mass destruction -- and Senator Lieberman cheered on the president every step of the way when we should have been asking the tough questions. And here we are, what do we do? I was -- I was impressed when [Abscam scandal unindicted coconspirator] Congressman Murtha stood up, and he said, "Stay the course is not a winning strategy. It's time for us to change course; it's time for us to start bringing our troops home."

RUSH: All right. You know, other people are starting to mention this, too. I asked this many moons ago. (A little Indian lingo there) What in the world do these people think they're doing running against Bush either now or in '08? He is not on the ballot. Yeah, it may be a way to, you know, firm up the kook base but I don't know how much more firm the kook base can be with all this. It's amazing to watch what they're doing to Joe Lieberman. He was their Democratic vice presidential nominee and candidate barely six years ago. Now they're throwing him under the bus and throwing him overboard over the issue of Iraq, and it's not just people in Connecticut.

This is something that's been engineered in the entire Democratic Party. Just amazing to me to watch the implosion that is taking place, and then to see Hillary saying, "I'm not going to support him if he runs as an independent. I'm not going to support him." They're going after Maria Cantwell in Washington state for the same reason, because she's been pro-Iraq war. They're doing the same thing to her. Just don't hear about it as much because that's way out there on the left coast, just like you don't hear much about the Seattle Mariners or the Seattle Seahawks unless they happen to get to the championship or something, and people say, who are they?

Maria Cantwell? Then John Kerry comes out, (doing Kerry impression) "I'm not going to support Joe Lieberman, I'm going to support the nominee of our party, stand together as Democrats, why, that's what I'm all about, I'm John Kerry, and I served in Vietnam, by the way." It's just obvious these people don't see themselves the way everybody else does. Now, after the debate, there was a little analysis, of course, on PMSNBC's Hardball, the fill-in host, Nora O'Donnell talking to the Wall Street Journal's John Harwood, and Norah said, "Now, we know Lamont's campaign in many ways has been driven by the netroots or many bloggers who are very supportive."

Isn't it interesting, by the way, these people are just flat out loonies; they are insane kooks, these left wing blog types, yet they are treated with great reverence and great respect and fear in the Drive-By Media and Democratic Party circles -- and yet let Pat Buchanan run for president; let his supporters, you know, do their number, and the whole focus is on how insane Buchanan supporters were, how wacko, how dangerous and so forth they are. These people are being pumped up as though they are actual factors. They can't sell books; they don't generate much of anything other than a bunch of hot air amongst themselves. Because they're liberals and because they hate Bush, the Drive-By Media loves them. So her question again to John Harwood. "Well, we know Lamont's campaign in many ways has been driven by the netroots, many bloggers very supportive of him. What about that?"

HARWOOD: What the netroots Democrats are trying to do in some ways, they've got their own way of emulating Republicans because in the Republican Party today, conservatives drive the train, they get nominated, and they win elections. Can these netroots Democrats win nomination contests and then win general elections? Conventional wisdom has been that their Democratic liberal base is not large enough to do that.

RUSH: Well, let me clue you in, John. To compare the liberal netroots, these literally insane kooks to the conservative base is where you're off base, is where you're missing the point. It is not a bunch of kooks, it is not a bunch of extremist wackos and it's not a bunch of fringe minority members who drive the conservative train or who drive the Republican Party train. So to compare the netroots to the mainstream conservatives that dominant the Republican Party is the first mistake that is made, but again, it's a Drive-By Media guy and they've got their template and of course there's no such thing as a fringe liberal, but fringe Republicans are all over the place. The only problem is there just aren't enough of these liberals. Can you believe that? There aren't enough liberals. Life is so unfair, folks. There just aren't enough liberals to compete with the conservatives in their base operations.

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dems & the Nutroots [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
My dear friend Marshall Wittmann talks about the future of the Democratic party:

Marshall Wittmann: It's important to look at this in a historical context. I can remember the McGovern campaign back in 1972, and at that time people thought that the great innovation in politics was direct mail, and that this would transform the Democratic Party and indeed American politics, and to a certain extent it did. I think in many ways the left-wing blogosphere, at least, is very much a reflection of that McGovernite tendency that emerged in the Democratic party in the late 1960's that was generally highly educated, middle to upper middle class, very much motivated by their opposition to the war, and generally ideologically left-wing.

Marshall Wittmann: Now I think, in political terms, the problem for the Democratic Party for the last 40 years is that the party's been perceived as weak on national security, and I think, if anything, the left-wing blogosphere, who in large part I refer to as "McGovernites with modems," have increased the tendency in the Democratic Party to move to the left, particularly on national security issues. As far as Connecticut is concerned, in large part the candidacy of Ned Lamont would not have existed if not for the efforts of the left-wing bloggers in alliance with the left-wing interest groups such as moveon.org and Howard Dean's old political action committee, that have essentially taken an unknown politician he wasn't a politician a businessman, and given him national significance, and an issue the war which has really generated this challenge to Senator Lieberman.

Marshall Wittmann: At the end of the day, I think it's a very unhealthy phenomenon for the Democratic Party, just like the rise of McGovernism was unhealthy for the Democratic party because it moves it away from the political center and it particularly underscores the weakness in the Democratic Party on national security. I would point out that, almost 40 years ago, that McGovernism emerged out of opposition to an unpopular war, and the paradox of the moment is that even though the war was unpopular, the Democratic Party was perceived as weak on national security. My sense is that the blogosphere will push the Democratic Party to the left and particularly if Lamont is successful in this primary. I don't believe he will ultimately be successful in the general election, but if he's successful in that primary, the blogosphere will use that victory to drive the Democratic presidential primary in 2008 to the left, and this will be exploited by the Republican Party for years to come.

Marshall Wittmann: Chip, I don't want to be a senator and wage a filibuster here, but let me just also add that one of the reasons that the blogosphere, I think, has emerged as so significant within the Democratic Party and less so in the Republican Party, is the absence of institutions within the Democratic Party. In other words, in some way the blogosphere is filling a vacuum. In the Republican Party, you have business interests, you have the religious conservatives, you have talk radio, that are institutions, whereas in the Democratic Party, particularly with the decline of the labor movement, the blogosphere has filled this vacuum. Consequently, you have a situation where the Democratic leader in the Senate goes to a blogosphere convention as he did in Las Vegas a few months ago. Democratic Party leaders regularly participate in the blogosphere, again, because it is one of the few major institutions in the party. It's great to have institutions, it's great to have energized voters. However, if the net effect is to move that party to the left, at the end of the day I think it has a very deleterious effect on the Democrats.

Chip Griffin: Marshall, I think you touched on this a little bit, but I'd like you to expound upon it a little bit, and that's the influence that the DailyKos, in particular, has. Obviously he's had a convention out there in Vegas as you alluded to, and he's probably the most prominent liberal blogger out there. How much influence does he have in the real world and how much influence does he have among the liberal blogosphere?

Marshall Wittmann: It's interesting that you say the real world. If you go into your neighborhood Denny's or Applebee's or if you're on a bus and ask people next to you "Have you ever heard of a blog?" chances are they've never heard of it. It's a very small phenomenon at the end of the day and I think it's important to keep that in mind, that most regular people do not read blogs, do not even know that they exist. But to get back to your question, I think that the whole, that Kos is sort of the kingpin keyboarder and he has had a particularly pernicious effect on the Democratic Party, again, because he's driving it to the left. As much as his protestations that he's non-ideological, at the end of the day he's moving the Democratic Party on to the left on the key issue of the national security. That is where it becomes very dangerous, and when Democratic Party politicians pander to a blog like that, they're only sending a signal to the general electorate that the Democratic party is marginalizing themselves.

Marshall Wittmann: Again, I think it's very, very important to underscore the point that blogs are a very narrow phenomenon, that people who read blogs particularly on the left and, probably for that matter, on the right as well, are highly ideological. And the problem for the Democratic Party in the last three or four decades is that they were perceived as a left-wing party. The great success of the Democratic Party was Bill Clinton when he moved the party to the vital center and they were able to win the White House twice. My fear is that the combination of the Koses of the world and his colleagues will have the net effect of pushing the party to the left on the central issue of our time, national security....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON - Liberal activists, including some California Democrats, are furious with Sen. Barbara Boxer -- a leading critic of the Iraq war -- for her active support of Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat who staunchly defends the war in Iraq.

Lieberman is fighting for his political life in Connecticut, facing an anti-war opponent, cable magnate Ned Lamont, in an Aug. 8 Senate primary. Lieberman, his party's nominee for vice president in 2000, has already announced he will run as an independent in the fall if he loses the primary.

That decision has divided his Senate colleagues and Democrats nationwide. And the Lieberman race has ignited a fiery debate among Democrats, now raging on political blogs, about loyalty, political principles and whether the three-term senator has betrayed his party and should be tossed out.

Boxer, a California Democrat, said she decided to support Lieberman, and campaign for him in Connecticut, even though ``we have no common ground surrounding the issue of the Iraq war.''

Lieberman has been one of her ``staunchest allies'' on the environment and reproductive rights, two issues very important to her, Boxer said in a statement. ``I will be campaigning with him to let the voters know about his record on those issues.''

Several other Senate Democrats said they would campaign for Lieberman, but Boxer ``is among the most liberal members of the Senate, and her decision surprised some people,'' said Norman Ornstein, a longtime analyst of Congress and elections.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, also a California Democrat, is backing Lieberman, but has no plans to campaign for him. Boxer's decision stunned some California Democrats. Arianna Huffington, on her popular blog, titled one post ``What the hell is Barbara Boxer thinking?''

Within days, Huffington Post and Daily Kos, another liberal blog, were filled with angry responses from Californians. ``She better cancel that [Connecticut] trip if she wants any more donations from me and other California activists,'' wrote one.

One leader of the Progressive Democrats of America, Mervis Reissig of Sonoma County, said: ``I'm in a state of shock. What Sen. Boxer is doing is a total invalidation of one of our main values. Right now the war is a more important issue than choice.''

A mortgage broker in Topanga Canyon, Dorothy Reik, said Boxer's decision ``shows she's part of that `old boys' club' in the Senate, where some sort of personal loyalty overrides your principles.''

``And it's not as though Ned Lamont has different views from her on the environment and women's rights,'' added Reik, who is organizing a fundraiser for Lamont.

Some big names among California Democratic donors have already contributed to Lamont: Andy and Deborah Rappaport of Silicon Valley; TV producer Stephen Chao of Santa Monica; Frederic Harman, a venture capitalist from Woodside.

Activists' criticism of Boxer is ironic, given her background. She was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992, campaigning on the need to shake up the clubby, overwhelmingly male Senate.

She has also been one of the most outspoken critics of the war, berating Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. Last month she was one of 13 senators to vote for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq within one year. At the entrance to her Washington office, large poster boards list the names of the 591 service members from California who died in Iraq.

During the recent Senate debate on Iraq, Boxer acknowledged the primacy of the war as an issue: ``I have never seen anything like this since the Vietnam War. I lived through those years. That was the reason I got into politics, so that we would not make this mistake again.''

In the past week, hundreds of constituents have called or e-mailed her office to complain about her support for Lieberman. But Boxer told the Mercury News she is undeterred.

``Ever since I went into politics I fully expected there would be moments when some of my supporters would disagree with me,'' she said.

Boxer's decision, and the reaction to it, is a microcosm of a larger argument that is gripping the Democratic Party and may affect its chances of retaking the Senate or House this fall.

``This is a real test for our party, of whether we can be inclusive, or if our candidates have to be 100 percent pure,'' said Dan Gerstein, a Democratic consultant and blogger who once worked for Lieberman.

Some of Lieberman's critics say he is in trouble because of the shift of his constituency, and much of New England, against the war. They also see Lieberman's willingness to run as an independent as an act of betrayal.

``His ultimate problem isn't fanatical bloggers -- it's that the war that both he and Bush championed is speeding the realignment of the Northeast,'' wrote liberal columnist Harold Meyerson. ``His problem is Connecticut.''

Senate Democrats want Lieberman to win the primary because he would be overwhelmingly favored in the fall, and that makes their task of capturing six seats and taking the Senate much easier, Ornstein said. It would also free up Democratic money for other races.

If Lamont wins the primary and Lieberman forces a three-way race in November, that creates big problems for Senate Democrats. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama said they would support the winner of the primary. Boxer and Feinstein said they had not decided what they would do.

``This is a perennial problem in both parties -- whether you're going to enforce a litmus test on an issue like the war or abortion,'' said Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

``It becomes an especially big problem when the issue is as emotional as the war is right now,'' he said.

Comments

rebuttal (pitin - 8/4/2006 9:49:01 AM)

First, let me say that I've wanted Joe out of the Party long before I heard of Lamont or Webb.

And this is NOT just about the war, this is about the Democratic Party. Lieberman has defected on too many important issues, that "he votes with the Party 90% of the time" line is utter bullshit, those votes include naming post offices.

Why did he clobber Clinton in 1998?

Why did he inform us that we dissent against the President (George W Bush)"at our nations peril"?

Why did he vote for Cloture on Alito?

Why did he run for Senate in 2000 handing the Senate majority to Republicans should we have won the election?

Why did he GO ON NATIONAL TELEVISION and advocate for interfering in the Schaivo case?

Why did he vote for the Defense of Marriage Act?

Why did he defend Clarence Thomas?

Why did he threaten gay teens with this?

[Senator Lieberman] collaborated with Sen. Jesse Helms on a measure that would have stripped federal funding from public schools that counseled suicidal gay teens that their lifestyle was OK. Source: Salon.com

Why did he say it was never a "short ride" to another hospital when saying it was OK for hospitals to not hand out Plan B to rape victims

Those reasons Mitch, are why it is imperative that we win on Tuesday, because when he goes on Fox News (and get's Hannity's endorsement, which by the way he has) he gives Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzalez the cover of "bi-partisanship" and that hurts our cause TREMENDOUSLY.

That sir, is why I will be in CT this weekend, and have sent a meager $60 to the Lamont campaign (and yes, my time and money didn't go to Webb this weekend, but it will in the future).

In Solidarity,
-Nate

Re: rebuttal / Nate: I appreciate very much your time... (Mitch Dworkin - 8/4/2006 1:21:25 PM)

and consideration in reading what I had to say and your offering a serious reply to my post.

I think that this is a good and healthy dialogue to have and I respect your firm convictions even though we would disagree on our respective conclusions.

Hopefully Lieberman will just drop out of the race if he loses the primary to save everyone a lot of trouble!

If Lieberman did that, then I would almost speculate that Bush might make him Defense Secretary if there is too much pressure on Rumsfeld to resign (which there is a lot of now) if Bush were to view Rumsfeld as being a liability to GOP candidates running in 2006!

Newsbusters.org is already commenting on this: CT Contest: Kos Curiously Coy (Mitch Dworkin - 8/4/2006 10:46:33 PM)

http://newsbusters.o...

Connecticut Contest: Kos Curiously Coy

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on August 4, 2006 - 21:39.

John Fund of the good old Wall Street Journal talking up the impact of the blogs on the Dem Connecticut primary? Mega-blogger Markos Moulitsas ZÃºniga of the Daily Kos talking the blogs' influence down?

The odd couple, guests on this evening's Hardball, engaged in some serious media gender-bending. With Mike Barnicle sitting in for host Chris Matthews, Fund went first, and overflowed with praise for the role the blogs have played in the race.

Fund: "I think [the blogs' impact has] been very significant. I offer a tip of the hat to them. They have taken the former vice-presidential candidate and created a single issue around the war, and this is is a man who opposed George Bush on tax cuts, and many things, and they have turned him into the perception as George Bush's lackey, and they are on the verge of knocking off a senator. That's happened only twice before. It's remarkable."

Given Fund's bouquet, you might have expected Kos to take a big bow. He did anything but.

Kos: "I think people want to give us a little bit too much credit. . . The media wants to give us way too much credit."

So what was going on here? What explains Kos' modesty and Fund's praise regarding the influence of the left-wing blogs in the CT race? Each had his motives. On the one hand, Fund sought - rightly I would argue - to portray a Democratic party ever more the captive of the far-left netroots. In contrast, Kos had the good sense to eschew the curtain call in favor of casting events in CT as the result of broad-based - rather than blog-driven - opposition to Lieberman and by extension to the Iraq war he has supported.

Thus Fund argued that while the blogs had a big impact: "It may not be the impact that they want. If Ned Lamont wins and the Democratic party lurches left, we may look back on this as the functional equivalent of the McGovern wing of the Democratic party taking control again, and I have to tell you that cannot be helpful to them. Lamont moved so far left I think that he is unelectable statewide if Lieberman runs as an independent."

Kos' counter was to assert: "If senators or a congressmen or anybody, if your constituents are happy with the service, there is nothing that anybody can do to change that. We tapped into discontent in Connecticut, and we cannot create, but we can tap into it."

Of course, the left-wing blogosphere had another excellent reason to be modest about its impact on the race in light of the blackface fiasco that Lamont's house blogger inflicted on her candidate a couple days ago!

Re: Choice / "Lurching left" is how you keep losing elections: (Mitch Dworkin - 8/5/2006 7:36:26 AM)

http://washingtontim....

Lieberman's struggle

"But as noisy and angry as the left-wing bloggers and the MoveOn.org groups may be, they have yet to prove they can win elections."

The Democratic Party will stay out of power for a long, long, long time in red states and in swing states with this mindset of "Lurching left!"

The vast majority of people in the country are in the center and that is where Democrats have to move to in red states and in swing states if they want to win back power from the GOP extremists!

The center is where Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter won their elections!

You have a "Choice" as you said, but your "Choice" of "Lurching left" will keep Democrats out of power in red states and in swing states!

THE 2006 ELECTIONS ARE ABOUT WINNING ELECTIONS TO GET BACK POWER IN AT LEAST ONE BRANCH OF CONGRESS IN ORDER TO RESTORE SOME KIND OF SERIOUS ACCOUNTABILITY BACK TO GOVERNMENT BEFORE 2008!

TIME: An Embarrassment of Riches for Lieberman's Challenger (Mitch Dworkin - 8/4/2006 11:04:25 PM)

http://www.time.com/...

An Embarrassment of Riches for Lieberman's Challenger

Only a day after Ned Lamont criticized Wal-Mart for its wages and benefits, the Connecticut Senate Democratic hopeful explains his ownership of stock in the retail giant

By MASSIMO CALABRESI/WASHINGTON

Posted Friday, Aug. 04, 2006

Ned Lamont, the Democratic challenger who faces off against incumbent Joe Lieberman in Tuesday's Connecticut primary, has run into another problem with his multi-million dollar stock portfolio. Last spring the anti-war candidate had to deal with revelations that he owned up to $50,000 worth of stock in Halliburton, the services giant that has been at the center of controversy over its lucrative post-war contracts in Iraq. And now, only a day after he took Wal-Mart to task at a campaign stop in Bridgeport, a review of his personal financial disclosure forms has revealed that he owns between $2,000 and $30,000 worth of Wal-Mart stock in two managed accounts.

In response to questions from TIME Thursday, Lamont's campaign manager, Tom Swan, said the candidate was not actively controlling the investment. "He does not own any stock directly, it's not a direct holding," he said. Part of the Wal-Mart stock is held in a Goldman Sachs "Tax Advantaged Core Strategies managed account", according to a letter released Thursday by Swan. He said the account is designed to track the S+P 500 index, and that Goldman Sachs makes the investment decisions for the account.

Lieberman's campaign didn't take long to accuse Lamont of hypocrisy. "It obviously says something about him, being at a Wake Up WalMart rally yesterday," Lieberman's campaign spokesperson, Marion Steinfels, said Thursday. At the rally, which Lieberman also attended, Lamont said, "This is about waking up Wal-Mart and this is also about waking up corporate America." It was organized by WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-backed group trying to highlight wage and benefits complaints against the company.

Lieberman's campaign lambasted Lamont for the Halliburton holdings last spring, until it was revealed Lieberman himself owned mutual funds that held stock in the corporate giant. Lieberman spokesperson Steinfels said the Senator has no stock in Wal-Mart, either held directly or in mutual funds. His financial disclosure forms do show mutual funds that continue to hold Halliburton.

Lamont, who is worth between $90 million and $300 million, is leading Lieberman 54% to 41% in the latest Quinnipiac poll. His campaign accused the Lieberman camp of desperate political tactics in criticizing his holdings of the Wal-Mart stock. "This is a pathetic attempt by someone who's clinging to power to make an issue where there is no issue," Lamont's campaign manager Swan said.

Swan said Lamont has no plans to sell either the Halliburton or the Wal-Mart stock. "At this time he is not looking to getting into directly managing or investing any of his funds," Swan said, "If he is fortunate enough to be elected, Mr. Lamont realizes that there are a variety of investing decisions that he will have to make," including, "How to deal with [his investments] in the most ethical manner."

Lieberman vs. Lamont: The Big Picture and the Long Term Effects of this Race! (Mitch Dworkin - 8/5/2006 6:39:05 PM)

Here is what I am thinking about in the long run and in the big picture:

If we fail to take back at least one branch of Congress in November due to that the candidates who we are supporting could not raise enough money (because a lot of it went to Lamont and Lieberman in a closely watched and hard fought race of choice that just did not have to be to begin with) against well financed Bush rubber stamp candidates, then can we complain if Bush gets a rubber stamp Congress for his last 2 years in office?

If Bush is a lame duck with a rubber stamp Congress for 2 years, what will restrain him from bombing any country that he does not like without sufficient diplomacy? That is what the Neocons are calling for now!

What about "staying the course" in Iraq on an indefinite basis, out of control spending, tax cuts for the wealthy while deficits rise for the middle class, irresponsible environmental policies, more secrecy, and Bush thinking that he is above the law just by being President (and due to the Iraq war vote in Congress) in a time of war?

What can restrain Bush from doing any of these things or anything else that he and the extreme GOP leadership decide to do if at least one branch of Congress is not controlled by the Democrats in January of 2007?

What I see potentially happening is Ned Lamont possibly being elected as a Senator in CT but things still getting worse if Bush has no form of restraint during his last 2 years in office if he still has a rubber stamp Congress after the 2006 election!

What can Ned Lamont do as ONE Senator from CT about the Iraq war if the extreme GOP leadership still has control of both houses of Congress after the 2006 election?

Would we have the right to complain about that if it happens when we very possibly could have prevented it by holding our noses, let Lieberman keep his CT Senate seat in the Democratic column (even if it is in name only), and use the many thousands of dollars and volunteer hours that would have gone to Ned Lamont and/or to Joe Lieberman by their supporters to help the candidates who we need to win their races now in 2006 against their well financed Bush rubber stamp opponents?

That is a lot of money and campaign help that can go to Jim Webb, Eric Massa, and to many other excellent candidates so they can have the best possible chances to win their races!

That is where I am coming from, looking at THE BIG PICTURE!

MTP Media Alert: Lanny Davis for Lieberman & Jim Dean for Lamont on 8/6: (Mitch Dworkin - 8/5/2006 6:59:46 PM)

http://www.msnbc.msn...

Meet the Press links â€” Sunday, Aug. 6

Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Lanny Davis, Jim Dean

Want to know more about about this week's guests and topics?

Try clicking on some of these links:

GUESTS:
â€¢ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice| Bio
â€¢ Lanny Davis, supporter of Sen. Joe Lieberman's re-election campaign, and author of "Scandal: How "Gotcha" Politics Is Destroying America"| Bio | Book

â€¢ Jim Dean, supporter of Ned Lamont for Senate; Chair, Democracy for America|Bio

TOPICS:
â€¢ CIA Factbook: Israel
â€¢ CIA Factbook: Lebanon
â€¢ Council on Foreign Relations: Hezbollah
â€¢ MSNBC: Middle East
â€¢ MSNBC: Conflict in Iraq â€¢CIA Factbook: Cuba
â€¢ Connecticut Democratic Party
â€¢ Sen. Joe Lieberman Re-election Campaign
â€¢ Ned Lamont for Senate
â€¢ The Democratic Party

Takaing Back Congress (KathyinBlacksburg - 8/6/2006 3:23:36 PM)

Taking Back Congress with candidates such as Lieberman would be an empty victory.

And you could use the scare tactic -- that we must totally capitulate on the most important issues -- to try to scare folks all you want. But it doesn't wash. There are also many things more important than Lieberman's seniority. How can we say we are a party of values and then sell them all out? At some point, people have to be optimistic, vote for the right candidate, and work like crazy to elect him. If now isn't the time for that in CT, there never will be such a time. A seat in Congress is't an entitlement. We need change in Washington and we need it now. Anyone not believing we need change in our own party hasn't been awake for the past six miserable years.

Re: Takaing Back Congress (Mitch Dworkin - 8/6/2006 7:16:58 PM)

I do not object to anything that you are saying ABOUT LIEBERMAN!

But the 2006 elections are NOT about Lieberman (only ONE Senate vote in ONE State), they are about Democrats picking up 15 House Seats and/or 6 Senate seats in order to take back some power in order to restore real accountability back to government before 2008!

Millions of dollars and thousands of campaign volunteers and hours going to Ned Lamont IN AN ALREADY SAFE DEMOCRATIC SEAT (even if in name only) in a race of choice is a diversion from the real purpose of the 2006 elections just like how the war in Iraq was a war of choice and was a diversion from the real war on terror!

That is A LOT of money and campaign help that can be going to MANY good under financed Democratic candidates running in key races (like Jim Webb) against well financed Bush rubber stamp GOP candidates (like George Allen) who we need to win their races in order to take back power in Congress!

We have to look past Lieberman to the big picture of what the 2006 elections are about which is if Bush gets a GOP rubber stamp controlled Congress as a lame duck for the next 2 years. Without Democrats in power in at least one branch, what else is there to restrain Bush and the extreme rubber stamp GOP leadership from more Alitos, tax cuts for the wealthy, bombing any country who they do not like without sufficient diplomacy, and anything else extreme that they decide to do???

That is BY FAR more important than Lieberman (ONLY ONE SENATE VOTE) and that is what Democrats need to be looking at in my opinion!

I can fully respect that we have an honest difference of opinion on this issue but I will never hesitate to say what I think is right even if it is not always popular (especially when so much is on the line in 2006)!